Another Say on the BCS
by: Matthew Stone

Iíve seen a lot of stupid things in college football in my time, but none so recently as the ridiculous arguments circulating on national media networks demanding that USC be known as the unanimous #1 team in all of the land, before and after the so-called national championship between Oklahoma and LSU. Some of the filth that exudes from these so called professional opinions just makes me stop and scratch my head. So, always being the contrarian, I thought Iíd make some arguments of my own.

1) The argument: Oklahoma had no place in the Sugar Bowl because they didnít even win their own conference. False! I might be tempted to agree with this statement IF and only if there was a level playing field here. I might be more inclined to say that ìOnly conference champs can be eligible to advance to the BCS title game.î And you know what? USC would still not be in. Because they never even played a conference championship game. How can you penalize one team and exalt another for taking the easy road? It was fairly common knowledge that Oklahoma would maul Kansas State in the Big 12 Championship and then chew up whoever played them in the Sugar Bowl. Didnít happen that way. Thatís why they play the games. And itís ridiculous that fans of a USC team that didnít even play a conference championship can make this argument. I say, make every conference have a championship game, or none of them.

2) The unanimous #1 team in both human polls (Coaches Poll/AP Poll) should automatically be in the BCS Championship game. Uh. Wrong again. Can someone explain to me the point of installing the BCS system if they are still hung up on the Coaches Poll? The BCS was started to escape the tomfoolery of biased human voting. The powers that be decided that they had had enough split championships and wanted to avoid another Nebraska/Penn State of 1994 argument. But why on earth would you still use the Coaches Poll if you implemented a system where human bias supposedly should be disregarded? Use one, use the other, but for Peteís sake, donít use both! You want to uncomplicate things? Abolish the Coaches Poll.

3) The Hawaii/Boise State and Syracuse/Notre Dame games shouldnít have had any bearing on who was going to play in the national championship game. Untrue! Tell that to Miami (OH) and TCU. Both teams had one loss, so why werenít they even in consideration for the Sugar Bowl? Because they played ìcheesecakeî teams all year. Thatís really another argument Iíd love to delve into, but not today. Let me just say that some of the NFLís brightest stars have come from these mid-major schools (Randy Moss, Chad Pennington, LaDainian Tomlinson, Daunte Culpepper, Byron Leftwich). And the best college player this year came from Miami (OH). Yes, in my opinion, Ben Roethlisberger was the best quarterback in football this year, just ahead of Philip Rivers and Jason White (pre Kansas State and LSU). Just because he comes from a smaller school doesnít make their quality of play any less significant. But getting back to the point, if critics said these ìirrelevantî games didnít matter, well then, how about an LSU/Miami (OH) Sugar Bowl? TCU/Oklahoma? I would have loved to see any of those match ups.

4) Losing late in the season like Oklahoma did is worse than losing early in the season like USC did. Ummm. Okay, then by that argument, it would still be an LSU/Miami (OH) Sugar Bowl. LSU lost earlier in the season (to Florida). Miami (OH) lost their very first game (to Iowa, who just whooped Florida). Talk about strength of losses! Miami (OH) only has the LONGEST WINNING STREAK IN ALL OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL! Yet this argument is forgotten when it is only Oklahoma and USC that we are talking about. The inconsistencies are maddening.

5) (Side note) Listen. The only reason the BCS was implemented was the struggle between the major bowls and the television companies. The major bowls wanted things to stay the same. The television companies wanted ìThe Super Bowl of College Football.î Thus, the BCS was given the breath of life. Critics were crying foul over the old system just like they are crying foul right now. Boo-hoo. They crapped in their beds, and now they must lay in it. The only foul I see here is the exploitation of these young men playing on the football field. Everybody is making tons and tons of money trying to turn college football into the NFL. The only difference is that college football has a (for arguments sake) a free commodity to place on the field. Yes, I know about the scholarships and whatnot, but giving someone a free ride to your school is not the same as investing millions of dollars into salaries for the players. Shame on the exploiters. Last I checked, this was still an ìamateurî sport. The hypocrisy is disgusting. The same system that sets out to penalize players for trying to make a buck is compromising its integrity for the sake of the major bowls and the television companies. For shame.

6) I also see major flaws in the way the preseason polls are conducted. I think I made it clear that they should abolish these polls altogether, but if they are going to use them, use them wisely. The only thing I think that we can tell from a preseason poll is that it ainít gonna be the same at the end of the year. The only consistency is that the so called experts are always wrong at the beginning of the season. And thatís really a shame, because where you start on the polls has so much to do with where you end in the polls. USC was ranked ahead of LSU all season long. And the thought processes of so many of these people is ìwell, USC didnít do anything to drop in the polls this week, so LSU most definitely should be ranked lower.î Rubbish. I say, if you are going to release the polls, do it when you have a clear idea of whose who (and the only thing I was clear about after this season was the LSU was the best team in college football). The BCS does it the right way, why canít the human polls? I think we all know the answer to that one.

2002-2004 White Elephant Productions