"Spend a few minutes reading College Football Resource" - Whit Watson, Sun Sports

"Maybe you should start your own blog" - Bruce Feldman, ESPN

"[An] Excellent resource for all things college football. It’s blog index is the definitive listing of the CFB blogosphere ... [A] must-read for fans." - Sports Illustrated (On Campus)

"The big daddy of them all, the nerve center of this twisted college football blogsphere" - The House Rock Built

"Unsurprisingly, College Football Resource has generated some discussion" -Dawg Sports

Top Teams 2008

After Week Seven

  1. Alabama
  2. Penn State
  3. Texas
  4. Oklahoma
  5. Florida
  6. USC
  7. Georgia
  8. LSU
  9. BYU
  10. Missouri
  11. Ohio State
  12. Oklahoma State
  13. Texas Tech
  14. Utah
  15. Kansas
  16. USF
  17. North Carolina
  18. Miami
  19. Boise State
  20. Georgia Tech
Display
RSS
Search CFR
Submission Corner
« Coaches Atwitter 7/17/09 | Main | USC Football Gets Hypnotized »
Tuesday
Jul072009

BCS Hearings Quick Reax

So far all Utah's President is talking about is the Mountain West's success "the last two years".  And this justifies the inclusion of Sun Belt teams, howwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww?

LOL antitrust lawyer "the BCS has nothing to do with amateurism or education".  Neither does major college sports!  Weak.

"The BCS excludes competition" Wrong.  The BCS is an economic venture that relies on economically compelling matchups to generate the revenues it does.  Sponsors aren't going to fork over anywhere near as much money if they risk getting saddled with games involving non-lucrative teams.  This is the market at work.

Nebraska President Harvey Perlman made a great point about how despite Nebraska's limitations, it has built a successful (financially and athletically) football and overall athletic program.  They've done it through hard work and he doesn not feel the BCS in any way hampers any other program from ascending similarly.  In addition, the BCS has actually opened up certain bowl games to programs that had never had such access before, providing them national exposure before unknown.

Second antitrust lawyer --- the antitrust statutes are set up not to protect the programs, but the consumers.  College football consumers are not harmed by the BCS (duh).

Revenue distribution is not the concern of antitrust, but output.

Irony of antitrust victory is that it would actually destroy any opportunity for a playoff since championships rely upon agreements between the conferences and the playoff would be much more restrictive than the current BCS setup.

Nebraska Prez --- in discussing with TV, advertisers etc. in mentioning the other five conferences, the BCS revenues would not increase.

Aaaaand first appearance of whining about VaTech/Cincinnati game, perhaps the worst BCS matchup and a severe outlier.  In that scenario yes, Boise State vs. whoever does better financially but thats the outlier compared to even say, something loathed like USC/Illinois.

Senator Hatch just made some strange argument that the BCS championship game accepting the end of season No. 1 and No. 2 teams somehow disqualifies many teams before the season.  The only thing that disqualifies teams from achieving that is performance, a process of elimination that happens through the regular season.

Utah President criticizing polling, saying some voters admitting never having seen a Mountain West team play.  Uhhhh, ok, so kick those people out of the polls, let people like me be a voter.  Next!

Now saying he doesn't know what more Utah could have done last year.  For starters, not escape Michigan, TCU and Oregon State by the skin of their teeth.  The same standard worked against powerhouse USC last year who failed to gain traction in the polls not simply because they lost to Oregon State but because they had disastrous halves against Stanford and ASU, and did little against California and Arizona offensively in victory.  Utah is not immune from having to face nationwide judgment for their overall performance, and win-loss record is not the bottom line, not when we have 120 programs and no process for even scheduling.

Senator Hatch says state universities were created so that students had the opportunity to attend college.  YES!  And in college football every school has the opportunity to participate in the regular season.  It is regular season and program performance (financially, record, on-field play) that guides their postseason opportunities.  The postseason is a reward, not a right.  If we are to say the BCS is exclusionary, so is the entire bowl construct, since not everyone is eligible to participate.

Look, bottom line is we have 120 programs in college football's upper division.  So long as we stick with such a high number, any notion of equitable participation is necessarily greatly prohibitive.

Senator Hatch is making another strange point about the BCS being a monopoly.  It is but one agreement, there is no prohibition against the Mountain West, Western Athletic Conference etc. creating their own agreement similar to the BCS.  Additionally, those programs are no longer excluded.  On top of that, the current setup is basically welfare to the smaller conferences, who receive monies regardless of whether they qualify to participate.  Those are monies they would unlikely earn on their own and in fact are diverting funds that otherwise rightfully should go to the major conferences as reward for their drawing power.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (2)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (5)

Hello,

My name is Jason and I am the founder of SportsSoundOff.net. We are a new blog, but re-established. It had to be shut down because of technical issues. I was wondering if we could exchange links.

Let me know if this is possible.

Thanks.

Sincerely,
Jason
July 7, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJason
"Uhhhh, ok, so kick those people out of the polls, let people like me be a voter. "

Go ahead: This is the goal of the BCS Fan Poll website: http://www.bcsfanpoll.com

It's open to everyone. It's free. It's easy. It's fun. It's been happening for 2 seasons with success. Fans can vote responsibly. Perhaps more so than Coaches, Media, Writers, GAs, ADs....
July 8, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterMECU
Ah, a BCS proponent, just the type I love to spar with. You are wrong and misguided on SOOOOO many levels that I simply cannot adequately explain it to you in a comment.

So I have a proposal. I'm sure you've heard of my blog, http://www.collegefootballcafeteria.com by now. I know, I've been emailing you to get added to your directory a while now. Here is what I propose. I will post my rebuttal to your horrendous comments on my blog tomorrow. I then challenge you to a duel of sorts. You post a rebuttal to my remarks.

Up for a little BCS debate? I know I am. Check my blog tomorrow night, I will have systematically responded to all your points and shown you your error. I think we can raise some good points and benefit both our readers. Sound good to you? Also, please add me to your directory under general college football blog already :)
It is but one agreement, there is no prohibition against the Mountain West, Western Athletic Conference etc. creating their own agreement similar to the BCS. Additionally, those programs are no longer excluded.
July 16, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterWound First Aid
Make their own agreement? What kind of sport allows each of their conferences/teams to determine their OWN postseason? How ridiculous! Why can every other division of college football get this right, yet money mongers in the bowl system simply refuse to do whats in the best interest of the sport? No excuse can invalidate a playoff- they already do it in every other level!

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.