Friday, October 13, 2006
Widespread Discrimination
I guess I need to get this post written before tomorrow's college football games are played and perhaps my point will be refuted on the field. I write to expand my well-documented loathing of the discrimination inherent in the "haves and have-nots" mentality of the BCS system to encompass a loathing of general discrimination against college football teams that have not historically graced the ranks of the elite.
Yes, I hate how the BCS system treats nearly half of the 119 Division I-A teams as second-rate simply because of the conference they belong to. I don't need to go into that again. At least not today.
But at the midpoint of this season, another remarkable phenomenon has emerged: as of right now, there are nine undefeated teams in college football. They are ranked by the AP as #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 19, 20, and 24.
Of course, the top 4 (Ohio State, Florida, USC, and Michigan) have long been traditional football powers. These guys have won lots of championships over the years and get the best recruits, etc. No quibbles there.
Numbers 5 and 7, West Virginia and Louisville, aren't as storied of programs, but I attribute their rankings to the fact that the powers that be feel the need to justify the Big East's participation in the BCS. And Louisville has only recently made the transition from a "have-not" conference to a "have" conference.
Then there's a huge gap in the rankings of the undefeated teams. Between numbers 8 and 18, there are a bunch of one-loss teams and even one two-loss team (#14 LSU).
Of course I'm going to rail against the ranking of undefeated Boise State at #20 (they might not be a storied program like Florida, but over the last four and a half seasons their record is 51-6, compared to Florida's 38-18). But, alas, they're in the WAC, so they're by definition second-rate. I vehemently disagree with the pollsters, but I understand their motivation for ranking BSU so far away from all the other undefeated teams. WAC = Bad.
It's #19 Missouri and #24 Rutgers that have caught my eye this time. They're not second rate by definition because they come from BCS conferences. So why are they treated in the same manner as Boise State in the polls? Don't tell me it's because, like Boise State, "they haven't played anybody." Who has #5 West Virginia played? Who (besides Ohio State, who whooped them) has #15 Iowa played? Who (besides Tennessee, who whooped them) has #16 Georgia played?
The only conclusion I can draw from this second-rate treatment of BCS-conference teams is that you don't just have to be in a BCS conference to get respect. You have to be a traditionally elite team from a BCS conference to get respect. If you're a mediocre program that has a particularly good year, that doesn't count until you put together a string of really good years (unless, of course, you're in the WAC--in which case you're still out of luck).
The fact that it's possible for a storied program to have a down year and an unstoried program to have a great year is one of the reasons college football needs a playoff. Otherwise, we're awarding championships based on tradition, not on how the teams played this year. Look at George Mason's basketball team--you think they aren't glad they got to participate in a playoff? Let's give Rutgers the same chance.
Yes, I hate how the BCS system treats nearly half of the 119 Division I-A teams as second-rate simply because of the conference they belong to. I don't need to go into that again. At least not today.
But at the midpoint of this season, another remarkable phenomenon has emerged: as of right now, there are nine undefeated teams in college football. They are ranked by the AP as #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 19, 20, and 24.
Of course, the top 4 (Ohio State, Florida, USC, and Michigan) have long been traditional football powers. These guys have won lots of championships over the years and get the best recruits, etc. No quibbles there.
Numbers 5 and 7, West Virginia and Louisville, aren't as storied of programs, but I attribute their rankings to the fact that the powers that be feel the need to justify the Big East's participation in the BCS. And Louisville has only recently made the transition from a "have-not" conference to a "have" conference.
Then there's a huge gap in the rankings of the undefeated teams. Between numbers 8 and 18, there are a bunch of one-loss teams and even one two-loss team (#14 LSU).
Of course I'm going to rail against the ranking of undefeated Boise State at #20 (they might not be a storied program like Florida, but over the last four and a half seasons their record is 51-6, compared to Florida's 38-18). But, alas, they're in the WAC, so they're by definition second-rate. I vehemently disagree with the pollsters, but I understand their motivation for ranking BSU so far away from all the other undefeated teams. WAC = Bad.
It's #19 Missouri and #24 Rutgers that have caught my eye this time. They're not second rate by definition because they come from BCS conferences. So why are they treated in the same manner as Boise State in the polls? Don't tell me it's because, like Boise State, "they haven't played anybody." Who has #5 West Virginia played? Who (besides Ohio State, who whooped them) has #15 Iowa played? Who (besides Tennessee, who whooped them) has #16 Georgia played?
The only conclusion I can draw from this second-rate treatment of BCS-conference teams is that you don't just have to be in a BCS conference to get respect. You have to be a traditionally elite team from a BCS conference to get respect. If you're a mediocre program that has a particularly good year, that doesn't count until you put together a string of really good years (unless, of course, you're in the WAC--in which case you're still out of luck).
The fact that it's possible for a storied program to have a down year and an unstoried program to have a great year is one of the reasons college football needs a playoff. Otherwise, we're awarding championships based on tradition, not on how the teams played this year. Look at George Mason's basketball team--you think they aren't glad they got to participate in a playoff? Let's give Rutgers the same chance.
Comments:
While I have similar objections to the BCS... I think there is a distinction between Rutgers and West Virginia and Louisville. Over the last 10 years both West Virginia and Lousiville have consistently been placing teams in the top 25 and sending teams to bowl games, as contrasted with Rutgers who just broke into the top 25 for the first time in 30 years.
That's precisely my point, Marc. The polls should be about who is good THIS YEAR (based on the games they have played THIS YEAR only), not who has consistently placed teams in the top 25 over the past few years. Under that correct criterion, there is no difference between West Virginia, Louisville, or Rutgers. So far this year, they have all consistently won games against a slate of mediocre to bad opponents. So why is WVU now (after this weekend's games) #4 and Rutgers #19? The only explanation is the one you cite: in the past, WVU has usually been a better team than Rutgers. And basing a current ranking on what teams did last year or the year before or ten years ago is, to me, wrong.
After all, if we're ranking teams based on tradition, why do we even keep playing the games? Let's just award Michigan the national championship every year and save ourselves a lot of bother. (Harvard gets to be the perrennial #2.)
Post a Comment
After all, if we're ranking teams based on tradition, why do we even keep playing the games? Let's just award Michigan the national championship every year and save ourselves a lot of bother. (Harvard gets to be the perrennial #2.)
