Posted on 12/07/2004 11:34:08 AM PST by Sideshow Bob
Ladies and gentlemen, give it up for the BCS. Once again, it built a better mousetrap and wound up slamming the thing down on its own neck.
Auburn, your reward for a 12-0 season is to become the first undefeated SEC team since the invention of this bowl gerrymandering system not to play for the national title. Who knew that beating Tennessee twice, LSU and Georgia would matter so little?
Jeff Tedford and Cal are on the outside looking in at the BCS bowls. California, your reward for going 10-1 and pushing No. 1 USC to within nine yards of its life on the Trojans' home field is to lose the Rose Bowl to Texas.
Yes, the team that was shut out in Dallas by Oklahoma. If life were fair, the team that maximized its talent would have gotten the spot, instead of the team whose coach politicked for BCS inclusion on national TV. This just in: Life isn't fair. The Checkers speech got Mack Brown to Pasadena.
(Since Cal's mortal sin was beating bowl-bound Southern Mississippi by only 10 in Hattiesburg, perhaps we should compare that with what Texas did in its last road game. The Longhorns beat a 4-7 Kansas team by the hair on Bevo's chin, requiring a questionable interference call on the Jayhawks and a last-minute touchdown to pull it out.)
That's this year's new twist on the old mess. Next year, of course, it will be some other unforeseen complication -- unless we do the right thing and detonate this poor substitute for a playoff.
But if the bowl system is inevitable, and an eight-team playoff is the impossible dream, then let's at least go retro with it. Let's reconnect with traditional values -- political buzzword! -- and bring back the old-school bowl lineup.
Forget trying to manufacture a title game. Send the teams to their traditional bowls and let the voters sort it out. (Sorry, coaches, but in this bowl system your final Top 25 ballots will be public.) If a consortium of computer rankings wants to award its own title, that's fine -- just leave them out of the king-making process.
Let's have Auburn play in the Sugar Bowl against, say, California. Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl against Utah. USC in the Rose Bowl against Michigan. Virginia Tech can play Texas in the Orange Bowl for sun.
Then play them all on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day -- none of this drip-drip-drip of games over a course of four days -- and let the chips fall where they may.
That way, all three still have a chance at a national title in the polls. Auburn's season still would matter; it could finish No. 1 if both the Trojans and Sooners lose. Even Utah conceivably could wind up saying "We're No. 1!" if it beat Oklahoma and the other two unbeatens were to lose.
And that way, more than one bowl means something. As it stands now, we have the BCS championship bowl and a 27-game undercard of diminished importance. That's why New Year's Day is dullsville now, packing nowhere near the punch it once did.
Obviously, there were major flaws in the old bowl system that would have to be addressed. The secret sweetheart deals bowl execs once made with schools weeks in advance would need to be policed.
If the current setup is the best we can do, it's not good enough. And how college football keeps getting itself into this predicament, year after year, is beyond me.
Yes, at least this year the BCS got a matchup of two undefeated teams -- two teams that went 1-2 all year in the polls, that have the most star power, that represent perhaps the most enticing bowl matchup in three decades. (I'll still take Notre Dame-Alabama from the 1973 Sugar Bowl, Bear vs. Ara, as the sexiest of 'em all.)
But even with all that going for it, this system hasn't gotten it right. Here's why: There's simply no definitive way to differentiate between USC, Oklahoma and Auburn -- no reliable way to say which one absolutely, positively doesn't belong.
You can rattle off statistics from now until New Year's. You can blather about strength of schedule, quality wins and conference strength. You can produce all the computer ratings known to man. But without a playoff to prove it on the field, you'll just be talking noise. The mousetrap still doesn't work right.
Pat Forde is a senior writer at ESPN.com. He can be reached at ESPN4D@aol.com.
I've posted similar comments in past years in anti-BCS threads here at FR.
The largest point - get rid of the computers!
Why on earth do we let pencil-necked computer uber-geeks who never played football at any level >(Nintendo doesn't count) have a say in choosing the national champion?
Forde is right. The other 27 bowls - especially the larger New Year's Day games are mere shadows of their former selves. Part of the fun of bowl games was the traditions related to each game. At least the Rose Bowl maintains a quasi-conference tie-in to the Pac-10 and Big Ten. What's the difference between the Orange, Sugar and Fiesta bowls in non-championship game years? Nothing. You can't tell them apart. They have become a made-for-TV event that could be played in any vacant warehouse anywhere in the world.
In the "old school" days, the Pac-8 & Big Ten champs matched up in the Rose Bowl, the SEC champ played in the Sugar, the Big 8 champ played in the Orange, the old Southwest Conference champ played in the Cotton, the ACC champs and especially the Big Least champs were mere filler most years and the Fiesta Bowl was a non-entity.
Yes, I realize Things change. The SWC doesn't exist anymore and the SEC, Big 12 and ACC all got bigger and stronger. So did the Big Ten & Pac-10, to a lesser extent. But - after a few years of phony, over-rated importance - the member schools of the Big Least are again Division I wannabes.
If you recall, the Rose Bowl, Big Ten and Pac-10 didn't join in the BCS scam until 1998. And, nearly every year since, the Rose Bowl, the Pac-10 & Big Ten have been screwed by the BCS. The only time it hosted the BCS Championship, the Rose was saddled with a Nebraska team that couldn't win its own conference, but (thanks to pencil-necked computer uber-geeks) was bizarrely placed in the "national championship" game.
Thanks to the BCS arrangement, the Rose lost out on hosting the great 2002 Ohio State team who went to the Fiesta BCS Championship instead. In fact, 2002 marked the 2nd consecuive Rose Bowl game without either of the champs from the Big Ten/Pac10.
This year, the Rose Bowl does NOT get top-ranked USC or even Pac-10 runner up Cal. Instead, they get "stuck" with Texas because 6 Big 12-friendly coaches voted to drop Cal to either 7th or 8th in their rankings after voting them not lower than 6th during the previous month. I don't mean to completely knock a very good Texas team, but Cal is arguably the better team (see article above), would be a better gate draw for the Rose Bowl, and fits the Rose's tradition better.
All bowls, especially the Rose, would be better and stronger returning to the old format.
In an ideal world, there would be an 8 team playoff that incorporates much of the traditional bowl structure. Let the Rose keep the Big Ten & Pac10 champs, send the Big 12 champ to the Fiesta, the SEC to the Sugar and ACC to the Orange. Fill in the best 3 at-large teams. Add 2 national semi-finals and a championship game at warm-weather neutral sites and -- voila -- you've got a true national championship game.
Is that too much to ask for?
I agree with Forde. I'd be happy with the old format and endless #1 debates. That's far, far better than the BCS lunacy we have now.
The Broken Computer System strikes again...
I couldn't possibly say it better than you and Forde put it. All I can do is say, "dittos!" and leave it at that.
Rose - USC vs. Michigan
Fiesta - Oklahoma vs. Utah
Sugar - Auburn vs. Texas
Orange - Virgina Tech vs. Cal
National Semi-final games could either be static i.e. Rose winner vs. Fiesta winner, Sugar vs. Orange, or seeded (to give the computer geeks something to do).
Why is this so hard for the NCAA to figure out?
For argument, if USC and Auburn win each of their games, why couldn't the two universities sanction a game on a neutral field (even without the NCAA or BCS) and just settle it on the field?
I say they should end the bowl politicking for good and make the playoffs national and meaningful. Only a national collegiate championship, sans conferences, will have meaning. It should simply be like the World Series for baseball or the Super Bowl for the NFL. Winner takes all. Period.
Because it's against NCAA rules.
I'd love to see that game take place, not just to settle it on the field, but also to thumb the NCAA.
Without conference champs, you would have to rely on the pencil neck computer uber-geeks to determine playoff qualifying and seeding. No thanks.
Thanks for the dittos.
Yes, the team that was shut out in Dallas by Oklahoma. If life were fair, the team that maximized its talent would have gotten the spot, instead of the team whose coach politicked for BCS inclusion on national TV. This just in: Life isn't fair. The Checkers speech got Mack Brown to Pasadena.
(Since Cal's mortal sin was beating bowl-bound Southern Mississippi by only 10 in Hattiesburg, perhaps we should compare that with what Texas did in its last road game. The Longhorns beat a 4-7 Kansas team by the hair on Bevo's chin, requiring a questionable interference call on the Jayhawks and a last-minute touchdown to pull it out.)
A little left coast bias from this sports writer maybe. If we compare losses, Cal lost to the undefeated USC while Texas lost to the undefeated OU. USC is "ranked" ahead of OU only because the poll voters ranked them that way in the pre-season based on their guilt over USC being shut out of the championship game last year. The Big 12 south is by far the toughest conference in the country -- much stronger than the PAC-10 and OU went undefeated and UT had only one loss. As for Cal's final unimpressive victory over "bowl-bound 6-5 Southern Miss, this is the same Southern Miss team that was soundly beaten like a red-headed stepchild by the 5-6 TCU team that lost to the likes of Tulane and South Florida this year.
Yes, the system sucks. But it is what we are stuck with.
So, you don't like the College World Series format or March Madness format?
Save this post, then you can post it this time again next year and just make some minor adjustments to team names. It'll be a good time-saver.
Nonsense. The BCS is junk, but the bowl system is a crock too. Take a BCS-like formula (only put stregth of schedule back in, please, and add a discount factor any poll with a pre-season bias built into it as compared to objective systems that don't care about pre-season rankings [this includes the AP and Coaches polls), and have the top 8 teams -- no automatic conference bids -- play in a three-round playoff starting Christmas week.
If we used this year's BCS as the formula, we'd have:
#1 Southern California vs. #8 Virginia Tech
#2 Oklahoma vs. #7 Georgia
#3 Auburn vs. #6 Utah
#4 Texas vs #5 California
This would set up an excellent second round on New Year's week of:
USC/VaTech vs. Texas/Cal
Okla/GA vs. Auburn/Utah
With the winners playing the following week for the title.
Now, Boise State is still screwed under this (they finished #9), but some of that is due to pre-season bias -- the computers have BSU ahead of Georgia and Virigina Tech, but BSU gets no respect for not having been a pre-season favorite and playing in a "minor" conference. Discounting bias-based polls would probably get BSU into the final 8.
Am I mistaken, or wasn't Southern Miss also beaten by Div I-AA Maine?
As a by-the-way addition, the 3-round playoff would result in 7 "BCS" games ($$$$!) rather than the current 4, so I fail to see why the schools and the NCAA don't jump at the possibility.
Texas . Yes, the team that was shut out in Dallas by Oklahoma.
Texas lost to OU by 12-0, not exactally a blowout. The first time they'd been shutout in 24 seasons.
Since Cal's mortal sin was beating bowl-bound Southern Mississippi by only 10 in Hattiesburg, perhaps we should compare that with what Texas did in its last road game. The Longhorns beat a 4-7 Kansas team by the hair on Bevo's chin
No, let's compare it to Cal having to come from behind to beat the mighty 5-6 Oregon Ducks 28-27
Texas played a more competive schedule, beating 5 bowl bound teams, all with 7 wins. Their wins came over teams with a combined record of 55-55 and they played in the Big 12 South - is there a tougher division out there? Cal's wins came against opponents with a combined record of 49-61 and 4 bowl bound teams, 8 win AZ State and 3 teams that came in at 6-5
Cal may have complaints with the system but not with Texas finishing ahead of them.
I've stated before. As long as the BCS exists, the titles conferred on teams are meaningless.
Whoopdee doo, some computer gave you a title. EARN IT!!!
Stick with I-AA. Not only is the football not (as) corrupted by money, but they also have a playoff system. Their champion earns the title.
There has been no number one in college football in years.
For me, it comes down to 2 key points:
1) Cal's only hiccup in a pefect season was almost knocking off the defending national champion on the road.
2) Texas got smoked by Oklahoma and narrowly beat a god-awful Kansas team on a phantom pass interfernce call.
Southern Miss may seem unimpressive to you, but winning at Lawrence has always been a lot easier than winning at Hattiesburg.
I just think Cal was the more deserving BCS choice and more sentimental Rose Bowl pick.
p.s. Did I mention that Texas got completely smoked by Oklahoma?
I guess the reason we like to bash the BCS is because the system it replaced was so perfect, right? Never had any ties or split championships in the old way did we? </sarcasm>
Anyway, I don't have a problem with the computer. I have a problem with the automatic bids that put teams that are not even in the top ten in a bowl with a top five team.
Keep the computer, but give us a brief playoff.
Not that that will end the bickering. After all, that is ultimately almost as important part of any sport as the games themselves. It's the way we old guys get to participate. (Now that the knees are shot.)
I have a better scenario using 27 of the current 28 bowls:
The top 28 teams get into a playoff system with the top 4 teams receiving a first round bye. This leaves teams 5 thru 28 playing in 12 first round games utilizing "minor" bowls. The 12 winners would join the top four teams as the Sweet 16, and would play the second round games in 8 "mid-range" bowls. This would determine the Elite 8 teams to advance to the third round (quarter-finals) in four of the second-tier bowls (including one of the current BCS and three slightly off-BCS level bowls, Cotton and Peach for example). The Final Four would come from this round and would play in the fourth round (semi-finals) in two of the current BCS bowls. The championship game would then be the fifth week in this true Bowl Championship Series. The semi-finals, championship game and quarterfinals could rotate among the current BCS bowls. Under this system, the top 28 teams would get at least one bowl game (compared to 56 teams under the current bowl system in which just about everyone that manages to get to .500 is bowl eligible). Under this system all of those 28 teams have a chance to play for the national championship. The other beauty of this system is that all of these currently meaningless bowls would become meaningful because they would determine who advances in the playoffs. As such, the ratings appeal for all the minor bowls will be increased tremendously, and even the mid-range and upper tier bowls will become more important. Such a playoff would rival March Madness in the fan interest and intensity it would create.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.