Some BCS bowls under attack for their 501(c)3 status
Tonawanda Kardex
The house will crumble some day soon.
And everyone will remember the BCS for the sham it was.
--
Uh ... whatever.
J.C. Watts
wrote:
> http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/sep/22/221640/bcs-foes-accuse-bowls-...
>
> The house will crumble some day soon.
>
> And everyone will remember the BCS for the sham it was.
You do realize this will have no bearing on the future of the BCS.
They'll replace one group with another and it will go on. The Fiesta
Bowl's problems is that, despite the fact they pay a big salary, the
Executive Director doesn't seem to understand the regulations
effecting non-profit institutions.
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
> http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/sep/22/221640/bcs-foes-accuse-bowls-...
>
> The house will crumble some day soon.
Maybe. They may lose tax exempt status, but would that kill
them? I doubt it.
>
> And everyone will remember the BCS for the sham it was.
Pretty much everyone knows that already. I'd like to see a
playoff, but getting rid of the BCS won't necessarilly result in one.
Chris Bellomy
> On Sep 23, 2:01 pm, Tonawanda Kardex<tonawandakar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/sep/22/221640/bcs-foes-accuse-bowls-...
>>
>> The house will crumble some day soon.
>>
>> And everyone will remember the BCS for the sham it was.
>
> You do realize this will have no bearing on the future of the BCS.
Maybe no direct bearing, but it'll be Congress who kills the
BCS, and this won't help things.
cb
J.C. Watts
How is Congress going to kill the BCS?
Jon
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
> >>http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/sep/22/221640/bcs-foes-accuse-bowls-...
>
> >> The house will crumble some day soon.
>
> >> And everyone will remember the BCS for the sham it was.
>
> > You do realize this will have no bearing on the future of the BCS.
>
> Maybe no direct bearing, but it'll be Congress who kills the
> BCS, and this won't help things.
<
<How is Congress going to kill the BCS?
With a wooden stake. The exact procedure will be part of the next
health care bill.
--Tedward
Chris Bellomy
Drag a bunch of university presidents to the Hill to testify
under oath about why certain conferences get autobids and
others don't. It was the threat of this that kept the Big 12
semi-together for another couple of years... I've seen the
FOIA documents to prove it.
Wanna know the real reason why the Pac 10 invited Utah?
Orrin Hatch.
cb
J.C. Watts
Yeah but in the end, Congress isn't going to do anything about it.
GregoryD
And the response will be that the big time programs will tell Congress
and the NCAA to go fuck themselves and reorganize in a way that makes
the NCAA as relevant as the NAIA.
GregoryD
Chris Bellomy
That depends on what you mean. Will they pass a law? No, of
course not. Will they threaten to until the big schools cave?
Yes. Yes, they will.
cb
Chris Bellomy
They'll find themselves buried in antitrust law so fast
their advanced degrees will spin.
cb
J.C. Watts Enslin
How? They are letting the marketplace dictate everything.
Chris Bellomy
Unpopular entities like the BCS don't tell Congress to go
fuck themselves, especially when one chamber of Congress
is heavily weighted against them. Just think of all those
western senators with all those constituents who *hate*
the BCS and *hate* the FBS power structure.
Besides, I didn't say "NCAA" once. It's about the school
presidents. These are people who are smart enough not to
lie under oath, and there are things they can't afford to
disclose if they want to preserve the status quo. This is
not a fight they can win. Period.
cb
J.C. Watts Enslin
Of course they can. Congress will do nothing. Because in the end,
it's about money...and Congress isn't going to force some playoff for
the sake of the Boises of the world without the big boys trying to get
around it.
Gomer Jones
Why drag them into congress can you can go to the BCS website and
learn how the chose the AQ conferences. Transparency is one the thing
the BCS doesn't lack, in fact one could argue the BCS is more
transparent then congress. Here is your answer right here.
Why do some conferences have automatic qualification (AQ) while others
do not?
All 11 conferences competed fairly for an opportunity to earn AQ
status. As agreed by all 11 conferences, the results of the 2004,
2005, 2006 and 2007 regular seasons were evaluated to determine which
conferences earned automatic qualification. Three criteria were used:
rank of the highest-ranked team, rank of all conference teams and
number of teams in the top 25. The six conferences which met that
standard are as follows: Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12,
Pacific-10-10 and Southeastern. Five of those conferences -- all
except the Big East -- have contracts for their champions to
participate in BCS bowl games.
The 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons are being evaluated to determine
if a seventh conference achieves automatic qualification for the BCS
games that will conclude the 2012 and 2013 seasons.
The Playoff Pac people are stupid, go piss off the organizing
committees of the Bowls, and you piss off the one influential group
that could convince Presidents and ADs that a playoff wouldn't be a
bad thing as long as you retain the bowls. We all know that the big
time programs could care less if there was a playoff, most of those
schools barely make money when they travel to the bowls as it is. The
reality is they don't want a playoff because they are afraid they will
lose that all important 12th game which is usually a home game that
fills up the revenue coffers. Winning or losing home games pay the
freight and the Presidents and ADs want to pay the freight.
Chris Bellomy
The scandal that will erupt if the university presidents
have to testify under oath will be all that's needed.
cb
GregoryD
Nobody's going to care. If the antitrust matter were possible, it'd
have been brought up already. It isn't possible if the major
conferences split and form their own organization, because there's
nothing that says they have to accept anybody under the sun. The major
bowls will disband and reorganize under the new organization. Problem
solved.
I mean, what's the argument that the other schools are going to have?
The big time schools won't play them, so they can't make as much money?
Doesn't matter, they aren't competing directly against each other.
Antitrust laws don't apply.
GregoryD
J.C. Watts Enslin
Not really. I hate to break it to you, but the general public really
doesn't care all that much. Everytime they have done something in
this area, the public has basically said "WTF are you wasting your
time with that?"
Seapig
If the answer to the first question is "No, of course not" then what
makes you think the schools will cave to an obviously empty threat?
Chris Bellomy
Tell it to Bill Powers.
cb
Chris Bellomy
Because it's not an empty threat. It's just that the
schools are smart enough to resolve the issue on their
own before Congress does it for them.
cb
Michael Press
Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
The big schools have clout to match congress.
--
Michael Press
JGibson
This was a hot topic on the MWC board first when Boise State moved
from the WAC to the MWC and then when Utah moved from the MWC to the
Pac-10. Apparently, the way this works for the next evaluation is to
use the team's placement at the time of the evaluation. With Boise
State, the MWC was poised to get in position for AQ because now Boise
State last year would have been the MWC's highest ranked team instead
of the WAC's highest ranked team, and they had their averages as
well. But with Utah gone, those Utah rankings are gone. And now the
BYU rankings are gone as well.
Starcade
> You do realize this will have no bearing on the future of the BCS.
> They'll replace one group with another and it will go on. The Fiesta
> Bowl's problems is that, despite the fact they pay a big salary, the
> Executive Director doesn't seem to understand the regulations
> effecting non-profit institutions.
It should, but it won't. They'll just finally admit the whole thing
is about "bid-ness", and, at that point, you know what's really going
on.
Mike
mianderson
the boise states of the world *benefit* from the bcs. Right now they
are GUARANTEED to get a part of the action as long as they win every
game this year based on the way the bcs is set up.
Take away the bcs, and they're playing a 7-5 kansas state team in the
poinsetta bowl or something for 1/20th the pay and exposure.
>
> cb
Chris Bellomy
No, they get in the NCAA Tournament and receive the payday
that implies.
I'd think that even someone as addled by prescription drugs
as you seem to be would be able to make that logical leap.
cb
mianderson
there is no "ncaa tournament" in college football......never has been.
It's one thing say(even though I dont agree with it) "the bcs should
be discontinued someday".
It's a whole nother leap to then talk about a tournament where every
team is involved.
>
> I'd think that even someone as addled by prescription drugs
> as you seem to be would be able to make that logical leap.
leap being the key word. The idea that college football MUST have a
tournament that resembles basketball or baseball is just loony.......
I like the bcs more than the old system. But I have to admit a small
part of me would find it gratifying if the bcs was ever done away
with(not likely to happen anytime soon) and the boises of the world
ended up in a worse position.
>
> cb
GregoryD
Given that less than 3% of college football fans would even know who he
is, I don't see how you're making a good argument.
GregoryD
Chris Bellomy
Follow me here... take away the BCS... and guess what follows.
If you can.
Chris Bellomy
> he is, I don't see how you're making a good argument.
Well, *he* doesn't to testify to Congress. Neither does
Bowen Loftin at A&M. Which is why there is still a conference
called the Big 12.
When the presidents of the two flagship universities in Texas
are afraid of the not-otherwise-noteworthy Chet Edwards of
Waco -- and they are -- that should tell you *something*.
cb
mianderson
you can't assume a large playoff would follow. At all.
mianderson
it tells me that the anti-bcs/playoff people are full of it.....people
were predicting the "end of the bcs" many many years ago.....the bcs
is stronger than ever, but the playoff loonies don't seem to learn
from their past mistakes.
I do love it when these types always "root for chaos" to cause an "end
to the system".
>
> cb- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That Don Guy
> mianderson wrote:
>
>> Take away the bcs, and they're playing a 7-5 kansas state team in the
>> poinsetta bowl
>
>No, they get in the NCAA Tournament and receive the payday
>that implies.
No, "they" get 1/9 of the payday, and that presumes its conference
gets into BCS bowls on a consistent basis. Do you seriously think the
NCAA would hand out the tournament money in any way other than what it
does with its basketball tournament money? (which, for those of you
who haven't read my posts over at RSFB for the past few years, works
something like this:
1/6 of the money is divided among the schools based on how many NCAA
sports (plus something called "emerging sports for women" - sports
that are on the fast track to becoming NCAA sports, like "sand
volleyball") they play, starting with the 14th (the minimum needed for
Division I membership)
1/3 of the money is divided among the schools based on how many
scholarships they give out, counting the first 50 as 1/20 each, the
next 50 as 1/10 each, and the next 50 as 1/2 each.
The remaining 1/2 is divided among the conferences (who, supposedly,
each divide the money up among its schools equally) based on the sum
over the previous six years of (a) how many of its teams got into the
NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament, and (b) how many games
(not counting the Final Four) its teams won.)
-- Don
--
Just when I think I have all the answers,
somebody accuses me of being "taught to the test"
Chris Bellomy
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>
>> mianderson wrote:
>>
>>> Take away the bcs, and they're playing a 7-5 kansas state team in the
>>> poinsetta bowl
>>
>> No, they get in the NCAA Tournament and receive the payday
>> that implies.
>
> No, "they" get 1/9 of the payday,
You neglect to consider the immense amount of money an
NCAA Football Tournament would generate. As lucrative as
those Iowa-Georgia Tech matchups with absolutely nothing
on the line are, single-elimination tournament games
could probably pick up a few more viewers and a few more
sponsorship dollars.
cb
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
>>>> Take away the bcs, and they're playing a 7-5 kansas state team in the
>>>> poinsetta bowl
>>>
>>> No, they get in the NCAA Tournament and receive the payday
>>> that implies.
>>
>> No, "they" get 1/9 of the payday,
>
> You neglect to consider the immense amount of money an
> NCAA Football Tournament would generate. As lucrative as
> those Iowa-Georgia Tech matchups with absolutely nothing
> on the line are, single-elimination tournament games
> could probably pick up a few more viewers and a few more
> sponsorship dollars.
You forget fans like me. There's almost no bowl games I care
about all that much. Give me a tournament and I care about
the underdogs in *every* game.
Bama would probably rape Cinderella in the championship game,
but we can dream.
--Tedward
Chris Bellomy
> "Chris Bellomy"<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote
>
>>>>> Take away the bcs, and they're playing a 7-5 kansas state team in the
>>>>> poinsetta bowl
>>>>
>>>> No, they get in the NCAA Tournament and receive the payday
>>>> that implies.
>>>
>>> No, "they" get 1/9 of the payday,
>>
>> You neglect to consider the immense amount of money an
>> NCAA Football Tournament would generate. As lucrative as
>> those Iowa-Georgia Tech matchups with absolutely nothing
>> on the line are, single-elimination tournament games
>> could probably pick up a few more viewers and a few more
>> sponsorship dollars.
>
> You forget fans like me. There's almost no bowl games I care
> about all that much. Give me a tournament and I care about
> the underdogs in *every* game.
I think I was citing fans like you, wasn't I?
> Bama would probably rape Cinderella in the championship game,
> but we can dream.
If the NCAA decides to return to forfeits instead of
vacated wins, Cinderella will probably end up the
champion.
cb
That Don Guy
>The Undead Edward M. Kennedy wrote, On 9/24/10 5:40 PM:
>> "Chris Bellomy"<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote
>>
>>>>>> Take away the bcs, and they're playing a 7-5 kansas state team in the
>>>>>> poinsetta bowl
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they get in the NCAA Tournament and receive the payday
>>>>> that implies.
>>>>
>>>> No, "they" get 1/9 of the payday,
>>>
>>> You neglect to consider the immense amount of money an
>>> NCAA Football Tournament would generate.
As opposed to the two dollars and 56 cents the basketball tournament
apparently generates? The only difference between the football and
basketball tournaments would be, because of the fewer number of
rounds, there would be bonus shares for the conferences of the teams
in the championship game (as well as the semi-finals). Here's a
comparison, using the new 68-team basketball format
Basketball:
First round ("round of 128 with 60 byes") loser: 4 teams x 1 share
Second round (round of 64) loser: 32 x 1 share
Third round (round of 32) loser: 16 x 2 shares
Round of 16 loser: 8 x 3 shares
Round of 8 loser: 4 x 4 shares
Final Four teams: 4 x 5 shares
In addition, the four first round winners get an additional share
Each Final Four team's conference gets 5/137, or about 3.65%, of the
total. (Sort of - they actually get 1/6 of that, but they get it for
each of the next six years.)
Football, 16-team format:
First round losers: 8 teams x 1 share
Quarter-final losers: 4 teams x 2 shares
Semi-final losers: 2 teams x 3 shares
Finalists: 2 teams x 4 shares (I will assume there is no bonus for the
champion other than the gold trophy)
The top two teams' conferences each get 2/15, or about 13.33%, of the
total.
Football, 8-team format:
First round losers: 4 teams x 1 share
Semi-final losers: 2 teams x 2 share
Finalists: 2 teams x 3 shares
The top two teams' conferences each get 3/14, or about 21.43%, of the
total.
Of course, you have to consider the fact that some basketball
conferences have had as many as eight teams in a single tournament
(there may or may not be an "unwritten rule" that "eight is enough",
presumably as they may not want to put three teams from the same
conference into the same region - there is a written rule that a
conference with eight or fewer tournament teams cannot have more than
two per region), whereas they would be extremely lucky to get three
into a football tournament.
That brings up another question about an NCAA football tournament:
would the "no more than two teams per conference" BCS rule carry over,
written or otherwise?
>> You forget fans like me. There's almost no bowl games I care
>> about all that much. Give me a tournament and I care about
>> the underdogs in *every* game.
>
>I think I was citing fans like you, wasn't I?
>
>> Bama would probably rape Cinderella in the championship game,
>> but we can dream.
>
>If the NCAA decides to return to forfeits instead of
>vacated wins, Cinderella will probably end up the
>champion.
The problem with that is, what if the team was ineligible for the
entire tournament? You would, in effect, not only cause that team to
forfeit, but every team in its half of the bracket. (Case in point:
the 1988 Texas high school 5A football tournament - Odessa Permian
(yes, the team from the movie "Friday Night Lights") lost in the
semi-finals to Dallas Carter, when then won the championship game, but
when it was discovered that Carter had ineligible players, Texas's
high school athletic association pretty much told Permian, "Yes,
Carter did have ineligible players in its semi-final game, but the
result stands, and they only forfeit the final - and never mind that
your team came closer to beating them in the tournament than any
other."
What if Cinderella lost to the forfeiting champion in the semi-finals?
Do they get the teams (the Cinderella and the team that was declared
the champion because of the forfeit) back together years later and
have them decide it on the field? (What about the teams from the
earlier rounds? Do they have a "wrestleback" where the first two
teams to lose to the forfeiting champion play each other, the winner
plays the next team to have lost, and so on, with the losing finalist
getting a bye until the championship game?)
Declaring "no champion" if a champion has to vacate a tournament game
before the final is one of the best things the NCAA does.
Gomer Jones
Not for long, it appears that Congressman Edwards 20 year run will be
coming to an end in November.
Seapig
wrote:
> No, "they" get 1/9 of the payday, and that presumes its conference
> gets into BCS bowls on a consistent basis. Do you seriously think the
> NCAA would hand out the tournament money in any way other than what it
> does with its basketball tournament money?
I don't think we can make any assumptions about how the money would be
split up. If football worked like basketball, we'd already have
playoffs. To get from where we are to playoffs, the parties involved
are going to have to make some compromises. The way the money would
get split up after those compromises would likely look quite a bit
different than the basketball model.
J.C. Watts Enslin
It's always been about the business. What makes you think otherwise?