Fanblogs.com: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke
U.of S.C.1978
· 6 months ago
Reminds me of Corrine Brown's infamous "Go Gator, Go Gator, Go Gator", previously posted here. I don't know who said it first regarding politicians, but generally speaking, if they want the job, then that should disqualify them for it.
ksuwild
· 6 months ago
Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a "joke". I guess that's one take on it. Here's another for the subjective readers in the bunch.
I think the joke was on Swafford and the BCS if you ask me.
Here's a quote from the link above...
"Fox couldn't answer Barton's question about why the bowl system is beneficial when most schools that play in lower-tier bowls lose money on the deal. Nor could Swofford explain to Barton why Notre Dame wielded as much voting power as 51 other schools. Tradition, Swofford stammered. "Using that logic," Barton said, "Delaware -- which was the first state in the nation -- ought to have 50 votes in the House. ... That doesn't make a lot of sense."
Does that make sense to you Kevin? No, but that's just the way it is huh?
Swofford said that the revenue distribution "represents the marketplace", which is really just a nice way of saying that the BCS wants the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor. NO?
Within Bartons' bill, any organization would be barred from "the marketing, promotion, and advertising of a postseason game as a 'national championship' football GAME, unless it is the result of a playoff system. Trophy Shmophy
You say "Let me see if I understand the implication: Since the BCS does not award a National Championship trophy... the BCS would continue unchanged."
Umm, No.
If they can't MARKET $$$$$$$$, PROMOTE $$$$$$$$ or ADVERTISE $$$$$$$$ the BCS as a national championship GAME, that hurts their pocket book if I'm not mistaken. So, wrong there about it not changing anything if it passes. Nice try though.
The winner of the BCS national championship game is considered to be, and is accepted as the national champion by the people who follow college football. Period.
Who cares whether they issue a trophy or not. The whole point of the BCS is to control the REVENUE and INCLUSION to the premier bowl games... oh yah, and pit the no. 1 and 2 BCS ranked teams in the national championship game, WINK-WINK.
It would definitely affect the BCS's pocket book if the legislation passed, and no matter how much you down play it, or how far fetched you think it is... the one thing I think we can all agree on is that the BCS will react seriously to any loss of revenue for any reason.
Whether you think the congressmen did a crappy job of presenting their case or not the problem still remains that the vast majority of college football fans want a playoff. That didn't change during these hearings did it?
You say "None of the congressmen attending the hearing was aware that all eleven major conferences are members and financial benefactors of the BCS".
If by "financial benefactors" you mean... getting the leftover scraps from the 72 OZ T-Bone Steaks the BCS just gnawed on then... Yeah, the 5 non-BCS schools get a chunk of that revenue. Shame on Congress for not acknowleging that.
Most public universities can't even afford to hire or give raises to professors, schools are opening the admissions floodgates to increase cash flow without providing the infrastructure to help all those incoming students succeed, and yet financially insufficient universities (at least three fourths of the 120 FBS universities are financially insufficient) continue to suck money from tax payers EVERY YEAR. That make's a lot of sense huh?
Also whether this specific hearing works or not... There are other players involved.
Laugh it off all you want... there are two sides to every story and this is not going to simply go away anytime soon.
Regan
· 6 months ago
Youre 100% right. It won't go away anytime soon. This debate will go on for years...
ksuwild
· 6 months ago
That's what the BCS is counting on huh?
Regan
· 6 months ago
You see it changing soon?
From your post it looks like you are counting on the fact that the notion that many colleges are public schools gives the federal government the ability to intervene.
Do you forsee the federal government forcing the states to withhold funding to these colleges unless they withdraw their opposition to a playoff?
I hope not...
ksuwild
· 6 months ago
I don't want the federal government to withhold funding for schools who don't support a playoff.
I want the BCS to change their revenue sharing plan to spread money fairly... based off of performance and not past history and tradition. I want for them to adopt a playoff (preferably an 8 team) to effectively decide a champion on the field without disruption of the bowl system.
These changes would generate more revenue for more schools who desperately need it, and would preserve the importance of the regular season while still leaving ample room for the bowl system to continue unimpeded. Everyone happy, healthy, and done in a sustainable way.
The government doesn't need to withhold funds to anyone if it can successfully force the BCS to make these changes. Although the proposed legislation doesn't force a playoff to be adopted, it sure makes it harder than hell for them to pull off what they are doing now.
When congressman Barton asked Swofford what the BCS would do if his legislation passed (which he assured him had a better than 50% chance of pushing through) he said he didn't know what they would do because he's not a lawyer. Yikes. Not a very reaffirming answer coming from the acting BCS commissioner if you ask me.
It seems to me that the BCS has a simple decision to make. Adopt a playoff system volintarily, and start spreading wealth fairly and responsibly... or face the possibility of multiple levels of legislation that could directly as well as indirectly force the BCS to go into an utter and complete tail spin.
Again, the government has not only the right, but the responsibility to intervene when both public and private universities receive government assistance that allows them to stay afloat due to irresponsible revenue sharing practices.
Congress knows that most universities athletic departments are in the red due partially to the fact that the 87% of the money generated by the BCS bowl games is being monopolized by the 6 automatic qualifying conferences and Notre Dame, and only 13% is being alloted to the other 51 remaining schools.
Many of those 51 schools that don't make BCS bowls, but go to the other 29 bowls actually lose money in the process even though the cities that host these bowls always make out fine. Putting the prosparity of bowl sites above our the prosparity of our universities is a slippery slope to tread if I've ever seen one.
Tradition is great but the system is unsustainable without tax payer money and that is one of many reasons why you are seeing congressional involvement, and rightly so in my opinion.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 6 months ago
Do you have any idea how many bills Barton has written that have been signed into law? 0.192 Under mostly a Republican Congress, Barton gets less than 20 percent of his actions moved to law. A "fifty percent chance" is way off the charts for Barton, unless you want to say it's fifty-fifty a la a coin toss that it will get passed, but I don't think the odds are even that good. This bill isn't going to get out of COMMITTEE, let alone Congress.
As far as what you want... dude... you're all over the map. Let me summarize: You want more money for everyone, BCS expansion and scrapping the BCS for playoffs, a playoff system that emphasizes post-season performance yet emphasizes regular season performance, upholding of the bowl game traditions, and greater fiscal accountability for taxpayer monies. That's a mouthful. :)
You're attempting to imply some level of incompetence on Swofford's part, so let me point out one of his most telling comments. The BCS and its conferences are not going to do ANYTHING that lowers their market value. I don't know how you take that, but it sounds to me like Swofford is saying that... if push comes to shove... they'll disband the BCS. What happens then? The conferences will be forced to make the best deals they can with the broadcasters and bowls. Who loses in that scenario? The lower market demand conferences... the MAC, CUSA, WAC, MWC, Sunbelt, and all of the DIAAs who are getting BCS payouts. The SEC is raking in BILLIONS in football broadcast rights... do you think the SEC is going to be the one that suffers without the BCS? Nope.
Your passion for playoffs is laudable, but I still have to ask - if it is in the best interest of these universities, why aren't the university presidents supporting a college football playoff? I think the answer is clear. Playoffs appeal to a segment of the FANS... and that's it. No one else wants them or it would have already happened.
ksuwild
· 6 months ago
What I asked for is exactly what Barton, Green, Rush, Thompson and Bleymaier were asking for. Fairness
Any system that allows 51 of 120 teams to be eliminated before the season even starts is a big pile of crap and everyone, including the congressional committee knew it. Swofford was the one who was all over the place when this point was raised.
What a recruiting disadvantage it must be to go into a kids home and try to get them to come play for your school when everyone, including their mother sitting next to them knows they will have no shot at playing for the NC. And the sad thing is it will have nothing to do with performance, and everything to do with alliances. That's something to be proud of huh Kevin!
Rush and Barton reiterated numerous times that the vast majority of congress members as well as Barak Obama have a keen interest in the revenue sharing practices of the BCS alliance. I would bet they have at least a 50% chance after watching that hearing. Time will tell. Swafford didn't have a whole lot to say when Barton basically told him the BCS had better start talking about changing or else face legislation.
Swofford said that the BCS is concerned with 3 things. 1) They want to create an opportunity for the 1 & 2 teams to play for the National Championship. 2) Maintain the Bowl structure and quality match ups 3) Maintain and enhance the regular season as the best in all of sports.
1) They have maybe achieved their goal 2 times in 11 years so I would give them a giant F there. 2) The bowl structure has been maintained for the most part besides the addition of extra bowls and the occasional Texas in the Rose bowl type stuff. You step away from bowl tradition and look what you get... an instant classic. What a disaster that was huh? 3) As far as the regular season goes I found it interesting that neither Swofford or Fox said one word about Bleymaiers suggestion that a limited playoff... like the one the MWC submitted could actually improve the regular season in CF due to the fact that more teams would know they had a legitimate shot at the title. Even if that wouldn't be the case it's not like an 8 team playoff would be easy to make.
Anyone who thinks an 8 team playoff would be easy to make raise your hand right now please. Didn't think so. If you did, please walk in front of the nearest mirror and repeat after me... I don't know what the F I'm talking about. (please raise your hand again when you're in front of the mirror while you speak)
Fox looked confused when asked if some schools lost money on their bowl trips. He also repeated the same answer like a coached robot when asked why a playoff game wouldn't be an "event" just as a bowl game is. Basically saying that people might hold out on the hope of their team advancing to the next round. He acted as if 100% of the people who go to bowl games are from the two teams home towns. Right right. I'm sure no one would want to go see the best teams in the nation play.
You could actually use the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta bowls as the locations for the first round of an 8 team playoff. Two of the four bowls could host the next round and rotate that right every year with the national championship game held at a predetermined location. It's only one more round for two teams, and two more rounds for two teams. Whooooo. How disruptive for the students and fans?
This would eliminate the need for multiple trips for most of the die hard fans. CF fans would fill the rest of the seats left open by anyone who doesn't want to make the trip.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 6 months ago
Who exactly are you suggesting eliminates 51 of the 120 teams? The AP? The AFCA? Those are the two major organizations naming national champions. An unbiased person could make a sound argument that the BCS is actually *more* inclusive because it takes into account several more ranking methods.
Changing the BCS bowls to be playoff locations is a popular suggestion by fans, but none of the bowls have adopted that position. In reading their takes on these proposals, it's clear that they do not feel that their existing "event" is a stepping stone or in some way a tier below the premiere bowl games in CFB.
Regarding your playoff... how do you propose to select & seed these teams? How do you suggest realigning the bowl contracts under your proposal to replace teams that are into the playoffs? Can the bowls go "at large" and pick any team, or are they forced to take a lesser team from that conference?
Finally, I would love to see something beyond supposition to support your hypothesis regarding ticket sales. Another issue of paramount importance for the bowl games is that of corporate sponsorship - are you familiar with any studies as to the economics of 36 bowl games? It would also be interesting to read an analysis of what would happen to television ratings for the 34 existing bowl games with the addition of two more games. Let's hear it... talk me into this... thing.
mrjrebel
· 6 months ago
One thing I hear all the time from those who favor a playoff is that we could use the current bowl structure.
No, we really can't.
The Sugar Bowl is not simply a game that's played in New Orleans. It's a game with an SEC team played in New Orleans.
Same with the Cotton Bowl. Rose Bowl. Gator Bowl, etc. There are deep roots and old regional traditions here.
We could seed teams in a playoff, but never kid yourselves. Va Tech and Ohio State, for example, playing in New Orleans will NEVER be the Sugar Bowl. It's simply a game played in New Orleans.
The traditions of the bowls will be lost.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 6 months ago
AMEN! That's exactly what I've been saying for years.
ksuwild
· 6 months ago
Was the Rose Bowl not the Rose Bowl when Texas beat USC in one of the most exciting games of all time?
If they call it the Rose Bowl... then it's the Rose Bowl. When one tradition stops do you know what happens?
Another one begins.
Regan
· 6 months ago
ksuw, neither of us speaks Big Ten/Pac-10, but I'm fairly certain that they have strong feelings regarding the Rose Bowl.
More importantly though:
Then what's the point of tradition to begin with?
ksuwild
· 6 months ago
I'm all for tradition, until it get's in the way of progress. I mean that honestly and sincerely too (that I'm all for tradition...).
That being said... to put the tradition of a bowl, or even 4 bowls before the progress of a whole sport seems a little bass ackwards to me.
1Tomcat
· 6 months ago
The Tradition has already been lost example Cotton Bowl SWC Champ against ND or SEC champ etc. now its #3 B-12 like Nebraska or TTech vs #3 SEC like Ole Miss or AU Its not even played at the Cotton Bowl anymore, even though the city of Dallas invested a fortune in improvements only the RRS game is at the Cotton Bowl
The Cotton Bowl should be the site of a BCS bowl, like Feista & Sugar IMO
VTBobb
· 6 months ago
So, there was no Sugar Bowl for the following football seasons '72 (OK/PSU), '95 (VT/Texas), '97 (FSU/OSU), '98 (OSU/A&M), '99 (VT/FSU)?
If the Bowls are so concerned about tradition, why did they sign on with the BCS (or the Bowl Alliance or the Bowl Coalition)? Because they are more concerned with money. So the Bowl’s arguments that "traditions of the bowls will be lost" is disingenuous.
Of course, if we are all about tradition, what traditions, exactly, do we want to keep? To me, the tradition in college football that most people WANT to see broken is the rich getting richer. The NCAA's stated goal is parity. In an effort to create parity, they have eliminated some "traditions" of the "traditional powers", such as hoarding recruits (i.e. putting players on scholarship that they have no intention of playing so other schools can't get them), paying players, no scholastic requirements, etc. In turn, the playing field has been somewhat leveled. Unfortunately, we are still trying to determine the NC using the antiquated "Poll & Bowl" system, which developed at a time when you had a hand full of teams that were head and shoulders above the rest. Seeing a couple of head to head games and a couple of common opponent games of the "powers" was enough to make a reasonable vote for who should be #1. That's not the case now.
I've said it before and I will say it again, PARITY requires a playoff system to get some semblence of an idea of who really is best.
Ben Prather
· 6 months ago
Got out my 2009 Sugar Bowl program...
They still list those.
The first Sugar Bowl, 1935: Temple vs Tulane.
Here are some other interesting ones: 1939: TCU vs. Carnegie Tech 1940: Texas A&M vs. Tulane 1942: Fordham vs. Missouri 1944: Georgia Tech vs. Tulsa 1946: St. Mary's vs. Oklahoma A&M 1949: N. Carolina vs. Oklahoma 1954: Georgia Tech vs. West Virginia 1956: Pittsburgh vs. Georgia Tech
Apparently sometimes two SEC teams play... 1960: Ole Miss vs. LSU 1964: Ole Miss vs Alabama
The contract with the SEC was started in 1974-1975, less than half of the Sugar Bowl's played have been under this contract.
ksuwild
· 6 months ago
Very well said VTBobb. You hit the nail on the head.
ksuwild
· 6 months ago
I'm not saying the BCS is responsible for eliminating those 51 teams. The BCS is more inclusive than the old system, but there is still a major problem with the current system if that many teams have no shot at the National Title before the season even starts.
The BCS is an improvement over the old system and I commend them for making the attempt to pit the consensus # 1 and 2 teams against each other. The problem is that there has hardly been a year in the BCS's history that they have successfully accomplished that.
"The BCS made a giant step in the 1998 season with the first BCS National Championship Game. They were able to cut through generations of post-season bowl tradition, inter-conference contracts, television rights, advertising sponsorships and local entrenched community organizations to host a championship game."
They realized the need for change, and made moves (which I am thankful for) but unfortunately they didn't go the full mile.
"Taking the next step to reformat the post-season bowl schedule into a real playoff tournament seems to be too big of a hurdle for the collegiate conferences. Frankly, we believe it will take an act of Congress before fans see playoffs."
It's more than just fans who have had the notion of including the BCS bowl games in a playoff format. See the link below.
My idea for an 8 team playoff is a combination of the one the MWC is submitting and my ideas. I think their 8 team playoff would work well though. Believe it or not my idea is to keep things as close to what they are as possible and therefore hopefully ruffle the least amount of feathers. There are still many changes though.
I would keep the BCS formula the same -- minus the obviously biased coaches poll. My beef has never been with the BCS formula itself, it has been with the fact that it's based on a flawed premise that there will be two clear cut teams at the end of a season... which has hardly ever happened in the history of college football.
That, and currently the automatic qualifying conferences are not based on performance on the field... they are based on past history and alliances. So you end up with scenario's like what happened last year with #19th Virginia Tech getting and AQ bid, and a much better Utah team left trying to fit in the side door with no shot at the National Championship. Not fair.
Under the MWC's proposal, a conference would qualify for an automatic bid if its teams have a winning percentage of at least .400 in games against the current automatic qualifying leagues over a two-year period. I like this method, so I would incorporate it in my 8 team playoff because it is based off of performance and not predetermined alliances.
I am also completely on board with the MWC's proposal that calls for each of the 11 conferences and Notre Dame to have equal representation on the BCS presidential oversight committee, and for revenues to be distributed equally among all leagues. This equal representation is definitely not the case now and that is a big part of the reason why the system hasn't changed to a playoff format so far.
I would be OK with the AQ conferences getting more money than the non AQ conferences, because at least in this formula AQ conferences would receive revenue based off performance and not history and alliances. I'm not against AQ conferences making a little more revenue as long as the basis is on performance.
1) Conference Champions from AQ leagues automatically qualify. AQ conferences are based off of their .400 win percentage against the existing AQ conferences over a rolling 2 year period.
2) No more than 2 teams from the same conference can make the playoff.
3) Undefeated teams that finish in the top 10 automatically qualify and will be seeded based off of their final BCS ranking.
4) Any remaining slots not taken by AQ conference champions or undefeated top 10 finishers will be filled with the next highest BCS ranked team/teams.
5) There is no "special" rule for Notre Dame in my playoff. If they finish ranked high enough they will be included. If they don't, they won't.
6) Ideally, all conferences would create east-west or north-south divisions and have a conference championship game. I know this would be like pulling teeth to get done, but it really should happen IMO. Please note that conferences would NOT need to do this for my playoff to work, but it would sure make them a lot of $$$$$$$$ if they did. It would also level the playing field for all conferences while weeding out some teams before the playoff even begins.
7) The playoff can never exceed 8 teams unless approved by all 11 conferences and Notre Dame (that make up the full presidential oversight committee).
I don't want a playoff in CF to ever exceed anything bigger than an 8 team playoff because first and foremost, I don't think more than 8 is needed to fairly and effectively decide a champion... and secondly I want to ensure the survival of the bowl system.
There is no committee used for selecting or seeding teams in my 8 team playoff. Instead the BCS formula is used... which eliminates the ability for bias in the selection and seeding process.
The Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta bowls would host the first round of the playoff with the semi final round (2nd round) held at two of the same sights, with that right rotating every year.
The National Championship game would also be held at one of the two sights that held the semi final round with that right rotating every year... thus reducing the number of trips for teams and fans.
Here is an example of how this would work using a made up scenario of the final BCS ranked top 10 teams in the nation:
* Conference Champion from AQ conference ~ undefeated team ranked in the top 10 ^ no more than 2 conference teams allowed to make playoff
Round 1 (4 games) Fiesta Bowl -- Played December 21st 4)Ohio St. vs. 5)Utah Orange Bowl -- Played December 22nd 3)Texas vs. 6)West Virginia Sugar Bowl -- Played December 23rd 2)Florida vs. 7)OU Rose Bowl -- Played December 24th 1)USC vs. 9)Boise St.
Round 2 -- Semi-Finals (2 games) On December 31st (New Years Eve), one week later... the Sugar Bowl would host one of the semi final games using the winner of the Sugar Bowl vs. the winner of the Orange Bowl. Then on January 1st (New Years Day) the Rose Bowl would host the other semi final round with the winner of the Rose Bowl vs. the winner of the Fiesta Bowl.
Round 3 -- National Championship Game A week after that on January 8, the Rose Bowl would then take the final two winners and pit them in the most hyped National Championship game of all time. The right to host this ratings blockbuster would rotate every year between the four BCS bowls.
If you're counting... that is only 3 extra games COMBINED as compared to the current BCS format. Nothing drastic by any stretch of the imagination.
If a bowl game is considered an event... then the Rose Bowl (along with semi-final and NC game included) in this scenario would be a MEGA EVENT due to it hosting games three weeks in a row between the best teams in the nation. ESPN said they would not stand in the way of the BCS if it wants to change, which to me means they are saying if the BCS wants to move to a playoff format ESPN is willing to play ball.
TV contracts have kick out clauses (Barton talked about this in the hearing) so it would come down to whether bowls like the Rose bowl would give up a PAC 10/Big 10 tradition to host a MEGA EVENT like the one just laid out. Of course, this particular scenario would only happen for them once every four years... but they would be absolutely crazy not to go along with a system like this in my opinion.
All the other bowl games would go on almost unchanged because the teams the BCS currently takes, and the teams that an 8 team playoff would use... would be almost identical.
This playoff leaves the bowl system completely intact, with minor changes if any to the current non BCS bowl alliances. No bowls need to be created or dropped in order for it to work, and the BCS formula is even kept the same minus the coaches poll.
This 8 team playoff formula would definitely enhance the regular seasons importance because it would be extremely difficult to make, yet would still give the distinct opportunity for any team from any conference to win the national championship... thus increasing competition across the board.
It also puts the emphasis on winning your conference... which I think most of us would agree is the way it should be.
The increased revenue, and change in disbursement would create more opportunity for the smaller conferences to grow, allowing for better parity in college football.
And finally, it would leave no doubt as to who the best team in the nation is... while generating more money for conferences and universities that desperately need it.
It's a win win scenario for everyone involved.
Clemson_Joe
· 6 months ago
What happened to the ACC in your scenario? Are you implying that the ACC doesn't have a .400 against "current AQ conferences"? It was my understanding that the ACC is a current AQ conference. Explain.
ksuwild
· 6 months ago
Clemson_Joe... yea, I typed most of that while I was at work (don't tell anyone!) so I mistakenly left the ACC Champion out. Let's say the ACC Champion is Virginia Tech, and they are in the #7 slot instead of OU. It would still work the exact same way as what I laid out earlier just with V-Tech replacing OU in the bowl scenario.
If there were another undefeated team (for arguments sake), or more than one undefeated team besides Boise St. in this scenario then there might have to be some sort of play in game (using the current 5th BCS bowl). Especially if there ended up being more than 8 automatic qualifiers.
There could also be a rule that dis-qualifies the champion of an AQ conference or an undefeated team if they finished the season with a BCS rank higher than 15th (like Virginia Tech last year). Hmm... I'll have to look into that.
Thoughts?
Clemson_Joe
· 6 months ago
I like the whole idea, and I did before as well. I just thought you were trying to demote the ACC for some reason, and that's just not going to happen.
Otherwise, well thought out post, and I am with you, whatever that's worth.
Ben Prather
· 6 months ago
I mostly agree.
Major Issues:
1) Any proposal that suggests conferences should realign will not happen.
2) Automatic Qualifications are not based ont he performance on the field?
They are based on three criteria over a four year window:
Number of top 25 teams in the final BCS standings Average of all teams in the 6 BCS computers Highest ranked team in the BCS standings
These criteria are strongly determined on the field, but none of them incorporate the bowl results in anyway.
3) The four BCS bowls are not going to move farther from New Year's Day than they already are. If anything they should all be restored to New Year's Day to restore tradition.
Minor issues:
1) Equal revenue distribution. Even I don't think this is fair. My beef is this:
Would you rank the Big East closer to the SEC or the MWC in BCS competitiveness? The revenue distribution says they are almost equal to the SEC, an obvious fallacy.
The BCS gets it money from TV, who get money from advertisers trying to get their product in front of us, the fans. Here is my revenue sharing plan:
6 million: The first team from any conference to participate, if they are in the top 14.
4.5 million: The second team from any conference to participate, any independents or the first team from a conference if they are not in the top 14.
2 million: Payout directly to each institution participation in any additional games.
It is expected that one at-large conference will participate almost every year. Without a playoff this frees up $81 million from the current revenue distribution.
The remainder is distributed proportionally to the four year average of the total of the average attendance figures of each conference's members. Independents are included.
Ignoring the years automatic qualifying did not make it into the top 14 here are the current average annual excess for each conference over the past 4 years in millions of dollars.
Big East (+7.0), PAC 10 (+3.2), ACC (+2.2), Big 12 (+0.9), WAC (+0.1), Big 10 (+0.0), Sun Belt (-0.3), MAC (-1.3), SEC (-1.9), MWC (-2.1), C-USA(-3.1)
Independents: Notre Dame is underpaid 1.2 million if they go, over paid 1.2 million if they don't. Since they have gone twice in the past four years this is a wash.
Army and Navy currently receive $100,000 per year. Navy is worth $525K. Army is worth $469K.
Western Kentucky is joining the Sun Belt, increasing their shortfall by $136K.
2) The two team limit should be revoked in cases where the top spots can't be done otherwise from the top 14. Currently this would push the eligibility down to the top 18. I would much rather see a third team from one of the two dominating conferences in years such as these.
3) ALL undefeated teams should be included, but teams lower then #8 should be forced to play at least 3 rounds to win it.
4) Field fixed at 8.
Rankings here are assumed to be a random sample of opinions from some population. Your complaints that the coaches poll is far from a random sample would be a valid argument against this.
The goal is to increase consensus. It is the nature of rankings that the further from the top one is the more uncertainty their is in the ranking average. The gaps are nearly uniform throughout the standings.
Together, this means that the more teams one includes the less likely it is that an individual from the original population agrees with the final selection.
For a field of 64 you get to a point where people don't even agree on who the final selection or who the first team left out was.
To increase consensus one needs to use large gaps in the BCS rankings near the top of the standings as the main eligibility requirement. Excluding undefeated teams is a no starter for many people.
The field should be adjusted to accommodate the number of worthy teams, not padded with a few teams with questionable credentials.
I have a design that allows for 2-8 teams qualifying that restores the BCS bowls to New Year's day and uses them based on tie-ins to the top ranked teams as semi-finals while keeping the total number of teams participating in the tournament or remaining BCS bowls at 10-11 for all cases less than 7.
Play-in games hosted by the favored team are used on December 19th to kickoff the bowl season if more than 4 teams qualify.
ksuwild
· 6 months ago
1) My proposal requests that the conferences realign… it doesn’t require it. The 8 team playoff proposal I made would work whether conferences realigned or not.
2) Automatic Qualifications ARE based on performance on the field if the system requires a .400 winning percentage against the current AQ conferences. How is that not based on performance on the field? The only other way to receive an AQ in my system is to go undefeated and finish in the top 10. I could see using the top 14 as the standard instead of the top 10.
That could work conversely in that an AQ conference could have their champion disqualified if they finished ranked higher that 14th in the BCS (like V-Tech last year). Either way it would be based on performance on the field all the way down to the seeding in my system... which uses the BCS formula... which uses equations and polls based off of performance on the field.
3) In my proposal 2 of the 4 bowls would host a game on New Years Eve and New Years Day so I would say that still keeps the New Years tradition alive. My setup could easily be changed to allow both round 2 games to be played on New Years Day instead of splitting them between the 31st and 1st.
The reason I structured it that way is because starting an 8 team playoff on New Years Eve/Day would push the National Championship game to the 14th of January which seems pretty late to me.
4) I agree that equal revenue distribution should not be exactly equal beween all conferences upon further review and I kind of alluded to that in my first proposal. It makes sense that better conferences should recieve more money than lesser conferences. I like your revenue sharing proposal.
5) I don’t agree with including all undefeated teams --no matter what-- because that is basically rewarding teams who play in weak conferences and punishing teams who play in the toughest conferences. I’ll stick with undefeated teams getting an AQ bid if and only if they finish ranked in the top 14.
6) The only reason I think there should ever be more than 8 teams is if somehow after all conference championship games are played that there are more than 8 AQ teams. Then you would have to have a “play in game” situation where the 7 seed played the 10 seed and the 8 seed played the 9 seed to see who would make up the final 8 teams.
7) You said “The field should be adjusted to accommodate the number of worthy teams, not padded with a few teams with questionable credentials.” Which I agree with 100%. That is why I think undefeated teams who don’t make the final BCS ranked 14 should NOT be accommodated for. Nor should there be any exceptions made for Notre Dame… a team that hasn’t won a bowl game in over a decade.
Ben Prather
· 6 months ago
1 & 4) Nothing more to be said.
2) We are arguing whether the current BCS criteria or the MWC's proposed ideas are used. I think we both agree that whatever qualifications are used they should be published for all to see along with guideline for how changes in a conference's status will be handled.
3) I have sent you a copy of my detailed proposal off line.
5) Including undefeated teams is a philosophical point that should be decided publicly by a vote of the coaches.
In my structure typically 3-5 teams qualify resulting in a plus one like format with an occasional play-in game or two. My proposal would force an undefeated team below #10 to play at least 3 rounds against the best teams available to give them a significant test to earn their spot.
6) I agree. Only in the 0.04% chance that 9 teams or more go undefeated should more than 8 teams qualify. In this case the two lowest ranked teams from conferences without a championship game would play for the last spots available.
7) I think a fixed field of 8 is usually too many. If Hawaii can make the top 14 with the schedule they had in 2007 anyone can do it.
PS) Didn't Notre Dame convincingly win and sell out the Hawaii Bowl this year?
ksuwild
· 6 months ago
Notre Dame did win their bowl last year didn't they.
Damn it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was really hoping that streak would continue indefinitely.
ksuwild
· 6 months ago
So Kevin... I tried to talk you into my "thing". No bueno?
I know it was long but come on man, throw me a bone or something. (-: I think I hit everything you brought up but possibly proof that people would actually buy tickets to watch the best teams in the nation play.
As far as what Mr. Fox said about the "charitable giving" of the bowl system/BCS alliance... it seems someone was either flat lying or VERY misinformed. It just gets better and better doesn't it?
Thanks I read all the links and articles you posted and agree- Heck didn't Spurrier vote Duke several times? Secret Ballot helps determine Championship sounds like Duval county Texas during the LBJ days
1Tomcat
· 6 months ago
Thanks KSUwild one of the best post ever, one of the biggest arguements would be, it would ruin the tradition of bowls- bull- This is a fear tactic, because people are reluctantv to change and its easier for everyone involved to try and maintain the status quo.The bowls would still draw and with the additional games comes additional revenue for the 8 participating teams and the host cities. I agree with what you said about the elimination of 51 teams, but I thought it was 55 teams, becuase lets face it the Utah's, TCU's and Bois's will never get a shot at the MNC game under the current system- Seems like folks who are against some form of playoff are fans or alumi of schools that belong to BCS conferences and so their team has a shot at a title and fans of those other 55 teams will never. Then there is the arguement over "seeding the teams" use the current top 8 whether its the BCS method or someother ranking- sure there will still be arguements, but they can argue over who's #8 or #9 instead of who's #2 or #3. This just makes too much sense
Regan
· 6 months ago
Tomcat, it is not a fear tactic, and the proof can be easily seen with what has happened with the big four Bowls since 2006 when a 5th BCS Bowl was put in.
Just look at 2007 when UGA beat HAW like a drum in the Sugar Bowl. Had it not been for the 5th Bowl, the NCG would have been played in the Fiesta and UGA would have gotten OU or WVU...a much better game.
The quality of the matchups has declined, because the pool of teams in the BCS is larger. (although personally I think it's worth it to ensure greater access to the non-BCS conferences...)
Throw in the fact that if CLEM or MIA made it to the Orange Bowl, I would be much less likely to pay to fly to Miami to watch a semifinal game, and there are MAJOR attendance issues.
Lastly, I understand your points about the 'elimination of 51 teams', but I will counter it by using the University of Miami in the last 30 years.
In the 70's, UCG almost disbanded their CFB team; they got in a few good coaches, grabbed destiny by the horns and turned themselves into a national powerhouse.
It is a great story, and it is one of the reasons I am so thrilled with the successes of UTAH and BSU and want to see them succeed in years to come...so they can become powerhouses the way everyone else did...rather than get a Federal Playoff Bailout...
Zac
· 6 months ago
I thought part of that was due to automatic bowl/conference tie-ins.
Regan
· 6 months ago
Part of the lack of 'quality' matchups is indeed caused by the bowl tie-ins, however there is only one BCS Bowl (the Rose) that has two tie-ins.
As you can see, both issues are in play, especially in the 2008 BCS Bowls.
ksuwild
· 6 months ago
I agree Tomcat
It makes too much sense... which is probably why it won't happen for a long time!!!
I think the "P" word just scares traditionalist. Even the ones who would be ok with a plus one system (which is a playoff BTW).
My idea of a playoff doesn't have to completely buck the system. Just make some change's to the way the BCS bowl games work. They are already in their own catagory from regular bowls anyway so I don't see why a change to their structure would drastically affect the other bowls.
Keep Hooken em' good buddie!
1Tomcat
· 6 months ago
Yes KSUwild Regan used the Hawaii example- we knew Hawaii was way overated that yer, they squeezed past LaTech a team that Nebraska hammered- everyone , including myself loved the Bois st vs OU game, however OU lost two games that season including a big loss to Texas, so while it could be considered an upset, it wasn't really that big of a deal to me anyway. I'd just like to pose the question, what else could Utah have done? They did everything, played Div1A teams including several ranked opponents and knocked off a top ten Alabama- everyone else including Florida , Texas and USC had at least one loss at the end after the bowls. A plus one or 8 team playoff, might not insure a Boise St or Utah's appearance, but it would dang sure increase the odds, because unfortunately the current system does not offer them any chance whatsoever- BTW they aren't asking for any bailout to a chance at a Chamionship, which those boys earned- its not whining to stand up for your school and ask for some equality. Hookem-Horns BTW glad yall got coach Snyder back
Regan
· 6 months ago
As far as HAW 2007, I stand by the example, because it is true.
We "all knew" in retrospect is easy. We all "had a feeling" is more like it, but the notion of giving an undefeated HAW team a chance in a BCS Bowl game was appropriate.
Just as appropriate as it was to give BSU a shot at OU in 2006/7 and UTAH a shot at BAMA in 2008/9.
Heck...taking the hindsight glasses off, what might the world have looked like had it been UTAH undefeated and locked out of the NCG when a 2-loss LSU got in? Just asking.
As far as your statement "what else could UTAH have done?", though, I agree 100%. For the bazillionth time, UTAH 08 got hosed...
My point was that Miami came out of nowhere to become a powerhouse by rising to the top and staying there. If UTAH and BSU continue playing top-notch FB for a few more years, they'll get there.
The 'Canes got there without legislation. That's all I'm sayin'... :)
1Tomcat
· 6 months ago
Regan The Canes got there prior to the BCS-right and after the formation of the BCS, the Canes belong to a BCS conference. I beleive that had the Canes been in MWC or C-USA you would have a more legit comparison. BTW we both agree that the Utes got hosed in 08 The examples of teams going into BCS bowls are far and few between and they are not for the MNC, but against a team from a BCS conference. Compare say the MWC against BE or P-10 I'd say the top 2 or 3 from MWC would do really well in those leagues, probably in the ACC as well I dunno, last year anyway Adios Hookem
Regan
· 6 months ago
I was referring to MIA being seen as a powerhouse. Powerhouses get picked up by bigger conferences.
That's how Miami got to a BCS conference, and that's how Temple lost it's BCS-conference status.
If Utah continues winning, they'll get the chance...
Ben Prather
· 6 months ago
One game cost Utah the National Championship:
Oklahoma 35 TCU 10.
Relook at last year if TCU wins this, or makes it respectable.
OU_Ron
· 6 months ago
Can't count on a Frog when you really need em..
1Tomcat
· 6 months ago
Great link about the Utah AG sueing the BCS- bout time- they lost a lot of revenue The Utes got the shaft because they do not belong to a so-called BCS conference
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 6 months ago
Two points -
I need to read the lawsuit for the exact language, but I can't help but presume that the Utah AG is suing the parties to the BCS, since the BCS itself is barely more than ten employees and no cash. If that's the case, the Utah AG is suing - among others - the Mountain West? Nice.
Secondly, the Utah AG is not the first to go down this road. To date, no one has been successful. With all those comments about government finances, I can't help but think this isn't a wise investment.
Ben Prather
· 6 months ago
I think the case is much stronger for teams like BYU and TCU to show financial harm than Utah. Boise State even has a better case.
My understanding is that it is an anti-trust issue, thus he is going after the big 6 conferences.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 6 months ago
Do you think Boise State can make the case that they were defrauded? That somehow they chose to have their conference align with the BCS, accepted payouts for the last ten plus years, but were in some way damaged? Regardless, I think that misses the point entirely. The BCS does not have an agreement with Boise State, rather Boise State has an agreement with the WAC who, in turn, has an alliance with the BCS. If you want to say that Boise State could sue the WAC for poor representation within the BCS... that might be a different story.
As far as the Utah AG foes, the suggestion would then be that the six conferences, with their combined "evilness", negotiated record-setting revenue with television and bowls, and then recklessly invited the smaller five conferences to share in the revenues, duping them out of the share that they had no part in generating? Bastards. Get a rope!
The BCS is nothing more than a marketing alliance of the conferences. The only case you could make for anti-trust would be that the conferences colluded to impact market conditions and thus aggrieved the bowls and/or broadcasters. You might have something there if its against the BCS on behalf of the bowls or vice versa. That said, I don't understand how the AG would have standing in that case, since no bowls and/or broadcasters are within his jurisdiction.
This is grandstanding. Just like the congressional hearings. It's just getting this guy's name in the paper on the taxpayers' dime.
U.of S.C.1978
· 6 months ago
One point. I'd also like to read the exact language. What the heck though? The citizens of Utah, with their infinite wisdom, selected said dude to represent them. Ten or twelve extra billable hours per week, no problem.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 6 months ago
Have you given any consideration as to how MLB advertises their championship... the World Series? Or how the NFL advertises their championship... the Super Bowl? There are two organizations making substantial revenues without using the words 'national' or 'championship'.
Why would you think for a second that the BCS couldn't accomplish the same?
Ben Prather
· 6 months ago
The language in the bill calls for a single elimination tournament which all teams are eligible for.
It appears to me that a two team tournament that any team can qualify for by finishing in the top 2 of the polls would apply.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 6 months ago
Then we are agreed... the BCS would not be impacted.
TampaGator
· 6 months ago
Diversionary tactics, 101
This is just another case of Congress "looking into" some populist issue in order to divert attention from their own colossal failures on matters they are actually responsible for; simple demagoguery—transparent as glass.
Let's get sports fans all riled up over this gross "injustice"--then they won't be all up in arms, as we swiftly drive this country to 3rd world status...
...they won't care that we are turning the dollar into a currency inferior to the Mexican Peso...
...they won't care that our boarders will remain porous....
...they won't care that our defenses are compromised, while our enemies (N. Korea, Iran, Russia, China, and Venezuela) are strengthening, and increasing in gall...
...they won't care that we are rendering our domestic corporations impotent against foreign manufactures/importers/competition with our over-burdensome tax code and with union friendly reg's needed to repay political debt....
...they won't care that we "spent" (read: printed up a bunch of worthless paper) "trillions of 'dollars" to prop up wall street in order to “save” it from collapsing--because our own (Congresses’) IRA's and pensions were tied into Wall Street--while haggling over a few billion $$ to save Detroit from imploding in on itself, since we (Congress--via Pensions/IRA's) weren't nearly as invested in Detroit....
...they won't care that we (Congress) CAUSED the financial crisis in the first place, by forcing the very Wall Street banks that we are now taking over--'er, “rescuing”--to fail, by REQUIRING them to lend money to borrowers with poor credit, with the carrot and stick approach (carrot=Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae pretending to guarantee said loans; stick=threatening to punish those who wouldn't play their came)...
...they just won't care.
They'll be too busy wringing their fists at the high heavens, over the horrific injustice of an imperfect college football bowl system that has failed almost as many, if not more times than it has succeeded--SINCE ITS INCEPTION--in choosing the right "national champion". Whooa....the INJUSTICE OF IT ALL!!!
So unjust, that stadiums throughout the land are consistently filled to witness this injustice...TV ratings run sky high, to witness this injustice...the national economy--and local economies that host these grave "injustices" are consistently boosted by these grave "injustices"....
Complete f'n bunk.
A joke? No doubt. But did you really "get" the puchnline?
GO GATORS!!
Regan
· 6 months ago
Wow....way it IS.... :)
1Tomcat
· 6 months ago
Spoken like a Gator- no problem understanding your perspective
TampaGator
· 6 months ago
Tomcat:
I appreciate your understanding, but I assure you, my "perspective" on this matter has virtually nothing to do with my school allegiance.
Congress simply has no business meddling in CFB...and they're definitely in no position to second guess how any private sector entity, organization or process works--at least not from any authority born of good will and performance.
A simple look at "results" generated by Congress in comparison to their responsibilities, vs. private sector entities bears this out quite clearly.
Congress's responsibilites, in order:
1. National Security (if this fails, nothing else matters--see the immediate aftermath of 9/11/'01 for perspective)--includes preserving the integrity of borders, protection from invasion, protection of national interests domesticallyand abroad, and preservation of general law & order within;
2. Respect/protection of individual liberties and freedoms PRESERVED by the Constitution (NOTE: "preserved," not "guaranteed," because the source of original authority is from "the people"--not from the gov't);
3. Promotion of commerce amongst the states--including maintaining a stable currency, a fluid infrastructure, and incentive for engaging in commercial activities;
4. Respecting their fiduciary duties for the "trust funds" collected from "the people" (i.e.--taxes), FOR the people, in order to accomplish the above, and any other discretionery oblilgations they've taken on of their own volition (e.g.--social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare...).
Quick anaylsis:
Nat'l security--faring well at present, but taking significant steps to compromise ability to meet future threats;
Respect of ind'l rights--actively seeking to encroach far beyond the extent conteplated in constitution, via invasive taxes, increased regulations, gun control, punishing exercise of protected free speech, and the like;
Commerce: failing miserably, by failing to balance budget, then--in the face of expenses and obligations it cannot meet--printing up money to completely pull the rug out from the existing currency value (recipe for impending disaster--book it); and further by failing to preserve the incentive necessary to fuel commerce by reducing tax burden--especially in the midst of a horrible recession (instead, actually looking to increase taxes thus reducing incentive);
Fiduciary duty re. tax money (i.e.--treating them as "trust funds")--again, failing miserably. Despite taxing people at almost punitive levels, they continue to piss what is collected away, irresponsibly--running deficit after deficit, running up national debt--then tripling and quadrupling down again and again. SS fund and medicare funds sleighted to go insolvent within a decade.
Contrast:
Wall Street:
A few big players were on verge of going down. The source? Mtg backed securities. Who supposedly backed the Mortgages? Sallie Mae and Freddie Mack--quasi gov't entities; that is, their "backing"= the fed backing 'em up. What is the nature of the problem mortgages? Undequalified borrowers; why? b/c their loans were backed by the gov....(get it?).
In otherwords, Congress baited lenders into these underfunded securities that undermined Wall Street, by pretending to back them up. But where was the back up when the papers went into default? Why was a bail out needed at all, if all those notes were backed up by gov't?
Answer: The bailout was nothing more than the gov't paying on it's promises (that's why they couldn't let those firms fail--if they did, every bond, note--even the Dollar itself--would have zero value, since their value is derivative of the Fed'l govmt's trustworthiness).
Auto industry: surviving, but dependent on credit (hardly anyone goes in with $20,000+ cash and buys a new car outright; almost always financed). When credit collapsed--again, due to the govm't's involvement--sales naturally froze as well. Again, the "bail out" was nothing more than Congress cleaning up a mess it made. As a side note, the auto industry has long been ailing--why? Congress's perpetual failure to protect borders from cheaper imports, and their beholden status to unions that prevents Am. Auto manufactures from reducing the costs of making cars to compete with imports (a sepeate issue onto itself...)
Now they want to take over the health care industry....
I could go on, but I'm already running long. __________________________________________________________
Bottom line: They're talking about the BCS????
How's that for perspective?
GO GATORS!!
Clemson_Joe
· 6 months ago
"How's that for perspective?"
Dead on. I have already sent quite a few friends to the site specifically to read these 2 posts.
This one was better than the first. Great stuff, TG.
TampaGator
· 6 months ago
CJ:
Glad you liked it; please don't refer anymore freinds to the post though--you're going to get me audited! ;)
b/t/w: it wasn't really intended as a "rant", though it was intended as an alternative perspective that seems to be neglected by the propagandist apparatus otherwise known as the mainstream media.
GO GATORS!!
Regan
· 6 months ago
The good ol' MSM...you have issues with them too, huh? :)
You sound like one of us 'right-wing zealots' who went to a Tea Party... :)
Zac
· 6 months ago
Interesting points, all. As for Tomcat, I think he was referring to your passion. Not to mention, you and most of your gatormates tend to represent yourselves, your fellows, and your school very well. So, if that's what he was reacting to, I can see it, and I can agree. If not, your guess is as good as mine.
Clemson_Joe
· 6 months ago
That has to be the best rant I've seen in quite a while. That was fantastic stuff right there.
Ben Prather
· 6 months ago
I'll toast to that!!
lbu828694
· 7 months ago
They could have helped trim the budget by not having the hearings.
Ben Prather
· 7 months ago
The bill, designed only to require them to drop the title of National Champion from the winner of the BCS championship game, fails to rule out the structure used by the BCS.
I maintain this was a case of an unpopular bully trying to pick on an even less popular target. The fact that the most popular and revenue generating collegiate sport has a championship structure less popular than congress speaks more to the need for change than any legislation congress could propose.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 6 months ago
Agreed. And it seems to crop up every couple of years, whenever the conversation about the teams is a little more heated.
Facebook User
· 6 months ago
Politico reported the other day that JC Watts is the BCS hired-lobbyist on the Hill.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 6 months ago
JC Watts has had the BCS as one of his clients since 2002, I believe.
4cornerz
· 6 months ago
Money talks and BCS walks right to the bank. The BCS must have paid congress off like they do everyone else.
bsudduth
· 6 months ago
Interesting discussion on the hearings. To the extent that the BCS ever morphs into a true playoff, here is a link to some proposed modifications to the system that is a little different from any other proposed systems I've seen. It also attempts to maintain as much tradition of the bowls and importance for the regular season as possible.
I prefer this one. Everyone has their own pet ideas.
Basically no one has established a clear consensus on what ideals would constitute a positive change.
I think all agree on these points:
The winner should not be called a national champion if undefeated teams remain in the league.
A revenue sharing plan that increases competitiveness is better than one that rests on historical perception.
The uniqueness of the bowl system should not be undermined any more than it is by the current system.
Beyond this, and critical points lay ahead, no agreement is found. Before any change can happen the ideals desired for the college football post season need to be hammered out by those involved in the sport.
1Tomcat
· 6 months ago
Perhaps you should contact Grant Taeft - good stuff Ben
Ben Prather
· 6 months ago
Who is Grant Taeft?
1Tomcat
· 6 months ago
Former HC at Baylor- was famous for eating a worm during a halftime lockeroom speech, they came back and beat Texas that year, I was at the game. He is currently the head of the Coaches assoc and Fellowship of Christian atheletes- In your link, he was quoted as saying that they would welcome alernatives and that the coaches were scratching their heads- I probably mispelled the man's name- my bad Sicem-Bears
Ben Prather
· 6 months ago
Grant Teaft...
Now Google finds it...
Once I found the reference (in my own blog) I remembered I have, but back in January before I has hashed out my ideas fully.
Time to try again.
1Tomcat
· 6 months ago
My spelling sucks its Grant Teaff he is the executive director for the American Football Coaches Assoc Check out www.afca.com He has also written several books The winningest coach ever at Baylor
Ben Prather
· 6 months ago
"No body likes me, Everybody hates me..."
I would do anything to motivate the conference commissioners, presidents and athletic directors to make some progress on this issue.
Baylor 38, Texas 14.
Gotta keep'em warm.
The AFCA... The ones who make the "AFCA Coaches' National Championship Trophy" right?
I sent him my five year plan to perform a study, research viable alternatives, research attitudes to the various alternatives and institute changes that are found to be needed.
I also included my list of ideals and the system I generated in more concise terms than I had drafted in January as an attachment.
1Tomcat
· 6 months ago
Cool You have to feel good that you are doing your part and if enough listen, perhaps things will change for the better- good Luck Folks like you and KSUwild could probably do a much better job than congress anyway. What would really be neat- a think tank with fans, coaches, AD's and others without Congressional imput- sign me up Adios Tomcat
Ben Prather
· 6 months ago
I just replied to the following message from Mr. G.G. Teaff:
"BEN, WELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN. THE AFCA HAS NO INPUT INTO THE BCS, SO YOU SHOULD GET YOUR PLAN TO JOHN SWOFORD COMMISSIONER OF THE ACC. MR.. SWOFORD IS THE CURRENT CHAIR OF THE BCS. G.G. TEAFF"
Not sure if his cap locks key is broken or if he is adamantly trying to encourage my efforts.
1Tomcat
· 6 months ago
Wow Ben you should be commended for your efforts, glad you contacted coach Teaff, unfortunately Swoford the ACC commissioner is the guy who told congress that there was no problem and that everything was fair- thats real easy to say when the teams from your conference have a legit chance at MNC game and teams from others do not have any shot whatsoever. Things will change and these efforts by people like yourself will eventually assist in the development of these changes. Keep up the good work and I will personally try to assist you in your efforts. Together we can make a difference, it might take armies of fans, bloggers, alumni and ex-players, coaches etc etc. Most sports writers and Media folks are probably happy with the status quo, because controversy itself creates articles and stories that sell. Hookem-Horns Adios Tomcat
Ben Prather
· 6 months ago
I did ask whose name was on the trophy that was handed out at the championship games.
No direct voice is not the same as no voice.
Still waiting for an answer to that one.
1Tomcat
· 6 months ago
I feel you man fighting an uphill battle against the establishment. We just keep bumping our heads continually until someone finally breaks through- got to love it dude. Folks like you and KSUwild have got it going on- we must persevere Fight the good fight every morning. Hookem Horns 08 shoulda featured Utah vs Texas for the MNC game IMHO .
Dwayne Belcher
· 6 months ago
that is funny every body complains about congress being involved with NCAA Football. Nobody got mad when they attack baseball. So why complain? Some ones favorite team may have to actually earn a playoff game instead of getting one just because. That is the belly of the beast think about mike vick killed dogs convicted by the world ray lewis kills a person he is a icon. I love the way our Congressman think all the money they waisted on the death of a dog but it is cool to kill people as longs as you have a witness.
All Comments
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/a...
I think the joke was on Swafford and the BCS if you ask me.
Here's a quote from the link above...
"Fox couldn't answer Barton's question about why the bowl system is beneficial when most schools that play in lower-tier bowls lose money on the deal. Nor could Swofford explain to Barton why Notre Dame wielded as much voting power as 51 other schools. Tradition, Swofford stammered. "Using that logic," Barton said, "Delaware -- which was the first state in the nation -- ought to have 50 votes in the House. ... That doesn't make a lot of sense."
Does that make sense to you Kevin? No, but that's just the way it is huh?
Swofford said that the revenue distribution "represents the marketplace", which is really just a nice way of saying that the BCS wants the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor. NO?
Within Bartons' bill, any organization would be barred from "the marketing, promotion, and advertising of a postseason game as a 'national championship' football GAME, unless it is the result of a playoff system. Trophy Shmophy
You say "Let me see if I understand the implication: Since the BCS does not award a National Championship trophy... the BCS would continue unchanged."
Umm, No.
If they can't MARKET $$$$$$$$, PROMOTE $$$$$$$$ or ADVERTISE $$$$$$$$ the BCS as a national championship GAME, that hurts their pocket book if I'm not mistaken. So, wrong there about it not changing anything if it passes. Nice try though.
The winner of the BCS national championship game is considered to be, and is accepted as the national champion by the people who follow college football. Period.
Who cares whether they issue a trophy or not. The whole point of the BCS is to control the REVENUE and INCLUSION to the premier bowl games... oh yah, and pit the no. 1 and 2 BCS ranked teams in the national championship game, WINK-WINK.
It would definitely affect the BCS's pocket book if the legislation passed, and no matter how much you down play it, or how far fetched you think it is... the one thing I think we can all agree on is that the BCS will react seriously to any loss of revenue for any reason.
Whether you think the congressmen did a crappy job of presenting their case or not the problem still remains that the vast majority of college football fans want a playoff. That didn't change during these hearings did it?
You say "None of the congressmen attending the hearing was aware that all eleven major conferences are members and financial benefactors of the BCS".
If by "financial benefactors" you mean... getting the leftover scraps from the 72 OZ T-Bone Steaks the BCS just gnawed on then... Yeah, the 5 non-BCS schools get a chunk of that revenue. Shame on Congress for not acknowleging that.
Most public universities can't even afford to hire or give raises to professors, schools are opening the admissions floodgates to increase cash flow without providing the infrastructure to help all those incoming students succeed, and yet financially insufficient universities (at least three fourths of the 120 FBS universities are financially insufficient) continue to suck money from tax payers EVERY YEAR. That make's a lot of sense huh?
Also whether this specific hearing works or not... There are other players involved.
http://www.kutv.com/content/news/topnews/story/...
Laugh it off all you want... there are two sides to every story and this is not going to simply go away anytime soon.
From your post it looks like you are counting on the fact that the notion that many colleges are public schools gives the federal government the ability to intervene.
Do you forsee the federal government forcing the states to withhold funding to these colleges unless they withdraw their opposition to a playoff?
I hope not...
I want the BCS to change their revenue sharing plan to spread money fairly... based off of performance and not past history and tradition. I want for them to adopt a playoff (preferably an 8 team) to effectively decide a champion on the field without disruption of the bowl system.
These changes would generate more revenue for more schools who desperately need it, and would preserve the importance of the regular season while still leaving ample room for the bowl system to continue unimpeded. Everyone happy, healthy, and done in a sustainable way.
The government doesn't need to withhold funds to anyone if it can successfully force the BCS to make these changes. Although the proposed legislation doesn't force a playoff to be adopted, it sure makes it harder than hell for them to pull off what they are doing now.
When congressman Barton asked Swofford what the BCS would do if his legislation passed (which he assured him had a better than 50% chance of pushing through) he said he didn't know what they would do because he's not a lawyer. Yikes. Not a very reaffirming answer coming from the acting BCS commissioner if you ask me.
It seems to me that the BCS has a simple decision to make. Adopt a playoff system volintarily, and start spreading wealth fairly and responsibly... or face the possibility of multiple levels of legislation that could directly as well as indirectly force the BCS to go into an utter and complete tail spin.
Again, the government has not only the right, but the responsibility to intervene when both public and private universities receive government assistance that allows them to stay afloat due to irresponsible revenue sharing practices.
Congress knows that most universities athletic departments are in the red due partially to the fact that the 87% of the money generated by the BCS bowl games is being monopolized by the 6 automatic qualifying conferences and Notre Dame, and only 13% is being alloted to the other 51 remaining schools.
Many of those 51 schools that don't make BCS bowls, but go to the other 29 bowls actually lose money in the process even though the cities that host these bowls always make out fine. Putting the prosparity of bowl sites above our the prosparity of our universities is a slippery slope to tread if I've ever seen one.
Tradition is great but the system is unsustainable without tax payer money and that is one of many reasons why you are seeing congressional involvement, and rightly so in my opinion.
As far as what you want... dude... you're all over the map. Let me summarize: You want more money for everyone, BCS expansion and scrapping the BCS for playoffs, a playoff system that emphasizes post-season performance yet emphasizes regular season performance, upholding of the bowl game traditions, and greater fiscal accountability for taxpayer monies. That's a mouthful. :)
You're attempting to imply some level of incompetence on Swofford's part, so let me point out one of his most telling comments. The BCS and its conferences are not going to do ANYTHING that lowers their market value. I don't know how you take that, but it sounds to me like Swofford is saying that... if push comes to shove... they'll disband the BCS. What happens then? The conferences will be forced to make the best deals they can with the broadcasters and bowls. Who loses in that scenario? The lower market demand conferences... the MAC, CUSA, WAC, MWC, Sunbelt, and all of the DIAAs who are getting BCS payouts. The SEC is raking in BILLIONS in football broadcast rights... do you think the SEC is going to be the one that suffers without the BCS? Nope.
Your passion for playoffs is laudable, but I still have to ask - if it is in the best interest of these universities, why aren't the university presidents supporting a college football playoff? I think the answer is clear. Playoffs appeal to a segment of the FANS... and that's it. No one else wants them or it would have already happened.
Any system that allows 51 of 120 teams to be eliminated before the season even starts is a big pile of crap and everyone, including the congressional committee knew it. Swofford was the one who was all over the place when this point was raised.
What a recruiting disadvantage it must be to go into a kids home and try to get them to come play for your school when everyone, including their mother sitting next to them knows they will have no shot at playing for the NC. And the sad thing is it will have nothing to do with performance, and everything to do with alliances. That's something to be proud of huh Kevin!
Rush and Barton reiterated numerous times that the vast majority of congress members as well as Barak Obama have a keen interest in the revenue sharing practices of the BCS alliance. I would bet they have at least a 50% chance after watching that hearing. Time will tell. Swafford didn't have a whole lot to say when Barton basically told him the BCS had better start talking about changing or else face legislation.
Swofford said that the BCS is concerned with 3 things.
1) They want to create an opportunity for the 1 & 2 teams to play for the National Championship.
2) Maintain the Bowl structure and quality match ups
3) Maintain and enhance the regular season as the best in all of sports.
1) They have maybe achieved their goal 2 times in 11 years so I would give them a giant F there.
2) The bowl structure has been maintained for the most part besides the addition of extra bowls and the occasional Texas in the Rose bowl type stuff. You step away from bowl tradition and look what you get... an instant classic. What a disaster that was huh?
3) As far as the regular season goes I found it interesting that neither Swofford or Fox said one word about Bleymaiers suggestion that a limited playoff... like the one the MWC submitted could actually improve the regular season in CF due to the fact that more teams would know they had a legitimate shot at the title. Even if that wouldn't be the case it's not like an 8 team playoff would be easy to make.
Anyone who thinks an 8 team playoff would be easy to make raise your hand right now please. Didn't think so. If you did, please walk in front of the nearest mirror and repeat after me... I don't know what the F I'm talking about. (please raise your hand again when you're in front of the mirror while you speak)
Fox looked confused when asked if some schools lost money on their bowl trips. He also repeated the same answer like a coached robot when asked why a playoff game wouldn't be an "event" just as a bowl game is. Basically saying that people might hold out on the hope of their team advancing to the next round. He acted as if 100% of the people who go to bowl games are from the two teams home towns. Right right. I'm sure no one would want to go see the best teams in the nation play.
You could actually use the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta bowls as the locations for the first round of an 8 team playoff. Two of the four bowls could host the next round and rotate that right every year with the national championship game held at a predetermined location. It's only one more round for two teams, and two more rounds for two teams. Whooooo. How disruptive for the students and fans?
This would eliminate the need for multiple trips for most of the die hard fans. CF fans would fill the rest of the seats left open by anyone who doesn't want to make the trip.
Changing the BCS bowls to be playoff locations is a popular suggestion by fans, but none of the bowls have adopted that position. In reading their takes on these proposals, it's clear that they do not feel that their existing "event" is a stepping stone or in some way a tier below the premiere bowl games in CFB.
Regarding your playoff... how do you propose to select & seed these teams? How do you suggest realigning the bowl contracts under your proposal to replace teams that are into the playoffs? Can the bowls go "at large" and pick any team, or are they forced to take a lesser team from that conference?
Finally, I would love to see something beyond supposition to support your hypothesis regarding ticket sales. Another issue of paramount importance for the bowl games is that of corporate sponsorship - are you familiar with any studies as to the economics of 36 bowl games? It would also be interesting to read an analysis of what would happen to television ratings for the 34 existing bowl games with the addition of two more games. Let's hear it... talk me into this... thing.
No, we really can't.
The Sugar Bowl is not simply a game that's played in New Orleans. It's a game with an SEC team played in New Orleans.
Same with the Cotton Bowl. Rose Bowl. Gator Bowl, etc. There are deep roots and old regional traditions here.
We could seed teams in a playoff, but never kid yourselves. Va Tech and Ohio State, for example, playing in New Orleans will NEVER be the Sugar Bowl. It's simply a game played in New Orleans.
The traditions of the bowls will be lost.
If they call it the Rose Bowl... then it's the Rose Bowl. When one tradition stops do you know what happens?
Another one begins.
More importantly though:
Then what's the point of tradition to begin with?
That being said... to put the tradition of a bowl, or even 4 bowls before the progress of a whole sport seems a little bass ackwards to me.
example Cotton Bowl
SWC Champ against ND or SEC champ etc.
now its #3 B-12 like Nebraska or TTech vs #3 SEC like Ole Miss or AU
Its not even played at the Cotton Bowl anymore, even though the city of Dallas invested a fortune in improvements only the RRS game is at the Cotton Bowl
The Cotton Bowl should be the site of a BCS bowl, like Feista & Sugar IMO
If the Bowls are so concerned about tradition, why did they sign on with the BCS (or the Bowl Alliance or the Bowl Coalition)? Because they are more concerned with money. So the Bowl’s arguments that "traditions of the bowls will be lost" is disingenuous.
Of course, if we are all about tradition, what traditions, exactly, do we want to keep? To me, the tradition in college football that most people WANT to see broken is the rich getting richer. The NCAA's stated goal is parity. In an effort to create parity, they have eliminated some "traditions" of the "traditional powers", such as hoarding recruits (i.e. putting players on scholarship that they have no intention of playing so other schools can't get them), paying players, no scholastic requirements, etc. In turn, the playing field has been somewhat leveled. Unfortunately, we are still trying to determine the NC using the antiquated "Poll & Bowl" system, which developed at a time when you had a hand full of teams that were head and shoulders above the rest. Seeing a couple of head to head games and a couple of common opponent games of the "powers" was enough to make a reasonable vote for who should be #1. That's not the case now.
I've said it before and I will say it again, PARITY requires a playoff system to get some semblence of an idea of who really is best.
They still list those.
The first Sugar Bowl, 1935: Temple vs Tulane.
Here are some other interesting ones:
1939: TCU vs. Carnegie Tech
1940: Texas A&M vs. Tulane
1942: Fordham vs. Missouri
1944: Georgia Tech vs. Tulsa
1946: St. Mary's vs. Oklahoma A&M
1949: N. Carolina vs. Oklahoma
1954: Georgia Tech vs. West Virginia
1956: Pittsburgh vs. Georgia Tech
Apparently sometimes two SEC teams play...
1960: Ole Miss vs. LSU
1964: Ole Miss vs Alabama
The contract with the SEC was started in 1974-1975, less than half of the Sugar Bowl's played have been under this contract.
The BCS is an improvement over the old system and I commend them for making the attempt to pit the consensus # 1 and 2 teams against each other. The problem is that there has hardly been a year in the BCS's history that they have successfully accomplished that.
As stated in this link:
http://www.bcsreform.org/Default.aspx
"The BCS made a giant step in the 1998 season with the first BCS National Championship Game. They were able to cut through generations of post-season bowl tradition, inter-conference contracts, television rights, advertising sponsorships and local entrenched community organizations to host a championship game."
They realized the need for change, and made moves (which I am thankful for) but unfortunately they didn't go the full mile.
"Taking the next step to reformat the post-season bowl schedule into a real playoff tournament seems to be too big of a hurdle for the collegiate conferences. Frankly, we believe it will take an act of Congress before fans see playoffs."
It's more than just fans who have had the notion of including the BCS bowl games in a playoff format. See the link below.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=395...
My idea for an 8 team playoff is a combination of the one the MWC is submitting and my ideas. I think their 8 team playoff would work well though. Believe it or not my idea is to keep things as close to what they are as possible and therefore hopefully ruffle the least amount of feathers. There are still many changes though.
I would keep the BCS formula the same -- minus the obviously biased coaches poll. My beef has never been with the BCS formula itself, it has been with the fact that it's based on a flawed premise that there will be two clear cut teams at the end of a season... which has hardly ever happened in the history of college football.
That, and currently the automatic qualifying conferences are not based on performance on the field... they are based on past history and alliances. So you end up with scenario's like what happened last year with #19th Virginia Tech getting and AQ bid, and a much better Utah team left trying to fit in the side door with no shot at the National Championship. Not fair.
Under the MWC's proposal, a conference would qualify for an automatic bid if its teams have a winning percentage of at least .400 in games against the current automatic qualifying leagues over a two-year period. I like this method, so I would incorporate it in my 8 team playoff because it is based off of performance and not predetermined alliances.
I am also completely on board with the MWC's proposal that calls for each of the 11 conferences and Notre Dame to have equal representation on the BCS presidential oversight committee, and for revenues to be distributed equally among all leagues. This equal representation is definitely not the case now and that is a big part of the reason why the system hasn't changed to a playoff format so far.
I would be OK with the AQ conferences getting more money than the non AQ conferences, because at least in this formula AQ conferences would receive revenue based off performance and not history and alliances. I'm not against AQ conferences making a little more revenue as long as the basis is on performance.
1) Conference Champions from AQ leagues automatically qualify. AQ conferences are based off of their .400 win percentage against the existing AQ conferences over a rolling 2 year period.
2) No more than 2 teams from the same conference can make the playoff.
3) Undefeated teams that finish in the top 10 automatically qualify and will be seeded based off of their final BCS ranking.
4) Any remaining slots not taken by AQ conference champions or undefeated top 10 finishers will be filled with the next highest BCS ranked team/teams.
5) There is no "special" rule for Notre Dame in my playoff. If they finish ranked high enough they will be included. If they don't, they won't.
6) Ideally, all conferences would create east-west or north-south divisions and have a conference championship game. I know this would be like pulling teeth to get done, but it really should happen IMO. Please note that conferences would NOT need to do this for my playoff to work, but it would sure make them a lot of $$$$$$$$ if they did. It would also level the playing field for all conferences while weeding out some teams before the playoff even begins.
7) The playoff can never exceed 8 teams unless approved by all 11 conferences and Notre Dame (that make up the full presidential oversight committee).
I don't want a playoff in CF to ever exceed anything bigger than an 8 team playoff because first and foremost, I don't think more than 8 is needed to fairly and effectively decide a champion... and secondly I want to ensure the survival of the bowl system.
There is no committee used for selecting or seeding teams in my 8 team playoff. Instead the BCS formula is used... which eliminates the ability for bias in the selection and seeding process.
The Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta bowls would host the first round of the playoff with the semi final round (2nd round) held at two of the same sights, with that right rotating every year.
The National Championship game would also be held at one of the two sights that held the semi final round with that right rotating every year... thus reducing the number of trips for teams and fans.
Here is an example of how this would work using a made up scenario of the final BCS ranked top 10 teams in the nation:
1. USC*
2. Florida*
3. Texas*
4. Ohio St.*
5. Utah*
6. West Virginia*
7. OU
8. LSU
9. Boise St.~
10. Alabama^
* Conference Champion from AQ conference
~ undefeated team ranked in the top 10
^ no more than 2 conference teams allowed to make playoff
Round 1 (4 games)
Fiesta Bowl -- Played December 21st
4)Ohio St. vs. 5)Utah
Orange Bowl -- Played December 22nd
3)Texas vs. 6)West Virginia
Sugar Bowl -- Played December 23rd
2)Florida vs. 7)OU
Rose Bowl -- Played December 24th
1)USC vs. 9)Boise St.
Round 2 -- Semi-Finals (2 games)
On December 31st (New Years Eve), one week later... the Sugar Bowl would host one of the semi final games using the winner of the Sugar Bowl vs. the winner of the Orange Bowl. Then on January 1st (New Years Day) the Rose Bowl would host the other semi final round with the winner of the Rose Bowl vs. the winner of the Fiesta Bowl.
Round 3 -- National Championship Game
A week after that on January 8, the Rose Bowl would then take the final two winners and pit them in the most hyped National Championship game of all time. The right to host this ratings blockbuster would rotate every year between the four BCS bowls.
If you're counting... that is only 3 extra games COMBINED as compared to the current BCS format. Nothing drastic by any stretch of the imagination.
If a bowl game is considered an event... then the Rose Bowl (along with semi-final and NC game included) in this scenario would be a MEGA EVENT due to it hosting games three weeks in a row between the best teams in the nation. ESPN said they would not stand in the way of the BCS if it wants to change, which to me means they are saying if the BCS wants to move to a playoff format ESPN is willing to play ball.
TV contracts have kick out clauses (Barton talked about this in the hearing) so it would come down to whether bowls like the Rose bowl would give up a PAC 10/Big 10 tradition to host a MEGA EVENT like the one just laid out. Of course, this particular scenario would only happen for them once every four years... but they would be absolutely crazy not to go along with a system like this in my opinion.
All the other bowl games would go on almost unchanged because the teams the BCS currently takes, and the teams that an 8 team playoff would use... would be almost identical.
This playoff leaves the bowl system completely intact, with minor changes if any to the current non BCS bowl alliances. No bowls need to be created or dropped in order for it to work, and the BCS formula is even kept the same minus the coaches poll.
This 8 team playoff formula would definitely enhance the regular seasons importance because it would be extremely difficult to make, yet would still give the distinct opportunity for any team from any conference to win the national championship... thus increasing competition across the board.
It also puts the emphasis on winning your conference... which I think most of us would agree is the way it should be.
The increased revenue, and change in disbursement would create more opportunity for the smaller conferences to grow, allowing for better parity in college football.
And finally, it would leave no doubt as to who the best team in the nation is... while generating more money for conferences and universities that desperately need it.
It's a win win scenario for everyone involved.
If there were another undefeated team (for arguments sake), or more than one undefeated team besides Boise St. in this scenario then there might have to be some sort of play in game (using the current 5th BCS bowl). Especially if there ended up being more than 8 automatic qualifiers.
There could also be a rule that dis-qualifies the champion of an AQ conference or an undefeated team if they finished the season with a BCS rank higher than 15th (like Virginia Tech last year). Hmm... I'll have to look into that.
Thoughts?
Otherwise, well thought out post, and I am with you, whatever that's worth.
Major Issues:
1) Any proposal that suggests conferences should realign will not happen.
2) Automatic Qualifications are not based ont he performance on the field?
They are based on three criteria over a four year window:
Number of top 25 teams in the final BCS standings
Average of all teams in the 6 BCS computers
Highest ranked team in the BCS standings
These criteria are strongly determined on the field, but none of them incorporate the bowl results in anyway.
3) The four BCS bowls are not going to move farther from New Year's Day than they already are. If anything they should all be restored to New Year's Day to restore tradition.
Minor issues:
1) Equal revenue distribution. Even I don't think this is fair. My beef is this:
Would you rank the Big East closer to the SEC or the MWC in BCS competitiveness? The revenue distribution says they are almost equal to the SEC, an obvious fallacy.
The BCS gets it money from TV, who get money from advertisers trying to get their product in front of us, the fans. Here is my revenue sharing plan:
6 million: The first team from any conference to participate, if they are in the top 14.
4.5 million: The second team from any conference to participate, any independents or the first team from a conference if they are not in the top 14.
2 million: Payout directly to each institution participation in any additional games.
It is expected that one at-large conference will participate almost every year. Without a playoff this
frees up $81 million from the current revenue distribution.
The remainder is distributed proportionally to the four year average of the total of the average attendance figures of each conference's members. Independents are included.
Ignoring the years automatic qualifying did not make it into the top 14 here are the current average annual excess for each conference over the past 4 years in millions of dollars.
Big East (+7.0), PAC 10 (+3.2), ACC (+2.2), Big 12 (+0.9), WAC (+0.1), Big 10 (+0.0), Sun Belt (-0.3), MAC (-1.3), SEC (-1.9), MWC (-2.1), C-USA(-3.1)
Independents:
Notre Dame is underpaid 1.2 million if they go, over paid 1.2 million if they don't. Since they have gone twice in the past four years this is a wash.
Army and Navy currently receive $100,000 per year.
Navy is worth $525K. Army is worth $469K.
Western Kentucky is joining the Sun Belt, increasing their shortfall by $136K.
2) The two team limit should be revoked in cases where the top spots can't be done otherwise from the top 14. Currently this would push the eligibility down to the top 18. I would much rather see a third team from one of the two dominating conferences in years such as these.
3) ALL undefeated teams should be included, but teams lower then #8 should be forced to play at least 3 rounds to win it.
4) Field fixed at 8.
Rankings here are assumed to be a random sample of opinions from some population. Your complaints that the coaches poll is far from a random sample would be a valid argument against this.
The goal is to increase consensus. It is the nature of rankings that the further from the top one is the more uncertainty their is in the ranking average. The gaps are nearly uniform throughout the standings.
Together, this means that the more teams one includes the less likely it is that an individual from the original population agrees with the final selection.
For a field of 64 you get to a point where people don't even agree on who the final selection or who the first team left out was.
To increase consensus one needs to use large gaps in the BCS rankings near the top of the standings as the main eligibility requirement. Excluding undefeated teams is a no starter for many people.
The field should be adjusted to accommodate the number of worthy teams, not padded with a few teams with questionable credentials.
I have a design that allows for 2-8 teams qualifying that restores the BCS bowls to New Year's day and uses them based on tie-ins to the top ranked teams as semi-finals while keeping the total number of teams participating in the tournament or remaining BCS bowls at 10-11 for all cases less than 7.
Play-in games hosted by the favored team are used on December 19th to kickoff the bowl season if more than 4 teams qualify.
2) Automatic Qualifications ARE based on performance on the field if the system requires a .400 winning percentage against the current AQ conferences. How is that not based on performance on the field? The only other way to receive an AQ in my system is to go undefeated and finish in the top 10. I could see using the top 14 as the standard instead of the top 10.
That could work conversely in that an AQ conference could have their champion disqualified if they finished ranked higher that 14th in the BCS (like V-Tech last year). Either way it would be based on performance on the field all the way down to the seeding in my system... which uses the BCS formula... which uses equations and polls based off of performance on the field.
3) In my proposal 2 of the 4 bowls would host a game on New Years Eve and New Years Day so I would say that still keeps the New Years tradition alive. My setup could easily be changed to allow both round 2 games to be played on New Years Day instead of splitting them between the 31st and 1st.
The reason I structured it that way is because starting an 8 team playoff on New Years Eve/Day would push the National Championship game to the 14th of January which seems pretty late to me.
4) I agree that equal revenue distribution should not be exactly equal beween all conferences upon further review and I kind of alluded to that in my first proposal. It makes sense that better conferences should recieve more money than lesser conferences. I like your revenue sharing proposal.
5) I don’t agree with including all undefeated teams --no matter what-- because that is basically rewarding teams who play in weak conferences and punishing teams who play in the toughest conferences. I’ll stick with undefeated teams getting an AQ bid if and only if they finish ranked in the top 14.
6) The only reason I think there should ever be more than 8 teams is if somehow after all conference championship games are played that there are more than 8 AQ teams. Then you would have to have a “play in game” situation where the 7 seed played the 10 seed and the 8 seed played the 9 seed to see who would make up the final 8 teams.
7) You said “The field should be adjusted to accommodate the number of worthy teams, not padded with a few teams with questionable credentials.” Which I agree with 100%. That is why I think undefeated teams who don’t make the final BCS ranked 14 should NOT be accommodated for. Nor should there be any exceptions made for Notre Dame… a team that hasn’t won a bowl game in over a decade.
2) We are arguing whether the current BCS criteria or the MWC's proposed ideas are used. I think we both agree that whatever qualifications are used they should be published for all to see along with guideline for how changes in a conference's status will be handled.
3) I have sent you a copy of my detailed proposal off line.
5) Including undefeated teams is a philosophical point that should be decided publicly by a vote of the coaches.
In my structure typically 3-5 teams qualify resulting in a plus one like format with an occasional play-in game or two. My proposal would force an undefeated team below #10 to play at least 3 rounds against the best teams available to give them a significant test to earn their spot.
6) I agree. Only in the 0.04% chance that 9 teams or more go undefeated should more than 8 teams qualify. In this case the two lowest ranked teams from conferences without a championship game would play for the last spots available.
7) I think a fixed field of 8 is usually too many. If Hawaii can make the top 14 with the schedule they had in 2007 anyone can do it.
PS) Didn't Notre Dame convincingly win and sell out the Hawaii Bowl this year?
Damn it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was really hoping that streak would continue indefinitely.
I know it was long but come on man, throw me a bone or something. (-: I think I hit everything you brought up but possibly proof that people would actually buy tickets to watch the best teams in the nation play.
As far as what Mr. Fox said about the "charitable giving" of the bowl system/BCS alliance... it seems someone was either flat lying or VERY misinformed. It just gets better and better doesn't it?
See links below.
http://www.faniq.com/article/Rep-Joe-Barton-may...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/200...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/185179-disma...
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/627020...
Secret Ballot helps determine Championship
sounds like Duval county Texas during the LBJ days
I agree with what you said about the elimination of 51 teams, but I thought it was 55 teams, becuase lets face it the Utah's, TCU's and Bois's will never get a shot at the MNC game under the current system- Seems like folks who are against some form of playoff are fans or alumi of schools that belong to BCS conferences and so their team has a shot at a title and fans of those other 55 teams will never. Then there is the arguement over "seeding the teams" use the current top 8 whether its the BCS method or someother ranking- sure there will still be arguements, but they can argue over who's #8 or #9 instead of who's #2 or #3.
This just makes too much sense
Just look at 2007 when UGA beat HAW like a drum in the Sugar Bowl. Had it not been for the 5th Bowl, the NCG would have been played in the Fiesta and UGA would have gotten OU or WVU...a much better game.
The quality of the matchups has declined, because the pool of teams in the BCS is larger. (although personally I think it's worth it to ensure greater access to the non-BCS conferences...)
Throw in the fact that if CLEM or MIA made it to the Orange Bowl, I would be much less likely to pay to fly to Miami to watch a semifinal game, and there are MAJOR attendance issues.
Lastly, I understand your points about the 'elimination of 51 teams', but I will counter it by using the University of Miami in the last 30 years.
In the 70's, UCG almost disbanded their CFB team; they got in a few good coaches, grabbed destiny by the horns and turned themselves into a national powerhouse.
It is a great story, and it is one of the reasons I am so thrilled with the successes of UTAH and BSU and want to see them succeed in years to come...so they can become powerhouses the way everyone else did...rather than get a Federal Playoff Bailout...
The BCS Bowls in the 'Title Game era' have been:
2009:
Fiesta: TEX* > OHST*
Rose: SCAL > PSU
Sugar: UTAH* > BAMA*
Orange: VT > CINC
Title: FLA > OU
2008:
Fiesta: WVU > OU
Rose: SCAL > ILL*
Sugar: UGA* > HAW*
Orange: KAN* > VT
Title: LSU > OHST
2007:
Fiesta: BSU* > OU
Rose: SCAL > MICH*
Sugar: LSU* > ND*
Orange: LOU > WF
Title: FLA > OHST
*At-Large teams
As you can see, both issues are in play, especially in the 2008 BCS Bowls.
It makes too much sense... which is probably why it won't happen for a long time!!!
I think the "P" word just scares traditionalist. Even the ones who would be ok with a plus one system (which is a playoff BTW).
My idea of a playoff doesn't have to completely buck the system. Just make some change's to the way the BCS bowl games work. They are already in their own catagory from regular bowls anyway so I don't see why a change to their structure would drastically affect the other bowls.
Keep Hooken em' good buddie!
Regan used the Hawaii example- we knew Hawaii was way overated that yer, they squeezed past LaTech a team that Nebraska hammered- everyone , including myself loved the Bois st vs OU game, however OU lost two games that season including a big loss to Texas, so while it could be considered an upset, it wasn't really that big of a deal to me anyway.
I'd just like to pose the question, what else could Utah have done? They did everything, played Div1A teams including several ranked opponents and knocked off a top ten Alabama- everyone else including Florida , Texas and USC had at least one loss at the end after the bowls. A plus one or 8 team playoff, might not insure a Boise St or Utah's appearance, but it would dang sure increase the odds, because unfortunately the current system does not offer them any chance whatsoever- BTW they aren't asking for any bailout to a chance at a Chamionship, which those boys earned- its not whining to stand up for your school and ask for some equality.
Hookem-Horns
BTW glad yall got coach Snyder back
We "all knew" in retrospect is easy. We all "had a feeling" is more like it, but the notion of giving an undefeated HAW team a chance in a BCS Bowl game was appropriate.
Just as appropriate as it was to give BSU a shot at OU in 2006/7 and UTAH a shot at BAMA in 2008/9.
Heck...taking the hindsight glasses off, what might the world have looked like had it been UTAH undefeated and locked out of the NCG when a 2-loss LSU got in? Just asking.
As far as your statement "what else could UTAH have done?", though, I agree 100%. For the bazillionth time, UTAH 08 got hosed...
My point was that Miami came out of nowhere to become a powerhouse by rising to the top and staying there. If UTAH and BSU continue playing top-notch FB for a few more years, they'll get there.
The 'Canes got there without legislation. That's all I'm sayin'... :)
I beleive that had the Canes been in MWC or C-USA you would have a more legit comparison.
BTW we both agree that the Utes got hosed in 08
The examples of teams going into BCS bowls are far and few between and they are not for the MNC, but against a team from a BCS conference.
Compare say the MWC against BE or P-10 I'd say the top 2 or 3 from MWC would do really well in those leagues, probably in the ACC as well I dunno, last year anyway
Adios Hookem
That's how Miami got to a BCS conference, and that's how Temple lost it's BCS-conference status.
If Utah continues winning, they'll get the chance...
Oklahoma 35 TCU 10.
Relook at last year if TCU wins this, or makes it respectable.
The Utes got the shaft because they do not belong to a so-called BCS conference
I need to read the lawsuit for the exact language, but I can't help but presume that the Utah AG is suing the parties to the BCS, since the BCS itself is barely more than ten employees and no cash. If that's the case, the Utah AG is suing - among others - the Mountain West? Nice.
Secondly, the Utah AG is not the first to go down this road. To date, no one has been successful. With all those comments about government finances, I can't help but think this isn't a wise investment.
My understanding is that it is an anti-trust issue, thus he is going after the big 6 conferences.
As far as the Utah AG foes, the suggestion would then be that the six conferences, with their combined "evilness", negotiated record-setting revenue with television and bowls, and then recklessly invited the smaller five conferences to share in the revenues, duping them out of the share that they had no part in generating? Bastards. Get a rope!
The BCS is nothing more than a marketing alliance of the conferences. The only case you could make for anti-trust would be that the conferences colluded to impact market conditions and thus aggrieved the bowls and/or broadcasters. You might have something there if its against the BCS on behalf of the bowls or vice versa. That said, I don't understand how the AG would have standing in that case, since no bowls and/or broadcasters are within his jurisdiction.
This is grandstanding. Just like the congressional hearings. It's just getting this guy's name in the paper on the taxpayers' dime.
Why would you think for a second that the BCS couldn't accomplish the same?
It appears to me that a two team tournament that any team can qualify for by finishing in the top 2 of the polls would apply.
This is just another case of Congress "looking into" some populist issue in order to divert attention from their own colossal failures on matters they are actually responsible for; simple demagoguery—transparent as glass.
Let's get sports fans all riled up over this gross "injustice"--then they won't be all up in arms, as we swiftly drive this country to 3rd world status...
...they won't care that we are turning the dollar into a currency inferior to the Mexican Peso...
...they won't care that our boarders will remain porous....
...they won't care that our defenses are compromised, while our enemies (N. Korea, Iran, Russia, China, and Venezuela) are strengthening, and increasing in gall...
...they won't care that we are rendering our domestic corporations impotent against foreign manufactures/importers/competition with our over-burdensome tax code and with union friendly reg's needed to repay political debt....
...they won't care that we "spent" (read: printed up a bunch of worthless paper) "trillions of 'dollars" to prop up wall street in order to “save” it from collapsing--because our own (Congresses’) IRA's and pensions were tied into Wall Street--while haggling over a few billion $$ to save Detroit from imploding in on itself, since we (Congress--via Pensions/IRA's) weren't nearly as invested in Detroit....
...they won't care that we (Congress) CAUSED the financial crisis in the first place, by forcing the very Wall Street banks that we are now taking over--'er, “rescuing”--to fail, by REQUIRING them to lend money to borrowers with poor credit, with the carrot and stick approach (carrot=Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae pretending to guarantee said loans; stick=threatening to punish those who wouldn't play their came)...
...they just won't care.
They'll be too busy wringing their fists at the high heavens, over the horrific injustice of an imperfect college football bowl system that has failed almost as many, if not more times than it has succeeded--SINCE ITS INCEPTION--in choosing the right "national champion". Whooa....the INJUSTICE OF IT ALL!!!
So unjust, that stadiums throughout the land are consistently filled to witness this injustice...TV ratings run sky high, to witness this injustice...the national economy--and local economies that host these grave "injustices" are consistently boosted by these grave "injustices"....
Complete f'n bunk.
A joke? No doubt. But did you really "get" the puchnline?
GO GATORS!!
I appreciate your understanding, but I assure you, my "perspective" on this matter has virtually nothing to do with my school allegiance.
Congress simply has no business meddling in CFB...and they're definitely in no position to second guess how any private sector entity, organization or process works--at least not from any authority born of good will and performance.
A simple look at "results" generated by Congress in comparison to their responsibilities, vs. private sector entities bears this out quite clearly.
Congress's responsibilites, in order:
1. National Security (if this fails, nothing else matters--see the immediate aftermath of 9/11/'01 for perspective)--includes preserving the integrity of borders, protection from invasion, protection of national interests domesticallyand abroad, and preservation of general law & order within;
2. Respect/protection of individual liberties and freedoms PRESERVED by the Constitution (NOTE: "preserved," not "guaranteed," because the source of original authority is from "the people"--not from the gov't);
3. Promotion of commerce amongst the states--including maintaining a stable currency, a fluid infrastructure, and incentive for engaging in commercial activities;
4. Respecting their fiduciary duties for the "trust funds" collected from "the people" (i.e.--taxes), FOR the people, in order to accomplish the above, and any other discretionery oblilgations they've taken on of their own volition (e.g.--social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare...).
Quick anaylsis:
Nat'l security--faring well at present, but taking significant steps to compromise ability to meet future threats;
Respect of ind'l rights--actively seeking to encroach far beyond the extent conteplated in constitution, via invasive taxes, increased regulations, gun control, punishing exercise of protected free speech, and the like;
Commerce: failing miserably, by failing to balance budget, then--in the face of expenses and obligations it cannot meet--printing up money to completely pull the rug out from the existing currency value (recipe for impending disaster--book it); and further by failing to preserve the incentive necessary to fuel commerce by reducing tax burden--especially in the midst of a horrible recession (instead, actually looking to increase taxes thus reducing incentive);
Fiduciary duty re. tax money (i.e.--treating them as "trust funds")--again, failing miserably. Despite taxing people at almost punitive levels, they continue to piss what is collected away, irresponsibly--running deficit after deficit, running up national debt--then tripling and quadrupling down again and again. SS fund and medicare funds sleighted to go insolvent within a decade.
Contrast:
Wall Street:
A few big players were on verge of going down. The source? Mtg backed securities. Who supposedly backed the Mortgages? Sallie Mae and Freddie Mack--quasi gov't entities; that is, their "backing"= the fed backing 'em up. What is the nature of the problem mortgages? Undequalified borrowers; why? b/c their loans were backed by the gov....(get it?).
In otherwords, Congress baited lenders into these underfunded securities that undermined Wall Street, by pretending to back them up. But where was the back up when the papers went into default? Why was a bail out needed at all, if all those notes were backed up by gov't?
Answer: The bailout was nothing more than the gov't paying on it's promises (that's why they couldn't let those firms fail--if they did, every bond, note--even the Dollar itself--would have zero value, since their value is derivative of the Fed'l govmt's trustworthiness).
Auto industry: surviving, but dependent on credit (hardly anyone goes in with $20,000+ cash and buys a new car outright; almost always financed). When credit collapsed--again, due to the govm't's involvement--sales naturally froze as well. Again, the "bail out" was nothing more than Congress cleaning up a mess it made. As a side note, the auto industry has long been ailing--why? Congress's perpetual failure to protect borders from cheaper imports, and their beholden status to unions that prevents Am. Auto manufactures from reducing the costs of making cars to compete with imports (a sepeate issue onto itself...)
Now they want to take over the health care industry....
I could go on, but I'm already running long.
__________________________________________________________
Bottom line: They're talking about the BCS????
How's that for perspective?
GO GATORS!!
Dead on. I have already sent quite a few friends to the site specifically to read these 2 posts.
This one was better than the first. Great stuff, TG.
Glad you liked it; please don't refer anymore freinds to the post though--you're going to get me audited! ;)
b/t/w: it wasn't really intended as a "rant", though it was intended as an alternative perspective that seems to be neglected by the propagandist apparatus otherwise known as the mainstream media.
GO GATORS!!
You sound like one of us 'right-wing zealots' who went to a Tea Party... :)
I maintain this was a case of an unpopular bully trying to pick on an even less popular target. The fact that the most popular and revenue generating collegiate sport has a championship structure less popular than congress speaks more to the need for change than any legislation congress could propose.
http://www.slideshare.net/bsudduth/bowl-champio...
Basically no one has established a clear consensus on what ideals would constitute a positive change.
I think all agree on these points:
The winner should not be called a national champion if undefeated teams remain in the league.
A revenue sharing plan that increases competitiveness is better than one that rests on historical perception.
The uniqueness of the bowl system should not be undermined any more than it is by the current system.
Beyond this, and critical points lay ahead, no agreement is found. Before any change can happen the ideals desired for the college football post season need to be hammered out by those involved in the sport.
Sicem-Bears
Now Google finds it...
Once I found the reference (in my own blog) I remembered I have, but back in January before I has hashed out my ideas fully.
Time to try again.
Check out www.afca.com
He has also written several books
The winningest coach ever at Baylor
Everybody hates me..."
I would do anything to motivate the conference commissioners, presidents and athletic directors to make some progress on this issue.
Baylor 38, Texas 14.
Gotta keep'em warm.
The AFCA... The ones who make the "AFCA Coaches' National Championship Trophy" right?
I sent him my five year plan to perform a study, research viable alternatives, research attitudes to the various alternatives and institute changes that are found to be needed.
I also included my list of ideals and the system I generated in more concise terms than I had drafted in January as an attachment.
Folks like you and KSUwild could probably do a much better job than congress anyway.
What would really be neat- a think tank with fans, coaches, AD's and others without Congressional imput- sign me up
Adios Tomcat
"BEN, WELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN. THE AFCA HAS NO INPUT INTO THE BCS, SO YOU SHOULD GET YOUR PLAN TO JOHN SWOFORD COMMISSIONER OF THE ACC. MR.. SWOFORD IS THE CURRENT CHAIR OF THE BCS. G.G. TEAFF"
Not sure if his cap locks key is broken or if he is adamantly trying to encourage my efforts.
Most sports writers and Media folks are probably happy with the status quo, because controversy itself creates articles and stories that sell.
Hookem-Horns
Adios Tomcat
No direct voice is not the same as no voice.
Still waiting for an answer to that one.
fighting an uphill battle against the establishment. We just keep bumping our heads continually until someone finally breaks through- got to love it dude.
Folks like you and KSUwild have got it going on- we must persevere
Fight the good fight every morning.
Hookem Horns
08 shoulda featured
Utah vs Texas for the MNC game IMHO
.