Monday, December 05, 2011
On Sunday, the Final BCS rankings were announced and the SEC scored two teams in the title game. And while almost everybody South of the Mason-Dixon line is happy out to the plains of West Texas, the rest of the country is shaking their heads and saying that it is a bunch of crap. Except those that work for the four-lettered sports station who has been pushing for this for over a month now. The BCS got this wrong again. It seems like every 2 years or so, we have problems with this stupid ranking system that the BCS puts forth. Let's go through history and show why the SEC zealots should be ashamed of themselves.
2000 - the BCS Title Game: Oklahoma vs. Florida State. This was the first fiasco with the BCS. Miami and Washington along with FSU had 10-1 records. Miami had defeated the Seminoles and Washington had beaten the Canes. In a flop of a National Championship game, Oklahoma won 13-2. Miami and Washington destroyed their opponents in their respective Bowl games making the BCS formula obsolete and a new one becoming the working model. The second one didn't last long.
2001 - The BCS Title Game: Miami vs. Nebraska. Holy crap, were there upset football fans from the South over this one. Nebraska was awarded the #2 slot in the BCS when they didn't win their own conference. The West was not thrilled either because Oregon thought that they should have been in the title game. But when Colorado upset the Huskers to claim the Big 12 North crown and got blown out by the Ducks 38-16 in the Fiesta Bowl, the cries grew louder and louder from football fans all across the country that a non-Conference Champion should not play for the national championship. Remember this, SEC fans?
2003- BCS Title Game: LSU vs. Oklahoma. Yet again, the name recognition overcomes the performance on the football field. In the Big 12 Championship game, Kansas State beats Oklahoma giving them matching 11-1 records. And the name recognition of a perennial power allows Oklahoma to be selected into the title game. K-State was better that year by a good margin, but since Oklahoma had their preseason high ranking and name value, the Sooners went on to lose the BCS title game to LSU 21-14. This time USC was yelling that a Non-conference winner should not be allowed to play for the title.
2004 - BCS Title Game: USC vs. Oklahoma. SEC fans were screaming about this one again. Auburn had went through the SEC undefeated and looked like they might be the best team in the land. Alas, they didn't have the name recognition to overtake either USC or Oklahoma. And they became even angrier when the Trojans blew the doors off the Sooners 55-19. Utah also went undefeated that season.
2006 - BCS Title Game: Ohio State vs. Florida. While the BCS got this one right, it is the way that SEC fans and coaches went about it that still sticks in my craw when it comes to their argument. Michigan had lost to Ohio State in a great game. And there was talk about a rematch in the BCS title game. Well, when Nick Saban was asked about it, he said that Michigan had their shot and somebody else deserved that spot in the title game. I wonder what he says about the 2011 BCS fiasco we are having right now? And the SEC was making threats about things and their fans were claiming that the BCS was biased against the SEC. In the end, it worked out where Florida made a drastic climb into the #2 spot over the Wolverines and won the title. And they got their way about not having a rematch in the National Championship game. Wonder if they will argue about that same principle in 2011?
2007: BCS Title Game: Ohio State vs. LSU. This is one where the SEC got the big benefit of the doubt. LSU had 2 losses, but got into the title game over Georgia, USC, and Oklahoma. LSU did win the national title and we started to see the SEC bias that the BCS has. And it isn't the computers. It is the human polls. Because most writers and coaches will give the benefit of the doubt ot a school that has a storied past. Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State from the Big 10 have all benefited from that fact as well as Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and other schools from the SEC. It is the way that the human voters vote. Especially coaches.
2011: BCS Title Game: LSU vs. Alabama. I don't care if this game might be entertaining. I don't care if these two schools have tons of history behind them. LSU is the #1 in college football. As for Alabama, in my way of seeing things, they might not be even #3. Go back to 2001 and 2004 and see what SEC fans were saying about a non-conference winner playing for the National Championship. I agreed with them then. See what the SEC fans in 2006 were screaming about when there was a possibility of an Ohio State - Michigan rematch for the National Championship. I agreed with them then as well.
The SEC argument about the polls and computers spit out the two teams and that is it, is a complete line of Bulls***! They have argued again and again that the BCS shouldn't reward a team that didn't win their League title. They have argued that a rematch of a Regular season game shouldn't be played for the National Championship. So what happens this year? Because it might favor a team or a league that they like, they argue the exact opposite points that they have been doing for the past decade. Well, I ain't go to be a b**** for ESPN, the BCS, the SEC, or anybody else. I will continue to say that if you do not win your Conference Championship, you cannot play for the BCS National Championship. And that goes for each and every conference in the country. I will continue to say that a rematch of a regular season game is not allowed in the BCS National Championship game. You had a shot a defeating a team and lost, then you don't get a rematch in #1 vs. #2 game because you have already proven which team is the dominant one. There are over 120 BCS football teams out there. Someone else deserves the shot at defeating the team that a school proved that year that they couldn't.
I am not a shill for Oklahoma State. In fact, I am a B1G fan. My favorite team is the Iowa Hawkeyes. I do see biases in voting and perceptions. The two changes that I would have take place in the BCS system in addition to the two provisions above is that there are no official polls taken ranking the college teams until week #5. If that would have happened this year, you would have a very different Top 25 poll at the end of this season. And I would take away the vote from the coaches. Let's see here. These gentlemen are working at least 70 hours a week to prepare for their football games. And then we ask for them to watch and rank other teams? That is ludicrous. Hire 70 people for the sole purpose of watching games and evaluating the teams. I am tired of administrative assistants filling out coaches votes for the polls. Ask almost any head coach about a team like Iowa State. They won't know diddly squat about the team. Ask them about TCU. Same thing. TCU is ranked #15. But the head coaches don't care about TCU unless they are going to play them.
The BCS isn't a good idea, but unless there is a playoff where you extend the season by 2 or 3 games, then this is what we have. We need to make it the best that we can to assure ourselves that we get rid of all the controversy that we can. Right now, that isn't happening. And the next BCS Title Game is a product of not doing the best thing for the BCS to actually get the two best teams out on the field playing for the National Championship. I hope that LSU comes out and destroys Alabama by at least 21 points. Then we have another bad title game and the SEC has egg on their face because of it.