Final Thoughts

Back when I started this site in 2007, my only thought was to present a comparison of the different versions of the BCS, since the system went through 5 changes in its first 8 seasons. I was curious to see what the national championship could have been if a few small variables had changed, and my conclusion was that "It's rather ironic that the most effective version of the BCS (the most recent one) is the one that most approximates the system of polls that the BCS was originally designed to replace, making you wonder whether it was all worth it."

That central question, whether all the fuss about the national championship issue is worth it, has remained the unchanged focus of this website, like the BCS formula that's been used the last eight seasons. But after attempting to look at a lot of different college football related issues from different perspectives, my answers to that question have grown more complex and involved, just as the sport itself has in the few years since that first post.

Back in 2007, I was vehemently anti-playoff. Not that I liked the BCS, but I felt, and still feel at times, that the negatives of a playoff outweighed the positives. About the time that I created a series of posts attempting to explore all sides of the playoff debate in spring 2009, my thoughts on the issue started to change. But not in the way you might think. That exercise did help me to see some of the positives of a playoff, and my stance against one has definitely softened. I admit that I would thoroughly enjoy some semi-final matchups between four of the top teams in the country, and how the playoff-creation process itself plays out is still fascinating to me. But while I've come to see that there are better possible ways to handle the national championship issue, I've also come to firmly believe that it's not worth it. And that's the main reason that I'm putting this site to rest - I believe that the national championship issue and all that it entails has become too much of the focus of college football in recent years and is overshadowing many of the things that make the sport so unique and enjoyable.

At the beginning of the 2010 season, when I tried to detach my first week of viewing games from the overall seasonal ramifications, I had no idea I'd never really get back into the game, so to speak. But I must say, it has made watching the last two seasons more enjoyable, focusing on just the games, not wondering nearly as much how the outcome was going to impact teams from other conferences and the overall order of things. That doesn't mean I'm completely removed from the big picture. I still firmly believe that expectations of national-scene success are way too high for most teams, that what might help most in terms of figuring out ranking positions is getting rid of the cupcake games (even though they're a necessary evil), and that an evolved playoff, while unconventional, strikes the perfect balance towards finding both a definitive and overall best playoff champion.

But I've said it before, moreso in the last two seasons, that there's more to college football than just the national championship issue. So while I'll still pop up around the blogosphere and continue to follow and write thoughts on the sport, this site has served its purpose. I hope its ending does too - it just seems appropriate and fitting.

Thanks for reading.

- Ed

Bowls & TV Ratings, 2012 edition

Alright, we've done this before but it's been a couple of years: Let's take a quick look at the television ratings for all these bowls and see if we can't make something of them. Everyone knows that the ratings are down, but by how much? And for all bowls? Or just some?

The first area we'll look at are the BCS bowls and how they've fared over the years. The chart below shows the five BCS bowls - the Rose, Orange, Fiesta, Sugar, and National Championship. For the first 8 years when one of those bowls doubled as the national championship, the blue of the championship game is marked with the color of the game that hosted it.

The only bowl that hasn't been down over the last few seasons is the Fiesta, and that's mainly due to their #3 vs #4 matchup in 2012 (and even the ratings for that weren't as high as some of the golden years in the 2000's.) The slope don't lie - things aren't looking good for the BCS bowls, which is why there's going to be a shakeup soon. (Let's put it another way - this past year the sum of the ratings for the BCS bowl games was a 44.5 share. The only other years lower than that were 2001 and 2004 - and those years only had 4 BCS games, not 5.)

What about the other, non-BCS bowls? Have they suffered the same decline over the past two seasons?

The table below lists all of the bowls from 2002-2011, their ratings each year, how 2011 stacked up to their average from 2002-2009, and whether or not they did better (blue) or worse (red) than previous season's rating.

Bowl Ratings 2002-2011 (by share)
Bowl	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2011 to Avg
Texas					1.4	0.3	0.3	2.1	2.7	2.7	1.7
Outback	4.2	4.5	3.6	2.4	4.4	3.4	3.1	3.5	7.1	5.1	1.5
Cotton	4.2	4.5	2.6	3.7	3.7	3.5	4.4	4.5	5.8	5.0	1.1
Insight	3.4	3.1	2.9	3.3	0.9	0.4	1.2	0.4	2.2	3.0	1.1
Champs Sports	1.6	2.1	1.9	2.2	3.0	3.7	5.2	3.9	2.1	3.3	0.4
New Orleans	1.4	1.5	1.4	1.7	1.3	1.6	0.8	0.7	1.3	1.6	0.3
Music City	2.3	2.4	3.1	2.1	2.2	4.0	2.8	1.7	4.2	2.7	0.1
Beef'O'Brady's							1.3	1.6	2.0	1.5	0.0
Poinsettia				0.9	1.5	2.0	3.7	2.4	2.3	2.1	0.0
Alamo	4.4	4.2	4.2	5.4	6.0	2.7	4.6	4.8	2.8	4.4	-0.1
Sun	3.6	3.5	2.8	2.6	2.4	2.3	2.2	3.3	3.0	2.7	-0.1
Famous Potato	1.8	2.1	1.7	2.3	1.6	0.8	2.4	2.1	1.8	1.7	-0.2
Las Vegas	2.9	1.8	1.9	2.4	2.0	2.5	2.5	2.2	3.3	2.1	-0.2
BBVA Compass					1.7	2.3	2.0	1.6	2.2	1.5	-0.4
Military							2.2	1.9	1.5	1.5	-0.6
Little Caesars	1.9	2.3	1.7	2.2	2.1	2.7	2.5	2.6	1.4	1.7	-0.6
Armed Forces		2.8	1.6	2.3	2.0	2.0	1.7	1.6	1.3	1.4	-0.6
New Mexico					1.8	2.0	2.6	2.4	1.8	1.5	-0.7
GoDaddy.com	2.3	1.5	2.1	2.0	1.6	1.1	2.2	2.4	1.8	1.2	-0.7
Kraft Fight Hunger	1.6	1.2	2.0	2.2	4.5	3.6	4.6	4.6	1.6	2.3	-0.7
Belk	2.0	2.2	1.8	1.5	3.9	3.7	4.5	3.9	2.0	2.2	-0.7
Hawaii	2.4	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.5	1.5	3.0	1.7	2.1	1.4	-0.8
Chick-fil-A	4.0	4.0	5.0	5.2	4.8	5.1	3.9	4.2	4.3	3.6	-0.9
Independence	3.6	3.7	2.8	2.8	3.0	1.9	1.0	2.4	1.4	1.5	-1.2
Liberty	1.7	2.4	4.6	3.3	3.2	4.1	2.7	3.8	3.0	1.9	-1.3
Holiday	4.2	4.9	4.0	5.1	4.1	4.4	4.6	3.7	3.5	2.7	-1.7
Gator	6.2	4.2	4.0	3.9	3.9	2.6	4.1	4.0	1.7	1.9	-2.2
Capital One	5.9	8.0	5.5	5.2	5.8	9.1	6.4	6.8	3.7	2.9	-3.7
TicketCity									1.3	1.4	-
Pinstripe									2.3	2.1	-

Hmmm... so it looks like about a quarter of the bowls actually exceeded their 2002-09 average this past year, which given the hype seems high. On top of that, only eight bowls dropped in ratings both of the last two years, as compared to 4 of the 5 BCS bowls. Interesting.

So how much of these bowls' ratings have to do with what teams they select? A decent amount, no doubt. As we all know, bowls don't choose participants based on their records - they choose them based on how many seats they'll fill and how many eyes they'll draw to the TV screen.

The final big table below lists how each team's bowl ratings have fared against those bowls when they haven't participated. For instance, in looking at Florida State, in 2004 the Seminoles were in the Gator Bowl, which garnered a 4.0 rating share. In the other years between 2002-2011 when Florida State wasn't participating, the Gator Bowl averaged a 3.6 share. (That doesn't include 2009 when the Seminoles participated, since it would skew the "without the Seminoles" average.) That means that in 2004, the Seminoles drew 0.4 more than the Gator Bowl average. Most years, bowls benefited from inviting the Seminoles, earning a total of nearly 17 share points more than their average without Florida State. And the Seminoles only participated in one bowl, the 2010 Chick-Fil-A Bowl, whose rating share was worse than their average. Make sense?

Ratings Shares Compared to Bowl's Average, 2002-2011
Team	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Total	Avg
Florida St	1.0	2.9	0.4	5.5	1.8	1.4	2.6	0.4	-0.1	0.7	16.8	1.7
USC	2.2	2.7	-2.4	5.6	2.3	-0.6	0.0	2.0			11.8	1.5
Ohio St	1.2	0.8	-0.2	5.0	1.4	1.4	2.5	1.2	-0.1	-1.9	11.1	1.1
Notre Dame	2.8		0.9	4.6	1.1		1.0		0.2	0.4	11.0	1.6
Texas	0.0	0.7	0.3	6.0	1.8	0.2	1.8	1.5		-1.5	10.9	1.2
Penn St	0.1			5.1	0.6	-1.9	-0.5	1.0	3.4	0.1	7.9	1.0
Miami (FL)	0.9	2.2	0.8	1.0	-0.2		2.0	1.1	0.2		7.9	1.0
Michigan	0.1	2.9	0.9	1.2	2.5	3.6			-2.2	-2.5	6.5	0.8
Florida	0.4	0.7	0.7	-1.5	1.0	3.6	-0.6	0.2	3.3	-1.9	5.8	0.6
Georgia	1.0	2.4	-0.5	0.8	0.4	-1.2	0.8	0.0	-0.1	1.0	4.6	0.5
Boise St	0.0	1.1	1.7	0.6	-0.6	-0.7	1.8	-0.8	1.0	-0.2	4.0	0.4
Purdue	0.9	2.3	0.1		0.1	0.6				-0.4	3.5	0.6
N Carolina			-0.7				2.0	1.4	1.6	-1.0	3.3	0.7
W Forest	2.4				-0.9	1.1	0.6			-0.1	3.1	0.6
Hawaii	0.7	0.5	0.5		0.8	-1.4	1.3		0.4		2.8	0.4
Ole Miss	1.3	0.4					0.3	0.4			2.5	0.6
C Michigan					0.1	0.7	0.5	0.6			2.0	0.5
Arizona St	0.1		0.0	1.4	0.5	0.3				-0.3	2.0	0.3
UCLA	0.6	0.2	-0.4	-0.3	1.8	0.2		0.2		-0.4	1.9	0.2
Arkansas	-0.5	1.4			-0.1	-0.7		0.8	-0.1	0.8	1.6	0.2
Oregon	2.4	0.7		1.1	-0.4	-0.5	0.7	0.9	-1.2	-2.1	1.5	0.2
California		1.1	-0.3	0.1	-0.2	0.2	2.0	0.3		-1.6	1.4	0.2
Baylor									1.3	0.1	1.4	0.7
Maryland	-0.5	0.6			0.1	0.9	0.6		-0.4		1.4	0.2
UCF				0.1		1.2		0.0	0.0		1.3	0.3
Rutgers				1.4	-0.2	0.1	0.2	0.0		-0.2	1.2	0.2
Oregon St	1.6	-0.7	1.1		-0.6	0.9	-0.8	-0.2			1.2	0.2
Louisville	0.5	-0.3	1.7	0.3	-0.9				0.5	-0.6	1.2	0.2
Kansas St	0.1	-0.2			-0.2				0.2	0.9	0.8	0.2
Missouri		1.4		0.5	-0.5	-0.8	0.3	0.6	0.1	-0.8	0.8	0.1
Nwestern		0.2		-0.3			0.3	-0.7	-0.1	1.3	0.8	0.1
Buffalo							0.8				0.8	0.8
Florida Atl						0.3	0.4				0.8	0.4
Marshall	0.5		-0.3					0.5		-0.1	0.7	0.2
Memphis		0.3	0.3	0.1		0.4	-0.4				0.6	0.1
Iowa	2.1	0.1	-0.5	-2.1	1.8		-1.4	-0.8	0.2	1.0	0.6	0.1
Ball St						0.1	0.4				0.5	0.3
San Diego St									0.2	0.3	0.5	0.2
Fresno St	0.2	0.3	-0.3	0.3		-1.2	0.8	0.6	-0.2		0.5	0.1
N Texas	0.1	0.2	0.1								0.5	0.2
Stanford								0.5	-1.1	0.9	0.3	0.1
Tulane	0.3										0.3	0.3
Idaho								0.3			0.3	0.3
LA-Lafayette										0.3	0.3	0.3
Washington	0.8								-0.7	0.1	0.2	0.1
Michigan St		-0.1				0.9	0.2	0.5	-2.5	1.1	0.2	0.0
Ohio					-0.3			0.5	0.0	-0.1	0.1	0.0
UAB			0.1								0.1	0.1
Akron				0.1							0.1	0.1
Bowl. Green		0.2	0.2			-0.7		0.3			0.0	0.0
Miami (OH)		-0.4	0.4						-0.1		0.0	0.0
Boston Coll.	-0.2	-1.7	-1.0	0.6	1.1	0.9	0.0	1.6	-1.4		-0.1	0.0
Utah St										-0.1	-0.1	-0.1
Wash St	-1.0	0.8									-0.1	-0.1
Pittsburgh	1.5	-0.5	-1.6				-0.7	1.2	0.3	-0.4	-0.2	0.0
Tulsa		0.3		0.3	0.1	-0.7	0.3		0.0	-0.5	-0.2	0.0
San Jose St					-0.2						-0.2	-0.2
Arkansas St				0.4						-0.7	-0.3	-0.1
Navy		0.2	-0.9	-1.5	1.2	-0.4	0.6	0.6	-0.1		-0.3	0.0
Illinois						-1.2			1.3	-0.6	-0.4	-0.1
Temple								0.2		-0.6	-0.4	-0.2
W Michigan										-0.5	-0.5	-0.5
Troy			-0.3		-0.1		-0.6	0.6	-0.1		-0.5	-0.1
UTEP			-0.4	0.2					-0.3		-0.5	-0.2
Texas A&M			-1.6		0.0	-1.9		0.0	1.6	1.3	-0.5	-0.1
Kentucky					-0.6	1.2	-0.4	-1.1	0.4		-0.5	-0.1
Army									-0.6		-0.6	-0.6
Wyoming			-0.5					0.4		-0.5	-0.7	-0.2
Mid Tenn St					0.0			-0.7	0.0		-0.7	-0.2
LSU	0.2	-2.4	-0.4	0.8	1.1	0.5	-0.5	0.9	1.8	-2.9	-0.7	-0.1
Oklahoma St	0.4	0.4	-0.4		0.6	-1.9	0.5	0.4	-1.8	0.9	-0.8	-0.1
Syracuse			-1.1						0.2		-0.9	-0.5
E Carolina					-0.2	-0.7	-0.3	0.8	-0.4		-0.9	-0.2
Florida Intl									-0.8	-0.1	-0.9	-0.5
Miss State						1.2			-2.2	-0.1	-1.1	-0.4
Houston		0.1		0.4	0.2	-1.5	-0.2	-0.3		0.1	-1.2	-0.2
BYU				0.0	-0.4	0.1	0.1	-0.2	-0.3	-0.5	-1.2	-0.2
W Virginia	-0.7	0.8	0.6	0.8	0.5	-1.3	1.8	0.6	-0.9	-3.5	-1.3	-0.1
Vanderbilt							0.0			-1.3	-1.3	-0.6
NC State	2.8	-1.0		-1.5			0.2		-1.0	-0.8	-1.3	-0.2
New Mexico	0.5	-0.6	-0.9		-0.3	-0.1					-1.3	-0.3
SMU								-0.5	-0.6	-0.4	-1.5	-0.5
Rice					0.0		-1.5				-1.6	-0.8
LA Tech							-1.6			0.0	-1.6	-0.8
S Miss	0.4	-0.7	-0.1	0.2	-0.3	0.5	-0.7	-0.8	0.5	-0.8	-1.6	-0.2
Colorado	0.1		-0.4	-0.8		-0.6					-1.7	-0.4
Kansas		-0.9		0.5		-0.4	-1.0				-1.8	-0.4
W Michigan					-0.3		-1.5				-1.8	-0.9
Iowa St	0.0		0.4	-0.2				-1.9		-0.2	-1.9	-0.4
Indiana						-1.9					-1.9	-1.9
Connecticut			-0.5			1.1	0.8	-0.3	-3.0		-1.9	-0.4
Arizona							0.2	-0.5	-1.7		-2.0	-0.7
Toledo	-0.4		-0.6	0.2					-0.9	-0.4	-2.1	-0.4
Nebraska	1.3	0.0		1.2	-0.5		0.5	-0.5	-0.7	-3.4	-2.2	-0.3
Tennessee	-0.6	-0.5	-1.8		0.2	-0.8		-0.4	1.6		-2.3	-0.3
Utah		-0.7	-1.6	-0.7	0.2	-0.1	-0.5	0.3	1.1	-0.2	-2.3	-0.3
TCU	-1.5	1.1		-0.2	-0.4	-1.5	1.8	-0.7	-1.0	0.2	-2.3	-0.3
Nevada				-0.1	-0.2	-0.1	0.6	-0.6	-1.4	-0.9	-2.5	-0.4
Wisconsin	0.1	-0.4	-0.7	-0.9	-0.2	-0.9	2.7	1.4	-1.3	-2.4	-2.5	-0.3
Auburn	-0.1	-0.4	1.4	-0.9	-0.5	0.7		-0.7	-1.2	-0.8	-2.6	-0.3
Air Force	-1.4					0.1	-0.2	-0.3	-1.1	-0.4	-3.3	-0.5
Texas Tech	-1.4	0.2	-0.1	-0.5	-1.3	-1.2	0.2	0.5	-0.1		-3.8	-0.4
Cincinnati	0.1		-0.3		-0.3	0.5	-2.6	0.2		-1.3	-3.8	-0.5
N Illinois			-0.3		-0.8		-1.6	-0.6	0.0	-0.7	-3.9	-0.6
Colorado St	-1.5	-1.8		-1.4			0.7				-4.0	-1.0
S Carolina				0.4	0.2		-1.1	-0.3	-0.1	-3.4	-4.3	-0.7
S Florida				-1.5	-0.2	-0.6	-0.4	-0.6	-1.0		-4.3	-0.7
Virginia	-0.9	-0.7	-0.1	-0.7		-1.2				-0.9	-4.6	-0.8
Alabama			0.4	-0.5	0.6	-0.5	-0.5	0.6	-2.5	-2.6	-5.2	-0.6
GA Tech	0.0	0.2	-1.1	-0.7	0.2	-1.2	-0.6	-1.1	-1.1	-0.2	-5.4	-0.5
Minnesota	-0.6	0.7	0.2	-0.7	-1.7		-1.4	-2.2			-5.7	-0.8
VA Tech	-1.4	1.1	1.1	0.3	0.4	-0.9	-2.9	-0.2	-1.5	-2.3	-6.4	-0.6
Clemson	-1.5	-0.4		-0.9	-0.7	0.7	0.5	-1.3	-0.9	-3.5	-8.0	-0.9
Oklahoma	-1.0	-2.7	-3.5	1.1	-1.1	-1.8	-1.4	0.5	-3.3	1.0	-12.2	-1.2

As was the case two years ago, the story isn't at the top - it's at the bottom. Of course some of the biggies are the best at maximizing TV ratings for bowls - Florida State, USC,Ohio State, Notre Dame, and Texas are the top 5 and usually bring in at least a share point higher to whatever bowl they're playing in. But at the bottom are some biggies you might not expect - Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Alabama, and South Carolina are all in the bottom 10. The Sooners have boosted ratings a few times, but they've been in some clunkers too with seven of their past ten bowl games earning a full share or worse lower than that bowl's average without them. Ouch. The Hokies woes are more recent. They were on a good run at the beginning of the last decade, but since 2007 all of their games have fared worse than average on TV. Their ACC comrade Yellow Jackets are in the same boat. The Tide is a bit of stunner here, even though we knew the 2011 title game wouldn't help them. This year's championship and last year's Capital One Bowl were major disappointments, but not as bad as South Carolina's Capital One Bowl this year.

So while the bowls seem to be drawing less attention, both attendance-wise and in the TV ratings, it's not as bad as some might make it seem by just looking at the BCS bowls. Get the right teams and your ratings might just stop dropping.

Four Alternates to the BCS, 2011 edition

Now that the season is over, let's take a look at four of the main anti-BCS post-season options that are on the table. A season-by-season listing is here, and generally we've found that no matter what other system is used, there's still BCS-type problems of exclusion, rematches, and inadequacy. Let's see if 2011 changes any of that...

2011 Final BCS Standings	Conference Champs	Relevant Bowls
1. LSU (13-0) 2. Alabama (11-1) 3. Oklahoma St (11-1) 4. Stanford (11-1) 5. Oregon (11-2) 6. Arkansas (10-2) 7. Boise St (11-1) 8. Kansas St (10-2) 9. South Carolina (10-2) 10. Wisconsin (11-2) 11. Virginia Tech (11-2) 12. Baylor (9-3)	ACC: Clemson Big10: Wisconsin Big12: Oklahoma St BigEast: West Virginia, Cincinnati, & Louisville Pac10: Oregon SEC: LSU	National Champ: #2 Alabama def #1 LSU, 21-0 Sugar: #13 Michigan def #11 Virginia Tech, 23-20 Rose: #5 Oregon def #10 Wisconsin, 45-38 Fiesta: #3 Oklahoma St def #4 Stanford, 41-38 Orange: #23 West Virginia def #15 Clemson, 70-33 --------------- Cotton: #6Arkansas def #8 Kansas St, 29-16

Plus-One Possibilities - w/ Bowl Results:
Alabama v Oklahoma St (v LSU?)
Of course it seems like a plus-one could be tacked on pretty easily this year - we had two matchups involving all four top-4 teams, so just let the winners, Alabama and Oklahoma State play each other. Right? In theory, yes. But there's a bit of a rub - LSU is #2 in the final polls, both AP and Coaches. So, technically, if we take the two highest ranked teams after the bowls, as some people describe the plus-one, then we'd be treated to a third game between Bama and LSU.

Plus-One Possibilities - Top 4:
#1 LSU v #4 Stanford, #2 Alabama v #3 Oklahoma State
This is pretty close to the best a top-4 Plus-one setup before the bowls can offer. But even then there are issues in that neither Stanford nor Alabama won their conference championships. A case can be made for Bama, but with Oregon sitting at #5 with the Pac12 championship and a head-to-head win over Stanford in their pocket, it'd be hard to say this worked fairly. (But if you include Oregon instead, you've got a rematch between the Tigers and Ducks from the regular season...) Lotsa issues here.

Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Conf Champs:
If you take the conf champs, you've got #1 LSU, #3 Oklahoma St, #5 Oregon, #10 Wisconsin, #11 Clemson, and #23 West Virginia. The two at-large would most fairly be #2 Alabama and #4 Stanford. But then you're leaving three teams better than half of the conference champs out, in #6 Arkansas, #7 Boise St, #8 Kansas St. Is it fair to leave them out of an 8-team playoff when they're all ranked in the top-8?

Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Top 8:
If you just take the top eight in the BCS rankings, you're only including 3 of the 6 BCS conference champs: Wisconsin of the Big10 is getting left out, which wouldn't work, as is Clemson of the ACC and West Virginia of the BigEast. Seven of the eight teams would be from 3 conferences (SEC, Pac12, and Big12).

____________________________________________________

I think it's safe to say that any of those four options produces just as much controversy as the BCS this season, continuing the trend.

It's Articles Like These...

...that give sports journalism a bad name. Look, Deford is basically an institution and has written a ton of interesting, insightful pieces over his many years. But there's just something about the BCS that turns normally rational, commendable sportswriters into foaming-at-the-mouth zealots. The poster child for this when it comes to the BCS is Dan Wetzel, who writes so prolifically that he's bound to throw out some less than stellar work. But his vendetta against the BCS hinges on hyperbole, leading to extreme pieces that resemble propoganda more than journalism.

We get it - a lot of people don't like the BCS. I'm no fan of the BCS either, but there's so much hatred of the system coming from some corners of the media that I feel compelled to push back toward the center. The BCS is not the devil incarnate. It's not a tragedy, a national embarrassment, or a hostage situation. Partly because it, and the national championship question in general, isn't as important as it's become in the past decade. There are good things about the BCS, and at times it does work, as much as those screaming from the press boxes want you to think that it doesn't. And most of all, the nearly consensus solution, a playoff, would be just as problematic.

So let's look at the Deford piece and break it down.

The Bowl Championship Series climaxes Monday with a game in New Orleans between Louisiana State and Alabama for the national bragging rights to Dixie. As there is a joke about the Holy Roman Empire, that it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire, so can the same be said about the Bowl Championship Series. It's not a bowl. - Sure it is. In the dictionary, 'a football game played after the regular season by teams selected by the sponsors of the game'. Yup - that fits. It's a game played in the Superdome. It's not a championship -- just an exhibition -- because the teams have been appointed to show up without earning the right to challenge for the title. - LSU and Alabama earned the right by finishing 1-2 in the end of the regular season polls. That's how the system works, even if you don't like it. And the winner will be recognized as a champion by the vast majority of the college football world, again even if you don't like it. And it's not a series because no team plays more than once. The 'series' refers to the five BCS bowl games, not a single matchup played multiple times. You're trying to get technical with all these cute definitions, but that can cut both ways. No wonder the BCS is so despised. Yeah, people hate the BCS because it's grammatically incorrect. That's it.

Remember Diogenes -- the guy who browsed around with a lantern looking for just one honest man? Well, I am the Diogenes of the BCS, for armed with a bullhorn and a searchlight, I've traveled this great land of ours, desperately hoping to find just a single fan of the BCS. But, alas, I've found nary a one. Bullshit. Did you talk to any of the bowl CEO's? Or fans in the SEC? How about the players on TCU's team who won the Rose Bowl last year and who otherwise wouldn't have had the chance to even play in Pasadena? You couldn't find a single person? Bullshit hyperbole that basically calls the rest of your piece into question. Still, we Americans continue, lobotomized, to accept the BCS as legitimate, when it's the goofiest competition this side of the Iowa caucuses and the People's Choice Awards. But ... but if we should just think about it for a moment and apply its arranged manipulations to other sports we could realize how unfair and imbecilic the Bowl Championship Series really is. That's the point - you can't compare it to any other sport or situation because it's completely different from anything else in major sports. That one fact basically makes your following hypotheticals completely pointless.

Consider: If the BCS ran the Olympics, the track and field 100-meter final would be held in September, six or seven weeks after the scheduled heats. You see, that is consistent with the cuckoo BCS scheduling. LSU's last game was on December 3rd, Alabama's way back in November, 45 days ago. Nowhere else in sport is there such a pointless, bizarre interval. Okay, 1) that's not a feature of the BCS, it's a feature of the bowl system that's been around for nearly a century. And 2) since you're a fan of getting technical, using your chosen metaphor, the Outdoor Track & Field Championship races to make the U.S. National Team, basically a semi-final for the Olympic final, are held anywhere from 6-10 weeks prior. This year they'll be held in late June, nearly 45 days before the London 2012 Olympics take place. So there's that.

If the BCS ran the NFL there would be no playoffs. Instead, a bunch of mysterious computers and some dubious experts -- many of whom have conflicts of interest -- would just declare which teams qualified for the Super Bowl ... then schedule the matchup forty-five days from now, of course. Again, with the hypotheticals. The reason college football needs rankings and computers is because they play too few games with too many competitors. The NFL has 32 teams, college football 120. The NFL has 16 games, college football 12-13. There's just not enough information to go on using straight W-L formulas like the NFL and other sports do.

If the BCS ran the World Series, tens of millions of dollars would still be made, and the leagues and the owners and the managers and everyone connected with the Series would be paid ... well everyone except for the players. But, you see, this is in keeping with the BCS rationale that players are actually much happier playing when they aren't burdened by making money. Of course, baseball boosters would slip some cash under the table to the major leaguers to make sure that amateurism remains pure. And again, this isn't a BCS issue - it's an NCAA one, and one that most of the representative schools just voted against at that. The conflation of the BCS and the NCAA is another little trick that gets used, but breaks down once readers realize that a change to one wouldn't necessarily result in a change to the other. Sure, go ahead and pay players millions of dollars - what does that have to do with the BCS?

If the BCS ran the World Cup, there would be no World Cup. Instead, there would just be a mind-numbing plethora of meaningless little soccer matches, international bowl games -- Demitasse Games -- you mean like the international "friendlies" they have now? played between disparate countries like Peru vs. Slovenia, scheduled at odd neutral sites like Sri Lanka. Now you're just being ridiculous. Even with all those friendlies, they still play the tournament. And the international rankings play a big part in how teams are selected to participate.

I hope you enjoy watching the arranged marriage that the BCS is putting on Tuesday. Is he being serious here? Sure people are going to tune in and enjoy the game - probably about 20 million people, including yourself I'm sure. And that's the whole point - it's going to be a fantastic matchup between two stellar teams, and even though they've played once already this year, leaving the whole championship question aside, why wouldn't people want to see them play again? Why do those who hate the BCS feel the need to drag the whole sport down when they could just as easily ignore the championship ramifications and focus on the more enjoyable aspects of the contest? I've said it a bunch before, but there's much more to college football than just the BCS.

2011 Top to Bottom

Alrighty, as we've done the past few years, we're going to break down each conference to see which ones were the most balanced, top to bottom.

As always, the premise is that the more often the team with fewer conference victories wins, which we’ll call a "Statistical Upset", the more balanced the conference. Basically, how often do the teams at the bottom upset the teams at the top? The maximum here is 50%, since it's impossible to have more than half of the games in a conference be upsets. The average over all conferences during the BCS era sits at about 13.6%. Below is the big parity table - the numbers in red are below average, blue are above, red shaded means that conference was the least balanced conference in any particular year, and blue shaded is the most balanced in any year.

% of Conf Games that were Statistical Upsets
Conf	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Conf Avg
ACC	006.3%	20.7%	005.9%	21.9%	11.8%	21.2%	13.2%	25.0%	18.6%	15.6%	29.0%	15.2%	12.5%	20.9%	17.0%
Pac10	008.1%	18.9%	16.1%	10.8%	12.5%	22.2%	007.9%	10.8%	28.9%	30.0%	14.0%	22.0%	14.6%	16.0%	16.6%
CUSA	009.1%	004.5%	16.7%	15.6%	20.0%	007.5%	18.2%	21.4%	21.3%	13.6%	14.6%	20.0%	20.9%	12.8%	15.4%
SunBelt	0	0	0	11.8%	11.1%	11.8%	26.9%	23.8%	16.0%	12.5%	16.7%	005.9%	29.0%	000.0%	15.0%
Big10	008.1%	16.7%	21.6%	29.7%	007.3%	007.9%	12.5%	005.4%	005.1%	19.4%	13.2%	20.0%	17.9%	15.6%	14.3%
Year Avg	009.8%	16.0%	12.4%	14.5%	10.7%	13.2%	13.4%	15.3%	16.2%	17.8%	13.2%	12.6%	14.1%	11.1%	13.6%
MAC	11.1%	16.0%	18.6%	15.9%	007.1%	11.3%	007.5%	19.0%	13.6%	22.0%	10.6%	10.0%	10.2%	11.8%	13.2%
Big12	009.3%	009.5%	006.5%	10.9%	11.4%	15.6%	14.0%	20.0%	20.9%	19.5%	002.6%	15.6%	18.4%	009.3%	13.1%
MtnWest	0	25.0%	20.8%	007.7%	15.4%	20.8%	12.0%	21.9%	15.2%	11.8%	002.9%	000.0%	003.2%	000.0%	12.1%
BigEast	008.3%	007.7%	003.8%	000.0%	003.8%	11.5%	14.3%	008.3%	20.0%	30.4%	12.5%	008.7%	20.8%	17.4%	12.0%
SEC	006.3%	12.8%	14.0%	18.6%	11.4%	004.7%	007.0%	009.3%	13.0%	20.9%	19.0%	15.4%	007.0%	006.5%	11.8%
WAC	008.3%	27.3%	12.5%	16.2%	005.7%	10.3%	13.9%	003.2%	005.9%	000.0%	009.7%	006.3%	000.0%	16.7%	009.7%
BigWest	23.1%	16.7%	000.0%	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	13.2%

On the whole, this was the stablest inter-conference year we've had since 2002. The average number of upsets per conference was just over 5, or an 11.1% average. The highest was the ACC's 20.9%, which is the second-lowest high of the BCS era, and we had not one but two conferences with zero upsets.

Let's look at the individual conferences for 2011.

Games shaded blue are ones in which the team with more conference victories won, red are ones in which the team with more conference victories lost, and green are ones between teams with the same number of conference victories. The numbers represent the margin of victory (or loss, if the number is negative) for the team listed in the farthest left-hand row.

ACC 2011 - 20.9% upsets
Conf Standings	Clem	VA Tech	FL St	GATech	Virginia	Wake F	NCState	BC	Miami	UNC	Duke	MD
Clemson (7-2)		20	5	-14		3	-24	22		21		11
VA Tech (7-2)	-20			11	38	21		16	3	3	4
Florida St (5-3)	-5				-1	-5	34	31	4		25	25
GA Tech (5-3)	14	-11			-3		10		-17	7	7	5
Virginia (5-3)		-3	1	3			-14		7	-11	10	18
Wake F (5-3)	-3	-21	5				7	8		-25	1	21
NC State (4-4)	24		-34	-10	14	-7		-4		13		15
BC (3-5)	-22	-16	-31			-8	4		7		-1	11
Miami FL (3-5)		-3	-4	17	-7			-7		6	35	-8
N Carolina (3-5)	-21	-3		-7	11	25	-13		-6		16
Duke (1-7)		-4	-25	-7	-10	-1		1	-35	-16
Maryland (1-7)	-11		-25	-5	-18	-21	-15	-11	8

After being under average last year, the ACC rebounded with a slew of medium-sized upsets. NC State over Clemson was the biggest of the bunch, not only because the Tigers were the conference champs but because of the absolute beatdown the game was - a 24 point whuppin'. The Wolfpack had their hands in two other upsets as well, defeating Virginia but losing to Boston College.

BigEast 2011 - 17.4% upsets
Conf Standings	WestVA	Cincy	L'vlle	Pitt	Rutg	UConn	USF	Syrac
W Virginia (5-2)		3	-3	1	10	27	3	-26
Cincinnati (5-2)	-3		9	3	-17	8	3	17
Louisville (5-2)	3	-9		-7	2	14	10	17
Pitt (4-3)	-1	-3	7		-24	15	27	13
Rutgers (4-3)	-10	17	-2	24		-18	3	3
UConn (3-4)	-27	-8	-14	-15	18		6	7
USF (1-6)	-3	-3	-10	-27	-3	-6		20
Syracuse (1-6)	26	-17	-17	-13	-3	-7	-20

Another good year in the BigEast, quite exciting right up until the end. That corner game is huge - that was one of West Virginia's two conference losses, and Syracuse's only conference win - the Mountaineers are lucky it didn't ruin their BCS chances.

WAC 2011 - 16.7% upsets
Conf Standings	LATech	Nevada	UtahSt	FresSt	Hawaii	SanJSt	NMexSt	Idaho
LA Tech (6-1)		4	7	20	-18	10	44	13
Nevada (5-2)	-4		-4	7	14	3	14	53
Utah St (5-2)	-7	4		-10	4	1	3	7
Fresno St (3-4)	-20	-7	10		3	-3	-3	24
Hawaii (3-4)	18	-14	-4	-3		-1	11	2
San Jose St (3-4)	-10	-3	-1	3	1		10	-3
New Mex St (2-5)	-44	-14	-3	3	-11	-10		7
Idaho (1-6)	-13	-53	-7	-24	-2	3	-7

The only thing more interesting in this conference than Louisiana Tech rising to the top was their loss to 3-4 Hawaii - big one there. Most of the teams were bunched up in the middle of the conference, which always makes for a higher average. 16.7% is the most balanced the WAC has been since 1999 and the first time since 2004 that they've been in double digits. Nice.

Pac12 2011 - 16.0% upsets
Conf Standings	Oregon	Stanfd	USC	Wash	UCLA	Cal	ArizSt	Utah	OreSt	Ariz	WashSt	Colo
Oregon (9-1)		23	-3	17	18	28	14		28	25	15	43
Stanford (8-1)	-23		8	44	26	3			25	27	30	41
USC (7-2)	3	-8		23	50	21	-21	9		7		25
Washington (5-4)	-17	-44	-23			8		17	-17	11	17	28
UCLA (5-5)	-18	-26	-50			17	1	-25	8	-36	3	39
Cal (4-5)	-28	-3	-21	-8	-17		9	24	17		23
Arizona St (4-5)	-14		21		-1	-9		21	15	-4	-10	34
Utah (4-5)			-9	-17	25	-24	-21		19	13	3	-3
Oregon St (3-6)	-28	-25		17	-8	-17	-15	-19		10	23
Arizona (2-7)	-25	-27	-7	-11	36		4	-13	-10			-19
Wash St (2-7)	-15	-30		-17	-3	-23	10	-3	-23			4
Colorado (2-7)	-43	-41	-25	-28	-39		-34	3		19	-4

Even with the addition of Utah and Colorado, there was the usual amount of chaos in the Pac12 - this is their sixth year above average, averaging nearly 21% in that span. None of the upsets were all that huge, but there were a lot of them and a good number of teams bunched up in the middle of the pack. Arizona State, the disappointment of the year in the conference, had their hand in three of the upsets, beating USC but losing to Arizona and Washington St.

Big10 2011 - 15.6% upsets
Conf Standings	Wisc	Mich St	Mich	PennSt	Nebras	Iowa	Purdue	NWest	OhioSt	Illi	Minn	Indi
Wisconsin (7-2)		-6		38	31		45		-4	11	29	52
Michigan St (7-2)	6		14		-21	16		14	3		7	52
Michigan (6-2)		-14			28	-8	22	18	6	17	58
Penn St (6-2)	-38				-3	10	5	10	6	3		6
Nebraska (5-3)	-31	21	-28	3		13		-3	7		27
Iowa (4-4)		-16	8	-10	-13		10	10			-1	21
Purdue (4-4)	-45		-22	-5		-10			3	7	28	8
N'western (3-5)		-14	-18	-10	3	-10				-3	15	21
Ohio St (3-5)	4	-3	-6	-6	-7		-3			10		14
Illinois (2-6)	-11		-17	-3			-7	3	-10		-20	21
Minn (2-6)	-29	-7	-58		-27	1	-28	-15		20
Indiana (0-8)	-52	-52		-6		-21	-8	-21	-14	-21

Ohio State's win over Wisconsin stands out here in a big way, even though it was a close game. Not too many games between similar teams and some mid-level upsets made this an interesting season with the new-look of Nebraska added in. It was a rocky first year for the Huskers, who were involved in three of the upsets, losing to Northwestern but beating Penn St and Michigan St.

CUSA 2011 - 12.8% upsets
Conf Standings	Houst	Tulsa	S Miss	Marsh	SMU	E Car	UAB	UCF	Rice	UTEP	Memph	Tulane
Houston (8-1)		32	-21	35	30	53	43		39	7		56
Tulsa (7-1)	-32			42	31		17	7	18	29		28
S Miss (7-2)	21			-6	24	20	-3	1	24	18	37
Marshall (5-3)	-35	-42	6			7	45	-10	4		1
SMU (5-3)	-30	-31	-24					21	3	11	42	21
E Carolina (4-4)	-53		-20	-7			5	7		-5	18	21
UAB (3-5)	-43	-17	3	-45		-5		2			6	-39
UCF (3-5)		-7	-1	10	-21	-7	-2			17	41
Rice (3-5)	-39	-18	-24	-4	-3					4	22	12
UTEP (2-6)	-7	-29	-18		-11	5		-17	-4			37
Memphis (1-7)			-37	-1	-42	-18	-6	-41	-22			16
Tulane (1-7)	-56	-28			-21	-21	39		-12	-37	-16

Not too many upsets in the CUSA this season, but enough to put it at a little over average. Obviously the biggest was Southern Miss over Houston, but statistically it's not that significant because the two of them were only separated by two games in the standings.

MAC 2011 - 11.8% upsets
Conf Standings	N Ill	Tledo	Ohio	Templ	W Mich	Ball St	E Mich	Kent	Bowl G	Miami	Buff	C Mich	Akron
N Illinois (8-1)		3	3		29	3	6	30	31		1	-7
Toledo (7-1)	-3			23	3	17	38		7	21		27
Ohio (6-3)	-3			4		-3		7	1	7	-1	15	17
Temple (5-3)		-23	-4			42		18	-3	3	34	38
W Mich (5-3)	-29	-3				10	-4		24	3		30	49
Ball St (4-4)	-3	-17	3	-42	-10		2				3	4
E Mich (4-4)	-6	-38			4	-2		-6			13	7	8
Kent (4-4)	-30		-7	-18			6		12	-6		3	32
B Green (3-5)	-31	-7	-1	3	-24			-12		14	14
Miami OH (3-5)		-21	-7	-3	-3			6	-14		28		32
Buffalo (2-6)	-1		1	-34		-3	-13		-14	-28			41
C Mich (2-6)	7	-27	-15		-30	-4	-7	-3					41
Akron (0-8)			-17	-38	-49		-8	-32		-32	-41	-1

Central Michigan over Northern Illinois - how did that happen? Buffalo over Ohio was a close second for upset of the conference season.

Big12 2011 - 9.3% upsets
Conf Standings	OK St	KS St	Baylor	Okla	Mizzou	Texas	TX A&M	Iowa St	TX Tech	Kansas
Oklahoma St (8-1)		7	35	34	21	12	1	-6	60	42
Kansas St (7-2)	-7		1	-41	7	4	3	7	7	38
Baylor (6-3)	-35	-1		7	3	24	-27	23	24	1
Oklahoma (6-3)	-34	41	-7		10	38	16	20	-3	30
Missouri (5-4)	-21	-7	-3	-10		12	7	35	4	14
Texas (4-5)	-12	-4	-24	-38	-12		2	23	32	43
Texas A&M (4-5)	-1	-3	27	-16	-7	-2		16	5	54
Iowa St (3-6)	6	-7	-23	-20	-35	-23	-16		34	3
Texas Tech (2-7)	-60	-7	-24	3	-4	-32	-5	-34		11
Kansas (0-9)	-42	-38	-1	-30	-14	-43	-54	-3	-11

Only four upsets in the Big12 this season, but they were all doozies - Iowa State over Oklahoma State is there, as is Texas A&M over Baylor and Texas Tech over Oklahoma. Even Oklahoma over Kansas State is noteworthy because of the sheer point differential.

SEC 2010 - 6.5% upsets
Conf Standings	LSU	Bama	UGA	Ark	SoCar	Aubrn	Fla	Kenty	MissSt	Vandy	Tenn	Miss
LSU (9-0)		3	32	24		35	30	28	13		31	49
Alabama (7-1)	-3			24		28	28		17	34	31	45
Georgia (7-2)	-32				-3	38	4	9	14	5	8	14
Arkansas (6-2)	-24	-24			16	24			27	3	42	5
S Carolina (6-2)			3	-16		-3	5	51	2	18	11
Auburn (4-4)	-35	-28	-38	-24	3		11		7			18
Florida (3-5)	-30	-28	-4		-5	-11		38		5	10
Kentucky (2-6)	-28		-9		-51		-38		-12	-30	3	17
Miss St (2-6)	-13	-17	-14	-27	-2	-7		12				28
Vanderbilt (2-6)		-34	-5	-3	-18		-5	30			-6	23
Tennessee (1-7)	-31	-31	-8	-42	-11		-10	-3		6
Ole Miss (0-8)	-49	-45	-14	-5		-18		-17	-28	23

Another unbalanced year in the SEC - this is their second in a row in the single digits. Just three statistical upsets, and none of them noteworthy. Auburn had the roughest go of it, playing the 6 toughest teams in the conference, while Georgia avoided the 3 best teams in the West until meeting LSU in the championship.

MtnWest 2011 - 0.0% upsets
Conf Standings	TCU	BoiseSt	Wyom	SanDSt	AForce	ColoSt	NewMex	UNLV
TCU (7-0)		1	11	13	16	24	69	47
Boise St (6-1)	-1		22	17	11	50	45	27
Wyoming (5-2)	-11	-22		3	8	3	21	27
San Diego St (4-3)	-13	-17	-3		14	3	28	17
Air Force (3-4)	-16	-11	-8	-14		24	42	28
Colorado St (1-6)	-24	-50	-3	-3	-24		4	-3
New Mexico (1-6)	-69	-45	-21	-28	-42	-4		7
UNLV (1-6)	-47	-27	-27	-17	-28	3	-7

No upsets in the MtnWest this season, but Colorado State's loss to UNLV did create a three-way tie for last place. Even adding Boise State into the conference didn't shake things up at all.

SunBelt 2011 - 0.0% upsets
Conf Standings	ArkSt	WKU	LA-Laf	FlaIntl	NTexas	LA-Mon	Troy	MTSU	FlaAtl
Arkansas St (8-0)		4	9	18	23	5	31	26	18
Western Kentucky (7-1)	-4		19	1	10	3	23	3	20
LA-Lafayette (6-2)	-9	-19		5	20	1	14	25	3
Florida Int'l (5-3)	-18	-1	-5		25	11	3	13	34
N Texas (4-4)	-23	-10	-20	-25		17	5	52	14
LA-Monroe (3-5)	-5	-3	-1	-11	-17		28	28	26
Troy (2-6)	-31	-23	-14	-3	-5	-28		3	27
Mid TN St (1-7)	-26	-3	-25	-13	-52	-28	-3		24
Florida Atl (0-8)	-18	-20	-3	-34	-14	-26	-27	-24

And a year after posting the most balanced conference ever at 29%, the SunBelt goes perfectly unbalanced. Fascinating.