[NU Sports] BCS ...

[sjtruog at jorsm.com]

> OK, while I empathize with Auburn, I still have to ask the question: In
> the absence of a playoff, how do you resolve this issue?

Just because the old system and the present system both spit out the same
bogus results doesn't mean you have to pick one or the other. There has to
be a better way, and Urban Meyer pretty much said that everyone knows what
to do but they're afraid to say it -- playoff. That would start with some
kind of "plus one" format and escalate to the four BCS games pitted as
seeded contests between the top eight.

But again, if we have to pick either/or between present and old ... I'll
vote for the old system. We'd get a Pac 10/Big Ten Rose Bowl instead of
having more Big XII teams in it than other leagues the last four years
(Past four years: Big XII = 3 teams, Pac 10 and Big Ten = 2 teams, Big
East = 1 team?!?!). The current mess isn't helping -- five of the seven
years, it has failed in some way. This "well, it was set in place to break
the tie" didn't hold up last year and shouldn't this year.

Yeah, in the old one, you'd probably have the three main unbeatens to
separate bowls ... but there'd be some fun in watching a New Year's Day
where USC faced Michigan, followed by OU vs. Utah in Miami and Auburn vs.
Texas at night. Now on Jan. 1, we get a non-traditional Rose Bowl followed
by Utah vs. Pitt. Yippee.

> Since it's only one game and two teams, I think it's better that the
> formula is out there in public for all to see before the season
> starts.  Can you imagine the uproar if a "selection committee" decided

Why not? It's worked well in basketball. Yeah, there's some controversy
every year, but not the stupid kind like the BCS contains (the NCAA
pairings get people talking and is fun controversy that disappears when
games start ... the BCS is frustrating and keeps lingering to next year as
an annoyance like something everyone realizes is broken but no one wants
to fix). A committee could take into effect things like BCS rankings,
strength of schedule, quality wins, performance down the stretch, etc.
Right now, we basically have SC vs. OU because SC and OU were #1 and #2 in
preseason and Auburn was #18 or #20.

Can you make a case to exclude OU or SC? Probably not. But you can sure
make a case for including an unbeaten SEC team that's defeated three top
10 teams and only had one close call ... back in September. A team that's
been dominant on offense and defense and been consistent week after week.
If that takes "plus one" or committee seeding, fine -- look at the seven
BCS years and it's far easier to find four deserving teams than to limit
it to just two.

And I'm not so sure, Mike, that it'd be SC and Oklahoma either way ...
Auburn is solid all around and could give either a great game. As it is,
I'm really not expecting the Orange Bowl to be close. Oklahoma's defense
was exposed at the end of the season and with a month to prepare, Chow and
Leinhardt are gonna pick 'em apart.

> So given the above stated basic assumption of the BCS, including the
> implication that a playoff is out of the question, I challenge anyone to
> come up with something better.

Like I said, I don't think you have to pick Bad Option I *OR* Bad Option
II ... why not aim higher? But if you did, I'd still take traditional
bowls so January 1 and the whole bowl season is exciting and means
something.

But if you want to reform the B(C)S, a couple suggestions ...

- Get rid of the Big East's automatic bid ... seriously, is anyone
surprised they're the weak link in the chain after Miami and VaTech left?
Even with the addition of Louisville, this is still the weakest of the six
leagues and there are some others just as deserving. Since the new deal
shares money more equally with non BCS leagues, remove the autobid
requirement for teams that aren't in the top 12 of the BCS. If they're in
the top 12, then fine.

- Institute a selection committee of conference and bowl reps to decide
the BCS bowls. They will take polls, computer rankings and everything else
into advisement, and the BCS Poll can still be used to determine who gets
a bid, but let someone with sense decide matchups, so we could at least
have Auburn  vs. Utah this year. Or avoid things like the Miami-FSU
rematch (ugly game) last year ... the coaches didn't want it, the bowls
didn't want it, but they were stuck with it.

- Add some requirement about winning a league title as necessary for being
in the title game -- that it's happened twice and no one has done anything
yet shows how ineffective all these tinkerings have been.

- And I like your idea of 50% poll and 50% computer for the formula ...
but they need to also factor in things like SOS and quality wins that they
took out (hence the committee) ... and as unlikely as it is, get the polls
to wait for September at least before releasing official rankings (and
make sure these coaches are watching games!)

Put those in this year and you'd have ...

ROSE: Michigan vs. Cal - Pasadena's happy, great game (and sorry Jim, but
I think Texas is a much tougher matchup for Michigan than Cal)
FIESTA: Virginia Tech vs. Texas - Good game and fans thrilled to be in BCS
SUGAR: Auburn vs. Utah - The "other" unbeatens
ORANGE: Oklahoma vs. USC - Our "title" game

- And a "plus one" format couldn't hurt ... it'd be easy to implement and
could pave the way to a playoff later.

If that happened, you'd probably swap Texas and Utah, having the Trojans
and Longhorns hook up and the Tigers and Sooners. Though the committee
might overrule the rankings and let the four unbeatens duke it out with
USC vs. Utah and Auburn vs. Oklahoma. Winners meet for a real title the
bye week before the Super Bowl.

Would that have controversy (Texas or Utah as #4)? Yes ... but it produces
a better bowl slate either way and the controversy ends when the games are
played. Texas or Utah would be happy with the BCS bid either way. And if
you went straight polls, Cal vs. SC as the 1/4 would be a great rematch.

I love college football - it's still far more exciting than any other
sport and the regular season does indeed mean more than anywhere else ...
I like controversy and discussion as much as the next guy. But like I
said, the BCS isn't generating the fun buzz March Madness does. It's more
of an annoying visit from an unwelcome guest every year that keeps getting
worse with age. It prompts more "how stupid is that?!" comments than
anything else. It's happened five of seven years ... they just got lucky
with the unbeaten team winning the first few times against the 1-loss foe
... but now there's two straight years of a three-way mess at the top.
That's not a freak nightmare anymore ... it's becoming reality. They're
killing the fun in the college football postseason and I dunno how much
more the sport can take.

GO CATS!!!
-SjT