tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793424786678923623.post4386112804412730585..comments2024-01-24T13:11:53.844-05:00Comments on The National Championship Issue: 2008: The Midway PointUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793424786678923623.post-90086795206774741942008-10-16T09:31:00.000-04:002008-10-16T09:31:00.000-04:00Yup, and they actually found that it was, calling ...Yup, and they actually found that it was, calling for the BCS to be declared illegal and a playoff to be instituted. I have some problems with this on a few levels. <BR/><BR/>First, I don't think lawmakers know enough about the intricacies of college football. If they did, they'd realize that the situation is more complex than just passing a resolution. If they think that a simple playoff will bring "fairness and... parity to all NCAA teams" they're sorely mistaken. <BR/><BR/>Second, I think a lot of that was a knee-jerk reaction from some members who's feel that their home states' flagship universities got the shaft last year (Georgia). It even mentions them in the resolution.<BR/><BR/>Third, forced parity makes for a watered down product. Imagine if TV stations had to give equal time to the non-BCS or I-AA teams. Instead of LSU vs Florida, we might be forced to sit through the LA-Lafayette vs North Texas slugfest. Throw out all the economic and democratic cliche's you want - if more people want to see Oklahoma State and Alabama in bowl games than Troy, it's gonna happen.<BR/><BR/>Fourth and finally, as much as I love college football, there are more important things in this world, and congress really should be tackling them instead of trying to "fix" the BCS.Ed Guntherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17618165280932470376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793424786678923623.post-82341007467879585912008-10-15T19:44:00.000-04:002008-10-15T19:44:00.000-04:00It may be good business, but is it business that p...It may be good business, but is it business that practices restraint of trade? You may have heard about House Resolution 1120 introduced in Congress last April that calls for the justice department to investigate as to whether the BCS system is restraint of trade.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03739534402311662104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793424786678923623.post-83359740881296525882008-10-15T08:51:00.000-04:002008-10-15T08:51:00.000-04:00Thanks for the kind words, Scott. You bring up a g...Thanks for the kind words, Scott. You bring up a good point about the money difference, and it is one of the many things about college football that many people would want to change. It'll play out this year exactly as you say - the Pac10 will go to 6-7 bowls mid to high-range paying bowls (if they can get everyone eligible), while the MtnWest will go to 4, maybe 5 bowls that don't pay as much and aren't as established. Is it fair? No. But it is good business, and that's what a lot of the issue comes down to. <BR/><BR/>The reason the SEC has 8 bowl tie-ins, and the SunBelt has 1 is because fans of the SEC teams will buy thousands of tickets and travel to watch their team play. When it comes to bowls and the heirarchy, they're always going to take the team that will bring in revenue, regardless of if that team deserves it or not. Troy might have been more deserving last year, but I guaranted they couldn't have sold half as many tickets as Oklahoma State and probably not a third as many as Alabama. <BR/><BR/>The good thing about the MtnWest is that they have teams whose fans are willing to travel and buy tickets. The keepers of the BCS keys are much more willing now than they were even five years ago to give a spot to a MtnWest team because they know they'll bring in the fans.<BR/><BR/>But the MtnWest has become special - the other non-BCS conferences are still a huge risk, mainly because they don't win nearly as much. I'll have something on that later this season...Ed Guntherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17618165280932470376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6793424786678923623.post-65609260316839147012008-10-14T21:11:00.000-04:002008-10-14T21:11:00.000-04:00I enjoy your work because there is so much informa...I enjoy your work because there is so much information. The BCS and Non-BCS comparisons are worthwhile. My position on college football is that it needs an overall. The creation of the BCS distinction for conferences hurts those programs that are new to the FBS and/or those "non-BCS" schools on the outside looking in. Lost in the discussion about the Mountain West success is the fact that those schools will not receive the bowl money the programs from the PAC-10 schools will. Have they earned that this year? Bowl participation equals more prestige, better image and more money to recruit with. How does this system promote fair competition? Why do accept that this is the way it has to be? College football's postseason is more dependent on subjective opinions like rankings and bowl selection committees than any other major sports competition. Look at the 2007 season for Troy (7-4), Oklahoma State (6-6) and Alabama (6-6) and you will see what I mean. Troy deserved postseason play and pay more than the other two, but did not go bowling.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03739534402311662104noreply@blogger.com