TSR Color Rankings TSR Complete Rankings TSR Team Rankings For 2003 (by category) TSR Conference Rankings & Stats For 2003 |
May 18, 2004Well, they went and did it. It was only a matter of time but they finally succeeded. The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) went ahead and put the B.S. back into the BCS.By stripping the only official comprehensive system of Strength Of Schedule (SOS), The BCS brain trust has officially caved in to the fans and media that have been duped by the almighty image game. You read it in every column and news article, these words: “Split national championship.” Even in USA Today’s Mike Lopresti column of Jan. 6, 2004 when he opened up with this: “So now we’ll need two of everything. Two trophies. Two celebrations. Two visits to the White House.” Here’s some more. An Associated Press article dated Jan. 5, 2004, even stated that, “The BCS started the following season with the goal of choosing an undisputed champion,” when speaking of the last split national champions, Michigan and Nebraska (1997). This trumped up controversy is amazing considering that the BCS sets the standard for the entire year, determines the top two contenders for the title then doesn’t get sole recognition for crowning a champion. Huh? Where is it officially listed that the coaches and writer’s polls have enough power to take away from the BCS champion and call it a split? The point is this, how can elements WITHIN the main system (BCS), all of a sudden at the end of the year, have enough power to cut into the national champion by calling their own champion and cause this split? The BCS IS the system; they are not a part of one. They set the whole thing up. The coaches and writer’s polls were only A PART of the system. They were not meant to stand alone anymore, that is why the BCS was created in the first place! The question is why are so many falling for this guffaw? Why are so many ignoring the fact that the BCS should, and is, THE recognized champion? There is no split national champion. I have yet to find just one journalist, let a lone a fan, question this. If anything, the problem is not that USC and LSU didn’t play for the title in the Sugar Bowl, the problem is that college football, more often than not, needs one more game after the bowls. The thinking here is that Oklahoma appeared to be running out of gas and if they’d lose to LSU, they probably would have lost to someone else within the Top Ten. If No. 1 was kept away from No. 2 during the bowls-then the top two could play each other after the major bowls completion. What needs to be done is for the Top Ten to play each other: No. 10 vs. No. 5, on through No. 6 vs. No. 1-not No. 10 vs. No. 1, and so on. The ladder would be considered a tiered playoff system, which is what the bowls do not want. But if No. 1 played No. 6 and No. 2 played No. 7 (the top five vs. the second five), then Oklahoma and LSU would have played different opponents, hence, my above scenario. Maybe all three, LSU, USC and the Sooners would have won, but at least it would have been one more game to sort things out without a traditional playoff system. As mentioned above, the Sooners looked like they were running out of gas at the end with two straight losses so we more than likely would have had an LSU vs. USC matchup after the bowls. This would not have been overkill because No. 1 would not have played No. 2 until AFTER the bowls. Also, if the Top Ten were to be mandated like this, then the politics of choosing major bowl teams would be eliminated and the so called, non-BCS teams would have automatic access if they were to attain a Top Ten ranking. This is really what gives the Unfortunate Five (non-BCS conferences) a chance, not just solely adding a fifth major bowl. So now we have the BCS slicing a piece of the puzzle clean out of the equation, further enhancing the Old-Boys-Network’s chances for domination. After all, they control the image game. No more SOS, which also stands for HELP. |
TSR Columns
|