Home » Coaching Staff, Headline

The BCS committee is comprised of COWARDS!

7 December 2009 Deep Shades of Blue 132 Comments

1169283Here is what one reader had to say about the BCS: Doug Witt

Finally, the B[S]CS exhibits a measure of brilliance!

A modern day lesson in how to simultaneously minimize both scrutiny and risk of embarrassment

Even Al Capone or John Gotti would be impressed by this one. Never mind that their credibility remains firmly entrenched in the sewer, but the organizing committee shows some creativity in the way they managed to handle two habitual system busting conferences without risking another Oklahoma or Alabama debacle.

Doug had the same feelings and thoughts as I did as I read about the BCS bowl allocations. I believe it is a slap in the face not to put both TCU & BSU against a supposed big-name BCS conference opponent. By allowing this type of match-up manipulation the BCS will simply discredit the winner by saying “they only beat BSU/TCU. If they would have played Florida or Cincy, it would have been a different story.” Or even worse they’ll continue to exclude these school from the possibility of playing for a National Championship. I hope both Gary Patterson and Chris Peterson voice their opinions and feelings about not getting a shot at a “big-time program”.

This is just another way the BCS cartel is sticking it to the smaller conferences and it solidifies the fact that money/face are the only factors in selecting the BCS games.

Games I would have liked to see:

Florida vs. TCU

BSU vs Cincy

Welcome to the Deep Shades of Blue Community!

132 Comments »

  • Gifford said:

    I still maintain that Bama got hosed being paired with the 2nd best team in Texas this year. TCU would have given them a competitive game but as it stands, Bama will roll Texas and the most exciting game of the Bowl Crap Series will be the 2 Non-AQs. TCU deserved a shot at the title and BSU deserved a shot at the perceived ‘big boys’ in order to substantiate their undefeated season.

  • Casey Adams said:

    TCU and BSU are playing big boys … each other. I think this pairing is calculated but not in the way you think it is. I think this was about guaranteeing that at least one of the pair has a loss and therefore isn’t in the top 5. If you let them play Cincy and someone else, you end up with TCU and BSU both in the top 5 at the end of the season. Probably both in the top 3. That would hurt the lower tier BCS conferences when the MWC adds BSU this spring.

  • Gary said:

    What a crock. Send the two non-BCS schools off in the corner to play with themselves. I was sure #3 would play #4 and #5 would play #6.

    I felt confident BSU could give Cincy all they wanted and having seen TCU more than once this year they could play with anyone in the country. Texas and Florida both looked awful on the weekend. That was the first time I saw Colt McCoy play and he looked like a deer in the head lights all night.

    Something has to be done about this.

  • Seasider said:

    I think after what happened when Bama played the Utes last year, they didn’t want another MWC team embarrassing their precious SEC champ. The risk of a non-bcs team winning the big one would undermine the whole reason the BCS was created, to keep the little guys out.

  • kiyoshige said:

    The matchups played out about what was expected. As a college football fan, I’m disappointed that BSU/TCU won’t have a chance to play an AQ BCS team in a BCS bowl.

    This is a case of leaving the non-AQ teams at the “little kids’ table”. I don’t think that Florida Cincy is a BAD matchup. Cincy is undefeated and they deserve a chance to prove their worth by playing a good Florida team. But, I do think that the Georgia Tech / Iowa matchup could have been broken up so that the non-AQ undefeateds have a chance to prove their metal against the BCS schools in a BCS bowl setting. Is there an ACC / Big 10 tradition that I don’t know about?

    It also forces TCU/BSU to finish with one loss, so it is impossible to have 4 undefeated teams. As it stands, I bet we have 3: Cincy, Alabama and TCU.

    Wow, what a tough choice for national champion among those 3 schools. Obviously it goes to BCS title winner Bama, but TCU/Cincy would both have to feel “what if”???

    Ki

  • Gary said:

    The worst thing about this whole mess Quinn is that this year the MWC finally has a team that most people realize can play with anyone. No disrespect to Utah fans – I cheered and enjoyed their drubbing of Bama last year as much as anyone – but they wouldn’t have competed with Florida in the Nat’l championship game. And if we are objective I don’t think they would have beat Bama had it been a Nat’l Championship game. Alabama simply did not want to be there and played like it.

    We have all seen TCU and we know they are legit. They could stand up to Texas, Florida or Alabama this year and they won’t get that shot. I think the BCS knows this and hides them in a meaningless BSU game.

    Now all we can hope for is that TCU beats BSU 50-0 and that the Championship game is a sloppy turnover fest where neither team inspires anyone.

    I hope BYU is thrilled to be playing a good Oregon State team. We always play better when we play up. Everytime we face a bowl game where we play a team we think is beneath us we lose just like Alabama did last year. That is why our bowl situation is so poor – most years our conference champion has to play a lesser Pac-10 team.

    I am getting a good feeling from the team that they are glad to be playing in Las Vegas and excited to play Oregon State. Let’s go show we are better than a Pac10 team that tied for 2nd in their conference.

  • jay said:

    You’re leaving out the MOST IMPORTANT RESULT of this decision, BYU is left holding the ball for the non-AQs against Oregon State. THE ONLY matchup of ranked teams outside the BCS games. BYU better bring it this year to VEGAS and show the ‘big boys’ we got what it takes.

  • Brad said:

    The sad (brilliant?) thing about the pairing is this: if either TCU or BSU want to complain about it, they have to do so by demeaning their opponent–another non-AQ school. As soon as BSU or TCU start to complain about not getting a shot at the big-boys, they implicitly accept the BCS’s stance that non-AQ teams are not on the same par as the AQ teams, which is the argument they use in continuing to keep the party “invitation only.”

    The only option here is for BSU and TCU to strap in, play the game, take the money, and do it again next year. The BCS played this one beautifully by marginalizing the non-AQ teams, insulating the AQs, and putting the non-AQs in a position where complaint is detrimental to their long-term goals.

  • Gary Sabin said:

    Could it be any more flagrant? They know, just like everyone in the country knows, that TCU deserves it. They are playing better than Texas. Period. This isn’t really about the championship though. I would never expect such a corrupt organization to take TCU over their beloved Texas for the NC game. What this is really about is not letting the pretty AQ teams run the risk of losing to some “mid-major” little brothers — which would very likely have happened.

    BSU vs TCU doesn’t prove anything. TCU over Florida does. BSU vs Cincy does. No matter who wins in January, it doesn’t mean anything, and all the excuses against the non-AQs still stand. I don’t even think that this is really about TV ratings and all that comes with it. The only people who care about a TCU BSU game are fans from non-BCS conferences and will have the lowest ratings and revenue of all the BCS bowls this year.

    The Fiesta bowl got chosen to take one for the BCS team. The Fiesta bowl folks claim that this is what they wanted and that they were “hoping Boise State would be available.” Yeah, I’m sure. Had Texas lost, BSU would have gotten shafted again, and the BCS would have to do the unthinkable with TCU… or at least let them go beat Florida or Texas. In response to raised eybrows about the selection: Fiesta Bowl’s John Junker has this gem, “If they’re not good enough to play each other, why should they be good enough to play AQ teams?” Really, that’s your defense? That pretty much sums it up right there. Pathetic. The BCS need to go whiz up a rope.

    What really disappoints me though, is the fact that nobody will say or do anything. Sure the blogs will light up with cries of injustice, but that’s it. The sports media won’t say a word and the involved coaches will be too gracious and acknowledge the great “opportunity” to play a great opponent on such a prestigious stage. Garbage.

    On the plus side… this still leaves it open for BYU to be the first NC buster, and there’s some BCS-scale money for the conference. And I’m glad to see Oregon State as a ranked opponent. I was secretly hoping for USC just because of the significant of a win against that brand. But, a solid, respected team instead of the Pac-10 leftover is great. Go cougs! See you @ Sam Boyd Stadium!

  • Casey Adams said:

    The main reason for my disappointment is that TCU “pulled a BYU” in the best sense of the word. They finished last year ranked in the top 10 with an amazing bowl game and then they went undefeated. What more can they do? This is what BYU did in 1983-84 that resulted in the unanimous national championship. I feel like the current system is worse than the previous system because, under the previous system, TCU would have been a legit NC contender. Under the current system, they are cut out for no reason. Why Texas over TCU? In what way has Texas put together a two year span that is better than TCU?

  • Jon said:

    I actually think this could be a good thing for the MWC. It is so transparent that everyone can see through it, and it will be very difficult for them to make excuses for it. They know that no matter what happens, they will end up with multiple undefeated teams again this year, but by putting Cinci up against Florida, and BSU against TCU, they think they can limit the unbeatens to just two (you know they are assuming Florida will thump on Cinci).

    The Mountain West Conference’s argument all along has had nothing to do with playing against the so-called “big boys.” It has everything to do with access to the BCS. They have been claiming all along that regardless of how good thier teams are, they are held to a much higher standard than the automatic qualifiers. Now, in a historic year when there are two teams from non-AQ conferences that are allowed into the BCS (and three that meet the minimum qualifications), they are assigned to play each other in a repeat of last year’s Poinsetta Bowl. If you can’t see that for what it is, you are blind. The only possible way for the selection committee to attempt to cover themselves is to say they were trying to minimize travel for the players and fans in this tough economy.

    If I were Craig Thompson, I would be trying to round up support right now for another run at Washington, with the message “See, we told you it wasn’t fair.”

  • cougdad said:

    OK, so I actually think its a good matchup from several different views.

    FIrst, the game on the field, not much needs to be said here. I think TCU will win but BSU has much to prove, both from last year and also this year, but more importantly next year as they start out with VaTech. So a loss this year, then starting next year with a loss places them where everyone thinks they should be.

    Second, its about the game of viewers. TCU has to step up and buy the tickets. BSU has requested 19000 tickets, thats more than their allotment, what will TCU do.

    Third, if the viewership is low, that confirms what the BCS is saying, that a non-AQ matchup is not attractive. THere needs to be a positive spin put on this game so taht the viewers will want to watch. If it is ranked viewership wise right behind the NC game, thats fantastic, if its the lowest of the BCS games, thats not good.

    Its about money, which we get the same as the big boys, now we have to prove the demand with tickets bought and viewership on TV.

    Nothing else matters.

    GO TCU, Go Cougs, go Utes

  • True Blue Chick said:

    I was so diappointed with this announcement. In addition to being ranked 3rd and 4th in the country overall, TCU has both an offense and a defense ranked in the top 5 in the nation. They deserve a shot at Florida.

    I think there are two reasons the TCU vs. BSU pairing happened:
    1. One of the BCS teams won’t get “embarrased” losing to a MWC or WAC team
    2. This guarantees that there are not two undefeated non-BCS teams at the end of the season

    Also, does anyone know if the money awarded varies depending on the bowl game? I just wondered if the Fiesta bowl warrants a smaller check, and they wanted the BCS teams (Cincy and Florida) to get more money. I’m not sure how that works.

    The ONE devil’s advocate argument I can somewhat understand is that the Fiesta Bowl is better geographically for TCU and Boise than it is for Cincinnati, bringing more fans.

    Regardless, I wish the “little guys” got the chance to prove themselves. TCU could very well be the best team in the country, and we will never know.

  • Peter said:

    If we were to somehow be able to peel off all the labels about BCS busters and AQ teams, and what not, TCU v Boise State is an incredible matchup. Each team has proven itself on the field over the past couple of years, and each has an explosive offense that would burn almost any defense in the country; and TCU’s defense has been a brick wall that hits back. Boise’s no slouch on that side of the ball either. This will be a game for the ages, and I’m sure that’s the view the Fiesta Bowl gurus took when they mentioned it to their bosses.
    However, once we pull out of such a view, we can all realize what this is: a slap in the face and an assigned seat at the ‘kiddie table’. Both the Frogs and the Broncos are going to be playing a legitimate big time opponent, but it won’t be against the pretenders they wanted to expose.
    But who is to blame? Turns out it’s the Orange Bowl, and only a little blame for the Fiesta.
    After following the selection proceedures as listed on http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility, turns out the selection order went like this:
    1)Bama, 2)Texas to the NCG.
    3) Florida to replace Bama in the Sugar (can’t blame them for taking the Gators and keeping it in the conference)
    4) TCU to replace Texas in the Fiesta (good choice! There were no other Big 12 teams BCS bowl eligle)
    5) Georgia Tech and 6) Iowa, taken both at the same time by the Orange. This is where it got messy.
    7) Boise (Fiesta skipped out on Cincy for the Broncos)
    8) Cincy to face the Gators in the Sugar
    9) Oregon and 10) Ohio State at the same time in the Rose. Contracts and tradition at work here.
    That’s after running through instructions 1-4. Instruction 5C allows, but doesn’t require, breaking up bowl repeats from the year before. Had that been a requirement, this never would have happened.

  • True Blue Chick said:

    P.S. I really think everyone should write letters to their congressmen, and the White House and copy the BCS committee, and encourage others to do so. I know there are “more important” things our government should be worried about, but at the same time, this is millions of dollars that is frauduently being diverted undeserving college athletic programs.

  • Peter said:

    That should have been 8 ), not 8).

  • Kyle M said:

    I kind of agree with what’s been posted here, kind of not. I’m much more concerned about AQ status than about MWC access to the Nat’l championship game. Let’s be honest, there are AQ conferences that don’t have access to the NC game in a normal year. (Big East and Cincy, for starters)

    But we should be fighting tooth and nail for that AQ status. Especially in a year like this one. BSU’s and the MWC’s scheduling difficulties against BCS opponents are well-documented, and now their best chance to play a top-notch team is being taken away from them. If the BCS morons are right and there is a difference between AQ and non-AQ conferences, than TCU and Boise State have proven themselves worthy to pit themselves against “better” teams from “better” conferences in their bowl games.

  • Jimmy said:

    On the positive side, the MWC will have another win in the BCS no matter what when Boise gets invited to the MWC.

  • kiyoshige said:

    TBC, don’t underestimate your idea about “bringing more fans”. The BCS is about pitting the nation’s #1 and #2 team together. Then it’s about the Benjamins.

    This is TCU’s home attendance for their 6 home games at Amon Carter, which seats roughly 44,000.

    35,249
    37,130
    31,156
    33,541
    50,307 (Utah)
    41,738 (New Mexico)

    So, I think the Orange Bowl feared that BSU/TCU fans would not travel to Florida, thus they took Iowa and GT. Can you imagine a BCS bowl having empty seats (or even having trouble filling the seats?) TCU should really be ashamed of itself as far as fan support – GPat has even called them out on it. You mean to tell me they can’t find 50,000 people to go to a football game in the DFW area?

    So the question is #1,#2. Really, Alabama is in. Then it’s kind of an argument. Any way around it Texas, TCU, BSU and Cincy will all lay their claim to fame. In the end, Texas is as justified as anyone. Folks may say that their wins against A&M and Nebraska were not worthy of a “title contender”, but the fact is they are tough conference games, A&M is a rivalry game and Nebraska was for the Big12 championship (here is where I think a championship helps the conference – it just adds a championship atmosphere game that’s going to help the resume, no matter who the team is). TCU had wins over #16, #16 and #6. Texas wins over #20, #14, and #22. So it’s not that clear cut. So that’s where you go to the computers and week in and week out the Big 12 conference teams are going to be higher rated than the MWC bottom dwellers. This is where New Mexico, UNLV, San Diegos really hurt TCU.

    As far as BYU, great point about us being able to play a BCS school. In addition, Bronco has improved the final BCS ranking for the past several years. For the 2nd year in a row MWC has 3 schools in the final BCS rankings. We have 2 more years left as a MWC to garner AQ status for the 2012 season. We need to continue filling LES to capacity as well as traveling to road games so that when our time comes, people are chomping at the bit to select us (BCS or other games like the Oklahoma game this year).

    Ki

  • Pizzaman said:

    Just order Pizza for the GAME

  • Will said:

    Quinn, I’m really surprised that you are so ignorant about the bowl selection process. It’s not only you. The majority of fans think there is a BCS “selection committee” just like the NCAA has their tournament selection committee. It couldn’t be further from the truth, so please understand how it works and then you won’t be spreading falsehoods. The BCS system–which everyone knows is made up of two human polls and the collection of computer rankings–only exist to determine the teams that qualify to play in the BCS bowl games and ultimately who the #1 and #2 ranked teams are that will play in a national championship game. Every bowl committee is on their own after that.

    The BCS (formerly the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance) was set up with the 6 major conferences to allow the most prestigious bowl games to share in hosting a national championship game rather than fighting with each other and trying to outbid each other every year. The Rose Bowl Game did not join the BCS until 1998, and the Rose Bowl folks have special exceptions, such as not being part of the TV package (they do begin to be part of the new TV package in 2011 since ESPN/ABC Sports takes over next year from FOX Sports).

    You have to understand that the national champion used to be announced by AP and UPI (coaches’ poll) prior to the bowl season up until 1970. The bowl games were just rewards for a good season and the major conferences had affiliations with their regional bowls–these relationships are decades old.

    Once the media polls began waiting to anoint their national champions after the bowl games, there began to be competition and an increase in bowl games. Prior to the early 1970s, you only had a handful of bowl games (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Sun, Peach, Gator, Bluebonnet, Independence, Liberty, and a few others if I recall correctly). The Fiesta Bowl began in 1971 and set up a host conference affiliation with the WAC.

    Certainly, BYU winning the national championship by playing in the 7-year old upstart Holiday Bowl in 1984 raised the stakes of competition between the bowl games. Prior to that, the major bowls had waited for the roll of the dice at the end of the year’s rankings to see if their affiliated conference champions might be playing each other for a national championship, as determined by the AP and the coaches’ polls.

    Major bowl affiliations at the time of BYU’s national championship:
    Rose – Big Ten and Pac-10
    Orange – ACC and Big 8
    Sugar – SEC
    Cotton – SWC

    In 1986, the top two teams in the country, Miami and Penn State, agreed to play for the mythical national championship in the Fiesta Bowl. At the time, the four major bowl games listed above had contracts with the major conferences whose champions were guaranteed selection. Both Miami and Penn State were independents at that time and were free to choose a bowl. The Fiesta Bowl and the Florida Citrus Bowl were both free of conference affiliations and got into a bidding war to host the Miami-Penn State matchup. The Fiesta Bowl won the bidding and the game was played on January 2, a day after the four major New Year’s Day bowls. Penn State defeated Miami 14–10 and garnered the largest television audience of any college football game in history . Two years later, top ranked and independent Notre Dame played undefeated and independent #3 West Virginia for the national championship at the 1989 Fiesta Bowl. These two games, more than any other factor, led to the eventual formation of the precursors to the BCS.

    The bottom line is that each bowl game is organized and run by their own local community organizations and their number one priority has always been to provide the best match-ups they possibly can to keep their sponsors happy and revenues rolling into their local economies.

    There was no conspiracy to keep TCU and Boise State from playing BCS conference teams. The Fiesta lost #2 Texas and the SEC lost #1 Alabama to the national championship game. Of course, there is a gentleman’s agreement that the Fiesta wouldn’t poach Florida as their first bowl pick (unlike what the Orange did to the Rose Bowl a few years back and ended up with “Rose Bowl Game East pitting USC vs Iowa against each other)…

    So, the Fiesta took who they thought was the best team available that would bring the most enthusiastic caravan of fans. That was TCU. The Sugar then took Florida. The Orange jumped at the chance to grab Iowa and their guaranteed 30,000+ rabid fans and bring them back to Miami again. Airfares are fairly cheap during the winter between Midwest and Florida destinations, so this is a no-brainer. Remember, they aren’t trying to be politically correct and choose Boise State at this point. They want guaranteed fans in the seats and Boise State (with a stadium that only holds 32,000) is a huge risk in this economy to travel across country to play a team ranked lower than the Broncos.

    The Fiesta then had three choices: Cincinnati, Boise State or 9-3 Virginia Tech. Folks, Cincinnati does not travel well. They were a HUGE risk to the Fiesta Bowl. On the other hand, Virginia Tech travels very well and would provide TCU with a very challenging game. BUT, the Fiesta took Boise State. Not because of some conspiracy to keep TCU from playing V-Tech. They did the right thing and took an undefeated team that has an easy travel corridor via air or highway to Phoenix. A team that had played in the Fiesta Bowl before and proved that they could generate enough fan interest to make it less of a risk. A team that played TCU to within 1 point in one of the best bowl games of last year. A perfect rematch between perfect teams.

    Whichever team wins the Fiesta Bowl will be ranked in the top 5 preseason next year because they are both stacked with returning players for the 2010 season. If either team goes undefeated next year, you can bet they will be right in the mix for the national championship game in the BCS rankings. For the first time in 6 years, Boise State will have a decent non-conference schedule with Virginia Tech and Oregon State lined up. TCU has Baylor (ho-hum) and is trying to schedule Oregon State in the Cowboys Stadium. Boise has the advantage with their schedule next year if the Cougars and Utah are not ranked.

    Still, if Alabama and Texas (or other major programs) were to go undefeated next year, they would have most likely be ranked higher because of their conference SOS. And rightly so. That’s just the way it is, so deal with it, folks.

    If you think getting Obama and government involved in shutting down the BCS is the path to take (shame on you–you’re a walking contradiction to conservative values) then by all means, go for it. I guarantee you what will happen is the conferences and the bowl games will all go back to their former affiliations and they’ll be perfectly happy having an occasional matchup of conference champs in their game…

    And BYU and all other non-BCS teams will never see the chance to play in $14+ million payout bowl games again and have a shot at the national championship. It will be nothing but the Vegas bowl, the Poinsettia, the New Mexico, Roady’s Humanitarian, etc. from hereon out.

  • Ryan F said:

    If it worked out as Will says, that is certainly informative to know now. However, I imagine Gooch’s point stands that the BCS gods are happy to see 2 non-AQ’s against each other. Given certain circumstances, I’m sure they’re able to exert pressure upon bowls to get certain match ups.

    The whole argument against non-AQ conferences is that they don’t generate the strength of schedule for a team to prove themselves. This TCU-Boise State matchup simply perpetuates that. I was so stoked to see at least TCU and maybe Boise State as well take on top-5 AQ teams, but now, they’re both taken away to play each other. Its like a pick 6.

    Any idea if there are serious proposals to realign the MWC & WAC to get a larger conference with 2 divisions that get an automatic bid like the SEC, Big 12 and ACC?

  • Will said:

    Ryan, if you are a BYU fan, I don’t know why you would want to see a merger between the MWC and WAC. BYU has a better chance of making it to a BCS bowl now than they would inside a non BCS expanded 12 team conference.

  • Darkbull said:

    Will, wow, impressive information. Thanks. I agree that the decision making is purely financial–though it does make for good conspiracy theories that BSU gets pitted against TCU so that no BCS school has to worry about being beat by a non-AQ. Keep in mind that the opposite is true. Now that they’re playing each other, it is guaranteed, guaranteed that one non-AQ qualifier will be undefeated at the end of the year. That’s not good for BCS supporters either. No Hawaii years where it becomes abundantly clear that the non-AQ team wasn’t playing a schedule that justified their ticket to the big dance.

    I also agree with Will’s sentiment that a combination of WAC with MWC, or even an addition of BSU into the MWC would be futile and not in the interests of the conference. First, if we pick up BSU, that’s another trip for teams to a location (Boise) that doesn’t travel well. BSU doesn’t have any other strong programs, so we’d be relying entirely on their football. Now that they’re in the conference, there’s still only one guy from the conference potentially going to a BCS bowl game. Every year there are articles that point out that when BYU goes to the Las Vegas bowl or other teams going to the “other” bowl games, they’re lucky to break even. So if BSU comes to the MWC, and they go undefeated, they do so by keeping one of the other teams (TCU, BYU, Utah) from being undefeated. They bring in the BCS money that we would have gotten anyway if they hadn’t beat one of the other MWC teams (assuming that at least one other team only has a loss to the champs, which isn’t an unreasonable assumption).

    So what does BSU give the conference? We don’t get anymore money. We’re not going to get another bowl, and even if we did, it wouldn’t result in more revenue. BSU is not going to bring in a substantial revenue in TV contracts because the money earned will be lost in additional travel expenses for the conference.

    It’s not a good business deal, and gives nothing to the MWC. Hopefully you can expand this idea I’ve presented to see how adding in the entire WAC would be even less financially sound. Huge expenditures in travel, the addition of only a few paltry “other” bowl games that don’t bring in money, and a TV contract with ESPN to play middle of the week games that were the reason why we dropped our ESPN contract in the first place. There was a sound reason for exiting the WAC in the first place, and the only good move that would be beneficial for the upper tier members of the MWC (BYU, Utah, TCU and maybe AFA) is if they somehow managed to get 4-6 teams from one or more BCS conferences to defect into a new conference… and you know how likely that would be to happen (imagine if we collected Arizona, UCLA, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and what the heck, lets dream, USC into a new 10 team conference. Still geographically viable, a huge improvement in the caliber of competition for BYU… ah, to dream the impossible dream.

  • Pizzaman said:

    Will
    did you write The book Of Isiah ?
    Paul, would be proud of your Letter.

    The history is not relevant, the japanese bomed, us Hitler tried to take over.
    Bottom line it needs to be fixed.

    It needs to be a play off system….
    If the bowls really want the $, check out the vewiers and stadiums with 8 or 10 team play off with each team having a legit shot at the NC,
    it won’t matter if a team travels well ….

    The NCAA, has a money maker with basket ball, why can’t they see it in football.
    I say there must be a conspiricy,

    PS I was on the grassy knoll….

  • true blue said:

    BCS is a joke. they are the only ones that don’t know it.

    And, after games are over, the winner of the TCU/BSU game will move down in the polls because their strength of schedule will suffer.

    Last year, Alabama barely lost to national champ Florida and was then absolutely dominated by Utah. What does that say about the BCS? It is a joke.

  • Austin BYU Chick said:

    The BCS is all about the money and always has been. There is of course keeping the National Champion among the elite, but that is of course secondary. Those bowls that are the BCS don’t want to give up their cash cows. If you look at the article by Dick Harmon http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705349860/BCS-reform-still-needed.html you will see that even if a MWC team gets into the BCS they still get a tiny portion of the pie. The ACC gets over 18 million and the MWC gets half that and then has to split it with the other conferences. A great article about the money end of it is by Dan Wetzel on yahoo sports: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns.

  • true blue said:

    The main arguments against a playoff is that it will kill the bowl tradition and that teams want 12 games during the regular season for revenue purposes.

    If college games start last weekend in August, they can get 12 games plus a bye week in by mid November. Start the playoffs the next weekend with 16 teams playing on each of the top team’s home field (yes, a logistical challenge, but doable). Repeat the next two Saturdays. Then, the championship game to be played as the last and premier bowl game.

    All of the other bowls can then invite anybody they want. People will still go to the bowl games. Why wouldn’t they? And, the regular season ends in time for student athletes to focus on final exams, etc. – even for the two teams in the championship game.

    I don’t see the downside to this – everybody gets what they say they want (at least in public). The fact that they (BCS) won’t do this proves that the BCS conferences are monopolizing the money. Their other arguments don’t hold water.

  • Will said:

    Listen, guys and ladies…just read Bowls, Polls and Tattered Souls by Stewart Mandel of SI.com. He is one of the most astute college football writers covering the sport and he lays it out much more clearly why there will NEVER BE A PLAYOFF. You are wasting your time to whine about it.

    How soon you all forget that BYU was being mentioned as a possible national championship contender after knocking off Oklahoma and crushing Tulane–on the road. The Cougars were #7 in the polls BEFORE they got walloped by Florida State and TCU. If the Cougs would have taken care of business, there would be far greater outcry for them to not be in the NC mix this time around (wouldn’t have happened as Bama and Texas remained undefeated as well) but the Cougs would have been right up there. Then, you come back again with a strong team and get ranked higher the next year starting out and prove yourselves.

    Face it, the BCS teams play more difficult schedules than nearly every other non-BCS team because they are in conferences with several respected programs. Even the Big Least as many of you like to say. Go play West Virginia on the road. Not an easy game. There are five other very tough games in that conference after that. Louisville will bounce back and so will Syracuse. They’ve had good programs before. I have news for you, the ACC, Big 12, SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-10 are not cakewalks to get thru the season without some losses. For Texas, Alabama and Cincinnati to be undefeated right now is a bigger deal than TCU and Boise State. Not that 12-0 and 13-0 isn’t impressive, and it is reflected by being rewarded with $14 mil payout to each team in the Fiesta.

    Not knocking the MWC. There are four solid teams every year and SDSU will come back, so will CSU, and NM, Wyo, and UNLV will always cause opponents fits on any given week, especially if you don’t show up to play like the Cougs in Albuquerque a few weeks ago.

    But the whining you hear about “Respect” that everyone wants needs to be earned. Boise State plays a freakin’ weak schedule year in, year out. Give the top 30 teams in the country their schedule this year and 10-12 of them would be undefeated as well. Oregon would beat the Broncos in a rematch. I’d love to see it. But the fact is, the respect isn’t there with that type of schedule. Do you realize they have only scheduled two BCS games in a year four times EVER and they’ve gone 0-2 each of those years. That’s 0-8. They are like 5-16 overall against BCS teams in regular season. Now they realize they have to take on at least 2 a year to get the respect the WAC does not provide.

    I’m concerned about BYU’s future schedules. Bronco needs to get off his high horse and schedule some 2 for 1s with the programs he thinks should be getting tit for tat scheduling with. Do 1-offs on the road against them, too like this year vs the Sooners. The payouts are solid and a win, as shown by the one over Oklahoma, gives you a lot of wind under your sails for the entire season if you keep winning.

    Anyway, read Stewart Mandel’s book and then you can come to grips that the best case scenario you will ever see is a Plus-one. We’re probably getting close to that once ESPN assumes the BCS contract next year. Might take until their next contract to work that out.

  • kiyoshige said:

    Will great post. Agree 100%. I would add that many people are comparing this year’s TCU season with BYU’s 1984 and saying how TCU deserves a shot. They may deserve a shot, but this year there are 5 unbeaten teams. In 1984, the “perfect storm” happened and the undefeateds lost one by one. If Cincy and Texas had lost their games, I believe that TCU would be playing Bama for the national championship…
    Ki

  • true blue said:

    Not lovin’ your reasoning Will.

    I’m not so sure that the BCS conferences are that much better than the MWC. We’ve competed fairly well in recent years. Last year, BYU and TCU competed (well, at least for 3 quarters) well against Utah. Alabama barely lost to National Champ Florida and Utah walked all over Bama.

    That is just one example. Our top teams compete well against other top teams and our middle of the road teams do ok as well. I’d put our conference up against the ACC or the Big East nearly any year. And, I like our chances against PAC 10, Big 12, and Big 10 in most years.

    Until the top teams will schedule WAC and MWC teams, nobody can complain about strength of schedule. I know BSU is very frustrated. They can’t even get 2 for 1 deals.

    It’s a crap system and it will change. There is too much dissatisfaction that isn’t going away. It builds every year. It is one thing for a non BCS conference team to complain, but, what happens when an undefeated BCS team is left out in the cold. Watch out if Cincinnati wins their bowl game.

  • tekape said:

    Someone mentioned the money is the same…it is not.

    According to Matt Sanderson (of the PlayoffPac), the ACC for example, will recieve $18.3 million to divide among the 12 members of the ACC.

    The MWC will recieve $9.6 million, which must be shared with ALL 5 Non-AQ conferences, or 50+ some odd teams.

    Ahh, but you say, the figure for the ACC is roughly double that for the MWC, they must have two teams in BCS bowls.

    Check carefully…

    Like the MWC, the ACC only placed one team in BCS bowls this year. Yet receive double the payout.

    It was the same last year with Utah and Alabama.

  • kiyoshige said:

    True Blue,
    On any given day, any two teams can compete. Last year we proved that on the field with Wyoming and UNLV coming up big against BCS opponents. Unfortunately, this year we have not kept up these winning ways. Maybe this will help.

    Go to any of the computer rankings sites that the BCS uses. List the computer rankings of any BCS conference you choose (Big East, Big 10, ACC, whatever).

    Then list MWC and compare.

    The BCS individual computer rankings sites even list conference rankings. Here is where MWC is:

    Anderson-Hester – 7th
    Billingsley – 7th
    Colley – 8th
    Massey – 7th
    Wolfe – 7th

    Last year MWC was in a much better position. The point I am making is that week in and week out, those conferences have tougher matchups, and the on-field results this year have backed that up. You can’t say that Texas beating A&M and Nebraska the past two weeks is equal to TCU beating Wyoming and New Mexico.

    Good point about Cincy. The more often that AQ BCS schools (like Texas last year and possibly cincy this year) are left out, the more attention the system will get.

    Ki

  • tekape said:

    You know folks, Will in particular, I live in the middle of the SEC, in fact, it’s just a couple of blocks from my office to the SEC headquarters. And I’m sick to freakin’ death of this whole, “the SEC is tougher week in and week out than anybody else” argument. Maybe it’s true, but maybe it’s not. The fact is, we will never know because the SEC teams, by and large, refuse to schedule anyone OOC except DII and directional schools, who they play at only home.

    BYU came to Alabama and nearly beat the tide. ‘Bama was supposed to play in Provo the following year, but backed out. And that’s not an isolated incident. Anytime one of the Big SEC schools schedules a “weak” team that nearly beats them (or worse, does beat them), they buy their way out of the contract for any follow-up games (if any are scheduled). In the 15 years I’ve been here I’ve seen Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia and Tennessee all do it. All of them more than once.

    So lets be honest for a moment here. Take Florida out of the SEC East for a moment and who is left to play? S. Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Vanderbilt. Combined records of 23-30 overall, 14-26 in conference. And you want to tell me that this is a tough conference schedule? I say you’re full of baloney. The toughest team Florida had played all year prior to the SEC Championship Game was LSU at 9-3. Now add Ole Miss (one of the most over-rated teams of this season) at 8-4, Charleston Southern (a directional and DII school) who were 6-5, Troy at 9-3 (from the Sunbelt Conference), Florida International, a 3-9 team from the Sunbelt Conference, and Florida State, 6-6.

    Sorry, Florida’s schedule was loaded with patsies. Except LSU and Florida State, they played nobody of note. Their SEC schedule was pathetic. And the SEC apologists (like Will) want us to believe that teams like this have a harder go of it week in and week out.

    Last year there was an article on ESPN where they ranked the conferences by their performance vs Out of Conference (only) BCS teams. In other words, if the Tide played Texas, that was counted, if they played Auburn, it was not.

    The SEC was .500 against OOC BCS since the inception of the BCS. 16-16.

    That tells me that the SEC isn’t nearly as good as they think they are. The Mtn West, the Big 12, and the WAC were all ranked ahead of the SEC. In fact, the Mtn West was ranked #1 (I don’t recall the exact record, but it was something like 19-11).

    The SEC are mostly a bunch of over-rated, self indulgent narcissists who believe that they’re better than everybody else and, simply because they say so, they don’t need to play anyone to prove it.

  • true blue said:

    to: tekape – well said!!! i love it

    to: kiyoshige – sorry, but those strength of schedule polls are biased by human factors that continually rank MWC as poor. For example, all of the other 2 loss teams are ranked well ahead of BYU in the USA Today and APP polls. But, if you look at actual games played this isn’t justified (see below). It is merely a fabrication based on perception of the voters (MWC isn’t as tough) and biased computer rankings as well.

    Again, this is all irrelevant if we have a playoff, but the wussy SEC and other BCS conferences are afraid.

    You tell me which of these 2 loss teams deserves to be ahead of BYU by anything other than voter perception of conference strength:

    Oregon beat 2 ranked teams and lost to BSU and Standford. Their only ooc wins were Purdue and Utah (by about the same margin as BYU beat Utah).

    Ohio State beat 2 ranked teams and lost to USC and Purdue. OCC wins include Navy, Toledo, and NM State

    Georgia Tech beat 1 ranked team and lost to Miami and Georgia. OCC wins Jacksonville State, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, and Clemson

    Iowa beat 1 ranked team and lost to Northwestern and Ohio State. OCC wins Northern Iowa, Iowa State, Arizona, and Arkansas State

    Penn State beat 1 ranked team and lost to Iowa and Ohio State. OCC wins Akron, Syracuse, Temple, and Eastern Illinois

    And why are 3 loss teams Virginia Tech and LSU ahead of them. For that matter, why does Utah drop so low and so many 4 loss teams are ahead of them. Utah’s only losses are against teams ranked in the top 14 and two of those were very close games and they scored more on TCU than any one else has this year. I’d stack that record up to the records of the teams ahead of them. They ranked 24 because they are MWC, which, again, gives negative sos to all MWC teams.

    These powder puff loving teams in BCS conferences are only ranked ahead of BYU (TCU and Utah too) because of voter perception, which means that all MWC teams have a poorer strength of schedule because BYU isn’t ranked as high as it could be.

    Any time a non-BCS team in the top 25 loses it is dropped several slots by voters, but when a BCS conference team loses it drops much less. And strength of schedule is built upon this perception. it is a joke. anybody with half a brain can see that the only way to crown a champion is to play the games.

  • DesertCoug said:

    tekape,

    Agreed. MWC can compete with anyone out there. We’re not claiming to be the best conference, but we can compete with any conference. The public perception (or ESPN’s perception) that MWC can’t compete with BCS teams is no longer valid because we’ve beaten so many of them. Will thinks Florida’s schedule was much tougher than TCU’s, but TCU had to get through a tough MWC playing two ranked teams plus Clemson. Bronco’s right not to schedule 2 for 1’s anymore because we play at a different level. Decisions like that will help change public perception, and I think it’s a good decision.

    One thing that Cougar fans would love is if the MWC replaced the Big East as a BCS conference. This year, we probably should have. We have a conference that is good as the Big East nearly every year. They have slow years, and so do we. It’s a toss up of who to include, and they probably fill stadiums better.

  • tekape said:

    This guy actually makes a lot of sense, not just in the 16 team playoff format he proposes, but in his assertion that we should ignore the bowl games (read the article), and play it off on the field.

    http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

    I always hear from the SEC apologists, when I question why a team like Florida plays Charleston Southern, or Florida International, that the reason is that 1)the SEC is so tough, blah blah blah (see my rant a few posts up), and 2) that the little guys are just getting a payday and it’s a magnaminous gesture by the big dog to play these schools. Seriously, that’s what I’m told. Anyway… the plan outlined in this article does away with that argument…if you are a little dog and want a big payday, then win your conference. Every currently non-aq conference champion would get to play a “big dog”.

    My only criticism of his plan is the seeding…I think it should be done via out of conference records and so the 5 at larges would come from the conferences with the best records vs the the other conferences with “best” OOC records, rather than just picking because you like someone.

  • kiyoshige said:

    I would love a playoff but don’t waste any time talking about it BECAUSE IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. And I’m fine with that because I still think we will be an AQ conference in 2012, even with the MWC subpar year. The article that mentioned us being a top conference was based on last year’s results and this year we have dropped off a bit.

    Tekape, I like how you took the 5 bottom dwellers of the SEC:

    S. Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Vanderbilt
    23-30; 14-26 in conference.

    The only problem, is you failed to take the extra step and compare the bottom 5 of MWC:

    CSU, 0-8, 3-1 (BCS win over Colorado)
    New Mexico, 1-7, 0-4 (BCS losses to A&M, Texas Tech)
    SDSU, 2-6, 2-2 (BCS loss to UCLA)
    UNLV, 3-5, 2-2 (BCS loss to Oregon St)
    Wyoming, 4-4, 2-2 (BCS losses to Texas and Colorado)

    These teams are a combined 19-41; 10-30 in conference and one OOC BCS win against unranked Colorado.

    I think that a game against only Vandebilt would be easier than any of the MWC teams listed. Georgia beat GT and Arizona St; Kentucky beat Louisville and Georgia; South Carolina beat Clemson and NC State; Tennesse beat Georgia, South Carolina and Kentucky.

    MWC teams beat NOBODY.

    True Blue your team analysis is great, but you fail to put us in your analysis – so I’ll add it. I’ll put an argument at the end of your team analyses.

    BYU beat 1 team in the final BCS rankings. We lost to FSU and TCU. Our OOC wins were Oklahoma, Tulane and Utah St. We could only ride that Oklahoma win so far and it took us to #14. Fine.

    Oregon beat 2 ranked teams and lost to BSU and Standford. Their only ooc wins were Purdue and Utah (by about the same margin as BYU beat Utah). [They have 3 wins over teams in final BCS standings – USC, Arizona and Arizona St].

    Ohio State beat 2 ranked teams and lost to USC and Purdue. OCC wins include Navy, Toledo, and NM State [The ranked teams were Penn St and Iowa, who are #10 and #13 in the final BCS standings].

    Georgia Tech beat 1 ranked team and lost to Miami and Georgia. OCC wins Jacksonville State, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, and Clemson [Beat FSU who we lost to].

    Iowa beat 1 ranked team and lost to Northwestern and Ohio State. OCC wins Northern Iowa, Iowa State, Arizona, and Arkansas State [Arizona is #20 in final BCS standings]

    Penn State beat 1 ranked team and lost to Iowa and Ohio State. OCC wins Akron, Syracuse, Temple, and Eastern Illinois [I have them beating NO RANKED TEAMS, and I think we should be ahead of them].

    When you stack our resume against the others it isn’t OBVIOUS that we should be ranked ahead of any of the teams you have mentioned except Penn St. I think GT got the nod for winning a conference championship game (this is where having that conference championship helps).

    My take is that we (BYU) ended up about where we should and we have a great opportunity to jump some folks in our final AP ranking. TCU and BSU are also where they should be. Utah didn’t fall too far after our loss (from 21 to 23) so I really have to agree with the final BCS rankings as far as MWC teams go. Maybe one or two spots here or there, but do I think we are a top 10 team? No.

  • Bob Henstra said:

    LOL, all this bluster over something we have no control over, EXCEPT to win games. We can’t schedule teams who refuse to play us, so why worry about it. Our (MWC) best move would be to go to a 10 or 12 team two division conference with our own playoff games. Then we wouldn’t have to share the money with anybody outside our division. And it would be easier to schedule teams in the other conference that didn’t count in division standings. A win all around.

    TCU and BSU will be a great game, I’m looking forward to it. It’s my understanding that TCU has ask for tickets beyond their allotment. Iowa fans who thought their team would go the the Fiesta Bowl and bought early are now trying to sell their tickets for reduced prices on Ebay. Love it!

    My family and I are going to have a great time “again” in Las Vegas!

    BTW, I still think Utah’s Winn missed all those long open passes was because Pendleton “rocked him” early in the game! Whew, is that boy Pendleton gonna be tough next season!

    My sources tell me Unga has been offered a very sweet deal by an agent, think he’ll go pro?

    Bob

  • Bob Henstra said:

    Correction:: Fingers racing ahead of my mind, which I occasionally have to chase down and corral—

    “And it would be easier to schedule teams in the other “DIVISION” that didn’t count in our division standings. A win all around.

    After all, we have our own TV network, and it is getting better, slowly–

    Bob

  • Ryan F said:

    My original question about realigning the MWC with some WAC teams (like BSU & Fresno State) were simply because I had heard it mentioned. I wasn’t specifically advocating it.

    I did take note that even Gary Patterson spoke against a playoff. I think he and other non-AQ coaches see the potential they have by simply going undefeated. Had Pitt not scored so quickly with 1:30 left in the game, Cincy loses with no time to drive and score. Had Colt McCoy thrown his incomplete pass 1 second later (or the long field goal missed), TCU would be in the title game I think. As it is, they’re still in a big money BCS bowl game by running their conference and a couple of OOC games. They don’t have to now play 2-3 really tough teams to make it that far.

    However, college football has a bizarrely unique system of awarding championships to teams based on voter preference. What other major popular sport awards a championship based on something other than direct competition at the end of the season? Its gives the little guys a shot, it gives AQ unbeatens like Cincy a shot and its gives the big guys who lost a game or two during the season a shot. Where there is a will, there is a way.

    I know each sport is different, but can you imagine college basketball championships being determined by polls? The NFL ranking teams and determining the super bowl based on those rankings? Or how about MLB just saying which teams get to play for the World Series and everyone else that was close can take a hike? Or Hockey being like that? What if World Cup Soccer was nothing more than qualifying matches that then resulted in a ranking of teams around the world with computers and voters determining who would play for the World Cup championship?

  • Will said:

    There’s a reason Dan Wetzel doesn’t allow comments after his columns. He hates to have holes poked in his paper lie-ons.

    Nothing really changes with his playoff scenario. There are several teams that will be in a 16-team playoff scenario almost year in, year out. Do they get to reap the financial rewards for being there? Or, do you not allow that? Where’s the financial incentive for the schools if you don’t allow them to keep the money they’ve supposedly earned by hosting the first three rounds?

    Take a look at Wetzel’s seedings. Heck, TCU might as well be a member of the SEC. They have to defeat LSU, Florida and Alabama in the first three rounds just to get to play (most likely) Texas in the title game.

    Wetzel is a wet pretzel. Read thru his ideas carefully. You’ll find plenty of holes. He totally avoids issues like recruiting and why student athletes choose to play for certain schools.

    Do you think players that would elect to go to Florida or USC, Michigan or Texas, etc. are all of the sudden want to go to Boise State for their college education just because the WAC champion has equal access to a playoff system? Right.

    He talks about the atmosphere at college campuses for games. Where do you think those atmospheres exist? Aside from the top programs in the MWC, not at Wyo, CSU, SDSU, NM…Not at a 32,000 seat blue smurf turf field in Boise, Idaho. Sure, they have their Fanatical fans but come on…have you ever been to a game at Michigan’s Big House or Ohio State’s Horseshoe? The Swamp in Gainesville or Kinnick Stadium in Iowa City? LA Coliseum? Those game day atmospheres exist at most of the major BCS schools.

    A playoff system and the supposedly extra money that will be doled out to the New Mexico States and San Jose States, the North Texas States and Western Kentuckys are not going to make those programs get better and draw the best recruits away from the major conference schools. The core group of BCS schools will ALWAYS be in the playoffs. And unless they are getting taxed for appearing in those huge multimillion dollar playoff games that Wetzel predicts, they will get fatter and fatter in their facilities and budgets and nothing will change.

    You can also find holes in his idea of the first three rounds of games being played at the higher seeded teams. Good heavens, fans would be praying for the Floridas and USCs to be the highest seeded teams every year so, if they could afford to travel to 4 games after the regular season, at least it would be in temperate climates. You sure as heck are not going to get fans drooling to travel to Ann Arbor or South Bend or Nebraska in December.

    Which brings up another problem. Wetzel says people can’t afford to go to bowl games, so having playoff games at home stadiums will solve that? If your team is lower seeded but lucky enough to make it thru three rounds in December and January, do you have the time and money to be traveling all over the US throughout the holiday season?

    Wetzel has been arguing for a playoff for the past four years now. His argument never gets stronger.

    What we will eventually see is another bowl game being added to the BCS lineup of high paying bowls.

    Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and most likely the Cotton, now that it is moving to the new Cowboys Stadium. Two of those bowls each year, on a rotating basis, will host the top four ranked teams playing against each other with the winners moving on to a national championship game. This year, you’d still have 4 undefeated teams playing for the title game, with only BSU left out, but again, take into consideration their weak schedule. If this system was in place this year, TCU would be one win away from the national championship.

    Argue that a playoff, with all the problems a playoff system creates, would be far and away better than a Plus-one process of determining the national champion.

  • true blue said:

    Will:

    Sorry, but 90% of us prefer the playoff system that seems to function well in every other sport.

    Yes, perennial top programs will continue to get the best recruits and the revenue.

    Yes, TCU will have to play through a tough playoff schedule.

    Yes, fans at lousy programs still won’t want to attend games.

    Yes, the last games of the year will still be played in late November and early December.

    These are football realities. So what?

    None of these things really change much with a playoff. What we want is something that is more fair in judging which team is the true champion. Anything less than 16 teams isn’t fair.

  • true blue said:

    one more thing – one of the arguments against a playoff system is that fans won’t come to the bowls.

    Let’s imagine a BYU team ranked in top 2. They would have their 1st playoff game at home and I’d go. If they won, I’d go the next week. If they won again, I’d be like all of the other rabid fans and I would go. Now, let’s say they lost that 3rd game and didn’t go to NC game, but instead went to another bowl game – I’d still go and so would every other hard core Cougar fan. BYU gets great national exposure to improve recruiting and visibility to the church/school. Plus, they get good revenue with this system as reward for success.

    btw-I like Wetzel’s article, but I don’t like having the last two games as bowls because I’d be unlikely to go to two bowl games. I’d prefer just the NC game as a bowl.

    Ok, let’s say they are a top 10 – one loss team that isn’t the conf champ, but they get an at large bid (ya, I know . . . when pigs fly). They travel to their playoff game(s) and I probably wouldn’t attend. Yes, their opponent gets the revenue from the game, but maybe there is a shared revenue to at least cover team travel. If they won a game or two, I might even try to go to one of the later playoff games, but I’d certainly travel to whatever bowl game they went to eventually whether NC or not. How is that a bad thing as long as the playoff starts early enough? You still have the bowl traditions and BYU gets a legitimate shot at NC. No more whining about it (ala 1984) – either way they decided it on the field.

    Finally, what if they were ranked #14 and not the conference champ with two losses (a.k.a. 2009). they don’t get an at large bid and are left out of the playoff. They still go to a bowl game. Nothing lost and Cougars may not like it, but they shouldn’t have lost 2 games if they want to be in the playoff.

    I can’t think of a scenario under a 16 team playoff system that is bad for BYU. True, they will never be able to consistently compete with the power house schools because of recruiting issues (honor code and academics). And, the power house schools will continue to get most of the $$$. Do they not deserve it as they’ve put the investment into it and have the fans to support it? That is the American way. But, a playoff system is fair to all and, maybe, just maybe, once in a while a BYU type team will make it to NC game. And, if they do, it will be legitimate. Otherwise, there is always an asterisk by 1984 NC that is thrown in our faces by Utes, press, et al.

    Playoff system is good for all non-BCS conferences.

  • tekape said:

    For all those out there who think a playoff is unworkable, or undesirable, for any one of a thousand insignificant reasons, I say it’s nothing more complicated than find a way to settle it on the field…no influence from sportswriters or coaches, you win your conference, you’re in…the other 5 seeded by results. I don’t care about who gets the money, who gets the recruits, who gets the fans to travel…none of that matters more than playing it off on the field. Those are just excuses for not wanting a playoff, not reasons why we can’t have one.

    If you think anything short of a playoff is acceptable, perhaps figure skating would be a better sport for you to follow.

  • Will said:

    Think it through, True Blue. There will not be any bowl games once a playoff was instituted, unless you think you want to pack up the kiddies and head to Roady’s Humanitarian Bowl or maybe the New Mexico Bowl Most likely, those would cease to exist. The ONLY bowl games that would exist, if any, would be crappy little ones that offer crumby games to teams that didn’t qualify for the playoffs.

    There will be no bowl games because there won’t be any TV revenue to support them. No TV network will care about BYU playing Oregon State, except BYU TV or the mtn, but they don’t have the budgets to cover team travel, rights fees, etc. The teams are not going to play for a split of the gate receipts.

    And the major bowls are not going to take a back seat and wait around to host teams that get knocked off and fall out of the playoffs. That’s ridiculous.

    Why do I feel like you guys have never been to a major bowl game before, as they are now? Of course, you’re upset playing in the Maaco Bowl five years in a row. The atmosphere at that bowl is worse than it is at LES before a game against visiting Eastern Washington.

    If you ever go to a major bowl game, you’ll understand why the overwhelming majority of school administrations and athletic depts and their fans know a playoff system is a waste of time and would never fly.

    Find a way to include the four major BCS bowls in a simple 10 -team playoff and you might get that to work. The Realfootball365 college column “Fourth and inches” had that scenario laid out last year. Made a heckuva lot more sense than anything else out there. He used the Holiday Bowl and Cotton Bowl as play-ins for the two highest ranked non-BCS conference champs and two wildcards along with the 6 BCS conference champs.

    I’d be willing to bet $10,000 there will never be any playoff unless the major bowl games are running it.

  • Will said:

    tekape said:

    “The MWC will recieve $9.6 million, which must be shared with ALL 5 Non-AQ conferences, or 50+ some odd teams.”

    Where on earth did you read that? Source?

    The MWC and WAC have a sharing agreement that if either sends a team to a BCS bowl game, they will share a percentage of the revenues.

  • kiyoshige said:

    True and tekape, of course a playoff system is the only way to settle it on the field. Of course it is desirable. Of course it is workable. Of course it will make money and of course it makes sense. But, I’m with Bob Henstra – we have no control over it and IMHO when all is said and done it will never happen (I’m with Will – I’d bet my life savings that a playoff will not happen). So I don’t waste much time thinking about it.

    I do spend quite a bit of time thinking about what the MWC has to do to become an AQ conference, because those requirements are already laid out. It is more realistic to think that MWC will become a BCS conference than a playoff will come about.

    Will, Revenue sharing can be found at:

    http://www.bcsfootball.org/cfb/story/10297120

    I do agree with Will’s arguments for a plus one. That is a realistic thought and has an outside shot at happening.

  • tekape said:

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705349860/BCS-reform-still-needed.html

    And verified at http://www.bcsfootball.org/cfb/story/1027120

    Seems pretty clear that the $9.6 million for the BCS appearance is 1)nearly half what the AQ teams get for the same game, and 2) split among all non AQ conferences.

  • tekape said:

    And by the way, don’t be fooled by this at the BCS site:

    $19.3 million — non-AQ conferences
    $17.8 million — each AQ conference
    $4.5 million — each conference with a second team in the BCS (in addition to the $17.8 million above)
    $1.8 million — Football Championship Subdivision conferences
    $1.3 million — Notre Dame
    $0.2 million — Army and Navy

    While the BCS disengenously tries to make it appear at first glance that the Non AQ conferences each got more than the AQ conferences, in fact, that 19.3 million figure is divided up among five conferences to average less than 4 million per conference. An amount actually less than the AQ’s get for having a second team in a BCS game.

    (Yes, I know the MWC got a proportionately higher amount than the others, but that’s not the point. The BCS lumps all the Non AQ’s together to make it appear as though they get more than the AQ’s do).

  • Pizzaman said:

    Ryan F

    AMEN, AMEN and AMEN,

    all that needs to happen is have the Bowls convert to the playoff.!!!
    IE top 16 teams quallify, then the head to head is a desinated bowl.

    Till the 2nd week in January they PLAY for the true NCAA championship.

    It works for Basketball and what a money maker that would be ? It is about the Benjamins.
    Ratings would be through the roof, pro recruiting would improve for the opportunity to see players against top compitition 4-5 weeks in a row….

    Whinning by Non BCS programs would stop…!

    But we would still have Obama as President. (I guess it’s not a perfect plan)

  • Darkbull said:

    Will, players would go to “lower tier” schools if they thought there was a chance to be a “cinderella”. Not all, but there would be, and for the same reason that a 5 star QB like Jake Heaps goes to a 3 or 4 star football school like BYU instead of Florida or Alabama or Texas–because there’s more riding on the decision than just how good the team is. If a guy, for example would love to have his parents see all of his home games, and he knew a Troy St. would get to go to the dance, he might decide to stay home, close by to good old Troy instead of leaving for Tallahassee, and Troy would be able to recruit him by saying that they win the Sun Belt every year, and they play in a big nationally televised bowl game every year that millions are going to watch because the winner moves on… and his parents only have to drive 15 miles to see all of his home games.

    And Bob, I kind of hope for Harvey’s sake that he can go late 3rd or 4th round in the draft and he goes pro, because I think he’s too nicked up to take a risk at another year of amateur football if he’s got a chance to make some big bucks in the pros for a few years… but I worry he’ll be like Luke Staley and shunned because of his injury history. I think he’d get the crap beat out of him with another year at BYU without a Fui or Manase to help.

    And Gary Patterson doesn’t want a tournament because if we go to that, that will mean that a BYU or TCU will have to beat 4 teams that are REALLY good, with probably at least 3 as away games in order to get a national championship. I think it could be reasonably argued that it would be easier to go nearly undefeated in the MWC one year, win your bowl game, and then go undefeated the following year in the MWC while all the major BCS teams get at least one loss, and then you only have to win against one of those big dawgs. I think a tourney would lessen our chances for a NC, but it would be worth it in my mind, because a tournament, in the end, is the bestest (and funnest) way to crown a champ… and the only way we get it is if Congress successfully steps in (go Rep. Matheson!)

  • Will said:

    Tekape: You are reading it incorrectly. That amount of $19 mil is the money that gets split up among the 50 non AQ. THEN, you have TCU pulling a check for $14 mil. The MWC teams all get a piece of that, and the WAC gets a percentage…just like the MWC teams get a percentage of Boise State’s $14 mil.

    So, this year BYU and the rest of the MWC will be seeing more $$ than ever before from the BCS bowls.

    Darkbull: You miss the point. The overwhelming majority of student-athletes intelligent enough to get accepted into college are not going to elect to get their education at a Troy State when they can get their degree from a far more respected institution–not to mention pass up the opportunity to play for a program that has far better facilities, stadium, conference affiliation and greater respect.

    I think it’s the biggest joke that you guys want Congress to step in and fix college football but you don’t want them forcing their crappy socialized health coverage on you. I suppose you want Troy State and like institutions to get larger payouts from a PLayOFF Stimulus so their poor student athletes will be able to have better practice facilities and enlarged stadiums. Let’s just do away with conference affiliations and let the government decide every college football team’s schedule, too.

  • tekape said:

    My reading comprehension is just fine, Will.

    TCU does not get a check for $14 million. TCU gets a check for $9.x million, which gets split up between the 50 schools. BSU gets a check for $X.x which is also split up between the 5 conferences.

  • Will said:

    I beg to differ, Tekape. The payout per team is $14 mil. TCU gets slightly more than a third of that. The rest is split between MWC teams and the WAC. Vice versa with Boise’s check. They get slightly more than a third of their $14 million and the WAC gets the rest with a portion going to the MWC teams.

    The $19 mil payout split between all 50 non AQ teams comes from a separate payout made by the BCS.

  • oceanographer said:

    I agree with Darkbull.

    It probably is harder to win an NC with a tournament, BUT the issue is settled on the field. It leaves no questions.

    Even if it is close to the same teams every year, I don’t care. By allowing every conference champion a shot, EVERY team will have a chance (even if it is remote) if they win their games. There are no guarantees, even if you are the Florida’s of the world you can’t campaign your way in. AND losing one game doesn’t destroy your season.

    Bowl games outside of the tournament will still matter. Fans of a team will still want to watch their team even if they aren’t playing for an NC. I would still follow BYU to a bowl game if they didn’t make the national tournament. They didn’t make the BCS this year, but I’m still excited for the OSU matchup.

    We still have an NIT in addition to an NCAA basketball tournament.

  • tekape said:

    Just to follow up, there are 11 bowls that have affiliations with non-AQ conferences…

    New Mexico Bowl – WAC v MWC – – $750,000
    St. Pete Bowl – C-USA v Big East – – $1 million
    Las Vegas Bowl – Pac-10 v MWC – – $1 million
    New Orleans Bowl – Sun Belt v C-USA – – $325,000
    Poinsettia Bowl – MWC v Pac-10 – – $750,000
    Hawaii Bowl – WAC v C-USA – – $398,000
    Motor City Bowl – Big Ten v MAC – – $750,000
    Humanitarian Bowl – WAC v MWC – – $750,000
    Armed Forces Bowl – MWC v C-USA – – $600,000
    International Bowl – MAC v Big East – – $750,000
    GMAC Bowl – MAC v ACC – – $750,000

    So the these bowls are paying to the non AQ conferences:

    NMB $1.5 million (750×2 because both teams are non AQ)
    SPB $1 million
    LVB $1 million
    NOB $650k
    PB $750k
    HB $796K
    MCB $750k
    HB $1.5 million
    AFB $1.2 million
    GMAC $750k

    So that totals $9,896,000 for non AQ conferences aside from the BCS bowls for BSU and TCU. So there’s no way the figure of 19 million BEFORE BCS money is counted could be correct. There just aren’t enough bowls with enough payout for that to work.

    Meanwhile (just for comparison) the SEC splits up $21.5 million for their BCS money alone plus another $12.35 million that they’re pulling for other bowls (more than all the non-AQ conference bowls put together) and the 12 teams in the SEC are splitting up a cool $33.85 million, or about $2.8 million each, (assuming it was split evenly, which it’s not).

  • Doug Witt said:

    Since Nebraska blew their chance to beat the Longhorns, leaving Texas with the entitled privileged of being pummeled by Alabama, my preferred match-ups would have been:

    TCU vs Cincinnati
    Boise State vs Florida

    I know a lot of people would like to see TCU play the Gators, but since Florida lost big to the Tide, I’d rather see an unbeaten match-up. Besides, I’m sure the committee sees TCU is inherently more dangerous than BSU.

    I also think the Broncos could give the Gators a game and the embarrassment of having the B[S]CS perpetual #1 team beaten by a school from Idaho would have warmed my heart. I hoped the B[S]CS would not see BSU as a threat to the Gators and might have been dumb enough to schedule the game. Unfortunately, they were too smart, or too paranoid to do that.

    Regarding my predictions for games that will never be played, I’d call it this way:

    TCU vs Texas — TCU by 17
    TCU vs Alabama — TCU by 6
    TCU vs Florida — TCU by 12
    TCU vs Cincinnati — TCU by 21
    TCU vs GA Tech — TCU by 21
    TCU vs Iowa — TCU by 28

    BSU vs Texas — BSU by 7
    BSU vs Alabama — Alabama by 10
    BSU vs Florida — even
    BSU vs Cincinnati — BSU by 3
    BSU vs GA Tech — BSU by 7
    BSU vs Iowa — BSU by 14

    My prediction for the game that actually will be played:

    TCU vs BSU — TCU by 21

    Other notes:

    By mid-January 2010 BSU should finally have received enough bowl money that they can now replace their butt-ugly and definitely-not-made-for-television blue field.

    Between our visitor’s share of the OU game and TCU’s B[S]CS appearance, BYU is getting close to finally paying for the Indoor Practice Facility and the Student Athlete Center. It will be nice to see that monkey off of Holmoe’s back. From this, we also learned a valuable lesson at Vale Hale’s expense… “You can be forgiven for adultery, but you cannot be forgiven for building something that isn’t paid for — even if all of the money was promised up front.”

    In a way, the B[S]CS reminds of the American Health Care Insurance Syndicate. It’s a shame that it may be a Democratic Party President of the United States that finally brings both of them to justice.

    Doug Witt (aka BlueRampage)

  • tekape said:

    Will,

    Will,

    let me be very specific, so there is no misunderstanding…

    Here is how the payout goes:

    the non AQ’s get 9 million from the BCS simply for existing.
    TCU gets roughly 9 million for it’s participation in the Fiesta Bowl. (NOT 14 million, I asked this question specifically, it is NOT 14 million).
    The non-AQs get another 9 million for their bowl games.
    All of these payouts are distributed to the 5 non AQ conferences and divided according to who did what and went where.
    BSU will receive a little less than 4.5 million for their participation in the Fiesta Bowl (the 2nd team from the “conference”, remember that the BCS considers all Non AQ to be one conference).

    the WAC will keep all of BSU’s payout, plus the revenue sharing from everyone else.

  • true blue said:

    Will,

    I dont’ see your logic on the bowls vs. playoffs.

    I think that you don’t understand what I am proposing.

    Again, start 12 game + 1 bye season 3rd Saturday in August. Finish regular season 2nd Saturday in November. 8 playoff games next Saturday at home fields of top 8 teams. 4 playoff games during Thanksgiving. Semifinals the first Saturday in December (if they can do it in Green Bay they can do it anywhere). The championship game would be the final bowl game in January.

    All playoff teams except the last two standing would be eligible to go to any bowl they were invited to go to that year. All of the big boys (including 6-6 FSU)get to go to a bowl game. Teams with fans that travel the best get rewarded by getting the best bowl invitations.

    Why does having a playoff negate this in your mind?

    Are you thinking that fans of playoff teams that lose out wouldn’t bother to go to a bowl game? The playoffs would be home games and fans of teams with a chance for a championship would go. I’d love to go to more than 6 home games. And, I would still go to a bowl game even if it wasn’t the national championship. However, I doubt I would if they used a series of “bowl games” for the playoffs. I can afford time and $ for one bowl game, but not more – which is why the first rounds need to be at home fields of top teams.

    Walah! we have a playoff and the bowl tradition is alive and well.

    Will, I’m starting to think that you work for the PR firm hired by the BCS.

  • true blue said:

    BTW – Just bought my Las Vegas Bowl tickets (section 107 – i.e. 50 yard line – and 12 rows up). It may be Vegas again, but I’m jacked up and ready to see the Cougs slay the Beavs!!!

    Bought tickets through UNLV because BYU ticket office can’t give firm seating assignments and I’m not going to risk ending up being seated in Arizona.

  • Pizzaman said:

    True Blue
    Are you suggesting a play off AND a bowl system?

    If so it will never, never,never ever happen. It’s got to be one or the other.
    Pizza Out

  • true blue said:

    To: Pizzaman

    why does it have to be one or the other?

    Would you not go to 1-3 home football playoff games and a bowl game? I would.

  • Pizzaman said:

    True Blue
    If your suggesting a bowl game system AND playoffs that won’t ever fly…
    The only way is to keep the bowls intact but integrate them into a play off system.

    But that’s just my opinion….
    Pizza Out.

  • Pizzaman said:

    1. Time away from Education
    2. Money going too many directions
    3. Injury to potential pro atheletes
    4. Loss of prime time intrest (too much football)
    5. Because I said so….lol
    6. Any questions ?

  • Pizzaman said:

    Sorry, bout double post.

  • Will said:

    True Blue,

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree because I am confident a full blown playoff will never happen.

    This is the only idea I have ever seen where a bowl oriented playoff could work hand in hand with the BCS bowl games and keep all the other bowl games intact:

    http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/college/13248

    You are one in a million fan if you would travel to a couple playoff games and a bowl game after your team got knocked out of the playoffs–all within one month during the holiday season. Fortunately, your loyalty to your team will never be tested like that!

  • Bob Henstra said:

    All this arguing over something that isn’t going to happen–

    Let’s combine with the WAC or MVC and make a super conference with two divisions, have our own playoff, build our own kingdom.

    Then when the BCS crowns their “national champion” Our champion can say, hold the phone, you guys ain’t played us yet—

    Are any of you guys old enough to remember the American Football League? After a lot of finger pointing by the upstart AFL and their champion Kansas City Chiefs, the NFL decided they needed to silence the upstarts who, in reality didn’t have a ghost of a chance against the NFL’s best at the time, the Green Bay Packers, called by some the greatest team ever.

    The Packers did win that first game, that first superbowl, and the second! However the AFL NY Jets beat the NFL Baltimore Colts the third year, throughly embarrassing the Colts, the NFL, and forcing the two leagues to combine.

    That’s the way to handle all this!

    Build our own kingdom and get better then they are!

    Bob

  • true blue said:

    to: pizzaman

    Yes, I have questions.

    How many classes would be missed? How much time away from homework would be missed? The answer to the later is nearly zero. Players from teams going to bowls are practicing during the time after the last game and their bowl game anyway. The answer to the classes question is that true, you would have players from 8 teams that would lose one day for travel to their first playoff game. No issue for the next week (Thanksgiving break). 2 teams would have to lose one day for travel for the semifinals. This is insignificant. Football players have far less time away from class than most other sports (basketball, baseball, etc.). And, it seems to work for lower division football (where I played).

    How is money an issue? Home teams get more revenue as they sponsor playoff games (lower division football programs are loving the extra revenue). And, bowl folks still have the same revenue. It is a non issue in my mind unless someone can tell me a reasonable reason why it wouldn’t work.

    Injury potential is slightly increased for a couple of teams. teams are currently playing 12-15 games. Under my scenario, the max would be 16 games and that only applies to 4 teams. Hardly worth mentioning.

    Too much football? are you kidding me? We would be adding 14 games, but it would eliminate a need for conference playoffs. Subtracting those gives a virtual wash on number of games. And, I suspect there will be plenty of interest in a real playoff. I would watch.

    And, in response to “because I said so” . . . are you one of my children?

    I’m still waiting for someone to convince me that a playoff wouldn’t work under my proposed system. Opinions don’t count. I want some good logic. I see absolutely no downside to having a playoff prior to the bowls. The only people negatively affected are the stadium and event managers that have to organize playoff events on short notice, but again, works for every other sport and for lower division and NFL football. That proves it for me. The only catch we have is that many don’t want to see the bowls go away, but that won’t happen under my plan.

  • true blue said:

    To Will:

    your right, we disagree. I am pretty sure that LES would packed to the gills for a playoff game. If they won, it would be packed again. If they won the third game, also packed. And you think that these fans (most of whom aren’t traveling very far to come to home games) wouldn’t still travel to a bowl game?

    One in a million would do this? I don’t think so, but let’s not use opinion. Lets look at facts. Lower division college football – stadiums are packed and fans travel to the championship game from the opposing team (stadium is packed). Lets look at the NFL, which has even more regular season games. hmmm, I don’t recall seeing empty seats at the playoff games or at the superbowl.

    I’d say it is one in a million fans that would choose not to travel.

    You said that I would be one in a million that would travel to a couple of playoff games and then again to a bowl. Once again, this isn’t the case for most fans. Most of us don’t travel far for home games and most of us don’t travel to away games. Under my plan I would only travel to the bowl game. Yes, a few fans that do choose to travel to home or away games may tire of it, but I’m sure that their seats will get gobbled up by all of the fair weather fans that want to jump on the band wagon of team in the playoffs.

  • kiyoshige said:

    I’m with Bob and Will. True Blue, I’m not going to argue with your proposed system because it will work great. It just won’t ever happen. They are talking BCS projections out to 2017. Do you think there is a higher chance of MWC becoming a BCS conference by 2017 or that we will adopt a playoff by 2017?

  • true blue said:

    I have no idea of whether it will happen or not. But right is right.

    The conversation gets brought up every year. The fact that the BCS boys had to hire a PR firm this year tells me they are worried about it.

    The fact that an undefeated Big East team (Cincinnati) is getting the shaft this year helps the cause (if they win their bowl game and i’m not optimistic about that). If it happens to a Florida, Texas, USC etc. it will gain further traction.

    Folks just can’t give up.

    Some people said that the Berlin Wall wouldn’t fall, that integration would never happen in the south, that women would never have the right to vote, that the NFC would ever agree to play the AFC in a championship, etc.

  • Evan A said:

    In looking at all of your comments I think it is pretty clear that Casey Adams is stuck on himself and his own “brilliance.” the guy sounds like a no talent hack litigator. Everyone knows the LV bowl sucks and that Riley Nelson is the G.O.A.T. Get a LIFE Casey.

  • tekape said:

    Well said True Blue.

    As I said in an earlier comment, I couldn’t care less about the money, the extra games, the travel…that’s all a smokescreen.

    It’s an absolute joke that the championship in NCAA football is a beauty contest.

    The only “right” way to do this is to settle it on the field with a playoff.

    If you’re willing to accept the status quo and beg for a scrap from the big boys table, are hurting the cause of a playoff only slightly worse than those who propose that we get the MWC included as an AQ and then let the system alone.

    Imagine that during the 60’s the blacks got their rights, and then turned to the other minorities and said, “we got ours, now y’all are on your own. Good luck.”

  • kiyoshige said:

    True, since you’re not sure, let me help you. It won’t happen.

    Let me tell you why in 5 paragraph essay format: MWC has proposed a playoff and then signed the BCS agreement, other schools have been left out and other conferences have proposed a playoff.

    My attitude is similar to the MWC attitude – I’ll try my darndest and hire lawyers and get politicians on our side to try to change things, but I’ll still sign the BCS agreement.

    The scenario of “being left out” HAS HAPPENED to other BCS schools besides CINCY. Texas last year was a prime example, and the reason why Texas legislators are among those calling for change. I think if you go back in BCS history you’ll find several seasons where a BCS school was “left out”.

    2001 – Oregon
    2003 – USC (ended up #1 AP)
    2004 – Undefeated Auburn
    2009 – Texas (on a last play TD by Crabtree and they had destroyed Oklahoma)

    Additionally, SEC and ACC have recently pushed for some sort of playoff. So, if even BCS conferences have pushed for a playoff and it still doesn’t happen, I’m not confident in change any time soon.

    When a playoff is finally in place (around 2030 or so), I’m sure they will look to your proposal. I’m more from the “instant gratification” generation, so I’m going to focus on the MWC becoming better and earning BCS AQ status.

    If we (non-AQ) conferences REALLY thought that we could compete in a free market type setup, sell bowls, sell advertising and make money, we would do what Bob says and create “our own” championship. College football needs the BCS conferences to bring in the notoriety and money (ticket sales, advertising) for these bowl games and without them we would be more like the MLS and less like the BCS (see my TCU attendances above and Utah is probably the only other MWC team who sells out their games). We have actually gone one step into this direction with getting our own TV deal. I don’t think any other non-AQ conference has this…

    Here are more attendance figures from ESPN.

    Utah’s attendance (45,017)
    45333, 45588, 45129, 44837, 45051, 44991

    New Mexico (38,634):
    30051, 26246, 35248, 24021, 24344, 21751

    The BOTTOM two SEC teams:
    Vanderbilt (41,448):
    36350, 31840, 39625, 38340, 30262, 33675

    Mississippi St (55,082):
    54232, 53612, 50035, 48019, 57178, 58103, 55365

  • Pizzaman said:

    JT
    I’m not a Dr, but some times I play one on TV.

    Try Ritilin

  • Eric said:

    The BCS bullies made this pairing for the same reason they don’t want to have a play off system. They don’t want to face the fact that they have a chance at loosing against a “Cinderella” type team. I have a feeling that BCS heads would start to roll if they find that they may not be as dominant as they thought they were and their pay day isn’t as big as it use to be.

  • AZ Coug said:

    I don’t think a playoff is enough. Just as TCU and Boise State got snubbed this year, a playoff will still provide opportunities for teams to get snubbed by “the man”, unless it’s a playoff where all conference champions plus 4 at-large teams are invited. Even still, what are the chances that the 4 at-large bids would ever be from a current non-AQ conference?

  • Will said:

    True Blue: Of course, BYU fans would pack LES for a playoff game–every one of them. But, that’s assuming the Cougars are seeded really high. Let’s say they are seeded #15, which is far more likely than being seeded #5. Would you travel to Gainesville one week, Columbus the next week, and then perhaps, Morgantown, three weeks in a row, and then after losing the semifinal round, go to a bowl game two weeks later? Good for you. The overwhelming majority of fans would never be able to do that during the holiday season. Furthermore, if there ever was a playoff without the major four bowl games being involved at ground zero, that will be the end of the bowl games…

    And that ain’t gonna happen.

    So, keep pushing your congressman for a playoff, but I guarantee you that unless government takes over the playoff process itself, the major conferences and bowl games will revert back to the old bowl system.

    Then you can have fun going to the Maaco Bowl every year, assuming the Cougars are MWC champs. If not, you’ll have your pick of the New Mexico Bowl, Roady’s Humanitarian Bowl, Fort Worth Bowl, or the Poinsettia Bowl.

  • Darkbull said:

    Did you see that Dennis lost out to Aaron Hernandez from, yeah, you guessed it, UF for the Mackey Award? I found it interesting, looking on the website, that no non-AQ conference has EVER had a winner, and that 5 of the 12 committee members have a direct affiliation with ESPN–gotta love the chances Dennis had to win, not.

    Very frustrating. They should blind the stats of the player to the committee, have some specific info that they’re allowed to ask about. Wouldn’t completely objectify it, but I have a hard time seeing how Pitta didn’t win. It’s more than just being a Cougar fan; he really deserved it.

  • Will said:

    I agree Darkbull. Pitta should have won the award, but more importantly, he is being named first team All-American. Those honors are voted on by college football coaches (the AFCA All-American team) and sportswriters (Walter Camp All-American team), whereas the Mackey Award was voted on by a small committee that all have ties to the state of Florida.

  • true blue said:

    I’d like to know how they justify their vote. No doubt it is related to the fact that BYU doesn’t play in the SEC.

    We’ll see who goes higher in the draft . . . my guess is that NFL football coaches will also vote Dennis higher.

    Not only is he a great player, he is a down-to-earth guy that doesn’t let his celebrity get to him. He’s interacted with my kids. I’ve seen how he treats his wife. He is also a good student.

  • true blue said:

    To: Will

    I feel like I’m talking to my 13 year old that just doesn’t get the principles of math. I can’t understand why you don’t get my point.

    No, I wouldn’t travel to the away playoff games (I believe I said that about a dozen times). Most people don’t, but that is IRRELEVANT to the argument. I would still go to the bowl game whether my team was in home or away playoff games. That is the point. Home team fans would pack home fields. Very few visiting team fans would show up for those games. That is why it doesn’t impact bowl attendance in any significant way!!!!

    And, the four major bowls can still rotate the NC game just like they do now. No difference! They could have the exact same teams as they do now. Same fans. Same revenue. Same opportunity every few years to have the NC game. I don’t know what you are thinking.

    Again, how does this end the bowl games. It wouldn’t!!!!

    Other than not being able to crack open the politics, there is no reason why this playoff wouldn’t work. A div I college football playoff is no different than in any other sport except that most successful teams get a bonus game (bowl) at the end of the season.

    I defy you to give me a scenario where the bowl game attendance would drop and tell me why. Teams that travel well will continue to pack the seats and teams that don’t won’t. Nothing changes with a playoff. The fact is that the home team stands would be packed with home team fans during the playoffs and the bowl game seats would still be packed. Very few fans would go to away playoff games and then be fatigued of travel and not go to bowl game. Less than 1% by my guess. Your argument doesn’t ho

  • Gary said:

    Will and those of you who suggest we need to earn our way into the conversation by beating the big boys fail to mention that is like asking a 1st grader to earn respect on the playground by having to fight 6th graders and the 6th graders get to have a baseball bat.

    From what we have read in this thread the way revenue is shared gives more money to a very poor Vanderbilt team than TCU will earn this year by being undefeated and ranked in the top 5.

    The inability to schedule BCS schools who often won’t play us and the fact we have less chance for a national title all affect the most important part of a level playing field and that is recruiting.

    Face it MWC schools can’t offer a recruit what USC, Texaas and Florida can offer.

    The fact that the MWC has fared as well as it has against BCS schools and has beaten them as much as they have should be heralded by the media as remarkable.

    Can we beat Florida, USC and Texas on a regular basis? NO. Can the MWC compete head to head with the SEC right now? NO. But when you consider the baseball bat they are holding what reasonable mind would think otherwise.

    I for one marvel how well BYU does in the current college football climate. Not only do we have all of those things mentioned to make the playing field un level we add several other items peculiar to the Y. I take a lot of pride and pleasure in what the Y is doing and has done whether or not the outside world cares to see it for what it is.

    Would I like the chance to compete fairly for a National title? Absolutely. Is it fair to hold Bronco and the team to that standard with anything less being failure? That is where I think we as fans take it too far.

    If the playing field were level the grief we sometimes give our team might be understandable but considering the world we live in we ought to realize just how much Bronco and Co. have accomplished this past 4 years.

    Thanks for the site Quinn

  • Will said:

    True Blue, seriously. You don’t know what you are talking about so keep on whining, but just remember, you’ve been forewarned. If government tries to force a playoff, the result will be a return to the old bowl system As a BYU fan, you will have your choice of whatever third tier bowl game the Cougars qualify for under the MWC agreements bowl agreements–even if BYU is undefeated.

  • Will said:

    Hernandez is a junior and isn’t planning to declare early for the draft, so there’s no comparison there.

  • kiyoshige said:

    Yes, a travesty, even criminal, that Dennis did not get the Mackey. Unbelieveable, really, when you look at the resume, statistics, career. But, I doubt he (or his pocketbook) is losing too much sleep over it, so neither will I…

  • Lindsay said:

    Will, really man? Please don’t pretend like you know every single thing about football and its organization and the exact way in which everything will pan out. You have ruined this thread for me because of your arrogance. This is the best BYU football blog around. Do us all a favor and don’t be on here if you can’t accept other fans’ opinions! Because that is what this website is for, people expressing their OPINIONS! Don’t tell people they don’t know what they are talking about. People have different perspectives, so let them be shared without the criticism, ok?

    I agree about the Pitta comments…too bad for him. But like others have said, I’m sure he’s not hurting over it. He’s better than that.

  • true blue said:

    Will – I don’t know what I’m talking about? I’ve at least offered solutions and reasonable expectations of what would happen with various scenarios. You can’t offer anything except to tell me that I’m whining and that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

    Explain yourself man. I’ve challenged you to do it and you can’t. Again, give me a reasonable explanation of how a playoff (my version) hurts the bowls or keep your opinions to yourself.

    You sound just like the BCS cronies. No facts, just myths.

    And, I’m not whining. I just want a fair playoff. People who are losing arguments often resort to name calling, etc. – sounds like you.

  • Will said:

    TB, you offer no facts, just your opinion. Have you ever been to one of the four major bowl games? If not, you don’t understand what you are arguing against. They are better fan experiences than the Super Bowl. There will never be a playoff as you envision. I’m sorry if you cannot understand that.

    I offer my opinion based on insider perspectives and knowledge. I suggest you read Stewart Mandel’s book, Bowls, Polls & Tattered Souls. He explains why a playoff will never happen in simple terms. I have friends who work for ESPN, FOX, CBS and two of the major bowls. They all know there will never be a Div 1 playoff. There very well could be a plus-one in a few years, wherein the top 4 ranked teams will play in two of the major bowl games with the winners advancing to the NC hosted by another of the major bowls. But never a playoff. It’s been studied thoroughly and the college presidents, major conferences and bowl games are united in opposition because it isn’t feasible without making changes they are unwilling to make.

    Like I said before, and I’ll repeat for you one last time…if government tried to force a playoff, you’ll see a swift return to the previous bowl game system that existed prior to the bowl alliance of 1992.

    Life isn’t fair, and many of the college sports that host playoffs aren’t fair, either. There are always going to be deserving teams left out of a playoff. Happens every year when the NCAA basketball, baseball, softball, soccer, etc. invites go out to teams that didn’t win an automatic berth.

    They can play two rounds every weekend in any of these sports and conclude a tournament in a brief time frame. Football is different. The lower divisions of NCAA football have 11-game schedules and their playoffs began two weeks before Thanksgiving. Their season ends this weekend. You would never get Div 1 football to change to that schedule or anything like it without losing the bowl games and you won’t have any postseason without the bowl games.

    I’ve just been trying to point out that you are wasting your time complaining. But go ahead and keep doing it if it makes you happy. It certainly adds more color to this blog.

    I think there are more constructive things to discuss, like what BYU needs to do to compete at the level TCU is right now. If the Cougars can ever reach that level, which I believe they can, I’m confident you won’t be complaining about a playoff system, because they will be playing in the National Championship game at that point.

  • Pizzaman said:

    To true blue and will
    mellow out !!!!

    Playoff VS Bowls
    I would be willing to bet a large % of players past and present want a play off.
    Atheletes want to settle it on the field.
    The emails need to be sent to the NCAA. Demanding a playoff…!

  • kiyoshige said:

    I called into our ESPN affiliate in Austin to talk about the Mackey award and they responded, “What’s the Mackey Award?”

  • oceanographer said:

    Will,

    I don’t really have an ax to grind and I’ve already commented on the playoff/tournament issue above, but if we returned to the pre-1992 bowl system, non-AQ teams would actually have a better shot at an NC than they do now, since that was the system in place in 1984 when BYU won. At least under that scenario a perfect storm could happen. It can’t under the current one.

    As a side note, I’m interested to know what others think about the number of current bowl games. Personally I think that there are too many and bowls don’t “mean” what they used to. Staff, Ben, or Quinn, do you have any thoughts from a player’s perspective on that?

    Ki,

    LOL on the Mackey award ESPN comment.

  • Rick said:

    I just wonder if they do have a playoff, wont the big boys in the BCS conf. just pick the teams to play in the playoffs? just have the same teams, same manipulation of the polls that they already have.
    I would suggest maybe another BCS bowl,add another conf.(MWC) or deserving conf. as the automatic qualifier and that would also open up two atlarge bids open to non BCS schools to play. The Cotton or Holliday would be great venues. Anyway thats my two cents, I’d just like to see BYU go undefeted.
    Go COUGS!

  • True Blue Chick said:

    Will- Whoa, dude, you are overthinking this, and relying on one book? I’m not going to read a book about something that is fairly common sense. Most other sports have some sort of playoff, I don’t understand why this is rocket science.

    Oh, wait, it’s not, it’s all about the money.

    And that, my friend, is the crime for congress to put a kabosh to, not to rally for some playoff system. If a business (i.e. the B.S. BCS) prevents certain teams from access to money, there are issues, and deserves some legal attention.

    And, a “plus-one” is a playoff system, so you are contradicting yourself anyway.

  • Bob Henstra said:

    Ya know, I really could care less about rankings, especially BCS rankings. However, we’re not going to be invited to the big party until they hear all the noise we can make.

    My thoughts are that TCU or BSU, whoever wins that game should be declared number one in the nation, and I’m not going for that nonsense that the winner will be the number one non AQ team. And I think we all should make as big a fuss as we can, get as much press as we can to insist upon that.

    The ptb’s have put them both in the same game, I think that could be their biggest mistake! The winner of that game has as much right to be called number one in the nation as Utah did last year.

    Letters to the editor are what’s needed here, lots of them! All pointing our Utah’s win over Alabama last year, our win over Oklahoma this year.

    Let’s us as BYU fans support the winner of that game to be called number one in the nation, insist on it! I hope TCU wins, for our conference’s sake.

    Thousands of letters to the TCU school newspaper to start, Im sick of the bcs pigs!

    Bob

  • Will said:

    True Blue Chick: I’m not basing anything on one book. I’m simply suggesting that those who argue for a playoff read it to better understand why there will never be one. Your unwillingness to gain knowledge from one of the most respected sportswriters dedicated to college football is rather baffling. What is it that you fear learning about?

    There is no contradiction in a Plus-one process of determining a national champion as long as it keeps the major bowl games intact. It’s nothing different from what we have now, except two of the bowl games would be designated each year on a rotating basis to host the top four ranked teams. The winners from those two games would play in the national championship game a week later, hosted by one of the other major bowls on a rotating basis. One other bowl game, most likely the Cotton Bowl, would be added to the BCS lineup of bowl games, so there would still be a total of 5 BCS bowls plus the national championship game. It won’t be perfect in anyone’s eyes–this year you’d have Boise State whining on the outside of the four contenders–but hey, they should have thought about that when they only scheduled one BCS game for the season.

    Essentially, the system that exists now is a dress rehearsal for the future Plus-one.

    As for government getting involved to stop the BCS…how does that solve “access to money?” The end of the BCS means a return to the old bowl system. All the major bowl games have contracts with the big six conferences. The major bowl games will offer the best match-ups and attract the best traveling fans who will pay top dollar to see their teams play in those bowl games. The top sponsors and TV dollars will surely align with those games, generating the best payouts per team.

  • true blue said:

    the thing about last year was that eventual national champ florida barely beat alabama, but Utah stomped them. Makes a pretty legit claim for national champ. No such luck this year no matter who wins or by margin of victory.

  • true blue said:

    I hate government involvement in anything that isn’t necessary, but the important role of the legislative branch is to make laws that protect Americans. The fact is that the BCS system is already breaking laws that are affecting the financial well being of some universities. Strengthening and enforcing those laws is legit and needed to protect the business interests of those involved. It is no different that the railroad barons that needed to be tethered in a century ago.

  • tekape said:

    >Will wrote:
    >All the major bowl games have contracts with the big six conferences.

    Until those contracts are determined to be in violation of anti trust laws, at which time they will become cease to be legal representations of any agreement.

    (By the way Will, still insisting that TCU gets $14 mil?)

  • kiyoshige said:

    Gary, since the BCS has been created, about once a year the 1st grader pegs the 6th grader right between the eyes (or the legs). That is a good analogy. In our case, the 6th graders also bring in more revenue and have greater financial clout.

    That’s why I focus more on getting to the 6th grade (joining the BCS) and less on trying to play against them.

    Tekape, your payout estimates are correct as far as I know. They can be verified at the NCAA and BCS websites. I think when all is said and done, the money is divided between the non-AQ qualifiers each conference takes home a certain piece. Then the individual conferences decide how they split the dough between their teams. Utah took home 3-4 million from their win last year, if I remember correctly.

    There is quite a disparity between BCS and non-BCS schools, even if a team from your conference makes it.

  • Will said:

    It sounds to me like you are asking for a redistribution of the wealth that is generated by the programs that have done all the heavy lifting over the decades –and continue to do so–to make college football what it is today.

    Actually, the BCS provided a system to distribute funds to all the universities that never had access to any major bowl game revenues through the old bowl system. More importantly, what they were attempting to do was provide a way for pitting the top two ranked teams in the nation to play for a true national championship.

    Admittedly, that is flawed at times (although will anyone care to argue that Texas and USC were not the top 2 teams in the nation in 2005?)… it’s clear to me that there will be an eventual expansion to the Plus-one scenario to take in the top 4 teams within the bowl game structure.

    As far as I can tell, the only legal limitation that government could impose would be what the Texas congressman is trying to institute… a prohibition on the BCS using the term “national championship” in the title of their game.

    So, they just call it the BCS championship. Big deal. There has been controversy over who is the national champion in college football for over 90 years. Pitt actually claims to have 9 national championships in college football dating back to 1915 when they were coached by Pop Warner.

  • kiyoshige said:

    BTW, this year the 1st graders are playing together. We had our chance a nailed a 6th grader, but as it turns out they were just a 2nd grader pretending to be in 6th grader. The teachers found out and put them in their appropriate class.

    The school district constituents are thinking about letting all of the 1st thru 6th graders play together at the end of the year, but since nobody is willing to make such a drastic change (for whatever reason), I have a feeling the students will stay in their same grades, unless of course they can qualify for the higher grade.

    Ki

  • tekape said:

    Thanks Kiyoshige.

    I got my figures from a long conversation with the the SEC office (as I mentioned earlier, their HQ is two blocks from my office) and a phone call to the MWC offices. It was amusing to watch the Cliff Clavin of the thread argue that the information was incorrect, though it came straight from the BCS website, and was verified by two conference offices (one BCS, one not).

    As for how the pie is split, the non AQ revenue is divided into 15 “shares”, and the “1st place conference” (a complicated process to determine) gets 5 shares, 4 shares to the 2nd place conference and so on down to 1 share for the 5th place conference. Each conference then determines who gets what.

    Also mildly amusing to me (slightly different topic here) is all the Ute fans who insist that they’ve delivered untold millions for the conference via their two BCS bowls, and that BYU should be grateful to them for their pittance, not realizing, or refusing to acknowledge that their 1) payout is split between 50+ teams, and 2) since 1974 (the begining of the LE era) BYU has attended 28 bowls while Utah has attended 12 (none prior to 1992). I think if you added it all up, (especially considering how few of BYU’s bowl payouts were split outside the conference), Utah is probably still paying BYU back for all the money we gave them over the years.

    Anyway…

    the reason I got into the revenue sharing issue was that someone mentioned that the money is the same for a BCS conference school as it was for TCU and BSU, when in fact there is an enormous disparity betweent the two, a fact which the BCS tries to hide with clever phrasing on their website.

    Happy Holidays.

    Go Cougars! Beat OSU!
    Go Wyoming!
    Go Air Force!
    Go TCU! Thump BSU!
    Go Utes… (choke)… Squeak past Cal…I guess.

  • true blue said:

    Gary – nice analogy.

    I too am amazed that BYU is able to do so well. And, not just because it is in a non-BCS conference, but because of its recruiting limitations due to honor code and academics.

    A review of all of the five star high school recruits shows that we have zero and Florida, Texas, etc. have about 10 each. We have one 4 star recruit.

    The reality is that most high school athletes wouldn’t want to come to BYU due to 1) lower tier conference, 2) high academic standards, and 3) honor code (have to agree not to have extramarital sex, no drinking, smoking, coffee, beards, etc.).

    The fact that our players do so well tells me that they are playing above what they might be expected by a paper analysis. I suspect that it is a combination of higher character, good coaching, and better maturity (older players and more married players).

    Expecting a no loss season just isn’t very realistic though. I’m proud of these guys for doing as well as they do. 4 ten win seasons in a row is fantastic!

  • kiyoshige said:

    Will, how soon do you think the plus one will happen? Bronco has also supported this idea. The current contract ends 2014, so I don’t think it will happen before then. You can bet the Cotton Bowl wants in on it.

    When you think about vying for change that is actually realistic and going to happen, you can have the greatest ideas in the world, but you’ve got to bring it in terms of $$$. So that’s what Jerry Jones does. He builds the Taj Mahal of stadiums and sets up his own thing. We were lucky enough to play Oklahoma this year at his venue.

    Other games at Cowboys stadium this year:

    TT vs. Baylor
    Texas A&M vs. Arkansas
    Texas vs. Nebraska (Big 12 Championship)
    Cotton Bowl

    They have estimated that these 5 games have brought in as much revenue as teams like Penn St and LSU – this to a Dallas-Ft Worth area WHICH HAS NO BCS COLLEGE FOOTBALL PROGRAM.

    So, Jerry Jones and the Cowboys organization come-a-talkin’ to the BCS powers that be. Those BCS commishes don’t really hear a word JJ says because their senses are blinded by the bling. They just sign on the dotted line like they are in a trance and BOOM!!! Another BCS bowl is added and business and the free market succeeds again.

    Does JJ need any politicians? Does he need any letters to the editor? Money talks and you-know-what walks.

  • True Blue Chick said:

    Will, NO, I am not against learning, hence at 26, I am almost done with a second Master’s degree. Am I scared to read one book? No, I’m just saying that one book isn’t going to convince me why a playoff system won’t work, even if the author is a college football God (which we all know doesn’t exist)

    Regardless of all of that, my point is that we are all arguing we need some sort of playoff system, and you keep talking about the “plus-one” which is a playoff system, of sorts. It would definitely help the situation of the last two years.

    AND, I don’t understand why the current bowl system can’t be transformed into a playoff system that rotates games (like they have been for years.)

    And tekape, I appreciate your dilligence…I have a friend in the MWC athletic dept and he was basically saying the same thing, that the money from the BCS is nothing near what people think it is for a non-AQ team. Heck, the Vegas bowl is more reliable at that point.

    Go Cougs! I’m looking forward to a much needed getaway from this cold. I hope the weather is great for travel!

  • kiyoshige said:

    If you argue that the “plus one” is a playoff of sorts, that is a slippery slope. The current system of conference championships can also be considered “a playoff of sorts”. For example: winner of Florida/Alabma goes to NC game. I know it doesn’t hold for every conf championship – for example had Nebraska held on to beat Texas, no one would send Nebraska to the NC game. It would’ve been Cincy (and then the Cincy/Pitt would’ve been “like” the semifinal). But if Pitt would’ve won, then it would’ve opened the door for TCU. So, in effect we had 3 semifinal games (Florida/Bama, Texas/Nebraska, Cincy/Pitt). And I dare ANYONE to argue with me that wasn’t an exciting day of college football. I don’t have particular ties to any of those teams and it was fun watching ALL of those games.

    I think when most people talk about a playoff they are referring to an 8 or 16 team setup. The “plus one” model is the 4-team playoff. In the case of this year, one of the 5 teams that lay claim to the NC would be out of luck (Bama, Texas, Cincy, BSU, TCU).

    I hope all those arguing for a playoff were glued to the exciting playoffs we had this weekend (NOT). Can anyone tell me whose in the FCS championship game???

    Ki

  • kiyoshige said:

    Sorry, who’s.

  • Will said:

    Ouch, tekape. The Cliff Claven reference was funny, though. I worked on Cheers, so you are dead on. I went back and reread my posts and realize I overstepped my boundary of knowledge when it came to how the bowl payouts are handled. My apologies.

    That wasn’t the point of my argument, so I should not have ventured there because it really doesn’t matter. The inequity in bowl payout money has always existed because the conferences aligned with the old bowl games (with the exception of the Fiesta Bowl–reason posted earlier) have existed for 50-60 years. So, even before the BCS, the major bowl money went to the big 5 conferences (Big East didn’t exist until just before the beginning of the Bowl Alliance). And the crux of this whole thread wasn’t about money, it was about a playoff vs the current BCS system of determining a championship.
    To TB Chick…you don’t have to believe what you read in Mandel’s book, but it will certainly give you a better perspective of what you are arguing against, and will help the disappointment fade easier when a playoff never materializes.

    Kiyoshige makes a good point about the conference title games being part of the “playoffs” we have now. Also, that a Plus-one isn’t really a playoff but that’s certainly debatable as the BCS has said they won’t even go there because once you have four people want 8 and then 16. They feel they’ve drawn the line in the sand. The folks I’ve spoken with at the Rose and Fiesta bowls, as well as friends who work at ESPN, FoX and CBS, all see a Plus-one happening, being tweaked gently out of what we now have. This past four year period, culminating with the Rose Bowl operations folks hosting a second game a week later (just as the Fiesta, Orange and Sugar bowl folks have already done) has been like a dress rehearsal to make sure their staffs could handle hosting two huge games within a week’s time of each other. Clearly, it has worked so far, and I’m sure the Rose Bowl ops crew will handle it just fine as well.

    With ESPN having all the bowl games under contract after this year, it could very well happen within these next four years, but most likely, they’ll want one more go-around thru the four year cycle before tweaking it to the Plus-one. If they hit a lot of flak before then (we could end up with three undefeated teams if Cincinnati wins) they might very well decide to move to a Plus -one for next year–the first year of the ESPN agreement. That would require adding another major bowl to the mix, most likely the Cotton Bowl, now that they have Cowboys Stadium to play in.

  • kiyoshige said:

    And I’m not saying that a Plus One is better than a playoff. Again, let me emphasize that I’m all about a playoff. But, realistically, I just don’t think it will happen.

    I have questions about the Plus One. Will they truly have a #1/#4 and a #2/#3 matchup and then those winners play?

    This year it would work out perfectly with Alabama playing TCU and then Texas against Cincy. What a final four!!!!

    2008: OU/Bama vs. Florida/Texas
    2007: OSU/OU vs. LSU/Virginia Tech
    2006: OSU/LSU vs. Florida/Michigan
    2005: USC/Georgia vs. Texas/Virginia Tech
    2004: USC/Auburn vs. Miami/OU

    The years that the top 4 teams are from different conferences, the games would be fun. But, the years that there are two teams from the same conference there is a potential to have a “rematch” of regular season games. Not as fun.

    Anyway, I think it’s a fun topic to argue and discuss. I think that whatever system you are proposing, it’s an interesting exercise to go back and see how your system would have done in the past several years. I’m sure some of those books mentioned above does just this – maybe a stocking stuffer for me this year???

    I hope we keep going to Vegas because one of these years I’m going to take the trip. This year, I can’t see us getting past Oregon St. They are a tough challenge for us from a defensive standpoint. Our offense has struggled as well most of the season, especially against the tougher teams (OU, TCU, Utah, FSU). So, unless our receivers pull some separation out of the hat, I think the score will end up 24-10.

    Ki

  • WearBlue said:

    It’s a trave-sham-mockery!! The BCS are a bunch of sissies. Wow, the bowl games this year could have been so good! But what the fans want doesn’t matter. They don’t want the AQ’s to be embarrassed any further!! It’s un-dirtyword-believable!

  • cory said:

    Amen, Wear blue!

  • kiyoshige said:

    Someone besides me thinks MWC has a shot at qualifying for the BCS…

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?page=roadtobcs/0910

    Ki

  • what happened? said:

    what happened to the site? no new posts for weeks?

  • Ryan F said:

    I’m going bananas waiting for a post on the Las Vegas bowl game! What a spectacular performance. The Oklahoma game, plus some.

    I think TCU is going to beat BSU. At least a 4-1 MWC Bowl record. If Air Force can beat Houston, 5-0. Loved seeing BYU dismantle OSU and then Utah beat Cal. Even when they were down 14-0, I wasn’t worried, I was pretty confident Utah was going to rally.

    In the BYU-OSU game, some say the “fumble” by Quizz Rodgers was the tipping point. I think it was when BYU drove into the “gale force wind” across the entire field to score a touchdown to tie it up. It was all BYU from the start of that drive on out.

    A shame we didn’t get USC this time around.

  • True Blue said:

    not that i’m good at predicting, but I think that TCU will maul BSU and I think AFA will beat Houston in a high scoring shootout (Houston has no defense – their game scores look like basketball game scores). MWC at 5-0 looks good to me

  • kiyoshige said:

    TCU has already beaten BSU. They will demolish them this time. As far as the website goes, maybe the moderators feel like enough was said on the field the last two games – nothing more needs to be said off of it!

    Can’t see AF getting by Houston, though. If it does, better just hand the MWC the autobid in the postgame ceremony.

    Ki

  • Ryan F said:

    Here’s to hoping that the title game is lackluster and there is some serious talk about TCU being #1 in the AP. I think that Utah and us decisively beating Pac-10 teams does nothing but add to their storyline…having beat both of us so soundly.

  • kiyoshige said:

    Ryan, I honestly think that TCU is going to lay a whooping on BSU similar to what they did to us and Utah. I’m predicting the following phrases often by the announcers – “This is BSU’s worst loss in…. BSU hasn’t given up this many points since… The last time BSU was shutout was…” TCU is going to go Wild Frog all over the Broncos and the game “ain’t got no alibi”. It will be UGLY.
    Ki

  • Ryan F said:

    I certainly hope so. However, I did want BSU playing a team from an AQ conference because I wanted to see how well they would do because I think they could be pretty good. They did beat a dang good Oregon team. Admittedly the first week of the season, but still, they’re a sound team.

    I want to write them off, and indeed I think TCU will dominate, but I do wonder if in the 3rd or 4th quarter, it is still a close game.

    On a side note, don’t the BCS bowls seem predictable? Perhaps this is a little too generic an analysis, but I see the bowls going like so:

    Alabama vs. Texas –> Alabama
    Oregon vs. Ohio State –> Oregon
    Cincinnati vs. Florida –> Florida
    TCU vs. Boise State —> TCU
    Iowa vs. Georgia Tech –> Georgia Tech

  • cory said:

    Has anybody heard anything about Harvey Unga? Has he declared for the draft or not?

  • Ryan F said:

    Well, how embarrassing. Ohio State won. I suppose that isn’t so good for the Pac-10 at least…doesn’t help us or Boise I suppose.

  • kiyoshige said:

    Ryan,
    It’s just you and me. Actually, maybe Boise and Oregon will now both drop below us when TCU trounces BSU!!! Who knows how it will help – that’s the problem/advantage of polling. You never know what the voters will do!!!

  • Ryan F said:

    The embarrassment continues. I’m 1 for 3. I guess the BCS matchups weren’t so lame after all.

    The one redeeming thing? TCU did hold BSU to 1 offensive touchdown and a field goal.

    TCU sucked tonight. Sucked. The defense was good, but the offense sucked. They underplayed so bad it’s embarrassing to know they ran the MWC. Even when it was tied up you could see it in the faces of the players and fans, they knew they were sucking. They knew the team wasn’t playing well at all. And it just continued.

    Giving up a punt fake inside BSU territory? This is BSU, the court jester of trick plays. Special teams fail.

    Dalton throws 3 interceptions. Ineffectual offense almost the whole game. Where was the game plan and mix and match plays that were so effective against BYU? Where was the TCU that played Utah?

    I guess it has me not so worried about playing them next year.

  • True Blue said:

    that wasn’t the same TCU team I watched all year long

    BSU is better than I gave them credit for. I’ll bet either team would have beat Cincy. I like either of them against Texas. Doubts if they could play Alabama or Florida.

    Glad to hear Jimmy J. say the P word at the end of game.

  • B said:

    Quinn –

    Can we plan on not checking this blog until August? Any word on having a basketball correspondent or post-mortem on the football season?

  • kiyoshige said:

    Ryan,
    With this loss, we will not make the top 10. TCU should drop and we should be below them.

    Wow, I will surely eat crow about BSU. We should memorize this BSU game for next year. Dalton looks like a Davey O’Brien award winner against us and throws 3 picks against Boise St.

    I give Boise St a ton of credit. They blanketed the TCU receivers and got pressure to Dalton with only 4 pass rushers.

    Gives me hope for playing TCU next year and am glad we have a series against Boise coming up. Wouldn’t mind having Boise join the MWC – especially if we will get AQ to the BCS.

  • Ryan F said:

    I am now 1 for 4 for my BCS bowl game picks. Haha.

    Yeah, TCU…really too bad. Gotta give credit to Boise State, they show up for big games. I felt like Boise State’s defense was as good as TCU’s. And yes, Dalton sucked royally. I thought he was one of the most underestimated and best QBs. He threw DAGGERS against us the last two years. Absolute daggers. Then he comes out and opens with a pitiful pick 6….and except for a few good plays, is all downhill from there. Hate to say it like this but, he pulled a Max Hall. (Utah game last year)

    Boise was in “control” in the sense that they simply wanted 1 more point than TCU. TCU wanted 10-30 more points and it just seemed like when they weren’t getting there, they got bogged down and hopeless?

    The fake punt…give credit to Patterson for owning up on being out coached…but that is incredible. BSU lines up what? 3-5 wide outs on a punt and you don’t stuff everyone up on the line??? Unbelievable. BSU does such stupid stuff that is so dangerous, it is brilliant. It is going to catch up to them though. You can only play with fire so many times…

    Given BYU’s performace against Oregon State, almost would’ve been interesting to put us against BSU.

  • Kenny said:

    New post please! :)

  • Attu, AK said:

    Where did everybody go?

  • oceanographer said:

    I agree with the last few comments. Staff, Ben, Quinn, your killing us. I was hoping for some post-season analysis…

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.


3 + eight =