Weekly Target...Of Hate!!! -- The BCS
After a little holiday hiatus, we're back in full effect -- and while this diatribe might appear to be a big wet bowl of sour grapes on the heels of the ass-whoopin' USC just put on the Irish, it's an indictment that was coming regardless (and I know Bubba's rant will be just as thorough).
The Bowl Championship Series was allegedly set up to match the top two teams in the country, and nothing else. The one thing this farce of an alliance accomplished was the removal of conference red tape (more on the Big Ten and why they suck coming shortly) -- but that's about it. Proponents of the system will point to this year's likely Ohio State-Miami matchup and say that the system worked...but how hard is it to say, "gee, there's two unbeaten teams...maybe they should be the two that play for the title?"
In reality, the system is beyond flawed, and it needs to go, if for no other reason than the fact that its own backers contradict themselves on an hourly basis -- especially in cases concerning the Fighting Irish. Cracks in the armor were fully exposed last year, when we had one unbeaten and a handful of also-rans. Nebraska, fresh off a 40-point loss in their season finale, went to the title game despite not even winning a spot in their own CONFERENCE championship. The team that beat them, Colorado, had two losses and no room to gripe, but Oregon had one loss and a VERY legit beef. No one was happy.
If Miami loses, it'll be the same thing this year. Iowa, Georgia and Miami will all have one loss, while the nation's hottest team, USC, has two losses but may wind up ahead of all the others in the BCS computers by the time it's all said and done. If things aren't sorted out neatly (read: two, and only two, perfect teams), the BCS winds up with a mess. Granted, OSU would be stuck in the Rose under the old system, but one step forward doesn't mean we've found a solution. Not at all.
The bigger problems come within the "other" BCS games -- the Orange, Sugar and Rose in this year's case. Notre Dame, should they finish in the BCS top 12, will be eligible for one of the two at-large bids, and the Orange Bowl has already said they'd love to have us. However...ND's bid could come at the expense of the Trojans, who just backhand bitch-slapped us in front of the whole nation (with Orange reps in attendance, mind you). If the Irish take an at-large and USC goes to the Holiday Bowl (a VERY likely scenario, by the way), you'll hear complaining from here to the shores of Madagascar about it.
And no one will have an explanation. The BCS is a compromise that keeps the bowl people in power, and by giving them the freedom to choose, they've shot themselves in the left nut. Bowls care about money -- and NO school is a bigger draw than ND. The guidelines are there -- if the Irish are top 6, they're an automatic, and if they're top 12, they're eligible (translation: automatic). More than likely, ND will meet those prerequisites. It won't matter that USC is clearly better than us right now -- our fans will travel to Miami AND generate TV ratings. USC will do neither.
In the past, I'd apologize for taking the bid from a more deserving team -- but in this case, ND wouldn't be the least deserving team. There's still a chance that 9-3 Arkansas could lock up an automatic bid by beating Georgia next week. Colorado, also at 9-3, can go by beating Oklahoma, and Florida State -- which beat Florida today to avoid a FIFTH loss -- is ALREADY in by "virtue" of winning the ACC. ND beat Florida State handily IN TALLAHASSEE, and we've got half as many losses against a better schedule. USC gets shut out, and I'll feel bad -- but I won't apologize, because we're not the least deserving BCS team.
Here's the thing -- the people who conjured the BCS (conference chiefs and bowl reps) decided to come up with a solution that guarantees each of them get paid no matter what. Conferences are against a playoff because hey, there's no guaranteed money depending on what happens in a given year. Bowls don't want a playoff because it would diminish their role and take money away from them. Everyone with a financial motivation wants to keep the bowls. NO ONE ELSE DOES.
The biggest anti-playoff guy in America is Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, who also doubles as the biggest jackass in sports this side of Don King. He wants a playoff as badly as Charlton Heston wants anti-gun legislation or Bush wants to avoid war with Iraq. Strangely enough, he'd be the biggest winner this year. In an eight-team playoff, Iowa and Ohio State would both make the cut this year, and Delany would get to run his greasy fingers through all of that money. But since the bulk of playoff shares would likely have to be EARNED on the field, Delany wants no part of it. He'll take the guaranteed $26 million that the BCS will pay the Buckeyes and Hawkeyes just for showing up.
These same greaseballs who don't want the title settled via playoff will complain about ND's BCS bid because we "don't deserve it" or we "didn't EARN IT ON THE FIELD." Yet the main reason they don't want a playoff is because there wouldn't be automatic bids or guaranteed money. They invited ND into their little circle because of money -- yet they'll bitch when we take it because we're not sharing it with them.
As long as bowls have power, ND will have power, because bowl reps want a Sea of Green -- as in MONEY. We provide that like no one else. So don't blame the Irish when they accept an Orange Bowl bid that you feel should go to USC. Blame the conference honchos for a) inviting us in; b) keeping bowl reps in power; and c) setting up a flawed system just so that they get paid no matter what. If FSU gets a bid, ND shouldn't apologize for shit.
The system "worked" this year (assuming Miami wins out). But any system would work when there are only two unbeaten teams. It's not hard to set that up. The BCS is about money, and money only -- which is why it's fitting that USC will probably get shafted in favor of ND just one week after waxing our ass.
An eight- or 16-team playoff would be very feasible (it works in Division I-AA, II and III), and the bowls could be incorporated into it. The lesser bowls could stick around as an NIT of sorts for teams that didn't make the cut. Everyone would be happy, and I wouldn't have to group Division I-A in with BOXING as the only sport where the titles are decided as much by money and politics as performance.
The RPI is used as a tool in college basketball to help the selection committee pick the most deserving teams, and the BCS formula (minus the polls, of course, which should have NO place in determining anything) could be used the same way. Use it as a guideline, and let the committee pick 8 or 16 teams. It works in every other NCAA sport, and NO ONE complains. With 16 teams, you could even keep the automatic bids. Shit, give 'em to the WAC and C-USA, too. Conferences get paid, and bowls get paid -- and most importantly, we get to settle this shit on the field once and for all.
Until that happens, NO ONE can talk to me about Notre Dame not deserving a BCS spot...because the system allowed it to be given to us. We held up our end of the deal -- nine wins, and a top-12 ranking. Don't get mad for taking money that people are handing out to us. We're not dumb. It's the same reason we didn't join a conference in football -- why give money away if you don't have to? If someone handed you $13 million, would you say, "no thanks, I don't deserve this?" Fuckdatnaw.
Don't hate the Irish. Hate the system. Write Jim Delany, and tell him that he and his conference commissioner friends are a bunch of duplicitous greaseballs. Division I-A college football could be a great thing, but right now it's one step above boxing -- and even Don King has as much integrity as Delany, who's making a farce of the game.
A playoff would NOT ruin the regular season -- teams have a shot at the title with one loss NOW. The only thing it would do is open it back up to teams that had one off day -- much like a team with 13 losses still has a chance to win the College World Series or the Final Four. If it's gripes about final exams and stuff -- explain how it works at EVERY OTHER NCAA LEVEL, at schools where academics usually are more important than football (if no one's bitching at Williams, I doubt it would create much fuss at a school like Texas where only 57 percent of athletes graduate). If we're complaining about the season being too long and kids being abused, why did we just allow teams to start playing THIRTEEN regular-season games? Cut it to 9 or 10, then start the playoffs in early to mid-November. It's been known to work in both college and high school for years.
You'll all hate on ND in a week when we take money from some team that "earned it on the field." Before you do, however, take a look at the system that allows it to happen -- the one where the vote of some fat sportswriter who sees maybe three contenders in person all year STILL helps decide a team's fate. They're the ones handing money to us -- and a certain four-loss team in Florida that we sodomized last month. There might be no one with more to gain from the current system than the Irish -- and I still want to see it change.
We'll get the game we were supposed to get this year -- but don't be stupid. It happened by default. The BCS is not the solution.
It's the biggest problem in any sport that Mike Tyson doesn't compete in.
-- O
1:25:27 AM 
|
