Oklahoma Sooners fans celebrate as the Sooners scored a touchdown against the Connecticut Huskies during the second half of the Fiesta Bowl college football game at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, January 1, 2011. REUTERS/Joshua Lott (UNITED STATES – Tags: SPORT FOOTBALL)
I’m reading Death to the BCS, an excellent book about the truth behind the Bowl Championship Series written by Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter and Jeff Passan. It’s an eye-opening read about how the bowls are fleecing colleges under the guise of non-profit (or charity) status. I really can’t recommend the book enough.
Here’s an excerpt about how the BCS keeps small bowls alive:
Know this about the bowl system: It is not subject to a free market, and this is where the future of the smaller bowls comes into play. If left alone, the minor bowls would collapse, and they would collapse spectacularly.
The BCS operates much like a government, offering a form of welfare to ensure the survival of small bowls. Industry insiders estimate just fourteen of the thirty-five current bowl games are self-sufficient. The rest profit from a system that takes money from universities and guides it into the pockets of bowl operators.
It’s more shell game than bowl game. Take Minnesota, which agreed to buy 10,500 full-price tickets to the 2008 Insight Bowl in Tempe, Arizona, according to records the school filed with the NCAA. When Minnesota sold only 1,512, it incurred a $434, 340 loss on tickets alone. It spent an additional $1.2 million on travel costs and other expenses. In the end, it cost Minnesota $1.7 million to collect the bowl’s $1.2 million payout. In a vacuum, Minnesota’s bowl experience would have been at least a half-million-dollar financial drain.
After two failed bids to buy a baseball team, Mavs owner Mark Cuban has now set his sights on fixing the college football postseason.
“The more I think about it, the more sense it makes as opposed to buying a baseball team,” said Cuban, who tried to buy the Chicago Cubs and Texas Rangers within the last few years. “You can do something the whole country wants done.”
Cuban said he envisions either a 12- or 16-team playoff field with the higher seeds getting homefield advantage. The homefield advantage, Cuban said, would ensure the college football regular-season games would not lose any importance.
The bowl games could still exist under Cuban’s plan, but he said he would make it more profitable for programs to make the playoffs than a bowl.
“Put $500 million in the bank and go to all the schools and pay them money as an option,” Cuban said. “Say, ‘Look, I’m going to give you X amount every five years. In exchange, you say if you’re picked for the playoff system, you’ll go.’ “
I think 12 or 16 teams is too aggressive too early. In my proposed eight-team playoff, all of the teams that would miss the playoffs (Michigan State, LSU, Arkansas) had an opportunity to seal a bid earlier in the year, but failed to do so. This ensures the regular season keeps its importance, which is something that BCS apologists bring up every time they attempt to defend their flawed system.
Other than that, I’m glad to see Cuban focusing his efforts on this, because a college football playoff seems to be going nowhere fast. Maybe throwing money at the problem will convince schools to go to the playoff instead of the BCS, but it’s going to take a lot of convincing.
It’s what we expected coming into today, and really what we’ve kind of expected for the better part of the last two months: Auburn and Oregon will play for the national title.
Both won comfortably, as Oregon beat Oregon State 37-20 in the Civil War, and Auburn dominated South Carolina 56-17 in the SEC Championship Game. Like it had been for most of the season, it was too easy for both teams.
As it was last year, TCU is the odd team out, but I doubt many people outside of Fort Worth, Texas are all that upset about that. Even I, an ardent opponent of the BCS, believe that the two best teams in the country are about to meet each other on the field.
So what can we look forward to in this matchup? I think the obvious answer is offense. Cam Newton should be the only person invited to next week’s Heisman Trophy ceremony — perhaps they should invite Colt McCoy, too, so he can make it four years in a row of coming up short in New York — and he’ll be on the same field in January with Darron Thomas, LaMichael James and company. The over/under could literally be in the 70s.
Just from looking through Twitter, it seems as the early line will be Oregon -3, or something in that vicinity. I don’t know about that. If I had to make a pick right now, I’d say Auburn wins this one by a touchdown. I have a month to change that, however.
As for the other BCS bowls, we’ll find those out tomorrow. The only one we really know, almost certainly for sure, is TCU vs. Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl. That matchup, plus the title game is a good start. Let’s hope the rest of the games are as intriguing.
Earlier this week, I took a look back at all of the BCS championship games and whether or not they really pit the top two teams in the country against each other. But more importantly, whether or not it was a slam dunk that these were the top two teams, and you couldn’t make an argument that someone else possibly deserved a shot.
Now, granted, my memory is fuzzy on the really early ones, as I was still in high school for the first two years of the BCS, but I have a pretty good recollection of the rest of these games/years.
It’s a long post, but click through to see if the BCS has really gotten it right, or if we’ve been missing out all these years. Read the rest of this entry »
After Friday’s games, today might be a little anti-climactic, but there’s still plenty to be determined on college football’s more traditional day.
The Big Ten title is still up for grabs, with three teams — Wisconsin, Ohio State and Michigan State — all tied at the top with one loss. If all three win, the BCS standings will decide who goes to the Rose Bowl. That will likely be Wisconsin, which has that edge going into today. If Wisconsin loses and the other two win, the BCS will again decide who goes to the Rose Bowl, as Ohio State and Michigan State did not play each other. It’s a problem the Big Ten will have solved next year when there’s a title game (two title contenders not playing each other, that is. As the Big 12 showed us two years ago, the BCS can still decide a divisional race if all hell breaks loose).
If Wisconsin wins, however, and either Ohio State or Michigan State lose, it will be a lot more clear cut. The Spartans get the bid with an Ohio State loss as they have the head-to-head edge over Wisconsin. The Badgers get it if Michigan State loses, because they hold that same edge over Ohio State.
So those are your scenarios (sure, there’s the “all three lose” scenario, as well, where Iowa is back in the mix, but I don’t want to force that upon you before noon). Here’s how it will play out. Read the rest of this entry »
The marquee game of the day turned out to be another TCU beatdown of a Mountain West opponent.
The Horned Frogs put a 47-7 drubbing on Utah, breaking the Utes 21-game home winning streak and asserting themselves as a more than legitimate contender for the national title. TCU is for real, but we kind of knew that already. Now those of us that knew it can point at those who continue to deny it and laugh.
The Horned Frogs came into the game touting a powerful defense, and that held true as Utah’s high-powered offense didn’t cross midfield until late in the second half. But TCU’s offense was equally impressive, having its way with a Utah defense that was statistically stout.
A home date with San Diego State is next for the Horned Frogs, which could be a little tricky, although I expect them to win fairly easily. Then they get New Mexico, which might as well forfeit.
There will be arguments at the end of this season, I have little doubt. But if there is only one major conference team with an unbeaten record at the end of the regular season, there’s no way you can keep TCU out of the title game, not after something like this. Sorry, Boise, but I’ve switched bandwagons, and I don’t think I’m alone.
The Southeastern Conference may have lost its stranglehold on the national championship today.
South Carolina shocked the world (OK, so it wasn’t exactly the biggest upset ever, but it was still pretty big) when it knocked off No. 1 Alabama 35-21 this afternoon. The win is huge for Steve Spurrier and the Gamecocks, who were showing signs of being a legitimate SEC title contender this season. It’s also vindication for Stephen Garcia, the much-maligned South Carolina quarterback who could only watch from the bench two weeks ago as his team lost to Auburn.
But for the conference, it could be a big problem. In most years a one-loss SEC team makes the title game without hesitation, but this isn’t most years. This year is all about the Boise State argument, and don’t look now, but TCU is still undefeated, and Ohio State might not have anyone on its schedule that can beat it. And, oh yeah, that team in Eugene, Ore. is looking pretty good this year, too.
Basically, the chances of there being two undefeated teams at the end of the season are pretty high right now, and while Alabama (or heck, South Carolina) would have played one heck of a schedule if it runs the table the rest of the way, keeping out one of the undefeated teams would start quite an uproar.
I am personally of the belief that while the SEC is probably still the country’s toughest conference, you can’t keep an undefeated Boise State team out of the championship game. The Broncos have done enough over the past few years to show they’re not a fluke, and it would be high time they got their shot.
What do you think? Should a one-loss Alabama (or SEC) team get a title shot over Boise?
The Big Ten is in the middle of a brutal stretch of games today. Of the 10 conference teams in action, eight of them play MAC schools. The other two play FCS opponents.
Well done, Big Ten.
It’s weekends like this that are embarrassing, and spit in the face of the anti-playoff “every week matters” argument. These weekends are even more embarrassing when a team loses (looking at you, Purdue). From some of the noise on Twitter this morning, it’s a money issue, and the conference needs these games to offset Title IX losses.
Really? Sounds like a pathetic excuse to schedule a bunch of cupcakes, to me.
To be fair to the conference, it’s not the only one that schedules like this, and some of its teams schedule some difficult games early in the season. This weekend is just so glaringly awful that it has to be pointed out. But as long as the BCS is around, nothing is going to change, and we can be sure to see more weekends like this throughout the country.
Why is it interesting? Well, Alabama finished #1, as they should. But it was Texas, not Florida, that finished #2. The Gators finished third and the Broncos finished at #4. The site points out a couple of voters who actually had the Broncos ranked lower than #4:
[Craig] James was far and away the most anti-Boise AP voter of the bunch. Voting Boise State at No. 7 is inexcusable. Voting TCU at No. 14 is just as bad.
The worst part is that the Broncos only finished four points behind Florida in the AP poll. Hmm, where might you find four extra points? If Craig James had voted like a rational human being, the Broncos could have at least got three more points (if James put them at No. 4).
James had Ohio State, Penn State and Iowa ahead of the Broncos. I guess he’s a big fan of the Big Ten.
Then there’s the case of the only other writer in the country to put the Broncos lower than #4 — Kirk Bohls, of Austin, Texas.
He dropped the Broncos below … wait for it … THE Ohio State University. We’ll laugh about this later. I swear we will. Bohls and James were the only ones with OSU in front of BSU. Had Bohls swapped the Broncos and the Buckeyes, Boise State would have picked up an extra AP point and been tied with Florida for No. 3.
In addition to James’ #7 ranking and Bohls’ #5 ranking, 22 voters had the Broncos at #2, six ranked them #3 and 30 voters had Boise State at #4, so it appears that the voters are split into two camps: 1) those that believe that the Broncos belong (ranking them #2 or #3), 2) and those that still don’t think they are as good as one-loss BCS teams like Texas and Florida (ranking them #4 or lower).
The bottom line is that nothing has changed. A Colt McCoy-less Texas squad looked good enough against Alabama to stay at #2, while Florida thrashed a head coach-less Cincy squad in the Sugar Bowl. Boise State played TCU in the Fiesta Bowl, which made for a “fun” (i.e. non-BCS) matchup, but neither team got the opportunity to play against the big boys.
And that’s exactly the way the BCS wanted it. If Boise State and TCU got matchups with BCS schools this bowl seasons and won (or at least made it a game), it would add more fuel to the we-need-a-playoff fire.
“College football has never been better and I believe the BCS is part of that.”
This is actually a true statement, but it isn’t saying much. If something is better than asinine, does it make it good? No, it doesn’t. It makes it better than asinine. Yes, the BCS Championship Game is better than the pre-BCS system, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be drastically improved.
Hancock said the fact that other lower levels of college football use playoffs to decide their champions doesn’t mean it would work in the Football Bowl Subdivision. The second-tier of Division I football, the Championship Subdivision, has a 16-team playoff with all but the final played at home sites.
“It works at that level, I can’t deny it, but if you look attendance for those games, only Montana had decent attendance,” he said. “Many teams didn’t draw as well as they did in the regular season.”
All right, so because Hancock has some anecdotal data about lower level teams not drawing as well in the playoffs, we’re supposed to believe that home playoff games at the D1 level wouldn’t work either? Really? Like the Gators aren’t going to sell out the Swamp in the first round of an eight-team playoff? Give me a break.
Bill Hancock said a playoff at college football’s highest level would lead to more injuries, conflict with final exams, kill the bowl system and diminish the importance of the regular season.
More injuries? The current BCS system has five games. My proposed eight-team playoff would include seven games. Does Hancock really believe that the additional injury risk of two games is a valid argument against a playoff?
Kill the bowl system? The current system features a lot of lower-level bowls that feature teams that aren’t playing for a national championship. Players, coaches and fans attend these games as a celebration of a good season. How would holding a playoff affect this system in any way?
Diminish the importance of the regular season? If anything, it would increase the importance of the regular season. Under the current system, if a team loses a game it shouldn’t, it’s championship aspirations are effectively killed. With a playoff, that team would still have a fighting chance to make the postseason and compete for a title. And think about those fringe teams fighting for a playoff spot over the last couple of weeks. Every contest would become an elimination game. Under the current system, none of these teams would have an opportunity to play for a title.
Conflict with final exams? In an eight-team playoff, there are only four D1 teams in the entire country that would play more than one postseason game, and we’re worried about final exams?
