|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 11 |
 |
Bowl Championship Series taints season
J.P. BOX
ORIENT STAFF
Getting into the holiday spirit, the college football gods have given
the nation a weekend for which to be thankful. The University of Colorado
derailed the Nebraska Cornhusker's national championship hopes, while
Oklahoma State thwarted the Oklahoma Sooners' bid to repeat as national
champions.
However, this weekend's heroics are belittled and rendered relatively
insignificant, courtesy of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS).
But, how is that possible? Two of the greatest upsets of the 2001 season
occurred during the same weekend - the entire national championship picture
collapsed in the matter of days, as underdogs and underachievers dethroned
potential champions.
Colorado running back Chris Brown rushed for 198 yards and six touchdowns
against one of the stingiest defenses in college football. Overall, CU
piled up 582 yards of total offense and scored an unprecedented 62 points
against the Cornhuskers, who previously had never allowed such an offensive
explosion in school history.
The Buff's 62-34 victory may even have been one of the biggest college
football upset of the decade - after all, I was nine-years-old the last
time the Huskers lost to the Buffs.
| PRO SPORTS
NOTABLES
Jordan Watch: After playing against His
Airness, 76'er Allen Iverson told the press, "I expected him
to be better than what he's doing right now." The question
is: Does Jordan? MJ is averaging 25.7 points, 4.9 assists, and 2.07
steals - which is a full and impressive stat line. However, he is
shooting a career-worst .402 from the field and is clearly incapable
of making the Wizards contenders. To use a very terrible pun, he's
no magician…or wizard. With Washington struggling as a 4-10 team, many
athletes and analysts cannot fathom why Jordan returned. As Iverson
said, he is clearly not the same player who was the most idolized
ball player in the world. He is a mirage of his former self. He
is still an all-star, but he's not a super star anymore. FYI: Jordan is quite aware. Michael knew that he
no player in the league - not even Michael Jordan - could transform
the woeful Wizards into a contender. But, Jordan hates to lose.
As a player, he can coach and inspire young players,
like Kwane Brown. Additionally, he can attract top-notch free agent
talent. What basketball player doesn't want to play with Michael
Jordan? Someday, Jordan will look back upon his second comeback
and smile - after the Wizards become one of the most dominant basketball
franchises in the NBA. Who likes short shorts?
Shaquille O'Neal does. After NBA Commissioner David Stern slapped
the seven-footer with a $5000 dollar fine for wearing shorts too
short, Shaq declared that he was not about to wear "John Stockton
shorts." At 6'1" and weighing 175 pounds, the 39-year-old
Stockton wears the tight shorts reminiscent of 1980s basketball
players. After hearing Shaq's comment, Stockton shipped a pair of
his Jazz shorts to the big man. On Tuesday night, O'Neal humored Stockton and the
media by emerging for pre-game warm-ups in the shorts with a waist
size of 32 inches. To put it into perspective, Shaq's regular game
shorts have a 52-inch waist. Mark Cuban looking for someone to care: Mark
Cuban, a dot.com billionaires and owner of the Dallas Mavericks,
recently declared that he would like to be the first owner to earn
a technical foul during a game. Last season, Cuban was a favorite target for Stern
who fined the owner monthly for criticizing officials, sitting on
the bench during the game, and running onto the court to break up
a fight, to name a few. Mark, we love it when an owner sporting a Dallas
Stars jersey runs onto the court to break up a fight - even if you
stopped dead in your tracks when you realized that all the players
were a foot taller and a hundred pounds heavier. But, why do you want to get a T? Charging the court to protect one of your players is characterized as love for the team. Trying to earn yourself a T is a narcissistic and childish act. Plus, I am sure your players and coach would be less than enthusiastic. |
The contest between the Sooners and Cowboys, however, was a defensive
battle - an unheard of concept at Folsom Field where CU and Nebraska combined
for over one thousand yards of total offense.
With 1:36 left in the fourth quarter, Cowboys QB Josh Fields found Rashaun
Woods open in the end zone. With one monumental pass, the Sooners' dreams
of back-to-back national titles crumbled, as the Cowboys earned a 16-13
victory.
And yes, I am telling that these two upsets are relatively insignificant.
Before I receive angry letters from Cowboys and Buffaloes fans, let me
explain my position.
The BCS, with its mystifying statistical analysis of the top 15 teams
in Division 1-A football, picks a handful of teams to be favorites for
the national championship before the season ever begins. As a result,
certain teams who are statistically favored by the BCS have a greater
chance to play in the championship bowl than the majority of football
teams out there.
The Cowboys and Buffaloes are the spoilers, but they were never considered
as national champion contenders. But, the Cowboys are 4-7 and Buffs are
9-2 you might point out - surely, they don't deserve to be championship
contenders.
But, what about Brigham Young University? With an 11-0 record, BYU is
ranked twelfth according to the BCS due to its supposedly weak schedule.
Essentially, the school is penalized for playing in the Mountain West
Division with schools like San Diego State, Wyoming, and Utah.
The University of Colorado, making its home in the Big 12, is actually
ranked above BYU despite its two losses because it has a statistically
harder schedule. What is this madness? How does the BCS put out the rankings?
Basically, the BCS is a big math equation that claims to be scientific,
but is actually highly biased. Imagine: A + B + C + D = ranking.
Part A is called the "computer average." The computer computes
a simple average of eight poll rankings as assigned by sports analysts
throughout the nation. Guys like Jeff Sagarin of USA Today and Peter Wolfe
rank the top fifteen teams subjectively.
Part B is "schedule rank." Because I am sociology major and
not a math major perhaps I am alone in my failure to understand this logic
presented by the BCS: "Rank of schedule strength compared to other
Division 1-A teams of actual games played divided by 25." The BCS
then makes some allusion to won/loss records as compared to opponents.
Part C is fairly easily: "losses." Each team receives one point
(think golf - this point is bad) for each loss of the season.
Part D, "Quality Win Component," is equally as vague and subjective
as Part C. According to the BCS, "The bonus scale will range from
a high of 1.5 for a win over the top-ranked team to a low of .1 for a
victory over the 15th-ranked BCS team." Now, think basketball: points
are good in this case.
The two teams with the highest BCS rankings get to play in the national
championship bowl, which this year in the Rose Bowl presented by AT&T.
Overall, BCS controls the bids to four bowls: the Rose Bowl, the Tostitos
Fiesta Bowl, the Nokia Sugar Bowl, and the FedEx Orange With Nebraska
and Oklahoma out of the picture, the likely match-up is Miami versus Florida
for the national championship.
And why must college football fans endure this crazy system that claims
to pick out a national contender? In 1998, the BCS was first adopted in
order to create a unified champ; with the AP Poll, Coaches Poll, as well
as others, the national champ was always an ambiguous term.
However, this BCS solution, which will run through 2005, is biased, boring,
and corporate-motivated. The most obvious way to insure a competitive
and merit-based national championship is through a playoff system.
Could you imagine college basketball adopting a similar postseason standard
as football? Fans love March Madness and love watching a number 16-seeded
team challenge a number one-seeded team in round one. Plus, when Duke
cut down the nets last year, there was no dispute that they were the best
team in the nation.
However, collegiate football is reluctant to adopt a similar postseason
alternative due to the big money tied to bowl games. Can you imagine if
Division 1-A football chose 32 teams to participate in the post season
with brackets similar to that of college basketball.
Such a system mandates that five extra football games would be played
at the end of the season; therefore, it is implausible, right?. Wrong.
Many teams wait an entire month between the end of its 11-game regular
season and bowl game. Why not pack five games into that month? BYU might
even have a chance to be national champs.
However, this will not happen as long as corporate greed controls college
football postseason play. Just look at the names of some of the bowl games:
galleyfurniture.com Bowl, Insight.com Bowl, Capital One Florida Citrus
Bowl, Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, and Nokia Sugar Bowl. In addition to the sponsorship,
advertisers get a three-hour window to present their products to the American
public.
Last year, 127 million people watched the four BCS bowls - all of those
viewers translate into big bucks for networks as well as corporations
who advertise and sponsor these contests.
But, shouldn't sports be a pure enterprise - a meritocracy based on performance?
Unfortunately, there is simply too much money involved to overhaul a failing
system. Universities, corporations, and advertisers win big according
to this set-up.
Student athletes and fans lose big time. Who is this game for anyways?