With the tumult of the past week of college football, and still two more weeks to go, I've been thinking about the BCS, and wondering what it all means, and if it really does work.
1.) How accurate are rankings?
This point is brought up largely due to Virginia Tech's #5 ranking. Kirk Herbstreit ripped it pretty well during ESPN's BCS Countdown show on Sunday. And he had some good points. I've seen every Tech game this year. They haven't played the greatest, and it's really hard to think of them as the second-best team outside of the SEC. Other than blowing out Appalachian State in week 1, none of their games have really gone as expected. But if we have rankings, they have to be ranked somewhere, and a 10-1 record is hard to put on the low end of the list. Plus, four teams ahead of Tech lost last weekend. Where else can Tech go?
The points that Herbstreit brought up that got me thinking, though, were his analysis of the rankings and the polls. How can the polls be accurate in the first place? I find it hard to believe that the coaches are able to see much more than highlight reels of the other 119 teams in the FBS. They're too busy coaching and getting ready for their next game. So, how are they able to objectively rank teams? There's still a lot of reputation and impression that go into the polls. Plus, the polls and rankings during the season are still largely informed by the preseason polls. And preseason rankings are completely arbitrary.
Is there anyway to get a fair poll? Probably not. I don't think you can find a large enough sample group of people with proper credibility who can pay enough attention to every team and objectively rank. I certainly don't want ESPN to be in charge of the rankings, because they're going to be skewing them for ratings. The computers can't be completely relied on, either. I feel that keeping a human element to the rankings adds a touch of finesse that the computers alone can't provide.
2.) The BCS claims that #1 and #2 have played each other 12 times in 12 years.
Okay, that's a fair statement. Until you think about how those numbers have been manipulated. And would the BCS really allow a team they didn't think was #1 or #2 to play in the game? So, ultimately that turns into one of those "well, duh" moments.
How are #1 and #2 determined, and how do they set themselves apart from #3 and lower? In a perfect season, there's only 2 undefeated teams, and it's easy.
But some years, there's more than 2 undefeated teams. Let's look at the 2004 season. USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn were undefeated, and sitting at 1, 2, and 3, respectively. How does one determine which two out of those three makes it to the BCS Championship game? (Yes, there were 2 non-AQ teams also undefeated, but they're non-AQ for a reason, so let's just drop that argument for now.) USC and Oklahoma went to the title game, and Oklahoma got blown out.
Meanwhile, Auburn beat Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl in what appeared to be a close game by the final score. VT had two losses that year - they opened the year with a loss to #1 USC and then lost by one point in conference to NC State. So, they were a fairly strong team that deserved their high ranking that year. But, the Sugar Bowl was fairly one-sided in the first three quarters as Auburn put up 16 points. VT came back with 13 points in the final quarter. My point here is that things don't seem as cut and dry as they might look on paper.
After the bowls, USC was #1 and Auburn was #2 - both undefeated. We still don't know who the better of those two teams was.
The BCS puts #1 and #2 together, but who gets left out? As Brad Edwards pointed out on Monday's edition of the Scott Van Pelt Show (ESPN Radio and ESPNEWS), all the BCS really did was bring the Big Ten and Pac-10/12 into the mix and force the Rose Bowl to cooperate.
3.) College football has the most meaningful regular season and the entire season is a playoff.
True, sort of. But to use that logic that the entire season is a playoff, then why are we sitting here at the end of November pondering the possibility of an LSU-Alabama rematch in the title game? If the season is a playoff, then Alabama should be out of it as long as LSU is sitting at the top, regardless of how they do the rest of the season.
Playoffs wouldn't diminish the regular season, as long as you kept them small. And playoffs don't mean the bowls have to go away. There's still 30 some bowls after the BCS picks its teams. I don't understand that argument.
4.) Should you have to win your conference to play in the national championship?
This is not an official rule of the BCS, but it is brought up by fans a lot as a measuring stick. I believe it is a fair measuring stick, but I can imagine a few cases where that rule could be bypassed. If a team is undefeated and ranked #1 or #2 going into a conference title game and loses to the other division winner who is 8-4, should they be immediately eliminated? That's a case where you need to look at the entire scope of college football and who else is up in those top spots. I'm not campaigning for that team, but it's something to be considered.
I think the more fair rule should be that you should have to win your division (if in a two-division conference) and both teams in the national championship game can't be from the same conference.
After all, of the LSU-Alabama-Arkansas trinity in the SEC West, I don't think it's fair for one of those teams to have to play a 13th game, potentially lose, and then one of those other two teams can jump up and take their spot in the BCS title game.
5.) There's too many teams to not have some sort of playoff.
This year, we have gotten spoiled with a lot of top out of conference games that have had championship implications, or at least we thought they did at the time. But not every team is going to have that big marquee matchup. Sometimes, they happen by accident by virtue of the games being scheduled years in advance.
But when most teams only have 3 or 4 out of conference games, they're not going to schedule all big name teams. They need to have one cupcake in there to either work out the kinks or get a breather (in theory). Even LSU's mighty schedule which included a neutral site game against Oregon and an away game at West Virginia, includes Northwestern State (who?), and Western Kentucky (a popular favorite for cupcake scheduling among the AQ conferences).
With 120 FBS teams, and only 12 games on the schedule for each one, there's not enough overlap on the schedule. Ultimately, you can't guarantee enough teams getting knocked off during the season to just put two teams in the title game.
6.) Everyone would rather decide things on the field.
This point can work as a argument for several other points.
We've seen LSU beat Alabama and Oregon. Therefore, we don't need to see a rematch. Even if one of those two losing teams ends up at #2, then they should be skipped.
Likewise, don't manipulate the numbers to try to create a rematch. I still disagree with Alabama only dropping one spot after losing to LSU. And then, if we have three undefeated teams, or three teams equally qualified for #2, let's find a way to figure it out on the field.
No comments:
Post a Comment