"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
Search CFR
Submission Corner
Saturday Night's Alright For A Fight

Entries in Congress (5)


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.



Mr. BCS Goes to Washington

Brought to you by the same body that thought nothing of voting on potentially economically crippling environmental legislation with 300 pages of material not delivered until 3 AM the morning of the vote.


Maybe This Has Something To Do With It

The BCS "Big Six" conferences of the SEC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10, Big East and ACC are the Big Six for a reason.

As a whole, non-BCS schools are 76-392 against BCS opponents since 2005, meaning they win just 19.4 percent of the time.

Paging Senator Orrin Hatch and Representative Barton ...


BCS Quotable

Take it away, Senator Blutarsky (emphasis mine):

This is where I think playoff supporters are on thin ice in this debate. It’s very easy to focus on what I call the competition side of this – making sure that every deserving school has the chance to play for an MNC – and downplay the economic side, the side that pushes for a redistribution of the wealth that college football generates. You can satisfy the former with a small scale playoff; you can’t satisfy the latter without an extended playoff controlled by the NCAA or some similar entity making sure that the moneys are spread more broadly throughout D-1. And an extended playoff is death to pretty much everything that makes college football unique.

It’s shortsighted to brush off the financial considerations here. Next week’s hearings are being conducted by the Senate Antitrust Committee. Whether it matters to its members or not, antitrust law isn’t about whether Utah gets to play in a title game. It’s about business practices, monopolies and money.

Ultimately, guys like Jim Delany don’t care nearly as much about Utah playing in that title game – and don’t forget that there’s nothing in the current BCS formula that prevents that from happening – as they do about having their conferences’ revenue streams reduced. That’s what’s at stake with these antitrust threats and that’s why I don’t think the Harvey Perlmans of the college football world should be so easily dismissed when they promise to defend their turf.


BCS Defense

Just moments ago on College Football Live, ESPN's Joe Schad outlined the three-point defense by BCS officials as they head into a Congressional subcommittee hearing tomorrow.

1)The regular season must be preserved as the key entity of the game

2)Several bowls would fail if a playoff were enacted

3)The logistics to install a playoff aren't there

Not a bad start.

I'm definitely against a playoff although I have problems with the BCS, which I think I'll get to soon.  I think there's ways to remedy the BCS that keeps it in line with college football tradition and avoids a playoff.