At the beginning of the 2009 season, the Washington Huskies' football team was riding a 14 game losing streak. They were winless in the 2008 season. Their daunting task was to start the '09 season against an SEC power, LSU Tigers, who won the national title as recently as 2007. Wow! How could a winless Washington team, with a brand new head coach (3rd youngest in major football), compete at all against the #11 team in the nation with so much talent just in the last two years of recruiting that would put the whole Pac-10 conference (with exception to USC) to shame? Robert Smith is quoted by saying, "Washington doesn't have a chance!" With LSU being from the SEC and the conference that is known for its defense and running the ball, there would be no way a no-talent program like Washington, who was compared by Robert Smith to the Detroit Lions in similar lack of talent, to even be in the game at all. LSU would be flying home with their 10th consecutive 'W' against a Pac-10 team by inserting their 3rd-stringers into the game mid-way through the 2nd quarter. It will be that ugly for the Huskies.
Okay, so I like to lay it on a little thick. However, I would like to ask those SEC fans how they explain the lack-luster play of their precious LSU squad. Maybe they can tell me how the greatest defensive conference could give up 478 yards and 36:52 in time of possession. That doesn't sound like a superior team ranked at #11 playing stellar defense against a 14-game losing streaked team with a brand new head coach, coaching his debut game. How can any ESPN writer say that the game ball should go to Jordan Jefferson who passed for only 172 yards and 3 TD's? Jake Locker, who is NOT known for his passing abilities, passed for 321 yards and 2 TD's (plus another TD, only the other team caught it and returned it for a TD). That is an amazing stat, there. Locker "only" rushed for 51 yards on 12 carries. Maybe Washington didn't have the 11 penalties for 83 yards, and didn't give up a pick-six, and didn't let Terrance Toliver catch two TD's for 45 and 39 yards, respectively. Would there have been a different outcome - possibly; but there is no way you can take huge plays away from a game - that's what they are all about.
Les Miles has a great record against Pac-10 schools since his arrival to LSU. He traveled to Arizona State to play the 15th ranked Sun Devils as the #5 team in the nation and beat them 35-31. Seems a little too close, but not as close as the year before when the Nick Saban-led Tigers played a home game as the #4 team in the nation taking on the unranked Oregon State Beavers and "pounding on them" by coming from behind to put it into OT and finally winning it in OT 22-21 because the true freshman kicker, Alexis Serna missed the PAT (and a field goal try a time or two earlier). In 2006, LSU played another home game against an miserable Arizona squad as the #8 team in the nation. I sense that LSU does not like to travel much to the West and they like to pick on the lesser Pac-10 schools. The ranked ASU team in 2005 ended the season 7-5 while LSU ended up 11-2. ASU didn't meet up to the expectations of the AP or Coaches' Polls. Why doesn't LSU schedule a game with USC or Oregon? Those are the two most consistant schools in the conference these days. Why not? Are they afraid of losing? I'm shocked that LSU hasn't tried to get a game with Washington State. LSU gets pretty easy schedules, besides, Les Miles said that the Pac-10 is the "Big Easy" for conference competition anyway. So, you would think that LSU would stop scheduling Louisiana-Lafayette, Appalachian State, Troy, North Texas, Middle Tennessee State, and Arkansas State. Shoot for some Pac-10 blood, Miles! I dare you!
So, in other news, it was great to see UCLA travel to Knoxville and pull out a win over an SEC school. I know SEC fans will say "But, Tennessee is far from the class of the SEC..." as it was, say, when it won the national championship. Duh! However, the SEC fans will turn it around in their favor when talking about the difficulty of conference scheduling and say that a particular team has to play Tennessee - which, in my opinion, is still a tough match-up. It's not like having Vanderbilt on your schedule!
Showing posts with label Washington Huskies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington Huskies. Show all posts
Monday, September 14, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
ESPN Writer Is Right On
I was sent an article recently from a good friend who knows how much I love the Pac-10 and knew how much of a kick I would get out of it. It was and article written by Ted Miller, a Pac-10 representative for ESPN. He dug up some stats (that I love) and applied them accurately to how the 2009 conference predictions should appear. http://myespn.go.com/blogs/pac10/0-10-113/Pac-10-----Maybe-it-s-No--1-.html
I know that if the SEC had information that was this good, it would be smeared throughout any media guide, preseason annual, and given out freely among all college football analysts of every sports network. Most of the information is stuff I check each year to figure out why the SEC continues to "dominate" the strength of schedule each year, so I check the schedules of most teams in the SEC, Big XII, ACC, Big Ten, and Big East, while checking ALL of the Pac-10 teams to make sure they are not selling out. I understand some of the struggling schools in any conference may tend to invite "patsies" to come and play and get paid; although, when I see the "powerhouses" of the conferences schedule weak opponents, it becomes frustrating to me. I will continue to mention the fact that the Pac-10 has only 3 nonconference games a year with the "big boys" of the conference may have only one non-BCS team to play shows a much tougher strength of schedule than, say, an SEC power with their 4 nonconference games a year and you'd be pressed to find more than 1 BCS team of those 4 they have to play (if there is one at all). Sure, I hear it now - "the SEC has the championship game..." blah, blah, blah. Yes it does, and that IS a fact. It is also a fact that of the 12 teams in that conference, only two will play in that match-up. So, c'mon.
Mr. Miller has also provided me with information regarding the new Pac-10 commissioner, Larry Scott, who originally came from the SEC area and knew how good the SEC is. Mr. Scott, then learned the "real" statistics that prove which conference should be considered the best and realized that the information is not getting out there and the Pac-10 conference hasn't been aggressive enough to push it out to the media and the fans. I am enjoying Mr. Scott already after the Pac-10 media days. Clearly, Mr. Scott has met with all the coaches and "coached" them into saying how tough the conference is from each coach. Even Coach Carroll mentioned how many more losses they've had compared to the nonconference losses in recent years. It's true! Wasn't the Vince Young-led Longhorns the only non-Pac-10 team to beat USC since the 3rd game of Coach Carroll's second year with the Trojans; a game at Kansas State (11-2) in 2002 and lost by 7 points. So, yes, I'm telling you that there has been only one team to beat Pete Carroll's team since that K-State loss in 2002 that was not in the Pac-10. If Washington State (2002) can beat USC, or California (2003) can beat USC, or Oregon State (2006, 2008) can beat the Trojans, or UCLA (2006) can take them, or Stanford (2007) can squeak by them, or even Oregon (2007) can top them; what is wrong with the rest of the nation? Only the national championship team can come from behind and win a game against USC? I'm sure USC would like to fill it's scheduling holes by other teams besides the occasional San Jose State, San Diego State, Idaho, or Fresno State; but USC gets to travel a bit since Coach Carroll took over with the likes of Kansas State, Colorado, Auburn, BYU, Hawaii, Virginia Tech, Colorado State, Arkansas, Nebraska, Virginia, Ohio State, and a date with Notre Dame every year (like Florida's annual party with Florida State - which may as well be a conference game with them being such rivals and all). The bowl games have gone against Utah, Iowa, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, and Penn State - with losses to only Utah and Texas. This is just merely an example. I used USC because they are most recognized nationally, but I could reference several Pac-10 teams and who they've played year in and year out; like Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona State, and even Stanford and Washington State get some better games occasionally.
So, Ted Miller has become the Pac-10 voice in the media; and the new commissioner, Larry Scott, has become the new face and marketing component to the new and improved Pac-10 who won't need to base their talent merely on the field, but will receive help off the field now to show the other conferences why they weren't called "the conference of champions".
I know that if the SEC had information that was this good, it would be smeared throughout any media guide, preseason annual, and given out freely among all college football analysts of every sports network. Most of the information is stuff I check each year to figure out why the SEC continues to "dominate" the strength of schedule each year, so I check the schedules of most teams in the SEC, Big XII, ACC, Big Ten, and Big East, while checking ALL of the Pac-10 teams to make sure they are not selling out. I understand some of the struggling schools in any conference may tend to invite "patsies" to come and play and get paid; although, when I see the "powerhouses" of the conferences schedule weak opponents, it becomes frustrating to me. I will continue to mention the fact that the Pac-10 has only 3 nonconference games a year with the "big boys" of the conference may have only one non-BCS team to play shows a much tougher strength of schedule than, say, an SEC power with their 4 nonconference games a year and you'd be pressed to find more than 1 BCS team of those 4 they have to play (if there is one at all). Sure, I hear it now - "the SEC has the championship game..." blah, blah, blah. Yes it does, and that IS a fact. It is also a fact that of the 12 teams in that conference, only two will play in that match-up. So, c'mon.
Mr. Miller has also provided me with information regarding the new Pac-10 commissioner, Larry Scott, who originally came from the SEC area and knew how good the SEC is. Mr. Scott, then learned the "real" statistics that prove which conference should be considered the best and realized that the information is not getting out there and the Pac-10 conference hasn't been aggressive enough to push it out to the media and the fans. I am enjoying Mr. Scott already after the Pac-10 media days. Clearly, Mr. Scott has met with all the coaches and "coached" them into saying how tough the conference is from each coach. Even Coach Carroll mentioned how many more losses they've had compared to the nonconference losses in recent years. It's true! Wasn't the Vince Young-led Longhorns the only non-Pac-10 team to beat USC since the 3rd game of Coach Carroll's second year with the Trojans; a game at Kansas State (11-2) in 2002 and lost by 7 points. So, yes, I'm telling you that there has been only one team to beat Pete Carroll's team since that K-State loss in 2002 that was not in the Pac-10. If Washington State (2002) can beat USC, or California (2003) can beat USC, or Oregon State (2006, 2008) can beat the Trojans, or UCLA (2006) can take them, or Stanford (2007) can squeak by them, or even Oregon (2007) can top them; what is wrong with the rest of the nation? Only the national championship team can come from behind and win a game against USC? I'm sure USC would like to fill it's scheduling holes by other teams besides the occasional San Jose State, San Diego State, Idaho, or Fresno State; but USC gets to travel a bit since Coach Carroll took over with the likes of Kansas State, Colorado, Auburn, BYU, Hawaii, Virginia Tech, Colorado State, Arkansas, Nebraska, Virginia, Ohio State, and a date with Notre Dame every year (like Florida's annual party with Florida State - which may as well be a conference game with them being such rivals and all). The bowl games have gone against Utah, Iowa, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, and Penn State - with losses to only Utah and Texas. This is just merely an example. I used USC because they are most recognized nationally, but I could reference several Pac-10 teams and who they've played year in and year out; like Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona State, and even Stanford and Washington State get some better games occasionally.
So, Ted Miller has become the Pac-10 voice in the media; and the new commissioner, Larry Scott, has become the new face and marketing component to the new and improved Pac-10 who won't need to base their talent merely on the field, but will receive help off the field now to show the other conferences why they weren't called "the conference of champions".
Friday, July 31, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
