BCS Bowl Issues

by Big Al

Well, once again the people who are ostensibly most supportive of the BCS structure made a whole host of stupid decisions to undermine it. Personally, I am a big fan of people thinking, thus my support of the BCS. However, when the people who are charged with thinking do not do so, we have a problem.

I have several ideas on how this situation could be fixed (no, not a playoff), but nobody is listening, so why bother. Instead, I'll just do what everyone else is doing: judging others, safe in the knowledge that my statements will affect nothing.

The Sugar Bowl: Michigan vs. Virginia Tech

Of all the decisions the BCS bowls have made in the last few years, this one was easily the strangest.

I have no problem with the choice of Michigan; I can totally understand why the Sugar Bowl would want Michigan: they have been down for a few years, their fans will be eager to go to a BCS bowl, and they will bring a lot of fans and fannies to the TVs and seats. But Virginia Tech?

I mean, yes, Virginia Tech had a good season and everything. No argument here. And hooray to the ACC for finally getting a second team into the BCS. But they are not a huge draw on television or in ticket sales, they won't generate interest from the public for the matchup, and they are not a compelling name that will give this game some excitement for history's sake.

Fact is, Kansas State would have sold more tickets, and Boise State would have generated a shitload more excitement from the public. Boise State is a huge name as the "popular underdog" right now, and their presence in this game would have not only brought some repite for the BCS, it would have given the Sugar Bowl a solid TV rating.

There are only two reasons I can come up with that would make the Virginia Tech selection make sense. First, that the Sugar Bowl is trying to bring about a playoff by deliberately wrecking the BCS; this one doesn't make a lot of sense, but the idea should at least be considered... and dispensed with because I doubt the Sugar Bowl would deliberately try to destroy the thing that keeps it in business. Secondly, and perhaps more possible, let us consider whether the Sugar Bowl wanted to give Michigan an opponent they might have a chance to beat; this final reason, honestly, has a lot of traction.

Let's face it, this Michigan team is only one year removed from a 7-6 season and a legendary bowl beatdown by a phenomenally unremarkable Mississippi State team. Kansas State and Boise State are both top teams with very good players. The Sugar Bowl might not want to embarrass their cash cow in this game. Michigan's biggest wins this year were Notre Dame and Nebraska, and they did not play either Penn State or Wisconsin, the two best teams in the Leaders division. Michigan is wildly and monumentally improved, and they are legitimately good team; but they are still on the iffy, tenuous side. So maybe this was just an effort to put together a good matchup.

I wish I could come up with a better reason for the Virginia Tech selection, but that's the only thing I've got. Perhaps the Hokies really are in the Sugar Bowl's rational self-interest, but I am not seeing it from this desk.

The Rematch

I am of two minds on this, largely because there is a complete lack of a right decision here.

One the one hand, I would have much preferred to see Oklahoma State play in this game, since they are conference champions, they have not already had their chance against LSU, and they are not a traditional power, which gives the game a true underdog. Besides which, their style of football is so different from the SEC style that they would have been an exciting matchup, regardless of how it would have turned out.

On the other hand, I do think that Alabama is a better team, since their only loss by the 3 points to the #1 team in the nation, whereas Oklahoma State blew a 16-point lead against a mediocre (at best) team to blow their chances at the national title game. However, Alabama had their chance against LSU, so why give them another one?

It could have gone either way, and came very close to going the opposite way. That's the thing about this sport: you lose a game, you take your chances. Maybe if Oklahoma State could run the ball, they wouldn't have had to rely on their passing game to avoid a crapload of interceptions in order to hold their lead. Then they could have ground out the clock and gotten out of Ames with a victory. But they don't, so they didn't, and now they are flying to Arizona.

The usual solution everybody trots out is a playoff, which would pit LSU and Oklahoma State against Stanford and Alabama respectively, which then puts two conference champions against two non-conference-champions, which is somehow supposed to make up for the fact that a non-conference-champion is playing in the national title game. However, it will enable people to stop thinking and making decisions that affect others, which is exactly the sort of trouble playoffs are designed to avoid.

What this really comes down to is whether the national championship game should be between the two best teams, or if it should someone else a chance. I have read a lot of things in the national media in the last few weeks, and I have yet to see anyone say that Oklahoma State is better than Alabama. The most anyone can say is that Oklahoma State is more deserving... but nobody will say that Oklahoma State is better. So, in that regard, it seems that the BCS got it right: the two best teams in the country will play for the national title. Which is the entire point of having a national title game in the first place.

However, with LSU at #1 and Alabama at #2, this game lacks an underdog. If LSU were #2, then the game would have an underdog. As it stands, Alabama is among the biggest of the traditional powers, while LSU is the junior partner. However, since LSU beat Alabama earlier this season, they can't even be called an underdog because of that. The teams are from the same conference, so there is no regional pride at stake. It's a matchup without any interesting storylines, barring those belonging to the states of Alabama and Louisiana. Which makes it hard to get excited, or even interested, in this game.

This game not David vs. Goliath. It's Goliath vs. Goliath. And it doesn't matter who wins... they're both Philistines.