If you’re a college football fan, you’re probably sick of hearing everyone’s take on the BCS. Well, here’s one more!
Note: I actually kind of like the BCS because it creates debate. Spirited debate is the best part of being a sports fan, and it's not like other playoff systems give us the best team as champion every year—hello 2006 St. Louis Cardinals! Not that I'm bitter or anything. Moving on.
It’s somewhat moot now that they beat Alabama and are headed to the title game, but how the fuck did the AP voters have Florida over Oklahoma and Texas going into yesterday’s game? I’m not sure I would have even noticed this except for CBS trying to trick us into thinking the SEC title game was No. 1 against No. 2, because that is what they kept putting on the screen—No. 1 Alabama against No. 2 Florida. And it was only then that I realized Florida was No. 2 in the AP poll.
I’ll usually assume the SEC is the toughest conference, but it seemed like it was down this year, and Florida had by far the worst loss (Ole Miss at home) of all the one-loss teams. So how the hell did the voters have them ahead of Oklahoma, Texas, USC and Penn State. People always blame the faceless computers for the quirkiness of the BCS, but the voters are imbeciles.
Another example of this imbecility is how Texas’ loss to Texas Tech was treated. Going into that game, Texas was No. 1 in the AP Poll and Texas Tech was No. 6. After the game, Texas Tech was No. 2 and Texas was No. 5. Really, is that what we learned from that game?
Look at it this way. It was the biggest home game in the history of Texas Tech. They had an insane home-field advantage. They played as well as they could possibly play. Texas came out flat. And yet despite of all that, the Red Raiders needed a dropped interception by Blake Gideon (yes, I had to look him up) and an ridiculous pass into double coverage just to sneak past the Longhorns. And yet the Raiders vaulted past the Longhorns in the minds of the AP voters. But if Gideon catches the easiest INT of his life or if that desperation heave is batted away from Michael Crabtree, Texas stays at No.1 and Tech drops. Really? It just doesn’t make sense.
If those two teams played on a neutral field 10 times, I think it's pretty clear Texas would win at least seven times, and therefore, are the superior team. As far as I’m concerned, that game taught us that despite the narrow loss, Texas is better. Instead, voters take every result as an indication of distinct superiority by one team even though that isn't often the case. And what ends up happening is what happened with Texas, who never recovered from their loss to Texas Tech, even though they essentially won the game.
I can understand why votes dropped Texas below Texas Tech after that game, though I wouldn't have blamed anyone for keeping the Longhorns ahead. I certainly don't see how Texas should have fallen below any one-loss team, yet they fell one spot below a Florida team that had lost at home to Ole Miss. WTF?!?!?
Maybe it would not have mattered and Florida would have eventually overtaken Texas in the BCS, but I still think Texas got screwed even beyond Oklahoma somehow sneaking past them in the BCS rankings. The writers will write column after column blaming the computers for all the flaws of the BCS, and it’s simply a ploy to distract everyone else from their stupidity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I see your point about Texas being screwed. At some level, though, a win is a win, and Texas Tech should have been promoted. Does the BCS computer weigh things like home field advantage?
Post a Comment