Fantasy Football Ruined Christmas

It wasn't the Grinch who ruined my Christmas. It was the Rockets and the Bull Hill Gang who ruined my Christmas. And no those aren't the names of local gangs who come around every December to steal everyone's gifts. Those are the names of the two teams who defeated two my own teams in fantasy football championships this past week.

In my estimation, I've been playing fantasy football in some capacity for something like 10-12 years. The last six or seven years, I've been playing competitively. By "competitively," I am referring to leagues in which something is on the line and something can be won for earning that illustrious fantasy football championship.

Most of my fantasy footballing is done on Fanball's Real Leagues (previously Exit42). It's $10 for two teams and an additional $5 for two more teams. If one of your teams wins, you get a free entry (two free teams) the following year. I also dabble into the traditional family and friends league - hosted by Yahoo!, of course - where 12 guys pitch in $50 a piece and the winner-takes-all.

Anyways, I have yet to win a fantasy football championship, at least as far as I can remember. Unlike fantasy baseball where I routinely rake in championship after championship, that fantasy football crown has eluded me. And it's not like I haven't been trying. I normally run in the neighborhood of five teams; I had six this season. I buy two fantasy football magazines at the beginning of each football season and religiously study the player rankings and draft strategies until I'm borderline comatose.

The worst part of it all is that I seem to have chances every single year. If my mind serves me correctly, at least half of my teams have made the playoffs in each of the past four or five years, maybe more. But somehow I've evolved into the Marty Schottenheimer of fantasy football. I've made making the fantasy football playoffs a habit, but I can't win the big one.

This year sums it all up perfectly.

As I alluded to earlier, I managed six fantasy teams this season, four of which made the playoffs. Here's a brief rundown of the fates of all six teams.

Yahoo! Teams
The Fightin Pitbulls, winners of the "Chimps & Pimps" division in my free family league, had the good fortune of meeting up with a 10-4 team from the other division in Round 1 - a team who had outscored all of the teams in my division in the regular season, including mine. Needless to say, I lost. I then proceeded to lose to my wife in the 3rd place game.

Randy Moss-Some was one of two teams not to make the playoffs. As karma would have it, this was my only "money league." The top six teams make the playoffs. Naturally, I finished seventh, 2.5 points out of sixth.

Tom Brady: Heartbreaker and fantasy season ruiner.

The irony is that it was Tom Brady who crushed my season. When I needed him to only get less than 43 points against Buffalo on Monday Night in Week 11, he went off for 45.82, which sent me to that deciding 2.5 loss. And when all I needed was for the sixth place team, who was playing against Brady, to lose in Week 13, Brady could only muster 21.68 points, ensuring my place outside of the playoffs.

Fanball Teams
Drink Coke Be Happy finished 11-2 and earned the #1 seed and a first-round bye in the playoffs. I made it to the championship game only to lose to the Rockets by nine points. I lost only because of the opposing manager's incompetence. He chose not to start Willie Parker, the league's rushing leader at the time, so that he could start an additional receiver. That's a major no-no in fantasy football playoffs. Well, Parker breaks his leg and puts up a goose egg, while his three receiver tandem combined for 41 points.

The Tight Ends were my second and final team to miss the playoffs. To my own admission, this was an awful team. But to pour salt in the wounds, after starting 2-6 and having the #1 pick in next year's draft in sight (all four Fanball teams are in keeper leagues), my team decides to win four of it's last five to finish 6-7 and end up with the fifth pick.

The Polynesian Ricepickers finished 10-3, the second-best record in the league. However, the best record (11-2) came from my same division. So, I was relegated to the #4 seed as the best wild-card team. I cruised to two straight playoff wins, including one over the 11-2 team, to reach the championship game. My opponent was the defending two-time champ, Bull Hill Gang. It's not often a three-digit score isn't good enough to win, but, on this day, it wasn't. I lost 112-108. The stars of Bull Hill Gang's team? Peyton Manning and Reggie Wayne. That's insult to injury.

(By the way, my Polynesian Ricepickers team has made the playoffs in each year of its existence except one. It's now made two championships and has lost both. The only other time was several years back when I lost by a point because of a freakin' Tyrone Wheatley 40-yard run.)

Finally, the Slumpbusters, who was arguably my best team, finished with a 10-3 record as well. Like Drink Coke Be Happy, this team entered the playoffs with a first-round bye and the #1 seed. The Slumpbusters, though, went one-and-done. The core of my team was made up of Romo, Tomlinson, and Addai. When I needed them most, Romo and Addai combined for 14 points, and I departed at the hands of a 79-70 loss.

Thus is the life of a fantasy footballer. Ten years and counting with zero championships to show for my work. The Marty Schottenheimer parallel really isn't too far-fetched after all. Perhaps I should fire myself and hire Josh McDaniels to run my teams. If he declines, I'll probably just continue to donate money to fantasy football magazine publishers and to the other teams in my leagues because it sure doesn't look like I have the luck factor on my side.

Hey, at least I have the Patriots.

The Not-So-Brilliant ARod Contingent

This will be the latest in a series of Yankees-bashing posts. Last Friday, I touched on the fallout that would result from the Mitchell Report as it related to the Yankees and how that made the Red Sox seem even more superior to their enemies from the south. Today, I'll examine ARod's contract debacle.

As if ARod's reputation wasn't tainted enough following his slapping incident, his shouting incident, and his strip club incident, he's recently engaged into some controversial public relations stunts regarding his contract situation which has brought his ethics and his respect for the game further into question. Within the past two months, he's announced that he's opting out of his contract during Game 4 of the World Series; he's announced an agreement in principle with the Yankees on the same day that homerun king, Barry Bonds, was indicted; and, most recently, he's announced the official completion and finalization of his contract with the Yankees during the Mitchell Report press conferences.

Clearly, ARod has a shady history of conduct on and off the field. Obviously, ARod shoulders some of the blame for this, but I believe that his misjudgements are at least equally reflective of the influence of his agent, Scott Boras, and his employer, the New York Yankees. To prove my point, his recent contract debacle illustrates the idiocy of all three parties involved.

Let's break it down.

ARod's original contract with the Texas Rangers was for 10 years and $252 million. It was, and still would be, the largest contract in history. He was traded to New York in February of 2004 with seven years and $183 million still remaining on his contract. (No word on if the trade occured during some other significant baseball event that day.) Texas agreed to pay $71 million of the remaining salary, including the remaining $4 million of his signing bonus. The Yankees were left paying only $112 million of the contract, essentially getting a $25 million per year player for $16 million a year.

As we now know, there was an opt-out clause embedded in the contract which could be exercised at the end of the 2007 season. ARod would, of course, choose to exercise that clause. However, prior to that decision, during the 2007 regular season, the Yankees were rumored to have offered ARod a five year, $150 million extension. With ARod due a total of $81 million over the 2008-10 seasons, the extension offered would have essentially added up to an eight year, $231 million contract. That would have made ARod nearly a $29 million a year player.

From the Yankees point of view, their $150 million extension offer would have only added up to just over $200 million over those eight years because the Rangers were on the hook for nearly $21.5 million over the last three years of ARod's contract. So, to the Yankees, ARod would have been a $25 million per year player rather than a $29 million per year player.

ARod, likely fueled by greed, declined the extension and subsequently opted out of his contract. Considering the aftermath surrounding his most recent contractual agreement, it appears that the

dumb - adj. lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted greed - n. excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions

opt-out was suggested and endorsed by Scott Boras. Apparently, the dynamic duo thought they could command upwards of $35 million on the open market. Fortunately for the economics of baseball, baseball's general managers were smart enough not to throw that sort of money at ARod and Boras. So, as a result, ARod was left negotiating his own contract with the Yankees and ended up hiring an additional agent strictly to handle his endorsements and the like.

In the end, the Yankees and ARod settled at a 10 year, $275 million contract - $27.5 million per year. For reasons I have yet to determine (after all, he did offcially opt out, which should have gotten Texas off the hook), the Rangers are somehow obligated to pay $9 million of the contract. That leaves the Yankees with a 10 year, $266 million obligation.

Here's where ARod's idiocy shines through. Rather than accepting the Yankees extension offer and becoming a $29 million per year player, ARod decided to opt out and instead became a $27.5 million per year player. To illustrate how much of a team player ARod is, by opting out, he actually cost the Yankees $12.5 million. Had he accepted the Yankees 5/150 offer, the Rangers would still be on the hook for $21.5 rather than the $9 million financial obligation as outlined in his new contract. Not only is ARod greedy and dumb, but he's selfish to boot!

As for the Yankees, it's not their fault that ARod opted out. And give them credit for netting arguably the best player in the game for less than what they orginally offered. However, Hank Steinbrenner is no genius. After stating publicly that the Yankees would not pursue ARod if he opted out of his contract, ARod mysteriously ended up back in Yankee pinstripes after the smoke cleared. That says something about Steinbrenner's credibility. Further, after ARod rejected a five year extension (and eight year contract), the Yankees somehow found it logical to offer him ten years instead. Although they signed ARod for less than originally anticipated, the Yankees did it for more years. Now, they are stuck paying $27.5 million per year to a player under contract until he is 42 years old.

In the end, the Yankees are left paying more and ARod is left receiving less. The logic escapes me. Clearly, Yankees players and executives mimic the intelligence level of their fanbase. Fortunately for Red Sox Nation, our front office conducts business in a way that mimics our intelligence level as well: bright and competent. All the more reason to believe that the Red Sox are the Yankees' superior.

Red Sox Reign Supreme

We all know that the Red Sox are a superior team to the Yankees. Not that we didn't need more proof of that, but the Mitchell Report provided even further evidence that such is true.

The Mitchell Report wasn't designed to name names, specifically. That wasn't the intention. The goal of the investigation was to provide an awareness of the extent of steroid use over the past two decades and to suggest recommendations as to how to clean the game up, so to speak. But, the goal of my post is to name names and to explain why the Mitchell Report further cements the Red Sox as the Yankees superior.

As a Red Sox fan, the two names that struck me most from the Mitchell Report were the names of Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte, both prominent Yankees, of course. Here are two excerpts from the Mitchell Report describing both players' use of performance enhancers:

Toward the end of the road trip which included the Marlins series, or shortly after the Blue Jays returned home to Toronto, Clemens approached [former Yankees trainer Brian] McNamee and, for the first time, brought up the subject of using steroids. Clemens said that he was not able to inject himself, and he asked for McNamee's help. Later that summer, Clemens asked McNamee to inject him with Winstrol, which Clemens supplied. McNamee knew the substance was Winstrol because the vials Clemens gave him were so labeled. McNamee injected Clemens approximately four times in the buttocks over a several-week period with needles that Clemens provided. Each incident took place in Clemens's apartment at the SkyDome. McNamee never asked Clemens where he obtained the steroids.

McNamee traveled to Tampa at Pettitte's request and spent about ten days assisting Pettitte with his rehabilitation. McNamee recalled that he injected Pettitte with human growth hormone that McNamee obtained from Radomski on two to four occasions. Pettitte paid McNamee for the trip and his expenses; there was no separate payment for the human growth hormone.

The report seems to indicate that Clemens began his steroid regimen while playing with Toronto. It also seems to suggest that Clemens continued to use steroids while with the Yankees, where he got Andy Pettitte involved.

I realize that the Mitchell Report is not comprehensive. I also realize that some percentage of the evidence is speculative and some even hearsay. I'm attempting to be objective regarding this whole situation as is everyone else. But it is fun to imagine that the information is true, particularly considering all of the current and former Yankees not named Clemens or Pettitte whose names appear in the report.

Here's a list of some notable Yankees from past years who show up in the Mitchell Report as being linked to performance enhancing substances: Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Gary Sheffield, Jason Giambi, David Justice, Randy Velarde, Chuck Knoblauch, Ron Villone, Mike Stanton, Kevin Brown, Denny Neagle, Glenallen Hill, and Jose Canseco.

That's quite a list. Some of the players listed above had only short stints with the Yankees. Jose Canseco, for example, spent a half season with New York. Others, though, like Clemens and Pettitte, had or have had long and successful careers with the Yankees, which included World Series rings.

Somebody in this picture is on the juice. And it ain't Manny!

Some of these individuals may not have used steroids during their tenure with the Yankees. Specifically, the report notes that Kevin Brown and Ron Villone were users in their days with the Dodgers and Mariners, respectively. But others - again like Clemens and Pettitte - were noted as having used during their tenure with the Yankees.

Browsing the World Series rosters of those Yankees teams that won three consecutive championship in 1998, 1999, and 2000, it's quite difficult to accept the fact that these championships were obtained fairly. Pettitte, Knoblauch, and Stanton were on the '98 team. Those three plus Clemens were on the '99 team. And on the 2000 team, you'll find names like Pettitte, Knoblauch, Stanton, Clemens, Justice, Canseco, Hill, and Neagle.

This is not to say that the Red Sox have gone without their own players linked to steroids. After all, Eric Gagne was one of the blockbuster names to be revealed. Mo Vaughn's name also surfaced as did Paxton Crawford's. And let's not forget Jose Canseco, who played with the Red Sox for a couple of seasons. As for Gagne, his use was traced back to Paul Lo Duca during their days with the Dodgers - not the Red Sox. And even if Gagne had been using while with the Red Sox, it obviously didn't help his performance. As for Mo Vaughn, I struggle to believe that he used while with the Red Sox. Given that most of the information is coming from former Mets clubhouse assistant, Kirk Radomski, my belief is that Mo would have started his use when he joined the Mets. And as for Crawford, he was never really a significant contributor to the Red Sox, not enough to make a fuss over, at least.

The fact of the matter is that the Yankees have been hit harder by the Mitchell Report than any other franchise, it seems. They've certainly been hit harder than the Red Sox. And you've got to wonder what sort of effect steroid use has had on this great rivalry. Let's go back to the 2003 ALCS. The users on the Yankees roster then: Pettitte, Giambi, Clemens. Pettitte and Clemens combined for two of the four wins, and Giambi hit three homeruns in the series. Had these three players been clean, who knows? Maybe Aaron Boone doesn't happen.

Perhaps we should start referring to them as the New Y*rk Yankees?!?!

The irony of it all is that the report has come down from George Mitchell, a man born and raised in New England. He was born in Waterville, Maine and later became a US Senator for the same state. Additionally, he serves on the Board of Directors of the Boston Red Sox. He's undeniably a New Englander with Boston blood running through him. How fitting is it that a man from New England sticks it to New York?

The Red Sox one-up the Yankees again.

Why Sports [Don't] Suck

I must admit, I grew more and more uneasy as Sunday's game against the Pittsburgh Steelers drew nearer. Maybe it was that the Patriots had won their previous two games in nailbiting fashion against two teams very similar to the Steelers. Or maybe it was that I was more emotionally invested in this game than in any other. After all, I'm either related to or affiliated with at least 15 Steelers fans who could talk all week only about how confident they were that the Steelers would win. And believe me, had the Steelers won, I'd have been eating humble pie for weeks.

All together, I just felt as if the karma was off. And with that, I was fully prepared to write a post on why sports suck centered on the theory that these games in which we invest so much emotionally treat us well in general, yet almost always rise up to deliver us a handful of disappointment at the worst possible times.

But, just when I begin to doubt the Patriots, even the slightest, the Killer B's (Brady, Belichick, and Bruschi) pull me back and remind me why New England is a three-time Super Bowl champion, the team of the 2000's, and a modern dynasty.

My doubt lingered for much of the first quarter. The Steelers became the first Patriots' opponent to score on

Hey Ben, enjoy that handful of disappoint- ment served to you by Foxboro's finest!

their opening drive by putting together a long, dominant drive which culminated in a field goal. On New England's ensuing possession, Brady found Moss in the back of the endzone for six and immediately sought out Anthony Smith like a heat-seeking missile. (I presume Brady mentioned something about a "guarantee.") It was at this point that I knew Brady had the game in hand and would deliver for the remainder. He never talks the talk without walking the walk.

With so much invested emotionally and personally in this game, the win couldn't feel better. I didn't have to endure the barrage of text messages and phone calls from my overzealous, arrogant friends and relatives. In the pyramid of win satisfaction, this one approaches the pinnacle. It's one thing when your team defeats a neutral foe. It's another when a hated rival loses to...well, anyone; schadenfreude. But the absolute most satisfying win (we'll keep this constrained to regular season play) combines the two. There is nothing more gratifying than when your team defeats a hated rival - like when the Red Sox smack around the Yankees, for example.

Anyways, let's get to my favorite part. After sending a mass text to a few Steelers fans following the game, I received some somber, disheartened responses. Typical of Steelers fans, they were full of excuses. Here's a wrapup:

• "You better find a defense for the playoffs. Otherwise, you'll be out in January." ~Thomas Roberts, father-in-law


• "If that was #81 (in reference to Randy Moss) out there, that would be defensive holding." ~Thomas Roberts, father-in-law


• "Touche." ~Paul Henry, friend


• "It's all good. We were supposed to lose, so we had everything to gain today." ~Chris McCartney, friend


• "Enjoy it while you can. All good things come to an end." ~Beth Elzer, mother


• "OK, I'll give you that. Smith did nothing to back up what he said. We may get another shot in the playoffs, so we'll see when it really matters." ~Tony Kordecki, friend


• "I'm embarrassed for them. They don't back up anything they say. They need to rethink their thoughts." ~Brian Hart, friend


• "At least Brady and Moss had good games and the Patriots covered." ~Ryne Elzer, brother


• "Shut up!" ~Kyle Robson, nephew


• "I'm not bothered. We'll see them again." ~John Elzer, father


• "I don't know if I want Shane riding in my truck." ~Brad Bresee, brother of my brother-in-law

Top 10 List: Breaking Down the BCS

So far, my Patriots predictions for their last six games of the season have been way off. I predicted wins over the Eagles and Ravens by a combined 60 points. The Pats have won by a combined margin 10% of that. Maybe I don't know anything.

(By the way, the Patriots remaining four opponents should start Charlie Batch, Chad Pennington, Cleo Lemon, and Jared Lorenzen, respectively, if they were smart because New England has proven that they can't stop backup quarterbacks.)

Here's something that I do know...I think. The BCS is a discombobulation! And you can't spell that without a 'B', a 'C', and an 'S'.

That said, here is a long overdue Top 10 list highlighting the problems of the BCS system.

(A quick note: I am 100% in favor of a computer-based rankings system for college football because it eliminates all bias in measuring a team's in-season performance. The real problems lie within the human element of the voting. That's where bias and irrationality creep into the picture. That's not to say the computer-based aspect of the BCS is perfect. There are a few changes that could be made, some of which I'll touch on below.)

(Another quick note: These are in no particular order.)

#10 - Idle Weeks
I've never understood how the human polls evaluate teams coming off of idle weeks. But teams frequently move up and down the rankings based on the results of a game they didn't play. One week a team is ranked #5. Yet after a week off, they find themselves ranked #8. Did they all of a sudden get worse?

You can find three such teams who are playing in BCS bowls who were affected by idle weeks. Ohio State miraculously moved up from #5 to #3 to #1 without playing a single game over the last two weeks. Georgia and Kansas both suffered the opposite fate. Neither of them played this past week. Georgia fell one spot to #5, and Kansas tumbled three spots to #8.

I understand that the movement of idle teams is based on the results of that week's games. Teams can climb or fall due to wins or losses. But the evaluation of an idle team is a volatile and inexact science.

#9 - Conference Representation
This notion that the Pac-10, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, SEC, and Big East champions all get free passes to BCS bowls is ridiculous. Given the format of the BCS, 99.99% of the time, two of those conference champions are going to play for the national championship, which opens up those spots for the second place finishers in those respective conferences. When all is said and done, that leaves only two spots for every remaining team, mid-major or major-major(?).

I did some research into each of the six computer-generated polls that derive the computer ranking in the BCS. It seems that each of the six have some calculation of conference strength based on non-conference wins and losses. If the mandatory conference representation is to remain, why not give automatic berths to the champions of the six "toughest" conferences for that year based on these calculations? Granted, they may always be the same six stated above, but at least the system will be flexible.

My suggestion is to eliminate the mandatory conference representation. Remember back in 2004 when Utah crushed Big East winner, Pitt, in the Fiesta Bowl by a score of 35-7? I'm a big Pitt fan, but they didn't deserve to be there.

#8 - Conference Championships
In a way, this ties #9 and #10 together, especially considering how the final BCS standings turned out. Because of the mandatory conference representation described above, there is now a need for conference championships to determine outright conference champions. By no means would anyone want co-Pac-10 champions. Who on earth would play in the Rose Bowl? The BCS would blow up!

Anyways, because of conference championships, some teams are now forced to play an extra game. These extra games can come with severe consequences or enormous benefits depending on how a team fares. For example, Missouri (#1 at the time) is forced to play Oklahoma (#9 at the time) in the Big 12 championship. Missouri loses big, ends up falling to #6 in the BCS (despite being ranked #4 by the computers), and fails to receive a bid to a BCS bowl game. Meanwhile, Kansas, who wasn't playing for the Big 12 championship because of a loss to Missouri, ends up with a BCS bowl bid. Interesting! And, of course, Oklahoma shot up from #9 to #4 with their win and earned the automatic berth from the Big 12. LSU reaped the largest benefit from a conference championship win by beating then-#14 Tennessee in the SEC championship and leaping five spots to #2 and into the title game.

#7 - At-Large Bids
Look, what is the point of a rankings system and five BCS bowls if you're not going to allow the top 10 teams to participate in those five bowls? #1 and #2 playing for the BCS champion-ship makes sense. So why not have #3 play #4 in the Rose Bowl, #5 play #6 in the Sugar Bowl, and so on? Instead, we have #13 Illinois receiving an at-large bid because Missouri apparently isn't as capable as Kansas, West Virginia, or Hawaii. (Pitt was ranked #21 entering the Fiesta Bowl in 2004.)

#6 - Mid-Major Discrimination

Colt Brennan's Rainbow Warriors went undefeated this season. Can you name another mid-major quarterback he shares that fate with?

I was going to call this "mid-major bias," but "bias" implies "in favor of." And the BCS is not set up to be in favor of mid-major teams. Over the past four seasons, three teams from what can be described as mid-major conferences received at-large bids into BCS bowls after finishing with a spotless regular season record: Utah in 2004, Boise State in 2006, and Hawaii in 2007. Utah and Boise State both won their bowl games. Neither got the chance to play for a national title. Hawaii will not got that chance this year either.

I understand that the schedules these mid-major teams play is less grueling than those of the major conferences. But what if Utah, Boise State, and Hawaii were really just that much better than their competition? Shouldn't they get the opportunity to prove that? It baffles me how a team can finish a season with an undefeated record and not win - or even have a shot at - a national championship. What more do they have to prove?

#5 - Style Points
One of the reasons that I am in favor of the computer system and not in favor of the human polls is the idea of style points. They are nonexistent in the computer systems, but seem to influence the human voters. Everybody always talks about them. They exist because teams believe that the more you blow an opponent out, the more that victory will resonate with the voters. And they're right. As humans, we view domination and blowouts as signs of superiority. For example, the Patriots cruised through their first 10 games with an average margin of victory of 25.4 points. Now, after two tight games, everyone seems to think that the Patriots aren't as good as previously advertised.

Over their last four weeks, Ohio State had 20+ point wins over Penn State and Wisconsin and held Michigan to three points. Similarly for USC, they had 20+ point wins over Oregon State and Arizona and a 17-point win over UCLA in the Pac-10 championship game. You don't think the voters were influenced by these margins? You don't think a 32-point win over Oklahoma State and a 21-point victory over #1 Missouri aided in landing Oklahoma at #3 in both human polls with first-place votes in each?

#4 - Timing of Losses
This is a subtle problem with the human polls. But the "What have you done for me lately?" principle certainly applies. I've always had a theory that teams losing early in the season have a far greater advantage than those teams that lose later in the season.

Look at Michigan. They lost their first two games of the season to Appalachian St. and Oregon. Yet they were able to recover and actually peaked at #12 in the BCS before losing to Wisconsin. Two teams in the BCS top 25 ended the season with one loss, Ohio State and Kansas. Ohio State lost almost a month ago on November 10, long enough to recover and climb to #1. Kansas lost their only game two weeks later in their final game on November 24. They had no time to recover.

If you look at the top 5 teams in the BCS, the last loss of four of the five teams (Ohio State, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, and Georgia) all came earlier in the season than the last loss of teams six through ten, excluding Hawaii, of course, who hasn't yet lost. My complaint, then, is that the timing of a loss should not affect a team. The opponent should matter, but, in the end, one loss is one loss.

#3 - Preseason Rankings
Preseason rankings are one of the most illogical uses of a ranking system. What determines preseason rankings? My guess is history, projection, and potential. Programs like Ohio State, Florida, USC,

That's right! Alex Smith. Here's hoping Brennan fares better as a pro.

and Texas all seem to get the benefit of the doubt when preseason rankings roll around. Programs who have little history and/or are not projected to fare well are unnecessarily handicapped going into the season.

Look at the five teams who finished in the BCS top 10 who were ranked in the AP preseason top 10: USC (1), LSU (2), West Virginia (3), Oklahoma (8), and Virginia Tech (9). Is it any wonder that these teams were aided by some preseason bias? For the record, Ohio State and Georgia were ranked #11 and #13, respectively in the AP preseason poll.

On the other hand, Missouri, Kansas, Arizona State, and Boston College, to name a few, all failed to make the AP preseason top 25. That suggests that they each had a steeper hill to climb at the outset. Sure enough, each were hit hardest by losses compared to the teams listed in the above paragraph. This presents the irrationality of preseason polls. Each team should be treated as an equal 0-0 program prior to the season's start. However, preseason polls prevent this from happening.

#2 - The Formula
While many of the intracacies of the BCS formula are kept under wraps, others are not. After all of the problems that I have pointed out with the human element of the BCS, the human polls count for 2/3 of the final percentage in the BCS average for a given team. Six computer calculations are used and are averaged into only one aggregrate computer score, which is then averaged with the two human polls. Why weight the biased, irrational, and volatile polls more than the unbiased ones? I think a fairer judgement of rankings would prevail if the six computer scores were averaged against the two human polls rather than against each other.

According to the computers alone, Virginia Tech and LSU would be battling it out for the national championship as the top two teams in the country. Ohio State would be three, Missouri four, and Kansas five. But because of the influence of the human polls, Ohio State creeped in ahead of Virginia Tech and Missouri is left out of a BCS bowl.

#1 - Corporate Sponsorship
This has less to do with the BCS than it does with college football itself, but I think many will agree that college football has become too commercialized. Now, I understand that programs make money through such sponsorships. But why must everything affiliated with college football be sponsored? On Saturday, ESPN is airing the Nissan Heisman Trophy presentation. There are bowls named specifically for sponsors (see: Meineke Car Care Bowl). I think we'll all be happy when we no longer have to pick the winner of the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl in our office pool.