AJC > Sports > Columnists > Archives > 2006 > November > 10
Friday, November 10, 2006
Bogus BCS headed for another fiasco
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Mark Bradley
It was fashionable last season to say that, because unbeaten Southern Cal met unbeaten Texas in the Rose Bowl, the BCS “worked.” The BCS can never “work.” The BCS can only get lucky. It doesn’t get lucky often.
It did in 2005 because there were two brand-name unbeatens, two as opposed to the inconvenient five (remember Utah and Boise State?) of 2004. But now, thanks to Louisville’s come-from-ahead loss at Rutgers, the BCS is left with the kind of tangle it can never handle: How to choose among one-loss brand names.
You’ll recall that in 2001 Nebraska lost its regular-season finale by 26 points and didn’t play for its conference title but was invited to the mythical national title game. You’ll also recall that in 2003 Oklahoma lost its conference championship game and, despite being No. 3 in the writers’ and coaches’ polls, remained No. 1 in the bloodshot eyes of the BCS. We are, sorry to report, bound for the precipice again.
A scenario: Two years after going undefeated but being snubbed, an 11-1 Auburn might well play for the BCS pseudo-crown without gracing the utterly real SEC championship game. That could happen if Arkansas loses to Tennessee or LSU (but not to both) and then beats Florida in the Georgia Dome. That would leave Auburn, the champ of nothing, as the only one-loss team from the league considered the nation’s strongest.
Another scenario, already much-discussed: Ohio State and Michigan play next Saturday and then again in January. That’s not as likely if the Buckeyes win in Columbus, as most expect. But if Michigan should upset Ohio State, an immediate rematch becomes a strong possibility. (Thereby shooting more holes in the fallacious BCS claim that “every game is an elimination game.”)
Once again, it’s clear the BCS has no “system.” Its dithering fathers simply tweak and hope. It needs two (and only two) unbeatens to avoid the appearance of utter randomness, and not just any two. They must hail from one of the six BCS conferences (meaning Boise State, again undefeated, doesn’t count), and they can’t represent a school not seen as a football factory (which is why Louisville was seen as bogus and why, even though Rutgers is technically an unbeaten from a BCS league, it has no chance of landing in Glendale, Ariz.).
See, the BCS isn’t about fairness. It’s about pretending to embrace a playoff without actually having one. Even if it meant creating another platform a full week after New Year’s — the “title game” will be played Jan. 8, 2007 — the BCS was happy to do it to protect itself and its cash flow and, above all, the almighty bowls. It bears repeating that the NCAA, which stages a rather successful basketball event every March, has no control over the BCS, which is a cabal of conferences and bowl committees.
A tournament — with eight or 16 teams, using the existing bowls as sites — would yield a champion of legitimacy and could be easily done. But it will never happen unless Congress makes it happen, and Congress should have better things to do. Instead the BCS will creak along, hoping seasons will sort themselves out, looking foolish when inevitably seasons don’t.
Yet another scenario: Southern Cal beats Cal and then loses to Notre Dame. Being Notre Dame, it levitates above all other once-beatens — defending champ Texas and famously spurned Auburn among them — to play Ohio State in Glendale. Fox, the new TV rights-holder, wouldn’t believe its luck. Mack Brown and Tommy Tuberville wouldn’t believe theirs, either.
For all its tweaks and computers, that’s the most the BCS can really offer — luck, or the absence thereof. Usually it’s the latter.
Permalink | Comments (20) | Categories: Mark Bradley, Tech / ACC, UGA / SEC
