Not all who wander are lost...

 
SO WE GOT SADDAM...

I got a wake up call this morning. A friend of mine who had hosted a holiday party last night called to tell me U.S. troops had captured Saddam Hussein. While the capture is big news, the only reason my friend called was because a group of us spent a good deal of time last night talking about the situation in Iraq. To quote him..."Sorry to wake you up, but I figured a politically invovled guy like you would want to know. It's all over CNN. It's all over Fox. Christianne I'm-a-whore is actually doing a great job on CNN. Later dude."

This particular friend of mine works in military intelligence. He used to spend his days working in the reserves as an instructor. Then last week he got a call and found out he had been called up. He ships out for Iraq January 3rd. Another guy at the party was military as well, and he just returned from a year in Afghanistan. Needless to say, last night's conversation was interesting.

I turned on the tube and tried to formulate just what the news meant to the future of America in Iraq. I considered calling my family on the West Coast and waking them up with the news. Then it hit me. The best word I could use to describe it is "malaise". This wasn't a "big moment". Twenty years from now, people aren't going to be saying, "I remember exactly where I was when I heard we got Saddam." Last night's conversation came ringing back to my ears. In two hours of discussion amongst very educated and experienced individuals, Saddam Hussein's name hardly surfaced at all. Two hours of conversation.

How could this be? It's simple. Saddam Hussein hardly matters at all. While his capture is vital in so many symbolic ways, it is much less significant from a practical aspect. About the only positive I can ascertain at this point is that Iraqis can no longer fear his return to power. Those who might have tempered their support for coalition efforts out of fear of future retributions can no breathe a bit easier.

On the practical side, I doubt this will really diminish the frequency nor the ferocity of the guerilla attacks that have become so commonplace in Iraq. The guerillas who attack coaltion forces do so because they want them out of Iraq. Few of them really care who ends up controlling Iraq, as long as its not the U.S. or the hand-picked Governing Council. They simply want us out.

Here in the states, the symbolism of Saddam's capture will play very well for the Bush Administration. However, I fear the good times will be short-lived. Think about it for a second... the same people who would get all excited about Saddam's capture, are those who think apprehending him was a major key to U.S. success in Iraq. If they believe that, how happy are they gonna be when people are still dying there a year from now? Today's "We won, we got the bastard!" is tomorrow's "What the hell are we still doing there? We already got the bad guy!"

Come November, voters will have to consider this simple equation when it comes to Iraq...

Weapons of Mass Destruction? Nope
Iraq - al-Qaeda connection? Nope
Saddam Hussein? Got him
U.S. troops are still dying in Iraq? Why???


posted by Sean McMahon at 9:39 PM

 
NEWT IS RIGHT???

I never thought the day would come, so this is a little bit hard for me to admit... give me a minute... let me check my sanity... here I go... I agree with what Newt Gingrich is saying about Iraq.

posted by Sean McMahon at 4:42 PM

 
BCS MESS...

So the BCS has managed to blow itself up. Come the first week of January, many people might be saying good riddance.

Obviously, the most controversial aspect of the final BCS rankings is the fact that USC will be staying home at the Rose Bowl, rather than strolling down to New Orleans to do battle in the Sugar Bowl. However, there are still some other aspects of this weekend's events that need to be explored. But first, the Sugar.

Right off the bat, I'll disclose that I am a West Coast guy. Regular readers of this blog know that I am an Oregon Duck fan, but when it comes to matters on the national landscape, I am all about Pac 10 pride. Heck, I'll even root for Oregon Sate if they are playing a team from another BCS conference! That being said, I'll submit that the biggest bit of hot air you are likely to hear in the next couple weeks is talk of an East Coast media bias. While I believe there is often a rather strong East Coast media bias when it comes to college sports, I don't think it has any effect on what is going on in this BCS fiasco. After all, USC is the top-ranked team in coaches and the media poll.

I have never really been a very big believer in the BCS, so I think what has happened this year could be the best thing for college football. Remember this... the winner of the LSU-Oklahoma game is only the BCS champion, not the national champion. If USC rolls into Pasadena and handles Michigan, they will when their share of the national title. USC gathered 42 first-place votes in the AP poll, while LSU garnered 21. Unless LSU absolutely destroys Oklahoma, I can't see the Tigers catching the Trojans in the AP poll. And remember, the AP poll is the media poll. That's more important than most people realize. Most sportswriters hate the BCS. They'd like nothing more than to crown a victorious USC squad national champion and truly put the screws to the BCS.

Why do sportswriters hate the BCS? Let's take a minute and examine past matchups the BCS formula has produced.

HISTORY OF THE BCS

In 1999, Tennessee took on Florida State in the Fiesta Bowl. Though Tennessee was victorious and finished the season as the only major unbeaten team, there are still a number of Ohio State fans who think their one-loss Buckeyes should have been challenging the Volunteers, instead of the one-loss Seminoles.

In 2000, the BCS sort of lucked out. There were three unbeaten teams, but one of them was Marshall. Most fans felt the Florida State-Virginia Tech Sugar bowl was an example of the BCS "working." I'm not prepared to say Marshall was better than either the Hokies or the 'Noles, but I watched a ton of Marshall football that season, and I think they could have traded blows with any team in the country. Bar none. While Michael Vick put on a performance for the ages, I wouldn't have minded a Thundering Herd shootout with Florida State.

2001 was when things got really nutty. One-loss Florida State was chosen to take on Oklahoma ahead of one-loss Miami, who had beaten Florida State, and one-loss Washington, who had beaten Miami. The Seminoles backdoored their way into the Orange Bowl, and proceeded to lay an expected egg. Heisman Trophy-winner Chris Weinke and the Florida State offense were shut out. Predictable outcome... snoozer of a game. Meanwhile, Washington and Miami took care of business in their respective bowl games. Hmmmm...

Things didn't get much brighter in 2002. Undefeated Miami was a unanimous choice to head to Pasadena and the Rose Bowl. Who they were going to play wasn't so clear. Nebraska and Oregon finished their regular seasons with one loss. Unfortunately for Nebraska, their one loss was a season-ending blowout at the hands of the Colorado Buffalos. Not only was the game played on Thanksgiving weekend, which allowed most fans to see the thumping they took live on television, but the loss also prevented the Cornhuskers from playing in their own conference title game. Nevertheless, the BCS sent Nebraska to the Rose Bowl and banished Colorado to the Fiesta Bowl. Oregon and its high-octane offense led by Heisman Trophy finalist Joey Harrington finished the season ranked second in the polls, but left outside the Rose Bowl picture. The result, Miami outgunned Nebraska so badly that the Rose Bowl was over before halftime. Meanwhile, Oregon crushed Colorado in Tempe. Perhaps the Miami fans who traveled to Pasadena summed it up best when they began chanting "We want the Ducks," during the third quarter of the Rose Bowl.

The funny thing about 2003 was how the BCS actually got it right, and still fans weren't happy during the buildup to the Fiesta Bowl. People didn't want to see a third consecutive dud of a BCS title game, so they didn't trust the numbers that sent Ohio State to the desert to take on Miami. Many thought USC was the hottest team at the end of the season and that their defense, coupled with Heisman Trophy-winner Carson Palmer would provide a more exciting opponent for the Hurricanes. Turns out, the Canes and the Buckeyes delivered the most thrilling title game in recent memory. Kudos to the BCS.

SCHEDULE STRENGTH

So this year we have the USC, LSU, Oklahoma threesome. Going into this weekend, OU going to New Orleans was a foregone conclusion, so all the talk was about the schedule strength comparison between USC and LSU. I didn't really think it was much of a comparison. The Trojans cleary made more of an effort to build a tougher schedule of opponents than LSU. If you think this is my Pac 10 bias creeping in, I have four words for you. Western Illinois. Louisiana Monroe. LSU actually played both of those schools. Western Illinois isn't even I-A! I think Louisiana Monroe actually is I-A, but I also think they just came up and finished something like 1-11 this year.

My philosophy about schedule strength goes a little something like this... every team is bound to playing the teams in their own conference. In most of the BCS conferences, with one glaring exception I will touch on later, finishing a conference season undefeated is a challenge and should not be an underrated accomplishment. However, coaches and athletic directors who really want to have a strong schedule use all of their non-conference dates to play quality opponents. Compare Western Illinois and Louisiana Monroe to the two weakest teams on USC's non-conference schedule, Notre Dame and BYU. Do I really have to expand on this any further?

PASSIVE PETE

Over on ESPN.com, Ivan Maisel penned this piece wondering why Pete Carroll and the Trojans weren't more upset at the shaft the BCS had given them. What Maisel doesn't understand is that the Men of Troy weren't surprised at all by the BCS outcome. Think of the way the BCS has treated Pac 10 teams in the past. After this year, there will have been six BCS championship games. How many times has the BCS seen fit to give a Pac 10 team a spot in its coveted title game? ZERO! Every other conference has been given a shot at the title. 12 teams in the various titles games... no love for the Pac 10.

And it’s not as if there haven't been deserving Pac 10 teams in the past. Fans who lobbied for Miami instead of Florida State in the 2001 game would have to stipulate that if all things are equal and you are gonna give the nod to the team that wins a head-to-head matchup, then Washington should have gone to the Orange Bowl to battle Oklahoma. Follow that with second-ranked Oregon getting snubbed in 2002, and you start to understand Carroll's calm reaction. He simply wasn't surprised. Why should he get so upset about something he saw coming all along?

Carroll and the Pac 10 might see this year's fiasco as a blessing. They can drive a nail in the legitimacy of the BCS. There was talk of a split title back in 2002 when Miami took on Nebraska. A Cornhuskers victory would most assuredly have delivered a split national championship. Sportswriters were chomping at the bit to expose the BCS. This year could be their chance to hit the BCS where it hurts, and Pete Carroll is happy to be the captain of the ship that might sink the legitimacy of the BCS.

CORRUPTION AND THE BCS

With all my talk about damaging the legitimacy of the BCS, I'm not naive enough to think the BCS is going away any time soon. Television contracts have been signed, and I suppose the only way ABC can get out of it would be if the NCAA or one of its conferences committed some kind of fraud during the bowl selection process. But that would never happen... not in amateur college athletics... would it?

I've written before about how vulnerable the BCS is to teams throwing games to gain access to BCS bowl money. The example I always gave involved mid-major conferences. This season, TCU almost delivered the kind of sticky situation I described. For those of you who didn't read those early articles, the hypothetical situation goes something like this...

You are the junior quarterback of a dismal, 0-10 SMU football team. You can't win, so no one comes to your games. No one comes to your games, so budget constraints are tight. There are rumors the football team is going to be scrapped at the end of the season. Now comes the final game of your season against an undefeated TCU. The Horned Frogs have climbed into the top six of the BCS rankings. If they beat you, TCU goes to a BCS bowl and brings a $13 million windfall to your conference. Divided equally, that's the kind of money that can keep your program alive for one more season. That's the kind of money that can save your senior season. How hard are you gonna try to beat TCU?

Until yesterday, that was the only hypothetical situation I had imagined where the selection process of BCS bowls was vulnerable to corrupt actions by players or coaches. Then the Big XII played its title game last night. As we witnessed, Oklahoma was guaranteed a spot in the BCS title game, even if they got blown out. Going into the weekend, Texas, Ohio State and Tennessee were vying for the two BCS at-large bids. Didn't the Big XII have 13 million reasons to hope for an Oklahoma loss? The Sooners stood gain about $1 million by losing. That's right. LOSING guaranteed them more money. If Texas lost out to Ohio State and Tennessee in the at-large bonanza, the Big XII was out $13 million. Or what if Texas had lost another game somewhere along the way and a second Big XII team wasn't even in the running for a BCS at-large bid? Why not ensure a second BCS paycheck with an OU loss and send the conference's automatic bid to Kansas State?

FLORIDA STATE AND THE ACC

I mentioned earlier that winning the conference title in any BCS conference was something to be applauded. But not so much in the ACC. For the second straight season, Florida State is headed to a BCS bowl. Last year, the Noles lost four games, but because they won the ACC, they got the automatic invite to the BCS party. Let me write that again... they lost FOUR games, but got to go to a BCS bowl. This year, Florida State won the conference title again and is bringing yet another fat paycheck home to the ACC. But did you know Florida State locked up a BCS bid this year before they even beat a ranked team? It's true. The Noles were headed to a BCS bowl before they managed to beat Florida in their last game of the season. According to another Ivan Maisel piece, the BCS bowls don't even want the Seminoles. Isn't that a little sad?

I've long believed the BCS would improve its legitimacy by using its own formula to fill out all four BCS bowls. Remove all the guaranteed spots for conference champs. #1 plays #2. #3 plays #4. #5 plays #6. #7 plays #8. Keep it simple. There's enough hand wringing about how a team might get to the top eight, why not eliminate any guess work once they get there. This would level the field for all the conferences. If TCU climbs to #8, they are in a big bowl. If four-loss Florida State is the highest-rated ACC team, but sits outside the top eight, then it looks like the ACC misses out on the big payday. On the flip side, if any given conference is good enough to land 2 or 3 teams in the top eight, then kudos to them. Why shouldn't they reap a reward for putting such a quality football product on the field?

Now of course, this kind of system could be a bit flexible. If this formula produces a re-match of a game already played during the season, then sure, juggle the teams around a bit. Or if there are geographic reasons to send a team to a particular bowl, then do it so game tickets sell out. But the bottom line remains the same. #1 through #8 go to the big bowls. That's it. Simplicity is genius.

Now before you go saying this whole point it moot because Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College are headed to the ACC, consider what the future holds in store for the Big East. Among the remaining Big East teams and the teams invited to join the conference in the future, not a single one finished ranked in the top 25 of the final BCS poll. If the Big East keeps its automatic birth, the fraud of four-loss Florida State getting an invite will be child's play. Don't laugh. No one has ruled out letting the Big Least keep its automatic bid yet.

BACK TO THIS YEAR

Of course, none of this is going to help with this year's mess. If anything, USC taking a shot at spoiling the BCS party will be good for the BCS in the short term. After all, how many BCS bowls did you watch last year? I only watched one from start to finish. This year, everyone will watch at least two. The BCS loves that. ABC loves that. And who knows... maybe even USC loves it too!



posted by Sean McMahon at 11:15 PM