Reason #1522 the BCS is moronic

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Right now non-BCS gets a share of BCS money even for not playing. It doesn't really matter if the Rose Bowl pays out 5 times Vegas Bowl vs 15 times, if you're talking profit, and the lower tier bowl is unprofitable in both cases.

The reality is MWC/WAC has never gotten any significant revenues from either TV contracts or bowl revenues. People wanted to see USC-Michigan 30 years ago and they still want to see them today.

how much do we get per year from the BCS? 10 cents?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I'm campaigning for our anger to be directed at the bowls, not the BCS specifically. The bowls are the root of all evil. BCS has actually tamed the evil and made it a little more palatable for all.

The guys running around in gold or red jackets pretending they have power in this whole thing--that's who we should want to assassinate.

Kill the bowls.

The bowls are the BCS.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by jay santos

You said I was wrong on all counts but then didn't say where I was wrong.

Hawaii getting in the BCS should make the anti-BCSers thrilled. Or are you making the case that non-BCSers should receive less of the pie?

The effect of the BCS championship game has been to make all bowls less compelling, including other BCS games. Nobody ever cared about the Holiday Bowl but now they don't even care about the Orange Bowl.

I think if you took bowl profits, you wouldn't find that the non-BCS share is any different now than it was 30 years ago. Bowls have never been that profitable. Half the bowls--which are the ones BYU has generally played in--barely pay out enough to cover expenses.

I won't be thrilled when Hawaii gets in and loses by 60 points.

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I won't be thrilled when Hawaii gets in and loses by 60 points.

That's the whole point. Reward worthy teams. Keep unworthy ones out.

The burden of proof falls on teams claiming to be worthy. A burden that Hawaii will not have met even if they don't lose a game.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by BlueK

how much do we get per year from the BCS? 10 cents?

I don't have all the facts, so it's probably not worth arguing. The principle here being that the BCS conferences have always won the championships, played in the big bowls, played on the nationally televised games, and received all the money. The establishment of the BCS didn't change any of that, IMHO. If we have some data to look at, we can argue it more, but lacking data and if you disagree in principal with that, then it's not worth arguing.

The bowls are the BCS but when we focus our anger on the BCS, it seems like we're implying we were satisfied with what was happening pre-BCS. I don't see anything about the BCS--especially how it's implemented now--that's any worse than pre-BCS bowl environment. In fact, with today's rules, I think it's much better than it was in 1990 or 1980.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

That's the whole point. Reward worthy teams. Keep unworthy ones out.

The burden of proof falls on teams claiming to be worthy. A burden that Hawaii will not have met even if they don't lose a game.

So, short of installing a playoff system, how would you fix the BCS? I'm not seeing the point you're making. You seem to be saying it's unfair to the non-BCSers, but then you rip on the system for potentially including Hawaii.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I don't have all the facts, so it's probably not worth arguing. The principle here being that the BCS conferences have always won the championships, played in the big bowls, played on the nationally televised games, and received all the money. The establishment of the BCS didn't change any of that, IMHO. If we have some data to look at, we can argue it more, but lacking data and if you disagree in principal with that, then it's not worth arguing.

The bowls are the BCS but when we focus our anger on the BCS, it seems like we're implying we were satisfied with what was happening pre-BCS. I don't see anything about the BCS--especially how it's implemented now--that's any worse than pre-BCS bowl environment. In fact, with today's rules, I think it's much better than it was in 1990 or 1980.

since the onset of the BCS it has been "BCS or nothing" for midmajors. Almost every bowl game is slotted for certain finishers of conferences. We're it not for the BCS, we'd do better than LV last year, get the Cotton Bowl or something to that effect.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

since the onset of the BCS it has been "BCS or nothing" for midmajors. Almost every bowl game is slotted for certain finishers of conferences. We're it not for the BCS, we'd do better than LV last year, get the Cotton Bowl or something to that effect.

Disagree, the trend for college bowls was to lock in contracts. That's why 1984 BYU ranked #1 was stuck with lower tier Holiday Bowl. It was a due to miracle negotiating by Rondo that we got a tie-in to Cotton Bowl for 1996. The BCS locks up four bowls. BYU has MORE of a chance to go to one of the top four bowls now as they did 20 years ago. And we have just as much access to Cotton/Peach/Holiday whatever as we did 20 years ago also--it's up to our commissioner to negotiate ahead of time.