PDA

View Full Version : Congress holding hearings on BCS



MikeO
12-03-2005, 01:09 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2245440

Now CONGRESS is going to hold hearings about the BCS.

Aren't we at war? Did we catch Osama? Is the cleanup from Katrina all done? Didn't GM just cut 30,000 jobs.........there are about 1,000,000,000,000 other BETTER things I could find for this subcommitte to do than to hold hearings on whether the BCS is fair or not!

I love my country....I fear my government!

Jimmy James
12-03-2005, 01:14 AM
Unlike the Owens situation with Spector making comments, I think this is legitimate. College football is big business that does generate hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity, and it is puzzling why the BCS persists when it is such a hated institution.

MikeO
12-03-2005, 01:18 AM
Unlike the Owens situation with Spector making comments, I think this is legitimate. College football is big business that does generate hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity, and it is puzzling why the BCS persists when it is such a hated institution.

Well if congress gets involved what is gonna happen is these small conferences are gonna end up winners and its going to be WORSE than it is now.

Whether the BCS is hated or not is irreleveant. For one it isn't hated. The conferences love it, FOX loves it, and the schools love it. Only the fans hate it and who cares because the fans are sheep and still watch.

Second, the BCS is like a country club. They can do and let in whoever they want. It's a private institution esentially. It doesn't have to be fair or equal. But, if Congress gets involved (and remember you can't beat the governement) then teh BCS is going to have to be "FAIR" which means the WAC, Mountain West, Conference USA, MAC, and these other garbage conferences will get a piece of the BCS pie which means the BCS will be worse than it is now (that is if you hold the opinion the BCS is bad)

Jimmy James
12-03-2005, 01:53 AM
Well if congress gets involved what is gonna happen is these small conferences are gonna end up winners and its going to be WORSE than it is now.

I'm not worried about that possibility at all. That would be the sort of poison pill that would kill the BCS.


Second, the BCS is like a country club. They can do and let in whoever they want. It's a private institution esentially. It doesn't have to be fair or equal.

Really? Do you know about Ollie's Barbecue? Private clubs actually have to be quite insular in order to qualify for the protection you're speaking of. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. If there is anything that looks like interstate commerce, the nationwide airing of a series of four football games with teams from all over the nation and fans crossing many state lines to come to the games does.

finfansince72
12-03-2005, 02:12 AM
Its true that there are some more important things out there but really congress does have some say in this issue. They represent states which have a huge financial stake in college football. Think about how much money a team like Oregon is going to lose by not being BCS eligible and look at how subjective the voting and ranking system is. Many of these are state institutions also.

Jimmy James
12-03-2005, 02:24 AM
Its true that there are some more important things out there but really congress does have some say in this issue. They represent states which have a huge financial stake in college football. Think about how much money a team like Oregon is going to lose by not being BCS eligible and look at how subjective the voting and ranking system is. Many of these are state institutions also.

The only thing I have to say about this to expand what you say is that the choice state institutions make to join conferences that join the BCS are really a matter for their state legislatures, not Congress itself. Beyond that, I agree with what you say.

Muck
12-03-2005, 10:14 AM
If it prevents Miami from playing Louisville without Brian Brohm, I'm all for it. :lol:

IMO they need to just kill the damn thing and go to the playoff system. There's more money to be made there IMO. You could still have your New Years week bowl games. They could just be for final rankings.

Heck, the NFL used to have two finales: The Super Bowl and the 3rd place game (pitting the two conference championship losers against each other). They even played it at a neutral site (like the Orange Bowl). The bowl games are essentially the same thing already. There's one championship game.

Or, and this would be my choice, you could have the playoff system consisting of eight teams playing seven games (first round-4, semi finals-2, final-1) over 4 weeks (an off week between the semi's and the title game or between the conference championships and the playoffs).

You play the games at all the big bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar, etc), rotating which bowls have host which games (as they do now with the championship game). There are currently eight January bowl games. So you incorporate that eighth bowl and allow for a third place game to happen (also played in January).

You still continue to have all the little bowl games you want in the meanwhile. The San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl doesn't have to go anywhere.

Sure this will kill the wonderful blitzkrieg that is "Bowl Week". But I honestly think this will make things BETTER for the fans. If you attend a bowl game, you're pretty much going to miss the rest of them played that day. This way you won't miss a single game. There won't be any lull between your last game in late November and the next game in January. Instead, you get the constant sensation that we in pro football (and every other division of college football) call "The Playoffs".

You now have a reason to watch college football EVERY weekend in December. I would even argue that these smaller bowls would draw even more viewers than they do now as a result of this structure.

When there are national, meaningful games on that day, fans get into a mindset. A football mindset. They've already alotted that day (or a portion of it) to watching football. IMO the lower bowls would gain residual viewership from these bigger bowls, and have a larger audience than when they're the only ticket in town that night, or are sharing the evening with another lesser bowl.

And after all of this, you finish it off with the two biggest games on seperate nights in January.

Muck
12-03-2005, 10:16 AM
Of course, the question becomes: How do you determine who's in the Top 8 to begin with??

Admittedly, I don't have the perfect answer to that. I don't think there's a perfect answer when you're talking about ranking teams based on anything outside of wins and losses. And that's impossible to do in Division-1 football.

So perhaps this is where the current BCS system fits in. Yeah, there may be some controversy. But I'd be much more comfortable with the BCS determining who gets into the first round of the playoffs than who gets into the last round.

It'll never be perfect. But it's much better than what we've got now IMO.

MikeO
12-03-2005, 11:26 AM
Of course, the question becomes: How do you determine who's in the Top 8 to begin with??

Admittedly, I don't have the perfect answer to that. I don't think there's a perfect answer when you're talking about ranking teams based on anything outside of wins and losses. And that's impossible to do in Division-1 football.

So perhaps this is where the current BCS system fits in. Yeah, there may be some controversy. But I'd be much more comfortable with the BCS determining who gets into the first round of the playoffs than who gets into the last round.

It'll never be perfect. But it's much better than what we've got now IMO.

I disagree. Why 8? So, you only want to reward 8 college football teams with postseason play? Now, with all of the bowls a lot of college football programs are rewarded with postseason play.

If you limit it to 8, the divide between the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS will grow over the years and it will be the same 10-12 teams fighting over those 8 spots and most if not the majority of college football programs will die a slow and painful death.

AD's know this, which is why a "playoff" will never happen.

SuavePhin
12-03-2005, 11:34 AM
Playoffs are the way to go, keep the other Bowl games for the other teams and just use the BCS rankings for seedings, they keep the outback steak bowl, winterfresh gum bowl ect for the other teams so they still get to play and the top 8, 6, 4, whatever for the true National Championship, hell Div1 AA uses it and it works wonderfully (my U Montana Griz rule 2 nat champs 5 champ games in the last 10 years :D )

dm416
12-03-2005, 11:14 PM
When does the BCS contract expire?

MikeO
12-04-2005, 08:32 AM
When does the BCS contract expire?

2011 I believe

MikeO
12-04-2005, 08:34 AM
Playoffs are the way to go, keep the other Bowl games for the other teams and just use the BCS rankings for seedings, they keep the outback steak bowl, winterfresh gum bowl ect for the other teams so they still get to play and the top 8, 6, 4, whatever for the true National Championship, hell Div1 AA uses it and it works wonderfully (my U Montana Griz rule 2 nat champs 5 champ games in the last 10 years :D )
Those "OTHER BOWLS" will die off. Why should OUTBACk put up huge money to get a name on a bowl with 2 non-playoff teams when they could just buy TV add time at half the cost on a playoff game. That's what you don't get, if there is a playoff. Only 4 or 8 teams are playing postseason football.

Muck
12-04-2005, 09:47 AM
I disagree. Why 8? So, you only want to reward 8 college football teams with postseason play? Now, with all of the bowls a lot of college football programs are rewarded with postseason play.

You still have the other bowl games in my plan.


If you limit it to 8, the divide between the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS will grow over the years and it will be the same 10-12 teams fighting over those 8 spots and most if not the majority of college football programs will die a slow and painful death.

AD's know this, which is why a "playoff" will never happen.

The January bowls are the most lucrative already. That's why I said 8 teams, because of the money factor involved. We have to concede a bit (consider money) if we want this thing done.

If it needs to be 16, then make it 16. That's what I'd prefer. The more the merrier in my book. Just add another playoff week, remove a regular season week, and maybe include some of the non-January bowls in the 1st round, or consider an actual home game for the higher seed.

unifiedtheory
12-04-2005, 12:21 PM
I'm winging it but, here is my solution...but it would never happen.

Kill a week of the regular season. Either get rid of a bye week or get rid of a meaningless cream puff non-conference game...whatever.

On the first week of December EVERY Division 1A conferance (ALL OF THEM...even the Sun Belt) has a Championship game. Whether it be the top 2 teams in the conference (like the Pac-10 would have to do) or the current format (ACC, SEC etc.). The winners of those game are in the playoff (11 teams). You have a commitee, similiar to the current BCS format that selects FIVE at large teams (Notre Dame, the loser of the SEC title game ect.). That givesd you a field of 16 teams. This commitee also does all the seedings for the playoff.

The 2nd weekend of December is the first round. It's played at the higher seeds home field. This would be a HUGE advantage for the higher seeds and teams like the winners of the WAC or the Sen Belt conferences would get killed BUT, they would get a nice payday and they would not be able to whine about "competative disadvantage".

By the 2nd weekend of December we've gotten the field down to 8. This allows the small bowls (Outback, Weedeater, Fruit of the Loom...you get the idea) to get the team they want (teams and organisers of the mid level bowls would know before hand which loser of which playoff game would be going to each bowl game.)

On the 3rd weekend of December (the Friday and the Saturday) would be the Elite Eight. These games are played at either the home field of the higher seed OR at a nuetral site to be determined. EITHER WAY, it would be a ratings and advertising bonanza.

New Years Day gets the Final Four. These two games would be played at current BCS Bowl sites (Orange, Rose, Sugar etc.). They would still be called the "Rose Bowl" or whatever. The Bowls that get these games would be selected the same way the current BCS game sites are selcected.

The College Football Championship game would be played on the off week of the Super Bowl. That would mean that the teams competing in this game would have had a week off and the WHOLE WEEKEND would be dominated by this game. Instead of the endless Super Bowl hype we'd have a damn good football game to look forward to. It would make a HUGE amount of cash and would end all the voting and BCS garbage....it would be decided on the field.

Hey, I thought of this as I wrote it. I know the logistics are flawed. I know it would add as many as 4 games for some teams. If the logistics are figured out I think the added 4 games is nothing. It is the price you pay for winning a Championship.