There’s a BCS post up at The Wiz of Odds that I’m half-in and half-out with. I can only marvel along with the Wiz as the BCS surrounds itself with former Bush administration communication hacks like Ari Fleischer and Trent Duffy.
On the other hand, I don’t get his logic behind questioning the Fiesta Bowl matchup (and in his defense, he’s far from alone in expressing that).
Instead of having David vs. Goliath matchups involving say, Boise State-Iowa and TCU-Georgia Tech, the BCS decided to go for a David vs. David matchup of the Horned Frogs and Broncos.
This, of course, was a way to sidestep controversy should the Davids beat the Goliaths.
What controversy? Who’s the David here anyway? Boise and TCU are both higher ranked than Georgia Tech and Iowa. The Fiesta is a better matchup than the alternatives he’s proposing. And, as we’ve been reminded plenty of times in the debate, it’s not like mid-majors haven’t won BCS games before. So what’s to be gained exactly by swapping the players around like that?
If we’re going to play the controversy game, what should we expect to hear from people if the Fiesta turns out to be a disappointing draw (something I don’t expect, at least on television, by the way)? Part of me thinks this is what much of the complaining is about, that the BCS is calling the “fairness” bluff made by people like Orrin Hatch. To me, that misses the point about what an opportunity this can be for the mid-majors. If the Fiesta winds up being a great game that draws well, I suspect it will catapult the winner into serious consideration for a national title shot next season. And that will be great.
But that’s not the strangest point made in his post. This is:
… The Florida-Cincinnati matchup in the Sugar Bowl lost its luster Thursday when Brian Kelly decided to become Notre Dame’s coach. He won’t be around for the bowl, meaning he values his new gig more than coaching an undefeated team in a lousy BCS game.
One has to wonder if Kelly would have coached the Bearcats if they were playing in the BCS title game.
I’m not sure if the argument there is whether Cinci got screwed with its Sugar Bowl invite, or that if there were playoffs, coaches wouldn’t leave their programs in the lurch during the postseason. The former’s a matter of opinion, of course (I think TCU’s better than Cincinnati, if we’re going down that road), but the latter point I don’t get at all. Does anyone really think that an upwardly mobile coach like Brian Kelly, who gets offered the best job of his life, refuses to take it so he can get ready to play a, say, number fourteen seed in a sixteen-team tournament? (That’s not to say he might not ask for a delay, but Notre Dame’s not a place that’s going to wait for an answer.)
Like I said, maybe I misunderstand his point, but it really seems like sometimes people see a playoff as being the solution to everything.