[NU Sports] Re: Utah and the playoff ...

[Eric West]

Arthur Miller wrote:
> I think the article is ridiculous.  Everyone's a victim, it seems.  Well, I'm not buying the argument that a 12-0 team is always better than a 12-1 team.
>   
There's nothing in the article that makes that argument, nor does it 
claim that "everyone is a victim" (whatever that's supposed to mean). I 
do happen to think Feinstein is ridiculous to claim that the best reason 
to vote Utah #1 is the statement it would make (Utah's accomplishments 
are far better reasons to do so), but otherwise the column makes strong 
points.

[Miller also wrote]
> If you ask me, the BCS conferences need to separate from the rest of I-A and form our own football subdivision.  There are too many teams in I-A as it is, and this a large part of the difficulty in finding an equitable way of determining a champion.  As a general rule, the BCS programs were playing football 100 years ago, and made this sport into the incredible spectacle that it is today.  Why should they have to share revenues with programs like Buffalo and Central Florida that have been in I-A for only a few years?
>   
Inaccuracies aside (plenty of current BCS-conference teams weren't 
playing 100 years ago, and plenty of non-BCS teams were, as if that 
really had anything to do with anything), such a separation could be a 
great idea, if only the BCS conferences actually wanted it. They are all 
too happy considering the MAC and the Sun Belt to be part of FBS when it 
comes to gaining a winning record and bowl eligibility. I'd love to see 
what the top teams would do if they couldn't schedule the Citadels and 
Louisiana-Lafayettes of the world (both of whom were playing football 
100 years ago, by the way), but virtually no one is putting their 
schedule with their mouth is. It's simply disingenuous to claim that 
anyone outside six particular conferences should be thought of as 
"separate" from those who are currently in.

As for the "too many" argument: every other football division and 
subdivision has found an equitable way of determining a champion despite 
having far more teams than the 119/120-strong FBS. One need only look at 
basketball to see that the BCS conferences are hardly suffering by 
"sharing" their revenues with 25 other conferences, so it's strange to 
see someone complain about the possibility of sharing with five for 
football.

I don't blame the BCS powers-that-be for liking the current system: 
they're having their cake and eating it too. In the sense that the 
fatcats are getting lots and lots of money, one can even claim that the 
BCS is wildly successful. I'm not going to pretend that it leads to 
great football on the field, though, and I don't see why anyone else 
should either.


Eric West
e-west at northwestern.edu