Let the controversy begin
December 4, 2006

The last thing you expect at this time of year is a BCS controversy. Wait, that’s backwards. The first thing you expect at this time of year is a BCS controversy. So, you’re probably wondering, “What do you think about how the BCS has played out this year?” Well, I’ll be happy to tell you.

Let me start by saying that I think a valid case can be made for both Michigan and Florida. I’m not out to make a case for either team. In fact, I said in a recent post I don’t want the rematch, either, although I softened on that somewhat after watching the Ohio State-Michigan game.

Regardless, as the weekend began, I saw three possibilities, only one of which would cause a great deal of controversy.

  1. USC loses, Florida loses. If this had happened, there’s no controversy at all. Michigan is clearly the only valid choice if both of these teams had lost.
  2. USC wins. If USC wins, there’s practically no controversy. Michigan would be upset, and Florida, too, if they won. But USC won (arguably) the toughest conference and would be accepted by most as the legitimate #2 team.
  3. USC loses, Florida wins. Clearly, this would cause a huge controversy, and of course, that’s what we get. The BCS tends to have a knack for maximizing the controversy, although there are occasions where it avoids it. Nevertheless, this was the big one. Who goes now - Michigan or Florida?

Of course, we now know it’s Florida. But why Florida over Michigan? I see several things that worked against Michigan.

  1. They haven’t played for two weeks. In two weeks of not playing (and therefore, not losing), Michigan was jumped in the human polls both weeks, which then contributed to them being jumped in the BCS poll. First, by USC, and then by Florida. Is it possible, had they played at least one more game after the Ohio State game, that they may have remained in the #2 spot?
  2. They were not a conference champion. This has been brought up more than once in recent weeks, and a month ago I might have agreed. However, it comes down to this - what is the BCS designed to do? If it is to put #1 vs #2, then it should do that, regardless of who conference champions are or are not. If the best two teams are in the same conference, only one of them can win it. Should the other one be punished even if they’re better than everyone else?
  3. SEC whining. Don’t get me wrong - I love SEC football and would rather watch it than any other conference. And, year in and year out, it’s right at the top as far as quality. But with Auburn being left out in 2004 (even if deserved), already the question was being asked: “How can the SEC champion be left out again??” How much affect it had, I don’t really know, but the talk was there and possibly influenced a few votes.
  4. Nobody wanted a rematch. I believe this was the biggest factor in Florida jumping Michigan. If Michigan had not played OSU already, I don’t believe Florida would have jumped them. The human polls a week ago ranked Michigan ahead of Florida. This week they jumped them. Why? Was Florida’s win over Arkansas impressive enough to justify moving them up? I wouldn’t think so. I believe, after USC lost, people realized that if we don’t rank Florida #2, then we’ll end up with a rematch. Michigan had their shot, they say, and they don’t deserve another. So they moved Florida up.

This is what is wrong with the BCS. This is why it’s flawed. People possibly made that decision based on what they didn’t want, instead of what they really believed (i.e. that Michigan was the second best team.) And, if so, that is both dishonest and unfair. It’s very possible that some of them changed their minds about Florida and believe they are the better team. But, I find it unlikely that all of them did so and the fact that it’s entirely possible that they voted for them only to avoid having a OSU-Michigan rematch speaks to the fact that there is an integrity problem with the BCS system.

In 2004, there were 3 undefeated teams, two of which had been at the top all year long. Auburn, in 3rd place, had been ranked lower at the beginning and had to work it’s way up (which is another problem with polls deciding who plays, by the way.) So, there was little chance they were going to end up in the game. Yes, it was clearly flawed and many called for playoff then. But this year makes a much stronger case, because it appears (may not be fact, but appears) that at least some voters changed their vote from the previous week specifically to keep a team out of the title game. Lloyd Carr even suggested that, had USC won, Michigan would probably have remained ahead of Florida in the polls. That can’t be known now, but you have to wonder - would people have been as inclined to change their ordering of Michigan and Florida if it wouldn’t affect who plays in the title game?

If the BCS is designed to put #1 vs #2 in this title game - as I believe it is - then their should be an attempt by all involved to do exactly that, no matter what it means. It may mean Ohio State vs Florida, and if so, then the BCS got it right. It may have meant Ohio State vs Michigan, and if so, then it got it wrong. Either way, the possibility of getting it wrong is there, of writers and coaches voting with their own biases, and rewarding one team and punishing another for no other reason than they want to see certain teams play and not others.

Again, I’m not trying to make a case that Michigan deserves to be there instead of Florida. They both have strong cases, and they both deserve it for various reasons. However, only one can go. And people have a part in that decision, and if they’re basing their vote on something as silly as “we don’t want a rematch” instead of “who is the second best team”, then the system is worse off than I realized it was.

There’s only one way to fix the BCS: eliminate it and create a playoff. It’s long overdue.

I scanned the sports sites to see what commentary on this nonsense has been published thus far. Here’s a few:

Filed under : college football

Comments are closed.

« BCS quiz
My case against the favorites »