Sign up or login to track your favorite teams

Sign Up for Bleacher Report

As a registered user you can subscribe to your favorite teams, post comments, write your own articles, and much more.

You must register in order for that functionality to work!







Validating sign up form ...

Bleacher Report articles are written by fans like you

Do you want to cover your favorite sports, teams, and leagues?

Processing writing preferences ...

Great, , you're signed up!

i.e. Big 10, LeBron James, USC Football

Selected Tags:

Logging in ...

\r\n
\r\n

We rarely get the kind of clash of the titans matchup in pro sports we want.

\r\n

Not the BCS. By mid season we could see LSU and Ohio State were the best two teams in college football. Sure, LSU had lost two games, but that is why I love college football; by adding a human element via the rankings we can account for tough losses, questionable scheduling, and close outcomes.

\r\n

Of particular importance is being able to separate the good teams from the great ones.

\r\n

Since 1998 when the BCS began, there have been questions surrounding champions several times, but whether the best team won the title, it always seemed the right teams were playing in the big game.

\r\n
Going year by year in the BCS, proving the two best teams in the country actually played would be a waste. Fans, media, players, and coaches speculate after the fact about who should or should not have been in the game, but prior to the bowl season, we tend to agree the two best teams will play for the title.
\r\n

\r\n
That is all we can ask for. Texas and USC were undoubtedly the two best teams in the land when they faced off in the Rose Bowl for the national title. Texas won in the waning moments, but if that games were played 100 times, USC would probably win 65 times.
\r\n

\r\n
Sports is fun because the \"what if\" game is irrelevant. Texas DID win.
\r\n

\r\n
That game was the perfect counter-argument for any kind of BCS playoff system. What if a freak injury robbed us of one of the greatest games in history because of a playoff game?
\r\n

\r\n
A playoff system would eliminate whining over who was \"left out,\" but it could preclude us from guaranteeing the two best teams play. Maybe that is just the tough luck rule.
\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
Would a playoff really help the BCS? Perhaps.
\r\n

\r\n
But let's look at it another way: Would pro sports benefit from a BCS-type system?
\r\n

\r\n
Certainly had the NBA utilized rankings last season and taken the top 16 teams in the NBA, there is no way the Hawks or the 76ers have a prayer of getting to the postseason, while the Warriors and Blazers would deservedly be in.
\r\n

\r\n
In baseball, the Cubs, Cards, and Brewers would all make the playoffs while perhaps no one from the West would play in October.
\r\n

\r\n
For those of you concerned about upsets, think of it this way: if the best teams are all playing, isn't there a better chance of an upset? If the eight-seed is really eighth best team available rather than the 11th or 12th, isn't that more likely to provide a better series against a one-seed?
\r\n

\r\n
The best of the best will likely play because their records will qualify them regardless. Accordingly, by deepening the pool of playoff teams, it elevates the overall quality of teams and quality of play.
\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
Common sense tells us that might make series longer (God forbid) and your television viewing more difficult with so many outstanding choices, but you should have a Tivo by now anyway (they come with a Happy Meal I hear).
\r\n

\r\n
For the die hard sports fan it would be heaven; the best teams playing in the postseason struggling through seven-game series, coaches making adjustments, players leaving everything on the court. 
\r\n

\r\n
Isn't a lack of passion and vigor exactly what fans complain pro leagues lack? 
\r\n

\r\n
Sure, the bowl season is 25 games too long and BCS games can be anti-climactic when USC wins the Rose Bowl by 100 or Florida comes out of nowhere to dismantle the presumed top team. But for every Florida-Ohio State game, a system like this gives us a USC-Texas game.
\r\n

\r\n
In the NFL that would mean a Super Bowl game worth watching for something other than just the commercials.
\r\n

\r\n
The Giants' win over the Patriots was historic, but lucky. That was why it retained so many viewers. Had the Patriots taken off in the first quarter to a 17-3 lead, people would have turned to the Colbert Report.
\r\n

\r\n
A Patriots-Packers or Patriots-Cowboys game would have had the same 19-0 hype, but would have had a much better chance of presenting a once-in-a-lifetime game. Only in retrospect can we say the right teams played.
\r\n

\r\n
Giants-Patriots 100 times probably comes out Patriots 85 times, but it was the Giants the only time it counted. Looks like the tough luck rule does apply.
\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
For whatever reason, people seem to believe the BCS ought to turn to the pro sports for \"fixing.\" It appears however, pro sports could benefit from a BCS system where the best teams are assured a chance.
\r\n

\r\n
Pro sports have the playoff, the BCS has the rankings (even if flawed). A combination would create the ultimate sport experience where the top teams meet when it matters.
\r\n

\r\n
It's the draft and free agency that create REAL parity, not the playoffs. 
\r\n

\r\n
Luck brought us a Super Bowl for the ages and a throw-back NBA Finals, but why leave the sports we love so much to chance? Don't we deserve it?  
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
", "tags": [{"name": "NFL", "ancestors": [{"id": 6}], "in_tag1_id": 6, "taggings_count": 63324, "type": "League", "id": 16, "synonyms": ""}, {"name": "MLB", "ancestors": [{"id": 9}], "in_tag1_id": 9, "taggings_count": 49544, "type": "League", "id": 18, "synonyms": null}, {"name": "NBA", "ancestors": [{"id": 7}], "in_tag1_id": 7, "taggings_count": 26913, "type": "League", "id": 19, "synonyms": null}, {"name": "BCS Championship", "ancestors": [{"id": 23}, {"id": 10}], "in_tag1_id": 23, "taggings_count": 1477, "type": "Event", "id": 2290, "synonyms": ""}, {"name": "Opinion", "in_tag1_id": null, "taggings_count": 84984, "type": "Tag", "id": 7018, "synonyms": ""}], "author": {"cached_public_filename": "http://cdn.bleacherreport.com/images_root/user_pictures/0001/8548/headshot.jpg", "permalink": "14526-peter-bukowski", "facebook_id": null, "is_a_bozo": false, "on_probation": null, "id": 14526, "first_name": "Peter", "last_name": "Bukowski"}, "priority": 2, "feed_article_url": null, "has_been_star_rated": true, "user_approval": 2, "id": 39912, "show_full": false, "render_strategy": "article", "hit_count": 507, "author_id": 14526, "comments_count": 13, "teaser": "The Golden State Warriors won 48 games last season and missed the playoffs in the West. In the East, the Atlanta Hawks' 37 wins \"earned\" them a trip to the post-season...", "created_at": "2008/07/22 06:38:31 -0400"});
The Golden State Warriors won 48 games last season and missed the playoffs in the West. In the East, the Atlanta Hawks' 37 wins "earned" them a trip to the post-season...

Where Pro Sports Falter BCS Can Get It Right

by Peter Bukowski (Columnist)

13

507 reads

Opinion

July 22, 2008


The Golden State Warriors won 48 games last season and missed the playoffs in the West. In the East, the Atlanta Hawks' 37 wins "earned" them a trip to the post-season. To be fair, the Hawks took the eventual champion Celtics to the brink, but the point is the equity of the two leagues run incongruous.

In Major League Baseball this season, the three best records in the National League all reside in the Central. In fact, both the second-place Brewers and third-place Cardinals would be front-running in three of the six divisions in the Majors. Even the cellar-dwelling Pirates, a whopping 13 games back, would only be four games back in the putrid NL West, where no team is even .500.

That means a team in the central could win 90+ games and MISS the playoffs, while the Diamondbacks or the Dodgers (no locks to win 80) will take their place because SOMEONE from the West has to go.

We hear pro sports parity has grown with the advent of salary caps, revenue sharing, television contracts, and merchandising. Actually, it appears the disparity between the "haves" and "have nots" is as big as ever, if not bigger.

TV ratings are up not because everyone has a shot, but because we all wanted to see someone take down the big bad Patriots. That is certainly not parity.

That has always been the case in college football. When Florida matches up against the Citadel at the Swamp in late November (Florida always seems to come through with the most over-matched late-season opponent), you will see what I mean.

Yet college football has always been riveting due in part to the fan passion, but also because great teams match up every week. There are 112 of them, odds are, the good ones will play a few times. 

College football draws our attention because there is no playoff. The top two teams play for all the marbles and that's it. Pressure mounts every week as one loss can mean the end of a season.

You have to watch every week, or you could miss the end of one team's season.  

Meanwhile, the BCS has come through time and again, correctly crowning the BCS Champion. When I say, "correctly," I mean the eventual champion was, in fact, the best team in college football.

We like to say that in pro sports the playoff system gives any team a chance to win it all, but that isn't quite true. Sure every once in a while a team like the Giants or the Steelers come through with clutch playoff performances to stun the world.

But the Celtics won the NBA championship this season and were clearly the best team in basketball. The Boston Red Sox won the World Series last season and were definitely the best team in baseball, particularly in the postseason.

But how can we know?

The Sox played the Rockies, who needed a Trevor Hoffman blown save and a blown call on Matt Holliday's slide at home just to make the playoffs.

The Lakers were lucky the Hornets had no playoff experience AND that Manu Ginobili's ankle was about as sturdy as Nicole Richie's in the conference finals.

We rarely get the kind of clash of the titans matchup in pro sports we want.

Track this Article on My B/R
Flag This Article
Share This Article

13 comments Last one added 11 months ago — Leave a Comment

  1. Matt Jacobs 11 months ago

    What about 2003 when USC and LSU were crowned "co-champions"? The BCS is the worst creation in the history of sports. It makes people not even care about college football.

    And your point about Texas-USA is a good point, but misguided. A playoff system would probably give those type of games MUCH more often than the BCS. Which is why March Madness is so popular.

    Nice article, but the BCS might be the worst invention in sports history

    Edit Comment Cancel

    Reply
    Great Comment (
    0
    )

  2. Peter Bukowski 11 months ago

    Almost right. LSU was the BCS Champion by virtue of winning the Sugar Bowl (BCS Championship game that season) when they beat then #1 Oklahoma.

    It was the writer's that awarded the "co-champion" title after SC took apart Michigan in the Rose Bowl.

    However, I spoke about one or two cases where questions about the champion were justified and 2003 was the case to which I was referring.

    I asser the BCS makes people care MORE about college football because every week is so important, much more so than the NFL which has more games and a playoff. If you have to win 11 or 12 straight games to get to the Championship game, that is way moer pressure than just qualifying for the playoffs and winning three or four in a row.

    Also, March Madness has the same problem sports does, the championship games tend to be anti-clicmatic because the playoffs eliminate great teams. This year was the exception with four #1 seeds. What did we get when the two best teams in the country played? One of the most compelling finals ever.

    I wanted to add the NCCA basketball issue, but I felt as though another example would simply dilute the article rather than add to it.

    Edit Comment Cancel

    Reply
    Great Comment (
    0
    )

  3. Brendan Majev 11 months ago

    I would say this is a fantastic article, to start it off.

    I would also say that the BCS sucks. 2003- How do you have co-champions at all? This is America; no one is ever a "co-champion," you're either the best or you're not. 2004- Auburn undefeated; left out of the game. Now, I don't think that they were as good as USC that year; don't get me wrong. But so what? That's why you play the game! 2007- Louisiana State MAKES THE TITLE GAME WITH TWO LOSSES AHEAD OF ONE-LOSS USC. Granted that USC lost to Stanford, but LSU lost twice in-conference and USC spanked everyone else they played. Disagree with me? Fine, why didn't they play to make everyone shut up?

    I would also say that any professional sports playoff setup, as it currently stands, sucks.

    How the Warriors could miss the playoffs and the Hawks could get in is beyond me. That is screwed up. When the D-backs make the playoffs going 81-81, that will be equally screwed up. Sure, no one is "left out" because they all have an "equal chance" during the regular season to get in.

    ...hello? Anyone home? Why shouldn't the whole top half of the NL Central go to the playoffs? Screw your division, it's time to remake everything.

    Let's take baseball. Here's a novel concept- the teams with the 4 best records go to the playoffs from each league! Surprise! This is not rocket science; the Brewers, Cubbies, and Cards should all go to the playoffs this year (barring some great disaster from one team).

    Let's take the NFL. Take the teams with the 12 best records, top 4 records get a bye. Form two brackets of 6 teams; winners go to the Super Bowl at a neutral site. Division winners with 9 wins or more automatically get in (that makes them a top 12 team by default).

    I don't know enough about the NBA to tell you how that should be realigned, so I'm not going to do so.

    If you think I'm being a hypocrite that in the NFL division winners should go to the playoffs but not so in the MLB, it's because in the MLB there's only one wildcard. Also, in the NFL... division games matter more. They just do, and I'm not taking argument, because there are only six of them.

    I understand your point- it'd be a lot more fun to see the Pats play the Cowboys or the Pack for the NFL championship (sorry Giants, your team was above average and got hot at the right time). But at the same time, if the Patriots really were the best team... should they win automatically? Should they automatically get the benefit of the doubt, and not have to prove it week in and week out for 4 weeks?

    Take that away, and you have the BCS... which sucks.

    Edit Comment Cancel

    Reply
    Great Comment (
    0
    )

    • James Doker 11 months ago

      You are wrong on the 2007 LSU v. USC issue. USC lost twice. Check the records. Both teams lost two conference games. Two-loss LSU did not get in over one-loss USC. They got in over two-loss USC. You're just wrong.

      Edit Comment Cancel

      Reply
      Great Comment (
      0
      )

  4. Brendan Majev 11 months ago

    But as I said, GREAT article; very thought-provoking!

    Edit Comment Cancel

    Reply
    Great Comment (
    0
    )

  5. James Doker 11 months ago

    Check out this blog post I stumbled upon that relates a lot to what this article talks about with the BCS and playoff discussion:

    http://thenationalchampionshipissue.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-patriots-loss-means-for-college.html

    With regards to the BCS v. playoff debate, check out this series of articles. It's old, but it does a great job analyzing why the BCS has merit:

    http://thenationalchampionshipissue.blogspot.com/2006/11/defining-champion.html

    (And no, I'm not a spam bot. I'm a real person, but those blog posts happen to relate to this article so I thought I'd mention them.)

    Edit Comment Cancel

    Reply
    Great Comment (
    0
    )

  6. adam folarin 11 months ago

    Yeah like what he said

    Edit Comment Cancel

    Reply
    Great Comment (
    0
    )

  7. Tony Bishop 11 months ago

    My problem with this is one thing.. the best teams win when it matters most.

    Are you telling me that March Madness should be exchanged for a BCS system?

    Maybe the best records don't always win the championships, but the best teams always do.

    Edit Comment Cancel

    Reply
    Great Comment (
    0
    )

  8. C L 11 months ago

    The biggest problem with the BCS isnt the teams they match up, its the fact that it is in essence an apartheid system that keeps half of FBS in its place at the bottom. I agree with you that a playoff wouldn't solve this, but when a team can go undefeated and not be in a national championship is ludicrous. And you can't use the Hawaii example for the simple fact that they are playing under the system with which I am describing. Of course an undefeated Hawaii team is not as good as Georgia, they recruit under completely different contexts.

    The BCS would be near perfect if they simply allowed all teams to be treated equally....over time this would allow conferences such as the Sun Belt and WAC to say to players "look we can go to the national championship just like anyone else" and therefore bring about a greater degree in parity in recruiting. USF is a perfect example of why the BCS should not be an exclusive club, a team that is so young is proving that it can contend, but had it not been for the Big East realignment they would be stuck recruiting the same leftovers from the table of UF/FSU/Miami, stuck in CUSA never to know what a bid for the national championship would look like.

    The BCS needs to remove all restrictions to its membership, expand its bowl system to allow automatic bids to all conferences plus a few more for at-large teams, remove the 6-6 criteria for going to a bowl which influences teams to schedule OOC cupcakes and replace it with a BCS style ranking system, and watch as the computers slowly start bumping some of the "non-BCS" teams up in ranking until someday a truly deserving have-not will win it all.

    Just a few ideas...But I do agree that a ranking system (BCS or not) is more ideal than a playoff, but it needs to be democratic.

    Edit Comment Cancel

    Reply
    Great Comment (
    0
    )

    • Michael Inglis 11 months ago

      You also make a good point.

      If a team goes undefeated, especially a team playing in one of the 6 major conferences, then they should at least have a chance to prove they are the best team in the country.

      The BCS provides ecitment, but it cleary isn't always fair.

      Edit Comment Cancel

      Reply
      Great Comment (
      0
      )

  9. Michael Inglis 11 months ago

    You make some good points.

    Most people hate the BCS and with good reason.

    The biggest thing about the BCS is they crown the most DESERVING team which isn't always the BEST team. Ohio State and LSU were cleary the most deserving teams last year but were they the best?

    UGA, and USC looked just as good as those two teams but unfortuantley for USC, they lost to a bad stanford team and UGA didn't win their conference or division.

    I like march madness because it determines the champion on the court. Any sports fan has to love that.

    However if they BCS does anything, it makes every single game count. Losing just 1 game could cost your team the hopes and dreams. So whether you are playing a 3-9 team or a 12-0 team, it matters.

    In every other sport if you lose to a bad team it wont kill you season.

    Edit Comment Cancel

    Reply
    Great Comment (
    0
    )

  10. C L 11 months ago

    I was definitely not trying to say that the BCS is the problem.. The problem is that the way the BCS is setup makes it inherently unfair to half of college football. Yes the "major" conferences will each year produce the best and most deserving teams...but they do this for one simple reason, they are the teams that by BCS law can go to a national championship game. Because of this they will always be able to, on average, outrecruit any team from a lower conference. The lower conferences stay low, the major conference stay major and it reinforces the stereotype that a mid-major cannot be the best or the most deserving.

    Think about it, if they said tomorrow that the Sun Belt was getting the BCS bid of the Big East would there be a dramatic shift in power from the Big East teams to the Sun Belt teams as recruits that would have gone to West Virginia and USF end up going to Western Kentucky, Troy, and FAU? If the answer to that question is yes, which I believe it is, then the only thing holding back the teams at the bottom is that itsy bitsy clause in the BCS constitution which keeps out half of college football.

    Keep the Bowls, hell expand the BCS so that is has 12 bowls for all I care, tell any team that they can get to a national championship as determined by computers and a new age in college football will be born.

    Rant over :)

    GO OWLS, BEAT TEXAS!

    Edit Comment Cancel

    Reply
    Great Comment (
    0
    )

  11. C L 11 months ago

    Damn this topic is driving me crazy.....If every BCS team lost all of its OOC games....guess what, the BCS bowls would be filled with 4 loss teams and one mid-major that went undefeated...even then I have my doubts as to whether they would let them play for the national championship.

    Edit Comment Cancel

    Reply
    Great Comment (
    0
    )

Leave a Comment

  • You must register to post a comment.

    • Want to write for Bleacher Report

    We are a community of fans who write about sports. And we're growing.

    Learn More and Sign Up »

    Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Getty Images.
    Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Getty Images is strictly prohibited.