This whole BCS thing has me gritting my teeth again. Some of these bowl outcomes were predetermined before the first snap, but there were a few surprises.
Rose Bowl: USC 49, Illinois 17
That's what you get for your precious Rose Bowl tie-ins, Big 10 and Pac-10 fans. A total sham of a game. The Grandaddy? Not this year.
I know everyone's in love with USC after that dominating performance, but let's not lose sight of the fact that Illinois was probably overrated due to that win over Ohio State. A fact made even more obvious after the Bucks were hammered by LSU in the BCS title game. How great would it have been to see Southern Cal vs. Georgia in this game?
Sugar Bowl: Georgia 41, Hawaii 10
I'm all for giving the little guy a chance, but the Warriors had no business being in this game. Our valued Hawaii readers here at FanHouse have pointed out Hawaii's ascendance under June Jones and that the accomplishments of their football team showcase their rich cultural heritage. True, Hawaii's a powerhouse in the WAC nowadays, and that is something to be proud of... but it is the WAC, not the Pac-10 or SEC.
Regardless, this is the game I enjoyed the least. Why? Because my interest in the outcome of the game diminished as my fear for the physical safety of Hawaii's players grew. We here at FanHouse have the highest respect and appreciation for the island's tradition (how 'bout that Haka!), and we love the underdog. Love him! Warriors fans, you have every right to be proud of your team. But on the flip side, hey... it's college football. Bring it or shut up. Mahalo.
Fiesta Bowl: West Virginia 48, Oklahoma 28
This was a reasonably fun game to watch... for a half. Certainly the overwhelming favorite, Oklahoma, was upset by a surprisingly speedy and effective Mountaineer squad. (Even despite losing head coach Rich Rodriguez to Michigan!) But blowouts do get boring. I didn't see the final quarter. I don't blame this one on the BCS. I think.
Orange Bowl: Kansas 24, Virginia Tech 21
This one surprised me, but then again you're talking about two of the weaker conferences in the country this year squaring off. In terms of glamor and appeal, the Orange Bowl was sorely lacking. It was kind of a close game, I guess. Did anyone watch it? Kansas and Virginia Tech fans don't count.
BCS Title Game: I'll admit it, I grew nervous about this game after Michigan beat the Gators in the Capital One bowl; I actually called for a 1-point win for the Bayou Bengals. LSU clearly had a more talented team going into the game, but would Les Miles be able to get his team razor-focused and ready to play? Turns out I shouldn't have worried. This game was, for all intents and purposes, over after LSU answered the Buckeyes' opening salvo with 31 unanswered points.
The BCS, Playoffs, and +1
So how do you feel about this year's bowl matchups? With the exception of the Rose Bowl, I feel as though the BCS worked more or less as advertised: we got #1 vs. #2 in New Orleans, we had an at-large opponent not named Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl, and Top 10 matchups involving West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kansas and Virginia Tech.
The problem, of course, is that although it 'worked', the system simply isn't very good, so neither was the final result. Between traditional bowl tie-ins (thanks for nothing, Rose Bowl!), corporate sponsors choosing teams based on their potential ROI rather than how good they might be, bowl politics and a mad-scientist formula which determines how a team is ranked, fans are more often than not robbed of an opportunity to see great postseason matchups.
Don't think I'm clamoring for a playoff. Please: I've studied this mess long enough to understand the business interests at the heart of college football easily trump what Joe Q. Football Fan and his buddies might want. Until we're all willing to stop paying for the product to get what we're asking for -- and trust me on this, none of us are -- we're not going to see a playoff. If anything, the controversy surrounding the BCS sweetens the pot for the suits making money on the whole deal.
Those suits love the current system. Love it. They're making money hand over fist. The universities aren't necessarily making a dime directly from their efforts -- a BCS appearance is often a break-even or lose-money proposition unless you're Notre Dame -- but the corporate sponsors, the bowls, and their supporting communities want it to stay status quo forever.
And it probably will. In all honesty, I don't think we'll ever see a true college football playoff in the fashion of the FCS or the NCAA basketball tournament. I've found it's easier to accept when you just decide to let it go.
It's important to remember that the current bowl system, and the BCS, isn't an entity. You can't call up the BCS on the telephone, or storm into their office building and demand to speak to the guy in charge. This system is a loose collection of hundreds of different entities, all with their own agendas and interests to protect. And it wasn't formed overnight: it took several generations of tweaking and twisting and turning and handshakes to get the "business" to this point. Things don't easily change, and when they do, it's only to make sure that the flow of greenbacks continues in the right direction and at the best rate possible. Do you think these people care about whether the right team is crowned a national champion? Their collective product -- college football's postseason -- is more successful now than it has ever been. You say playoff and they're not even listening. They couldn't care any less because business is great.
What I do think could work, eventually -- not this year, or next year, but maybe five or ten years from now -- is a +1 system. The +1 isn't perfect either, but it nicely fills almost all of the glaring holes left open by the current incarnation of the Bowl Championship Series. A +1 answers the problem of multiple undefeated teams vying for a championship slot, or in the case of the 2007 season, multiple defeated teams who all have reasonable claims to appear in the Big Game. Will someone always be left on the outside looking in? Yes, and that's too bad, but when you're talking about a total of 13, 14, or in the case of two teams under a hypothetical scenario like this one, 15 total games in a season, it's impossible to make everyone happy.
But even a +1 is a long shot.
The biggest problem, of course, is the set of "tradtional" bowl tie-ins. The Rose Bowl, in particular, doesn't want to see the Grandaddy become an "early round" bowl and the fear is that any type of playoff structure will diminish the importance of the event.
A fair concern for the Rose Bowl and the city of Pasadena to have, in my view.
If you'll recall, professional football attempted to run playoffs with a bowl type structure but crowds just weren't showing up for the games. Eventually the league went to a home-team stadium arrangement based on seeds from the regular season, and most of the professional bowls -- with the exception of 'Super' and 'Pro' -- died. Could that happen in college football? Well, if fans are unwilling to travel to a "playoff" bowl game and then turn right back around and fly to where the championship game is being held, then the answer is yes.
For proof, have a look in the stands at the regionals for the NCAA basketball tournament. Lots and lots of empty seats, even for the regional finals.
It's just too frightening a thought for the BCS, and the extended bowl system around it to bear. That's why even a +1 is a long shot and talk of an 8 or 16-team playoff is a complete and utter waste of breath. Isn't going to happen. Doesn't matter how much you like it, it's not good for business. So you're not going to get it. Ever.
One other thing which could help is a change in the method for how teams are selected. The Rose Bowl is once again at the center of the problem: they want a Pac-10 team facing off against a Big 10 team, period, and that's how we got the USC-Illinois debacle this year. If the bowls opened themselves up to bringing in any combination of teams, we'd potentially see better matchups. Of course, the same old dragon head pops up and breathes fire on the whole shebang: bowls don't necessarily want the best matchups, they want the best teams for their corporate sponsors. That's why Clemson made it to the Chik-Fil-A bowl (a travesty that it's no longer called the Peach Bowl, really) over Boston College, an overachieving squad whose fanbase just doesn't give a rip about them. (Did you see their attendance in the ACC Championship game? I'm guessing All-Tel stadium was about 40% full. No lie.)
Again, greenbacks trump good football. That is the bowl system. I don't see a change in this department either, and frankly, I don't really blame the bowls... it's a business, and creating consistently good matchups in this case is potentially bad for business.
So. What do you think? +1? Hellbent for leather on the playoff? Leave things as they are, but change the formula? Or just keep griping about it? Here's to better bowl games next season.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-08-2008 @ 3:48PM
Ribbit said...
I'm not sure how you can describe the Big 12 as an inferior league this year and lump it in with the ACC. The Big 12 has 4 teams in the Top 10 of the final poll. Seems pretty good to me. Also, let's not forget that KU was (at best) the third best team in the Big 12, and they beat the ACC champion, leading wire to wire.
Reply
1-08-2008 @ 5:16PM
jha4982686 said...
Now, that would be a game - probably the best in a couple of years - - Georgia and USC, if you could talk USC into it.
Reply
1-08-2008 @ 5:32PM
Ramon Noches said...
RE: Orange bowl comments. "Two of the weaker conferences" eh? The big 12 had four teams in the final top Ten Polls. Am I missing something here? Note also both of the BCS championship bowl teams lost to teams beaten by a Big Twelve Team. Missouri beat both Illinois and Arkansas.
Reply
1-08-2008 @ 8:07PM
gatorsrulz said...
The BCS sucks we have only had 3 good matchups since they started. Tenn beating FSU, and OSU getting 4 new downs to beat Miami and Texas over USC, the rest have been mismatches. Please get it right next year!
Reply
1-08-2008 @ 8:31PM
hartlje said...
I have always been a big SEC fan. When I was younger, I followed Notre Dame because they were great. They were, but I later found out that they recruited everyone to keep other teams from acquiring talented players. I later realized that a bias media dictates who is great and who isn’t. Even though, Notre Dame was better than most, the media sometimes made them out as being unstoppable. Until the BCS came about, the same problem existed for years as to who was the best team in the country. The AP & UP( both subjective voting) dictated the outcome with occasionally split champions. This system did however allow more credence on major bowls, since the National champion was not known until after the last game. With the BCS, at lease some unbiased calculation was introduced with regard to strength of schedule, which I believe is very important. Unfortunately, wins and loss do not complete determine the best teams, but it is the only thing we have without a playoff(which I support but realize will be hard to do). Even this will not satisfy everyone(USC vs. Texas). After Texas win, USC fans and many sports writers continued to comment that Texas was only the best team that night. When Auburn went undefeated and did play for a national title, USC fans and many sports writers said it was the system. After the game, there was no continual harping on the possibility that Auburn might have been a better match against the mighty USC. In their eyes it was undisputed.(Please look back a year previous and the comments made when USC was excluded- they system must be broke). I am not saying USC was not deserving. I feel that they do have ONE of the great programs in the country, but lets be fair. Note: When Georgia was handling Hawaii, the Fox announcers where complaining that they were running up the score with their second and third string. Earlier, the Fox announcers where exclaiming how “great” USC was while leaving in their first team most of the game to run up the score.
Do I thing LSU is the best team in the county or is Georgia or USC. The answer is “YES”. LSU
Was the first 2 loss team to play, but any of the others would have been too, so lets not harp on this. LSU lost to Arkansas a decent team with the Heisman runner up. USC lost to Stanford a week team. Georgia lost Tennessee which LSU beat. LSU there had more games than either so their rating within the BCS went, justifiable. Georgia dropped because their strength of schedule decrease because of Tennessee loosing. If the Rose Bowl wants to maintain it’s independence from the rest of NCCA, it is there decision, but don’t complain if it hinders you.
Reply
1-08-2008 @ 8:32PM
hartlje said...
I have always been a big SEC fan. When I was younger, I followed Notre Dame because they were great. They were, but I later found out that they recruited everyone to keep other teams from acquiring talented players. I later realized that a bias media dictates who is great and who isn’t. Even though, Notre Dame was better than most, the media sometimes made them out as being unstoppable. Until the BCS came about, the same problem existed for years as to who was the best team in the country. The AP & UP( both subjective voting) dictated the outcome with occasionally split champions. This system did however allow more credence on major bowls, since the National champion was not known until after the last game. With the BCS, at lease some unbiased calculation was introduced with regard to strength of schedule, which I believe is very important. Unfortunately, wins and loss do not complete determine the best teams, but it is the only thing we have without a playoff(which I support but realize will be hard to do). Even this will not satisfy everyone(USC vs. Texas). After Texas win, USC fans and many sports writers continued to comment that Texas was only the best team that night. When Auburn went undefeated and did play for a national title, USC fans and many sports writers said it was the system. After the game, there was no continual harping on the possibility that Auburn might have been a better match against the mighty USC. In their eyes it was undisputed.(Please look back a year previous and the comments made when USC was excluded- they system must be broke). I am not saying USC was not deserving. I feel that they do have ONE of the great programs in the country, but lets be fair. Note: When Georgia was handling Hawaii, the Fox announcers where complaining that they were running up the score with their second and third string. Earlier, the Fox announcers where exclaiming how “great” USC was while leaving in their first team most of the game to run up the score.
Do I thing LSU is the best team in the county or is Georgia or USC. The answer is “YES”. LSU
Was the first 2 loss team to play, but any of the others would have been too, so lets not harp on this. LSU lost to Arkansas a decent team with the Heisman runner up. USC lost to Stanford a week team. Georgia lost Tennessee which LSU beat. LSU there had more games than either so their rating within the BCS went, justifiable. Georgia dropped because their strength of schedule decrease because of Tennessee loosing. If the Rose Bowl wants to maintain it’s independence from the rest of NCCA, it is there decision, but don’t complain if it hinders you.
Reply
1-08-2008 @ 10:14PM
Wade said...
The "Plus 1" may be worse than what we have! What happens when there are two undefeated teams! You're telling me the winner has to play a team that already has one (or in the case this year, 2 losses)! How does that make sense?
Lets pretend it is in effect this year. Who's getting screwed? Georgia? USC? KU? It would not have happened, but KU should be the team playing in that hypothetical game. I think we can agree, there is zero chance of that happening.
Reply
1-08-2008 @ 10:28PM
ChrisH said...
#4: If there were two undefeated teams, then #1 would play #4 and #2 would play #3. If both undefeated teams win, like they should if they are better, then they still play each other. If they lose, well, then maybe the team they lost to was better.
This year, using the BCS, it would have been Ohio State vs. Oklahoma and LSU vs. Virginia Tech. No USC or Georgia, who can now play that epic Rose Bowl we would have loved. No West Virginia either, or even Kansas or Missouri. They need a selection team for it, not a computer formula.
Reply
1-08-2008 @ 11:14PM
Wade said...
#5- That's not a "Plus 1". That's a 4 team playoff. I will accept a 4 team playoff.
Reply
1-08-2008 @ 11:14PM
Ryan Ferguson said...
Wade, thanks for your comments. I think two undefeateds ranked #1 and #2 is no problem in the +1 concept. #1 gets to play the 4-seed and #2 plays the 3-seed. Winners of those two games go to the championship game.
Is it "unfair" to the #1 ranked team to have to play an extra game to get to the championship game? I don't think so. This system works in the FCS (Div-IAA). And in college hoops, all the #1 ranking gets you is a great seeding in the tourney. +1 is the best viable option in my opinion.
Reply
1-08-2008 @ 11:16PM
Wade said...
You can't quote 1AA or bball, they use a real playoff. They have no bearing on this issue.
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 12:51AM
eagleman said...
Big 12....a weaker conference...4 in the top 10 , 5 in the top 25. big 12 had most of the offensive records for the year. and they are beating up on each other..not like the Pac10 and Big 10 that don't even have to go theough a conference chanption game. their biggest game is getting baised media to vote for them no matter how lousy they are. eight Big 12 teams in bowl games...3 losses and this is afeter having to pay each other and some have to lose. Most of the "top teams" are media babies who get votes just on name!!!!
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 12:55AM
Ramon Noches said...
RE: Two weakest conferences eh? Not true. Big twelve had four teams in the final top ten. Misouri beat teams that had defeated both Ohio State and LSU. Although four and three in bowl games only Oklahoma performed well below par. Both Texas A&M and Colorado were highly competitive. Also Kansas was the only BCS conference team to go 12-1. Just be more scientific when you evaluate teams from the heartland; they play good football and should not be so disrepected. Wait until next year; I hope your words taste good.
Reply
1-14-2008 @ 2:38PM
drb said...
For weeks I heard all the sportscasters and sportswriter declare Oklahoma the Fiesta bowl winner and West Virginia shouldn't even be on the same field,,lolololol. Look whose stupid. They were even saying that Oklahoma should be playing for the NC because they were playing great football,,,look whose stupid again. So as long as we listen to the nutzoids who know nothing about college football, this is what we get. A computer works on good info in, good info out, but this year as usual it ws stupid in, stupid out.
Reply
4-13-2008 @ 3:10PM
wildwes said...
USC BEAT WASHINGTON BY 3 PTS
HAWAII BEAT WASHINGTON BY 7 PTS
GEORGIA BEAT HAWAII BY 31 PTS
( PLAYING 2ND AND 3 STRINGS FOR 3/4 OF THE GAME )
I DON'T THINK THAT USC WAS THINKING ABOUT THE BIG 10 PAC 10 TRADITION. THE GEORGIA PLAYERS AND COACHES LET IT BE KNOW THAT THEY WANTED TO PLAY IN THE ROSE BOWL.. USC MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY WANTED ONLY A SURE WIN BY PLAYING THE MOST OVERATED CONFERENCE IN THE NATION.
Reply