LA Times: Love it or hate it, BCS has lifted all of college football

[TopFrog]

LA Times: Love it or hate it, BCS has lifted all of college football

By BILL PLASCHKE - Los Angeles Times

Three words you thought you'd never hear will be shouted across the nation Monday night, wrinkling noses, raising eyebrows, rising from the depths of two college football teams that are in exactly the right place at precisely the right time.

The BCS works.

That's right. You heard me. You will hear them. You will be hearing them all night long.

The maligned college football championship system that has spawned hatred from beer-stained parking lots to the White House has never worked better. The butt of jokes from Boise to Leno has never made more sense.

In its 13th year, the Bowl Championship Series is no silly teen. It has slowly become a sensible young adult with passion and perspective. Invented to solve college football's problems at the top, the BCS has instead changed the sport from the bottom, raising all 120 major college teams to the height of the American sports conscience. ...

 

[neo926]

It will be the 10th time in 13 years that the Associated Press' top two teams have met in the BCS championship game. In the 56 years before the BCS, the nation's top two teams met in a bowl game eight times. Even in the vaunted NCAA basketball tournament, No. 1-seeded teams have met in the finals six times in 31 years of seeding.

Impressive, Plaschke not only defends the BCS but somehow manages to imply it's superior to the NCAA tourney in a way.

 

[macaroni]

The BCS works.

That's right. You heard me.

He could do a whole series of these articles: slavery works, drug cartels work, the Third Reich worked...

 

[gohornedfrogs]

He could do a whole series of these articles: slavery works, drug cartels work, the Third Reich worked...

I'd like to see his article about how well the North Korean nuclear missile program works.

 

[macaroni]

I'd like to see his article about how well the North Korean nuclear missile program works.

Hey, you can't argue with results, man.

 

[froghair]

Commissioner Delaney, is that you?

 

[Delmonico]

Three words you thought you'd never hear will be shouted across the nation Monday night, wrinkling noses, raising eyebrows, rising from the depths of two college football teams that are in exactly the right place at precisely the right time.

The BCS works.

He's wrong about that, too.

We hear those words every year. From the same people. Right around this time.

 

[BrewingFrog]

I wonder if his new forehead tattoo is itching. You know, the one that reads "Briles!"

 

[denverfrog]

I would argue that the BCS has had some positive effects. It has limited one conference's ability to dominate the post season. It has gotten roughly the best teams into the top tiered bowls and lessened the stranglehold of the self appointed few to some extent.

Is it totally fair? no. Is it still heavily slanted financially towards the fair-haired few, yes.

Does it create the best fan interest match ups- absolutely not.

Does it put the best 2 teams into the championship game- absolutely not. Of course, that is mostly because you usually cannot cull 2 teams out of the herd and have those 2 teams clearly be the "best" of college football. Its nearly impossible in most years and this year is no different. I would argue that not only could TCU be a better team than both Auburn or Oregon, but, Wisconsin could be as well.

I would argue that the structure of the BCS "Championship" has done nothing to increase interest in college football overall, the increased visability and the actual product has done that.

In the end, tonight's game is nothing more than a beauty pagent and only significant if you believe those two teams are the best two teams in the country. I do not, so I won't be watching.

 

[AustFrog]

A lot of his points are fairly argued. But where he, Delaney and the rest of the kool-aid drinkers err is that they refuse to compare the BCS system to other alternatives, namely a 16 team playoff plus additional bowl games for teams that don't make the playoff. Compared to the past, yes, I agree the BCS is better. But compared to what could be, the BCS fails miserably.

 

[gohornedfrogs]

I would argue that the BCS has had some positive effects. It has limited one conference's ability to dominate the post season. It has gotten roughly the best teams into the top tiered bowls and lessened the stranglehold of the self appointed few to some extent.

Not sure I'd go that far...the SEC and Big 12 each have 7 appearances in the NCG. All other AQ's have three.


As for total BCS bowl appearances, among the AQ's the Big 10 has the most at 23, with the ACC and Big East being at the low end with 13 each. To me, that's a pretty big disparity.

 

[bronco]

As much as I hate to admit it it is ESPN that has elevated college football to where it is today. Before ESPN college football was regional, now every Saturday we can chose from two or three games from just about every conference. Plus we have Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday night college football. None of which has anything to do with the BCS.

What the BCS has done is strengthened the class system (it has always existed but now there is a bitter divide)and given us a clash of #1 v #2 but not with out controversey.

 

[denverfrog]

I think a big issue with getting a playoff is the coaches are against it. I think that as much as we hear the BS rhetoric against a playoff, guys like Delaney would sell their own mother to make a buck. Coaches realize that in the current system you get 30+ winners, that helps the job security.

 

[bronco]

I think a big issue with getting a playoff is the coaches are against it. I think that as much as we hear the BS rhetoric against a playoff, guys like Delaney would sell their own mother to make a buck. Coaches realize that in the current system you get 30+ winners, that helps the job security.

I have heard that arguement a bunch but the basketball tourney turns out a bunch of winners as well. You hear this all the time "we made the NCAA's last year", "we made it to the sweet 16", we were a final four team". Maybe they didn't win it all but the fans still have something to be happy about.

 

[Delmonico]

I think a big issue with getting a playoff is the coaches are against it. I think that as much as we hear the BS rhetoric against a playoff, guys like Delaney would sell their own mother to make a buck. Coaches realize that in the current system you get 30+ winners, that helps the job security.

The coaches aren't the problem. And there are plenty of coaches for a playoff (most notably JoePa). The school presidents are, along with the conference commissioners.


And even Delany has admitted - to Congress - that by not having a playoff they are leaving a lot of money on the table. This is about who gets the money, and who controls the purse strings.

 

[Duquesne Frog]

And even Delany has admitted - to Congress - that by not having a playoff they are leaving a lot of money on the table. This is about who gets the money, and who controls the purse strings.

And in that regard, that being the TRUE purpose of the BCS, the BCS has been imminently successful.

 

[Houston Frog]

He could do a whole series of these articles: slavery works, drug cartels work, the Third Reich worked...

Yeah, I'm not so sure the pyramids get built if those pharoahs have to fork over minimum-wage to the workers

 

[HoustonHornedFrog]

It will be the 10th time in 13 years that the Associated Press' top two teams have met in the BCS championship game. In the 56 years before the BCS, the nation's top two teams met in a bowl game eight times. Even in the vaunted NCAA basketball tournament, No. 1-seeded teams have met in the finals six times in 31 years of seeding.

Impressive, Plaschke not only defends the BCS but somehow manages to imply it's superior to the NCAA tourney in a way.

He doesn't seem to realize when he points out that No. 1 seeds have met only 6 times in 31 years of seeding, that this is really an arguement against the BCS 1 vs. 2 being a real championship game. If there were a system to truely pick who the best teams were then the 4 number one seeds would make it to the final four every year. They don't because there just isn't any way to do that. Comparing the BCS to the old bowl system and saying it is better is easy, but at least the old system didn't pretend to create a "championship" game. Trying to use this justification to defend the BCS against a true playoff is nonsense.

 

[macaroni]

Yeah, I'm not so sure the pyramids get built if those pharoahs have to fork over minimum-wage to the workers

Exactly. Slavery gets sheet done.


So perhaps the value of a particular institution should be judged by more considerations than whether somebody claims that it works.

 

[Cougar/Frog]

Bowl system is giant good-old-boy network designed to benefit those inside the system, disguised as non-profits. Those inside (the bowl execs and committees, the ADs, the college presidents, and even coaches) all receive direct personal benefits from the bowl system. A lot of folks gets bonus and pay raises out of bowl appearances. Bowl committees spend a lot of money in slush funds to keep greasing the system. Playoff PAC just got the IRS to investigate the Orange Bowl for giving 40 ADs and their wives Caribbean cruises, without even the attempt to hold at least one "business" meeting on the cruise.

The Wetzel plan is pure genius. The revenue from home games for the 1st three rounds would be obscene, providing a huge incentive to keep pushing to the end. The money is just so much better than the current system. And we would get a real champion....