Sunday, November 26, 2006

BCS must mean Big Crappy System

Up front: I'm a Michigan Wolverine fan, but I also follow USC. SC is pretty much the best team from SoCal. Even though I've been away from SoCal for a couple years and may never move back, I'm always gonna be from there. The only team at the top that I don't like is Ohio State. How can I be a fan of OSU when I'm a Wolverine fan? It just can't be.

That said, Ohio State is clearly the number one team in the country. They've beaten everyone they've faced, some by a huge margin, and deserve the top spot. The problem is what happens from #2 on down, and who gets to play for the national championship.

The USA Today Coaches Poll puts SC at #2 and Michigan at #3. The BCS...who knows what that thing is gonna come up with. The whole thing is a mess, because its not absolute. In the NFL, your record is what gets you where you're going: playoffs, or early vacation again. Either you win enough to move on, or you're making plans for visiting someplace exotic in the winter months. That's not how college foo'bah works...and the system sucks.

USC and Michigan have very similar records; both with one loss. The difference is that Michigan's only loss was by a field goal to the best team in football. USC got bushwhacked by an unranked Oregon State team. Losses to unranked teams should be the kiss of death for a national championship, but in this case, USC may have a chance to do it if they win next week against UCLA. How is that possible? They lost to an unranked team, but the "pundits", the sports reporters, have been saying retarded stuff like "Michigan already had their chance to beat Ohio State. Let someone else have a chance". Did you fools not watch that game? It was great! These are clearly the two best teams going, because Michigan and Ohio St. haven't lost to an unranked team.

USC gets ranked #2 because....why? They beat Noter Damn? Michigan beat ND worse. They had a tough schedule. In the NFL, that doesn't matter. If you win with a hard schedule, you win with a hard schedule. But if you're a better team, you'll beat whoever's in front of you...except that one unranked team that ambushed ya. Therein lies the proof that the BCS system is hopelessly, permanently flawed.

The BCS isn't going to change, because the people that decide these things have come to the conclusion that the money is the most important thing. This whole retarded system could be scrapped and a tournament could be installed in its place, keeping the bowl games in the process. The "Bandini Manure Bowl" might be able to be scrapped, but I'm dead certain that the low rent bowls don't cost as much to sponsor as the big ones do. That means you put the expensive bowls at the top, and the most expensive bowl (which would go up for bid to get some really sick money coming in) would be the champeenship game. Its rediculously simple and obvious, but there's too much shady dealing going on in the series. There has to be; if there weren't, there'd be a football tournament just like there is an incredibly successful hoops tourney. Funny how the best teams end up at the top in the NCAA tourney, even with 64 teams in the tournament. Its more like pro sports, which I would normally argue against as being the poster chiles for how things should work in athletics. In the end, though, their system works. The BCS is consistently screwed up and can't be fixed. C'mon, you knuckleheads: go to the playoff system you know the world wants. Until you do, I give the NCAA none of my money.

No comments: