There's No Such Thing As East Coast Bias

Just a little over a week ago, my family and I returned from visiting Oahu, Hawaii, for about a week. It was amazing! It was all and more that I ever dreamed Hawaii would be. I'm not sure if it was the palm trees in the skyline that reminded me of my fond months in the Dominican Republic, or the tolerable weather that allowed us to do whatever we wanted, or the shallow waters in the coves and beaches that took you into the native fish inhabitants, or the warm ocean water that you could spend the whole day and night in, or the fine sand that felt like walking in flour on some beaches of the west part of the island, or the breathtaking panoramic views of sheer mountains with green vegetation lying so close to the infinite waters of blue, or the numerous visions of beautiful people - male and female, or the many stops to learn about history and different cultures.

I can't really pinpoint one thing that made our vacation so wonderful, but I feel sorry for all my future vacations because they will never measure up - unless it is a trip back to the islands in the Pacific without children. Only because I'm a guy and have a one-track mind, Hawaii - especially Oahu - had me thinking of one thing and wishing that my kids would be left behind. It's a little embarrassing and difficult to mention on a blog, but I have to admit, the environment in Honolulu gave me a bad desire. Well, it was just... I needed, uh... I had to see the Aloha stadium and buy me a University of Hawaii hat. Every Wednesday and Saturday (when there's not a home game), the Aloha stadium hosts a swap meet with hundreds of vendors selling all sorts of trinkets and clothes and jewelry. I was able to get a great deal on a lei and feel the vibes of football around the stadium. It was so great! I wasn't there just to do some bargain shopping on tourist items, but to be close to a college football stadium with a rich history of some great games. Later, I bought a U of H hat at the Navy Exchange Mall for under ten bucks. My trip was complete! Oh, I suppose the seafood dish at Duke's Canoe Club on Waikiki beach was nice, too.

So, with that Warriors hat on my head and fresh memories of the Samoan at the Polynesian Cultural Center that had me rolling from laughter during the entire presentation, I wondered to myself, "Why don't football teams from the East Coast come play Hawaii in Hawaii?" It seems that Hawaii plays some of the teams on the other side of the Mississippi River, but the Warriors have to do the traveling, usually. For the University of Hawaii to have an away game, they travel by plane for 4-6 hours just to get to the mainland - let alone, to get to their actual destination. What a huge disadvantage for them! There are so many schools in the east that really don't have to travel very far to play quality opponents.

Speaking of quality opponents, I've been looking at the preseason rankings by the AP and the Coaches' polls. It sure seems that voters believe that the only quality opponents are found in the east. I figured with the addition of two more teams in the newly formed Pacific 12 conference, that there may be an increase of one school placed in the preseason polls' top 25. History shows that there will be 3-4 teams from the Pac-10 that would be honored in the top 25 of the preseason; so logically, expecting 4-5 Pac-12 schools to be in it seemed reasonable. Boy was I wrong! In the AP poll, they were generous to put USC in the 25 spot to give the Pac-12 a whopping THREE teams in the top 25. Unfortunately, the Coaches' poll can't vote for USC until they have paid their debt to the sanctions gods, because the coaches seem to think that there are only two teams worthy to be in the top 25 from the Pac-12. Are you kidding me? I looked a little more in depth and found that the ACC, surprisingly, was treated the same with two teams from their 12-school conference made it in the top 25. The Big East made one team. Dang! The Mountain West Conference even got two! What the heck is wrong with the Pac-12, ACC, and Big East? Well, they sure are not the other three major conferences because the 12-teamed Big Ten conference has 4 and 5 teams in the top 25, while the 10-teamed Big XII has 4 and 5 schools in the top 25 (half the conference in the Coaches' poll). However, nobody can out-due the huge representation that the "top conference in the nation" has with 75% of it's 12 members in the top 25 preseason polls. Actually, that's not entirely true. They have 8 of the 12 schools in the top 23! With that many teams in the top 23 and only two of those teams playing competitive teams to open their season, while the unranked SEC schools start their seasons playing teams like; Elon, Western Kentucky, Montana, and BYU, there could potentially be 11 SEC schools in the top 25 polls after week one.

Now we can truly see what a horrible strength of schedule the Pac-12 has with only two ranked teams. What a bunch of cupcakes! The definition of powerhouse IS the SEC. Every week of conference games displays at least two ranked teams for each game - probably three in some instances - to demonstrate the grossly under-rated strength of schedule that each SEC school has. No wonder the non-conference slate has to include schools like Elon, Coastal Carolina, Samford, Southern Illinois, UT Martin, Missouri State, Northwestern State, Western Kentucky, North Texas, Georgia Southern, The Citadel, Furman, Buffalo, Montana, and Jacksonville State. Those are necessities when ALL your conference games are against ranked opponents. That puts a lot of wear and tear on your team week in and week out. No other conference experiences that. Surely, there could never be any talk about playing a nine conference game season like the Pac-12 does and what the Big Ten will start doing in 2013. That would be immediate overload for each SEC team and make it impossible for any team to come out unscathed and undefeated to play for the national title 19 seasons straight. No way! (OK! You may have sensed a little sarcasm in the last paragraph- actually I intended for the whole paragraph to be sarcastic!)

That's right! The major media and poll voters are drinking a lot of that SEC Kool-Aid to give a huge number of schools in the conference the "vote" of confidence that they will all have winning seasons to play in a bowl no matter what the teams are bringing in from the previous year. However, all I see in the polls is the lack of equal distribution and focus on other worthy and deserving teams that have actually shown signs of growth and improvement in the past years that keeps the spotlight shining bright in one area of the country that has definitely earned its recognition in the football world. Although the SEC has been the dominant conference for several years straight, the voters need to focus on their responsibilities as representatives of a national voting process, not just a southern or eastern American voting process. Do some homework BEFORE you vote! Don't just vote trendy and popular!

With the lack of equal distribution of the nation's teams, it is glaringly obvious that the strength of schedule will overwhelmingly be in favor of the SEC. Even if LSU and Georgia lose their openers against Oregon and Boise State, respectively, they won't drop far (if at all) in the polls because they play highly ranked teams while the other ranked SEC schools play easy games and get wins to "justify" the votes. Then you look at the ACC and Pac-12 conferences and will notice the strength of schedule will perceive to be very easy because nobody is ranked in those conferences. How absurd! How do you ignore the fact that Arizona State may have the best defense in its conference and not get enough votes to be in the top 25? I see that Sports Illustrated gets it by having ASU clear up at #17 in their college preview magazine. Unfortunately, I don't think SI gets any say in what the strength of schedule will be for the year.

I implore the voters to do homework before they make their votes! I say this because either the majority of the voters are ignorant about football or they didn't look into the teams' stats and facts very thoroughly before deciding that a team or two may be great. I have some serious question marks regarding several teams and why they would be good enough to be considered in the top 25. My initial question is,"Why is Arkansas ranked so high (or at all)?" Sure they had a great season last year only to fall to Ohio State in the Sugar bowl, but they lost three offensive linemen who protected the departed Ryan Mallett. How do you replace Ryan Mallett? Sure, Tyler Wilson will have all the same top four receivers from a year ago, but he has zero starting experience. Even in mop-up duty for Ryan, Wilson threw 3 interceptions with only 4 TD's. That ratio has to change dramatically for Wilson to be close to Mallett who went 8-5 in '09. Tyler needs to pray now that his three new starters on the line will come together quickly to protect him. All these things come to mind for me and don't tell me, "Yes! Arkansas is definitely number 14 in the nation." C'mon! Really? Only two starting linemen back and no Ryan Mallett? Now to make things worse, the SEC leading rusher, Knile Davis, was lost for the season to put a ton of pressure on Arkansas' other running backs to help block and catch and take the pressure off the first-time starting QB. Hmm. Is Arkansas a questionable call? I think so.

Another questionable call is voting Auburn anywhere in the top 25. This is the defending national champs, yes, but their team was depleted by graduation and the NFL draft. Auburn has recruited supremely well the last couple years; however, when any team returns two or three offensive players and three defensive players, the outlook is very grim. Auburn lost offensive star and Heisman trophy winner, Cam Newton, AND defensive star, Nick Fairly, who basically won the national title for the Tigers in January. You don't just plug in eight new starters on offense and defense, each, and expect to be a top 25 squad. I don't care if you just won the title or not. You will NOT repeat with those statistical challenges. Urban Meyer or Nick Saban can't do it, so Gene Chizik will not be able to do it, either. Auburn will be out of the top 25 after week two when Mississippi State destroys and humiliates them on their home field. (Mississippi State should be ranked higher!) So, why were there so many votes for Auburn? Homework for the voters?

Another questionable school that hails from the almighty conference of the SEC would be the Florida Gators. This is a team that went 8-5 last year under Urban Meyer. They struggled at running back and quarterback and the decent defense loses 7 of the top 9 tacklers from a year ago. Although Florida has recruited amazingly at defense, they still return only four starters from last year. This will force these young freshmen and sophomores to go through some serious growing pains to gain experience. The best scenario, the young guys will gel by the end of the season and be really good, but I see it more like next year for a full season working together to make a defensive impact in the SEC. This year? Nope! Plus, Urban Meyer, arguably the best young coach ever, has left the university and Florida replaced his head coaching resume for a stellar defensive coordinator of a different program, who doesn't have a head coaching resume. More growing pains? Yes! Will Muschamp's defense may fair better than the head coach this year. It's not easy to jump from D-coordinator to Head Coach (and that's merely mentioning those that were already in the system, not to mention a completely different conference entirely)! So, to statistically and logically consider Florida a top 25 team in the nation, is pure ignorance of the sport. If Urban Meyer was still at the helm, then it makes sense to have Florida at #22, but a brand new head coach? Dumb!

I must mention another questionable call on the highly touted top 25 list from the SEC. As much as I love Georgia and Mark Richt, they did not have a good season at all. Only because they won a home game against Idaho State were they able to participate in a bowl game and lost to Central Florida. Mark Richt was among the top five coaches mentioned with "hot seat" throughout the entire off season. However, the Bulldogs are not falling any farther! Last year was definitely the cellar of where Georgia will go. They go up from there. How far up is still to be determined. So, to put an unknown team, that went 6-7 last year, into the preseason top 25 for this year makes me wonder what the heck people are thinking. I would LOVE to see Coach Richt take his Bulldogs to the SEC championship game this year, but he is returning five offensive starters and seven defensive starters and replacing most of the departed starters with freshmen and sophomores and junior college (JUCO) transfers. How can a voter put that much confidence into that knowledge and place that team in the top 25? I don't get it! Speaking of sophomores for Georgia, Aaron Murray will be the bright spot on the offense by being the best QB in the conference this year. He will need a ton of help losing his top two targets (including AJ Green) and will rely on true freshman, Isaiah Crowell, to take over the rushing duties and the three new starters on the line will have to step up rapidly! What does this recipe smell like? It's not a preseason top 25 voting, but it is potential. Potential doesn't equal one of the best teams in the nation, though.

So, I mentioned four SEC teams that "earned" a place among the preseason top 25 that I feel the voters have done them a disservice by placing them somewhere they don't belong. Then again, who does? It's all relative and speculative and based on future expectations because we haven't seen anybody on the field against an opponent yet. However, if you have the responsibility to vote for the nation's best football teams, then you have the responsibility to do it right and research the topic at hand to most accurately represent the universities that actually have a chance at staying within the top 25 - not who is currently trendy and cool. There are too many teams from the SEC that are in the 2011 preseason top 25 AP and Coaches' polls. It is ridiculous!

I've mentioned four schools that shouldn't be in the preseason polls, so now I will call on a few teams that were maybe mentioned with a couple votes or less that I feel should get more national attention due to what they've done and what they are bringing back to start a new season. I've already mentioned one: Arizona State. They have gradually been building a stout defense around the nasty, Vontaze Burfict, who is now a junior that has a knack for the location of the ball. The quarterback has plenty of experience and standing at 6'8", he'll be able to see well over the four returning starting linemen. The receiving corps got a boost with Oregon transfer, Aaron Pflugrad. Arizona State lost by 1 point against both Wisconsin and USC last year. Dennis Erickson is not new to head coaching with some impressive wins during his time at Miami. This squad should be in the top half of the league this year.

Another team that is barely on the list of vote receivers, is Northwestern. This is NOT a trendy pick! They are not flashy and popular. They are just outright getting better! They return an amazing QB in Dan Persa who touted a ridiculous 73.5% completion last year and rushed for over 500 yards. The top tailback returns along with seven other starters from a year ago. The sacks leader, Vince Browne, returns at his defensive end spot. They went to a bowl each of the last three years and went 7-6 and are just getting started and will improve.

Tulsa is another team that should be considered with a very potent offense that ranked #5 in total offense last year. They went 10-3 and if the defense improves, they will easily get to 10 wins again this year. The QB-receiver combo of G.J. Kinne to Damaris Johnson will be something to watch. We'll get a taste of what they can do when they open up their season at Norman, OK, September 3rd. The Sooners will start the tough road of non-conference games for Tulsa.

You can't rule out June Jones and what he's done at SMU. They have improved dramatically winning at least 7 games in each of the last two years and return 10 offensive starters and eight defensive starters. SMU had their first 8-win season since the mid-'80's before the "Death Penalty" was enforced. Watch for them to take off!

The Orange from Syracuse have seemingly become significant out of the blue. The defense has become very stout over the course of last season and they return eight of their offensive starters. This could very well be a team that went 8-5 last year to a 10-win season this year. Last year's winning record was the first since 2001 for Syracuse.

As great as it would be to have your entire favorite conference in the preseason top 25 polls, it sure doesn't make any sense because it shuts out the rest of the nation when there's more parity in D-IA football now than there ever has been. I think that I have reasonably explained why at least four of the SEC teams should not be ranked in the top 25; although, the 2010 season ended with six SEC schools finishing in the top 25 spots in the AP poll (but still, eight? Before a game has been played yet?). I'm really and generally concerned about the voters of these polls and makes me wonder about the integrity of their responsibility to the college football fans out there that take the polls so literally. I'm sure it evens out (mostly) as the season progresses; however, it gives a clear advantage over a particular conference or area of the country when it comes to strength of schedule which is based on pure speculation when all teams have a 0-0 record. So, I'll just sit here quiet and contemplate those beaches of Oahu, feeling the energy from the Aloha stadium, while the season passes on and the SEC schools trickle out of the polls slowly while the Pac-12 and ACC teams have to actually earn their way slowly into the polls.

Does Conference Comparisons Equal Individual Performance?

I was in the middle of those Saturday "Honey-Do's" when I came across an old article from my local paper's sports page from over a year ago. Don't ask me how putting away food in the hallway got me into my shop, cleaning up a few things there. So, I read this article again, and it makes just as little sense this time around as it did last time. I don't know who wrote it because it doesn't say; however, it is short enough that I can just type the whole thing here so you understand what I'm talking about:

It just doesn't add up
"College bowl game results suggest the Big Ten has inferior talent. NFL teams say differently.
"A Chicago Tribune study revealed the talent in the Big Ten, in NFL terms, is superior to the talent in the Pac-10 and Big 12. The only conferences with advantages over the Big Ten are the Southeastern Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference.
"In the last five drafts, 166 Big Ten players were chosen, third highest among conferences. The SEC led the way with 192 players, followed by the ACC with 176. The Pac-10 had 157 while the Big 12 had 143.
"If you break it down to first rounders, the Big Ten also fared well. The conference has had 28 such players in the last five drafts.
"That makes it difficult to explain a 1-6 Big Ten record in bowl games this year (losses to three teams from the Big 12, and one each from the SEC, Pac-10 and ACC), and a 9-20 mark over the last five years."

That was in the Spokesman Review on January 11, 2009 when I cut it out of my paper in Spokane, WA. I'm wondering where the real connection between how awful the Big Ten did in bowl games after the 2008 season involving 7 teams versus the amount of individuals selected in the NFL draft. Sounds like a stretch that I would attempt, if I haven't already. However, I had to pick out the flaw in the Chicago Tribune's "study" by recognizing the different amount of teams that are in each of the aforementioned conferences in football. According to the numbers (straight up), they are absolutely accurate; however, with the author of this article neglecting other factual points that should be made, I will oblige by tweaking it myself.

So, if we are to base the strength of conferences on the amount of players selected in the last five years (when the article was written 1/09), the only consistency I found was that the SEC was still the top (barely), the Big Ten was still in the middle, and the Big 12 was still the bottom (by a lot). Instead of using only the amount of individuals being drafted, to be accurate on accounts of "as a conference", one must use and average system to find the true order of how strong or good a conference as a whole looks. With that said, I have the SEC with 192 players drafted and divided by the 12 teams within the conference, you get an average of 16 players per team over the five year span that the author is referencing. According to the article, the ACC had 176 players with 12 teams in its conference, meaning an average of 14.67 players per team over five years. Now, the Big Ten was mistakenly proclaimed that it was inferior to the ACC, but with my statistics it is not. The Big Ten had 166 players but only 11 teams, beating the ACC with an average of 15.09 players per team over the five years. Of course, those who know me will know exactly what I'm going to say because of my love of the Pac-10. So, the article says that the Pac-10 had drafted 157 players over that same five year span, however, the Pac-10 has only a mere 10 teams, meaning that the average is just under the super powers of the SEC (sorry about the sarcasm) with an average score of 15.7 players per team. Oh, and the Big 12 ended up with the lowly average of 11.92 players per team.

I think it a little sad that the Chicago Tribune can't even make their conference look better than that if they are going to actually call it a "study" and actually publish the results and can't even say that it is better than the ACC when it should. So, is it just me, or is the article a little bazaar? I like the article a bit because it shows me that people all over try to make the Pac-10 out to be an inferior conference in whatever way they can, but if someone looks through all the mumbo-jumbo, they actually see that the Pac-10 is, indeed, at least, second best in the nation. I can take that - if the facts prove so - which they obviously did.

What Does the BCS Poll Really Mean?

I'm not any expert at love, by any means, and I never claim to think that I have any pertinent advice to give anyone who is searching for love; however, there are certain things about finding a potential significant other that clearly needs to be defined. Each person has their own rating system or way to determine if someone is "hot or not" to find that immediate attraction that everyone desires in a relationship. The rating system I use, or suggest others to use, is the 5-D test. It used to be 3-D, but I've gotten wiser with years. Heck, maybe some of you would have a 9-D or more. Let me explain the 5-D's: each "D" represents something that would interfere with your judgement of beauty and the more "D's" you have in your situation, the more confident I am that you should stop what you are doing before you get morning regrets (unless you are out to have a "no pride night" but that's an entirely different article). So, obviously, the first "D" represents Drunkeness. When alcohol is consumed, impairment of judgement is increased and inhabitions are lost. The second "D" represents Darkness. The dimmer the lighting, the less features you see clearly on someone's face, which may hide a thing or two. The third "D" is Distance. The further away someone is from you, you lose proportions and clarity of features in their face (and body). The fourth "D" is Driving. Someone in a car can always look better because you can't see everything they are wearing (including the not-so-obvious pear-shape they may be sporting), they may have a tinted sun roof to make them look tan, and sunglasses hides whether their eyes are worth gazing into or not. The fifth "D" represents Desperation. If you are desperate to go out and gotta have someone tonight, then you tend to "settle" on whoever gives you a second glance and shows a little interest (this may lead into the saying where she is a "2 at 10 and a 10 at 2" - meaning, at 10pm you see her as a 2 on a scale of 1-10, but Desperation comes into full effect when it is 2am and still girl-less and you find that 2 again, but looking like a 10 now). These 5 "D's" are the premiere "D's" to look out for. As you mold your own system, you may want to add others like; Dating (if you are currently dating someone, others suddenly find you attractive), or Distractions (if you are at a carnival or huge gathering of people around you, the distractions may confuse you and make you lose focus on your ideals of beauty), or Disabilities (hopefully these come much later in life for you, but this does not mean you need to "settle"), or Drugs (depending on the drug, this could seriously impair judgement for beauty - and everything else for that matters), or for those more focused on things like hair - Dryness (sometimes you gotta get the hair wet to see how nice it really is without all the gels, sprays, and mousses). So, remember, the more "D's" you have in your situation, you really need to think about what you really want because most likely you will not find anything meaningful in a relationship when it is in 5-D. You must eliminate as many of those "D's" as possible to assure yourself better odds at making a love connection worth while.

I realize that this is a weird way to start out a college football blog, but in thought of what the BCS poll is trying to say to the nation makes me think of what is defined by the BCS poll and what we're suppose to get out of it - like love, how do you judge it and how do you define it. Like love, the BCS has different meanings to different people; so I'll quit talking about that crap and get into some football rants. This is the light I see in the BCS eyes: Pac-10 conference is clearly the best conference from top to bottom in the country and the BCS Poll put out before the bowl games begin December 19, 2009, is there to prove it in black and white. Now you have to realize that I see polls as lovers of the SEC, ACC, and the Big XII because they have lots of great teams, they each have 12 schools, and they have a championship game each season. The polls love them so much that the voters are willing to place as many of the schools represented by each of those 3 conferences in the preseason top 25 as possible. For example, in the preseason AP poll this year there were 5 SEC schools in the top 25 - I'm a little disappointed because I usually will see 6 SEC teams there. Same with the Big XII - at least 5 for good measure. The Big East, Big Ten, and Pac-10, on the other hand, will find much fewer schools amongst those elite powerhouses of the SEC and Big XII conferences (some slight sarcasm).

Now, I'm not going to get on my Pac-10 high horse just yet because there are other conferences out there that can complain as much and have legitimate arguements. I would like to speak to those Big East lovers. I feel for you. Looking at the preseason AP poll of 2009, I don't see a single Big East team in the top 25! In fact, the highest ranked team was Pitt at 28. Does the media want to hate the Big East or what?! Now let's look at the pre-bowl BCS top 25 standings. I see an undefeated Cincinnati playing in a BCS bowl playing against arguably the #2 team in the nation, Florida Gators. I also see two more teams from the Big East. There are only 8 teams in the Big East. (Time to get out your calculators.) I calculate that as about 37% of the conference. That's pretty dang good, if you ask me - especially, considering the top 3 power conferences with 12 teams each. The ACC, Big XII, and the SEC each have 3 teams finding their way in the BCS top 25 at the end of the regular season. Just as many as the Big East, but (calculators please) only a mere 25% of their conferences. Does that say that the SEC is the strongest from top to bottom? I don't see it that way. Another conference that has 3 teams in the BCS top 25 on December 6th is the Mountain West Conference. Wow! Shocker, I know! Just because not everyone in the nation is versed with MWC statistics, there is one that I DO know - it is a conference made up of 9 teams. That's 3 less than the SEC. My calculator tells me that 33% of the MWC is in the BCS top 25. Last I checked, 33% is better than 25%, right? So, if a conference is going to go on and boldly claim its superiority to the nation, then why doesn't it show up in the polls that generally favor them to begin with? Does this mean that the MWC is equal to or better than the SEC? No, of course not. That's not what I'm saying at all. However, the MWC has at least 3 really good teams this year - the same amount as the SEC and Big XII who are representing this year's national title game in the BCS National Championship game in Pasadena - and yet, the MWC remains to be a conference without an automatic bid into a BCS bowl game. Essentially, to get the big bucks from the big bowls, the MWC teams need to go undefeated the whole year (which they've had a team do 3 of the last 6 years). Now, you know I have to do this; the Pac-10, obviously with 10 teams that make up the conference, have a whopping 5 teams ranked in the BCS top 25! Can you believe that!? Hopefully you're smart enough to know what percentage 5 of 10 is and I don't have to spell it out to you. I will anyway - 50% of the Pac-10 is in the top 25 of the BCS poll before going into the 2009 bowl season? Are you kidding me? This is the same conference that had only 3 teams in the AP preseason poll top 25 in August! Incredible! Are they all over rated or does the conference just have a lot of depth? Just to feed the fire a little, the two Pac-10 teams that played and lost close ones to SEC teams are not even bowl eligible; and the team that traveled to the east and beat an SEC team is merely 6-6 (which should not be bowl eligible in my eyes - .500 record does not mean a successful season that needs to be rewarded with post season play). All those SEC schools that played the Pac-10? They are all eligible for bowl games. How could the SEC use this same information as a bragging point? They can't because it would just mean that they do, in fact, play some of the weakest schedules in the country - especially their 4 non-conference match-ups. In fact, all but two teams (Vanderbilt and Mississippi State) are not bowl eligible. Does this say something about their scheduling? If you say you are the best, then it wouldn't be asking much to go out seeking the best of other parts of the country to play them, right?

Enough of that. I want to rant a little more about the bowls and their affiliations. I can't stand having the second best team from the Pac-10 conference playing on December 30th each year! Is that really an award? I think there are too many bowls these days, to begin with. I feel, also, that the best bowls that mean the most should be played on January 1st and after. Everything else before that is just an appetizer. Of the six major conferences, only one is treated as well as the C-USA and MAC conferences by allowing only one team to play in the month of January: that's the Pac-10. Lucky for them, they get an automatic BCS bowl bid, or else... who knows? The ACC gets two of their 3 BCS ranked teams in the new year, but the Pac-10 gets only 1 of their 5 BCS ranked teams playing in the first month of 2010. Wow! Now the SEC takes its 25% and plays that and then some into January to play in a bowl game. Actually, the tally is 7 teams from the SEC will play after the beginning of the year this season. Well, the Big Ten gets 5 teams into January! Now this is where the Big East gets its love back by having 4, or half their conference, into the lights of January bowls. Crazy! Where is the new Pac-10 commissioner on this? This is an outrage and must change immediately! Why do all the January bowls affiliate with the SEC? Why can't one or two of them go to the Pac-10? They've won a championship or two in the last decade, right? Who makes these decisions? So, the conference that puts in 50% of its teams into the top 25 BCS poll will reward only one team?! Where is the logic in that? Am I the only one who seriously thinks this is an issue with regretable terms of why the Pacific 10 conference is looked upon with eyes of inferiority? I think the Pac-10 needs to shed some of these "5-D's" so it can be seen for what it really is - the conference of champions.

Pac-10 Gets the Shaft

I was contemplating, as I do so often, about how the Pac-10 football teams get the shaft since the beginning of the BCS. I have been doing some studying and researching the facts that help prove my opinion of "shaftness". So, since the inception of the BCS in 1998, there have been only three years where there was a clear #1 and #2 teams that were undefeated and earned their poll rankings; and after the national title game, there wasn't any doubt who the number one team in the nation was. Those were the years 1999, 2002, and 2005. In 2005, USC was one of those teams and USC played for the championship in one other year. Those are the only two years that a Pac-10 team was represented in the BCS national championship game. The other eight years of BCS have put more confusion and conflict into the order of finish of college football. There seems to be arguements derived from this flawed system. At the end of regular seasons of those three "good" years mentioned earlier, even I could have chose the two teams who should play for it all and get it right. Beyond that, it's just speculation, and I claim bias into the system (I will address the bias in other posts).

I have many statistics at my fingertips after the purchase of the wonderful "ESPN College Football Encyclopedia". In it, I have the AP Poll progression throughout each season for every year starting in 1936 all the way to 2004. In 1950, the United Press (UP) poll began and lasted until the end of 1992. In 1993, the UP became better known as the USA Today/CNN (coaches) poll until ESPN replaced the CNN title in 1995. ESPN began to include their own rankings at that time and have included all these polls in this wonderful library of college football information. I have gone through some of those progressions in the BCS years and was struck with horror all over again when I saw how some teams have gotten the shaft. Let's just kick it off with 1998 (why not?). The shaft could have gone to many teams that year because the 11-1 Florida State team was #2 in the polls at the end of the season but left out other 1-loss teams that had legitimate arguements to take FSU's place in playing the undefeated Tennessee team for the national title. Ohio State had lost by 4 to an unranked Michigan State team in week 10. Kansas State's only loss came by way of the Big XII championship game to lose by 3 against the #10 Texas A&M squad. Wisconsin never played Ohio State that year but lost to #15 Michigan in week 11. Tulane went undefeated and ended the year ranked #7. Air Force lost to unranked TCU in week 4. Then, UCLA lost it's last game against Miami, who kept them from going undefeated; however, UCLA was ranked #3 in week 6 when they gave Arizona their only loss. So, because UCLA won the Pac-10 and lost their final regular season game, Arizona wasn't ranked high enough to get the nod to play for the national title. At the time, this made some sense, but later on you'll see why this is lame and the BCS shafted Arizona (not that anybody would have beaten Tennessee, but it would be nice to have had Pac-10 representation in the championship game).

The 1999 season was pretty clear cut and straight forward lending Marshall the only argumental rights ending the year 13-0. Now the 2000 season proved to be a very good one for the Pac-10 regarding the top teams. Of course, Oklahoma's undefeated season left them at #1 - uncontested. The 2nd place finisher in the polls may have been accurate, but still had some serious questions to who it may have been in place of Miami. There were seven 1-loss teams to choose from: Toledo at #25 and TCU at #13 weren't even in consideration when the other 5 teams had much stronger strengths of schedule and in BCS conferences. Let's just say that the #3 Florida State was chosen over the other 4 teams and this is where it gets jumbled up. Why was the #3 team chosen over the team that was the only team to beat them and stood at #2? Miami not only beat FSU, but was #6 Virginia Tech's only loss as well. Miami had a legitimate arguement and I remember Coach Butch Davis making a huge fuss over it (I don't blame him); however, when Coach Davis was asked about the team with the same record as his who beat the Hurricanes, he replied something to the effect that it was an early game in the season, and that team doesn't matter because it plays in the Pac-10. Well, by season's end, the Pac-10 had three teams in the top eight in the AP poll. Sounds like a tough conference to me; although, when it comes to playing for the national title, a Florida State team that played in the two previous national championship games seemed to "fit" better. Plus, Miami wasn't in the ACC then, but was part of making the Big East look good (along with Virginia Tech). So, the Bowden, I mean Bowl Championship Series continued without looking at a Pac-10 team; even with Washington being the only team to beat both #2 Miami, and #5 Oregon State. The only team to beat Washington was the #8 Oregon team that ended the season 10-2 beating #12 Texas in their bowl game. So, I want to recognize Miami getting the shaft by being #2 and getting skipped over by the #3 team. With that said, if Miami was shafted, so was Washington by not getting ranked properly by being the only team to have beaten the #2 team with the same record - plus, having a better win over #5 Oregon State versus the #6 Virginia Tech that Miami beat. In reality, Washington should have been the #2 team in the polls and therefore getting the biggest shaft.

After the 2000 season, the BCS went back to the drawing board to revamp how the teams should be chosen. In my opinion, they did a horrible job. Now, I should say that a true championship team should meet certain criteria: 1) the team should be the champ of their conference, 2) the team should never have more than 1 loss, and 3) the team should never be chosen based on fan-base ideas or because they travel well. This leads me up to the 2001 season that urks me to this day, which becomes one of the Big XII fiascos that gives cause to the stretch of 6 title games that include a Big XII team 5 of the 6 times where I heard referenced as the Big XII Championship Series. The BCS transforms from Bowden to Big XII. So, the 2001 season would prove to be the first time that bias may come into play without much argument, unless you happen to be a Big XII fan. Here is how it laid out at the end of the season. Miami was the clear, undefeated #1 team, but who they were going to play was the question. The options were two possibly under-rated teams of Illinois who lost to Michigan (8-3) and Maryland who lost to Florida State (7-4). Well, to be honest, I'd have to say that if Michigan or Florida State happened to be 10-1 like Illinois and Maryland were, then those respective conferences would probably look much better, but Illinois was not Michigan and Maryland was not Florida State. Other options included the winner of the Pac-10, #2 Oregon (10-1); the winner of the SEC, #12 LSU (8-3); the winner of the BigXII, #3 Colorado (10-2) - arguably the hottest team in the nation after beating #2 Nebraska and #3 Texas to ends its season; and #4 Nebraska (11-1). So, just to rewind a bit to my criteria for a qualified national title contender, 1) the team should be the champ of its conference, which would leave Nebraska out, and 2) the team should not have more than 1 loss, which would leave out Colorado and LSU. That leaves the #2 team, Oregon to play Miami for the national title game, right? Wrong! Way wrong, in fact. The #4 Nebraska squad was chosen over the #2 and #3 teams to play for the national championship when they didn't even qualify to play for their conference championship. How the heck did that work? Of course, Miami won and Oregon ended up playing the hottest team in the nation and demoralized Colorado 38-16. The Oregon QB, Joey Harrington, played inspired ball that day and it left me and possibly thousands wondering how Miami's defense would have stopped Harrington that day. We will never know because the BCS messed it up and didn't play the #1 and #2 teams together on the same field. Oregon got the shaft like no other, thus far.

The 2002 season was beautiful and I could have chosen the top two teams without voters or computers. It was clear that the only two undefeated teams of Miami and Ohio State were going to play. The only question was who was #1 going into it - well, Miami started the season at #1 and never lost a game along the way, so, should remain so at the end. Now, the 2003 season began after some more tweaking of the BCS - like they do every off season. Did it help much? Nope. It made things worse, and who got the shaft at year's end? Yep, you guessed it, a Pac-10 team. 2001 was bad enough, but this season topped it. I didn't think it possible, but here is how it played out. Oklahoma was #1 from week 1 until they lost in the BigXII championship game, which allowed a 1-loss USC to sneak to the #1 spot. So, #1 USC (11-1) won its conference and #2 LSU (12-1) beat Georgia in the SEC championship game to win its conference. Then, #4 Michigan (10-2) and #8 Kansas State (11-3) each won their respective conferences, while FSU and Miami stood at (10-2) at #9 and #10 respectively. Going back to my criteria, USC and LSU were #1 and #2 and each had 1-loss and both won their conferences; however, #3 Oklahoma, who didn't even win its conference was considered for the national title game instead of #1 USC. So, not only did #2 LSU surpass the #1 Trojans, but the #3 Sooners that couldn't win its conference surpassed the astonished men of Troy to play for the national title. This was a horrible mockery of the Pac-10! How could you not play the #1 team against the #2 team based on my criteria that should be required to be worthy to step to the national title spotlight? The honor came when USC was still voted #1 by the AP poll, while the coaches were "obligated" by their contracts with the BCS to vote for the winner of the LSU/Oklahoma game. Clearly, Oklahoma was NOT the worthy opponent for LSU and I'm certain that LSU fans seemed robbed of the unanimous championship crown. USC got shafted!

Another off season for the BCS and more tweaks in the system to try to get it right. Well, 2004 was not the season to help the BCS seem like it was getting things right. College football went from all 1-loss teams in 2003 to undefeated teams in 2004. There were five undefeated teams, to be exact. The top two started as the top two and remained so because they never dropped a game along the way. After #1 USC and #2 Oklahoma, there was #3 Auburn, #5 Utah, and #10 Boise State. The latter two were out of contention due to playing in non BCS conferences. It was the top 3 that made all the SEC fans throw huge fits over what happened. Auburn happened to draw the short end of the stick when week 1 they were ranked a mere #17. They flew in under the radar. I don't think anyone was going to beat USC that year in January, so the BCS finally got that right. The argument lies with which team was USC going to beat. Oklahoma was ranked #2 all season and never lost, so it never made sense to dethrone them for Auburn - besides, USC had just shutout that same offensive group the year before so it was just a wash and I'll accept the 55-19 pounding of the Sooners. The huge BCS mistake came with the remaining BCS games. With 5 undefeated teams, it was necessary to get that number down to at least 3 by playing the undefeated teams against each other. USC and Oklahoma solved half of that puzzle, but when the BCS didn't match #3 Auburn up against #5 Utah, there was a huge loss there. Those two teams had a chance to really prove something (especially Utah). I think Utah had a legitimate chance at beating Auburn base on how they outclassed Pittsburgh that year. I know that SEC fans are screaming that Auburn got shafted that year, but based on the previous years, are they really sure? Shafted because they didn't get to play Utah, win, and then play a plus one, yes; but to expect to be ranked over the two teams that remained #1 and #2 all year long would be a huge mistake.

The 2005 season was amazing! Everyone wanted to see USC play the winner of the Texas/Ohio State game from before the season started. Texas beat Ohio State and the anticipation grew immensely from week to week until they were finally the only two standing as the undefeated giants ready to play in the Rose Bowl. What a great game! Yes, my beloved Trojans lost that day, but any true fan of college football recognized this game as an instant legend. The superstars that clashed together on the field in Pasadena marveled games of yesteryear.

I will do some more reading and research to cover the remaining years, but I'm certain there is more "shaft" going on that the BCS needs to recognize and correct as necessary.