Congressman - BCS 'deeply flawed'

[Nexus]

Congressman says BCS 'deeply flawed'

HOUSTON (AP) - Calling the Bowl Championship Series "deeply flawed," the chairman of a congressional committee has called a hearing on the controversial system used to determine college football's national champion.

A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, charged with regulating America's sports industry, announced Friday it will conduct a hearing on the BCS next week, after this season's bowl matchups are determined.

"College football is not just an exhilarating sport, but a billion-dollar business that Congress cannot ignore," said committee Chairman Joe Barton, a Texas Republican. Barton's panel is separate from the House Government Reform panel that tackled steroids in baseball.

The committee announcement called the hearing, scheduled for next Wednesday, a "comprehensive review" of the BCS and postseason college football.

"Too often college football ends in sniping and controversy, rather than winners and losers," Barton said. "The current system of determining who's No. 1 appears deeply flawed."

Barton said he does not have legislation in mind to force a change, but said he hopes congressional hearings will spur discussion and improvements. It won't be the first time Congress has looked at the BCS. In 2003, the Senate probed whether the system was unfairly tilted against smaller schools.

NCAA Division I-A football does not have a playoff. The Bowl Championship Series was established in 1998 to determine a national champion using the traditional bowl system and a mix of computer and human polls to set up a championship game.

Because of the controversy surrounding the bowl selection process last season, The Associated Press told BCS officials to stop using its writers polls in its formula.

The committee invited testimony from Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg, the current chairman of the BCS.

"If members of the subcommittee have ideas on how the college football postseason can be improved, we welcome that input," Weiberg said.

"The current structure is designed to match the No. 1 and 2 ranked teams, identified through a ranking system, in a bowl game. It is an extension of the bowl system and a method to determine a national champion through the bowls," Weiberg said. "It has paired teams in bowl games that would not have been possible under the bowl arrangements existing before its creation."

Along with the acclaim of a national champion, the BCS also created a financial windfall with tens of millions of dollars at stake for teams and conferences who participate.

But it has seldom been without controversy.

For example, undefeated Southeastern Conference champion Auburn was undefeated in 2004 but was shut out of the BCS title game, which matched USC against Oklahoma. Utah also finished the season undefeated but could not play for the title.

The Jan. 4 Rose Bowl is the site of this year's BCS championship game. Other games with BCS ties are the Orange, Sugar and Fiesta bowls, with a rotating schedule for hosting the championship matchup.

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/5133278

[BroChaos Veteran]

just read this on espn. not sure how much congress can do to fix anything, but it's nice to see that it's finally getting some major attention. it needs to change now, they can't wait for the contract to expire. i just hasn't done what it was supposed to do. instead of having 2 champs, we now have 3.

[L3thal Veteran]

Personally, I believe the BCS can work, but there needs to be a major overhaul of the system. First of all, they need to stop discriminating against smaller schools and stop favoring big conferences like the Big 12 every year. The only thing they really need is to somehow find a way to allow for example, 3 undefeated teams to bang it out for the national championship. What I believe should be implemented is a strength of schedule to the BCS, so when there are 3 undefeated teams, the two with the toughest schedules get to play each other.

There is still hope for the BCS, they just have to think about the sport and not the money.

[quigley0]

"Congress to look into 'deeply flawed' BCS system"

I cannot properly convey how many issues I have with the above title. WHY does CONGRESS give a rats ass about the college BCS? WHY does CONGRESS care about Rafael Palmero? WHY does CONGrESS care about Terrell Owens? WHY WHY WHY????

Dont they have better things to do than interview athletes? ISN'T THERE A WAR OR SOMETHING THEY CAN RUN?? Why is no federal budget passed? OH, MAYBE BECAUSE CONGESS IS TOO BUSY PRETENDING TO BE ESPN! Maybe Kornheiser or Wilbon should run for congress. They are WAY overqualified. US Citizens? - Check. Like Sports? - Check. Booyah!

I have always kept politics out of my postings. I have always tried to post about Tech, Games, Sports, etc. But The latest rash of congressional hearings on athletes is completely mind boggling to me, and makes me wonder why I am losing sooo much to my paycheck in Federal taxes. Hey, we can make a debacle out of hurricane relief, but dammit we are NOT going to let the BCS ruin the Rose Bowl!

[Toxikk Veteran]

the bcs is cancer in my opinion. i mean - if elected officials can screw up a government elected officials can screw up NCAA championship football.

i wonder if Congress actually sees the comparisons between the two.

[L3thal Veteran]

i wonder if Congress actually sees the comparisons between the two.

Good one :laugh:

Well, at least this year the BCS doesn't have to worry about a screw up. The title game is already set.

[BroChaos Veteran]

"Congress to look into 'deeply flawed' BCS system"

I cannot properly convey how many issues I have with the above title. WHY does CONGRESS give a rats ass about the college BCS? WHY does CONGRESS care about Rafael Palmero? WHY does CONGrESS care about Terrell Owens? WHY WHY WHY????

Dont they have better things to do than interview athletes? ISN'T THERE A WAR OR SOMETHING THEY CAN RUN?? Why is no federal budget passed? OH, MAYBE BECAUSE CONGESS IS TOO BUSY PRETENDING TO BE ESPN! Maybe Kornheiser or Wilbon should run for congress. They are WAY overqualified. US Citizens? - Check. Like Sports? - Check. Booyah!

I have always kept politics out of my postings. I have always tried to post about Tech, Games, Sports, etc. But The latest rash of congressional hearings on athletes is completely mind boggling to me, and makes me wonder why I am losing sooo much to my paycheck in Federal taxes. Hey, we can make a debacle out of hurricane relief, but dammit we are NOT going to let the BCS ruin the Rose Bowl!

the reason is $$$. what is it, like $15 million per bowl (5 bowls?). plus all of the other monies, contracts, advertising, etc. associated with the whole thing. were talking a lot of money at stake here, and it needs to be handled properly.

[RootWind]

Personally, I believe the BCS can work, but there needs to be a major overhaul of the system. First of all, they need to stop discriminating against smaller schools and stop favoring big conferences like the Big 12 every year. The only thing they really need is to somehow find a way to allow for example, 3 undefeated teams to bang it out for the national championship. What I believe should be implemented is a strength of schedule to the BCS, so when there are 3 undefeated teams, the two with the toughest schedules get to play each other.

There is still hope for the BCS, they just have to think about the sport and not the money.

But the BCS already takes into consideration strength of schedule. Wasn't that how Nebraska was still able to get in after a loss at the end of the season? (or was that the margin of victory stat)

What I really don't get is how Notre Dame was able to negotiate with the BCS on its own to automatically get into a BCS bowl if they have 9 wins, and be at least 12th in the BCS.

[j.nudd]

I'd have to agree with quigly0. Doesn't the Congree worry about more important issues? My guess is that one of the congressman is a Penn State Fan.

[Grammar Nazi]

My guess is that one of the congressman is a Penn State Fan.

If you're saying that being a fan of Penn State is bad, then you have unleashed a ****storm of epic proportions.

[Nexus]

If you're saying that being a fan of Penn State is bad, then you have unleashed a ****storm of epic proportions.

What would be even funnier than being a Penn St fanboy is if FSU beat Penn St. in the Orange Bowl, like they did to Virginia Tech.

[j.nudd]

If you're saying that being a fan of Penn State is bad, then you have unleashed a ****storm of epic proportions.

By no means am I saying that. I'm in fact a very big fan of Big 10 teams (especially Illinois), but my point is that this guy would rather have a playoff system to get teams other than the top 2 ranked in the national championship.

[bigbluepride35]

But the BCS already takes into consideration strength of schedule. Wasn't that how Nebraska was still able to get in after a loss at the end of the season? (or was that the margin of victory stat)

I thought they took the strength of schedule component out of the formula for the past two years.

[BroChaos Veteran]

um, they took marin of victory out, but i'm pretty sure SOS is still in some of the computer polls.

[Grammar Nazi]

By no means am I saying that. I'm in fact a very big fan of Big 10 teams (especially Illinois), but my point is that this guy would rather have a playoff system to get teams other than the top 2 ranked in the national championship.

The problem is the method by which the number 1 and 2 teams are chosen. May I remind you of last season's Auburn debacle?

[L3thal Veteran]

um, they took marin of victory out, but i'm pretty sure SOS is still in some of the computer polls.

If I remember correctly, Texas surpassed USC one week this season when USC barely beat Notre Dame and Texas humilated their opponent. This signifies it does take margin of victory into consideration or else Texas and USC wouldn't be blowing teams out until the last 2 minutes of each game up by 50.

That's why Texas was tacking point after point against Colorado, hoping that it would help them jump over USC if USC had a clos game.

[Nexus]

The bottom line is that the BCS is all jacked up. What is the point in having and AP Poll and Coaches Poll when someone like Florida St. #22 with an 8-4 record able to play in the BCS against #3 Penn St. 10-1. Penn St, fought hard to get a BCS bid, and it alsmost seems worthless if they have to play a team thats ranked in the 20's. I think the simple answer should be one of 2 options. Have a playoff between the Conferences.

Option 1 = PLAYOFFS. 2 Teams from each if they have a decent record. This would be the initial "wild card playoff, similar to the NFL. In the end they will probably play 15 games, not 11 or 12.

SEC vs. ACC

Big 12 vs. Big Ten

Pac10 vs. Big Twelve

WAC vs. Mountain West

SunBelt vs. Conference USA

MAC vs. Big East

Option 2 = stick with the current BCS, and 1 plays 2, 3 plays 4, 5 plays 6, etc......... just like in the picture. It doesnt matter what conference your from. If you notice Miami and VT is ranked higher than FSU, but yet FSU is representing the ACC in the BCS. So with this formula they would have to modify their ranking system. Because the way it is now it is not acurately representing the truth.

[Snipe]

The polls are BS as well, you can beat someone, have a better record than them and still be ranked lower. It's all BS.

[Nexus]

The polls are BS as well, you can beat someone, have a better record than them and still be ranked lower. It's all BS.

Exactly my point. The BCS poll and the other polls mean nothing. If you jump from #22 (FSU) to play #3 PSU.

Is there something wrong with PSU playing Ohio St. ? They dont create these bowl matchups for the fans but for the revenue generated by the matchups. But I think the better the matchup the better the revenue, so once again you have 2 good schools with good records so why cant they play, PSU vs. Ohio St. .

[L3thal Veteran]

To touch up on your second option Nexus, I wouldn't mind having the top 16 BCS teams playing it off in the following format:

1 v 16

2 v 15

3 v 14 etc.

However, that will never happen, so lets not even think about it. The BCS is here to stay, they just have to tweak it up a bit to stop discriminating against smaller schools and giving certain conferences preferences over others. Look at Oregon this year, 10-1 record with their only loss to USC and they got a crappy bowl.

[BroChaos Veteran]

you don't need a 16 team playoff, thats just way too much. all you need is 8 teams. there would never be more than 8 undefeateds. it only adds 7 total games, over a 3 week period.

i have no problems telling a 8-3 team who finishes the year #9 "sorry, you shouldn't have lost one of those three games".

but what do you tell the #3 team who finishes 11-0 and then gets screwed out in the current BCS formula? "sorry, a perfect season just isn't good enough"?

plus, 3 tough games in a row should be required to win the title. i'm sick of weak teams like florida st., oklahoma, virginia tech, miami, being in nearly every national championship game when they only play one or 2 ranked teams all year. when you're whole team is healthy, and you're playing a beat up team who had to fight and claw their way in, it's not exactly fair. 3 tough games would weed those weak teams out.

[Nexus]

you don't need a 16 team playoff, thats just way too much. all you need is 8 teams. there would never be more than 8 undefeateds. it only adds 7 total games, over a 3 week period.

i have no problems telling a 8-3 team who finishes the year #9 "sorry, you shouldn't have lost one of those three games".

but what do you tell the #3 team who finishes 11-0 and then gets screwed out in the current BCS formula? "sorry, a perfect season just isn't good enough"?

plus, 3 tough games in a row should be required to win the title. i'm sick of weak teams like florida st., oklahoma, virginia tech, miami, being in nearly every national championship game when they only play one or 2 ranked teams all year. when you're whole team is healthy, and you're playing a beat up team who had to fight and claw their way in, it's not exactly fair. 3 tough games would weed those weak teams out.

Well everyone here seems to agree that the BCS is messed up.

But to say that FSU, Miami, VT, and Oklahoma only play 1-2 ranked teams a year is not entirely accurate. FSU played VT, Miami, BC, and Florida, that are ranked and they beat 3 out 4 of them. But they do play some non-competing teams. Dont get me wrong, because I dont think they should be there either, I dont care if they won the ACC Championship or not. To me they didnt have a good enough record to compete in the National Championship. So to me, the ACC should not be represented in the BCS.

Michigan played several unranked teams this year as well, Northern Illinois, Iowa, Eastern Michigan, Indiana, Norhtwestern. Everybody plays non-conference sh*tty teams, although it would be nice to see a season of all the big teams slug it out all year. Even USC had games that their opponents were not worthy, Hawaii, Arkansas, Fresno State. Which brings up the point of what constitutes a bad team, Arizona perhaps or maybe Duke. Arizona is a large school that usually has a good program, but had a bad year ending up 3-8. Or do we consider Duke that has consistently had a bad football program.

[Gfunk4life]

Fresno State is better then Hawaii and Arizona, and Duke.(ok Fresno Isnt FSU, or LSU or other big schools) but Fresno St. Can fight the big guys(well not the small guys)

[Aaron Veteran]

I think they should do away completely with human aspect of it. Read this article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writ...lbag/index.html

Every week, my inbox is clogged with people complaining about various media biases in the sport. While I would never suggest my profession is 100 percent ethically sound, I can't imagine too many writers have as obvious an agenda as a group of men who are employed by the subjects on which they're voting.

While my own "analysis" of the coaches' ballots was largely informal, a couple of guys with significantly more time on their hands, Jay Barry and Jeff Steck of the Notre Dame blog Blue-Gray Sky, actually ran the data to discern which biases could be detected. Among their findings:

• On average, coaches voted their own teams 1.7 spots higher than did the other 61 voters, and ranked other teams from their conference about one spot higher that they did teams from other conferences.

• Eight of the 13 coaches who voted Oregon seventh or lower came from the two conferences that had teams vying with the Ducks for a BCS at-large spot, SEC (Auburn) and Big Ten (Ohio State).

• Similarly, while half the poll's voters had Ohio State fourth, eight of 12 SEC and Pac-10 coaches had the Buckeyes lower, while the same percentage of that group had Notre Dame eighth or lower.

Meanwhile, in the Harris Poll, Notre Dame great Rocket Ismail made it clear which Fiesta Bowl matchup he wanted to see, ranking the Irish fourth, Ohio State fifth ... and Oregon 11th.

Edited December 7, 2005 by Aaron

[L3thal Veteran]

Aaron nailed it right on the spot on this one. The same thing happened last year to Cal with the human votes.