|
OBSERVATIONS ON
COLLEGE SPORTS
-----
|
Nuggets of Gold
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
----------
By Adam Gold
----------
Adam Gold is
program director of the Triangle's "850
the Buzz" and host of "The G-spot with Adam Gold"
mornings from 6-10 a.m. |
 |
•
SEND
A MESSAGE TO ADAM GOLD
• DIG INTO ADAM GOLD'S ARCHIVES
Hung over after BCS cocktail
By Adam Gold
©2007 Bonesville.net
All rights reserved.
The 2007 college football
season was widely thought to be the most exciting one in recent memory. But
unlike 2004, when Southern Cal, Oklahoma and Auburn all finished the season
12-0, it was exciting for a different reason.
While the debate raged
four seasons ago about which “perfect” teams were most deserving of playing
for the title, this year’s controversy surrounded which teams with two
losses deserved to take on the 11-1 Ohio State Buckeyes in the BCS National
Championship Game.
Anyone but me need a
drink?
In 2004, not only were
the Trojans, Sooners and Tigers all unbeaten, but Utah, led by current
Florida head coach Urban Meyer, also finished 11-0. In all that year, the
four BCS games were contested by teams with a combined total of just 8
losses.
Taking that a step
further, there were a total of eight teams in 2004 that finished the season
with one loss or less.
2007 was obviously a
different story. Only Hawaii enjoyed an unbeaten regular season, though it
needed the 132nd-rated schedule in the country to do so.
Just in case you’re one
to keep track of such things, keep in mind that there are only 120 teams in
the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly I-A), which means that a dozen teams
from the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly I-AA) were judged to
have played more difficult opponents than the Warriors.
Ohio State won the Big
Ten with a record of 11-1, the lone loss coming at the hands of Illinois —
which still ended up in the Rose Bowl where the Illini got their lunch
packed for them by USC.
Yet when discussions over
which teams really belonged in that title game broke out, it was the
Buckeyes that were looked upon with a more skeptical eye and not two-loss
LSU. The other one-loss team, Kansas, was thought to be a BCS imposter from
the beginning, based mostly on the fact that it didn’t play, let alone beat,
a Top 25 team until the final game of the season, and in that one the
Jayhawks were handled easily by Missouri.
Uh, better make it a
double, bartender.
In 2004, the top 11 teams
lost a grand total of 10 games prior to the bowl season while this year the
10 BCS teams combined to lose 17 times. That’s why 2007 was the roughest
year yet for the people in charge of the current system.
The college season has
always been in search of the unbeaten team to win the championship. Seven of
the first nine BCS champs went undefeated for the year, and last season,
12-0 Ohio State was beaten by Florida for the title.
In all but one of the
previous BCS years, one of the participants in the biggest game of the
season came in unbeaten. This year, there were five teams with two losses
that could have easily staked their claim to one of those spots.
Someone take my car keys,
I don’t think I’m going to be able to drive myself home.
I guess it shouldn’t come
as a surprise then that not only did the BCS Pooh-bahs float the idea of one
game after the BCS games to decide the real national champion, a proposal
most commonly referred to as a “Plus One” scenario.
But one of the schools
that argued with the establishment even went so far as to propose an
eight-team playoff that would start with the four BCS games. What amazes me
is that this suggestion came without anyone pointing out that there are five
BCS Bowls, not four. Just because it isn’t called the Chico’s Bail Bonds
Bowl doesn’t mean we can ignore the two teams proud of their invitations.
Anyone have any
Alka-Seltzer?
That proposal, drawn up
by University of Georgia president Michael Adams, made it in front of the
NCAA Division I board of directors this week — along with 46 other motions,
including one that would protect scholarships for student-athletes that
become pregnant — but the panel directed Adams to present his plan to the
BCS presidential oversight committee for consideration.
Caught by surprise, were
you?
People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals has more influence over the BCS than the NCAA. Did
Adams suddenly see the light and decide that now was the time for a
playoff-like system? Or, did some big donor get in his ear and remind him
that Georgia “was playing the best football in the country by the end of the
season” and it was the Bulldogs' turn to whine about not being included?
Is it any shock that last
year, when it appeared that Florida was going to get shafted in favor of
Michigan, Florida President Bernie Machen raised the same “concerns?”
You know when these
things are effective? When there isn’t the obvious presence of a
self-serving agenda. When the squeaky wheel isn’t the one getting the
grease, it’s a lot easier to stomach.
I’m not against
exploring the topic, but if you’re going to broach that subject, let’s
take everyone’s interests into account. Let’s make sure that we don’t
remove opportunity from the little guys.
Should the planets align
and Skip Holtz negotiates one of Terry Holland’s NFC East-style schedules
undefeated, I would hate to have that door closed to the Pirates.
This was nothing more
than a publicity grab by the top Bulldog, Adams. Shame on him. Though, if
it’s any consolation, PETA also thinks that the Dogs were playing the best
football by the end of the season.
[E-MAIL ADAM GOLD]
[ADAM GOLD ARCHIVES]
01/16/2008 01:06:42 AM |
