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?