BYUtx wrote:

And yet you still can't do it.

You mean I can't respond to error filled argument. You're right.

mormonrasta wrote:

BYUtx wrote:

I do find it interesting that those defending the BCS as a fair institution are those that are fans of middle to lower tier BCS FB teams. (And, yes, I also our own biases as fans of a FB that is substantially better than a couple dozen BCS teams, on par with most and only surpassed by a couple dozen.)

I've noticed that people who whine about the economics of the BCS clearly do not understand the revenues that are involved and have an extremely provincial understanding of the college football landscape.

I don't think I've ever said it was fair. The adverse affects of the BCS have been at best weakly substantiated on this board when it comes to revenue. The supposition that we would be in a significantly fairer economic world in college football by dissolving the BCS is laughable.

The supposition that non-BCS schools are in a significantly worse economic world in college football by the existence of the BCS is actual fact backed up by the data.

The BCS had three goals, 1) control of TV and Bowl revenue, 2) control of who get to play for the mythical NC by controlling the rankings, and 3) control of the NCAA D1-A (FBS) by maintaining a slight majority over the non-BCS schools. They have been wildly successful in all three areas.

Any improved competitiveness between the BCS and non-BCS is due to the NCAA limitations and football scholarships and academic qualification standards not to any supposed benefit the non-BCS schools received by being left out of the BCS revenue stream.

A prime example of the dark side of the BCS was when the proposed SLC bowl game was not approved this year. The games that guaranted one or both spots to BCS conf members were approved. Of course the BCS continues to take in new schools whenever it is necessary so that they can maintain a voting majority in the NCAA FBS and thereby control the Bowl approvals.

Conosticator wrote:

The BCS had three goals, 1) control of TV and Bowl revenue, 2) control of who get to play for the mythical NC by controlling the rankings, and 3) control of the NCAA D1-A (FBS) by maintaining a slight majority over the non-BCS schools. They have been wildly successful in all three areas..

Agree with point 1 and 2, but not point 3.

The nonBCS conferences were irrelevant in the formation of the BCS. The bowls care about having access to 10 to 20 teams. These are teams that dominate the college football landscape and are the most popular. In order to get those teams they needed to make deals with the conferences where those teams reside. Since none of those teams reside in nonBCS leagues there was no thought paid to them other than possible antitrust which they paid off the other conferences to keep quiet.

Any improved competitiveness between the BCS and non-BCS is due to the NCAA limitations and football scholarships and academic qualification standards not to any supposed benefit the non-BCS schools received by being left out of the BCS revenue stream.

A prime example of the dark side of the BCS was when the proposed SLC bowl game was not approved this year. The games that guaranted one or both spots to BCS conf members were approved. Of course the BCS continues to take in new schools whenever it is necessary so that they can maintain a voting majority in the NCAA FBS and thereby control the Bowl approvals.

I hate to break your consipiracy theory, but the facts suggest otherwise.

In 1997 the year before the BCS there were 20 bowl games. Only 7 "non BCS teams" participated (6 if you count Cincinatti as a BCS team). In 2007 there are 32 bowl game where 19 of the 64 spots are going to nonBCS teams.

The bowl growth has certainly helped conferences like the MWC as it gives teams a little bit extra revenue, but more importantly practice time and exposure. Look at what the Humanitarian Bowl has done for Boise State and the New Mexico Bowl has done for New Mexico as examples.

The SLC bowl was a bad idea and didn't have much support behind it which is why it was nixed. If the BCS didn't want nonBCS teams to participate in new bowls then there would be no New Mexico Bowl.

mormonrasta wrote:

BYUtx wrote:

And yet you still can't do it.

You mean I can't respond to error filled argument. You're right.

Thanks for killing any chances for a meaningful discussion. It's disappointing that the snobbishness (intellectual or otherwise) that is so prevalent on CougarBoard often makes its way over here.

BYUtx wrote:

mormonrasta wrote:

BYUtx wrote:

And yet you still can't do it.

You mean I can't respond to error filled argument. You're right.

Thanks for killing any chances for a meaningful discussion. It's disappointing that the snobbishness (intellectual or otherwise) that is so prevalent on CougarBoard often makes its way over here.

You're not interested in a meaningful discussion. If you were you would try to support your opinions with facts and then we would have something.

The fact is none of the schools you have mentioned have had sustained success. They were 1 year wonders and nothing more. All of those schools have had a little bit of success similar to their stellar season in the BCS era before the BCS. You've got to do better than identifying 1 year wonders.

In order for your theory to hold any water you would need to demontrate IMPROVED performance from the collective BCS schools versus nonBCS schools. That hasn't happened.

DIE THREAD DIE!!!!

WHY WON'T THIS THREAD DIE!!!!!!!!!