It's a tired topic at this point, so I'll keep it short. I'm going to argue about the teams, but it's really the system, of course, that's flawed. The real answer for determining a champion is a tournament-you know, like they have for every single other sport. But here's why I don't like the options under the current system.
The problem with Florida is that their promotion to the BCS title game seems a little, how shall I say, artifical. Yes, they played a tough schedule and outside of Michigan, they're the only team left anyone can take seriously as No. 2. (Of course, Boise State is undefeated.) But it's a lovely coincidence that they just happened to cement that No. 2 status this weekend. I don't really see how that win over Arkansas proves they're better than the Wolverines.
The problem with Michigan is that I can't imagine anything more unfair to the undefeated Ohio State Buckeyes. Think about it. If Ohio State had lost to Michigan at home, well, they might have had an argument for being the real second-best team in the nation, but no one would have listened. I think they'd have blown their BCS title game shot right there.
So, in other words, Ohio State has already played Michigan with the national championship on the line...and they won. It's kind of messed up to say they have to play the exact same team for the exact same stakes just so we know they really deserve it.
On the other hand, Michigan was undefeated and had to face their rival team, which was also undefeated, on the road. And they barely lost. So there's a decent chance that they're actually the nation's second-best team. Shoot, they might even be just as good as Ohio State, if you think about it. Maybe they do deserve another bite at the apple.
The problem with Ohio State is that their coach is a total wuss. Who did he think the No. 2 team was?
Ohio State coach Jim Tressel has a vote in the coaches' poll but abstained this week.
"After consultation with my director of athletics, Gene Smith, and based upon our unique position in the BCS standings, I believe it is only fair that we not participate the final poll," he said in a statement.
Wait, what? How is that fair? It's dumb that coaches vote on the best teams in their own sport, but they do, so why shouldn't he vote? Tressel is really saying one of three things:
1. He can not be trusted with such a weighty responsibility-he knows which of the two teams is better, and he also knows he will vote for the other team to give himself an easier road, so abstention is the only honorable path;
2. He can make the right choice, but some people may not like it; or, in other words, he has the thinnest skin in America; or
3. He is scared of providing the legendary "bulletin-board material."
Whichever it is, I hope he loses.
Comments
I like your breakdown of the other BCS matchups. Why does Notre Dame get an automatic BCS berth every season? Do they really have that many more fans who travel and/or watch TV?
Still, what ticks me off is that I'm more excited about watching USC play Michigan than I am about watching Ohio State play Florida. I agree, Punchy, how did Florida get moved up just becuase they beat Arkansas.
The BCS is dumb, but I understand university presidents' claim about taking athletes out of classes for finals and everything. It is a serious pain in the arse to teach student athletes who never come to class. Serious, I can't describe to you what a nuisance it is, and I think they would be more likely to miss more class than already if they were playing in play-offs - though I'm sure there is some counter-argument to the situation.
Davis
Still, what ticks me off is that I'm more excited about watching USC play Michigan than I am about watching Ohio State play Florida. I agree, Punchy, how did Florida get moved up just becuase they beat Arkansas?
The BCS is dumb, but I understand university presidents' claim about taking athletes out of classes for finals and everything. It is a serious pain in the arse to teach student athletes who never come to class. Serious, I can't describe to you what a nuisance it is, and I think they would be more likely to miss more class than already if they were playing in play-offs - though I'm sure there is some counter-argument to the situation.
Davis
DG
Anyway, Davis, I have a question. Do athletes you've taught really miss class all the time, or do they just miss a lot whenever they have a game?
I ask because the class-time excuse is a total smokescreen-as is often pointed out, lower college football divisions have playoffs-though probably still a valid concern. But teams are still practicing all month, and I imagine that has a big impact on academics-though I don't know how often people miss/skip class when they're just practicing. Do you?
The best solution is a March Madness ripoff of 64 teams-can you imagine?-but that's senseless, because football teams can't play twice in a weekend. But I think you could make an eight-team tournament over three or four weekends and that would rock. Some players would miss more time, but the vast majority would miss a lot less, since the season would end in November. So that's a win for students and teachers, in my mind. Of course, a lot fewer schools would get those sweet postseason payouts. It's funny-to me, playoffs make more sense athletically AND academically. Just not, to schools, financially. I bet the Soviets had a killer playoff system.
By the way, do you like Tony Kornheiser or Dennis Miller better on MNF?
I am kind of curious on your take of the rookie of the year though. Reggie has put up some consistency and recently an explosive game, Vince is leading the Titans in a 5-1 run, Maurice Jones-Drew...what more be said, Devin Hester with some spectacular returns and confident defense, and Mario William has turned that Texan team completely around.
(Right about now I would make some crack about Jay Cutler, but he has truly disappointed me, and I can't wait until Denver moves into a new quarterback era)
I've always thought MNF was a bit overrated, especially as some kind of cultural event, but it's a nice presentation and typically pretty fun to watch. Miller's obscure references were annoying, but Kornheiser's kind of lame, too. Kornheiser is less annoying, but I expected more of him. If, for some reason, the Dennis Miller days were the only other option, I'd take them, because I liked Al Michaels and Dan Fouts a lot more than Joe Theismann and Mike Tirico. I really just wish we had good announcers who didn't get in the way. People say ESPN changed basketball with its emphasis on highlights, but I'm far more annoyed with the trend of announcers as personalities. Yuck. I hate getting in to that stuff.
I don't know about rookie of the year. (Remember, there's an offensive rookie of the year award and a seperate defensive award.) Reggie Bush hasn't put up any consistency in my mind-he's just been spectacular for a couple weeks. Vince Young has been the best when he's on, but he got off to a bad start. Devin Hester's having a great year, but he doesn't deserve the offensive or defensive ROY since he's primarily a special-teams player. (And he did get beaten for a TD last night as a corner, but it was by Torry Holt, who burns everyone.)
I guess I'd go with Vince offensively at this point, and I'm not sure whom I'd pick defensively. But I think they're kind of lame awards to begin with.