The countdown to the Sugar Bowl and the rest of the games affiliated with the BCS is on. Tech and the other seven teams participating in the BCS are dutifully preparing for their games while fans from Virginia to Los Angeles make preparations to attend bowls from Miami to Pasadena. Teams whose records range from something other than that necessary to winning their conferences to just over .500 are in the process of extending their seasons, as bowls come at us from all directions by the day, culminating in the New Year’s celebration of college football. I consider this the most special of times, especially as I begin packing for a few days to be spent sampling the delights of the French Quarter, occasionally taking time to observe some of the other games. It’s a great occasion.

As usual, however, there are those taking a dim view of the unique method in which the highest classification of college football conducts its postseason. Hardly a day or column goes by without somebody whining about the BCS, most specifically, bellyaching relating to Tech’s Sugar Bowl opponent, Auburn, and how they got jobbed out of the chance to compete for the championship to be decided by Southern Cal and Oklahoma. My response is to yawn, cluck sympathetically and click on the next news item. That’s the way it goes, Tigers.

The braying about the BCS is concentrated on the inability by the BCS to fit three teams into two Orange Bowl slots. It is understandable, as it would likely have proven most difficult to have three teams in the game, perhaps alternating each possession with first Oklahoma’s offense versus USC’s defense, then Auburn’s offense up against Oklahoma’s defense, the Southern Cal offense lining up against the Auburn defense, and so on. Keeping track of the score would have been a bear. Or maybe they could have played two on one- maybe eight defensive backs could slow down Reggie Bush. In any event, having three teams play the game proved too great a logistical challenge for the BCS poobahs, so they decided to stick with the traditional football format of having two teams play the game. That meant one of the three undefeated contenders had to be left out, and BCS calculations determined that it would be Auburn. The Sugar Bowl ain’t a bad consolation prize, Tigers. While it may seem like a consolation prize to you, I would point out that Tech has played in two since the last time you visited Bourbon Street in 1987. You also might not be aware of it, since this is your first foray into major bowl territory in a while, but Tech has played in three since you last turned the trick and would be happy to tell you that any BCS bowl is a good one. Look on the bright side: at least it’s not Boise.

The griping and moaning about the participants in the BCS two-team playoff is the first time controversy has clouded the championship game since the last time it happened last year, when USC were the ones doing the griping. Before that, you have to go all of the way back to 2001 when Oregon was doing the howling, and before that flip through the history book to the year before, 2000, when Miami was the odd ibis out. In 1998 Florida State managed to sneak into the MNC game after UCLA lost their way out, the Noles awarded the right to lose to Tennessee over the howling protests of somebody, I’m sure. Only twice in the seven-year tenure of the BCS has the membership of the BCS conferences been so obliging as to produce two undefeated teams to square off in the championship, 1999 when Tech played FSU and 2002 when Miami lost to Ohio State. The rest of the years have produced loud complaining. So what? The republic and college football have survived. It will continue to, as well, as FOX has laid down big bucks to wrest the telecast of BCS bowls from ABC for at least the remainder of this decade. The BCS will continue to muddle along.

...