To Have and Have Not

The upper subdivision of Division 1 college football is made up of one hundred and twenty schools. This leaves a handful of topics up for debate each season.

Some of these debates include: which team is No. 1, who deserves the coveted Heisman Trophy, and in recent years, which conference is supreme.

However, none of these stir people up like the debate over the postseason. From Seattle to South Beach, no conversation is more prevalent. And considering how restless people have become, no conversation is more pertinent.

Will D1-A ever do away with the BCS rankings and the outdated bowl lineup that accompanies them? Will it ever concede that the current system is flawed and give equal opportunity to all of its participants? My prediction: not anytime soon.

But if the bowl subdivision isn't willing to revamp its postseason format and install a playoff of some sort, it has a big problem on its hands: the Top 25 polls.




The Associated Press and USA Today Coaches ballots would be useful if there were a playoff system in place, as they could be a guide for seeding teams when it came time for the tournament -- you know, like Division 1 college basketball.

But without a playoff, these controversial rankings hurt the game, dictating the destiny of each postseason-eligible program. And despite the fact that they're nothing but opinion, the polls greatly influence public perception -- which is often skewed.

It all starts with the preseason polls. These early rankings are a barometer, a starting point. They give us an idea of who stands where. But undoubtedly, many teams are significantly over- or undervalued to begin each season.

This inaccuracy is then carried on throughout the year. And when certain teams start to surprise pollsters on the field, whether good or bad, voters scramble to adjust their rankings accordingly.

For instance, the Washington Huskies were ranked right around No. 85 to begin the season. But after defeating No. 3 Southern Cal just two weeks later, the Associated Press moved Washington into their Top 25. That was, of course, until Washington was knocked off by unranked Stanford the following week.

Where does a team like Washington belong? They beat a top-3 team one week, but then lost to an average (or so we think) Standford club a week later. How can someone possibly determine where to rank the Huskies?

Imagine if Washington defeated No. 3 Southern Cal in the final weekend of the regular season, as opposed to the third weekend in September. They would be rewarded -- because of their big win at season's end -- by playing in a respectable bowl game with a lucrative payout.

On the other hand, if their season ended following the Stanford loss, Washington would be playing in a no-name bowl, earning much less revenue for their school. This is yet another example of how the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately? polls are imperfect.

Why does it matter when a team loses? And why does it matter who beat them? If there were a playoff, there would be no need to debate whose losses were "better." Nor would there be a need to fight over strength of schedule.

Sure, there would be a few bubble teams during the selection process, as there are in basketball. But if there were a 16- or 32-team playoff, would those that fall in that bubble range even have a legitimate argument? If your favorite team is ranked outside the top-16 in the preseason polls, is "championship or bust" your war cry?

At times I've considered how things would go if the initial AP and Coaches polls were released a few weeks into the season. But there are problems with that scenario as well.

Certain teams would then be elevated -- just as they are in the preseason polls today -- because of their program's history or conference affiliation.

Plus, nearly every top-line team plays a few scrubs to start the season, meaning that voters would then have to decide whose wins were more impressive. And that would be counter-productive.

What would be productive, though, would be to institute a playoff.

Sure, I'd like to see a more accurate method for ranking teams -- but if the Football Bowl Subdivision would abandon the current postseason format and devise a playoff, the polls wouldn't be so controversial.

School presidents and conference commissioners could kill two birds with one stone: equal rights for every FBS program, as well as rankings that would guide -- not decide -- postseason destinies.

Why pass up an opportunity to perfect America's greatest sport?

Young, Black, Rich and Angry

Floyd Mayweather, Jr. is one of the most dominant athletes in the history of sports.

When he announced his "retirement" in June of last year, he was walking away from the ring undefeated, widely regarded as the No. 1 pound-for-pound fighter in the world.

Today, nearly two years since his last fight, Mayweather is on his way back to the ring. But considering that we're less than 36 hours away from his return to boxing, wouldn't one expect this to the be the story right now?

Instead, the only news coming out of the Mayweather camp -- as far as the everyday sports fan can tell -- is negative.

"Money" Mayweather is struggling financially. He's also the focal point of an ongoing investigation concerning a shooting. And in recent days, he's made news by sharing his thoughts on why he's so underappreciated, namely because of the complexion of his skin.

"If Floyd Mayweather was white, I'd be the biggest athlete in America. The biggest, the biggest. I know that for a fact," said Mayweather, speaking in the third person Tuesday at a meeting with reporters.

I'm not sure what proof he has to back that up, but it is an interesting thought. On the surface, it does make you wonder why the guy isn't embraced in America: Pretty Boy Mayweather is talented, good-looking, and at the forefront of his sport.

In America that combination (a la Tiger Woods) typically leads to marketability, fame, and sustained wealth. But Mayweather has struggled in each of those respects.

Very few athletes have had as much success as the undefeated -- and now unretired -- former champion. But of those that have, none have had such a difficult time growing their fanbase.

In fact, many spectators -- from diehards to the casual fan -- root against the six-time world champion.

For scores of people, Mayweather's demise is part of the attraction. Oscar De La Hoya, one of boxing's legends in his own right, believes this to be true.

"Millions watch because they can't wait to see him lose," said De La Hoya, one of the promoters for Saturday's 144-pound bout between Mayweather and Juan Manuel Marquez.

Mayweather thinks this is because he's African-American. He's wrong.

It's not about race. It's about persona.

While race relations in America remain a global embarrassment for our nation, Floyd Mayweather is disliked, sometimes even hated, for other reasons.

The average middle-class American, those who financially support Mayweather's flashy lifestyle, are diametrically opposed to his ego-driven ways.




The 32-year old fighter flaunts rolls of $100 bills, drives around in pricey vehicles (one of which, a $500,000 Mercedes Maybach 57S, has been repossessed), and openly rips into both individuals and organizations at random.

Mayweather wants to be loved by his fellow Americans. I guess he didn't get the memo: people don't like angry, spoiled, ego-maniacs that never shut their mouths.

This isn't the only reason sports fans aren't in love with Mayweather, though.

Simply put, Americans don't love boxing anymore. From pay-per-view's monopolization of TV rights, to the lack of a compelling American heavyweight, boxing has lost its appeal across the United States.

Americans don't hate the player -- they hate the game.

Mayweather kept rambling on Tuesday: "Sometimes I'll sit back, I'll be in my theater sometimes, and I'll think: 'Imagine if I was the same fighter that I am, and I was the same person that I am, and I was from another country. Can you just imagine how big I'd be?'"

And in the next breath, as if he knew that every reporter before him was taken aback by his candid yet cocky reflection, he continued...

"But I wouldn't change my life for nothing in the world. There's nothing like being young, black and rich. But there are certain things you think about."

Yes, Floyd. There are certain things you think about.

No Surprises

We humans, relative to other organisms, can both process and store a remarkable amount of information in our brain.

To prevent ourselves from being overwhelmed by all this knowledge, we simplify things through grouping, or labeling.

This process of labeling helps to trigger memories and consolidate our ideas. But sometimes labeling leads to stereotyping.

And unfortunately, stereotypes can often lead to prejudice thoughts -- which tend to give rise to ignorance.

Across the Bowl Subdivision of D1 college football, there's this misguided perception that "mid-majors" -- namely, outsiders to the six major conferences -- are inferior to their BCS conference (or as I like to call them, power conference) counterparts.

This is the farthest thing from the truth -- and the first week of the 2009 season is yet another reminder of that.

Last Thursday night No. 16 Oregon visited No. 14 Boise State, the second game of a home-and-home series between the two programs, as Oregon looked to avenge their home loss to Boise from last season.

The Broncos, ranked only two spots ahead of the Ducks and playing on their signature blue turf, were favored by 3 points, a virtual push.

Prior to the game, Robert Smith of ESPN's College Football Live talked about Oregon's physicality, the weakness of Boise's front seven, and how their personnel simply couldn't match up.

Flash forward to the end of the first half: Oregon has a mere 13 yards of total offense, zero first downs, and is getting shutout by their small-conference neighbors.

I have all the respect in the world for Robert Smith. He was one of my favorite NFL running backs as a child, he does a nice job on-set at ESPN, and he's the epitome of class.

But Mr. Smith and most of his ESPN co-workers continually discount programs such as Boise State. And because ESPN (the unrivaled source for sports news) discounts them, the everyday sports fan does the same.

People assume that Boise and the like can't compete because they don't play "proven" competition on a weekly basis -- whatever that means.

Here are the facts: Boise State went 35-4 from '06-'08, including a 3-1 record versus BCS conference opponents. What more evidence do we need?

Okay, maybe Boise St. didn't surprise you on opening weekend.

But I'm sure BYU did when they met up with third-ranked Oklahoma in Dallas on Saturday night. Although the game was played on a neutral site, it was hardly a neutral crowd.

Despite being twenty three-point underdogs, the Cougars found a way to knock off the Sooners in Big 12 territory.

Yes, I know Sam Bradford (last year's Heisman Trophy winner) was injured during the game. And yes, we could have seen a different outcome had he not left the contest early.

But if Bradford didn't play for OU, or if we knew he was injured prior to the game, wouldn't the Sooners have been heavy favorites anyway?

The problem here is that programs like Brigham Young and Boise State aren't given the same kind of opportunities as traditional powers such as Oklahoma and Oregon.

The pollsters, as well as aloof BCS conference commissioners, either don't have confidence in small-school programs, or they don't want to give away any power.

Mid-major conferences aren't so established. Their players aren't recognized nationally. And they suffer greatly for this -- something they have no control over.

What they do have control over is the product on the field. And when given the rare opportunity to prove themselves, they've stepped up to the challenge.

If I'm going to make a case for D1 mid-majors, I can't forget to mention Utah.

The Utes have finished undefeated twice in the last five years. And of those two unblemished runs, not once did they have an opportunity to play for the national title.

Both seasons ('04 and '08) they only ranked as high as No. 6 entering the postseason. What's worse is, last year they were snubbed for two one-loss teams from BCS conferences.

One of those teams was Florida -- the eventual national champions.

Prior to Florida's National Title Game appearance versus Oklahoma, they knocked off then-No. 1 Alabama in the SEC Title Game. And guess who Utah got matched up with in the Sugar Bowl? You got it -- 'Bama.

The result was a dominating performance by the Utah defense. In fact, Utah played better versus Alabama than Florida did. They allowed less yardage, forced more turnovers, and won by a larger margin.

For all we know, Utah may have been the best team in the nation last year.

Of course, this all comes down to one dilemma: the need for a playoff system in college football.

America is supposed to be a democratic nation. But like our government, major college football functions like a dictatorship that benefits a very small group of people.

The Football Bowl Subdivision of college football needs to: a) implement a playoff system, b) drop the ridiculously long name, and c) stop assuming that David can't beat Goliath.

It doesn't surprise me when mid-majors beat big-conference programs. I look forward to the day that BCS conference commissioners can say the same.