Post by jraybern on Dec 10, 2007 14:50:11 GMT -6
I have been thinking about something this afternoon. The question is "What is the NCAA's infatuation with assigning rankings to arbitrary things?" Now the things I am going to mention aren't necessarily governed by the NCAA, but they are byproducts. This isn't a stab at the NCAA, more college sports in general.
Look at the Heisman. How do you go about saying Tim Tebow was the nations most oustanding player over Dixon, Brennen, McFadden, and others. Now I know everyone has an MVP, but usually there is far less controversy over the pick. Is it the volume of the players?
Look at the BCS. Now thats the biggest crock of all. Teams have to play well enough throughout the year to make the playoffs. They have to be playing very good football at the end of the year and arguably the best team at the end of the year makes the Super Bowl. The teams that play in the Super Bowl have to actually beat the best teams to get to the championship game (BCS teams don't even have to win a conference championship game - Ohio State, even Oklahoma in 2003? lost the Big 12 Championship game and still played for the national title). By all accounts, Hawaii and the one loss team with the smallest margin of defeat or something like that (however the standard tiebreaker is set) should be playing for the national title. Instead, the voters, coaches, and moreover computers, get to put the two "best" teams in the game.
Even college basketballs tournament selections and seedings are a random act of insanity. Why not come up with some formula (a BCS for BB). At least then it isn't a bunch of "experts" exacting their will. But at least with BB the top 10-15 teams actually have to play to say we are the best.
I just want to know, do any of you feel the same way? Is this just a product of the nature of having so many schools and so many factors that are beyond control?
Look at the Heisman. How do you go about saying Tim Tebow was the nations most oustanding player over Dixon, Brennen, McFadden, and others. Now I know everyone has an MVP, but usually there is far less controversy over the pick. Is it the volume of the players?
Look at the BCS. Now thats the biggest crock of all. Teams have to play well enough throughout the year to make the playoffs. They have to be playing very good football at the end of the year and arguably the best team at the end of the year makes the Super Bowl. The teams that play in the Super Bowl have to actually beat the best teams to get to the championship game (BCS teams don't even have to win a conference championship game - Ohio State, even Oklahoma in 2003? lost the Big 12 Championship game and still played for the national title). By all accounts, Hawaii and the one loss team with the smallest margin of defeat or something like that (however the standard tiebreaker is set) should be playing for the national title. Instead, the voters, coaches, and moreover computers, get to put the two "best" teams in the game.
Even college basketballs tournament selections and seedings are a random act of insanity. Why not come up with some formula (a BCS for BB). At least then it isn't a bunch of "experts" exacting their will. But at least with BB the top 10-15 teams actually have to play to say we are the best.
I just want to know, do any of you feel the same way? Is this just a product of the nature of having so many schools and so many factors that are beyond control?
