| |
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 18, 2006
|
Your 1984 case deals with TV rights not the BCS.
Last time I checked the sole purpose of the BCS was to match the #1 ranked team vs. the #2 ranked team in a BCS NC game. The entire BCS is about BOWL GAMES ON TV. From the BCS website:
The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a five-game arrangement for post-season college football that is designed to match the two top-rated teams in a national championship game and to create exciting and competitive matchups between eight other highly regarded teams in four other games.
And here's a tip, Tony Barnhardt's opinion, even if he does style himself as "Mr Football" is not binding precedent on any court. You and Mr. Barnhardt should leave the practice of law to others. There are any number of ways to attack this from restraint of interstate commerce to anti-trust violations. And it won't be long.
How is that going to happen when the Supreme Court has ruled the INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS have the right to negotiate TV contracts. The individual conference schools have given the respective conferences the right to collectively negotiate a TV contract on their behalf. As pointed out the 5 non-BCS conferences agreed to the current BCS contract, so how are they now going to do as you claim? As Mr. Barnhart points out they entered into the contract voluntarily. No one forced them to agree to the contract.
This argument is pure sophistry. Non-BCS teams had virtually no access to bowls. So now because one team out of 45 may get to play per year, this is a great accomplishment? You gotta be kidding me!
That's far from true. The current Bowl make-up has 34 games and the 45 non-BIG 6 teams by my count have 19 slots in those 34 bowl games. That means they have 42% of the non BIG 6 teams make a Bowl game each year. Far from "virtually no access"
I guess it is in how one looks at it. 3 non-BIG 6 teams making a BCS Bowl in the past 4 years IS a BIG DEAL when one considers the last one that made it was AIR FORCE in 1971. The sad reality, HAW made it almost by default and got voted in at that. When it was all said and done, they did not belong, but the benevolence of the BCS included them. What a joke, and youre screaming that having only 1 team that "MAY" make it is not enough. Please show us all the times non-BIG 6 teams got shafted. They havent, but BIG 6 teams, because of arbitrary rules (no more than 3 per conference) get shafted almost yearly. AUB, WIS and MO, in the last 2 years alone.
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 17, 2008
|
|
This argument is pure sophistry. Non-BCS teams had virtually no access to bowls. So now because one team out of 45 may get to play per year, this is a great accomplishment? You gotta be kidding me!
That's far from true. The current Bowl make-up has 34 games and the 45 non-BIG 6 teams by my count have 19 slots in those 34 bowl games.
Very clever. We're discussing the 5 BCS bowls and when your argument gets skewered you try to change to statistics regarding ALL bowls. Nice try. What the hell does the fact that the MAC has a slot in the International Bowl have to do with the BCS championship? And somehow the BCS deserves credit now for non-BCS teams getting slots in non-BCS bowls? Seriously, dude, you're making this up as you go along. I don't mind debating this but these arguments just don't hold water.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 17, 2008
|
|
This argument is pure sophistry. Non-BCS teams had virtually no access to bowls. So now because one team out of 45 may get to play per year, this is a great accomplishment? You gotta be kidding me!
That's far from true. The current Bowl make-up has 34 games and the 45 non-BIG 6 teams by my count have 19 slots in those 34 bowl games.
Come on SEC, we're talking about the BCS and the 5 BCS bowls. And now you try to use statistics from ALL bowls. Just what does the fact that the MAC has a slot in the International Bowl have to do with the BCS Championship? And now, you believe the BCS deserves credit for getting non-BCS teams slots in non-BCS bowls? Seriously, you're making this up as you go along. We don't have to agree, but these arguments just don't hold water.
A true national championship requires access from more than 10 teams. And we're supposed to have pity for the 3rd or 4th place SEC team? Win your conference and you're in. Win a non-BCS conference and you probably don't even get invited. Hey, I'm not saying every team has to have the same path in a playoff. That's what seeding is for. That's what byes are for. That's what play-in games are for. That's what at large teams are for. So seed the Mountain West last, or make them play a play-in game (even against another non-BCS team). At least you give them a shot at a National Championship. If they knock off three other conference champs in playoffs why can't they be the National Champion? The answer now is solely because the BCS won't let them play. To me this is truly sad. You say these teams have never shown they can do this? So what do you have to worry about? Why are you afraid of Cinderella?
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 17, 2008
|
|
Damn (*&)*& double post.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 18, 2006
|
You're not describing a NC, you are describing a post season tournament. Face it, those are 2 vastly different propositions. A tourney crowns the last team standing, and that can be a very different outcome from a NC crowned after a season of college football.
Since when has there EVER been a year where there are more than a handful of teams that truly have a claim to the NC. This year was probably came as close as there has been in the last 25 years where all the BIG 6 conference champs could have been in the mix after the regular season, and that was because no team truly stood head and shoulders above the rest.
To open it up to include a bunch of undeserving conference champs is a joke. Just to recap how the 5 non-BIG 6 conferences did n the post season, CUSA champ UCF lost to MS ST, the 7th or 8th best SEC team. MAC champ, C. MICH lost to PUR, the 7th best team in the BIG 10, BYU blocked a FG on the last play of the game to defeat UCLA, the 5th best PAC team, FLA ATL beat MEM, the CUSA's 4th best team, and we all know what happened to HAW playing the SEC's 2nd or 3rd best team, UGA. What a joke. HAW's performance is going to make it harder for all the non-BIG 6teams on the edge to get the benefit of the doubt in making the cut to land in a BCS Bowl. UTAH and BOISE they were NOT.
Having a tourney with those conference champs makes a mockery of any legitimate attempt to crown a NC and is a complete waste of time. College football is not a tourney sport and after a regular season there are fewer, not more teams worthy of a NC. One of the undisputed truths of life, the non-BIG 6 conference champs don't have a snowballs chance of winning your tourney much less than a NC. There is a reason a #16 has never beaten a #1 in the BB tourney. Good luck selling this nonsense to the college football world.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 18, 2006
|
This year was probably came as close
Should be "This year probably came as close." Sorry
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Nov 21, 2006
|
|
Having a tourney with those conference champs makes a mockery of any legitimate attempt to crown a NC and is a complete waste of time. College football is not a tourney sport and after a regular season there are fewer, not more teams worthy of a NC. One of the undisputed truths of life, the non-BIG 6 conference champs don't have a snowballs chance of winning your tourney much less than a NC. There is a reason a #16 has never beaten a #1 in the BB tourney. Good luck selling this nonsense to the college football world.
AMEN, AMEN, and once more AMEN.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 17, 2008
|
|
To open it up to include a bunch of undeserving conference champs is a joke.
At last! The real core of your argument! You don't believe any team that's not in a BCS conference is "worthy" of playing in a national championship. Other than the one possible bone a year the BCS throws them. Why is that? Let me make your argument for you. The BCS conferences have more tradition, more bowl wins, more mythical national championships etc etc etc. Because of this prior history, BCS teams deserve to play for a national championship, while non-BCS teams do not.
Fair enough. Some teams are deserving and some are not. So who gets to decide. The BCS conferences! Wow, how convenient for them! So no matter who you are, if you're in the right conference you can play for an NC, if not too bad. MIght be fair if the better non-BCS schools like a Boise State or a BYU had a chance to get into a BCS conference and you could relegate the Vanderbilts, Minnesotas, Dukes, and the rest to a non-BCS conference. But we know that will never happen.
So the BCS schools feel the non-BCS schools are unworthy. So why don't you play them and find out? Why don't you strap it on like Georgia did and kick the crap out of them in a real national championship? The answer is plain old cowardice. These BCS schools are afraid to lose. So rather than have a real NC, you continue to play these mythical national championships based on polls, and computers and more polls and now 1 game too! Wow. And even though these are still mythical, you will crow and blow your horns that you're the "National Champ" even though you have prohibited half the schools from even competing.
The BCS conferences think they are Division 1 football. College football is a sport played by 120 teams in this country. Some day, we'll find out exactly who the national champion is, on the field. In the meantime, keep playing your limited access tournament and calling it a national championship. You're not fooling anyone.
Fortunately, there are other places to define the word champion, than the bogus BCS. Try t | |
|
