AJC > Sports > Columnists > Archives > 2006 > November > 10 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USBogus 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) | Post your comment | Categories: Mark Bradley, Tech / ACC, UGA / SEC
Services »
Comments
By PicJacket
November 10, 2006 08:07 PM | Link to this
absolutley right. The BCS can only get lucky.
I think you get one step closer by organizing into 8 14-team confs (that’s 112 Div1 Scools, so someone would get the shaft), all with a championship, where the winners go to a playoff. Or at least the winners use the BCS formulas and get matched up 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8. Playoff would be better, but that’s 3 extra weeks of games.
I dont know how a playoff doesn’t make money for the schools or the confs. But it doesn’t, or we would be doing it now.
By Buck Cochran in the NW
November 10, 2006 09:24 PM | Link to this
PicJacket, we may just get there because the NCAA keeps adding a bowl a yr. It’ll take a while at this rate so don’t hold your breath.Blue in the Face is rather unseemly.
By GTIronman
November 10, 2006 09:29 PM | Link to this
Want a college playoff?
Just turn off the TV from Jan 1 through 8, tap your Rutgers red slippers 3 times, and there will be a playoff in 2008.
PS Call the advertisers on the bowl games and say you won’t buy their stuff, either. That’ll work faster than greasin’ a college president’s pocket.
By Mark
November 10, 2006 09:53 PM | Link to this
Mark, You are absolutely right. I am actually rooting for pure chaos so more presidents of unhappy schools will feel the pressure to favor a playoff. I think it would be the greatest sporting event around and would rival the super bowl in buzz. I honestly feel 99% of college football fans want a playoff, and there are no “reasonable” or “rational” arguments against it. By the way, Mark Bradley, have you met your colleague, Terrence Moore. If not, you guys should talk. He needs someone to explain how sports are supposed to work when kids grow out of their little league or pee-wee uniforms. The novel concept of crowning a champion on the field is something Terrence doesn’t seem to fully grasp.
By Grass not Greener
November 10, 2006 09:59 PM | Link to this
A playoff is not the answer. Why does everyone want to tweek the system? College football is most likely the most watched and talked about sport in the South. I’m a fan b/c every game matters. For the same reason, I’m not a fan of MLB b/c they play 162 games to “qualify” for a 3 of 5 series, which is nonsense. At least with the current NCAA FB bowl system each opponent is matched against an opponent with a comparable record. If the system is changed to a playoff, the #1 team will play #16, #2 will play #15, etc., etc. This could possibly produce quality entertainment, but would more than likely produce predictable results that would take away from the very reason why college football is so entertaining……unpredictability.
By Bear
November 10, 2006 10:16 PM | Link to this
Football will never achieve anything even remotely comparable to March Madness, and I,for one, wish they’re stop trying. It was a lot more interesting some years back when the “national champion” was the team at the top of the polls at the end of the year. Sometimes the polls differed, and the fun began because that gave one a full year to argue about it. Eliminate about half the bowls. (I know, every body reaps huge financial rewards from them.) Eliminate the BCS. Arguing about who has the best team is half the sport in football. Heck, it’s more fun than football.
By George P. Burdell
November 10, 2006 10:40 PM | Link to this
You just had #3 “eliminated” by # 15 and you think a college playoff would be predictable? Many thought #3 was overrated but almost everyone thought #15 was overrated. I think the Rutgers/Louisville game proves exactly why a playoff would be the best entertainment around.
By old gold engineer
November 10, 2006 11:12 PM | Link to this
Well said “Grass not Greener” and “Bear”. If we couldn’t discuss (argue?) about who’s #1, how much fun would college football be? Not having a playoff system is a large part of what makes Division 1-A football so great. Sure, it makes for lots of disagreements and such, but so what?
By Jay Theaboult
November 11, 2006 03:21 AM | Link to this
There are only 8 major Conferences: Big East, Big 10, ACC, SEC, Big 12, Pac 10, WAC, Conf. USA.. One week after end of regular season, the champs of these 8 meet in four Major Bowl games… let’s say, Gator Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Cotton Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl.
One week later, the remaining four teams move on to Semi’s in two other Bowls… Let’s say Orange Bowl & Rose Bowl The winners will meet in the final Major Bowl of the year… let’s say Sun Bowl. Eight teams will play one post-season game; Four good teams will play two post-season games; Two VERY good teams will play three post-seas. games
All the other Bowls are second-tier anyway, and will continue to have games. Schedules of who meets whom in the semi’s, and of the rotation of these Bowls so that ultimately ALL will host THE GAME, will be scheduled for the seven-year stretch by the NFL’s Schedule contractor. THOSE folks are GOOD!! We keep the Bowl system, just change their scheduling, AND create a playoff that will promote WILD nation-wide frenzy of interest.
The pay-off to the Bowls themselves will be in the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars, and the conferences stand to reap income in the TENS of MILLIONS.
Whatever Network(s) is chosen to broadcast the series will have a guaranteed nationwide audience, and the virtual advertising monopoly that’s created
Everybody wins. And I don’t have to listen to sports writers who try to tell me that Louisville is a better team than Auburn, or Texas, or LSU, or Sou. Cal, or Notre Dame!
Not HARDLY, Not NO WAY, Not NO HOW!! JT
By jarrodmon
November 11, 2006 03:28 AM | Link to this
You left out one interesting fact, Mark. Let’s say West Va and Rutgers do not lose until their last game and Rutgers beats them. they will have beaten two top 10 teams AND gone undefeated, but they have NO CHANCE of playing for the championship. If you watched how their defense obliterated the high octane Louisville O line, you have no reason to say they don’t deserve to at least be in the discussion with the one loss teams that will be considered.
By dustin
November 11, 2006 07:46 AM | Link to this
I say we all boycott all these bs bowl games this year that dont mean squat. Dont watch on tv…and dont buy tickets for. College football will never change until the fans prove they want a change!!
By Dave K
November 11, 2006 08:18 AM | Link to this
Pure and simple… BCS never works. For NCAA’s sake, let’s eliminate all conference playoff games to free up a schedule for national playoff games.
By dale r
November 11, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this
Don’t forget the Noles will probably drill the gates in a few weeks.
By p
November 11, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this
your premise fails because it starts with the notion that the SEC is the strongest conference, when actually, there are no really strong conferences.
the ACC is a shambles, forget that one. the SEC’s no better than anyone else. their best team florida looked horrible against UGA and barely beat vanderbilt. they have four good teams, but also have seven doormats.
the Big 10 has two good teams, the PAC 10 has two good teams, the big 12 has one good team, and the big east has 3 good teams.
i don’t know what it is. i think to an extent sportscenter has ruined the game. kids are playing for highlight clips not for the team. the coaches are making $3 to 4 million now, and most of them are locked into such sweetheart deals and easy schedules that they don’t seem motivated or accountable. the coaching in most leagues is worse than it has ever been.
one exception is the big east where i noticed there is no jumping around and trash talking after a routine tackle. there’s none after a great tackle, either. very refreshing.
tech is a bright spot in the ACC, and all people can talk about is the assistant coaches. i guess sportswriters can’t admit they were wrong about gailey - and i am NOT a tech fan.
the BCS will select from the teams that are left. tv analysts are now screaming for an SEC team, after leaving auburn out. UF is not the answer, they will embarass the SEC in the championship. it really comes down to texas or USC against the OSU-UM game.
as long as conferences allow their teams to play weak sister teams in their schedules, college football will continue to inbreed and deteriorate. reduce the number of division teams to 64, and hold teams accountable for their schedule.
By Roger C
November 11, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
I watched Louisville-Rutgers the other night and it reminded me why college football is so special. Then ESPN announcers started talking about how Rutgers has no shot at playing in the BCS title game. The reason we have no playoff is because the school presidents don’t want one. Look, they (and college FB supporters) need to stop fooling themselves. College football is a BUSINESS. A playoff is the way to go. If the BCS wants to really make some money, make their bowl games rounds in the playoffs and play the title game first or second Monday in January.
Maybe I’m the one with delusions of grandeur. I guess that’s why I’ll stick with the NFL. At least we know when the dust clears, there’s a defintitive champion.
By mike
November 11, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this
A 16-team playoff would make the Ohio State-Michigan game meaningless. It would make most of the regular season meaningless, just like the college basketball season is meaningless.
Leave it the way it is.
By d
November 11, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
The problem in college football is that there are 118 teams and each only plays 12 games. There is no objective way to measure teams because they almost never play one another and they frequently have no opponents in common. Essentially, fans and the media end up playing 6 degrees to Kevin Bacon trying to determine who the best team is. If there is ever to be a real national champion, you have to get rid of half of D1-A to get a real feel for who the best team is.
Good win dawgs. See ya in two weeks!
By Grass not Greener
November 11, 2006 07:09 PM | Link to this
If ACC and SEC schools would stop scheduling CAKE non-conference teams, then the BCS system would have a better chance of working. How can the SEC lay claim to the “best conference in NCAA football” when they play teams like UAB, Western Kentucky, Buffalo, and Tulane? Start giving fans the non-conference schedule they want (i.e. a return to GT vs. Auburn and UGA vs. Clemson) and the current system will be just fine.
By War Eagle
November 11, 2006 07:57 PM | Link to this
The SEC will again be left out of BCS title game. It seems like ESPN and other sports netwoks does not realize the SEC is the toughest conference in the country. WE CAN NOT GO UNDEFEATED, please take note, so I personally think you show prejudice in the BCS by extreme favoritism to Big Ten,. Notre Dame, SC,Rutgers and Texas. Put any of those teams in the SEC and see how many go unbeaten…BCS is a forest without light…
By Howard
November 11, 2006 08:47 PM | Link to this
How about this suggestion for the BCS to solve their polls vs. playoff controversy that that astute organization faces every year? How about the BCS using the four major BCS bowls…Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta…for a final four playoff?? Here is it how it would go: Suppose my system is in place for 2006-07…in the Rose Bowl, the #4 team in the final BCS polls would play #1…in the Orange Bowl, the #3 team would play the #2 team…but the #5 and #8 teams would play in the Sugar Bowl…and the #6 and #7 teams would play in the Fiesta Bowl…these tesms from #5-8 would not be in the BCS tourney, but they would receive the big-time BCS money. The Fiesta Bowl then would host the next week the winners from the Rose and Orange Bowls. Get it thus far??? The four major bowl games would alternate the #1 vs. #4 and #3-4 games and the title game…and the 6-7 teams and 5-8 teams would be spread among them too. It’s so easy to do this and it would make many, many millions for the BCS and the NCAA…now would someone out there tell why the NCAA and BCS do not want it???