College Football - Nov 29th

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'll post an article from a distinguished alumnist from your school, who I happen to agree with.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?id=1681403

BCS is now irrelevant

By Trev Alberts
Special to ESPN.com

It has been a whirlwind of a college season and I must first say how lucky I am to sit in the chair I do every Saturday, with the chance to watch the best games and teams from around the country.

I love my job, but I'm a little depressed about the way things worked out in the BCS. Pete Carroll and his USC Trojans have had an incredible year and now sit at No. 1 in both human polls, yet are left out of the BCS championship game. That is an injustice.

I try on the air, in chats and in my columns to admit when I'm wrong, and it's now time for someone from the BCS to stand up and say "Hey, we missed the boat and this system does not work." Trust me, it is a cleansing experience to admit a mistake.

While the value of controversy and water cooler talk is understood, this scenario also has created a credibility issue for the BCS and a disconnect with fans who see how flawed the system is.

College football is now the laughingstock of major sports. My ESPN counterparts on the NFL side walk by and laugh, and frankly I'm embarrassed the powers-that-be are dragging their feet and allowing this kind of trouble to arise every year. It's time someone in that group -- whoever they are -- to step up and say the nonsense has to end.

There is too much at stake for it to be any other way. Coaches are getting fired for going 9-3 and too many people have too much to lose for things to be decided by a New York Times computer that ranks Oklahoma behind a Texas team it beat 65-13.

The BCS has taken a step back because of all the reasons above, and in my opinion it is now irrelevant.

After this fiasco I am confident the BCS will be blown up sooner rather than later. It has to be. The scenario that was unimaginable has happened and it's unfair to all the players who have given so much that there is no contingency plan.

And because of that lack of an option, some of the coaches who bought into the system that obligates them to vote the winner of the BCS title game as the national championship are now telling me they might not do so. If USC smokes Michigan in the Rose Bowl -- which to me is now the national championship game -- there may be coaches who put USC at No. 1 on their ballots and further erode the credibility of the system. Perhaps more chaos is the only way to affect change.

At the end of the day, common sense has to rule. We have to stop worrying about money and fighting over who gets what share of the payouts and do something for the betterment of a game that is supposed to be about amateur student-athletes. It is unthinkable to me that dollars are getting in the way of some kind of a playoff.

So to everyone at the NCAA and all the conference presidents who came up with this system: get off your high horse, get over the money issue and do the right thing for the kids. I'm tired of feeling embarrassed about being a passionate college football fan.

[Drake Tungsten]

Trev Alberts is a moron. He was a hell of a defensive end, though, so he still has my undying love.

My ESPN counterparts on the NFL side walk by and laugh

They're probably laughing at Trev's impressive pro "career".

Coaches are getting fired for going 9-3

A decision he supported in last week's column, BTW.

a New York Times computer that ranks Oklahoma behind a Texas team it beat 65-13.

Have to agree with him here; the NYT poll is a joke, as I've said here before. It's the exception to the rule, however.

If USC smokes Michigan in the Rose Bowl -- which to me is now the national championship game

This is just stupid. USC may deserve a share of the title, but Michigan doesn't deserve **** with their two losses (even if they win), so how can you say that the Rose Bowl is the "real" national title game and **** on a Sugar Bowl matchup between one-loss Oklahoma and LSU? The lack of respect shown for those two teams (who are just as deserving as USC) is disgusting.

It is unthinkable to me that dollars are getting in the way of some kind of a playoff.

Well, Trev isn't really known for doing much thinking. All in all, just typical sportswriter drivel and probably about as accurate as Trev's weekly picks.

[Drake Tungsten]

Here's a better column. I always turn to Page 2 for the insightful analysis...

Eric Adelson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Writers' Block
Subject: BCS

Just curious: has anyone in a position of influence actually asked college football players whether they want a playoff? Funny, but I haven't seen many student-athletes protesting on campus. Come to think of it, the only loud complaints are coming from the same columnists who deplore college sports as exploitation: Let's stop exploiting these poor young men! Wait! I want a true national champ, so let's exploit them even more!


Beating up the Pac-10 didn't make for a strong enough schedule for Matt Leinart and USC.


The players I've asked about a playoff system have mostly either shrugged or just said, "No thanks." Makes sense to me. Every game is an exhausting, debilitating risk. I am constantly amazed how the media can watch thousands of athletes go through spring practice, two-a-days, game weeks, the pain of 13 full-contact games, and then call for them to play up to three more games. Oh, and get that homework done!

Think Joey Harrington is permanently embittered knowing he didn't get a shot at Miami two years ago? Please. Think Mike Williams will spike the AP national championship trophy because he didn't get to play in the Sugar Bowl? Come on. But ask Willis McGahee if he thinks a playoff system might have a drawback or two. Who's gonna tell him that the potential for more devastating injuries like his is simply the cost of pleasing media, fans and the annual few angry VIPs?

There are plenty of other reasons to keep the BCS:

1) What happens if we institute a four-team playoff, and the top six teams all have one loss? Think the controversy ends the day the playoff system begins?

2) Is it just me, or isn't the college football season already end-to-end exciting? If every team can lose one or two games and still make the playoffs, would we really be on pins and needles in August, September and October?

3) The real problem is the conference championship system. If Oklahoma played in the Pac 10 -- without a conference champ -- the Sooners might still be unbeaten. If USC played in the Big 12, maybe they would trip up in the Dr. Pepper Bowl. Let's add a rule: Either all the major conferences have title games, or none have title games. Fair?

4) Here's another idea: Use the BCS as a safety valve. At the end of the season, if both major polls agree on the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked teams, simply let them play in the title game. If there is disagreement among the polls, then implement the BCS.

5) Even if this season turns out to be an embarrassment for the BCS -- and a Michigan win can still save it -- the BCS got it right five out of its first six years. (Don't tell me Tennessee, Florida State, Oklahoma, Miami and Ohio State were not worthy champions. And don't even think for a second Oregon could have beaten Miami two years ago.) Now go back and look at the last six college basketball champions. Anyone want to tell me all six were actually, unquestionably, the very best team in the land? Anyone?

But the best reason to keep the system is to protect the players. Rest assured, all the whiners will get their way. There will be a one- or two-game playoff system. Then some sure first-rounder will ruin his leg and his future in mid-January. And we'll see how many columnists sit down at their laptops and write that it never would have happened if all the reporters had bothered to take a poll instead of voting in one.

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/bloc/031208.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

A decision he supported in last week's column, BTW.

He didn't say it was a bad idea, he said that's how important things are.

how can you say that the Rose Bowl is the "real" national title game

Cause that's where the #1 team is playing.

Well, Trev isn't really known for doing much thinking. All in all, just typical sportswriter drivel and probably about as accurate as Trev's weekly picks.

He was a hell of a player as you said. So you'll listen to coaches who you like, but not players?

[Drake Tungsten]

So you'll listen to coaches who you like, but not players?

Haven't you ever talked to a football player? I had classes with enough of them to know that 95% of them are complete idiots. Maybe Trev is one of the lucky 5%, but his past work hasn't made him seem that way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I can tell you coaches aren't much smarter.

[Drake Tungsten]

I can tell you coaches aren't much smarter.

I'm sorry, but they are. They aren't rocket scientists by any stretch of the imagination, but they're certainly miles ahead of the mass of dullards they coach.

Both players and coaches are smarter than sportwriters, though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They aren't rocket scientists by any stretch of the imagination, but they're certainly miles ahead of the mass of dullards they coach.

Bull. There are plenty of players smarter than their coaches. After all, most coaches are failed football players, who can't get other jobs, anyway.

Both players and coaches are smarter than sportwriters, though.

Sportswriters are the most educated of the group . I'll take them over either players or coaches. Such as in baseball, I'll take Peter Gammons over just about anyone on the field.

[Drake Tungsten]

Sportswriters are the most educated of the group

I'd agree with you if more sportwriters were like Chris Fowler...

College football was a big winner Sunday. College football was a big loser Sunday. Which statement is true? Both.

You won't get a one-word answer here, as I try to sort out the various "winners" and "losers." This is not that "Fact or Fiction" thing.

You also won't get a nine paragraph rant on the evils of the BCS. You've heard that before a hundred times and will hear it a hundred more. The BCS is what it is: a system created to inject more fairness in to the bowl system than existed before and select two teams to play in a "Championship Game," while keeping the forces pushing for a playoff at bay.

It failed this season. More importantly, it failed for the third time in the last four seasons. This time, though, with an important twist: the controversy is NOT which contender is most worthy to face the clear No. 1 ranked team. The No. 1 ranked team is nowhere to be found in the BCS game. And it's a much bigger BCS headache, because half the national title could be decided three days before the Nokia Sugar Bowl is even played.

Mr. Corso has been saying for two weeks that he strongly believed it was wrong for Oklahoma to be selected for the Nokia Sugar Bowl if it lost the conference title. I played devil's advocate. But you know what, the old guy had a point. Watching OU get pounded Saturday night (out-played, out-hit, out-coached), really brought home the issue.

But you can't blame the Sooners, any more than you could blast Nebraska two years ago, when the BCS formula placed the second place team in the Big 12 North second in the nation by five-hundredths of a point. Oklahoma is merely operating within the system we've got. The BCS had a chance two years ago to close the loophole allowing non-conference champions to advance to the BCS title game and could not reach a consensus. With only two (soon to be three) of the six BCS conferences playing championship games, the playing field is not quite level on that front.

I wrestled awhile with my AP ballot after Saturday's games. I'm sure I wasn't the only one. I sat there after midnight, ranked teams four through 25 and left the top three slots blank. Finally, I slid Oklahoma in third. As great as they'd been for 12 games, it just felt wrong to rank the Sooners ahead of LSU or USC, off their respective performances Saturday. I wrestled a bit longer before ranking USC first, LSU second. Separating these two is very tough. My reasoning was that USC was "closer" to being perfect, having lost at Cal in triple overtime, with a missed chip-shot field goal figuring prominently. Had they escaped the OT, no one would have had an issue. LSU lost to Florida (which is better than Cal), but it was at home, by a dozen points.

I had no idea if other pollsters would see it that way. It turns out most did, the 1-2-3 margins being pretty decisive.

Which two of these three deserving teams play in New Orleans is not my biggest concern. Hey, in a three-way struggle between three once-beaten teams, somebody is gonna get screwed.

What bothers me is HOW the BCS formula came it to its verdict. The strength of schedule component in effect broke the deadlock between humans and computers. That's weak.

First off, the strength of schedule formula is simplistic: a schedule is rated mostly on opponents' winning percentage. Do you think all 8-4 teams are equal? Is playing 8-4 Florida the same as playing 8-4 Memphis or 8-4 New Mexico? Of course not. But it's treated just the same in the BCS.

Resident BCS guru Brad Edwards tells us that the final BCS verdict came down to two otherwise meaningless games. If either Notre Dame had beaten Syracuse OR Hawaii upset Boise State, LSU would have been left out.

Am I missing something? Did the inspired Orangemen effort (it's about time, by the way), and Boise State's win make LSU a superior team and more worthy BCS participant than it already was? Do those two final scores mean that USC isn't deserving after all? Humans know the answer: games like these are irrelevant. Computers don't know better. They never will.

Now, looking forward, the BCS system will likely fail seven or eight times in the next ten years if left unchanged. There's too much parity and balance to expect that we will have two and only two unbeaten teams at the end of the regular season.

Rest assured, it WILL be changed. Not tweaked again, I hope. Really changed. The formula AND the format, I mean.

Wouldn't USC-Michigan and LSU-Oklahoma make really good semifinals? Hey, they are seeded that way right now. Then the winners play. There is growing support for this among the BCS bigwigs and even the university presidents might go along, since this really doesn't qualify as a "playoff." The bowl system would remain in tact. The system would be fairer and the coffers would be fuller, by millions of bucks.

That's down the road. Back to the present, where we will have two national title games this season. Some believe that when you have two championship games, what you really have is zero true championship games, if "true" is defined as "consensus."

Pete Carroll and his players are quite correct in labeling the Rose Bowl their championship game. That's the only spin they have. It works because the mentality in the Pac-10 and Big Ten has always been that Pasadena is the one and only desirable destination. The Trojans and Michigan have not met in the Rose Bowl in 14 years, so the attraction is even stronger. Boy, did the tradition-worshipping, white-shoes-wearing Tournament of Roses Committee ever stumble into their dream matchup!

I would have a hard time moving USC down in the final ballot if they beat an outstanding Michigan team. Like the other pollsters, I would wait and watch the showdown in New Orleans. But it would take a flukey USC win followed by something pretty extraordinary in the Superdome to sway me. A certain number of voters might make their minds up to vote USC first on January first, to make a statement about the system, who knows?

Did anyone else besides the Rose Bowl folks win? Well, some USC fans feel like they did. Stay at home, watch their team in Pasadena and STILL play for a piece of the title? That's not bad.

The Nokia Sugar Bowl folks are feeling a little conflicted today. They get the home state Tigers, making this the toughest bowl ticket in history. So the scalpers win -- big time. It'll be the wildest possible scene in the French Quarter all week and a really compelling build up to a compelling game: the wounded Sooners, no longer invincible, battling for redemption and hearing for three weeks or so that they don't belong versus a cresting LSU team that was rated down at No. 15 in the preseason. But it's also not the true, undisputed title game that each BCS bowl waits four years for.

Bobby Bowden isn't in love with how things shook out, either. His attempted smiles on ABC's selection show didn't convey much enthusiasm for meeting Miami, in both a rematch and a preview of next season's Labor Day prime time tilt to usher in the new ACC era. And poor Chris Rix. He heroically beats the Gators, finally silences some critics, and now here come the nemesis 'Canes again!

As for the rest of us, we can shake our heads and watch college football's version of the WBC and WBA title bouts, awaiting the day when a true unification title bout is a guaranteed to settle things on the field each season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=fowler_chris&id=1681418

I particularly liked this point.

Which two of these three deserving teams play in New Orleans is not my biggest concern. Hey, in a three-way struggle between three once-beaten teams, somebody is gonna get screwed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I liked this part better:

As for the rest of us, we can shake our heads and watch college football's version of the WBC and WBA title bouts, awaiting the day when a true unification title bout is a guaranteed to settle things on the field each season.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's a pipe dream though. You can have your "unification bout" via a playoff, but you'll destroy the pursuit of perfection that makes college football so great.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, yes, yes... the pursuit of perfection, yadda, yadda. You remind of those crusty MLB traditionalists who believe the Wild Card has utterly destroyed the game.

[Drake Tungsten]

You remind of those crusty MLB traditionalists who believe the Wild Card has utterly destroyed the game.

I agree with them.

edit: Well, "utterly destroyed" is far too strong a term. It was certainly better the old way, though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Troglodyte

Let's go back to one division in each league and just take the best record and make them play the WS. Like that didn't end up in a snooze fest most years .

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
[If we had a playoff this year, a three-loss Kansas State team would be playing for the national title.

*cough* Not under my (revised) system *cough*