BCS - Why I'm OK that Tech Won't Be Playing
by LondonRaider on Dec 7, 2008 6:47 PM CST
Email
Print
I am ecstatic that Texas Tech will not be playing in the Bowl Championship Series. The reason is that, contrary to popular belief, the BCS is not a reflection of the best teams in college football. As Groucho Marx once famously observed, “I don’t care to be part of a club that accepts people like me as members.”
The BCS is instead nothing more than a convoluted system that allows the top two teams to play for the national championship while guaranteeing that certain stake-holder conferences get their chance to feed at the television trough.
The BCS is comprised of 5 bowls: The Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl and BCS National Championship Game, which can only accommodate 10 teams.
Of these ten teams, 2 team play for the national championship, while 4 teams are guaranteed to play in the BCS as champions of their respective conferences.
The champions of certain conferences which are guaranteed participation, regardless of BCS ranking, include the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-10 and SEC.
The four remaining selections are euphemistically described as ‘at-large’ (the word ‘large’ clearly stretching the definition to absurd subjective extremes).
As it currently stands the likely BCS match ups stand as follows (I’ve assigned rankings on current polls or reasonable approximations of rankings based on yesterday’s games):
BCS Rankings and Bowls
1. Oklahoma - BCS National Championship (Automatic Bid)
2. Florida - BCS National Champtionship (Automatic Bid)
3. Texas - Fiesta Bowl (Big 12 representative guaranteed)
4. Alabama - Sugar Bowl (SEC representative guaranteed)
5. USC - Rose Bowl (Pac 10 representative guaranteed)
6. Utah - Sugar Bowl (At Large)
7. Texas Tech - No BCS
8. Penn State - Rose Bowl (Pac 10 representative guaranteed)
9. Boise State - No BCS
10. Ohio State - Fiesta Bowl (At Large)
12. Cincinnati - Orange Bowl
19. Virginia Tech - Orange Bowl (ACC Representative guaranteed)
Guess which two teams seem out of place in these so-called Championship games.
By virtue of the BCS rankings Texas Tech (No. 7) and Boise State (No. 9) are excluded to make room for the juggernauts that would be the (No. 12) Bearcats of the mighty Big East and (No. 19) Hokies of Virginia Tech.
Texas Tech is particularly discriminated against due to a technicality that for some inexplicable reason restricts BCS participation to two teams per conference. This rule unduly punishes teams for doing nothing more than playing in a high caliber conference. Therefore, we are not able to participate in the Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl or Fiesta Bowl.
Furthermore, the BCS does not allow two teams from the same conference to play again in a bowl game which does not decide the national championship. So despite our BCS ranking, Tech loses its chance to play in the Fiesta Bowl in any case and a 10th ranked two-loss team from Ohio State goes instead.
Boise State is excluded because only one team from a non-BCS conference is allowed to be represented in any given year. These conferences include Conference USA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt and the WAC. So Utah goes bowling while Boise State stays home despite both teams being undefeated and top 10 members of the BCS.
The next most attractive bowl for Texas Tech is of course the Cotton Bowl, where we have a decided advantage with a huge fan base and opportunity to showcase the team to new recruits in the area. However, I would be disappointed if our opponent winds up being the lowly (unranked) Ole Miss Rebels. I would much rather see a match-up that pits us against fellow also rans (No. 9) Boise State. However, because the Cotton Bowl is also tied to the lecherous conference tie in system, we instead would be obligated to play - as it stands - the fourth best team in the SEC instead of (No 15) Georgia who instead will seek victory in the Capital One Bowl against a mediocre (No. 18) Michigan State team to prove - well absolutely nothing.
The solution to this dilemma in my view is not a play-off. I think the regular season has proven to be a challenging enough process that ultimately reveals who the best teams are. At this point in the season, I don’t need to see (No. 1) OU and (No. 8) Penn State to understand who the better team is. No matter what process you define whether it be the top eight teams, 16 teams or 32 teams there will be some degree of subjectivity – just as there is in the NCAA basketball selection process. Somebody always gets left out.
The regular season is good enough provided that we remove the ridiculous guarantees to the so-called power conferences and the pointless restrictions as I have described above and allow the Top 10 finalists to play in the BCS. At the end of a long season, I think football fans across the country would rather see the 1 versus 2, 3 versus 4, 5 versus 6 and so on. If three of these teams are from the top conference in the country so be it. If two of these teams are from non-BCS conferences so be it. If the possible participation of two or more non-BCS teams proves to be too extreme a suggestion for the BCS powers, then modify the weightings to place more emphasis on victories over BCS conference teams (a measure I think would also force the BCS teams to play better non-conference opponents – ie a loss to a BCS conference team is worth more than a victory over a non-BCS team ranked outside of the BCS top 25).
Does the Orange Bowl really believe it is going to have a ratings bonanza on its hands this year? Give me a break. Let’s not be too disappointed that we won’t be attending a BCS game. With only eight of the top ten teams participating, the current BCS, hardly lives up to it billing. There are two changes which could be made to ensure that 10 of the top 10 teams make the BCS. It’s pretty clear to me what those ought to be.
Perhaps, we can start by changing the BCS to its more simplified initials BS which would be the best and most accurate description of what the process really reflects.
Go Red Raiders.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Double-T Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Double-T Nation's writers or editors.
21 comments
|
10 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
GOOD JOB
Similar to one i put together last year. i believe yours is better. Now , lets get this approved. and we want you to work on the conference playoff system. I think every conf, should have one[big 10 ,pac10] or do away with them. Whats your opinion?
I appreciate and whole-heartedly aggree with your viewpoint...
but I disagree with your comment of not wanting a playoff, for two reasons: 1) We rarely really know how good some teams are (i.e. say Penn State or Boise State this year) until they are paired with someone that they seldom play. A good example of a 1 and 8 team matchup was the OU vs. Boise State Bowl game: Boise State was THAT good that night. 2) In a sixteen team playoff – # 17 and down being left out is hardly the travesty that the current BS system produces year after year. Wetzel at SI has put together a great illustration of what this year’s 16 team playoff could have been, and there are some matchups in his brackets that beat the pants off of the BS offerings we will have to put up with in the real world. Also, playoff games MATTER. That in itself makes everyone more interested, sells more tickets, gets fans to travel… If a team wins they move on to the next round.
The amount of press concerning the FARSE (what I will continue to call the BCS for as long as there IS a BCS) is really mounting, and most of the voices are critical – some are VERY critical. I want to encourage that kind of coverage. I say “keep turning up the heat” on the fat cats who have hihacked College Football Div. I – there is no justification for continuing what more and more people are beginning to realize is just a FARSE!
Number of conference victories for Texas Tech this year: 7
Number of losses between Va Tech and Cincinnati: 6
Real barn-burner the BCS got there. If the BCS isn’t about pitting the best teams against each other (the Hokies aren’t even the best team in their division), then you’d at least think they’d know enough about profit-grubbing to avoid matching the ACC with the Big East in a big-money bowl.
The thing is,
The Big East was originally a member of the BCS ring and a tie-in to the Orange Bowl when it still had Boston College, Miami, and Virginia Tech. At that time, it made a lot more sense to include them in the BCS.
Once all those teams left, Pittsburgh (sorta) and West Virginia (especially) managed to keep it afloat for a while. Other teams have had their spikes, but nothing has been sustained. It’s only an added irony that the ACC (the conference the three teams joined) collapsed all at the same time.
If I could change one thing, I’d seriously look at revoking the Big East’s BCS privileges. If the MWC could grab Boise State and one other proven quality mid-major team (maybe Fresno State or Tulse), then I’d hand that guaranteed bid over to them and see what they could do with it. The MWC doesn’t have the old money backing, but they’re a lot better about competing than the Big East. Just ask the PAC-10 over the last few years.
It tickles me to think of the Orange Bowl execs sitting in a room somewhere wondering how and why they screwed themselves. And that Bama-Utah game is only one team away from being exciting.
Utah should call Junes Jones
to get tips on which lubricants will most effectively minimize the friction and resulting pain. Also, how best to meditate one’s self into a happy place during extremely traumatic events.
by mojavereject on Dec 8, 2008 10:38 AM CST up reply actions
No matter how you look at it - it sucks
I’m so pissed our best season ever gets us into a Cotton Bowl. Hell we’re playing a barely ranked Ole Miss team. 11-1 and this is what we get. Sucks! I’m not a bit excited about playing in this bowl. This really paints a bad picture as this was our best season and will probably be very hard to match anytime soon. I’m a Tech alum and season ticket holder from Dallas who isn’t even happy the game will be in my backyard. That should tell you how pissed I am about this whole scenario. Basically, UT and OU will always have an inside track on the BCS with the money, recruits and media on their side. And one last question – Leach had better get his ass to the signing table as this make the whole school look bad. If he wants to move on.. Let him and lets get busy finding a replacement. I’m sure I’m not alone at this point.
I bet your blood pressure just decreased
As I feel as good after having read your vent as you probably do having got it off your chest. I say “have a hot carl” to all of those elitist punks who put together this system so perfectly as to anticipate the future screwing of any 3rd team in a conference who dared rise up. I honestly believe they’d have taken Texas if they were a 2 loss team.
Even if we had played OU close
I don’t think the BCS results would have been any different. We might be higher in the rankings, but still behind OU & UT and out of the BCS.
If you had played OU in a nailbiter, Texas would have played Missouri.
I think the human voters would have ganged up to ensure that happened. And who knows? If the humans tweaked their ballots far enough to ensure that Texas went, maybe they would have accidentally dropped OU behind Tech in the process. Had they done that, it would have been very difficult to justify ranking them back above Tech when both teams sat idle.
(Did the BCS planners really think the human voters wouldn’t try to compensate against the computers to get the results they want?)
OU beating up on Okie State
…would have been the difference. It may have been UT, Tech then OU following the OU/Tech game, but I think OU would have jumped Tech the last week when they beat OK State and Tech beat Baylor.
Most likely.
And a lot of it is that marketing problem. The media types probably don’t intend to do it, but they tend to present Oklahoma as this football behemoth while presenting Tech as a very effective, but more fragile, team. (That is, that if Tech doesn’t do everything absolutely right they’ll fall apart while Oklahoma is assumed to do everything right.) It’s probably because Oklahoma has a deeper history and name recognition to market on the camera, and that makes it easier for the media to hype them. Meanwhile, you run the gamut from the “eccentric” media who are quite willing to hype Leach to the stodgy media who insist on throwing the “gimmick” term around.
Well, that’s the way it comes off over here in Tennessee.
by David Hooper on Dec 8, 2008 11:41 PM CST up reply actions
I wouldn't call that an inaccurate assessment
their depth and talent allows a greater margin of error, ie Jermaine Gresham coming up with multiple TD catches courtesy of tipped balls.
by mojavereject on Dec 8, 2008 11:47 PM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
