High Atop the Trojan Horse...For Three Weeks Anyway |
||
CommentsGood work. Interesting posts, besides those spam... Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:56 am MST by Linda Right
Very many thanks for a good work. Nice and useful. Like it! Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:47 pm MST by Karl Far
Very many thanks for a good work. Nice and useful. Like it! Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:14 pm MST by Paul Inding
Congratulations on a great web site. I am a new computer user and finding you was like coming home. Continued success. Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:45 pm MST by Cappa Darwing
Congratulations on a great web site. I am a new computer user and finding you was like coming home. Continued success. Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:39 am MST by Quirrel Fu
<Text> Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:54 am MST by
http:/auto-insurance.thisisverycheap.be/ Thu Jul 6, 2006 4:15 pm MST by insurance
Hi Everyone :-) Wed May 19, 2004 7:48 am MST by jennythedoggielover@yahoo.com
Right on Brian!! Zennie is correct in that the money controls the decisions, but the solution is quite easy. There appears to be more demand for a playoff system of some sort, hence more money to be made. There simply has to be a payoff to the current stakeholders or a way to nearly insure that they will be made just as well off as they are now. There is enough money for this given the higher demand for a playoff system. That will happen because most of the current BCS teams will be a part of a playoff system. The "tradition" keeps getting changed anyway, so it is a moot point. We appear to want a single champion because we have polls for who is #1, so saying that having the old bowl system is nice because there are many winners is no more true... Wed Jan 21, 2004 7:41 pm MST by Dan Rascher
The Rose Bowl is actually part of the BCS game system. In fact, it has a higher payout than the BCS Championship. Another game must cause the restructure of the payout pattern of the BCS contests. The final game pits the two best teams of the current BCS games. But "tradition" is a nice idea, but in reality the only constant in life is change. The system has evolved to meet the challenge of providing adequate "visual compensation" for the sponsors and TV organizations that have pumped so much money in NCAA College Football since 1984, when fees and sponsorship rates started to rise. Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:03 pm MST by Zennie
Adding one playoff game does not fix the problem. At the end of the College football season, there were four one-loss teams and at least five two-loss teams. It is easy to assume that USC and LSU would play for the National championship, yet at the end of that game there would still be three one loss teams. I argue for tradition because college athletics, unlike the professionals, is not just about winning. It is about learning, about juggling an academic schedule while competing and about growing into adulthood. We corrupt the very institution we are trying to support, education, when the most important issue is winning. With the very small percentage of players who will earn a living as a professional, the rest are left to capitalize now, on a free education. Lets not re-order their goals. Sports is big business. But the BCS has failed to capitalize upon it. The BCS championship game, televised during primetime hours, surpassed last years game as the lowest rated in BCS history. In fact, the BCS primetime game was viewed by less people than the Rosebowl, a game featured on a Saturday afternoon. Finally, on a different note, the BCS did fail USC in strength of schedule. The Pac10 finished the bowl season with a 4-2 record. And one of the losses, my poor Oregon Ducks, was on a last second field goal. So much for computers, looks like the Pac10 fared pretty well against the rest of the country. Can you say 'East Coast Bias?' Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:02 pm MST by Keith D
The problem with "turning back the clock" is that the sponsor and television money will not permit that. "Turning back the clock" will take us back to a time where the total payout to all bowl teams from sponsors was about $62 million. Now, the revenue transfers for BCS teams ALONE was over $150 million. As I have tried and tried to explain in each post, the sports industry has changed to the place where it's identified as just that. It's valued at about $250 billion. That's money going to many organizations, including colleges, and its a lot of "bling." The time has come to have one more playoff game in the BCS System. There's too much sponsorship money and television rights fee value at stake. I think that part of the incremental growth in revenue from these sources should be transfered to women's sports in BCS schools. But that launches another topic... If you want to understand the impact of television money on sports, play the XFL Simworld. Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:07 pm MST by Zennie
Points Taken. However, it seems that if you take away the ranking system, you won't have each week being a life-or-death ball game. The beauty of college football is that if you lose, you're going to have to endure the shame of, at best, sharing a title--regardless of a computer ranking. It makes every game so exciting knowing its relevance to the season's end. Don't you believe a playoff system would compromise that? Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:35 am MST by Drew
In the Mid 80's an international corporation changed gears. They hired the hottest TV personality and promoted their product as 'New'. They failed miserably. A few years after making the mistake, this corporation returned to its roots, its original product, a 'Classic'. The corporation was Coke. People just did not like the new taste. Whether or not they like Max Headroom (?) is unknown. Coke returned to its orginal recipe and we have been drinking "Classic Coke" since. The same should happen to college football. Lets go back to tradition. The Big Ten vs. the Pac Ten in the Rose Bowl. Now for a little bit of history. The Rose Bowl is the first Bowl game, the "Grandaddy of them all." Before there was a Superbowl, a Sugar Bowl, an Orange Bowl and a Continental Tire Bowl, and a bowl season, there was the Rose Bowl. The 'Bowl' season actually gets its name from the Rose Bowl, because that's where they played the game, at the Rose Bowl. Pretty simple uhh... I, like Brian, hated to find myself rooting for the Trojans. I am an Oregon Duck. Every year I look forward to the Duck opening 'Cans of W.A.' upon the instate rival Beavers, the Washington Huskies and the Trojans of USC. In '94 when the Ducks went to the Rose Bowl and lost to Penn State, arguments were made that Penn State, undefeated and ranked number 2 should have played Nebraska for a shot of the National Championship. However, like the 100 previous years, the pac10 played against the big10. (note: even though the ducks lost, their rankings improved after the game.) And then two years ago, my Oregon Ducks were ranked #2 in both polls only to be sidestepped by the BCS, which placed Nebraska in the championship game. The Ducks went on to spank Colorado by 30 points, while Nebraska (much like Ok.) did not even win their division and then lost the BCS title game by a landslide. The ducks lost even more when the BCS game was played at the Rose Bowl and the Ducks were sent to Arizona. Something is wrong when the Pac10 champs are playing in Arizona. So, instead of playoffs lets bring back tradition. Pete Carrol said that when they started the year their goals were simple, win the Pac10 and go to the Rose Bowl. They did and ended up with the National Championship as well. And when the season gets rolling next year and the players are asked about the split national championship, an answer of LS-Who should suffice. Fri Jan 9, 2004 3:35 pm MST by Keith D.
Add Comment |
Search This SiteSyndicate this blog site Powered by BlogEasy Free Blog Hosting | |
|