Something's GOT to change

I have been considering my relationships to sports and how much time and emotional energy I spend on it. I mean, every year I follow my favorite team and inevitably get disappointed when they don't win it all, which they've only done twice (Cards in '06, Colts a few months later). Was the euphoria from winning it all greater than the sum of all my disappointment? Not even close. So why should I follow sports?

Well, I've realized that it's fun to care about sports. The more things you care about, the more exciting your life is, the more you have to talk about. I don't limit my caring to just sports, I care about important things (family, friends, church, God) and not-so-important things (TV shows, music, gardening, sports). I've realized that apathy is not for me. I liked to consider myself a laid-back person, but does it bug me when my plants die? Yes. Does it bother me when my favorite artist has a disappointing album? Yes. Do I hang onto these things for days, weeks, or months? No.

So I've decided that, yes, it is worth the time and emotional investment to watch sports. Plus, since I have DVR, I don't need to plan my life around watching sports. I watch it when it's on, and if I care enough about it, I'll record it and watch it at my convenience later (usually when I'm holding The Boy).

I also don't understand why anybody would watch sports without caring one way or the other about who wins. What's the point? It's like watching American Idol for the quality karaoke. You don't care about the singing (unless it's atrocious), you care about the winning. In our leisure, we want to watch anything that entertains us more than a substitute activity. To me, that's sports.

That's why college football bothers me so much. A playoff has so much potential! Take March Madness, put it into 3 jam-packed Saturdays, and think about how much entertainment that is! Plus, the timing couldn't be better. You've taken a couple weeks off of work for the holidays, so there's plenty of time to watch football.

Instead, we have 40 meaningless game and one "meaningful" game, although we're never really sure if that game has the right teams in it. As a BYU fan, I barely care about our bowl game, another boring Las Vegas bowl. Even if BYU wasn't in the playoffs, I would find all of the playoff games more interesting than BYU playing the 9th best team in the PAC-10.

Who really wants that? It's getting ridiculous. How can something this unpopular go unchanged for this long? I thought we lived in a capitalist society, where the majority gets what the majority wants?

If we had playoffs this year, how great would the match-ups be? Now, from all playoff scenarios I've heard or read about, I think the best, most-likely one would be the one found here. Although I would prefer 12 or 16 teams, I would settle for 8. Beggars can't be choosers. What I like most about this is that each conference would only be allowed one representative. Say what you will, but frankly, if you're not the champion of your own conference, then you shouldn't be the champion of the nation. The next 2 spots would go to the highest ranked non-BCS conference champions, or an Independent ranked higher. Even though this is still not completely fair, it's a step in the right direction. The difficult thing is getting rid of the pointless bowl games. Once that's done, changing it to 12 or 16 teams will be much easier.

Using that format, what would we have (using the BCS poll)?

1. Bama vs Ga Tech
2. Texas vs Ohio St
3. Cincy vs Oregon
4. TCU vs Boise

Although TCU still plays Boise St (a matchup that nobody wanted except the BCS conferences-do you realize that the only ranked team from a BCS conf that's playing a non-BCS team is Oregon St? More on this below...) at least the winner would go on to the 2nd round to play a BCS team in either Bama or Ga Tech.

But look at the games! Aren't they that much more compelling because each of those teams has a shot? If you're TCU, you have to beat Boise, then maybe Bama and Texas to win it all. I'd watch each one of these games from kickoff to the last down. It's a fantasy every college football fan has.

But the bowls want to keep the monopoly on their money. Did you know that each of the major bowls has a CEO? They generate so much revenue through one game to support an entire company for a year! How hard do you think that CEO works? Maybe 5 days a year? Or does he have a second job to supplement his huge salary? Did you know that the Rose Bowl CEO makes around 250K?

Playoffs will generate more money, but these greedy bowl reps are worried about their shares. If they're so greedy, why can't the NCAA guarantee them their current salary just to make them happy? Instead, they're intent on doing everything to protect the BCS, even scheduling bowls to keep the big conferences happy, so they won't lose their credibility. Of the 5 ranked non-BCS teams, BYU is the only one playing a ranked BCS team. Utah is playing a crappy Cal team, and TCU is playing Boise St, of course. The other team? Central Michigan (ranked 25 in the AP poll) is playing Troy. It's especially suspicious because TCU played Boise last year, too, when both teams were in the top 15, but left out of the BCS. Utah was graciously given Bama, but I think the BCS learned from that mistake.

Well, that's it for my 3rd annual BCS Bashing. See you next year!