Saw the following link on the MWC Board; it is a very good article and well worth the time taken to read it.


Boise State president Bob Kustra has written a commentary on the Bowl Championship Series in light of next week's meeting in Colorado and any upcoming Congressional hearings. Here is that commentary, which also appears on the Boise State Web site.

By Bob Kustra, President
Boise State University

When the Presidential Oversight Committee of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) meets next week (June 15-19 in Colorado Springs), perhaps it will consider how to apply the same values espoused and celebrated by American higher education across the nation to the most recognizable pastime and the biggest business on many university campuses — intercollegiate football. There is considerable irony in the fact that in the highest temple of political correctness, American higher education, the BCS worships the false idols of monopoly, inequity and greed at the expense of the virtues of fairness, access and competition.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdate...99314.html
or
http://snipurl.com/jy40d

Those greedy BCS teams keeping all that money for themselves. They might be the ones who generated most of that money through ticket sales and TV deals, but that's beside the point. For whatever reason, it just seems like more people want to watch Ohio State play USC than Ohio and San Jose State. I just can't seem to figure out why. However, we can't just let the market run its course! We have to spread that wealth out because that's... just... the American thing to do! [/sarcasm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Which does your side support?

(06-11-2009 09:41 PM)WD-39 Wrote:  Those greedy BCS teams keeping all that money for themselves. They might be the ones who generated most of that money through ticket sales and TV deals, but that's beside the point. For whatever reason, it just seems like more people want to watch Ohio State play USC than Ohio and San Jose State. I just can't seem to figure out why. However, we can't just let the market run its course! We have to spread that wealth out because that's... just... the American thing to do! [/sarcasm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Which does your side support?

And the WINNER is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men's_...ampionship

(06-11-2009 09:41 PM)WD-39 Wrote:  Those greedy BCS teams keeping all that money for themselves. They might be the ones who generated most of that money through ticket sales and TV deals, but that's beside the point. For whatever reason, it just seems like more people want to watch Ohio State play USC than Ohio and San Jose State. I just can't seem to figure out why. However, we can't just let the market run its course! We have to spread that wealth out because that's... just... the American thing to do! [/sarcasm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Which does your side support?

Last year's Orange Bowl shows exactly what is wrong with the BCS. Namely, the AQ's. Two teams that did not deserve to be in a BCS bowl played in a lackluster game but took home BCS bank, just because of the historical power and clout of their respective conferences.

I'm fine with the BCS... just do away with the AQ's and the conference limits and let the top 10 teams play in the top 5 bowls.

(06-12-2009 08:17 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(06-11-2009 09:41 PM)WD-39 Wrote:  Those greedy BCS teams keeping all that money for themselves. They might be the ones who generated most of that money through ticket sales and TV deals, but that's beside the point. For whatever reason, it just seems like more people want to watch Ohio State play USC than Ohio and San Jose State. I just can't seem to figure out why. However, we can't just let the market run its course! We have to spread that wealth out because that's... just... the American thing to do! [/sarcasm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Which does your side support?

Last year's Orange Bowl shows exactly what is wrong with the BCS. Namely, the AQ's. Two teams that did not deserve to be in a BCS bowl played in a lackluster game but took home BCS bank, just because of the historical power and clout of their respective conferences.

I'm fine with the BCS... just do away with the AQ's and the conference limits and let the top 10 teams play in the top 5 bowls.

Holy crap hell has froze over. I actually agree with this.

(06-11-2009 10:28 PM)ManzanoWolf Wrote:  

(06-11-2009 09:41 PM)WD-39 Wrote:  Those greedy BCS teams keeping all that money for themselves. They might be the ones who generated most of that money through ticket sales and TV deals, but that's beside the point. For whatever reason, it just seems like more people want to watch Ohio State play USC than Ohio and San Jose State. I just can't seem to figure out why. However, we can't just let the market run its course! We have to spread that wealth out because that's... just... the American thing to do! [/sarcasm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Which does your side support?

And the WINNER is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men's_...ampionship

http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/Internet/atte...NDANCE.pdf
48 of the top 50 share something in common. Take a wild guess.

Now look at this:
http://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/June09/DBJune9.html
Look at the top 55 teams listed. Notice anything?

Once again, why should teams who generate far less money and play much easier schedules receive the same reward as the teams who are generating much more money while playing much tougher schedules? Sounds like welfare to me.

(06-13-2009 10:15 PM)WD-39 Wrote:  

(06-11-2009 10:28 PM)ManzanoWolf Wrote:  

(06-11-2009 09:41 PM)WD-39 Wrote:  Those greedy BCS teams keeping all that money for themselves. They might be the ones who generated most of that money through ticket sales and TV deals, but that's beside the point. For whatever reason, it just seems like more people want to watch Ohio State play USC than Ohio and San Jose State. I just can't seem to figure out why. However, we can't just let the market run its course! We have to spread that wealth out because that's... just... the American thing to do! [/sarcasm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Which does your side support?

And the WINNER is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men's_...ampionship

http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/Internet/atte...NDANCE.pdf
48 of the top 50 share something in common. Take a wild guess.

Now look at this:
http://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/June09/DBJune9.html
Look at the top 55 teams listed. Notice anything?

Once again, why should teams who generate far less money and play much easier schedules receive the same reward as the teams who are generating much more money while playing much tougher schedules? Sounds like welfare to me.

It's a closed system. The schools that "generate far less money" are outside of the system and have no way of getting in. We can't force the other teams to schedule us, nor can we force them to give us a home and home, so we are at a disadvantage when it comes to home field advantage, revenue, etc. They have had decades to establish their programs and we have not. At least require a return game, or split the gate after expenses. Or come up with some way of leveling the field.

No way of getting in? What about USF?

If I want to establish a brand new fast food place, I should require that McDonald's shares its revenue with my place because it's not fair that they've been in the business longer? Sure...

(06-13-2009 11:00 PM)BlueRaiderFan111 Wrote:  

(06-13-2009 10:15 PM)WD-39 Wrote:  

(06-11-2009 10:28 PM)ManzanoWolf Wrote:  

(06-11-2009 09:41 PM)WD-39 Wrote:  Those greedy BCS teams keeping all that money for themselves. They might be the ones who generated most of that money through ticket sales and TV deals, but that's beside the point. For whatever reason, it just seems like more people want to watch Ohio State play USC than Ohio and San Jose State. I just can't seem to figure out why. However, we can't just let the market run its course! We have to spread that wealth out because that's... just... the American thing to do! [/sarcasm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Which does your side support?

And the WINNER is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men's_...ampionship

http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/Internet/atte...NDANCE.pdf
48 of the top 50 share something in common. Take a wild guess.

Now look at this:
http://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/June09/DBJune9.html
Look at the top 55 teams listed. Notice anything?

Once again, why should teams who generate far less money and play much easier schedules receive the same reward as the teams who are generating much more money while playing much tougher schedules? Sounds like welfare to me.

It's a closed system. The schools that "generate far less money" are outside of the system and have no way of getting in. We can't force the other teams to schedule us, nor can we force them to give us a home and home, so we are at a disadvantage when it comes to home field advantage, revenue, etc. They have had decades to establish their programs and we have not. At least require a return game, or split the gate after expenses. Or come up with some way of leveling the field.

. . . and those decades of trying to establish those programs were often funded by the taxpayer dollar . . .

(06-13-2009 11:45 PM)WD-39 Wrote:  No way of getting in? What about USF?

If I want to establish a brand new fast food place, I should require that McDonald's shares its revenue with my place because it's not fair that they've been in the business longer? Sure...

BYU outdrew 40 BCS AQ conference teams in attendance last year. Heck, they even won a national championship in the 80's. They're hardly a new kid on the block... yet they are excluded from the BCS cash that schools that haven't even been to a bowl game in a decade (Duke, etc) receive unless they can run the table? Doesn't sound like capitalism to me.

(06-13-2009 11:45 PM)WD-39 Wrote:  If I want to establish a brand new fast food place, I should require that McDonald's shares its revenue with my place because it's not fair that they've been in the business longer? Sure...

No, but you would expect the city to grant you the proper zoning, tax you the same, and have you follow the same sign ordinances. In other words you would expect to follow the same rules. In the Power Six conferences if you win your conference you are automatically entered into a BCS game. In the non-Power Six conferences you can go undefeated and still be left out. As a matter of fact, if 2 non-Power Six teams go undefeated it is a guarantee that one of those teams will not be in a BCS game.

To follow up on your example, it's like the city telling you that you can open your restaurant but since McDonalds has been around longer then you can not open it in the same city because the city does not want to give you ample opportunity to take any of McDonald's customers or revenue.

There's no prohibition of opening my place, though. I can open it, but McDonald's is still going to get more business. I can't just expect to set up one little restaurant and suddenly start getting the same amount of business (as their entire company). Is it impossible to do? Absolutely not, but it will take smart business practices and a lot of time to make it happen. What a lot of people seem to want is for the government to force McDonald's to share its revenue with my place in an effort to eliminate the economic advantage that they have (from years of building their company) over my place that is just starting out.

My response.

I'm generally pro-playoff but the Boise president is primarily sucking up to the Mountain West but his arguments are also wrong.
http://www.beltboard.com/?p=245

Is there a Cliff Notes version? : )