Friday, Dec. 12, 2003 | 10:30 a.m.
Dean Juipe's column appears Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. His boxing notebook appears Thursday. Reach him at [email protected] or (702) 259-4084.
Inundated as we all have been this week with musings on the flawed Bowl Championship Series and the obstinate, almost Neanderthal resistance college presidents have toward crowning a legitimate national champion, it has taken some time to digest.
At least laymen have found that there is a unanimity in their opinions: Something needs to be done.
But there is a disheartening rejoinder as well: Nothing may happen.
Retaining the status quo, mindless as it is, is at least as likely as the system overhaul that many fans, columnists and observers have been calling for in the wake of the announcement last Sunday that this season's supposed championship game will fail to have the nation's No. 1-ranked team as a participant.
And for the eighth time in 33 years, there is a very real possibility that the season will end with not one but two "mythical" national champions -- which is not only an unacceptable result but one the BCS, in theory, is duty bound to avoid.
As it stands, No. 1 Southern California and No. 4 Michigan will play in the Jan. 1 Rose Bowl, and No. 2 Louisiana State and No. 3 Oklahoma will play in the designated BCS title game, the Jan. 4 Sugar Bowl.
Oklahoma vs. LSU is the BCS title game because Oklahoma finished in the No. 1 spot in the final BCS standings in spite of the fact the Sooners lost the Big 12 title game to Kansas State last weekend. Never mind that the Sooners are coming off a loss and deserved to be decked a spot or two (as they were in the AP poll), the BCS computer says they're still No. 1 and that LSU is No. 2 even if USC is No. 1 according to the humans who vote in the wire-service poll.
The downfalls are obvious: USC can win its game and complete a 12-1 season atop the Associated Press poll without gaining the satisfaction of receiving the trophy that the coaches' association bestows upon the champion. That trophy, as well as a spot atop the coaches' (i.e. USA Today) poll, will automatically be awarded to the LSU vs. Oklahoma winner.
It's shades of 1970 (Nebraska and Texas), 1973 (Notre Dame and Alabama), 1974 (Oklahoma and USC), 1978 (Alabama and USC), 1990 (Colorado and Georgia Tech), 1991 (Miami and Washington) and 1997 (Michigan and Nebraska) as the 2003 season will likely end without a clear, distinct champion.
It wouldn't be this way, of course, if the school presidents who ultimately decide such things would bend a bit and relent by simply allowing a game to be played (annually, or only in the years when it is necessary) after the traditional bowl games have been held. If that method of determining a champion were in place today, the winners of the Rose and Sugar bowls would meet a week later to settle the issue of which team is truly No. 1.
And college football would have its badly needed "Super Bowl."
I recall writing years ago that most of us would live to see the day when such a system was in place, but there is no sign of it yet and the current system cannot be altered until the 2006 season. Consequently, with the mess yet to be unraveled, those of us who believed a solution was within sight have attended a few funerals and seen our ranks thinned.
There was some speculation this week that a meeting between a couple of BCS bigwigs and the ABC television network had a secretive side to it that included a discussion on organizing an impromptu game between the Rose and Sugar bowl winners early next year. But that notion was publicly dismissed by the parties involved.
Without proper approval, throwing together a post-bowl title game would be living a little too dangerously for the teams and the network involved, as the potential for sanctions or negative repercussions would equalize if not outweigh the advantages of actually holding the game.
There's a feeling that the college presidents are so reluctant to add another game -- even if it's the ultimate game -- that they may have to be coerced into rectifying the situation. But I think they know the financial incentives for such a game are already more or less in place, and I think they're holding back from agreeing to the game as if it's a well-guarded ace they have yet to play.
They're going to play that ace someday. I swear they're going to.
And when they do, those who are alive to see it will look back to the era in which we live today and refer to it with a Dark Ages-like simile or two. 5USC can win its game and complete a 12-1 season atop the Associated Press poll without gaining the satisfaction of receiving the trophy that the coaches' association bestows upon the champion.
archive
