mormonrasta wrote:

Metal Bubba wrote:

BYUtx wrote:

basketball schmasketball. Even schools like Duke earn more revenue from football for being in a BCS conference than they do in men's BB.

Dook loses money on football almost every year. Revenue is another word for gross income. You need to look at net income. It's no secret that basketball is more lucrative than football for the majority of schools in this country. That's why there are so many more Division I basketball programs than there are football programs.

BYUtx wrote:

I would love to hear a good argument that explains why perennial losers like UCONN, Rutgers, Kansas, and Wake Forest have seen rapid improvement, without ANY regard to their BCS membership.

One word... coaching.

You are correct, sir!!!

If by "correct" you mean really good at pulling out two parts of an argument and refuting them instead of adressing the argument as a whole (because it really can't be touched), then, yes, he may be correct.

And I don't mean to be contentious Bubba:
Metal Bubba wrote:

Also... BCS money didn't pay off for WF, hiring Jim Grobe is what paid off!
[and later...]
One word... coaching.

...but Jim Grobe's past track record supports BYUtx's point and mine more than yours. Now, lest you assume I'm disparaging your coach for the fun of it, let me assure you, I don't know a thing about the guy. All I found out about Grobe is that he was a .500 coach at MAC school Ohio (exactly, in fact, at 33-33-1) before being hired at Wake. His coaching prowess couldn't take a middle-of-the-road non-PowerConf team to any greater heights than usual, but as soon as he checks in to a BCS program, the team begins to far exceed previous capabilities. If he couldn't get it done at the small school, it might not be just him getting it done at the big school. It might just be that 5 years or so of the BCS mentality began to draw more than just his talents to the same BCS school that hired him.

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.)

BYUtx wrote:

mormonrasta wrote:

Metal Bubba wrote:

BYUtx wrote:

basketball schmasketball. Even schools like Duke earn more revenue from football for being in a BCS conference than they do in men's BB.

Dook loses money on football almost every year. Revenue is another word for gross income. You need to look at net income. It's no secret that basketball is more lucrative than football for the majority of schools in this country. That's why there are so many more Division I basketball programs than there are football programs.

BYUtx wrote:

I would love to hear a good argument that explains why perennial losers like UCONN, Rutgers, Kansas, and Wake Forest have seen rapid improvement, without ANY regard to their BCS membership.

One word... coaching.

You are correct, sir!!!

If by "correct" you mean really good at pulling out two parts of an argument and refuting them instead of adressing the argument as a whole (because it really can't be touched), then, yes, he may be correct.

Your argument had soooooo many errors he had to pull out the best parts.

The reality is that there are still haves and have nots. The BCS did not create that, change or alter it in any way. Yes, the Rutgers, Kansas, and Wake Forests of the world have no greater power than they did before the BCS as manifested on the field. Duke is still Duke and they have proven they would struggle against ANY D1 competition. The only time Duke was any good in the recent college football era was when, you guessed it, they had a GREAT COACH (Steve Spurrier)!!! Funny how the more things change the more things stay the same.

The additional revenues and exposure that was given to the BCS conferences because of the BCS have been are nice, but the revenue that nonBCS schools have received has improved by a bigger share due to increased bowl and tv revenue. That's why, in case you haven't noticed, nonBCS teams have actually become MORE competitive in terms of wins and losses and ranking in the BCS era rather than LESS competitive.

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.

mormonrasta wrote:

BYUtx wrote:

mormonrasta wrote:

Metal Bubba wrote:

BYUtx wrote:

basketball schmasketball. Even schools like Duke earn more revenue from football for being in a BCS conference than they do in men's BB.

Dook loses money on football almost every year. Revenue is another word for gross income. You need to look at net income. It's no secret that basketball is more lucrative than football for the majority of schools in this country. That's why there are so many more Division I basketball programs than there are football programs.

BYUtx wrote:

I would love to hear a good argument that explains why perennial losers like UCONN, Rutgers, Kansas, and Wake Forest have seen rapid improvement, without ANY regard to their BCS membership.

One word... coaching.

You are correct, sir!!!

If by "correct" you mean really good at pulling out two parts of an argument and refuting them instead of adressing the argument as a whole (because it really can't be touched), then, yes, he may be correct.

Your argument had soooooo many errors he had to pull out the best parts.

The reality is that there are still haves and have nots. The BCS did not create that, change or alter it in any way. Yes, the Rutgers, Kansas, and Wake Forests of the world have no greater power than they did before the BCS as manifested on the field. Duke is still Duke and they have proven they would struggle against ANY D1 competition. The only time Duke was any good in the recent college football era was when, you guessed it, they had a GREAT COACH (Steve Spurrier)!!! Funny how the more things change the more things stay the same.

The additional revenues and exposure that was given to the BCS conferences because of the BCS have been are nice, but the revenue that nonBCS schools have received has improved by a bigger share due to increased bowl and tv revenue. That's why, in case you haven't noticed, nonBCS teams have actually become MORE competitive in terms of wins and losses and ranking in the BCS era rather than LESS competitive.

And yet you still can't do it.