[NU Sports] my blog today

[Sportsbiz]

There has been an awful lot of BCS bashing on the list lately, especially
for a school for which the BCS at least this season has no real meaning,
aside from OSU getting invited.  Tom accurately points out that the Texas
travesty is not a BCS issue but a Big XII issue, which only adds to the ever
growing list of issues that Texas has with the Big XII.  Whether that list
has grown to the point that the Horns will seriously look at alternatives is
something I don't know, but I don't think that this little dust-up will be a
factor one way or another.  Texas has money issues with the Big XII, which
have been festering since it first joined the conference.  It has been
repeatedly promised that the revenue distribution would be reviewed but it
hasn't.  The North Division schools also have issues, although theirs are in
many the opposite of Texas - they believe that they are getting too little;
Texas believes it is giving up too much.

Save your breath about the BCS.  With the new contract signed between the
BCS and the Worldwide Leader in Sports, there will be NO change in the BCS
format until at least 2014.  The games will be moved to the WWLS, including
the Rose Bowl ultimately, and the Big Six conferences will continue to cash
checks.  Whenever you think about the BCS please remember the real reason it
was formed was not to match the number one and two teams in the country or
to determine a national champion.  The real reason it was formed was to
ensure that control of college football and the money it generates,
particularly the bowl money, would remain in the hands of the Big Six
conferences and ND.  Everything else is just a smokescreen.  All was done to
keep the NCAA from getting their hands on the cash machine.

OK, rant over and back to your regularly scheduled bowl speculation (for
what it's worth I'm feeling better about the Outback as the week goes on,
based on nothing much more than a gut feeling and a desire by the Tampa
folks for new visitors with big wallets)

Mark

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Tom Maycock <tkmaycock at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Leaving Texas out of the Big 10 title game because of their
> > BCS ranking will probably doom the BCS.
>
> You may be right, but to be fair, that situation doesn't really have
> anything to do with the BCS itself. It's an issue of the Big 12's tiebreaker
> rules. You'd have the same debate with using any sort of poll--coaches,
> media, computers, or BCS, to make that determination.
>
> Mack Brown's point of contention is probably a good one: The SEC has
> basically the same process, but their "BCS poll" step includes a caveat that
> reverts to head-to-head if the top 2 teams in a 3-way tie are closely
> ranked:
>
> "The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series
> Standings following the last weekend of regular-season games shall be the
> divisional representative in the SEC Championship Game, unless the second of
> the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked
> tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied
> teams shall determine the representative in the SEC Championship Game. "
>
> See:
>
> http://secsports.com/index.php?s=&change_well_id=2&url_article_id=46
>
> and
>
> http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=1546006&DB_OEM_ID=10410
>
> Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> nwu-sports site list
> nwu-sports at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
>