The misleading information runs rampant in this chapter. Most of the data from this chapter are taken completely out of context and void of any relevant comparison. They go on to use this misinformation to make completely baseless arguments, mainly that all teams load their schedules up with the easiest teams possible so that they can all go undefeated, because the only thing that matters to the BCS is won-loss record. This poorly constructed chapter full of weak arguments starts off with a sob story about how Michigan had to open their season in their newly renovated stadium against the eventual Big East champion who had won at least 8 games in the 3 seasons leading up to 2010, but the only information we receive about the UConn Huskies is that they recently made the transition to Division I-A football and that they play in a small stadium. Both of these facts imply that the Huskies are much weaker than they actually are. It only gets worse from there.
First of all, let's look a little closer into the initial story they provide, about how Michigan is frantically searching for an opponent for their home opener in 2010. The only reference of time we are given is that by July 2009, Martin is “scrambling,” as well he should be, because anyone who follows college football knows that opponents are booked years in advance. Take a look at Texas' football schedule over the next few years, which is booked solid until 2018. Even mediocre NC State's opponents are established until 2014. Georgia is booked until 2015. Michigan State already has 4 non-conference opponents lined up for 2017! It doesn't look like teams were avoiding Michigan. Maybe Michigan just didn't plan very well. If you want to ensure a quality opponent, try planning ahead.
The BCS is not the reason big time teams schedule weaker opponents. Before the BCS, in 1997, Nebraska, who ruled college football in the 90's, scheduled Central Florida and Akron. They scheduled Pacific in 1994 and 95. Let's take a look at the opponents of Florida, another team who dominated in the 90's. In 1996 they played SW Louisiana and Georgia Southern. Arkansas State and SW Lousiana again were feared obstacles in 1993. Tennessee, another powerhouse of the 90's, played Memphis and UNLV in 1996 and SW Louisiana, Memphis State and Cincinnati (then a member of the Great Midwest Conference) during their 1992 campaign. Look, I'm not a huge fan of weak opponents on a team's schedule, but the authors claim something that is simply false, like the accusation that the BCS started this idea of loading a schedule with low-quality teams.
Let's expand on this a bit further. Maybe the future schedules of the major teams will reveal a pile of inferior teams. Fortunately for football fans everywhere, this is not the case. Texas has home and home dates with BYU, Notre Dame and USC over the next 6 years. Programs don't get much bigger than Texas, and it is good to see they are not bogging down their schedule completely with overmatched teams. Miami (FL) plays Kansas State, Notre Dame and South Florida all in 2012! Arkansas is playing Texas and Texas A&M in 2013. Sure, there are some teams that don't play extremely difficult schedules, but they don't win the championship. And I don't have a problem with teams scheduling a weak team as a sort of exhibition game, because most other major sports (including college basketball for some reason) have legitimate exhibition, except college football.
I brought up college basketball to make a point. It stands to reason, by the authors' logic, that if the BCS and a “non-playoff” system cause weak scheduling, then a sport without the BCS and with a playoff would be void of weak scheduling. No sport represents the antithesis of the BCS better than college basketball, especially now that we are in the midst of March Madness, the most overly-inclusive playoff system in our country. Yet, college basketball teams STILL find ways to schedule embarassing teams to beat up on. If there was a ever a sport where the regular season was essentially meaningless, it is college basketball, so you would then assume that the big teams spend all their time playing each other and warming up for the tournament. Unfortunately for the fans and competition, this is not the case. Duke played Princeton, Colgate, Bradley and Saint Louis this season. Their main rival, UNC, another basketball powerhouse, throttled Lipscomb, Hofstra, William & Mary and Saint Francis. Kansas pounded Longwood, TAMU-Corpus Christi, UT-Arlington and something called UMKC. The BCS didn't have anything to do with these teams lining up the beatdowns.
I know these guys are against the BCS, and if the BCS is as bad as they say it is, you would think they could actually provide some evidence on which to base their claims. However, their assertions are fraudulent for anyone that actually does any research on their arguments. The BCS is not the reason Michigan had a difficult time finding an opponent for their opener and teams' schedules are not weaker directly because of the BCS. Teams loaded up their schedules with sure wins long before the BCS, and the BCS has not prevented teams from scheduling big time opponents in the future. Just look at the facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment