Editors Note: With Ohio State’s absence from this year’s BCS Championship run I admit that I have paid little attention to the preseason polls. And although I’m finding an amazing purity and clarity in that fact, I recently stumbled across an excerpt from Chuck Thompson’s new book: Better Off Without ‘Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession that brought me back into the world of BCS frustration. The book is a critique of southern culture and includes a chapter on SEC football which hit it right on the nose. I reached out to Chuck to see if he would allow me to share his thoughts on that four-letter network, the SEC and the bias of the ranking system. He graciously agreed. Be sure to click through to read the rest of his article and check out his book on Amazon.com.
By Chuck Thompson
The 2012-13 college football season will once again play out according to the BCS/ESPN business model with assurances that the organization’s largest investment—the Southeastern Conference—will once again be installed in the championship game.
This season’s game will be played in Miami on January 7, 2013, between the SEC champion and another team, very possibly one from the SEC, as was the case in 2012.
Slavishly following the directive laid out in spring by ESPN (“LSU faces smooth road to title game”), the recently released USA Today coaches poll has SEC teams occupying the top two spots (LSU, Alabama) and includes five SEC teams in the top ten and seven (more than half the conference) in the top 25.
The all-important “strength of schedule” title thus gift-wrapped, the SEC’s seventh-straight title shot is virtually guaranteed before a single ball has been snapped or groin muscle pulled.
Once again, it’s the SEC vs. the field.
Here’s how the game is fixed
For those who still haven’t figured out what goes on behind the smoke and mirrors, the BCS/ESPN business plan works like this: preseason rankings, which function like pole positions in an auto race, typically include three or four or five SEC teams among the nation’s top ten, more than from any other conference.
This year is the snoozy rerun that proves the rule.
From the outset, this bias for SEC teams builds into the system a near insurmountable advantage.
Start the season with two of the top four teams from the SEC, as was the case in 2010 with Alabama and Florida, and in 2011 with Alabama and LSU, and the conference is virtually guaranteed to be represented in the title game—and this is an important point—even if neither of those two schools end up winning the conference.
To be the best, so goes to the old sports adage, you’ve got to beat the best.
But since only SEC teams are consistently declared the best, only SEC teams get the chance to prove themselves against “the best.”
It’s a chicken-or-the-egg situation. Does the SEC get favorable rankings because they’re so good? Or is the SEC so good because they get favorable rankings? I argue for the latter.
In 2010, for example, the Auburn Tigers began the season with a consensus ranking of #23, behind SEC rivals Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, and Georgia.
The only way a team regarded so lightly early in the season can possibly climb into the national championship game—which Auburn did that year—is to beat a slew of highly ranked opponents, which Auburn also did that year.
Because polls are pre-arranged so that SEC teams will face the most highly ranked opponents over the course of a season—in the jargon of the BCS this is called “strength of schedule”—only teams from the SEC are time and again able to manage this feat.
To read the rest of this post, go to Chuck Thompson’s website here.