I can't seem to fall asleep, so here's an unexpected, standalone Frequent 5er for your enjoyment and edification:
Frequent 5er
Song: Bonnie 'Prince' Billy, "Just To See My Holly Home"
Word: ubiquitous
Random/Obscure Sports Reference: Remember when Johnny Vander Meer threw back-to-back no-hitters? Well, neither do I, seeing as it happened in June of 1938. Still, it must have been pretty awesome.
Random/Obscure Non-Sports Reference: According to several biographical sources, Dick Cheney avoided the draft on five separate occasions thanks to educational and "hardship" deferments. Didn't Republicans crucify Bill Clinton for being a "draft dodger?" And why is it that Cheney, once cleared from service, became disturbingly comfortable with the process of engineering wars?
Quote/Quip: Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. [Mark Twain]
12.08.2006
12.07.2006
SCQ/Weekend Forecast (NFL)
I'm visiting my lovely girlfriend in Philadelphia this week, and have thus been unable to do a great deal of writing. In a true attempt at efficiency, I'm going to incorporate my Week 13 SCQ commentary into my predictions for the upcoming slate of games.
Cleveland v. Pittsburgh: The Browns travel this week to Heinz Field for a Thursday showdown with the 5-7 Steelers, who come in riding the momentum of 20-3 win over Tampa Bay. Unfortunately for Pittsburgh, a victory against the lowly Bucs does not exactly warrant a notch in the belt; fortunately, though, the Browns aren't much better. So, if nothing else, Bill Cowher's men may be able to crawl closer to the .500 mark. Cleveland certainly must have enjoyed last week's 31-28 home win over a legitimate Kansas City team. While impressive, such magic is not likely to stick around for long. (Note: While it is possible that this entry will not be published in full until Friday, the comments for this Thursday game were written at 5:30 pm on 12/7, several hours before kickoff.)
[20-14, Pittsburgh]
Oakland v. Cincinnati: After dropping five of six games, the Bengals have rebounded to win three in a row, including victories at New Orleans and against division-leading Baltimore. The defeat of the Ravens, in particular, seems to have vaulted Cincinnati back into the realm of legitimacy. A win over the Raiders, coupled with a Baltimore loss at Arrowhead, would leave the Bengals only one game back in the North. In case you haven't heard, the Raiders stink, and have yet to win a road game this season.
[34-14, Cincinnati]
Minnesota v. Detroit: (Insert bogus assertion that NFC used-to-be-Central games are fiercely competitive and entertaining, regardless of the teams' records.)
[21-17, Minnesota]
Baltimore v. Kansas City: Put simply, this game is LARGE. Last week Kansas City suffered the kind of crippling loss against the 3-8 Browns that real contenders simply cannot afford. Considering that they must travel next week to meet the red-hot Chargers, the Chiefs must find a way to defend their home turf against the Ravens; 8-5 looks a whole lot better than 7-6, especially when you're about to play a 10-2 team that hasn't lost at home all year. The Ravens, on the other hand, are suddenly in jeopardy of falling out of contention for home-field advantage in the playoffs. A loss this week would drop Billick's boys to 9-4 and put them behind Indy, San Diego, and New England (assuming the Pats defeat the Dolphins). Expect a low-scoring, hard-nosed battle between two teams looking to figure out who they really are.
[17-13, Kansas City]
New England v. Miami: The Patriots, who are 5-0 away from home this season, suddely find themselves in the top-tier mix. With Indy beginning to show signs of mortality, Brady and company stand in a prime position to shake things up at the top. The Pats have four winnable games remaining, and they must feel as though 13-3 would be good enough to secure home-field advantage in the playoffs. Then again, they seem to be a much better road team this year, so perhaps they'd prefer to enter the postseason in the middle of the pack and make a quiet run at the Lombardi Trophy. Miami, conversely, saw their momentum party crashed last week at the hands of the Jaguars. Don't expect them to rediscover their winning ways at the expense of the rolling Patriots.
[28-13, New England]
Atlanta v. Tampa Bay: The Falcons may have salvaged their season by defeating the Redskins last week. Even in a weak NFC, though, Atlanta needs to establish a bit more consistency before they can deservedly be called contenders. Some may view this game as a relatively easy one for the Falcons; keep in mind, though, that all three of the Bucs' wins have come at home. Look once again for the Vick ship to encounter thundering waves, and don't be surprised if Atlanta's hopes are purloined by the pirates at Raymond James Stadium.
[21-17, Tampa Bay]
Philadelphia v. Washington: Philly's win against Carolina on Monday might have initially led some folks to feel that the 6-6 Eagles now have a realistic chance of making the playoffs. Unfortunately for Philly fans, the Birds' next three games come at Washington, at New York, and at Dallas--a brutal stretch of road division contests, to be sure. The most winnable of these three matchups is undoubtedly this week's game against the 'Skins. Perhaps reaching a plus-.500 record will serve as motivation to the Eagles, leading them to peak at just the right time.
[17-10, Philadelphia]
New York Giants v. Carolina: Even in the anything-can-still-happen NFC, this game appears to be a must-win for both teams. It's been a Tale of Two Seasons for both of these clubs: the Panthers have been extremely up-and-down, losing 2, winning 4, losing 2, winning 2, and losing 2; the Giants, likewise, followed 5 straight wins with 4 consecutive losses. Indeed, it's hard to determine who needs this game more--the chameleon-like Panthers, who change shades from week to week, or the Jekyll-and-Hyde Giants, who stay in character (whether good or bad) for longer blocks of time. At 6-7, the losers of this dogfight will certainly have their backs against the wall.
[24-21, New York]
Indianapolis v. Jacksonville: While the Colts were handed their second loss last week at the hands (make that feet) of the Tennessee Titans, they don't tend to be known for losing back-t0-back games. Jacksonville boasts an impressive 5-1 record at home, but the quality of their performances continues to be inconsistent. Expect the on-and-off Jags to fade down the stretch, with games against New England and at Kansas City left to play.
[24-14, Indianapolis]
Tennessee v. Houston: Give me wondercoach Jeff Fisher! Give me Rob "Myyy" Bironas! Sign me up for a seat on the Titan bandwagon!
[28-10, Tennessee]
Seattle v. Arizona: The Cardinals and Raiders are probably the only two teams I'd never pick in an Upset Special.
[34-17, Seattle]
Green Bay v. San Francisco: This would have been an exciting matchup ten years ago.
[23-14, San Francisco]
Buffalo v. New York Jets: The Jets stand in a very favorable position from here on out. Their remaining opponents are Buffalo, Minnesota, Miami, and Oakland. Even in the cutthroat AFC, New York has a conceivable chance of earning a Wild Card spot. Buffalo, my favorite up-and-coming team, will likely struggle with starting back Willis McGahee out due to injury. I'd love to pick the Bills in a close one, but I expect the Jets to eke it out.
[17-13, New York]
Denver v. San Diego: Denver's once-promising season appears to be in serious jeopardy, while the Chargers continue to look like the best team in the NFL. It's Rookie Quarterback versus Mean Merriman and the Touchdown Machine. Chargers, in a rout.
[31-14, San Diego]
New Orleans v. Dallas: This game may very well go a long way in determining who gets the NFC's #2 seed. It will also feature the league's two hottest quarterbacks, MVP candidate Drew Brees and insta-celeb Tony Romo. I give the edge to the Cowboys, due to their solid secondary, their 4-1 home mark, and their recent wave of momentum. (If the game were being played in the Superdome, I'd probably pick the Saints.) Look for lots of passing yards on both sides in this one, with turnovers being the key to victory.
[28-24, Dallas]
Chicago v. St. Louis: In light of the recent performances put forth by Mr. Gross Man, I'm calling for a big upset in this one.
[16-10, St. Louis]
Cleveland v. Pittsburgh: The Browns travel this week to Heinz Field for a Thursday showdown with the 5-7 Steelers, who come in riding the momentum of 20-3 win over Tampa Bay. Unfortunately for Pittsburgh, a victory against the lowly Bucs does not exactly warrant a notch in the belt; fortunately, though, the Browns aren't much better. So, if nothing else, Bill Cowher's men may be able to crawl closer to the .500 mark. Cleveland certainly must have enjoyed last week's 31-28 home win over a legitimate Kansas City team. While impressive, such magic is not likely to stick around for long. (Note: While it is possible that this entry will not be published in full until Friday, the comments for this Thursday game were written at 5:30 pm on 12/7, several hours before kickoff.)
[20-14, Pittsburgh]
Oakland v. Cincinnati: After dropping five of six games, the Bengals have rebounded to win three in a row, including victories at New Orleans and against division-leading Baltimore. The defeat of the Ravens, in particular, seems to have vaulted Cincinnati back into the realm of legitimacy. A win over the Raiders, coupled with a Baltimore loss at Arrowhead, would leave the Bengals only one game back in the North. In case you haven't heard, the Raiders stink, and have yet to win a road game this season.
[34-14, Cincinnati]
Minnesota v. Detroit: (Insert bogus assertion that NFC used-to-be-Central games are fiercely competitive and entertaining, regardless of the teams' records.)
[21-17, Minnesota]
Baltimore v. Kansas City: Put simply, this game is LARGE. Last week Kansas City suffered the kind of crippling loss against the 3-8 Browns that real contenders simply cannot afford. Considering that they must travel next week to meet the red-hot Chargers, the Chiefs must find a way to defend their home turf against the Ravens; 8-5 looks a whole lot better than 7-6, especially when you're about to play a 10-2 team that hasn't lost at home all year. The Ravens, on the other hand, are suddenly in jeopardy of falling out of contention for home-field advantage in the playoffs. A loss this week would drop Billick's boys to 9-4 and put them behind Indy, San Diego, and New England (assuming the Pats defeat the Dolphins). Expect a low-scoring, hard-nosed battle between two teams looking to figure out who they really are.
[17-13, Kansas City]
New England v. Miami: The Patriots, who are 5-0 away from home this season, suddely find themselves in the top-tier mix. With Indy beginning to show signs of mortality, Brady and company stand in a prime position to shake things up at the top. The Pats have four winnable games remaining, and they must feel as though 13-3 would be good enough to secure home-field advantage in the playoffs. Then again, they seem to be a much better road team this year, so perhaps they'd prefer to enter the postseason in the middle of the pack and make a quiet run at the Lombardi Trophy. Miami, conversely, saw their momentum party crashed last week at the hands of the Jaguars. Don't expect them to rediscover their winning ways at the expense of the rolling Patriots.
[28-13, New England]
Atlanta v. Tampa Bay: The Falcons may have salvaged their season by defeating the Redskins last week. Even in a weak NFC, though, Atlanta needs to establish a bit more consistency before they can deservedly be called contenders. Some may view this game as a relatively easy one for the Falcons; keep in mind, though, that all three of the Bucs' wins have come at home. Look once again for the Vick ship to encounter thundering waves, and don't be surprised if Atlanta's hopes are purloined by the pirates at Raymond James Stadium.
[21-17, Tampa Bay]
Philadelphia v. Washington: Philly's win against Carolina on Monday might have initially led some folks to feel that the 6-6 Eagles now have a realistic chance of making the playoffs. Unfortunately for Philly fans, the Birds' next three games come at Washington, at New York, and at Dallas--a brutal stretch of road division contests, to be sure. The most winnable of these three matchups is undoubtedly this week's game against the 'Skins. Perhaps reaching a plus-.500 record will serve as motivation to the Eagles, leading them to peak at just the right time.
[17-10, Philadelphia]
New York Giants v. Carolina: Even in the anything-can-still-happen NFC, this game appears to be a must-win for both teams. It's been a Tale of Two Seasons for both of these clubs: the Panthers have been extremely up-and-down, losing 2, winning 4, losing 2, winning 2, and losing 2; the Giants, likewise, followed 5 straight wins with 4 consecutive losses. Indeed, it's hard to determine who needs this game more--the chameleon-like Panthers, who change shades from week to week, or the Jekyll-and-Hyde Giants, who stay in character (whether good or bad) for longer blocks of time. At 6-7, the losers of this dogfight will certainly have their backs against the wall.
[24-21, New York]
Indianapolis v. Jacksonville: While the Colts were handed their second loss last week at the hands (make that feet) of the Tennessee Titans, they don't tend to be known for losing back-t0-back games. Jacksonville boasts an impressive 5-1 record at home, but the quality of their performances continues to be inconsistent. Expect the on-and-off Jags to fade down the stretch, with games against New England and at Kansas City left to play.
[24-14, Indianapolis]
Tennessee v. Houston: Give me wondercoach Jeff Fisher! Give me Rob "Myyy" Bironas! Sign me up for a seat on the Titan bandwagon!
[28-10, Tennessee]
Seattle v. Arizona: The Cardinals and Raiders are probably the only two teams I'd never pick in an Upset Special.
[34-17, Seattle]
Green Bay v. San Francisco: This would have been an exciting matchup ten years ago.
[23-14, San Francisco]
Buffalo v. New York Jets: The Jets stand in a very favorable position from here on out. Their remaining opponents are Buffalo, Minnesota, Miami, and Oakland. Even in the cutthroat AFC, New York has a conceivable chance of earning a Wild Card spot. Buffalo, my favorite up-and-coming team, will likely struggle with starting back Willis McGahee out due to injury. I'd love to pick the Bills in a close one, but I expect the Jets to eke it out.
[17-13, New York]
Denver v. San Diego: Denver's once-promising season appears to be in serious jeopardy, while the Chargers continue to look like the best team in the NFL. It's Rookie Quarterback versus Mean Merriman and the Touchdown Machine. Chargers, in a rout.
[31-14, San Diego]
New Orleans v. Dallas: This game may very well go a long way in determining who gets the NFC's #2 seed. It will also feature the league's two hottest quarterbacks, MVP candidate Drew Brees and insta-celeb Tony Romo. I give the edge to the Cowboys, due to their solid secondary, their 4-1 home mark, and their recent wave of momentum. (If the game were being played in the Superdome, I'd probably pick the Saints.) Look for lots of passing yards on both sides in this one, with turnovers being the key to victory.
[28-24, Dallas]
Chicago v. St. Louis: In light of the recent performances put forth by Mr. Gross Man, I'm calling for a big upset in this one.
[16-10, St. Louis]
12.04.2006
College Football's Inescapable Conundrum
On Sunday evening the BCS yet again reared its ugly head, "choosing" Florida, rather than Michican, to play Ohio State in this season's BCS Championship Game. This most recent controversy has raised anew the widespread debate as to whether the college football powers-that-be should reassess the current postseason format. After all, it seems that almost every season some team or another (remember that undefeated Auburn team?) is left to wonder what might have been.
The most commonly proposed problem-solving alternatives vary widely. ESPN analyst Kirk Herbstreit, among others, has advocated a "plus one" system, under which two of the BCS bowls would specifically feature #1-#4 and #2-#3 matchups, with the two winners playing in an extra game--the "real" national championship game. (This system is comparable to a four-team playoff.) Other pundits and "football people" have called for an eight-team playoff, citing the successful definitiveness with which Division I-AA crowns its annual national champion. (Note: Division I-AA's playoff includes 16 teams.)
The problem is that none of these options will ever completely eradicate the presence of disgruntled teams and fans. If we consider each option on its relative merits, we will see that college football--due to its lack of conference standardization and its reliance on purely poll-based rankings--will likely never be able to crown a "true" national champion.
1. BCS
Before exploring possible alternatives, let's consider the current system. On numerous occasions (see: Oregon 2001-2002, Auburn 2004-2005, et al.) the BCS has proven to be an inconclusive, if not unreliable, system. Its rankings are based partially on computer polls, which means that "objective" measures such as strength-of-schedule play an ongoing role in determining a team's standing.
The "ongoing" aspect of these rankings serves as both an important and controversial one. Consider the University of Michigan's position in this season's BCS standings. Despite occupying the #2 spot after playing their final regular season game, the Wolverines were eclipsed, in successive weeks, by USC and Florida. Although numerous factors influenced these changes, they arose due in no small part to the fact that USC and Florida faced strong opponents (Notre Dame and Arkansas, respectively), while Michigan sat idle. In other words, the Trojans and the Gators saw their respective strengths-of-schedule "jump" as a result of their game order. (An entirely different yet related issue is brought to mind by Nebraska's 62-36 loss to Colorado in the 2001 Big 12 championship game. Because Nebraska already occupied such a strong BCS position, a 26-point loss wasn't even enough to remove them from the national championship game. Again--subjective viewpoints may have changed, but computer rankings worked their own black magic.)
Not surprisingly, human voters also changed their rankings based upon these difficult late-season games. Many members of the media seemingly operated under the "If Florida actually wins out, then I'll call them the #2 team in the nation" philosophy. Their erstwhile #2 team, Michigan, was simply serving as a "placeholder"--the default second-best-because-Florida-will-probably-lose team.
Can anyone conceivably call this a "fair" system? If Michigan had ended up earning the right to play for the national title, wouldn't the Florida Gators be able to construct a wholly viable and convincing argument for their own inclusion? Several columnists, including MSNBC.com's Michael Ventre, have argued that any team that loses a game puts itself "at the mercy" of the BCS system, all imperfections included. Sadly, even undefeated teams place themselves at the same mercy. Remember those Auburn Tigers of 2004? How about the '04 Utes? Both were among the four--yes, four--teams to go undefeated during that regular season. As the BCS would ultimately have it, Oklahoma and USC were selected to play for the national title.
Thus, when people point to last season's Texas-USC showdown as an example of BCS success, what they are actually pointing to is a season in which, rather arbitrarily, two--and exactly two--teams happened to go unbeaten. The Trojans and the Longhorns did not validate the BCS; they disguised it, at least for a short while.
2. "Plus One"
The "plus one" system, mentioned earlier, would include a framework in which the winners of #1-#4 and #2-#3 games would play in an "extra" game--the "legitimate" national championship. As the argument goes, such a format would remove the basis for 3rd-place complainers, a la this year's Michigan team.
Unfortunately, the "plus one" system falls well short of providing a clear-cut solution. In order to understand how and why, we need only consider this year's BCS rankings. Two two-loss teams--LSU, who lost to Auburn and Florida, and USC, who lost to Oregon St. and UCLA (gasp!)--are both ranked ahead of a one-loss Louisville team whose only defeat came at the hands of then-undefeated Rutgers. Could not the Cardinals justifiably argue that they deserve to be considered one of the nation's top four teams? Does not their body of work potentially trump that of the Trojans, who lost twice to non-top-20 teams? (Let's not latch onto Lee Corso's weak argument about the Big East playing a puny non-conference schedule. Louisville scheduled, well in advance, games against Miami and Kansas State this season. Both are perennially strong programs, with Miami being among the nation's top two or three over the past decade. We can't blame Louisville for their opponents' struggles.)
Similarly, Wisconsin could make a case that they should be invited to any four-team playoff, seeing as their only loss came to #3 Michigan. Despite an unimpressive non-conference schedule, the Badgers logged 11 wins in a Big Ten that is supposedly strong, at least if one is to value the accolades that have been bestowed upon Michigan's body of work.
Lastly, there's Boise State, who did not lose a game all season. While the Broncos may not be "worthy" of the #1-#2 game, they certainly should (it seems) be given a shot in the event that four teams are to vie for the crown.
Unfortunately, a "plus one" system would still leave Louisville, Wisconsin, and Boise State out of the national championship picture. Although an extra game would put an end to all of the Florida-Michigan fuss, it would not, by any stretch, give us a definitive national champion. Those teams left just outside of the top-4 bubble would still find themselves suffering at the "mercy" of the "system." Isn't that the very situation that a "plus one" would be meant to fix?
Playoff
An eight-team playoff, while more inclusive than any other system, would nonetheless incur many of the same problems mentioned above. Despite there being more teams in contention, arguments would certainly arise at the margins. Two-loss Wake Forest won the ACC this season, yet did not even come close to falling within the BCS top 8. Does mean that they would not be allowed in an eight-team playoff? Or, would the playoff automatically include all BCS-conference champions? Hmm.
Such are the conflicts that arise as a result of the BCS's grand structure. Bowl spots are guaranteed to conference champions regardless of their final BCS standing. Thus, there exists a difficult-to-balance mix of standardization and individuality. In other words, teams are judged by both their conference standing (standard) and their individual merits (i.e. strength-of-schedule, style points, and so on). The system, then, ends up being both objective and subjective, which leads to loads of confusion.
Until college football develops a uniform, pro-like structure (with similar conferences/divisions, playoffs, and the whole sha-bang), or at least an NCAA tournament-style system through which a broad number of teams are allowed into the postseason, it simply cannot purport to crown a conclusive national champion. The best we can hope for are splits, asterisks, and the occasional "consensus" #1.
The most commonly proposed problem-solving alternatives vary widely. ESPN analyst Kirk Herbstreit, among others, has advocated a "plus one" system, under which two of the BCS bowls would specifically feature #1-#4 and #2-#3 matchups, with the two winners playing in an extra game--the "real" national championship game. (This system is comparable to a four-team playoff.) Other pundits and "football people" have called for an eight-team playoff, citing the successful definitiveness with which Division I-AA crowns its annual national champion. (Note: Division I-AA's playoff includes 16 teams.)
The problem is that none of these options will ever completely eradicate the presence of disgruntled teams and fans. If we consider each option on its relative merits, we will see that college football--due to its lack of conference standardization and its reliance on purely poll-based rankings--will likely never be able to crown a "true" national champion.
1. BCS
Before exploring possible alternatives, let's consider the current system. On numerous occasions (see: Oregon 2001-2002, Auburn 2004-2005, et al.) the BCS has proven to be an inconclusive, if not unreliable, system. Its rankings are based partially on computer polls, which means that "objective" measures such as strength-of-schedule play an ongoing role in determining a team's standing.
The "ongoing" aspect of these rankings serves as both an important and controversial one. Consider the University of Michigan's position in this season's BCS standings. Despite occupying the #2 spot after playing their final regular season game, the Wolverines were eclipsed, in successive weeks, by USC and Florida. Although numerous factors influenced these changes, they arose due in no small part to the fact that USC and Florida faced strong opponents (Notre Dame and Arkansas, respectively), while Michigan sat idle. In other words, the Trojans and the Gators saw their respective strengths-of-schedule "jump" as a result of their game order. (An entirely different yet related issue is brought to mind by Nebraska's 62-36 loss to Colorado in the 2001 Big 12 championship game. Because Nebraska already occupied such a strong BCS position, a 26-point loss wasn't even enough to remove them from the national championship game. Again--subjective viewpoints may have changed, but computer rankings worked their own black magic.)
Not surprisingly, human voters also changed their rankings based upon these difficult late-season games. Many members of the media seemingly operated under the "If Florida actually wins out, then I'll call them the #2 team in the nation" philosophy. Their erstwhile #2 team, Michigan, was simply serving as a "placeholder"--the default second-best-because-Florida-will-probably-lose team.
Can anyone conceivably call this a "fair" system? If Michigan had ended up earning the right to play for the national title, wouldn't the Florida Gators be able to construct a wholly viable and convincing argument for their own inclusion? Several columnists, including MSNBC.com's Michael Ventre, have argued that any team that loses a game puts itself "at the mercy" of the BCS system, all imperfections included. Sadly, even undefeated teams place themselves at the same mercy. Remember those Auburn Tigers of 2004? How about the '04 Utes? Both were among the four--yes, four--teams to go undefeated during that regular season. As the BCS would ultimately have it, Oklahoma and USC were selected to play for the national title.
Thus, when people point to last season's Texas-USC showdown as an example of BCS success, what they are actually pointing to is a season in which, rather arbitrarily, two--and exactly two--teams happened to go unbeaten. The Trojans and the Longhorns did not validate the BCS; they disguised it, at least for a short while.
2. "Plus One"
The "plus one" system, mentioned earlier, would include a framework in which the winners of #1-#4 and #2-#3 games would play in an "extra" game--the "legitimate" national championship. As the argument goes, such a format would remove the basis for 3rd-place complainers, a la this year's Michigan team.
Unfortunately, the "plus one" system falls well short of providing a clear-cut solution. In order to understand how and why, we need only consider this year's BCS rankings. Two two-loss teams--LSU, who lost to Auburn and Florida, and USC, who lost to Oregon St. and UCLA (gasp!)--are both ranked ahead of a one-loss Louisville team whose only defeat came at the hands of then-undefeated Rutgers. Could not the Cardinals justifiably argue that they deserve to be considered one of the nation's top four teams? Does not their body of work potentially trump that of the Trojans, who lost twice to non-top-20 teams? (Let's not latch onto Lee Corso's weak argument about the Big East playing a puny non-conference schedule. Louisville scheduled, well in advance, games against Miami and Kansas State this season. Both are perennially strong programs, with Miami being among the nation's top two or three over the past decade. We can't blame Louisville for their opponents' struggles.)
Similarly, Wisconsin could make a case that they should be invited to any four-team playoff, seeing as their only loss came to #3 Michigan. Despite an unimpressive non-conference schedule, the Badgers logged 11 wins in a Big Ten that is supposedly strong, at least if one is to value the accolades that have been bestowed upon Michigan's body of work.
Lastly, there's Boise State, who did not lose a game all season. While the Broncos may not be "worthy" of the #1-#2 game, they certainly should (it seems) be given a shot in the event that four teams are to vie for the crown.
Unfortunately, a "plus one" system would still leave Louisville, Wisconsin, and Boise State out of the national championship picture. Although an extra game would put an end to all of the Florida-Michigan fuss, it would not, by any stretch, give us a definitive national champion. Those teams left just outside of the top-4 bubble would still find themselves suffering at the "mercy" of the "system." Isn't that the very situation that a "plus one" would be meant to fix?
Playoff
An eight-team playoff, while more inclusive than any other system, would nonetheless incur many of the same problems mentioned above. Despite there being more teams in contention, arguments would certainly arise at the margins. Two-loss Wake Forest won the ACC this season, yet did not even come close to falling within the BCS top 8. Does mean that they would not be allowed in an eight-team playoff? Or, would the playoff automatically include all BCS-conference champions? Hmm.
Such are the conflicts that arise as a result of the BCS's grand structure. Bowl spots are guaranteed to conference champions regardless of their final BCS standing. Thus, there exists a difficult-to-balance mix of standardization and individuality. In other words, teams are judged by both their conference standing (standard) and their individual merits (i.e. strength-of-schedule, style points, and so on). The system, then, ends up being both objective and subjective, which leads to loads of confusion.
Until college football develops a uniform, pro-like structure (with similar conferences/divisions, playoffs, and the whole sha-bang), or at least an NCAA tournament-style system through which a broad number of teams are allowed into the postseason, it simply cannot purport to crown a conclusive national champion. The best we can hope for are splits, asterisks, and the occasional "consensus" #1.
12.03.2006
BCS: Best Conference Screwed?
Well, USC ruined my potentially perfect BCS projections. I'm fairly glad that UCLA pulled off the upset, though, as we will now find ourselves in yet another heated BCS debate. Memories of Miami-Nebraska (not Oregon) and Oklahoma-USC (not Auburn) are sure to resurface in the coming days. Which team will be chosen to play Ohio St. for the national title? Will it be the 1-loss Wolverines, with their 3rd-ranked schedule, or the 1-loss Gators, with the toughest schedule in the nation? Ahhh!
Anyhow, I'm going to enjoy an action-filled sports day that includes the BCS selection show and a full slate of NFL games. I'll save the overused playoff and "plus one" arguments and iterations for a later time.
Happy debatin' everyone!
Anyhow, I'm going to enjoy an action-filled sports day that includes the BCS selection show and a full slate of NFL games. I'll save the overused playoff and "plus one" arguments and iterations for a later time.
Happy debatin' everyone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)