More on the BS of the BCS

Yesterday's victory in the Rose Bowl was a wonderful end to the USC season. I look mostly at the Pac 10 to see how well they did. It has been a long time held belief that the ranking systems underrate western teams. The problem is that there are so many bowls now that counting the real ones versus the "I don't care bowl" is tough - 30 + this year. It is impossible to make sense of them all. In this year - Oregon (with a losing Pac 10 season and barely winning season) got cleaned by BYU (who was ranked) in the Las Vegas Bowl; Arizona State (with a similar record to Oregon's) got cleaned by Hawaii (great season, second in the WAC) in the Hawaii Bowl, Florida State (saved a winning season by winning the Emerald Bowl against UCLA - is SF always trying to catch up with LA?); Cal (who had a strong season) cleaned Texas A&M (who was ranked one higher) in the Holiday Bowl at San Diego; Oregon State (24 - who had a pretty good season) beat unranked Missouri in the Sun Bowl; and USC (who won the Pac 10 but still managed to lose two games in the conference) drilled Michigan (who until then was ranked #3 to USC's #8).

The point is how do you rank all these teams, fairly? The Ohio State and Michigan game, which set up the National Championship and the Rose Bowl was a three point victory for Ohio State - yet USC fairly easily beat Michigan. A couple of the teams simply did not perform up to their rankings. Arguably, even though UCLA beat USC and Cal did not, Cal's ranking might have been justifiably a bit higher (UCLA was unranked, as was Oregon State - the two USC losses). One of the attractions of college football is that on a given day any strong team can defeat any other strong team.

Of the remaining games, in the Sugar Bowl Notre Dame and LSU should be a good game. LSU and Ohio State are both favored by similar margins (one touchdown and a couple of points).

So how do you sort this out? I think there are a couple of responses. First, as many have suggested you have a playoff system where the top sixteen ranked teams playoff similar to March Madness for basketball. There are two problems with that - first, it might well curtail the season unless scheduled correctly. But second, the ranking system still has a bias toward southern teams - the computer is a it better than the sportswriters poll. The alternative would be to go back before the BCS and get rid of all that hoopla. Of the two, the playoff system seems more realistic. (Perhaps there could be a third, continue to BCS which gives lots of fans lots to talk about - but that seems the worst of all.)

In the end what worries me is the idea of college sports that seems to be lost. Athletic scholarships were initiated at the University of Chicago where Amos Alonzo Stagg wanted to equalize the cost to needy students. It has grown up into a semi-monster. Most college football coaches make more than the president of the university. While that pay system may be appropriate in some cases, the purpose of college athletics is not as a cheap feeder system for the few who will actually make it to the pros but to give these young athletes an education. When it comes down to it, most of the players you see in bowl games will be playing, as seniors, their last football games. We need to keep that in perspective. Too often the promise of an education is shallow.

Two final comments - Boise State barely survived against Oklahoma (ranked #9 and #7 respectively) certainly silencing the claims by Boise State that they had a legitimate claim to the national title in the Fiesta Bowl. Boise State had a pathetic 4-14 third down efficiency and had two fumbles and one interception thrown against a team that was a shadow of its 2005 Orange Bowl ranking. Ok they won with some great plays in overtime - but Oklahoma was not the team of a couple of years ago. And second, Hugh Hewitt lost his bet to Congressman John Campbell on the Rose Bowl. Hewitt had tried to weasel out on the wager last week by claiming that the three touchdown margin he was claiming Michigan would win by was 18 not 21 points - which his listeners would not let him get away with. I wonder whether Campbell is entitled to double down on the bet since Hewitt not only lost the bet but SC won by close to the margin he claimed that Michigan would win by.