Happy 4th of July

Enjoy this, and try not to blow any fingers off!

BCS Threatens Us With the Old System

Found an interview with Harvey Perlman who is the new chairman in the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This interview is chalk full of amazing answers, so I will interject my own commentary within Perlman’s answers and you have been warned this is lengthy. Questions are in bold with Perlman answers not in bold.

The best line threat of the interview is at the end, “The alternative is not a playoff. The alternative is to go back to the system we had. That’s fine. Many of us would think that’s not a bad outcome.”

The one’s who would like that system would be the same leagues that are part of the BCS, because they would still get their money.

And now onto the circus, that this interview was:

Q: The BCS has its share of critics. I know you recently considered and rejected the Mountain West’s proposal for an eight-team playoff, and I wanted to read you the statement from Air Force Coach Troy Calhoun.

I’m sure you’re aware of it, but I’ll read it anyway: “We basically have a system for college football that too closely resembles the old Soviet Presidium. You have a seven-member politburo that’s decided if you aren’t one of those party members, then you’re unable to participate.”

Why is that statement inaccurate?

HP: It’s unfortunate that we have to have this kind of dialogue. There’s a reason why the oversight committee consists of who it consists of.

There are six automatic qualifying conferences and Notre Dame that currently comprise that body. The six automatic qualifying conferences are conferences that had contractual relationships with bowls prior to the BCS.

First off that is not true because the Big East was not partnered in any of the currently BCS bowl games. They were affiliated with the Gator Bowl as their top bowl prior to the BCS or the Bowl Collation.  The only reason they are in is because Miami, FL joined the Big East in 1991, which also was the first year the league started playing football.

HP: The Big 12 had a contract with the Fiesta Bowl, the Pac 10 and Big Ten had the Rose Bowl and the SEC had the Sugar Bowl and The ACC had the Orange Bowl.

What we agreed to do was modify those agreements to allow a No. 1 and No. 2 team to play each other for the national championship. But we weren’t going to give up those contractual rights without having control over what the system was. That’s why it’s that way.

I understand about keeping the conference ties together because that is how all the bowls are set up. Having  ‘control’ over the system is the same thing Coach Troy Calhoun of Air Force mentioned how the BCS is like the former Soviet Union.

Also, ‘contractual rights‘ equals the bling which is something the BCS does not want to share.  Oh, and good job in not answering the question, because the opposite of the former USSR is a democratic system which allows everyone to have a voice which is not the case.

Q: Do you think that, somewhere along the way, the BCS failed to make this argument to coaches? You’re right, the dialogue tends to be pretty negative. Has the BCS failed to get down to the coaching ranks and explain this in terms they can appreciate? Is there a communication that needs to improve?

HP: Obviously we haven’t convinced everybody that what we’re doing is the right thing, so maybe more communication is in order. But there are a lot of reasons people want to attack the Bowl Championship Series, and I recognize that.

It pretty tracks to be the third team instead of the first two, or which conferences think they should have had a better chance of playing in the national championship game. That’s all part of the environment that we’re in.

So he agrees there is a problem! Being the third place team is out of luck. In 2008 Texas, Utah, Florida, Oklahoma, USC, Alabama, and a few others were all had legit chances to be considered for the national title.

All — except for Florida and Oklahoma — were penalized for either playing in a perceived lower league or for a single loss, but if you are Texas that  Big XII tie-breaker rule left you out and that rule still has not been changed.

Q: You talked about Dave Frohmayer. He released a statement turning down the eight-team playoff because “disrespects our academic calendars and it utterly lacks a business plan.” While the business plan may be one issue…if at least some coaches – and possibly a majority – are in favor of a playoff, don’t you think they’ve at least considered the academic impact on their athletes, and don’t you think they know better than, say, administrators how much or how little their athletes can handle in the classroom?

HP: Everybody has said they’d be willing to consider the Mountain West proposals at the time they could be implemented. President Frohmayer was reflecting the view of most of the presidents I talked to, that, when you think about a playoff, that we have not seen a proposal that doesn’t implicate the academic success of student athletes. Now, coaches and players will always want to play as many games as possible.

And I respect them for that, but I don’t think any of us are prepared to adopt a playoff system that interferes with exams in the fall semester, that extends into the spring semester any more than we have to. What I think most people don’t understand is that the alternative to the current system is not a playoff. The alternative to the BCS is going back to our traditional relationship with our bowl partners.

Since when did the business known as NCAA football care about the academic success of their student-athletes.  The NCAA pretends to care by having the APR that has the possibility to dock scholarships and post season play.

The exam issue is easily solved and not extending the season too far into the spring is an easy fix as well.  Make the season end the first Saturday in December, which most teams are done anyways, and then start the playoffs the following weekend.

If the playoff is 16 teams the opening round could be on the next Saturday and Sunday and then take a week off for finals, and then start back up for the fourth week in December, New Years week, and then the week after New Years.

That is when the season ends as of now, and since the players play games on the weekend professors would help accommodate the finals schedule.  That would not be hard to adjust a students finals schedule, because unless the final is on a Thursday or Friday that is when they need to re-schedule.

Baseball players, and basketball players miss a ton of time traveling mid week for games, so adjusting a test by one day is not that hard.

Q: Why is a playoff not a viable alternative? Is it because it would cut too many teams out of postseason play?

HP: It would diminish the bowl structure and it would reduce the number of opportunities for student-athletes to play in the postseason and that’s not a good thing. If you look at college football now, it’s the greatest sporting event spread over September, October, November, December and a little bit of January that the country has.

I do agree that college football has the best regular season, but they have the worst post-season with any sport, and why would this reduce the number of teams to play in the post season.

Again, the lower-tier bowls that are all ready poorly attended can still be around. Currently in the NCAA hoops there are four post season tournaments, and while the NCAA tourney gets the most pub that would still be the same in football with the playoff games.

HP: A playoff would seriously diminish the regular season, as it has in college basketball. I don’t think it’s good for college football, I don’t think it’s good for student-athletes and I don’t think it’s good for fans. I don’t see fans traveling around the country three weeks in succession between December and January following their team.

Hmm… the NCAA basketball tournament seems to not have a problem selling out arenas with the different fan base.  Also, having a playoff would not ruin the regular season anymore then the current practice of teams playing FCS cupcakes in the preseason.  That has ruined the non-conference season which is why ESPN tried to get Texas and Wisconsin to play each other this season.

The regular season would be even better by making the playoff exclusive to conference champs and only five at large to make a 16 team field.  Currently ten teams get in the BCS so there would only be six more spots, and if it goes by my plan with conference champs; every conference race would be important and teams who do not win their league would still need to be near perfect to get in.

If they are worried about not filling out stadiums, there could be games played on artificial turf and have double headers to help ensure the stadium is full and not what the ACC title game looks like.

HP: So you’re either going to have to play at home sites – which I’m sure everybody will want to play in Nebraska in December and January – or you’re gonna have to travel, which means that bowls will cease being intercollegiate events, but will become corporate events, where everybody in, you name the city, will be there except the fans of the teams.

This isn’t basketball. This isn’t March Madness. Football’s a different game, different environment. We have different traditions. It’s hard to see why a playoff is a good idea.

Corporate events the bowl system is made off of the corporate system, and why does he think Nebraska will be in the playoffs, they have not been at that type of level since the early nineties.

Also, the weather does not seem to keep people away in the NFL when games are at New England, Buffalo, Chicago, Green Bay, and every other cold weather city.

ESPN owns six bowls, FedEx, Citi, Chic-Fi-La, and others plaster their name on the bowl.  The World Wide Leader now owns the rights to the BCS games, so the corporate.

Could Mr.Perlman define how tradition effects a potential playoff.  The reason it is hard to see a playoff is because we have yet to find out a way to give us more money, or actually they do not want to spread the wealth even if the BCS leagues get more money.

Q: One sore point with fans is that Notre Dame has an automatic bid if it meets certain qualifying standards, while non-automatic league essentially get cut off if more than one team qualifies. Notre Dame can get an automatic bid, whereas Boise State can’t, even if it’s ranked in the same place, if Utah already had one. Why does Notre Dame still have a chance at an automatic bid?

HP: You have to go back and remember the tradition here. The agreements with the bowls were by conference. Now, Notre Dame is not in a conference, but they had significant relationship and they had their own television contract. At one point in time, Notre Dame was pretty much in a bowl every year.

Ah tradition, why should that have an impact on how a team qualifies for the big money game, if that is the case then Navy, Army, SMU, TCU, and the Ivy League would have the same treatment as Notre Dame, because way back in the day they were the national powers.

Wow! money comes into play since Notre Dame has their own TV deal, and I like this quote “Notre Dame was pretty much in a bowl every year” not in this decade, and it can be easily argued that they did not deserve the two BCS bids were they were smoked by Oregon State and Ohio State.

Q: Long-term, do you think it’s a good idea to put the entirety of the BCS in the hands of ESPN, which already wields a great deal of power in college football to begin with? I go back to 2001, when ESPN analyst Kirk Herbstreit was announcing on the air that he would call coaches and ask them not to vote for Nebraska over Colorado Given the bully pulpit the network already has, do you think the BCS poll gets bent in a direction that favors ESPN’s preferred schools, like USC, the SEC, and the Big Ten, or are there safeguards to prevent against ESPN using its on-air talent to lobby for certain programs?

HP: The ranking system that we have has a diversity of ways to rank teams. I suspect you can’t influence the computers, for one thing. And I’d be very surprised – notwithstanding some efforts – that voters in polls are influenced by what ESPN wants. We were with FOX, we took bids, ESPN made us a very attractive offer, they are good football partners, and we’ll see where it goes.

What! voters not influenced by ESPN that is the biggest lie every.  ESPN shows top teams in their highlights and teams from smaller leagues are not always on their highlight shows.

Look at the Mountain West who is no longer on ESPN and now on Versus, CBS College, and The Mtn; they hardly get any looks on the network.  ESPN would love to have USC in the title game every year, and while the talking heads may not say ESPN wants USC they will do their analysis and say they are ‘my’ best team.

In a time when coaches do not have time to watch other teams film to accurately rank the teams; they look at the highlight shows to see what they are saying and vote directly.

How often does a MAC team get mentioned on the air, and when they do it is probably once they are 8-0 and that could be too late for them to make a run at the BCS.

Q: The state of Utah intends to pursue this antitrust lawsuit against the BCS. Do you think that this is just a process the BCS is going to have to withstand before emerging the winner? Is there a way to resolve this without years of litigation? Is there a chance the BCS will lose?

HP: I’m not an antitrust lawyer, but I do find the general claim that this is an anti-competitive market difficult to understand. If you go back before the BCS and look at how many times schools in the group of five played in any of the major bowls.

I think you’re gonna find that the BCS has broadened their access to national markets rather than narrowed it, and I think if you look at how much income they got from postseason intercollegiate football before the BCS and look at how much income they’re now getting out of the BCS, I think you have to conclude that the BCS has given them more access and given them more income.

And it’s hard to see what the endgame is for this attack on the BCS on antitrust grounds. As I said: The alternative is not a playoff. The alternative is to go back to the system we had. That’s fine. Many of us would think that’s not a bad outcome.

The reason no non-BCS schools were invited to the big money games we have today is because of bowl tie-ins with conferences; also do not forget those backroom deals that had games set up in mid October.

Plus, look back at the old Bowl Coalition back in 1996 where BYU was ranked fifth in the final week of the poll and was passed over the current BCS bowls and were sent to the Cotton Bowl.  By current standards today BYU would have been in one of the BCS bowl games.

The income thing is tricky, because one can just go by dollar amount which increases because of inflation each year.  The only way money is more is when a non-BCS gets into a game, and even then that money spread among all of the non-BCS leagues and not just to the league that made it to the BCS.

This interview was a joke where Perlman was taking the BCS stance strictly and giving bogus half answers, and the best was using tradition to explain why Notre Dame gets its own rules within the BCS.

If you like what you read be lazy and Subscribe to The Mountain West Conference Connection by Email or in your Feeder or follow us on Twitter.

Orrin Hatch Makes Last Stand Against the BCS

This topic does not seem to go away, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the subcommittee’s top Republican is taking one last crack at the BCS with his claims that they are violating anti-trust laws.  The new BCS television contract goes into effect July 7th, so Hatch and his boys will have this week to meet with Congress again; not sure what will be different then last months meeting, well besides hopefully having more people in attendance.

Another question, is who will show up from the BCS and who will show up for Hatch, because since the BCS players are not taking these attacks too seriously so who knows who will show up.

Hatch really seems to be the only politician to really passionate about this topic, because Utah Attorney General Mark Shirtleff is no where to be found on this issue ever since he spearheaded against the BCS, right after the Utah Sugar Bowl win over Alabama.  Instead he held questionable fundraising luncheons where he said it was to help raise money to fight the BCS, but in reality it will be money used for his future run at the Utah Senate in 2010.

Hatch had the same passion against the BCS in 2003, but this fight for change will accomplish nothing with the new contract with the World Wide Leader is set to be finalized on July 7th and go into effect for the 2011 BCS bowl games.  This fight will rage on when another non-BCS team goes undefeated and wants at legitimate chance to play for the title.

All the honks from the ‘Big Six’ leagues can say all the excuses of ‘play our schedule week in and week out,’ they are right the teams outside the six auto qualivier leagues do not play the same schedule, and the same can be said for the the auto leagues.

That is the reason for equal access to the title game, now I am not suggested to let any undefeated team from a non-AQ league in the title game, but make a system **cough** playoff **cough** that allows teams outside of the six AQ leagues and those ranked outside of the top two a chance to get to the title game.

George Mason had a chance to make it to the Final Four, and they were a bubble team to even make the NCAA hoops tournament, what about Davidson with Steph Curry that made the Elite Eight in 2007, or to bring it back to Utah the Utes made it to the national title game in 1998.

Currently in college football there is no story like these, that were truly cinderall stories, but perhaps if Hatch and others of his kind bring enough pressure change may happen.  For now the system is status quo and all the non-AQ schools can do is to keep making BCS bowl games and winning.

If you like what you read be lazy and Subscribe to The Mountain West Conference Connection by Email or in your Feeder or follow us on Twitter.

Making the Rounds: Busy in Colorado

Justin Williams Longmont Times-Call: Now boys calm down!  Colorado and Colorado State have been playing the game in Denver since 1998, sans 2004 and 2005 in Boulder.

However, Colorado has a guideline to play six home games every year, and when looking at their 2009 schedule The Buffs took advantage of a clause to move the game to Boulder.

Soon after that announcement, Colorado State countered by moving the 2010 game to the Fort Collins.  The Rams did this out of principle, and to note both schools make more money when the game is played in Denver.

Rams head coach Steve Fairchild very much believes the game should be played in Denver and is quite strong in his remarks about the move:

“I think it should be played in Denver every year. I’ve said that since Day One it is silly to move this game back to Boulder. It makes no sense. Then we’ve got the contract to move it up to Fort Collins, and I don’t think that makes any sense.”

David Ramsey The Gazette: Air Force wants to renew their rivalry with Colorado, and the last time the two met was in 1974. This would be a good rivalry, because of location and both schools historically have been in the upper half of college football.

However the big naysayer is, brutha’ Dan Hawkins who does not want to face the triple option once a year and wants more room to schedule:

“Are we obligated to play the two in-state teams and not have flexibility in our non-conference schedule?”

Colorado all ready plays Colorado State each year and if the Academy is added then that leaves only two chances to play a patsy opponent for the Buffs.

Hawkins may be afraid what if ‘we’ lose to both Colorado State and Air Force, and the scheduling thing is bogus because Air Force plays Navy and Army each year.

Nice try on saying that by playing both instate FBS schools limits the scheduling options for Colorado, because Air Force all ready only has two non-conference games they can schedule a year.

Jake Schaller The Gazette: Quarterback has been an issue for Air Force, during the Spring Tim Jefferson was having academic issues, and is working on regaining his eligibility this summer.

This is the current analysis of Jefferson’s situation:

” Jefferson, who started the final eight games last year as a freshman, missed most of spring practice to concentrate on academics. But he is confident he will be on track come fall.”

Jefferson is taking three summer courses to get back on track, and in other quarterback news Asher Clark looks to be progressing quite nice on his injured foot.

Clark who played quarterback in high school and running back last year for the Academy is making the move again back to quarterback.

If you like what you read be lazy and Subscribe to The Mountain West Conference Connection by Email or in your Feeder or follow us on Twitter.

Previewing 2009 BYU Opponents: Florida State Seminoles

Florida State might finally be turning the edge and putting itself in position to finally make an ACC title game appearance.  However there are bigger issues that will affect the Seminoles on and off the field.

The biggest story is the 14 vacated wins from using ineligible players which is currently being appealed by FSU.  The reason this is bigger then Alabama’s recent vacated wins from text book fraud is because now Bobby Bowden is currently one game behind Penn State’s Joe Paterno.

If the wins are vacated then Bowden will see his chance to end his career as the all time wins leader fall short. Currently Florida State has a buyout that Florida State would have to pay current offensive coordinator Jimbo Fisher, 5 million dollars, if he is not head coach in January of 2011.

Now to the actual players fielding the team in 2009, well sort of, wide receiver Corey Surrency was denied an extra year of eligibility because of an obscure rule where he lost a year of eligibility because he played in a semi-pro football team — Florida Kings –after he turned 21 and before heading to a junior college.

Now the top returning receivers have nearly as many yards and catches, but Surrency had the potential to be a break out star for the ‘Noles.  The quarterback play needs to better then last year, and lucky for FSU is that they return Christian Ponder who was decent last year.  Ponder never had a break out game and his best was against North Carolina State with 257 yards and one score.

Another problem was the pass protection because they gave up 19 sacks, now that is not terrible but the 2009 depth chart is filled with youngsters but all five starters are back.  This unit has a very good chance to be the best in the ACC, and that will help against the rush and improve off an all ready stellar running attack.

Passing	Com%	Yards	TD	INT
Christian Ponder	55.7	2006	14	13
Rushing	Carries	Yards	Yards Per Carry	TD
Jermaine Thomas	69	482	7.0	3
Christian Ponder	119	423	3.6	3
Receiving	Catches	Yards	Yards Per Catch	TD
Taiwan Easterling	30	322	10.7	1
Bert Reed	23	295	12.8	3
Corey Surrency	12	237	19.8	4

The strength of offensive line is what can make or break a team, and with FSU bringing back experience on the line that usually translates into more wins and overall better team.  Experience is also within the quarterback position which is the other key spot when to look how good teams will be.  Now for the newbies — or non-starters from 2009 — come from the wide receivers and running back spots.

Running back Jermanie Thomas had an impressive 7.0 yards per carry last year, and will now be the feature back in the offense.  Odds are he will not keep up that average, but if Thomas is patient with his reads in rushing lanes he has potential to be all ACC.  The big guys up front will help Thomas do well, oh and that great talent he is and only a Sophomore.  A cool stat from ESPN is that he averaged of 9.1 yards in the second and third quarters which ranked second in the nation among backs with at least 20 combined carries.

This especially helps because Ponder is a so-so passer, so the running back strength should help the overall pass attack.  The receiving corp lost all their starters last year and the leading receiver is Taiwan Easterling, also a Sophomore, who caught 30 catches, but the thing going for the Seminoles had depth at that position.

The offense and defense were above average and in the top third in the nation, and only was blown out in one game which was the Florida game, but as it is with most close losses it is the turnover margin that hurts them.  On the year Florida State was even, but in their four loses they were minus nine in the turnover margin and had three in each lose; the Wake Forest game was the worst with seven turnovers.

The defense last year gave up 20 points per game, but they return only five players in total.  It is Florida State and their last two recruiting classes were in the top ten, so the talent should be there.  Also, the losses on defense are spread around so no single position will be marching out all new players.

Overall, this Florida State team should be a top 25 team and has the potential to win the ACC which they have not done since realignment happened in 2005.

If you like what you read be lazy and Subscribe to The Mountain West Conference Connection by Email or in your Feeder or follow us on Twitter.

Previewing 2009 BYU Opponents: Tulane Green Wave

Tulane comes out of the Western division of C-USA, and last year they finished 2-10, and ended the year on an eight game losing streak.

There is not much to like for Tulane, they lost two of their top three receivers, backup running back, and the quarterback situation is no good.

The listed starter on the post spring depth chart is Joe Kemp, but he was not the starter last year; that position went to Kevin Moore who struggled to pass for eight scores and 13 picks.

The top returning starters at each position are below, the biggest bright spot is Andre Anderson who did quite well.  Now, if Tulane can stay in games then he will become more valuable to the teams success.

Passing	Com%	Yards	TD	INT
Joe Kemp	56.5	344	2	1
Rushing	Carries	Yards	Yards Per Carry	TD
Andre Anderson	174	864	5.0	7
J.T. McDonald	37	124	3,4	3
Receiving	Catches	Yards	Yards Per Catch	TD
Jeremy Williams	27	437	16.2	5
Casey Robottom	16	203	12.7	1
Alan Mitchell	20	224	11.2	1

Offensively the Green Wave were inept to be nice, as they came in at 113th in the country in scoring; which translates into a less then solid 16.7 per game.

The rushing attack hopes to be better, but Tulane lost their top two lineman in Troy Kropog and Michael Parenton.  Kropog was drafted in the fourth round by the Titans, and Parenton started 47 career games.

For a team looking to improve losing two of the schools all time best on the line is huge, and this will directly effect the rushing game. However Andre Anderson had 864 yards in seven games, really six because of a season ending injury he suffered.

Anderson had four games over 100 and two of those over two hundred yards.  With a new line Anderson may have to be creative to get to the level of production from 2008.

Other injuries that hindered the Green Wave from success was to wide out Jeremy Williams who played in only five games and averaged nearly one hundred yards a game.  If the quarterback situation is settled then look for Williams to take advantage of secondaries.

The quarterback situation is between projected starter Joe Kemp and 2008 starter Kevin Moore and in my opinion could change quickly if Kemp starts to struggle.  Their first two games are at home against Tulsa and BYU, but both are really good teams that will cause trouble for either quarterback.

Moore lost the job for 2009 because of his second half struggles.  In his first five game he averaged nearly 250 per game, and then in the second half the wheels fell off and he only passed over 200 yards in just one game.

On to the equally disappointing defense that also ranked in the 100’s all while giving up 34.5 per game.  The defense does return six players, but like I say quite often does a team that returns multiple starters really improve if that unit was bad the previous year.

My big signs that teams are bad is turnover margin, that does seem obvious, but this stat goes both ways.  Last season they were minus five and again near the bottom of the FBS.

The first two games again will test this defense, because Tulsa and BYU will put up a lot of points and yards; most of those will come from the air attack.

The part of the defense that will be the best is the defensive line, they bring back experience with four players who played significant time while losing just one starter.

Tulane hopes to improve off of their two in season, and have only one gimme in FCS punching bag McNeese State.  The rest there are maybe four winnable games @Army, UTEP, @SMU, and @UFC.

However with three of those games on the road those look like less of a chance for Tulane to surpass the two win mark of 2008.

If you like what you read be lazy and Subscribe to The Mountain West Conference Connection by Email or in your Feeder or follow us on Twitter.