Congressman proposes killing BCS

I'm not going to get in a snit because some congressmen decided to stick their nose into the BCS business.

None of you know what kind of trouble they'd be getting into if they WEREN'T pushing this. And them staying out of college sports would be absolutely no guarantee that they would know what they SHOULD be working on.

 

If they know so much about sports, why not spend some time creating new jobs for the many of us who got laid off in the latest round of corporate greed/budget cuts.

 

As long as it's not another darn under-achieving wide receiver.

 

If I thought Congress wouldn't ultimately screw it up I would support this measure.

Moreover, I've often wondered if the non-BCS schools had some sort of anti-trust grounds since they have no chance at a national title and the BCS schools are hording most of the BCS money. It might be a stretch but it only takes one judge.

 

Sorry....

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/players/115848

 

I always found it interesting that NCAA Division I presidents say they don't want a playoff because it would interfere with their players' classes, while every other form of collegiate football, from NCAA Divsion I-AA (or whatever it's called now) to Division III to NAIA have no problem running playoffs.

 

My biggest problem remains that the Troys, Boise States and Louisiana-Monroes of the world have no opportunity to reach their pinnacle -- a championship. And I don't mean a Sun Belt championship.

If you're Loras College, you have a route to a national title.

If you're Cheyney University, you have a route to a national title.

If you're Central Arkansas, you have a route to a national title.

If you're Syracuse, you have a route to a national title.

If you're Utah, no such route exists.

That's wrong.

 

Syracuse has a route to the national title of worst major program in the country? Or do you mean something like lacrosse. Of course John Hopkins rules college lacrosse.
And just because, Central Arkansas is moving up to I-AA and won't be eligible for the playoff until 2010, so they have no route to the national title of anything in an sport.

 

Syracuse has a route to the national title. You don't have to make value judgments in this argument, Jay.

And just because, Bucknell. So there.

 

Syracuse and Utah have the same route to a national title -- get in the top two of the BCS, then win the BCS title game. If you want to make the case that Syracuse has an easier route to a BCS bowl, that's different. But everyone has the same opportunity to top the BCS ratings)

 

Hmmm. I never looked at it that way.

Still haven't. Not when an unbeaten team doesn't get close to the top two of the BCS rankings.

(Incidentally, if anyone thinks an unbeaten team could get shut out of the FCS playoffs, please pipe up. I freely admit that I don't know the FCS as well as some.)