BCS Bowl Games

[laxfan25]

Add me to the camp that thinks that a D1 playoff can be successful, profitable, well-attended and can still contribute a ton to charity if they so desire.
Every other sport and every other college football division can manage to get it right, and I think interest in the NCAA hoops tourney is staying above mediocre.
Here is an interesting take on the situation from Frank Deford on NPR's Morning Edition today -
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=6553638

[DanGenck]

I would say that 1-AA and III do not have a play-off system right. DIII has 32 teams and very few of the first round games are competitive. In fact, some conferences with automatic bids to the tournament have NEVER won a tournament game (see www.d3football.com) or have terrible records against other opponents.

1-AA is much the same as some conferences offer scholarships and others do not, making for a lack of competitive balance. There is also consistent arguing about who got in and why, and who got left out and why. There have been years where 8-3 and 7-4 teams from the Atlantic 10 get invited... why should they be playing for a national championship?

Further, it makes sense that DIII and 1-AA have a play-off as those schools lack the resources to play a national schedule during their regular season. For them, regional bowl games wouldn't make any sense as traditionally, several teams finish the regular season undefeated, but only because they beat every other DIII team in Michigan or New England or wherever.

[laxfan25]

DIII in particular has to be badly structured - there's a team from MN that keeps doing well there - and we all know they're not very good!

[DG]

Why are you upset that they are going to a high-dollar bowl?

Because they don't deserve it? I understand that they cannot have an in-conference schedule because no one else in their conference is ranked. But they can at least schedule decent OOC opponents. USC played ranked in conference foes (Oregon, Cal) and still scheduled Arkansas, just as Oregon scheduled Oklahoma. Boise State scheduled UGA last year and got stomped into the ground. Im just saying, it's not fair for them to get a high-dollar bowl when they didn't schedule anyone this year that is a yearly-good team. Why schedule anyone decent then if you get to go to a big bowl? Im afraid this trend will develop and no one will play anyone decent anymore.

I just wanted to be sure I understood the issue. You are saying that BSU doesn't deserve to get the money that is given to teams that go to BC$ games. That belongs to the teams from the big conferences, regardless of how good they are. Duke, NC State, Baylor, Iowa State, Stanford...they deserve the money more than the undefeated BSU team?

Did I get it right?

[Beta]

Why are you upset that they are going to a high-dollar bowl?

Because they don't deserve it? I understand that they cannot have an in-conference schedule because no one else in their conference is ranked. But they can at least schedule decent OOC opponents. USC played ranked in conference foes (Oregon, Cal) and still scheduled Arkansas, just as Oregon scheduled Oklahoma. Boise State scheduled UGA last year and got stomped into the ground. Im just saying, it's not fair for them to get a high-dollar bowl when they didn't schedule anyone this year that is a yearly-good team. Why schedule anyone decent then if you get to go to a big bowl? Im afraid this trend will develop and no one will play anyone decent anymore.

I just wanted to be sure I understood the issue. You are saying that BSU doesn't deserve to get the money that is given to teams that go to BC$ games. That belongs to the teams from the big conferences, regardless of how good they are. Duke, NC State, Baylor, Iowa State, Stanford...they deserve the money more than the undefeated BSU team?

Did I get it right?

No, the teams that play a good/decent schedule IMHO deserve the money/better bowl. Why schedule hard teams when you can schedule cupcakes and get millions of dollars? Just like in the basketball tourny (with I believe St Johns a few years back)...cupcake schedules often result in a team that is only as good as their competition. But without a playoff system we'll never know.

[DG]

Why are you upset that they are going to a high-dollar bowl?

Because they don't deserve it? I understand that they cannot have an in-conference schedule because no one else in their conference is ranked. But they can at least schedule decent OOC opponents. USC played ranked in conference foes (Oregon, Cal) and still scheduled Arkansas, just as Oregon scheduled Oklahoma. Boise State scheduled UGA last year and got stomped into the ground. Im just saying, it's not fair for them to get a high-dollar bowl when they didn't schedule anyone this year that is a yearly-good team. Why schedule anyone decent then if you get to go to a big bowl? Im afraid this trend will develop and no one will play anyone decent anymore.

I just wanted to be sure I understood the issue. You are saying that BSU doesn't deserve to get the money that is given to teams that go to BC$ games. That belongs to the teams from the big conferences, regardless of how good they are. Duke, NC State, Baylor, Iowa State, Stanford...they deserve the money more than the undefeated BSU team?

Did I get it right?

No, the teams that play a good/decent schedule IMHO deserve the money/better bowl. Why schedule hard teams when you can schedule cupcakes and get millions of dollars? Just like in the basketball tourny (with I believe St Johns a few years back)...cupcake schedules often result in a team that is only as good as their competition. But without a playoff system we'll never know.

By default, the BC$ conferences are considered harder competition. I believe that is a reasonable conclusion. However, because of the conference revenue sharing, a team in one of those conferences will get get their share of the $$ no matter how bad they are. Let's say you are the doormat of your conference, going 0-12. If 2 teams from your conference make a BCS game, from an economic standpoint you are better off than most other teams that DO go to bowl games. Over time, that money makes a HUGE difference in terms of ability to spend on facilities, etc.

The automatic bids to certain conference champions create an inequality that is in direct contrast to what conference revenue sharing was supposed to accomplish, e.g. that the rich don't get richer, leaving the bottom of the conference with no money to spend.

The conference commissioners of the BCS conferences have done exactly what they set out to do...protect their revenue stream. Good for them.

That said, don't tell me that Stanford deserves BCS money more than BSU, or more than the MWC champion, BYU. The Cougs were 2 plays away (an offensive PI call and a botched field goal) from being undefeated. Unfortunately, BYU will get less BCS money this year than Stanford, Duke and NC State. In my opinion, that's bogus.

DG

[Beta]

Nooo, Im not saying that Stanford or Duke (or the conference in general) deserves more money than BSU. Im sayin BSU doesnt deserve as much money as a team with a more difficult schedule whose w/l record deviates only slightly. Such as a one-loss team, or a two loss team that lost to another quality team.

[Sonny]

Unfortunately, BYU will get less BCS money this year than Stanford, Duke and NC State. In my opinion, that's bogus.

But that is due to the conference revnue sharing models. Most BCS conference share revenue (Bowl $ and NCAA Basketball $) equally after some deductions for expenses.

[DG]

Unfortunately, BYU will get less BCS money this year than Stanford, Duke and NC State. In my opinion, that's bogus.

But that is due to the conference revnue sharing models. Most BCS conference share revenue (Bowl $ and NCAA Basketball $) equally after some deductions for expenses.

That's exactly my point. If I remember correctly, the team that goes to the bowl game gets a little higher cut of the $$ (as they should). Everyone's arguments surround who deserves the money of the big-name bowls. My point is that it doesn't really matter...the crappy teams in BC$ conferences are getting paid regardless of whether they deserve it or not.

Beta, I agree that BSU's schedule is lighter than many of the teams that are going to the BCS. They are already being penalized for that low SOS by being the only undefeated team in the nation ranked 8-10 in the polls.

Also, the last team to bust the BCS was Utah in 2005. According to many, they didn't deserve to be there either. Then they rolled Pitt 35-7. They could have played a different opponent, but the BCS contract stated that the #19 Panthers HAD to be selected for a bowl. For whatever reason, the Fiesta bowl was the bottom man on the totem pole and had to take Pitt. Pitt didn't deserve that slot...they were handed it on a silver platter because they won their conference.

Why doesn't the BCS add the MWC and CUSA to the mix? That way more money would trickle down to the "mid major" football conferences, and the level of play would increase overall. The major BCS conferences won't do it because they don't want to part with the money.

I guess my biggest beef is that people say that BSU doesn't deserve the money...that's what it comes down to is the money. IMO, they deserve it much more than Stanford and Duke, even if they play in a weaker conference. I'll be wearing orange and blue on the day of the Fiesta bowl...

DG

[James Foote]

Not sure if you've heard, but...

Report: LSU to play in Rose Bowl

BATON ROUGE, La. -- LSU fans are buying Rose Bowl tickets in droves, gobbling up 32,000 pre-sale orders at $135 per ticket even though their Tigers have not yet been officially invited to the game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2680928

[James Foote]

Obviously Florida and UCLA upset LSU from going to their first Rose Bowl

[laxfan25]

Didn't we have an online pool last year with the Bowl games? I run one in my office, but seem to remember a version on here as well. Is is just my faltering memory?

[Beta]

I guess my biggest beef is that people say that BSU doesn't deserve the money...that's what it comes down to is the money. IMO, they deserve it much more than Stanford and Duke, even if they play in a weaker conference.

IMHO it is rewarding mediocrity to give Boise State a BCS bowl for playing a ridiculous, cupcake schedule. Maybe Stanford or Duke should have an All-WAC/MAC/Sun-Belt schedule...go undefeated and get a BCS bid (Although not probable, since Duke lost to a 1-AA school..Stanford's best game came against San Jose State...who is bowl-bound from the WAC). I applaud Fresno State for taking on a hard(er) schedule and playing Oregon, Washington and LSU. Notre Dame is even getting a BCS bowl game this year. Why even have a regular season for Boise State if they're going to trounce no-names-only every year and start getting BCS games?

[Gvlax]

Not sure if you've heard, but...

Report: LSU to play in Rose Bowl

BATON ROUGE, La. -- LSU fans are buying Rose Bowl tickets in droves, gobbling up 32,000 pre-sale orders at $135 per ticket even though their Tigers have not yet been officially invited to the game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2680928

So are these LSU tickets of the rose bowl getting returned or will there be a huge surplus on stubhub.com and ebay?

[sohotrightnow]

Beta, will you eat your words if BSU kills Oklahoma? Not saying it's going to happen, but you never know.