Monday, November 8, 2010

Busting the BCS

There's yet more controversy on the horizon for college football fans and more fodder for ESPN's all-out push for revenue heaven in a CFB playoff system. As it looks now, one of the two undefeated non-automatic qualifiers in Boise and TCU are going to get left out of the BCS picture. While that's not particularly newsworthy in and of itself, it is worth noting that the Big East champ (probably Pitt) and ACC champ (probably Va. Tech, who was beaten by Boise) will make it to a BCS bowl.

In my opinion, neither the ACC champ nor the Big East champ should get the bid this year, but does that mean that Boise and TCU should? Certainly not. No matter how you slice it up, the automatic qualifiers, without considering how terrible they might be, should be in the BCS. Their respective conferences were granted tie-ins by rule and, no matter how silly the rules are at present, they must be followed. Had these rules not been put in place, the BCS would not exist, as no conference would want to play in a system that did not guarantee its champion a spot in the bowls.

The only reason that ESPN hates these rules is because absolutely no one is going to be watching the Orange Bowl this year, which isn't altogether different from the past 10 years. The Sugar Bowl will also feature an SEC team drilling an at-large team again, which will be a snooze fest. It's all about revenue for ESPN, which along with the time constraints, is a reason that there will never be a true FBS playoff system.  I don't think the universities will ever sign on, thus preventing the conferences from agreeing with it.

In light of not being included, Utah has decided to file suit stating that the BCS violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. Former Utah alum Mark Shurtleff is at the center of this suit:

"There is no way that a team from a non-AQ conference can ever play for a national championship," he told SI.com. "We think it was designed that way." (Andy Staples, Sports Illustrated)


I agree with Shurtleff, but it doesn't mean that it's necessarily a bad thing. These conferences were instrumental in the formation of the BCS and the non-AQ teams had no interest in the negotiations at that time, as they really weren't relevant. In my opinion, this is the classic "It's not a me problem, it's a you problem." If you want to have the chance to win a national title, join a legitimate conference and quit complaining. As it stands, there are some problems with the BCS but it looks like there isn't a better alternative- especially not a playoff. Look at what they're trying to do with March Madness. If you can't get in, win more or switch conferences. It's really that simple.

This is elementary when you boil it all down. At some point there has to be a loser, but we have come to accept the common teaching that "there are no losers". This is complete hogwash. Boortz was all over that this AM if you had a chance to listen. If you don't fit into the metric (BCS), change or get left behind with the other losers. Everything isn't fair and if you don't like what the outcome is make the changes necessary to avoid it.  Simple right?

The only reason that people demand a playoff is that the losers want a chance to win their way back into relevance and ESPN wants more money. Is that really a great reason to go through all of that mess?

No comments:

Post a Comment