Ridiculous Comment of the Day

[expony18]

Gee said he favored the "mixed-up mystery" of the current system.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5845736

guess he likes it because somehow OSU has made it into 3 national championships without having a conference championship...

BCSNC Stats

Big Ten 1-2
SEC 6-0

IF he thinks "that TCU and Boise State do not face a difficult enough schedule to play in the national championship game", then how about we just crown the SEC champ every year as the national champs

[Harry0569]

Gee said he favored the "mixed-up mystery" of the current system.

IF he thinks "that TCU and Boise State do not face a difficult enough schedule to play in the national championship game", then how about we just crown the SEC champ every year as the national champs

Fine with me.

[StallionsModelT]

TCU has conference wins against the following:

Colorado State
UNLV
Wyoming
New Mexico (after Saturday)

Give me a f'ing break.

[Stallion]

And you would be the biggest whinner on the board if SMU was 39-1 or 25-0 like Boise or had won 23 straight regular season games like TCU and whose only loss comes from a team that was undefeated for 2 years. I'm not saying that they definitely deserve a National Championship Game but they have earned a BCS Bowl game. They have created a system of exclusion and despite the many barriers and obstacles placed in their way-TCU and Boise have qualified for inclusion.

[ponyte]

I find it fascinating the improvable argument that a BSU or TCU couldn't compete week in and week out with in a BSC conference. Then the argument includes only the SEC.

I think TCU could easily run the tables in the Big East, the ACC and the Big XII-II.

Boise could probably do it a well.

I think TCU could have a very strong shot at running the PAC X + II and the Big X + II

The SEC in the West maybe not but easily the East.

But it doesn't matter what I think. All that matters is what the BSC cartel that functions as a monopoly thinks as it make the rules.

The only way to prove it is to have a system that allows all schools a chance to compete for the National Championship and not a system designed to limit competition.

[NickSMU17]

Once again, I think everyone discounts how hard it is to go on the road in a major conference and win....Even when playing bad schools like Illinois, indiana in the big 10, you are still walking into a stadium of 60k and more, who want you to lose....Not sure any of the non BCS teams do that more than once a season....

[Stallion]

Heck Pitt may represent to Big East with 5 losses including losses to teams like Utah(that TCU [deleted]) and Notre Dame(that Navy and many others [deleted] slapped). Virginia Tech lost to James Madison or Austin Peay (who in the hell remembers) the week after Boise beat them on the Road). No logical reasons why Virginia Tech goes over Boise. No one should be complaining about TCU or Boise in the BCS. They should be complaining about the Champion of the ACC and Big East getting in. And that's the conspiratorial monopoly part. Concerted anti-competitive conduct by BCS schools which decreases the availiable options to the consumer of college sports, non-BCS schools, Bowls and TV Networks. And it goes deeper than just the BCS Bowls-it includes the Bowl Contracts with BCS Conferences. Why should TCU be relegated to the Las Vegas Bowl at 12-0 if a second non-BCS team is not selected. How about the Cotton Bowl? Or the Gator Bowl? Holiday Bowl? Those bowls shouldn't be allowed the option to choose say the undefeated No. 4 ranked team in the Country?

[ponyte]

I would love to see Alabama, LSU, Ohio State or any other superpower BSC school win on the road against lowly BSU on that ugly blue field in November.

Oh, but wait, winning on the road is only impossible when the lowly non automatic qualifiers play against the unbeatable super conference foes. Not that a non AQ team could ever have a home field advantage.

We all know that expanded competition goes nowhere. Look at the starry eyed Japanese in the 1970s. It was impossible for them to even compete with the Big 3 of America. And the Japanese are now bankrupt and asking for goobernment bailouts.

When the FCC tightly controlled broadcasting monopolies, we had 3 to maybe 8 viewing options. And we got to see the ABC monopoly game of the week every Saturday. Then competition was introduced with cable. And now we get to watch lowly SMU on TV more in one year than we did during the entire decade of the 70s.

Competition improves the product. Limiting choices of the consumer by limited competition hurts all.

[Harry0569]

Competition improves the product. Limiting choices of the consumer by limited competition hurts all.

Boise comes down to the Dirty Dirty south next year to play UGA at the GA. Dome.

[Big Hoss]

Competition improves the product. Limiting choices of the consumer by limited competition hurts all.

Boise comes down to the Dirty Dirty south next year to play UGA at the GA. Dome.

My money is on Boise not dropping off as much from this year vs. UGA improving enough to actually compete in that game.

[Stallion]

And then watch after the National Championship we'll have No. 3 play No. 25 if lucky, No. 4 play No. 18. Hey, what about free enterprise and competition. Let's have these other non-BCS teams bid to have No. 3 play No. 4. and No. 5 play No. 6. The BCS is not delivering the best viewing options for the consumer. They've given us Dog Games every year nobody wants to see.

[Big Hoss]

And then watch after the National Championship we'll have No. 3 play No. 25 if lucky, No. 4 play No. 18. Hey, what about free enterprise and competition. Let's have these other non-BCS teams bid to have No. 3 play No. 4. and No. 5 play No. 6. The BCS is not delivering the best viewing options for the consumer. They've given us Dog Games every year nobody wants to see.

Agree up until the last sentence. The BCS is ONLY responsible for pitting the #1 team vs. #2, that's it. The other bowls largely already have their conference tie-ins, so it's not just the hated BCS ranking that's the problem.

[expony18]

Hey, what about free enterprise and competition.

maybe you should send Obama an email

[lwjr]

You are correct, Big Hoss. According to ESPN, the Rose Bowl is leaning towards taking TCU over Stanford (assuming Oregon plays in National Championship game) to play the Big Ten winner, I can not imagine that happening. I also have doubts about ESPN's sources, but if it did happen and a 11-1 and say a #6 or #7 Stanford team ends up in the Holiday Bowl or something along those lines, we would hear them screaming from the West Coast without the aid of TV.

[Stallion]

And then watch after the National Championship we'll have No. 3 play No. 25 if lucky, No. 4 play No. 18. Hey, what about free enterprise and competition. Let's have these other non-BCS teams bid to have No. 3 play No. 4. and No. 5 play No. 6. The BCS is not delivering the best viewing options for the consumer. They've given us Dog Games every year nobody wants to see.

Agree up until the last sentence. The BCS is ONLY responsible for pitting the #1 team vs. #2, that's it. The other bowls largely already have their conference tie-ins, so it's not just the hated BCS ranking that's the problem.

Those Bowl tie-ins are just as exclusionary and illegal as the BCS. They are part and parcel of the monopoly. If the BCS is ever struck down-they will go too. They are what is called illigal tie agreements under the Sherma Anti-Trust statutues. Basically a monopolist uses his illegal monopoly power in one area to coerce and exert exclusionary power in a second tied market ie we'll call it the Secondary Bowl Market. In my opinion the effect of the monopoly in the Secondary Bowl Market may be worse than it is on the BCS National Championship. Why shouldn't the Cotton Bowl with the greatest Stadium in the Country be able to competitive bid to host a non-BCS Bowl between say TCU and Wisconsin? The free market would give us better alternatives. Why is the CUSA Champion relegated to playing the SEC No. 8. Close your eye and pretend SMU is 12-1 CUSA Champions and say rated No. 10 in the Country-why shouldn't SMU have the opportunity to play in a better Bowl. Conversely why shouldn't a better bowl have the opportunity to select the No. 10 team in the Country rather than say No. 21 Missouri. Maybe the Cotton Bowl or say the Houston Bowl would like the option in a particular year of pairing a Top Nationally ranked SMU against Top Big 12 or Big 10 team.