In the context of this debate, ignoring the fact that every FBS (I'm not sure if Army and Navy are actually members of the BCS) school is a member of the BCS, what impact does the fact that the BCS formula for determining #1 and #2 does not discriminate against smaller schools have? It is not the BCS formula that keeps the smaller conference schools out of the national championship game, but rather the voters and independently created computer formulas that determine who is #1 and #2. If Congress mandates that the NCAA institute a playoff format, do they also decide the requirements for eligibility in the tournament? I'm not really sure I'm confident in Nancy Pelosi or Joe Wilson coming up with a good solution as to who the true national champion is
It's worth nothing that more teams have gotten into one of the big money bowls since the BCS than before it. "In the 54 seasons before 2004, four mid-majors made BCS bowls or the high-paying, New Year's Day bowls that eventually formed the Bowl Championship Series: Air Force in the 1959 Cotton and 1971 Sugar, Wyoming in the 1968 Sugar and Louisville in the 1991 Fiesta." Also, in that summary from the hearing, the Nebraska official points out that Utah could have played a decent non-conference schedule in trying to convince people that they were a top team. So an 8 team playoff? Would be exciting on a week to week basis.
Weak argument considering they played @Michigan and played Oregon State in non-conference. Michigan had an extremely down year, but there was nothing Utah could do about that. I'd argue that @Michigan and Oregon State would rank them in at least the top 25% of non-conference schedules.
Congress can dictate that the NCAA has allowed its schools to participate in a system that does not create a level playing field, and by doing so, no longer deserves anti-trust protections. It's the same reason Congress has influence on MLB drug policies. It's not the national championship game that matters so much - it's the automatic qualifying bids for the big 6 BCS conferences, each of which guarantees a $16MM payday for that conference. The BCS sort of attempted to hold off Congress by instituting the 1 bid for non-BCS teams, but now you'll again have a scenario where a top-5 team is denied a bit because it's not in a certain conference. No - they just demand that the NCAA provide an equal playing field for all of its schools.
No it does not say that. It says that they would have a greater than 50% chance of beating the teams ranked behind them, and a less than 50% chance of beating the teams ahead of them - that doesn't mean that every single time they played them they would win or lose - in fact that's statistically very unlikely.
Major, what would constitute a level playing field? You seem to agree, that on its face, the BCS has created a level playing field in the context of #1 vs. #2. Since it is unlikely that Congress can force the schools to create a playoff, what is a likely scenario in the case of Congressional involvement? The schools cave, creating a playoff format in which all 11 conference champions get automatic bids? Every bowl game has equal payouts for schools regardless of fan interest in seeing Florida Atlantic vs. Southern Miss in the Magic Jack St. Petersburg bowl?
Before the BCS though, wasn't bowl money less concentrated? And it is a little misleading to only mention the current BCS bowls... since there were other important bowls back in the day that many current non-BCS teams probably made it to a multitude of times. I know Houston, for example, made it to the cotton bowl (which was a "big money new years bowl") as many times (4) as all of your examples made it into into those "big" bowls in the pre-BCS era combined. Edit: The Cotton Bowl is a great example really. Because in the pre-BCS era, a current non-BCS team made it to that "big money new years bowl" 19 different times. Double Edit: That stat is turning out to be a little off... unless they're being very fishy with the term "mid major". (I take that to mean non-BCS school.. and for the spirit of this argument, that is what it really should mean, since this is who we're talking about it affects so much... and I don't count Rice or Navy as a major college or BCS program) Sugar Bowl: 21st January 1, 1955 Navy 21 Mississippi 0 27th January 2, 1961 Mississippi 14 Rice 6 Fiesta Bowl: December 25, 1976 Oklahoma 41 Wyoming 7
Nowhere did I say that every single time they played them, they would win or lose. I said the computers say they would beat the vast majority of them, which is common sense based on their rankings. And the computers do say Boise is better than anyone from the ACC, etc. Common sense dictates that the computers don't guarantee the results of every game in college football. I tend assume that when I post, the people read it using that basic level of common sense.
A common playing field means that certain teams aren't given an advantage when getting into the BCS bowl games. That's certainly not unlikely. You could do that, though it's probably unlikely. You could have a system where the top 8 or 16 or whatever from the BCS standings are in a playoff, with no artificial preference given to a conference like the Big East because they have a better name than the MWC.
To clarify - they couldn't force the NCAA to create a playoff. But they could force the destruction of the BCS. And the NCAA isn't going to go back to the old bowl game system after they've seen how much money the BCS generates, so the obvious alternative would be a playoff.
In many years, wouldn't an eight team playoff have a similar, if not worse impact on the finances of the non AQC schools than the BCS? As it is, a non AQC school gets an automatic spot if it is in the top 12. Additionally, if you ignore conference tie-ins, wouldn't this eviscerate the importance and brand value of conference championships and conference play? You'd have the power conference schools playing even weaker-non conference schedules than they do now. Would the money that the SEC, Big XII, and ACC lose by having the importance of their championship games decline be offset by a playoff with no auto-qualifiers? I mean, can you honestly see any of the conferences agreeing to a system where they aren't guaranteed a spot? There are no other playoffs across college sports (that I'm aware of) where every conference doesn't get at least one autobid for their champ. I don't see how a playoff system works unless you guarantee every FBS conference an automatic bid.
The computers also suggest that the voters are overrating Boise State due to their lousy schedule. Poor Boise State gets no respect.... OOoooh, MAJOR burn there. Thanks for that! The way you presented the information was misleading. I clarified it. Get over it. Very simple question to you - Boise State plays in the ACC this year - do they run the table or not? What kind of odds would you require? I wouldn't bet that at 3:1.
But only one does right now. So you have the ACC winner, probably not in the top 10, guaranteed in, but Boise State in the top 5, stuck out of it. And Houston didn't whiff against UTEP, you'd have either them or TCU stuck on the outside either. Remember - the goal is equal opportunity, not equal results. But from a finance perspective, each of the last 4 years, a non-AQC school has made it (Hawaii, Boise, and Utah twice), and last year, Boise got left out like they probably will this year. So overall, you'd have had 6 teams instead of 4 over these last 4 years. I disagree - the value of a good conference is that you have marquee facilities, televised games, NFL exposure, etc. But given those advantages, if the Big East teams can't outperform the MWC, why should they be given an automatic $16MM? In terms of playing weaker competition, I'm not so sure. Teams like Texas and Florida probably would because they expect to win their conference and get in on reputation. But teams like Oregon or Okie Light know that big non-conference wins could put them in position to be in the playoff mix without winning their conference, whereas a weak nonconference schedule would be more likely to eliminate you. I think the incentive there is the same as now, except it would be for a playoff appearance instead of a BCS game at-large selection. Well, there's the problem. The big conferences do it specifically to give themselves a financial advantage. And that's exactly what leads to Congress intervening. There are enough Senators from states like Utah and Idaho to cause problems for the NCAA. Agreed - but unless you go to a fairly large playoff, I don't see that happening. And it's not an absolute necessity, as long as there is reasonable, fair access that the MWC, etc are on board with. When the NCAA basketball tournament was only 32 teams, did only the conference champions get in (there are currently 34 conferences, but I imagine there were a few less back then). I have no idea how that worked.
