Sunday, December 07, 2008
The End of the Season
The college football regular season came to an end this week, so it's time to address the injustices the system has perpretrated this year, and other related thoughts.
Boise State Got Jobbed
Two-loss Ohio State received the final BCS at-large bid over an undefeated Boise State. When it comes down to the merits of the football, this is close to an outrage. Although Boise didn't play the toughest schedule in the country, they did beat the #17-ranked team (at the time) on the road and didn't lose a game to anyone. Ohio State, on the other hand, lost to two very good ranked teams and their best win was at Michigan State, ranked #20 at the time. The reason for their selection is obvious: Ohio State will put more butts in seats than Boise will. That is the one and only reason, pure and simple, and it's no use complaining about it. What we should complain about is that the system cares more about butts in seats than it does about rewarding excellence on the field.
The silver lining for Boise State is that it gets a very good bowl match-up against TCU in the Poinsettia Bowl. This will be the best of the non-BCS bowls, and it will certainly be better than at least the Orange Bowl and maybe the Rose Bowl and Fiesta Bowl too. But I was hoping this game wouldn't happen. I want both TCU and Boise State to win their bowl games. Ranked teams from the non-BCS conferences need to win in the postseason to shore up the strength of the anti-BCS argument. Now, one of these teams will have to lose, and will drop in the rankings and in national respect. And I don't know how to cheer. Do I cheer for TCU, so that the Mountain West Conference will put one more feather in its cap for the best season it's ever had? (Can you imagine if the MWC goes 5-0 against Alabama, Boise State, Arizona, Fresno State, and Houston?) Or do I cheer for Boise State, my unofficial second-favorite team, to remain undefeated and show that it can play with tough teams and that it really deserved a shot at something bigger? I might just watch the game as a dispassionate observer. But I definitely am watching it.
Roll Over the Tide
I think Utah got its ideal matchup against Alabama. Alabama is a (suddenly) elite team in the supposedly most powerful conference that spent a good deal of the season ranked #1. Yet they're vulnerable and they'll certainly be smarting from their loss to Florida in the SEC championship game which could lead to a case of "I-don't-really-want-to-be-here." The only problem for the Utes is that the crowd will likely favor Alabama. This Cougar fan will be cheering for the Utes (as, I must admit, I generally do when they're not playing BYU).
Not All One-Loss Teams Are Created Equal
Let's all just accept that there's a glass ceiling for non-BCS teams. Utah and Boise State had no hopes of rising any higher than #6 or so, and they didn't, regardless of their records. But I'm puzzled at the logic of the selections for the championship game. There are a lot of one-loss teams from BCS conferences that could make a case that they should be in. And as it always seems to be, the teams whose one loss occurred earlier in the season fared the best. That's the only explanation why Florida, which lost in September at home to an unranked team gets in over Texas, which lost on the road in November to the then-#7 team in the country. Or Alabama, which lost at a neutral site to the #4 team. OK, you may say, but Texas and Alabama didn't even win their conferences,* and the head-to-head matchups between Texas and Oklahoma (would we really have wanted a rematch for the national title?) and between Alabama and Florida (called a de-facto semifinal) have to count for something. And that's so. But when you stack up their body of work over the season without regard to when the losses happened, you can make a pretty good case that Alabama, Texas, Texas Tech, and even USC had a better season than Florida. And Texas is clearly better than Oklahoma because they beat them. Can't we get a playoff?
How It Should Work
I stated at the beginning of the season that I would stop harping for a playoff that will never happen and instead simply advocate one simple rule change (that, incidentally, will also never happen): do away with any automatic bids to BCS games. Instead, I wish they would just select the six highest-ranked conference champions and then fill the games out with at-large selections. I also wish the at-large teams were the four highest-ranked non-conference-champions, regardless of the butts-in-seats factor. Under that scenario, we'd actually have the same scenario we currently have, except Boise State (WAC Champ) and Texas Tech (third-highest ranked non-champion, after Texas and Alabama, which did get at-large bids in real life) would be playing in the Orange Bowl instead of the crappy Cincinnati-Virginia Tech game no one wants to see. (See, the Big East and ACC's automatic bids would be usurped by Utah and Boise State, since the MWC and WAC champions were ranked higher.)
If you want to keep the current rule that no single conference can send more than two teams to the BCS (and I can see the logic in that rule), then TCU, as the fifth-highest-ranked non-conference-champion, would take Texas Tech's place against Boise State, who, incidentally, they are playing in the Poinsettia Bowl. So I guess this year things did work out pretty well. I just have to pretend that the Poinsettia Bowl is a BCS game and the Orange Bowl isn't.
All that said, my ideal scenario would be a 16-team playoff including all 11 conference champions and five at-large bids (again, the five highest-ranked non-conference-champions). Seed according to the BCS standings (and in this scenario, I say it's OK to allow as many teams from one conference as deserve it). Play the first round at the higher-ranked team's home field the week after the conference championship games and then use bowl games for the eight winners. Here's how it would look this year:
#16 Buffalo (MAC Champ) at #1 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ)
#15 Troy (Sun Belt Champ) at #2 Florida (SEC Champ)
# 14 East Carolina (C-USA Champ) at #3 Texas (At-large)
#13 Virginia Tech (ACC Champ) at #4 Alabama (At-large)
#12 Cincinnati (Big East Champ) at #5 USC (Pac-10 Champ)
#11 TCU (At-large) at #6 Utah (MWC Champ)
#10 Ohio State (At-large) at #7 Texas Tech (At-large)
#9 Boise State (WAC Champ) at #8 Penn State (Big 10 Champ)
Who wouldn't love to see that? The only downside to these results is that TCU already played and lost at Utah. Assuming all the higher seeds win in the first round (which in college football is never a given - that's why we like it so much), the losers could go play their regular bowl games, and you'd then have:
Oklahoma-Penn State in the Orange Bowl
Florida-Texas Tech in the Cotton Bowl
Texas-Utah in the Holiday Bowl
Alabama-USC in the Gator Bowl
Every one a spectacular game. The next round could feature Oklahoma and Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, Florida and Texas in the Rose Bowl, and then if they earned it by getting through it all, Oklahoma and Florida could finally meet the second week of January in the championship game (which needs a name like the Ultimate Bowl, the Diamond Bowl, or at least the Champion Bowl). That would be a championship game they deserved.
In the words of Susie Derkins, as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony.
* Unlike most people, I don't support changing the Big 12's three-way tiebreaker that put Oklahoma instead of Texas into the Big 12 title game (a simple referral to the BCS standings). It's designed to give the league its best possible chance to have a team play for the national title by allowing its highest rated team play for the conference championship. The SEC's tiebreaker, which just refers to the BCS standings to throw out the lowest of the three tied teams and then reverts to head-to-head results between the top two, could create some even uglier scenarios. Imagine if Texas had lost a nonconference game or two. The SEC's tiebreaker would have sent them to the league championship game anyway, but they would have been ranked much lower and wouldn't have a chance at the national title.
Boise State Got Jobbed
Two-loss Ohio State received the final BCS at-large bid over an undefeated Boise State. When it comes down to the merits of the football, this is close to an outrage. Although Boise didn't play the toughest schedule in the country, they did beat the #17-ranked team (at the time) on the road and didn't lose a game to anyone. Ohio State, on the other hand, lost to two very good ranked teams and their best win was at Michigan State, ranked #20 at the time. The reason for their selection is obvious: Ohio State will put more butts in seats than Boise will. That is the one and only reason, pure and simple, and it's no use complaining about it. What we should complain about is that the system cares more about butts in seats than it does about rewarding excellence on the field.
The silver lining for Boise State is that it gets a very good bowl match-up against TCU in the Poinsettia Bowl. This will be the best of the non-BCS bowls, and it will certainly be better than at least the Orange Bowl and maybe the Rose Bowl and Fiesta Bowl too. But I was hoping this game wouldn't happen. I want both TCU and Boise State to win their bowl games. Ranked teams from the non-BCS conferences need to win in the postseason to shore up the strength of the anti-BCS argument. Now, one of these teams will have to lose, and will drop in the rankings and in national respect. And I don't know how to cheer. Do I cheer for TCU, so that the Mountain West Conference will put one more feather in its cap for the best season it's ever had? (Can you imagine if the MWC goes 5-0 against Alabama, Boise State, Arizona, Fresno State, and Houston?) Or do I cheer for Boise State, my unofficial second-favorite team, to remain undefeated and show that it can play with tough teams and that it really deserved a shot at something bigger? I might just watch the game as a dispassionate observer. But I definitely am watching it.
Roll Over the Tide
I think Utah got its ideal matchup against Alabama. Alabama is a (suddenly) elite team in the supposedly most powerful conference that spent a good deal of the season ranked #1. Yet they're vulnerable and they'll certainly be smarting from their loss to Florida in the SEC championship game which could lead to a case of "I-don't-really-want-to-be-here." The only problem for the Utes is that the crowd will likely favor Alabama. This Cougar fan will be cheering for the Utes (as, I must admit, I generally do when they're not playing BYU).
Not All One-Loss Teams Are Created Equal
Let's all just accept that there's a glass ceiling for non-BCS teams. Utah and Boise State had no hopes of rising any higher than #6 or so, and they didn't, regardless of their records. But I'm puzzled at the logic of the selections for the championship game. There are a lot of one-loss teams from BCS conferences that could make a case that they should be in. And as it always seems to be, the teams whose one loss occurred earlier in the season fared the best. That's the only explanation why Florida, which lost in September at home to an unranked team gets in over Texas, which lost on the road in November to the then-#7 team in the country. Or Alabama, which lost at a neutral site to the #4 team. OK, you may say, but Texas and Alabama didn't even win their conferences,* and the head-to-head matchups between Texas and Oklahoma (would we really have wanted a rematch for the national title?) and between Alabama and Florida (called a de-facto semifinal) have to count for something. And that's so. But when you stack up their body of work over the season without regard to when the losses happened, you can make a pretty good case that Alabama, Texas, Texas Tech, and even USC had a better season than Florida. And Texas is clearly better than Oklahoma because they beat them. Can't we get a playoff?
How It Should Work
I stated at the beginning of the season that I would stop harping for a playoff that will never happen and instead simply advocate one simple rule change (that, incidentally, will also never happen): do away with any automatic bids to BCS games. Instead, I wish they would just select the six highest-ranked conference champions and then fill the games out with at-large selections. I also wish the at-large teams were the four highest-ranked non-conference-champions, regardless of the butts-in-seats factor. Under that scenario, we'd actually have the same scenario we currently have, except Boise State (WAC Champ) and Texas Tech (third-highest ranked non-champion, after Texas and Alabama, which did get at-large bids in real life) would be playing in the Orange Bowl instead of the crappy Cincinnati-Virginia Tech game no one wants to see. (See, the Big East and ACC's automatic bids would be usurped by Utah and Boise State, since the MWC and WAC champions were ranked higher.)
If you want to keep the current rule that no single conference can send more than two teams to the BCS (and I can see the logic in that rule), then TCU, as the fifth-highest-ranked non-conference-champion, would take Texas Tech's place against Boise State, who, incidentally, they are playing in the Poinsettia Bowl. So I guess this year things did work out pretty well. I just have to pretend that the Poinsettia Bowl is a BCS game and the Orange Bowl isn't.
All that said, my ideal scenario would be a 16-team playoff including all 11 conference champions and five at-large bids (again, the five highest-ranked non-conference-champions). Seed according to the BCS standings (and in this scenario, I say it's OK to allow as many teams from one conference as deserve it). Play the first round at the higher-ranked team's home field the week after the conference championship games and then use bowl games for the eight winners. Here's how it would look this year:
#16 Buffalo (MAC Champ) at #1 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ)
#15 Troy (Sun Belt Champ) at #2 Florida (SEC Champ)
# 14 East Carolina (C-USA Champ) at #3 Texas (At-large)
#13 Virginia Tech (ACC Champ) at #4 Alabama (At-large)
#12 Cincinnati (Big East Champ) at #5 USC (Pac-10 Champ)
#11 TCU (At-large) at #6 Utah (MWC Champ)
#10 Ohio State (At-large) at #7 Texas Tech (At-large)
#9 Boise State (WAC Champ) at #8 Penn State (Big 10 Champ)
Who wouldn't love to see that? The only downside to these results is that TCU already played and lost at Utah. Assuming all the higher seeds win in the first round (which in college football is never a given - that's why we like it so much), the losers could go play their regular bowl games, and you'd then have:
Oklahoma-Penn State in the Orange Bowl
Florida-Texas Tech in the Cotton Bowl
Texas-Utah in the Holiday Bowl
Alabama-USC in the Gator Bowl
Every one a spectacular game. The next round could feature Oklahoma and Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, Florida and Texas in the Rose Bowl, and then if they earned it by getting through it all, Oklahoma and Florida could finally meet the second week of January in the championship game (which needs a name like the Ultimate Bowl, the Diamond Bowl, or at least the Champion Bowl). That would be a championship game they deserved.
In the words of Susie Derkins, as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony.
* Unlike most people, I don't support changing the Big 12's three-way tiebreaker that put Oklahoma instead of Texas into the Big 12 title game (a simple referral to the BCS standings). It's designed to give the league its best possible chance to have a team play for the national title by allowing its highest rated team play for the conference championship. The SEC's tiebreaker, which just refers to the BCS standings to throw out the lowest of the three tied teams and then reverts to head-to-head results between the top two, could create some even uglier scenarios. Imagine if Texas had lost a nonconference game or two. The SEC's tiebreaker would have sent them to the league championship game anyway, but they would have been ranked much lower and wouldn't have a chance at the national title.
Comments: Post a Comment
