[NU Sports] Maybe the Big Ten ...

[Eric West]

At 01:33 PM 12/4/2007, SjT (Stephen J. Truog) wrote:

>I know there are many arguments for LSU - but it does
>feel like someone is changing the rules at the end of
>the game here and I think a lot of people object to
>that on the basis of fair play. If we're going to
>abide by this messed up system, ride it out to the
>end. Normally, if you finish your season ranked #1 or
>#2, you're in the title game unless something unusual
>happens like #4 destroying #3 on national television.
>Common sense says that #7 shouldn't be able to jump up
>to #2 based on a 21-14 gift-wrapped win from Mr. Ainge
>against a team that was destroyed by both Florida and
>California this year.

I agree that it's unusual, but I would not call it "changing the rules." 
The pollsters have always been allowed to vote any way they like every 
week, changing their minds as much as they want. Frankly, I think it's 
refreshing that they feel free to re-evaluate the season at the end, while 
in past years so many of them would merely apply those silly "supermarket 
line" rules to the previous week's rankings. We can accuse them of laziness 
in allowing Georgia to rise above LSU, perhaps giving false hope to the 
Bulldogs (and we can accuse them of stupidity in allowing Virginia Tech to 
rise above LSU, because: come on), but I don't think any rules were 
changed. Those who live by the polls die by the polls.

>Chaos is fun, but this isn't chaos - it feels
>controlled - too much so for a game. The old system
>wasn't great, but at least you had interest in many
>bowls and you might wind up with some honest debate
>over #1 at the end of the season, especially one like
>this. This year and other BCS chaos years, it feels
>like they cut off the debate using an insane system
>and then force feed us who's #1. It doesn't feel like
>the debatable chaos and it doesn't feel like a
>satisfying playoff - just a hellish purgatory of
>nonsensical moves.

Maybe. I certainly wouldn't have liked to see #1 OSU in the Rose, #2 LSU in 
the Sugar, and #3 Oklahoma in the Orange, playing teams that would probably 
not be favored against them and giving us no real insight as to which team 
would win among them. At least this way we're getting AP #1 vs. AP #2, 
which has always been the goal of the BCS. Debate is fine, but I will 
always prefer matchups on the field to matchups on paper. (I also happen to 
be interested in each of the four other BCS bowl matchups, but I realize 
that might just be me.)

>Yeah, the regular season is awesome ... you can't
>convince me that adding a few rounds of playoffs would
>diminish that - it could only add to it. And the way
>it was had that same meaningful season and the grand
>tradition of bowls. The BCS is the worst of both
>worlds.

I certainly agree with you about playoffs; I would prefer them to any bowl 
system, including the BCS. (I would even go so far as to say that the 
"grand tradition" of bowl games isn't all it's cracked up to be, but that's 
a subject for another time.) I just don't think the BCS should be the 
scapegoat for problems that have existed since bowl games (and polls) were 
invented. This season would have chaos no matter who went to what bowl.

P.S. Good luck to Mark Murphy; let's hope Bienen can find another one like 
him; and hey, at least we didn't lose to Arkansas State....

---
Eric West
e-west at northwestern.edu