Like THIS gem from USENET:
"You sit there whining about Boise; why aren't you coming up with magic
theories about screw jobs on behalf of Auburn, you nutcase?"
Because Auburn's not one of the Elite Seven (the seven (previously referenced) schools which are the only seven to have played the BCS title game the last seven years). I find it difficult to believe that LSU won't defeat them next weekend. If something happens during that game which significantly benefits an Auburn victory, we'll revisit this.
Or THIS remark, elsewhere, from the same person:
"How many unbeatens are there right now, Mike?
Can they ALL be #1 right now?
Two responses:
First, there are ten unbeatens -- maximum of six will make it to the end of the year (LSU/Auburn winner, the Big XII champion between Oklahoma, Missouri, and Oklahoma State, Michigan State, Oregon, Boise, and the TCU/Utah winner).
Second, I'm pissing and moaning on Boise State because of one simple fact: They WILL get fucked -- in fact, my belief (after seeing today's numbers) is that an undefeated Boise State will be denied ANY BCS bowl appearance.
And all it would take is TCU jumping them.
Right now, the BCS appears to be two teams each from the Big Ten, Big XII, and SEC -- single teams from the other three conferences -- and ONE non-AQ.
In fact, it will be the FOURTH time that Boise State goes undefeated in the regular season in the last eight years, and is denied a BCS title berth.
At that point, it's time to reevaluate Boise State's position in college football. As in: welcome to FCS.
Any FBS team who is undefeated at the end of the regular season should play for the National Championship. If that means more than one game, so be it.
But I found something interesting which, of course, posters like the above-quoted will refuse to admit, because it invades their reality.
I found a post on Yahoo! Sports about one of the most-respected statisticians in football calling for a boycott of the BCS.
"Death to the BCS": Nonsense Rules
Listen to some of these quotes (from part of Chapter 11 of "Death to the BCS"), and tell me honestly whether you can believe this is a fair system:
First: "Take the actual computing itself. Every week, the six systems input scores, let the computers spit out the rankings and send them to the BCS. That’s it. Nobody at the BCS double-checks the rankings. Only one of the six, Wes Colley, makes his formula fully public. Which leaves five systems open for corruption with no safety net. Massey once admitted that if offered $1 million to doctor his standings, “It would take a lot of willpower to refuse that, to be sure.”"
Massey is still one of the six computers used in the BCS standings.
ESPN is paying $500,000,000 over the next four years ($125 million a year) for the exclusive broadcast rights to the BCS. You don't think they (who have a name interest in the Coaches' Poll -- one of the two polls used in the BCS rankings) would have a vested interest in who plays for the championship?
FIVE -- HUNDRED -- MILLION -- DOLLARS. Remember, they were the ones who actually "alerted" everybody that Boise was #1 going into this week, if they had an official BCS Ranking before today.
“It’s about respecting and accepting what the math tells you,” James said. “If it tells you Boise State is better than the teams that have the opportunity to play for the championship, what are you going to do?
“Well, if Boise State ever finishes first, they’ll change [the formula] a fourth time.”
James isn’t exaggerating. The BCS really has tweaked its formula three times. Its original version used computer rankings, human-poll rankings, a strength-of-schedule component, and number of losses. In 2001, the BCS added bonus points for quality wins. That wasn’t good enough, so in 2002, it changed its quality-win formula and removed margin of victory. And after USC ended 2004 at No. 1 in the AP poll despite not playing for the BCS championship, the whole BCS system was blown up to de-emphasize the computers."
And they have five hundred million reasons to do so. As compelling of a story as Boise State is, do you really believe that the powers that be have an interest in expanding the relevant championship level of college football beyond the four conferences which basically now control it?
Think: What sport is there, frankly, in which there are more than a handful of truly relevant teams to the championship?
Not baseball. With an occasional shuffling of the chairs, you might get the argument beyond the Yankees, the Phillies, and the Twins -- but, really, would that have included more than the Rays and the Giants, in this case?
Not basketball. David $tern has been doing his level best to exclude all but the chosen teams, such that, as Brian Tuohy once pointed out, at it's zenith, fully 70% of all NBA fans were Chicago Bulls/Michael Jordan fans.
(I feel sorry for the lot of you.)
Not football, at least not in the Goodell Era. You can't even really make the case that there are 12 playoff-worthy teams year to year. However, in most cases, the Preferred Teams are brought forward, one way or the other.
NA$CAR? Forget it! Five in a row for Jimmie Johnson, anybody? They might as well call it Hendrick-CAR -- and that's with that millstone who is riding the #88.
NHL? How many people really watch the NHL? And it's still only a few teams that are on top...
Point being: To be a sports fan, you are expected, as a matter of American social norm, to follow a very few teams in any given sport. And loathe for anyone who would blow up the process.
Remember my first precept of Rigging in Sports: If professional sports are nothing but a business, then any sports league would be out of their categorical mind to allow the games to be adjudicated fairly.
If sports are nothing but a business, then you start talking in terms of real dollars and cents. As many people who are enamored with Boise State (and TCU and Utah would be in this discussion too, until the two play): How much money would an Oklahoma National Championship bring the BCS' sponsors? The BCS' network (who again paid $500,000,000 for the rights to air the games)? The preferred conferences?
It is my firm belief that a Boise State BCS National Championship would blow up the BCS once and for all. We'd have a playoff, at that point.
Why? Consider the money in March Madness. Now consider how popular a college playoff would be, financially...
It just wouldn't be popular for all those 6-6 programs who get a bowl based on their reputation and fanbase's travelling ability.
No comments:
Post a Comment