Holiday wishes for the BCS

For more than a week the national media has been so preoccupied with the antics of Joe Horn and Joe Namath that it has allowed the BCS and the football rankings controversy to drop clean off the radar screen.

This is a temporary oversight, of course.

As the big bowl games draw nearer the hype will build, passions will re-ignite, and sports talk shows will be inundated with calls from computer-phobes everywhere.

Before that happens, while our biggest problems are finding a parking space at the mall and deciding between another drumstick or a slab of ham, I'd like to include the BCS in a Nemeth family tradition and offer several Holiday wishes on its behalf.

The First Wish

Although I have nothing against either LSU or USC and believe both have excellent chances of winning their bowl games, my wish for the BCS is that Oklahoma and Michigan take care of business in their respective games. Those two victories would vindicate the computers completely and would end the inane chatter about a split championship.

The Second Wish

I wish someone would write the illustrated and annotated Idiot's Guide to Understanding the BCS Algorithm and then have the charity to distribute it free of charge to every anchor, sportscaster and commentator at ESPN and Fox Sports. Education is the antidote to ignorance.

The Third Wish

I wish that Mike Tranghese would hire a good PR person to tell the BCS story. He has been timid, passive and almost apologetic in its defense. In case Mike isn't aware of them, I have outlined the BCS' accomplishments below.

1. The subjective and chronically inaccurate polls have been supplanted by an objective ranking mechanism. When Max Kellerman of ESPN made this comment on the radio today I nearly lost control of my car. Maybe people are finally getting it.

2. The archaic bowl structure of the past has been replaced by four competitive contests in the biggest bowl games. We finally have something to look forward to other than the parades.

3. The subjective and arbitrary selection of a national champion has been replaced --at least nominally -- by a national championship game.

The Fourth Wish

As progressive as these changes are, there is more room for improvement. I wish the BCS could build consensus around an improved ranking algorithm, one which better reflects comparative strength of schedule. And I wish the Division I college presidents --the obstacles to a playoff system -- could be questioned in a national "town meeting" about why Division II and Division III can manage football playoffs but Division I can't. Throw in a few questions about why Division I can stage an annual extravaganza for basketball but not for football, and you've got a great viewing event.

The Fifth Wish

At the height of the furor over the BCS bowl assignments, Dick Vitale intimated that basketball was more advanced than football because of its annual championship tournament. Unfortunately, Dick, a tournament is but one piece --and not the most important piece -- of a good system for determining the national champion. A comprehensive and fair system would have all three of the following components.

1. An objective and ruthlessly unbiased (i.e. computerized) ranking system. Football has the BCS; basketball only has the polls. Already this season 15 different teams have been ranked in the top eight positions of the basketball polls and four teams have been ranked number one -- in just five weeks of play! Obviously the voters have no clue as to who is good and who is not. Advantage: football.

2. Seeds for post-season play are derived directly from the objective rankings mentioned above. Football already does this. Basketball, on the other hand, has a selection committee that conducts secret proceedings behind closed doors like some political machine straight out of the '30s. For lack of objective guidance, the committee relies heavily on the polls. Last year they filled 15 of the top 16 seeds in the tournament with teams ranked in the top 16 in the polls. The lone exception was the award of a fourth seed to 18th ranked Stanford rather than to 15th ranked Creighton. Deciding where teams should play to generate the most revenue apparently consumed most of their deliberations. Advantage: football.

3. A tournament designed to elevate the most deserving champion. Football has its two-team, one-game "playoff" that satisfies no one other than the winning team. At the other extreme, basketball has a grotesquely bloated and seriously flawed tournament. The 64-team, single-elimination, best-plays-worst format of the basketball tournament does a great job of broadening the fan base and generating revenues, but it does a poor job of ensuring we get the best possible champion. And it does nothing to identify the best team in the country. Sorry, Mr. Vitale, but basketball has no advantage here.

So my final wish during this Holiday Season, is that basketball becomes enlightened enough someday to adopt a BCS-like system for determining its national champions.

Now I'll have that drumstick... and pass the dressing, please... and save me a big slice of pecan pie, a la mode.