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
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!
Bad timing on this article, Dick. Gee rescinded his comments and apologized
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?....
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
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
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!
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
I'm not sure where the SOS numbers that FaifeauSam used came from. The numbers I
use show:#1 toughest SOS: Texas A&M2) Washington3)
Washington St4) Oklahoma5) Iowa St14) USC15) Notre
Dame32) BYU37) Auburn54) Boise St59) Utah63) Ohio
State67) TCU72) WisconsinAnother 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 122) Pac 103)
SEC4) MWC5) Big 106) WAC7) ACC8) Independents9) Big East10) C-USA11) MAC12) Sun BeltThe 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!
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.
This is an excellent article about the hypocrisy of the BCS.
The president of a university does not always attend football games or follow
sports. It is just the money he is concerned about.
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.
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!???
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.
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.
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.
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.
UtahBlueDevilWhat are you smoking??? Have you looked at the overall
power rankings?Big East #1 - Conn. 30.2Big East #2 - West
V 36.7Big East #3 - Pitt 30.0TCU - 56.3Utah - 37.7Air Force - 31.1Boise ST. - 48.3TCU is making BCS availablity easier, championship possibilites harder.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.