|
|
Post by mattahawk on Mar 31, 2009 7:14:01 GMT -6
in College Football. This should get really interesting. I guess they have already held hearing on Capitol Hill and a Republican senator, Orrin Hatch, is really pissed off about this after Utah got screwed in the National Championship game in January. Obama said, get the top 8 teams together and do it.
I am personally all for it. The only reason they do the BCS bowl is because it makes them tons of money. IMO it has nothing to do with finding a real NC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Mar 31, 2009 8:48:49 GMT -6
I'm all for playoffs, but I"m not all for the government getting involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Mar 31, 2009 11:07:07 GMT -6
I'm all for playoffs, but I"m not all for the government getting involved. +1 |
|
|
|
Post by Stukat on Mar 31, 2009 11:40:44 GMT -6
The goverment gives me a raging Clue! Ive got a huge clue right now, Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Mar 31, 2009 11:52:12 GMT -6
Agreed on the govt' interference. Unfortunately, the greedy bastards in charge of the BCS don't want a playoff and have no intentions of installing one so it may take govt' interference to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Mar 31, 2009 12:30:51 GMT -6
Agreed on the govt' interference. Unfortunately, the greedy bastards in charge of the BCS don't want a playoff and have no intentions of installing one so it may take govt' interference to do it. +1 for Matta |
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 31, 2009 12:40:12 GMT -6
FU Congress (especially whiny bitch Orrin Hatch).
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 31, 2009 12:59:32 GMT -6
I'm kind of enjoying old Chuck Grassley's recent bizarreness.
On the football issue, I think there's an antitrust argument to be made against the BCS. I don't care if it takes some government prodding, let's have a fucking playoff already. How can you have a competitive ball sport without a fucking legitimate championship!?
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 31, 2009 13:28:53 GMT -6
deseretnews.com/article/705294196/Hatch-labels-BCS-system-elitism-at-its-core.htmlThis shit is a fucking joke. His state can easily go off and form its own fucking system if they are so god damned good. The whole system is built around the fact that schools like Iowa, Auburn, Alabama, FSU, Illinois, MSU, OSU, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Nebraska, PSU, USC, UCLA, Oregon, ASU, Arizona, Washington, etc. are the ones that people want to watch. No one wants to watch fucking Utah, Boise State, TCU, BYU and whatever other bumblefuck schools are in their conference. If people did want to watch them, they would be on TV and the schools would be able to get a real TV contract with ABC, CBS or NBC or form their own network, like the Big Ten did. If Utah played Iowa State's schedule, or Notre Dame's schedule, or Oregon's schedule and walk through it 12-0, I would say they deserve to be in the national title game, no doubt. As it is, they WERE invited to a BCS game and made a shitload of money for their conference. They are not shut out, they have just as good of a chance of making national title game as Iowa. All they need to do is roll into Madison, Columbus, Happy Valley and East Lansing and play Michigan, Minnesota, NU and Indiana at home and play Arizona and an instate rival and a few cupcake games. You take that schedule and go 12-0 and there is 95% plus chance you will make the national title game. Now sure, the problem will be that Michigan or Minnesota would NEVER take a home and home against Utah because their stadium is some little shitbag high school field that is more like Jack Trice or where ever the fuck NU plays than a legit mid livel stadium like Kinnick, Camp Randall or Memorial Stadium. But that means they just need to expand the stadium to hold at least 65k and then get on TV and stuff. The system does not exclude any D-1 team from winning the title. It merely requires that your team plays good competition (which requires a first rate stadium so you can bring in good opponents for a home and home) and win at least 11 or 12 games against good teams so the voters put you into the top 2 at the end of the season. Hatch is just trying to piggyback his shitbag little bible thumping state off the status of the top 50 revenue generating programs in college football without incurring the same level of expense that we pay to be Hawks fans or that racerhawk pays to be a Badgers fan. To call the system anti-competitive is a joke. His argument is tantamount to taking the NY/NJ XFL team and saying that it should have a shot at the Super Bowl champion to decide the real football champion because the XFL deserves a seat at the big kids' table because they play football, too. It is also tantamount to the commish of the WNBA demanding that the Chicago Sky play the Boston Celtics after the NBA Finals to determine the real "champion". If Hatch really wants to go after possible antitrust violations in college sports, he should start by going after the god damned illegal tying schemes that all the schools engage in to sell tickets. Wanna buy Illinois-Iowa basketball tickets in IC? Gotta buy a 4 pack. Wanna watch the Iowa-ISU or Nebraska-ISU games in Ames? Gotta buy season tickets. Wanna watch Iowa-Minnesota in Kinnick North? Gotta buy the North Dakota State tickets too. That shit is the real fucking scam in college sports, not the fucking BCS, which doesn't even economically disadvantage consumers.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 31, 2009 13:35:42 GMT -6
Oh yeah, anyone remember October of last year when it looked like PSU would go undefeated and all the talking heads were certain they would not get in to the national title game? That's what happens when the media thinks your conference sucks. You still get to play in the BCS if you have a really good record, but not the title game.
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyescott on Mar 31, 2009 13:56:03 GMT -6
I wish these fuckers would spend as much time trying to run our country as they do by getting involved with college football and major league baseball.
We got bigger fucking problems for these dipshits to work on then a fucking college football playoff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Mar 31, 2009 14:40:52 GMT -6
I wish these fuckers would spend as much time trying to run our country as they do by getting involved with college football and major league baseball. We got bigger fucking problems for these dipshits to work on then a fucking college football playoff. Why? It ain't their problem. It's your problem. It's my problem. It's our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. that will be paying for the enormous problems that our current elected officials are leading us in to. |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Mar 31, 2009 15:43:40 GMT -6
"The system does not exclude any D-1 team from winning the title."
BTR - This statement is completely and utterly false. You can rationalize it a million different ways with resource arguments and the like, but the fact remains that smaller conferences are excluded from winning the national title in Football.
You can't put every school in a "major" conference, there just isn't room. Resources are not unlimited in college athletics; therefore, you have inherent inequity in the system. Ball State can not pump the same resources into its Football program/stadium as Michigan can, that is a fact. Should the student-athletes of Ball State not be allowed to compete for the same championship as Michigan? The NCAA has classified them both as Division 1 FBS schools, so they should have the same fighting chance at playing for a title.
The BCS is collusion. Go back and re-read the Georgia/Oklahoma Supreme Court Case circa 1982.........if someone takes the time the BCS could be heading down that same road.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Mar 31, 2009 15:52:24 GMT -6
I remember one of the last times Government got involved with college sports. Now the woman's lacrosse team gets a cut from the football team proceeds. How lame is that?
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 31, 2009 17:16:34 GMT -6
"The system does not exclude any D-1 team from winning the title." BTR - This statement is completely and utterly false. You can rationalize it a million different ways with resource arguments and the like, but the fact remains that smaller conferences are excluded from winning the national title in Football. You can't put every school in a "major" conference, there just isn't room. Resources are not unlimited in college athletics; therefore, you have inherent inequity in the system. Ball State can not pump the same resources into its Football program/stadium as Michigan can, that is a fact. Should the student-athletes of Ball State not be allowed to compete for the same championship as Michigan? The NCAA has classified them both as Division 1 FBS schools, so they should have the same fighting chance at playing for a title. The BCS is collusion. Go back and re-read the Georgia/Oklahoma Supreme Court Case circa 1982.........if someone takes the time the BCS could be heading down that same road. Please provide a legal analysis of why the case you cited above is precedent governing this. I'm familiar with the case, but it's been years since I took antitrust. If I'm not mistaken, it was over TV access back in the days of 3 national TV stations and wholly inapplicable other than setting the rule of reason standard for actions the NCAA takes. The quote is true. Notice I don't say they have an equal chance, there is no way that the teams will ever have an equal chance (even with a playoff), I merely say they have a chance. If your conference is holding you back, leave it. You have two choices, join another or become an independent. Penn State and Miami survived for years as independents. Notre Dame is thriving. Hell, if anything the BCS has helped shitbag conferences and independents. Prior to the BCS, Utah wouldn't have had a chance in hell of playing in a bowl with a payout in excess of $10 million, after the BCS, they have played in 2 of them. Pretty fucking hard to prove harm when Boise State and Utah have gotten to play in some big time bowl games. The reason every team has a chance is because every team has the opportunity to convince the voters and computers that they are the best team in the country. You do so by playing top tier talent and winning, sometimes in convincing fashion. I'm not going to lie, if there are three undefeated teams, Iowa, OSU and USC at the end of a season, there is a 99.99999999% chance that Iowa will NOT play in the national title game, regardless of how well we looked during the season. It's unfortunate, but by no means is it because of a violation of the Sherman Act. Replace Iowa with Utah and you get the same result. Hell, PSU would not have made the title game even if they had gone undefeated last year. If Murray had missed that field goal, should Utah and PSU played for the national title just because they both happened to be undefeated? No fucking way. It is because Iowa is a small market team that will be unlikely to woo voters in crunch time. Same shit happened to Auburn a few years ago. That's life. The polls are a popularity contest as much as a measure of who is good. Less popular schools have a chance, but it is a lesser chance than the big powerhouses. It will always be that way, even with an 8 team playoff. Who will they put in as the 8th team when there is a tough line drawn between 8th and 9th - Iowa/Wisky/MSU/Missori/Kansas/South Carolina level programs or LSU/Alabama/Florida/Michigan/OSU/PSU/Texas/Oklahoma level programs? Do you understand the "free rider" concept? It's where one firm takes advantage of a service offered by someone else without paying for it. Hatch is merely trying to turn Utah into more of a free rider. Utah, Ball State or whoever else you want to bring up simply contribute less to the system than the BCS teams, hence it is understandable as a policy matter that they would have less of a chance of getting in to the title game than Florida. Same goes for Iowa, Iowa State, Northwestern, etc. Utah gets a substantial benefit due to the existence of the BCS and it has not had to make one additional penny in outlays to get that benefit. It has a shitbag stadium, no national fanbase and is unwilling to take the actions necessary to attract very top level teams out to its shitbag stadium. I hope to shit that other than ISU and NU, Iowa never has to go to a 45k seat stadium. It does not make financial sense to let our $90 million investment in Kinnick sit idle while we play in another HS stadium. The gist of Hatch's argument is that he wants Utah to win a national title, but he doesn't want Utah to spend the money to play with the big boys. Does anyone here really think Utah would stand a chance against Florida, Texas and USC in a three week playoff? If anything, Hatch should want to keep it as is and pray to God they get into the one team National Title game and hope they catch lightning in a bottle some night. After all this ranting, I really want a playoff, but it is an egregious error for these mouthbreathers in DC to give two shits about this thing with double digit unemployment and the capital markets as fucked as they are. |
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on Mar 31, 2009 22:45:17 GMT -6
DC needs to stay out of college football. I for one like the current system. A lot of schools get the opportunity to play, there is consideration for popularity and strength of schedule. There is debate and talking points. And there is always the debate no matter who wins the national title. Best of all, a team has a chance at being the cinderella story. In a play off that would never happen as getting in to the play offs would still be subjective. Last year there were several teams that arguably got excluded from the BCS.
I don't give a crap about a national title. It woud be nice, but to me college football is all about the atmosphere and camradery.
|
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Apr 1, 2009 7:38:54 GMT -6
I remember one of the last times Government got involved with college sports. Now the woman's lacrosse team gets a cut from the football team proceeds. How lame is that? You are correct. Your daughters don't deserve the right to participate in athletics as men do. |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Apr 1, 2009 7:42:11 GMT -6
"The system does not exclude any D-1 team from winning the title." BTR - This statement is completely and utterly false. You can rationalize it a million different ways with resource arguments and the like, but the fact remains that smaller conferences are excluded from winning the national title in Football. You can't put every school in a "major" conference, there just isn't room. Resources are not unlimited in college athletics; therefore, you have inherent inequity in the system. Ball State can not pump the same resources into its Football program/stadium as Michigan can, that is a fact. Should the student-athletes of Ball State not be allowed to compete for the same championship as Michigan? The NCAA has classified them both as Division 1 FBS schools, so they should have the same fighting chance at playing for a title. The BCS is collusion. Go back and re-read the Georgia/Oklahoma Supreme Court Case circa 1982.........if someone takes the time the BCS could be heading down that same road. Please provide a legal analysis of why the case you cited above is precedent governing this. I'm familiar with the case, but it's been years bince I took antitrust. If I'm not mistaken, it was over TV access back in the days of 3 national TV stations and wholly inapplicable other than setting the rule of reason standard for actions the NCAA takes. The quote is true. Notice I don't say they have an equal chance, there is no way that the teams will ever have an equal chance (even with a playoff), I merely say they have a chance. If your conference is holding you back, leave it. You have two choices, join another or become an independent. Penn State and Miami survived for years as independents. Notre Dame is thriving. Hell, if anything the BCS has helped shitbag conferences and independents. Prior to the BCS, Utah wouldn't have had a chance in hell of playing in a bowl with a payout in excess of $10 million, after the BCS, they have played in 2 of them. Pretty fucking hard to prove harm when Boise State and Utah have gotten to play in some big time bowl games. The reason every team has a chance is because every team has the opportunity to convince the voters and computers that they are the best team in the country. You do so by playing top tier talent and winning, sometimes in convincing fashion. I'm not going to lie, if there are three undefeated teams, Iowa, OSU and USC at the end of a season, there is a 99.99999999% chance that Iowa will NOT play in the national title game, regardless of how well we looked during the season. It's unfortunate, but by no means is it because of a violation of the Sherman Act. Replace Iowa with Utah and you get the same result. Hell, PSU would not have made the title game even if they had gone undefeated last year. If Murray had missed that field goal, should Utah and PSU played for the national title just because they both happened to be undefeated? No fucking way. It is because Iowa is a small market team that will be unlikely to woo voters in crunch time. Same shit happened to Auburn a few years ago. That's life. The polls are a popularity contest as much as a measure of who is good. Less popular schools have a chance, but it is a lesser chance than the big powerhouses. It will always be that way, even with an 8 team playoff. Who will they put in as the 8th team when there is a tough line drawn between 8th and 9th - Iowa/Wisky/MSU/Missori/Kansas/South Carolina level programs or LSU/Alabama/Florida/Michigan/OSU/PSU/Texas/Oklahoma level programs? Do you understand the "free rider" concept? It's where one firm takes advantage of a service offered by someone else without paying for it. Hatch is merely trying to turn Utah into more of a free rider. Utah, Ball State or whoever else you want to bring up simply contribute less to the system than the BCS teams, hence it is understandable as a policy matter that they would have less of a chance of getting in to the title game than Florida. Same goes for Iowa, Iowa State, Northwestern, etc. Utah gets a substantial benefit due to the existence of the BCS and it has not had to make one additional penny in outlays to get that benefit. It has a shitbag stadium, no national fanbase and is unwilling to take the actions necessary to attract very top level teams out to its shitbag stadium. I hope to shit that other than ISU and NU, Iowa never has to go to a 45k seat stadium. It does not make financial sense to let our $90 million investment in Kinnick sit idle while we play in another HS stadium. The gist of Hatch's argument is that he wants Utah to win a national title, but he doesn't want Utah to spend the money to play with the big boys. Does anyone here really think Utah would stand a chance against Florida, Texas and USC in a three week playoff? If anything, Hatch should want to keep it as is and pray to God they get into the one team National Title game and hope they catch lightning in a bottle some night. After all this ranting, I really want a playoff, but it is an egregious error for these mouthbreathers in DC to give two shits about this thing with double digit unemployment and the capital markets as fucked as they are. After your long-winded argument you want a playoff in college football, but don't want anyone to do anything about getting a playoff in college football. That is your stance? |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 1, 2009 7:59:43 GMT -6
After your long-winded argument you want a playoff in college football, but don't want anyone to do anything about getting a playoff in college football. That is your stance? I'd like the BCS to change its system if it realizes that it can do so in its best interest. I just don't want someone from the legislative or executive branch worrying about shit like football playoffs. If someone files suit and a final, nonappealable judicial order determines that the BCS is a violation of the Sherman or Clayton Act, then craft a remedy through an injunction. The court system is where any government remedy should come from, not Orrin Hatch. The BCS system as it stands today is a thousand times better than the old non-BCS system for ensuring a 1 versus 2 matchup at the end of the season and distributing money equitably amongst the big conferences and the smaller conferences that have a really good team. Of course, there is always going to be pissing and moaning about who's number 1 or 2, but it is a much better arbiter than the old system which precluded Michigan and Nebraska from playing in 1997. |
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Apr 1, 2009 9:44:56 GMT -6
After your long-winded argument you want a playoff in college football, but don't want anyone to do anything about getting a playoff in college football. That is your stance? I'd like the BCS to change its system if it realizes that it can do so in its best interest. I just don't want someone from the legislative or executive branch worrying about shit like football playoffs. If someone files suit and a final, nonappealable judicial order determines that the BCS is a violation of the Sherman or Clayton Act, then craft a remedy through an injunction. The court system is where any government remedy should come from, not Orrin Hatch. The BCS system as it stands today is a thousand times better than the old non-BCS system for ensuring a 1 versus 2 matchup at the end of the season and distributing money equitably amongst the big conferences and the smaller conferences that have a really good team. Of course, there is always going to be pissing and moaning about who's number 1 or 2, but it is a much better arbiter than the old system which precluded Michigan and Nebraska from playing in 1997. [/b] Tell Utah that. The system is designed around the big markets, I think, and if you aren't in one then you can forget about ever playing for a NC. Florida may have been better than Utah last year but they lost. At home. That right there should preclude them from being involved in the NC. |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Apr 1, 2009 15:01:23 GMT -6
I'd like the BCS to change its system if it realizes that it can do so in its best interest. I just don't want someone from the legislative or executive branch worrying about shit like football playoffs. If someone files suit and a final, nonappealable judicial order determines that the BCS is a violation of the Sherman or Clayton Act, then craft a remedy through an injunction. The court system is where any government remedy should come from, not Orrin Hatch. The BCS system as it stands today is a thousand times better than the old non-BCS system for ensuring a 1 versus 2 matchup at the end of the season and distributing money equitably amongst the big conferences and the smaller conferences that have a really good team. Of course, there is always going to be pissing and moaning about who's number 1 or 2, but it is a much better arbiter than the old system which precluded Michigan and Nebraska from playing in 1997. [/b] Tell Utah that. The system is designed around the big markets, I think, and if you aren't in one then you can forget about ever playing for a NC. Florida may have been better than Utah last year but they lost. At home. That right there should preclude them from being involved in the NC. [/quote] 1. It has nothing to do with so-called "big markets". This doesn't even make sense. Ever been to Norman, Oklahoma? Tallahassee, Florida? Gainesville, Florida? South Bend, Indiana? None of these are big markets. Yeah, they're big schools with big fanbases, but it's not their fault kids don't want to play in some crappy little 45,000 person stadium. 2. Anybody can play for a NC. You just have to put together a good enough team to go undefeated against a decent schedule. The fact that I will likely never see Illinois, Iowa or Utah play for a national title doesn't mean they can't. It's just that the good players would rather play in Gaineville, Columbus or South Central LA. 3. Schools like Utah shouldn't be able to backdoor their way into the national title game. Illinois can't play some limpdick schedule and expect to play for the title, why should Utah? For frame of reference, I think last year's Iowa team would have gone undefeated against Utah's schedule. Heck, last year's Illinois team probably would have. 4. As far as Florida losing goes, I don't want the national title race to be a competition between whatever 2 crappy little schools can run undefeated through their shit-bag conferences. You might want to see Utah play Boise State for the title, but I don't. If nothing else, you need appreciate how terrible the incentives are for that kind of system (Utah doesn't play anybody in their non-con now - imagine what they would do if the sole goal was to be undefeated). |
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Apr 1, 2009 21:07:42 GMT -6
I should not have specifically said big markets but big conferences. Utah beat up on a pretty good Alabama team and I think they could have won the NC game.
If Iowa, OSU and Texas finish undefeated they are going to find a way to screw Iowa and get OSU and their millions of fans and the 8 or 10 million tv's in Ohio into the NC game you can bet on it. I disagree 100% that "anybody" can play in the NC game.
How is Utah backdooring their way into the NC game if they win all of their games in deciding fashion? All they can expect you to do is schedule the best teams you can and win them. They did that.
I don't know about Utah/Boise St in the NC game but I do want the two best teams. Utah got hosed.
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Apr 2, 2009 8:57:51 GMT -6
Unless the Pac Ten or Big 12 is willing to admit Utah into their conference, or Boise State for that matter, those schools have zero control over the strength of their schedule once the non-conference portion is over. It's like the mid-majors in basketball, who are penalized for strength of schedule because the BCS conference schools refuse to play them in a home and home or even two-home, one away series. It's bullshit and it's collusion, and it's all about money. The mid majors/non BCS should fucking sue. They may or may not win, but they have a legitimate gripe, and they are losing out on a lot of cash due to the BCSOPEC bastards.
Really, is there any reason aside from big-school pussyness why Iowa State and Iowa don't play Creighton every year? Shit, Creighton averages about 17,000 fans per game. Iowa and Iowa State don't average that for two or three games combined. I'm sick of Iowa playing fucking Stephen Fuck Austin. Play Creighton and Bradley and Butler you fucking pussies.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 2, 2009 12:18:54 GMT -6
It's bullshit and it's collusion, and it's all about money. The mid majors/non BCS should fucking sue. They may or may not win, but they have a legitimate gripe, and they are losing out on a lot of cash due to the BCSOPEC bastards. You have zero evidence there is collusion amongst schools to dodge Utah in nonconference play. Schools won't do it because it does not make economic sense for any individual reputable program (I think they were able to schedule ISU for a home and home in the next few years). If Barta scheduled a home and home where we were expected to play in Utah's 45,000 seat shitbag stadium while our shiny stadium that we just dropped $90 million to renovate sits idle, I would be livid. I'm already livid we fucking go to Ames every other year. Our program is popular and we pay god damned good money to support it. It would be a gross misallocation of resources to send the team to play in another high school stadium with a small gate. Look at where we have played our home and home series in the past few years - Soldier Field, Heinz Field and Sun Devil Stadium, Cornfucker Stadium, not to mention our fairly recent game in Arrowhead. I'm sure if Utah was willing to play in a big stadium for their portion of the homestand, we would gladly play them, just not in some shitbag 45k seat stadium. This whole argument boils down to the old liberal fascist "we deserve equality of results even if we don't invest the same amount on the front end." It's fucking bullshit. The shitbag conferences are made better off with the existence of the BCS, they get a shot at the pot of gold of being in a BCS game. Teams like Hawaii, Boise State and Utah should be god damned thankful they get to sit at the table with the big boys and aren't relegated to playing the number 6 or number 7 Big Ten or Big Twelve team in the fucking Holiday Bowl every year with a payout that barely covers travel expenses. The Big Ten's aggregate bowl payout is ballpark $35-$40 million range. You know why? Because Iowa, MSU, Michigan, Illinois, OSU, PSU and Wisconsin fans will all travel 1,000 miles and drop a few grand to watch their respective teams. The games get good draws on television and get the prime spots on New Year's Day. It is not collusion, it is simply that Big Ten fans support their teams by watching games and going to games. Now if you want to continue debating this, I posit this question for my fellow wastelanders: Who here would want to go to a "dry" tailgater? I sure as shit wouldn't, but according to LeonBT (whose wife works out there) Utah and their religio-con-nutjobs don't let you fucking drink beer in the parking lot before games. Here's a fucking Utah tailgate with Wastelanders: BTR - Hello Ron, how are you? Ron - I am good. Seth - I am also good. Marla - I am good, too. Would anyone like to have a caffeine free diet Mountain Dew? Seth - Oh honey, you are getting crazy. Marla - I know. Itheus - I'll take one. MoHawk - I would like one as well. Racerhawk - Would you guys like to read some scripture while we wait for the game to start? SoCal - That sounds great. 45k seat stadium. A dry campus. Restrictive alcohol laws. God, I can't figure out why the hell Utah can't get any legitimate opponents to go in there to play them. It must be collusion, it has nothing to do with the fact that Utah is in bumblefuck country, has a shitty stadium and has tailgating that makes Iowa State-Kent State game look like fucking Mardi Gras. |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Apr 2, 2009 14:05:40 GMT -6
I do agree that the courts are a better course of action for the non-BCS schools than the legislature to try and get a remedy.
BTR, you anti-collusion statements are only focusing on one reason why BCS schools refuse to schedule solid mid-major programs. There are other factors besides playing in "shitty gyms"......although your assumption that mid-major schools have shitty facilities is off base as you would be surprised at some of the facilities of smaller programs.
The system is set up so BCS schools won't schedule good mid-majors in the non-conference because their is too much risk. If the BCS team loses in college football, the system can make it that a BCS team's season is basically over after a loss to a "mid-major" or smaller conference.
From a fan's standpoint, would you rather see Iowa play FIU and Maine in the non-conference or someone like Colorado State, San Diego State, Georgia Tech, etc?
|
|
