A site I subscribe to, Blueandgold.com, has an interesting article dated July 7, 2009, written by Michael Collins, which debunks the myths cited by anti-ND folks relating to ND's membership in the BCS. While I can't link the very long article (because it's a pay site), I can quote just a few brief comments from the article to give a flavor of what the writer is saying:
Good stuff Sid. It's amazing how even though the Irish have to have a better record than BCS schools to get to a BCS game and all of the top teams have TV deals that get them on TV every week that fans of other schools always complain about the NBC deal and our "special rules" for the BCS. Terry
Frankly, in all fairness, I don't see how it can be any other way. So long as the Irish are independent, and have the luxury of complete discretion in scheduling, there must be some other independent metric as a control mechanism.....control theory 101. The same should hold for any independent as well......just look at what others do in their non-conf schedule when they have complete discretion..... :shock: :wink:
BT, you make the same mistake most BCs conference apologists make.....You assume that just because you are in a BCS conference that your schedule automatically is tougher than an independent's, specifically ND's. We all know that it's not always the case, especially in recent years in the Big 10. Of course, OSU does not mind scheduling 1 or 2 competitive non-con games, but they are the exception. For the most part, between the non-con patsies and the lower tier conference teams, in most years some of the BCS conference champs would have a hard time defending the "toughness" of their schedules vs. ND's. Terry O, thanks for the tip on the free article. I missed that. I need to be more techno aware......or just more aware, period. :lol:
I disagree Sid....I make no such assumption and indeed it is a fact that your schedule year in and year out is at least on par with the rest of college football. THE issue is that it doesn't have to be.....and the Irish have complete and total control over who they place on their schedule unlike those with a conference affiliation. You have no such independent control mechanism on your schedule and COULD find your way into a lucrative BCS game by virtue of a seasons worth of victories over teams that would make an SEC non-conference schedule look strong in comparison......you wouldn't of course, but it is in your complete discretion to do so....hence the need for an external control mechanism
As to schedule strength as I recall, at one point it went into determining BCS standings. Somehow that was done away with. I'm going out on a limb but I don't think that it was an ND proposal.
While I don't know for certain of course, but I doubt that is the reason that ND has a higher burden to make a BCS game than a conference champion. I think the more likely explanation is the simplest explanation and that is money. Conference commissioners know that when given the opportunity to select teams that BCS Bowls are going to favor ND when possible due to our nat'l following and the money and ratings that we bring. So inorder to "even" things out they put up some obstacles for the Irish and the bowl selectors that favor a BCS conference team getting into the big money bowls. And while the Irish do have a seat at the table it's 5 Conference commissioners vs the Irish AD. 5-1 vote seems to be the natural outcome. Conference Commissioners are tasked with the job of getting the best possible deal for their conference, if that disadvantages ND then I'm sure silently they say "join a conference".
Who knows for sure....surely there are other considerations, but that one has to be chief among them - at least it has the benefit of logic, common sense and reasonableness......It would be irrational to NOT have such a provision. I think?! :? Not all past, present and possible future independents have a moral compass the equal of the Irish, imho....just imagine. :shock:
I don't think ND fans would stand for the Irish to go to a schedule that would resemble a WAC team just to pile up victories. Irish fans aren't that happy with this years schedule which isn't great in terms of strength but has 10 BCS conference teams and 2 non-BCS conference teams but no Div1AA teams. I just think it's mainly about the money, for all parties involved. If all parties only cared about fairness and equity then we would already have a playoff. Or we would just take the top 10 teams in the BCS standings, nobody not ND nor any conference team would have any guarantee. Just reward the top 10 teams with the best bowls. I call it my Best Teams in Best Bowls senario!
whoa whoa whoa.. not everyone's playing a big10 slate here T I use to buy into the fallacy that independents should carry more weight in their schedules because conferences have their schedule built in... But ND must abide by those same restrictions (the Big10 restriction comes to mind off the top of my head). If we want to play Big10 teams, then we have to play them when the Big10 says it is best for their conference teams. (and this not only effects those games with Big10 teams, but it effects teams from other conferences who might normally want to fill that early season spot) Let's also not overlook that there are a good many years that these conferences are filled with dogs. There is this assumption of weight or value given to the conferences that just doesn't hold water. One thing we have seen is that conference teams can schedule a whole slate of patsies and set themselves up for a title run. This practice seems to go by without question each year. I'm not buying it. It's similar to the lame argument that some MWC or WAC teams have to 'prove they belong' before they get a title shot. It is something that can't be quantified. It is an invisible hurdle that will still prevent you from moving on. I can't wait for this system to be blown up
Precisely my point......"want". Who you play is up to you......who those with conference affiliations play is not at their discretion - it is given to them. Of course, the logistical challenge of piecing together a schedule given all the other constraints is surely difficult and must necessarily limit your options. But at the end of the day, if the Irish don't want to play somebody, they will not be on the schedule. If Tennessee did not want to play Florida or Bama or Vandy, for whatever reason, too bad. Fellas, I'm not taking shots here, I'm simply suggesting that you can't have any independent with sole discretion over their schedule without some control mechanism other than their conscience........it just doesn't make sense to me otherwise. Perhaps it's just me, but I can't imagine a reasonable framework without such a control device.....
I don't actually object to the "Control Mechanism" of ND having to be in the top 8 of the BCS inorder to have a guaranteed bid like a Conference Champion. Our participation in the At-Large pool is the same as any other team, you have to be in the top 14 of the final BCS standings so we're treated like everybody else in that respect (apparently no special control mechanism needed to qualify for an at large bid). I do wish though that Conference Champions were also held to a higher standard, than just winning the conference. We have had several instances of unworthy Conference Champions (Several Big East and maybe a couple of ACC) getting BCS bowl bids that were clearly undeserved. Heck my Longhorns got lucky in 1996 and beat Neb and went to the Fiesta bowl when they clearly didn't deserve the bid in terms of being a good team, yeah they played well in 1 game but that surely shouldn't be enough. FWIW they got their clocks cleaned by Penn State.
You're not alone BT... I'm with ya. The problem is... we're being logical, and most times anything having to do with the bowl system is not. It's totally logical to have a fail-safe built in to make sure an independent doesn't play a sched with say 10 patsies, and only one or two actual games that are a challenge. NOTE: I am not suggesting ND is doing this, I certainly don't think so. I'm simply agreeing with Terry that it is logical to build in a device to make sure it doesn't happen. With that said there's a good chance Doc T is right as well... it was done for money, and is just a coincidence it looks like a guard against soft scheds. Terry O, That's a great idea... the only problem with it is the same one we've had for 100 years: How do you determine the 10 best? :? PLAYOFF!!!! :twisted:
From what I've read above, the BCS doesn't trust the poll voters to realize that a team playing nothing but pansies doesn't deserve to be highly ranked. But, if the BCS doesn't trust the polls that much, why do they rely on them so highly?
Fellas (BT and Scott), you are missing the simple logic of the situation. If ND was the type of team to schedule patsies, do you think that they would have become part of the BCS? Do you think that they would have become the storied program with the national following that they have today? Do you think that they would have won all those national championships that they won? Do you think that with a patsy schedule they could attain a ranking in the top 8 teams in the country with a 10-2 or even a 11-1 record? The logical answer to these questions is a resounding "No." I close my case by repeating what the article made clear: The qualifications for Notre Dame to be in a BCS bowl are more stringent than for a conference champion regarding record and poll ranking.
So we are agreed.......the system sucks, the qualifications for an independent ND are more stringent some suggest justifiably others perhaps not but not to worry because its about the money anyway and ND does not, has not and likely will not weaken its brand by padding its schedule opportunistically and we need a playoff! How'd I do? 8)
Sid, I didn't miss anything, I never said the rules weren't more stringent. They are. We were just discussing one possible (and plausible) facet of why that is. Since "conference" guys drew up the rules no one should be surprised at this. You know kids don't always play fair!!