System flunks the college test
Like it or not, Ohio State will play Florida for the national championship in Glendale, Ariz., on Monday night, Jan. 8.
It is the outcome the system has given us.
Once again, of course, we find ourselves discussing the viability of that "system."
The Bowl Championship Series system can work if, and only if, there are but two unbeaten teams that are members of the six so-called "BCS conferences" -- the Big East, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Southeastern Conference, the Big 12, the Pac-10, and the Big 10 (which, amusingly, actually has 11 members) -- and if there is a general consensus that there is nothing bogus about the way the unbeaten record was accomplished. With Texas and USC last year, we had such a pleasant scenario, and the Longhorns and Trojans delivered a contest worthy of the "championship" designation.
That's called L-U-C-K.
You can't count on luck every year, and when you don't have luck, you have chaos, anger, and abandonment of logic, as we have this year.
It is a terrible, horrible, awful, and embarrassing system, and I hope I've made myself clear. In a better world, it would be replaced by a proper playoff system, such as the NCAA uses to determine champions in Division 1-AA (oops, the "Division 1 Football Championship Subdivision"), Division 2, and Division 3. Pick eight teams (No. 9 will be put off, but so what?), seed them, and then line 'em up until we have a legitimate winnah. That's the American way.
"The way I look at it, it's pretty simple," says Kevin O'Malley, a former
But the National Hypocrites Society, sometimes known as the college presidents, say we can't have that.
They are standing on principle, they tell us. The No. 1 reason we can't have a playoff is that we don't want to extend the college football season. We don't want those, ahem, "student-athletes" to miss any more class time than they already do.
This is a costly stand, because they really are ignoring the good ol' bottom line.
"People may say big-time college sports is all about greed," muses O'Malley, "but in this case, the fact is they are leaving at least $50 million to $60 million on the table." A proper playoff system, culminating in a proper championship game people have actually earned their way into, would be a valuable broadcast property. "If you went to Fox and said, 'We're going to have a tournament,' they'd throw a party," says O'Malley.
So shouldn't we be applauding these academic leaders for taking a stand based on academic integrity?
Here's the question for the presidents: If you're so interested in football players missing class time, why aren't you concerned about some of your other "student-athletes"?
Start with hockey. Boston College, for example, opened its season Oct. 7, two weeks prior to the first game of the World Series. The Eagles will play their last regular-season game March 3. Should they be fortunate enough to advance to the national championship game (not an unreasonable premise), it would be played April 7, at the end of the first week of the baseball season. That's a six-month season! What do the concerned presidents have to say about that?
I can tell you: nothing.
Basketball? Once upon a time (OK, when I was in school), teams began regular-season play the first week in December, concluding with the Final Four the third weekend in March. Then the start of the season began creeping back toward Thanksgiving. This year we were talking Nov. 10 or so. The Final Four is now the last weekend of March/first weekend of April. And we know that many a team has been known to spend three weeks or more on the road in March, should they be fortunate enough to keep advancing. What do the concerned presidents have to say about that?
I can tell you: nothing.
My favorite example of the presidents' hypocrisy lies in the dirtiest little secret in college sports. It's called baseball.
I checked the University of Southern California schedule for 2007. The Trojans begin play Jan. 30 against Cal Poly. They will conclude their regular season May 27 against Stanford. Contrary to my own erroneous assumption, they have no scheduled doubleheaders. USC will therefore play 57 games in 107 days. I'm sure their heads will all be in the classroom portion of their lives. If the Trojans are fortunate enough to advance to the College World Series, they will be playing baseball into the third week of June (yes, I realize school will have been over for a long time by then). But still. And what do the concerned presidents have to say about that?
I can tell you: nothing.
Football, by the way, is a four-month sport. Plus, now, one week, and then only for two teams.
The concerned presidents do not have logic on their side.
That brings us back to the mess we do have, and a process whereby Michigan, when last seen coming within 3 points of the unquestioned No. 1 team, on the road, finds itself outmaneuvered for the right to play in the Big Game almost solely because its big foe got to play another game and it didn't.
Thanks to my friend Patrick Forde (an indispensable read at ESPN.com on all matters collegiate), we are reminded that on Nov. 26, the morning after Ohio State 42, Michigan 39, the Wolverines led Florida in the Harris Poll by 86 points and in the USA Today poll by 30. But when those two polls came out last Sunday, the Wolverines were trailing Florida by 68 points in the Harris and 26 in the USA Today, which means there were reversals of 154 and 56 points.
Why? For one thing, Florida is in a conference that has a championship game and Michigan isn't. Florida beat a good -- not great -- Arkansas team while Michigan players were going to class, or whatever "student-athletes" do in Ann Arbor when not engaged in athletic endeavor (probably going to basketball and hockey games). We are left with no other conclusion but to assume that had Florida not played that additional game, Michigan would be going to Glendale.
Is that reasonable, logical, or remotely fair?
Just keep that inequity in mind as this BCS business unfolds next year. Now consider this: The ACC, the SEC, and the Big 12 have championship games. The Big East, the Big 10, and the Pac-10 do not. Then keep in mind that in the Big East everyone plays everyone every year, and that there are only seven conference games, which means they have five nonconference opportunities to construct a suitable schedule, which is a huge factor in sorting teams out.
Ah, but Pac-10 teams have nine conference games and three nonconference foes. The Big 10 teams, meanwhile, have eight conference games and four nonconference opponents. And in the Big 10, everyone does not play everyone on an annual basis.
See how difficult it is to make sense of it all?
There would be arguments if you were constructing an eight-team tournament, but the feelings of a jilted ninth team would not measure up to the justifiably hurt feelings of a 13-0 Auburn two years ago or an outraged Michigan this year. Let No. 9 yelp. Big deal.
I haven't even mentioned the bowl lobby, which is another impediment to a tournament. I mean, I need to get this thing written before Christmas, if you know what I mean.
The system, as any "creature of reason" knows, is bad, bad, bad. And it will always be bad until there is a proper tournament. "It's like looking for a solution for Iraq," says O'Malley. "You can't have what you really want, which is to never have gone there in the first place. In this case, we do not have a tournament. So they're trying to find a consensus. They just can't agree on how to find it."
Right now, the solution is the Bowl Championship Series. By the way, the Buckeyes will have gone 50 days in between games by the time they play Florida. I must check to see if Ohio State has had reports of 300-pound people accidentally breaking chairs in the library.
Bob Ryan is a Globe columnist. His e-mail address is ryan@globe.com. 
