Charles Barkley appears at the 1:25 mark…

At the 1:05 mark, Will Forte debuts his “BCS Song”…

That pretty much sums up how we all feel about the BCS, doesn’t it?

Depending on the poll, 85%-90% of football fans would like to see some sort of a playoff. For now, we’re stuck with the BCS, which gave us Florida and Oklahoma in the title game. The problem is, now that the bowls are finished, there are three other teams (not including Florida) that have a legitimate argument that they are the #1 team in the country. Utah finished the season undefeated and beat two teams that are ranked (or will be ranked) in the top 10. USC beat up Penn State and looked great doing it. And Texas put away a feisty Ohio State team in the Fiesta Bowl…oh, and they beat Oklahoma as well. Or is the #1 team Florida, who only looked so-so in their win over the Sooners?

Poll Answers

Regular readers know that numbers are near and dear to my heart. Maybe it comes from my background — my degree is in industrial engineering — or maybe I just like the cold, objective finality of statistics.

So when a quantitative analyst like Bill James stands up and says that all quantitative analysts should boycott the BCS, I take notice.

The entire article is a good read — and don’t worry, James doesn’t delve too deeply into the numbers. He outlines the problem with the BCS this way:

1. That there is a profound lack of conceptual clarity about the goals of the method;

2. That there is no genuine interest here in using statistical analysis to figure out how the teams compare with one another. The real purpose is to create some gobbledygook math to endorse the coaches’ and sportswriters’ vote;

3. That the ground rules of the calculations are irrational and prevent the statisticians from making any meaningful contribution; and

4. That the existence of this system has the purpose of justifying a few rich conferences in hijacking the search for a national title, avoiding a postseason tournament that would be preferred by the overwhelming majority of fans.

James then goes into each topic with more detail, but this section stands out:

In the 1990s there was a strong movement, within the NCAA, to organize a national postseason football tournament. The problem was, had the NCAA in fact organized such a championship, two other events would almost certainly have followed:

1. The smaller schools, which outnumber the big football powerhouses about 5-to-1, would have voted to send a lot of the money to the smaller schools that in fact had not participated in the national championship contest in any meaningful way.

2. The big football schools would have bolted and revolted. They’d have walked out of the NCAA and formed their own organization. The two-tiered system of NCAA and NAIA schools would have been replaced by a three-tiered system with the NCAA occupying the middle tier.

The creation of the BCS system was simply a less dramatic revolt. And, as I said, the BCS schools were right: There is no reason why schools that don’t fund programs to participate in the battle for the national championship should share in the proceeds of the contest.

There are two ways to get around this problem. First, the NCAA could pass a unanimous or nearly unanimous resolution, promising not to try to steal the proceeds of a national title contest and give the money to small schools, deserving nephews, or the church poor box. The BCS could then dissolve and be replaced by an NCAA Football Tournament involving eight to 16 teams, and the big football schools would wind up with just as much money or a little more.

Or, if that doesn’t work, we can pass a law creating a new National Collegiate Sports Collaborative and requiring all schools receiving federal funding to join and participate. And if we have to do that, we’ll decide how to split the money.

I didn’t realize that fear over the small schools milking too much money from a playoff system was the reason that we don’t have a playoff system. If that’s the case, and as James outlines, it’s not a difficult fix.

I can only hope that we can make some progress towards a legitimate playoff in the next four years, even though the ESPN VP of Programming is completely happy with the current format.

It’s already easy to criticize the BCS, but it’s even easier when USC looks very impressive in their win against Penn St. and the upstart Utah Utes complete their perfect season by dismantling Alabama. Both USC and Utah have legitimate arguments that they are the best team in the country.

If Texas works over Ohio State, you can add another team to that list. And the more, the better.

While it’s great for fans to see an exciting BCS title game, the perfect storm would be completed if Florida narrowly beats Oklahoma in a boring game. The idea is for neither team to look particularly good, which would only strengthen the position of USC, Utah and, potentially, Texas.

We could look back on the 2008-09 season as the year that the BCS shot itself in the proverbial head.

- Jason Whitlock says Erin Andrews needs a big brother, refers to himself as the #1 sportswriter in the business and then criticizes the folks at Deadspin for being full of themselves. We’ve got a feud, kids! [DEADSPIN]

- SPORTS BY BROOKS has the story of Ko Simpson, the first NFL player to get arrested in 2009, who tried to gain favor with the police by saying, “I am worth millions!” over and over. [SPORTSBYBROOKS]

- DR. SATURDAY contradicts his tagline and says that USC’s big win in the Rose Bowl is “an air-tight argument against the absurdity of a two-team playoff.” [DR. SATURDAY]

- PRO FOOTBALL TALK reports that Jared Allen would like Vikings fans to buy up the tickets. Apparently, Minnesota faces a local blackout if they can’t sell the game out. To think, there are some that still say we’re not in a recession. [PRO FOOTBALL TALK]

- DEADSPIN sheds some more light on why Charles Barkley was pulled over and cited for a DUI. Given the details, how can you blame him? [DEADSPIN]

While every year has its own host of surprises, there are always those stories that simply fit the trend. Sure, it can get repetitive, but if we don’t look back at history aren’t we only doomed to repeat it? Every year has its fair share of stories that fell into this category, and 2008 was no different.

Our list of things we already knew this year includes the BCS’ continued suckiness (Texas-Oklahoma), how teamwork wins championships (KG, Pierce and Ray-Ray), and the #1 rule for carrying a handgun into a nightclub – don’t use your sweatpants as a holster. (Come on, Plax. Really? Sweatpants?)

Don’t miss the other two parts of our 2008 Year-End Sports Review: “What We Learnedâ€� and “What We Think Might Happen.â€�

Brett Favre can’t make up his mind.

The biggest story of the summer was all the drama surrounding Brett Favre and the Green Bay Packers. This saga has been covered to death, but there’s one detail that never seemed to get that much play. At the start, it looked like the Packers were making a bad decision by moving on so quickly even when Favre decided he wanted to return. But when the news broke about Favre’s near-unretirement in March, the Packers stance became much more clear. They were ready to take him back after the owners’ meetings, but he called it off at the last minute. At that point, the Packer brass was understandably finished with Brett Favre, much to the chagrin of a good portion of the Packer faithful. – John Paulsen

The Chicago Cubs’ title drought is not a fans-only phenomenon.

The 2008 Cubs were easily the best team the franchise has assembled in decades, but they still couldn’t win a single game in the playoffs, and the reason is simple: the pressure finally got to them. Sure, they said the right things to the press about how they didn’t care about what had happened in the past, but don’t believe a word of it; there wasn’t a single person in that dugout that wasn’t fantasizing about being part of the team that finally, mercifully, ended the longest title drought in sports history. Once ESPN picked them to win it all, however, they were doomed. Ryan Dempster walked seven batters in Game 1, which matched his total for the month of September. The entire infield, including the sure-handed Derrek Lee, committed errors in Game 2. Alfonso Soriano went 1-14 with four strikeouts in the leadoff spot, while the team as a whole drew six walks and struck out 24 times. The team with so much balance in the regular season suddenly became the most one-dimensional team in baseball; take Game 1 from them, then sit back and watch them choke. And now that this group has lost six straight playoff games (the team has lost nine straight dating back to 2003), it isn’t about to get any easier. Get a helmet, Cubs fans. – David Medsker

If you’re going to wear sweatpants to a nightclub, leave the gun at home.

If winning a Super Bowl is the pinnacle of an NFL player’s career, than shooting yourself with your own gun in a nightclub has to be rock bottom. Case in point: Plaxico Antonio Burress. Just 10 months after helping the New York Giants beat the New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII, Burress accidentally shot himself in the leg while at a nightclub. Apparently the (unregistered) gun was slipping down his leg and when he tried to grab it to keep it from falling, the lucky bastard wound up pulling the trigger and shooting himself. And that wasn’t the worst of it because as Plaxico found out, New York has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. He was arrested, but posted bail of $100,000 and is scheduled to return to court on March 31, 2009. If convicted of carrying a weapon without a license, he faces up to three and a half years in jail. He shouldn’t expect special treatment, either. The mayor of New York wants to be sure that Burress is prosecuted just like any other resident of NYC. The Giants, meanwhile, placed him on their reserve/non-football injury list and effectively ended his season. While “Plax� definitely deserves “Boner of the Week� consideration for his stupidity, what’s sad is that in the wake of Washington Redskins’ safety Sean Taylor’s death, most NFL players feel the need to arm themselves when they go out. Maybe players can learn from not only Taylor’s death, but also Burress’s accident so further incidents can be avoided. – Anthony Stalter

The world is a mess. Osama Bin Laden is still at large, the U.S. economy is in a recession and our country is still fighting two different wars on two different fronts.

But I can’t control any of that. On the whole, 2008 has been a pretty good year for Team Paulsen. My wife and I had our first child, a happy and healthy son (97th percentile in height = future 6’10� power forward), and I still have a job and a roof over my head.

I write about sports, so in the spirit of Christmas, which – let’s be honest – is really about getting, not giving, I scribbled down a few things that I’d like to see gift-wrapped underneath the tree.

So, without further ado, all I want for Christmas…

…is a college football playoff.
This drives me nuts and I know I’m not alone. I’m a casual fan of college football and I only watch maybe 10-15 games the entire year, including one bowl game – the BCS title game. If there were an eight-team playoff, I would make a point to watch every single one of those seven games. Not only that, but I’d start watching more of those late-season games that feature teams that are fighting for a playoff berth. I know money is a big issue with the BCS, but if casual fans are going to increase the number of games they watch by 50-70%, how can this not bring higher ratings and more ad revenue? This whole situation is mind-boggling.

(Be sure to check out last week’s version of the bracket as a comparison.)

What’s done is done. That’s the…..um……great thing about the BCS system. Oklahoma jumped Texas last week in the rankings and now the Sooners are slated to face the Gators in the title game. As in years past, fans are supposed to just swallow this bitter pill and move on. Some lazy, narrow-minded sportswriters are happy to have the “debate” because their next few columns will essentially write themselves.

The truth is that the current system is not only a slap in the face to the Longhorns and their supporters, but to all college football fans across the country. The vast majority of us (85%-90% if you believe the polls) would like to see some sort of college football playoff. So the last few weeks I’ve been summarizing a proposed playoff system.

Here are my assumptions…

1. There would be an eight-team playoff. The six BCS-conference champs get an automatic bid unless they are ranked outside the top 15.

2. If a conference champ is ranked lower than #15 in the rankings, they give up their automatic bid and it becomes an at-large bid. (This rule is to ensure that the regular season keeps its meaning and only the elite teams make the playoffs.)

3. Seeds and at-large bids are distributed based on the current BCS standings. Certainly, these rankings need to be tweaked to place more of an emphasis on head-to-head matchups, but they are fine for now. If an at-large team has a better BCS ranking than a conference champion, they will get a higher seed.

4. There will be three rounds of playoffs. The first round will be held at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The semifinals and the final will rotate amongst the four BCS cities (Miami, Pasadena, Tempe and New Orleans).

So how does last weekend’s action affect our playoff field?

8-seed Cincinnati @ 1-seed Oklahoma
Both teams did what they needed to do. The Bearcats sneaked by Hawaii and Oklahoma was convincing in its win over Missouri.

5-seed USC @ 4-seed Alabama
In this case, it looks like the BCS rankings work. Both teams have one loss, but Alabama lost to a better team. Who wouldn’t want to see the Trojans visit Tuscaloosa? The winner would face the winner of the 1/8 game.

6-seed Utah @ 3-seed Texas
This format works for the little guy, or at least it works for Utah. (Sorry Boise State!) In order to advance, the Utes would have to win in Austin.

7-seed Penn State @ 2-seed Florida
With the Hawkeyes’ recent play, suddenly the Nittany Lions’ loss to Iowa doesn’t look so bad. They would face a tough test trying to win in Gainesville against the surging Gators.

This format would set up pair of semifinals that would pit Oklahoma versus Alabama and Texas versus Florida.

ACC champion Virginia Tech gives up its bid because the Hokies are not ranked in the top 15. With four losses, few would argue that VT should be included. With a win over #17 Oregon and an undefeated record, Boise State has the biggest gripe. We would have to move to a 12-team format (or require the conference champs to be ranked in the top 10, eliminating Cincy) to include the Broncos.

The other teams that are on the outside looking in — Texas Tech, Ohio State, TCU, Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech, Georgia — either have three losses or have lost to teams that made the playoff, so the regular season clearly still holds its importance. (If Texas Tech had beat Oklahoma, if Ohio State had beat Penn State, if TCU had beaten Oklahoma and Utah, etc.)

The exclusion of Boise State is regrettable, but like March Madness, does anyone really think that the Broncos would be able to win three straight games against the elite teams in the country en route to a national championship? Unfortunately, in an eight-team playoff, we wouldn’t know for sure. It would be nice to have an option for a play-in game when there is an undefeated team from a non-power conference. In this case, Boise State could play Cincinnati for the right to play Oklahoma. However, if Ball State hadn’t lost to Buffalo, we’d be looking at two undefeated teams that would have been excluded. Then things get a little more dicey.

Another option would be a 12-team playoff that includes all the BCS conference champions and six at-large bids. That way, in addition to Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Penn State, Cincinnati and Virginia Tech getting bids, at-large teams Texas, Alabama, Utah, Texas Tech, Boise State and Ohio State would also get bids. I’m warming up to the idea of a 12-team playoff because it would account for cases like Boise State. Critics say that it would add too many games, but the only teams that would potentially play four games would be teams ranked #5 through #12 that made it to the title game (which is an unlikely scenario). Otherwise, everyone would play three or fewer additional games.

Greg Cote of the Miami Herald thinks the BCS format in college football is just fine and that a playoff wouldn’t be any better than the current system.

Instead it looks as if we will be getting an Oklahoma Sooners team that would be 12-1 against either a 13-0 Alabama or a 12-1 mighty-hot Florida. Sounds like a legitimate championship game to me. Sounds like if you don’t agree, you are either insane or turning sour grapes into whine because your beloved Texas Longhorns just missed. The odd-team-out always claims an entitlement that does not exist.

True, we should get a good game this year in the national championship. But nobody is debating that.

A playoff is impractical because it would require a significantly shorter regular season, which would fail to win support from schools and conferences, if only for financial reasons.

No problem. Take Michigan Technical School for the Blind off of Michigan’s schedule, Reading Rainbow Camp off of Texas’s schedule, ITT off of Florida’s schedule and every other no-name program that the bigger schools play twice a year and that frees up two weeks. Start conference play Week 1 or Week 2 if you’re worried about having enough time at the end of the year.

If you had a four-team playoff based on the current BCS rankings, you don’t think No. 5 Southern California and No. 6 (and unbeaten) Utah wouldn’t be crying foul?

Make it an eight-team playoff, and how do you think No. 9 (and unbeaten) Boise State would be feeling right now?

An arguably deserving team always will be left out, whether it’s whatever playoff format you choose or whether it’s two teams in a championship game.

The BCS works because, in effect, it is a playoff to reach the championship. Teams in the top six or so are in it every year, and it kicks in around mid-October, when the BCS rankings begin. The way the format works is, don’t lose late. Period.

So if teams will be left out no matter what, why not give college football fans (essentially) two playoffs? Teams would be fighting to get into the eight-team playoff in October (which, in Cote’s words is like a playoff), and again when the actual eight-team playoff starts. What’s the harm in that? And at least teams that potentially could be left out (teams like Boise State and Utah) have a better shot to play for a national title in an eight-team playoff than they do in the current system where they have zero chance.

The absence of precise black and white is college football’s unique, enduring asset. The BCS maintains the tradition of bowl games while ultimately deciding the champion on the field, not by polls.

You get a recognized champion and you get the inevitable debate. That’s the best of both worlds — and that’s what the pro-playoff crowd never seems to get.

The bowl games are a joke. And if crowning a champion and getting to bitch about the current BCS system is getting the best of both worlds, than I must be missing a few brain cells because it’s not fun to watch this mess take place every year. What would be fun is a damn eight-team playoff. What would be fun is watching USC come from a 6 seed and knock off a 5 seed and then a 3 seed and on and on.

Cote’s idea that it’s fun to debate about this crap system every year is ridiculous. Debating isn’t part of the fun – it’s part of the frustration.

(Be sure to check out Part 1 and Part 2 of this series.)

With Oklahoma vaulting ahead of Texas in the BCS standings, it is a clear reminder that the BCS system is horribly flawed. Each team has one loss and Texas beat Oklahoma on a neutral field. Texas’ only loss was to a good Texas Tech team on the road, and it shouldn’t outweigh the Longhorns’ win over the Sooners. Oklahoma did have two great non-conference wins (Cincinnati and TCU), while Texas didn’t really play anyone out of conference. Still, should a strong non-conference schedule outweigh Texas head-to-head win over Oklahoma? Apparently, USA Today and the computer rankings think so. (For their part, Harris Poll voters had Texas #3 and Oklahoma #4.)

This brings me back to my proposed eight-team playoff that I introduced a couple of weeks ago. Here are the assumptions.

1. There will be an eight-team playoff, with the six BCS-conference champs getting an automatic bid.

2. If a conference champ is ranked lower than #15 in the rankings, they give up their automatic bid and it becomes an at-large bid. (This rule is to ensure that the regular season keeps its meaning and only the elite teams make the playoffs.)

3. Seeds and at-large bids are distributed based on the current BCS standings. Certainly, these rankings can be tweaked, but they are fine for now. If an at-large team has a better BCS ranking than a conference champion, they will get a higher seed.

4. There will be three rounds of playoffs. The first round will be held at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The semifinals and the final will rotate amongst the four BCS cities (Miami, Pasadena, Tempe and New Orleans).

So how does this weekend’s action affect the playoff field?

8-seed Cincinnati @ 1-seed Alabama
A 30-10 win over Syracuse puts the Bearcats at #13. Cincy still has to beat Hawaii to stay playoff-eligible. Meanwhile, Alabama has a date with #4 Florida in the SEC Championship Game this Saturday.

5-seed USC @ 4-seed Florida
Since the Gators still have to play Alabama, this matchup probably won’t happen since Florida will likely move up or down in the BCS rankings depending on how they fare against the Crimson Tide. A bad loss to Alabama might knock the Gators out of the playoffs since the #7 and #8 seeds are conference champions, and Boston College might very well move into the playoffs with a win over Virginia Tech. If that were to happen, and USC were to leapfrog Florida, the Gators could very well miss the playoffs.

6-seed Utah @ 3-seed Texas
Utah remains the only non-BCS conference representative. With wins over #11 TCU and #18 BYU, they have the best resume of the three non-BCS schools in contention. (Boise St. and Ball St. are the other two.) The Utes need to root for a Virginia Tech win over Boston College.

7-seed Penn St. @ 2-seed Oklahoma
OU still has to beat Missouri in the Big 12 Championship Game to remain the 2-seed. If Alabama loses to Florida and the Sooners are convincing in their win over the Tigers, they could move up. They could also fall completely out of the playoffs with a loss to Missouri.

Since Cincy moved into the BCS Top 15, they earned a berth in the playoffs. The lowest ranked at-large team – Texas Tech – were pushed out of the playoffs. #17 Boston College could conceivably move into the Top 15 with a win over #25 Virginia Tech in the ACC Championship Game, and in that case, Utah would likely be the team to be knocked out of the playoffs. (And that would be a shame.)

Of the teams that are on the outside looking in, only #9 Boise St. and #12 Ball St. don’t have losses to teams that made the playoffs. #10 Ohio St. lost to USC and Penn St., #11 TCU lost to Oklahoma, and #14 Oklahoma St. lost to Texas and Oklahoma. So, despite what the anti-playoff crowd says, the regular season still matters with this playoff system.

Since it looks like Boise St. and Ball St. will miss the playoffs, and a Boston College win might push Utah out, it might be interesting to have a four-team playoff amongst the best non-BCS teams to see who has the right to make the playoffs. Of course, this would add two games to the schedule and it might just be easier just to go to a 12-team field (though most of those extra slots could easily go to BCS schools like Texas Tech and Ohio St.)

Check out Part 4 now.