| |
|
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Mar 19, 2007
|
|
These should be televised by ESPN so we can see this whole process at work, especially considering the fact that we have presidents of public university's making policy decisions that affect those university's revenue.
I found it interesting that the ACC and SEC were in favor of the plus on format, four other BCS conferences were not AND that the other five conferences (who have only one collective vote) did not vote. Now I know that changes are made by consensus, and I may be speculating but Im pretty sure that those other five conferences would vote in favor of expanding the system which would make it 7 to 4, IF each conference had a vote.
If this set-up is fair, why doesnt each conference have a vote?
|
|
|
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Mar 19, 2007
|
|
BTW, I dont like the plus one format myself, but instead just an expansion of the system in order to make the bowls actually mean something.
In the absence of the BCS moving toward meaningful bowl games and the process becoming more fair, a playoff system should be implemented via NCAA direct involvement or congressional action, whichever comes first.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 1, 2008
|
|
HP, easy on the congressional involvement. I think they have bigger fish to fry. No one is being harmed by the BCS. The BCS is not pushing steroids on CFB. That is a bit much.
I see no point in the plus one format.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Mar 19, 2007
|
|
The so-called lesser conferences are certainly being harmed by the BCS, which is why they are talking congressional involvement.
I'm sorry but when I see ECU or BYU or Navy (isnt that a government facility) getting less money with a better product on the field than say Vanderbilt, Northwestern, or Duke, I think there is something wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 18, 2006
|
The so-called lesser conferences are certainly being harmed by the BCS, which is why they are talking congressional involvement.
The lesser conferences are as you describe them: LESS Read Tony Barnhardts article and come back and respond to the points he makes. You, like those guys, are way off base.
http://www.ajc.com/search/content/shared-blogs/ajc
/cfb/entries/2008/04/22/cheap_shots
_on.html
You dont have a leg to stand on. Get over it already.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 30, 2006
|
The so-called lesser conferences are certainly being harmed by the BCS, which is why they are talking congressional involvement.
The lesser conferences are as you describe them: LESS Read Tony Barnhardts article and come back and respond to the points he makes. You, like those guys, are way off base.
http://www.ajc.com/search/content/shared-blogs/ajc
/cfb/entries/2008/04/22/cheap_shots
_on.html
You dont have a leg to stand on. Get over it already.
well the non-bcs schools sent one rep to speak for them all, and to speak that they are happy with the current system and to vote against a playoff proposal
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 30, 2006
|
|
Now I know that changes are made by consensus, and I may be speculating but Im pretty sure that those other five conferences would vote in favor of expanding the system which would make it 7 to 4, IF each conference had a vote.
nope the vote has to be unanimous, if one conference shuts it down the proposal is dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 17, 2008
|
|
Pirate-the last two points have eloquently made my point.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 18, 2006
|
well the non-bcs schools sent one rep to speak for them all, and to speak that they are happy with the current system and to vote against a playoff proposal
That's the point 89. The current 10 slots would be cut down to 8 if the 4 team playoff is implemented. Unless another BCS Bowl is added to the current 5 games, the non-BIG 6 conferences will be against any change that takes them out of the mix.
As you point out it is an all or nothing proposition.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 17, 2008
|
|
Good points Pirate. My biggest beef with the BCS (even though my team's in a BCS conference) is that it excludes or unfairly limits involvement by non-BCS members. The rule is that only one non-BCS conference member can be selected per year. So they've arbirtrarily decided regardless of what an ECU, a BYU, or a Boise State does in a season, or has on a team talent wise, only one of them can go to the dance. Why? Because the BCS which is dominated by the large conferences says so, that's why. It's a private club and they don't want too many members. Congressional involvement is probably going to happen if the NCAA doesn't act. What is going to get Congress involved is the exclusion of state schools by the BCS criteria. There are 54 non-BCS Division 1 schools. This is out of 120 Division 1 schools. So 45% are automatically excluded from the BCS "Championship" except one. Many of these are state schools. No one's going to shed a tear for the private schools, but if you start fooling with state universities you're in trouble. Your point about schools and conferences being shut out of the bowl money give-away is a valid one. Congress keeps the NFL in line with the threat of anti-trust prosecution. Let's not kid ourselves. College football is one hell of a big business too. I think this is definitely on the horizon.
And Maestro, the Congress has a lot smaller fish that they gladly fry every day, so I don't buy your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 18, 2006
|
My biggest beef with the BCS (even though my team's in a BCS conference) is that it excludes or unfairly limits involvement by non-BCS members.
How so?
Long before the BCS, most of the 6 BIG 6 conferences had bowl tie-ins to the Big Bowl games. THE PAC and BIG to the Rose, The SEC to the Sugar, the BIG 8 to the Orange and the Southwest to the Cotton.
The changes to the conferences and the addition of the Fiesta to Big Bowl status changed some things around, but the conference tie-ins to the Big Bowls was there long before the BCS. The Non-BIG 6 conferences were NEVER part of the mix and what you point out has been the case FOREVER. It is nothing new.
Since the BCS has come about, the BCS and the Bowls have done nothing to upset those pre-existing tie-ins, except now the match-ups are done so within the context of a 1 vs 2 game to decide the BCS NC.
The conference winners still go to the respective Bowl games. No different than before. The difference now is that the non-BIG 6 conferences get a shot at a BCS Bowl. Like all the non-BIG 6 conference winners, there are rules and thresholds each team has to meet to make a BCS Bowl and we all know them by heart I would think by now. Just as a team has to be ranked high enough to be considered, a team can meet that criteria, only to be left out because of another rule, i.e. WIS in 06.
For you to sit there and and state that the "BCS excludes or unfairly limits involvement by non-BCS members is laughable. There are only 10 slots available and the BIG 6 conference champs get 6 of those slots. The remaining 4 go to at large teams that QUALIFY under the rules. As previously mentioned teams have to meet certain criteria to be considered. Before you make a statement like that, have 2 non_BIG 6 teams meet that criteria in the same year and THEN make that statement.
So they've arbirtrarily decided regardless of what an ECU, a BYU, or a Boise State does in a season, or has on a team talent wise, only one of them can go to the dance. Why? Because the BCS which is dominated by the large conferences says so, that's why. It's a private club and they don't want too many members.
For every BYU that did not make it based on the threshold needed for consideration, there is a MO, WIS and AUB that did not make it because of the 2 team per conference limit. We can all weigh in about what team is more deserving, but I doubt many would pick a HAW over a MO this year if we are choosing it based on the body of work. AUB beat both FLA and LSU the year before last, finished ahead of Boise in the final BCS rankings, but could not go.
The BCS has been tweaked over the years, starting with the KAN ST debacle year 1. UTAH made it on their own, BEFORE Congress got involved and the BCS added the 5th game. The bottom line should be if teams are good enough let them in. There should not be a limit to how many non-BIG 6 teams can make it, but the threshold should be high enough to warrant consideration.
Having to expand the rankings just to fill out the field is a joke. Let a 3rd place team like MO in, before expanding the ranking to fill the field. HAW, like ILL barely made the cut this year, but the BCS changed the rule and expanded the rankings because it looked like they werent going to able to fill all the slots.
Congress has already gotten involved and the BCS reacted and changed. If a team is good enough, they should be included, no matter how many teams from their conference or other non-BIG 6 conferences are in.
Dumbing down the BCS should not be the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 17, 2008
|
|
Ok so let me summarize. Your point is because there were bowl tie ins going back to the 1920's, these should continue for all eternity. And even though these bowls were never intended to crown a national champion, and are private entities, not responsible to the NCAA, if we want to have a championship, we must continue for all time to be bound by ancient bowl tie ins. And finally because schools like Boise St. and BYU weren't part of these ancient bowl tie ins, they should never, EVER, be allowed to play each other for a national championship, regardless of who they play, who they beat, or what talent they have on the team. Oh and don't let me forget, the BCS did the non-BCS schools a favor by allowing them one slot for 45 teams. Yeah, I think I understand you.
Quite frankly I think it's impossible to "dumb down" the BCS. Keep protecting membership to your private club. If neither the NCAA or the Congress acts, the BCS will probably just get hit with a class-action lawsuit and be bankrupted by attorneys' fees anyway. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of competition strangling monopolists.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 18, 2006
|
Your point is because there were bowl tie ins going back to the 1920's, these should continue for all eternity.
Nope, not even close. Did I say that? I don't think so.
And even though these bowls were never intended to crown a national champion, and are private entities, not responsible to the NCAA, if we want to have a championship, we must continue for all time to be bound by ancient bowl tie ins. And finally because schools like Boise St. and BYU weren't part of these ancient bowl tie ins, they should never, EVER, be allowed to play each other for a national championship, regardless of who they play, who they beat, or what talent they have on the team
With the advent of the Bowls being shown on TV, money became part of the equation. BYU won a NC years ago and played and defeated a 6-5 MICH team in the Holiday Bowl. Fast forward to today and BYU would have more than likely caught OU or WASH that year in the Orange Bowl or whatever city was hosting the BCS NC game then.
Think what you want, but the current system is better than when the top ranked teams did not even play each other. All one has to do is go back to when those bowl tie-ins existed and pick a year when the top teams did not even play each other in the bowls. 81 saw top ranked CLEM win the Orange Bowl, #2 TX play in the Cotton Bowl, #3 PSU play in the Fiesta Bowl and #4 PITT played in the Sugar Bowl.
The BCS is far from perfect, but it is better than what use to be.
Quite frankly I think it's impossible to "dumb down" the BCS. Keep protecting membership to your private club. If neither the NCAA or the Congress acts, the BCS will probably just get hit with a class-action lawsuit and be bankrupted by attorneys' fees anyway. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of competition strangling monopolists.
You obviously need a history lesson. Here is an excerpt from a recent Tony Barnhart article on the subject and the link.
'In 1984 the United States Supreme Court (surely you’ve heard of them) ruled that individual schools, not the NCAA, owned the television rights to college football games. The schools delegate their rights to their respective conferences, who have the authority to negotiate TV contracts."
"The BCS contract is between the six major conferences and two networks (FOX, ABC). Each of those six conference champs gets an automatic bid to a BCS bowl. Without that guarantee, there would have been no deal. There are access points to the BCS for the other five conferences that have been negotiated. Everybody involved has signed off on the agreement."
"If all the parties involved agree to the system and sign the contracts without duress, by definition it can’t be illegal.
And maybe this escaped your notice. There were congressional hearings on the BCS in 2005 and absolutely nothing happened. Why? Because five minutes into the hearings it was clear that they were a colossal waste of time. It was just a bunch of politicians getting some face time on ESPN."
http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/
cfb/entries/2008/04/22/cheap_shots_
on.html
You are way off base. The current make-up of the BCS has given the non-BIG 6 conferences more access to the Big Bowls than ever before. As best I can tell, the last time a non-BIG 6 team played in a BIG Bowl game was AIR FORCE playing UT in the 1971 Sugar Bowl.
3 invites in 4 years including 1 before the addition of the 5th BCS Bowl seems to be better than the previous 30 years. Why did the non-BIG 6 conferences vote AGAINST the 4 team playoff, if a playoff was in their best interest?
|
|
|
