Doug Robinson: Parity good for causing BCS woes

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • sub-parity
    Nov. 15, 2007 11:34 a.m.

    Even the computer polls are jaded; Someone still has to tell them how to assign value to teams and conferences, and you can bet they are favoring the 'haves'. That is why going undefeated in a nonBCS conference won't get you in the top ten. You also need to beat a few 'quality'--aka BCS--teams to accomplish that feat. Otherwise Hawaii would be ranked much higher. All the more need for a playoff. The only automatic bids would be to conference champs; that would put some real significance back into traditional rivalries beyond mere bragging rights, and reward teams fairly for taking care of what they could control. As to parity, many of those nonBCS wins over BCS opponents were against mid to bottom BCS conference teams, so you can't always put much stock in beating a 'BCS' team. They don't. Kansas is BCS, and undefeated, but only ranked #4 (AP) behind three one-loss teams because they are usually a BCS bottom dweller. The fact that they have played a Big 12 BCS schedule does little for them, because it has been mostly against mid to lower BCS teams. Not even any respect within the system.

  • byucello
    Oct. 25, 2007 12:40 a.m.

    I, as well, want to get rid of the BCS so us non-BCS schools have a shot at the National Championship. But realistically, even a playoff system will not allow the non-BCS schools in the big games. You still have to be ranked high enough to make it in the playoffs, and the system would still be elitist there. The playoffs is about making sure that a legimate national champion is crowned, and not that a group of "experts" and computers determine.

  • Calute
    Oct. 24, 2007 10:33 p.m.

    ´╗┐Pressure from schools within BCS conferences with similar won loss records, complaining of
    being jacked for the National Championship Game will be the only way the system will change.
    No amount of non-BCS conference complaining will do anything.

  • Random
    Oct. 24, 2007 10:18 p.m.

    This is a random fun fact that I just read.
    Mtn. West Vs. BCS Foes, 7-8
    Utah Vs BCS 2-1 Vs. Mtn. West? 2-2
    TCU Vs. BCS 2-1 Vs. Mtn West? 1-3
    Just thought it was funny ^_^

  • Anonymous
    Oct. 24, 2007 2:41 p.m.

    Robinson argues about this several times a year. When will he realize that he can't change what elitism controls?

  • Anti-American
    Oct. 24, 2007 1:48 p.m.

    The BCS is everything that is anti-American anti- equality. There is no way a non BCS team has a chance to complete with a BCS school year in and year out when you consider the money. The NCAA is a joke when it comes to college football, they can take away scholarships from a school for minor violations but then they have given all of their power over to the BCS presidents/schools. Why doesnt the house and senate members of the non-BCS conferences form an alliance and introduce legislation that would bust up the BCS as a monopoly, they did it to Micron?

  • Come on NCAA!
    Oct. 24, 2007 1:28 p.m.

    Grow a spine and set up a playoff system for D1-A (or whatever you've now decided to call it) football!

  • Monopoly
    Oct. 24, 2007 12:35 p.m.

    I agree with BC$. It's all about the money. The BCS conferences have no intention of determining a clear National Champion. They only want one (or two or three) of the schools in their conference in the big money BCS bowls. Thus, they can fill their coffers and continue to bring in the big time players and TV contracts, then make it to another BCS bowl the next year.

    The only thing, sad to say, that will stop the downward spiral is an anti-trust lawsuit brought by an undefeated school who is not included in either the National Championship Game (if they are the only or one of two undefeated teams) or in another BCS bowl (if there are more than two undefeated teams.)

    Until the BCS conferences are forced to change by law, they will continue to make their own rules.

  • Tom
    Oct. 24, 2007 11:55 a.m.

    Some Dominance within each BCS conference is needed in order for Non-BCS schools to be considered for BSC bowls. If a conf like the Pac 10 does not have dominance, a they will have 4 teams in the polls, but if a team or 2 dominated, there will be more losses between a couple of teams and more room for the non-BCS schools to get in the polls

  • Anonymous
    Oct. 24, 2007 11:50 a.m.

    Top 10 BCS teams losses to other BCS teams does not help non-BCS teams. Aa examples, Cal, Oregon, Arizona St and USC can all loose to each other and still be in the the top 25. However, if one or 2 of those teams dominates with wins, the others drop in the polls, and non-BCS team can make progress in the polls. As a rebuttal to this article, it may be better to have dominance in the BCS conferences in order for say a 2 loss non-BCS team to be in the top 25 than to have parity within the BCS conferences.

  • SEC Student
    Oct. 24, 2007 10:49 a.m.

    I agree, the BCS/TV networks are hurting college football. Unfortunately, I think its here to stay as long as the NCAA continues to put up with it (and the $$ keeps coming in). As far as BCS vs. Non-BCS records go, you can't look at that too seriously recognizing that 90% (give or take) of the contests are at the BCS teams home stadiums. So, down with the BCS.

    Anyway, good article; though I was at the UK vs. LSU game, and I have to say that Kentucky really does have a lot of talent this year :)

  • Hate BCS
    Oct. 24, 2007 10:34 a.m.

    I hope the BCS and Kurt Herbstreit both are banned from TV and are exposed as the wicked Monopolistic anti-trust dodging losers that they are.

  • parity a myth
    Oct. 24, 2007 8:57 a.m.

    I keep reading about parity in NCAA football, but it's a myth. Since the start of the BCS in 1998, the winning percentage of nonBCS teams against BCS teams has dropped in half (from ~20% to ~10%), and the score margin in BCS vs nonBCS games has grown. The BCS conferences land 95% of the four and five star recruits even though they make up only about 50% of all teams. I do not know what percentage of the $ has gone to BCS teams, but we all know it's very lopsided.

    A few upsets are nice, but don't mistake a few upsets for parity. You cannot talk about parity in a league where anti-parity is written into the actual rules. Don't worry, when all is said and done, the top 10 will look very familiar.

  • BC$
    Oct. 24, 2007 8:31 a.m.

    Articles like this are so the minds of the powers that be, there is no such thing as "BCS woes". The BCS was not created to figure out which college football team is best, although that might be the official reason: It was created to make money! Specifically, to make money for its members and make sure that money stays there. The BCS may be the best system ever developed when it comes to making sure the "haves" continue to have, and the "have nots" continue to have not.

    No amount of on-field controversy will ever get rid of the BCS. When the AP yanked their poll from BCS use, lots of you thought that was the end of the BCS. Was it? No, the BCS continues on, just as corrupt and greedy as ever.

    Sorry but the only way the BCS will ever go away is if a governing body makes it illegal.

  • Anonymous
    Oct. 24, 2007 7:46 a.m.

    Trouble is, with all the losses and upsets, nothing will change. It will still be an SEC, BIg 10 or Pac 10 school playing for the "national championship"; whether they are undefeated, have one loss, two, or three. The BCS will never allow a Hawaii, or Kansas, or Boise State, or Utah or BYU to play in the NC game...never.

  • BYU Fan
    Oct. 24, 2007 5:20 a.m.

    Good Article! Down with the BCS!

  • The best thing...
    Oct. 24, 2007 1:14 a.m. rid us of the BCS is to have Hawaii be the only undefeated team and not make it to the championship. That's not saying they would be a better team than the BCS powerhouses, but who knows if they don't have the chance? If this were 84 then that would make them champions.