Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

BCS culprits in a three-way tie for last

By JOHN ROMANO
Published April 29, 2005

The college football season is months away, and already the BCS has the same old problem at the top of a poll.

Once again, there are three deserving champions. Three worthy leaders. Three contenders splitting votes for the top spot.

Think about it. When it comes to assigning blame for the BCS mess, who would get your vote? I'm telling you, it's a tough call.

Do you go with the wimps?

How about the hypocrites?

And let's not forget the profiteers.

So many candidates and so little credibility.

The folks who brought you a split national championship in 2003 and a disputed national title in 2004 have reunited for a fresh take on absurdity.

When told polls were a poor substitute for a playoff system, college football leaders announced this week they would create a new poll.

When told bowl games were largely unsatisfying as a postseason alternative, they announced this week they would add a bowl.

And after they insisted Division I-A playoffs would unduly burden student-athletes, they prolonged the regular season. You get the feeling if they were asked to reduce class sizes, these clowns would inquire about lowering the ceilings.

You might wonder how this happens. How the few can frustrate the many. It's actually easily done. It's an example of power and selfishness prevailing against common sense and decency. It's sort of like your government, except there's beer at halftime.

In this case, you have a lot of college officials protecting their own fiefdoms. This would include coaches (the wimps), university presidents (the hypocrites) and bowl/conference executives (the profiteers).

Coaches like the idea of bowl games because they provide the illusion of a successful season. They understand playoffs would be exciting. They also understand playoffs would be far less forgiving. Football coaches, for instance, have seen a Billy Donovan squirm after five consecutive opening-weekend flameouts in the NCAA basketball tournament. Very few of those coaches are eager to put themselves in that firing line.

That's what makes the bowls so attractive to coaches. So what if Oklahoma State finished 4-4 in the Big 12? So what if Ohio State finished fifth in the Big Ten? They both went to San Antonio after Christmas for a bowl game.

Hey boosters, remember the Alamo!

Of course, university presidents have the power to overrule the wishes of their coaches. Of course, they do not have the gumption to do it.

Whenever there is talk of playoffs for Division I-A football teams, the chancellors and presidents bemoan the numerous demands already placed upon the student-athletes. Remember, they tell us, this is all about academics.

Then they make 12-game regular seasons the norm. Not sure how that helps academically, but it does wonders for profits.

Which brings us to the bowl executives and conference leaders. These are the people who make it all happen.

The bowls provide the necessary money, and the conferences come through with the requisite greed to make the system a story of capitalist success.

Through the first half-dozen seasons of the BCS, the major conferences were practically a postseason cartel. They controlled the biggest bowls, and they split the lion's share of the money. When the rest of the Division I-A schools finally got antsy, the BCS boys came up with a solution.

Add a bowl game to spread the wealth.

Now, you may recall, we've been told in the past that it wouldn't be a good idea to lengthen the postseason by even one game. That picking the two most deserving teams after the bowl games for a true national championship was simply not a feasible solution.

Yet, this week, the BCS has added a game to be played a week after New Year's Day. This game won't feature, say, the Rose Bowl victor against the Orange Bowl winner. Or the Sugar Bowl champion vs. the Fiesta winner.

Because, you know, two years ago a game such as that could have featured undefeated Southern California playing undefeated LSU. Or, last year, it could have been undefeated Auburn playing undefeated USC.

Nope, that sounds too enticing. Instead, the four traditional New Year's games will just be four more meaningless bowls.

And the BCS championship game the next week will be determined by - Ta-da! - the polls.

"If we could just get a little bit lucky a couple of years in a row and go without problems," Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen told USA Today, "I think it would help a great deal."

Lucky?

Lucky!

That's what this billion-dollar industry needs? A year with two undefeated teams instead of three? Yeah, this system would have worked great if Auburn hadn't been so darned perfect.

Here's another way of looking at college football's self-induced lunacy. What other major sport relies on votes to help determine a champion?

Figure skating? Haven't had a scandal there since, oh, the last Winter Games. Gymnastics? They spend half their time debating whether to offer extra gold medals, and the other half deciding whether to take gold medals away.

Boxing? Okay, you've got us.

College football has more credibility than boxing.

Just check the polls.

[Last modified April 29, 2005, 00:34:18]