SI article about the BCS

chagrin · 12-03-2007, 06:42 AM

Although I know many of you locals won't like this; it's well written and a good read

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....html?bcnn=yes

Just to be clear, the BCS was not responsible for the unprecedented rash of medioc ... er, parity, around the country this season.

The BCS did not choke away a national title berth against a four-touchdown underdog the last night of the season. The BCS did not lose to Oklahoma, rise all the way up to No. 1 -- then lose to the Sooners again.

The BCS did not lose on its own home field to Stanford. Or Arkansas. Or South Carolina. Or Illinois.

The BCS did not lose 48-7 in its showcase non-conference game.

The BCS did not win its first 11 games against a bunch of nobodies, rise to No. 1 in the country, then lose in its first and only marquee game.

The BCS did not soar to No. 2 in the standings, then implode upon losing its starting quarterback. The BCS did not give up 473 yards to Texas Tech -- then blame it on losing its starting quarterback.

It's not the BCS's fault that week after week this season, one highly ranked team after another "couldn't grab the brass ring," as SEC commissioner and BCS coordinator Mike Slive put it Sunday night.

But after all the excitement and intrigue caused by all those upsets the past 14 weeks, we've reached what should be the climactic point of the season, only to be treated to Ohio State-LSU and ... Virginia Tech-Kansas? USC-Illinois? Oklahoma-West Virginia?

For that, the BCS will and should be held responsible. And in fact, this year's utterly unappealing postseason may finally bring some much-needed change to the way the sport decides its champion.

I've never been a playoff guy. I've always bought into the notion that the sport's regular season -- the most gripping regular season in all of sports -- is a de facto playoff. But that notion was based on a long history of regular seasons in which at least two teams distinguished themselves as being truly great over 11 or 12 games.

That did not happen this season. Not in the slightest.

The two teams that will meet in New Orleans on Jan. 7 both lost their second-to-last regular season games. In any other year, that would be an absolute deal breaker. This year, 11-1 Ohio State and 11-2 LSU both endured those seemingly fatal wounds and still wound up the consensus Nos. 1 and 2 teams on Sunday.

Whether you agree or disagree, the reality is there was nothing egregious or indisputable about the voters' decisions. As Buckeyes coach Jim Tressel said Sunday night, "We tell our players, 'You better win all your games if you want a chance to play in the BCS championship game.'" As soon as you lose that first game -- nevertheless a second one -- you take your destiny out of your own hands. No detached party should be shedding a tear today for Oklahoma or Georgia or Virginia Tech or USC, because all wound up in the position they did by their own volition.

That being said, there's absolutely no way the voters can be certain they successfully selected the two best teams. How could they be, when there's so little to distinguish the No. 1 team (Ohio State) from the No. 7 team (USC)?

In light of such ambiguity, wouldn't it be great to see not only the Tigers and Buckeyes square off against each other, but also, say, Georgia and Oklahoma? Virginia Tech and USC?

"We'd love to still be playing against the best teams in the country," said Trojans coach Pete Carroll, whose team will instead face the 13th-best team in the country. "We'd love to see a playoff system that would allow us to do that. I can't imagine very many coaches that wouldn't."

Carroll said this, however, on a teleconference to promote the Rose Bowl, where just moments before and moments after, he espoused, "I love the tradition of the bowls. We love the Rose Bowl. ... We love playing a team from the Big Ten."

Well which is it, Pete? Are you more concerned with upholding tradition or more accurately determining the national champion?

"They're two totally different discussions," he said.

Actually ... no they're not.

Carroll's seemingly contradictory stances pretty much sum up the entire state of college football in 2007: We want our cake, but we want to eat it, too. We want to know who the No. 1 team is, but we also want to have a Rose Bowl, a Fiesta Bowl, a Sugar Bowl and an Orange Bowl.

For the past nine years, the BCS has done as commendable a job as possible accommodating both goals. Sure, there have been hiccups -- Florida State getting in the title game ahead of a Miami team it lost to (2000); Nebraska (2001) and Oklahoma ('03) finishing in the top two despite lopsided season-ending losses; Auburn finishing 12-0 with nowhere to go ('04) -- but for the most part, the teams and the public got the results they wanted, while the bowls continued to prosper.

If by chance you don't believe that, the BCS folks have the TV ratings and the ticket numbers to prove it.

"What we've done is increased the popularity of college football in every nook and cranny," said Slive. "This system provides us with an ability to couple a national championship game and provide other very compelling games."

Not this year.

One could rightfully argue that the BCS, for the first time, accomplished neither goal this season. Whichever team, Ohio State or LSU, wins the Jan. 7 title game, there will be a significant faction of the public that questions its legitimacy. If the Buckeyes win, it will be because the voters handed them an opponent that peaked in September. If the Tigers win, it will be because they were playing a team many never believed was any good to begin with.

Meanwhile, you'd be hard-pressed to find too many fans who would describe this year's other BCS matchups as "compelling."

Virginia Tech, No. 3 in the final BCS standings, is playing Kansas, the No. 2 team in the Big 12 North. No. 4 Oklahoma's reward for beating the No. 1 team in the country Saturday night (Missouri) is to face a West Virginia team that lost to 4-7 Pittsburgh the same night. No. 5 Georgia went from an anticipated title date with Ohio State in New Orleans to the undercard a week earlier against Hawaii. And do you think USC's Carroll, whose teams have made mincemeat out of their previous Big Ten Rose Bowl foes, is losing much sleep over those Illinois game tapes?

But you can't blame the bowls for most of those choices. In nearly every case, they were simply following selection protocol -- Pac-10 champ to the Rose Bowl, Big 12 champ to the Fiesta Bowl, ACC champ to the Orange Bowl, etc., etc.

There's only one realistic way to make the non-championship bowl games more meaningful: the proposed "plus-one" game. Listening to Slive's comments lately, it's starting to sound more and more imminent.

In answering a question Sunday night about whether or not the system "worked" in resolving this year's unusually cluttered championship race, Slive -- unsolicited -- pontificated about the potential impact of this season on future postseasons.

"In this year, being such a different kind of year -- with so many [different] teams in the No. 1 or 2 slot, so many teams with one or two losses -- I don't think that it's so much the system as it is the year," he said.. "What I find interesting about this year, as I think about [the] question, is, is this year an anomaly, or is this year a precursor to what we might see in the future?

"Trying to analyze that question leads us to the discussion we have had on numerous occasions about whether this [BCS] format needs an adjustment. It's a segue into looking at [a plus-one]. When we talked the other day, I asked the question, 'Is one and two enough?' It may be that this season, and this result may give us a hint towards the answer to that question."

Proponents of a an all-out playoff (it's not going to happen, so let's not bother going there) would presumably point out, correctly, that a plus-one -- which is essentially a four-team playoff -- would not go far enough in resolving this year's controversy, one that involved as many as seven legitimate candidates

But as I said earlier, it's hard to have sympathy for the "snubbed" teams when those teams have two losses. At least a plus-one would add two more teams -- in this case, No. 3 Virginia Tech and No. 4 Oklahoma -- into the mix.

Imagine, if you will, the potential bowl lineup if such a format existed. Right now, rather than lamenting the colossal letdown of this upcoming postseason, we'd be salivating over, say, an Ohio State-Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl and an LSU-Virginia Tech rematch in the Sugar Bowl -- with the added excitement of knowing two of those teams would meet each other the following week.

"We'd be encouraged by [a plus-one]," Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker told me during an interview last year for Bowls, Polls and Tattered Souls. "We believe there is merit and value to a plus-one after the bowls."

When even the bowls themselves are calling for a change, you know there's something wrong with the system.

But you didn't need Junker to tell you that. You need only look at this year's BCS pairings.

Stewie · 12-03-2007, 07:56 AM

It's funny how college football has suddenly become mediocre because the national media darlings suck baows. I guess it's a screwed up system if Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, USC, Texas, Florida, Florida State, Nebraska, blah, blah, blah, aren't always in the BCS picture. Those non-traditional schools couldn't possibly have improved, it's just that college football has become mediocre.

**DaKCMan AP** · 12-03-2007, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewie

It's funny how college football has suddenly become mediocre because the national media darlings suck baows. I guess it's a screwed up system if Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, USC, Texas, Florida, Florida State, Nebraska, blah, blah, blah, aren't always in the BCS picture. Those non-traditional schools couldn't possibly have improved, it's just that college football has become mediocre.

That's not the premise of the article at all. No one is saying that college football is mediocre. Parity does not mean mediocre. Are you denying parity in college football this year?

Stewie · 12-03-2007, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

That's not the premise of the article at all. No one is saying that college football is mediocre. Parity does not mean mediocre. Are you denying parity in college football this year?

First sentence: "rash of medioc...er, parity" He's calling parity mediocrity from the start.

**DaKCMan AP** · 12-03-2007, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewie

First sentence: "rash of medioc...er, parity" He's calling parity mediocrity from the start.

Well I'm saying parity isn't mediocrity, and if you can get by that opening line the rest of the article has a different focus. He's saying that the teams who got left out should

because they lost. Then he goes on advocating a plus-1 system.

chagrin · 12-03-2007, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewie

First sentence: "rash of medioc...er, parity" He's calling parity mediocrity from the start.

He's basing that mainly on KU and their 119th ranked strength of schedule, oh and MU and the 65th ranked SOS - Michigan didn't deserve to be anywhere near a BCS bowl in my opinion, and I am a Michigan fan - AND he's bitching about OSU being there, come on dude.

What it seems to me is that we have a bunch of fans here who see an undefeated team and automatically thinks they deserve to be in the Title game.

**petegz28** · 12-03-2007, 08:14 AM

**** this article and **** the BCS. LSU 11-2 ahead of MU, KU and OU yet MU at 11-2 is behind OU and KU for the bowl selection yet ahead of KU and Illinois in the BCS polls.

So the ****ing BCS doesn't even follow their own ****ing rankings

**DaKCMan AP** · 12-03-2007, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

**** this article and **** the BCS. LSU 11-2 ahead of MU, KU and OU yet MU at 11-2 is behind OU and KU for the bowl selection yet ahead of KU and Illinois in the BCS polls.

So the ****ing BCS doesn't even follow their own ****ing rankings

You obviously don't understand how the system works. MU should be behind both LSU and OU. MU is ahead of KU in the rankings as they should be. The bowls can choose whichever eligible teams they want for the at-large bids, and the Orange chose Kansas and the Rose chose Illinois.

**petegz28** · 12-03-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

You obviously don't understand how the system works. MU should be behind both LSU and OU. MU is ahead of KU in the rankings as they should be. The bowls can choose whichever eligible teams they want for the at-large bids, and the Orange chose Kansas and the Rose chose Illinois.

I understand the BCS rankings have MU ahead of KU and Illinois yet the BCS Bowls...nevermind.

WTF is the point of having BCS rankings if the BCS dumb ****s won't even follow their own rankings?

**DaKCMan AP** · 12-03-2007, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

I understand the BCS rankings have MU ahead of KU and Illinois yet the BCS Bowls...nevermind.

WTF is the point of having BCS rankings if the BCS dumb ****s won't even follow their own rankings?

The rankings determine which two teams go to the National Championship game and which 14 teams (provided they have 9+ wins) are eligible for at-large bids. Outside of that and the automatic bids, the individual bowls select which teams go.

Mecca · 12-03-2007, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewie

It's funny how college football has suddenly become mediocre because the national media darlings suck baows. I guess it's a screwed up system if Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, USC, Texas, Florida, Florida State, Nebraska, blah, blah, blah, aren't always in the BCS picture. Those non-traditional schools couldn't possibly have improved, it's just that college football has become mediocre.

That really isn't what it's about.....but for the sake of what you said...

OSU, USC and Florida should not be listed with those other teams, those other teams had bad years some really bad, these 3 are still going to finish top 10, hell USC can finish 2nd.

kepp · 12-03-2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chagrin

He's basing that mainly on KU and their 119th ranked strength of schedule, oh and MU and the 65th ranked SOS - Michigan didn't deserve to be anywhere near a BCS bowl in my opinion, and I am a Michigan fan - AND he's bitching about OSU being there, come on dude.

What it seems to me is that we have a bunch of fans here who see an undefeated team and automatically thinks they deserve to be in the Title game.

MU SOS is #24 - at least that's what they listed it as on the BS selection show last night - KU's is #109. Does anyone know what Virginia Tech's SOS is?

**petegz28** · 12-03-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

The rankings determine which two teams go to the National Championship game and which 14 teams (provided they have 9+ wins) are eligible for at-large bids. Outside of that and the automatic bids, the individual bowls select which teams go.

Sorry it all sounds like a bunch of bullshit. Rankings seem to be used but then discarded in the end.

This is why I don't watch college football. There is too much a "good ole' boys" club. Every year I hear about how the BCS screws up and man this year really takes the cake.

OU and USC should be the NC game. Not OSU and LSU.

But...but....but......

**ChiTown** · 12-03-2007, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

**** this article and **** the BCS. LSU 11-2 ahead of MU, KU and OU yet MU at 11-2 is behind OU and KU for the bowl selection yet ahead of KU and Illinois in the BCS polls.

So the ****ing BCS doesn't even follow their own ****ing rankings

After the conference champions get in, it's a popularity contest, and an audition of Athletic Director's as to which one can be the biggest whore for the At-Large BCS spots.

Mecca · 12-03-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiTown

After the conference champions get in, it's a popularity contest, and an audition of Athletic Director's as to which one can be the biggest whore for the At-Large BCS spots.

Unless it's the Rose Bowl, who will take a Pac 10 and Big 10 team every single time if they can.

12-03-2007, 06:42 AM
chagrin Giggitty! Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Missoula, Mt Casino cash: $9804905	SI article about the BCS Although I know many of you locals won't like this; it's well written and a good read http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....html?bcnn=yes Just to be clear, the BCS was not responsible for the unprecedented rash of medioc ... er, parity, around the country this season. The BCS did not choke away a national title berth against a four-touchdown underdog the last night of the season. The BCS did not lose to Oklahoma, rise all the way up to No. 1 -- then lose to the Sooners again. The BCS did not lose on its own home field to Stanford. Or Arkansas. Or South Carolina. Or Illinois. The BCS did not lose 48-7 in its showcase non-conference game. The BCS did not win its first 11 games against a bunch of nobodies, rise to No. 1 in the country, then lose in its first and only marquee game. The BCS did not soar to No. 2 in the standings, then implode upon losing its starting quarterback. The BCS did not give up 473 yards to Texas Tech -- then blame it on losing its starting quarterback. It's not the BCS's fault that week after week this season, one highly ranked team after another "couldn't grab the brass ring," as SEC commissioner and BCS coordinator Mike Slive put it Sunday night. But after all the excitement and intrigue caused by all those upsets the past 14 weeks, we've reached what should be the climactic point of the season, only to be treated to Ohio State-LSU and ... Virginia Tech-Kansas? USC-Illinois? Oklahoma-West Virginia? For that, the BCS will and should be held responsible. And in fact, this year's utterly unappealing postseason may finally bring some much-needed change to the way the sport decides its champion. I've never been a playoff guy. I've always bought into the notion that the sport's regular season -- the most gripping regular season in all of sports -- is a de facto playoff. But that notion was based on a long history of regular seasons in which at least two teams distinguished themselves as being truly great over 11 or 12 games. That did not happen this season. Not in the slightest. The two teams that will meet in New Orleans on Jan. 7 both lost their second-to-last regular season games. In any other year, that would be an absolute deal breaker. This year, 11-1 Ohio State and 11-2 LSU both endured those seemingly fatal wounds and still wound up the consensus Nos. 1 and 2 teams on Sunday. Whether you agree or disagree, the reality is there was nothing egregious or indisputable about the voters' decisions. As Buckeyes coach Jim Tressel said Sunday night, "We tell our players, 'You better win all your games if you want a chance to play in the BCS championship game.'" As soon as you lose that first game -- nevertheless a second one -- you take your destiny out of your own hands. No detached party should be shedding a tear today for Oklahoma or Georgia or Virginia Tech or USC, because all wound up in the position they did by their own volition. That being said, there's absolutely no way the voters can be certain they successfully selected the two best teams. How could they be, when there's so little to distinguish the No. 1 team (Ohio State) from the No. 7 team (USC)? In light of such ambiguity, wouldn't it be great to see not only the Tigers and Buckeyes square off against each other, but also, say, Georgia and Oklahoma? Virginia Tech and USC? "We'd love to still be playing against the best teams in the country," said Trojans coach Pete Carroll, whose team will instead face the 13th-best team in the country. "We'd love to see a playoff system that would allow us to do that. I can't imagine very many coaches that wouldn't." Carroll said this, however, on a teleconference to promote the Rose Bowl, where just moments before and moments after, he espoused, "I love the tradition of the bowls. We love the Rose Bowl. ... We love playing a team from the Big Ten." Well which is it, Pete? Are you more concerned with upholding tradition or more accurately determining the national champion? "They're two totally different discussions," he said. Actually ... no they're not. Carroll's seemingly contradictory stances pretty much sum up the entire state of college football in 2007: We want our cake, but we want to eat it, too. We want to know who the No. 1 team is, but we also want to have a Rose Bowl, a Fiesta Bowl, a Sugar Bowl and an Orange Bowl. For the past nine years, the BCS has done as commendable a job as possible accommodating both goals. Sure, there have been hiccups -- Florida State getting in the title game ahead of a Miami team it lost to (2000); Nebraska (2001) and Oklahoma ('03) finishing in the top two despite lopsided season-ending losses; Auburn finishing 12-0 with nowhere to go ('04) -- but for the most part, the teams and the public got the results they wanted, while the bowls continued to prosper. If by chance you don't believe that, the BCS folks have the TV ratings and the ticket numbers to prove it. "What we've done is increased the popularity of college football in every nook and cranny," said Slive. "This system provides us with an ability to couple a national championship game and provide other very compelling games." Not this year. One could rightfully argue that the BCS, for the first time, accomplished neither goal this season. Whichever team, Ohio State or LSU, wins the Jan. 7 title game, there will be a significant faction of the public that questions its legitimacy. If the Buckeyes win, it will be because the voters handed them an opponent that peaked in September. If the Tigers win, it will be because they were playing a team many never believed was any good to begin with. Meanwhile, you'd be hard-pressed to find too many fans who would describe this year's other BCS matchups as "compelling." Virginia Tech, No. 3 in the final BCS standings, is playing Kansas, the No. 2 team in the Big 12 North. No. 4 Oklahoma's reward for beating the No. 1 team in the country Saturday night (Missouri) is to face a West Virginia team that lost to 4-7 Pittsburgh the same night. No. 5 Georgia went from an anticipated title date with Ohio State in New Orleans to the undercard a week earlier against Hawaii. And do you think USC's Carroll, whose teams have made mincemeat out of their previous Big Ten Rose Bowl foes, is losing much sleep over those Illinois game tapes? But you can't blame the bowls for most of those choices. In nearly every case, they were simply following selection protocol -- Pac-10 champ to the Rose Bowl, Big 12 champ to the Fiesta Bowl, ACC champ to the Orange Bowl, etc., etc. There's only one realistic way to make the non-championship bowl games more meaningful: the proposed "plus-one" game. Listening to Slive's comments lately, it's starting to sound more and more imminent. In answering a question Sunday night about whether or not the system "worked" in resolving this year's unusually cluttered championship race, Slive -- unsolicited -- pontificated about the potential impact of this season on future postseasons. "In this year, being such a different kind of year -- with so many [different] teams in the No. 1 or 2 slot, so many teams with one or two losses -- I don't think that it's so much the system as it is the year," he said.. "What I find interesting about this year, as I think about [the] question, is, is this year an anomaly, or is this year a precursor to what we might see in the future? "Trying to analyze that question leads us to the discussion we have had on numerous occasions about whether this [BCS] format needs an adjustment. It's a segue into looking at [a plus-one]. When we talked the other day, I asked the question, 'Is one and two enough?' It may be that this season, and this result may give us a hint towards the answer to that question." Proponents of a an all-out playoff (it's not going to happen, so let's not bother going there) would presumably point out, correctly, that a plus-one -- which is essentially a four-team playoff -- would not go far enough in resolving this year's controversy, one that involved as many as seven legitimate candidates But as I said earlier, it's hard to have sympathy for the "snubbed" teams when those teams have two losses. At least a plus-one would add two more teams -- in this case, No. 3 Virginia Tech and No. 4 Oklahoma -- into the mix. Imagine, if you will, the potential bowl lineup if such a format existed. Right now, rather than lamenting the colossal letdown of this upcoming postseason, we'd be salivating over, say, an Ohio State-Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl and an LSU-Virginia Tech rematch in the Sugar Bowl -- with the added excitement of knowing two of those teams would meet each other the following week. "We'd be encouraged by [a plus-one]," Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker told me during an interview last year for Bowls, Polls and Tattered Souls. "We believe there is merit and value to a plus-one after the bowls." When even the bowls themselves are calling for a change, you know there's something wrong with the system. But you didn't need Junker to tell you that. You need only look at this year's BCS pairings.
Posts: 13,414

12-03-2007, 08:14 AM	#7
petegz28 Supporter Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Olathe, Ks Casino cash: $-1075873	** this article and the BCS. LSU 11-2 ahead of MU, KU and OU yet MU at 11-2 is behind OU and KU for the bowl selection yet ahead of KU and Illinois in the BCS polls. So the ing BCS doesn't even follow their own **ing rankings
Posts: 132,480

12-03-2007, 07:56 AM	#2
Stewie MVP Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: West of the Equator Casino cash: $-1790099	It's funny how college football has suddenly become mediocre because the national media darlings suck baows. I guess it's a screwed up system if Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, USC, Texas, Florida, Florida State, Nebraska, blah, blah, blah, aren't always in the BCS picture. Those non-traditional schools couldn't possibly have improved, it's just that college football has become mediocre.
Posts: 13,868