The BCS formula is 66% reliant on the OPINION of voters to decide
which two teams compete in a 1-game playoff championship. End of story.The opinions begin PRE-SEASON, when only 25 or so teams are nominated
for the title game. (The lowest pre-season team to win was LSU at 24th.)All others need not play a down of regular season with the national
title not a goal.It is a money-driven travesty, student athletes
prostituted by their universities.ELIMINATE the polls. Decide it
all on the field by sending the conference champions to a playoff based on
conference wins only (no out-of-league games count). Independents need not
apply!This makes every game, every week, decide the champion on the
field, not in 'weakly'leap-frog polls.Maybe add a few at-large bids
to round out the field based on on-the-field statistics, not polls.No strength of schedule, no margin of victory considered.Be true
to the game. Be true to the athletes. Be true to the fans of each team. For
the good of America, get this fixed, because we will be playing college football
until the end of time!
None of the arguments are valid enough to change the technology-based system.
Nick Saban is one person--he only has one vote. Many coaches
throughout the country vote. The computer code that compiles the
BCS was developed by NCAA administrators and referees. It can be changed at
anytime. It is not biased. One can cry about Utah being champs,
but Florida had a tougher schedule. If Florida had had Utah's schedule, they
would have been undefeated too. If Utah had Florida's schedule, they would have
lost several games. All conferences are not created equal--that is why Utah is
in the PAC-12 now. Complaining that things are unfair is not how
one brings changes to the BCS. Go and win on the field. Utah has
done that. Utah is getting its opportunities now, just as they got in 2004 and
2008. If you want to get to the big time, you have to earn it. It
doesn't just get handed to you on a silver platter. Utah has earned it; Boise
State and TCU are in the process of getting there. If you want
change, stop griping and win on the field. End of story.
mr harmon, i liked the article and i know utah was the champ in '08. the bcs is
corrupt along with all its cohorts who dismiss non-aq amateur athletes in
division one as inferior. playoff time!!
Utah fans supporting the BCS is just more evidence of the built in
hypocrisy and bias of the whole BCS mess and proof that we can't trust anybody
with their hand in the cookie jar to help clean up the mess.
The biased nature of football power conferences IS strong enough to keep anyone
out they don't want. However, I remember back to when Utah was given Alabama as
their opponent in the sugar bowl. Only true Ute fans were giving them a chance
to win. The rest of us were falling victim to the rhetoric and biased tone of
the experts. We felt Utah could give them a game, but unlikely to win it. When
something is said long enough and loud enough, it usually becomes accepted.
After the game, everyone believed that Utah should have been the team playing
for the championship. All that proves is the BCS has got to go. We should let
the athletes on the field prove who is best.
The Utes may be joining a BCS conference next July, but they'll never play in
the BCS championship game. There's a good ol' boys club even within the BCS
conferences and, as much as it may hurt to admit, the Utes never will be one of
the good ol' boys.
Gracious George... last I checked the Coaches poll is a third of the equation,
and when you have coaches like Saban who say (about week 5) that they will
never vote a team like TCU or BSU into the top spots.... it insures they will
never get a fair chance because of human influence. Not to mention SOS is
factored in for the purpose of said exclusion. A computer program is only as
good as its programmers code... and who writes the code????To finish
my previous thoughts (even my droid can't contain my fat fingers) the previously
mentioned schedule would end the playoffs at the same time the bowl games end
now, and I fail to see how the money would be lessened by having more meaningful
games...Everybody wins. And you can still have the maxi brand who cares bowl on
some random wed night to fill our bowl season with meaningless but entertaining
games that feed the conference walets a little more.
Gracious George,I do not understand why people are so against the
BCS when it is so obvious that it is the most unbiased system developed in the
history of college sports. It does not have the human bias element
interfering like the old college football polls did because it is a
technology-based system.Actually 2/3'rds of the BCS is based
on human polls.Do you realize that it is possible for Utah to win
the rest of their games and finish in the top 4 or 5 and still be not included
in a BCS game but Pittsburgh could?It creates a fair playing
field for teams to prove themselves through a combination of schedule strength
and computer rankings. Certain conferences are given preference over
others, like the SEC and Big Ten, then the Big 12 and PAC, finally the ACC and
Big East. It isn't fair that Utah's strength of schedule is lowered because BYU
loses to Utah St, Nevada, or FSU. Was that something that Utah did? (Just an
example, not dogging on BYU) Yet they could be the best team in the country and
unable to prove it.
The 4-8 team playoffs still in my mind don't guarantee large enough inclusion.
It would have to (at the very least) have to be a 12 team option, and best case
scenario involve 16 teams. 11 automatic conference champion spots (assuming they
are in the top 20), and 5 at large bids. The AQ. powers still get most of the
(at least 5 depending on top 20 ranking) at large spots, and teams like BSU,
Utah and/or TCU get a chance to prove their metal.Take one OOC game
off the schedule and that leaves time for a bye week before the playoffs and
another before the championship
I do not understand why people are so against the BCS when it is so obvious that
it is the most unbiased system developed in the history of college sports. It creates a fair playing field for teams to prove themselves through a
combination of schedule strength and computer rankings. It does not
have the human bias element interfering like the old college football polls did
because it is a technology-based system. It also does not start
until Week 7 in the season, an appropriate time to begin because even media
figures have said for years the first polls coming out mean little or nothing.
It is very sound and well thought out by experienced NCAA
administrators, referees, and university officials. Does Mr. Harmon
not have better things to write about because of the struggles BYU is facing
this football season? Mr. Harmon writing about this in mid-season
is like Sen. Hatch using this as a campaign bumper sticker to bolster his
chances for being re-elected in 2012. I suggest that if Mr. Harmon
or fans have better ideas, to please voice them. Otherwise, please
keep your unproductive opinions to yourselves.
Hedgehog,You clearly didn't even READ the article. It doesn't
mention BYU nor 1984. In fact, it was quite flattering to Utah. (Isn't that
supposed to be your team)?Leave it to you to take such a nice
article about the Utes and try to make it a slam on the Cougs.
Just a reminder the Bowl Championship Division has no national championship.
Not in 1984 and not now. The BCS is a made for TV promotion. Articles that
reference the BCS "the national championship" as such only add to this myth.
Nice for increasing advertising revenues, and dollars for those conferences that
are included, but does nothing to improve football. If it did, how is it that
in a BCS conference receiving so much money you have a Northwestern, Iowa St.,
Duke, Kentucky, Rutgers, or Washington State all programs comparable to New
Mexico in the MWC or New Mexico State in the WAC that does not receive the big
dollars. Any fan that thinks winning or losing in such games means anything
other than they had a great experience (if they won) or a good experience (if
they lost) at a great location as the highlight for someones extended Christmas
vacation has been deluded by TV hype.
continue Bain is interviewing faculty, staff, senior management and the academic
senate leaders for $150 million in inefficiencies, most of which could have been
found internally. One easy-to-identify problem, for example, was wasteful
procurement practices such as failing to secure bulk discounts on printers. But
Birgeneau apparently has no concept of savings: even in procuring a consulting
firm, he failed to receive proposals from other firms.Students,
staff, faculty, and California legislators are the victims of his incompetence.
Now that sports teams are feeling the pinch, perhaps the California Alumni
Association, benefactors and donators, and the UC Board of Regents will demand
to know why Birgeneau is raking in $500,000 a year despite the abdication of his
responsibilities.The author, who has 35 years’ consulting
experience, has taught at University of California Berkeley, where he was able
to observe the culture and the way the senior management operates.
When UC Berkeley announced its elimination of baseball, men’s and
women’s gymnastics, and women’s lacrosse teams and its defunding of
the national-champion men’s rugby team, the chancellor sighed,
“Sorry, but this was necessary!” But was it? Yes, the
university is in dire financial straits. Yet $3 million was somehow found to
pay the Bain consulting firm to uncover waste and inefficiencies in UC Berkeley,
despite the fact that a prominent East Coast university was doing the same thing
without consultants. Essentially, the process requires collecting and
analyzing information from faculty and staff. Apparently, senior administrators
at UC Berkeley believe that the faculty and staff of their world-class
university lack the cognitive ability, integrity, and motivation to identify
millions in savings. If consultants are necessary, the reason is clear: the
chancellor, provost, and president have lost credibility with the people who
provided the information to the consultants. Chancellor Robert J Birgeneau has
reigned for eight years, during which time the inefficiencies proliferated.
Even as Bain’s recommendations are implemented (“They told me to do
it”, Birgeneau), credibility and trust problems remain. continue
Wow BeWhyUte, did you even read my comment?I quote: "I still feel
the BCS is a corrupt system that needs to be overhauled."You're
right, before the Utes got into the PAC-12 I called the BCS corrupt. Now that
they're in, I'm still calling the BCS corrupt! How exactly is that hypocritical?
I actually drew up a proposal detailing the playoff system that I described in
my post for an argumentation class I was in a year and a half ago, long before
the PAC-12 invite.If you can come up with a better system that might
work in the real world and not the fantasy world you live in, I'd love to hear
it. Until then, tone down the hate.Other posters have talked about
an 8-team playoff like I have. What is so wrong with that? It would be a huge
change over what we have now and not a "slight modification".
No, Uncle Tom in Ann Arbor, MI, the BCS is not better. It does not pit the two
most deserving teams against each other. We've seen that multiple times i.e.
Oklahoma, Florida, Ohio State, etc. It pits the two teams which will create the
greatest revenue. It's just as bad if not worse than the system in 1984.
I'm sure we all must agree the BCS is much better than that ridiculous system
back in 1984. Back then they made no logical effort in pitting the two most
deserving teams. Funny how Dick has no problem with 1984Hypocrite
I appreciate the efforts of the authors to expose the BCS and I hope that this
is the catalyst for change. However, I remain pessimisstic on if that will
actually happen.The BCS has never been about fairness, competition
or anything that college athletics is supposed to represent. It has been about
creating a class system with two distinct classes of Division 1 football teams;
the haves and the have nots. Congrats to the Utes for becoming a have but the
system is broken and will not be fixed until the haves are compelled to change.
Sadly, this change would have to take place in the courts and
anytime any momentum is squashed because they put out ridiculous argutments that
are listened to and never scrutinized like they should be. We hear such excuses
as "doesn't congress have anything better to do" and "we've given them access to
the BCS". This is a billion dollar enterprise which is based on collusion, and
universities that are publicly funded are part of it. If college
football was started tomorrow and proposals were made to determine a champion,
the bowl system would be shot down immediately. So should the BCS.
Dick,Thank you for the article. I dont generally like your articles, but
this was a good 'book review' and probably convinced me to buy it (Now i have
to find it).
The BCS is clearly unfair/ corrupt/ dishonest/ etc. However it is still
better than what preceded it. Conference affiliations determining ALL
bowls, regardless of rankings. The BCS at least tries to put 2 of the best
teams in the country head to head, to decide on the field. The BCS
was a step in the right direction. Its just long past time to make
the next step.A 4 or 8 team playoff using the existing BCS bowls
would solve most of the problems.It would keep the existing bowls, which
reward many teams accross the country with postseason play.It allows teams
to decide on the field who is the best. It is large enough to include the likely
best teams in the country. It maintains the importance of the regular season.Utah would still have missed out of a 4 team playoff in 2008. Nothing's
perfect. But BCS is not close right now.
hedgehog | 6:43 a.m. Oct. 26, 2010 Ann Arbor, MI I have no problem
with the BCS, in fact I love it!!Go UtesOfficial PAC12
member.Correction: Official PAC12 Bottom Feeder.
@Go UtesAnyone who refers to the red zone as the "blue zone" in an article
doesn't just "lean BYU" but is a PR man.@SamBeing the only
undefeated team in the nation to beat 4 top 25 and 2 top 7 teams might not mean
much to you but it does to this Ute.BCS is a cartel regadless if
Utah is looking in or out. TCU and Boise have proven that they belong more then
teams like Washington State, Duke, Iowa State, etc. I would like to see a top 8
I am sure the book will be a best seller in to the WAC and MWC whinners. The
schedules played by BSU TCU and Utah do not make them worthy for a NC run.The complaining about the BCS system detracts from the joy of watching
football during the regular season and enjoying the fantastic BSC bowls.
The name of the book should have been The Emperor's New Clothes 2.Thriller, thanks for your amazing generosity. What a hoot. Before the Utes
got into a BCS conf. I'm sure you were trashing the BCS just like everyone else
as unfair and corrupt, NOW that your team is IN you want the rules to pretty
much stay the same with a slight modification for a playoff...how pathetic and
hypocritical.For those of you bashing Dick for this article and
implying that he should have no interest in the subject because he's "A BYU
FAN", you need to grow up. He's a journalist. He may have the BYU beat but he
certainly can report on the Yewts and other items of interest to all football
fans!Can anyone who wears red think objectively about anything
related to college sports? Please raise your hand and be counted if you
Cristoph, how about those teams go play at Utah, at Boise, at TCU? You cannot
assume that a team has to go to those places and beat those teams. Things
should be equal, they should go on the road too. Oregon got it handed too them
at Boise last year. And Boise handed it Oregon in Autzen stadium the year
before. BSU went on the road and beat virginia tech. TCU went into Clemson and
beat them. Utah beat Michigan in the big house. And don't give me that those
teams weren't any good. They are the same teams and same formidable places that
their conference foes play as well. The fact is that BSU, TCU, and UT can go
into those places and beat these teams when given the chance to do so.
TCU, Utah and Boise State have powder puff schedules; this was omitted in
Harmon's article. It is true that Boise State should probably have been #1 in
the first BCS poll; yet it was also understood that they would have dropped
from there week after week (playing bad teams hurts you). I want to see these
3 play at Wisconsin, at South Carolina, at LSU, at Arizona, at Iowa, at Florida
State, at Alabama, at Auburn, at Oregon, at Stanford (need I go on??) You can
not win the title by playing powder puff and then hope to win it all on a
nuetral site. Boise State has never seen a good defense blitze them----not once
I can't speak for the Utes or the Utah politicians, but as a Ute fan, I'm glad
we made it into a BCS conference. That will finally give us the respect we have
deserved for a long time. That said, I still feel the BCS is a corrupt system
that needs to be overhauled.I've long thought the best system would
be to keep the big 4 BCS bowls (Sugar, Fiesta, Rose, and Orange) and use them as
a jumping off point for a playoff. The winners of the Sugar and Orange bowls
play each other while the winners of the Fiesta and Rose bowls play each other.
The winners of those two games then play for the NC. That would only add two
more games to the schedule. To appease the big conferences, we can keep most of
the current rules intact regarding who gets into the BCS bowls.I
think this would satisfy everyone as much as possible. The BCS boys still get
their AQ while the little guys get their shot at a NC.
I appreciate the article. I am as big a Ute fan as you will find, but I am not
going to knock Dick for writing the article. I know he has BYU leanings, but
the fact is, no matter what conference any team is in, the BCS has to go. I am
excited about the Utes' move to the PAC-(10/12), but I still deteest the BCS.
Even if a team wins it all, there is no legitimacy to it. Florida "won" in
2008, but many still talk about how they might not of if the Utes had received a
fair shake. Under any non-playoff system (including the system in place in
1984, for example), there can never really be a true champion--there can only be
a final poll that is not superceded by some subsequent poll. The
BCS has to go. Any Ute fan, BYU fan, or college football fan in general, who
truly loves the sport, would agree. Ute fans, don't sell out to the
A couple of points were made by commentators that have been really glossed over
but are very important: politics had everything to do with utah going to the
Pac-10. I am certain that the PAC-10 was getting pressure from the BCS folks to
invite Utah. I am also sure that the Big 12 was getting equal pressure to stay
together.Second, next year Utah will have a tremendous burden on
their shoulders. They carry the weight of all non-AQ teams to demonstrate that
they can compete week in and week out in an AQ conference. IF they fail, then
there will never be a non-AQ team playing for a national title. If they succeed
(win the division, win 10 games, and/or win the conference), the door is opened
just a little bit further for other non-AQ teams. But it has to happen in the
first few years.
Wow, a nice article in defense of the Utes, non-AQ conferences and yet many fans
can't take the complement. I thought the Utes were very deserving in
2008. Too bad being undefeated doesn't mean much without the NC title.
TJ2407"Reggie Bush and USC deserved to be in the NC game. They were
the best those years"Are you talking about his last year at USC?
They weren't the national champs - did you forget that Texas beat them thanks to
Vince Young who took down Reggie, Matt Leinert and Wendell White. Now USC is on
probation for illegal recruiting and abuses by the alumni, proving that if you
cheat to win, you will have to pay the price.
Since the school down south is not in a BCS qualifying conference, nor has a
schedule that will give it enough respect to rise to the #2 position, which is
the only spot in the rankings from which they can qualify to play in a BCS bowl,
Dick's article seems to be intended for audiences other than his usual crew in
Blue. I, for one, can not figure out why he would not write about
how the school down south might never qualify for a BCS bowl considering the
folly of their decision to go independent and it resulting consequences. 1984
willnever happen for them again...not by 2084, nor 2184 nor even 2284. I guess
national exposure trumped all other rational considerations.
Anyone from the U that claims the BCS is working is like Tide fans claiming that
Alabama had nothing to play for in 08. Kinda takes the savor outta
your win huh?
And yet Utes tout BCS wins, when they should have been national champions.
i'm a big fan of a playoff system. even though the utes will make a lot more
money in the pac i still think a playoff makes more sense. byu got lucky with
the independent draw when it comes to revenue. kind of hard for them to get in
without a spotless record though and that's too bad.if the bcs is
really all about money, i don't understand why there can't be a playoff system
where the individual games are still sponsored by big name companies.for example:lets say there's a 16-team playoff. citi, who
normally sponsors the rose bowl, could get a playoff game and sponsor it like
they would the rose bowl. the loser takes the money for making it that far, the
winner moves on and plays another day.i know that's a bit clouded
but it's just an idea. you'd figure with all the different bowls they have ever
year (i swear viagra has a bowl game this year) major companies would be cool
with a playoff system as long as they got some deal like they do with the bowl
It is too bad that Utah has gotten the shaft in this unfair game of Monopoly.
Most likely, it'll happen again this year. Because, (sorry Hedgehog) they're not
in the PAC 10 yet. Utes won't get a fair shake until next year. It sounds like,
from the article, the MWC TV deal has not exactly been helpful to them in
getting the votes they need. Few will vote #1 for a team they haven't (and
can't) watch.It will be nice to see a strong Utah team get the
chances it deserves.
Next year will be an important year with Utah joining a BCS league. It will be
closely watched as questions whether Utah will be able to hang with the big boys
each week. If they fail than it will legitimize the BCS that mid-majors don't
have the SOS to be considered in the NC talk. But Utah do have the BCS level
personnel to hang with them. We will see if the success of the undefeated
Utah's 04, 08, 10 teams will hold any weight.
In my mind there were (are) many valid reasons why Utah was invited to join the
"elite" conference of champions.Allow me to suggest another possibility --
Could another reason for the invitation be to get the United States Senate off
the BCS's back?Where does Utah's Senior Senator now stand on his
anti-trust argument? Also, where does Utah's AG now fit with other states in
fighting this supposedly unfair system? Have they become "Mayered" in accepting
the status quo?I would love to see Utah become the NC and it would be even
more fun to watch them demolish several of football's storied teams in the
process -- I still vote for a playoff system!!!
Have to hand it to Harmon, As a BYU guy it probably wasn't easy for him to write
an article so glowing about the Utes
I purchased and read this book, because I've always been curious as to exactly
what the "BCS" is and who is running it. This book opened my eyes to some
highly disturbing information, not only about the BCS, but all bowl games in
general. There are people getting rich off these things, and it's not the
Universities that play in them...many universities actually lose money going to
bowl games, and this book exposes why and how. There is plenty of lies,
corruption, and misinformation in the BCS. This is a must read for any college
The BCS is a machine with a heart but no brain. This goes back to its
incepetion long before the Utes got the short end of the stick.
Reggie Bush and USC deserved to be in the NC game. They were the best those
years. The BCS system works perfectly for what it was designed for. there is no
flaw in the function only in the set up and design of it. I think people make
was to much of this.
My favorite when talking about the BCS is Urben Meyer. He was against it at Utah
but they asked him about it when he got to Florida and he said it works fine. He
Thinks it does what it is designed to do and that is help the big schools and
big conferences. He likes it because he benefits at Florida.
I have no problem with the BCS, in fact I love it!!Go UtesOfficial PAC12 member.
BoomPlease no generalizations - I know a lot of BYU fans who cheer
for the Utes in post season play including myself. I was thrilled to see them
take down the Tide two years ago.Why don't you appreciate someone
trying to help the cause of fighting against the BCS? "The only time his team
ever even went to the BCS was to root against their rivals." Not true.
mwc, wac and many others already knows - FLAWS. Beware of LEAPFROGGERS. Oh,
don't forget - how many times we saw USC (Reggie Bush and Pete Caroll) played in
the NC games? They really didn't deserve it. Same with "THE Ohio State" which I
can't stand them. And one more, I can see the tunnel is coming to an end when
bcs going to Poof (vanished soon). You think soon that Texas, Tx A&M, Ohio
State, Mich. and many others will leave their conferance and go Ind? Why not,
like BYU said, we will keep all the revenue when comes to tv and bowl game? Or
am I wrong? Like I said before, I don't care about the bcs poll and full of
Excellent article, Mr. Harmon. "Death to the BCS" is well-written,
thoroughly-researched, and a fun read.As their program is pursuing
independence outside of a BCS conference and without special terms from the BCS,
BYU fans should pay special attention to the arguments presented by Mr. Wetzel
et al.I wonder if your readers are familiar with the work of Playoff
PAC, a group actually founded by BYU and Utah fans. They're doing some exciting
things to fight the BCS.Thanks, Dick, for an outstanding article.
Could someone explain to me why DICK is so worried about the BCS? The only time
his team ever even went to the BCS was to go root against their rivals.Go Utes!!!
Keep cryin Dick, we're still not invited.