Home | Find it in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch | Suburban Journals | St. Louis' Best Bridal | Ladue News | MySTLtoday.com | Coupons | Mobile
Log In | Subscriber Services | Advertise | Privacy
Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
The Wall Street Journal re:The BCS
Post new topic Reply to topic
>Previous Topic >Next Topic
author
message
Forget It
Forum User
Forget It is offline 
Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 250
Post subject: The Wall Street Journal re:The BCS
Posted: 02 Nov 2009 17:37 pm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125710095751421337.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

Good summary of the weaknesses and pit falls.
_________________

View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wayland
Forum User
Wayland is offline 
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 893
Post subject: Re: The Wall Street Journal re:The BCS
Posted: 02 Nov 2009 19:50 pm
The BCS is BS, and an unAmerican caste system.

Even in hoops, they get too many teams.
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jerrell
Forum User
jerrell is offline 
Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 347
Location: se mo/west ky
Post subject: Re: The Wall Street Journal re:The BCS
Posted: 02 Nov 2009 21:10 pm
The BCS is designed to make money, that's the bottom line. Agree that from a sport standpoint, it's BS.

That article had some interesting items:

[/quote]Unlike other major conferences, schools in the Pac-10 play rigorous schedules

[/quote]Likewise, Florida's schedule thus far still consists of just two teams with winning records: LSU and Troy.

[/quote]the Pac-10 still might miss out on a second Bowl Championship Series bid. That's unfortunate, for the conference has emerged as not only the deepest in the country this season, but also the most deserving


Doubt there was much chirping from the author last year when the Pac 10 finished fourth among BCS conferences. Ask Mizzou how nice it would be not to play in conference championship games. Or Alabama/Florida for that matter.


Last edited by jerrell on 04 Nov 2009 16:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dodds2
Forum User
dodds2 is offline 
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 2439
Post subject: Re: The Wall Street Journal re:The BCS
Posted: 03 Nov 2009 13:01 pm

Jerrell wrote

Ask Mizzou how nice it would be not to play in conference championship games. Or Alabama/Florida for that matter.


I agree. There should be some handicap or penalty applied to teams in the BCS standings that don't have to play the extra game.
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Forget It
Forum User
Forget It is offline 
Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 250
Post subject: Re: The Wall Street Journal re:The BCS
Posted: 04 Nov 2009 11:20 am
The B-12 "Championship" game is a money maker for the conference and they justify it by un-necessairily dividing the conference into two divisions. It is an optional thing as far as the rest of college FB is concerned. So, the extra game for two teams is no reason for it to make any difference in choosing who plays in what bowl games.

The B-12 champion could be decided without that game.
_________________

View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
go_tigs
Forum User
go_tigs is offline 
Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Posts: 4
Post subject: Re: The Wall Street Journal re:The BCS
Posted: 04 Nov 2009 11:30 am

Forget It wrote

The B-12 "Championship" game is a money maker for the conference and they justify it by un-necessairily dividing the conference into two divisions. It is an optional thing as far as the rest of college FB is concerned. So, the extra game for two teams is no reason for it to make any difference in choosing who plays in what bowl games.

The B-12 champion could be decided without that game.


In a conference the size of B12 and SEC the championship game is necessary. There are 8 conference games. You could not play the top 3 teams in the conference and be the "winner" of the Big 12. If that game didn't exist then Mizzou won the Big 12 in 2007.

In the PAC 10 it is different because you only miss out on 1 team. Everyone plays the same conference schedule for the most part.
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
hwmudgett
Forum User
hwmudgett is offline 
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Posts: 244
Post subject: Re: The Wall Street Journal re:The BCS
Posted: 04 Nov 2009 12:25 pm

go_tigs wrote


In the PAC 10 it is different because you only miss out on 1 team. Everyone plays the same conference schedule for the most part.


Acutally the PAC-10 has a true round robin. It is the purest BCS conference in terms of determining the conf. champ.
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SteveLC
Forum User
SteveLC is offline 
Joined: 08 Sep 2009
Posts: 315
Post subject: Re: The Wall Street Journal re:The BCS
Posted: 04 Nov 2009 13:54 pm
As long as there are unplayed teams in a conference, whether it's two, three or five or 10, it's still "not playing all of their conference foes".
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Forget It
Forum User
Forget It is offline 
Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 250
Post subject: Re: The Wall Street Journal re:The BCS
Posted: 04 Nov 2009 14:04 pm

Quote

As long as there are unplayed teams in a conference, whether it's two, three or five or 10, it's still "not playing all of their conference foes".


That is a better argument for limiting the size of conferences than trying to make everything even by one extra game, even though called a "championship game".

In fact, having a ten team limit on conferences and playing the other nine teams would get rid of the option for teams to play OOC patsies to increase their win total. Thus, making the W-L records more of a realistic measure of the teams quality.

Also, it would give one of the teams in the Championship game one less loss and give the conference another higher quality bowl game.
_________________

View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
parsifal
Forum User
parsifal is offline 
Joined: 05 Apr 2001
Posts: 5001
Location: ABQ, NM
Post subject: Re: The Wall Street Journal re:The BCS
Posted: 04 Nov 2009 22:12 pm
Holy :!:. This is the first time in five years that anything on the WSJ editorial page has any semblance of verisimilitude. bleep?
_________________
Nobody said fixing Republican failures would be cheap or easy.
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dodds2
Forum User
dodds2 is offline 
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 2439
Post subject: Re: The Wall Street Journal re:The BCS
Posted: 06 Nov 2009 13:49 pm

Forget It wrote

Quote

As long as there are unplayed teams in a conference, whether it's two, three or five or 10, it's still "not playing all of their conference foes".


That is a better argument for limiting the size of conferences than trying to make everything even by one extra game, even though called a "championship game".

In fact, having a ten team limit on conferences and playing the other nine teams would get rid of the option for teams to play OOC patsies to increase their win total. Thus, making the W-L records more of a realistic measure of the teams quality.

Also, it would give one of the teams in the Championship game one less loss and give the conference another higher quality bowl game.


I like this idea. It standardizes the conferences, leaves only 3 non-conf games, and establishes a true conf champion that could someday qualify that team for an automatic berth in an 8 team national playoff field. The current 4 non-conf games in many conferences are just too many dull mismatches, the move to add a 12th game has so far been almost worthless to fans of college football.
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
All times are CST (CST6CDT)
Post new topic Reply to topic
> >Previous Topic >Next Topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum