let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby gh » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:54 am

yes, I realize there's a separate college football thread for the year, but that seems well clogged with divergent thoughts already. From this morning's SF Chron:

<<...We have an unranked team (Wisconsin) that had the sixth-best record in the Big Ten playing Stanford in the Rose Bowl.

We have a team (Louisville) that's 21st in the final BCS standings in the Sugar Bowl paired against a team that did not reach its conference's championship game (Florida).

And in the Orange Bowl, we have a Mid-American Conference team (Northern Illinois) that is 15th in the BCS and lost to an Iowa team that finished 4-8 overall and 2-6 in the Big Ten.

When the Huskies face Florida State in the Orange Bowl, they won't even have the coach who got them there, because Dave Doeren left to take the job at North Carolina State on Saturday.

Only five of the top 11 teams in the final BCS standings will be among the 10 teams participating in the five BCS bowl games....>>

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/art ... z2E0b3WXc7
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:06 am

The best year for the BCS was 2009, when the ten BCS spots were taken by the top 10 in the final BCS rankings.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby gh » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:28 am

even a blind squirrel.....
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby Marlow » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:35 am

Couldn't agree more. Even the Bowl honchos have to rue the day they got talked into it.
Is this year's Major Bowl line-up the WORST ever? The BCS Bowl is well and good, and the Fiesta is very good, but even the Rose is deficient. After that, it's total crap.

Sugar No. 4 Florida vs. No. 22 Louisville
Orange No. 13 Florida State (11-2) vs. No. 16 Northern Illinois (12-1)
Rose No. 8 Stanford (11-2) vs. Wisconsin (8-5)
Cotton No. 10 Texas A&M (10-2) vs. No. 12 Oklahoma (10-2)

It really WILL take an 8-team play-off to right this ship. But even in that case, the hottest team, TA&M, is SOL.

1. Notre Dame
2. Alabama
3. Florida
4. Oregon
5. Kansas State
6. Stanford
7. Georgia
8. LSU
9. Texas A&M

It would, however, be fun to see

ND-LSU (LSU wins)
Bama-Ga (Been there, done that, but the ending was tantalizing for a rematch)
Fla-Stanford
Ore-KsSt (Meant to be!)

then

LSU-Ore
SU-Bama

then

Ore-Bama, which is better than the ND-Bama game we're stuck with.
Last edited by Marlow on Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby gh » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:40 am

From a left-coast point of view, the Rose Bowl is never crap if it involves a competent Pac-8 (oh, sorry, 12) team against a competent Big 10 counterpart.

Despite Wisco's overall record, I think this year's fits the bill.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby Conor Dary » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:41 am

A dreadful Rose Bowl, which is sad. Wisconsin has five losses and finishes third in their division. Fiesta will be fun to see what would have happened if one weekend had not happened. Other than that who cares. The rest have no interest to me at all.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby preston » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:46 am

Marlow wrote:It would, however, be fun to see

ND-LSU (LSU wins)
Bama-Ga (Been there, done that, but the ending was tantalizing for a rematch)
Fla-Stanford
Ore-KsSt (Meant to be!)

then

LSU-Ore
SU-Bama

then

Ore-Bama, which is better than the ND-Bama game we're stuck with.

Seems about right to me.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:31 am

Marlow wrote:It really WILL take an 8-team play-off to right this ship. But even in that case, the hottest team, TA&M, is SOL.

Saying that a team is hot is just another way of saying that it played like crap at the beginning of the season. The one thing that I like about college football above all other college and pro sports is that it doesn't reward mediocrity. 9-7 teams should never be allowed to play for the Super Bowl and Villanova should have never gotten the chance to catch lightning in a bottle against Georgetown.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby preston » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:58 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:It really WILL take an 8-team play-off to right this ship. But even in that case, the hottest team, TA&M, is SOL.

...The one thing that I like about college football above all other college and pro sports is that it doesn't reward mediocrity...

It doesn't always reward excellence either.
-Boise State 2010.
-Utah '09. '09 OK playing for national champ though 1-loss TX beat OK.
-Auburn undefeated in 2004...Utah too
-'06 Boise State
-LSU '03 playing OK instead of USC.
-Oregon '02
-Florida State winning national champs despite losing to one loss Miami in 2001.
-1990 Colorado.
Penn State has gone undefeated twice and not won a national champ.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby Helen S » Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:02 pm

What percentage of D1 teams go to a bowl game? How many XC teams and/or individuals would go to nationals if the same percentage were used?

I hate that term "bowl eligible." I assume it means at least you won 1 more game than you lost. Does everyone plan an odd number of games?
Helen S
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: in front of the computer

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby odelltrclan » Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:25 pm

Sorry, but all I can say is cry me a river.

The BCS was formed in part because the big conferences wanted to prevent smaller conference teams from getting a slice of their pie. Agreements were made to ensure that at least every major conference got an at large BCS bid (which I agree with) and that agreement was about money. Agreements were also made that no more than 2 BCS bowl bids went to any conference and I agree with that.

The rankings are imperfect. Then you have the likes of the SEC only playing 8 conference games while all other major conferences generally play 9 ensuring them generally of 1 less loss than the other conferences and that almost always assures higher rankings.

If you don't like the current format, then the only response is to go to a true playoff. My personal opinion is to go to one anyway.

As for poor old Georgia, well, someone made the decision to take Florida over them so too bad too sad. UCLA was also almost in the Rose Bowl and ends up in a toilet bowl and they looked to be the better team last week. I think they dogged it the previous week, not showing their full hand because the previous weeks game was meaningless for them.

This system, based on who can grab the most $$$$$ brought us to this so we all simply have to live with it.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby j-a-m » Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:29 pm

gh wrote:<<...We have an unranked team (Wisconsin) that had the sixth-best record in the Big Ten playing Stanford in the Rose Bowl.

That's based on NCAA sanctions against Ohio State, though; so at least for this one the BCS is not to blame.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby j-a-m » Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:45 pm

gh wrote:Only five of the top 11 teams in the final BCS standings will be among the 10 teams participating in the five BCS bowl games....>>

The top six teams play in a BCS bowl this year, not just five, right?
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:48 pm

preston wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:It really WILL take an 8-team play-off to right this ship. But even in that case, the hottest team, TA&M, is SOL.

...The one thing that I like about college football above all other college and pro sports is that it doesn't reward mediocrity...

It doesn't always reward excellence either.
-Boise State 2010.
-Utah '09. '09 (you mean 08?) OK playing for national champ though 1-loss TX beat OK.
-Auburn undefeated in 2004...Utah too
-'06 Boise State
-LSU '03 playing OK instead of USC.
-Oregon '02
-Florida State winning national champs despite losing to one loss Miami in 2001.
-1990 Colorado.
Penn State has gone undefeated twice and not won a national champ.

1) SInce Texas had also has a loss on its record in 2008 (to Texas Tech), your argument about Oklahoma uses circular logic.

2) LSU, Oklahoma and USC all had a loss in 2003, so how can you say that excellence wasn't rewarded and why was USC any more deserving than the other two teams?

3) I think you're confused about Florida State. Undfeated Oklahoma won the national championship in 2000 and undefeated Miami won the national championship in 2001.

4) There was no BCS in 1990, the year Colorado needed a fifth down to beat Missouri and still had a loss and a tie on their record.

5) Penn State hasn't gone undefeated since the BCS came into existence.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:51 pm

odelltrclan wrote:Then you have the likes of the SEC only playing 8 conference games while all other major conferences generally play 9 ensuring them generally of 1 less loss than the other conferences and that almost always assures higher rankings.

The PAC 12 and the Big 12 are the only conferences that play nine conference games.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby preston » Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:48 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
preston wrote:It doesn't always reward excellence either.
-Boise State 2010.
-Utah '09. '09 (you mean 08?) OK playing for national champ though 1-loss TX beat OK.
-Auburn undefeated in 2004...Utah too
-'06 Boise State
-LSU '03 playing OK instead of USC.
-Oregon '02
-Florida State winning national champs despite losing to one loss Miami in 2001.
-1990 Colorado.
Penn State has gone undefeated twice and not won a national champ.

1) SInce Texas had also has a loss on its record in 2008 (to Texas Tech), your argument about Oklahoma uses circular logic. You must have been dying to use the term circular logic...I'm glad you got that out of the way. Was it a quota? it doesn't buttress your point. Texas beat OK, they both had 1-loss. Most people would think that since they both had one-loss that they would be LESS deserving than the team that they lost to that also had one loss. Not too different than the other cited case where FSU played for the NC after losing to a 1-loss Miami.

2) LSU, Oklahoma and USC all had a loss in 2003, so how can you say that excellence wasn't rewarded and why was USC any more deserving than the other two teams? Who you lose to should matter; losing to an unranked or 3-loss team should count for more than losing to a one loss or top5, 10, etc. LSU should have played USC instead of OK which lessened it's NC. USC would have been the "more excellent" of the one losses available

3) I think you're confused about Florida State. Undfeated Oklahoma won the national championship in 2000 and undefeated Miami won the national championship in 2001. Not confused, but definitely messed up my years...I was clearly wrong though. Miami, as you noted, did win but Nebraska got to play for the national championship without making it to their conference game.

4) There was no BCS in 1990, the year Colorado needed a fifth down to beat Missouri and still had a loss and a tie on their record.
jazzcyclist wrote:...The one thing that I like about college football above all other college and pro sports is that it doesn't reward mediocrity...
had you said, "the one thing that I like about the "BCS" instead of "college football" number 4 might make sense. You didn't, it doesn't. Also, Georgia Tech was UNDEFEATED THAT SEASON!!!

5) Penn State hasn't gone undefeated since the BCS came into existence.
Once again, you said "college football"; the BCS is rather recent and it also has it's shortcomings that have forced the BCS to change some of the rules along the way

6) You forgot about BYU

7) You forgot about BSU

8) You forgot about Auburn

9) You forgot about Oregon
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby bambam » Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:18 pm

Go Huskies! My interim school. Everyone on the list who knows me knows I am a Dukie thru and thru, but I had to do one year of extra school to get into med school and did it at Northern Illinois, living at the in-laws near the school. And besides, hard to root much for Duke football.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:13 pm

preston wrote:Once again, you said "college football"; the BCS is rather recent and it also has it's shortcomings that have forced the BCS to change some of the rules along the way

Didn't you read the thread topic? It was about the BCS.

preston wrote:6) You forgot about BYU

7) You forgot about BSU

8) You forgot about Auburn

9) You forgot about Oregon

I only refuted the assertions in your previous post, so I don't know where Oregon and BYU come from, since you neither mentioned them nor have they achieved perfection in the BCS era. As for the other teams, I think it's self-evident that the BCS can not reward every team's excellence in the event that more than two teams go undefeated.

To me it's nonsensical to consider such arbitrary things as who won their conference and who lost late in the season versus early when considering who's worthy and who's not. I also reject the the circular logic of elevating team A over team B when they both have losses just because team A beat team B. That's silly TV pundit logic IMO. What if team A's loss came to a FCS team or a weak FBS team? Shouldn't the quality of the loss be taken into consideration? And what if team B had a much more impressive set of wins than team A? The only things that matter to me is the quality of the teams you lost to and how much you lost by and the quality of the teams you beat and how badly you beat them. I also have absolutely no sympathy for teams who don't have perfect seasons.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby dukehjsteve » Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:49 pm

Someone mentioned that term" Bowl Eligible."

What a farce ! Take my alma mater as an example.... Duke got lucky and went 6-1 ( Bowl Eligible ! Bowl Eligible ! ) beating 6 terrible teams. I astutely predicted they would get hammered in their 5 remaining games against better teams, and sure enough they did, giving up over 40 points in all 5 of them.

But.... Bowl Eligble ! Bowl Eligible ! and a a trip to the Belk Bowl ( the what ? the what ? ) with that 6-6 record.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby Bruce Kritzler » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:07 pm

6-7 Georgia Tech gets in a bowl. Ridiculous.
Bruce Kritzler
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:48 pm

gh wrote:From a left-coast point of view, the Rose Bowl is never crap if it involves a competent Pac-8 (oh, sorry, 12) team against a competent Big 10 counterpart.

Despite Wisco's overall record, I think this year's fits the bill.


Wisconsin is in its seventh Rose Bowl and sixth since the new era began with Alvarez. They have lost two of those five and have been favored in none of them, and big underdogs deemed 'undeserving' in ones that they have won, ask Stanford and UCLA.

They are also only 7 points from being 12-1 and just thoroughly took apart the #14 team, their second biggest lose. [And you should know that a loss to Oregon State does not count for me as that is my 'other team', having taught there.]
26mi235
 
Posts: 16336
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby Cooter Brown » Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:51 am

The most idiotic thing about the BCS is how much weight is given to the coaches poll in determining the BCS rankings. Coaches don't watch enough games to make an informed decision and rankings are extremely political. They over rank themselves and their conference and penalize their traditional rivals with lower rankings. It's the worst poll out there by far.
Cooter Brown
 
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Austin

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:18 am

Cooter Brown wrote:The most idiotic thing about the BCS is how much weight is given to the coaches poll in determining the BCS rankings. Coaches don't watch enough games to make an informed decision and rankings are extremely political. They over rank themselves and their conference and penalize their traditional rivals with lower rankings. It's the worst poll out there by far.

I agree that their's a conflict of interest in the Coaches' Poll, but that's somewhat mitigated by the fact that the final poll is made public, and coaches have been known to retaliate against other schools when they feel like they were screwed over in the previous year. If I were a coach, I would always vote in the manner that I feel would invite the least amount of retaliation. This year's biggest hack is James Franklin who voted Notre Dame #4 in the final poll, but Bob Stoops and Les Miles are notorious hacks as well. Nick Saban also displayed some hackery last year when he voted Oklahoma State #5 in the final poll. On the flip side, Brian Kelly voted Alabama #1 most of the season until they lost and even then he still didn't vote his Irish #1 until Kansas State and Oregon lost and they were the last team standing. Similarly, in 2009 Chris Petersen voted his team #4 on the final poll despite having an undefeated season.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby Mighty Favog » Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:42 am

This year's stupidity boils down to a) several top teams being ineligible for the post-season and b) big conferences becoming too big (and their divisions not always evenly balanced). Thus when you go down to the 5th- or 6th-best conference champion, you're pretty far down the list. Whether this is a one-year anomaly or the new normal is anyone's guess.

I have a problem with bowls in general, not necessarily BCS bowls. I think the entire bowl system should be wiped out and replaced with an NCAA playoff. There are so many reasons I believe this, and you don't want to hear all of them, but mostly it comes down to one thing: the money would be handed out like NCAA hoops tourney money, which is partly based on how many sports a school offers. Cutting a track team wouldn't be as appealing anymore.

If I were to create a playoff, I'd make sure the top four ranked conference champions got byes in the first round (to preserve the importance of regular-season wins) and I'd make sure the quarterfinals were played on New Year's Day in Pasadena, Dallas, New Orleans and Miami. Those games have traditions worth saving. The Beef 'O' Brady's Bowl or Famous Idaho Potato Bowl? Well, would YOU notice if they disappeared tomorrow?
Mighty Favog
 
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:08 pm

In the coaches poll I have heard that some do not pay that much attention or spend too much effort until the end, and it is only the last poll that matters.

As for the comment that Wisconsin is only the 6th best Big Ten team - I beg to differ. Take out the games that are tied at regulation and there are no 'superior' teams to Wisconsin -- their only regular game loss was to Nebraska by 3 on the road -- followed by a 70-31 game that was for all the marbles.

I think that Bielema's weakness is control at the end of the game (as well as sometimes taking too long to adjust). Of course, losing your only respectable quarterback (which took several weeks to uncover in the first place) is a problem that will likely be a big factor in Pasadena. If Russel Wilson had one more year Wisconsin would possibly be playing instead of Alabama, since even without him they were 11 points from a perfect season.

Also, of all the primary games, I think that the Rose Bowl has the tightest odds. Thus, #1 ND is about a 10 point underdog to #2 while #xxx is only a touchdown underdog to #(6) Stanford. (Hi Marlow :D )
Last edited by 26mi235 on Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16336
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby lonewolf » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:39 pm

Mighty Favog wrote: New Year's Day in Pasadena, Dallas, New Orleans and Miami. Those games have traditions worth saving. ?

Yep. I liked it when there were only four Bowl games. Orange, Sugar, Cotton and Rose, all on Jan 1 and scheduled so you could watch em all.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby KevinM » Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:48 am

lonewolf wrote:
Mighty Favog wrote: New Year's Day in Pasadena, Dallas, New Orleans and Miami. Those games have traditions worth saving. ?

Yep. I liked it when there were only four Bowl games. Orange, Sugar, Cotton and Rose, all on Jan 1 and scheduled so you could watch em all.


I agree with the stupidity and meaninglessness of the current structure, but what you describe above was never entirely true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_college_bowl_games
KevinM
 
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby lonewolf » Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:29 am

Interesting chart. I did not know Sun Bowl started in 1934, two years before Cotton Bowl. In any case, there were only five bowls pre-Gator in 1945 and Capitol One in 1946.. and I don't remember even being aware of any bowls other than the Big 4 until Fiesta in 1971..
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:36 am

In defense of lonewolf (and my own recollection), there was always some 'lesser' bowls floating around, but the one she mentioned were the only 'important' ones.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby KevinM » Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:52 am

Marlow wrote:In defense of lonewolf (and my own recollection), there was always some 'lesser' bowls floating around, but the one she mentioned were the only 'important' ones.


Well yeah - they still for the most part are the only "important" ones, which is kind of the point.
KevinM
 
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:35 am

she?! :oops:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby Bruce Kritzler » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:15 pm

26mi235 wrote:As for the comment that Wisconsin is only the 6th best Big Ten team - I beg to differ.
they were 11 points from a perfect season.


So why would Bielema want to leave the "best" team in the Big 10, for the 8/9th best team in the SEC?
Bruce Kritzler
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby Daisy » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:51 pm

Money?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:49 pm

Daisy wrote:Money?

Exactly! He was only making $2.6 million, which IMO makes him underpaid by at least $1 million, based on what other coaches are making these days.

FBS Coaches' Salaries
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:18 pm

Bruce Kritzler wrote:
26mi235 wrote:As for the comment that Wisconsin is only the 6th best Big Ten team - I beg to differ.
they were 11 points from a perfect season.


So why would Bielema want to leave the "best" team in the Big 10, for the 8/9th best team in the SEC?


Arkansas was supposed to compete for the SEC title this year. That they did not is the reason for hiring a new coach.

People up here think that UW had a notion of what he was worth and it might be that is works at 2.6 and does not work at 3.6. Besides, he showed an inability to win close games


By the way, does anyone else think that counting the scores in overtime as though there are the same as in a game where you generally start 50 yards further down the field is stupid? I think that it should be 1 point for a FG, 2 for a TD, 3 for a TD+1pt PAT, 4 for a TD+2pt PAT.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16336
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Postby jhc68 » Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:49 pm

Even better... let's call a tie a tie. Or maybe flip a coin. That makes as much sense as the arcane system in play now.
jhc68
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests