It's time to blow the dust off a gimmick I haven't employed in a couple years, and it's a gimmick I stole from "The Daily Show" way back in the Craig Kilborn era: answering letters to the editor of other publications.
This week, I'll be filling in for Stewart Mandel and answer his weekly college football mailbag.
"All of this "plus-one" talk is great, but how quickly we forget the 2005 season. What happens when two teams clearly are head-and-shoulders above the rest. In 2005, would it have made sense to have USC play a 9-2 Ohio State team and have Texas play a 10-1 Penn State team? The "plus-one" would have been unnecessary in '05."
— CPT Casey O'Neill, Fort Worth, TX
It's a good point, Casey, and demonstrates why a plus-one scenario isn't much better than what we have now, although there have been many more years in the BCS era when there are not two clear front-runners, than years when there are.
This is all the more reason to have a playoff. A playoff wouldn't end all arguments, but it would be preferable to argue about which 8-4 team was gypped out of a No. 16 seed than arguing about which 11-1 or even 12-0 team was robbed of a shot at a national title, like we do now.
"Why doesn't the BCS make a rule that states you have to win your conference championship to be in the BCS championship? This seems to be the consensus of the voters seeing as though it is LSU and not Georgia in the national championship." — Austin, Arlington, MA
Mark Richt was complaining about the same thing when Chris Myers somberly interviewed him during the BCS selection show. But there is no consensus of BCS-effecting voters that feel that way. If they did, Missouri would be in the BCS, as they at least won their division, and not Kansas. That decision was just stupefying, but I'm getting off-track, and you asked abut the championship game, not the BCS as a whole.
There's been some teams, such a Nebraska a few years back, to make the BCS Championship Game without winning their conference, so it's hard to nail down an unwavering BCS voter preference. Like with all of us, the voters take a lot of things into consideration when trying to decide who is better — and let's not forget that the voters only make up a portion of the BCS formula.
"Since the BCS matchups are indeed horrendous, which teams would you have matched and why?" — Carlos Gomez, San Antonio, TX
Well, beside the idiotic exclusion of Missouri that I touched on, I don't really feel these matchups are "horrendous." Oklahoma/West Virginia could break rushing records. Illinois/USC should be close, and features two hot teams, and I think Illinois is going to pull the upset. I'm less excited about Kansas/Virginia Tech. Hawaii and Georgia has the same David and Goliath appeal that Boise State/Oklahoma did last year.
If they threw out the formula and implemented a "Kevin decides" rule, I would have made it this way, besides the LSU/OSU championship game:
- Oklahoma/West Virginia (like that the way it is, as stated).
- USC/Illinois (ditto).
- Hawaii/Virginia Tech (I don't think Hawaii will reproduce last year's Boise State magic, but they could keep it close against VT and Missouri, and VT is a bigger name).
- Missouri/Georgia (the leftovers; Cotton Bowl II).
"I propose a new rule. If LSU fans stake their claim to the national championship as 'we are undefeated in regulation,' then they must acknowledge that USC won a national title in 2003, as USC was undefeated in regulation that year. Agree?" — Nat, Atlanta, GA
Ugh, they're saying that? How spurious. They can say LSU didn't lose in regulation, I can say they twice didn't win in regulation. Tomato, tomahto. Besides, if there was no overtime, the plays being called in the fourth quarter of those two games would have likely been quite different, and they may well have ended up with an LSU loss or two.
"Couldn't we start a boycott of the national championship game and give them their lowest TV ratings ever? I mean, with all the people who hate this system, I think it could work." — R. Burns, Los Angeles, CA
No, it wouldn't, because not enough people would join you. I won't, and I hate the present system. It's still college football, though, a positive in my life, so it's not worth boycotting, writing my congressman, or whatever. Why is it that we only remember how unimportant this stuff is when a player gets crippled? There are so, so many important ways you can expend your time and psychic energy on stuff that really matters, so why not get focused on those things instead? Get mad about the things that are worth getting mad about.
Now that I'm done preaching, let me remind you that, as you know, this is all driven by money, and that's why there will be a playoff on the long run. Someone's finally, finally going to figure out that it is more profitable to give people what they want, than not. I say give it ... 15 years.
"How do you think the 2007 season will ultimately be remembered? As the season that busted the BCS? As the season that ushered in the modern era of parity? Or just the most exciting season ever? What do you predict the legacy of the 2007 season will be for the future of college football?" — Foster, Howard, PA.
Great question. This has certainly been the greatest season in my memory. Upsets are my favorite part of sports, college football is my favorite sport, and wow, did those two things meet in abundance this year. Plus, it could be capped off by my Buckeyes winning a national championship, after commencing with Michigan losing to Appalachian State? And it could derail the BCS and pave the way for something better? Yeah, I must be dying or something.
Leave a Comment