CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

BCS is getting desperate

by UVACoug · 11/19/2009

Advertisement
U
UVACoug
I just read/listened to two of the worst defenses of the BCS ever. I think the BCS is desperately trying to hold on to their cash cow.



Here is an article about why the BCS is more "fair" than any other system in sports. They convenient overlook the fact that more than 1/2 of the teams in college football are disqualified before the season even starts:



http://www1.realclearsports.com/articles/2009/11/12/would_a_college_football_playoff_be_fair_96533.html



This one is even better. It is an interview between Dan Patrick and the new BCS coordinator Bill Hancock (he says it is his job to "educate" the public about the benefits of the BCS). Patrick completely tears him a part. It is a little long, but is worth the listen if you get a chance.



http://ht.cdn.turner.com/si/danpatrick/audio/2009/11/18/DP-Bill_Hancock-11-18-09_Interview.mp3



Hancock has the worst job in the world.
A
ABYUFAN
UVACoug wrote:
I just read/listened to two of the worst defenses of the BCS ever. I think the BCS is desperately trying to hold on to their cash cow.



Here is an article about why the BCS is more "fair" than any other system in sports. They convenient overlook the fact that more than 1/2 of the teams in college football are disqualified before the season even starts:



http://www1.realclearsports.com/articles/2009/11/12/would_a_college_football_playoff_be_fair_96533.html




Oh… that one's great. Is that guy really a PHD? His "fairness index” measures the "champion’s" record versus the best record of the teams in the league, and he is surprised that in college football, more often than not, the team with the best record gets crowned the champion and contrasts that with the NFL. Oh OK … but as my dog pointed out to me (apparently she is much smarter than this guy) This is the BCS trying to have it both ways. This guy claims that it’s only “fair” that the best team in the league gets to play for the championship, and, by the term “best team” this guy means the team with the best record; however, look at last year, the two teams with the best record were prohibited from playing for the championship because it wasn’t “fair” to the teams that played a harder schedule.



There are so many problems with this stupid article that I had to stop reading it because it made me think about the statement regarding lies….damn lies…and statistics.
B
BYUTIME
ABYUFAN wrote:
I just read/listened to two of the worst defenses of the BCS ever. I think the BCS is desperately trying to hold on to their cash cow.



Here is an article about why the BCS is more "fair" than any other system in sports. They convenient overlook the fact that more than 1/2 of the teams in college football are disqualified before the season even starts:



http://www1.realclearsports.com/articles/2009/11/12/would_a_college_football_playoff_be_fair_96533.html




Oh… that one's great. Is that guy really a PHD? His "fairness index” measures the "champion’s" record versus the best record of the teams in the league, and he is surprised that in college football, more often than not, the team with the best record gets crowned the champion and contrasts that with the NFL. Oh OK … but as my dog pointed out to me (apparently she is much smarter than this guy) This is the BCS trying to have it both ways. This guy claims that it’s only “fair” that the best team in the league gets to play for the championship, and, by the term “best team” this guy means the team with the best record; however, look at last year, the two teams with the best record were prohibited from playing for the championship because it wasn’t “fair” to the teams that played a harder schedule.



There are so many problems with this stupid article that I had to stop reading it because it made me think about the statement regarding lies….damn lies…and statistics.


Starting with the notion that letting weaker teams into a playoff is somehow unfair. Basically they are saying that if Florida lost in the first of a round of a playoff to Oregon, it would be more fair to let Florida advance since they had a better regular season. Sounds really stupid once you spell out what they are really saying, doesn't it?
W
wazzucoug97
If the best team doesn't win the playoff..... I guess they weren't the best team :utard:
8
88Coug
That was a really silly article by a couple economist shills being paid for by the BCS. As to their points, what is more a fair -- having teams schedule 4 OOC cupcakes and end the season with only 1 win over a decent school, or a team that schedules 4 tough OOC games and then ends up with a lot of wins over good schools, but being left out because of the school's name?



25 years ago everyone scheduled like USC (everyone but the SEC did---only a couple played real teams and the SEC was pretty down for most the 80s). Even the 1984 Michigan team played 9 Big Ten schools, Miami (No. 1 at the time they played ---- and in finished in the top 20) and Washington (No. 2 overall at the end of the season). Completely unlike Michigan today. OU who won the title in 1985 played Minnesota, Texas, SMU, and Miami (loss) OOC, besides the annual battle with Nebraska.



The BCS was caused for the complete downgrade of the college football regular season, making it so major teams avoid tough games and giving huge incentives for conferences to "assist" major teams in the replay booth. It is corrupting influence and has weakened the sport.
Advertisement
B
BroncoBot
88Coug wrote:
That was a really silly article by a couple economist shills being paid for by the BCS. As to their points, what is more a fair -- having teams schedule 4 OOC cupcakes and end the season with only 1 win over a decent school, or a team that schedules 4 tough OOC games and then ends up with a lot of wins over good schools, but being left out because of the school's name?



25 years ago everyone scheduled like USC (everyone but the SEC did---only a couple played real teams and the SEC was pretty down for most the 80s). Even the 1984 Michigan team played 9 Big Ten schools, Miami (No. 1 at the time they played ---- and in finished in the top 20) and Washington (No. 2 overall at the end of the season). Completely unlike Michigan today. OU who won the title in 1985 played Minnesota, Texas, SMU, and Miami (loss) OOC, besides the annual battle with Nebraska.



The BCS was caused for the complete downgrade of the college football regular season, making it so major teams avoid tough games and giving huge incentives for conferences to "assist" major teams in the replay booth. It is corrupting influence and has weakened the sport.


Has anyone ever heard an argument that the best team didn't win the NCAA mens basketball tournament?



I'm sure it's happened, but every year we get to hear about the latest unfairness that is the BCS. Every year another team can claim that they were cheated by the current system.
M
mormonrasta
88Coug wrote:
That was a really silly article by a couple economist shills being paid for by the BCS. As to their points, what is more a fair -- having teams schedule 4 OOC cupcakes and end the season with only 1 win over a decent school, or a team that schedules 4 tough OOC games and then ends up with a lot of wins over good schools, but being left out because of the school's name?



25 years ago everyone scheduled like USC (everyone but the SEC did---only a couple played real teams and the SEC was pretty down for most the 80s). Even the 1984 Michigan team played 9 Big Ten schools, Miami (No. 1 at the time they played ---- and in finished in the top 20) and Washington (No. 2 overall at the end of the season). Completely unlike Michigan today. OU who won the title in 1985 played Minnesota, Texas, SMU, and Miami (loss) OOC, besides the annual battle with Nebraska.



The BCS was caused for the complete downgrade of the college football regular season, making it so major teams avoid tough games and giving huge incentives for conferences to "assist" major teams in the replay booth. It is corrupting influence and has weakened the sport.


The BCS has had minimal impact on scheduling. Bigger impacts to scheduling include:



1. There are 20% more FBS college football teams now than in 1984.

2. There were 21 independents in 1984. There are 3 now.

3. Everybody and I mean EVERYBODY (except Washington, USC, and Notre Dame) plays FCS teams now.

4. College football home game revenue has skyrocketed which creates a greater importance of playing home games.



These factors wouldn't change if there was a playoff. Teams will still want to schedule as many home games as possible and because they have more choices to schedule lesser opponents to make that happen they will go with those choices.
S
Schmoe
You know, I had this sneaking suspicion, for some reason, I really don't know why, but I just knew that rasta would comment on this thread... ;)
M
Mars
mormonrasta wrote:
Everybody and I mean EVERYBODY (except Washington, USC, and Notre Dame) plays FCS teams now.

Washington cancelled two games with BYU to schedule two FCS teams, remember?
M
mormonrasta
Mars wrote:
Everybody and I mean EVERYBODY (except Washington, USC, and Notre Dame) plays FCS teams now.

Washington cancelled two games with BYU to schedule two FCS teams, remember?


That's not set in stone (not the BYU scheduling part, but the FCS part). They haven't played a FCS team yet, but they probably will in the near future.
Advertisement
B
BroncoBot
Rasta, I don't know if I should respect you, or cringe because of your lifelong defense of the BCS.
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.