- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Changes in BCS maybe inevitable
Posted on 2/2/10 at 8:07 am
Posted on 2/2/10 at 8:07 am
4
Posted on 2/2/10 at 8:09 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
With Barry Obama and Eric Holder on the job what could possibly go wrong?
Posted on 2/2/10 at 8:13 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
May as well let obama screw that up too. Seems like everything he has touched so far has turned to shite. 
Posted on 2/2/10 at 8:15 am to thanksjhester
If you take the time to read the article it won't be Obama enforcing the changes, the justice dept will get the ball rolling w/ investigating charges against the Sherman Antitrust Act.
I really agree with this statement made in the article
I really agree with this statement made in the article
quote:
"It's arguably a cartel," McCann said. "It's producers and sellers joining together to control a product's production, price and distribution. ... In terms of anticompetitive effect, it affects prices. It also creates financial and recruiting disadvantages for some schools. There are economic disparities between BCS members and non-BCS members
This post was edited on 2/2/10 at 8:16 am
Posted on 2/2/10 at 8:21 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
quote:
the justice dept will get the ball rolling
Yea, that means Eric Holder. In a year this man has made some of the worst decisions in the history of the Justice Department. The BCS system needs change but not the kind of change political hacks can supply.Posted on 2/2/10 at 8:28 am to Jay Quest
I am glad our tax dollars are going to good use. I mean with the rest of the problems we face this is the most pressing.
Also IMO a playoff will only help the SEC. It will also hurt the smaller schools. They will learn they they are not ready to play with the big boys.
Also IMO a playoff will only help the SEC. It will also hurt the smaller schools. They will learn they they are not ready to play with the big boys.
Posted on 2/2/10 at 8:31 am to 12inches
quote:
Also IMO a playoff will only help the SEC.
True. The two biggest opponents to a playoff system are the commissioners of the Big 10 and the Pac 10. They are both adamantly opposed to the idea.
Posted on 2/2/10 at 8:34 am to 12inches
quote:
It also creates financial and recruiting disadvantages for some schools.
It does not create recruiting disadvantages, these disadvantages were created long ago and are based on other reasons other than the BCS. Honestly if I were a recruit, I would go play in the south or the west coast before going to the north. Better women, weather, and the south cares more about football than the north.
quote:
Also IMO a playoff will only help the SEC. It will also hurt the smaller schools. They will learn they they are not ready to play with the big boys.
+1000. None of the small schools would make it past the first game. Boise or Utah may win one. They have proved they can do that. But come down after an emotional win and play a team like us, Bama, Florida, Texas....the result will be ugly and over by half time.
Posted on 2/2/10 at 8:35 am to 12inches
quote:
Also IMO a playoff will only help the SEC.
How? We've already won the last 4 BCS chamionships in a row. If anything it could only hurt. You have to make it through the brutal SEC schedule, then "congratulations, you have to go play Texas, USC, and Ohio State to win the title." frick that. The BCS is set up WAY better for the SEC than an 8 team playoff would be. We still might win more than the other conferences, but more rounds = more upsets.
Posted on 2/2/10 at 8:41 am to Hot Carl
quote:
Also IMO a playoff will only help the SEC.
How?
Much would depend on how the teams were selected. If they forced conference champions in despite record and ranking its not as much of an SEC advantage as it would be if the best 8 teams were selected. Of course who determines the best 8 becomes another issue but there have been years where the SEC has had multiple teams in the top 8 when the Pac 10 was limited to 1. So an advantage is possible depending on the format.
Posted on 2/2/10 at 8:49 am to wilfont
quote:
Much would depend on how the teams were selected. If they forced conference champions in despite record and ranking its not as much of an SEC advantage as it would be if the best 8 teams were selected.
I think they would almost have to include conference champions, and 2 at large's at the most. I don't think the SEC would ever have more than 2 participants. Regardless, I agree that because we're the best conference, there would still be an advantage over the other ones. It just wouldn't be near the advantage we currently enjoy.
Posted on 2/2/10 at 9:06 am to Hot Carl
quote:
I think they would almost have to include conference champions
I think you're right. If they go to a playoff system its almost a certainty conference champions will participate and there will be a limit on the number of schools one conference can send. Of course this has its own inherent flaws and will lead to continued arguments being made by schools feeling they were slighted. Imagine a conference having three teams in the top 8 and one being left out while a conference champion ranked lower, and its possible much lower, gets the nod.
There will always be room for controversy in college football since these conference are set up by regions and for the most part there is little intermingling between them.
Posted on 2/2/10 at 9:10 am to Hot Carl
quote:
How? We've already won the last 4 BCS chamionships in a row. If anything it could only hurt. You have to make it through the brutal SEC schedule, then "congratulations, you have to go play Texas, USC, and Ohio State to win the title." frick that. The BCS is set up WAY better for the SEC than an 8 team playoff would be. We still might win more than the other conferences, but more rounds = more upsets.
Ding ding....also the resting period that SEC teams get from the stacked up injuries they've gotten over the year
Posted on 2/2/10 at 9:11 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
quote:
It also creates financial and recruiting disadvantages for some schools. There are economic disparities between BCS members and non-BCS members
When has there not been "financial and recruiting disadvantages for some schools"?
That was happening longggggggggg before there was a BCS.
Posted on 2/2/10 at 9:14 am to Lonnie4LSU
quote:
When has there not been "financial and recruiting disadvantages for some schools"?
But to an ideologue like Obama this is wrong. Remember this is a guy who said he didn't care if the Capital gains tax hurt the economy ( Democratic debate with Hillary) as long as it evened the playing field.
Posted on 2/2/10 at 9:37 am to Jay Quest
quote:
Oh, and by the way, in this example, all 120 subsidiaries of the 11 ice cream companies receive millions in state and/or federal funding.
Guy do you not get it it's our governments job to step in when state and federal funding is involved. I see everyone's opinion good, bad, and pot shots at the current administration.
But, the fact remains we look at it as just a game but the BCS has banked its ideas for profit on these same thoughts that the college sports fan wont care because the majority of us has ties to or we are fans of teams in the big 6. Majority rules.
I want to see this BCS mess blown up for one reason only tax dollars are involved and the BCS gets a pass because we all view it as a sport and not the fact that they are breaking anti trust laws as a business entity.
Its your money and your right to want change. If you don't I understand that too. But, please look pass the surface and look at it from a business stand point and see if its really fare to you the tax payer/sports fan of the teams that are excluded from this big 6 profit scheme, like the article refer to it as ice-cream companies.
Posted on 2/2/10 at 9:52 am to GeauxDee
I think that the SEC with its contracts with CBS and ESPN and how it disproportionally benefits under the current BCS system most likely sides with the Pac 10 and Big Ten on this issue.
I actually think that the SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, ACC, and Big 12 dissolve the current system. The SEC wins in a bidding war between the Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl. I'm guessing the corporate money pushes the Orange Bowl ahead, but the Sugar Survives with SEC 2 v. a Big Ten or Big 12 2 and the Cotton Bowl maybe steps up with big bucks and secures the Big 12. The big ten and pac ten continue in their Rose Bowl and the other bowls and conferences fall into place with the end result being one playoff game at the end of the year between the two teams chosen by a NCAA committee. Sort of like the old system with extra game sanctioned as a playoff by the NCAA.
I actually think that the SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, ACC, and Big 12 dissolve the current system. The SEC wins in a bidding war between the Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl. I'm guessing the corporate money pushes the Orange Bowl ahead, but the Sugar Survives with SEC 2 v. a Big Ten or Big 12 2 and the Cotton Bowl maybe steps up with big bucks and secures the Big 12. The big ten and pac ten continue in their Rose Bowl and the other bowls and conferences fall into place with the end result being one playoff game at the end of the year between the two teams chosen by a NCAA committee. Sort of like the old system with extra game sanctioned as a playoff by the NCAA.
Posted on 2/2/10 at 9:59 am to GeauxDee
quote:
Guy do you not get it it's our governments job to step in when state and federal funding is involved
No, I don't see it as being as black and white as you. First of all this funding you speak of, where do you thinks it originates? The feds are doing nothing more than giving back what they took in the first place. This is the reason why the feds have their paws in areas that should be left to the states. Drinking age in Louisiana is 21 not because the people of the state want it established at that age but because the feds say so and threaten to cut off highway funding if we don't comply. The less government involvement the better. Especially with the current group in D.C.
Posted on 2/2/10 at 10:02 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
From the article:
My problem with this analogy is that it claims the small market teams are doing worse with the BCS system. It seems to me that the opposite is the case... before the BCS pretty much no midmajor ever had a chance to play in a major bowl game... now it is fairly routine.
On the whole the midmajors have substantially benefited from the BCS.
Seems like it depends on what the criteria are for a reasonable barrier to competition. In sport you can argue most anything... no matter what the playoff system constructed you will have some teams with an argument left out... I don't buy that you can't do the sport because someone is being left out though... and I especially don't buy the special olympics "everyone gets a medal and to play" version of sport when that destroys the integrity of the regular season
If this BS ends up with a four team playoff I'd say a few hail marys and thank my blessings.
quote:
Before you contemplate United States of America vs. the Bowl Championship Series, imagine for a moment that only 11 American companies produce ice cream... Now imagine the six richest companies got together and decided to fix the price of ice cream. In return, they would split the revenue from the January sales of ice cream evenly. The other five would be welcome to join the consortium, but they would have to take a significantly smaller percentage of the revenue.
My problem with this analogy is that it claims the small market teams are doing worse with the BCS system. It seems to me that the opposite is the case... before the BCS pretty much no midmajor ever had a chance to play in a major bowl game... now it is fairly routine.
On the whole the midmajors have substantially benefited from the BCS.
quote:
If that ever happened, the federal government would bust the ice cream cartel using the Sherman Antitrust Act, a law passed in 1890 to keep companies from erecting unreasonable barriers to competition
Seems like it depends on what the criteria are for a reasonable barrier to competition. In sport you can argue most anything... no matter what the playoff system constructed you will have some teams with an argument left out... I don't buy that you can't do the sport because someone is being left out though... and I especially don't buy the special olympics "everyone gets a medal and to play" version of sport when that destroys the integrity of the regular season
quote:
I called Michael McCann, the Vermont Law School professor who writes about legal issues for SI.com, and asked him to explain how the BCS might defend itself against an antitrust challenge. "The people that support the BCS would say that we wouldn't have a national championship without it," McCann said. "All it does is reflect the college football standings. It doesn't do anything other than that."
quote:
There is another solution, and it probably will work. Compromise. Offer a plus-one -- a four-team, bracketed playoff -- and offer to split the revenue 11 ways.
If this BS ends up with a four team playoff I'd say a few hail marys and thank my blessings.
Posted on 2/2/10 at 10:08 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
quote:
"It's arguably a cartel," McCann said. "It's producers and sellers joining together to control a product's production, price and distribution. ... In terms of anticompetitive effect, it affects prices. It also creates financial and recruiting disadvantages for some schools. There are economic disparities between BCS members and non-BCS members
My problem with this argument is that it overlooks the already paid costs of business. The major schools from the major conferences have been paying huge amounts of money over the years for a variety of expenses that are football related.
So why the hell do the small market schools who recently arrived to the party think they are entitled to the same sweatheart deal that the big schools have established?
If we must use a business analogy then how about this? AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon spend billions of dollars laying down infrastructure for communications in the United States... they establish the popularity and marketability of their quality product... Then Midmajor Steve's Communications enters the picture.
He says the system is unfair because AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon are monopolizing the communications industry and not sharing the infrastructure they were largely responsible for... seems like bullshite doesn't it?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News