Fanblogs.com - Latest Comments in Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

ksuwild — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:21:32 -0000

Notre Dame did win their bowl last year didn't they.

Damn it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was really hoping that streak would continue indefinitely.

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

Ben Prather — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:44:35 -0000

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?

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

ksuwild — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:55:11 -0000

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.

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

ksuwild — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:31:37 -0000

Very well said VTBobb. You hit the nail on the head.

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

1Tomcat — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:58:27 -0000

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

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

OU_Ron — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:38:13 -0000

Can't count on a Frog when you really need em..

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

Ben Prather — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:05:00 -0000

One game cost Utah the National Championship:

Oklahoma 35 TCU 10.

Relook at last year if TCU wins this, or makes it respectable.

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

Ben Prather — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:53:52 -0000

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.

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

ksuwild — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:32:09 -0000

And this is why I think the coaches poll should be removed from the BCS formula.

http://bleacherreport.com/a...

http://www.cbssports.com/mc...

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

ksuwild — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:28:15 -0000

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?

See links below.

http://www.faniq.com/articl...

http://latimesblogs.latimes...

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

1Tomcat — Fri, 22 May 2009 00:18:28 -0000

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
.

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

Ben Prather — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:24:44 -0000

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.

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

1Tomcat — Thu, 21 May 2009 10:07:22 -0000

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

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

Ben Prather — Thu, 21 May 2009 01:12:20 -0000

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.

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

VTBobb — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:23:22 -0000

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.

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

Ben Prather — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:44:17 -0000

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.

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

1Tomcat — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:11:23 -0000

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

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

Ben Prather — Sat, 16 May 2009 17:03:14 -0000

"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.

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

1Tomcat — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:31:57 -0000

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

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

Ben Prather — Sat, 16 May 2009 14:25:33 -0000

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.

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

1Tomcat — Sat, 16 May 2009 14:04:44 -0000

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

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

Ben Prather — Sat, 16 May 2009 13:29:33 -0000

Who is Grant Taeft?

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

1Tomcat — Sat, 16 May 2009 12:25:30 -0000

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

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

Regan — Sat, 16 May 2009 00:13:06 -0000

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... :)

Re: Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

Regan — Sat, 16 May 2009 00:06:09 -0000

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...