CSNbbs

Now this is a FUNNY @$$ article from about 2 1/2 years ago. Can you say Dick Harmon put his namesake in his mouth on this one.


'Big Least' one reason why the BCS is a fraud

Dick Harmon Deseret Morning News

Just before Halloween, once again we're witnessing a scary aspect of college football: The blatant fraud that is the Bowl Championship Series.

University presidents should be ashamed. The hypocrisy and fiefdom of college football -- brought on by the money-grabbing cronies that started the BCS -- should be an embarrassment to institutions of higher learning that have evolved into liberal nests of thought and philosophy.

You have to look no further than the Big East, a charter member of the hallowed BCS, an elite six-conference Mafia that hijacked the college football championship.

Last January, Utah defeated Pittsburgh, a Big East team that had no business playing in the Fiesta Bowl. Undefeated Utah deserved a shot at Auburn, at the least. This year, the Big East -- two years removed from losing Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College to the ACC -- is once again poised to send an unqualified, undeserving and inflated football team to a $15 million BCS bowl.

The candidates? West Virginia, Rutgers and Pittsburgh. Only West Virginia is ranked, at No. 17. But what qualifies the Mountaineers for a BCS slot over 7-1 TCU from the Mountain West? Well, it's a contractual BCS tie to the Big East, which has been labeled the Big Least these days.

It's a connection -- not an achievement. And that's just plain wrong.

Mike Bianchi at the Orlando Sentinel put it best: "For some ridiculous reason, the Big East has an automatic bid to the Bowl Championship Series, which is sort of like giving Larry the Cable Guy a membership to the Kennebunkport Canasta and Yacht Club."

Right now, West Virginia is 6-1, Rutgers is 5-2 and Pittsburgh stands 4-4.

Take Conference USA, the MWC and WAC. You could argue 5-1 UTEP, 7- 1 TCU and 5-1 Fresno State deserve a BCS appearance more than any Big East team. But you'd never get the chance to prove it unless one of them ran the table like Utah did a year ago.

And that's what's wrong with the college football system. It's not only unfair, it doesn't make sense. The Big East is no more deserving to have an automatic BCS bid than the WAC, MWC and Conference USA.

Heading into the weekend, the Big East is 4-8 against other BCS leagues. Every other BCS member has at least two schools ranked higher than West Virginia.

In a year Utah or BYU doesn't have a chance at the controversial BCS, the chance to decry the injustice and greed isn't less important. It is the principle that counts, and the argument fits for Boise State, Fresno State and UTEP, as it would for the locals.

The conference commissioners of the outsiders have been quietly working behind the scenes to ensure justice. It has become so goofy that even commissioners of BCS schools and their presidents have taken note.

We are told there are changes in the wind down the line, perhaps as early as 2007, to rectify the obviously flawed system. Protecting traditional and sacred bowls is a priority, although anything less than an actual playoff falls short.

By 2007, college football will re-evaluate the weight of BCS conferences, or if you read between the lines -- the Big East. At stake are BCS automatic berths and a boat load of money.

Here's another fraud, however. The Big East will be evaluated by its members by 2007 and somehow, some way, Louisville's 11-1 season in 2004 will be figured into the Big East column EVEN THOUGH LOUISVILLE WASN'T A BIG EAST MEMBER UNTIL THIS SEASON.

Go figure.

It's simple. It is cheating, even with a theory for reapportionment thrown to the MWC, WAC and Conference USA that in 2007, hope there could be a reckoning.

Said MWC commissioner Craig Thompson: "I was opposed to that. Louisville didn't play a single Big East opponent last year and yet their great season is credited to the Big East. It makes no sense."

Well, yes, it does.

College football is playing with thieves and wolves among sheep - - cheaters and carnivores on blood-sucking diets.

Call it the BCS game plan.

They've already got a track record.

Here are this week's picks:

NEW MEXICO 34, COLORADO STATE 24: The Lobos have recovered from their seasonal lull and should be able to defeat the Rams in Albuquerque and push Rocky Long's squad towards earning a bowl berth. The Ram defense has been exploited and UNM has the manpower to get it done.

TCU 42, SAN DIEGO STATE 21: The Horned Frogs are on a roll, and the Aztecs haven't shown the consistency to stand up to the TCU onslaught on both sides of the line. Jeff Ballard should be able to pull the trigger in Navytown.

BYU 42, AIR FORCE 24: The Cougar secondary struggles aside, look for the defense to improve now that the Cougars have returned to the MWC where upfront pressure will be effective. BYU's offense will exploit Falcon problems covering and tackling -- problems that have surfaced all season long.

LAST WEEK: 5-1, overall 30-19 (.612)

E-mail: dharmon@desnews.com

Copyright C 2005 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn..._n15810395

Also what is great is that Craig Thompson got caught in a lie about the BIG EAST using Louisville BCS Ranking. He was for it before he knew we would go 11-1 in 2004. I am glad Tranghese called him out on it.

Isnt this guy part of the MWC press corps?. LOL

Cubanbull Wrote:Isnt this guy part of the MWC press corps?. LOL

Yes, and he lacks as much foresight and intelligence as the MW fans and their commisioner.

I'm sure you'll love this reply, but if you put your Big East pipe down for just a minute and be objective, at the time those thoughts were completely accurate. The only defense ever offered by Louisville fans for allowing the Big East to take credit for Louisville's CUSA top 10 finish was "hey, they agreed to it." Whoever "they" was, so be it, but it was patently ridiculous.

Big East football in 2005 was thanking their lucky stars they had managed to cling to their auto-bid. Several conferences, given the same inexplicable charity at that time to be allowed to develop, would have several programs today that would be significantly more developed and prominent. Since 2005, several Big East programs have improved, BECAUSE of this free pass, not the other way around. South Florida, Cincinnati, Rutgers and UConn had exhibited nothing on the field of play or in the stands from inception through 2005 to deserve membership in a football autobid conference. Because they were granted it anyway, they are now better. Congratulations on winning the lottery, and there's nothing wrong with bluntly admitting it is the honest truth. The truth is always extremely refreshing.

tufinal4 Wrote:I'm sure you'll love this reply, but if you put your Big East pipe down for just a minute and be objective, at the time those thoughts were completely accurate. The only defense ever offered by Louisville fans for allowing the Big East to take credit for Louisville's CUSA top 10 finish was "hey, they agreed to it." Whoever "they" was, so be it, but it was patently ridiculous.

Big East football in 2005 was thanking their lucky stars they had managed to cling to their auto-bid. Several conferences, given the same inexplicable charity at that time to be allowed to develop, would have several programs today that would be significantly more developed and prominent. Since 2005, several Big East programs have improved, BECAUSE of this free pass, not the other way around. South Florida, Cincinnati, Rutgers and UConn had exhibited nothing on the field of play or in the stands from inception through 2005 to deserve membership in a football autobid conference. Because they were granted it anyway, they are now better. Congratulations on winning the lottery, and there's nothing wrong with bluntly admitting it is the honest truth. The truth is always extremely refreshing.

tufinal4, no offense but that is the biggest load of crap I have ever read.

Look, what made the current BIG EAST football was the commitment from USF, Louisville, Rutgers, UConn and Cincinnati to improve facilities and to pour money into their football programs to get better.

Many in the other leagues that were left out choose not to do this but to whine and cry about their situation. I feel for schools like Utah, BYU, TCU, UCF and Boise State because they are on the outside looking in and they are investing in their product.

In 2005 the only thing we asked for was a chance. We more then proved ourselves and the funny thing was it all changed about 2 months from when he wrote that article with West Virginia changing the whole BIG EAST landscape.

Mr. Harmon lack any foresight, Ivan Maisel said it best and he is a SEC Homer. He said the BIG EAST would be fine because the void left by Miami and Virginia Tech would be filled. Not only has that void been filled it has been surpass with our league for the 1st time ever has half the league finish in the Final BCS Rankings.

While Im not going to go and say that USF,Cincy,UConn or RU had been stellar in previous years. You are going too far to say that none of the schools had not exhibited anything on the fields or in the stands to merit inclusion, i beg to differ.
USF starting from scratch was doing pretty good on the field and in the stands, while not a BCS caliber when you compare what we had done in those short years compared to programs that had been around for ages, you could see that the potential was there than most of the others.
So while it may make you feel better to think it was just the luck of the lottery thats not entirely truth each of those schools had taken steps to get themselces a better position for the lottery. If USF's administration had not started football 11 years ago we would now be in SunBelt or A-Sun.
So while Im not going to argue that we have benefitted from being chosen to Big East and that location and others played a part in our selection is also true that our schools decisions in the past set us up to be im position to be chosen.

Maize, come on. These programs were able to go out and recruit better athletes because of their autobid status, and now it's showing. In 2005, what kind of investment had Rutgers, Cincinnati, USF and UConn made to better their programs. None of them had done anything that 20 other programs hadn't done, if you're talking about new athletic administration buildings etc. South Florida still plays games in a rented NFL stadium, just like Tulane. For pete's sake, UConn had just MOVED UP to Div. 1A a few years before, and USF wasn't too far ahead of that. What is wrong with being honest? None of these programs had done anything special, not one of them. All of them were still waiting for either their first-ever bowl bid, or first bowl bid in 30 plus years, or their first-ever top 25 ranking. You said it yourself, "the only thing we asked for was a chance." Louisville had perhaps earned a chance, but they stood alone in this regard in 2005. The others won the lottery.

tufinal4 Wrote:Maize, come on. These programs were able to go out and recruit better athletes because of their autobid status, and now it's showing. In 2005, what kind of investment had Rutgers, Cincinnati, USF and UConn made to better their programs. None of them had done anything that 20 other programs hadn't done, if you're talking about new athletic administration buildings etc. South Florida still plays games in a rented NFL stadium, just like Tulane. For pete's sake, UConn had just MOVED UP to Div. 1A a few years before, and USF wasn't too far ahead of that. What is wrong with being honest? None of these programs had done anything special, not one of them. All of them were still waiting for either their first-ever bowl bid, or first bowl bid in 30 plus years, or their first-ever top 25 ranking. You said it yourself, "the only thing we asked for was a chance." Louisville had perhaps earned a chance, but they stood alone in this regard in 2005. The others won the lottery.

1. I really don't see anything wrong with playing in a NFL Stadium and many recruits look at it as a plus. Miami played in the Orange Bowl-(for many years the home of the Miami Dolphins) and are moving to Dolphin Stadium. I can also make a very good case that every football playing member in the BIG EAST has better facilities then the 5 Time MNC Miami Hurricanes.

2. Rutgers, USF, UConn and Cincinnati have invested MILLIONS into their facilities. You should check out UConn practice and indoor facilities, the same can be said for Cincinnati and their Olympic Village and practice facilities. It is state of the art.

I am not saying you are not trying to be honest but those programs spent boatloads of money to improve their facilities. Much in the same way UCF is doing right now.

Thats your way at looking at it. The last five years before the Big East Expansion. records in CUSA where ALL the additions came from:
Louisville 30-8, 5 Bowl trips
Cinncinati 23-15, 4 bowl trips
The ONLY other CUSA program with comparable success was Southern Miss 26-12
the others?
UAB 21-17,Memphis 17-21,Tulane 14-24,Houston 12-26,ECU 17-21.
So while some of those schools had success in past when the move came they were not in better shape than Louisville and Cincy.
As for USF they were 8-8 in the only two years in CUSA and yes they play in a rented stadium like Tulane but even with 10 years of football I know you dont want to compare attendance, enrollment and location for recruits etc between the two. Also USF had just finished building a 18 million athletic training facility when BE was looking.
So while it make you feel better to think that it was just luck thats not entirely true either.

Look, USF guy, you're benefitting from your autobid membership, you had a fine season. Why not be honest? I'll just stop at discussing two programs' investment of "millions" into facilities, as if that is a huge deal to be able to say. Tulane has $6 million in brand new football practice facilities, new state of the art weight training and locker facilities, and a brand new $12 million baseball stadium second to no one. Southern Miss has a significant stadium expansion scheduled for completion in 2008. I won't bother to keep going with other CUSA programs. Everyone is spending "millions" on facilities, nothing special went on at these programs prior to 2005.

Attendance? You strike me as being a core USF supporter, attending all home games. Are you trying to tell me that through 2005 you had better ticket sales or actual attendance? Come on, chief, be HONEST. At both USF and Cincy, attendance was ANEMIC. Same with Rutgers. ANEMIC.

There are so many articles about every conference you can pull out and laugh at. It's amazing. The continual stupidity of man always rules.

I'm sure you'll love this reply, but if you put your Big East pipe down for just a minute and be objective, at the time those thoughts were completely accurate.

And if you put your anti-Big East pipe down you would have realized that the Big East had several Top 25 teams, Louisville and West Virginia.

Quote:The only defense ever offered by Louisville fans for allowing the Big East to take credit for Louisville's CUSA top 10 finish was "hey, they agreed to it." Whoever "they" was, so be it, but it was patently ridiculous.

Your complaining about it is ridiculous. It's just amusing to see you constantly blaming Louisville and the Big East for that. You do know the ACC agreed to it right? It was agreed to PRIOR to the 2004 season. At the time, Boston College was #12 and Louisville was UNRANKED, so the ACC wanted BC ranking. The Big Ten also agreed to it. Again, at the time it was agreed to Louisville was UNRANKED. So please explain to me how we initially benefitted?

Big East football in 2005 was thanking their lucky stars they had managed to cling to their auto-bid.

No, we met the BCS requirement. We didn't have to thank anything, we did our part.

Several conferences, given the same inexplicable charity at that time to be allowed to develop, would have several programs today that would be significantly more developed and prominent.

Really? Because I remember you and others claiming that the Big East would NEVER achieve what we achieved, despite having BCS status. You guys said that. Said that we would lose our BCS bid by now because we would never be able to average a Top 12 ranking and numerous Top 25 teams. Now you come with the latest excuses.

Since 2005, several Big East programs have improved, BECAUSE of this free pass, not the other way around. South Florida, Cincinnati, Rutgers and UConn had exhibited nothing on the field of play or in the stands from inception through 2005 to deserve membership in a football autobid conference.

I guess, other then our Top 25 rankings, consistent improvement tou our facilities by all involved and wins over Top 25 teams. Other then that, we haven't done anything to prove ourselves huh?

Because they were granted it anyway, they are now better. Congratulations on winning the lottery, and there's nothing wrong with bluntly admitting it is the honest truth. The truth is always extremely refreshing.

I'm having a blast watching you whine and crying after you and your friends left us for dead several years ago!

Maize, come on. These programs were able to go out and recruit better athletes because of their autobid status, and now it's showing. In 2005, what kind of investment had Rutgers, Cincinnati, USF and UConn made to better their programs.

Again, your twisting of facts are amusing. Cincinnati DOES NOT have a highly rated recruiting class, and our upperclassmen were either recruited to C-USA, or recruited at a time the Big East appeared on the verge of losing its BCS bid. So stop making up excuses as if Cincinnati recruited with a BCS tag. Our core players were not recruited that way.

South Florida still plays games in a rented NFL stadium, just like Tulane. For pete's sake, UConn had just MOVED UP to Div. 1A a few years before, and USF wasn't too far ahead of that. What is wrong with being honest? None of these programs had done anything special, not one of them. All of them were still waiting for either their first-ever bowl bid, or first bowl bid in 30 plus years, or their first-ever top 25 ranking. You said it yourself, "the only thing we asked for was a chance." Louisville had perhaps earned a chance, but they stood alone in this regard in 2005. The others won the lottery.

Cincinnati 120 million dollar facilities upgrade was built WHILE we were in C-USA. Our football program went to bowl games 4 out of 5 years WHILE in C-USA. UC was receiving Top 25 votes and beating Top 25 teams WHILE in C-USA. Stop whining and b*tching because we're successful despite your protests. You can whine and cry that Cincinnati "hit the lottery" but maybe if you and some of the others C-USA had improved your facilities, attendance, and athletics program like Cincinnati did in C-USA and like we're doing now, you wouldn't feel the need to come over and whine that we "hit the lottery" because of our success.

Nobody wants change - except the changers.

tufinal4 Wrote:Look, USF guy, you're benefitting from your autobid membership, you had a fine season. Why not be honest? I'll just stop at discussing two programs' investment of "millions" into facilities, as if that is a huge deal to be able to say. Tulane has $6 million in brand new football practice facilities, new state of the art weight training and locker facilities, and a brand new $12 million baseball stadium second to no one. Southern Miss has a significant stadium expansion scheduled for completion in 2008. I won't bother to keep going with other CUSA programs. Everyone is spending "millions" on facilities, nothing special went on at these programs prior to 2005.

Attendance? You strike me as being a core USF supporter, attending all home games. Are you trying to tell me that through 2005 you had better ticket sales or actual attendance? Come on, chief, be HONEST. At both USF and Cincy, attendance was ANEMIC. Same with Rutgers. ANEMIC.

And we improved our attendance WINNING. We didn't improve our attendance because of BCS status. Cincinnati's attendance wasn't that great our first few years in the Big East until we started winning. Rutgers attendance was horrible their entire time in the Big East until they started winning in recent years. USF's attendance was horrible until they started winning. The common denominator is WINNING. Your weak excuse that our attendance only improved because of BCS status is pathetic. Explain Rutgers' poor attendance prior going to a bowl game? And explain Cincinnati's attendance prior to making our undefeated non-conference run? It's just like any other program, win and they will come. If Cincinnati had run through that non-conference schedule while in C-USA we would be packing the houses there to.

This is what I mean tufinal4, you're over here crying that the only reason UC, Rutgers, UConn and USF are successful is because of our BCS status, yet this is what you were saying a few years ago:

http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=82989

Quote:Our president fought hard to win enough BCS concession so that our conference champion, if ranked reasonably high in the BCS standings, WILL get a BCS bid. That ought to be enough to satisfy us most years. Plus, look at the makeup of the Big East: Rutgers, UConn, South Fla., Cincinnati, etc. Is there any doubt they'll lose their autobid soon enough? Or, if they manage to suck enough weenies to keep it, that it will help us as much as it helps them, because our champ will finish as high as theirs almost every year? Yet, you people look at the Big East with stars in your eyes, just like an infatuated teenager?

So a few years ago we were not going to help the Big East despite being in a BCS conference, so we were no threat. And with USF and UC and Rutgers and UConn in the Big East we were supposed to help YOU remember? A few years later your shocked that we're successful, and your rationalization is because we have BCS status. Yet you just said that BCS status wouldn't help us and that we would be responsible for the conference losing its BCS status. Help me here because you're confusing me!

Why are these teams now winning? Because they now have better players. Why do they have better players? Because they can now recruit from within an autobid conference. Your own coaches will tell you this. Why didn't you achieve this on-field success before? Are you sure you want to argue that you would have accomplished this regardless of your Big East invite? Or that USF would have? You had a great basketball program and were geographically close, USF was geographically located in Florida, both happened to also have football teams, albeit weak ones, and the Big East needed 3 teams and not just Louisville to stay at the minimum 8 members. Therefore at the time you hit the lottery. Congratulations, and there's nothing wrong with admitting the truth.

As I said NOONE is here negating the benefits of BCS status for USF. But your insinuating that USF didnt have anything worthwhile before the addition is incorrect.
As I said USF invested in an 18-20 million sports training facilities that includes stae of the art weight training room, football meeting rooms, locker rooms and training rooms.
USF has had a fantastic season with sell outs and over 50,000 in avg attendance but even while we were in CUSA our attendance was only surpassed by UL,ECU and Memphis. So while not great certaintly better than many programs with many years of tradition.
You seem to think that uSF and the others were only being succesful on the field and in upgrading facilities AFTER our BCS bid and that is incorrect.
By the way if our attendance prior to 2005 was ANEMIC then some of those other CUSA programs including yours were COMATOSE.

Why are these teams now winning? Because they now have better players. Why do they have better players? Because they can now recruit from within an autobid conference. Your own coaches will tell you this.

We were still in C-USA when we have those recruits and, in fact, it was mentioned during the Southern Miss game that some of our players were used to playing USM because we had seen them in C-USA. Some of our players were Rick Minter recruits.

Why didn't you achieve this on-field success before? Are you sure you want to argue that you would have accomplished this regardless of your Big East invite?

Because our players matured? Maybe because Dantonio did a hell of a job recruiting? Maybe because Dantonio and Kelly were pretty damn good coaches? I mean really, USM fans were talking about how UC doesn't have blue-chippers but were beating USM. We didn't even have a Top 50 recruiting class, or if it is it's BARELY in the Top 50. That was not a highly touted recruiting class, so again, explain to me how being in a BCS conference helped us?

Or that USF would have? You had a great basketball program and were geographically close, USF was geographically located in Florida, both happened to also have football teams, albeit weak ones, and the Big East needed 3 teams and not just Louisville to stay at the minimum 8 members.

Cincinnati was two years removed from a C-USA title in football and went to 4 bowl games in 5 years and finished 2nd in C-USA our last year there. So if Cincinnati had a weak football program what does that say for you and the rest of C-USA?

Therefore at the time you hit the lottery. Congratulations, and there's nothing wrong with admitting the truth.

I guess our facilities and quality football and basketball programs and academics had nothing to do with it. In order to make money you have to spend money. The losers of the world or "less successful" complain about someone "being lucky". The successful people in the world go out and make things happen. Cincinnati benefitted from improving our facilities, academics, campus and on-field product. We were rewarded for it. Cincinnati decided that instead of whining about others "hitting the lottery" or "being lucky" that we were going to take matters into out own hands. Were we fortunate that there was an opening in the Big East? Sure. Everyone needs a break. But we were ready to take advantage of it. Michael Jordan was lucky to be drafted by the Bulls and that they drafted Scottie Pippen and hired Phil Jackson or he might not have won a title. Clyde Drexler was "lucky" that Houston needed another star because of injuries. But those guys didn't just have luck fall into their laps, they were given opportunities and ran with it. They made something happen. Cincinnati made something happen with their break. A lot of other people didn't. That's on them, but don't cry about someone being "lucky" just because you weren't ready. That's tough luck on you, you weren't ready to succeed. There's nothing wrong with admitting the truth.

tufinal4 Wrote:Why are these teams now winning? Because they now have better players. Why do they have better players? Because they can now recruit from within an autobid conference. Your own coaches will tell you this. Why didn't you achieve this on-field success before? Are you sure you want to argue that you would have accomplished this regardless of your Big East invite? Or that USF would have? You had a great basketball program and were geographically close, USF was geographically located in Florida, both happened to also have football teams, albeit weak ones, and the Big East needed 3 teams and not just Louisville to stay at the minimum 8 members. Therefore at the time you hit the lottery. Congratulations, and there's nothing wrong with admitting the truth.

The reason that I said that the writer as well as MW fans and their commisioner lacked insight and intelligence was for the same reason that you are now arguing the reasons for the BE current success, the bcs tag, which allowed these programs to recruit at a higher level. My point was that if the writer and others were smart enough, they would have been able to excersize some insight and realize that the BE could and would improve. What we have witnessed with the BE is beyond what anyone expected in so short a time period.

You can make the argument that other leagues would be able to improve as well with bcs status, and I will partially agree. I say partially because its not a given that other leagues would improve, not unless they were willing to spend money upgrading. In addition, you have to have a pretty good tv contract, since the better recruits want to be able to showcase their skills to a national tv audiance. The better recruits are not going to just magically start coming just because you have the bcs tag. There are some other intangibles besides tv and upgrading as well that is needed, but those are obvious reasons.

The thing about the BE and how it was able to improve so quickly is because all of our fb programs already had in place the ingrediants to be successful. You cant really say that about any other non bcs league, and thats why I cant say that any non bcs league could have improved. Sure there would be some improvement, but not nearly as quickly as what we have witnessed with the BE. I am proud of what our league has been able to accomplish. And I dont need any sort of BE pipe to realize that what this conference has accomplished is not likely to be duplicated by any non bcs league, if given a bcs tag.