(10-21-2009 12:43 PM)frogman Wrote:  One word why eight is better than 16- MONEY. Currently the BCS games pay out nearly $30 million a game. By going to an eight team playoff you still have four BCS games and four BCS payouts in the first round. The six BCS conference auto-bids are guaranteed their $15 million and you have two open slots. Just as today. Round two and round three may pay less or may pay more, the value is that round two is a playing for the national title and round three is the title. Naturally these games can make their own money through national TV which every conference could watch because they were all part of the process.

16 games playoff gives you one round of games that won't pay $30 million so what's the point. Why should Alabama risk injuring a player in a garbage round and blow their title hopes. There's no financial way to go beyond an eight team playoff and keep the money the similar to what the conference get now from the BCS which is a guaranteed $15 million for one round of play at the end of the season. At the end of a grueling season the BCS conferences what their money. The other teams that are out of the playoffs can play regular bowl games and get what they get.

Besides, why should the SunBelt champion be invited to a playoff when the say, a Georgia isn't. And Georgia may be way better than the SunBelt Champion?

Eight team playoff. Lets not complicate it.

Agreed with you on this front. There's a point of diminishing returns once you get past 8 teams. Less is more.

(10-21-2009 12:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Neutral site football games are dependent upon tens of thousands of fans from the participating schools to buy tickets most NCAA Tourney tickets are bought by locals and sponsors, so very few of those tickets are bought directly by the participating schools.
The Final Four is sold out months in advance regardless of the teams - that might be the case for a hypothetical national championship football game, but it's much tougher for the semifinal and quarterfinal playoff games. So, the NCAA Tournament games are inherently not dependent upon the participating schools to sell tickets, while neutral site football games are very different where those games are extremely dependent upon the participating schools to fill seats.

While I will agree that individual team fans must make up a larger proportion of a football stadium than a basketball arena, I’ll have to take exception to them making up a higher percentage of the total attendance. I’d like to get solid figures on this but I seriously doubt that the percentage of tickets sold to the local community/corporate sponsors is any different between major bowl games (which these six bowls already are and will continue to be) versus NCAA tourney basketball games. Plus, the two semifinals and the national championship game will be so significant that corporations will buy up any tickets that the fans can’t get and treat their clients, they already do this with the Fictional National Championship Game and the Superbowl.

(10-21-2009 12:43 PM)frogman Wrote:  One word why eight is better than 16- MONEY. Currently the BCS games pay out nearly $30 million a game. By going to an eight team playoff you still have four BCS games and four BCS payouts in the first round. The six BCS conference auto-bids are guaranteed their $15 million and you have two open slots. Just as today. Round two and round three may pay less or may pay more, the value is that round two is a playing for the national title game access and round three is the title game. Naturally these games can make their own money through national TV which every conference could watch because they were all part of the process.
16 team playoff gives you one round of games that won't pay $30 million so what's the point. Why should Alabama risk injuring a player in a garbage round and blow their title hopes. There's no financial way to go beyond an eight team playoff and keep the money the similar to what the conference get now from the BCS which is a guaranteed $15 million for one round of play at the end of the season. At the end of a grueling season the BCS conferences what their money. The other teams that are out of the playoffs can play regular bowl games and get what they get.

So once again we're back to football feudalism where the justification for oppressing the “underclass” is that there’s not enough money to share? There are corporate sponsors even in this economy that are lined up to get the exposure of being the major sponsors for BCS bowl games. If SBC (Cotton Bowl) and Chick-Fil-A (Peach Bowl) are willing to pay several million for bowl games that have NO impact on the national championship either they, or another sponsor will pay BCS payout level money for a bowl game IN the National Championship playoff.

As for a first round home game for the top eight teams. Most of the schools that would host such games already pay scrub teams nearly a million (a few over) to come get waxed in front of the home crowd in a regular season game. These big time programs make millions off each home game, they’d be very happy to add one more! The demand would be much higher for playoff tickets and I see no reason why the payout to the visitor should be much higher than the average in-season payout.

(10-21-2009 12:43 PM)frogman Wrote:  Besides, why should the SunBelt champion be invited to a playoff when the say, a Georgia isn't. And Georgia may be way better than the SunBelt Champion?

SunBelt teams are in conferences with and play games against the teams that will play them. They have virtually no control over whom they play and thus have no way to even theoretically access the national championship game. Georgia also plays with the teams that play them and has considerably more control over their playoff destiny. Georgia chooses to play in the SEC, Troy has no chance to join the SEC and for this situation that Troy cannot control they should have no chance at even qualifying for the playoffs?

That’s just plain damn wrong and downright un-American. The current BCS and even an 8 team playoff are the sports equivalent of the India caste system, where how you were born means more than your potential to exceed your circumstances.

It's plainly apparent that some folks whose team qualifies for that last playoff spot would think that that particular playoff system is fair. Yet let their team finish one place lower and they'd all be screaming how unfair it is and how the system is corrupt and needs to be fixed.

This thread is exhibit A as to why getting congress involved is a bad idea. We're all college football fans and WE can't come to concensus about how a playoff should be conducted. How can we expect a workable plan from politicians?

USFFan

(10-21-2009 02:04 PM)usffan Wrote:  This thread is exhibit A as to why getting congress involved is a bad idea. We're all college football fans and WE can't come to concensus about how a playoff should be conducted. How can we expect a workable plan from politicians?

USFFan

Agreed. The only conceivable plan that has any shot at the light of day is a plus one game scenario. That's the only playoff format that appears to get any kind of traction at the BCS meetings.

(10-21-2009 01:25 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  SunBelt teams are in conferences with and play games against the teams that will play them. They have virtually no control over whom they play and thus have no way to even theoretically access the national championship game. Georgia also plays with the teams that play them and has considerably more control over their playoff destiny. Georgia chooses to play in the SEC, Troy has no chance to join the SEC and for this situation that Troy cannot control they should have no chance at even qualifying for the playoffs?

That’s just plain damn wrong and downright un-American. The current BCS and even an 8 team playoff are the sports equivalent of the India caste system, where how you were born means more than your potential to exceed your circumstances.

It's plainly apparent that some folks whose team qualifies for that last playoff spot would think that that particular playoff system is fair. Yet let their team finish one place lower and they'd all be screaming how unfair it is and how the system is corrupt and needs to be fixed.

If Troy is in the top 8 of the BCS rankings by the end of the season, then it will have legitimately earned its place. Utah did it last year and Boise State did it 2 years ago. Is it a really really hard hurdle for a non-BCS team to clear? Sure it is, but that doesn't mean it's unfair. What's "un-American" is really just an opinion - it could be considered to be just as un-American to promote a clearly less qualified team in order to fill an auto-bid (AKA quota) over a more qualified team from a stronger conference. While I see what you're trying to say with the comparison to the Indian caste system, this isn't applicable because you're assuming that the competition in the Sun Belt is equal to the competition in the SEC or other BCS conferences and that the SEC is being promoted solely because it's richer. The SEC is certainly richer and receives more exposure, but we can't turn a blind eye to the fact that it's a much different universe to compete in a BCS conference week-in and week-out. There are real and legitimate differences between the conferences and that should be reflected in any analysis. In the real world, are you reasonably going to hire a 4.0 GPA student from Montana State over a 3.9 GPA student from Harvard just because the former had a .1 higher GPA? For about pretty much anyone with a brain in this country, that would be a ludicrous position to take. That's not a caste system - that's simply a reflection that it's a whole lot harder to get a 3.9 at Harvard than a 4.0 at Montana State. Yet, people act as if going undefeated in the Sun Belt or MWC somehow trumps losing 1 game in the SEC or Big 12 simply based on the record. I'm not saying that the record is irrelevant, but what I do believe is that record needs to be looked at with the complete context in mind because the talent levels in college football have wide disparities that are very real.

If there is a college football playoff, its purpose should solely be to gather what people would reasonably judge to be 8 (or 16 or whatever number) best and most competitive teams or at the very least have won a conference with enough depth to show that it was playing top tier competition week-in and week-out in its conference. It should not be the sports equivalent of a social promotion system.

(10-21-2009 02:04 PM)usffan Wrote:  This thread is exhibit A as to why getting congress involved is a bad idea. We're all college football fans and WE can't come to concensus about how a playoff should be conducted. How can we expect a workable plan from politicians?

USFFan

All too true. I think almost all of us believe that the BCS can be improved. That's the easy part. The hard part is figuring out something that people can agree upon.

(10-21-2009 01:25 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  It's plainly apparent that some folks whose team qualifies for that last playoff spot would think that that particular playoff system is fair. Yet let their team finish one place lower and they'd all be screaming how unfair it is and how the system is corrupt and needs to be fixed.

Life is not fair.
The NCAAs seeding is not fair.
The point is that the 8 best teams in the nation all get a shot at the title. If that excludes the Sunbelt and more often than not a non-BCS autobid team team sobe it. An eight team playoff only adds three more football games to the current schedule and it only involves four teams and all the BCS autobid conference still get their $15 million. That's about as perfect a world we can hope for.

(10-21-2009 02:10 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  

(10-21-2009 02:04 PM)usffan Wrote:  This thread is exhibit A as to why getting congress involved is a bad idea. We're all college football fans and WE can't come to concensus about how a playoff should be conducted. How can we expect a workable plan from politicians?

USFFan

Agreed. The only conceivable plan that has any shot at the light of day is a plus one game scenario. That's the only playoff format that appears to get any kind of traction at the BCS meetings.

And that right there is the problem. The NCAA should be having meetings, not this for profit organization. The people who created this mess in the first place are the ones trying to solve it, and all they want is a bandaide that will make people shut up for a few more years. I usually think ESPN is all hype but on this front, at least when they talk about it, not pay for it; they have been the #1 pressure on the BCS for a playoff. The BCS only will go as far as ESPN/CBS/ABC will make them.

I am a Libertarian and do not believe in government interference. The last thing I want to see is the FedGov pass any laws. Yet if the THREAT of action from Congress makes the BCS/NCAA be proactive I'm all for it, up to the point were they pass anything. I hope the BCS doesn't let it get that far.

(10-21-2009 02:27 PM)frogman Wrote:  Life is not fair.
The NCAAs seeding is not fair.
The point is that the 8 best teams in the nation all get a shot at the title. If that excludes the Sunbelt and more often than not a non-BCS autobid team team sobe it. An eight team playoff only adds three more football games to the current schedule and it only involves four teams and all the BCS autobid conference still get their $15 million. That's about as perfect a world we can hope for.

Just because something is unfair doesn't mean it should be accepted because "it's just that way", or that it shouldn't be fought against and fixed. An 8 team playoff will only satisfy 8 teams a year and represents less than 6.67% of all teams in FBS. It's better than now but it still sucks a**. Why are fans willing to settle for garbage then demand filet mignon? The university presidents take your money and laugh at your naivety.

(10-21-2009 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I like a 16-team playoff because that means all the FBS conference champs can be included, as well as a few at-larges, while not diluting the value of the regular season too much.

I prefer the 16 team model myself. That way, nobody can claim they were left out. All they have to do to get into the playoff is win their conference. I figure at-large slots will still end up being picked by reputation. So we can ignore any complaints about that. The way to ensure a spot in the playoff is simple to win your conference. If you don't win your conference, you really have no complaint about being left out. Inclusion after losing out in the conference race is a bonus, determined by luck, more often than not...

Although knowing human nature, somebody will find something else to b!tch about, no matter how you set it up...

(10-21-2009 02:35 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-21-2009 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I like a 16-team playoff because that means all the FBS conference champs can be included, as well as a few at-larges, while not diluting the value of the regular season too much.

I prefer the 16 team model myself. That way, nobody can claim they were left out. All they have to do to get into the playoff is win their conference. I figure at-large slots will still end up being picked by reputation. So we can ignore any complaints about that. The way to ensure a spot in the playoff is simple to win your conference. If you don't win your conference, you really have no complaint about being left out. Inclusion after losing out in the conference race is a bonus, determined by luck, more often than not...

Although knowing human nature, somebody will find something else to b!tch about, no matter how you set it up...

^This

(10-21-2009 02:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If Troy is in the top 8 of the BCS rankings by the end of the season, then it will have legitimately earned its place.

Having read your posts I know that you are well enough informed to know that there is no way on the face of the planet Earth that the SunBelt Champion, whichever team it is that year, could lay out an OOC schedule that when combined with the teams they must play in conference would yield a top 10 finish in the BCS system. Boise St., no matter how good they are, wouldn't garner a finish in the top 10 even this year with their schedule if there wasn't a political agenda behind it. Boise St.'s ranking is all polls, little computer. We shouldn't be determining the national championship game participants or even the teams that would get in an 8, 16, 24, 36 or completely unfathomable 64 team playoff based on what is an overgrown and out of control popularity contest.

(10-21-2009 02:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  And that right there is the problem. The NCAA should be having meetings, not this for profit organization. The people who created this mess in the first place are the ones trying to solve it, and all they want is a bandaide that will make people shut up for a few more years. I usually think ESPN is all hype but on this front, at least when they talk about it, not pay for it; they have been the #1 pressure on the BCS for a playoff. The BCS only will go as far as ESPN/CBS/ABC will make them.

I am a Libertarian and do not believe in government interference. The last thing I want to see is the FedGov pass any laws. Yet if the THREAT of action from Congress makes the BCS/NCAA be proactive I'm all for it, up to the point were they pass anything. I hope the BCS doesn't let it get that far.

I'm a libertarian, as well. That's really my issue with this notion of government interference - as usffan stated, we're all somewhat informed college football fans on a particular board for a particular conference and we can't even come up with anything close to a consensus. Does anyone really think that having Nancy Pelosi, who may or may not have watch a single college football game in her entire life, deciding how the college football postseason should be set up is a good idea at any level (whether you're a Republican or Democrat)? On the other side of the aisle, during the Senate hearings that Orrin Hatch called and chaired over the this past summer, he actually didn't realize that the non-BCS conferences had an auto-bid procedure where a team would qualify for a BCS bowl if it was in the top 12 and went further to say that this must have been some obscure rule that few people knew about. Think about that - the Senator that called a hearing to do some political grandstanding about the BCS didn't even bother to take the time to read what the BCS rules actually stated and how his home state team of Utah got a Sugar Bowl bid that it would've never even gotten a sniff of in the pre-BCS days. And I personally consider Hatch to be one of the smarter politicians out there! That gives me zero confidence in looking toward Congress on this issue.

You're correct that TV interests will dictate what happens for a postseason, but that's really only going to come in the form of ESPN throwing so much more money for a playoff over the current BCS system that the BCS conferences can't say no. There's never going to be "pressure" in the sense of allowing more access to the non-BCS schools because ESPN and every other network wants some mix of Florida, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame, USC and Texas every single year - they literally don't give a crap about and affirmatively don't want anything to do with broadcasting the Utahs of the world in prime slots.

As I've stated elsewhere, the NCAA cannot do a single thing here because it would be at risk of having the BCS conferences all leave it en masse (which is honestly a thousand times more likely than any playoff system). The NCAA is a voluntary organization that has been slapped down by the Supreme Court with an antitrust violation when it tried to put limitations on the TV money and exposure of the power conferences, which is why it hasn't ever touched a Division 1-A playoff. The bowl system is essentially an unspoken compromise - the power schools won't bolt and destroy the NCAA Tournament and other sports championships in the process as long as they get to control postseason football money and access. There won't ever be an NCAA-led playoff system - any changes must come FROM the BCS conferences as opposed to being IMPOSED on them.

People don't want to hear it and instead wish to ignore all of the actual legal, financial and political evidence to the contrary in the hopes that everyone will suddenly just sing "Kumbaya" together and unilaterally give up hundreds of millions of dollars, but that's the way it is.

(10-21-2009 03:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-21-2009 02:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  And that right there is the problem. The NCAA should be having meetings, not this for profit organization. The people who created this mess in the first place are the ones trying to solve it, and all they want is a bandaide that will make people shut up for a few more years. I usually think ESPN is all hype but on this front, at least when they talk about it, not pay for it; they have been the #1 pressure on the BCS for a playoff. The BCS only will go as far as ESPN/CBS/ABC will make them.

I am a Libertarian and do not believe in government interference. The last thing I want to see is the FedGov pass any laws. Yet if the THREAT of action from Congress makes the BCS/NCAA be proactive I'm all for it, up to the point were they pass anything. I hope the BCS doesn't let it get that far.

I'm a libertarian, as well. That's really my issue with this notion of government interference - as usffan stated, we're all somewhat informed college football fans on a particular board for a particular conference and we can't even come up with anything close to a consensus. Does anyone really think that having Nancy Pelosi, who may or may not have watch a single college football game in her entire life, deciding how the college football postseason should be set up is a good idea at any level (whether you're a Republican or Democrat)? On the other side of the aisle, during the Senate hearings that Orrin Hatch called and chaired over the this past summer, he actually didn't realize that the non-BCS conferences had an auto-bid procedure where a team would qualify for a BCS bowl if it was in the top 12 and went further to say that this must have been some obscure rule that few people knew about. Think about that - the Senator that called a hearing to do some political grandstanding about the BCS didn't even bother to take the time to read what the BCS rules actually stated and how his home state team of Utah got a Sugar Bowl bid that it would've never even gotten a sniff of in the pre-BCS days. And I personally consider Hatch to be one of the smarter politicians out there! That gives me zero confidence in looking toward Congress on this issue.

You're correct that TV interests will dictate what happens for a postseason, but that's really only going to come in the form of ESPN throwing so much more money for a playoff over the current BCS system that the BCS conferences can't say no. There's never going to be "pressure" in the sense of allowing more access to the non-BCS schools because ESPN and every other network wants some mix of Florida, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame, USC and Texas every single year - they literally don't give a crap about and affirmatively don't want anything to do with broadcasting the Utahs of the world in prime slots.

As I've stated elsewhere, the NCAA cannot do a single thing here because it would be at risk of having the BCS conferences all leave it en masse (which is honestly a thousand times more likely than any playoff system). The NCAA is a voluntary organization that has been slapped down by the Supreme Court with an antitrust violation when it tried to put limitations on the TV money and exposure of the power conferences, which is why it hasn't ever touched a Division 1-A playoff. The bowl system is essentially an unspoken compromise - the power schools won't bolt and destroy the NCAA Tournament and other sports championships in the process as long as they get to control postseason football money and access. There won't ever be an NCAA-led playoff system - any changes must come FROM the BCS conferences as opposed to being IMPOSED on them.

People don't want to hear it and instead wish to ignore all of the actual legal, financial and political evidence to the contrary in the hopes that everyone will suddenly just sing "Kumbaya" together and unilaterally give up hundreds of millions of dollars, but that's the way it is.

I can't disagree with anything you said, but I have to think that if the NCAA really believed in the principles it claims to stand for, such as education, integrity, fairplay and sportsmanship; it would tell the BCS schools to go form their own for-profit association if they don't like the way things are. One of the reasons Congress/FedGov now controls so much is because we, as individuals, organizations and a nation, no longer stand up for our principles.

(10-21-2009 02:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Just because something is unfair doesn't mean it should be accepted because "it's just that way", or that it shouldn't be fought against and fixed. An 8 team playoff will only satisfy 8 teams a year and represents less than 6.67% of all teams in FBS. It's better than now but it still sucks a**. Why are fans willing to settle for garbage then demand filet mignon? The university presidents take your money and laugh at your naivety.

Putting some scrub team in the BCS title game is garbage. Taking the top eight is filet mignon. Why not add two-year colleges to the BCS and maybe some historically black colleges as well? Lets also be fair to the women and allow girls on the teams?

If you want your school to play autobid BCS football enroll in a autobid BCS school. BCS autobid schools draw the best recruits and put the most players in the pros. If your school is not on that level- transfer to one that is.

Talent is rewarded. Talented coaches and players have found their institutions and that's where the money goes, that where the BCS is.

This discussion is not about adding some B-level school to a BCS playoff. The discussion is about making a BCS playoff that is more competitive for more of the top A level football programs and more entertaining to fans. Placing B level talent in the playoff system is not a goal. This is only abou the eight (or 16) best teams in the land fighting it out to prove who is number one.

If we added 108 teams to the playoff, the team ranked 109 would complain it is really better than #105 and should be in the playoff.

49R I think your mention of filet mignon is on point.

If you save your money and order filet mignon and you are sitting down and ready to eat it and the waiter brings you Burger King. Do you say well this is fair. BUrger King should be treated as well as filet mignon. and you get the bill and you are charged for filet mignon but you just had Burger King.

You must recognize that there is a higher quality and a lower more common quality. Every piece of meat is not the same and every football player is not the same. Every football program is not the same and every football conference can't be filet mignon. The BCS playoff should recognize and reward filet mignon. A playoff is a visit to Wolfgang Puck's not Burger King. Only the best need be invited because the overwhelming bulk of the fans only have time to watch the best.

(10-21-2009 02:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If Troy is in the top 8 of the BCS rankings by the end of the season, then it will have legitimately earned its place.

If Troy ends up in the top 8 at the end of the season, it'll be a miracle of such proportions that time itself will cease to be, and the universe will collapse upon itself as a precursor to the next big bang...

(10-21-2009 04:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-21-2009 02:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If Troy is in the top 8 of the BCS rankings by the end of the season, then it will have legitimately earned its place.

If Troy ends up in the top 8 at the end of the season, it'll be a miracle of such proportions that time itself will cease to be, and the universe will collapse upon itself as a precursor to the next big bang...

No more of a miracle than my Illini getting to that level, and we're in the Big Ten!

Illinois was never at that level, as the Rose Bowl proved...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...FwJwvzCOY0

Hatch Asks Obama to Probe BCS Football Playoff System

By Curtis Eichelberger

Oct. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Orrin Hatch asked President Barack Obama to have the Justice Department investigate college football’s Bowl Championship Series to determine if it violates the Sherman Antitrust Act.

In a letter to the president Wednesday, Hatch, who represents Utah, said a “strong case” can be made that the Bowl Championship Series violates the Sherman Antitrust Act because the BCS system amounts to restraint of trade.

“My goal is go get into a championship playoff system where whoever the teams are, they are justified in playing in the national championship,” Hatch said on Bloomberg television. “The BCS system requires everybody to join. It’s an unfair system and we need to do everything we can to try and change it.”

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs declined to comment. Justice Department spokeswoman Gina Talamona said they “will review the letter and respond as appropriate.” BCS spokesman Bill Hancock couldn’t immediately be reached.

During an interview with the CBS Corp.’s“60 Minutes” last November, Obama said he supported a playoff system for college football.

“If you’ve got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season and many of them have one loss or two losses, there’s no clear, decisive winner, that we should be creating a playoff system,” the president said.

Obama’s Playoffs

“Eight teams; that would be three rounds to determine a national champion. It would add three extra weeks to the season. You could trim back on the regular season. I don’t know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So I’m going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it’s the right thing to do.”

Hatch also contends that the BCS violates the Sherman Act because the restraints placed on teams don’t promote greater competition, but rather suppress it.

“It explicitly limits the ability of non-privileged teams to compete in these lucrative games,” Hatch said in the letter. “It creates a so-called ‘National Championship Game,’ the limited eligibility for which is effectively determined before the season even begins.”

BCS Rankings

The BCS ranks college football teams during the season, pits the top-ranked colleges against one another in the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orange Bowls and creates a National Championship Game.

Only teams from the Football Bowl Subdivision, formerly known as Division 1-A, can qualify to play in a BCS bowl game. The champions of the largest conferences -- Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Atlantic Coast Conference, Southeastern Conference and the Pacific 10 -- receive automatic bids regardless of their overall performance.

Notre Dame receives the seventh slot if it places eighth or better in the BCS rankings. And the champions of five other conferences can earn an invitation to play in a BCS bowl game by being ranked among the top 12 in the final BCS standings, or in the top 16 of the final standings if they are ranked higher than a champion from one of the six conferences with automatic bids.

“Of the 10 available opportunities to participate in the BCS bowls, six have already been allotted to privileged conferences before the season even begins,” Hatch said in his letter.

Hatch’s Home State

No school in Hatch’s home state plays in one of the six BCS conferences that receive an automatic berth. The University of Utah and Brigham Young University are in the Mountain West Conference and Utah State is in the Western Athletic Conference.

Still, the University of Utah went 13-0 last season, won the Mountain West Conference, and rose as high as No. 6 in the BCS standings. The Utes completed their season with a 31-17 Sugar Bowl victory over an Alabama (12-2) team that held the No. 1 ranking for five weeks.

Hatch says revenue from BCS games is also distributed unevenly. Schools in the six conferences that receive automatic bids received 87.4 percent of the revenue in the past four years, amounting to $492 million.

“I do not believe we should lower the standards of legal and ethical behavior simply because a case involves collegiate sports,” Hatch said. “If anything, our nation should hold our colleges and universities to a higher standard than we would a purely commercial enterprise.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Curtis Eichelberger in Washington at ceichelberge@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: October 21, 2009 17:15 EDT

(10-21-2009 04:36 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Illinois was never at that level, as the Rose Bowl proved...

Touche.

You guys are looking at a playoff with conference champions the wrong way. The BCS label has prevented schools like ECU from recruiting 3-4 star talent. I suspect that the conference champions of the current non bcs conferences would be a lot better if they were able to recruit talent that currently only enrolls at BCS schools. The Sunbelt wouldn't be as strong as most of the current BCS conferences from top to bottom, but I suspect the top couple of teams in the Sunbelt would be very good. If Cincy can become a top 10 program in the Big East, why couldn't a school like Troy if it had the BCS label?