Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Playing Catch-up

A few recent items moved me to write, but not in a timely fashion. I'll have my annual pre-season BCS predictions soon. But for now, the hot issues.

1. There's been buzz all summer over whether the Big Ten might expand. A lot of this tracks back to some statements by Commissioner Jim Delaney regarding the prospects of the Big Ten tv network. Since there was nothing else going on this summer, frenzy broke out. Wild speculation ensued: maybe the Big Ten's twelfth team would be Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Missouri, Texas, Florida, Notre Dame, the Dillon Panthers, Wossamotta U., etc.

I don't expansion is going to happen anytime soon. And I also think that the Big Ten might be contrary enough to go to twelve teams and not play a championship game, unless they can somehow play it the week before the Ohio State-Michigan game. But something to remember is that the Big Ten gets awfully clubby and snooty. The schools' presidents make a big deal about how every conference school is a member of the Association of American Universities.

So it stands to reason that the hypothetical twelfth Big Ten school would also be an AAU member, so the conference can continue to trumpet its academic bona fides. I think the likeliest suspects are Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, and Missouri. I think Syracuse makes the most sense, but I still really don't see expansion coming any time soon. But when/if it does, don't look for any schools that aren't AAU members.

2. ACC Nation speculates about the job prospects of Tiny Terry Bowden, who apparently is thinking about getting back into coaching. Could the ACC handle three Bowdens? Good grief. I think Georgia Tech, Arkansas, and Mississippi State (all mentioned in the post and comments) sound intriguing. But I also wonder if a school like those would take a flier on someone who has been out of coaching for so long. It's not that I think he's forgotten much, but if I were an AD, I would want some sign he's serious and is up for the commitment and drudgery of doing the job every day, instead of whatever his current consultant role at FSU is. So I'd like to see him spend a year as a coordinator at a BCS school or head coaching a mid-major. I don't know, somewhere like Memphis if Tommy West has another 2-10 season.

3. This is just typical. Duke finally makes an appearance in the Fulmer Cup standings thanks to the arrest of linebacker Michael Tauiliili, the Devils' defensive leader. Tauliliili was picked up for drunk driving, assault, carrying a weapon, and other assorted charges. And then not only do they get passed in the EDSBS rankings, but then Duke reinstates Tauiliili, although he'll be suspended for the opener against UConn.

I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, the lacrosse case taught us all about the danger of rushing to judgment, and I don't think anyone will be calling for the expulsion of the whole football team, like some did with the lacrosse team. But on the other, there seems to be a lot more evidence against Tauiliili, and it's probably not unreasonable to have a guy ride the pine if he's facing what the Raleigh paper called "a litany of charges."

I'm not saying Michael Tauiliili is Michael Vick, and I'm not saying he's an angel. So what do we do with those players who fall in the middle, especially at a place like Duke that supposedly is interested in more than just winning? And should the school be harder on him because he might have cost the Devils one of their best (only?) chances at winning a game this season?

4. Dan Shanoff is praying that this year will finally be the one to blow up the BCS. Sigh. 'Twon't happen, folks. At least not this year, and probably not in the next contract, either. Shanoff's fantasy scenario is ending the season with USC, Texas, Michigan, and West Virginia all undefeated, and a one-loss SEC champ "arguably better."

First of all, the odds of what Shanoff wants -- an ad hoc, meet-me-next-Saturday-at-high-noon game totally outside the BCS is just ridiculous. Even assuming there were two clear claimants (like LSU and USC a few years ago), and an available stadium, and enough fans willing to make travel plans on a week's notice right after travelling to another bowl game (frankly, one of the biggest reasons not to have a playoff), it's ludicrous to hope that the schools would agree to some sandlot showdown, just so people like Dan Shanoff can rest easy knowing who the "true" champion is. My goodness, are we so afraid of a little controversy and conversation? What would we blog about all summer if all our questions were answered? Why don't we just see if Vince Young and the rest of his championship Texas team will agree to don the Burnt Orange one more time to see if that team was better than last year's Gators? It's about as likely to happen.

But to answer Shanoff's fauxpocalyptic heartrending question, "Uh, THEN what?," the answer is pretty clear. Whichever of those four undefeated teams finished first and second in the BCS rankings would play for the national championship. The other two might -- might -- play in another BCS game, but maybe not. For simplicity, let's say USC and Michigan finish #1 and #2, and Texas, West Virginia, and LSU finish #3-5, with LSU having the only loss in there. The Trojans and Wolverines would play for the title, and chances are Texas and LSU would play in a game, and the Mountaineers would be stuck with the ACC champion. The USC-Michigan winner would be the BCS champion, and the AP would have the opportunity to award a split title to either the Texas-LSU winner or WVU if they looked more impressive. (Or, to the Texas-WVU winner if they were paired up.)

Why is this so hard to deal with? Sure, some people would assert that a team other than the BCS champion was the best in the country. And sure, some people would like to see some kind of runoff if we ended the season with two outstanding undefeated teams. Heck, I would too, because I love college football. But I don't cry myself to sleep and put a rose, an orange, a sugar cube, and, uh, a fiesta under my pillow dreaming that the Playoff Fairy will miraculously appear the second week of January.

I agree with Shanoff that "the only ones worthy of being laughed at are the people who keep bleating about a playoff like their complaints will change things." Maybe I'm misreading him, though, but Shanoff kinda throws in with that lot. (And he's just plain wrong to call a multi-undefeateds scenario "unprecedented.") A playoff might happen one day, but it will be the sort of NCAA-sanctioned, bureaucratized-to-death contraption that we'll see lumbering along well in time. It won't happen overnight, no matter who finishes this season undefeated.