Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> TalkLeft

Legal Commentary

: TalkLeft

The BCS: A Travesty Of A Mockery Of A Sham

By Big Tent Democrat

In one of the more remarkable moments of the Absurdist play that is our annual Bowl Championship Series, the President of THE Ohio State University (which has largely distinguished itself by being pummelled by the SEC champion in BCS national championhip games) recently stated that non-BCS automatic qualifier schools are not worthy of playing in the BCS national championship game. Oookaay. Whatever, Buckeyes.

Opinion driven, as opposed to performance driven, assessments of college footbsll teams is the modus operandi of the BCS. That and protecting the big bowls. In an attempt to blunt the charge of a fixed system, the BCS added computer rankings to its formula. But that was deemed flawed because, we were told, it encouraged running up the score. As opposed to a poll voter system. Yeah whatever. This year, the REAL computer rankings, as opposed to the gerrymandered version that the BCS has installed, provide the following rankings going into today's games:

1. Oregon
2. Boise State
3. Stanford
4. TCU
5. Alabama
6. Ohio State
11. Auburn

Those are the Jeff Sagarin "PREDICTOR" rankings, which Sagarin describes as "the best single PREDICTOR of future games." You will notice that both Boise State and TCU lead Auburn and Ohio State in these rankings. But the BCS chooses to not use these rankings, instead using a strength of schedule formula which favors the big conference teams. In that system, Auburn is Number 1.

But championships should not be decided by opinions and "PREDICTORS," they should be decided on the field. College football needs a playoff system. It deserves a playoff system. And it is clearly in the interest of the institutions in terms of money.

As Dan Wetzel notes, the arguments presented by the moneychasing Gee (the highest paid college President of a public university ever and who has now presided over 8 institutions and is notorious for trying to turn institutions of higher learning into moneymaking ventures) undermine the premise for the BCS. Wetzel writes:

What he’s arguing is that an arbitrary system based on mass opinion and computer formulas that are not mathematically sound (per actual mathematicians) isn’t a good way to select the two teams that should play for the title. [. . .] What he’s arguing is that the BCS is bunk.

This isn’t really surprising. His comments were poorly thought out, ill-timed and unnecessary, but Gee isn’t stupid. He’s a learned, intelligent man. His base sense of logic tells him what almost everyone long ago realized – the BCS is an absurd system. He just wasn’t clever or prepared enough to avoid tacitly admitting it.

In truth, the BCS isn’t about crowning a champion in college football, it was just a tool created so private bowl games could continue to operate (and profit handsomely from) college football’s postseason. By further entrenching themselves as the postseason operators, bowls continue to take hundreds of millions annually from the pockets of actual colleges. This is why no other sport would allow such a set up. What business outsources its most important and profitable product?

The BCS is about protecting the profits of bowl games and nothing else. It’s about money, money and only money. It’s why the BCS employs PR people, Washington lobbyists and multiple law firms to maintain the status quo and create water muddying arguments.

(Emphasis supplied.) Protecting a system that takes money from the colleges and gives it to the bowl games is incredibly negligent from the people who run the colleges, like Gordon Gee. As Wetzel writes:

Gordon Gee argues against the base interests of his university and community. Not with any actual facts, mind you, but with general feelings, shallow reasoning and a strange preference for mixed up mysteries. When your argument is based on such things, it’s little surprise it unravels. So he wound up shredding the logic the BCS formula claims to be built on and all but inviting a federal inquiry. He’s a smart man speaking foolishly. Bizarre? Yes. Defending the indefensible tends to cause such behavior.

The next time your local university of college has to cut a sport because of financial considerations, remember it is people like Gordon Gee who are the reason why.

My picks today are Boise State (-14) over Nevada(3 units), Oregon (-19) over Arizona (2 units), Alabama (-4) over Auburn (5 units), Pitt (-3) over West Virginia, Louisville (-3) over Rutgers, and Ohio (-3) over Kent.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on November 26, 2010 (boomark / email).