Bob Kravitz 3 cheers for the geeks who programmed BCS controversy December 10, 2003 It's been a lousy week for geekdom. Not only did the "Average Joe" beauty go for the hunk over the good-natured dork, but now all of college football's ills are being blamed on the IT guys and their malfunctioning hard drives. I've heard the Bowl Championship Series situation is a "travesty," and even a "tragedy" by clods who think there's no greater adversity in life than a fourth-and-2. ESPN's Trev Alberts, a man who recently defended Nebraska's firing of Frank Solich, offered his usual, overheated commentary the other day, calling USC's spurning "an injustice." All because of the geeks. It's always the geeks' fault. I mean, how do we know all these guys live in their mothers' basements? Huh? The Bowl Championship Series works. It's not perfect -- Texas ranked above Oklahoma in The New York Times poll? -- but it's as close to perfection as anybody has gotten. And now everybody, geeks included, is talking about college football. How is that a bad thing? When the bowl season is finished, there's a good chance we will have co-national champions. That means two teams whose players are wearing rings that say "national champions." Believe me, nobody from the Colorado or Georgia Tech teams of 1991 walks around feeling cheated about a shared title. Nobody from the Nebraska or Michigan teams of 1997 feels slighted. One season. Two champions. How is that a bad thing? A few days ago, the only bowl we absolutely had to watch was the Sugar Bowl. Now, we are required by law to watch the Rose Bowl. Unless, of course, "American Idol" has started back up by then. More options. More drama. Better TV ratings. How is that a bad thing? I'm listening to all the computer-bashing, and I'm wondering whether these are football fans or technophobes who spend their spare time in a wooden shack in rural Montana. "I learned a little about life in general," USC cornerback Will Poole told ESPN.com recently. "You can't let a computer make decisions for you. Computers are going to take over. The next thing you know, everybody is going to be out of a job. Computers are going to play football. If you let computers run the world, what are humans going to do?" Here's my question: What kind of computer was responsible for USC's early-season loss to the University of California? Was it an IBM or a Toshiba? Repeat after me: It's not supposed to matter when you lose. Let's say USC lost to California late in the season, and Oklahoma lost to Kansas State in the fifth game. There would be no argument now. None. The idea was to produce the two teams who earned the most quality wins over the best opponents, to reward two teams for their entire body of work. Mission accomplished. The best thing about college football -- the thing that sets it apart from the mega-hyped basketball tournament -- is that every game counts. In college basketball, that's not the case. Only some games count. And in some cases, only a handful really matters. Time and again, a 17-14 team wins its conference tournament by playing one week of great basketball, and it is rewarded with an NCAA tournament berth. Meanwhile, a deserving at-large team -- like, say, Butler -- gets snubbed and consigned to the NIT. Is that what we want for college football? The only supposed option, a playoff, really isn't an option at all. The cost of travel would be overwhelming. The academic impact during finals would be devastating. What? You're going to get 80 guys out of finals for three weeks? The last thing college football, or college sports in general, needs is something that raises the stakes even higher. Check out today's college football news. One coach is renegotiating a deal that already pays him $1.6 million a year. Mississippi State is under investigation for several recruiting violations. It's interesting that the same people who call for college reform are also demanding a college playoff. There's something wrong with that picture. A toast, then, to the geeks and their magical computers. We have compelling games, lots of viewing options and complete anarchy. How is that a bad thing? http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/100741-4998-036.html
