Tweet
In 1998, the only thing that stopped Utah from winning the NCAA basketball tournament was Kentucky's depth. Utah had that game . . . until they ran out of gas.
In both 2004 and 2008, Utah was stopped from competing for the BCS Championship before those football seasons even started. Utah was denied by arbitrary decisions as to who was "worthy" and who wasn't. So we get a shrug every now and then with an admission that the system is "flawed," but I disagree. The system is doing exactly what is was designed to do: keep most or all of the money in the Big Six . . . er, Big 4 and 2 used to be big conferences. Sure, they've thrown some table scraps to the non-BCS schools to keep them quiet, but I don't think its working anymore. The system isn't fair, and it wasn't designed to be fair.
Now life isn't fair, but in sports every team is, at least theoretically, supposed to be on a level playing field. The BCS is not a level playing field. In college basketball, every conference gets an automatic bid in the tournament for their champions; this is possible because of a 65-team field (with the play-in game). In football, only six conferences get automatic bids in BCS for their champions. With only so many bids available, it is not possible to give an automatic bid to every conference. It seems to me that the only fair thing would be that no automatic bids are given to any conference. Since you can't give one to all, you shouldn't give one to any.
Right away we would have some commentators huffing and puffing that certain conferences are worthy and others are not because some are better than others. But if certain conferences are more worthy than others, then they will have little trouble earning the bids year after year. My, my, what a novel concept, teams earning something rather than having it handed to them! That is, after all, the only thing the non-BCS teams want, a chance to earn it.
Just think how last year could have gone with teams having to earn bids. Since the Big East hasn't done much since the departure of Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College to the ACC -- which, strangely, hasn't done much since either -- maybe Boise State and TCU earn bids to the Orange Bowl in the place of Cincinnati and VT (BSU vs TCU was a great game in the Poinsettia Bowl). Well, the ACC did very well in its bowl games, so maybe the conference was better than the regular season might have indicated. But, hey, since the Tide didn't want to be in the Sugar Bowl, maybe Utah should have played the Broncos and VT should have played the Horned Frogs! The latter game probably would have been better than the matchup with Cincinnati produced.
The BCS is supposed to decide the college football champion, yet the BCS is of, by, and for the Big 4 and 2 used to be big conferences and not the NCAA. It is the modern aristocracy, and IMHO simply un-American.
In both 2004 and 2008, Utah was stopped from competing for the BCS Championship before those football seasons even started. Utah was denied by arbitrary decisions as to who was "worthy" and who wasn't. So we get a shrug every now and then with an admission that the system is "flawed," but I disagree. The system is doing exactly what is was designed to do: keep most or all of the money in the Big Six . . . er, Big 4 and 2 used to be big conferences. Sure, they've thrown some table scraps to the non-BCS schools to keep them quiet, but I don't think its working anymore. The system isn't fair, and it wasn't designed to be fair.
Now life isn't fair, but in sports every team is, at least theoretically, supposed to be on a level playing field. The BCS is not a level playing field. In college basketball, every conference gets an automatic bid in the tournament for their champions; this is possible because of a 65-team field (with the play-in game). In football, only six conferences get automatic bids in BCS for their champions. With only so many bids available, it is not possible to give an automatic bid to every conference. It seems to me that the only fair thing would be that no automatic bids are given to any conference. Since you can't give one to all, you shouldn't give one to any.
Right away we would have some commentators huffing and puffing that certain conferences are worthy and others are not because some are better than others. But if certain conferences are more worthy than others, then they will have little trouble earning the bids year after year. My, my, what a novel concept, teams earning something rather than having it handed to them! That is, after all, the only thing the non-BCS teams want, a chance to earn it.
Just think how last year could have gone with teams having to earn bids. Since the Big East hasn't done much since the departure of Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College to the ACC -- which, strangely, hasn't done much since either -- maybe Boise State and TCU earn bids to the Orange Bowl in the place of Cincinnati and VT (BSU vs TCU was a great game in the Poinsettia Bowl). Well, the ACC did very well in its bowl games, so maybe the conference was better than the regular season might have indicated. But, hey, since the Tide didn't want to be in the Sugar Bowl, maybe Utah should have played the Broncos and VT should have played the Horned Frogs! The latter game probably would have been better than the matchup with Cincinnati produced.
The BCS is supposed to decide the college football champion, yet the BCS is of, by, and for the Big 4 and 2 used to be big conferences and not the NCAA. It is the modern aristocracy, and IMHO simply un-American.
Comment