BCS: Bizarre, Confusing, Stupid
Written by Benn Hodapp, Monday December 01 2008
Before I get into this, I want to make it clear from the start that I have absolutely zero ties to the University of Texas. On some issues, objectivity is a difficult thing, but this is not one. Nor is this an attack on Oklahoma. It isn't their fault that a flawed system on every imaginable level has set them on the track to the title game.
The problem with the BCS is its reliance on digital information that is fed into a computer, which summarily shoots out rankings based on arbitrary factors. Strength of schedule can be unreliable, because some teams will be better than they are 'supposed' to be while others are worse. Style points, aka margin of victory is ridiculous, as a 70-14 win has no business being labeled better than a 17-14 win.
In the case of Texas v. Oklahoma, the most important deciding factor for anyone with an ounce of reason, head-to-head, has been conveniently pushed aside in favor of points scored, jaws dropped and 'impressive' wins.
Oklahoma's last six games have ended in awe-inspiringly lopsided scores: 45-31, 58-35, 62-28, 66-28, 65-21, 61-41. My argument is not that this isn't an impressive stretch for Oklahoma. It absolutely is.
But in the same time span it isn't as though Texas was sitting at home eating Entenmann's donuts and losing every Saturday. During the same span, Texas went 5-1 and won games by the following scores: 56-31, 28-24, 45-21, 35-7, 49-9. The lone loss came to Texas Tech in an ending that saw Michael Crabtree tightrope-walk the sideline for a game-winning touchdown with a single second remaining on the clock.
In the last six weeks one could successfully argue that Oklahoma has been the better team. I wouldn't argue otherwise. But if we go back one more week, to Oct. 11, we find something interesting that tips the scales decidedly (in theory) in Texas' favor. Texas won a game by the final score of 45-35. It wasn't a 62-28 blowout, but it just so happens that Oklahoma, the supposed second-best team in the country on paper, was on the losing end.
So, are we just going to turn our back on that then? What the BCS is really saying is that this game never happened, and Oklahoma is actually unbeaten and Texas has one loss. Well, if you look at it that way then sure, Oklahoma is far ahead of Texas. Throw that game out and it isn't even close.
But what we have to do is go with common sense. That game did happen. Both teams lost one game. Oklahoma's came on a neutral field and it came at the hands of Texas. That's it. The discussion ends here. Don't give me style points, don't give me point differential, don't give me Sam Bradford's ridiculous stats. My stat circumvents all others.
But for some strange reason, in the case of a tie in conference record, the first tiebreaker is BCS standing. On Sunday, Oklahoma edged out Texas for the No. 2 spot and earned, excuse me, was handed the right to play Missouri in the Big 12 championship game because this year's Red River Shootout has been stricken from the records.
In a system that is based on rankings over standings and the results are decided in an office rather than between the lines, we reach a situation where sport is no longer sport. What happens on the field is deemed irrelevant and instead a computer decides.
Who was better; the 1972 Dolphins who finished 17-0 and won the Super Bowl, or the Patriots who were 18-0 before their Super Bowl started? Most people would have said the Patriots were better. There was no way they were going to lose the game anyway, so the Patriots' season was more successful. They scored all those points and had the MVP and most teams lost before the game even started.
And after the Patriots lost their Super Bowl? They still had the superior stats, but whose season was more successful?
I think it's a pretty good parallel. Because if you look at stats, both team and individual, Oklahoma is definitely better. I mean, Texas didn't average 60 points per game down the stretch. Oklahoma scored more points than Texas (640-527), their quarterback has been more prolific (4,080 yards, 46 YDs - 3,445, 32 TDs) and they have better rushing numbers (2,429 yards, 39 TDs - 2,123 yards, 32 TDs)
Both teams are 11-1 ... who had the better season?
In a perfect world, Missouri would beat Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game. Again, nothing against Oklahoma, but I like injustices to be undone. And wouldn't that be sweet. Missouri has become a forgotten factor in all this. Do we forget that they were ranked as high as No. 3 in the AP poll? Is three losses in the Big 12 suddenly a shameful record? I don't think so.
So with all that I have said, obviously I am rooting for Missouri, right? No.
Wait, what?
I root for chaos when the BCS is concerned. Anything that proves my point for me that the system is flawed and that we will never have a fair system in which to choose a champion, can only help to raise the ire of those who would have the strength to change it. I'm sorry that you got screwed, Texas. I really am. But I'm afraid you will just have to be a martyr that helps to finally change this stupid system.
Sports are a relaxing backdrop to every day life. Maybe not for me, because le's face it, other than sports I don't have a whole lot of stuff going on upstairs. But for most people it is. But the call for change has become louder in recent weeks because of Mr. Change himself, 44th President-elect Barack Obama.
Changing the BCS certainly isn't item No. 1 on his first 100 days sheet, or at least I hope not, but any weight he can throw behind it would be welcome.
But then again, there is a way to keep the BCS as it is now and still be able to find a true champion. Use the current BCS formula to determine not the top two, but rather the top eight. These eight will then play against one another in a March Madness-style format (1 v. 8, 4 v. 5, 3 v. 6, 2 v. 7). Sure there would still be arguments about teams that deserved to make the top eight, but can't we agree that the difference between No. 8 and 9 is quite a bit different than the difference between No. 2 and 3 and that the latter is far more important?
There is no reason not to implement a playoff.
Some say that it is too risky for the players to play that many games. Alright then. Take one game off of the regular-season schedule. The next point is controversial, but conference title games could be eliminated as well. Some conferences don't even have them anyway. The ACC, Big 12 and SEC don't need to have one if the Pac-10 and Big Ten don't. With those two games eliminated, the teams that reach the tournament final will have played in the same number of games as they would have with one more regular season game, a conference title game and a bowl.
There's no monetary reason not to do it. Some say the elimination of bowl games would be bad for business. Fair enough. Keep the bowl games. Just give them to teams that don't make the top eight in the BCS. The competition would not greatly suffer. I mean, have you seen some of the teams that play in bowl games as it is now? Does anyone give half a crap about two 6-5 teams playing on Dec. 17 in the PapaJohns.com Bowl? Keep the bowls. Can you even imagine the kind of revenue that a seven-game tournament would bring to network television, not to mention the colleges themselves?
I know I'm not alone when I say that I would watch every inch of every game in the tournament system. There would be parity (No. 8 would always have a chance against No. 1, etc.), there would be incredibly tremendous finishes (imagine if the Fiesta Bowl between Oklahoma and Boise State had been a national semi-final!!!), and there would be no question at the end who the best team was.
March Madness is the greatest sporting event in the world for a reason: it is decided on the court where it belongs.
I am in absolute shock that the system as it is has lasted this long. Even more shocking is the seeming stubbornness of those in charge who say it will never change. Texas must be the last team royally jobbed by this archaic, nonsensical system.
Fix it.
Tags:
Leave a comment
Not So Fast! To publish your comment, you have to login
Not Registered? Register now as it only take 20 seconds!
Click here to browse
5 comments
Please sign in to rate!
Thanks, Hodapp. It seems that the BCS subject is beginning to gain steam as it usually does at this point of the season. Perhaps you would like to get my complete views by checking out my August 27 post ( Top Ranked Gators Embark On Quest For Paper Dynassty ) and my solution, posted Septeber 6 ( The BCS--If You Can't Beat It, Enhance It. ) what happened between the Sooners, Longhorns and Red Raiders last season was a copletely flukish situation that may never happen in any conference in our lifetimes. But if the Big12 is willing to re-evaluate it's own championship situation, the BCS should follow suit, as well. If things hold up this season, the BCS will face the same situation with three undefeated teams coing from their hand-picked conferences. (not to mention two non-BCS schools running the regular season table. I hope you follow up on the BCS mess, soon...I'd look forward to it!
Please sign in to rate!
I posted this comment so you guys could find it on the main page. Consider it my retort to Bama even though I wrote it a year before her.
Please sign in to rate!
Thanks for the comments, guys! Some sort of dialogue has to be started about this ridiculous system. The Big 12 beginning a review of their tiebreaker system is a step in the right direction, but it is just the beginning. Down with the BCS!!!
Please sign in to rate!
This is the ironic and funny part of this whole thing. The committee thinks that all this contraversy and talk and publicity is good for there sport. The all saying any publicity is good publicity. Well I have breaking news, wrong! It's killing your sport, there is no talk about the great players, the cinderellas, the great match-ups, the pure and simple thrill of the playoffs. PLAYOFFS, did you say PLAYOFFS, oh thats right there are no playoffs just good old never ending talk about who is number 1, never being settled. If I wanted that kind of action I just assume discuss who was better the dynasty of the steelers or the dyansty of the 49ers, or the 1929 yankees or the big red machine. All I want to see is a champion on the field who earned it the old fashion way, PLAYOFFS!
Please sign in to rate!
WELL Said...I think I have written these same sentiments before!!