NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:36 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:44 pm 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6728268/

The Associated Press has decided that their DIa college football poll will no longer be allowed to be used in the BCS rankings.

It's obvious that this move was made because some fat cats in a politcal office put pressure on the AP.


What will the BCS do? More computers?

What if the coaches poll pulls out too?



Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:14 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 9:41 pm
Posts: 749
Location: Wilmington, NC
im pleasantly surprised because i definately was not expecting this to cause the bcs implode. while not the best, the ap poll, along with the coach's poll, are what the college football public use as the standard to a team. if the ap poll is not apart of the bcs, the bcs looses even more legitimacy.

imo, the coaches poll is the foundation of the bcs formula, example: how they automatically name the winner of the bcs championship #1. without coaches poll participation, there could be no crystal trophy presentation at the end of the game. i hope this new turn of events causes a major change in how college football postseason is conducted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:17 am 
The BCS may decide to scrap the whole system for a "selection committee" that will simply decide who goes where.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:35 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
<<It's obvious that this move was made because some fat cats in a politcal office put pressure on the AP.>>

Why is this obvious?

What seems more logical is that the AP is doing 2 things:
1) telling the BCS to take a hike in its efforts to put off the first poll until October; and
2) trying to keep their credibility from taking a hit with controversial results.

The BCS, when it was first started, actually intended to use the AP and Coaches poll rather than their insane formula, but the AP said no, they didn't want to be the news and be the selectors. They felt like it was a conflict of interest and hurt their credibility. They've "obviously" gone back to that position.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:38 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
For a corrupt system, as Friar Fan was commenting in another thread---picking the top 2 by a committee certainly tops the cake. Nothing is more political than the NCAA basketball committee (except maybe the women's committee). They can't do too much harm as, other than silly seedings, the main thing they do is choose between #64 and #65, teams who really haven't earned a spot anyway. But when you are picking 2 out of 117, that is a different matter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:30 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540
Right on the money, Bullet! 8-) Big bucks are riding on this stuff & AP doesn't want to lend its good name to this sleazy system.

This was precisely my point on the thread about Cal not getting into the Rose Bowl. It's not about whether Cal should have gone to the Rose Bowl - arguments can be made both ways - it's about how the decision was made. You can't do what Mack Brown did in today's world & get away with it. It goes to the very integrity of the process.

Some people posted that Mack Brown isn't the first to do what he did. It's a new world, folks. Bill Clinton & Bob Packwood weren't the first to do what they did either, but they didn't get away with their shenanigans. You just can't get away with this stuff any more.

AP had the back bone to say to the BCS: "You may not have any integrity, but we do. We're not going to be your butt boy any more."

Now college football has a choice. Either a true national championship system or revert to the old system of a hodgepodge of meaningless bowl exhibition games. If they choose the latter, the outcry will break your ear drums & the clamor for a play-off will escalate out of control. IA college football is becoming a laughing stock to any objective observer. They now have a real opportunity. A crisis like this can provide the momentum necessary for change.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:25 am 
What do you mean "revert" to the old system of a hodgepodge of meaningless bowl exhibition games? I-A never really "advanced" beyond that, and, if anything the "objectivity" of the BCS "standings" exacerbated the situation because they shameless tried to pull wool over the eyes of the general public only to be exposed time and time again...


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:28 am 

Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: 12.216.234.87

GunnerFan
All-Star
*****
member is offline

[avatar]


ahazell@cityofgriffin.com [send pm]

Joined: May 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,232
Re: AP poll is out, BCS starting to crumble?
« Reply #8 on 12/22/2004 at 7:32am »
[Quote] [Modify] [Delete]



From what I understand the AP pulled out in large part because the coaches poll, the one which is obligated to award it's trophy to the BCS champion, is not an open-records voting system. Therefore, the AP was affiliated with the problems of the BCS without actually being a contributor to the cause of those problems. Frankly, I think it'd be nice to have the option for co-champs for discussion reasons and to de-emphasize the need to be "world champs," per se.

Folks in these parts are forseeing a battle between the NCAA and the power conferences. Should this kill the BCS, which it could if the BCS loses the ability to more clearly (note: not make perfectly clear) a national champion. The advertising luster is spoiled somewhat, as well as the need to switch bowl arrangements, if the AP is still going to award it's title to Team X.

Thus, will the NCAA have the muster to step up and offer/mandate an alternative? Possibly, though I suspect an outside source will inititate the process.

Will the power conferences buy in? Don't know. If, say, the Pac 10 and Big 10 say "we're happy with our Rose Bowl, thank you," and ABC backs them on that, then will that deflate the energy behind a post season alternative? It's quite possible they and the other BCS folks simply balk at the idea of a playoff just to keep the revenue they have flowing and stymie the ability of the other conferences to similarly cash in.

My gut says the big boys will take the money advantage versus the "need" for a consensus champion 9 days out of 10.

Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:01 am 

Quote:
From what I understand the AP pulled out in large part because the coaches poll, the one which is obligated to award it's trophy to the BCS champion, is not an open-records voting system. Therefore, the AP was affiliated with the problems of the BCS without actually being a contributor to the cause of those problems. Frankly, I think it'd be nice to have the option for co-champs for discussion reasons and to de-emphasize the need to be "world champs," per se.

Folks in these parts are forseeing a battle between the NCAA and the power conferences. Should this kill the BCS, which it could if the BCS loses the ability to more clearly (note: not make perfectly clear) a national champion. The advertising luster is spoiled somewhat, as well as the need to switch bowl arrangements, if the AP is still going to award it's title to Team X.

Thus, will the NCAA have the muster to step up and offer/mandate an alternative? Possibly, though I suspect an outside source will inititate the process.

Will the power conferences buy in? Don't know. If, say, the Pac 10 and Big 10 say "we're happy with our Rose Bowl, thank you," and ABC backs them on that, then will that deflate the energy behind a post season alternative? It's quite possible they and the other BCS folks simply balk at the idea of a playoff just to keep the revenue they have flowing and stymie the ability of the other conferences to similarly cash in.

My gut says the big boys will take the money advantage versus the "need" for a consensus champion 9 days out of 10.


Exactly.

Why should the big boys, who earn most of the money in the first place, just get it taken away from them and shared with all the little guys by the NCAA?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:11 am 
Well put, Gunner.

The BCS school presidents / BCS bowls / BCS conference offices will fight to maintain the status quo, even though it has lost all credibility, until they see a [financially] better system offered to them (and act on their own volition) OR until they have a different system shoved down their throat by legislation.

The latter option still sounds unrealistic, however, wasn't the creation of the NCAA mandated by the Federal Government during the Teddy Roosevelt administration to rescue football, via adoption of enforced rules ? If I am correct on this point, then there may be some legal precedent for legislative intervention, though that is far from reaching a critical mass at this point.

The NCAA just doesn't have the leverage in any way to take back control of Div I-A football... Miles Brand has his detractors, but he did stick his nose out with regard to Bobby Knight (while President of IU), and got involved with expanding the BCS to 10 teams with more mid-major representation last spring. In both cases, he was in a position to act with some power / leverage, and not be spitting into the wind.

For the NCAA to re-assert control, it would first need to assemble sufficient leverage (i.e. a proposal for a playoff system, with big bucks from TV all lined-up, but with the condition of abolition of the BCS framework, and acceptance of the NCAA as the sanctioning body for championship seeding, PLUS a bit of a legislative mandate [to act as a hammer in related negotiations]).

I don't think the NCAA in position to move yet, but that could change in the not-too-distant future. ABC and AP both have backed away from the BCS, and its credibility is kaput.

It would be helpful if college football fans boycotted the proceedings, until the system is fixed. It seems quite possible that TV viewers will start to reject (in terms of lower ratings) all but the #1-#2 match-up. That might compel the bowls to seek a system that makes each of the games more meaningful, which would inherently result in greater viewership and more TV revenue.

Nah........



Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:37 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Quote:
What do you mean "revert" to the old system of a hodgepodge of meaningless bowl exhibition games? I-A never really "advanced" beyond that, and, if anything the "objectivity" of the BCS "standings" exacerbated the situation because they shameless tried to pull wool over the eyes of the general public only to be exposed time and time again...


Well said, Mr Ouija. :) You're absolutely right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:43 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Quote:

Will the power conferences buy in? Don't know. If, say, the Pac 10 and Big 10 say "we're happy with our Rose Bowl, thank you," and ABC backs them on that, then will that deflate the energy behind a post season alternative?


Excellent points throughout, Gunner. I will just say that the NCAA doesn't need to have everyone on board. The Big Ten & Pac Ten weren't initially on board with a BCS type championship initially, but they inevitably had to go along. Once the NIT got started in the '30s, the conferences, which for the most part refused to participate, had to come up with their own basketball tournament. Although it took time, eventually there was a single national championship torunament. If enough BCS conferences see the potential for greater revenue in a play-off & it gets off the ground, the others will eventually joinin.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:06 pm 
Agreed, Friar, only the economic and functional scales of football differ slightly from basketball. AS you said the Big 10 and PAC 10 weren't thrilled with the BCS to begin with, Thus as it continues to get worse there's all the more reason for them to drop out, essentially signaling the need to help define a national champion isn't there. I also feel that if those two conferences took this route, they wouldn't be alone.

Does the NCAA need everyone on board? Nope, but the make up of who is on board impacts the viability of the effort. If the NCAA were to coordinate a playoff for 1-A without the current BCS conferences, it wouldn't pay as well, draw as much attention and eventually would be folded into 1-AA or something like that.

To achieve consensus it would take something that ensures the power conferences retain their current financial and social status above the other leagues. The basketball tournament with it's volumes of participants and pay-for-performance set up allows the cream to rise to the top and ultimately justify the power conference's willingness to provide equal opportunity and reward. An 8 team playoff in football wouldn't have that same edge unless there was BCS-like assurances for those power conferences. Even then, if the Big 10 were to earn slightly more money than at present even if they're only representative lost a first round playoff, the prospect the other conferences gaining so much ground in revenues and image might be cause alone not to pursue this prospect otherwise we'd have seen more options like this.

Bottom line, the BCS may come and go but I don't think there's enough energy to shake the status quo in how big time college football rewards revenue. And as a result, the post-season won't change too dramatically either.

Granted, I was wrong once last year, too!! ;)


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:30 pm 
I don't really think that the current BCS situation is analogous to the circumstances posed at the dawn of the 20th Century that prompted the creation of the organization that would come to be known as the NCAA...granted, TR was undertaking some well-fashioned political grandstanding (as he was apt to do), but I also believe that there were several highly-publicized instances of individuals dying as a result of injuries sustained on the playing field. Also note that this occurred amidst the backrdop of the "yellow journalism" of the Hearst press and the "Progressive" era and that the "amateurs" of the day were primarily from the elite social class...I'm not sure what political undertones could be invoked by Washington to intervene in the BCS situation (e.g. "antitrust?" "states' rights?")...granted California and Texas are much more heavily-populated than the "usual suspects" of proposed NCAA-related intervention (Alabama, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, etc., etc.)...


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:30 pm 
I believe your history is essentially correct, Mr. Ouija, regarding the creation of the NCAA. My alma mater was one that dropped football somewhere in the early 1900s due to [supposed] excessive violence in the game. I have no idea how rampant a problem this was, but incidents of deaths on the field were cited by various institutions as pushing the collegiate hierarchies to consider pulling the plug on football.

This clearly is NOT analogous to today's situation, however I mentioned it only as a precedent for legislative oversight.

Wasn't it this time last year when Scott Cowen of Tulane managed to have congressional hearings regarding exclusion of schools from non-BCS conferences, and various grand-standing politicians made some veiled threats against the BCS structure ?

The result was that the BCS was forced to sit up and take notice. Adding a bowl and a 9th and 10th team, starting next year, with greater access possible for I-A teams from non-BCS conferences.

Granted this was not a terribly significant format change (about as small a change as the BCS powers could get away with), but it did appear to be the result of succumbing to political pressure.






i






Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 

cron




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group