 |
|
The BCS, otherwise known as the BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES, but more properly called the bullshit computer system, is a complete failure. In 6 years of use it has failed to do what it was intended to do, eliminate controversy over the naming of a college football national champion, in 3 of those years. And this year could be even worse. For the first time in BCS history, the #1 ranked team in the writers and coaches’ polls, traditionally the indicators of the national champion, the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, will not even be playing in the BCS CHAMPIONSHIP game. That makes 4 of the 7 tries that the BCS has had its’ say where there is still a dispute over the result. Honestly, the NCAA could flip a coin and get it right more often. The irony is that the BCS was supposed to end all this, and it has done nearly the opposite. Over the years two polls formerly the AP and UPI rankings were used to decide the national champion. The AP still exists and the UPI was replaced by the ESPN/USA TODAY poll. Otherwise now known as “the human polls”, they are voted on by two groups of people, 65 sportswriters and 63 football coaches. Presumably, they know best who is best in the land, though some may argue about the “human” part. On occasion however, these two polls wound up with different schools atop the heap. In those years, with the lack of a playoff system in college football, the country was left with 2 schools going to Disneyland, and we just couldn’t have that. Hence, the BCS, was formed, and with it a complicated conglomeration of calculations consisting of (“human”) poll rankings, 7 computerized rankings and strength of schedule. Oh yeah, wins and losses still matter, though BOISE STATE and TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, both at 12-1 and both not even on the BCS radar screen would beg to differ. Where it becomes interesting is when you look at what doesn’t go into the BCS calculations. There are points and fractions thereof, given and taken away for any number of things. A team is given bonus points depending on where in the BCS polls an opponent finishes and whether an opponent finishes with a win-loss record better than .500. For this reason USC was penalized because HAWAII lost to BOISE STATE late Saturday evening. Likewise LSU lost fractions when they beat GEORGIA for the second time, as GEORGIA fell out of the BCS top ten. Conversely, OKLAHOMA got brownie points because it beat TEXAS earlier in the year, and TEXAS finished #6 in the final BCS standings. All this is good and well. But why isn’t a team awarded some bonus points for finishing atop the human polls. It would seem to me that the team which all of the interested professional “humans” thought was the best team in the country, ought to be awarded some bonus for that accomplishment. But there is no such calculation in the BCS, and so USC, atop the “human” polls, will not dance the BCS dance. Likewise, a team that wins its’ conference, like USC or LSU is not awarded bonus points by the BCS. So, a team like OKLAHOMA, who did not win its’ own conference, can be ranked #1 by the BCS, while USC and LSU look up at them. Perhaps the BCS ought to penalize a team for losing their conference. Even a fraction of a point would have made the difference here. I mean, if the final score of the HAWAII game has point implications for the final BCS standings, it would seem to me that the fact that USC and LSU did win their conferences and OKLAHOME did not should also be in there somewhere. The computers can handle that calculation. In their infinite wisdom, the BCS people figured they didn’t want teams piling on the points in a rout, so margin of victory or loss does not figure into the BCS rankings. These BCS folks not only determine the best team, they set policy too. Rules have effects you know. Anyway, the number of points a team scores, or the number of points that a team wins by does not weigh into things. Now that just seems wrong, doesn’t it? I mean, the boys in HAWAII may not have even cared what happened in their last game of the season, but you can be dam sure the guys in red wanted to win that last game OKLAHOMA played, and the fact that they got beat by 28 points, whereas USC’S only loss of the season was in triple overtime does mean something in the final determination of which of those teams is better. I don’t care what the BCS says. USC was not dominated or embarrassed by anyone, particularly in a game for the conference title. They won their final 6 games by an average of more than 26 points, and scored more than 40 doing so each time. That stuff matters. As should the routs that OKLAHOMA had during the year. Another item given no attention by the BCS is at what stage of the season a team loses. So, OKLAHOMA’S loss in the last week of the season, in a game for the conference title is treated the same as a loss on the first day of the season. So OKLAHOMA can lay claim to being the best the day after having a can of whooping opened up on them, but USC which lost a fluke early in the season, and is on a winning streak that is getting stronger an more dominating each week can not. If a team gets spanked, humiliated, soundly defeated of course it has a bearing as to how good that team is. And when a team gets beat right out of the chute, it’s not the same as losing the BIG 12 Championship game. Yet, the fact that OKLAHOMA got trounced by KANSAS STATE has no bearing on the rankings other than it counts as a loss for the SOONERS. And, the fact that NOTRE DAME lost to SYRACUSE on the same day does have bearing. Go figure. As for strength of schedule, I’m well a ware that the team that plays against tougher opponents and still succeeds, is a better team. But the BCS factors in strength of schedule after the fact. For instance, USC beat WASHINGTON STATE earlier in the year. At the time WASHINGTON STATE had 1 loss and was 8th in the nation. As the season progressed, WSU didn’t finish strong. They fell to #14 in the human polls as the season ended. But that shouldn’t diminish the win USC had over them when they were #8. When those two teams played, they were #6 and #8. The fact that WSU fell to #14 or even less in the BCS eyes, shouldn’t diminish a victory over a very good team at the time, yet BCS does exactly that, and that is just wrong. Included in the BCS numbers are 7 computer polls. But who is behind these polls and what factors are they basing their rankings on? One such ranking, the Sagarian poll finds USC at #4 behind MIAMI of Ohio. The BCS places the very same MIAMI of Ohio team at #11, whereas the NEW YORK TIMES computer poll places MIAMI of Ohio at #22. That same NEW YORK TIMES poll ranked OKLAHOMA, the BCS #1 team, 5th. Now there may be some disagreement as to just how far OKLAHOMA should have dropped after their terrible loss to a KANSAS STATE team that itself lost 3 times during the year, but most if not all would agree that they should not be placed behind TEXAS, a team that they beat soundly earlier in the year. Nor would anyone put OKLAHOMA behind MICHIGAN which lost 2 games during the season, yet that is exactly what the TIMES poll did. FLORIDA, which had an off year losing 4 times, was ranked as high as 13 in one of the computer polls, yet BOISE STATE and TCU which went 12-1 are not to be found in the BCS top 15. MICHIGAN is ranked 4th in the coaches and the writers polls, as well as the BCS rankings, yet ANDERSON & ELLESTER have them 7th and COLLIER has them 6th. You get the picture-these computer rankings are all over the board, yet their average has a significant impact on the final BCS standings. Truth be told, not everyone is bothered by the results. OKLAHOMA coach BOB STOOPS put it this way, “I don’t see if it is a split where it hurts anybody. It’s just the way the system is.” translation-“Thank God we’re in the BCS Championship game!” STOOPS went on to say, “We’ve come, I don’t know, 13 or 14 straight weeks being #1 in the country, carrying that burden the entire year, and played pretty well…” translation-“We don’t deserve to be in.” STOOPS again, “In the end, we are #1, not 2 or 3 or anything else. I think that says enough…There’s nothing to apologize about.” translation-“I’m sorry, but thank GOD we’re in!” Meanwhile USC coach PETE CARROLL was all calm, goodness and light, “It’s unfortunate it has happened like this.” translation-“How lucky, we don’t have to play OKLAHOMA and we still can lay claim to #1.” And so the ultimate irony that is the BCS will play out. In all likelihood, the controversy it was supposed to supplant will arise strong as ever, despite the careful planning and convoluted computations. That is, unless USC wins easily while OKLAHOMA and LSU fight it out to a drag-out, drop-dead, throw in the towel tie. In NCAA college football, funnier things have happened. |
SHAQUILLE O’NEAL was joined by JESSICA SIMPSON, ICE-T, ERNIE HUDSON, and fellow Laker, KAREEM RUSH at his 8th annual event benefiting under-privileged children. The event featured a host of carnival rides and games, a concert by SIMPSON, and food provided by Los Angeles area restaurants, including IN-N-OUT Burger, EL CHOLO, COLD STONE CREAMERY and ROSCOE’S CHICKEN & WAFFLES among others. SHAQ waded through the crowd like a king out for a stroll among his subjects, and even ventured onto the Round-Up, to the delight of many young carnival goers, not to mention the media that was hounding him. The day was capped off by a concert with JESSICA SIMPSON and METHOD MAN performing. Rumors abound that SHAQ went on an intensive training program after last season’s disappointing end. Sporting a JULIUS IRVING jersey from ROOSEVELT (high school?), it was not apparent it, from this reporter’s perspective anyway, that the big guy is in any better condition than he appeared to be in for the start of any of the last 4 seasons. We shall soon see… |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Copyright © 1994-2003 Manmade Multimedia, Inc. All rights reserved. |