Monday, November 22, 2004


I managed to make it 20-something years without saying that, nor did I think I ever would. Thank you, BCS, you pile of shit. No, seriously. I will actually watch the USC-Notre Dame and care who wins, which is definitely something I've never done before. So the BCS has made people care about games like that. At the same time, if that doesn't work out, there's always Iowa St (or possibly Colorado). Is someone going to finally win the North? UCLA has a winning record, right? Maybe that's the upset most people east of the Rockies are waiting for.

The real problem, as stated before, is that this is essentially a 1-game, 2-seeds playoff system with a rigid and faulty system for picking the 2 seeds. This system assumes that 2 teams are clearly going to stand above all others. If you erased all records, but kept intact a "memory" of how teams had done during the season, there are several teams who might be worthy of playing for the title, beyond the unbeatens. Texas. Many people would argue for Cal. Even Utah, who while unbeaten, no one takes seriously, but how does one know, until they're given a chance to earn their first loss? They'll probably demolish the Big East "champion" if that is the matchup.

An eight-game playoff would virtually be guaranteed to include all unbeatens, as well as almost all of the 1-loss teams of proven ability. No automatic conference tie-ins. If the Mountain West or WAC or C-USA (think BCS conference teams are lining up to put Louisville on their schedule?) have a representative, but the Big East or ACC get left out, then tough. Collegiate sports is cyclical in nature. Interestingly though: before the BCS Oklahoma, Auburn, and USC most likely would have gone to different bowls. Imagine the motions for a playoff system, if there were a year with tri-champions!