The four teams that have a legitimate claim to a title game berth are the University of Oklahoma, the University of Miami-Florida, Florida State University (FSU) and the University of Washington. Obviously it is impossible for all of these teams to play in the championship game, which will be the Orange Bowl this year.
As an FSU fan-I don't know how that actually started, but I root for them now-I believe that FSU deserves a title shot, and right now the BCS indicates that they will be in the title game. In the most recent standings, released on Monday, FSU held onto the second spot, with a .61 point advantage over Miami, even when Miami's 52-6 thrashing of Boston College is taken into account. The major claim that Miami has to a berth in the game is that they beat FSU earlier in the year, and likewise Washington claims that they deserve to be in the game due to their win over Miami.
The only team that controls their destiny is undefeated Oklahoma. With one game left, against seventh-ranked Kansas State University, the Sooners can guarantee themselves a berth if they win. If they lose they will most certainly be out of the running, even when their impressive wins over the University of Nebraska, the University of Texas and Kansas State are taken into account. Two different scenarios can put either Miami or FSU into the other spot, but it is unlikely that Miami will be able to pass FSU.
One aspect of the BCS that has been missed amid all the politicking and hoopla surrounding the weekly release of the polls is that they are not meant to be a weekly gauge, but are meant to be an accurate assessment when the season is over. Oklahoma, which has not played well in the last few weeks, could solve the whole dilemma by losing, thereby putting FSU and Miami in the title game. Washington has struggled in many of their wins, and it appears that the winner of the FSU-Miami rematch would be the best team in the country.
. . .
With the news that Mike Mussina is leaning towards signing with the Yankees, reportedly a six-year deal, it appears that the Yankees will again use their money to rule the baseball world. Not to take anything away from the Yankees-they have done an excellent job in the front office and on the field to maintain such a high level of talent-but the fact that they pull in so much more revenue allows them to compete in ways that small-market teams cannot.
As a Boston native and Red Sox fan it may be my hatred of the Yankees that fuels this animosity, but there is a drastic competitive imbalance in professional baseball. The Red Sox at least compete every year, even if they never win the one that counts, so I am lucky that I root for them. If I were a fan in Kansas City, Minnesota or Montreal I wouldn't even waste my time or money on baseball games. Those teams just have no chance of winning because they can't afford top-notch players. Something needs to be done about the competitive imbalance in baseball; otherwise, we will be stuck watching the same half-dozen teams dominate for years to come.
. . .
On the same line of thought, if you didn't attend the baseball panel discussion at Smith College before Thanksgiving break, you really missed out. Bob Costas, the keynote speaker and uber-announcer for NBC, proved to be as eloquent in person as he is on television. As much as he annoys listeners with some of his idiotic banter on broadcasts, he is a true baseball fan and he understands that changes need to be made to return competitive balance to the game.
The rest of the panel, consisting of journalists, owners, agents and economists, all proved to be knowledgeable and worth listening to, with Roger Noll, a noted sports-economist from Stanford University, the best of the remaining speakers.
. . .
Has anyone out there watched an NBA game from start to finish this year? I have tried to sit down and watch a game many times, but I just haven't been able to do it. I find the telecasts to be unbelievably boring, and any other show beats watching a pro basketball game.
I think that the major problem with the NBA is that they put too much effort into developing stars, and not teams. Since Michael Jordan retired, the league has struggled to find a star to put into his place. Shaq, Allen Iverson, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett and Vince Carter have all been tabbed as "the next Jordan," but so far none of them have been able to fill his shoes.
I still find college games exciting, but I think that is because the focus has always been on the teams, not the individual players. Duke University versus the University of North Carolina would be a riveting game even if both teams were having bad seasons, and no games in the NBA can match that level of excitement.
. . .
With so many players being felled by concussions in the last few years, measures need to be taken to protect the players. Concussions are epidemics for players in many sports, hockey and football in particular, and the occurrence of concussions has heightened in the last few years. This can be traced to a few developments, namely faster, stronger players and advances in medicine.
With high profile players like Steve Young, Troy Aikman and Eric Lindros all facing decisions about their careers due to multiple concussions, something needs to be done. I don't know what the best solution is, but if players of this caliber continue to retire while still in their prime, the sports affected cannot expect to have the same high level of competition, making both fans and players suffer.