Semi-OT? - Yet another example of why the BCS system sucks
The USA Today Coaches' Poll just came out...
Highest ranked ACC team: Virginia Tech at #17
Highest ranked Big East team: they're all unranked
Yet these two craptastic conferences each get 1 automatic BCS bid.
I know you all hate OSU and MSU, but please look at this by team merits, as a Big Ten vs. other crappier conferences thing, and as a "BCS sucks" thing... isn't it a travesty that TWO of Wisconsin, OSU, MSU, and Iowa will miss out on BCS bids to accomodate teams from those two awful conferences?
We desperately need a playoff system... no teams from those two conferences would make it to a playoff... and that's the way it should be!
November 7th, 2010 at 12:42 PM ^
how about utah was #5 and got whollopped by TCU. they were overrated but we would have never known bc they dont play anyone
November 7th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
Exactly... wouldn't about 6 or 7 Big Ten teams have a pretty good chance of going undefeated on, say, Boise State's schedule? There are like 2 real games in that schedule... probably a lot easier to gameplan and set up trick plays when you only have 2 games in which you really need to go all out.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^
when everybody else is gunning for you and treat the game as a championship game. Even in a moment of letdown, you can get beat. It's easy to let your guard down because you should be rolling against a team that you should dominate. It's college football in which emotions can swing like a pendulum. Given the fact that Boise State has been rolling through the schedule thus far, it's pretty impressive.
Btw, Boise State have more than 2 good teams in their schedule. VT, Oregon St., Hawaii, Nevada and Fresno State are all good solid teams. The myth that Boise State only have to prepare for 2 good teams is in fact wrong.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^
I'd gladly trade those 5 games for games vs. Ohio State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Notre Dame.
November 7th, 2010 at 4:21 PM ^
Well, cross out Notre Dame, I want to keep playing them...
November 7th, 2010 at 8:22 PM ^
Good point. ND is awful (and yet is still better than some of the "solid" teams on BSU's schedule).
Either way, I'd gladly trade games against OSU, Iowa, MSU, and Wisconsin for games vs. any 4 of VT, Oregon St., Hawaii, Nevada and Fresno State... in a heartbeat.
Also, which set of 4 teams is going to be more physical and beat you up more over the course of a season?
November 7th, 2010 at 12:58 PM ^
are in no way, shape or form good solid teams.
November 7th, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^
was a fringe top 25 so they qualify as a good solid team and they're 7-3 for the season.
Fresno State is 6-2 so how are they not a good solid team?
November 7th, 2010 at 6:12 PM ^
31-13. They are not good at football.
Fresno State was blown out by an Ole Miss team that is last in the SEC West.
Neither one of those teams would have a winning record in a real conference.
November 7th, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^
I think people lose perspective and fail to realize how bad most of the teams on BSU's schedule are. Six of their 12 opponenents are ranked 90th or worse by Sagarin now:
Wyoming: 106
New Mexico St: 167
San Jose St.: 156
Louisiana Tech: 90
Idaho: 92
Utah St.: 109
Their best conference opponents are
Fresno St.: 61
Hawaii: 35
This schedule is in no way remotely comparable to a team from a BCS conference.
November 7th, 2010 at 4:45 PM ^
I completely disagree.
It is much tougher to play quality opponents week in and week out than weak opponents. Additionally, your team can get more physically beat up playing OSU, PSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, and MSU in 2 months as opposed to Fresno, Hawaii, Nevada, Louisiana Tech, and San Jose State. Playing in the SEC or BigTen you essentially have to get up every week - in the WAC? Not so much.
Boise State often has had a SOS ranked in the 100s. In example, BSU had a final SOS ranked 96 last year even after their BCS bowl appearance.
November 7th, 2010 at 6:18 PM ^
Right, but that doesn't mean that BSU was not a very good team last year. They are just not able to join a better conference (money, stadium size, academics, lack of other sports, etc.) and nobody wants to schedule them. Without a playoff system, they have little chance to prove themselves. Then when they finally crack into the BCS, the cowardly bowl committees make them play another non-BCS school, therefore guaranteeing that they and TCU could be dismissed again this year.
November 7th, 2010 at 6:33 PM ^
True they are a very good team. I still think that 20+ schools could have their record with that schedule over the past few years.
Furthermore, the BCS has not been that bad to the mid majors. Boise can't even turn a profit in football while they take tax payer money to fund their team. Every single year the BCS gives out money to every mid major conference and the chance of particpating in a big bowl with bigger money for running the table in a horrible conference...these BCS provisions are certainly better than under the previous system.
The NCAA and the BCS have bent over backwards to make rules to create more parity...can't have too many glossy pages in your media guide, nationwide reduction in scholarship football players (we'd rather reward less athletes and give unprofitable Boise a chance), etc... I don't feel bad for Boise with all of the rules set in place to make them better and fund their program with tax payer money and money from profitable schools.
November 7th, 2010 at 6:53 PM ^
Those rules that you bring up are in no way there to protect the bottom feeders of the big 6 conferences? I think you are giving the NCAA way too much credit here. Those rules ended up helping schools like Boise St., but they were inacted to prevent schools like Vandy and the Big East relevant.
November 7th, 2010 at 7:48 PM ^
They are for across the board parity. The BCS yearly payouts to every mid major conference and every lesser division are certainly for parity through $ handouts.
November 7th, 2010 at 6:55 PM ^
Once again, unless you are a taxpayer in Idaho, I don't get understand why being subsidized by taxpayers matters to you.
November 7th, 2010 at 7:51 PM ^
#1 Some federal money goes to colleges.
#2 CMU, WMU, EMU, etc...
#3 The principle that tax money shouldn't be spent supporting an inefficient college football team that could just as easily bump down a level spend less on scholarships and possibly find a profit or break even.
November 7th, 2010 at 8:02 PM ^
1) Okay, but does it go to football programs? Is the football program taking federal money away from the schools, or is the state spending supporting the football program, while federal money is going to academic programs?
2) Right, but those are decisions for the people of Michigan to make, and are irrelevant to Boise State's program.
3) I guess it depends on your definition of inefficient. Putting together one of the top programs in the country by spending far less money than other programs seems pretty efficient. Again, if it is not your tax money then leave it up to those being taxed. I may disagree with how the French spend their tax dollars, but I am not a French citizen, so it is not really my problem/business.
November 7th, 2010 at 8:47 PM ^
1) Yes. Some of the federal money the school gets to choose what to spend it on. So federal money is in the general budget and the school knows that it can spend it on its financially inefficient sports programs.
2) Disagree with your point. The school gets to choose what it spends its money on for the most part, not the state legislature. Most people don't realize that schools are choosing to spend tax payer dollars trying to keep up with the big boys of football and if they did, well, that might change.
3) Speaking of the French...you would call their pension system "efficient" since it is pretty and has a lot of bells and whistles. I would call it inefficient as it is running up a huge debt and needed a change. Was Greece's old pension system efficient? It was very nice and so much "better" than anything the US had.
Anyways, your anaolgy is wrong. Some of our tax money (mine and every other US tax payer) does go into Boise State's budget and some of that budget goes to fund an inefficient football program. I have a right to complain how my tax money is spent - if I am right or wrong.
If BSU had to operate like a business, they would either be bankrupt and out of business or forced to drop down a division. They are artificially being propped up by BCS money and tax payer money.
November 8th, 2010 at 2:09 AM ^
1) To what federal money are you referring? It is hard to debate without specifics. Generally speaking, though, if you are advocating the elimination of all athletic programs that are not generating positive net income, then even a school like Michigan would end up with about 3 sports (football, hockey and mens basketball). There would be no women's sports at all, and few men's sports. That can't be what you mean.
2) The school directs the funds, but presumably the legislatures dictate how much funding will be given, and can presumably attach strings to the funding. The fact that the voters are ill-informed doesn't mean that subsidies should be prohibited.
3) Once again, it depends on your definition of efficient. If your sole definition of efficiency is that a sport generates positive net income when considered in a vacuum, that is one thing. If, however, you consider the athletics offered by a school as one component of the bundle of services being offered by that school, then a sports program could lose money but still be valuable to the school. It could be a loss-leader intended to draw more students to the school, and it could be a tool for generating a buzz for the school, both of which could result in increased revenue to the school as a whole. Would tens of millions of people have even heard of BSU if not for the football team?
4) Do our tax dollars go to BSU football? According to BSU, "Athletics is an auxiliary unit and is therefore required to be essentially self-supporting. . . . Further, university funding for Athletics is capped by the Idaho State Board of Education and the University cannot go above those limits."
5) Does BSU football lose money? Your claim that the program loses money is why you have compared BSU football to Greece. Does it lose money? Do you have a link to an article showing that? The only numbers that I could find seemed to indicate that the entire football budget was covered by ticket sales alone.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:15 PM ^
Yes most schools spend more money on athletics than they bring in. Especially BSU. Maybe I am being a bit harash on BSU when it is the solid majority of schools out there, but I think an athletic department should be self-sufficient. Don't make as much money? Reduce your scholarships. Really running in the red? Drop down a division.
According to the NCAA reports the Boise State athletic department in the last reported year got:
3.34 million dollars from the state and federal government
2.08 million dollars from the University (some of which is tax payer dollars, government support)
Throw in the guaranteed mid major money every year that the BCS hands out to every mid major conference and about 20% of BSU's athletic budget is from the school, the government or the automatic BCS payouts.
Michigan used 0 dollars from the government and under 21K from the school in the same year. Sorry, but BSU is artificially propped up financially to exist at this level and tax money could be spent better.
November 7th, 2010 at 2:41 PM ^
How about MSU #10 Iowa #13? Derp
November 7th, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^
MSU is 9-1, Iowa is 7-2
If you want to rank MSU, Iowa, and Wisconsin in order of who beat who, good luck.
November 7th, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^
Great point, but I wouldn't have a problem with Iowa ranked ahead of MSU - especially if they beat OSU.
Iowa destroyed MSU without a problem head to head. Iowa has thus far played a tougher schedule and their conference records are identical.
Rankings can be debated all day.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:50 PM ^
The BCS model will fail as we get these scenarios of unranked Big East teams and the controversy of a non-AQ team getting into the championship game. As ratings, attendance, and sponsorship drop for some of these events, the TV and university folks will find their way to better solution. It may take time but we might even see a day when 4 super conferences exist (Big10+, PAC12+, SEC, and one other super conference) that will commit to their own playoff. However be careful what we wish for. The BCS preserves the bowl system and allows for multiple games. A playoff system will eventually eliminate all of the extra bowls as interest will be all about the playoffs.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:53 PM ^
I really wanted to make my own thread about this but I'll put it here. IME, one way to start the dismantling of the BCS is for TCU to play BSU for the MNC. People would go absolutely crazy and would deem it UNACCEPTABLE! There would then be talks on how something like that can never occur again and that would be the beginning of the end for the BCS.
November 7th, 2010 at 6:25 PM ^
BSU and TCU would probably be the biggest beneficiaries of a playoff. Then they would be able to prove their worth on the field. Of course, I am sure that certain coaches would still manage to rank them 9th or 17th, depending on whether it is an 8 or 16 team playoff system.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:58 PM ^
I only support a plus-one system, anything else and the regular season as we know it is ruined. Be careful what you wish for.
November 7th, 2010 at 1:06 PM ^
The claim that a playoff would "ruin" the regular season is complete nonsense.
In a plus-one model (which is basically a four-team playoff), the regular season is enhanced, because four teams have a shot at playing for the title, rather than two. It therefore means that at the end of the season, there are more games with title implications — more games that constructively mean something.
I can think of plenty of objections to a playoff, but saying that it ruins the regular season in any sense is completely bogus.
November 7th, 2010 at 3:02 PM ^
Because the handful of games that actually have national championship implications every year would only have playoff qualification implications instead? What about all the late-season games involving 1- and 2-loss teams that currently mean very little nationally, but would become important games for making the playoffs? We'd add a whole boatload of games becoming important for the [M]NC.
And, of course, we'd get a bunch of playoff games, which would be better than anything we have now.
November 7th, 2010 at 5:28 PM ^
Why would it ruin the regular season?
November 8th, 2010 at 1:31 AM ^
I always use the example of '06 UM-OSU. With a 16,or even 8 team playoff, that game means nothing. The teams are ranked 1 and 2, and a loss will drop neither out of the top 8 or 16. The 'Game of the Century' would turn into a game where Smith, Henne, Hart, and Ginn are on the bench the whole game so that they can rest up for the playoff push. Could you imagine a college team giving up on an undefeated season in order to rest starters the way the Colts did in the NFL last year? Last year, the #16 team at the end of the regular season was a 3-loss West Virginia team. Do you think they deserved a National Title shot? A plus-one system would still make the big regular season game meaningful, because a #1 or 2 could very well drop out of the top 4 with a loss and would still have to play all-out. When has a National Title controversy ever involved more than 4 teams anyway? When has anyone ever come out and said 'Hey! This #5 team deserves a shot at the National Title!'? A plus-one enhances the sport, a full-on playoff with 8 or 16 teams ruins the game as we know it.
November 7th, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^
that TCU probably wont get a shot at the title. the dismantled a #5 Utah team. given, utah hadn't beaten anyone of note yet, but still.
and how convoluted is the BCS? #3 TCU beats #5 Utah 47-7 and Boise stomps Hawaii and people are saying Boise might jump TCU in the BCS standings. WTF!
November 7th, 2010 at 3:21 PM ^
November 7th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^
I don't know why you're complaining. The BCS has a built-in system for evaluating whether a conference deserves an automatic bid to a BCS game. See the section titled "Standards for Future BCS Automatic Qualification"
http://www.tournamentofroses.com/bcs/bcs-selection-procedure.asp
November 7th, 2010 at 1:39 PM ^
Can anyone really say with a straight face to me that Boise St. and TCU aren't deserving to play for a national title? TCU DESTROYED #5 Utah yesterday at Utah! Boise St. only allowed the best passing team in the country in Hawaii 150 yards! I'm really hoping Oregon and Auburn drop one before the season is over.
November 7th, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^
Yes, it's easy too: If you want to play in a national championship, play a schedule that's at least in the same galaxy as the other teams that are competing.
November 7th, 2010 at 3:20 PM ^
And how exactly do you want them to do that? They beat Oregon State first game of the season, destroyed Baylor, and just destroyed Utah. They've only allowed more than 20 points twice this year, and they've shut two teams out also. Maybe now that Colorado and Nebraska are leaving the Big XII they'll look into joining it for football, but until then the best they could do is play three very good teams from out of their conference.
Boise State, Utah, and TCU are the three non-automatic qualifers that have beaten automatic qualifiers consistently over the last few years. The only team Boise has lost in the last two years is to TCU, and the only game TCU lost is to Boise.
November 7th, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^
There is a simple, established pattern for getting respect in college football: go independent and play anyone, anywhere. Notre Dame did it in the early 20th century, Miami and Florida St. did it in the late 20th century. BSU and TCU continue to hide, claiming they're chained to their weak conference schedules but in reality they're too scared to prove themselves on an even scheduling field. At least Utah had the balls to go to the Pac10 where they'll have to prove themselves.
November 7th, 2010 at 4:25 PM ^
Going independent is easier said than done. It's expensive, and TCU and Boise State aren't exactly big money schools. Being apart of a conference is the only fiscally feasible way to go and unfortunately, they aren't getting any invitations from the Big 12 or Pac 12. It's not like they would reject an invite (see Utah).
November 7th, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^
BYU thinks it can (although I think they may just be setting themselves up for the next round of expansion).
On a side note, should schools (including Boise State) that can't financially break even and take state tax payer dollars even be allowed to be in D1A? A lower division would mean less scholarships and perhaps more of a chance to not be a burden on the tax payers.
November 7th, 2010 at 6:36 PM ^
Why should the NCAA care whether taxpayers subsidize a team or not? If the people in the state think that the school's activities are a worthwhile investment, then they will make that investment, If not, they won't. It really isn't the business of anybody that is not subject to that taxation. Teams like BSU only spend about 20-30% as much as the big teams anyway.
November 7th, 2010 at 4:43 PM ^
So if Michigan wants a national championship, it should a) either try and get good enough to win every single game against a schedule including Ohio State, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, and other Big Ten teams every year or b) drop out of the Big Ten, join the Sun Belt, schedule a mediocre BCS team like Maryland or Oregon State so they can say they "tried", and go undefeated against a schedule of the shittiest teams around and then bitch about "the system" if they don't get invited?
Fuck the WAC. The teams Boise State plays in-conference, week in and week out, are the teams other teams schedule for snackycake games. If you're impressed by a shutout of New Mexico State, I suggest you watch some better football.
November 7th, 2010 at 5:53 PM ^
So the fact that BSU would probably be favored against every team in the Big Ten means nothing? Isn't the goal of crowning a national champion to determine who is the best team? They already get penalized for their schedule. They have been winning their games by 42+ points, and they still have to wait for someone to lose before they move up.
Nobody is claiming that a WAC schedule is better than an SEC one, but BSU has been destroying teams despite only playing their starters for only half of each game. They also have a recent history of beating quality BCS teams when they play them. Oregon averaged 36+ points last year, and they scored 8(!) points against BSU. This year BSU returned everybody from last year's great team. They are not just any old WAC team.
Also, who exactly has Ohio State beaten? The only good team that they played so far (Wisconsin) beat them handily, and yet you would probably have no problem with them playing for the NC if they were to win out while others lose. The only quality team left on their schedule is Iowa, which is only ranked 4 spots ahead of Virginia Tech.
It is not like BSU is backing away from anybody - nobody wants to play them. They accepted a 2-for-1 with MSU with the return games in 12 years, just so that someone would play them. Basically what you are saying is that they should not be able to play for the NC, not because they may not be the best team in the country, but because they cannot afford the same facilities and don't play for a big conference. They would be happy to join a BCS conference, but the school does not have the academics and other athletics to support such a move. This is why we need some kind of a playoff.
November 7th, 2010 at 6:02 PM ^
November 7th, 2010 at 6:06 PM ^
November 7th, 2010 at 6:44 PM ^
Right, which is why I have never said that their schedule is comparable. The question is - who is the best team in the country? It is hard to tell with teams like BSU, because of their conference, but for people to say that they are absolutely not the best team in the country is to sell them short. With teams like BSU and TCU playing so well, a playoff is about the only way to really settle it on the field.
For the record, I think that BSU and TCU probably give Oregon the toughest games of any of the top teams out there right now. Not because of their schedule, but simply because of their balance, including great defenses.
November 7th, 2010 at 8:24 PM ^
November 7th, 2010 at 3:20 PM ^