[College Football]
PAC-10 Shafted Once More
To shift gears ever so slightly, let me rail for a moment against the BCS (for you non-fans, that's the Bowl Championship Series, a statistical device dreamed up to remove subjectivity from the national rankings in college football--which it has spectacularly failed to do). I know, this is the new American passtime, capping on the BCS, but my complaint is personal. Every year there's a controversy, it seems like it's the PAC 10 who's on the losing end. A few years back, Oregon missed the national championship game in a disputed decision. More famously, two years ago, USC was shut out of the BCS, despite unanimity that they were the best team. The AP voted the Trojans the National Champ, while the BCS identified Oklahoma, splitting the title and accomplishing precisely what the BCS was created to prevent.
This year, it's Oregon who looks to get the shaft. They are a 10-1 team, ranked 7 in the country, and yet they're likely to get muscled out of a New Year's Day (celebrated) game by the woeful Notre Dame Fighting Irish, who have two losses, one to a losing team. The Ducks will get the shaft because they don't have the resources, the fan base, or the history of Notre Dame. All they have to recommend themselves is a better team--of little relevance to the BCS.
Let's look at their schedules. In all, the Ducks faced five teams with winning records* and beat four, losing only to USC, the number one team in the country. The Irish faced only four winning teams, lost to one (USC) and got beat by Michigan State, a 5-6 team. Teams the Irish faced went a combined .483, while the Ducks' opponents had a combined winning record of .539. The Irish beat one ranked team (number 20 Michigan), and the Ducks beat one (number 23 Fresno State). The Ducks got creamed in the second half by USC, while the Irish lost on a last-minute play--this is ND's sole claim to decency--but the Irish barely squeaked out a win last week against Stanford, a team Oregon dominated.
If a PAC 10 team were dragging a two-loss team around, it wouldn't even be in the discussion for a BCS bowl bid. If one of those losses came at the hands of a losing team, it wouldn't even be in the top ten. But the media love Notre Dame, and despite evidence that he had only a good, not great, season, coach Charlie Weis is now being considered for canonization alongside Rockne. So once again, the Pac 10 will watch as a lesser team earns greater rewards simply for being well-known. I have a hard time believing anyone would have signed up for this demonic BSC pact had they know it would turn out thus.
___________________
*Actually, they faced six. Montana, recruited late to fill a cancelation in the Ducks' schedule, wasn't a 1A team, and I've left their winning record (8-4) out of the calculation.
3 comments:
I think the big problem with the Pac 10 that makes the BCS shafting that much worse is the pathetic bowl tie-ins they have. The #2 Pac 10 team going to the non Jan 1 (or Jan 2 this year) Holiday Bowl v. Big 12 #3? #3 to the Sun bowl v. Big Ten #5? These are ridiculous. The BCS sting would not feel so bad if the conference did a better job with their bowl tie-ins.
The problem probably lies in the paltry travelling fans and television viewership for the average Pac 10 also rans.
Yeah, all of that's true--but wasn't the BSC designed to correct it? I mean, into the cesspool of politics steps the BSC, which will in one clear, statistical swoop, sweep away all the bias, politics, and controversy.
I think the experiment has had a decent trial period. It's dead, Jim.
The best idea I have seen is to have eight 12 team, two division, conferences, each with their own playoff and the champions of these conferences will go into a final playoff series composed of the BCS bowls and a few more. The other non-champions can be selected for other bowls.
Post a Comment