Yet another BCS whiff: Alabama’s brand burns the Cowboys
Maybe there'll be a touchdown scored the second time around. Then again ... (AP photo)
Nobody ever said the BCS made sense, and this year it makes less sense than … well, can you make less sense than zero? Alabama did not win its division and did not win its conference but could well be the national champion in a sport where we’re told Every Game Counts.
Actually, what this year’s serving of BCS glop tells us is that it’s good to have an aura. Nick Saban has an aura, albeit one of fire and brimstone, which means Alabama has an aura, which means Alabama got a nod it didn’t deserve.
Bama played its two toughest conference games — LSU and Arkansas — at home. It didn’t play either Georgia or South Carolina, the best teams in the SEC East. It played five teams that finished with a winning record, and one was Georgia Southern. The Tide beat three teams that finished the Top 25 of the BCS standings.
Oklahoma State played four such teams and won all four games. It played seven teams that finished with winning records. The Cowboys did, for mavens of minutiae, win their conference title. The knock on them is that they lost to unranked Iowa State. But they did lose on the road, and in overtime.
Alabama, the counter-argument goes, only lost in OT to the nation’s No. 1 team. But Alabama lost at home. Alabama was favored that night and couldn’t win. But because Alabama is coached by the dark lord Saban and because Alabama is from the SEC, which is the feeder league for BCS titlists, the Tide gets a second chance.
And this time the talking heads on ESPN, who make less sense with every week, had no problem with the concept of a rematch or the reality of a non-conference champion playing for the BCS crown. (Oddly enough, some of those same voices hooted down Georgia’s credentials in 2007. “Can’t consider a team that didn’t win its conference,” the ESPN choir harrumphed.) And Saturday night, moments after Oklahoma State finished routing Oklahoma, which entered the season ranked No. 1, some ESPN boys leaped at the chance to say, “Ah, that doesn’t really matter.”
“SportsCenter” opened with the highlights of the SEC title game and then Oklahoma State’s dismissal of its bitter rival. Then the Bristol anchors tossed, as they say in TV, to Brent Musburger and Kirk Herbstreit. Musburger, who had famously lobbied for Georgia Tech to be promoted above Colorado to No. 1 when calling Tech’s victory in the Citrus Bowl in January 1991, started with a little joke. What’s wrong with a rematch, he asked, and cited the extremely appropriate case study of Rocky Balboa versus Apollo Creed.
Then Herbstreit dismissed Oklahoma State by saying the Cowboys had lost in Ames, Iowa, and, more to the point, didn’t pass “the eyeball test.” Which made you wonder: How could Kirk Herbstreit know just how Oklahoma State had looked against Oklahoma? He (and Musburger) had been sitting in a booth in Charlotte, N.C., calling the ACC title game.
Because big-time college football has no playoff grid, ephemeral stuff like “the eyeball test” and someone’s opinion — yours, mine and especially Kirk Herbstreit’s — are allowed to hold disproportionate sway. Alabama won’t be playing for the (exceedingly mythical) national championship because it had a better season than Oklahoma State but because its has the stronger brand. It’s Alabama. It plays in the SEC. It’s coached by Saban. Good enough for me! Give that team a second chance!
And that’s what big-time college football has become — a game of brands, not reality. Is it mere coincidence that ESPN has a 15-year contract to carry SEC games? (ESPN also has a contract with the Big 12, Oklahoma State’s diminishing league, but the bigger Big 12 package is with Fox Sports.)
This was a year when opinion mattered. Five of the seven computer rankings had Oklahoma State above Alabama, but the Tide finished ahead in both human polls. Why? Because of the brand. You cannot tell me that if Alabama’s name were attached to Oklahoma State’s body of work and vice versa that the results wouldn’t have been different. We all know they would have.
And now we’re faced with this scenario: A winner of nothing save some eyeball test can split two games against another team … and be declared national champ. Some “system” this is.
By Mark Bradley
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,739 comments Add your comment
13andcounting
December 5th, 2011
2:05 am
Hey BC$ Slave. You are the pathetic one. What you think or say on here is not going to change anything. Did you know that? So turn off your TV when the Big Boys of college football come on and watch your weak team. Roll Tide!!!!!!!!!!
Tide Rising
December 5th, 2011
2:05 am
What you can’t seem to comprehend is that in the NFL…those “wild card” slots are based on WON LOSS RECORDS. Will that work in college football? NO.
Are you just stupid? So Bamas 11 and 1 WON LOSS record wouldnt work in a college system at large bid in the same way that a wild card slot based on WON LOSS works in the pros? Gawd that is dumb.Do you actually read the nonsense you write?
Tide Rising
December 5th, 2011
2:09 am
Oh lawdy,
BCS slave thinks that an 11 and 1 won loss record wouldnt work in college for an at large bid in the same way that wild cards in the pros work because they are determined by won loss records. You cant make this stuff up. He actually said that.
BC$ Slave
December 5th, 2011
2:09 am
Tide:
You convienently omit the one thing I said that matters: there will always be debate about the big boy conferences. As I said…no system is perfect. Most anything would be better than the BC$ and our MNC.
It is a fact…A FACT…if you want to play in the playoffs then your team must be good enough to win out. Seems to me improvment would be required under that scenario.
And I didn’t say that we should “shorten the football season.” I said if you want to expand the playoffs to allow every conference in…then you could shorten the REGULAR SEASON. The season would actually get longer if you have 10 to 12 team playoff. No money lost…money gained.
There is no argument you can make that I haven’t considered.
Your problem is you totally miss the point of my argument.
That’s what koolaid does to you.
You must be getting sleepy.
Realist
December 5th, 2011
2:11 am
Wow, BC$, you have now gone off the rails. Trust me, Bama fans think they can beat anyone, anywhere, anytime. They aren’t scared of BCS, the Bowl Alliance, or the old conference tie in method, cause they have won championships under all those. And they aren’t scared of a playoff, cause they know they will remain competitive in that system as well.
Your silly insistence on having no wild cards goes against every other team sport I can think of in the US. The NFL, NBA, MLB, MLS, NHL, etc., all have teams that don’t win their conference or division in the playoffs. And before you trot out the “but they do it on won/loss records”, well, not always. They have tie breakers! In MLB, it is a playoff. However, in the NFL there are rules set by the league office that take into account exactly the things you hate like “strength of schedule”! So, again, think outside the box. Take 6 conference champs, the two best teams outside of that, be they smaller conference champs (like TCU) or great teams who didn’t win their conference (like Stanford or Alabama). Stop making this harder than it needs to be.
BC$ Slave
December 5th, 2011
2:11 am
13:
I know you understand pathetic.
Why then are you here?
Tide Rising
December 5th, 2011
2:11 am
Ian Hodson,
Dawgs are irrelevant. Sit down and shut up you one national championship 31 years ago losers.
I am out. You just cant reason with these idiot dawg fans. On top of being losers there just plain damn stupid.
Tide Rising
December 5th, 2011
2:15 am
bcs slave,
Your problem is that all of the major pro sports have a system that includes at large bids or wild cards based on won loss records- same as what I advocate. And so do the other major college sports such as b ball and baseball. You are the only person that doesnt believe in at large bids and clings to this nonsense about only conference champions going to a playoff. The reality is that all the major pro sports as well as the other major college sports vindicate my method of allowing for at large bids. None are on your side sir. You are just plain wrong. Deal with it and move on. Nighty night.
Tide Rising
December 5th, 2011
2:17 am
bcs slave,
But of course. All the major sports and the other major college sports which all provide for wild cards or at large bids based on won loss records are all wrong. And of course you who advocates conference champions only in a playoff system are right.
I will no longer insult your intelligence by suggesting that your mind actually believes the nonsense you have been writing. Nighty night.
Tide Rising
December 5th, 2011
2:18 am
bcs slave,
But of course. The major pro sports and all the other major college sports which all account for at large bids are all wrong. And you who advocates for conference champions only in a playoff are right. Otay.
BC$ Slave
December 5th, 2011
2:19 am
Tide:
The NFL and college football are two very different animals.
How many teams have a won/loss record of 11-1 each year? Across how many conferences?
How many teams have a record of 10-2? How can your determine which of those many teams with the same records are worthy of being in the MNC?
In pro ball…won/loss records come first, then a series of tiebreakers determine the wild card.
Can that same system be implemented in college? No.
So we are left with the current BC$ system.
Right now…biased voters determine rankings which may or may not get you into the MNC. It is a subjective and often corrupted thing.
Are you really going to make the moronic argument that the NFL and college football can operate the same way?
That’s why I advocate conference champs going to a playoff to determine a champion. That is the only way we GET RID OF RANKINGS.
And you didn’t address my question. Are you afraid Alabama can’t cut winning the conference enough to play for a NC? Are you worried about giving up the advantage you have with voter bias?
BC$ Slave
December 5th, 2011
2:23 am
Tide:
One last thing before I sign off for the night.
If this blog were the SEC championship…
I’d be winning the game 56-0.
I’ve enjoyed the discussion…at least until the name calling began.
Peace.
Sargent Carter
December 5th, 2011
2:24 am
Coaches poll, have some GUTS…let SEC winner LSU-Bama be one champ, Oklahoma State be the other, mail it in, where is the love, the BCS, not seeking the glory and guts forever, obviously not on the playing field, but obviously, the TV ratings and the unlimited dollars that has made college football a victim of tv networks and prostitution of the college presidents, who spin off their players and coaches and tell them to be chaste unto ventured slaves of the BCS plantations of America..can you really blame an athlete who sells his ring…..the comedy/trajedy continues…for every Mom who sees her son on an NFL Sunday, there are 1000’s who view their son’s otherwise…who really cares bout this game, aside from someone who doesn’t care bout those used up athletes?….coaches makin’ 4 million year?…they r saintly
Bud
December 5th, 2011
2:26 am
Alabama has no reason to apologize. In basketball, a sport in which the champion has in the past not won its conference, not won its conference tournament, but has won the NCAA championship, and all anyone says is congratulations. I know you will at least basketball has a playoff, the champion is determined on the court, but I say the two best teams are playing for the title, on the field no less, and thats the way it should be.
BC$ Slave
December 5th, 2011
2:29 am
Realist:
In answer to your question…if you can find a way to determine with certainty how to rank teams according to how good they are…then no…the FCS is not fair.
But humans or even computers can’t account for all the variables that make a team win or lose.
They can’t account for heart…for hard work…for attitude.
So given that…would a playoff with conference champs be fair…even if a 5-5 team got in? YES.
It’s the best we’d have to work with.
You can be sure…if that 5-5 team is as bad as their record…they’d be out soon enough.
Rob
December 5th, 2011
2:39 am
Awesome. Guess my post disappeared somewhere in cyberspace.
Rob
December 5th, 2011
3:04 am
Slave: I just have to toss my two cents in as another one who thinks you’re insane. Unfortunately, I’ve read the last few pages of your posts, and your playoff plans make no sense. That’s probably why not one single person has stepped in to support your ideas. At this point it sounds like you’re just grasping at straws. You somehow try to justify the crazy things you’ve written when questioned about the details, but at this point you just come across like a 7 year old on a school playground trying to make your argument for why Superman is better than Batman.
Anyway, I’m out for the night but I’ll be back later. In the meantime, can you answer some questions for me? If it’s obvious, as it was this year, that the best two teams in the land are from the same conference, even the same division, thus one is unable to even play for the conference title, how can you possibly keep that other team out of the playoffs? In some cases the best three-four teams in the nation might be from the same conference. How on earth would it be fair to allow only one of them in? Don’t bother spouting out stuff about conferences realigning, etc. as we know that isn’t going to happen.
Conference champions should be a small part of it, if at all. The NCAA Basketball selection tournament process would be the template to follow for the most part. Under your system, some conference champs would get in that would have no business even in the playoffs, while many NC caliber teams would go home just because they didn’t win their conference. Totally asinine.
Rob
December 5th, 2011
3:06 am
Well, I guess it just isn’t going to show up. Have no idea why though. It makes absolutely no sense. I’ve got some questions for you though BC$ Slave, if it’ll ever post. Be on the look out.
Mitch
December 5th, 2011
3:21 am
Still trying to figure out how ‘with every game matters’ it would be that much better if OSU played LSU. Why don’t we just go ahead and crown LSU champs?
And I’m sure Herbstreit has watched plenty of tape for OSU and Bama’s previous 11 games for his ‘eyeball’ test.
And I guarantee you if you ask any LSU fan who they would rather want to play, they would respond OSU because they know Bama is the 2nd best team in the nation and has the best chance to beat them.
Dennis
December 5th, 2011
4:20 am
with Saban and the SEC Commissioner voting in the polls, its no wonder Alabama got in the championship game. Since they barely got in, I wonder what happens if those 2 don’t vote.
Atlanta Gator
December 5th, 2011
4:25 am
Everyone is entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.
There are eight components to the BCS ranking system: The USA Today Coaches Poll, the Harris Poll, and six separate computer ratings system. The two human polls count for two-thirds of the BCS combined ratings, the computers one third. Four of the six computer ratings rated Alabama third; two rated Alabama second (a reversal from last week). Both human polls ranked Alabama second and Oklahoma State third (same as last week), but the human voters did narrow the margin between Alabama and Oklahoma State in both polls—-it just wasn’t enough.
Here’s the bottom line: losing by three points in overtime to the No.1 team in the country has a more respectable air than losing to an unranked Iowa State that finished 3-6 in Big XII games. Close, but not close enough.
The outcome will not make Oklahoma State and Big XII fans happy, but it’s the system we’ve got. Does anyone really want to argue that Oklahoma State would beat Alabama in a neutral site game? Or that Oklahoma State would beat LSU? Or is this just about beating our hairy little chests and screaming “unfair!”
Ben
December 5th, 2011
5:04 am
Mark,
You forgot to add that Oklahoma State lost the day after the school lost a plane and two of its basketball coaches in a crash. That really seemed to affect the team that day. ISU can be electrifying and dangerous. No, I won’t be watching and am quitting watching football altogether.
Double"M"
December 5th, 2011
5:16 am
No matter what all the whiners say, the 2 best teams are playing in the National championship game. Until they get rid of the BCS, quit whining and realize that is how the BCS works. No one got screwed just the way they voted. Roll Tide Roll.
indigo
December 5th, 2011
5:51 am
I agree completely.
Too bad though there can not be a game between Okla State and Alabama to determine who gets to play LSU. Then 90% of the folks- not Stanford fans, of course, would be happy.
TechRon
December 5th, 2011
5:53 am
Right you are, Mark. The whole thing is criminal, Tammany Hall stuff.
Aubie
December 5th, 2011
5:59 am
I like turtles…
Preston
December 5th, 2011
6:04 am
If you think for one second that Oklahoma Satate deserves to be there instead of Alabama, you need to be fired as a serious sports writer. How stupid. They have NO defense and would be destroyed by LSU or Bama. They lost to Iowa State for crying out loud!
bamaguy
December 5th, 2011
6:04 am
Let’s remember three things: 1) The SEC put forward the plus-one scenario and the Big 12 rejected. The rationale was that it had the potential of putting multiple SEC teams in a championship series ($). 2) No one at the University of Alabama, save Saban’s vote in the Coaches Poll had any hand in determining this. Gene Chizik of Auburn also voted Alabama number two. And most importantly, LSU and Alabama are the two best teams in the country. They just happen to be in the same division of the same conference.
Mark Bradley!!
December 5th, 2011
6:04 am
BEST ARTICLE YET FOR THE ENTIRE FOOTBALL SEASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
marko
December 5th, 2011
6:08 am
If the NFL settled it’s championship like the BCS does Green Bay wouldn’t be the reining super bowl champions. They were lucky to make the playoffs, but now , no one doubts that they’re the best team in the league. I firmly believe that LSU would make mince meat out of Stanford or Boise State, but then again we’ll never really know will we?
BobDawg
December 5th, 2011
6:10 am
MARK B. , Great Column as always and sounds good to hear: ” The Tide didin’t play either Georgia or South Carolina in the East” and as for the Ga Southern game…. come on! Really??? Really???
Maybe Roll Tide will only score 3 pts in this one???
bamaguy
December 5th, 2011
6:13 am
Alabama has had “brand” and “aura” since the 1960’s. Let’s not credit Saban for that. The only thing I get from reading this article is how intensely Mark Bradley dislikes the head football coach at Alabama.
BUCK FAMA
December 5th, 2011
6:15 am
I know its complicated for you KERRY B, but 9 is greater than 6!!! Cry baby……woulda coulda shoulda!!!! BUT,BUT,BUT….bama was better in the first half. Pathetic! How about telling Saban to offer a scholly for kickers. LSU’s kicking was better FIRST , SECOND, THIRD, and FOURTH quarter’s!!!! SO if you play bama and they are better in the first half, and your team beats them, they should get a rematch cause they did win the first half, SO…..bammer logic. ROLL DAMN TIDE!
Call this one the crybaby bowl! The better team the first time was THE WINNER.
Dawgfaninjackson
December 5th, 2011
6:18 am
Personally I think LSU and Bama are the two best teams in the country and had there been a playoff system in place I would not have objected to this game for the championship. However, under this current system this is a travesty. ESPN monopolizes college sports and they sway those human polls. They are hypocrites and I hope this Syracuse debacle will bring expose their hypocrisy.
So does that mean if Bama loses to LSU again they are still #2 in the final polls. I mean they only lost to the #1 team twice? Or does it have to be a blowout for Bama to drop?
It should have been an LSU and Okie Dokie State BCS game.
ESPN is a self serving media whore!
BTW I hope LSU stomps BAMA.
melo p
December 5th, 2011
6:19 am
bama gets what they want—it never changes. They’ve ruled the SEC for years and dictated the rules when Texas A&M and Missouri were added. They got to keep their two biggest rivals: auburn and Tennessee. Other teams got hosed.
who dat
December 5th, 2011
6:21 am
lsu beats alabama again–it will not be that close this time. Tigers 26 alabama 17—bet the house
Donna Outlaw-Plank
December 5th, 2011
6:23 am
LSU TIGERS played and beat 8 ranked teams, all except Bama by a significant amount. We’d love to show Oklahoma State what happens when they play an SEC team but you’d think teams in other conferences would see by now. Play in our conference – especially this year in the SEC West and other conferences wouldn’t have those 60+ scoring games anymore. But Saban, while coaching at LSU, said anyone who doesn’t win their conference should play for the national title. His words prior to the SEC Championship were very different. What makes it worse is now there will be NO SEC team in the Sugar Bowl because of the stupid rule that no more than two teams in a conference can go to a BCS Bowl. That’s BS.
BUCK FAMA
December 5th, 2011
6:25 am
Just to be fair, Georgia was the better team the first half of the SEC Championship! So let them replay next weekend just to be sure the right team really won……
Get Real
December 5th, 2011
6:31 am
It’s only college football. Keep it in perspective, folks. Who cares which teams play. Only ONE team can be ranked number two, somebody was going to be upset because they didn’t make it. This year, Alabama was ranked #2, so Oklahoma St is upset. If it had been the other way around, then Alabama would have been upset. It’s only a game. If you don’t like it then don’t watch it.
BUCK FAMA
December 5th, 2011
6:32 am
.I think what you are saying Melo P is, it’s all that pride class and dignity they have, or are entitled to!
bamaguy
December 5th, 2011
6:36 am
I read a brief comment somewhere that the reason Alabama nudged OSU in the Coaches Poll is that some coaches ranked OSU as low as fourth (behind Stanford I assume). Will be interesting if it can be determined if that is the case.
Top Dawg
December 5th, 2011
6:45 am
Playoffs NOW!!!
Judy Wilson
December 5th, 2011
6:47 am
Sour Grapes. Let the 2 best teams play which is Alabama and LSU. Georgia fans get over it. Its not Alabama’s fault that you are afraid to play them every year. How do you pick teams to play for the National title when SEC has the best teams. Alabama fans have been waiting for this rematch all season and New Orleans will reap the rewards in $$$$.
dawg tired
December 5th, 2011
6:49 am
Hey Bammers,
You still have the same kickers. Maybe they can miss 5 this time around.
bamaguy
December 5th, 2011
6:49 am
Top Dawg, I think everyone, outside the folks who make the cash off the current system, want that.
Time to go to work, maybe when I retire I can be a full-time fanatic. Roll TIde.
01HAWK
December 5th, 2011
6:58 am
melo p………………………bama gets what they want—it never changes. They’ve ruled the SEC for years and dictated the rules when Texas A&M and Missouri were added. They got to keep their two biggest rivals: auburn and Tennessee. Other teams got hosed.
YOU ARE SO RIGHT………………………….THANKS FOR REMINDING EVERYONE.
Why shouldn’t we…………………………………….BAMA and LSU started the SEC…………………..GOOGLE THAT ONE.
The Real Fan
December 5th, 2011
6:59 am
For the LAST time the game is for the two BEST teams in the country.
OKST lost to Iowa State!
ctown
December 5th, 2011
7:06 am
Way to go Bradley. Write (another) BS column to stir up the puppies in order to pile up comments to boost your ego. LSU and Bama are the best two teams. Period.
bamafan
December 5th, 2011
7:13 am
Give me a break! Bradley – you cannot compare 2011 Bama to 2007 UGA. UGA had two losses that year including a very ugly one to Tennessee. Also, everyone knew that when UGA was able to rise to #2 in the BCS the next to last week of the season that they would be overtaken and left at home. Instead of whining about UGA, maybe you ought to write a column celebrating the fact that the BCS has corrected the “mistake” it made in 2007. But you would rather that the BCS make the same “mistake” twice so you can feel better? When the first mention of rematch was made, no one believed it would happen for all the reasons we already know. However, if folks didn’t want a rematch they should have ensured that their teams won a few football games. While Bama may benefit from incredible luck, they also benefitted from a reputation and total body of work that was much more impressive than anything UGA has done, especially compared to UGA 2007.
kreedham
December 5th, 2011
7:14 am
Thought I caught a glimpse of a commercial that says NBC is launching an all sports network. Good bye ESPN….they’re so full of themselves and they only like NY and Boston.