Bull-Conference-Shit

Why, BCS, Why?

Pretty much, unless Missouri decided to win the Big 12 somehow, everyone knew the title game was going to be Oklahoma-SEC. So why the hell is every sporting related talking head patting the bcs's back? Meh, that's another issue.

The real issue is -- how can one decide who actually gets to play for the title when there are 9 teams with one loss or less, two of which are undefeated (albeit in "non-bcs" conferences).

An even bigger issue -- two of these teams aren't even playing in a BCS bowl game. Texas Tech gets excluded because of the two-per conference rule, so being the lowest ranked team of those three, no dice. Fair enough, I mean, one wouldn't want a particular conference dominating the top tier bowls, unless its the SEC, cos we all know how awesome the SEC is, case in point two weekends ago when the entire SEC got beaten up by the ACC in rivalry games, with the exception of Florida(the ACC rep for the BCS has 4 losses, think about that for a little bit). The other team left out was Boise State. Apparently winning all your games doesn't guarantee you anything (even including a win against #17 Oregon, and 7 win Hawaii, Fresno State, and Nevada).

Here's something I bet you didn't know. Heading into the SEC championship game, undefeated Alabama had an easier schedule than both Utah and Boise State. Now, after the SEC championship game, this would probably have changed, but the bulk of the season has been played, so not by much. What does this mean -- playing in tougher conferences does not guarantee a tougher schedule. The argument BCS conference teams play tougher teams week in and week out does not carry nearly as much weight as it once had.

The thing that really baffles me is how Ohio State got a BCS bid. Now granted, I am not looking at this from a business perspective, as this is AMATEUR SPORTS (yeah, none of these players gets paid a dime from the Universities or NCAA). But they were actually ranked lower than Boise State, and have two losses. Their only actual impressive win was over #20 Michigan State. Their only hard non-conference game was against USC (where they were not only beaten, but humiliated) -- the other three games were against Ohio, Youngstown State, and Troy -- of which only did Youngstown State get beaten as they should have.

And this is just this week in the BCS. Last week, it cost Texas a shot to play for the title. Now, because they hadn't won their conference, they shouldn't be able to play for a title (even though they were robbed of the opportunity). But it still stands that there were 6 teams that won their conference with one loss or less -- including the two undefeated non-bcs teams. Assuming a non-bcs team can never play for a title, how do we still pick amongst the four others? Was Penn State's loss to Iowa really any different than Florida's loss to Ole Miss (at home), or USC's loss to Oregon State, or even Oklahoma's loss at Texas? Were Florida and Oklahoma picked because they like to run of the score and posses gaudy offensive numbers? Penn State and USC had gaudy defensive numbers. They also knew when to put the second string in and call off the dogs. Was the SEC really that much stronger than the Big Ten or Pac-10?

So don't even say the BCS got it right (which an ESPN poll showed 52% of voters agreed with). Don't worry, they're not too bright. The same poll said 60% thought Texas was most ripped off by the BCS -- when the crime against Texas happenned two weeks ago, and was a result of something like the fifth tie-breaker to see who plays in the Big 12 "conference" title game -- not a BCS game. ESPN's bias towards a bowl system is already becoming apparent, though I don't think the coverage deal even covers this year.

You know how this could be fixed. A playoff. Oh, and it would work so well this year.
Florida - SEC
Oklahoma - Big 12
Penn State - Big 10
USC - Pac 10
Cincinatti - Big East
Va Tech - ACC
Utah/Boise State/Alabama/Texas/Texas Tech/Ohio State - at large, depending on how many.

But oh well, this is merely a pipe dream. I think the winner of the Rose Bowl should be given a partial share of the national title anyway, just for good measure.

-- Knuttel