BCS Humor.

I wish I could take credit for coming up with this bit of genius, but, alas, I can't. I won't, however, refrain from posting it here. To give it context, it came out last season, shortly after the Big 12 conference used the BCS rankings to break a 3-way tie for the Big 12 South championship, and give Oklahoma a spot in the conference title game despite the fact that the Sooners had lost to Texas (a team they were tied with).

BCS Declares Germany Winner of World War II

by

Andy Walsh

Contributor

US Ranked 4th

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants, the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories--Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."

German Chancellor Adolf Hitler said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented " France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.

Thoughts on the Heisman

I think it's clear by now that, right or wrong, the likely invitees to NYC for the presentation will be Tim Tebow, Colt McCoy, Mark Ingram and Toby Gerhart. And if the voters take team accomplishments, career accomplishments, and what they may or may not do on Sunday next season out of the equation, there is only one player who can be named the 'Most Outstanding Player in College Football'. Stanford running back Toby Gerhart.

I'll say it again. If the voters actually vote for the 'Most Outstanding Player in College Football' it should go to Toby Gerhart.

McCoy and Tebow are there because they play on the #3 and #1 teams in the polls.That's it. Has McCoy put up big numbers? Yes, he has. Has he done it against a weak schedule in what this year is essentially a 1-team league? Damn straight. Face it, against the few quality opponents he's played, he's been largely mediocre. Let's face it, the Horns won the Big-12 championship Saturday IN SPITE of McCoy, not because of him.

Tebow has put up the worst numbers of his three years as the UF starter. And when it came down to it, in the biggest game of the year for the Gators, he laid a big one. (Oh, and by the way, this 'Tim Tebow is the best QB in college football history thing'? Two words. Matt Leinart. 37-2 as a starter. SC played for 3 National titles the three years he started. 35 straight wins as QB. 10,000 yards passing. But I digress) .If anyone else put up these numbers and DIDN'T play on a team that was (as of yesterday) 12-0 and had won 2 National Titles in the last 3 years, they'd get an 'oh well, nice season', followed by hearty laughter if anyone suggested a trip to New York.

Face it, McCoy and Tebow are getting Heisman pub not because they are the 2 best quarterbacks in CFB, but because their teams are (or in Tebow's case, were) unbeaten. If pressed, I think anyone could name several QBs who fit the 'more outstanding tag' than either of these two. Kellen Moore. Case Keenum. Max Hall. Jimmy Clausen..and even Tony Pike if he hadn't gotten hurt. Hell, Andy Dalton at TCU had better numbers than Tebow and his team IS undefeated. But he'll likely be in Fort Worth this weekend eating a burger, fries, and slushy at the Sonic, while Timmy is getting feted in the Big Apple.

If one of the QB's wins it this year you can go ahead and add them to the distingiuished list of Eric Crouch, Charles Woodson, and Geno Torretta as years (among many) when the Heisman Voters bought into the hype, and ignored the reality.

To the running backs now. Has Mark Ingram had a fine season? Yes he has. But the most outstanding player in college football? Hell, he's not even the best running back. Or the 2nd (That'd be Dion Lewis). Or the 3rd (That'd be LaMichael James). Or probably the 4th (I'd say 'Quizz Rodgers. But I'm biased.) It's easy to make the case that there are multiple backs who have had better seasons, and are better backs than Ingram. While they may not win the debate, you can easily make the case that James, Rodgers, Lewis, (and Ryan Matthews for that matter) had seasons that were equally as good. And if you bring the 'value to team' argument into the case, were just as valuable as Ingram to their team.

So that leaves Gerhart. And all the arguments go out the window. Rushing yards? Leads the nation with 1736. TD's? 26 rushing, leads the nation. Performance in big games? 178 and 3 against SC. 223 and 3 against Oregon. 136 and 4 in the Big Game against Cal. Team performance? Toby Gerhart picked a team picked to finish 7th in the conference, put them on his back, and 1700 yards and 26 TD's later the Cardinal are in their first bowl game in 8 years

And if that isn't the 'Most Outstanding Player in College Football', I don't know what the hell is.

More Thoughts on Notre Dame

This is getting a little away from the Charlie Weis on the hot seat post...so I'll reiterate my position on that again for those of you who might have missed it. Burn his ass. Get him gone, the sooner the better.

On to other thoughts...

Let me preface this by saying I DON'T LIKE THE NOTRE DAME FIGHTING IRISH. I don't like Fat Charlie. I don't like Jimmy Clausen. Going back, I didn't like Brady Quinn. Or Rick Mirer. Or the Bus. I couldn't stand Michael Stonebreaker, or the Rocket. I didn't care for Joe Theisman. And I never liked Paul Hornung. And Lou Holtz? Hate is not strong enough a word.

But I will argue this. Like them or hate them, Notre Dame is the most popular team in college football, both pro and con. No team, not Florida, not Texas, not USC, not Bama, inspires the feelings Notre Dame does. You ask people in, for example, OKC what they think of Texas, and you might get an 'I hate the Horns. Pokes Rule.' response. Ask them what they think about Penn State, and you probably will get some equivalent of 'I really don't give a rats ass'. Ask someone in State College what they think of Texas and you'll likely get, again, the who gives a rats ass response, followed by a 'JoePa RULES!'. But in both places, you ask someone, what they think of Notre Dame, and you'll get a definite response, either positive or negative. And the same is likely true all across the country.

People will have many reasons why they hate Notre Dame, from their allegedly weak schedule, to their special treatment by the BCS, from their independent status to the Saturday afternoon telecast on N(otredame)BC. Do they have their own television contract? Yes. Why? Because people watch. And NBC makes money off them. They can pull ratings nationwide like no other school can week in week out. Sure, Texas can pull ratings for the Red River Shootout. But no one outside of Texas wants to see them play Baylor. As for their schedule, they played 10 games this season against BCS opponents. Few teams do that. Bama doesn't. Florida doesn't. Texas doesn't. SC did this year. Neither did Oklahoma or OK State did. They also played Nevada who have gone to bowls four years in a row. And Navy. Who they will play because the Mids scheduling games against the Irish during the War kept the school from going under. It's tradition.

As for the difficulty of their schedule, Jeff Sagarin rates them having the 20th toughest schedule in the country, tougher than every team in the top 12 of the BCS other than Georgia Tech and Oregon. They've also NEVER scheduled a 1-AA or D-2 opponent. Ever. It's them, SC, and UCLA. That's it.

And yes, they are given special consideration for BCS bowl bids. Because the bowls are about selling tickets. And Notre Dame puts asses in the seats, pure and simple. In the stadium or in front of the TV, Notre Dame puts asses down to watch better than anyone. You want an example? 60,000 people came to see Notre Dame vs. Washington State. In a regular season game. IN SAN ANTONIO.

Finally, yes, the Irish are an independent. But why should Notre Dame WANT to join a conference? What's in it for the Irish? If they win 9 games and finish in the top 8 of the BCS they go to a game automatically. They go to a conference, they lose that exception. Of course the Big East and the Big 10 would want them. So would any conference in their right mind. They'd bring media, fans, tv ratings, sponsors, and MONEY. So if they get all this on their own, why bother joining a conference and having to share?

So why should we care if the Irish are good? Because it's tough to hate a team thats mediocre. Ask Gator fans if the games against Free Shoes U have lost some of their lustre now that the 'Noles stink. Ask a Duck fan (like me) if the Civil War means more now that Moo U. doesn't suck. (Hell yeah, it does). Even if you hate the team, its tough to hate a team that loses 7 games a year. And one more reason...Notre Dame is about tradition. It's about the Golden Dome. And Touchdown Jesus. And the Rock. And 'Win One for the Gipper'. It's about the Green Jerseys against USC, and Montana in the Ice in the Cotton Bowl. It's about 7 heisman winners, and 11 national championships. It's about the fight song, and it's about 'Outlined against a blue-gray October sky, the Four Horsemen rode again. In dramatic lore their names are Death, Destruction, Pestilence, and Famine. But those are aliases. Their real names are: Stuhldreher, Crowley, Miller and Layden.' Notre Dame is everyone's rival. Seeing them on your schedule is special because of the tradition and the history. Beating them should be too. And I want Notre Dame to be as good as they can be. If only so that kicking the crap out of them will mean something again.

And they should fire Charlie. Because they'll suck until they do.

Charlie Weis on the Hot Seat?

I'm not an Irish fan by a longshot. But college football is better when Notre Dame is better. And Charlie isn't making the Irish better.

Charlie Weis has been given everything that Ty Willingham wasn't given at Notre Dame. He wanted a lighter schedule...and he's got a lighter schedule. He wanted academic standards lessened for incoming recruits, and he got it. And he's failed miserably. He's never beaten USC. EVER. (Hell, John Cooper even beat Michigan a couple times). He has (I think I'm getting this right) never beaten a team that finished the season with fewer than 4 losses. He's lost to Navy. TWICE. He lost to Syracuse.

Just as it takes a very special coach to be able to make the transition from successful college coach to successful pro coach, it takes just as special a coach to make the transition the other way. Pete Carroll is the exception, not the rule. And I think Fat Charlie is falling more into the Bill Callahan mode than anything resembling a success.

The hue and cry when Ty Willingham was let go was that Notre Dame had ALWAYS given their coaches five years. Gerry Faust got five years. Bob Davie got 5 years. They didn't win. They were fired .Charlie's had his 5. He's 35-25. And right now, they stink. And there is one common denominator in their Stinkitude. And that's Charlie. He can't blame Ty for leaving the cupboard bare (although it was Ty's players that got him to his 2 BCS games). His players. His coaches. His record. His failures.

There is one thing that is keeping Charlie at ND right now, and it isn't the money. It's Notre Dame not wanting a repeat of the fiasco that went on when they hired Weis. They won't put themselves in the position (again) of getting shined by their number 1 guy (Urban Meyer). Or their #2 guy (Mike Bellotti). If there's a search going on, it's going on now; they'll have the new coach signed, sealed, and delivered before they pull the trigger on Weis. Charlie's done. We know it. He knows it. ND is just waiting until they've gone to Home Depot to get the New Head Shovel before they start throwing dirt on his coffin.

Thinking on a Tuesday Morning

It's tough being a college football fan in an NFL town. That being said, this past weekend was still great.

A few random thoughts.

It was the worst of times, it was the best of times for the Oregon Ducks. A season that had all the (forgive the pun) ducks in a row for greatness essentially ended on the Smurf Turf in Boise. They had it all; Jeremiah Masoli returning at QB, LeGarrette Blount in the backfield, USC, Cal, and Moo U. (Oregon State for you non-duck fans out there) at Autzen. It was all going to be sooo perfect.

Thud.

By the way, that urban legend about ducks mistaking the Smurf Turf in Boise for a lake and crashing into it? Yeah. I think no first downs until the third quarter pretty much proved that one isn't a myth at all.

Then, to top it all off, LeGarrette 'We Owe this team an a** whoopin'' Blount, gets taunted by some BSU twit, sucker punches him...and then attempts to fight the fans, his teammates, the cops, the North Idaho Potato Growers CoOp, and anything he can get his hands on.

And then it gets better. Seriously. How many times have you seen something like this happen? Player breaks team rules. Coach says 'We will discipline him internally'. Player misses home game against Dumptruck Community College. Player sees the error of his ways....miraculously coming back before the Big Game.

Except this time it didn't happen. LeGarrette Blount is done playing football at Oregon. Chip Kelly (and Bellotti) suspended him for the season. It didn't matter that the Ducks really don't have a backup running back. Or that LB was REALLY good. They drew the line in the sand. They said 'This is not acceptable behavior at Oregon. This behavior will not be tolerated. You will no longer have the privilege of wearing the Green and Yellow. And White...and Pewter...and Black.'

Thank you Chip. Thank you Coach Bellotti. Thank you for putting principle ahead of wins. Thank you for realizing that being a college football player does not abrogate you from following the rules of common society.

Now please don't change your minds and let him come back.

Is there any 18 year old you'd rather be than Matt Barkley? Movie star looks, a rocket arm, and the most prestigious starting job in college football. Quarterback. USC Trojans.

Anybody but me think it's ironic (and absurd) to hear the words 'loyalty' and 'trust' come out of the mouth of Rich Rodriguez?

Miami beat Florida State last night. Hey, at least you can't blame this one on Gerry Thomas or Dan Mowrey.

They paint the Notre Dame helmets with gold paint before every game. Lou Holtz was the head coach for the Irish. Anyone else think someone locked Lou in the paint room one too many times?

Highlights of the SEC non-conference schedule. Missouri State. Charleston Southern. Eastern and Western Kentucky. Southern Louisiana PLUS Lousiana Lafayette, Monroe, and Tech. Tennesee Tech. UTC. Florida Atlantic and International. Troy, lots of times. Furman. If I were an SEC season ticket holder and I saw this crap? REFUND! Props though to UGA for going to Ok. State this year and ASU last year. And LSU for playing UDub. And Auburn for going up to Morgantown (Git Them Couches Ready Boys! Flame ON!). Now, if only we could get Florida to leave the state for a non-conference game for the first time in two decades....

Steve Kornya's Rule #1 of College Football Scheduling. If you're going to consider scheduling Dumptruck Community College for your season opener, you need to beat them. Got that ACC? D-1 teams shouldn't lose to 1-AA teams. Ever. If you don't know you can win, don't put them on the schedule. And if you do lose? Well, my guess is, after that stellar performance against William & Mary, UVA coach Al Groh will be selling Kenmores by Christmas. By the way, James Madison has started looking awfully good in College Park this weekend.

Speaking of 'We Owe this team an a** whoopin', I'm reading the Baltimore Sun this weekend (albeit a couple of days late), and I come across this gem from Nolan Carroll, a fifth year Maryland cornerback. 'We feel this (season opening game against Cal) is a statement game for the whole nation to prove who we are.' What?? Couple of prefaces to this one. Cal came into the game as the #12 team in the country, predicted to challenge USC for the Pac-10 title. Maryland came in unranked, predicted to finish last in their division of the ACC. Cal returns 17 starters from a team that went 9-3; Maryland brings back 10 from an 8-5.

So this is a 'statement game for the whole nation'?

It was. Here's your statement. 52-13. Maryland football stinks. Thanks Nolan. 'The Nation' thanks you for clarifying that point.

Finally...

This past friday, 5 women (the 'Women in Black') were threatened with arrest if they didn't cease their protest in Baltimore's inner harbor. They weren't being violent. They weren't being disruptive. They were carrying signs saying 'Peace is Patriotic', as they have done most every Friday since 2003. Baltimore police officers told them they were 'breaking the law' and if they didn't leave they would be arrested. The commander of the Central Police District, Maj. Dennis Smith, has said the officers will be 'retrained'.

Here's all the training the officer needs. 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' It's called the first amendment to the United States Constitution. It's called the Bill of Rights. If the Baltimore PD needs to be 'retrained' to understand this, maybe that retraining should involve the phrase 'Blue light special. Catfood. Aisle three.'

A few thoughts on breakfast.

Jimmy's of Fells Point.

There are joints, dives, dumps, and then there's this place. I could get past the rude service, crowds, dirty surroundings and the inexplicably long lines of people waiting to get in if the wait were worth it. It isn't. I've actually been back several times...I go, don't like it, then read raves of people who love it, and think that maybe I just don't get it. I've finally figured it out; it's not that I don't get it, it's that I ain't buying it. At least they don't bring the coffee pot around that often...what they're pouring isn't worth drinking anyways. And since it's cheap, you won't feel like you've been all that ripped off. Basically this is the Emperor's New Clothes of breakfast places...except no one has stood on the tables to tell the place the Emperor is buck naked. Yet.

IndyCar at St. Pete

(Originally posted as a letter to SpeedTV writer Robin Miller (the premier IndyCar scribe on the planet. Click here to read the entire Q&A)

Was absolutely floored by the Versus coverage this weekend. A pre-race show? A race with multiple cameras? A REAL post-race show? Knowledgeable commentators? A network that actually seemed to care about putting on a quality broadcast? I had to check my calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1, and review the medicine cabinet to make sure the Advil bottle didn't list 'hallucinations' as a side effect. The only thing needed was Miller in the booth, but beggars can't be choosers....

That being said, a couple of questions. First, what's up with Milk and Doughnuts? First she's supposedly on NHL with Kid Rahal and Bobby D, she tests at Homestead, and now she's nowhere to be found. Did Hugo Chavez' check bounce, or did someone at NHL wake up and realize that hiring a moving chicane pretty much shoots any credibility you have as a legit racing team right to hell? Second, in light of the debacle of a start today at St. Pete, do you see Barnhart/George/et al being any more receptive to the possibility of trying a standing start on road courses? Finally, is there a chance that Rahal/Letterman can scrounge a sponsor or two to run Indy as a one-off, and if so, who do you think their driver (or drivers) would be?

Random thoughts on a Saturday Morning

ARod (A-Fraud/A-Roid, whatever) continues to be excorciated about his admitted use of PED's. The latest reason? His association (alleged) with a trainer who has been banned from MLB for being a steroid mule for ARod's then-teammate Juan Gonzalez. Despite the fact that he ADMITTED using steroids over an extended length of time (unlike Andy Pettite who said he used it 'once', and Jason Giambi who despite his apology, never really admitted to using anything), he is now held up wrongly or rightly, as the new poster boy for everything that is wrong with baseball. Somewhere Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds are doing the happy dance....

Meanwhile, O's second baseman Brian Roberts signed a 4-year, $40 million dollar extension this week saying, in effect, he wants to spend his entire career with one team, and believes in the direction Andy Mac has the franchise going. Kudos to BRob for his loyalty and optimism, no matter how misguided they may be.

How bout this, though? ARod is getting hammered for his associations. BRob's closest friends with the O's in 2004 (when his power spiked) were Larry Bigbie and Jay Gibbons, two former O's named in the Mitchell Report, and admitted HGH users. 2004 was also the year that Miguel Tejada, another suspected drug cheat, joined the O's. Roberts goes from a slap-hitter in 2003, to 50 doubles in 2004. From 4 HR in 2004, to 18 HR in 2005.

Roberts admitted to taking 'one steroid shot' in 2003.

Believe that? If you do, let me put you on to a prime real estate deal. It's a bridge. In Brooklyn. I can get it for you cheap.

Just a few other thoughts...

There are supposedly 103 other names on the list of players who failed the anonymous drug tests in 2004. Why did SI focus solely on A-Rod? Where are the other 103 names? And if this was a test done solely for survey purposes, with anonymous samples, how can they conclusively link it to A-Rod? And why didn't the MLBPA (and Gene Orza) destroy the samples after they were taken in 2004 as the agreement said they were supposed to? I think Orza is covering his bases in case he gets laid off in the economic downturn...with this demonstrated ability to botch the handling of drug tests he's padding his resume for a job with that French company that does the TdF testing...

Tiger Woods announced his comeback will start week after next in the Accenture Match Play. BMore talking head Anita Marks (yes, I've seen the issue. Coyote. Major. Thank god for the inventor of the airbrush), argued that 'he would have to change his swing and wouldn't be as good, and having a new baby would distract him, and he probably won't be as good as before.' Memo to Anita: His daughter Sam was born the day after he finished second in the US Open. So with Elin about to drop he still finished second. Since then, with all the 'distractions' of a child, he finished in the top 5 of 10 of the next 12 majors, including 5 wins. Next, of COURSE he's going to change his swing. He's been playing for three years on a blown knee, caused by the inordinate amount of torque placed on hit by the clubspeed he generates, and has had to adjust his swing to deal with the pain. If he's pain free, he's as long as ever, if not longer. If he has to tone it down, he gets it more under control, hits more fairways, and its game over for everyone else. Finally, she made some comment about his 'focus'. Plain and simple, he's most focused athlete of our generation. Period. He won the US Open on a torn ACL and a broken leg. Let's repeat: HE WON THE TOUGHEST GOLF TOURNAMENT IN THE WORLD WALKING ON A BROKEN LEG.

He's gonna be good. Scary good. Even more scary good than before.

And The Debate Goes On

Answering Mr. McCarter and some additional thoughts of my own...

I'd say that most of the media has incorrect perceptions of most of college football. They perceive the SEC as a league with great defense that holds scores down, yet don't acknowledge that a lot of that is mediocre, ineffective, unimaginative offenses. They anoint the Big-12 quarterbacks as the best group in the history of college football, while ignoring the fact that all run offensive freak shows, and no one plays defense. They perceive the Pac-10 as a throw throw throw league, yet ignore the fact that Oregon is possibly the best running team in the country.

Aside from the fact that it may change perception, staying up late to watch Pac-10 football gives you the opportunity to see some good players and good football. Players that, again, are generally ignored east of the Mississippi, but are going to either a) wind up playing in the NFL someday, or b) going to entertain the hell out of you while you watch them play in college. Quizz Rogers at Oregon State. Jeremiah Masoli, Jeremiah Johnson, and Nick Reed at Oregon. Jake Locker at UDub, Jahvid Best at Cal. The entire USC defense, plus Mark Sanchez. It's good football. Really.

You're right. SC does get killed because of perception. And some years they deserve it. Losing at home to Stanford, when you're a 41 point favorite IS laying an egg. A big Rotten One. They got killed for that, and they SHOULD have gotten killed for that. I could be like Bama Fan and roll out a litany of excuses (Bad Coaching, John David Booty was playing with a broken hand, yada yada yada), all of which true, but all, in the end, irrelevant. But that's where reality ends, and perception takes over.

When USC goes into Reser Stadium in Corvallis as a 23 point favorite and loses to Moo U. (aka Oregon State), it's perceived as a bad loss, and USC gets hammered for it for the rest of the season. Even though OSU winds up winning 9 games. Even though two of OSU losses are road losses to teams that would play in BCS bowls. Even though another loss was in their rivalry game to a 10-win team with a top 5 offense. USC loses a Pac-10 game, it's automatically a bad loss, they're done.

On the contrary when Florida loses AT HOME to a 23 point underdog Ole Miss team, it's automatically chalked up as 'Well, every game is tough in the SEC.' And Florida has a chance to climb back into the title picture. In the court of public opinion, SEC teams aren't penalized as heavily for bad losses, and aren't discounted as much for bad wins. Example: USC allows 28 yards and 1 first down in the first half to Washington. They lead 42-0, put the backups in in the second half and win 56-0. They drop two spots. Florida plays FCS opponent The Citadel, manhandles them, and the conventional wisdom says, well, they play such a difficult schedule, we won't ding them for scheduling a pansy.

So you're right on point. It is about perception. And since 2/3rds of the BCS formula is based solely on perception, I'm going to keep tilting at windmills trying to change said perception. And pointing out that,until it changes, what a crock the system is.

Yes, I'm blaming the BCS. And I'm also blaming all the parts the make up the BCS. I'm blaming the conference presidents like Tom Hansen of the Pac-10. I'm blaming the University presidents. I'm blaming the coaches. I'm blaming the media. I'm blaming the fans. I'm blaming everyone who isn't saying that this thing is crap and it either needs to be fixed or dumped. Not tweaked. Not massaged. Not adjusted. Fixed. Or screw the whole damn thing. (And I've never met, or talked to, anyone affiliated with the BCS. Except Roy Kramer who started it all. And I thought he was a jackass. But that's just me.) And you're right about the playoff. 8 is definitely too few, especially if you give out autobids to 6 conferences. And while I'd love to see a 16 team playoff with all FBS conference champions, I can't justify (although I'd love to see it) giving the Sun Belt conference champ a shot (irregardless of how miniscule it is) at the national title. While there has to be a way to invite the little guys to the table, we shouldn't hand them the keys to the pantry. Are there fewer teams complaining now about getting jobbed than there would be with an eight team playoff? Probably. But are there MORE teams complaining now than there were under the old no-system-at-all system? Definitely. And that to me is, and always will be a reason to either get it right, or get it gone.

Am I whining? Maybe. As a Pac-10 fan, do I have enough skin in the game to whine? Maybe. Perception likely cost Oregon a shot at the title game in 2001, and a BCS berth in 2005. Perception (and Mack Brown/Big-12 vote manipulation) likely cost Cal a BCS berth. USC got jobbed in 2003 (at least you media folks had sense that year. Thank your voter friends for me). But it goes beyond the Pac-10. If I'm whining about anything, it's that there needs to be a way to take perception OUT of the equation; find a system that doesn't involve anyone making subjective decisions. And find me some answers to THESE questions: How many times does a Utah or Boise State need to win a BCS game to prove that they aren't flukes? How many times does an ACC or Big East team need to lay a big one to prove that they're NOT deserving of an automatic bid? How many straight years will Ohio State get the benefit of the doubt as a BCS-bowl worthy team? How many straight years do Bob Stoops and Oklahoma need to drop a steamer in a BCS game before we start to question THEIR bonafides?

Mark McCarter Replies

A couple of points from Mark McCarter, Huntsville Times

-- No question that perception has far too much to do with college football and rankings than it should. Even if you do stay up late to watch Pac 10, what do you gain? Even you admitted that, on further review, it wasn't great QBs in the Big 12 as much as shoddy defenses.

I'd even suggest West Coast media has the wrong perception of SEC football (especially as they helped elevate Alabama much more quickly to a No. 1 spot than it deserved).

So we don't get our perception of the Pac 10 changed until a revelation in bowl games??? But I put little credence in bowl games. Too easy for 20-year-olds to lose interest in a four-week layout. (Exhibit A: The University of Alabama Crimson Tide, who escaped Saban's pressure for a few days and I think balked at coming back underneath it.)

Southern Cal got killed this year because of reputation. I wrote it in a preseason prediction column and most everybody else knew it and mentioned it, but the Men of Troy have that one nagging day every season when they lay an egg. Because of that habit, I think voters are less forgiving of a loss to whichever team it was with ugly uniforms USC lost to this year than even a home-field loss to Ole Miss.

When it comes to playoffs, etc., I hate to see the blame get thrown at the BCS as an entity. Maybe because I like Mike Slive a lot and think that Bill Hancock, one of the BCS officials, is one of the five nicest people in sport. It all lies at the feet of college presidents who don't want playoffs and college presidents enjoy flexing their muscle over coaches, some sort of Revenge of the Nerds sequel. And coaches, to some extent, forced the presidents' hands when they got too out of control years ago.

I think there's too much made of the SEC's non-conference schedule. And I'd like to see how it shakes out in the future. With that 12th game added, it was tough to schedule other power teams who had schedules locked in. See if that changes any time soon.

No question the SEC plays some wussy non-conference opponents. And if I were a season-ticket holder, I'd get ticked at having to see UT-Martin, Louisiana-Monroe and Tulane as part of my seven-game package.

But, a quick count here, SEC had 16 games vs. bowl teams out off 48 non-conference dates, and another six or eight against traditional bowl teams (Clemson, Louisville and some others).

I also have a soft spot for the UT-Chattanoogas and Middle Tennessees of the world, and I like to see them get their payday games. The more of those that take place, the more the mid-majors might ultimately build up their programs and level the field some more, and it gives some kids a chance to play on a big stage each year. I think each SEC team oughta balance the non-conference with two wusses and two good teams, like Florida does. It balances The Citadel and Goeriga Southern with Miami and Florida State.

I think I've written you this before, but what I hate most about college football (well, except for covering a 4-hour CBS game) is whining fans. I had to heard loud choruses of that in 2004. There are typically fewer teams whining now about being legitimately left out of a championship shot in this scenario than there would be about being left out of an 8-team playoff.

What I'd suggest to everyone is simply be patient. When the World Wide Leader takes over the BCS contract, stuff will happen. Alas, as with many things when the WWL takes over, it doesn't mean it will be the right thing, nor will it come with any subtlety at all.

The BCMess...2009 Edition.

(Originally written as an email to Mark McCarter, sportswriter and friend. Check out his writings (much more eloquent than mine) at the Huntsville Times)

Mark-

Forgive me. People in Baltimore don't appreciate college football. You're my outlet.

Okay, this is a long one. It's time for a great debate. While this would be better served to take place over a couple of pints and a big bucket of chicken wings, it will have to do. Maybe it's not quite Lincoln/Douglas, but it'll have to do.

Just found a query from a previous unsent email, albeit a moot one since the Utah game, but...Which do you think Bama would rather have now? The extra money in the coffers from playing the created-for-CBS cash grab game aka the SEC championship? Or a shot at national championship number whatever?

Hmmm..maybe those 'Bama players should have paid a little more attention in US history class when they talked about the whole Brigham Young --> Utah --> Mormon ---> No Alcohol thing.

Drink on Bourbon Street $12.00...Utah Utes Undefeated T-Shirt $22.00...Watching Nick $atan get his whiny ass kicked at the Sugar Bowl...PRICELESS.

Yeah, Brent was pretty much the slurpmeister. Him and Herbstreit. Although I will say that Daryll Clark (the PSU QB who spent most of the game running for his life and throwing dumpoffs while Mark Sanchez was carving up the Nitts like a surgeon) got a great deal of Musberger/Herbie slurpage until Sanchez blew up the 2nd quarter...I think I actually heard the phrase 'John Elway couldn't have done it any better' on Clark's QB draw TD. Are you kidding me?

Don't know if you caught it, but I'm pretty sure whoever called the Emerald Bowl needed to be rushed to the hospital afterwards to have his lips surgically removed from Jacory Harris' anatomy. Sorry, if your name is Vince Young, you rack 500 yards of TO in the Rose Bowl and singlehandedly beat arguably the greatest CFB team in a generation you deserve slurp love....you complete barely 50 %, fumble inside your own 20, get picked twice, and lose to Cal, you're not the next whoemever...you're a hack.

So Oregon hangs 42 and 600 yards of TO on OK State and Ole Miss lights up Texas Tech for 47 and 515...I'm beginning to think that this whole 'Big-12 offensive supremacy thing' is less due to amazing QB's, and more due to the fact that no one in that conference plays defense worth a crap.

Just a question (and let me preface this by saying I am NOT lumping you in with this), but watching the PAC-10 in bowl games this year (and listening to the commentaries/reading the articles), does anyone west of the Mississippi bother to stay up late and actually WATCH a PAC-10 game, or do they just write/comment based on their preconceived notions of the conference? They seem to discount USC's success by downplaying their Rose Bowl wins as home games, yet never seem to acknowledge that both of LSU's championships were won in the Sugar Bowl. Mike Bellotti never gets credit for what he has done at Oregon (nor Mike Riley for what he has done at Moo U.). The Pac-10 gets ripped for playing a weak schedule, yet look at their non-con? How many SEC or Big-12 teams have anywhere CLOSE to the number of non-con opponents that have played in BCS Bowls in the past 7 years when compared to the Pac-10? Yes, the Pac-10 has some weak sisters. Wazzu is on a bad run, and Keith Gilbertson and Ty have destroyed a once-marquee program, but I'm still pretty sure that UDub could beat The Citadel and Samford. A friend of mine was ripping USC for never leaving SoCal to play in a Bowl Game (apparently fogetting the Trojans 2 Orange Bowl wins), but why does noone ever seem to bring up the fact that Florida hasn't left the state for a non-conference game in a decade, Georgia crossed the Mississippi for a non-con this year for the first time in a half-century, and LSU has developed a proclivity for buying out the 'and home' part of the home-and-home series.

Now to the BCS. First, let's acknowledge what we agree on (I think)
The BCS goal is to bring the #1 and #2 teams together in a game. An (allegedly) truly noble idea.
That's it. (Should be used for NOTHING else...like deciding the Big 12 South rep in the Big 12 championship game)
First problem. It only works when there are two obvious choices for #1 and #2. The problem has been when there aren't...and invariably that will be the case. For every matchup that wouldn't happen under the old system (USC/Texas in the Rose Bowl, Miami/Ohio State in the Fiesta) there are fiascos like Miami and UDub in 2000 (The U beat FSU, UW beat the U in Miami), Oregon in 2001 (#2 in both polls, Nebraska loses it's final game), USC (#1 in both polls) in 2003. There are years when deserving teams don't get the opportunity to play in the game like Auburn and Utah in 2004, and then last year and this year. Look, I ain't gonna lie. In 2004 I thought the BCS had it right, I thought USC was the best team in the country, and Oklahoma was #2. I think if USC had played Auburn, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference...the Men of Troy would have kicked the crap out of them too. Same with Utah. My problem was not giving AU or UU the opportunity to play for it ON THE FIELD.

Flash forward to this year. I can't say with certainty that USC is/was one of the two best teams in the country and deserves a spot in the championship game. But then again, you can't say they're not. Same with Florida. And Oklahoma. And Texas. And Utah. And even Alabama. And that's where the BCS always gets it wrong; while it puts together the top two, it gets it right when there are ONLY two. Anything beyond that, it gives us the same mess we used to have, except with the added bonus of marginalizing the other major bowls.

So how do we fix it? The 'Plus 1'? Okay, maybe it works in 2004 if you get the bowls to ignore their traditional tie-ins and can arrange USC/Utah and Oklahoma/Auburn. I just can't see the Sugar Bowl letting Auburn go play in the Fiesta, and I can't see the Fiesta releasing OU (or OU playing essentially a road game against a lower ranked team), so your matchups would have been something like: ROSE: USC/Michigan. FIESTA: Oklahoma/Pitt. SUGAR: Auburn/Texas ORANGE: Virginia Tech/Utah. Say your winners are USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Utah. You have the same problem. Still four undefeated teams. Still two teams getting the shaft.

2008? Same problem. More teams.

Okay, how 'bout a playoff? Great idea in theory, in practice maybe not so much. First, how many teams. 16 makes sense, but I don't think the powers that be will go for more than 8. And therein lies the problem. How do you decide on the 8? Most traditional assumptions give automatics to the 6 'BCS' conferences. My question is, why? While I'll grant the SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, and Big 10 elite conference status, what have the ACC or Big East ever done to deserve such consideration? They're basketball conferences plain and simple. The reason the Big East got it's autobid (Miami and Va Tech) are now in the ACC, and the ACC's reason (Florida State) is now marginal at best. I can't see (based on its track record) why the ACC and Big East have bids, and the Mountain West doesn't. So reduce the number of autobids, or alter them, which still leaves the question of how you find the next four (or three, or two). How can you find an unbiased way of selecting them? You can't have the coaches vote; Mack Brown's lobbying of the BCS and the Big 12 (and Winston Brown) coaches manipulating the system/vote in 2004 to get Texas in and Cal out proves that that won't work. All you have to do is read the columns of sportswriters in various regions of the country to see how unbiased YOU lot can be, and the computers? My first computer teacher taught me a phrase. Garbage in, Garbage out. You can program a computer to say anything; if I wanted a Boise State/Ball State matchup in the BCS championship I could find a nerd with the program to do it.

So how do we solve it?

Better yet, does it even need to be solved?

How would these be for Bowl Games? (And by the way, ALL will be played on New Year's day. And there will be a rule. Nothing else on NYD, and nothing after the day either. Put the focus BACK on the majors).

Rose Bowl: USC vs. Penn State. Pete Carroll vs. Joe Pa.
Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma vs. Alabama.
Sugar Bowl: Florida vs. Texas Tech
Orange Bowl: Texas vs. Utah

Sorry Big East and ACC. Cincinnati and Virginia Tech didn't cut the mustard. Enjoy your trips to the Whatever Bowl until you prove you deserve an annual invite to the Big Boys table.

Think of all the possible scenarios. Think of how many teams have a theoretical shot at being #1. Think of it; one day, four bowls, all matter. And if, at the end of the day, at the end of a great day, at the end of a celebration of the greatness of college football, a day starting with the Tournament of Roses Parade and ending with Up With People at the Orange Bowl halftime extravaganza, you have two teams with a claim to the national title? So what. So split it.

In the big scheme of life, is it that bad that two (or more) teams can claim a national championship? I don't see anyone from 'Bama devaluing their 1973 claimed championship, even though the majority of the polls picked Notre Dame as #1 (and the Irish beat them heads up in the Sugar Bowl. Auburn claims a share of the 1993 and 2004 titles in their media guides, even though no one else gives them credit for them. I look at it this way, if a kid has the opportunity to say 'I played on a National Champion team', or a fan can say 'We won the National Championship', do they (or we) really care that they had to share it with someone.

Well, that's that. Happy New Year. My college football watching for the year is over. The Ducks won the Holiday Bowl, SC beat JoePa, and in the Kornya Index they're your national champions. A month of putting up with the NFL, and I can enjoy sports again because spring training will be here.