Inevitable USC Ascent Begins, Nation Mourns Loss of Soul

JW,

I came across a fantastic Commercial Appeal article this morning about the woefully unwatched Memphis Grizzlies' approach to marketing the '09-'10 season. The headline? "Ball In Fans' Court." I am not making this up.

It got me me thinking, though. In what other sports-related realms are fans asked to sacrifice logic and their desire for a good product so that the inexplicable yearnings of a privileged few can be satisfied? The answer, of course, is college football, whose corrupt, common sense-defying ranking scheme can only be defended by the old and petulant. Take, for example, the recent comments of University of Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman. Asked why university chancellors are against forming a playoff system, Perlman replied, "First, we don't want to."

First, we don't want to?! Not even and, but first? Where on earth--I'm seriously asking--do they find these people?

And where on earth, I'm curious to know, is it okay to rank one-loss USC four slots ahead of one-loss Miami, whose impenetrable schedule thus far is the most difficult season-opening stretch I've ever seen? From whence doth this USC bias spring?

JW, I'm leaving you the bulk of the work today, so come out with guns blazing. What in the world is the Trojan-controlled media thinking?

-GM

GM,

Perlman's words, "First, we don't want to," remind me of what I would hear growing up when questioning a parental policy--"Because I said so." It's legitimately the truth, but I haven't learned anything new, have I? These profound explanations should be coupled as an explanation for all sorts of ranking absurdities. Take, for example, your own argument.

GM: Voter A, why haven't you moved Miami past USC despite the fact that the Hurricanes have had a much tougher schedule and have a much better loss?

VOTER A: First, we don't want to.

GM: How could USC be comfortably in the top ten two weeks after losing to Washington?!

VOTER A: Because I said so... before the season began, and what I've seen on the field is less relevant.

Let's face it, asking for fairness in college football is like asking for democracy in the Middle East. You don't know which archaic, out of touch authority figure to turn to. In Perlman's defense, the TV personality who wrote that piece clearly has about as much sports knowledge as these guys. The interview must have been frustrating. The unnamed author wrote:

The Utah Utes went undefeated last year yet failed to qualify for a BCS game.

Not only is that false--Utah beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, a BCS game--a similar, truer statement is repeated later and needlessly attributed to a source:

Utah officials said (the Utes) were kept out of the BCS title game last year, despite going undefeated.

Good thing we know Utah's state officials are aware of obvious, indisputable facts that pertain to their primary state university. Today's headline will read, "Favre: We beat Green Bay, 30 to 23." This could only be the work of Cynthia Izaguirre. Afterward, the battle of incompetence waged on, and the winner was indeterminable:

Perlman said (Utah) was not excluded from the (national championship) game....

Of all the BCS positions in contrast with my own, this seems the most impossible--to pretend Utah actually did play for the national championship! Maybe it's subtly brilliant. Did he actually say that, or did the reporter's confusion about the existence of multiple BCS games somehow inspire this paraphrased interpretation? And why didn't we spend any time on the NFL today? Well...

First, we don't want to.

-JW