Fanblogs.com: Mountain West to push BCS for guaranteed mid-major berth
bevo
· 9 months ago
Yes, the Mountain West Conference should prove their point on the field. Just like Boise State did in 2008 with their perfect record and their victory over a ranked Pac 10 team on the road.
Yes, prove it on the field and you will get an invite to the... What BCS bowl game did Boise State play in? Orange? No, the Orange Bowl took four loss Cincinnati. Wait? What?
How come the Orange Bowl, a BCS bowl game, took a team that was ranked lower AND had more losses over a team ranked in the top 10 and had no losses? Oh, the rules of the system required the Orange Bowl to accept Cincinnati. That's right.
Folks, when you try to defend the indefensible, you give up logic and reason. The BCS represents a completely illogical and unreasonable system unless you want to argue that the BCS is designed to give roughly 70 schools access to big bucks and roughly 50 schools access to the shaft.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 9 months ago
It would probably help your logic and reasoning if you comment was based in... facts. :-)
The Big East doesn't have an automatic link to the Orange Bowl or any BCS bowl, for that matter. The ACC is the contracted host team for the Orange Bowl.
Secondly, your beef cannot be with Cincinnati, because the Bearcats were the Big East qualifier. They weren't "chosen" over Boise State. In 2008, the at-large teams were Texas, Utah, Alabama, and Ohio State... all of which had higher Sag predictor ratings than Boise State.
Now.. you can make the argument that BSU deserved it more than tOSU, but... Ohio State beat three-ranked teams and their only regular season losses were to then #1 Southern Cal on the road and then #3 Penn State. Boise played seven bowl teams in the regular season - the Buckeyes played eight. The B10 finished as Sag's #6 toughest conference, while the WAC was #10 - and separated by a significant margin from the BCS conferences.
Finally, how exactly has Boise gotten the shaft from the BCS? I seem to recall a couple of substantial checks written to the WAC for the past ten years, not to mention that game that smurf-turf fans keep yammering on about all these years later.
grover
· 9 months ago
"The Big East doesn't have an automatic link to the Orange Bowl or any BCS bowl, for that matter"
That's misleading. The Big East champion is guaranteed a BCS spot, just no tie in to a specific BCS bowl. That's still a lot better deal than the MWC gets under the current system and does underscore bevo's point that there is a have - have-not division ingrained in the BCS. Yes, Boise can get access to those big dollars with success on the field, but they get no guarantees. The Big East needs no on-field success to get access to the money.
GoCougs!
· 9 months ago
good point totally agree
BamaBorn
· 9 months ago
Yes ladies and gentlemen, the moral of the story is, if you plan to argue with Kev, be sure to back it up with fact. Otherwise you end up looking like Bevo.
:-)
hrposon
· 9 months ago
The state of College Football today. "The Mountain West has even hired a Washington, DC lobbying firm to plead its case to Congress." Pelosi, Obama, Reid and Kennedy will fix it, PORK to the rescue...
Zac
· 9 months ago
Yep, that's all we need is to get congress into the act. They'll debate this from one end of the House to the other end of the Senate; probably come to some resolution in, say...10 years and 3 presidents from now. Then, everything we knew as college football will be lost. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd just as soon go back to the old bowl system and never talk play-offs, than to put it into the hands of a few truck loads of egotistical, long-winded bureaucrats, most of who not only don't know a thing about college football, but apparently can't tell the difference between that which is truly important for the American people, as compared to that which is obviously not. I love my country, but this is ridiculous!!!
Porcine
· 9 months ago
I agree.
hrposon
· 9 months ago
The BCS is corrupt and favors the biggest money games and not necessarily the best teams. My hope is that the fear of congressional intervention will scare them into doing the right thing. A playoff of the top eight conference champions. Congress pumps so much money into the universities that they can dictate anything they feel like doing.
Regan
· 9 months ago
By "right thing", I assume you mean what you think they should do.
Playoff vs. BCS vs. Old System vs. Alternate system is a realm for opinion, not fact.
hrposon
· 9 months ago
By "right thing" I mean, "A playoff of the top eight conference champions." The only beauty contest voting will be for the top eight conferences and what order they should be seeded for the playoff. ( 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc ). To paraphrase Gussie Busch to Curt Flood, if we would have known how much money we would make after free agency, we would have never fought you.
Regan
· 9 months ago
I getcha; and must apologize for being shamelessly preachy; I'm just pointing out that the Playoff thing is not a Fact, it is an Opinion.
Not everyone shares the opinion that an 8- (or 16- or whatever) team Playoff is best for CFB, and even if they did, it still isn't a "Fact".
Not trying to be a jerk, hrposon, I just have a reputation to uphold when it comes to this issue, please take no offense. :)
hrposon
· 9 months ago
Regan, I take no offense, it's a good forum for differences of opinion... A playoff, as in all real sports will determine a champion that won every elimination game that they played on the field. Not by teams running up the score / stats against weaker opponents to impress voters who are easily influenced by the ratings hucksters at Disney, ABC and ESPN.
Mars
· 9 months ago
This is one of the worst sports articles ever written. Attacking the MWC's proposal at this point is beyond idiotic because WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR PROPOSAL IS YET!!! It's not public at this point, moron. Your point #3 is a complete contradiction. How in the world would an automatic non-BCS spot in the BCS bowls hurt the non-BCS conferences?!? It wouldn't. In any way, shape, or form.
Wait until you get a clue, THEN post.
OU_Ron
· 9 months ago
Who are you calling a Moron..?????
Zac
· 9 months ago
Is that the opposite of a less-off?
Mars
· 9 months ago
That should be pretty obvious, with even the most rudimentary reading comprehension skills.
Regan
· 9 months ago
MARS!....Mars, Mars, Mars, Mars, Mars.......Are you going there? Against Kev? Really? Without backup? Gutsy.... I'll try to save ya:
First off, it was mentioned that the proposal had not been put forth yet, but it was going to include the AQ for the MWC. The post addressed the latter, which was a certainty.
Second off, as far as Point #3, if you read it, you'd notice that the point addressed the notion that a "permanent MWC berth in the BCS" would likely upset the WAC, C-USA, etc., and a "permanent WAC berth" would upset the MWC, C-USA, etc...
In your own words.....Wait until you get a clue, THEN post.
Mars
· 9 months ago
Way to attempt to support the unsupportable.
"The BCS can undertake some reform to include a seventh AQ - either the MWC or a permanent mid-major slot. Either way you look at this resolution, most of the mid-majors are going to be upset."
"Mid-majors" would be upset to gain a permanent bid? Why? They would hate the MWC would selfishly gaining this for all of them? Why?
The lack of journalism is obvious. But you can put on a tinfoil cap and rage against fictional futures as well, if you'd like. Just don't take yourself seriously while doing so, because that's how fools work, not professionals...
Regan
· 9 months ago
>>>>>Way to attempt to support the unsupportable. "The BCS can undertake some reform to include a seventh AQ - either the MWC or a permanent mid-major slot. Either way you look at this resolution, most of the mid-majors are going to be upset." "Mid-majors" would be upset to gain a permanent bid? Why? They would hate the MWC would selfishly gaining this for all of them? Why? <<<<<
Yes - the mid-majors would get upset if the MWC got an "MWC Automatic Bid", because that would hedge out the chances of them getting an At-Large Bid.
I think you're getting hung up on the phrase "or a permanent mid-major slot". It's referring to a "Permanent WAC slot" or a "Permanent MWC slot", not a "Permanent slot reserved for a mid-major team". Even if it was, that would put a hex on the possibility of ever having two mid-majors get BCS berths.
If you're going to get upset at how it is worded, feel free to point out that it could come across as confusing...no need to attack anyone over it...
>>>>>The lack of journalism is obvious. But you can put on a tinfoil cap and rage against fictional futures as well, if you'd like. Just don't take yourself seriously while doing so, because that's how fools work, not professionals...<<<<<
This is a Blog, dude. Kev voiced his opinion. Disagree with him if you want, but you're being a little militant on the attacks here. Me? I'm a bookkeeper who has some opinions on CFB who chills out and posts on a CFB blog for fun. I am not a professional, and really don't care.
Try a sports news site, I think that's what you're looking for...
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 9 months ago
Thanks for the insight. It's always entertaining to read personal attacks as a substitute for substance.
If a permanent slot is created for any one mid-major conference OR for a mid-major qualifier in aggregate, that would be a poor deal for the remaining non-BCS teams. Any such arrangement would likely eliminate a mid-major from consideration for an at-large spot. I believe I posted that thought in the OP... but... whatevs.
Mars
· 9 months ago
"It's always entertaining to read personal attacks as a substitute for substance."
That sums up your "article" perfectly, which attacks the Mountain West Conference without any substance or facts to base those baseless attacks on. Again, a real journalist would wait until the proposal is made public, instead of attacking what they think the proposal MAY or MAY NOT contain.
"If a permanent slot is created for any one mid-major conference OR for a mid-major qualifier in aggregate, that would be a poor deal for the remaining non-BCS teams. Any such arrangement would likely eliminate a mid-major from consideration for an at-large spot."
Just like how the PAC-10's spot is bad for the PAC-10, the SEC's spot is bad for the SEC, etc. It's not. At all. There is no negative for the non-BCS if they gained a permanent spot as a group. It's deserved, it would benefit all 5 smaller conferences, and it would benefit college football. And has nothing to do with at-larges for the non-BCS (which has never happened anyway, even for undefeated Boise State versus crappy loser Ohio State).
My best advice to you Kev, shut up. Get some facts, then come back and see me. Get some facts, then come back and see me.
Regan
· 9 months ago
Wow...this guy just really doesn't get it....
Zac
· 9 months ago
"Get some facts, then come back and see me. Get some facts, then come back and see me."
Not to mention, he stutters a little.
Mars
· 9 months ago
It's pretty obvious that there are a lot of people in this thread that just don't get it. Don't hurt yourselves trying.
Here's my opinion (we all know what opinions are worth, but this is a blog):
1. Kev, you seemed a little harsh to the MWC, particularly not even knowing exactly what the proposal is.
2. It's February, what else are we going to talk about?
3. I don't think the MWC has earned a BCS conference spot yet.
4. I could support an automatic bid for the "mid-majors". I don't agree with Kev's OPINION that it would somehow hurt them. When 2 "mid-majors" get at-larges under the current system, I'll buy that argument. Until then, I have a differing OPINION.
5. Mars reminds me of that "reporter" that ambushed Calhoun in Conn. He is trying to apply standards for something completely out of context. To make matters worse, instead of trying to use logic to state his case, he hurls insults, making any legitimate point he has easy to write off as the ramblings of a slightly unstable fanatic with an agenda.
Did I miss anything?
kennova
· 9 months ago
"The MWC has agreed to play ball up to this point. If they don't want to be involved with the BCS, no one is forcing them to do so."
This perfectly illustrates the problems with a monopoly. It's very easy to say, "Just ignore them, go start your own thing." The power of a monopoly makes this cost-prohibitive, and just plain counter-productive.
Whatever the MWC plan is, it can't be worse than the current BCS. The arbitrary selection of conferences that are part of the system now benefit by not having to prove anything on the field and they still get money. Even if they are better today, it's due to the advantage they have had for years coming into it. Even if the BCS were to be gone tomorrow, the BCS conference teams would probably still do well for the first 1 or 2 seasons. Then we'd see things even out.
Money is everything to young impressionable college kids. It's just plain economics to go with the team that has the highest probability to make to a big game. And that's just not making for a good college football program on the whole.
Regan
· 9 months ago
>>>>>This perfectly illustrates the problems with a monopoly. It's very easy to say, "Just ignore them, go start your own thing." The power of a monopoly makes this cost-prohibitive, and just plain counter-productive.<<<<<
In a Monopoly, there is no alternative. A Monopoly would be if the BCS owned every actual football and refused to let anyone play without their consent. Becoming Independent IS an option and always will be, as each conference is free to do as they choose.
>>>>>Whatever the MWC plan is, it can't be worse than the current BCS. The arbitrary selection of conferences that are part of the system now benefit by not having to prove anything on the field and they still get money. Even if they are better today, it's due to the advantage they have had for years coming into it. Even if the BCS were to be gone tomorrow, the BCS conference teams would probably still do well for the first 1 or 2 seasons. Then we'd see things even out.<<<<<
I sense that you are trying to make it sound like there is no true difference between the six BCS conferences and the five non-BCS conferences. Perhaps the MAC competed against the Big Ten on even ground prior to 1998. Must have missed that.
And now, without the BCS money making them better (as you claimed), Utah and Boise State have strung together BCS Bowl victories, despite having no reason to even bother playing.
The simple fact that non-BCS teams have been successful on the field as of recent makes your arguments vulnerable.
kennova
· 9 months ago
I disagree with your thoughts on a monopoly. The BCS has a monopoly on the bowl system as a whole. If anyone wanted to be thought of as the National Champion in the official NCAA books you MUST go through the BCS. Any alternative would NOT be able to claim National Championship status without the BCS. This makes going independent very difficult.
Every team should have an Equal chance to compete for the NC. And the fact that Boise State has done well and Utah has done well despite this disadvantage I mention does make my argument for a disadvantage vulnerable, I agree. However, it further illustrates my point that every team should be able to compete equally without having to be in a certain conference. As of late, the non-BCS teams have been able to convince good players to play at their schools and try to "take-down" the BCS giants. This is great for those teams, but things should be more even.
Regan
· 9 months ago
>>>>>I disagree with your thoughts on a monopoly. The BCS has a monopoly on the bowl system as a whole. If anyone wanted to be thought of as the National Champion in the official NCAA books you MUST go through the BCS. Any alternative would NOT be able to claim National Championship status without the BCS. This makes going independent very difficult. <<<<<
Fair enough on the disagreement, but things aren't that simple. The NCAA has never awarded a NC for CFB. Ever. The AP Poll and UPI had a vote at the end of the season from 1936-1997, and that was seen as the source of the MNC's.
As far as the BCS went, the BCS is not an organization. It is an alliance between the 4x major bowls (Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Rose) and the 6x major conferences (ACC, BE, B10, P10, SEC, B12) on the way they want to crown their National Champion.
The BCS came about after the Bowl Alliance/Coalition (all above minus the Rose Bowl, B10 & P10) tried to match up the #1 and #2 teams at the end of each season instead of having quasi-random bowl invites. The other conferences convinced the B10/P10/Rose Bowl to join the system so that the other 2 conferences could participate and there would be no split champion.
This is not a monopoly - this is businesses choosing business partners. The B10 & P10 can easily opt out of the BCS, returning it to the pre 1998- system; nothing is stopping them.
>>>>>Every team should have an Equal chance to compete for the NC. And the fact that Boise State has done well and Utah has done well despite this disadvantage I mention does make my argument for a disadvantage vulnerable, I agree. However, it further illustrates my point that every team should be able to compete equally without having to be in a certain conference. As of late, the non-BCS teams have been able to convince good players to play at their schools and try to "take-down" the BCS giants. This is great for those teams, but things should be more even.<<<<<
This is something I agree with. There is nothing wrong with allowing the "mid-majors" have more access to the NC game; however there are ways of allowing more access without destroying the fundamentals that make CFB unique (as a playoff would do).
kennova
· 9 months ago
I see your points. You clearly know the ins and outs more than I do, but in terms of public perception, it's gonna VERY difficult to overcome the perceived method of crowning the NC, even if the NCAA isn't actually doing it. They don't stop it or refute the label of NC when it is given. This is, in my opinion, as good as approving it.
But I appreciate your remarks, I am still on the fence about how a playoff would actually work, but I do know it could be better than it is now, and keeping CFB unique isn't really a good thing in all cases. :)
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 9 months ago
Well said. Saved me thousands of keystrokes. :)
FalconRams
· 5 months ago
I sense that you are trying to make it sound like there is no true difference between the six BCS conferences and the five non-BCS conferences. Perhaps the MAC competed against the Big Ten on even ground prior to 1998. Must have missed that.
Perhaps Harvard and Yale never won a Championship! Remember these ivy league schools dominating college football! THINGS CHANGE! And the point here is that a CHANGE to the BCS will bring about change. The playing field will eventually even out and players can eventually go to a school that offers a GREAT Education and a GREAT ATHLETIC program with the possibility of a championship.
Maybe the MAC didn't compete with the BIG 10 ever, but that has changed in recent years. If only the young impressionable minds could see the true design of the BCS, some of that talent will spread. The relationship with the BCS school and the NFL also makes for a difficult recruiting for talent with the non-BCS schools! You need to get off the money bandwagon and open your mind! You don't use a parachute much do you Vegan or Regan.
cfb_playoff
· 9 months ago
Kevin, where did you come from? You are clueless! College football sucks because of the BCS. They ruin every season and rob fans and players of great games and a true national champion. If you want change in the BCS, go to http://www.bcsreform.org/
Regan
· 9 months ago
You say that as if it is fact. How much non-biased info do you get from that site?
My name is Regan. If you want to dance on the Playoff issue, I have a whole folder, and as Tomcat will attest, am far more stubborn than anyone is prepared to go up against. :-)
Ben Prather
· 9 months ago
I agree with this statement:
The MWC is currently the forefront of the non BCS conferences and, thanks to recent performances on the field, has a platform that no other conference has to advocate change.
I am a little dissapointed Utah is not more vocal in their complaints. They are probably too busy figuring out how to spend the extra money, after all they got their wish lists filled 4 years ago. What do you buy with your second winning lotto ticket?
I disagree with any possible interpretation of the plan as worded. The current alignment guarantees a spot for a team if any get into the top 14. It is highly unlikely no team will qualify. 3 of the last 4 years have seen a team get in. If no teams qualify a team worse than Hawaii and with a loss would get a berth.
Pushing to lock a spot would likely come at a cost of specifically eliminating a second team. I feel we are closer to a year with two non BCS teams making it in than we are to having no team get in, though I may be wrong in this.
Is the motivation a fear that a one loss MWC team will not make the cut? Consider that TCU had 2 loses and if Utah and Boise State had not been in front of they they would have had their chance in the BCS. Even if I am wrong about being closer to a year with 2 non BCS teams I know I am right about being closer to a year with a one loss MWC team making the cut.
While I believe a change is needed I don't think the proposals above deals with any of the real core issues with the BCS.
FanoftheGame
· 9 months ago
I'm a big believer in fighting for what you bellieve in, so I'm not going to knock the MWC. Whether or not they have proved their metal over the years in CFB should'nt be the price of admission. If that were truly the case then Notre Dame would've had their membership revoked years ago. Whether I think the MWC deserves a seat at the table doesn't really matter, just so long as the MWC thinks they should be there. And evidently, they feel like they deserve it, so why not fight for it. I understand the Sunbelt conference's position, as well. Rather than get laughed out of the room trying to pose the same arguement as the MWC, the Sunbelt conference is acknowledging the fact that they are content with the crumbs they are given. If you have a second rate mentality, then you'll remain a second rate team. I am one who prays for a playoff system and realizes that it probably won't happen anytime soon. I personally don't see how the MWC getting their wish would help the BCS, but then again, why should it? Maybe it will be the wrench that ultimately breaks down the BCS machine and and puts great college football games back on the field and out of the computers. I would actually like to see the BCS drop all of the automatic qualifiers. Why should having a right to play in a bcs bowl be "automatic"? Can't we just require that the teams earn the right to play in the best bowl games each year? Right now the bcs system says its okay to suck, as long as you don't suck as bad as the rest of your conference. The only thing that is guaranteed in an automatic bcs bid is that a bcs confernece school will play regarless of whether or not they deserve to be there. How about gauranteeing good bowl games to the best teams instead?
Revenues up for college football, even for the much disparaged MWC's tv network. Lets all hope congress doesn't fix the BCS too much.
VTBobb
· 9 months ago
Congress has NO BUSINESS trying to implement a playoff system. (After all, they can't figure out what every other taxpaying citizen knows; if you earn a pay check for goods or services, it is taxable. Come to think of it, they probably shouldn't be in charge of much, but I digress). HOWEVER, Congress does have a responsibility enact protection for it's citizens and institutions from unfair business practices and monopolies. So, the question for Congress is, do smaller conference schools deserve antitrust protection from the BCS? Maybe.
Now, using the revenue generated by the BCS as an argument for it's continuation is like trying to justify a speed trap in a small town (it’s supposed to improve safety, but it’s really about making money). According to their own website (http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/definition), the BCS “…is designed to match the two top-rated teams in a national championship game and to create exciting and competitive matchups between eight other highly regarded teams in four other games.” Of course, they fail to mention that the “ratings” are the same popularity contest, I mean subjective ratings that were the source of endless debates prior to the BCS implementation. I’m not even going to touch the definition of “exciting and competitive”.
The BCS is supposed to be about paring the #1 and #2 ranked schools. That’s it’s stated purpose. Once you start openly using the revenue stream as justification for it’s continuance, that would seem to lend weight to the argument that the smaller conference schools need antitrust protection.
Ben Prather
· 9 months ago
Actually by the BCS's own statements a playoff would be more profitable than the current bowl system, from a total revenue stand.
The problem financially is that the regular season is 720 games, the post season is roughly 35 games, or about 4.6% of the total number of games.
If a playoff diminished the regular season's profitablitiy by even 5% they have cost the regular season more than the entire post season value.
From a dollars and cents point of view the purpose of the BCS is to promote the value of the regular season.
VTBobb
· 9 months ago
By value, do we mean dollar value or importance of each game? And what computer model/expert/fortune teller has everyone convinced that the regular season's value will be diminished?
If we are talking dollars, whose to say the new system wouldn't make up the difference? I can conceive of increased profitablity, particularly for the smaller schools. Don't you think it's possible the fan bases of mid majors would even be more frenzied and more supportive, at home and away games, if their teams actually had a shot at getting into an 8 team playoff for the NC?
And as far as importance, What would diminish the value of a regular season more than going undefeated but not having a chance to play for the NC? From most fans point of view, the purpose of playing a sport in an organized league is to determine whose best. If a team goes undefeated but can't play for the NC, then for most of their fans, the entire value of the sport itself is diminished. The entire seaon is worthless from one perspective, because although for the entire season they did everything right, in the end it didn't matter.
Or are people concerned that it will dimish the value of the regular season to the point that a couple of 2 loss teams will play for the NC. Oh, wait a minute...
Does that mean that parity, the Holy Grail of NCAA Football policy, actually diminishes the value of the regular season?
Regan
· 9 months ago
Well said. Although the definition of "unfair business practices and monopolies" will hang up the situation.
CFB's Conferences have the right to do business with whomever they see fit to do business with, no one can (or should IMHO) force them to do otherwise.
While something must be done to ensure that the "mid-majors" are not ignored in the BCS, trying to re-invent the wheel here based on the "revenue" notion isn't likely to have the desired results.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 9 months ago
Yea, going nuclear would cause the Mountain WAC to execute a China Syndrome. Real quick...
GoCougs!
· 9 months ago
The broadened proposal of giving a guaranteed spot to the highest ranking non-BCS team is pretty good. But I think that the MWC should play a few more years and see how well it does. The MWC has a very good chance of way outperforming the Big East over the next three years, its four rounds not just one 2008 MWC rocked 2009 MWC should still outdo the Big East 2010 ? who knows but if they'd add Boise State that year they're chances would improve 2011 ? see 2010 but if they can keep it even then... 2012 the BCS re-evaluates and the MWC takes the Big East's spot
Of course we're still ignoring the simple fact that the BCS as a whole is flawed.
Ben Prather
· 9 months ago
The concept that the MWC needs to outperform the Big East does not agree with the BCS's published parafrase of the conference AQ qualifications.
The only change that really makes sense is to change the review of conferences from once per BCS cylce to every year over a four year window. If the MWC had a strong case over the past 4 year window the arguements for inclusion would be stronger and a review might be in order.
2008: The MWC performed at a BCS level 2009: The MWC needs to win 2/3 of its OOC games. Doable and this would get a one loss team into BCS contention. 2010: This is the earliest that Boise State can realistically join for football, even if an invite is extended after the June 6th MWC meeting. Their numbers would not count until the next year. With Boise State a 10 team the MWC's perception would be greatly improved. No other team offers the kind of BCS clout Boise State does. 2011: If the MWC continues to win 2/3 of their OOC games and expands to include Boise State they could EARN a claim to consider an AQ for 2011, a year before the current guaranteed reavaluation in 2012. At this point they would have 4 years of numbers backing them up and would warrant an AQ spot and have a much better appeal.
This is completely independent of the Big East performance, especially since the MWC and Big East play so few games. The BCS claims to have rules in place to consider between 5-7 conferences. It is not a MWC in someone else out deal.
Regan
· 9 months ago
Agreed. Here's hoping the MWC gets that bid using the BCS' own system. That would solve that problem rather neatly.
From a Historical perspective, the MWC (by merits of it's upper tier) does deserve strong BCS consideration; they even have a NC among their members...
Regan
· 9 months ago
>>>>>Of course we're still ignoring the simple fact that the BCS as a whole is flawed.<<<<<
Every single system created or suggested is flawed. Every single one. The BCS is just the one that's running the show right now, and that's why everyone thinks it's as bad as non-sliced bread...
4cornerz
· 9 months ago
Wow. Nothing is going on in the world of College Football. MWC needs automatic bid
The 5 non-BCS conferences would all have a chance to become BCS. They would all have representation in a BCS Bowl Game Selection Committee. And they would have a shot at the National Championship, with an 8-Game Playoff.
This would be great for the so called "Mid Majors", and GREAT for college football in general. Basically the exact opposite of what clueless Kev claimed. Like I told him at the time.
Well, well... Look who was right.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 9 months ago
#1 - If you're declaring the MWC's grandstanding today as the end, then you clearly don't understand the process, but... that's OK, dude.
#2 - The "chance to become BCS" already exists in the BCS standards document. (You know the one that the MWC still has refused to sign?) It states that if any conference meets the FOUR-YEAR standard, then they shall be an automatic qualifier 2012 and 2013. Sustaining that performance would net any conference AQ status for the prevailing four years.
#3 - It's a nice proposal, but even the MWC commish admitted that an eight-team playoff is not realistic during the conference call. (You did listen to the conference call, didn't you?) At the end of the day, it's all show and no go.
#4 - Have you looked at what makes a team an AQ? It's a joke. The conference has to play 20 qualifying games and lose no more than 12 of them. WTF? I guess when you're strongest strength of schedule team is 54th (New Mexico), you better not stack the deck too high. (Point of information - here's how many teams from each BCS ranked higher in strength of schedule than the MWC's best: SEC, 11; Pac-10, 9; Big XII, 11; Big Ten, 5; ACC, 12; Big East, 4).
#5 - It's extremely unrealistic to argue that computers and pollsters WITH NO AFFILIATION OR VESTED INTEREST are ***more*** biased in their blind selection process than a human committee comprised of the conferences to determine what teams will play in the BCS bowls.
#6 - The MWC proposal would ELIMINATE the Pac10 & Big10 from the BCS because they played 19 games against AQ teams... but the MWC is going to give them a free-pass with its footnotes. So... their fair & equal system is going to give special favors to certain conferences???? Isn't that the premise of the MWC's beeyatching in the first place?????
You're right, dude. This proposal proves everything and solves all the problems. Let there be much rejoicing.
TampaGator
· 9 months ago
Martian:
I don't get it. What was this supposed to prove?
That the MWC wants to re-arrange the BCS to conform to its members, rather than those of the real conferences, who generate most all the revenue, and bring just about all of the consumers?
Shouldn't this be in the Govm't Bailout thread?
GO GATORS!!
U.of S.C.1978
· 9 months ago
Ding Ding Ding. It's over with a technical knock out.
All Comments
Yes, prove it on the field and you will get an invite to the... What BCS bowl game did Boise State play in? Orange? No, the Orange Bowl took four loss Cincinnati. Wait? What?
How come the Orange Bowl, a BCS bowl game, took a team that was ranked lower AND had more losses over a team ranked in the top 10 and had no losses? Oh, the rules of the system required the Orange Bowl to accept Cincinnati. That's right.
Folks, when you try to defend the indefensible, you give up logic and reason. The BCS represents a completely illogical and unreasonable system unless you want to argue that the BCS is designed to give roughly 70 schools access to big bucks and roughly 50 schools access to the shaft.
The Big East doesn't have an automatic link to the Orange Bowl or any BCS bowl, for that matter. The ACC is the contracted host team for the Orange Bowl.
Secondly, your beef cannot be with Cincinnati, because the Bearcats were the Big East qualifier. They weren't "chosen" over Boise State. In 2008, the at-large teams were Texas, Utah, Alabama, and Ohio State... all of which had higher Sag predictor ratings than Boise State.
Now.. you can make the argument that BSU deserved it more than tOSU, but... Ohio State beat three-ranked teams and their only regular season losses were to then #1 Southern Cal on the road and then #3 Penn State. Boise played seven bowl teams in the regular season - the Buckeyes played eight. The B10 finished as Sag's #6 toughest conference, while the WAC was #10 - and separated by a significant margin from the BCS conferences.
Finally, how exactly has Boise gotten the shaft from the BCS? I seem to recall a couple of substantial checks written to the WAC for the past ten years, not to mention that game that smurf-turf fans keep yammering on about all these years later.
That's misleading. The Big East champion is guaranteed a BCS spot, just no tie in to a specific BCS bowl. That's still a lot better deal than the MWC gets under the current system and does underscore bevo's point that there is a have - have-not division ingrained in the BCS. Yes, Boise can get access to those big dollars with success on the field, but they get no guarantees. The Big East needs no on-field success to get access to the money.
:-)
"The Mountain West has even hired a Washington, DC lobbying firm to plead its case to Congress."
Pelosi, Obama, Reid and Kennedy will fix it, PORK to the rescue...
Congress pumps so much money into the universities that they can dictate anything they feel like doing.
Playoff vs. BCS vs. Old System vs. Alternate system is a realm for opinion, not fact.
To paraphrase Gussie Busch to Curt Flood, if we would have known how much money we would make after free agency, we would have never fought you.
Not everyone shares the opinion that an 8- (or 16- or whatever) team Playoff is best for CFB, and even if they did, it still isn't a "Fact".
Not trying to be a jerk, hrposon, I just have a reputation to uphold when it comes to this issue, please take no offense. :)
A playoff, as in all real sports will determine a champion that won every elimination game that they played on the field. Not by teams running up the score / stats against weaker opponents to impress voters who are easily influenced by the ratings hucksters at Disney, ABC and ESPN.
Wait until you get a clue, THEN post.
First off, it was mentioned that the proposal had not been put forth yet, but it was going to include the AQ for the MWC. The post addressed the latter, which was a certainty.
Second off, as far as Point #3, if you read it, you'd notice that the point addressed the notion that a "permanent MWC berth in the BCS" would likely upset the WAC, C-USA, etc., and a "permanent WAC berth" would upset the MWC, C-USA, etc...
In your own words.....Wait until you get a clue, THEN post.
"The BCS can undertake some reform to include a seventh AQ - either the MWC or a permanent mid-major slot. Either way you look at this resolution, most of the mid-majors are going to be upset."
"Mid-majors" would be upset to gain a permanent bid? Why? They would hate the MWC would selfishly gaining this for all of them? Why?
The lack of journalism is obvious. But you can put on a tinfoil cap and rage against fictional futures as well, if you'd like. Just don't take yourself seriously while doing so, because that's how fools work, not professionals...
"The BCS can undertake some reform to include a seventh AQ - either the MWC or a permanent mid-major slot. Either way you look at this resolution, most of the mid-majors are going to be upset."
"Mid-majors" would be upset to gain a permanent bid? Why? They would hate the MWC would selfishly gaining this for all of them? Why?
<<<<<
Yes - the mid-majors would get upset if the MWC got an "MWC Automatic Bid", because that would hedge out the chances of them getting an At-Large Bid.
I think you're getting hung up on the phrase "or a permanent mid-major slot". It's referring to a "Permanent WAC slot" or a "Permanent MWC slot", not a "Permanent slot reserved for a mid-major team". Even if it was, that would put a hex on the possibility of ever having two mid-majors get BCS berths.
If you're going to get upset at how it is worded, feel free to point out that it could come across as confusing...no need to attack anyone over it...
>>>>>The lack of journalism is obvious. But you can put on a tinfoil cap and rage against fictional futures as well, if you'd like. Just don't take yourself seriously while doing so, because that's how fools work, not professionals...<<<<<
This is a Blog, dude. Kev voiced his opinion. Disagree with him if you want, but you're being a little militant on the attacks here. Me? I'm a bookkeeper who has some opinions on CFB who chills out and posts on a CFB blog for fun. I am not a professional, and really don't care.
Try a sports news site, I think that's what you're looking for...
If a permanent slot is created for any one mid-major conference OR for a mid-major qualifier in aggregate, that would be a poor deal for the remaining non-BCS teams. Any such arrangement would likely eliminate a mid-major from consideration for an at-large spot. I believe I posted that thought in the OP... but... whatevs.
That sums up your "article" perfectly, which attacks the Mountain West Conference without any substance or facts to base those baseless attacks on. Again, a real journalist would wait until the proposal is made public, instead of attacking what they think the proposal MAY or MAY NOT contain.
"If a permanent slot is created for any one mid-major conference OR for a mid-major qualifier in aggregate, that would be a poor deal for the remaining non-BCS teams. Any such arrangement would likely eliminate a mid-major from consideration for an at-large spot."
Just like how the PAC-10's spot is bad for the PAC-10, the SEC's spot is bad for the SEC, etc. It's not. At all. There is no negative for the non-BCS if they gained a permanent spot as a group. It's deserved, it would benefit all 5 smaller conferences, and it would benefit college football. And has nothing to do with at-larges for the non-BCS (which has never happened anyway, even for undefeated Boise State versus crappy loser Ohio State).
My best advice to you Kev, shut up. Get some facts, then come back and see me. Get some facts, then come back and see me.
Not to mention, he stutters a little.
Here's my opinion (we all know what opinions are worth, but this is a blog):
1. Kev, you seemed a little harsh to the MWC, particularly not even knowing exactly what the proposal is.
2. It's February, what else are we going to talk about?
3. I don't think the MWC has earned a BCS conference spot yet.
4. I could support an automatic bid for the "mid-majors". I don't agree with Kev's OPINION that it would somehow hurt them. When 2 "mid-majors" get at-larges under the current system, I'll buy that argument. Until then, I have a differing OPINION.
5. Mars reminds me of that "reporter" that ambushed Calhoun in Conn. He is trying to apply standards for something completely out of context. To make matters worse, instead of trying to use logic to state his case, he hurls insults, making any legitimate point he has easy to write off as the ramblings of a slightly unstable fanatic with an agenda.
Did I miss anything?
This perfectly illustrates the problems with a monopoly. It's very easy to say, "Just ignore them, go start your own thing." The power of a monopoly makes this cost-prohibitive, and just plain counter-productive.
Whatever the MWC plan is, it can't be worse than the current BCS. The arbitrary selection of conferences that are part of the system now benefit by not having to prove anything on the field and they still get money. Even if they are better today, it's due to the advantage they have had for years coming into it. Even if the BCS were to be gone tomorrow, the BCS conference teams would probably still do well for the first 1 or 2 seasons. Then we'd see things even out.
Money is everything to young impressionable college kids. It's just plain economics to go with the team that has the highest probability to make to a big game. And that's just not making for a good college football program on the whole.
In a Monopoly, there is no alternative. A Monopoly would be if the BCS owned every actual football and refused to let anyone play without their consent. Becoming Independent IS an option and always will be, as each conference is free to do as they choose.
>>>>>Whatever the MWC plan is, it can't be worse than the current BCS. The arbitrary selection of conferences that are part of the system now benefit by not having to prove anything on the field and they still get money. Even if they are better today, it's due to the advantage they have had for years coming into it. Even if the BCS were to be gone tomorrow, the BCS conference teams would probably still do well for the first 1 or 2 seasons. Then we'd see things even out.<<<<<
I sense that you are trying to make it sound like there is no true difference between the six BCS conferences and the five non-BCS conferences. Perhaps the MAC competed against the Big Ten on even ground prior to 1998. Must have missed that.
And now, without the BCS money making them better (as you claimed), Utah and Boise State have strung together BCS Bowl victories, despite having no reason to even bother playing.
The simple fact that non-BCS teams have been successful on the field as of recent makes your arguments vulnerable.
Every team should have an Equal chance to compete for the NC. And the fact that Boise State has done well and Utah has done well despite this disadvantage I mention does make my argument for a disadvantage vulnerable, I agree. However, it further illustrates my point that every team should be able to compete equally without having to be in a certain conference. As of late, the non-BCS teams have been able to convince good players to play at their schools and try to "take-down" the BCS giants. This is great for those teams, but things should be more even.
Fair enough on the disagreement, but things aren't that simple. The NCAA has never awarded a NC for CFB. Ever. The AP Poll and UPI had a vote at the end of the season from 1936-1997, and that was seen as the source of the MNC's.
As far as the BCS went, the BCS is not an organization. It is an alliance between the 4x major bowls (Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Rose) and the 6x major conferences (ACC, BE, B10, P10, SEC, B12) on the way they want to crown their National Champion.
The BCS came about after the Bowl Alliance/Coalition (all above minus the Rose Bowl, B10 & P10) tried to match up the #1 and #2 teams at the end of each season instead of having quasi-random bowl invites. The other conferences convinced the B10/P10/Rose Bowl to join the system so that the other 2 conferences could participate and there would be no split champion.
This is not a monopoly - this is businesses choosing business partners. The B10 & P10 can easily opt out of the BCS, returning it to the pre 1998- system; nothing is stopping them.
>>>>>Every team should have an Equal chance to compete for the NC. And the fact that Boise State has done well and Utah has done well despite this disadvantage I mention does make my argument for a disadvantage vulnerable, I agree. However, it further illustrates my point that every team should be able to compete equally without having to be in a certain conference. As of late, the non-BCS teams have been able to convince good players to play at their schools and try to "take-down" the BCS giants. This is great for those teams, but things should be more even.<<<<<
This is something I agree with. There is nothing wrong with allowing the "mid-majors" have more access to the NC game; however there are ways of allowing more access without destroying the fundamentals that make CFB unique (as a playoff would do).
But I appreciate your remarks, I am still on the fence about how a playoff would actually work, but I do know it could be better than it is now, and keeping CFB unique isn't really a good thing in all cases. :)
Perhaps Harvard and Yale never won a Championship! Remember these ivy league schools dominating college football! THINGS CHANGE! And the point here is that a CHANGE to the BCS will bring about change. The playing field will eventually even out and players can eventually go to a school that offers a GREAT Education and a GREAT ATHLETIC program with the possibility of a championship.
Maybe the MAC didn't compete with the BIG 10 ever, but that has changed in recent years. If only the young impressionable minds could see the true design of the BCS, some of that talent will spread. The relationship with the BCS school and the NFL also makes for a difficult recruiting for talent with the non-BCS schools! You need to get off the money bandwagon and open your mind! You don't use a parachute much do you Vegan or Regan.
My name is Regan. If you want to dance on the Playoff issue, I have a whole folder, and as Tomcat will attest, am far more stubborn than anyone is prepared to go up against. :-)
The MWC is currently the forefront of the non BCS conferences and, thanks to recent performances on the field, has a platform that no other conference has to advocate change.
I am a little dissapointed Utah is not more vocal in their complaints. They are probably too busy figuring out how to spend the extra money, after all they got their wish lists filled 4 years ago. What do you buy with your second winning lotto ticket?
I disagree with any possible interpretation of the plan as worded. The current alignment guarantees a spot for a team if any get into the top 14. It is highly unlikely no team will qualify. 3 of the last 4 years have seen a team get in. If no teams qualify a team worse than Hawaii and with a loss would get a berth.
Pushing to lock a spot would likely come at a cost of specifically eliminating a second team. I feel we are closer to a year with two non BCS teams making it in than we are to having no team get in, though I may be wrong in this.
Is the motivation a fear that a one loss MWC team will not make the cut? Consider that TCU had 2 loses and if Utah and Boise State had not been in front of they they would have had their chance in the BCS. Even if I am wrong about being closer to a year with 2 non BCS teams I know I am right about being closer to a year with a one loss MWC team making the cut.
While I believe a change is needed I don't think the proposals above deals with any of the real core issues with the BCS.
I am one who prays for a playoff system and realizes that it probably won't happen anytime soon. I personally don't see how the MWC getting their wish would help the BCS, but then again, why should it? Maybe it will be the wrench that ultimately breaks down the BCS machine and and puts great college football games back on the field and out of the computers. I would actually like to see the BCS drop all of the automatic qualifiers. Why should having a right to play in a bcs bowl be "automatic"? Can't we just require that the teams earn the right to play in the best bowl games each year? Right now the bcs system says its okay to suck, as long as you don't suck as bad as the rest of your conference. The only thing that is guaranteed in an automatic bcs bid is that a bcs confernece school will play regarless of whether or not they deserve to be there. How about gauranteeing good bowl games to the best teams instead?
Just a thought......
Revenues up for college football, even for the much disparaged MWC's tv network. Lets all hope congress doesn't fix the BCS too much.
Now, using the revenue generated by the BCS as an argument for it's continuation is like trying to justify a speed trap in a small town (it’s supposed to improve safety, but it’s really about making money). According to their own website (http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/definition), the BCS “…is designed to match the two top-rated teams in a national championship game and to create exciting and competitive matchups between eight other highly regarded teams in four other games.” Of course, they fail to mention that the “ratings” are the same popularity contest, I mean subjective ratings that were the source of endless debates prior to the BCS implementation. I’m not even going to touch the definition of “exciting and competitive”.
The BCS is supposed to be about paring the #1 and #2 ranked schools. That’s it’s stated purpose. Once you start openly using the revenue stream as justification for it’s continuance, that would seem to lend weight to the argument that the smaller conference schools need antitrust protection.
The problem financially is that the regular season is 720 games, the post season is roughly 35 games, or about 4.6% of the total number of games.
If a playoff diminished the regular season's profitablitiy by even 5% they have cost the regular season more than the entire post season value.
From a dollars and cents point of view the purpose of the BCS is to promote the value of the regular season.
If we are talking dollars, whose to say the new system wouldn't make up the difference? I can conceive of increased profitablity, particularly for the smaller schools. Don't you think it's possible the fan bases of mid majors would even be more frenzied and more supportive, at home and away games, if their teams actually had a shot at getting into an 8 team playoff for the NC?
And as far as importance, What would diminish the value of a regular season more than going undefeated but not having a chance to play for the NC? From most fans point of view, the purpose of playing a sport in an organized league is to determine whose best. If a team goes undefeated but can't play for the NC, then for most of their fans, the entire value of the sport itself is diminished. The entire seaon is worthless from one perspective, because although for the entire season they did everything right, in the end it didn't matter.
Or are people concerned that it will dimish the value of the regular season to the point that a couple of 2 loss teams will play for the NC. Oh, wait a minute...
Does that mean that parity, the Holy Grail of NCAA Football policy, actually diminishes the value of the regular season?
CFB's Conferences have the right to do business with whomever they see fit to do business with, no one can (or should IMHO) force them to do otherwise.
While something must be done to ensure that the "mid-majors" are not ignored in the BCS, trying to re-invent the wheel here based on the "revenue" notion isn't likely to have the desired results.
2008 MWC rocked
2009 MWC should still outdo the Big East
2010 ? who knows but if they'd add Boise State that year they're chances would improve
2011 ? see 2010 but if they can keep it even then...
2012 the BCS re-evaluates and the MWC takes the Big East's spot
Of course we're still ignoring the simple fact that the BCS as a whole is flawed.
The only change that really makes sense is to change the review of conferences from once per BCS cylce to every year over a four year window. If the MWC had a strong case over the past 4 year window the arguements for inclusion would be stronger and a review might be in order.
2008: The MWC performed at a BCS level
2009: The MWC needs to win 2/3 of its OOC games. Doable and this would get a one loss team into BCS contention.
2010: This is the earliest that Boise State can realistically join for football, even if an invite is extended after the June 6th MWC meeting. Their numbers would not count until the next year. With Boise State a 10 team the MWC's perception would be greatly improved. No other team offers the kind of BCS clout Boise State does.
2011: If the MWC continues to win 2/3 of their OOC games and expands to include Boise State they could EARN a claim to consider an AQ for 2011, a year before the current guaranteed reavaluation in 2012. At this point they would have 4 years of numbers backing them up and would warrant an AQ spot and have a much better appeal.
This is completely independent of the Big East performance, especially since the MWC and Big East play so few games. The BCS claims to have rules in place to consider between 5-7 conferences. It is not a MWC in someone else out deal.
From a Historical perspective, the MWC (by merits of it's upper tier) does deserve strong BCS consideration; they even have a NC among their members...
Every single system created or suggested is flawed. Every single one. The BCS is just the one that's running the show right now, and that's why everyone thinks it's as bad as non-sliced bread...
The 5 non-BCS conferences would all have a chance to become BCS. They would all have representation in a BCS Bowl Game Selection Committee. And they would have a shot at the National Championship, with an 8-Game Playoff.
This would be great for the so called "Mid Majors", and GREAT for college football in general. Basically the exact opposite of what clueless Kev claimed. Like I told him at the time.
Well, well... Look who was right.
#2 - The "chance to become BCS" already exists in the BCS standards document. (You know the one that the MWC still has refused to sign?) It states that if any conference meets the FOUR-YEAR standard, then they shall be an automatic qualifier 2012 and 2013. Sustaining that performance would net any conference AQ status for the prevailing four years.
#3 - It's a nice proposal, but even the MWC commish admitted that an eight-team playoff is not realistic during the conference call. (You did listen to the conference call, didn't you?) At the end of the day, it's all show and no go.
#4 - Have you looked at what makes a team an AQ? It's a joke. The conference has to play 20 qualifying games and lose no more than 12 of them. WTF? I guess when you're strongest strength of schedule team is 54th (New Mexico), you better not stack the deck too high. (Point of information - here's how many teams from each BCS ranked higher in strength of schedule than the MWC's best: SEC, 11; Pac-10, 9; Big XII, 11; Big Ten, 5; ACC, 12; Big East, 4).
#5 - It's extremely unrealistic to argue that computers and pollsters WITH NO AFFILIATION OR VESTED INTEREST are ***more*** biased in their blind selection process than a human committee comprised of the conferences to determine what teams will play in the BCS bowls.
#6 - The MWC proposal would ELIMINATE the Pac10 & Big10 from the BCS because they played 19 games against AQ teams... but the MWC is going to give them a free-pass with its footnotes. So... their fair & equal system is going to give special favors to certain conferences???? Isn't that the premise of the MWC's beeyatching in the first place?????
You're right, dude. This proposal proves everything and solves all the problems. Let there be much rejoicing.
I don't get it. What was this supposed to prove?
That the MWC wants to re-arrange the BCS to conform to its members, rather than those of the real conferences, who generate most all the revenue, and bring just about all of the consumers?
Shouldn't this be in the Govm't Bailout thread?
GO GATORS!!