Many of you write and ask: "Do I actually read every message that comes in?" The answer is "yes," although volume has become such that I can no longer respond to each e-mail individually. That's why we created "Bracket Banter!"

B.S. or BCS?
I read your article on how things would be different if college football people ran college basketball, and basketball ran football. I totally agree with you. There is nothing more exciting than March Madness. I have been saying for many years that college football needs a playoff system.

Even though the BCS has its share of problems, at least it is better than the way it used to be. In the past, Ohio State would be locked into the Rose Bowl while Miami would be in the Orange Bowl. With the BCS, at least both of the undefeated teams played each other.

If I read your article the correct way, it sounds as if you think Southern Cal would beat Ohio State if they played each other. You couldn't be more wrong. No one gave Ohio State a chance against Miami. The Buckeyes were 13-point underdogs and most "experts" thought 13 was too low. The last time I checked, Southern Cal didn't have a 34-game winning streak like Miami did. The last time I checked, Southern Cal didn't have two Heisman finalists on the same team like Miami did. The last time I checked, Southern Cal wasn't the defending champion like Miami was.

Ohio State 27, Southern Cal 13

Barry Spears

If you're related to Britney, you can write whatever you want. Let's just say we both agree a Division I college football playoff would be preferable to the current system. Regarding a potential match up between Ohio State and Southern Cal, you are misrepresenting my position.

I have no idea who would win such a game, in part because I don't follow college football all that closely and in part because I'm supposed to restrict my opinions here to balls that are round instead of pointed. What I am saying is that, if USC would indeed be a betting favorite over Ohio State (I've heard up to six points from those dreaded "people in the know"), then a system which prevents the teams from actually playing it off is still flawed.

Before everyone in Ohio begins to hang me in effigy, please understand that I think your Fiesta Bowl victory was great, that anyone who would set a 13-point line on a such a game is nuts, and that the Buckeyes are clearly the No. 1 team under the current system. It's the current system I have a problem with, not Ohio State.

Joe,
Your column attracted my attention because I have a general axe to grind on the "what makes a champion" debate. There are two basic issues at stake:

1) Is the champion the best team?
2) Who should have a chance to be champion?

In response to the first question, the answer is a resounding "no." No matter what the sport, whatever its playoff system, the declared champion is rarely what pundits, or even the casual fan, would consider the best team. Was Villanova the best team in '85? Were the Buckeyes the best team this year? Were the Angels the best team in baseball? No, of course not.

The only definition of "champion" is that it is a team that wins the right games. The quality of the team is not the defining factor. The difference between the BCS and the college basketball is that, for the BCS, every game a team plays is a necessary win. In the NCAAs, only the games in the tournament are must wins. Personally, I'd rather reward the team that grinds out win after win during the regular season as opposed to some flash in the pan that gets hot at the right time.

The answer to question two is a bit trickier, at least for me. I don't really think that teams from minor Division I conferences deserve to play in national championships because their records are made meaningless because of the competition. I'm sure to be vilified for a remark like that at a North Texas-BYU game, but small colleges don't play enough quality opponents to qualify, at least in my eyes. So who has the opportunity to play for a BCS championship? Anybody from a major conference who goes undefeated. I have yet to see the BCS fail in that respect.

In summary, my personal tilt is that the BCS is fine the way it is. Take the two highest-ranked teams, and slap them together in a bowl game. That is how we are most likely to reward the most deserving team. Playoffs will happen for sure, though, (as there is) too much money to be made. I also have to admit that, as a fan, a playoff would be incredibly fun. It just isn't the fairest way to do things.

Fred Frost

Fred,
You make coherent and legitimate points. My long-time beef is more with your second question above than the first (on which we, and I suspect most rational observers of sports, have no disagreement).

The answer to No. 2 isn't tricky at all for me. "Who should have a chance to be champion?" Any team good enough to win, it says here. The process should be inclusive enough to allow all realistic contenders a chance to compete for title. If Ohio State and Miami were the consensus two best teams, then any other team with a legitimate chance to beat both of them in succession should have had a chance to do so. How many teams really qualify under this criteria? Two? Four? Six? Certainly not so many that an integrated bowl playoff couldn't happen.

The BCS "worked" this year because there were two undefeated teams. The consensus matchup has not always been so clear. And the notion that every regular season game is essentially part of an extended DI playoff doesn't hold water with me due to scheduling disparities and other inequities that have little to do with determining the best team. I say err on the side of having "one too many" than "one too few" teams with a chance to win it all.

I just wanted to take a moment to stand and applaud your column showing the pathetic disparity of true competition between college basketball and college football. While I admit to screaming bloody murder each Selection Sunday about the "flavor" or "small school of the month" (generally an overachieving MAC school) getting the proverbial shaft from the selection committee, at least EVERY school in Division I basketball can begin its season with an avenue to the national championship.

A back-to-back, 13-0 Marshall football squad would peak at 12 or 13 in the BS (no typo) standings. I couldn't have said it better myself about not considering college football to have a national champion. (Bowl season) is simply a money-grubbing, free-for-all with pomp, circumstance and the almighty dollar holding serve over the true spirit of competition that college basketball uses to run circles around its blind counterparts.

Thank you, again, for being a sensible voice amidst the greed.

David Bowman
Toledo, Ohio

Don't think there isn't a fair amount of greed in our sport, as well. Neither is perfect, but college basketball is clearly BETTER.

Big Least?
I was amazed that Syracuse was among your "Last Four In" due to their weak schedule. Sure, they have played teams such as Binghamton, Cornell and Colgate. But, to this point, they have also played Memphis and Georgia Tech. And with the young team they have this year (a starting lineup consisting of two freshmen and two sophomores), it was genius of Jim Boeheim to schedule the other non-conference games of Michigan State and Missouri after having nine games of preparation. Syracuse does play some tough out-of-conference games, unlike teams such as Duke. Who have they played this year?

Also, I see you have referred to the Big East as the "Big Least." The Big East is, without a doubt, no lower than third in a ranking of the conferences. Three Top 6 teams and strong from top to bottom. The teams voted to finish toward the cellar, like West Virginia, have big wins over Florida and Tennessee. I don't see teams like Kansas State or Vanderbilt beating any legitimate teams, showing the depth of the Big East.

I am looking forward to the Bracketology where you finally show Syracuse some respect.

Andrew Tarkowski
Syracuse, N.Y.

Rest assured the Big East, and Syracuse for that matter, will get plenty of respect in this corner ... as soon as it is EARNED. This is a conference which annually (and I suspect intentionally) plays the most patsies among its peers. And that's not just my opinion. It happens year after year, and there are numbers to prove it.

Let's take a look at non-league schedule strength among the conferences which generally place more than one team into the NCAA Tournament field:

No. 1: Atlantic 10
No. 3: SEC
No. 4: Missouri Valley
No. 5: Conference USA
No. 6: WAC
No. 8: Big Ten
No. 10: Pac-10
No. 12: ACC
No. 13: Mountain West
No. 14: Big 12
No. 15: Big East

Largely because of these scheduling practices, the Big East was looking up at six other leagues when I last checked the conference-by-conference rankings. This will change, of course, as Big East members start playing one another (and their equally padded records). And the conference will continue to get 5-7 bids to the Big Dance. It's just a scheduling philosophy that I don't happen to share, nor do I think should be rewarded.

When the time comes, the Selection Committee should duly note the non-league slates of Georgetown (No. 291), Syracuse (No. 252), UConn (No. 224), Pitt (No. 198) and others in the Big East. And, if I were the commissioner of the conference, I'd ask this question: "Do these non-league schedules prepare us well for the NCAA Tournament?"

A quick glance at the composition of the Final Four for the past five years may be revealing:

ACC: 6 teams
Big Ten: 6 teams
Big 12: 2 teams
Pac-10: 2 teams
SEC: 2 teams
Big East: 1 team
MWC: 1 team

I was checking out your latest bracket, when I clicked upon Syracuse and came across your comment on the Big East and what you feel to be their weak non-conference schedule. How about the ACC? Media types love to gush about ACC teams, but turn a blind eye when ACC teams commit the same sins that many other programs do.

To that end, I say show me what the ACC has accomplished out of conference this year? North Carolina and Georgia Tech probably play the toughest non-conference schedules in the ACC, but that won't buy either of them a cup of coffee with the results they have achieved. Duke? Wake Forest? Both are ranked, and both currently have not played one ranked team in non-con play, nor do the have any scheduled.

I read an article by a Syracuse sportswriter that lamented that the Big East was only 5-5 against ranked non-conference opponents. I thought it funny that the ACC would have to kill for that record!

Dan Andrews
Charlotte, N.C.

I am not a particular fan of either conference, but I think the ACC's non-league schedule ranking is abnormally low this year (while the Big East is about average). More to the point, let's count the number of wins/games these conferences have recorded against RPI Top 25 competition (Through Jan. 6):

Pac-10: 7-11
SEC: 6-9
ACC: 5-7
Atlantic 10: 5-11
Big Ten: 5-14
MWC: 3-6
Big 12: 3-10
C-USA: 3-11
Big East: 3-13
WAC: 0-9

Bracket Bits
Hello, Joe! How are you this fine New Year? I think you know why I am writing. Because of that ridiculous pick of Fairfield to win the MAAC. Now I understand that it is early in the season, and these picks are more for conversation pieces. But come on! Fairfield has a higher RPI? Because they have UConn on their schedule? And Siena? Manhattan beat them by 15 (Tuesday) night. And if you didn't pick Manhattan, the next logical choice would be Iona. C'mon Joe, if you are going to follow college basketball, evaluate them all, and not watch Duke and Arizona every Sunday afternoon. Till next week!

Gregg Shaw

As noted in the FAQ section, one-bid conference representatives are the current standings leader (or RPI leader, in the case of ties).

You pick Stanford to make the tourney, but Cal just rolled them. The Bears will finish in the top five of the conference, and they are tough to beat at home. They will lose to the big names, but they will pull a few quality wins in their conference. Look for them to maybe sweep USC and UCLA, and maybe beat Oregon or Arizona at least once. Give 'em some respect, they get no love from the media!

Aaron Schweizer

Let's remember that head-to-head competition is not a criterion (or tiebreaker) for the NCAA Selection Committee. So let's put the two Bay Area rivals side-by-side:

STANFORD: RPI No. 13, SOS No. 6. Top 100 wins over Xavier, Rice, Florida, UNLV, Gonzaga and Yale.
CAL: RPI No. 58, SOS No. 188. Top 100 wins over Louisiana-Lafayette (No. 99) and Stanford (at home).

Maybe now you can see why the committee (and I) do things the way they do.

Joe Lunardi is the resident Bracketologist for ESPN, ESPN.com and ESPN Radio. He may be reached at bracketology@comcast.net.