The inevitable chaos is now upon us.
A tougher equation than one found in theoretical physics, the Bowl Championship Series is still left for cracking. Now, the Pac-10 Conference is only fueling the fire.
But it’s not just the BCS that the Pac-10 has ignited. While two Pac-10 teams might be among the 10 invited to a BCS game, there is a greater problem at hand.
It’s those other 29 bowl games — the ones people seem to forget about — that are creating the greatest inequity of all.
For those unaware, the Pac-10 is contractually guaranteed at least seven bowl games — from the Rose Bowl (First place) to the Poinsettia Bowl (Seventh place). Teams are only required to maintain a .500 winning percentage, something many feel is too easy.
With Stanford and the two Washington schools already out of the mix, it becomes a battle between ASU and UCLA for sixth place. The loser of Friday’s game would fall to seventh place but would not be eligible to play in the Poinsettia Bowl because of a sub-.500 record.
With identical records (4-6, 3-4 Pac-10), either the Sun Devils’ or Bruins’ postseason dreams will die on Friday. Both teams need to win their final two contests to remain bowl-eligible.
But that doesn’t mean the victor is guaranteed a postseason berth.
In fact, Pac-10 advocates will tell you that UCLA beating ASU might be the worst thing possible for the conference.
That’s because the Bruins will face, and likely lose to, mighty No. 5 USC next week, in theory eliminating both spots for the Pac-10.
I’m a big proponent of the bowl system; I even wrote an article about it (which you no doubt read).
But there is a significant problem here.
We spend so much focus and time on the imbalance of the BCS, especially to that of the “mid-majors,” but we rarely discuss the raw deal teams in these conferences receive from the traditional bowl games.
As football continuously reaches new levels, we find there is more parity every year. Perhaps that explains all of the subpar teams playing in historically strong conferences.
Indeed, we live in a world where Boise State can beat Oklahoma.
But we need to fix this problem.
There is absolutely no reason a seventh-placed team should get an automatic bowl bid, under any circumstance. Eliminate two, even three of those positions, leaving four to five guaranteed bowls for Pac-10 teams. Then, you will not only open the door for teams from other conferences, but you will also raise the competition level across all conferences.
For the former, consider Fresno State in the WAC. Despite a record of 7-4, the Bulldogs still find themselves asking where, if anywhere, they’ll be traveling come bowl season.
As for the latter, this change would undoubtedly raise the style of play. Teams and coaches would know early in the season that the magic number six (for wins) won’t cut it. It will change the poise of teams in these early season matchups, putting additional emphasis on the playoff-style season that is college football.
Think about how much good this could cause.
The most consistent complaint I hear about college football — next to the BCS in its entirety of course — is that there are too many bowl games; a 4-6 ASU football team shouldn’t be allowed to find itself in the hunt.
If we change the distribution of these bowls, we’ll maintain their abundance and importance while raising their stature.
Simply put, spread these 29 non-BCS bowl games out and you’ll find 58 teams of a higher quality with a stronger desire.
And most importantly, they would be more deserving.
Reach the reporter at joshua.spivack@asu.edu.
