Rep. Joe Barton: BCS Is College Football's Biggest Problem

Reader Comments
Back to article

Joe wrote: "When Boise plays a schedule like either one of those i will be more inclined to consider an automatic bid."
The "strength of schedule" arguement is old, trite, and pointless. So I say, to all those, prove that your argument is sound. Schedule TCU, BSU, U of U, BYU to play the blue-blood schools from these "vaunted" conferences.
Here's the problem. They won't. Not because they can't, but because they are scared to get beat like Alabama was by U of U in 2009 or Oklahoma by BSU in 2007. Like Alabama/Texas were this year by leaning on the protectors of the status quo to force the little guys to play themselves in a different sandbox.
BSU would love to play the blue-bloods of college football, except they don't want to play BSU. If you have any sway with those from the supposed "elite" you might tell them to man-up and pull the tail out from between their legs. Actions speak louder than words.
Texas limped into the BCS championship on a one second wing and a prayer over a weak Nebraska team and you're going to tell America that they "deserve" a chance at the national championship because of strength of schedule?
Texas played two teams this year that are now in the top 25. Nebraska ranked 20 and Oklahoma State ranked 21.
BSU played two teams this year that are now in the top 25. TCU ranked 4th and Oregon ranked 7th.
All the rest should be considered beatable by both teams.
Of the two, Texas and BSU, who had the strength and more grueling schedule?
The answer BSU and not Texas. To boot (no pun intended) BSU played more games than Texas.
But another, more important issue is the money. Being in a AQ conference means, win or lose, big money for the every team in AQ conferences and only because of the association. College football is as much about money as prestige. Why is it that the Texas, Alabamas in the AQ conferences got so good and so big? Could it be from all the seed money generated by their association in AQ conferences? Do you suppose?
Lack luster, bottem feeder teams in AQ conferences automatically cash in on huge money despite a string of 2 or fewer win seasons. Yet non AQ schools get the shaft even though they perform exceptionally better. You BCS promonents are going to tell me that is justified?

David of ID 6:54PM January 07, 2010

Well i guess some assumptions were made since both Tcu andBoise couldnt make it to 14-0. Sorry yall, the Wacky WAC and Mount West are not playing the caliber of teams the major conferances are playing. When you play Oklahoma and Nebraska and Oklahoma State and Tech every year come back and talk to me. That says nothing of Bama, Georgia, Ole Miss. Tennessee or Florida. Florida plays FSU every year, i think. When Boise plays a schedule like either one of those i will be more inclined to consider an automatic bid.

joe crawford of TX 5:08PM January 07, 2010

Roll Tide wrote: "Sorry Boise St, but the other 4 teams played tougher schedules." I am a BSU fan and I like the underdog.
Here's two reason why you're high on helium:
Alabama versus Utah Sugar Bowl 2009, final score Utah 31 Alabama 17. Alabama had a "stronger" schedule yet got it's a-- beat by a non conference, "weaker" conference team.
Who exactly did Texas play this year of any noteriety. Here are the teams Texas played:
Lousiana-Monroe, Wyoming, Texas Tech, UTEP, Colorado, Oklahoma, Missouri, Oklahoma State, UCF, Baylor, Kansas, Texas A&M, Nebraska.
Guess what, BSU could have played any of those teams and beat them by the same, if not, better margin than Texas did. In fact, going into the BCS and bowl season. Of the current top 25 teams, Texas beat Nebraska which is ranked 20 and Oklahoma State which is ranked 21.
BSU, on the other hand, beat Oregon which was ranked 7th.
Also, it's important to note that BSU beat every team on it's schedule what more can it do then that. Also, the blue bloods of college football are scared to death to play BSU, especially Alabama since it's loss to Utah. The blue bloods of college football today are a shell of the powerhouses they once were. Oklahoma, USC, Ohio, LSU are shells of their former selves. Why? Because, the BSU's, U of U's, TCU's of college football are recruiting talent that would otherwise have ended up on Florida, Oklahoma, USC campuses. But, it's also more than that, The BSU's, U of U's, and TCU's, have better coaches who take good player and make them better and are adept at creating team cohesion. Additionally, the little guys are playing with chips on their shoulder. It's a source of pride to slay the Goliaths of football. Note that more and more Goliaths have fallen and will continue to fall in the future.
So know your facts, Roll Tide, the "Good Ole Boy" network has protected colliagiate football bluebloods for far to long. It's getting to the point that the only thing you guys can try and hang a hat on is "strength of schedule". But even that's a slippery slope when BSU beat Oklahoma in 07 and Utah beat Alabama in 09.
I think both BSU and TCU got the shaft by the last bastion of corruption called BCS. The two of them should never have played each other. Either of them should have played Alabama and Texas.
At least then we'd know where the BSU's of college football rank. I suspect that blue blood teams would have been exposed as the frauds they are like Alabama was in 2007 by Utah.

David of ID 1:41PM January 06, 2010

The job of legislators is to make and enforce laws, and to set precedents. College Football gets a pass on anti-trust because it is in violation of basic laws, if this was regional cell phone service or utilities, then no one would have a problem, but its a college sport and we have bigger concerns. The reality is regardless, it is a multi-billion dollar business, bigger than many companies, and illegal advertising and barriers to entry are being set in restraint of free trade. Just because there are bigger issues doesn't mean you don't go after the small ones as well, this is an easy fix and should be a slam dunk, the legislation is simple and sets a strong precedent of enforcement, from a legal standpoint, it is about as clean as it gets and it is a sound law. Congress would then actually pass something that is sound, non-polluted, and non-partisan.

Ryan of PA 9:23AM January 05, 2010

"The biggest complaint about my bill is that Congress shouldn't get involved. While this doesn't rise to the level of healthcare reform or climate change legislation, it is more important than honoring the 2,560th anniversary of the birth of Confucius—one of dozens of resolutions passed by the House in the past few months (I voted against it)."
Yeah. That's a pretty darn big complaint. Congress keeps sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, intentions be damned. If its not MLB steroid hearings, its the BCS v playoffs debate or honoring the birth of a great Chinese thinker who has been dead for 2 and a half millenia (or any of the avalanche of similar banality in the halls of Congress.)
With all due respect, I think you're wrong. It isn't more important than honoring the 2,560th birthday of Confucious. I'd put them on about the same level.
Doesn't Congress have real bills to read? Maybe they need to find out what they did to America with that health care bill. I know it's a little late, but really - the democrats can't read their own bills, how the heck do you think they'll take time to read yours?

Rich of CO 5:04PM January 04, 2010

Before I say anything, I am one of the few against a Playoff, but I would support a +1, which I will explain later
An 8 Team Playoff would cause the following problems:
1. Who should be the 8th team, just about every year in the NCAA Basketball Tournament a team or two feels left out.
2. The current Bowl System brings in millions to the cities where the games are being played. If you go to an 8 Team playoff, them most likely the cities that are not involved will suffer
3. You state in your argument that the regular season of College Football would not lose its luster. Hogwash!!! Name any sport were the regular season from game 1 to the last game are very very important. Heck, you want a Playoff, you already have one, its called the Regular Season.
4. Traveling. For the teams that win 2 rounds or make it to the finals, it will be financially tough on their fans. As a result, they city they are playing in would suffer a loss of tourism revenue.
The following paragraph, I attempt to explain one of the major flaws in their system. The BCS is broken into 3 equally weighted parts, the Coaches Poll, the Harris Poll, and the Computers. Personally, I feel that no Poll should come out until at least Week 6. The problem with Polls in Week 1 or 2 is that they are mainly based on the previous season, and do not properly reflect the current season. This does not include when larger prgrams play "Cupcakes" the first few weeks. Anyway, during the middle of the season it is hard to jump a team, unless they lose. For example, last year the Big 12 South, Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma St., were all rated really high early in the season, moreso Texas and Oklahoma. The latter teams went 1-3 in Bowl Games including Oklahoma, a team near the Top 5 all year lost in the NC.
Here is my idea of a Plus 1, and this is a great year for it. The idea is if there are more than 2 teams that the fans and media feel could be number 1, then the Plus 1 is played. This year there are 5 undbeaten teams, but only 4 can go (Sorry Boise St, but the other 4 teams played tougher schedules). You would be left with Alabama, Texas, TCU, and Cincy. Honestly, any combo of those teams play each other. For this example, Bama vs. Cincy and Texas vs.TCu. The winners then play each other for the National Championship.
Therefore, instead of 7 extra games, not to mention travel, you play 1 extra game. Is it prefect? No, but it allows some form of a Playoff, and it maintains the regular season of College Football.
What do yall thnk

Roll Tide 14 of AL 7:27AM January 04, 2010