What exactly about the BCS do people hate?

[jay santos]

YOhio, you post here. I see this post of yours.

http://www.cougarboard.com/nologin/m...tml?id=2348750

I'm not a BCS apologist. I also hate aspects of the BCS. But I think sometimes we funnel anger about the system in general towards the BCS.

Things BYU fans hate that are unfairly aimed at the BCS:

1. Huge sums of money garnered by BCS conferences

--first, this is not the BCS fault, per se, it's the bowl system's fault. This problem existed before the BCS. Conferences had tie-in's to bowls. If you take the four main bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Cotton and then later Fiesta) which accounted for a big % of revenues, non-BCS schools very, very rarely went to these bowls.

--second, this won't change even if we went to a playoff. The BCS conferences will always outrevenue the non-BCS conferences 10:1, because they have the programs that will make the championship game, Final 4, Final 8, etc. BCS conferences get a disproportionate share in NCAA BB tourney revenue as well.

2. Vandy gets a share of BCS money while BYU doesn't.

--this is not a BCS problem, this is a conference affiliation issue. Conferences choose who to take in and how to distribute revenue. Vandy also gets more NCAA BB tourney revenue than BYU, they also get a lot more regular season TV money for FB and BB. The sums of these other revenue streams dwarf the BCS money, but the BCS gets our ire. It's not BCS it's a conference issue

3. No shot at the title.

--I disagree. The BCS' ranking system is reasonably fair and there for the taking. Schedule quality opponents and win all your games. BYU has just as much shot at a title as a similarly reputed BCS school such as a Stanford or a Syracuse.

4. Inequity

--Inequity is a function of money, fan support, tradition, etc. Basketball there is inequity but it's not as glaring because you have 7-9 primary contributors. In football you have as many as 50 primary contributors, so the averages will rule out and the big money, big fan support, big tradition schools have an easier time maintaining their edge. I don't see that any change in the postseason format will have any change in the inequity of college football. Nebraska will always beat Wyoming.


Good reasons to hate the BCS

1. Artificial seperation between BCS and non-BCS

This I HATE. If the system is open, where BYU in theory has an equal chance with Boston College in making the BCS (which I believe for the most part with the new rules), then there shouldn't be this constant reference to your program's standing as BCS or non-BCS. It is driving program image, recruiting, etc. Over time this will be very damaging to non-BCS.



Outside of this reason I give for hating the BCS, the only real evil here is the BOWL tradition. The BCS has actually improved on the bowl tradition, IMHO.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by jay santos

3. No shot at the title.

--I disagree. The BCS' ranking system is reasonably fair and there for the taking. Schedule quality opponents and win all your games. BYU has just as much shot at a title as a similarly reputed BCS school such as a Stanford or a Syracuse.

The BCS ranking system has improved over time. The early versions that basically placed a 25% weight on SOS explicitly were biased against BYU and other non-BCS participants. Talk about being SOS heavy. Plus using SOS as a ranking system by itself is pretty silly. The BCS ranking system is better now. However, I do think that the forced removal of MOV from the computer rankings does create some bias.

[MikeWaters]

because it gives people an excuse to not implement a playoff.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

because it gives people an excuse to not implement a playoff.

That one I agree with, but my anger is focused on the entire bowl system, not the BCS, which seems to be reasonably doing the best they can within the system to create the truest champion possible.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

YOhio, you post here. I see this post of yours.

http://www.cougarboard.com/nologin/m...tml?id=2348750

I'm not a BCS apologist. I also hate aspects of the BCS. But I think sometimes we funnel anger about the system in general towards the BCS.

Things BYU fans hate that are unfairly aimed at the BCS:

1. Huge sums of money garnered by BCS conferences

--first, this is not the BCS fault, per se, it's the bowl system's fault. This problem existed before the BCS. Conferences had tie-in's to bowls. If you take the four main bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Cotton and then later Fiesta) which accounted for a big % of revenues, non-BCS schools very, very rarely went to these bowls.

--second, this won't change even if we went to a playoff. The BCS conferences will always outrevenue the non-BCS conferences 10:1, because they have the programs that will make the championship game, Final 4, Final 8, etc. BCS conferences get a disproportionate share in NCAA BB tourney revenue as well.

2. Vandy gets a share of BCS money while BYU doesn't.

--this is not a BCS problem, this is a conference affiliation issue. Conferences choose who to take in and how to distribute revenue. Vandy also gets more NCAA BB tourney revenue than BYU, they also get a lot more regular season TV money for FB and BB. The sums of these other revenue streams dwarf the BCS money, but the BCS gets our ire. It's not BCS it's a conference issue

3. No shot at the title.

--I disagree. The BCS' ranking system is reasonably fair and there for the taking. Schedule quality opponents and win all your games. BYU has just as much shot at a title as a similarly reputed BCS school such as a Stanford or a Syracuse.

4. Inequity

--Inequity is a function of money, fan support, tradition, etc. Basketball there is inequity but it's not as glaring because you have 7-9 primary contributors. In football you have as many as 50 primary contributors, so the averages will rule out and the big money, big fan support, big tradition schools have an easier time maintaining their edge. I don't see that any change in the postseason format will have any change in the inequity of college football. Nebraska will always beat Wyoming.


Good reasons to hate the BCS

1. Artificial seperation between BCS and non-BCS

This I HATE. If the system is open, where BYU in theory has an equal chance with Boston College in making the BCS (which I believe for the most part with the new rules), then there shouldn't be this constant reference to your program's standing as BCS or non-BCS. It is driving program image, recruiting, etc. Over time this will be very damaging to non-BCS.



Outside of this reason I give for hating the BCS, the only real evil here is the BOWL tradition. The BCS has actually improved on the bowl tradition, IMHO.

I'm too tired to list all the reasons, but I'll simply say

BYU 1996
Tulane 1998
Marshall 1999

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by jay santos

YOhio, you post here. I see this post of yours.

http://www.cougarboard.com/nologin/m...tml?id=2348750

I'm not a BCS apologist. I also hate aspects of the BCS. But I think sometimes we funnel anger about the system in general towards the BCS.

Things BYU fans hate that are unfairly aimed at the BCS:

1. Huge sums of money garnered by BCS conferences

--first, this is not the BCS fault, per se, it's the bowl system's fault. This problem existed before the BCS. Conferences had tie-in's to bowls. If you take the four main bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Cotton and then later Fiesta) which accounted for a big % of revenues, non-BCS schools very, very rarely went to these bowls.

--second, this won't change even if we went to a playoff. The BCS conferences will always outrevenue the non-BCS conferences 10:1, because they have the programs that will make the championship game, Final 4, Final 8, etc. BCS conferences get a disproportionate share in NCAA BB tourney revenue as well.

2. Vandy gets a share of BCS money while BYU doesn't.

--this is not a BCS problem, this is a conference affiliation issue. Conferences choose who to take in and how to distribute revenue. Vandy also gets more NCAA BB tourney revenue than BYU, they also get a lot more regular season TV money for FB and BB. The sums of these other revenue streams dwarf the BCS money, but the BCS gets our ire. It's not BCS it's a conference issue

3. No shot at the title.

--I disagree. The BCS' ranking system is reasonably fair and there for the taking. Schedule quality opponents and win all your games. BYU has just as much shot at a title as a similarly reputed BCS school such as a Stanford or a Syracuse.

4. Inequity

--Inequity is a function of money, fan support, tradition, etc. Basketball there is inequity but it's not as glaring because you have 7-9 primary contributors. In football you have as many as 50 primary contributors, so the averages will rule out and the big money, big fan support, big tradition schools have an easier time maintaining their edge. I don't see that any change in the postseason format will have any change in the inequity of college football. Nebraska will always beat Wyoming.


Good reasons to hate the BCS

1. Artificial seperation between BCS and non-BCS

This I HATE. If the system is open, where BYU in theory has an equal chance with Boston College in making the BCS (which I believe for the most part with the new rules), then there shouldn't be this constant reference to your program's standing as BCS or non-BCS. It is driving program image, recruiting, etc. Over time this will be very damaging to non-BCS.



Outside of this reason I give for hating the BCS, the only real evil here is the BOWL tradition. The BCS has actually improved on the bowl tradition, IMHO.

Because the BCS is not about finding a champion. It gives only 6 of 11 conferences a chance to win it's farcical championsip. Sure, they've thrown a bone to the 5 other conferences it would rather ignore, but even if teams jump through all it's hoops (like Boise State did this year) it won't ever allow one of the interlopers to play for it's title.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm too tired to list all the reasons, but I'll simply say

BYU 1996
Tulane 1998
Marshall 1999

Add Utah 2004 to that list as well. It does everything it is asked and is given Pitt in the Fiesta Bowl? Utah and Auburn both got screwed that year as far as playing for the bogus championship, but at the very least, the BCS should have paired those teams up for a bowl game.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm too tired to list all the reasons, but I'll simply say

BYU 1996
Tulane 1998
Marshall 1999

Utah 2004

[jay santos]

So every reason stated so far is related to access to a good bowl game and/or access to the title. I agree with that sentiment, but I don't blame the BCS. The BCS has improved on a system and given a Utah 2004 or a Boise 2006 a shot at a decent bowl opponent and a big payday, where there was no opportunity before.

I would lump all these reasons as anti-bowl arguments, not anti-BCS.

The arguments that I think are unfair towards the BCS are the $ related issues.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

because it gives people an excuse to not implement a playoff.

In a nutshell, this is my biggest problem with the BCS.

The other thing that really pisses me off is the granting of an automatic bowl bid to select conference champions and Notre Dame (if they're in the top 8).