BCS NIGHTMARE III
David Teel has some interesting observations on the BCS fiasco.
[T]his [was an] unfathomable regular season (Oklahoma loses to Kansas State, which loses to Marshall, which loses to Troy State, which loses to Middle Tennessee State, which loses to Temple, which loses to Division I-AA Villanova), in which no team survived unbeaten and three teams with one defeat established themselves as a cut above.
So the Sugar Bowl should match USC and LSU? Yes and no.
Yes in a perfect sports world, where championships are determined by games. No in the fantasy world of Division I-A football, where championships are determined by polls, and shared titles are common.
Let’s be honest. Pitiful as it was against Kansas State, Oklahoma is mighty impressive. The Sooners dominated a quality schedule, hammering Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech (combined record 34-14) by a 37-point average. They placed six players on the Football Writers Association’s first-team All-America squad. They are, clearly, legitimate contenders.
And by matching Oklahoma-LSU in the Sugar Bowl, and USC-Michigan in the Rose Bowl, the BCS, quite inadvertently mind you, gives all three contenders a title chance. The coaches’ poll automatically crowns the LSU-Oklahoma winner; the media poll, under no such obligation, can anoint USC, if the Trojans defeat Michigan.
Yes, shared championships are as un-American as escargot for breakfast. And yes, they violate every natural law of sports. But college football, and the republic, survived previous split-decisions such as USC-Alabama in 1978, Colorado-Georgia Tech in `90, Miami-Washington in `91, and Michigan-Nebraska in `97.
The beauty is, split-decisions soon may be a bad memory. By rejecting the polls’ No. 1 team for the title game, an unthinkable first, the BCS may have put itself out of business.