thurdl sports

Responce to Dan Shanoff

In the 12/02/2005 edition of the Daily Quicky, Dan Shanoff decided to display roughly the same level of unrestrained glee as he did the Monday after Wake was bumped by WVU in last year's tournament.

"The BCS has won," he snots, "It's not even worth having a BCS debate because there IS no debate: The system is working perfectly... The BCS haters are left with totally manufactured arguments about meaningless bowls..."

Well, let me, a BCS hater, come back with a responce. Every past year, when there has been a problem with the BCS, you have talked about how horrible and broken the system is. And now...somehow...it's a perfect system working without any flaws. But here's the rub: any of the past BCS systems would have gotten this year "right." That's because this year is easy. There are two undefeated teams in teh entire nation. There are no mid level undefeateds that are going to be on the outside of the BCS looking in. There's no third major conference undefeated that will have to settle for a "meaningless bowl," as you put it. There isn't the problem of only one undefeated team, and deciding which one-loss team is most worthy of getting that extra spot.

If you would get down off your high horse for one damn moment (something that I know is going to severly hurt your reputation, since your high horse seems to be your gimmick) you would have realized this. Here's your problem: you are mistaking the circumstances with the process. With the current circumstances, any system that relies on a process any more sophisticated than a chicken pecking at a list of team names would have been "working perfectly" this year.

So, congratulations. You're right. The system works perfectly. And I'll remind you about this next year when we've got another BCS dilemma, and you're bitching about how broken the system is.

posted by thurdl @ 6:47 PM