Senate To Hold Hearings On Bcs

Side Show Joe · July 3, 2009

UT got out of the SWC because they felt that they were carrying the conference and that they could attract better TV contracts and make more gate $$ by playing fewer lightweight schools. They moved to the B12 and are doing better financially. The UT's believes that the big schools are the main attraction and why split with the opening act? The Ohio States , Floridas of the world believe that THEY carry the water and therefore THEY can make the rules that they want to benefit themselves and they deserve the profits. Where ever you draw the line there will be schools just under the wire who will complain.
BU got in to the B12 because they were the best option at the time. The B8 wanted to grow to 12 and needed 4 from the SWC. UT,A&M,Tech and who else from the SWC? UH? poor attendance/ weak teams at the time. Rice , TCU or SMU? Those were the deadweight schools that UT wanted to get away from...

Baylor was not the best option at the time. They got in because Ma Richards was the governor at the time, and forced Texas and a&m to take Baylor (dead weight) with them. Tech and a&m were forced in by other politicians. As a result Houston, smu, TCU, and Rice all suffered. And technically Arkansas was the first to bolt.

The San Antonio paper wrote an article about it a ways back. Someone smarter then me, please post a link to it.

russell360 · July 4, 2009

Who in the old SWC was significantly better than BU?

Censored by Laurie · July 4, 2009

Set a limit on what programs can spend. UNT has a budget of 3.5 million.
Texas has a football budget in excess of $14 million. Ohio State is over $25 million. How can the small schools compete?

I bet McDonald's spends more than Denton County Hamburger...its probably because they make more. Why are you always demonizing profit?

How can the small schools compete? How about a lil old-fashion American elbow grease. If you want something in MY country, you have to work for it...no one is going to give it to you.

Travis · July 4, 2009

I bet McDonald's spends more than Denton County Hamburger...its probably because they make more. Why are you always demonizing profit?
How can the small schools compete? How about a lil old-fashion American elbow grease. If you want something in MY country, you have to work for it...no one is going to give it to you.

The BCS is different though. It is rigged in a way that gives prefence to BCS in which you can be the best, but if you aren't in the BCS you wont play for a national championship. I think the system should be equal in opportunity, not equality in actuality. There is no reason that the NCAA should be discriminatory and not allow the equal opportunity for all schools at any given year to get the national championship.

Edited July 4, 2009 by Travis

oldguystudent · July 4, 2009

Funny how when one is put in the position of being on the outside looking in that one becomes more prone to support redistribution and regulation while pointing out acts of wealth protectionism, cronyism and unfair exclusion. And all this over a game played by teenagers.

Side Show Joe · July 4, 2009

Who in the old SWC was significantly better than BU?

I don't feel their is an argument for a team being better. All the teams outside of Texas, a&m, and Tech were having a rough time with their programs. But baylor only had a 19-15 record over the last three years of the SWC, from 1993-1995. I think it's safe to say baylor was not significantly better then tcu who had a 17-17 record over the same period of time.

russell360 · July 4, 2009

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...f.4bf22e33.html

BU had better attendace. It was primarily about $$$

At the end of the SWC a TCU vs Rice or a TCU vs SMU drew no TV and only 20-25 k attendance.

They could have picked TCU then y'all would be complaining that TCU got in unfairly... They wanted 4 and BU was the best of the rest. Had Arkansas not already left for the SEC, they would have been chosen.

Censored by Laurie · July 4, 2009

Funny how when one is put in the position of being on the outside looking in that one becomes more prone to support redistribution and regulation while pointing out acts of wealth protectionism, cronyism and unfair exclusion. And all this over a game played by teenagers.

:ph34r: indeed.

Side Show Joe · July 4, 2009

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...f.4bf22e33.html
BU had better attendace. It was primarily about $$$
At the end of the SWC a TCU vs Rice or a TCU vs SMU drew no TV and only 20-25 k attendance.
They could have picked TCU then y'all would be complaining that TCU got in unfairly... They wanted 4 and BU was the best of the rest. Had Arkansas not already left for the SEC, they would have been chosen.

It doesn't matters. They never wanted baylor. The Big 12 was forced to take them. Just read this from the San Antonio Express.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA081...c_html8528.html

Edited July 4, 2009 by Side Show Joe

russell360 · July 4, 2009

I would have prefered to see TCU go, but the TCU of the 80-early nighties is not the TCU we see today. BU certainly had clout, but they also had a stronger program overall( Attendance...) TCU was a sad-sck that didn't get it's act together until it was left behind. TCU had a 0.37 winning % between 1980-1994 and more importantly had poor attendance. There would be a lot more clamor that it was unfair if a weaker TCU had been taken over BU.

I find it hard to believe that the B8 was "forced " to take anyone. They were in position of control and they ultimately decided (not BU Tech UT or A&M..) who would join. All the big leagues were going to 12 members.

Travis · July 4, 2009

Funny how when one is put in the position of being on the outside looking in that one becomes more prone to support redistribution and regulation while pointing out acts of wealth protectionism, cronyism and unfair exclusion. And all this over a game played by teenagers.

To think that NCAA isn't corrupt would be quite naive... even over games played by kids. The primary evil I see is that not everyone is given an equal opportunity to play for the national championship... sure, there are other issues but this is the one that I see that the BCS is monopolizing the game.

Perhaps it is because it is coming from the outside looking in but, regardless, i think we all know the injustice of the BCS system. And, I would hope I would have the value and character to recognize that inequality if I were on the other side.

The system is messed up and, even as a fiscal conservative, I feel comfortable in demanding equality in opportunity. That kind of regulation is important to prevent organized monopoly and corruption that is apparent.

NT80 · July 4, 2009

To think that NCAA isn't corrupt would be quite naive... even over games played by kids. The primary evil I see is that not everyone is given an equal opportunity to play for the national championship... sure, there are other issues but this is the one that I see that the BCS is monopolizing the game.
Perhaps it is because it is coming from the outside looking in but, regardless, i think we all know the injustice of the BCS system. And, I would hope I would have the value and character to recognize that inequality if I were on the other side.
The system is messed up and, even as a fiscal conservative, I feel comfortable in demanding equality in opportunity. That kind of regulation is important to prevent organized monopoly and corruption that is apparent.

The BCS is not about access, only revenue for it's members. In football they will eventually be governing themselves someday if the NCAA hinders them. Unlike D-1 basketball where everyone has access and an EQUAL opportunity for a national championship, the BCS has a lock on members-only into the final by the way the polls and criteria set the final instead of a true playoff. $$$ rule.

Side Show Joe · July 4, 2009

I would have prefered to see TCU go, but the TCU of the 80-early nighties is not the TCU we see today. BU certainly had clout, but they also had a stronger program overall( Attendance...) TCU was a sad-sck that didn't get it's act together until it was left behind. TCU had a 0.37 winning % between 1980-1994 and more importantly had poor attendance. There would be a lot more clamor that it was unfair if a weaker TCU had been taken over BU.
I find it hard to believe that the B8 was "forced " to take anyone. They were in position of control and they ultimately decided (not BU Tech UT or A&M..) who would join. All the big leagues were going to 12 members.

You are right. They were not "forced". They were just told, "If you want Texas and a&m, then you're going to take baylor and tech too. Or, you don't get squat". When those are the options, it may not technically be defined as "forced", but it's close enough for me. And it certainly doesn't appear to have anything to do with performance on the field or attendance.

As far as "all the big leagues were going to 12 members", It's been 13 years now and only 3 of the 6 BCS conferences have 12 members. So, if they were "all" going to 12 members, they sure were and are taking their time.

Truth is, I don't even care about this stuff anymore. It won't change what happened. I'd rather focus on North Texas, and what is going to happen around here to improve our lot in the football universe.

Travis · July 5, 2009

The BCS is not about access, only revenue for it's members. In football they will eventually be governing themselves someday if the NCAA hinders them. Unlike D-1 basketball where everyone has access and an EQUAL opportunity for a national championship, the BCS has a lock on members-only into the final by the way the polls and criteria set the final instead of a true playoff. $$$ rule.

That is why I would like to see congress step in on this. If they can't govern correctly then congress should strong arm 'em.

TIgreen01 · July 6, 2009

The BCS is not about access, only revenue for it's members. In football they will eventually be governing themselves someday if the NCAA hinders them. Unlike D-1 basketball where everyone has access and an EQUAL opportunity for a national championship, the BCS has a lock on members-only into the final by the way the polls and criteria set the final instead of a true playoff. $$$ rule.

Good post.

What I'd like to know is what, exactly, is keeping the REALLY big boys from finally breaking off from the NCAA to start their own organization? I think that short of Congress forcing some form of laws on college sports (ridiculous and not going to happen), there is nothing that says that all colleges and universities in the USA have to be a part of the NCAA. Or is there??

As it stands now, the bowl "tie-ins", seem to clearly violate the laws that protect fair competition. A move back to the old bowl selection arrangement would get around this...

NT80 · July 6, 2009

What I'd like to know is what, exactly, is keeping the REALLY big boys from finally breaking off from the NCAA to start their own organization?

A good question and I think a very real possibility in the future. Besides Congress now becoming involved and the non-BCS leagues wanting more access once the mortitorium is lifted for moveups even more programs will want a piece of this revenue pie. I can see the Top 70 or so schools saying "enough" and split off to start a new 1-A type division and it all starts over again.

untjim1995 · July 7, 2009

A good question and I think a very real possibility in the future. Besides Congress now becoming involved and the non-BCS leagues wanting more access once the mortitorium is lifted for moveups even more programs will want a piece of this revenue pie. I can see the Top 70 or so schools saying "enough" and split off to start a new 1-A type division and it all starts over again.

I think that what you would find, sadly, is that the big bowl games would fight to keep their tie-ins with the big BCS schools because of TV and media coverage. The reality is that most of the media really make the Boise State victory over OU out as a "miracle" and they always say the ratings are lower for those games vs. a big name bowl game (i.e., UT vs Ohio State). I don't personally know if the ratings are better or worse with a "Cinderella", but we are always told by the media elite that the population wants these big games between the name schools. I don't think the Orange Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Rose Bowl, etc..will ever give up having the big schools in their game. If legislation passed to correct this--ie force the smaller conferences to have access, I bet the bowl organizers would counter-sue in a heartbeat. And, to be honest, I can't blame them--the big schools have used their success to make new fans and alumni, increase interest, and drive the ratings game. Its probably the single biggest disappointment for UNT--if we had cared about athletics at all before the turn of the century, we could have easily been included in this mix. We literally have no one to blame but ourselves--and SMU, of course!!