As I'm writing this, I'm watching a lethargic, beat-up Texas Tech team being beat down by a 4-7 Baylor team.
And I'm loving it.
Why? Don't I want the craziness of the three-way tie? The answer to that is duh. I'd love to see a three-way tie in the Big XII South, see the BCS haters come out in full force when Texas gets passed (wrongly) by Oklahoma and Oklahoma plays the SEC Champion in the BCS Championship Game.
However, it just wouldn't be satisfying.
Texas beat Oklahoma. I don't care what each team did to Texas Tech, (And in about an hour, it might not even matter) that makes Texas the better team. The subjectivity of the AP Poll and the USA Today poll are going to screw Texas because Oklahoma got hot at the right time. Anyone else think that's wrong? Anyone else think it's wrong to completely ignore the fact that Texas started out a three game winning streak over top 11 opponents by beating NUMBER 1 Oklahoma? On a neutral field? That Oklahoma hasn't had a stretch that was nearly that hard, and that even though they've put up 58+ in each of their last four games, it was against Kansas State, Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech? Texas has plain and simple had a tougher schedule in the Big XII.
When Texas played Texas Tech, they were coming off that three game, three top 11 team stretch. They lost on the LAST PLAY. In Lubbock. When Oklahoma played Texas Tech, they were coming off of a three game stretch where they played K-State, Nebraska, and Texas A&M. Combined record? 17-19. Tell me which is going to be harder to play a team. Coming off three tough games, capping it off with a road game, or coming off three cake games, playing TT at home?
None of that might even matter. Texas Tech is losing to Baylor, which would eliminate the three-way tie and give Texas the South Title by way of beating Oklahoma head-to-head. May not be as interesting, but it sure as hell gets the job done.
The whole situation that we're seeing now in the Big XII brings up an even bigger problem in college football as a whole. Pollsters.
Jason Whitlock brought up a great point about the qualifications of pollsters in a recent article on foxsports.com (http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/8853534) which didn't necessarily deal with BCS conferences, but the stupidity of some of the voters, notably Chris Fowler. If you're dropping Ball State out of your top 25, why should we listen to who you have in the top 5? Hell, he probably still has Texas Tech in the top 5 over USC.
We ask for parity in every sport we watch, why don't we ask for parity OFF the field as well? Why is it that we get our rankings from computers AND humans? Eliminate one or the other. Get rid of the computers. They don't watch the game. They'll reward blowouts. But wait, then you run into the bias of humans. You get the bias towards the team that's hot now rather than the team that's been hot the entire year. And that's why polls are entirely meaningless, especially with the conference championship games.
I heard Mack Brown talking about this earlier this afternoon, and he brought up a great point. The polls are completely meaningless when teams aren't playing the same amount of games. The Big Ten doesn't have a conference championship, neither does the Pac-10 or the Big East. What significance does that have? If we get upsets galore this week and in the conference championships, I'm talking OSU beats Oklahoma, Florida loses to Florida State, Auburn beats Alabama, TT loses to Baylor, Mizzou beats Texas, you have USC, Utah, and Penn State waiting in the wings to go to the National Championship. Why? They don't have a conference championship, so no matter what these other teams do, they aren't going to drop more than 1 spot, but they can move up all the way to the top without playing a single game.
Universalize ONE system in college football. Either force all conferences to have a championship game or eliminate them altogether. In the Big XII this year, it's an unnecessary gamble. The conventional wisdom is that any of the three teams in the South could beat Mizzou by 70, but what happens when Chase Daniel and Jeremy Maclin go crazy and beat Oklahoma by 10? Texas goes to the National Championship, Texas Tech still doesn't go to the BCS.
The system's broke, and a playoff isn't necessarily the fix. It's going to be no better than the BCS. Say you take the six BCS conference champions and then two wild cards. How do you determine the wild cards? BCS Rankings? You're going to get into an even bigger mess. It'll be exactly like the BCS, perfect some years, controversy others.
Bottom line here is that Texas is going to be wronged by the voters, and Mizzou will be the only one that can change that, at Texas Tech's expense.
--SS
Taylor Walker
Cintia Dicker
Did You See That?
College Football Top 25 Review
Comments (5) Add A Comment
Nice work SS.
Interesting point - a lack in the selection process doesn't necessarily make the BCS wrong.
I have wondered if it wouldn't be a better idea to have the 4 at large teams and the selection for the title made in a similar process as the NCAAB is seeded. They look at everything and generally seem to do a decent job at the top.
Then again I have never done much more than give it a passing thought.
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6723)
I'm also hoping for gridlock at the top of the polls.
I never look forward to all the inferiority-complex-filled homers whining that 'they' got screwed, but at least it continues to expose the BCS for what it really is. The most 'profitable' system - not the fairest system.
YODA
Total Comments (16866)
I forgot. If Oklahoma State pulls the upset, Texas Tech wins the South...
Bedlam.
SS-Our Universe...
The Best City In, MN
Total Comments (8868)
If we accept the premise that these matters ought to be decided on the field, two things follow immediately:
(1) The North vs. South scheme in the Big 12 needs to be tossed. The top two teams in the league (this year that would be Texas and Oklahoma) ought to play for the Big 12 Championship.
(2) BCS needs to be tossed in favor of a playoff.
The easy way to do a playoff would be to keep all the bowls. Simply schedule the early rounds of the playoffs into the lesser bowls, and the later rounds into the major bowls. This year there are 34 bowls, so the NCAA simply picks the top 35 teams in the country by whatever scheme they consider to be fair. Three play-in games leaves 32 teams and 31 bowls. You then schedule the 32 teams into the 16 lesser bowls and play round 1, after which you have 15 bowls yet to be played and 16 teams that have not yet been eliminated. You schedule the 16 teams into 8 of the intermediate tier bowls and play round 2, after which you have 8 teams still standing and 7 unplayed bowls. Schedule those 8 teams into the lesser 4 of the remaining 7 bowls and play round 3, after which you have 4 teams and 3 bowls remaining. The 4 remaining teams play round 4 in the lesser 2 of the remaining 3 bowls, leaving two teams and 1 bowl. The last two teams play round 5 in the single remaining bowl, and the National Champion is determined.
It takes 5 rounds over 5 weeks, and is easily doable. Assuming Saturday games, the dates this year would be as follows.
Play-in games on Dec. 6, the same day as the conference championships. (Not a problem: the play-in teams could be picked before Dec. 6 and the other 29 teams after Dec. 6, since the play-in teams would be bubble teams not involved in a championship race.)
Round 1 on Dec. 13.
Round 2 on Dec. 20
Round 3 on Dec. 27.
Round 4 on Jan. 3.
Round 5 on Jan. 10.
That's all there is to it, and everybody would benefit: the bowl games would enjoy vastly increased status and interest, and thus would make more money; and this endless bickering about whether the BCS national champion is the best team in the country would be over.
OK, that's my two cents worth. Now let's hear the objections. :-)
Avatar
Brownwood , TX
Total Comments (1)
The problem I see with your system is that you only get 35 teams in bowl games instead of 68.
The bowl games should stay the way they are, as the 6-6, 7-5, 8-4, etc. teams haven't done anything to "undeserve" their right to postseason play.
I propose making all conferences 12 teams deep, forcing Notre Dame, Navy, and the other Independent who's escaping me right now, to either join a conference or become FCS schools. In order for this to work, one of the conferences needs to be disbanded (Sun Belt, WAC, or Mountain West) and those teams need to join other conferences for an even 10.
Then make the conference schedule 11 games, with an optional non-conference game.
What does this do? This gives you the 10 true conference champions.
Now you're left with a 4 week playoff.
7 v. 10, 8 v. 9 on Dec. 6
1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6, 4 vs. 5 on Dec. 13
Semis on Dec. 20
Final on Jan 1.
All of this would be in addition to the 29 non-BCS bowl games.
SS-Our Universe...
The Best City In, MN
Total Comments (8868)
Comment
Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.