BCS Bllsht, redux
Well, the NCAA bowl season is, mercifully, over. Florida spanked Ohio State, and has emerged as the “National Champion”. So the BCS system must’ve worked, right? Right?
Nope.
I really don’t think that Florida has proven themselves to be the undeniable “best” team of the past 5 months. Perhaps the team that best negotiated the rocky shoals of the mandated 4-to-7 week break between the regular season and the bowl season.
To better illustrate my thoughts on this whole thing, let me copy here what I wrote as a comment over at Hoc est Verum:
I view it as more of a result of the whole mixed-up wasteland that is post-season college football.
Traditionally, i.e., roughly up until the 70’s bowls were never meant as definitive capstone statements about the whole of the regular season. Rather, they were “rewards” that really didn’t bear much impact on what had been borne out over the regular season. IOW, the bowls didn’t pretend to be arbiters of “the best”.
Thus, the horrific 5+ week break between the end of the regular season and Jan 1 wasn’t all that big a deal. Sure, play may have gotten sloppier as a result of game-tested focus being lost during practices & the holidays, but since the bowls were just glorified exhibitions, it didn’t really matter.
Since the late 70’s however, the bowls have taken on an ever-increasing patina of “final-word” type legitimacy, at least in terms of crowning a “champion”. The BCS has only exacerbated this misguided tendency. Why misguided? Well because the cronyistic bowl cabals were never jettisoned in order to actually give the NCAA postseason the legitimacy that exists at every other level in NCAA competition.
They (the bowl poobahs and University Presidents) have tried to have their cake & eat it too. And they’ve failed miserably.
All of this is just preface to my comment about last night’s game:
Ohio State was clearly the best team in the country through the whole regular season. And if the game against Florida had been played within a week or two of 11/18, then I think OSU would’ve rolled over Florida. Instead of that, however, OSU got waylaid by the SEVEN WEEK break they were forced to endure.
There has got to be a better way. Actually, there is, it’s just that the morons in charge are too greedy (and/or stupid) to do it.
In the end, I don’t know who is really the best; however, I’d sure like to see anyone try to beat Boise State — being the only undefeated Div I team has got to mean something more than just getting a #5 ranking in the final poll…
-ghp
Honoring Yzerman
[Edited 070103, after the ceremony & game]
Steve Yzerman’s number 19 was retired by the Red Wings Tuesday night. It joined the 5 legendary numbers previously retired by the Red Wings (shown above — to be followed, I would wager by Nick Lidstrom’s number 5 within the decade…).
The coverage at the two Detroit newspapers (the News & Free Press) will be more than thorough, but an article over at ESPN.com really does a great job of illustrating why Steve Yzerman is held in such high esteem by the folks of Metro Detroit & Wings fans everywhere. The Captain wasn’t just a great hockey player - that alone wouldn’t generate the affection that he receives.
Nope, he’s just a great guy. Decent & honest. A good man.
That’s why he’s beloved.
Additional coverage can also be found at DetroitHockey.net and Detroit Red Wings.com
-ghp
Realignment expectations
Just last night I was thinking about the NHL, and more specifically about how it’s a travesty that the Red Wings are in the Western Conference even though Detroit is obviously in the Eastern time zone. I was also thinking about how so many hockey pundits wail & moan about how to "fix" the NHL, when one of the most obvious problems is that there are too many teams. So, as I drifted off to sleep, I thought about how I’d fix things via contraction & realignment.
Then, just a little bit ago, I visited ESPN.com and saw the article on how the NHL is considering another realignment, shifting from the current 6 division (3 in each conference) structure to a more sensible (IMO) 4 division (2 in each conf.) structure. You can read more about the proposal here. Among the stated goals of any realignment are to develop more consistent rivalries, minimize time-zone disruptions (thus benefiting television ratings), & decrease travel costs (fiscal and physical). I agree with these goals, and I would even take a few additional steps. More specifically:
- Eastern Conference - North Division: Boston, Buffalo, Detroit, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
- Eastern Conference - South Division: Carolina, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Washington
- Western Conference - North Division: Chicago, Columbus, Dallas, Minnesota, Nashville, St. Louis
- Western Conference - South Division: Calgary, Colorado, Edmonton, Portland, San Jose, Vancouver (Note: Portland is relocated from Pittsburgh, as Pittsburgh seems bound & determined to drive the Penguins out of town…)
- 12 games - Rotating Home & Home vs. one division from the "other" conference (sort of like baseball rotates non-rival interleague play).
- 24 games - 2 Home & Home vs. the "other" division’s teams.
- 40 games - 4 Home & Home vs. the 5 divisional rivals.
- The top 4 teams from each division make the playoffs (i.e., 16 out of the 24 teams).
- Round 1 is divisional, with teams ranked 1 through 4 - this is where bitterness can be bred!
- Round 2 would see the 4 winners re-seeded based on regular season conference finish, thus minimizing divisional inequities & the chance for anti-climactic conference finals.
- Round 3 would be the normal conference finals.
- Round 4 would be the normal Stanley Cup Finals.
The combination of a regular season focus on playing the same teams (while maintaining a reasonable sense of geography, time-zone, and history), a hearkening back to the divisional playoffs structure that made rivalries in the 80’s so special, and contraction (which will strengthen the talent pool & retrench the league in more sustainable, hockey-friendly areas) would go a long way towards getting the NHL back to it’s rightful place as a major North American sport.
-ghp
BCS bllsht
So, the BCS title game will pit undefeated & #1 Ohio State vs. once beaten & “#2″ Florida…
Florida, the SEC champ, is 12-1, having lost to (then) #11 Auburn by 10 (back when Florida was #2). Pretty good credentials, no?
Yup. But not better than Michigan’s.
The BCS is flawed - everyone knows that. Even the reality-challenged NCAA Division I Presidents & bowl-pimps know that. It only serves to get a true #1 vs. #2 matchup iff there are only 2 teams with no and/or one loss. It’s also a way for hypocritical fatcats to keep themselves on the gravy-train of high-class swag.
There is no reason WHATSOEVER that there cannot be a playoff to determine the best Div-I football team in the country. Any excuse that gets offered up is no more than weak sophistry. Why? Because Div-II & Div-III do it, to no ill-effect on their “scholar-athletes”. I’ll stop there, before I get launched on a pointless (but very strongly held) screed against the current state of college athletics (especially basketball & football, wherein institutions of higher education have whored themselves out as minor league farm systems for professional leagues…).
Anyway, back to the main point of this venting - Michigan getting screwed…
When #2 loses to #1 on the road, in a rivalry game, only by 3 points (i.e., there is no definitive knockout), I think that it’s only reasonable to hold that that is a “better” loss than the aforementioned 10 point loss by (the then) #2 to #11. (And I won’t even get into the value of USC’s loss to unranked Oregon State, which was thankfully rendered moot by the Trojans’ choke job against UCLA!)
Also, as for the argument that, since Ohio State beat Michigan once, “Why should they have to do it again?” Please. This is not double-jeopardy for the conference title. If Michigan is the second best team in the country, and the BCS is truly separate from the regular season, then there is nothing unfair at all about a rematch. Would anyone complain if it happened as the result of a playoff? Would that somehow make it invalid or unfair? I think not.
Prior to yesterday, it would seem, the voters also agreed with me, as far as the ranking of Florida & Michigan. When they were comfortable with USC’s manipulated jumping of Michigan, they were cool with admitting that Michigan was better than Florida; however, once USC spit the bit, the human factors in the BCS formula had to suddenly deal with the fact that they valued the “new” (i.e., Ohio State vs. Florida) more than the “best” (i.e., an Ohio State vs. Michigan rematch).
And, I could live with that (really, I could), if only they would be honest about it and not try to dress up the subjective decision in a laughable cloak of objectivity. Florida won their conference, with one loss, as the result of a playoff. Michigan did not have that luxury — if they had, they might well have beaten Ohio State in a conference title game played on a neutral field. Just don’t expect me to agree that the crap sammich you’ve put in front of me is a gourmet meal, ok?
At least Lloyd Carr had the class not to debase himself by politicking & begging for votes, like Urban Meyer did (it was successful, but quite distasteful…). Meyer’s a putz - Notre Dame’s lucky that he spurned them.
I’ll still watch the games, and I’ll even root for Ohio State (both for the clean ending/result, and because goddaughter #1 is an OSU grad).
Besides, it’ll be a New Year’s just like growing up, being able to watch Michigan play USC in the Rose Bowl (and probably, you know, lose… 
).
-ghp
-
Analytics & Hosting
