Sunday, December 05, 2004

BcS revisited...

Now things have been finalized. For Texas, BCS chaos is in full bloom (Rock Me! Pun intended). Not only is there carping about the top two teams, there is now lots of talk about the fairness of excluding teams like California and including teams like Pitt. Finally, after years of the BCS lucking out, we finally had the perfect storm...or at least a good enough one to make everyone wince. USC (#1 11-0) and Oklahoma (#2 12-0) will play for the title and Auburn (#3 12-0) will watch it on TV. OU and Auburn are 12-0 after Saturday, one of them is somehow more deserving than the other. And neither are as deserving as USC. Why is that again? Exactly. Yesterday afternoon, there was a collective, "Whew!" from coaches in Norman, L.A., and Austin. In Berkeley and Auburn there was a much louder,"%#@$*"! The reasons to laud one group and console the other are equal mysteries.

In a never ending attempt to beat any point into the ground, I will revisit my "plan". To reiterate, instead of hand-wringing over the 2nd place team(!), and watching a very deserving 3rd place team take a swift kick to it's nether regions, we would tell 15th ranked(that's right not No. 3, but No. 15) Tennessee,"Sorry, maybe next year." You might be saying,"But that's not fair, they had to play an extra game which accounted for their 3rd loss!" True, but their ranking did not change from the week before so it would appear they could do nothing but improve their standing with the extra game. (*Note* I just realized that Tennessee would have been disallowed because of my "conference cap" of three. They would have been the 4th SEC team...which means my plan is even more genius than I first realized.) So, one last time, for your viewing pleasure, the 16 team playoff bracket if my plan were enacted.

Mythical 2004 NCAA Playoff Bracket (BSC ranking)
1. USC (1)
16. Toledo (NR)________USC
_________________________________ USC
8. Virginia Tech (8)__Vir. Tech
9. Boise St. (9)
___________________________________________ USC
5. California (5)_____Cal
12. Michigan (13)
_________________________________ Texas
4. Texas (4)__________Texas
13. Iowa (12)

3. Auburn (3)
14. Miami, Fl. (14)____Aub.
_________________________________ Auburn
6. Utah (6)___________Utah
11. LSU (11)
____________________________________________ Okla
7. Georgia (7)________Georgia
10. Louisville (10)
_________________________________ Okla
2. Oklahoma (2)_______Okla.
15. Pittsburgh (21)

I went ahead and displayed for you some of the later round match-ups if the favorite were to win in each contest, but most of the first-round games would have me glued to the set. Like that 7-10 game, or check out 3 vs. 14. Well, let's just say sports fan giddiness would be in full effect. In an email debate with Bob Sturm of the Ticket last week, where it seemed he was not in favor of any play-off of more than 4 teams he said that teams in a 16-team play-off "...could easily be 3rd place teams in their own conference, and I do not want mediocrity rewarded." I countered that I didn't think Georgia was all that mediocre. In the end, we agreed to disagree, I guess. My last email to him offered this question,"I guess I would also wonder why some are so opposed to college football being played in the month of December. A playoff would essentially mean 3 extra weeks of football, a collection of match-ups that we rarely get during the regular season, and a clear cut champion. Plus, the schools would probably make more money. I just can't get why there is even an argument." I never got a reply. There's little doubt in my mind that it had more to do with he having more pertinent things to do than continue a debate with the likes of me than it did with not having an answer. But it still remains, the answer to "Why?" seems obvious. The answer to "Why not"? Got me.

No comments: