Congress to regulate the BCS

[carlfense]

 

 

We don't NEED a playoff, you WANT a playoff. There is a difference.

 

There hasn't been a playoff in over 100 years of Div. I college football history, what is so different now that everyone wants one?

 

Whats the difference you ask? I will tell you, parity!

In the old days, you would only have one or two decent teams at the end of the year, therefore the system worked. But in the past decade or so, we have seen a rise in the number of truly competitive teams.

Then, with the implementation of the new recruiting and roster rules (keeping big schools from stockpiling players), you see several school's having much better recruitment classes.

 

Screw history, that's what I say.

We want these kid's to play their hearts out every week, but we tell them "you have no shot at a championship" just because of the school you go to.

The BCS is a complete disaster and it will only get worse.

 

That doesn't exactly make sense. You say you want a "true" champion but then you say the system worked when there were only a handful of decent teams at the end of the year. There is a reason why schools claim far more championships than there were years from the 1890s to the 1960s. There was just as much dispute then as there is now.

 

Also, I still am not entirely sold on the parity thing. I think that is something we Nebraska fans have harped on as an excuse for our decline from being dominant. Ask the USC's, the Florida's, etc. if they believe in parity. I think that they will be a lot less enthusiastic about the concept than you are.

[Wicked_Shadows]

Have a little reading for you - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7101902548.html Written by Mr. PTI himself, Michael Wilbon, lol!

 

Parity is here, it is real, and it will continue to get bigger as long as schools like Stanford and Oregon State continue to knock off the big bad Trojans.

[carlfense]

If you want me to, I can one up you with articles saying there isn't as much parity as people claim. (this from a peer reviewed journal, not some Washington Post hack.)

 

"The authors find that competitive balance has not increased in college football since the end of World War II, and they find mixed evidence of scholarship limits’ effect on a range of measures of parity, including the standard deviation of winning percentages and Associated Press rankings."

 

http://jse.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/3

[Wicked_Shadows]

If you want me to, I can one up you with articles saying there isn't as much parity as people claim. (this from a peer reviewed journal, not some Washington Post hack.)

 

"The authors find that competitive balance has not increased in college football since the end of World War II, and they find mixed evidence of scholarship limits’ effect on a range of measures of parity, including the standard deviation of winning percentages and Associated Press rankings."

 

http://jse.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/3

 

Nice little article, but it was written in 2003.

We don't need to read what other people think anyway, all we really have to do is watch the games on Saturdays to see the parity that IS.

 

No more do people believe that the preseason #1 will win it all.

No more is a teams destiny written before the season even begins.

This was not the case years ago, was it?

look at 2002, 2003 and 2004. Preseason #1's were week 15 #1's.

Look at 2005, Preseason #1 and #2, finished the year #2 and #1 (they flopped positions).

Now look at last year, (all rankings based on AP Poll)

Preseason

1. Georgia (22) 0-0 1,528

2. Ohio State (21) 0-0 1,506

3. USC (12) 0-0 1,490

4. Oklahoma (4) 0-0 1,444

5. Florida (6) 0-0 1,415

 

Week 15

1. Oklahoma 12-1

2. Florida 12-1

3. Texas 11-1

4. Alabama 12-1

5. USC 11-1 (Where is #1 and #2 from presaeson?)

 

Final

1. Florida (48) 13-1 1,606

2. Utah (16) 13-0 1,519

3. USC (1) 12-1 1,481

4. Texas 12-1 1,478

5. Oklahoma 12-2 1,391

 

9. Ohio State 10-3 1,013

13. Georgia 10-3 903

 

When was the last time you saw the preseason #1 finish the year below #5?

 

Why is that? Because the experts can no longer predict who the best teams are because of (wait for it)

 

Parity!

 

PS, "How I Met Your Mother" is a funny, funny show, lol!

[carlfense]

If you want me to, I can one up you with articles saying there isn't as much parity as people claim. (this from a peer reviewed journal, not some Washington Post hack.)

 

"The authors find that competitive balance has not increased in college football since the end of World War II, and they find mixed evidence of scholarship limits’ effect on a range of measures of parity, including the standard deviation of winning percentages and Associated Press rankings."

 

http://jse.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/3

 

Nice little article, but it was written in 2003.

We don't need to read what other people think anyway, all we really have to do is watch the games on Saturdays to see the parity that IS.

 

No more do people believe that the preseason #1 will win it all.

No more is a teams destiny written before the season even begins.

This was not the case years ago, was it?

look at 2002, 2003 and 2004. Preseason #1's were week 15 #1's.

Look at 2005, Preseason #1 and #2, finished the year #2 and #1 (they flopped positions).

Now look at last year, (all rankings based on AP Poll)

Preseason

1. Georgia (22) 0-0 1,528

2. Ohio State (21) 0-0 1,506

3. USC (12) 0-0 1,490

4. Oklahoma (4) 0-0 1,444

5. Florida (6) 0-0 1,415

 

Week 15

1. Oklahoma 12-1

2. Florida 12-1

3. Texas 11-1

4. Alabama 12-1

5. USC 11-1 (Where is #1 and #2 from presaeson?)

 

Final

1. Florida (48) 13-1 1,606

2. Utah (16) 13-0 1,519

3. USC (1) 12-1 1,481

4. Texas 12-1 1,478

5. Oklahoma 12-2 1,391

 

9. Ohio State 10-3 1,013

13. Georgia 10-3 903

 

When was the last time you saw the preseason #1 finish the year below #5?

 

Why is that? Because the experts can no longer predict who the best teams are because of (wait for it)

 

Parity!

 

PS, "How I Met Your Mother" is a funny, funny show, lol!

 

So one year of evidence....from last year no less....is supposed to convince me that everything is different now? Sorry. I don't buy it. Last year was certainly a crazy year for rankings, but some inept pre-season ranking does not prove that teams are more or less dominant than they used to be. Look to final results, not to what the press THINKS will happen. Results is the true measure of parity, and it still seems like most years we have either an undefeated champion or a champion with one loss. (of course there was 2 loss LSU, but again, one instances does not a rule make)

[Wicked_Shadows]

Ah, you speak of the 2007 season, which if you look week-to-week, was about the craziest season to date.

And how nice that 2 loss LSU was ranked #1 while 1 loss Kansas was all the way down at number 7.

Tell me, in what other sports are wins and losses so widely disregarded for a championship that you supposedly are to "win on the field"?

The landscape of College football is changing, as evidence from the past two years support. If there is now change soon, College football will be looked down upon along the same lines of boxing.

The game I love is becoming a long running punchline.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4121294

 

I quote "John Swofford, the coordinator of the BCS, rejected the idea of switching to a playoff, arguing it would threaten the existence of celebrated bowl games."

 

Celebrated Bowl games? Whatever!!!

Last year there were 32 bowl games, meaning that 64 of the 119 teams played in a bowl last year.

YAWN! How many of those games did you watch?

I watched the Husker's play in there's, and I watched the big 3, that's it.

Now, if there were a playoffs, I would watch every game, because I am a College Football nut and those games would MEAN something.

 

32 bowl games last year, and only 1 means anything, think about that.

 

 

The tradition that the NCAA and BCS want's to protect is the tradition of big school's getting big money.

A playoff system will benefit the game in so many ways, give the little guys a chance at eternal glory and take away all the question marks of who really is the TRUE champion.

 

there are the plus's to a playoff's, so tell me, besides money, what are the benefits of keeping a it is?

[carlfense]

Ah, you speak of the 2007 season, which if you look week-to-week, was about the craziest season to date.

And how nice that 2 loss LSU was ranked #1 while 1 loss Kansas was all the way down at number 7.

Tell me, in what other sports are wins and losses so widely disregarded for a championship that you supposedly are to "win on the field"?

The landscape of College football is changing, as evidence from the past two years support. If there is now change soon, College football will be looked down upon along the same lines of boxing.

The game I love is becoming a long running punchline.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4121294

 

I quote "John Swofford, the coordinator of the BCS, rejected the idea of switching to a playoff, arguing it would threaten the existence of celebrated bowl games."

 

Celebrated Bowl games? Whatever!!!

Last year there were 32 bowl games, meaning that 64 of the 110 teams played in a bowl last year.

YAWN! How many of those games did you watch?

I watched the Husker's play in there's, and I watched the big 3, that's it.

Now, if there were a playoffs, I would watch every game, because I am a College Football nut and those games would MEAN something.

 

32 bowl games last year, and only 1 means anything, think about that.

 

 

The tradition that the NCAA and BCS want's to protect is the tradition of big school's getting big money.

A playoff system will benefit the game in so many ways, give the little guys a chance at eternal glory and take away all the question marks of who really is the TRUE champion.

 

there are the pluses to a playoff's, so tell me, besides money, what are the benefits of keeping a it is?

 

1. Every week matters. How exciting is it as a fan going to the Florida Atlantic game KNOWING that if Nebraska loses then we will probably have no chance at a championship? If we have a playoff after the regular season, the importance of the individual games during the regular season are GREATLY diminished. Who cares if you take a Saturday off so long as you get into the tournament, eh? (And if you want to look at it in the big picture, the way things are set up now the regular season is equivalent to a playoff for who can play in the big bowl games.)

 

2. A disadvantage of playoffs: The regular season + the playoffs will span two semesters. Remember that these players are still STUDENTS. If we go to a playoff system (not happening unless Congress acts, so this is probably moot) the football season WILL span two semesters, that means the education and the grades of the players will suffer. The university struggles as it is to get players through all the classes they need when football is a one semester sport, how much more difficult will it be if it spans two?

 

3. Controversy. We're here on a message board arguing football, what could be better than that? Personally, I don't need some ridiculous form of closure of someone telling me who the best football team is at the end of the year. I have my opinion; you have yours. Let's argue them. Put in a playoff (again, not happening unless Congress acts) and what are we going to argue about during the offseason? Am I the only one who sees this as a plus? I LOVE arguing against Michigan fans over the '97 season.

 

4. Money. Money. Money.

 

5. Where will you play the playoff games? It has to be neutral sites . . . but neutral sites aren't interested unless they can pay the bills. They probably won't be able to pay the bills with the early rounds because fans won't show up, and therefore, they will be unwilling to host them.

 

6. Most importantly: School administrators almost unanimously support the BCS. Sorry bud, they have more influence over which direction college football goes than we fans do. (I was a playoff supporter too, then I talked with Perlman about it and he fully convinced me that the BCS is the best option for Nebraska.)

 

7. I don't know how many fans care, but I WOULD miss the celebrated bowl games. Even though it's at a different venue, how could you not get goosebumps watching the Huskers enter the Orange Bowl? Just being there knowing the history and witnessing the continuation of it . . . wow.

 

8. Money.

 

9. Money.

 

10. $$$

[Wicked_Shadows]

ok, I'm a bit tired to fully respond to all of what you said, but I want to touch on one point.

Point #7. I agree that seeing the Huskers in a BIG bowl game such as the Orange Bowl is freaking awesome, but, when they play in bowls like the Gator Bowl, that magic is non-existent.

Sure, it's nice to see them play again, but I'm not going to run around like a proud peacock just because we one some low-level meaningless bowl game.

 

So, why can't we remove the crap bowl games, start the playoff's the week after the conference championships and have a REAL champion crowned in January still?

 

Understand, you still have to play the regular season games, your still ranked, and if the voters think your letting up, they don't have to vote you into the playoff's over another deserving team.

 

I will give you a point however, arguing about who is deserving and who is not is hella fun!

 

I'm going to bed now, will argue with you more later (thank god for Firefox's built in spell check! I see nothing but red right now!!!)

[carlfense]

ok, I'm a bit tired to fully respond to all of what you said, but I want to touch on one point.

Point #7. I agree that seeing the Huskers in a BIG bowl game such as the Orange Bowl is freaking awesome, but, when they play in bowls like the Gator Bowl, that magic is non-existent.

Sure, it's nice to see them play again, but I'm not going to run around like a proud peacock just because we one some low-level meaningless bowl game.

So, why can't we remove the crap bowl games, start the playoff's the week after the conference championships and have a REAL champion crowned in January still?

 

Understand, you still have to play the regular season games, your still ranked, and if the voters think your letting up, they don't have to vote you into the playoff's over another deserving team.

 

I will give you a point however, arguing about who is deserving and who is not is hella fun!

 

I'm going to bed now, will argue with you more later (thank god for Firefox's built in spell check! I see nothing but red right now!!!)

 

I don't know how many coaches would jump at the chance to not have a few weeks to rest the team up and heal injuries. It's going to be tough on players if they jump right in with another game...and if they keep winning...another....and another.

[gin_32]

I have to agree with everyone here...unless someone wrote to thier senator or congressmen. Now, College football doesn't seem like a national threat or even sneeze on the global scale. However...it was brought to Washington. I know I have issues with this country and would like to be heard, but college football...lol. It seems like everyone has a voice now...either it be good or bad.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Congress has more important things to consider than whether or not our entertainment is fair.

[carlfense]

http://www.huskerlocker.com/blogs/view/bid...committee_chair

 

Harvey Perlman (new BCS chairman)'s take on the situation.

[Igetbored216]

My take on it: keep government out of sports; they have already messed up the country, leave my sports alone!!!

[Vince from ShamWOW]

My take on it: keep government out of sports; they have already messed up the country, leave my sports alone!!!

 

 

I agree. We have congress telling the BCS what to do, but when it comes to telling CEO's to start hiring and spending to improve the economy and consumer confidence, they can't seem to find the words or the time to do this.