(Note: Most of this was written before the bowl season began, so at that point Florida hadn't obliterated Cincinnati. When you read this, consider the overall picture of the BCS and try not to get caught up in a specific situation.)
We all know that the BCS is monopolistic, unfair, biased, inept, etc. I am sick of sportswriters using the late November/early December timeframe to write their own variation of the same column each year. However, it is too interesting of a sports story to ignore it. I want to focus on this year's rendition and a point that I have never heard from a single sportswriter. College Football this year, as it has in recent years, has given an unfair advantage to teams in the Big 12 and the SEC.
National Championship Games By Conference
When you look back at the history of the BCS National Championship, you have to throw out 2003 because there was not an undisputed champion and the top two teams didn't play in a BCS Championship game. Besides teams in the SEC and Big 12, only 5 teams have ever played in a national championship game (Miami, Virginia Tech, OSU, USC, Florida State). Below is a breakdown by conference of the number of teams represented.
Pac 10 2
Big 10 3
Big East 3 (Miami and Virginia Tech were B.E. teams at the time)
ACC 3
SEC 5
Big 12 6
People this season have been treating the SEC like the Big 12 was last year - as a power conference with several great teams. Last year, Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma were truly exciting to watch week in and week out. It is a shame that only one of them could participate in the National Championship even though they each only lost to each other. Oklahoma State, Missouri, and Nebraska were strong teams as well, so it was understandable that one spot in the National Championship game was reserved for the winner of the Big 12 even though USC and Penn State each only lost one game as well.
This year, the BCS voters and the media had the same attitude for the winner of the SEC championship game even though Cincinnati finished undefeated as well. Outside of Florida and Alabama, however, LSU has 3 losses, Mississippi has 4, and a whole bunch have 5. That is hardly the competitive level of a "power conference" that deserves an "automatic pass" to the national championship game. When you consider how the different conferences have performed this bowl season, the Mountain West Conference is 4-0, Big East is 4-1, and the Big 10 is 3-2 while the Big 12 is 3-3 and SEC is 4-4 (As of post time - 7:30pm on 1/2). Those hardly indicate the strength of the Big 12 and SEC this year.
Looking at the list of national championship competitors, you'll notice that none of the current Big East teams have ever made it there. I think this is a major reason why Cincinnati wasn't ever seriously considered for the the National Championship game this year. (Again, I agree Alabama and Texas are probably the two best teams. However, there is something wrong when Cincinnati was never really considered.)
Teams Benefit/Hurt From BCS Voting By Conference
I think it is important to look deeper into the history to consider situations where controversial BCS voting has benefitted teams in certain conferences and hurt others. To define the terms of "benefit" and "hurt", I have used the following criteria:
-A team benefits if they had the same record at the end of the regular season as another but made it into the championship game. The contrary team(s) are considered hurt by the system.
-I don't consider a team "hurt" if they lost to one of the teams in the championship game.
-The same is true if they lost to another team with same number of losses as themselves because they have less of an argument to be there.
-While I respect TCU, Utah, and Boise State, I am only considering BCS Conference teams because those are the competitive conferences and those 6 conferences are supposed to be on equal footing. I think the system should be changed to allow them to participate more, but that is a whole 'nother post.
Using that criteria, here's a look at the history of the BCS championships. The rankings used are the final regular season AP rankings.
1998 - #1 Tennessee (0 losses) over #2 Florida State (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: OSU, UCLA, Kansas State, Arizona (lost to UCLA), Wisconsin (lost to OSU),
1999 - #1 Florida State (0 losses) over #2 Virginia Tech (0 losses)
2000 - #1 Oklahoma (0 losses) over #3 Florida State (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: Miami (Beat FSU), Washington, Oregon State (lost to Washington), Virginia Tech (lost to Miami)
2001 - #1 Miami (0 losses) over #4 Nebraska (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: Oregon, Maryland, Illinois
2002 - #2 OSU (0 losses) over #1 Miami (0 losses)
2003 - #2 LSU (1 loss) over #3 Oklahoma (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: USC, Michigan
(Although, remember we are throwing out 2003 since there was a split national championship)
2004 - #1 USC (0 losses) over #2 Oklahoma (0 losses)
Other 0 loss: Auburn
2005 - #2 Texas (0 losses) over #1 USC (0 losses)
2006 - #2 Florida (1 loss) over #1 OSU (0 losses)
Other 1 loss: USC, Louisville, Wisconsin, Michigan (lost to OSU)
2007 - #2 LSU (2 losses) over #1 OSU (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: Kansas
Other 2 losses: Oklahoma, Georgia, Virginia Tech, USC, West Virginia, Arizona State (lost to USC), Missouri (lost to Oklahoma)
2008 - #1 Florida (1 loss) over #2 Oklahoma (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: USC, Penn State, Alabama (lost to Florida), (Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma each lost to each other)
2009 - #1 Alabama (0 loss) meets #2 Texas (0 loss)
Other 0 loss: Cincinnati
Of the 12 years, there have been 3 without controversy among BCS conference teams. That brings the final "Benefit vs. Hurt" tally to:
Benefit:
SEC 4
Big 10 1
Pac 10 1
Big 12 4
Big East 0
ACC 2
Hurt:
SEC 2
Big 10 4
Pac 10 6
Big 12 3
Big East 4
ACC 2
The system has clearly helped the SEC and Big 12 whenever one of their teams has an equal record as a team from another conference because of a perceived superiority among voters. The Big East, Big 10, and Pac 10 have been slighted as a result. When teams play a 12 game schedule, roughly 75% of which is comprised of conference games, how can we truly compare the skill level of the BCS conferences against one another? I think it is not surprising that the Pac 10 has been hurt the most and demonstrates the East Coast bias in college football (particularly against teams not named USC). Consider another aspect of the 2009 college football season, the Heisman Trophy race.
The Heisman Race
RB A: 1736 yards, 26 TDs, 5.6 yds/carry
RB B: 1542 yards, 15 TDs, 6.2 yds/carry
RB C: 1145 yards, 11 TDs, 5.7 yds/carry
Quick - if you chose a RB to give your Heisman vote to, which one is the best based on their regular season stats??
Ok, this one was obvious. If you've been following college football closely enough this season, you can guess that A was Toby Gerhart and B was Heisman Trophy winner Mark Ingram. Running back C was CJ Spiller, who finished 6th in Heisman voting and received 26 first place votes despite finishing 28th in the NCAA in rushing yards and tied for 38th in rushing TDs. The Heisman race, in my opinion, has been rendered completely irrelevant since Jason White, Chris Weinke, and Eric Crouch won the award. Recently, it has been awarded to the best player on the best two teams, as evidenced by the fact that only 2 people in the past 10 years have won the award without making an appearances in the national championship game (Tim Tebow and Carson Palmer). Predictably, half of the last 14 Heisman trophy winners have come from the SEC or Big 12.
The Bowl System Defense
The bowl system has become a complete farce. College presidents and other BCS proponents argue that it is a great tradition in sports. You tell me what is really involved when the Flomax Bowl Update provides all of the scores from Capital One Bowl Week games, including the Chick-Fil-A Bowl. They have watered down the system to the point where we have mediocre teams playing games in mediocre cities (Toronto, Birmingham, St. Petersburg) sponsored by mediocre companies (I'm talking to you, Beef O'Bradys and San Diego County Credit Union). The rule used to be that teams must have a winning record to be bowl eligible. Now, you can go 6-6 (You can watch the Insight Bowl that features two of them!). Our very own Michigan State even has a losing record against Division I-A teams! Some teams don't even seem to want to go to a bowl game. Notre Dame declined any invitation because of their "unique circumstances" and rumor had it that MSU was privately campaigning for a trip to the Pizza Bowl to save on costs and increase revenue possibilities. Consider also the number of players that are ineligible for bowl games due to academic and disciplinary reasons (again, MSU boasts 8 plus the ones we kicked off the team earlier this season). Add that to the coaching carousel that occurs at the end of the season and you have many teams that appear to be shells of their regular season rosters. Of the 40 bowl games this season, I feel there are only a solid 10-15 that appear to be interesting games.
Of all of the factors that could lead to a playoff system (pressures from Congress, undefeated teams like Cincinnati being shut out, growing dissatisfaction from fans), I feel that the aspect that is most likely to lead to a playoff system is the current economic climate. After all, money is the major reason why we have so many bowl games. Companies are starting to pull back expenses everywhere and one of the first things to be cut are sponsorships. This year, Pepsi has cut all of their Super Bowl ads. Car companies, some of the most heavily invested brands in sports advertising, have been forced to drop most of their sponsorships (including the Motor City Bowl). Fans with less discretionary spending are less likely to make the trip and buy tickets to a game that is considered a disappointment for their team. The answer for athletic departments and college presidents could be a smaller number of bowls and a small playoff system. While there will always be a debate over who was left out no matter the size of a playoff, giving more teams a chance at the championship will reduce the level of controversy and will reduce the conference bias that favors the 24 teams in the SEC and Big 12. An 8 team playoff would allow the 6 BCS-Conference Champions and two additional teams an even playing level for the title without causing a serious disruption to the current system.
8 comments:
Before the National Championship can ever be fair, each individual conference needs to be fair.
But the Big 10 conference itself is an unfair system. For example, MSU did not play OSU this year. Every team plays a unique schedule, and that makes win/loss records (including the conference champion)subjective.
No national system can work fairly, playoff or otherwise, unless each conference is fair. But to make each conference fair would require an entire overhaul of college football. (# of games, equality of opponent, etc.)
But fairness has never been the goal of the NCAA. College football has always been unfair, and yet the game is as popular (and profitable) as ever.
I am in complete agreement with your proposed playoff system. I think the BCS is a joke, and that there are far too many deserving teams left out of the title picture. The BCS is about getting the two (supposed) best teams, which is an impossible task with so many undefeated teams from varying conferences. So the BCS has become an giant opinion poll, rather than one that is truly based on merits (my biggest pet peave is when one team jumps another when the team in front did nothing to lose their spot in the rankings...it's just the perception that one is better than the other).
And you're right- preferential treatment does go to the SEC and Big 12...but isn't that deserved? The bottom line is that the SEC and Big 12 play tougher conference schedules, and that's fact. Because of this, the perception, whether right or wrong, is that these teams that come out on top deserve more of the opportunity to play for the championship.
But I'm with you. Just because you played a tougher schedule or have more premier athletes doesn't mean you're the best team. But when you're a BCS voter, and can only pick two...
For me it's got more to do with an unfair system rather than an unfair competitive advantage.
Good post, by the way! I enjoyed it.
Kevin, I completely agree that the conferences need overhauled so they have an equal amount of teams and all play a conference championship game. In fact, that was one of my arguments in my 2008 "Annual BCS Post" found at: http://deeprandomthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/11/college-football-review-aka-annual-bcs.html
Another plug for my post: I proposed then that Missouri joins the Big 10.
Mike, how can we say objectively that the SEC and Big 12 conference schedules be tougher (except that they play conference championships)? Does that mean we should automatically just play the national championship game every year between the SEC and Big 12 winners? I think the fact that we have seen a team from one of the two conferences each year since 2002 (and teams from both the past two years) is ridiculous.
How many Bowl Challenge Cups has each conference won (since its inception in 2002)? The Big 12 has tied for 1 and the SEC hasn't won any. I know that isn't the best way to compare how competitive they are, but you would think that they would have won a few more if they were supposedly the best conferences?
I can't objectively say that the conferences are better, because that is an impossible task. Even if we had a playoff, it'd be impossible to reach any definitive conclusion. The only way you could tell which conference was best is if you had every team from every conference play one another, with the ultimate conference record determining who's tops. That's why things like the "Bowl Challenge Cup" are ridiculous to draw conclusions from because the sample size is so small (and I like what a lot of analysts have been saying about bowl wins: it's who's more hyped for a game, not who's got more talent).
BUT, with the current system in place, the most objective I can get (which, agreed, is still being unobjective) is by looking at schedules and strength of schedules, (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt09.htm, just one site, but they're all basically the same)and comparing merits.
Alabama will play six ranked opponents, teams that combined for 93 wins, and have SOS #12.
Texas will play four ranked opponents, teams that combined for 87 wins, and have the #49 SOS.
Cincinnati played four ranked opponents, teams that combined for 86 wins (with Florida included), and have the #53 SOS.
I mean, of these teams, which is most deserving? Based on what I have to go with? What else should I be looking at?
I was looking at the winners of the "Bowl Challenge Cup"...the Mountain West has won it three times since its inception in 2002. The Cup is awarded to the conference with the highest winning percentage, so in one year the Mountain West won it with an overall 2-1 record. Sheesh.
...and when I looked up "Bowl Challenge Cup Results" and found out that Big 12 and SEC has performed pretty well recently, I selectively decided to not mention that. And your SOS stats win your argument that they are better this year.
I agree that they have tended to be better in recent years (Big 12 last year and the SEC the season or two before), but I am concerned that in the 12 years of the BCS, there has been a consistent trend to give them the benefit of the doubt whenever there's controversy. And I think the fact that those are the two most vehement fan bases plays a part.
Yea, I will agree with that. All things equal (or as equal as they can possibly get), I'm with you- voters will lean towards the SEC/Big 12 school.
Post a Comment