1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gordon Gee digging BCS's own grave.....

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by PhillyBuff, Nov 24, 2010.

  1. PhillyBuff

    PhillyBuff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,011
    Likes Received:
    321
    These are really stupid comments.

    If government ever goes after the BCS for voilation of anti-trust laws, they have some damning material right here.....

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5845736
     
  2. buff4bcs1985

    buff4bcs1985 Hail to the King

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    26,034
    Likes Received:
    2,147
    yeah i was wondering about that
     
  3. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,477
    Likes Received:
    2,366
    In the states that really care the BCS holds the political power. Tell me that senators from any of the states with SEC schools, Big XII south schools, Big X schools are going to vote for anything or even permit anything that goes against the interest of those schools. Imagine trying to get re-elected in Tennessee after supporting something that cost the University of Tennessee $10 million a year, same in Florida or Texas, or Ohio with their respective schools.

    The mid-majors can whine and cry all they want about how unfair the system is but in truth all they want is a big piece of the financial pie that they contribute relatively very little to. Why does the MWC have to have the Mtn and have games on Vs. and other obscure places. The WAC is even worse, play a game at midnight on Friday to get on ESPN7 sure. The big money is there because people want to see the schools from the BCS conferences, not Crybaby state. That same big money and the interest that generates it is why those same schools have the power to make sure they keep it.
     
  4. Unleash Hell

    Unleash Hell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    22,246
    Likes Received:
    654
    I miss Gee. Back when we had admins that cared about athletics.

    Anyway, ya dumb comments
     
  5. zbuff

    zbuff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,414
    Likes Received:
    713
    The fact that he's right has no bearing, I guess... schedule should matter - he needs to talk to the idot voters.
     
  6. Junction

    Junction Moderator Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    47,534
    Likes Received:
    1,000,005
    Matter? Yes. Matter more than what teams do on the field? No.
     
  7. CarolinaBuff

    CarolinaBuff Weekend Poster Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,657
    Likes Received:
    524
    They're not dumb comments because they're the truth. Any team who plays a WAC or MWC schedule is clearly playing lesser competition than the Big 10, SEC, etc. week-in and week-out. Funny how people don't like it when someone tells it like it is instead of sugar-coating things.
     
  8. ruffemupbuff

    ruffemupbuff New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    4
    The big 10, other than the big 3, really sucked this year and they have for 7 years. BSU has quality wins and plays a 19th ranked Nevada team this weekend. TCU dismantles BYU and dominates all of their opponents except one. Gee can stick it in his ear. And Les Miles has the audacity to claim that the highest BCS rated team from the SEC gets a free pass into the NC game? Freak him! How many bowl games has Boise won recently against AQ conference teams? Gee and his trademark bow tie, like Peewee Herman wears, can slide down a razor blade lined banister without protective gear. A Hole. 8 team playoff.
     
  9. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,477
    Likes Received:
    2,366
    Is anybody in the Big X, on their worst day, as bad as San Jose State, New Mexico State, Utah State, Idaho, or Louisiana Tech. Those are basically bye weeks for Boise. Even on their best days they have no hope of beating a top 25 type team, even if it isn't playing well. There are some bad teams in the Big X by the standards of major conference football but all are much bigger, stronger, and more talented than any of the Weak Athletic Conference teams I listed here.

    Same goes for TCU's schedule. Yes the MWC has a few solid teams. They also have UNLV, CSU, UNM, and Wyoming, again a free win and a bye week for any reasonably talented team.

    It makes a huge difference in your depth when you don't have to play your starters past the first series of the second half risking injury and also have what are effectively scrimmages to develop your backups.

    Indiana and Minnesota both stink but each would be at least .500 in the MWC or the WAC and each has a much better chance of knocking off a top team than the middle of each of the mid-majors in question.
     
  10. max4buffs

    max4buffs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    157
    Likes Received:
    50
    +1

    Need another like Gee.
     
  11. drmike

    drmike Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    13
    CJ said it best today. It is the bottom half of the big conferences that make it nearly impossible to run the gauntlet. Those teams can and will slip up on you. Boise and TCU would certainly have 2 losses every year if they played with the big boys week in and out.
     
  12. Crash Davis

    Crash Davis MA....THE MEATLOAF!!! Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    100
    Are San Jose State, New Mexico State, Utah State, Idaho, and Louisiana Tech Division I teams or aren't they? Why should those wins suddenly not count when determining the Division I champion??
     
  13. UrbanaBuff

    UrbanaBuff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    13
    The whole idea of SOS is foggy. It makes no sense that Boise has an SOS that's better than some Big Six schools, and here's why. Conference football is a zero-sum game, meaning that some SEC teams have to win, and some have to lose. So say Ole Miss is having a bad year, which begets a poor SOS, which hurts Alabama, LSU, etc. Meanwhile, Nevada is playing well, winning, and has a strong SOS, which helps Boise. But if you flip Ole Miss and put them in the WAC, who's to say they don't have Nevada's season? Under this logic, Gee is absolutely right. The have-nots of the Pac 10 are much stronger than the have-nots of the MAC, for example. So it stands to reason then that the haves of the Pac 10 are also stronger than the haves of the MAC.
     
  14. PhillyBuff

    PhillyBuff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,011
    Likes Received:
    321
    ok.... none of you are getting the point....

    is anyone inviting Boise to their BCS conference so they have a chance?

    I smell anti trust violation by STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED SCHOOLS........

    No matter how you twist this..... The "Boises" do not have access to this MNC and the cash that goes with it.......

    So Gordon.... let them in the Big 10 :)
     
  15. zbuff

    zbuff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,414
    Likes Received:
    713
    This is just ridiculous, and completely ignoring the point. If what they do on the field is against a weak schedule, then those wins matter a lot less. CU under Cabral could go undefeated in the MWC, but we aren't a championship team. Not saying BSU isn't, but we don't know because they haven't been tested like a lot of the teams who have one loss.
     
  16. PhillyBuff

    PhillyBuff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,011
    Likes Received:
    321
    so how do you propose that they get there? Join the Big 10?
     
  17. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,477
    Likes Received:
    2,366
    What a lot of you who defend Boise and TCU are missing is that this isn't pee wee football, everybody plays, everybody gets a trophy. This is a business, it is about generating and making money. When it all comes down to brass tacks what the Boises and the TCUs of the world want is not the championship, they want an equal slice of the money. The problem is that they don't come even close to contributing an even slice of the money.

    Why is a mid-level Big X or Big XII or PAC 10 or SEC game on a broadcast network or ESPN on Saturday during prime viewing hours and Boise plays on ESPN2 after midnight Eastern time on a weeknight on ESPN2 or worse. Why is it that each of those BCS leagues has individual game attendance that exceeds the cumulative attendance for a week in the WAC or the MWC on certain weeks. And this is with significantly higher ticket prices, not even factoring revenue from parking, concessions, seat licenses, etc.

    If you are going to argue that Boise and TCU should get an even shot the money despite not bringing it to the table, and an even shot at the title despite only playing 2-3 real games a year then why not give an even split of the money to everyone in D1 including the MAC and the Sun Belt.

    If a Sun Belt team goes undefeated against their league and OOC against an FCS team and a couple of WAC and MWC bottom feeders, should they get a shot at the championship and all the money that goes with it.

    I know that America loves the David and Goliath stories, I know that every feels sorry for the poor little downtrodden school that didn't get a fair chance. It's all bulls***. Earn your way in, both on the field and financially and you get to play. People forget that Miami (Fl) was once one of the lower level schools, Arizona and Arizona State were once on the outside looking in, UConn was D2 not that long ago. It wasn't a question of anyone "giving them a chance," it was about them paying their way in.

    If TCU and Boise want a seat at the big boys table they have to make it worth the big boys time. Boise has to play major schools OOC and not with their ridiculous demands for one and ones. Nobody is going to give up a home OOC game to play in that joke of a bandbox stadium that seats 35k on a one for one. Bring some TV ratings, bring the money to the table, buy enough games to give yourself credibility and you don't get to make the rules as you do it.

    As it stands Boise and TCU are both jokes. Give 25 different BCS schools Boises schedule and they would have a high probability of going undefeated. Put Boise or TCU into one of the major conferences playing real competition week after week and they simply wouldn't be undefeated.

    Gordon Gee could probably have put it a bit more diplomatically but at the core what he said was completely correct. What he didn't say is also correct. Until Boise and TCU and the other pretenders bring the money to the table they don't deserve a slice of the pie. It is not the problem of the big schools to give them that slice of the pie any more than McDonald's owes Good Times Hamburgers help in getting the best locations and bringing them customers. For the fans it is about the game, for the schools it is about the business and that is not going to change without destroying the game.
     
    ScottyBuff likes this.
  18. Crash Davis

    Crash Davis MA....THE MEATLOAF!!! Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    100
    Winning championships and being truly the "best" team, based on somebody's subjective opinion, are two ENTIRELY different things.

    How many people, before last year's basketball tournament, would have said Butler is truly one of the two best teams in the country? Yet there they were, playing for the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP, and nearly winning it.....

    The system is working EXACTLY as it was designed. Strength of schedule DOES get taken into account, and yet, even with that, there are TCU and Boise sitting at #3 and #4, and for some reason that pisses people off??? I don't get it. I personally think it's great that so many people who back the BCS and fans of BCS schools are getting their panties in a wad over this. Let them get a taste of their own medicine.
     
  19. ScottyBuff

    ScottyBuff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,619
    Likes Received:
    91
    One thing that Gee said that has flown under the radar:

    What that says to me, is that the threat to the BCS calling itself a "National Championship" game is very serious. Gee is basically stating that "we don't need to call it a championship game". Why would he feel the need to bring that issue up if it wasn't under direct "threat".

    IIRC, there was some potential lawsuits against the BCS for calling itself a "National Championship" game.

    That is the only real and valid argument that the "non-BCS" can make against the system. If you call the BCS a championship while excluding schools despite their on-the-field success, then the anti-trust/false advertising issues became tought to reconcile.

    The non-BCS crowd only has a leg to stand on if college football thinks that it is "crowning a champion" via the BCS system. It really is jsut a question of packaging. If the "title game" was simply called the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, etc. etc. but used the same process to determine the participants while dropping the "Title Game" label, NOBODY could argue against it.

    Now, I would much prefer a true Division I champion be crowned via a playoff. It would be much more entertaining as a fan, would be much more profitable for the schools, and would be great for the sport (IMO).

    I have a problem with "exclusionary" viewpoints, because it will never end. If the "BCS" conferences were to separate from the NCAA or create a new 67 to 76 team association, then there would immediately be polarization between those members and the Washington State's, Northwestern's, and Baylor's of that group would then be seen as "inferior".

    The argument about scheduling defining who the best team is each year, is silly to me. Schedules are made years in advance, conference memberships are set for years at a time. The kids in the uniforms have no control over any of that stuff, and if a team from the MWC, WAC, MAC, goes undefeated, or even one-loss, then they surely deserve to be in the "BCS bowl" picture. If one of those teams goes 8-4 then they don't, and that is the system we have. Unfortunately we get stuck with an 8-4 Big East champion in the picture, which creates the sense of "unfairness" from the MWC. If the conference can continue its growth in attendance, enrollment, and exposure then maybe in 10 or 12 years they will get a shot if the current system is in place.

    Anyway, to stop rambling, I think Gee is setting the tone, or hinting at the possibility, of a return to a more traditional bowl selection process; or at least a less "controversial" label to the "title game".
     
  20. CarolinaBuff

    CarolinaBuff Weekend Poster Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,657
    Likes Received:
    524
    OK, there's 120 teams that play at the I-A level. But that's nothing more than official distinction. In reality, there's a huge drop-off between the top programs and the bottom 40 or 50. And it's gradual all the way down. This isn't the NFL where all wins are considered equal.
     
  21. kalbuff

    kalbuff New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    4
    I'm certain you realize that your entire line of argument simply amounts to making college football pro football. Now it would be really naive to pretend that this sport is what it was meant to be, an amateur competition for the sport of it. But ultimately you want to simply tear away all pretension and so the next step it to pay the players. That's where we are headed. But for god's sake the game will be the lesser for it. Oh well, there are always college sports like baseball, skiing, golf, and track. Pure sport and beautiful. Football and basketball will simply go to the highest bidder.
     
  22. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,477
    Likes Received:
    2,366
    No I don't want to make college football into pro football but I do recognize that at its heart it is a business. When you are talking about schools like the University of Texas having football revenues well in excess of $100 million dollars a year the idea of share and share alike is a joke. I am not in favor of paying players nor am I in favor of an unregulated free for all. At the same time it is not the fault of the University of Michigan that they can make twice as much money on ticket revenue for one home game than the University of Wyoming or CSU makes in a season of home games.

    What the mid-majors want is simple, they want a bigger chunk of the financial pie. Boise and TCU aren't doing what they are doing to show the world some "Little Engine the Could" story, they want in on the money. How do they justify it, beat the crap out of 8-9 pathetic excuses for opponents each year to fatten up the record along with 2-3 decent quality ones and then whine and cry that they are being treated unfairly. When you only have 2-3 chances a year to lose you should have a great record but it doesn't prove anything. If they want recognition they need to step up to the table and to step up means to make it worthwhile financially for the powers that already exist. They have to pay the price, buy their way in. The way they do this is taking road games, taking money games with no return date, taking two for ones or even three for ones. As long as a visit to Boise means losing a lot of money for the bigger schools, Boise is going to have to travel, a lot. Until they do so and they are playing a legit schedule and winning out then they will get the respect they have earned which is significantly less than a one loss team from a real conference.
     
  23. kalbuff

    kalbuff New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    4
    Your entire argument presumes financial inequity. It is true and that's the way the world is. So how do you propose a school like Boise pays its way in? I would bet they don't have the money. The entire history of Notre Dame football is based upon the idea that the school, Rockne, finally was able to schedule a major power like Army. When the Irish beat Army the schools like Michigan with all the money and clout looked bad if they continued to refuse to play ND. Money was an issue, sure, the Irish had to travel for what then took a week to play Army in New York. They had to make enormous sacrifices. How did that turn out for them eventually?

    My perspective is formed by books like "College Sports, Inc." by Murray Sperber, The Game of Life:
    College Sports and Educational Values by James L. Shulman & William G. Bowen, and reading the findings and recommendations of the Knight Commission. We just simply have to get beyond the notion that money is everything in life and concentrate on some things that really matter like education. Money is a reality but should not fuel every aspect of what happens in sports. The stats tell us that Boise deserves to be where it is. And who can forget the bowl game against Oklahoma. Money can't buy that kind of excitement.
     
  24. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,477
    Likes Received:
    2,366
    To start with Money is what makes things happen in life, it is not everything in life but without it nothing happens. The book you reference is a bood written by an author who has an agenda. I have heard him speak a number of times on various broadcast forums and he clearly comes from the "make everybody equal" perspective, meaning take from those who have and give to those who don't so everything will be "fair." This is what is commonly refered to as socialism, it doesn't work in the food business, the energy business, the technology business and it won't work in the entertainment business which is effectively what college football is.

    Boise and the other mid-majors have to do a couple of things. First off, they have to make a realistic assessment of if they have the potential to generate on a long term basis, income sufficient to compete at the highest level. This is based on potential stadium revenue, potential TV appeal, potential donor support, etc.. If they come to the conclusion that the potential is there and reachable then they have to be willing to sacrifice for a period of time to achieve that status. As I mentioned in the earlier posting as number of schools have done this in recent decades. The most recent was probably Louiseville moving into the Big East.

    The step up doesn't come for free. A school has to go on the road and make a name by beating quality programs on their turf. They don't get to call the shots anymore than an up and coming burger chain gets to tell McDonalds where they can and can't locate franchises. The established programs have a built in advantage that comes from years of building their names and yelling "me too" doesn't mean you get the same respect. It also means building your own revenues to a point that you can afford to pay others to come into your place. Louiseville found a donor to pay to essentially double the size of their stadium and spend major amounts of money promoting ticket sales including paying some significant guarantees to higher profile visitors that meant that they lost money on those individual games.

    Looking at the market size of Boise and the surrounding area along with the nature of the population there (highly mobile, many from distant parts of the country, not highly spectator sport oriented) I doubt that they can make it financially worthwhile, this is the key reason the PAC 10 had no interest in them for expansion despite their success on the field and in other sports.

    Again Boise can argue records and statistics until they are blue in the face but those are meaningless taken in light of who the majority of those numbers where built against. Scoring 40+ points a game looks impressive until you realize that they got 59 against New Mexico State and other giant scores against such defensive powers as Toledo,Wyoming, San Jose, Fresno, Idaho, etc.

    I can understand the interest in schools like Boise and TCU, America loves a David vs. Goliath. Unfortunately for those schools however on an individual game basis they can compete but against a schedule of Goliaths are even the brothers of Goliath, David would sooner than later go down and be trampled.
     
  25. kalbuff

    kalbuff New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    4
    That socialism argument is not only inaccurate but a tired canard. And Sperber's main target is not spreading money around, it is mostly for dignity and honesty. He targets the same thing the Knight Commission targeted, transparency of football and basketball programs, making an athletic department accountable to the university, which didn't happen at the time of the commission, and injecting some level of honor into the system.

    Your citing Boise's playing those schools is not a good argument. Just about all the big powers, Ohio State, Nebraska and Alabama for examples play patsies like the schools you name. OSU has played those traditional powers this year, Marshall, Ohio and Eastern Michigan. THIS IS AN ENTERTAINMENT for you and I and I suppose you would oppose revenue sharing in baseball so that the Yankees and the Red Sox win every year and Pittsburgh sits in the cellar year in and year out. Oh, that' s socialism - America's pastime, for shame.
     
  26. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,477
    Likes Received:
    2,366
    Ohio State, Nebraska, Alabama etc. do play some patsies every year. They don't play a whole schedule of them, this is the difference. Your dignity and honesty comment is a different way of saying that those who produce the dollars should make those who don't feel good by giving them a share. You buy it, I don't. Having big money doesn't guarantee success any more in college football than it does in baseball, it is an advantage just as I stated McDonalds has an advantage. I'm sure that Texas and Michigan would argue with you about money guaranteeing success but again both those schools played a legitimate conference schedule that resulted in them losing games. Put Boise in the same situation and they would lose as well but they don't risk that playing the little sisters of the poor all year.

    Tell me again, why should a program that has trouble selling out a small stadium and nobody wants to watch on TV be subsidized by a progam whos fans are willing to pay to sell out a large stadium and that generates the TV ratings that bring in the money. What dignity is their in being a welfare case. And what good does it do for the game as a whole. Again if Boise, TCU or anyone else wants into the big time they have to prove they belong both on the field and financially and they aren't doing either. Nice story but its up to them to prove they belong not up to the other schools to welcome them in with open arms and checkbooks.
     
  27. ScottyBuff

    ScottyBuff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,619
    Likes Received:
    91
    Revenue sharing for "non-BCS" programs is one thing, allowing teams that have proven to voters and computers that they belong in the conversation for the top bowl games a shot to play for the title is another.

    Gee was making a statement that Boise and TCU didn't belong in the big bowls. Even if they "crash the BCS" neither of those schools will earn a full paycheck (AQ conferences get $20-22 million, while a non-AQ participant gets only $9.5 million, and a second non-AQ gets only $4.5 million), so the argument that they are "cashing in" at the same level is not true, and not what Gee was commenting on.

    The athletes that play the games just want a shot at proving themselves. That is a separate argument from the schools saying that they want a bigger piece of the revenue pie.
     
  28. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,477
    Likes Received:
    2,366
    I don't have an issue with them getting a shot at major bowls. I do consider it a complete farce that Boise is even in the discussion regrding the title game. Two or three decent opponents and a bunch of schools that are closer to FCS than they are to major conference level doesn't qualify you for a shot at the trophy.

    The athletes should and will always believe they deserve a shot. That is part of being a winner. At the same time the idea of college football is that it is decided over the season and if that is the case then the quality of the competition over the whole season matters a lot. I have laid out how Boise can prove they belong and yes money is a part of it. Instead of playing Toledo and Wyoming they could have played somebody decent in those weeks. Yes it would have been hard and yes it would have cost them money but it would have also proven that they can sustain winning on a week to week basis against real competition. Instead they prefer to blow out teams that are jokes and cry that they are unfairly treated.

    Meantime you have a Stanford team that only lost to Oregon, an Okie state team that only lost to Nebraska, Wisconsin, Ohio State and Michigan State who all lost in conference, and LSU who lost to Auburn looking at being on the outside while a team that had to "fight its way through the mighty WAC" goes to the championship game if Auburn or Oregon lose a game. This my friends is a disgusting joke.
     
  29. ScottyBuff

    ScottyBuff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,619
    Likes Received:
    91
    Oh I understand about the quality of competition not being equal (or even close), but that doesn't mean that this particular TCU or Boise State isn't better than any other team in the nation this season. That's the unknown, and all the more reason to look forward to a bowl game matchup with those schools against top-tier teams.

    I think the NCAA should require more of Division I-FCS schools in football. Idaho, Utah State, San Jose State, New Mexico State, and a host of other programs are NOT anywhere near the level necessary to be in that class. However, Boise State and TCU certainly are, so how can there be a system that recognizes the top teams when not everyone plays everyone?

    It's a tough argument for sure, but everyone knew the rules going into the season, the "BCS schools" and "non-BCS" schools know that the voters and computers will evaluate their performances and arrive at the bowl participants, not the size of their budgets or TV ratings or other factors. Gee is the 800 lb gorilla picking a fight with the 160 pound weakling, it just looks bad on his part IMO.
     

Share This Page