Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Why the BCS is more fair than a playoff

Now that I got your attention, OF COURSE the BCS is not as fair as a playoff would be!

But, to humor us all, I wanted to draw your attention to perhaps the worst pro-BCS argument I've ever read. It comes from a Penn State blog, and suggests if schools like Fresno State are unhappy with being discriminated against by the BCS they should just join the Pac-10.

Wow! Now that we know it's that simple, let's do it. Oh, wait, it's not that simple. Der!


  1. Trust me on this one...check our site tomorrow. You'll be more than pleased. I promise.

  2. Somehow out of the entire article, you manage to pull out the one argument that was meant to be sarcastic. Senator Hatch is putting on a dog and pony show as evidence by today's hearing where he was the only Senator in the hearings for most of the session. And in our time of economic crisis, I am appalled no one else has called him out on it. I admire your support for the Bulldogs, but the best Hatch can do is force the bowls to go back to their old tie-ins.

    Good luck getting into any BCS bowl games when that happens.

  3. Joining the Pac-10 was not the only tidbit I thought was absurd. I'm copy/pasting my comment on your blog below (it's long):

    This whole post is pretty absurd. But let's focus on this part of it:

    "So when teams like Boise State, Hawaii and Fresno State invests $26 million, $30 million and $26.6 million respectively on athletics, while Florida and Ohio State spends $89 million and $109 million, the uneven distribution of BCS prize money is an outrage?"

    Why do you think Florida and Ohio State are ABLE to spend $89 and $109 million on athletics? Don't you think getting the lion's share of BCS money has something to do with that? It seems like backward logic to ignore where that money is coming from.

    By that logic, why should schools like Mississippi State get a share of Florida's BCS money every year? Because someone decided they got to be in the really good conference even though everyone knows Fresno State or Utah or Boise State would beat Mississippi State 9 out of 10 times...

    Furthermore, you wrote:
    "If Utah is serious about wanting a shot at the national title, join the Pac 10."

    Oh, well thanks for clarifying that for us! You don't think Fresno State would absolutely JUMP at the chance to join the Pac 10? It's not so easy you just wave a magic wand and it happens, especially in the West, where the Pac 10 is the only BCS conference. In the East, programs like USF get to jump in when they've never done anything relatively worthy. Yet Fresno State is stuck in a region where there's nowhere else to go but the Pac 10 (which isn't interested in expanding).

    And by the way, Fresno State has left no doubt it IS scheduling for a shot at a national title if it ever runs the table. That's why the non-conference slates include BCS-conf. teams every year (this year at Wisconsin, at Cincinnati, at Illinois). Last year were wins at Rutgers, at UCLA and a 3-point loss at home to Wisconsin. Fresno State does the best it can do with its WAC affiliation. Yes, the 'Dogs are forced to play Utah State and Idaho every year, but in the games it gets to schedule on its own Fresno State plays anyone brave enough (including No. 1 Oklahoma in '03, No. 1 USC in '05, Oregon various times, Tennessee, Oregon State various, Washington, Kansas State, LSU, etc.) And most all of those games were on the road

  4. FSUDogs1,
    I agree completely, which is why I wrote my post defending a playoff. And I cite FSU as a reason why. Read it, it's good stuff.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.