BCS Mess Now Includes Public Relations Spin
I think I am about to hit the breaking point.
Some days, I find it hard enough to slog through the promotional emails I get from teams and conferences promoting certain players for individual awards.
I’m okay with that, though. Individual awards are something of a beauty contest, and a marketing push can call attention to a player from a lesser league that you may simply have not heard of before.
What I find untenable, however, is the newer trend that is cropping up.
The case for BCS inclusion has been turned over to public relations people.
Iowa sends out an email blast to national media making the argument for why they should be the number four team in the BCS standings ahead of Boise State, TCU and Cincinnati.
You know, to be in position in case Alabama, Florida, and Texas all slip up before December 6.
The WAC has retained the services of a PR firm to help boost the case for Boise State to be included in the BCS as an at-large team or, depending on position, to argue for inclusion in the national title game in case one of the predetermined Big Three slip up.
And I haven’t even begun to mention the potential lobbying that could take places from the coaches themselves as we get closer and closer to the end of the regular season. While he doesn’t need to do it this season, Mack Brown could teach a course about this at a coaching clinic somewhere.
I know, I know; under the old bowl system, this could even be worse because there was not even a (semi)coherent system for trying to determine which two teams were the best.
Furthermore, I know a playoff would not necessarily be the panacea to this problem either; the same arguing and lobbying would be taking place unless the playoff were designed to include all eleven conference champions and the best independent team only.
Which will happen about the time Adriana Lima dumps Marko Jaric for me.
But, if the university presidents want to continue to act as if they are acting in purely the best interests of their student-athletes, they could step in and order their athletic directors to refrain from this senseless public bickering and lobbying and arguing, as it takes away from the pure simple beauty of intercollegiate athletics and the spirit of competition.
The odds of that happening? Negative zero to one.
So we continue to be left with a broken system, influenced by algorithms, coaches that don’t even vote in their own poll and former football people who may or may not have time to follow the sport enough to be informed by something more than the scores crawling across the ESPN ticker.
Oh, and public relations people spinning away, too.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?