Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Headlines: BCS Probe

Brian: Jeff, Congress wants to take a closer look at ... your favorite topic and mine ... the BCS. Three members of Congress, from the states of Georgia, Hawaii and Idaho (surprise, surprise), want the Justice Department to take a look at the BCS to determine if it is an illegal enterprise. Sour grapes or legitimate beef?

Jeff: There is so much money riding on the BCS that I am going to say yes it does deserve an investigation. Boston College is only ever going to make it through an automatic bid and there are many other schools in our situation. Meanwhile certain big state football schools and Notre Dame only need to finish high enough to qualify and they will receive one of the at-large bids. It is suspect though that Georgia, Hawaii and Idaho representatives are starting this. They have no beef! Hawaii lost to Georgia last year, neither team should have been in the title game. Boise State at least went on to win their game but remember it did take overtime and they were not playing one of the two top teams in the country.

Brian: As you said, Jeff, BC has never been a BCS snubbee. We had a very remote chance to make the BCS last year, but the BCS selection committee has repeatedly shown it does not like taking the conference championship runners-up (see: last year's Missouris, Tennessees, Boston Colleges). You have to win the big game to have a legit beef with the system, which BC has failed to do in years past (sadly, see: 2004, 2006, 2007). As I have stated before, the system totally sucks. Illinois in the Rose Bowl at 9-3 = garbage. I am glad they are taking a closer look at the system, however, I do think this investigation loses some credibility with UGA, Boise State and Hawaii representatives leading the charge.
  • Georgia couldn't even win their side of the SEC ...
  • Hawaii played a JV conference schedule and even weaker out of conference schedule, and
  • Boise State went undefeated but beat Oklahoma in overtime, capitalizing on Bob Stoops inability to win bowl games (bigger late season choke artist than Tommy Bowden!)

Jeff:
John Swofford is the only quoted BCS official in this article, does the ACC have the inside track to getting two BCS teams next year?

Brian: There would really have to be a perfect storm of events for the ACC to get two teams in next year. There are four at-large births, and if the selections are at all similar to last year's, I give the edge for two of the four at-large births to the Pac 10 and the Big 10, given the preferrential treatment of conferences without a championship game.

That leaves two at-larges for the Big XII, SEC, ACC, Big East, Notre Dame and the mid-majors. If Notre Dame gets to 9-10 wins after dumbing down their schedule, they take a spot. If a mid-major goes undefeated, there is one less at-large. SEC football will be decidedly better than ACC football, so I give the edge to a third at-large to the SEC. And I can't imagine that the ACC takes a fourth spot from the Big XII, with Oklahoma, Missouri and Texas all in the mix (edge to the regular season runner up of the Big XII South for the last at-large). ACC football is still perceived to be down, and even with the BCS chairman in our camp, I don't see the ACC getting a second team in. If I was playing oddsmakers, I'd only give it a 10% chance.

3 comments:

VinsanityBC said...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7604221474768283476

Here is a link of a video I made. BC Men's Hockey 2008 Highlight video.

Sebastian said...

Part of the problem of BC being overlooked by the BCS committee could be solved if the BC fans traveled well and made BC a desirable option to the committee the most effective way possible: in the wallet.

Brian said...

sebastian - i think that's a fair point. it's exactly those barriers to entry, though, that i find objectionable about the BCS.

the George Masons, Davidsons in basketball and Notre Dames in hockey (last team in the tournament that ends up playing in the title game) is what is so great about the other NCAA tournaments. shame we don't have the same thing in football.