BCS Commissioner Are Jerks.

[kmoose]

But that's the only sample. If SEC teams or PAC 10 teams scheduled 2 tough out of conference games a year, we could compare conferences based on on the field results in a given year. But they don't. Everybody is told that the SEC is the best conference, but what support is there for that argument this year? Virtually none.

I'm not arguing that the SEC is the best conference. I'm merely saying that the non-AQ teams are going to have to beat the best of the AQ conferences, and do so for a number of years, before they start to get the respect that is afforded to the top teams in the AQ conferences.

 

[choo choo]

Really?

2009-10 Bowl Game TV Ratings
BOWL GAME TEAMS TV RATING ATTEND.

Championship Alabama-Texas
17.17 94,906
Fiesta Boise State-TCU
8.23 73,227
Orange Iowa-Georgia Tech
6.80 66,131
Rose Ohio State-Oregon
13.18 93,963
Sugar Cincinnati-Florida
8.50 65,20



Granted, that's not great... but I'd hardly call that bad for 2 mid majors playing each other. It's better than every Orange Bowl since 2006 the Bowden vs JoePa bowl). Compare to ND's last bowl game:

Sugar Notre Dame-LSU
9.29 77,781

damn fine post...im very impressed...thanks for the work

 

[choo choo]

But that's the only sample. If SEC teams or PAC 10 teams scheduled 2 tough out of conference games a year, we could compare conferences based on on the field results in a given year. But they don't. Everybody is told that the SEC is the best conference, but what support is there for that argument this year? Virtually none.

well **** this stuff about the sec started when urban myer told the media the sec was the best and those stupid ****s ran with it like they were telling us how damn smart they are...haha what a bunch of scum bags...yes, the sec has been the best conference over the past few seasons, buts its not as though no one else gives scholorships...who the hell do they play out of conference and when they do when is it on the road...btw, just saw some news today where nd's schedule was rated as the toughest in the nation...eat that sec

 

[choo choo]

and just to **** off sec fans a little more...we're not in a conference - dont have to be to survive...suck on that

 

[IrishinSyria]

I'm not arguing that the SEC is the best conference. I'm merely saying that the non-AQ teams are going to have to beat the best of the AQ conferences, and do so for a number of years, before they start to get the respect that is afforded to the top teams in the AQ conferences.

I see what you're saying and I never meant to imply you were arguing the SEC was the best conference.

However, I think it's pretty widely assumed that the SEC is the best conference. My point is that, given the extreme willingness of power-conference teams to play more than one good non-conference game a year, the only rational basis for that belief has to be history. And frankly, I think history is a poor measure of how much respect any given group of young men should be given.

I don't have a problem with holding mid-majors to a higher standard. I do have a problem with the majors hiding behind history. I definitely don't want to pick a fight about this, as I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The "prove it" standard that you want the mid-majors to live up to should also be applied to the major conferences.

 

[GowerND11]

I agree mid-majors should have to prove their worth. But shouldn't the "Powerhouses" be held responsible for playing Tennessee Chatanooga? (coughauburncough) All I am saying is that it is complete bull that all these teams are aloud to play creampuffs that aren't even FBS. I know sometimes they lose, see scUM and Va Tech, but come on. I would rather them play a Sun Belt team. At least they are FBS.

 

[phork]

And frankly an AQ UConn team would get destroyed by any of those NonAQ teams. The BigEast is a heaping pile of dung, so I am sorry the argument that AQ teams are stronger is just plain dumb.

 

[ryno 24]

the big east doesnt get special treatment look at uc last year didnt really get considered for the national championship and tcu was strongly considered this year.... I just dont think these non aqs should be getting and deserving as much money or opportunity as the aqs (beside big east) and Notre Dame

 

[phork]

Yah because ND has anything to brag about over the last 20 years.

 

[ryno 24]

but we still make money and play a ridiculously hard schedule

 

[Rocket89]

What I heard him say was, "We BCS conferences are the ones who have made college football a money making venture. Don't think that you can come along and demand that you get an equal share." And I don't think he meant that they can't play in a NC game. I heard him saying that the non-AQ conferences are demanding more of the money, and that the big draw schools were not going to give $100 to a school that only brings in $1 of the revenue. And he's right, in my opinion. The non-AQ schools have access to the NC game, and the other BCS bowls. If they continue to have success in those games, then they will begin to bring even more and more to the table. At that point (and not before), I would support their claims to more of the BCS money. Ohio State/Notre Dame/USC didn't get to be college football icons, over a 5-10 year span. It took them decades. Yet, the BSUs and TCUs of the world want the same kind of respect, after only a relatively few years of success.

This is all about power more so than it is purely financial concerns. I agree that some of the non-AQ schools aren't generating as much money as the bigger schools, but I also think some of those schools have proved themselves enough too.

I guess we're really only talking about Boise now, since TCU is moving to the Big East and Utah to the Pac-12.

Nevertheless, if Delany was so worried about revenue we would go to a playoff, where Delany even agrees college football could generate $850 million, instead of the $220 million we get now with the bowls.

And if he was so concerned about these other school not proven themselves, he should have no problem with a playoff where the Big Ten and SEC teams should have no problem moving on and earning more money for their conferences.

Delany does not want a playoff, specifically because he's afraid it will decrease the Big Ten's current power strangle (along with the SEC) over college football. He doesn't care about fairness, he doesn't care about bowl records to back up who has proven and who hasn't, all he's concerned with is protecting the Big Ten's interests.

It doesn't even matter that the Big Ten earns $35 million (or whatever the figure is) in BCS games this year, and that they could earn $125 million in a playoff. Because with a playoff, a team like Boise could get in and earn $75 million and over time that could conveivably open the door to the Big Ten and other big schools not being as important and ventures such as the Big Ten Network not being the giant money pot it is today.

 

[kmoose]

This is all about power more so than it is purely financial concerns. I agree that some of the non-AQ schools aren't generating as much money as the bigger schools, but I also think some of those schools have proved themselves enough too.

I guess we're really only talking about Boise now, since TCU is moving to the Big East and Utah to the Pac-12.

Nevertheless, if Delany was so worried about revenue we would go to a playoff, where Delany even agrees college football could generate $850 million, instead of the $220 million we get now with the bowls.

And if he was so concerned about these other school not proven themselves, he should have no problem with a playoff where the Big Ten and SEC teams should have no problem moving on and earning more money for their conferences.

Delany does not want a playoff, specifically because he's afraid it will decrease the Big Ten's current power strangle (along with the SEC) over college football. He doesn't care about fairness, he doesn't care about bowl records to back up who has proven and who hasn't, all he's concerned with is protecting the Big Ten's interests.

It doesn't even matter that the Big Ten earns $35 million (or whatever the figure is) in BCS games this year, and that they could earn $125 million in a playoff. Because with a playoff, a team like Boise could get in and earn $75 million and over time that could conveivably open the door to the Big Ten and other big schools not being as important and ventures such as the Big Ten Network not being the giant money pot it is today.

Again, I thought that I heard Delaney specifically addressing the subject of the non-AQ schools demanding a larger share of the proceeds from the BCS. But I guess we all will read something different in that, depending on our own personal perspective/preconceived notions.

 

[phgreek]

reviving the dead here being as this thing is real old...but sliding into the break, and cacthing up some...

I say the strength of BCS over nonBCS conferences is simply overdone...and has gotten far too much play for too long.

I took the following from a b/r article...

"Overall, (since 2004) the top tier of the Mountain West is 31-17 (against BCS), for a very good .646 winning percentage

The Middle Tier has gone 11-16, for a decent .407. The top six teams are a combined 42-33, or .560, which is certainly competitive.

It is the bottom three that are the true under performers. Those programs are 4-24, or a dismal .143 winning percentage.

Is the Mountain West a weak league after the top tier? This analysis would suggest that the league has actually been competitive through the top six teams versus BCS competition, and that only the bottom three, especially San Diego State and Colorado State, have truly been non-competitive versus BCS competition.

Comparing the bottom teams in BCS leagues also yields similar results. Bottom tier BCS teams out of conference win percentage versus BCS opponent’s hovers below the .300 mark. This indicates that the arguments that the Mountain West is not competitive as a league are at best overblown, and at worst are not indicative of the actual on field results."

Add to that the fact that the mountain west has performed better in bowls than ANY other conference in recent years...that seems to be a reasonable real world comparison. Across the board, Utah and TCU have absolutley cleaned the BCS AQ's Clocks...Since 2004, TCU is 10-3, for a .769 winning percentage. Utah is right behind, going 13-4 for a .765 win rate. Its why the BCS skirts up and pitts Boise, Utah, and TCU against each other, and precisely why Utah and TCU got swallowed up by AQ conferences.

...given the big bosses bought out the talent from the MWC, this weaker conference claim will be true again in '11...just hope the next non-BCS conference to make noise doesn't have to contend with the intelectual laziness that says the BCS conferences are always stronger.

As well I find the quote about free markets in the article posted by the OP insulting, and would love to punch that *sshole right in the mouth...seriously, what an effing politician...knowing what the BCS is, and how it operates...free market...really Asshat?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

The BCS Commisioners are like the rich, fat, bald, old white guys who run the town: they don't want progress. You want to buy some of their land? They want 3x the actual value. They can keep you from prospering because they've got the money and the stroke and they don't want to share it. That's the BCS system and their personnel.
.

GEORGE: Wait a minute, now, let me tell you. Let me tell you. Your money's in people's houses! In the Kennedy house, and the MacClaren house, and in your house, and a hundred others. You all put your savings in here and then we make loans to people to buy homes and cars and other things. Now, what are you going to do? Take their homes and cars and things from them?!

CHARLIE: I got two hundred and forty dollars in shares. Now lemme have it!

GEORGE: All right, all right, Charlie. Now, you'll get your money in sixty days.

CHARLIE: Sixty days?!

GEORGE: Well, now, look, that's what you - that's what you agreed on when you bought your shares.

RANDALL: I got my money!

PEOPLE IN THE CROWD: Where?

RANDALL: Old Man Potter has taken over the bank! He'll pay you fifty cents on the dollar

CHARLIE: (to crowd) Then let's take our shares to Potter! Half is better than nothing!

GEORGE: Wait a minute, wait a minute, please, folks! I please don't do that. If Potter gets hold of your shares, he'll own this building and loan. And he's got the bank. He's got the bus line. He's got the department stores. And now he's after us because he wants to keep you living in the houses and apartments he owns and paying the kind of rent he decides to charge. Now, we can get through this thing all right, but we have to work together and help each other! We've got to have faith in each other!

MRS. THOMPSON: My husband's out of work. We need money.

ANGRY MAN: I have doctor bills to pay!

WORRIED WOMAN: I can't feed my kids on faith!

PEOPLE IN THE CROWD: Me, too! What about that, George?!

MARY: How much do you need? We've still got some money!

GEORGE: Hey, Mary!

MARY: Here is our money, George! You told me to take care of it. It would have paid for a nice honeymoon -- and bought furniture, too!

 

[kmoose]

reviving the dead here being as this thing is real old...but sliding into the break, and cacthing up some...

I say the strength of BCS over nonBCS conferences is simply overdone...and has gotten far too much play for too long.

I took the following from a b/r article...

"Overall, (since 2004) the top tier of the Mountain West is 31-17 (against BCS), for a very good .646 winning percentage

The Middle Tier has gone 11-16, for a decent .407. The top six teams are a combined 42-33, or .560, which is certainly competitive.

It is the bottom three that are the true under performers. Those programs are 4-24, or a dismal .143 winning percentage.

So if the best Mountain West schools are 31-17 against the Vanderbilts, Indianas, Syracuses, and Iowa States of the College Football world, what does that really mean? If they were 31-17 against the Oklahomas, Ohio States, Alabamas, and USCs of the college football world, then I would know what that meant. Simply having a good record against "BCS conference schools" doesn't mean much, if you consider that there are some really bad bottom dwellers in the BCS conferences. I just don't think that that stat, without some more in depth analysis, means much.

 

[phgreek]

So if the best Mountain West schools are 31-17 against the Vanderbilts, Indianas, Syracuses, and Iowa States of the College Football world, what does that really mean? If they were 31-17 against the Oklahomas, Ohio States, Alabamas, and USCs of the college football world, then I would know what that meant. Simply having a good record against "BCS conference schools" doesn't mean much, if you consider that there are some really bad bottom dwellers in the BCS conferences. I just don't think that that stat, without some more in depth analysis, means much.

It looks like the b/r author missed a couple BYU wins....its actually more like 33 and 17 or so. it breaks out like this:

TCUs Wins(Oklahoma, Clemson, Northwestern, Texas Tech, Stanford(2), Virginia, Baylor(2), Iowa State);Losses(Texas, Oklahoma, Louisville)

Utahs Wins (Alabama, Michigan, Texas A&M, Louisville, Cal, Oregon St., North Carolina, UCLA, Georgia Tech, Arizona(2), Pitt); Losses(North Carolina, UCLA, Oregon St., Oregon)

BYUs Wins(Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Oregon, Oregon St., Cal, Washington, UCLA(2), Arizona (2));Losses(Stanford, USC, Boston College(2), Notre Dame, Arizona(3), Florida State, Cal)

Wyomings Wins(Tennesee, UCLA, Ole Miss(2), Virginia, Texas A&M);Losses(Florida, Virginia, Syracuse, Texas, Colorado);

New Mexicos Wins(Texas tech, Misouri, Arizona(2)); Losses (Washington, Oregon St., Missouri, Texas A&M(2), Texas Tech

Air Forces Wins(Notre Dame, Washington); Losses(Cal, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Minnesota)

thats the performance since '04 (does not include 2010...the table fomat isn't out yet that I can load to a spreadsheet...I'm too lazy)

I pretty much know what this means, but You tell me what you think...now that the data is here...

 

[kmoose]

It looks like the b/r author missed a couple BYU wins....its actually more like 33 and 17 or so. it breaks out like this:

TCUs Wins(Oklahoma, Clemson, Northwestern, Texas Tech, Stanford(2), Virginia, Baylor(2), Iowa State);Losses(Texas, Oklahoma, Louisville)

Utahs Wins (Alabama, Michigan, Texas A&M, Louisville, Cal, Oregon St., North Carolina, UCLA, Georgia Tech, Arizona(2), Pitt); Losses(North Carolina, UCLA, Oregon St., Oregon)

BYUs Wins(Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Oregon, Oregon St., Cal, Washington, UCLA(2), Arizona (2));Losses(Stanford, USC, Boston College(2), Notre Dame, Arizona(3), Florida State, Cal)

Wyomings Wins(Tennesee(5-7), UCLA(6-6), Ole Miss(2)(4-7,3-8), Virginia(9-4), Texas A&M(couldn't find a Texas A&M win, since 2004. Found a loss to a 7-5 Texas A&M team, in 2004, though));Losses(Florida(9-3), Virginia(5-7), Syracuse(4-8), Texas(13-1), Colorado(3-9));

New Mexicos Wins(Texas tech(8-4), Misouri(7-5), Arizona(2)(5-7, 8-5)); Losses (WashingtonCouldn't find a loss to Wash., but found a loss to a 5-6 Wash. St team), Oregon St.(7-5), Missouri(8-5), Texas A&M(2)(4-8,6-7), Texas Tech(9-4)

Air Forces Wins(Notre Dame(3-9), Washington(2-9)); Losses(Cal(10-2), Tennessee(9-4), Notre Dame(10-3), Minnesota(6-7))

thats the performance since '04 (does not include 2010...the table fomat isn't out yet that I can load to a spreadsheet...I'm too lazy)

I pretty much know what this means, but You tell me what you think...now that the data is here...

It tells me that that TCU, Utah, and BYU are legitimate programs, who would be competitive in most years, in a BCS Conference. I think BYU would be a middle of the road (7-5,6-6, 5-7 most years) team in most of the BCS conferences. Utah and TCU could probably have an 8-4, 9-3 year, every few years, in those same conferences. I think that 5-7 would be about as low as they would fall. But this is about as far as it goes. Above, I left TCU, Utah, and BYU out of the equation, because I don't think that they hurt the conference's "reputation". But the Mountain West is asking everyone to stand up and award them the same level of respect that we give to the BCS Conferences. In my mind, that means that they need to make a fairly compelling argument. But, looking at the records of the BCS teams that they beat, and the ones that they lost to: Of their 11 wins against BCS teams, only 4 of those wins were against teams with a winning record. And only one of those wins came against a team with 9+ wins. Of their 16 losses to BCS teams, 7 of those were to teams with losing records. I don't see any compelling evidence that the Mountain West's record against BCS teams warrants any kind of major shakeup in the way the BCS is run. Especially now that their top 3 teams (by far the most successful ones against BCS teams) will be playing in other conferences, or as an Independent. I'm not trying to say that the Mountain West is BAD, just that they have not earned the major shakeup that many people are clamoring for. In my opinion, it's just not a compelling enough argument.

 

[IrishLax]

If the Mountain West added Boise State to Utah, BYU and TCU they would have been fully deserving of an automatic berth in the BCS. The league would have been easily as competitive as Big East and in a lot of senses as competitive as the ACC. However... that didn't happen... and now the MWC is probably even weaker than the WAC.

 

[phgreek]

If the Mountain West added Boise State to Utah, BYU and TCU they would have been fully deserving of an automatic berth in the BCS. The league would have been easily as competitive as Big East and in a lot of senses as competitive as the ACC. However... that didn't happen... and now the MWC is probably even weaker than the WAC.

Its weaker now...or in '11...even w/o BSU, they were better than the Big East...

 

[irishtrain]

Fill what seats? When Boise played Va. Tech in DC this year it looked pretty full. Both Fiesta Bowls BSU were in featured packed house. The Rose Bowl will be sold out too.

This is just the good ol' boys protecting the good ol' boys. I would've loved to have seen the rating comparison between, say a BSU-OSU Rose Bowl and this year's Sugar Bowl (which I have zero interest in) and the Fiesta Bowl (8-4 UConn...what a joke).

The BCS Commisioners are like the rich, fat, bald, old white guys who run the town: they don't want progress. You want to buy some of their land? They want 3x the actual value. They can keep you from prospering because they've got the money and the stroke and they don't want to share it. That's the BCS system and their personnel.

It's just too uncomfortable for them. They've thrown the Non-AQs five nuggets: Boise made good twice, TCU lost to Boise in a good, close game, Utah smacked Alabama and Hawai'i got rolled by Georgia. And all they talk about is Hawai'i. No mention of how the Non-AQs actually have a winning record in BCS games. 3-2...and the TCU loss was against Boise.

The proof is in the pudding....but these guys don't want to taste the pudding. What can you say? I guess gator meat, wild hog and duck taste better than horse meat or frogs.

We got to protect our phoney baloney business here boys!

 

[phgreek]

It tells me that that TCU, Utah, and BYU are legitimate programs, who would be competitive in most years, in a BCS Conference. I think BYU would be a middle of the road (7-5,6-6, 5-7 most years) team in most of the BCS conferences. Utah and TCU could probably have an 8-4, 9-3 year, every few years, in those same conferences. I think that 5-7 would be about as low as they would fall. But this is about as far as it goes. Above, I left TCU, Utah, and BYU out of the equation, because I don't think that they hurt the conference's "reputation". But the Mountain West is asking everyone to stand up and award them the same level of respect that we give to the BCS Conferences. In my mind, that means that they need to make a fairly compelling argument. But, looking at the records of the BCS teams that they beat, and the ones that they lost to: Of their 11 wins against BCS teams, only 4 of those wins were against teams with a winning record. And only one of those wins came against a team with 9+ wins. Of their 16 losses to BCS teams, 7 of those were to teams with losing records. I don't see any compelling evidence that the Mountain West's record against BCS teams warrants any kind of major shakeup in the way the BCS is run. Especially now that their top 3 teams (by far the most successful ones against BCS teams) will be playing in other conferences, or as an Independent. I'm not trying to say that the Mountain West is BAD, just that they have not earned the major shakeup that many people are clamoring for. In my opinion, it's just not a compelling enough argument.

First of all Merry Christmas...

...Its Possible there were some mistakes...I used some functions where I could in excel, but had to fat finger some stuff too...

I would agree the Mountain West is over as a contender. However, completely putting the burden of proof on them, w/o looking at the Big East and the ACC, and how they performed, is not fair, and in fact, this attitude is the problem...

its funny though, because I find myself getting sucked into the trap of arguing this thing from a conference by conference perspective. The real injustice lives at the individual programmatic level. Boise State, Utah, and TCU, are now perennial top 25 dwellers, each of them boast an impressive set of marquee wins, and multiple undefeated seasons over the last 6 seasons. I'll go off and look at how the MWC, BigE, and ACC stack up, but this excercise is perpetuating the conversation as the BCS barons have framed it...but again the issues reside in the fairness to individual programs...

 

[kmoose]

First of all Merry Christmas...

...Its Possible there were some mistakes...I used some functions where I could in excel, but had to fat finger some stuff too...

I would agree the Mountain West is over as a contender. However, completely putting the burden of proof on them, w/o looking at the Big East and the ACC, and how they performed, is not fair, and in fact, this attitude is the problem...

its funny though, because I find myself getting sucked into the trap of arguing this thing from a conference by conference perspective. The real injustice lives at the individual programmatic level. Boise State, Utah, and TCU, are now perennial top 25 dwellers, each of them boast an impressive set of marquee wins, and multiple undefeated seasons over the last 6 seasons. I'll go off and look at how the MWC, BigE, and ACC stack up, but this excercise is perpetuating the conversation as the BCS barons have framed it...but again the issues reside in the fairness to individual programs...

Well, in regards to the fairness to individual teams........... Boise State and Utah have both played in BCS bowls, so I'm not sure how there is anything unfair in that. The reason that it always comes down to a conference v. conference perspective is that, every time there is a choice between a Utah/Boise State/TCU team, and a Florida/Ohio State/Oklahoma team, the subject of strength of schedule comes to the forefront. Mid major proponents like to point to the success that their mid major conference has had against AQ conferences, without any regard to the actual matchups. Miami(FL) and Florida State are relative newcomers (the past 25 years) to sustained succes in College Football. They had to earn their respect by upsetting NUMEROUS traditional powers.

 

[phgreek]

Well, in regards to the fairness to individual teams........... Boise State and Utah have both played in BCS bowls, so I'm not sure how there is anything unfair in that. The reason that it always comes down to a conference v. conference perspective is that, every time there is a choice between a Utah/Boise State/TCU team, and a Florida/Ohio State/Oklahoma team, the subject of strength of schedule comes to the forefront. Mid major proponents like to point to the success that their mid major conference has had against AQ conferences, without any regard to the actual matchups. Miami(FL) and Florida State are relative newcomers (the past 25 years) to sustained succes in College Football. They had to earn their respect by upsetting NUMEROUS traditional powers.

...ahh yes, the "you need to establish a resume argument"...ok, except, these guys do go out and try to play whomever they can schedule...you can parse the records of whom they play if you'd like, but they can't control how these teams play, ie you can't game it...if you hit a bad Michigan Team, how would you know they would suck when you scheduled them.

These 3 teams always try to schedule top tier teams that aren't too chiken **** to play them...but those guys are all busy filling their non-conference schedule with DIA and DII teams. As well, the BCS has killed their ability to build that resume in the bowls as well, relegating them to play each other...come on Moose...thats bolgna...What you are saying is, find a way to prove yourself while we conspire to prevent you from proving yourself...and while we espouse how weak you are...but we should all go on stating the same SOS BS knowing this is going on? Complete Cowardice and Hypocirsy...

As it stands now, I guess none of it matters, and folks will forget about the shenanigans that went on here by the time the question comes up again...really, there is only one Boise State now...unless Tulsa starts to make a run.

 

[kmoose]

...ahh yes, the "you need to establish a resume argument"...ok, except, these guys do go out and try to play whomever they can schedule...you can parse the records of whom they play if you'd like, but they can't control how these teams play, ie you can't game it...if you hit a bad Michigan Team, how would you know they would suck when you scheduled them.

I've never accused any of them of ducking top competition. I've merely said that beating USC is just not very impressive, if USC ended up finishing 7-5, and 6th or 7th in the PAC-10, that year. I know it's not their fault, but the fact that it's not their fault doesn't change the fact that it's just not as impressive as they would like me to believe it is.

These 3 teams always try to schedule top tier teams that aren't too chiken **** to play them...but those guys are all busy filling their non-conference schedule with DIA and DII teams. As well, the BCS has killed their ability to build that resume in the bowls as well, relegating them to play each other...come on Moose...thats bolgna...What you are saying is, find a way to prove yourself while we conspire to prevent you from proving yourself...and while we espouse how weak you are...but we should all go on stating the same SOS BS knowing this is going on? Complete Cowardice and Hypocirsy...

I'm not up on the recent history of negotiations for top tier games for these teams, other than the potential Boise State/Oklahoma series, which broke down when Boise State demanded $1M for their visit to Norman. Now, that might be a reasonable demand, or it might be ridiculous, I don't know. But I have to figure that, if the $1M figure was anywhere near the going rate for a road game, Orrin Hatch would have been shouting from the rooftops. The fact that he hasn't been, makes me suspicious that BSU was asking for an outrageous sum. As to the BCS killing their ability to build that resume in the bowls.......... seriously? BSU's signature win was against Oklahoma...........in a BCS Bowl. Utah's signature win was against Alabama.............in a BCS Bowl. If TCU beats Wisconsin, that will be the biggest win in the last 50 years, maybe. I would argue that the BCS has been the single biggest mechanism that has enabled them to make the strides that they have made. Ohio State has played Texas, USC, and Miami, in the last 5 years, so you would have a hard time convincing me that they are too busy scheduling DI-AA and DII schools to play Boise State.

 

[phgreek]

I've never accused any of them of ducking top competition. I've merely said that beating USC is just not very impressive, if USC ended up finishing 7-5, and 6th or 7th in the PAC-10, that year. I know it's not their fault, but the fact that it's not their fault doesn't change the fact that it's just not as impressive as they would like me to believe it is.

OK...

I'm not up on the recent history of negotiations for top tier games for these teams, other than the potential Boise State/Oklahoma series, which broke down when Boise State demanded $1M for their visit to Norman. Now, that might be a reasonable demand, or it might be ridiculous, I don't know. But I have to figure that, if the $1M figure was anywhere near the going rate for a road game, Orrin Hatch would have been shouting from the rooftops. The fact that he hasn't been, makes me suspicious that BSU was asking for an outrageous sum.

Sen. Hatch has been fairly active in the BCS debate, however I'm fairly comfortable he wouldn't engage in regular season scheduling issues, being as neither team was from his state...so I wouldn't assume Hatch's silence on the matter was a statement other than it didn't register on his RADAR as he is not the Senator from Oklahoma or Idaho. Outside of that, I don't know the $ figures, I'm sure smart folks could argue why that was fair or unfair.

As to the BCS killing their ability to build that resume in the bowls.......... seriously? BSU's signature win was against Oklahoma...........in a BCS Bowl. Utah's signature win was against Alabama.............in a BCS Bowl. If TCU beats Wisconsin, that will be the biggest win in the last 50 years, maybe. I would argue that the BCS has been the single biggest mechanism that has enabled them to make the strides that they have made.

...hmmm that sounds good if you are talking to some 18 Y/O kid...the reality...the bowl coalition was trotted out specifically in response to BYU's national championship. It was to make sure a mid major would NEVER win the NC again. Of course the Bowl coalition is now the BCS. So your claim of the BCS giving a hand up to the lowly mid major is complete and total BS...thats like saying the formation of OPEC was a better deal for us when they cut us a break...YEA RIGHT!

Ohio State has played 2006 Texas (10-3, 6-2) non conference opponents also included cincinatti and Northern Illinois, 2009 USC (9-4, 5-4) Non-conference oppponents also included Navy, Toledo, and 2010 Miami(7-5, 5-3) Non-conference oppponents also included Ohio, Marshal, and Eastern Michigan. Other nonconference opponents for the Buckeyes during that period are Troy State, Youngstown State, Akron, in the last 5 years, so you would have a hard time convincing me that they are too busy scheduling DI-AA and DII schools to play Boise State.

All of Ohio States "bravery" in scheduling does not absolve the other teams...and based on your own standards, USC was ok, Texas was a good opponent, and Miami does not add to Ohio State's non-conference credibility. In all seriousness I like the Ohio State program, and think they are an elite program...but they play some patsies...maybe not DII, but outside Navy (whom they narrowly escaped from), and the three you named...eh, not impressed with their non-conference schedule.

 

[kmoose]

All of Ohio States "bravery" in scheduling does not absolve the other teams...and based on your own standards, USC was ok, Texas was a good opponent, and Miami does not add to Ohio State's non-conference credibility. In all seriousness I like the Ohio State program, and think they are an elite program...but they play some patsies...maybe not DII, but outside Navy (whom they narrowly escaped from), and the three you named...eh, not impressed with their non-conference schedule.

I agree. But that's not the point. The point is that you made the argument that all of the traditional powers were too busy scheduling DI-AA and DII schools, and ducking Boise State. My example of Ohio State is just a counterpoint to that specific contention. I never made any claim that Ohio State scheduled some Murderer's Row of opponents.

I'm not against a mid-major playing in the BCS Championship Game. I am, however, not buying into this crap about the BCS being all about excluding those teams. When has the BCS ever locked out a mid-major who was deserving of being a BCS game, when there wasn't also a "big boy" that could make the same claim?

 

[phgreek]

I agree. But that's not the point. The point is that you made the argument that all of the traditional powers were too busy scheduling DI-AA and DII schools, and ducking Boise State. My example of Ohio State is just a counterpoint to that specific contention. I never made any claim that Ohio State scheduled some Murderer's Row of opponents.?

OK...wasn't clear to me, as I saw references to big name non-conference opponents as the returning argument...some of my response to that was sarcasm, but the point I was trying to make is Ohio State took on a reasonable number of mid majors (or what I would call mid majors) during the period you mention. I didn't see Utah, Boise State, BYU, or TCU...My argument is, and has been the big boys avoid these guys...and they admit it here and there, using their conference schedule as the excuse...I am aware the feeling is if you lose to a mediocre Miami team you could rebound from that...if you lose to ANY mid major you are toast...so it would appear the world of the elites viewed Utah, Boise State, BYU, and TCU as all risk w/ no upside...this showed in their inability to get elite foes in the regular season, and lately to get an opponent other than each other to play in a bowl...now TCU finally broke through this year...we'll see how they do...but I think they were deserving of consideration for a shot at the NC.

I'm not against a mid-major playing in the BCS Championship Game. I am, however, not buying into this crap about the BCS being all about excluding those teams. When has the BCS ever locked out a mid-major who was deserving of being a BCS game, when there wasn't also a "big boy" that could make the same claim?

Again the entire reason for the bowl coalition, which is now the BCS was to do just that...lock out mid majors from being in consideration for the NC game. It may be my interpretation of events, and comments made by different folks during and after BYU won the NC. It was no secret then that the big boys were furious over that. I'm sure other benefits have arisen in the BCS system that make it impossible to say the BCS has no benefit, but the intent was to do exaclty that...lock out mid majors.