CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

BCS apologists really Boil my Blood

by Mars · 12/11/2010

Advertisement
M
Mars


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700090697/Greedy-BCS-shows-its-colors-again.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



:angry: :angry: :angry:



"The six conferences have bent over backward and tried to be politically correct to their own detriment, probably further than they had to, maybe should have."

~Pac-10 Commissioner, Weasel Larry Scott





"The problem is your big stage takes away opportunities for my teams, to play on the stage they created in 1902... We gave up the Rose Bowl, the SEC gave up access to the Sugar Bowl, others were included but they never had access to any of this before. You have to understand who brought what to the table. Who's continuing to give and who's continuing to get... The notion that over time by putting political pressure on, it's just going to get greater access, more financial reward and more access to the Rose Bowl, I think you're really testing. I think people who have contributed a lot have, what I call, 'BCS defense fatigue.' If you think you can continue to push for more money, more access to the Rose Bowl, or Sugar Bowl... I think the only question is, 'Does one team's 12-0 and another team's 12-0 equate?' And that's where the discussion plays out, not whether or not they're elite teams or deserving access to the bowl system... I'm not sure how much more give there is in the system... The only thing I would say if you think you can continue to pressure the system and we'll just naturally provide more and more and more. I don't think that's an assumption that our presidents, athletic directors, football coaches and commissioners necessarily agree with... Karl says we like this contract and we want more. Well, we've got fatigue for defending a system that's under a lot of pressure. The pressure is for more. It's never enough... I think the conferences should be allowed to have three bids... If the SEC has three teams in the top eight, the bowl system would be well served, the public would be well served."

~ Big Ten Commissioner, Weasel Jim Delany (Creator of the piece of crap BCS)





"Don't push it past this because if you push it past this, the Big 12's position is we'll just go back to the old system... You're getting the ability to get to places you've never gotten before. We've jerry-rigged the free market system to the benefit of those institutions and a lot are institutions that don't even fill their stadiums."

~Big 12 Commissioner, Weasel Dan Beebe



:angry: :angry: :angry:



http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/12/09/jim-delany-warns-non-aq-leagues-dont-expect-more-than-youre/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
S
SpiffCoug
TThe problem with BCS is there are a lot of BCS programs that fit the same criteria the BCS honks use to criticize nonBCS teams. There are plenty of empty stadiae in the BCS leagues.



I think eventually, a probably relativley soon, we're going to see the elite BCS teams - the teams that sell out every game & that move the radar and ratings - the teams like Ohio St, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida, USC, Oregon, LSU, etc. are going to break away. They're going to leave teams like UConn, Indiana, Iowa St, Washington St, Vanderbilt and Virginia behind. At least in football.



You better believe they're watching BYU. If the Cougars are successful deaking with ESPN alone, other teams will follow suit.



Why should they share what they've built? I think they're going to start asking why are we even sharing with some of the teams we're even sharing with now?



In some ways, BYU helped create the BCS as the arrogant elites looked for ways to shut out guys beneath them. It wouldn't surprise me to see BYU help destroy the BCS by showing those same players a second time how they further separate themselves and the their money even less.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
S
snoscythe
Mars wrote:
"We've jerry-rigged the free market system to the benefit of those institutions and a lot are institutions that don't even fill their stadiums."

~Big 12 Commissioner, Weasel Dan Beebe


LOL. Utah and TCU just got PWNED. (...and UCONN)
Y
YBrit
BCS proponents invented a new term combining Therapists and Analysts to help with BcS selection, they call themselves analrapists.
S
scott715
Let those teams go off on their own. Then the remaining teams can form a playoff and in a few short years those teams would return to get into the playoff.
Advertisement
S
SpiffCoug
Mars wrote:




We've jerry-rigged the free market system to the benefit of those institutions and a lot are institutions that don't even fill their stadiums."

~Big 12 Commissioner, Weasel Dan Beebe



:angry: :angry: :angry:



http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/12/09/jim-delany-warns-non-aq-leagues-dont-expect-more-than-youre/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My problem with quotes like these is the BCS honks like to compare the attendance of the Ohio States of the world with the New Mexico States of the world.



In all honesty, there are only about 6-7 schools that are not currently (as of today) in a BCS conference that are on a par with most of the BCS teams. And there are several BCS teams that are not a par with those few non-AQ teams or most of their conference mates.



Boise, TCU, Utah and BYU are really the only teams that compare favorably on the field and in the stands with most BCS programs.



If you add those four teams to the BCS attendance standings, and then rank them by how well they fill their stadiums (based on a percentage of capacity) then Boise ranks 20th, BYU 25th, TCU 48th and Utah 8th.



The following BCS programs don't even fill 80% of their stadiums: Purdue, Cal, Baylor, and Virginia.



The following BCS programs don't even fill 75% of their stadiums: Arizona St, Louisville, Washington St, South Florida, UCLA, Miami and Northwestern.



The problem with the BCS defenders is they can't make a logical argument without indicting a large percentage of their members.



They claim non-AQ teams are unable to compete on the field with them. But there are members in their own ranks that are non-competitive with them. I agree to a point. I don't think North Texas would be any more competitive in a BCS league than say, Indiana is.



They claim non-AQ teams don't move the ratings meter. But there are members in their own ranks that don't move the ratings meter either. No one is going to tune in to watch New Mexico St or Duke in football.



They claim non-AQ teams are unable to fill their stadiums. But there are members in their own ranks that are don't fill their stadiums either. Not many people are turning out to watch Washington St or Northwestern or Nevada or Florida International.



The problem isn't the BCS. It's the members. I like the computer rankings - they don't have bias. I like setting up different levels of competition. They have weight classes in wrestling, the BCS has tried to establish something akin to weight classes in football. The problem is they used a flawed entry mechanism. Membership in the BCS should be merit based, not history based or good-old boy network based.



Teams like Boise and BYU should be BCS teams. Teams like Virigina and Duke and Baylor shouldn't. Teams like TCU and Utah are competitive both on the field and in the attendance and ratings arenas. Teams like South Florida and Washington State aren't.



That's what I would change. Membership, not the BCS itself.
R
runbyu1
YBrit wrote:
BCS proponents invented a new term combining Therapists and Analysts to help with BcS selection, they call themselves analrapists.


Maybe they should hire Tobias to help!
S
SpiffCoug
scott715 wrote:
Let those teams go off on their own. Then the remaining teams can form a playoff and in a few short years those teams would return to get into the playoff.

I think we're moving this way.
M
MountainMD
I actually don't think I can disagree too much with the above BCS quotes. Conference tie-ins created wonderful tradition and excitement with some of the bigger bowl games over years (almost a century) with teams that generally bring tens of thousands of fans to these games. Why should TCU be playing in the Rose Bowl? The Big-10 and the PAC-10 built that bowl and are understandably sour that they have to include a team outside their own in the "Granddaddy" of all bowls. Even if Boise State, TCU, Hawaii, Utah or whoever else have had good seasons and will rally a big bowl crowd for a given year or two - none of them have consistently filled the seats over years in bowls (particularly at the level expected of the big bowls) or consistently get TV sets to tune in. The BCS really has gone out of it's way to include other teams.



I think what we should be realizing that the BCS-affiliated commisioners are appreciating that they have given up a lot to defend their original selling point that the BCS coalition would allow for a "National Championship" and because original public sentiment was that everyone should have access to a championship, they have allowed fairly reasonable access to their games. However, no non-BCS team has really ever been able to make a case to be #1 or #2, why should they even throw the bone at non-affiliated teams by giving up any of the other 8 spots that have traditionally gone to their own teams - those spots really have no need to be associated with the "BCS merit" system.



I would not be surprised to see the BCS move to an agreement to simply release the #1 and #2 teams (I think they would be happy to gamble that those spots will only be given away once per every 50 years - <BYU in 1984> - the NC championships won by service academies/ TCU/ SMU/ IVY League schools, etc. actually would have been in the "power conferences" of the day so you could say 1/140 years). The BCS bowls could leave the whole rest of the system behind and still have a collective bargaining agreement that would keep the TV $ coming and "access" will virtually disappear.



As BYU fans, we really ought to understand the BCS. BYU has built a "brand", a tradition, a "commodity" in its athletic programs (particularly football). BYU has chosen to become independent because it was giving away it's deserved resources to the MWC with minimal benefit to BYU. Are we criticizing the Independence decision because BYU will now have things that TCU/ Wyoming/ San Diego State/ UNLV do not. Does BYU "Boil your blood" because they aren't being politically correct and saying that the MWC is worth as much without them and that BYU deserves to be rewarded with a bigger piece of the pie than they were getting by "helping the MWC"?



Heaven forbid! I actually tend to agree with the BCS on this one. I appreciate that they have made more concessions than they really ought to have. I hope the BCS and the Orange Bowl realize that the Big East is going the way of the Ivy League and opens a spot for an improvement with their tradition by inviting the top ranked independent school (the Fiesta Bowl could do the same). Hopefully, the BCS will decide that BYU has the tradition and value to be included in their group. I hope they begin to feel the same way about the Cotton Bowl as well. However, I don't really think that they owe anything to the WAC or even the new MWC (BSU has been good lately, but has done little to build the grand tradition of these bowls.)



BYU owes nothing to it's former conference cohorts and I really think the same probably applies to the BCS if they would allow appropriate access to the championship when it is truly deserved.



The real challenge is that the BCS
M
Mars
kitic77 wrote:
We've jerry-rigged the free market system to the benefit of those institutions and a lot are institutions that don't even fill their stadiums." ~Big 12 Commissioner, Weasel Dan Beebe
My problem with quotes like these is the BCS honks like to compare the attendance of the Ohio States of the world with the New Mexico States of the world... there are several BCS teams that are not a par with those few non-AQ teams or most of their conference mates.



The following BCS programs don't even fill 80% of their stadiums: Purdue, Cal, Baylor, and Virginia.

The following BCS programs don't even fill 75% of their stadiums: Arizona St, Louisville, Washington St, South Florida, UCLA, Miami and Northwestern.



The problem with the BCS defenders is they can't make a logical argument without indicting a large percentage of their members. They claim non-AQ teams are unable to compete on the field with them. But there are members in their own ranks that are non-competitive with them. I agree to a point. I don't think North Texas would be any more competitive in a BCS league than say, Indiana is. They claim non-AQ teams don't move the ratings meter. But there are members in their own ranks that don't move the ratings meter either. No one is going to tune in to watch New Mexico St or Duke in football. They claim non-AQ teams are unable to fill their stadiums. But there are members in their own ranks that are don't fill their stadiums either. Not many people are turning out to watch Washington St or Northwestern or Nevada or Florida International.

Well said, my thoughts exactly. How many of the 12 football schools in the Big XII sold out every home game this year? 2? Basically, guys like Beebe are full of crap. News reporters need to start cutting them off mid-sentence and tell them to cut the crap and be honest for once.



If you want your precious Rose bowl to be part of the BCS, then you can't whine about the BCS selection process that puts TCU in that game. Any bowl that has 2 auto-tie-ins that looks to a 3rd party to set-up its participants is asking for it (unlike ANY other BCS bowl game). The Sugar has even less to whine about, as that bowl has a permanent open spot. All the bowls are anyway is a traditional excuse to ruin the sport by not having a Playoff.



Why do 5 BCS bowl games even exist? They match-up #1 Vs. #2 in one game, but then don't match up anyone else according to any logic. 4-loss UConn playing in Arizona against Oklahoma is "tied" for the 2nd-best bowl game this year, according to their worthless system? Why do auto-bids exist for non-BCS title teams? What purpose does it serve? The only thing it exists to do is to create an unfair coalition based on keeping 40% of the nation's conferences out, thus illegally grabbing themselves an inflated piece of the pie from the media. The whole thing is ridiculous.
Advertisement
M
MountainMD
Kitic and Mars, I agree to a point with your posts, but still think that you are missing the point. The 4 "other" BCS bowls existed and built a tradition well before the BCS was ever instituted. Those bowls have a right to contract with any groups that they desire and have been very successful financially in the choices that they have made. The conferences that have allied with those bowls have certainly proven their worth.



Why does the Holiday Bowl happily agree to take the 5th (or often 6th) choice of the Big 12 to play the 4th or 5th choice in the Pac 10 and then pay out much more than the bowls accepting the WAC or MWC first choices? The Holiday Bowl is not part of the BCS. Like the BCS, each wants to be free to choose the most lucrative course and sell that product. We used to believe in that process in this country - I think it is called something like free enterprise...



The truth is that the BCS conferences have proven to be financially lucrative even to the 5th or 6th or even 8th place teams. Whether or not bowl entities or television broadcasters (or any other marketer) are affiliated with the BCS, it is clear that the general assessment is that there is increased value in the BCS associated groups and that there is not the same value in those not associated.



Obviously, college presidents, the NCAA, and over 35 bowls don't see a need for a playoff. It's a romantic idea, but really has no steam. Let the smaller schools break away and start a playoff. You will not see the BCS schools come back in to join in a few years... remember that has been done - that is why there is an FCS and a FBS. The playoff faction would be fortunate if there became a 3rd division - more likely they will simply end up joining with the FCS.
M
Mars
MountainMD wrote:
The 4 "other" BCS bowls existed and built a tradition well before the BCS was ever instituted. Those bowls have a right to contract with any groups that they desire and have been very successful financially in the choices that they have made. The conferences that have allied with those bowls have certainly proven their worth.

So what? Wyoming has played in the Sugar bowl in the past, long before the BCS. Give me a break. The bowls don't matter anyways, they only exist to destroy hope for a Playoff, which would even the money out too much to illegally restrict trade anymore for the Fat Cats' liking.



Or should the NFL get rid of their playoff system and let the Steelers, the Patriots, etc. use the free trade system to come up with their own home bowl games? That's garbage.
S
SpiffCoug
The Orange Bowl was the traditional home of the Big 8 winner. The Fiesta Bowl didn't have conference tie-ins.
M
MountainMD
I am not sure what discussion of a rare appearance by Wyoming in the Sugar Bowl and discussion of the bowls having changed some of their tie-ins changes in this discussion. I even "hoped" that the Fiesta or Orange Bowls would see independence value with the chance to get a solid Notre Dame or BYU in good seasons.



The overall point is that those bowls were not created by the BCS - they built strong bowls and strong bowls do not want teams from weaker conferences. This is not exclusive to the BCS. Why don't you accuse other bowls of "restricting trade" like the BCS is accused? The Holiday Bowl, Cotton, Gator, Capitol, Outback, Alamo, Chick-Fil-A, Sun, Champs Sports, Meineke, Music City, Texas, Pinstripe, Insight, TicketCity, and Compass bowls deserve just as much venom. They all clearly prefer teams from the BCS automatic qualifying conferences and generally pay better than any of the bowls affiliated with the other conferences. Are they illegal as well?



One might imagine that the BCS prevents a playoff, but there was no playoff before the BCS and the NCAA and the more powerful and better conferences don't seem in any hurry to endorse the idea of a playoff now either. Maybe, most of the world is actually content with the given situation which allows us to come back around to the point - why should the BCS bowls and the conferences affiliated with them give up what they have built?



While the BCS qualifying conferences have their dregs, all conferences do - you can't have teams that go undefeated without a few people to beat up on. The weak schools do their part by lining up week after week. You will see BYU pay handsomely for that benefit over the next few years - either writing checks, over-scheduling like that hurting Notre Dame, or settling for away 1
S
SpiffCoug
MountainMD wrote:
While the BCS qualifying conferences have their dregs, all conferences do - you can't have teams that go undefeated without a few people to beat up on. The weak schools do their part by lining up week after week. You will see BYU pay handsomely for that benefit over the next few years - either writing checks, over-scheduling like that hurting Notre Dame, or settling for away 1

And this is the issue. All the arguments made by the BCS against the non-AQ teams can also be applied to the BCS itself.



People tout how hard the BCS schedule is. Auburn did play some very tough teams (LSU, Arkansas, Alambame, South Carolina); but they also played some real dogs (Chattanooga - FCS, Arkansas St 4-8, Louisiana-Monre 5-7, Mississippi 4-8) and three 6-6 teams (Georgia, Clemson, Kentucky).



The BCS's arguments are hollow and hypocritical and that's the problem.
Advertisement
M
MountainMD
kitic77 wrote:
While the BCS qualifying conferences have their dregs, all conferences do - you can't have teams that go undefeated without a few people to beat up on. The weak schools do their part by lining up week after week. You will see BYU pay handsomely for that benefit over the next few years - either writing checks, over-scheduling like that hurting Notre Dame, or settling for away 1

And this is the issue. All the arguments made by the BCS against the non-AQ teams can also be applied to the BCS itself.



People tout how hard the BCS schedule is. Auburn did play some very tough teams (LSU, Arkansas, Alambame, South Carolina); but they also played some real dogs (Chattanooga - FCS, Arkansas St 4-8, Louisiana-Monre 5-7, Mississippi 4-8) and three 6-6 teams (Georgia, Clemson, Kentucky).



The BCS's arguments are hollow and hypocritical and that's the problem.


Agreed. I am not a fan of the BCS - I just don't disagree with them on this particular issue.



On the risk of being hollow and hypocritical, we have to watch calling Mississippi a real dog. Auburn will tell you that Ole Miss is an SEC challenge. We will look at our game against Ole Miss as a tough one next year as well! ;)
S
SpiffCoug
They may not be a dog next year, but they are this year.



I don't disagree with the BCS that there are a lot of unworthy non-AQ teams. I just want BCS membership to be based on merit. If they did that, the teams (not the conferences) that built the bowls would still be going to those bowls. Arizona, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue and Northwestern didn't help build the Rose Bowl (7 bids ever between them).



Why should they be grouped and benefit from the team that did like Ohio St, Michigan, Washington and USC?
M
MountainMD
I can agree that it doesn't make sense that the dogs benefit with the powers. Ideally, we try to see the BCS as a reward based on merit, but I gave up on that years ago. College football has become money driven. I am glad that my favorite team is able to demand a pretty good paycheck. I don't blame them for taking what the market gives and don't think they need to share or feel bad for anyone else. In this issue, otherwise hollow and hypocritical or not, I don't blame any of them for taking what the market is willing to pay and wondering if they might be better off sharing a little less.
S
SpiffCoug
It is money driven and that why I think in the next few years you're going to see the big boys even further separate themselves. They did it 12 years ago when they created the BCS and essentially created a D1-A a D1-AA and D1-AAA.



They're going to to it again when they start to wonder why they're still sharing money who aren't bringing money in. You can't tell me Iowa St, Indiana and Virginia contribute monetarily to the BCS football powers.



I really think they're watching BYU's indy move and if it's successful, more will follow suit.
M
Mars


Economists estimate that schools like Oregon and Auburn are losing tens of millions each by playing in a BCS title game and not an 8-team Playoff championship game. Their respective conferences are losing nearly a hundred million each. But hey, let's let "free markets" do their thing here, as 60% of the market teams up to shut out 40% of the market...
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.