Temple 13
#23 Penn State 6
13:04 2nd

(09-25-2010 03:01 PM)blah Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 02:46 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  *yawn*

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

Thanks for proving the point....

ACC
17 Florida State
26 Virginia (Playing VMI, what a monster)
28 Virginia Tech (Losing to I-AA is hard work)
34 Georgia Tech (Losing to teams that lose to I-AA is even harder)

WAC
3 Boise State
25 Nevada
33 Fresno State

Those rankings are ridiculous. Do you really believe the WAC has 5 teams worse than Duke? Be reasonable.

You'll denote that the ACC is ranked higher than the WAC in the first table. So it's hardly proving your point.

You conveniently brush under the rug the half of the WAC that is doormats. The Sagarin does not extend this courtesy.

(09-25-2010 02:49 PM)SouthGAEagle Wrote:  Oh yeah. The Big XII and SEC have an unfair disadvantage too.... Why can't they get the easy OOC schedules that the WAC get?

P.S. Whatever helps you sleep at night, GTS.... Give C-USA a $17 million/year check and lets see where we stand.

It's a free market. Let them earn it. Go collect a BCS payday ... it's not that hard relatively speaking for non-AQs to do anymore.

#7 Texas 3
UCLA 0
13:00 2nd

TCU and Boise went to the BCS bowls last year, and the rewards are a $9.75 million and a $4.5 million payout, divided up amongst the 5 non-AQ conferences, while the Cartel 6 get between $17 and $22 million each.

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/64647

Army 21
Duke 7
12:55 3rd

Make that...

Army 28
Duke 7
12:35 3rd

(09-25-2010 03:31 PM)SouthGAEagle Wrote:  TCU and Boise went to the BCS bowls last year, and the rewards are a $9.75 million and a $4.5 million payout, while the Cartel 6 get between $17 and $22 million each.

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/64647

And how much is that compared to their normal highest tier bowl?

And keep in mind -- bowl payout is determined by what drives this whole thing. Fans viewing on TV is what it is all about. Even Duke-UNC football gets a higher TV viewership than Fresno-Nevada. The ultimate money maker is TV viewers.

Personally I prefer a playoff. None of the "little guys" cry about the March Madness playoff -- but how many times have the little guys won March Madness ... or even made it to the Elite Eight?

Does the BCS suck? Sure.
Is it inherently biased? Sure.
Is it better than what we had previously? Yes.

Feel free to flame on since I'm sellin' out to the man and keepin' you down. At least with the BCS #1 plays #2.

(09-25-2010 03:42 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  At least with the BCS #1 plays #2.

Are you sure about that?

It's a system that perpetuates itself. They throw a "don't sue us" $ amount to the "little" teams (not too much though, gotta make sure they stay "little"), and give more $ to teams because of a set of decisions that could have happened ~80 years ago (certain conference formations). Sports are an equalizer in an unfair world. Everything is supposed to be fair and equal. Find a way to convince me that Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Washington State, Duke,... deserve more access than Boise, Utah, TCU,...

In basketball, they don't ***** because they have the chance, they have access. The BCS doesn't give that access.

I'm all for earning it on the field, but these teams HAVE earned it on the field. They win every game they play. There is nothing left that they can do.

Didn't anyone show Army or Temple the Sagarin conference ratings?

Army 35
Duke 14
14:52 4th

Temple 13
#23 Penn State 9
11:21 3rd

(09-25-2010 04:07 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  I'm all for earning it on the field, but these teams HAVE earned it on the field. They win every game they play. There is nothing left that they can do.

And that may be so, but even so, they won't get in over an undefeated Pac-10 or Big 10 or Big 12. They probably won't even get in over a 1-loss Pac-10 or Big 10 or Big 12. And I think that's actually the RIGHT decision, because teams in the aforementioned conferences play alot tougher competition week in and week out. ALOT tougher. So, in the absence of a playoff, they're not going to be playing for the title. But the fact that there is even conversation over them playing in the title game is an improvement... because without the BCS they would be playing a C-USA/MAC team for their bowl game.

(09-25-2010 04:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  But the fact that there is even conversation over them playing in the title game is an improvement... because without the BCS they would be playing a C-USA/MAC team for their bowl game.

So we should be happy with that? "You don't get what you've earned, but you're better off than your ancestors."

(09-25-2010 05:17 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 04:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  But the fact that there is even conversation over them playing in the title game is an improvement... because without the BCS they would be playing a C-USA/MAC team for their bowl game.

So we should be happy with that? "You don't get what you've earned, but you're better off than your ancestors."

No. Again ... I want a playoff. But that doesn't change the fact that the BCS has been an improvement.

I see nobody has noticed this score...

UCLA 34
Texas 12
FINAL

(09-25-2010 03:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 02:49 PM)SouthGAEagle Wrote:  Oh yeah. The Big XII and SEC have an unfair disadvantage too.... Why can't they get the easy OOC schedules that the WAC get?

P.S. Whatever helps you sleep at night, GTS.... Give C-USA a $17 million/year check and lets see where we stand.

It's a free market. Let them earn it. Go collect a BCS payday ... it's not that hard relatively speaking for non-AQs to do anymore.

The BCS is NOT a free-market system. Yes it is still hard for non-AQs to get a BCS check. All it takes is one loss, regardless of opponent or margin of loss, and there's no chance. Meanwhile, a four loss ACC or Big East team can make it instead, just because they are members of the cartel. And there are BCS leeches that get big chunks of $ from the successes of the conference mates.

(09-25-2010 06:09 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 03:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 02:49 PM)SouthGAEagle Wrote:  Oh yeah. The Big XII and SEC have an unfair disadvantage too.... Why can't they get the easy OOC schedules that the WAC get?

P.S. Whatever helps you sleep at night, GTS.... Give C-USA a $17 million/year check and lets see where we stand.

It's a free market. Let them earn it. Go collect a BCS payday ... it's not that hard relatively speaking for non-AQs to do anymore.

The BCS is NOT a free-market system. Yes it is still hard for non-AQs to get a BCS check. All it takes is one loss, regardless of opponent or margin of loss, and there's no chance. Meanwhile, a four loss ACC or Big East team can make it instead, just because they are members of the cartel. And there are BCS leeches that get big chunks of $ from the successes of the conference mates.

It is indeed a free market. If you control the TVs you control the system. Unless you think we're all just buddy-buddy with Notre Dame?

Let me ask you this: would Boise State EVER ... EVER play in the Fiesta Bowl if there were no BCS?

(09-25-2010 06:28 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Let me ask you this: would Boise State EVER ... EVER play in the Fiesta Bowl if there were no BCS?

It's hard to tell. I'd like to believe that some bowl out there would see the value in inviting the best teams available, and possibly creating a 1-2 matchup, rather than affiliating with two conferences as the BCS (supported by the NCAA) system has solidified. I think there would be some money available for that. The lure of an "undisputed" NC, along with popular opinion, would push the undefeated SEC/ACC/Big12-10-East/PAC etc. team to sign onto a bowl game with an undefeated program possessing the resume that Boise or TCU have built.

(09-25-2010 05:59 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I see nobody has noticed this score...

UCLA 34
Texas 12
FINAL

I sent a text to a guy that works for me about that one.....

He wasn't happy

Another team didn't get the Sagarin memo....

Northern Illinois 7
Minnesota 3
14:11 2nd

You crazy Huskies! How dare you try to beat the obviously better Big Ten opponent!

(09-25-2010 06:28 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 06:09 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 03:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 02:49 PM)SouthGAEagle Wrote:  Oh yeah. The Big XII and SEC have an unfair disadvantage too.... Why can't they get the easy OOC schedules that the WAC get?

P.S. Whatever helps you sleep at night, GTS.... Give C-USA a $17 million/year check and lets see where we stand.

It's a free market. Let them earn it. Go collect a BCS payday ... it's not that hard relatively speaking for non-AQs to do anymore.

The BCS is NOT a free-market system. Yes it is still hard for non-AQs to get a BCS check. All it takes is one loss, regardless of opponent or margin of loss, and there's no chance. Meanwhile, a four loss ACC or Big East team can make it instead, just because they are members of the cartel. And there are BCS leeches that get big chunks of $ from the successes of the conference mates.

It is indeed a free market. If you control the TVs you control the system. Unless you think we're all just buddy-buddy with Notre Dame?

Let me ask you this: would Boise State EVER ... EVER play in the Fiesta Bowl if there were no BCS?

Playing in the Fiesta Bowl is not the ultimate goal in CFB. Winning a national championship is. With the BCS, non-AQs can win every game on their schedule and not have a chance to win one. Before the BCS, BYU won one by playing in the Holiday Bowl.

All the cartel members have to do is refuse to play them, then say "Oh, well they haven't played anybody. Better put a three loss $EC team ahead of them." In a free market, firms are not blocked from competing with industry leaders.