Notes From Media Day
August 17, 2011 – | No Comment

Before I begin, I should probably explain why we haven’t posted in a while. Frankly, it’s just been bad timing. I just got back from a study abroad program in Europe, and Charlie is still …

Read the full story »

Fallacies of your ordinary College Playoff politician

Submitted by on July 6, 200940 Comments

How shocking. The drumbeat for a college football playoff starts again and everyone is once again up in arms. The only difference is the person beating the drum. This time it is the Republican Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch.

I have long been against any form of playoff in college football, and in my silent opposition, have observed as the same flawed logic is used to support what will most certainly be the eventual decline of the sport I love.

It is these exact arguments that Senator Orrin Hatch recycles as he lays out his flawed argument for a playoff in the essay he recently penned for Sports Illustrated.

“First and foremost there are serious questions regarding the legality of the BCS. The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits contracts, combinations or conspiracies designed to reduce competition. I don’t think a more accurate description of what the BCS does exists.”

http://jayjanner.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/jwj-ut-tech-20b.jpgFirst let’s put a stop to this “reduced competition” argument right off the bat.

“Reduced competition” happens when a School A plays a schedule that consists of UNLV, Utah State, Air Force, Weber State, Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado State and San Diego State as opposed to School B‘s Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma State and Oklahoma.

“Reduced competition” happens when School A plays a schedule ranked 75th out of 120 while School B played the 17th toughest schedule.

“Reduced competition” happens when you force the BCS to include teams like School A despite a much more deserving School B just to be “inclusive” setting up matchups that become unintriguing and should never have happened in the first place.

School A is Utah, School B is Texas Tech.

Want to really enact change that enhances competition? Force the BCS to do away with the 2 school limit from each conference so deserving teams like Texas Tech 2008 or the 2006 Wisconsin team get a shot at the BCS. Now that would increase competition. Not forcing the BCS to enact some form of mid major affirmative action just to satisfy your constituents.

“And although the Utes had plenty of big wins, the BCS system denied them the chance to play for the national championship.”

When Senator Hatch talks about “big wins” did he mean TCU and BYU, the only 2 ranked teams the Utes played in 2008? That hardly qualifies as “plenty”.

Any question as to which one would be harder to play in?
Any question as to which one would be harder to play in?

Or did he mean Michigan, UNLV, Utah State, Air Force, Oregon State, Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico and San Diego State, teams that had a combined 45-66 record? I didn’t even bother to include Weber State who is a I-AA program. Other than TCU and BYU, other mid-major teams, the Utes faced 3 teams with a winning record, including Colorado State who was barely over .500 at 7-6. Talk about reduced competition.

Want to talk about big wins Senator Hatch? Talk about winning against #16 Florida State, #23 Miami (FL) and between the hedges at #13 Georgia all in consecutive weeks by Georgia Tech who ended up in the Chick-fil-A Bowl. Now which one did you suppose had stiffer competition?

The fans in Utah should feel privileged to be playing in any BCS bowl considering how dismal their regular season competition was.

What gets me especially is all this talk about winning in the BCS when they actually do get in. Boise State did it in 2006 and Utah did it in 2004 and 2008. You can’t sleepwalk your way through a season and then gear up to beat a quality opponent in the BCS and demand a claim for a shot at the national title.

South Florida ventured to Happy Valley in 2005 and the stadium was barely at capacity by kickoff in 2005. If students at Penn State would be hard pressed to wake up in time for a noon kickoff against Utah and Boise State at Beaver Stadium, do you really believe Alabama, Oklahoma and Pittsburgh were jumping for joy when the Selection Committee forced them to play mid majors? If fan support and television ratings were any indication, the answer is a resounding no.

All 3 matchups garnered some of the worst television ratings and attendance numbers compared to fellow BCS matchups.

Rose Bowl Fiesta Bowl Sugar Bowl Orange Bowl Championship Game
Penn State / USC 11.7 Texas / Ohio State Utah / Alabama 7.8 Cincinnati / Virginia Tech 5.4 Florida / Oklahoma 14.4
USC / Michigan 13.94 Boise State / Oklahoma 8.4 Notre Dame / LSU 9.29 Louisville / Wake Forest 6.98 Florida / Ohio State 17.40
USC / Illinois 11.11 W Virginia / Oklahoma 7.7 Hawaii / Georgia 7.0 Kansas / Virginia Tech 7.4 LSU / Ohio State 17.40
Michigan / Texas 12.4 Utah / Pittsburgh 7.4 Auburn / Virginia Tech 9.5 USC / Oklahoma 13.7 - -

You really want to talk about a conspiracy designed to reduce competition. How about ratings and bowl attendance. Let’s not forget the BCS operates like any other business, they have television contracts and have to compete against other networks in the ratings game. By forcing what ultimately is college football’s equivilent of affirmative action, the bowl that has been forced to select the midmajor team is forced to suffer rating and attendance wise when there are higher quality and more attractive options available out there. Isn’t that a conspiracy to reduce competition in the marketplace?

“In addition, every team from a preferred conference automatically receives a share from an enormous pot of revenue generated by the BCS, even if they fail to win a single game. On the other hand, teams from the less-favored conferences are guaranteed to receive a much smaller share, no matter how many games they win.”

http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/begging-dog.gifSo when teams like Boise State, Hawaii and Fresno State invests $26 million, $30 million and $26.6 million respectively on athletics, while Florida and Ohio State spends $89 million and $109 million, the uneven distribution of BCS prize money is an outrage?

Why does Utah and Boise State deserve handouts just because they are able to romp through their high school caliber conference undefeated while everyone else playing in the BCS fight week in and week out in order to achieve similar records?

Rather than stand on the street with your palms stretched out, convince your respective conferences to negotiate better bowl tie-ins to make more bowl revenue. Oh wait, but because no one really wants to watch the MAC and WAC on television or attend the bowl games, no one really wants a tie-in with mid-major conferences. And therein lies the inherent problem. Senator Hatch is taking an unqualified and unattractive product in the marketplace, and forcing the BCS to sell it. Try convincing Walmart to sell a crappy product. Just won’t happen.

So don’t blame the BCS for uneven distribution of bowl revenue, blame the conferences for the ridiculous bowl tie-ins they negotiated.

“This disbursement scheme places teams from these smaller conferences at a disadvantage when it comes to hiring staff and improving facilities. Because of their increased visibility and status BCS schools also receive an unfair advantages in recruiting top players and coaches.”

So when money for higher education is distributed by the federal government, do you Senator Hatch argue for equal amounts for all universities and colleges across the board? To do anything short of demand equal budgets for all higher education institutions regardless of enrollment sizes would make you a hypocrite wouldn’t it?

I mean federal money for higher education allows schools to endow scholarships, build facilities and recruit top teachers, you must also be leading the charge for equal distribution of higher education money. Maybe not.

“If the government were to ignore a similar business arrangement of this magnitude in any other industry, it would be condemned for shirking its responsibility.”

So too would tackling trivial issues in the face of the largest financial meltdowns in modern history.

Where exactly where you Senator Hatch in 1994 when Penn State actually deserved a share of the title, or in 2004 for Auburn. You were awfully quiet then.

So to avoid looking like a complete hypocrite, why don’t you actually tackles some of our nations’ problems?

This isn’t an argument for a college playoff, this is a blatant attempt to enact college football’s equivalent of affirmative action.

If Utah is serious about wanting a shot at the national title, join the Pac 10.

top related stories
you may also like

  • Mark

    I'm glad to see someone else is against a playoff system. Our corrupt politicians are always looking for things to distract us and college football is just the latest. In the end its just a game, maybe they should focus on the two wars we can't get out of first.

  • http://twitter.com/krmcguire Kevin McGuire

    Personally I am in favor of a playoff system, although I am perfectly fine without one in place. I'll share my thoughts later this week.

  • John

    First off, Oregon St ended the season in the top 25 and that's really what counts, not what the team was ranked at the time they played them. Do you think Bama should get credit for beating a top 10 team because they beat Clemson in the first game of the year when Clemson extremely overrated? Of course not.

    Also, the team you say should've gotten into the BCS game (Texas Tech) got rolled by Ole Miss in the Cotton Bowl, while the team you say should not have gotten in (Utah) beat the crap out of Alabama. That's a really poor argument to make, and just shows your extreme bias. Or was Tech not “up for the game” also?

    And don't give me this crap about Alabama not being “up for it”. That excuse is so tired, and every time a team from a non-BCS conference wins a game against a traditional powerhouse, you BCS backers throw this crap around.

  • http://quebecpenspinning.com Charlie

    “(Texas Tech) got rolled by Ole Miss in the Cotton Bowl, while the team you say should not have gotten in (Utah) beat the crap out of Alabama”

    USC got beat by Oregon State, is there any doubt in your mind that Oregon State is a better team than USC? This one and done system is exactly what will destroy college football. Take the NFL for example. The Giants got 2 shots in the regular season against the Patriots in the regular season, where they lost both times. Somehow the Giants get to beat the Patriots in their final shot and somehow they are considered the best team? Don't think so.

  • MWC? What the hell is that?

    And I'm tired of teams playing in garbage conferences only to demand a spot in the lucrative BCS bowl. And when they finally beat the one really quality team in the BCS bowl, they use it as validation to why they should be invited back every year.

    Penn State would romp around the MWC like they do in the EVIA for volleyball so why should teams like Utah or Boise State be rewarded for taking the easy way in.

  • Random Guy

    I am in favor of a playoff, but agree with a lot of your points. However, like John pointed out, Utah and Texas Tech is a bad example. They may have been one and done games, but the Big 12 was shown to be a tad bit overrated. Texas Tech definitely deserved the spot over Utah based on what was the perception of what Texas Tech did during the regular season, but that is a flaw in the system in my opinion. There aren't enough non-con games against BCS conferences at the beginning of the year to get a great idea of how conferences are, and then they leave it up to the bowl games to see who is overrated/underrated. Non-BCS teams need to be given more chances. So do BCS conference teams who have the same record as the two playing for an NC game. A playoff would do that. If they can come up with another system that's not a playoff that does that, I'm all for it. But the bowl game showed that Utah can beat some of the best of the BCS, and deserved a chance to win it all, as did the other BCS teams like us, USC, Texas Tech, and Alabama.

  • http://quebecpenspinning.com Charlie

    Agreed @Random Guy. If only the NCAA could force any team that want to qualify for the BCS to play at least 3 BCS non-conference opponents, and midmajors have to play all their non-conference games against BCS opponents. We would have a better picture of conference strength early on.

    Unfortunately the NCAA has no control over the BCS. They should just expand the BCS to include the Cotton Bowl with an automatic mid-major tie-in.

  • http://www.BulldogBounce.blogspot.com/ FSDogs1

    This whole post is pretty absurd. But let's focus on this part of it:

    “So when teams like Boise State, Hawaii and Fresno State invests $26 million, $30 million and $26.6 million respectively on athletics, while Florida and Ohio State spends $89 million and $109 million, the uneven distribution of BCS prize money is an outrage?”

    Why do you think Florida and Ohio State are ABLE to spend $89 and $109 million on athletics? Don't you think getting the lion's share of BCS money has something to do with that? It seems like backward logic to ignore where that money is coming from.

    By that logic, why should schools like Mississippi State get a share of Florida's BCS money every year? Because someone decided they got to be in the really good conference even though everyone knows Fresno State or Utah or Boise State would beat Mississippi State 9 out of 10 times…

    Furthermore, you wrote:
    “If Utah is serious about wanting a shot at the national title, join the Pac 10.”

    Oh, well thanks for clarifying that for us! You don't think Fresno State would absolutely JUMP at the chance to join the Pac 10? It's not so easy you just wave a magic wand and it happens, especially in the West, where the Pac 10 is the only BCS conference. In the East, programs like USF get to jump in when they've never done anything relatively worthy. Yet Fresno State is stuck in a region where there's nowhere else to go but the Pac 10 (which isn't interested in expanding).

    And by the way, Fresno State has left no doubt it IS scheduling for a shot at a national title if it ever runs the table. That's why the non-conference slates include BCS-conf. teams every year (this year at Wisconsin, at Cincinnati, at Illinois). Last year were wins at Rutgers, at UCLA and a 3-point loss at home to Wisconsin. Fresno State does the best it can do with its WAC affiliation. Yes, the 'Dogs are forced to play Utah State and Idaho every year, but in the games it gets to schedule on its own Fresno State plays anyone brave enough (including No. 1 Oklahoma in '03, No. 1 USC in '05, Oregon various times, Tennessee, Oregon State various, Washington, Kansas State, LSU, etc.) And most all of those games were on the road.

  • http://quebecpenspinning.com Charlie

    You basically just answered yourself there. Florida and Ohio State are able to spend a ridiculous amount of money on athletics because they are able to raise the revenue not only from bowl revenue, but ticket sales, merchandising and television contracts. By the way, the amount of money from bowl games is equivalent to the profits from one home game after revenue sharing among the conference.

    So yes, Boise State and Utah don't have the money that Florida and Ohio State has, but not because they aren't getting money from the BCS, they are losing out on ticket sales, television revenue and merchandising that make up the lions share of the revenue the big programs have. Simply because they aren't an attractive product to the rest of the nation. Can't really blame the BCS for that.

    And following that logic, suggesting Fresno State or Utah join the Pac 10 was rhetorical. Of course the Pac 10 wouldn't want those teams, you probably couldn't even pay the Big East to take them. They aren't attractive as programs, have tiny fan bases, the stadiums are a few notches from high school standards, and no one watches them on television. And yet you are forcing the BCS (essentially a collection of business minded bowl games competing for ticket sales, and television ratings) to invite them, just to be fair?

    Last I checked, the BCS has been much more generous (last 4 of 5 years included 1 midmajor program), than the old bowl system. So sit back and be thankful for that BCS equivalent of charity.

  • John

    I'm sure you think that buddy, but that is just not true. Penn St would be right there with Utah, TCU, and BYU in the MWC. The Big X is the most overrated conference in the nation, every time you make it to a decent bowl game, you lose.

  • John

    And by “teams playing in garbage conferences only to demand a spot in the lucrative BCS bowl”, are you talking about Cincinnati and Virginia Tech out of the Big East and ACC? Cause they were numbers 13 and 22 (or something like that) going into the BCS bowls and they got in because of their automatic tie in. On the other hand, Boise St and TCU got left out even though there were both in the top 11.

    If they are gonna have the BCS system, which sucks and is unfair, they should at least make it so the top 10 teams, regardless of conference affiliation, get into the games.

  • http://quebecpenspinning.com/ Devon

    Charlie,
    As well thought out and coherent as your argument is, it simply isn't very convincing to me, a very pro-playff proponent.
    I couldn't possibly care less about TV ratings or attendance. That shouldn't have any bearing or determination on who the best team is.
    Second of all, the only situation you seem to address is the non-BCS conference argument which, though you may gloss over them, has its merits. When a team like Utah beats Alabama, don't tell me the Crimson Tide weren't up for it. That was proof that Utah could hang with any team in the country. Your argument is the same one that could be used to keep Penn State out of a MNC game because the conference is supposedly weaker. That's bogus, Charlie. A team isn't defined by who they play, it's defined by who's actually, you know, on the team. If Utah had Tim Tebow and Carlos Dunlap and Percy Harvin, and the entire UF roster, wouldn't you say they were just as good a team as that Florida team in the SEC? Just because they didn't play the same competition doesn't mean their less of a team.
    Take, for instance, the Memphis Tigers basketball team. For the past few years, Conference USA has been among the worst basketball conference in the NCAA. It's been a one-bid conference dominated by one team. But when it comes time for seeding and playing, not only is Memphis a high seed, but often proves their worth amongst the big boys of college basketball. Same goes for a school like Gonzaga.
    But the scary idea of the BCS is the idea that out of 120 teams, that picking 2 to duke it off in a “championship game” is so easy. Sure, last year wasn't all that difficult, picking Oklahoma vs. Florida is what the vast majority of anybody would do, even rational Utah fans. But to say that other schools, like USC, Texas, and Utah, not to mention our own Penn State were not worthy of being in the conversation is a joke.
    While the logistics of a 16-team playoff might be impossible, there's no reason not to introduce an And-1 playoff system with the hopes of eventually moving to an 8-team system. Until you have the teams play on the field, there's no saying who's better.
    And yes, the Giants were rightful NFL Champions because they won when they had to. Heroes aren't born in the regular season. I bet you hate the March Madness, too especially when an upset happens, because the better team didn't move on.

  • http://quebecpenspinning.com Charlie

    I do have to commend Fresno State for their scheduling though. Utah must have realized they are at a great disadvantage being affiliated with the MWC, yet still scheduled a I-AA team. They aren't helping themselves there.

    Fresno State however bucks that trend and should earn alot of respect should they ever run through their schedule undefeated. They aren't afraid to schedule anyone, anywhere. That should be the route that all midmajors should take if they want to be taken seriously in the polls by seasons end.

    Hawaii on the other hand did the exact opposite and made a mockery of the mid major system. Play in a weak conference, schedule a dismal non-conference schedule, go undefeated, and get romped in the BCS.

  • http://quebecpenspinning.com/ Devon

    John, I couldn't agree more.
    I have a 6-team playoff proposal on which I'd go into more detail later, but the gist is it's all BCS conference champions in the top 10, and if one or more fail to qualify, the next spots go to a non-BCS conference in the top 10,

  • http://quebecpenspinning.com Charlie

    Extremely coherent argument Devon. I'll start off by saying I love March Madness, the ridiculous last minute shots and emotion is simply unparalleled. That said, though March Madness makes for sensational television, it is as accurate in determining a champion as the BCS title game. Sure I get your argument about the Giants beating the Patriots “when they had to”, do people really believe the Giants were the best team that season? Clearly, the Patriots were save that final game, but somehow they are less worthy than the Giants.

    How about this past March Madness when Michigan State played North Carolina. Let's suppose that the Spartans sneaked out a win over the Tar Heels, is it possible to say without a doubt that the Spartans were the best team in 2008? Doesn't it still leave room for debate?

    College football will most certainly never adopt a playoff format similar to college basketball, and in my opinion, they shouldn't, so we either embrace what we have now (which provides far greater access to mid major programs than the old bowl system), or we revert back to the old bowl system which I am in favor of.

    To force the BCS to invite mid major programs just to provide equal access regardless of worthiness is a form of affirmative action I do not condone. The Rose Bowl recently signed a new television contract that would force them to allow a mid major program to play in the Rose Bowl should they lose either the PAC-10 or Big 10 program to the title game. Imagine if Penn State had to face Boise State, Utah, or even Hawaii in the Rose Bowl. What a waste of a BCS game. The idea is simply revolting and destroys over a century of tradition.

    While I acknowledge that a champion can come out of the mid major ranks, our current system actually allows them to play in the title game if they are one of the top 2 teams in the BCS standings. Unfortunately the Utah Senator and those like him, want to allow teams like Utah to sleepwalk through their soft schedule, then play their way into the title game. If that's the case, why wouldn't Penn State join the Big East or MAC and go undefeated year in, year out without lifting a finger then wake up in time for the playoffs?

  • Bamaroll

    “While I acknowledge that a champion can come out of the mid major ranks, our current system actually allows them to play in the title game if they are one of the top 2 teams in the BCS standings.”

    But it will not happen because mid majors are ranked too low before the season begins. Time to just do away with preseason rankings!

    Nice site. I get your article's point, but I prefer a playoff. Hatch is doing what politicians do best. Lip service.

  • http://www.BulldogBounce.blogspot.com/ FSDogs1

    Sorry Charlie, but you obviously don't know much about life in a mid-major conference or Fresno State. Luckily for you, I do. Very well. If Fresno State isn't attractive to TV, how come the 'Dogs have been shown 62 times on the ESPN family of networks (ABC, ESPN, ESPN2) in the past decade?

    Wanna compare that to Mountain West and Pac 10 teams?

    The 'Dogs also have the fifth most wins in the West in the past 10 years (behind Boise State, USC, Oregon and Utah).

    By the way, how do you measure the amount of TV exposure and merchandise sales that is a result of the BCS exposure these good 'ol boys receive?

  • http://www.BulldogBounce.blogspot.com/ FSDogs1

    Here you have a point Charlie. Hawaii schedules weak. So does Boise State. However, give Utah a break. Sometimes you have to schedule a 1-AA team. Fresno State did it this year with the opener against UC Davis.

    Why? Because Fresno State could not get anyone else to come to Bulldog Stadium. Even BYU and Utah want nothing to do with that nowadays. The four California Pac 10 teams (Cal, UCLA, USC and Stanford) have, combined, played ONE game in Bulldog Stadium…ever. Cal is 0-2 all-time against Fresno State. USC is 1-1. Stanford hasn't played the 'Dogs since the 1920s. And UCLA has lost two straight to the 'Dogs (bowl game and Rose Bowl last year).

    Fresno State is playing 5 home games this year. 7 road games. The same was true last year. But hopefully for the 'Dogs the tide is turning…recent agreeements were reached for series with Colorado, Mississippi and Nebraska. And Rutgers is coming here in 2011 for a return game. USC, however, still won't return Pat Hill's phone calls. Think the Nittany Lions are up for a 1 and 1?

  • http://www.BulldogBounce.blogspot.com/ FSDogs1

    I'd be fine with the current bowl system if the best Pac 10 teams were forced to play Fresno State every year. As long as the teams from mid-major conferences get a chance to prove themselves on the field, that's acceptable. The problem is, teams like USC, Cal, Stanford and UCLA get away with dodging teams like Fresno State. Then we don't know who would win.

    Remember the '05 Fresno State-USC game at LA Coliseum? Was there a better game that year?

  • Solution!

    You forgot Fresno State-Wisconsin last year. Just ban I-A programs from playing I-AA teams. It would increase both revenue and exposure for mid major programs significantly from the increased payouts from playing more big time programs looking for a home game.

  • http://quebecpenspinning.com Charlie

    I appreciate your input FSDogs1. You bring a side to the debate that some, including I have not considered.

    Here's a bit of research:

    As of last bowl season, college football revenues of the BCS conferences based off of numbers provided to the IRS were as follows: SEC ($135 million), Big Ten ($154.2 million), ACC ($137.6 million) and Big 12 ($103.1 million).

    Let's break down the Big 12 conference numbers as an example.
    $57 million from television contracts
    $32.2 million from bowl games
    $27.2 million from the NCAA
    $11.1 million from conference championship
    $434,623 from royalties and licensing

    Then you have the Big Ten, the only BCS conference that shares its revenue equally amongst all 11 members. All Big Ten schools received $14 million in 2007 just from the bowl and television revenue. That's not counting home ticket sales which is significant considering 3 of the largest football stadiums are located in the Big Ten.

    By comparison, TCU revenue stands at $13.3 million TOTAL, highest among non-BCS conference programs.

    Of the 4 BCS games involving mid major programs, 2 of them (Hawaii/Georgia, Utah/Pitt) earned the lowest BCS numbers that year. The other 2 earned the second lowest (Boise State/Oklahoma, Utah/Alabama).

    As ardent as I am a BCS supporter, I am not as naieve as to believe the system is perfect. But people tend to forget that the BCS actually allows for the possibility of a mid major to play in the title game, which is drastically different from the old bowl system which it replaced. As long as the team (mid major or not) is one of the top two in the BCS standings by season's end, they are headed to the title game. Unfortunately too much rests on the arbitrary polls controlled by human voters.

    Are mid major programs at an inherent disadvantage? Sure. But enacting some form of college football affirmative action legislation which Senator Hatch is proposing is not the answer. Just because there have been a couple of quality mid major programs the last four years, doesn't mean there will be in the years to come. And a BCS spot taken away by an undeserving mid major program, is a spot less for teams that play in tough conferences who might not sport a spotless record because of it.

  • http://quebecpenspinning.com Charlie

    Hahaha, if I had any say over scheduling, I'd pick watching Penn State play Fresno State over Eastern Michigan any day of the week. I believe the Bulldogs have a game against Illinois in 2009 and 2010, Cincinnati in 2010 and Rutgers in 2013 too. Fresno State sets the standard when it comes to scheduling for a non-BCS caliber program. If they manage to go undefeated, it will be hard to deny them the respect they would have earned.

  • http://quebecpenspinning.com/ Charlie

    I appreciate your input FSDogs1. You bring a side to the debate that some, including I have not considered.

    Here’s a bit of research:

    As of last bowl season, college football revenues of the BCS conferences based off of numbers provided to the IRS were as follows: SEC ($135 million), Big Ten ($154.2 million), ACC ($137.6 million) and Big 12 ($103.1 million).

    Let’s break down the Big 12 conference numbers as an example.
    $57 million from television contracts
    $32.2 million from bowl games
    $27.2 million from the NCAA
    $11.1 million from conference championship
    $434,623 from royalties and licensing

    Then you have the Big Ten, the only BCS conference that shares its revenue equally amongst all 11 members. All Big Ten schools received $14 million in 2007 just from the bowl and television revenue. That’s not counting home ticket sales which is significant considering 3 of the largest football stadiums are located in the Big Ten.

    By comparison, TCU revenue stands at $13.3 million TOTAL, highest among non-BCS conference programs.

    Of the 4 BCS games involving mid major programs, 2 of them (Hawaii/Georgia, Utah/Pitt) earned the lowest BCS numbers that year. The other 2 earned the second lowest (Boise State/Oklahoma, Utah/Alabama).

    As ardent as I am a BCS supporter, I am not as naieve as to believe the system is perfect. But people tend to forget that the BCS actually allows for the possibility of a mid major to play in the title game, which is drastically different from the old bowl system which it replaced. As long as the team (mid major or not) is one of the top two in the BCS standings by season’s end, they are headed to the title game. Unfortunately too much rests on the arbitrary polls controlled by human voters.

    Are mid major programs at an inherent disadvantage? Sure. But enacting some form of college football affirmative action legislation which Senator Hatch is proposing is not the answer. Just because there have been a couple of quality mid major programs the last four years, doesn’t mean there will be in the years to come. And a BCS spot taken away by an undeserving mid major program, is a spot less for teams that play in tough conferences who might not sport a spotless record because of it.

  • Steve M.

    Your title should be; “quit winning your way into the BCS”

    And this article is garbage.

    - First thing is; you're a liar. Utah SOS is 56 and Texas Tech's is 27….. That's just a little different than the 76 and 17 you listed.

    - You state a problem with the BCS allowing mids in is that it keeps other BCS teams out…. What if there was a system where BOTH teams could get in and prove who was better… like say, I don't know, A PLAYOFF!?

    - I love the “Bama didn't want to be there excuse” They have exactly 0 wins in BCS bowls and this was their first chance in over 10 years…. Yeah but I guess they had no reason to show up and play.

    - The rating argument is just stupid. Of course the ratings are lower, Utah, Hawaii, and Boise all come from SMALL media markets. If they were in a big media market they wouldn't be mid-majors…..

    - Hey, moron. Maybe teams like Florida spend alot more money than mid-majors BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE MONEY. Why do they have more money? THE BCS!!!

    - You call the Mids an “unattractive product. I call BS. The games get less viewers because their fan bases are smaller. Is that really a reason to not let them compete for a NC (sports are about competition NOT making a profit and somebody's expense)? “Sure your might have to best team, but you can't play for an NC because your not part of our greedy, arrogant club” Call me crazy, but maybe if mids were given some exposure their fan bases would grow…

    -This line was just gold, “Try convincing Walmart to sell a crappy product. Just won't happen.” LMAO! Are you serious?

    - I love you just suggest that Mids shoujd negotiate better bowl tie ins. Do you honestly believe that mid-major conferences DON'T negotiate the best bowl tie ins possible? LMAO

    - Just join the Pac-10? Oh, that's all we had to do!!! Well does anybody want to tell us where to sign up?….

  • http://www.BulldogBounce.blogspot.com/ FSDogs1

    I agree Solution!

    Fun fact for you guys. Out of Fresno State's past 28 games against BCS-conference schools, just 5 have been at Bulldog Stadium.

  • http://www.BulldogBounce.blogspot.com/ FSDogs1

    Thanks Charlie. But I'd be willing to be Fresno State has approached Penn State about setting up a series at least once. And I'd be willing to bet Penn State not accepting is the reason it hasn't happened yet.

    Heck, a lot of the time Fresno State only lands the top-notch matchups because ESPN steps in to set it up. Why? Because Fresno State is very marketable for ESPN. I think the Bulldogs merchandise sales might even surprise you, and you can't in any way argue with the cold, hard TV appearance numbers.

  • http://quebecpenspinning.com Charlie

    Wow, refer to the comment threat above for the discussion on many of your points.

    And yeah as much as you dismiss the possibility of joining the PAC 10 (which was sarcastic by the way), why don't you apply the same dismissive mentality to a playoff in college football. It's easier said than done, but it Just. Won't. Happen. Hasn't happened for over a century, and it won't happen anytime soon as long as the power to make it happen rests with school presidents.

    So we either tweak the imperfect system we have now which actually provides greater access to mid major schools, or we just go back to the old bowl system which would set all the mid major access to the Rose, Cotton, Fiesta, and Sugar back to non existent. My argument is against Senator Hatch's self serving crusade that he has started. Where was he when Auburn was left out, or Penn State in 94.

    If anything, Senator Hatch's witch hunt against the BCS will set the system back to the old bowl tie-ins that existed prior to the BCS or Bowl Coalition. The bowls and conference have no obligation whatsoever to present us a national champion despite what we as fans believe we deserve. If Hatch succeeds in declaring the BCS illegal (which he won't), the bowls and conferences will simply shred their contracts and go back to the old Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange bowl tie-ins and destroy all the progress (whatever minimal) that has been made since that system.

  • Steve M.

    Provides greater access for what? For Mids to play in what are basically exabition games becasue they have absolutely no chance to play in the NCG under the current system.

    “imperfect system” is the biggest understatement I've ever heard. When the system doesn't allow the vast majority of teams to even have a chance to play for a championship before the season even starts, that system isn't imperfect, it's completely broken.

    Why would it set things back it the BCS were dismantled? Why wouldn't the NCAA or some company step in with a better system? You “play-off will never, ever” happen” is a losers attitude. If everyone gets on board with it we will get what we want….

  • Stan

    The Big Ten shouldn't even have the Rose Bowl berth given to them every year. How many years does it take for a Big Ten team getting destroyed does it take to put a more worthy team in the Rose Bowl???????????? The Big Ten Sucks. Between the Rose Bowl debacles every year and Ohio State getting embarrassed every year, the Big Ten is an irrelevant conference.

  • http://quebecpenspinning.com Charlie

    Yeah, and screaming until I'm blue in the face for a playoff will somehow convince school presidents to adopt a playoff system?

    It's one thing to present a good acceptable post season format, but any realist will tell you that the BCS conference will not accept anything short of a playoff that is largely advantageous to the Big 6 conferences. Face it, the “haves” have no reason to include the “have not's” and Senator Hatch can throw as many tantrums as he wants, he won't be able to change that. The college football postseason is not mandated by the NCAA, and thus there is no overarching entity to enact change. There are bowls that predates Orrin Hatch and their existence today is further proof a playoff is just a pipe dream.

    “If everyone gets on board with it we will get what we want…” I hate to break it to you, but a ridiculous majority of college football fans are on board. Still doesn't seem to make a difference though.

  • http://quebecpenspinning.com Charlie

    And by the way, the MWC is well on their way to earn their automatic bid to the BCS under current rules by 2010 anyways. It is not as if the BCS has a ban on mid major programs in the title game. If Boise State, Utah or Fresno State has the points to be one of the top 2 in the BCS standings by season's end, they will be in, no questions asked.

    Hatch's tantrum about the lack of access shouldn't really be against a system that actually allows mid majors to play in the title game should they have the points, but it should really be against the voters and their biases that determine those standings.

  • Greg

    Uhhh, that's the way playoffs have worked for their entire history. That's why they're so exciting. It doesn't matter what happens in the regular season. If you get into the playoff, anything can happen. If your argument is that a playoff doesn't determine the best team, then you would have to strip them from every sport. In some sports, that would give you a clear winner based on regular season performance (which I think would be the most anti-climactic end to a season possible), but not in college football, where you'll often end up with multiple teams with the same record. Personally, I think championships should be decided on the field, but hey, if you think they should be decided by a computer and a bunch of fat sports writers, that's your opinion.

  • Steve M.

    Eventually things will change. The BCS is in violation of the law and if/when it's done with the NCAA should step in and take over and sanction the championship. Why wouldn't they if that window opened up?

    A play-off system doesn't necessarily mean and end to bowl games….. It would be easy to keep the same bowl tie-ins besides the 8 teams or whatever that got into the playoff.

    Voter bias is something that can't really be proven and it takes extremely long to be changed because it's all based on what they “think”. There is absolutely no way to attack that and win

  • http://www.BulldogBounce.blogspot.com/ FSDogs1

    Thanks Charlie, and our disagreement on the subject is definitely nothing personal. I appreciate the debate and you have presented a lot of conference financial research.

    One thing I'd like to point out with that though, is being in a conference full of successful, semi-successful and big name schools gives an inherent advantage monetarily. Fresno State, unfortunately, is stuck with bottom feeders like Utah State, Idaho and New Mexico State (who will likely never be good).

    When you share a conference with other successful programs and name schools, it brings everybody up, earns everyone more money, better and bigger facilities, better recruits, better access, etc. Fresno State, Boise State and Hawaii (and maybe Nevada) just have each other. The rest of the conference mates makes those programs have to work even harder.

  • http://www.BulldogBounce.blogspot.com/ FSDogs1

    And because their strength of schedule is hampered by bad conference mates they are forced to play each year.

  • green_v

    I do agree that government (Hatch) shouldn't be anywhere near college athletics. That is why there's the NCAA. It's their job to organize college athletics, which includes post season competitions. However, since when does the Presidents of colleges have power over the NCAA (“my school isn't going play no playoff games”). That's crazy. It obviously shows who really is running Division 1A college football.

    Why has Div. 1-AA, excuse me, FCS, found success in running a playoff system? They began with eight teams and will soon balloon to 20 teams in 2010.

    It is definitely not hard to organize a playoff system consisting of conference champions. What is making it difficult is millions of dollars that the big schools would lose by not having their automatic bids to the bcs bowl games. Money. That is what the key is to all this hoopla. Not the whole “not letting the non-bcs teams be involved” junk. Think about it…aren't both Fresno State and Florida division 1A teams? Only the bcs system separates the two teams. A playoff system would bring equality to division 1A college football. Equality not in the sense of affirmative action, but equality in giving a smaller division 1A school (such as a Fresno State) a chance of beating a larger division 1A school (such as a USC) in the playoffs or if so possible, in the championship. The BCS only chooses the select few. Not because of what they are doing on the field, but because that team happens to be popular with the media and fans. The American way would be to have a playoff and let the field determine who is champion, not the press or computers.

    I could say more about this subject, but really it would mean nothing, because ultimately, this whole subject is about greed and those who don't want to give it up. Until that is remedied, we can debate or whatever til we are blue and it would be just that…meaningless.

  • Steve M.

    Eventually things will change. The BCS is in violation of the law and if/when it's done with the NCAA should step in and take over and sanction the championship. Why wouldn't they if that window opened up?

    A play-off system doesn't necessarily mean and end to bowl games….. It would be easy to keep the same bowl tie-ins besides the 8 teams or whatever that got into the playoff.

    Voter bias is something that can't really be proven and it takes extremely long to be changed because it's all based on what they “think”. There is absolutely no way to attack that and win

  • http://www.BulldogBounce.blogspot.com/ FSDogs1

    Thanks Charlie, and our disagreement on the subject is definitely nothing personal. I appreciate the debate and you have presented a lot of conference financial research.

    One thing I'd like to point out with that though, is being in a conference full of successful, semi-successful and big name schools gives an inherent advantage monetarily. Fresno State, unfortunately, is stuck with bottom feeders like Utah State, Idaho and New Mexico State (who will likely never be good).

    When you share a conference with other successful programs and name schools, it brings everybody up, earns everyone more money, better and bigger facilities, better recruits, better access, etc. Fresno State, Boise State and Hawaii (and maybe Nevada) just have each other. The rest of the conference mates makes those programs have to work even harder.

  • http://www.BulldogBounce.blogspot.com/ FSDogs1

    And because their strength of schedule is hampered by bad conference mates they are forced to play each year.

  • green_v

    I do agree that government (Hatch) shouldn't be anywhere near college athletics. That is why there's the NCAA. It's their job to organize college athletics, which includes post season competitions. However, since when does the Presidents of colleges have power over the NCAA (“my school isn't going play no playoff games”). That's crazy. It obviously shows who really is running Division 1A college football.

    Why has Div. 1-AA, excuse me, FCS, found success in running a playoff system? They began with eight teams and will soon balloon to 20 teams in 2010.

    It is definitely not hard to organize a playoff system consisting of conference champions. What is making it difficult is millions of dollars that the big schools would lose by not having their automatic bids to the bcs bowl games. Money. That is what the key is to all this hoopla. Not the whole “not letting the non-bcs teams be involved” junk. Think about it…aren't both Fresno State and Florida division 1A teams? Only the bcs system separates the two teams. A playoff system would bring equality to division 1A college football. Equality not in the sense of affirmative action, but equality in giving a smaller division 1A school (such as a Fresno State) a chance of beating a larger division 1A school (such as a USC) in the playoffs or if so possible, in the championship. The BCS only chooses the select few. Not because of what they are doing on the field, but because that team happens to be popular with the media and fans. The American way would be to have a playoff and let the field determine who is champion, not the press or computers.

    I could say more about this subject, but really it would mean nothing, because ultimately, this whole subject is about greed and those who don't want to give it up. Until that is remedied, we can debate or whatever til we are blue and it would be just that…meaningless.