Here's a treat from one of my favorite blogs...

wemustignitethiscouch.com Wrote:Why do we even watch? (Brian Kelly and the BCS)
By Jude
2009/12/11


Anyone still shouting in the wilderness that the BCS system is the ideal mechanism by which a national championship should be decided in college football just got a warm "Eff you" from (now) former Cincinnati head coach Brian Kelly Thursday night.

As many sources have reported, including this espn.com article, Kelly has not only accepted the head coaching position at Notre Dame, he also won't coach his Cincinnati Bearcat team in the Sugar Bowl against Florida.

"What does this have to do with the BCS championship," asks the cynical and partially confused reader.

One of the most coveted coaches in college football just went undefeated, finished 3rd in the country, has a date with #5 Florida in the most interesting BCS bowl match-up outside of the championship, and decided that he'd rather start recruiting for his new job than compete for that BCS bowl win.

Obviously, as Mountaineer fans, we've seen the same decision made in the past, when He Who Shall Not Be Named decided to bounce on a Fiesta Bowl-bound Mountaineer team so that he could stand on the sidelines during Michigan's Capital One Bowl, watching Lloyd Carr coach his last game for the Wolverines.

So the logical question is this:

If it's so crucial to college football to keep the current bowl structure in place, and if the BCS bowl games are so important, why are coaches not even sticking around to coach their teams in BCS bowl games?

How are we supposed to take anyone seriously when they suggest that non-championship bowl games are valuable when coaches would rather start a new job than to win one?


"See, if I leave now, I don't get to coach you in the Sugar Bowl, but I DO get to ride around in the new Escalade Notre Dame bought me to talk to high school kids."

So coaches are treating BCS bowl berths with utter disregard. Like something that might look decent on a resume, but they've already got the next big gig anyway.

But if Texas misses the last-second field goal against Nebraska in the Big 12 title game, Brian Kelly assuredly sticks around to coach the Bearcats in the BCS Championship game against Alabama. (Same for HWSNBN and the Mountaineers if they hadn't choked against Pitt in 2007.) Sure, there were rumors to the contrary, but realistically there's no way either coach is missing the chance at a championship. Obviously, the BCS championship game still has great value to a coach leaving, while a different, lesser bowl- even the Fiesta or Sugar Bowl- does not.

Lesson learned.

So what's left to feel in Cincinnati, Boise, and Fort Worth? (Note- TCU is located in Fort Worth. Thank you, Google.)

As the BCS bowl matchups streamed across the screen Sunday night on the "BCS Selection Show" and three separate, undefeated D-I teams found themselves playing in non-championship bowl games, one question kept floating through my mind (and the voice of that question got even louder when Kelly left before the Sugar Bowl for Notre Dame)...

Why do we even watch college football?

The end-game of NCAA D-I football is so phenomenally screwed-up that I don't even begin to understand how a fan of Cincinnati wakes up today and feels like watching a college football game ever again.

Or Boise State, who put a whipping on eventual-Pac-10-champion Oregon for the second year in a row en route to an undefeated season.

Or TCU, who got a win at the eventual ACC runner-up's house before staging their own perfect season.

As they wake up in Cincinnati, TCU, or Boise pajamas, why would they ever care again?

First and foremost, I should say that this isn't an article that posits the theory that any of the above teams deserve to be in the title game above Texas or Alabama. Obviously, those teams are also undefeated and worthy of a chance to play for a title.

But if you aren't a member of the Chosen Two, if you're a member of one of the undefeated teams left on the outside looking in, what more were you supposed to do?

The ultimate goal of any team sport is to be declared to be the best. A champion. To stand on a stage while all acknowledge that for one season, you were the best at what you did. That's what competition is about. Danial-san crane-kicking Johnny Lawrence into the third row as he gets a huge ass trophy while banging Elizabeth Shue.

If you take that away, if you can be perfect in record and never taste defeat, but STILL don't get a chance to prove you're the best, what's the point of competition? It's like the youth soccer leagues running rampant in America today where no one keeps score and everyone's a winner. (Even though every heterosexual male in attendance knows exactly what the score is.)

And that's exactly what the system has become. Presidents and AD's love the BCS and bowl games as they are now, because there are 34 bowl games with 68 teams (out of a possible 120), and everyone who is even remotely average gets to feel special at the end of the year when they get their moment in the sun in the Ex-Lax Roto Rooter Toilet Bowl.


Nothing says "tradition" like the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl.

I know many of us enjoy the bowl system as it is. But maybe the following statement will encourage more outrage from Mountaineer fans over the snubbing of Cincy, TCU, and BSU:

WVU had absolutely no shot at a national championship this year.

I've highlighted that statement because maybe then more people will understand how meaningless the current system renders many seasons. WVU couldn't have won a championship this year.

No matter what.

Texas was #2 in the preseason polls. Alabama was #5. WVU (and Cincinnati for that matter) was unranked to start the season. And the voters demonstrated that an undefeated Big East team, even with an impressive out of conference win like Cincy's over Oregon State in Oregon, wasn't going to jump undefeated champions in the Big 12 and the SEC.

So the best thing that could've happened for the Mountaineers was to play in a BCS bowl game like Cincinnati. A bowl game their coach didn't even think was important enough to stick around to coach.

We as Mountaineer fans all dream of the day that WVU wins a national championship in football or basketball. Doesn't it make you feel somewhat foolish to think that you spent all this time this season rooting for a team that couldn't have won a championship no matter how it played?

What's the point? As long as opinion decides championships (or at least 2/3 of the equation), what people think isn't as important as how good you may actually be.

Subjective OPINION should not be a deciding factor in any organized sport, period. Especially when the voters have demonstrated time and again just how remarkably wrong that opinion can be.

Take, for instance, WVU's victory over Big 12 Champion Oklahoma in the 2008 Fiesta Bowl. Obviously, if voters had a chance to pick one of those two teams to play in a championship game, they would've picked Oklahoma. (Some did vote for Oklahoma to play in the championship.) After all, they were ranked higher, had a higher BCS ranking, were the champions of the mighty Big 12, and were bursting at the seems with NFL-ready talent. Meanwhile the Mountaineers were coming off of a humiliating loss to Pitt with their season on the line. But Oklahoma was totally outclassed by a Mountaineer team that every single objective sportswriter THOUGHT was inferior to Oklahoma.

How many "upsets" happen in bowls every year? Every "upset" means that the subjective thinking was wrong. Yet despite so much evidence that what we believe about a certain team is often wrong, we still use those beliefs to select the only two teams who get to play for a championship.

That's not only unfair, it's delusional.

Here’s a list of the sports that use subjective voting to determine championship contenders: gymnastics, diving, figure skating, synchronized swimming, X games, Division I NCAA football. Which doesn’t fit?


At long last, the BCS committee reveals the secret component in deciding championship game participants.

So when folks ask me if I'm hyped about that weekend's non-WVU games, my answer is usually "not really". (Unless Michigan's losing somewhere.)

And Brian Kelly's decision reflects that mentality perfectly.

"Don't you want to stick around to try to win a BCS Bowl?"

"Not really."

Sure, there's school pride, exciting pageantry, passionate fans and players. But when you can win every game and still have someone else raise the trophy, what's the point of playing in the first place?

P-L-A-Y-O-F-F-S

the FBS is very biased to the big conferences, the only way it will change is if all the coaches unite and say its not acceptable any more.

(12-13-2009 03:53 PM)Stookey57 Wrote:  the FBS is very biased to the big conferences, the only way it will change is if all the coaches unite and say its not acceptable any more.

We would need 120 ethical coaches, who would do the right thing. Which we don't

Money talks and it is sickening. I think FBS athletes should demand to be paid cause it is all about that for those schools. It is run to pretend to be amateur competitors when in reality they are semi-pro athletes.

Things on this Earth have been bought, sold, and stolen throughout history. Why do you expect it to change now, if those in control can prevent it?

I'm gradually heading towards watching & attending more FCS football games, because they have a legitimate playoff system and the games are just as exciting and enchanting as the one in the so-called "big clique"...I watched the second half of the Appalachian State - Montana game, and it was a masterpiece portrait of football in its' purest, uninhibited form...All that snow, the fans turned out in droves, cheering and having fun, and the players were going at it very hard, and make no mistake, some of these guys will be playing on Sundays as will their FBS Counterparts...Far as I'm concerned, the REAL National Champion is going to be either The University Of Montana or Villanova University, the other game is just an illusion for entertainment purposes only...Good luck to both programs...The longer we keep feeding that "monster" (BCS) with our time and ticket money, there will be no stopping that creature from getting bigger and stronger...

The Montana-Appy game was one hell of a game. It was hard to see where they were on the field at the end of the game. The snow wasn't bad. But it was enough to make the field lines hard to see...

ASU and Montana was a great game. I enjoyed it.

For the FBS National Championship there are only about 15 teams that will ever get a shot at the title. No matter what conference you are in.

Texas, Oklahoma, nebraska, alabama, ohio state, michigan, USC, and you can name the rest.

Baylor, Northwestern, Rutgers, Cincy, Iowa St, etc, you know who they would be will not get the chance no matter how much it is deserved. Cincy, TCU, BSU are just as qualified to be in the nmc as Alabama and Texas. See what happened there.

Sure, every 20 years or so, someone will crash the party, but do not hold your breath.

I love the bowl system. It is such a unique way to end the season and totally unique to college football. I love the pageantry and each bowl trying to put on their own show. I like how half the teams get end the year on a positive note, instead of just 1.

If we ever get to the point where the it's either playoffs or no national champion, I say we just ditch the rankings entirely. The goal of every team each season can be to win their conference, go undefeated, and win their bowl game.

(12-14-2009 03:57 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I love the bowl system. It is such a unique way to end the season and totally unique to college football. I love the pageantry and each bowl trying to put on their own show. I like how half the teams get end the year on a positive note, instead of just 1.

If we ever get to the point where the it's either playoffs or no national champion, I say we just ditch the rankings entirely. The goal of every team each season can be to win their conference, go undefeated, and win their bowl game.

Of course you love it. Why won't you? You are a fan of Ohio State who directly benefit from this system whether you deserve it or not. You get to play for that fake national championship game so rest of OSU fans can pound their chest and say how great they are because bunch of B11/SEC homer voters said so. The same can't be said for fans of many other schools though.

I hope the congress can pass the latest bill and remove the label national champ from that title BCS game. Really, it should be renamed to Big Money Bowl. How can anyone claim Bama or Texas are the champ when there will be other undefeated teams left?

One of the favored few in favor of things continuing the way they are. Imagine that...

(12-14-2009 04:53 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  One of the favored few in favor of things continuing the way they are. Imagine that...

(12-14-2009 04:15 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(12-14-2009 03:57 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I love the bowl system. It is such a unique way to end the season and totally unique to college football. I love the pageantry and each bowl trying to put on their own show. I like how half the teams get end the year on a positive note, instead of just 1.

If we ever get to the point where the it's either playoffs or no national champion, I say we just ditch the rankings entirely. The goal of every team each season can be to win their conference, go undefeated, and win their bowl game.

Of course you love it. Why won't you? You are a fan of Ohio State who directly benefit from this system whether you deserve it or not. You get to play for that fake national championship game so rest of OSU fans can pound their chest and say how great they are because bunch of B11/SEC homer voters said so. The same can't be said for fans of many other schools though.

I hope the congress can pass the latest bill and remove the label national champ from that title BCS game. Really, it should be renamed to Big Money Bowl. How can anyone claim Bama or Texas are the champ when there will be other undefeated teams left?

Yes my school has benefited at points (although who could have been ranked higher in the 3 years they have been there is very debatable).

My position really isn't that effected that much by that loyalty though. If the bowls are to be diminished into the NIT, I'm saying I'd rather throw out the entire notion of a national championship including getting rid of all the emphasis on rankings rather than give up the bowl system. That would mean that OSU couldn't compete for a national championship either. I wouldn't like it, but if it comes down to a choice of either losing the emphasis on bowls or losing the emphasis on rankings and notion of a national champion, I'd rather forget about the champion.

I know this is a very minority view, but it still is a legitimate one.

(12-14-2009 04:15 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  I hope the congress can pass the latest bill and remove the label national champ from that title BCS game. Really, it should be renamed to Big Money Bowl. How can anyone claim Bama or Texas are the champ when there will be other undefeated teams left?

Look, I understand why people don't like the BCS system. I get it and have my own issues with it. However, there have been plenty of incidents in history where there have been multiple undefeated teams long before the BCS system was created. The world didn't end and Congress didn't get involved. At the same time, the only way that the non-BCS schools would've been able to go to the Sugar or Fiesta Bowls in the pre-BCS days would've been to buy tickets through a scalper. Yet these schools are all of the sudden disenfranchised BECAUSE of the BCS system??? These schools have received opportunities way beyond their financial value and what they had received for the better part of 100 years. If the non-BCS schools simply think that the bowl system has always sucked, then that's one thing. However, it's disingenuous to say that the BCS system has been the root of their problems because that's clearly not the case.

I actually think that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. No one seems to care at all about strength of schedule anymore - it seems like being undefeated is all that matters. With the limited schedule of 12 games, I think that this is an unrealistic and ludicrous position to take. There needs to be context - I still believe that going undefeated in the MWC or WAC isn't anywhere near as impressive as getting through any of the BCS conferences with 1 loss (much less the fact that 3 BCS teams happen to be undefeated this year). Did Hawaii deserve to be in the national championship game 2 years ago just because it was undefeated? Heck no and that would've been the worst championship game in history. I think that TCU might be specifically legit this year, but saying that any random undefeated team from a non-BCS conference is supposedly worthy of a championship slot automatically just because it's undefeated is ignoring reality. There is so much more depth in the BCS conferences that it's simply a massive difference. Call me crazy, but I think that going 7, 8 or 9 games back-to-back against power conference schools to be much more indicative than 1 or 2 non-conference games. Maybe that's "elitist", but people need to get some perspective on these artificially gaudy win-loss records. I know that's an unpopular position in this day and age, yet someone needs to say it.

(12-14-2009 05:08 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  If the bowls are to be diminished into the NIT

You make it sound as if that isn't already the case.

Obviously Brian Kelly thought the Sugar Bowl was the equivalent (symbolic not literal, of course) of the NIT. Otherwise he would be there.

I have to disagree. He did not think it was anywhere near the equivalent of the NIT. The BCS has diminished the importance of the non-championship bowls, there's no denying that, but even the smaller bowls are still far bigger than the NIT.

Michigan's basketball coach left the year they went to the championship before the NCAA Tournament. That doesn't imply he didn't think the NCAA tournament was important.

I like the bowl system, but I don't like the way the BCS is set up. I'm not sure why everyone things playoffs is the solution. A 9-3 team would be taken over a 2nd place Big East team anyday. A playoff system is going to be just as unfair and political as the current system. The only difference is more teams are going to have a shot at the championship.

(12-14-2009 03:57 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I love the bowl system. It is such a unique way to end the season and totally unique to college football. I love the pageantry and each bowl trying to put on their own show. I like how half the teams get end the year on a positive note, instead of just 1.

If we ever get to the point where the it's either playoffs or no national champion, I say we just ditch the rankings entirely. The goal of every team each season can be to win their conference, go undefeated, and win their bowl game.

I thought the goal of every team was to win the National Championship. CFB is the only sport where this doesn't occur. Hoping for a bowl game or even regular BCS games are a false goal.

Hell, Cincy, TCU and BSU won their conference, went undefeated, but still won't play for the MNC. Until that is solved, it is all crap.

(12-14-2009 06:36 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  

(12-14-2009 03:57 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I love the bowl system. It is such a unique way to end the season and totally unique to college football. I love the pageantry and each bowl trying to put on their own show. I like how half the teams get end the year on a positive note, instead of just 1.

If we ever get to the point where the it's either playoffs or no national champion, I say we just ditch the rankings entirely. The goal of every team each season can be to win their conference, go undefeated, and win their bowl game.

I thought the goal of every team was to win the National Championship. CFB is the only sport where this doesn't occur. Hoping for a bowl game or even regular BCS games are a false goal.

Hell, Cincy, TCU and BSU won their conference, went undefeated, but still won't play for the MNC. Until that is solved, it is all crap.

What if CUSA, MAC, Sun Belt, and the WAC get left out of the playoffs? Its propably going to be set up that way. Will that be anymore fair. Hell Boise St wouldn't get the chance to be in the playoffs unless they get in as an at large. Look at the March Madness tourny for example. If your a bubble team in a minor conference your most likely going to get bumbed out by a less deserving team from a major conference. Everything is about money so a 9-3 LSU would make more money for a playoff system than a ECU or N. Illinios would. Its the nature of the beast and people need to get it through their heads.