We Demand Playoffs

So says Bill Hancock, executive director of the Bowl Championship Series. You gotta read this article – Hancock has some incredible quotes that speak volumes to how little the BCS cares what the fans want. Hancock should simply wear a tshirt around with “F you, football fans” on it. His message would be the same.

Well guess what, Bill? We aren’t buying the crap you’re selling anymore. We want playoffs and we’re going to get them. Your big salaries and the big salaries of your bowl buddies are in jeopardy, but we’re going to win.

“The BCS is fair,” Hancock said. “People call it criminal, a cartel and unfair, and the fact is, it’s not. It’s fair.”

If it’s so fair and wonderful, why are you spending money on big-time lobbyists in Washington DC, Bill? You shouldn’t have anything to worry about if the BCS is so great.

Decide for yourself when you look at the facts divulged by Brent Schrotenboer of the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Here’s the basic formula for bowl games to guarantee themselves money from tax-payer funded public institutions (and some private institutions):

• Require minimum ticket purchase by each school
• Offer guaranteed pay-out to each school, using guaranteed ticket sales as majority of pay-out
• Any losses resulting from school’s ticket sales below required allotment are transferred to schools, NOT BOWLS!

So schools lose money on everything from low-tier to BCS bowl games, while Bowl committee members and employees enjoy healthy annual paychecks and major perks. And it’s all funded by guaranteed ticket sales purchased by tax-payer funded public universities either directly or indirectly (contribution via conference affiliation).

This is why Congress should be involved in breaking up the BCS Cartel – YOU AND I ARE THE ONE BEING RIPPED OFF IN THE END!

• Ohio State was required to buy 17,500 tickets to the Fiesta Bowl last Jan. 5 but only sold 9,983, leading to a loss of $1 million for the Buckeyes and the Big Ten Conference.

• Minnesota and the Big Ten bought the required 10,500 tickets for the Insight Bowl last year in Arizona. They only sold 1,512, absorbing a loss of $434,340.

• Ball State and the Mid-American Conference bought 8,889 tickets to the GMAC Bowl in Alabama last Jan. 6 but sold only 1,431, absorbing $400,005.

• Oklahoma State and the Big 12 bought 11,000 to the Holiday Bowl last year but couldn’t sell 5,438, absorbing $318,490.

• Utah was required to buy 10,000 to the Poinsettia Bowl in 2007 (tickets at right) but sold only 2,361 and absorbed $267,365.

Congratulations on making our foes list, Glenn Dickey of the San Francisco Examiner! Your pro-bowl system views have earned you a spot of infamy with the college football playoff movement and history will mark you as one of the idiots who tried to impede progress. That’s quite a legacy to be proud of. Ahem.

Friends of playoffs, why not email your thoughts on Dickey’s column to the author? Here’s his address: glenndickey@hotmail.com

Dickey: College football bowl system works just fine

Playoff Problem.com was built by the BCS group to provide information, insight and commentary about the challenges associated with a hypothetical playoff in college football.

The BCS must think the average college football fan has the intelligence of a cocker spaniel, based on all the ridiculous arguments made on PlayoffProblem.com. However, it’s thrilling to me that the BCS feels so threatened that they deem it necessary to publish propaganda in an effort to bolster their indefensible position.

You’ll get many a great laugh browsing through PlayoffProblem.com. Among my favorites:

… some have advocated for a hypothetical playoff system, which would be more controversial and contentious than the BCS.

Oh really? How convenient of you to forget to cite sources for such a claim. I’d like to see the proof. Oh wait, it’s pure conjecture and can’t be proven. And you are affiliated with America’s system of higher education? Any professor at any community college would immediately fail a paper that made unsubstantiated claims like this one. Woof woof, BCS.

Just try to create an eight-team playoff based on the latest rankings (December 6th). Should two-loss Oregon (10-2, #7) and Ohio State (10-2, #8) get in but not the other FOUR teams with two losses: Georgia Tech (11-2, #9), Iowa (10-2, #10), Penn State (10-2, #13), BYU (10-2, #14)? If you think the BCS is controversial, try sorting that out. A playoff would guarantee bigger problems, more controversy, more disappointed teams and more frustrated fans.

No source cited for this “guarantee”? Hmmm… am I detecting a pattern in my little cocker spaniel brain?

So the BCS argues that playoffs would “guarantee bigger problems, more controversy, more disappointed teams and more frustrated fans”, based on a hypothetical 8 team playoff in 2009 using an undefined selection criteria to create the illusion of playoff insanity. Surely we buy their argument, right? It is guaranteed after all.

Wait, let’s think about this for a minute. What is the BCS really saying? Isn’t the BCS saying that a situation where 4 of 6 teams with identical records NOT reaching an 8 team playoff would be WORSE than the current BCS system? That would imply that the BCS currently does not exclude teams with identical records, right? Because if the BCS does currently exclude teams under similar circumstances, how would it make sense for them to conclude that the same situation in a different system would be “worse”?

Let’s look to see if teams with identical records to BCS #1 and BCS #2 have ever been excluded from the BCS championship game (we already all know there are countless examples, but I might as well document a few since I believe in using facts, unlike the BCS). And to compare apples to apples, let’s look at how many teams have been excluded from a BCS bowl while having an “as good as” or better record than other BCS bowl participants.

2009 Championship Alabama vs Texas, both with 13-0 record
12-0 or 13-0 teams excluded: Cincinnati, Boise State, TCU
Others excluded from BCS bowls with 10-2 or 11-2 records: Penn State, Brigham Young
Total teams excluded: 5 (Dear BCS: ruh roh! Signed, Scooby Doo)

2008 Championship Oklahoma vs Florida, both with 12-1 record
Teams with 12-1 or better record: Utah (12-0 –WTF??), Texas (11-1), Southern California (11-1), Penn State (11-1), Alabama (12-1)
Others excluded from BCS bowls with 9-4 or better record (Virginia Tech at 9-4 in Orange Bowl): Georgia Tech, Ball State, Western Michigan, West Virginia, Pitt, TCU, Brigham Young, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan State, Oregon, Oregon State, California, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Georgia, Mississippi, Tulsa, Rice, Boise State (12-0!!)
Total teams excluded: 27

Virginia Tech automatically qualified for the Orange Bowl in 2008 with a 9-4 record. There were 22 other teams with at least as good a record that were entirely excluded from a BCS bowl game. Among teams invited to BCS bowls, 5 had at least as good a record as the BCS #1 and #2 teams that played for the BCS title.

Is the BCS really trying to use an argument that teams with similar records being excluded from playoffs will be WORSE than the current BCS system??? Not only does the current BCS system exclude teams with identical (or better) records, but it does so on a larger scale. So how exactly do “playoffs guarantee bigger problems, more controversy, more disappointed teams and more frustrated fans” again? Please explain, BCS.

So what do you think? Do you buy the arguments the BCS is trying to sell on their anti-playoffs website? I don’t.

Kudos to the University of Michigan and Purdue University for lobbying in favor of college football playoffs.

Meanwhile, the University of Michigan, Purdue University and the National Collegiate Athletic Association have lobbied on the separate, but similar H.R. 599, which seeks to slash federal aid to colleges participating in a Division IA college football season that lacks a head-to-head playoff.

Since the BCS is so fond of saying Congress has more important matters to deal with besides college football, why do they spend money on lobbyists? And why do their television network partners lobby against football playoffs as well?

You can follow us at http://twitter.com/DemandPlayoffs

Playoff PAC is a new federal political committee that has been launched by a group including Washington DC political attorneys. Their stated purpose is to “help elect pro-reform political candidates, mobilize public support, and provide a centralized source of pro-reform news, thought, and scholarship”.

I personally see this as a good thing. I know there are many college football fans that believe the government should stay out of sports, but this sport is commerce and as such, deserves as much oversight and regulation as any other industry in our country.

Read his column here.

The first of Frohnmayer’s “fatal” flaws was the claim that the pundits and broadcasters (and presidents of the United States) were completely ignoring the academic calendar. Seriously? Let’s walk through this one more time: A college football tournament, whether it was the proposed eight teams or 12 or even 16 would require far less missed class time than the NCAA basketball tournament does in March. Most, if not all, of the games could be played in January, virtually all of them between semesters. Teams would miss less class time during the tournament than they miss during the regular season. Final words to Frohnmayer and the other 66 BCS presidents on this issue: Shut up.

You tell ‘em, John. STFU BCS a**holes!

This is cool – you can watch the entire webcast on the Senate’s website. You can also read the witness’ written testimony.

This is interesting stuff – I highly recommend watching.