BCS Under Fire

[FootballDad]

"BCS executive director Bill Hancock said Thursday it was "hard to imagine a bigger waste of taxpayer money than to involve the government in college football.""
While I might agree with Mr. Hancock that this would be a waste of taxpayer money, it certainly ISN"T hard to imagine a bigger waste of tax money. 3/4 of our government structure, from city government up to the FedGov is a waste.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

"BCS executive director Bill Hancock said Thursday it was "hard to imagine a bigger waste of taxpayer money than to involve the government in college football.""
<div>While I might agree with Mr. Hancock that this would be a waste of taxpayer money, it certainly ISN"T hard to imagine a bigger waste of tax money. 3/4 of our government structure, from city government up to the FedGov is a waste.</div>

I was thinking the same thing, FootballDad!

 

[Colonel_Reb]

This article says the bowl system isn't likely to change soon. They make a couple of decent points but they miss the mark in other areas. Of course viewership is going to be up if you have more bowl games, which seem to increase in number every 2-3 years. I still believe we'll see some kind of playoff (maybe not the kind I want) within the next 15 years.

http://www.mlive.com/sports/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/11/college_football_bowl_system_w.html

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Maybe this is one small step in the right direction, maybe.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6175391

BATON ROUGE, La. -- NCAA president Mark Emmert said Wednesday that
he's willing to help create a playoff format to decide a national
championship for the top level of college football.

However, that
won't happen unless the leaders of institutions fielding teams in the
NCAA's Football Bowl Subdivision want to make such a change after
contracts with the current Bowl Championship Series expire in 2014.

"If
the leadership of those universities ... want to move in that
direction, then the NCAA knows how to run championships and we'd be
happy to help," Emmert said while speaking at the Rotary Club of Baton
Rouge, of which he was a member while serving as LSU's chancellor from
1999-2004.

Emmert stopped short of endorsing a playoff, saying
that the NCAA also sees value in the bowl system, particularly the way
it expands opportunities for athletes to participate in postseason play.

"We
had 35 bowls this year, some of which were big and some of which were
small, but the one thing I know about every one of them is, 70 teams
loved playing in them," Emmert said. "Kids love playing bowl games.
Schools love participating in bowl games and everybody knows that, so
it's finding that right balance that I think is going to be
challenging."

While Emmert likely won't be dealing substantively
with the possibility of a football playoff for a few years, he has been
presented with a number of immediate challenges since assuming the
NCAA's top post a little more than five months ago.

He has taken a lot of criticism concerning the NCAA's handling of the Cam Newton
matter, and college athletics has been generating a number of other
negative off-the-field headlines concerning players receiving improper
benefits, improper contact between players and agents as well as
recruiting violations and even trouble with the law.

Now one of his immediate challenges is ensuring the NCAA maintains credibility with the public.

"The
integrity of the collegiate model of athletics right now is challenged
in lots of ways," Emmert said. "Any time you've got high-profile,
controversial cases, people walk away scratching their head and we had
some of those this year. We have to be clear about what our values are,
what we're trying to promote, how we go about our business."

New
rules are in the works that would deal with what Emmert referred to as
"third parties," which could apply to parents, agents or any other
associate looking to profit from a relationship with a college athlete.

In
Newton's case, the third party was his father, Cecil, who, according to
NCAA findings, sought $180,000 from Mississippi State for his son's
commitment out of junior college before Cam Newton instead went to
Auburn, where he won the Heisman Trophy this season and led the Tigers
to a national title.

The NCAA did not punish Cam Newton for the
violation his father committed because it said it found no evidence that
the player or Auburn knew about Cecil Newton's pay-for-play scheme.

Only
months before the Newton scandal, Southern California lost scholarships
and was hit with a two-season bowl ban after an NCAA probe found Reggie Bush,
while still at USC, and his family received improper benefits from
people who wanted to represent him after he turned pro. Soon after, Bush
relinquished his claim to the 2005 Heisman Trophy.

When the 2010
college football season opened, LSU faced a North Carolina squad missing
13 players because a probe into improper contact between agents and
players, as well as academic violations.

The NCAA has panels
investigating a number of issues, Emmert said, including, "Why is it
that student-athletes think they need an agent in that circumstance or a
third party that's promoting them? How do those relationships get
started?

"How do we give them the information they need to make a
thoughtful decision instead of listening to someone who's whispering in
their ear who may not necessarily have their best interest at heart?" he
said.

How long it takes for those panel discussions to produce new rules remains to be seen.

"It's
going to take us a while to get a clear set of proposals, but we've got
a lot of people who are interested in it," Emmert said. "Everybody
understands that this is a serious problem in football and basketball."


Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Another interesting development in this ongoing issue.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/05/04/ncaa.bcs/?hpt=T2


(CNN) -- In a letter to the NCAA on Wednesday, the Justice
Department said it has opened an antitrust inquiry into the current Bowl
Championship Series system, which excludes some athletic conferences
from the formula for choosing schools to play in major bowl games.

Assistant
Attorney General Christine Varney scheduled a meeting with reporters to
discuss the move. Millions of dollars in revenue are at stake in the
football bowl selection process.

"Serious questions continue to
arise suggesting that the current BCS system may not be conducted
consistent with the competition principles expressed in federal
antitrust laws," Varney told Mark Emmert, president of the NCAA in
Indianapolis.

The decision to release the letter came hours after
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a major opponent of the current system,
demanded further consideration of the issue in a face-to-face appearance
with Attorney General Eric Holder at a Senate Judiciary Committee
hearing. Holder then disclosed the Justice Department had sent the
letter to the NCAA on the issue.

In her letter, Varney asked
Emmert to explain why college football does not have a playoff when so
many other college sports do. She also asked what steps, if any, the
NCAA has taken to create a playoff, and whether the NCAA has determined
that there are aspects of the BCS system that do not serve interests of
fans, colleges, universities, and players. Currently,
the BCS system limits automatic bids to the winners of the Big Ten, Big
East, Big 12, ACC, Pac 10 and SEC, thereby leaving out other
conferences, including almost all schools in the Rocky Mountain region.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

A rare correction on this situation from CNN. We'll see what happens.


An earlier e-mail alert incorrectly reported the contents of a letter
from the Justice Department to the NCAA about the Bowl Championship
Series.



The Justice Department has not announced an
antitrust inquiry into the BCS. The letter asked for information about
the BCS system to help determine if an inquiry should be launched.



Also,
the alert should have said the BCS system makes it more difficult for
some athletic conferences to qualify for major bowl games, but it does
not exclude them.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7027726/sec-commissioner-mike-silve-expects-bcs-ask-commissioners-lift-two-team-conference-limit

The ultra-caste SEC wants more than 2 BCS spots.

Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive expects the BCS executive director to ask the commissioners to consider lifting the two-team per conference limit in the Bowl Championship Series.

Slive and Texas A&M president R. Bowen Loftin spoke on a conference call with reporters Tuesday about the Aggies' move to the SEC. Slive was asked about the possibility of the BCS changing its rules to allow more than two teams from a conference to play in the five most lucrative bowl games in a year.

He said BCS executive director Bill Han**** wanted to speak with the commissioners of the 11 major college football conferences about a number of issues, the two-team limit expected to be among them.

In an email to The Associated Press, Han**** declined to discuss Slive's comments or elaborate on what other possible changes to the BCS he'd like to see the commissioners address.

"The commissioners are committed to making the BCS the best it can be," he wrote. "It's very good now. Just what 'making it the best' might entail will be evaluated in a thoughtful and deliberate process over the next six or eight months."

 

[Colonel_Reb]

[FONT=verdana, arial, sans serif]There will be a 4 team playoff...in 2014. I'm still not satisfied, but at least we're headed in the right direction.

http://cfn.scout.com/2/1196749.html
The Four Team Seeded Playoff
How the committee should work[/FONT]

E-mail Pete Fiutak
Follow us ... @ColFootballNews

It’s finally official -– there will be a four-team playoff.

Now get ready for the fight to put together a committee to make it happen.

The 11 conference commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick officially and finally put out there what everyone already knew. They want a playoff. There will be four teams. It has to be approved by the presidents and higher-ups for approval and to finalize the details, but for now, all the conferences are and the same page and they’ve all agreed that they’d like a four-team playoff in 2014. “At our meeting with the Presidential Oversight Committee next week, we will present our views so the presidents can make their decisions,†said BCS director Bill Han****. “On many issues we have achieved widespread consensus; on some issues, important and valuable alternatives have been suggested.â€

“We have developed a consensus behind a four-team, seeded playoff, while recognizing that the presidents will certainly present their views, including a discussion of a Plus-One. We also discussed various selection methods and look forward to having these discussions with the presidents.â€

So what does this mean? The BCS system might not be totally dead -– it might be kept around as a starting point for the rankings -– but it likely won’t be a deciding factor when it comes to which four teams end up in the playoff.

When all is said and done there will almost certainly be a committee formed to decide the teams that make it. The semifinal games will be played in existing bowls, while the national championship will change yearly like the Final Four and the Super Bowl.

Practically, this set-up gives all the main players what they need and want. Initially the SEC and Big 12 wanted the top four ranked teams to get into a playoff, while the Big Ten floated out the idea of a Plus One format or a way of putting in just conference champions. With the plan that’s being pushed forward, there’s the flexibility to do both.

If the four deserving teams are from the Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC, more than likely the committee will make sure the Big 12 and SEC –- no matter what the ranking, because there’s a difference between ranking and seeding –- will play in the new bowl game created between the two leagues, and the Big Ten and Pac-12 will almost certainly play each other in the Rose Bowl. At the same time, the SEC will get what it wants with a fallback in case it has two juggernauts like it did in 2011.

If there is a committee, then it’ll work factors like winning the conference championship as well as strength of schedule into the equation. It’ll also take into account the conference tie-ins, allowing the Big Ten and Pac-12 to get their wish of keeping the Rose Bowl relevant with one or both of those two almost assuredly to end up in Pasadena.

And then comes the issue of the committee.

For this to work, there has to be absolute, 100 percent transparency with each of the committee members needing to be able to explain in detail why each one chose each of the four teams.

Part of the problem with the current polling system is that almost no one believes that the voters know enough about every team they’re voting for. Coaches aren’t able to watch more than just the game they coached that day, and the Harris Poll is covered in a cloud of secrecy. Most fans will buy what the committee –- if there’s a committee –- will sell in terms of the top four teams as long as it makes sense.

More often than not the top two or three teams should be obvious, and while there will usually be some sour grapes by a few teams that don’t get in, as long as the conference titles are taken into account –- if, for example, Oregon would’ve made it in this year instead of Stanford –- at least it will appear to be reasonable.

This way, if there’s a killer team that didn’t win its conference title, like Alabama, then it can be accounted for. If the far-and-away top team –- like LSU was at the end of the regular season -– gets upset in the conference championship, this system would account for that, too, as long as there’s reason to believe that the committee voters didn’t just vote based on their eyeballs and can come up with some sort of reason or evidence for voting the way they did.

The other big question will be the committee itself. For this to work, there can’t be any former coaches involved. Bobby Bowden has already said he’d like to be a part of it, but fickle college football fans will scream and yell if it comes down to Florida State and one other team for a No. 4 spot and he picks the Seminoles, or if he picks against Florida.

There can’t be any former players. Even the most objective ex-jock analysts have an issue when it comes to public perception.

There can’t be anyone remotely involved with ESPN. There are way too many conflicts of interest considering the TV money that’s at stake.

It can’t be a panel of dozens or hundreds of media members who cover the teams or work locally, because regional biases would get in the way. If you thought the Heisman voting was broken down by where the voters are from, just imagine what will happen if the fourth slot comes down to Oregon and Alabama.

Not just to dream the impossible dream of being a part of a committee, but using national writers and columnists would work –- trust me, most of the national scribes you can think of would be the most objective voters –- if for no other reason than to keep all of us from ever dogging the system or the results. However, there are way too many egos involved and way too many big players who’ll demand to have a say for that to ever happen. The conference commissioners aren’t going to come this far and not pick and choose exactly the guys they need to help their individual causes.

In a perfect world, the committee will be made up of people who have no ties to college athletics whatsoever. The panel would be given objective facts -– again, conference titles, strength of schedule, the timing of key wins, etc. -– and would then vote accordingly. Again, that would never, ever happen because of just how big this will be and how many dollars would be at stake.

Whatever the committee and whatever the format, the criteria should be cut-and-dry easy.

1. Conference champions. Any and all reasonable efforts have to be made to include a conference champion over a team that didn’t win its league title.

2. Strength of schedule. The NCAA strength of schedule isn’t exactly perfect –- based purely on wins and losses –- but the second an outside source is used, the process will start to suffer from the same criticisms from those who don’t like the computer side of the BCS formula.

3. Road wins and neutral site wins. The committee should take the NCAA strength of schedule and then look harder at where the big wins came from and when. Oklahoma State losing to Iowa State might not look good on a spreadsheet, but the overtime loss combined with the barely-missed field goal in the final seconds, and with the tragedy surrounding the plane crash the day before, would be taken into account if the team was on the bubble. Wisconsin losing on the road on two bombs would be different than a team losing by 14 at home, and Alabama losing in a nip-and-tuck war against a juggernaut LSU team would obviously be weighed differently than Stanford losing by 23 at home to Oregon.

Unfortunately, the commissioners still didn’t make everyone happy, with the Twitter world immediately blowing up with fears that the SEC will dominate in this new format from here on, but there will be a playoff and, my fellow Americans, our long national BCS nightmare is over.

No, this might not be the perfect solution, but it will be better.

We’re getting a playoff.
​