Playoffs?!?

Now we have the long anticipated change in the BCS system: a four team playoff was introduced. So instead of having an dubious ranking system to go along with 5 BCS bowl games, including a championship game, we now face a mini playoff which will crown the next champion of College Football.

But has anything changed? Not really I would argue. Selecting teams into this playoff is more difficult than selecting them into 5 BCS bowls. And who will select them? This question still remains to be answered. The only thing that we know about this is that a "committee" will select the programs. Many experts argue that such a four-team playoff system would not have included teams like Boise State in the past, who also were the losers in the BCS system, as non-automatic qualifying schools.

Another point is that there will be a lot of money earned with the new playoff system. TV contracts will be huge. Even if the hopes of BCS powerbrokers  that the "playoff finale" will be just like the Super Bowl will probably not quite be fulfilled, the new format will generate even bigger revenues than the current BCS format. And this will lead to the following question: How will these revenues be shared? My opinion (and I am not alone)  is that this "playoff" system will make the rich colleges even richer and fully manifest their power over all the smaller colleges. The current BCS cartel will get even more powerful and we will see more disparity between school on and off the field.

The critical media coverage, criticism from within the NCAA, a vast number of scandals and legal issues, as well as continuing confusion over the actual champion of NCAA football made a change necessary. This change, however, will make matters even worse and the monster called BCS will grow and get more powerful.

New world record!

In the shadows of the current UEFA championship and the aftermath of the Heat's second NBA title, a very significant event took place in the US. Ashton  Eaton, 24, from Bend, Oregon, broke the decathlon world record at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials on Saturday. He improved the previous world record, owned by Czech Roman Seberle (2001) from 9,026 to  9,039.

This is an amazing and very impressive performance and Eaton is now the favorite for the Olympics in London. He had amazing performances on the 100 sprint, running it in 10.21 seconds and and amazing long jump at 8.23 meters. Decathlon is often considered to be the supreme discipline in track and field and eclipsing the 9,000 points mark is something very special. Eaton will probably not become as famous as LeBron James or the future winner of the UEFA championships. But his performance is second to none and will certainly go down in history. And if he wins gold in London it will also pay off. I wish him all the best and congratulations!

Margin for (human)error?

Now that we are well into the second phase of the European Championship in soccer, it is time to look back at the most notable event: a decision made by a referee-assistant in the game England vs. Ukraine. As the TV images clearly show, England defender John Terry was not able to keep the ball out of the goal on his spectacular attempt to prevent the Ukraine from tying the game at 1:1. The picture (in contrast to the famous Wembley goal) tell a clear story and there is absolutely no doubt that the newly installed goal referee made the wrong decision by not declaring it a goal.

Some people and media analysts continue to argue in favor of preserving the current way of enforcing the rules in a soccer match. They come forward and praise the human decision making as the best way to handle critical situations like the Ukraine non-goal. UEFA officials, spearheaded by president Platini, are still reluctant to accept any technical assistance for referees in order to make their decisions easier. According to them it would destroy the "flow" of the game. Moreover the performance of referees is often praised excessively and "human decisions" are considered part of the game of soccer and the optimal way to achieve a fair competition.

Well, the latest non-goal makes UEFA look old. But it is really just another example of refereeing that might decide important games. Some people, and they are probably right, argue that the vast majority of referee calls in soccer are correct. But even if 1% of all calls are wrong this can influence the result of games. In a still growing business of soccer and sports betting a wrong decision by a referee can have dramatic consequences. Moreover, they can change player careers, end coaches contracts and leave whole nations of soccer fans desperate. By now most of the major sports worldwide have some sort of technical assistance for referees. Even highly traditional sports like tennis and baseball have it by now.

In the end UEFA might turn out to be the biggest loser, as Platini might lose the power struggle with FIFA president platter over the use of goal line technology. And the European Championship lost quite some momentum as Ukraine (probably unjustified) dropped out of the tournament.

Another victim of extraordinary bad refereeing is Greece. One of their key player, Karagounis, will miss today's quarter final against Germany because he received his second yellow card in the game against Russia. This card came after a clear foul against him remained unseen by the ref and interpreted as blatant dive. This is neither bad luck, nor is it just or performance related. And it should definitely not be part of the game. It is just a very bad decision that will influence competition on the field of play.

If the UEFA was interested in fair competition they would lift the card off Karagounis and let him compete today. And they would finally accept that in today's football referee mistakes are avoidable and definitely not just a "part of the game".