My eyes tend to roll whenever there's news about Congressmen trying to take on the BCS.
While their actions might be well-intentioned -- might -- you just don't get the sense that these folks are serious college football fans. And yeah, there are plenty of pressing things going on in the world that are more worthy of their focus.
That said, there are flaws in the BCS system that are hard to deny.
Here are the two most legitimate, in my mind:
1) There will always be a sizable public clamor for a playoff. Some years, such as last year, things will go relatively smoothly. But there will regularly be instances of teams getting screwed, and that's why there will always be large numbers of folks who favor settling the national champion on the field.
2) The ACC and Big East have not justified their favored status. Try making the case that the best these two conferences have had to offer the last few years have been better than what the best the Mountain West and WAC have had to offer.
On the second point, a lobbyist for the Mountain West has unearthed some compelling numbers that Rivals.com's Matt Hinton touched on in this column.
In the past four years of major bowl games, the Mountain West and WAC have drawn significantly better TV ratings than the ACC. They have drawn higher attendance. And they have earned higher rankings.
Yet, they have drawn only a fraction of the paychecks pocketed by the ACC and Big East.
Very, very interesting.
To be fair, the Mountain West and WAC are still dragged down by the overall weakness of their conferences. As formidable as their teams have been at the top, it's hard to ignore such dregs as San Jose State, Utah State, New Mexico State, Colorado State and New Mexico. Top to bottom, the ACC and Big East are stronger.
Nevertheless, the revelation of these numbers presents a compelling question that's asked by Andy Staples of SI.com:
Are the folks behind the BCS merely bad at business, or guilty of collusion?
This information isn't new, but this is the first time anyone has presented the data this way. It begs another question: Why do the ACC and Big East still hold automatic qualifying spots if they can't outdraw or beat in the ratings conferences with far fewer advantages? Obviously, the ACC and Big East beat the WAC and Mountain West in attendance and ratings during the regular season, but, as BCS leaders often point out, the BCS only controls college football's postseason.
And later:
Based on recent bowl ratings, only four conferences actually deserve automatic qualifying spots. If the government does back off and allows the BCS to keep running college football's postseason, it will be interesting to watch the next round of BCS contract negotiations. If, during those negotiations, the BCS continues to give more money and more power to conferences that can't hold up their end of the bargain, then maybe government intervention is necessary.
Because either the people running the BCS are fiscally irresponsible, or they're trying to keep the Old Boy Network in power no matter the cost.
Speaking of the ACC, Sporting News college football guru Matt Hayes says this is the most momentum the conference has had heading into a season in a long time.
But he says it's time for the conference to put up or shut up in some key non-conference matchups.
All that love sounds well and good, but the ACC must start winning key non-conference games. And there is a boatload of road or neutral-site games that will define the season. Among them: Miami at Ohio State, FSU at Oklahoma, Clemson at Auburn, Miami at Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech vs. Boise State (at Washington, D.C.), Georgia Tech at Kansas, North Carolina vs. LSU (at Atlanta).
If the ACC wins more than half of those games, then it will climb toward the top of the conference rankings. Going into the season, I'd rank them this way: 1. SEC; 2. Big Ten; 3. Big 12; 4. ACC; 5. Pac-10; 6. Mountain West; 7. Big East; 8. Conference USA; 9. MAC; 10. WAC; 11. Sun Belt.
Back in October of 2008, when the wheels were coming off at Clemson under Tommy Bowden, former Tiger great Joe Bostic ripped Bowden in a column by Bart Wright.
Today, Wright again speaks with Bostic as he's inducted into the South Carolina Athletic Hall of Fame. And Bostic appears to like the direction under Bowden's replacement.
“I think we’re in a much better spot than we were,” said Bostic, a two-time All-America selection at Clemson from 1975-78. “I could not understand what our direction was under (former coach) Tommy Bowden.”
And later:
“I couldn’t understand what he was trying to do,” Bostic said. “We were a soft team, and I felt like I needed to say that because it went against Clemson football tradition, to me. I wondered if being critical of Tommy Bowden’s approach would come off as too harsh, but at the next game, everyone I saw said they were glad somebody said it. Everyone was thinking the same thing.”
In The State, a piece on Clemson's improved pitching.
In The ACC Sports Journal, an ACC Tournament preview.
Here's what they had to say about Clemson:
One of the hottest teams in the league, Clemson has won 12 of its last 14. Third baseman Jeff Schaus leads the league with 71 RBIs, while right-fielder Kyle Parker’s multi-sport accomplishments are widely known. John Hinson is a threat to steal, anytime, anywhere. Clemson doesn’t hit for a great average but utilizes long balls and stolen bases to turn those hits into runs with great efficiency.
But in many respects, Clemson is a middling ACC team. The Tigers’ weakness: their pitching is so-so and their fielding can be shaky. They’ll likely need to score lots of runs to advance to the title game. This is within their capabilities but they don’t have much margin for error.
Greensboro lost a huge draw when Boston College defeated Georgia Tech last Saturday, thereby eliminating North Carolina from the final spot.
David Glenn takes a look at North Carolina's football outlook for 2010.
And Carrick Felix won't be Mike Krzyzewski's first JUCO transfer after all.
LW
No comments:
Post a Comment