Quantcast
Sports

Dick Harmon: TCU's move to the Big East shows the hypocrisy of the BCS

Comments

Return To Article
  • 1984 for life Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2010 4:29 p.m.

    Keep cryin Dick. We are still not any closer to the BCS as an independant than we were in the MWC. Problem with both???????

    We don't win enough games.

  • Vernal grandma Vernal, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 7:46 p.m.

    Here is some info on Gordon Gee, he grew here in Vernal,Utah and graduated from Uintah High School in 1962. He never played any sport and probably would not have a clue about football because he was busy being obnoxious!

  • UgottaloveMaxie SLC, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 6:36 p.m.

    Bad timing on this article, Dick. Gee rescinded his comments and apologized today.

  • BleedCougarBlue Enid, OK
    Dec. 2, 2010 5:54 p.m.

    Hypocrisy? You want to talk about hypocrisy?

    What about all those whining TCU fans and TCU-friendly sportswriters in Texas who endlessly bashed BYU as being selfish and arrogant for dumping the MWC and going independent? when, lo and behold, THEIR team just dumped the MWC and accepts a seat in a major conference.

    I'm sure TCU did it with no thought at all for money or national exposure, RIGHT?....

  • Unsamana Provo, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 5:01 p.m.

    Independent,

    I am a huge proponent of playoffs, sports are to be decided on the field, not on paper. But don't be too dismissive of ratings. If we get a 16-team playoff, how would you like the selection to take place? There can not be a round robin for all FBS teams. And while head-to-head competition is what sports are all about, the "better" team doesn't always come out on top. If BYU and Utah played five times, would the "better" team win every time?

    Ratings are not the end-all-be-all, but they can be helpful in conversations. Particularly when arrogant elitists claim that Their conference teams play such harder schedules than non-AQ teams. When these ratings are based solely on outcome on the field rather than the football heritage of the school, then they are a much better system than what we have now.

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 4:42 p.m.

    If Utah and TCU do not do well in the BCS at the starters gate the BCS will claim, "Told you so, the other conferences can't compete against our stronger schedule." I hope they don't really screw this up for the playoff argument.

  • tundraperspective Bethel, alaska
    Dec. 2, 2010 4:28 p.m.

    Everyone should grab a copy of "Death to the BCS" by Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter, Jeff Passan. Whether you are in favor of the BCS or not it will provide some good insight into how the bowls really work.

    Until we have a playoff it is only a beauty contest!

  • Go Big Blue!!! Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 4:03 p.m.

    Another day and another BCS bashing article in the Deseret News. Imagine that!

    Same old whining. The big bowls are one of the best parts of the holiday season. The fact that the BCS bowl games are so profitable shows that the bigger and better conferences developed bigger and better bowls.

    The fact that whoever is number 1 or 2 will play in the NC game reflects the fairness of the system. The fact that the BCS gets to choose who plays in the rest of the BCS bowl games shows the right that the BCS has to protect and control its own property. It is the BCS's party.

    When a program like TCU has the chance to improve its program by moving to a better conference it would be foolish not to do so.

    It will be interesting to see how these teams do in the bigger conferences. Getting up for a couple of games a year is nothing like facing consecutive weeks playing real teams.

  • Oregon Ute Hermiston, OR
    Dec. 2, 2010 3:41 p.m.

    I wish the Utes were headed to the big east. We would dominate. TCU will tear the big east up more easily than they did the MWC. What will these arrogant university presidents say then. Playoff is the only way to go.

  • Corn Dog New York, NY
    Dec. 2, 2010 3:00 p.m.

    "Fact: Schools like TCU and Boise State cannot get Ohio State and others to play them home and home. They are chicken. They load up with home games and rarely play good non-AQ opponents away from their own bailiwicks."

    Wrong. OSU will play BSU but only at the Horseshoe. The reason is $$$. Ohio Stadium seats 104,000+ and is always full, Smurf Stadium seats only 33,000. If OSU plays at BSU it loses lots of money. If BSU plays at OSU it makes more money as a visitor than as a home team playing at Smurf Stadium. Ohio State has always played a quality team as part of it's non-conference schedule. In the last decade they have played Miami, USC, and Texas, who have all won the National Championship this decade.

  • ColonelJohn Roby, MO
    Dec. 2, 2010 2:48 p.m.

    C'mon--just because Gee is a nerd does not require the knock on bow ties--his is probably a clip-on but real men can tie theirs and are proud to be able to do so!

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    Dec. 2, 2010 1:41 p.m.

    Strength of schedule cannot be relied upon, because it is still judging teams that have never played one another against each other, just like the ranking system as a whole. The only way to find out if team A is better than team B is for them to play each other. Of course you can't do this, but you come as close as possible by having a playoff. Polls mean very little. To illustrate this point, take any two teams that will play each other next week. Then poll all of the sports writers and all of the coaches, asking them which team will win. What percentage do you think will get it wrong? Asking them who will win is irrelevant. All that matters is who actually does win. You cannot compare strength of schedules unless each of the teams on team A's schedule play each of the teams on team B's schedule.

  • Unsamana Provo, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 1:37 p.m.

    I'm not sure where the SOS numbers that FaifeauSam used came from. The numbers I use show:

    #1 toughest SOS: Texas A&M
    2) Washington
    3) Washington St
    4) Oklahoma
    5) Iowa St
    14) USC
    15) Notre Dame
    32) BYU
    37) Auburn
    54) Boise St
    59) Utah
    63) Ohio State
    67) TCU
    72) Wisconsin

    Another interesting factoid, that makes Gee's statement all the more ironic: The average SOS of the MWC is greater than the SOS of the Big 10.

    1) Big 12
    2) Pac 10
    3) SEC
    4) MWC
    5) Big 10
    6) WAC
    7) ACC
    8) Independents
    9) Big East
    10) C-USA
    11) MAC
    12) Sun Belt

    The Big 10 did better against their competition, 35 wins, 8 losses to out-of-conference opponents, vs. 17 wins, 19 losses for the MWC, but still, MWC teams are playing a tougher schedule, week in and week out, than Big 10 teams!

  • Thriller Saint George, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 1:27 p.m.

    The only chance TCU has of going to a NC over the next 5 years is if they go undefeated and every other team in the country loses at least once. Even then it would be difficult if there are two one-loss teams coming out of the PAC-12 and SEC.

    The NC runs through the SEC first and PAC-12 second with the occasional Big 10 and Big 12 contribution.

  • conservative scientist Lindon, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 12:23 p.m.

    This is an excellent article about the hypocrisy of the BCS.

  • Wayne Rout El Paso, TX
    Dec. 2, 2010 10:54 a.m.

    The president of a university does not always attend football games or follow sports. It is just the money he is concerned about.

  • Still Blue after all these years Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 10:52 a.m.

    First, to Faifeau Sam: the stupidity of SOS is shown in that it shows Utah at #43 and BYU at #76. No way. BYU played FSU, Nevada, Washington and the MWC schedule. Utah played ND, Pitt, San Jose and the MWC schedule. Even SOS is mightily flawed.

    Second, Gordon Gee. He's a university president! what do you expect? University presidents see as far as the $ bill allows them to see and no farther. Probably the most overpaid people in America. He just showed the hypocrisy, ignorance and arrogance of most university presidents.

  • FaifeauSam Lehi, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 10:29 a.m.

    Strength of Schedule FYI: #38 is Boise State (10-1); #42 is Utah (10-2); #43 is Nevada (10-1); Air Force is #68 at (7-4); BYU is #72 at (6-6); San Diego State is #73 at (7-4); TCU is #75 at (11-0); and UNLV is #76 at (2-10).

    Interesting how that really doesn't seem to matter; it's what they leave on the field that counts. Maybe money is the important thing!???

  • FaifeauSam Lehi, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 10:21 a.m.

    Maybe I'll have to eat a little crow, but these are the SOS rankings: #1-Alabama (8-3); #2-Auburn (11-0);
    #8-Arkansas (9-2); #9-LSU (9-2); #19-Miss State (7-4); #20-Clemson (5-6); #23-Georgia (5-6); #39-Mississippi (4-7). By comparison Oregon (10-0)is ranked #14.

  • FaifeauSam Lehi, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 9:59 a.m.

    As I stated in a post a couple of weeks ago, I find it very hard to understand how Auburn can be ranked for the NC with narrow wins over 8-4 Mississippi State, 17-14; an overtime win to 6-6 Clemson, 27-24; a 3-point win over 6-6 Kentucky; a touchdown win over 10-2 LSU; and a one-point win over 9-3 Alabama. They only played four road games while playing eight at home.

    Oregon's schedule is probably just as patsy, but I don't have time to research them, too. I'll check their strength of schedule and post again.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 2, 2010 9:57 a.m.

    I think you're being a little unfair here. I think he has a legitimate point. I think he is criticizing the overall schedule more than the conference.

  • Rock Chalk BYU Lawrence, KS
    Dec. 2, 2010 9:52 a.m.

    Harbaugh is a stud. That dude seems to have a pretty strong internal compass. Sadly he's just a little dog barking in the corner. His university president will muzzle him soon enough with some of the BCS hush money.

    I've said this earlier, the BCS games are reserved for those who have guaranteed spots (conference champs, maybe a non-AQ that meets the formula), and then Ohio State, Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Florida, etc. etc. As for the BCS championship game, it is reserved for an SEC team and someone else, unless there is a magic combination of 2-loss SEC teams and undefeated non-SEC teams.

    No teams have been shown the BCS love more than OU and OSU, in spite of their embarrassing losses. No way OSU doesn't go this year.

    Michigan State, Stanford, K-State, Missouri...forget about it.

  • RickD Little Elm, TX
    Dec. 2, 2010 9:47 a.m.

    UtahBlueDevil

    What are you smoking??? Have you looked at the overall power rankings?

    Big East #1 - Conn. 30.2
    Big East #2 - West V 36.7
    Big East #3 - Pitt 30.0

    TCU - 56.3
    Utah - 37.7
    Air Force - 31.1

    Boise ST. - 48.3

    TCU is making BCS availablity easier, championship possibilites harder.

  • BigD Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 9:40 a.m.

    Those who say they will not get a shot at the NC are jumping to conclusions. A loss by Auburn or Oregon this weekend (won't happen), would shoot them into the NC game as a non-AQ. If you start the season high enough and go undefeated in a BCS conference they can not keep you out. Besides, has it been about NC for Utah, BSU, and TCU? No, it has been about millions of dollars and not hundreds of thousands. They have won already.

  • LonestarRunner Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 9:33 a.m.

    The caste system in the BCS extends beyond AQ and non-AQ conferences; there are also tier 1 and tier 2 BCS teams and conferences.

    It's ironic that Stanford coach Jim Harbaugh is saying he would be in favor of a playoff if Stanford is passed over for a BCS game because of "factors unrelated to on-field performance."

    Gotta love the irony.

  • Pavalova Surfers Paradise, AU
    Dec. 2, 2010 9:33 a.m.

    The fact that they join the Big East or ACC just means they can schedule the real cupcakes at home, and they play the "other" cupcakes in conference. Syracuse, Uconn, Boston College, Rutgers, West Virginia..please don't give me any nonsense of how tough those schools are and how tough their schedules are.

    TCU just became part of the problem. Good for them, they deserve it because they performed on the field, but this doesn't help the playoff discussion at all.

    There will always be 1 or 2 non-AQs that will upset the system each year, and all the AQ conferences will do is invite them to their conferences so the wealth can be shared among the rich.

    Sounds like a monarchy.

  • Whoa Nellie American Fork, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 9:17 a.m.

    UtahBlueDevil, please name one team TCU will face in the Big East that will be tougher than what TCU has faced in the MWC. They will be part of the party just by being in the Big East because that conference is one of the six party hosts. Right now they are the guest none of the hosts want to dance with at this year's party.

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 9:04 a.m.

    It's not about a national champion, it's about money. Utah, BYU, TCU, BSU, etc. all made moves based on considerations other than a NC.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    Dec. 2, 2010 8:45 a.m.

    Blah, blah, blah. Until there is a playoff, this system is as valid as an ice skating competition with russian judges. Isn't Auburn looking pretty this year?

  • HCB63 Orem, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 8:36 a.m.

    The BCS is ONLY about money--and keeping as much of it for the SEC as possible.The BCS's Board of Governors is loaded nearly top to bottom with SEC Presidents.

    The "Strength of Schedule" argument is as hollow today as when BYU was passed over for a BCS spot with a 11-1 record and a #5 ranking. I have to laugh when strength of schedule is touted and the top teams have played patsy's like Troy State, New Hampshire, and Appalachian State. Meanwhile Utah and BYU are playing Florida State, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, etc.

    What a joke.

    The only LEGITIMATE way to crown a National Champion is to hold a playoff. However, so long as the BCS holds a monopolistic stranglehold over NCAA Div. 1 football, it will NEVER happen.

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    Dec. 2, 2010 8:21 a.m.

    The Big East is the joke of the BCS. An undefeated Big East team, TCU, will just give continued headaches to the system, since they dont plan on sending a Big East team to the National Championship game either. I hope TCU exposes the Big East and continues to bust the BCS.

  • Rock Chalk BYU Lawrence, KS
    Dec. 2, 2010 8:13 a.m.

    @rok, you beat me to the punch!!! Your comment is dead on.

    Dick, I said this to your colleague Doug earlier this week when he said TCU's "problem" was solved. This is true only if your "problem" is going to one of the lesser BCS bowls. Although the BCS does a poor job of it, the "C" does stand for "Championship", and if you tune into the ESPN's BCS rankings program each week, they spend almost all of the time talking about that.

    So TCU still has a big problem, and so do the rest of us as long as the BCS is in place.

    Its pretty hard to fault TCU in any of this. Its not TCU's job to reform the system, its the NCAA's job to be the grown-up in the room.

  • rok San Diego, CA
    Dec. 2, 2010 7:31 a.m.

    If TCU goes undefeated in the Big East, they still won't go to the NC because their schedule will still be considered too weak.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 2, 2010 7:24 a.m.

    A little creative writing going on here.

    "Last week, undefeated TCU was unworthy. In about 24 months, they will be part of the party"

    No, they will be part of the party and worthy of national championship consideration if they run the table in the Big East.... there is a difference here. If they were in the Big East and still played the likes of Wyoming and New Mexico - then yes, it would be another story. But reasonable people will assume TCUs schedule will be just a bit tougher once they make the move.

    Now if strength of schedule rating does not improve playing in a new conference, then we have another discussion. But gauging how the "elite" of the MWC like the U and Y played against them, I am sure TCU will get a more competitive schedule once they move.