Game Predictions: BCS Bowls

It is time to give my predictions for the BCS bowls. To view my non-BCS bowl predictions, click here.

January 1
Rose Bowl
TCU vs. Wisconsin, 28-21 TCU
Hawaii is the only non-AQ team to ever lose a BCS bowl game.

Fiesta Bowl
Oklahoma vs. UConn, 27-24 UConn
Until Oklahoma wins a BCS game that they should, I will keep picking the underdog.

January 3
Orange Bowl
Stanford vs. Virginia Tech, 35-21 Stanford
The Hokies have finally met their match.

January 4
Sugar Bowl
Arkansas vs. Ohio State, 28-24 Ohio State
The Buckeyes finally beat a SEC team, but was the controversy worth it?

January 10
BCS National Championship Game
Oregon vs. Auburn, 36-34 Oregon
A surprise 2 point conversion will be the difference.

The Scam: Automatic Qualifying Conference Champions

Note: This is the first part of a four part series on the Bowl Championship Series. Links to the other three parts are found at the end of this article.

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a scam. Why? The provision that grants automatic qualifying status to certain conference champions. The BCS toots its own horn about how great it is because it guarantees that the number one and two teams will play in a bowl game to finish each year. Okay, so where does the need for automatic qualification come in? First a little history, so we can understand the real answer to this question.

Historically, bowl games had agreements with one or two conferences for the right to host certain teams in their games at the end of the year. The bowl games operated completely independent of any entity that ranked the top teams in college football. As attention to both bowl games and the rankings increased, the desire to see the top two teams play each other at the end of the year increased.

In 1992 the Bowl Coalition was created between the Big East Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big 8, Southeastern Conference (SEC), Southwest Conference (SWC), and Notre Dame with the expressed intent to create better possibilities for a bowl game to feature number one and two. This coalition involved the Cotton, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, Gator, and John Hancock bowls.

The Bowl Coalition was dumped in 1995 for the Bowl Alliance. The Bowl Alliance consisted of the same five conferences, but reduced bowl participation to the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta bowls. Each conference champion would automatically qualify for one of these bowls and one at-large team would be selected. Theoretically, that at-large team could be from any conference in NCAA Division 1-A football.

That brings us to the BCS. The BCS brought all the “major” conferences and bowl games together for the first time in 1998. The Pac-10, the Big 10, and the Rose Bowl joined the others to form the BCS. In 1996, the Big 8 and SWC had consolidated, more or less, to form the Big 12, so the official make up of the BCS was the Big East, the ACC, the SEC, the Big 10, the Big 12, the Pac-10, and Notre Dame, as well as the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange bowls. The BCS continued the automatic qualifying status for champions from the six participating conferences. Notre Dame could automatically qualify if it had 9 wins and was ranked in the BCS top 10. Teams from outside the six participating conferences could automatically qualify if they were ranked in the BCS top 6.

In most cases, I give people the benefit of the doubt and believe they act with good intentions. In the case of the Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance/BCS, it is pretty hard to accept that some other interests besides matching the top two teams in the same bowl were not driving this process. All that would have been necessary to accomplish the declared intent was to have an agreement between the bowls that the bowl with the number two ranked team would release its rights to that team so that team could play in the same bowl as the number one ranked team. Of course the bowl losing the number two ranked team would want retribution for its losses, but I think retribution would be a minor detail that could be worked out easily and beneficial to all. Furthermore, if we are talking about having the top two teams play, why wasn’t the Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, and BCS all inclusive—all bowls, all teams. When was it ever decreed that a team from a conference with ties to one of the other bowls could not be number one or two? If a team from one of these outsider conferences and bowls was number one, why would that team not deserve to play for the championship in its affiliated bowl? Limiting the conferences and bowls involved and by giving automatic qualifying status to those conference champions was self-serving and collusive. The real intent was to have number one and number two play every year in a bowl game and to ensure that number one and two were teams from this select group of conferences.

Digging into history a little further makes this whole bowl confederation look very sketchy. I am still scratching my head wondering how the Big East and the ACC were able to gain favored nations status if the organizers’ motives were pure.

First, the Big East did not even exist until 1991 (Bowl Coalition began in 1992), so there was little to no historical evidence that this conference was important in accomplishing the objective to have number one and number two play in a bowl. Now, it is true that the University of Miami, Florida, technically was a Big East member and won the national championship in 1991 (as well as in 1983, 1987, 1989 as an independent), the Hurricanes played only two conference games that year. Now that 20 years have passed, the evidence we do have is that the Miami Dynasty unraveled shortly after it became affiliated with a conference.

Second, the ACC was a glorified Western Athletic Conference (WAC) before the 1992 season. Sure, Clemson won the national championship in 1981 and Georgia Tech split the national championship in 1990, but that is it. Once in a decade the ACC champion was relevant. The WAC was having the same level of success as the ACC during this timeframe. In 1992, however, Florida State left the ranks of the independents to join the ACC. Florida State was 53-8 and ranked in the top 5 from 1987-1991. Again, the evidence we have post-1991 is that the ACC, as a whole, was mediocre; the Seminoles dominated the ACC for the next decade. Furthermore, the ACC has never fielded an at-large BCS team.

Let’s be honest with ourselves and accept that the only reason the Big East is an automatic qualifying conference is Miami, and the only reason for the ACC is Florida State. No entity stating that it was trying to match number one and number two in a bowl game would have any credibility if it left these two national powerhouses out. However, all credibility would be lost if several schools were being hand picked like Notre Dame was.

Now, back to the original question, where does the need for automatic qualification come in? The short answer is it is not needed, all it is merely a cover up. I will uncover this cover up tomorrow. Don’t miss it!

Part 2: The Cover Up: Overall Conference Strength
Part 3: The Evidence: Performance on the Field
Part 4: The Solution: It's About Conference Champions

Sources:
www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819366
www.shrpsports.com/cf/

PERSPECTIVE: BIG WINS HINGE ON LITTLE PLAYS

Have you ever noticed a large gate in a farm fence? As you open it or close it there appears to be very little movement at the hinge. But there is great movement at the perimeter (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Small Acts Lead to Great Consequences,” Ensign, May 1984, 81).

This quote from a great world leader and friend of college football goes a long way to explaining a lot of the surprising game scores that we see almost weekly in college football. How many times have we sat down to watch a highly anticipated match up between two evenly matched teams only to have the outcome determined long before the final whistle blew? The 2005 Orange Bowl comes to mind (USC 55 Oklahoma 19). Although the scoreboard reflects a significant difference between the two teams, reality is that the two teams are evenly matched. The big win is the outcome of a few little plays going in favor of one team. Two, three, or four plays in a game made up of 150 plays can seem like the "very little movement at the hinge"; however, when the game ends it is clear that those couple of plays caused a "great movement at the perimeter." Let's look at the two BYU losses this year to better understand this sports phenomena.

September 19, 2009, BYU was favored to beat Florida State. The game ended in a 54-28 victory for Florida State. Although BYU lost by almost 4 touchdowns, it was essentially 2 plays that caused this drastic outcome. Play one was O'Neill Chamber's first quarter fumble. BYU had driven from its own 20 yard line to the FSU 18. Max Hall dropped back and connected with Chambers on a short pass when he fumbled at the 13. FSU recovered ending BYU's scoring threat. This was not just a fumble. It was a turnover that ended a scoring threat that we have no reason to doubt would have ended in a touchdown to tie the game at 7. Instead, FSU took over and scored another touchdown to push the lead to 14 Play two was another O'Neill Chambers fumble, this time in the second quarter. FSU scored with 23 seconds before halftime to go up 28-14. On the ensuing kickoff, Chambers fumbled at the BYU 30 yard line. This put FSU in position to tack on three more points with a successful field goal. What could have been a 28-21 game at the half, with BYU receiving the ball to start the second half, was a 30-14 FSU lead instead. Those two fumbles resulted in a 10 point difference, and completely changed BYU's play calling in the second half and the way FSU could defend the BYU offense. I am not saying that BYU would have won, but the game would have been much more competitive.

October 24, 2009, BYU had a conference showdown with the TCU Horned Frogs. BYU started the second half trailing 21-7. On the Cougars' first possession, however, they were moving the ball effectively and poised to score a touchdown and make the score 21-14. That would have been BYU's second consecutive scoring drive, and the game still up for grabs. However, a Max Hall pass was tipped by the intended receiver and intercepted by TCU. TCU subsequently kicked a field goal to push the lead to 24-7, another 10 point swing that was the real difference in the game.

Three plays in two games have given the nation the perception that BYU's 7-2 record is the result of BYU beating 6 bad teams, losing 2 ugly games, and getting a lucky injury against Oklahoma. The reality is that those three plays were the hinge that was magnified over the course of those two games and leaving an impression of BYU that overshadows its other accomplishments this year.

In sports we have another word for hinge: momentum. Momentum is the 12th man in football. Sometimes Mo switches his jersey throughout the game. Other times, he jumps on the swinging fence and rides it until the hinge opens fully.