It’s time to be honest about the BCS

 

Today at 2:30 p.m. a Senate Judiciary subcommittee will hold a hearing entitled: “The Bowl Championship Series: Is it Fair and in Compliance with Antitrust Law?”

 Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah),  you’ll  be shocked to hear, believes that the 12-0 (which later became 13-0) team from Utah was denied the opportunity to play for the national championship by the BCS system, which picks two teams to play for the title after the regular season. In a Sports Illustrated story last week, Hatch called the BCS “biased” and claimed that it “probably” violates antitrust laws.

This is the second time this year representatives of college athletics have been hauled before Congress for a dog and pony show to score cheap political points with the folks back home. Earlier it was Rep. Joe Barton of Texas (sense a trend here?), who called the BCS “communist.”

 

Here is the problem I have with this entire exercise. If you want to have four-team, eight-team or 16-team playoff to decide college football’s national championship, then let’s have that argument. I, for one, would like to see a four-team playoff where the teams are seeded 1-4. And if the Rose Bowl is willing to play ball (and that’s a big IF), there is a possibility that gets done when the new BCS contract begins in the 2014 season.

 

What I don’t like is that in criticizing the BCS, and there is a lot to legitimately criticize, those who want change show that they have not done their homework. In the interest of creating a memorable sound bite or quote, the critics show an incredible amount of intellectual dishonesty, or total lack of knowledge, about what the BCS is and is not and what it has done and hasn’t done for post-season college football.

 

Again, I’m not a blind supporter of the BCS. There is change that I want. But here are a few facts:

 

Fact: Utah was not DENIED a chance to play for the BCS national championship. Utah had as much a chance to play for the BCS title as any other school. But 175 people voted in the Harris Interactive and coaches polls, two of the three components in the BCS formula. The 114 people in the Harris poll voted Utah seventh. The 61 coaches in the USA Today poll also voted Utah seventh and no coach—NONE—voted Utah higher than No. 5. Of the 114 people who voted in the Harris Poll only five voted Utah No. 5 or better.

Fact: Even the coaches in Utah’s league, the Mountain West, did not step up for the Utes when it counted. Joe Glenn of Wyoming had Utah at No. 5. Rocky Long of New Mexico and Gary Patterson of TCU had them at No. 7. Kyle Whittingham, Utah’s own coach, had his team at No. 5.

So where was all the love for Utah BEFORE they played Alabama in the Sugar Bowl? The fact is that while Utah deserved to win because the Utes flat outplayed the Crimson Tide (who didn’t want to be there), it wasn’t until AFTER the Sugar Bowl that Utah became this incredible juggernaut which should have been given the chance to play for it all.

 

Fact: For all of the flaws of the BCS, the fact is that it has provided bowl opportunities that the supposedly aggrieved schools had never had in the past. How many times had Utah played in the Sugar Bowl before the BCS? How many times had Hawaii played in the Sugar Bowl before the BCS? How many times had Boise State played in a New Year’s Day bowl before the BCS? If you answered zero to all three questions you’d be right. “The fact of the matter is that the BCS has given access to those conference that they never had before,” said former SEC Commissioner Roy Kramer, considered to be the godfather of the BCS. “Look at the history of the major bowls. They had almost never invited one of those teams before the BCS.”

 

Fact: The original BCS agreement that was put together back in 1998 never would have happened unless the champions of those six “equity” conferences (ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, Pac-10) had been promised automatic slots.

“Those conferences already had automatic bowl bids. We (in the SEC) had a long standing agreement with the Sugar Bowl,” said Kramer. “There is no way that those conferences were going to give that up without a guaranteed slot. And remember that we were working with four bowls and those were the conferences they were used to dealing with.”

The fact is that the free marketplace determined that those six conferences would get automatic bids and there were at-large spots made available to teams that could play their way in. Maybe you believe that market forces have no place in college athletics, but that is how it happened. It wasn’t a conspiracy to keep the other teams out. It was the only way to get the deal done.

 

Fact: While the six equity conferences do get an automatic bid and the $18 million payday that comes with it, the five Coalition Conferences (Conference USA, MAC, WAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt) have placed a team in the BCS in four of the past five seasons. Those five conferences get an automatic $9.5 million for participating and another $9.5 million when they place a team in a BCS game. So over the past five seasons the BCS has pumped about $80 million into those five Coalition conferences.

 That’s a lot of money that did not even exist before the advent of the BCS. Should the Coalition Conferences get more? Yes, and I believe they will. I also believe that in the future the conferences will be able to get more than one team in the BCS if they have two teams in the Top 10.

All of this leads us to a final fact about the BCS:

Fact: The BCS does not violate antitrust law and this Senate committee knows it.  I’ve spoken to a number of top antitrust lawyers, including Tom Rhodes of Smith, Gambrell & Russell here in Atlanta. They all agreed that the BCS may not be popular with some college football fans but it does not violate the law—at least as the law is currently written and interpreted by the courts.

“The original agreement was put together by a group of antitrust lawyers and has been reviewed several times since,” said Kramer. “Now there are some political problems that the BCS must deal with but when it comes to the law, unless it gets interpreted in a totally different way, the BCS should be on solid ground.”

The fact of the matter is that whether or not you like the BCS, and a lot of folks don’t, it created something that didn’t exist before: A mechanism to match the No. 1 and the No. 2 team for the national championship. It also increased bowl revenues exponentially because it created something of value to the television networks. It also has access points for the teams in the Coalition Conferences. All they have to do is finish in the Top 12 of the final BCS standings.

Again, if you want a playoff, then let’s have that discussion. But bashing the BCS is like bashing the IRS. It’s easy. The fact is that with all of its flaws, it’s better than what we used to have. I remember Georgia Tech having to play in the Citrus Bowl in 1990 to win its national championship. I remember No. 2 Penn State not getting a shot at No. 1 Nebraska in 1994. I remember No. 2 Texas not getting a shot at No. 1 Nebraska in 1983.

The system is going to change because the marketplace is going to eventually demand it, not because Congress is going to push to make its constituents happy. And that’s a fact.

 

270 comments Add your comment

David

July 7th, 2009
8:30 am

The market wants to have a playoff, but it has no effect on the market place. The only way to have a playoff is for the federal government to threaten to pull funds for the sports programs. Since federal tax dollars are being used, then senate has a right to hole hearings.

m

July 7th, 2009
8:36 am

Gee, my butt is still sore from that BEATDOWN we took from LSU.

Thank God & Greyhound I can still filet my flounder, it never gets old!

Buford T Pusser

July 7th, 2009
8:38 am

What federal tax dollars are being used to fund college athletic departments?

Oh yeah, they aren’t.

m

July 7th, 2009
8:42 am

Tony…not only are you a sec homer-gomer…you are a complete tool for the pathetic BSbcs.

The BSbcs is a complete idiotic system that has completely ruined college football. It lets a bunch of biased IDIOTS vote for their favorite team and does determine a true champion like all other sports do.

The reason you sec homer-gomers like the BSbcs is it gives the sec a free ride. But wasn’t it interesting that when alabammer had to play a legitimate Utah team, then Utah beat the crap out of them.

I hope congress BANS the BSbcs and replaces it with a 16 team playoff. It would be the most exciting sporting event in the history of the world…it would crown a true champion…and it would get homer-gomers like Tony out of the mix.

On a side note, Tony, your appearance on the css ACC show was a complete crock. A bunch of sec homer-gomers trying to talk something they don’t know about or care about.

TECHnicallySpeaking

July 7th, 2009
8:43 am

If yo uhave a 4 team playoff, you will have the 5th and 6th place vote getters saying they got screwed. Doesn’t matter if you “rank” the 100 best teams for a 100 team playoff, the 101st. team would cry. And tell me exactly why we have a “play-in game” for the 64th team for the basketball tourney. Wasn’t it to be sure we got the 64 best teams?

Nachos

July 7th, 2009
8:46 am

Is Allbarn still a Division I program?

NEXT#13

July 7th, 2009
8:49 am

NEXT#13

July 7th, 2009
8:49 am

eBuzz

July 7th, 2009
8:55 am

Tony, you can spin quite a justification supporting the BCS, but let’s face it, D-1 football is the ONLY NCAA sport not to have a true champion. It’s OK to drag basketball and baseball on and on, but oh no, not football because this would rob the greedy bowls of their payola.

Here’s the answer.
1. 8 top final BCS poll teams to play it off.
2. Top 8 chosen by giving the computer rating 2/3 of the weight factor to minimize the human polls beauty contest (Otherwise, ND wins their last game, ends up 1-10 and ranked 6 or higher)
3. Quarterfinals at highest ranked host schools starting the second week of December
(Their fans deserve this, not the bowls)
4. Losing 4 teams still eligible for other bowls
5. Semi-finals on New Years at 2 bowl sites submitting highest bids to NCAA
6. Final one week later at bowl site submitting highest separate bid to NCAA
7. All other bowls still played for also-rans and the four top 8 losers.

This puts more money in the schools, NCAA, TV, and bowl pockets, gives fans a break, and it eliminates the never-ending drama with the current system.
Win-win-win-win situation

GATAEagle

July 7th, 2009
8:56 am

Saying that this monopoly isn’t bad because it’s better than it was is a sad statement. Yes, it’s better than it was. It still gives the large conferences the competitive advantage and a monopolist’s grip on the money.

It’s been this way for years and I’d be glad to see Congress turn up the pressure despite having bigger problems to deal with … hopefully these guys can multitask to fix problems. I sure didn’t cast my vote hoping they could only hold hearings on ways to spend more money :)

It’s long past time for something to happen to fix this.

CLTDawg

July 7th, 2009
8:56 am

Wow, umemployment is up, people are continuing to lose their jobs, homes are being foreclosed, and our US Congress is worried about the BCS. Seriously?!?! Get your priorities in order! You can worry about the BCS when you have all the other problems worked out. No wonder Congress cannot get decent approval ratings.

Poor Utah, boo hoo, 2 years ago is was Hawaii and UGA destroyed them in the Sugar, granted Utah beat Alabama, but when your own coach ranks you 5th, there is little room to discuss, much less hold a Congressional hearing.

coachdawg 2000

July 7th, 2009
8:58 am

Tony,
m is an idiot so ignore him. He posts daily ,on the uga blog, the score from one tech game from the last 9 years. The fact is these weeny conferences need to realize that they are just lucky to be there. What was utah’s claim to fame before the sugar bowl. Beating a pathetic michigan team and a bunch of no-defense-playing cupcakes in the mountian west? give me a break! I hate the acc but you actually made it watchable on css (that is saying something when i have to hear nick cellini’s nasally voice- dorsey leven’s pathetic view)

Denver Dog

July 7th, 2009
8:58 am

It is the victim mentallity that drives this hogwash. We’ve gone from naming the champion before the bowls in the 60’s to having some teams play each other in the 70’s to 80’s, to some games called the BCS in the 90’s and up til now.

This last year there were people in Texas that thought Texas should have played OK for the championship. USC thought that they should have played for it. Utah thought they should be in the big game, but the formula wasn’t right for them this year. Like other schools in the past, they can point and blame but the truth is that they didn’t pull it off when they should have.

On top of that, everyone knows that Georgia Tech should have been in the game, they really did becuase they had rings made up.

CrimsonRedScarlett

July 7th, 2009
9:07 am

What makes people think that the Big 10(11) and Pac 10 would go along with this playoff idea?
A playoff beyond four teans would probably require a shorter schedule, and the NCAA would control revenue in a manner similar to the basletball tournament.
Games in mid-December would conflict with finals for many schools.
Just try rearranging schedules for players, student managers, cheerleaders and the band.

David

July 7th, 2009
9:10 am

Buford:

Public schools and private schools get government money by the way of taxes and/or grants. Part of that money goes to the athletic department.

Atlanta Gator

July 7th, 2009
9:12 am

Okay, let’s be honest about the whole goshdarn BCS thing . . . .

The Bowl Coalition, the Bowl Alliance and the Bowl Championship Series were each an improvement on what went before. I know, it’s hard to remember when number 1 played number 13, number 2 played number 4, and number 3 played number 8, and everyone had endless and pointless debates on January 2nd as to which college team was best.

The BCS has provided a relatively orderly seeding of the top 8 to 10 teams in the major polls, and rotated the game among the four major bowls and the BCS Championship Game. It ain’t perfect, but it’s a lot better than where we were in 1990.

The BCS will evolve to survive, and because it will ultimately be in the best interests of most of the member conferences. I made a prediction yesterday: Southern Cal will beat Ohio State in Columbus during the 2009 regular season. USC will beat OSU in the Rose Bowl by a similar margin in January 2010. Few people will watch, and the television ratings will be the worst in Rose Bowl history. The domestic ratings for the BCS Championship Game, played in the Rose Bowl stadium a week later, will approach those of the Super Bowl. This will be the beginning of the end of the current logjam.

The BCS ain’t perfect, but it will evolve to survive and make money. There will eventually be a 4-team, post-bowl playoff because it makes sense. A 4-team playoff could seed the top 4 teams based on their performance in the 4 major New Year’s Day bowls (making it really an 8-team playoff), hypothetically, it would allow for participation by 1 or 2 non-BCS teams if they won a New Year’s Day bowl, it would crown a champion on the field, and it could all be over by the second weekend in January.

Who’s with me?

W

July 7th, 2009
9:15 am

It’s shocking to see a Republican representative label something he doesn’t like “communist.” I’m surprised Joe Barton didn’t claim the Democrats are the only ones in favor of keeping the BCS, or that Obama himself was the architect of the whole thing.

bank walker

July 7th, 2009
9:18 am

State schools get money from the state. Only black schools get federal tax dollars, and so does Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, and Illegals, and greedy politicians , and so on .

Frank

July 7th, 2009
9:20 am

Fact,the BCS sux.If it’s so awesome why doesn’t the NCAA use it in all sports?

Scott

July 7th, 2009
9:28 am

The problem is that ranking is determined by voting, not by play on the field.

PTC DAWG

July 7th, 2009
9:28 am

Okay, I’ll be honest..it STINKS…voting on two teams to play for the so called National Title STINKS.

U Gotta B Kidding Me

July 7th, 2009
9:30 am

What really is a joke is in 1990 GT played a barely top 20 team, Nebraska, in a lower tier bowl, to back into their share of a “national title”.

That deserves an investigation.

BCS is Fascist

July 7th, 2009
9:30 am

coachdawg2000:

Your quote: “What was utah’s claim to fame before the sugar bowl.”

Um, well, they hired one Urban Meyer to develop his spread-offense to perfection. Just in case you forgot.

I thought you’d remember that. You know…Urban Meyer…spread offense…annual Jax beatdown.

Otto

July 7th, 2009
9:37 am

eBuzz, Your Top 8 teams will never happen. In order for the 6 BCS conf. to agree to an 8 team playoff they will have to have a spot for their conf champ plus 2 at learge bids which will go to the best of the nonBCS teams and ND if they look remotely decent.

Tony, the 4 team only opens debate for a 8 team or 16 team playoff and leaves out teams live ‘07 UGA, and ‘08 Utah causing even more legal battles.

I say leave it alone the system works great and more times than not gets it right. The current system is also starting to promote big nonConf matchups adding more excitement to the regular season with do or die matchups every week as games that can lead to domino line of changes.

m, Shutup in bowls where the top to bottom of the conf is matched more evenly the SEC kicked the ACC’s but. Also if you’re going to talk smack get more than one team in a BCS game and win them.

How have TV revenues have ticket prices done since the BCS introduced? Give it a few more years and it would not surprise me if commercials for the BCS title game rival those of the Super Bowl.

The golden age of CFB is now enjoy it before Washington and ignorant fans with m’s line of reason detroy it.

buckblue

July 7th, 2009
9:37 am

Whatcha mean the Tide did not want to be in the Sugar Bowl???? When was the last time the criminal tide played in a BCS Bowl game…??? Where do you think they wanted to paly…back in Shreveport…..??

They just got plain whipped by a more motivated team and hungry team…….they had plenty of time to get over the UF loss….I think they were just tired of having to practice another month with Saban…..lol

Denver Dog

July 7th, 2009
9:40 am

So what is URBAN “Charley Pell” Meyer doing to repair UF’s image with 24 arrests (how does that happen) since he and the age of Aquarius began in Gainesville. Was this not the same MO he had in Utah. Will ND like that next year when he goes there.

It looks like the Jax beatdown had to do with the beat cops doing the arrests!

The Blog Referee

July 7th, 2009
9:40 am

Please delete the comments of blogger “m” @ 9:24 am. The comments are sexually explicit and extremely disrespectful of the moderator and other bloggers.

Thank you.

Bubbadawg

July 7th, 2009
9:45 am

Tony, I have no problem with the BCS except for the other non-championship bowls each year seem quite lame. It’s my understanding that TV ratings also concur. I know that the goal of the BCS is to get 1 vs. 2, but is there any talk of changing how the other bowl teams are selected?

Miles

July 7th, 2009
9:48 am

FACT: Lawyers are far from objective. FACT: A lawyer’s job is to be adversarial rather than objective. Thus, disregard Tom Rhodes and his self serving opinions. Mr. Barnhart, you may be correct about the marketplace having ultimate control over the issue of the transformation from the BCS to a playoff system, but has it occurred to you that the primary place for the marketplace to appeal is by way of the government and the applicable Sherman Antitrust Act? What is interesting is that it is your fellow free market Republicans, i.e., Orrin Hatch and Joe Barton, who are contending that the market created by the BCS is not free! The ghost of Ohio Republican John Sherman lingers.

G

July 7th, 2009
9:51 am

“Those conferences already had automatic bowl bids.”

I’m sorry, which BCS bowl did the Big East have a contract with before the BCS was formed? Oh, that’s right … THEY DIDN’T.

The BCS’ own rules favor votes over performance, and its rules are vague and exclusionary. When the Mountain West proposes moving the rules from a vote-based system to a system based on wins and loses on the field, no one even listened.

Supersize that order, mutt

July 7th, 2009
9:52 am

Denver Dog, maybe you should ask instead, “So what is St Mark Richt doing to repair UGAG’s image with 30 arrests (or was it 34?)?” How does THAT happen?

One-Liners For 7/7/09 | MrSEC.com

July 7th, 2009
9:53 am

[...] yesterday.Tony Barnhart of The AJC would like to see a college football playoff, but he says critics of the current set-up still haven’t done their homework.It’s a break in tradition, but could more night football games be a good thing for [...]

Otto

July 7th, 2009
9:57 am

buck, You know those irrational Bama fans only care about playing for National Title and certainly not a team that didn’t belong in the BCS.

G, wins over cup cakes week in and week out does not make a good resume except to voters in Washington. They like giving hand outs to the undeserving.

[...] Spencer Tillman thinks he knows Tony Barnhart, but this doesn’t sound like the Tony Barnhart he’s writing about. … But bashing the BCS is [...]

Follow The Money

July 7th, 2009
10:01 am

B-Bonus
C-Control
S-System

The BCS puts so much money on the table for Coaches, schools, ADs, and College Presidents for any of them to want to “mess with the formula.”

It would seem that its the coaches and/or the schools that want to keep the BCS system in place. A single BCS bowl game pays a lot of money back to the schools and conferences represented in that bowl game. So, win or lose, as long as they just get to a BCS bowl game, the money flows.

THE KEY…IS TO SEPARATE THE MONEY, FROM THE GAME.

Perhaps payng a “fixed” amount for every team that appears in the “tournament.” No additional money would get paid for “advancing” thru the tournament. The playing and winning would based on the desire to win and be champion, not playing for the next pay-out.

If College Football is going to…SURVIVE…the current “All or Nothing” approach will have to be replaced.

The very fact that the TV networks are currently engaged in VERY heated contract negotiations with advertisers & sponsors does not bode well for the current system.

Gen Neyland

July 7th, 2009
10:01 am

If Congress is allowed to dictate to the NCAA, what’s next..? The takeover of GM..?

Not Disappointed

July 7th, 2009
10:02 am

I do think will come, but not because of congress. Ramblin Wreck!!

Joel in ATL

July 7th, 2009
10:07 am

I watch college football from Sept through the first week of December. After that I’m no longer interested because the games do not allow the players to determine a champion, it’s up to the good ole boy voting system no matter who or how the affilation is. Why do I say that? It’s funny how people don’t watch and attend NFL preseason games because they are exhibiton games but when it comes to college exhibtion games we glorify it to the first degree. There hasn’t been a true NCAA Champion since the beginning of time and there never will be. The BCS conferences are funded by tradition and as long as boosters and alumni continue to show love for their schools that’s how it’s going to be. I love tradition but “enough is enough and too much isn’t good for anything”. Basically I just wish the NCAA would come out and say it, The BCS is the NFL minor league system that gives the schools the chance to collect money and provide an education for those that choose to actually go to class. I’m done with the BCS and have been for the past coupole of seasons. It’s not worth the headache. If the BCS was so serious then BCS schools should only play BCS schools and have an even amount of home/away/neutral site games on the schedule each season. Problem with that is then you have to deal with the conferences, school Presidents and ADs, boosters, alumni etc. In short there are too many levels that have to be addressed, so many they will never even out.

Angus

July 7th, 2009
10:08 am

It will evolve – and eventually into some form of playoffs.

My biggest complaint today is that because of preseason polls, 75% of D-1 teams have already been eliminated from NC contention without a single snap taken.

Also, the coaches have no business voting.

Follow The Money So More

July 7th, 2009
10:10 am

Also, you cant overlook the vested interest of “the venues.”

How much money does the Sugar Bowl bring to New Orleans, or the Fiesta Bowl to the Phoenix/Tempe area? You’ve got municipalities, and Chambers of Commerce that also dont want to “mess with the formual.”

Denver Dog

July 7th, 2009
10:11 am

Hey Super Size, go cheat some more, Georgia Tech, what a fine example for young people, you hyporcritical little weasel. By the way it appears, and I say appears, that Mr. Richt, has made somer progress at that. However; time will tell. At Tech, home of smart (if you like calculus and other math forms) you are comitting acadmic fraud and “teaching your smart people about the rules of the NCAA”. So maybe while you are cheating, you should buy yourself another ring, or build another parking garage!

Howard

July 7th, 2009
10:13 am

Barnhardt…you’re part of the sports media establishment so naturally you think there’s sweetness and light in the BCS mess. As for Congress investigating…colleges receive millions in fed money, so yes, Washington does have a right to stick its nose under the tent. If Obama can own car companies, why can’t he do away with the BCS?? The BCS is a joke and fans everywhere hate it, except for folks that benefit from this travesty being foisted on the American sports scene. And you sir, are one of those beneficiaries!!

Atlanta Gator

July 7th, 2009
10:16 am

Miles—-I’m sorry, but you apparently do not understand what lawyers do and are supposed to do on behalf of their clients.

In private, good lawyers always give their clients their best understanding of the law; that’s how a lawyer and his client can make sound business decisions or courtroom strategy. The answers to many legal questions are black and white, but many are not. That’s why it pays to have a very knowledgeable lawyer . . . one who understands both the legal strengths and weaknesses in the client’s case or position. One who counsels the client objectively in private, and who zealously advocates the client’s case in court or position in business negotiations.

As I understand it, the Smith Gambrell anti-trust lawyers do not represent any party related to the BCS or a potential legal challenge to the BCS under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. They have simply offered Tony Barnhart their best understanding of how an anti-trust challenge to the BCS would turn out.

Please save the evil lawyer conspiracy rhetoric for Jim Wooten’s blog.

coachdawg 2000

July 7th, 2009
10:16 am

BCS is facist-
Wow urban meyer is amazing in deed! he coached florida and utah LAST YEAR! 2004 wwas the last time he coached them, we were talking about 2008. I would engage in an intellectual debate but you clearly do not qualify. so good luck being 2nd class.

Denver Dog

July 7th, 2009
10:18 am

Leave the BCS alone for now, let it evolve. Since it has continued to improve, the BCS is as good as it gets for right now on the NC front. We should see what way we can make it move forward. Good ideas would make a better BCS, snipes and congress will put it all out of business just like GM and Chrysler.

gatorman770

July 7th, 2009
10:21 am

Congress needs to be more worried about turning around the US economy that crashed due to the likes of Jimmy Carter’s “Community Re-investment Act”, Clinton administration forcing banks to give homeloans to the unqualified, ACORN intimidation of banks, Barney Frank’s total incomptence, etc.

I cannot fathom how screwed up a government run BCS NC would be, but I guarantee it would cost the US tax payers a lot of money and we’d probably end up with a new un-elected, overpaid “BCS Czar” with thousands of new bureaucrats to help him/her administer the new plan for fair “Change”.

Otto

July 7th, 2009
10:22 am

Follow the Money, It would seem CFB is thriving under the new system. Big10 Network, SEC TV contract, rising coaching salaries, more team in the mix.

Howard, the college may get money, but the football programs largely support most of the athletic department. Obama should not own a car company. It is a movement toward a much more socialist America which is what the Dem’s want. However thats a debate for another blog, maybe on fearless Friday.

This fan loves the BCS and I chat with some Big12 fans reularly that love it too. Why can’t we do away with the BCS? Because the options are not better. The options ruin the regular season and put to much stress on the team players from an academic and injury stand point. Remember D1 scholarship were cut down to 80? from their historical limit which has allowed for teams like Boise St and Utah to enter the debate.

Push Will Come To Shove

July 7th, 2009
10:23 am

I have long believed that it will be the Big 10(11) that will force the change in the BCS system.

Why? Simple. Just look at the state & local economies of the Big 10, especially Michigan & Ohio. How soon before those State governments force HUGE cost-cutting to their universities? Its happening in Georgia right now. And, how soon, before the cost-cutting starts to impact the athletics programs? Watch for the Big 10 to have a DREADFUL recruiting season for 2010. The effects will be obvious by this Fall. So, it will be the Big 10 that screams the loudest for a change to the BCS. Count on it.

Supersize that order, mutt

July 7th, 2009
10:29 am

Denver Dog, I guess I struck a nerve there, huh? Can’t face the facts that you have either the 1st or 2nd most arrests of any school in the country. If you’re going to trash Meyer, then turnabout is fair play. But that’s ok, I’m sure St Mark will get all those boys on their knees again, just like he did last Thanksgiving, while Roddy and Nate were running up and down the field with nobody near them. Prayer is a good thing, but in that case better coaching prevailed. And you had better be praying that Willie Martinez comes up with a defense, or Roddy, Nate, and a few more will be running up and down the field with nobody near them again this year. THWG

Otto

July 7th, 2009
10:30 am

The Big 10 and Pac10 have not wanted the BCS at all. The Rose was the last Bowl to join the BCS. They have also been the most opposed to a playoff.