I believe there are four probable matchups for the BCS championship game:
1) Alabama vs. Oklahoma
2) Florida vs. Oklahoma
3) Alabama vs. Texas
4) Florida vs. Texas
Very soon, we will be second guessing the actual BCS championship game matchups, and by mid-January we will be second guessing the BCS yet again.
Regardless of the final matchup and its outcome, several teams could still claim to be better than the BCS champion and no one would be able to disprove it.
If Texas, Penn State, USC, Utah, Texas Tech, Boise State, and Ball State all win their final games then each could claim to be better than the national champion, and no one could disprove it. In reality, half of these teams will likely end up playing the other half, so in the end there will probably be four or five teams whom could argue their points.
Imagine, if the OU Sooners win the BCS championship game and Texas wins its bowl game.
Or, if Texas ends up winning the BCS championship and Texas Tech wins its bowl game as well. One or the other could claim that it beat the BCS champion head to head, forever being able to claim that the national title should be theirs.
Head to head is definitive, regardless of the site. Texas beat OU this year, period. Texas Tech beat Texas this year, period. OU beat Texas Tech this year, period.
No excuses please!
For the bowl survivors among Penn State, USC, Utah, Boise State, and Ball State, there would never be a head-to-head comparison against the BCS champion.
Can any one of us definitively prove that any of these teams would not beat the BCS champion head to head?
No, we cannot.
There is not enough real data, not enough head-to-head games. In many cases there are not even enough inter-conference matchups.
The Big 10 did not play against the SEC this year. There were no Pac-10 vs. Big East games. The Mountain West went 6-1 against the Pac-10. The ACC played FCS teams (formerly known as Division I-AA) 14 times.
In fact, the six BCS conferences played FCS teams 51 times, winning all 51 games! That's ridiculous almost to the point of embarrassing.
And what did these 51 games against the FCS tell us? Nothing, nada, and zilch.
At least the Michigan Wolverines were brave enough not to schedule any 1-AA teams this year!
So what will be the closing arguments at the end of this season?
The arguments will be many and irrefutable. Each fan will be able to staunchly defend his or her team. Hopefully, that will tide us over until next season, when all the arguments will be started anew.
Consider it just another wonderful college football tradition!
My favorite argument will be that Ball State should be the national champions if they indeed finish 14-0.
Go ahead, prove me wrong!
8 comments Last one added 7 months ago — Leave a Comment
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
Good point about teams in the BCS conferences playing FCS (I-AA) opponents.
Someone please remind me precisely why FBS (I-A) and FCS became seperate entities in the first place? I think it may have had something to do with the level of competition being different, and to preclude FCS teams from being considered eligible for FBS honors, such as bowl games.
For an FBS team (and especially for a so-called "major" conference team) to have an FCS team on its schedule reeks of hypocrisy. You can't seriously count those games in the win-loss record, and those games should be "struck from the record" in terms of consideration for strength of schedule, bowl eligibility, and so forth: for example, Florida State is 6-4, not 8-4; Georgia Tech is 7-3, not 9-3; Texas Tech is 9-1, not 11-1; Florida is 10-1, not 11-1, etc.
Excuses are made about the FCS teams "needing the money", and to "improve their competitive skill", etc. Face it, if they really want to aim for that sort of revenue and that level of competition they'd already be taking the necessary measures to bring their program up to FBS standards.
The real reason FBS teams schedule FCS teams is the sporting equivalent of "stuffing the ballot box"; that is, padding actual achievements with meaningless (and what I call fraudulent) additional achievements. It's a corrupt practice, and it cheapens the season for teams that resort to it, as well as cheapening FBS college football season overall.
Only FCS teams in transition to FBS membership (i.e. ALREADY accepted for FBS membership by the NCAA), such as Western Kentucky (which will become a member of the Sun Belt conference in 2009), should be allowed to play FBS teams. Period.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zeptogator 7 months ago
I couldn't agree more. If FBS teams continue to play FCS teams, maybe an SEC or Big 12 team should play against an NFL team as a exhibition game.
Maybe it would be ok for the mid-majors/independents to play one game against an FCS team each season, but nothing more than that.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
That's the tricky part: the de facto (unofficial) separation of even FBS into two distinct groups, "major" (BCS) and "mid-major" (non-BCS). That's not an NCAA-sanctioned break in terms of divisional play; FBS and FCS (I-A and I-AA) are the only two Div. I groupings officially recognized by the NCAA (per its website).
Either the BCS conferences formalize their split from the non-BCS conferences (FBS-A and FBS-AA?) and limit themselves to one (1) "mid-major" FBS team per season, and zero (0) FCS teams--meaning that the rest of the non-conference games MUST be against BCS conference opponents (your suggestion that the "mid-majors" be allowed one game against an FCS opponent fits in this scenario as well);
OR
The BCS conferences are subject to legal action on behalf of the "mid-major" conferences (it's already been done once; the result was an "out-of-court" settlement in which the BCS added a 5th bowl game (but apparently with the unspoken proviso that only ONE "mid-major" team can make it to a BCS bowl, even when more than one qualify).
I really think the BCS conferences are legally vulnerable, as the legal status of FBS (I-A) is as one entity with 119 (next year 120) members--there is no further legal distinction, and the BCS arrangement can still be challenged through anti-trust action. I wouldn't be surprised if this controversy ends up involving all three branches of the federal government: legislative (Congress has already been active on this), executive (the President-elect has weighed in on the matter), and judicial (where I see it ending up).
Not that this is a vital issue in foreign policy or even a priority in domestic/economic policy; but it agitates a sizable portion of the sports universe on an annual basis, and I see the momentum for challenging the BCS increasing with each year, not decreasing.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
zeptogator,
I just added a reference to your article here as a comment to the article I wrote about the issue of the FBS scheduling FCS opponents:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/88308-fbs-pick-on-teams-your-own-size-a-parable
For simplicity's sake, I considered Western Kentucky an FCS program this year.
Thanks for the inspiration!
Edit Comment Cancel
Glenn Allen 7 months ago
"At least the Michigan Wolverines were brave enough not to schedule any 1-AA teams this year!"
Bravery? I think it was more a matter of not wanting to lose yet another game to a I-AA team (App St)--aka the opposite of "bravery". Ask Wisconsin about their Cal Poly game (which except for a kicker being MIA Cal Poly would have won). At least the ACC played I-AA teams mostly with winning records & several in the top 10 (JMU, Richmond, W&M). Playing, even beating, I-A teams not only doesn't help with poll rankings; it often hurts even if you win big (Florida vs. The Citadel).
Of course, it's about the money, pure and simple. But then, so is the BCS.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zeptogator 7 months ago
Yes, I meant the Michigan comment to be ironic. I should have followed it up with something but couldn't think of anything really witty and I thought it would be fairly obvious. There is no love in my heart for Michigan.
Isn't saying the ACC beat I-AA teams with winning records like saying the Carolina Panthers beat Georgia Tech, 14 times? Come to think of it, I wonder if the Florida Gators could beat the Detroit Lions this year. FBS teams really should not play FCS teams more that 1 game each season if at all.
True, it is about the money. Big teams get an extra home game, and payoff the sacrificial FCS team just for showing up. I think the kids in the FCS get a thrill being in a big game setting, even if they are getting whipped.
Edit Comment Cancel
Glenn Allen 7 months ago
That money helps fund the I-AA programs, so thrilling (for them) to say the least. Also, some of these schools have been playing each other since before there was a I-AA. Richmond and William & Mary used to play both Va Tech and UVa on a regular basis, not to mention SEC schools. True, that tradition, that heritage, has been scuttled somewhat by I-A vs. I-AA, but it's there nonetheless. Anyway, good teams like to face the best teams they can schedule--they like the challenge... it makes them better, which is true of all competition.
Some of these I-AA teams are better than more than half of the I-A teams, so, no, it's not like some pro team playing "down", at least, no more so than some BCS teams playing some non-BCS teams (and some other BCS teams for that matter). They don't seem to mind, so I sure don't. I'm not invested in the "purity" of I-A; I'm definitely no fan of the BCS.
(As far as you would think is ironic... sorry, don't know you that well.)
Edit Comment Cancel
Zeptogator 7 months ago
"Some of these I-AA teams are better than more than half of the I-A teams".
Yet, the big 6 I-A conferences went 51-0 against I-AA teams. Like I said earlier, maybe it would be ok the mid-majors or Notre Dame to play against I-AA, the I-AA team would still get a paycheck. But if the BCS conferences are going 51-0, then that is embarrassing. You are basically paying the I-AA team to lose. There is probably a criminal term for that sort of arrangement but I can't think of it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.