April 19, 2007
Bielema: Notre Dame doesn't deserve BCS birthright
Wisconsin coach Bret Bielema knows his 12-1 Badgers were BCS worthy last year. He also knows that Notre Dame -- who finished number 11 in the final BCS poll -- didn't deserve a BCS slot, but got it anyway. What he doesn't understand is why.
"I understand why certain teams get exemptions. I don't understand why Notre Dame does," Bielema said in an interview with The Associated Press this week. "If they want to play by conference rules, join a conference. They don't take, maybe, into consideration past bowl history. Notre Dame hasn't won in the last nine bowl appearances, or whatever it is. And to me, we've proven over time that we deserve the opportunity."
Under the current BCS rules, Notre Dame is an automatic qualifier if they finish the season ranked number eight or higher in the final BCS poll.
Last year, Wisconsin was ranked number seven in the BCS poll, but couldn't go to a BCS game because conference-mates Michigan and Ohio State were already representing the Big 10. The BCS forbids more than two teams from any one conference, regardless of the rankings. Notre Dame was chosen - despite their lower ranking - as an at-large team to fill a Fiesta Bowl slot.
Bielema has a point - Notre Dame has shown an uncanny ability to slip into BCS games only to get blown out by a clearly superior team. Last year, it was a 41-14 beating at the hands of LSU. The year before it was a 34-20 shelling by Ohio State. In 2000, it was a 41-9 smack down at the hands of Oregon State.
Why is Notre Dame granted such latitude in the BCS? Money.
The primary focus of the BCS is to create a single game matching the top two teams. The secondary focus, though, has nothing to do with creating deserving games. Instead, the BCS bowl games get first crack at the top schools in hopes that they can create the most profitable matchup.
And that's where Notre Dame comes into the picture. Notre Dame is, was, and may always be the 800-pound gorilla of big-money college football. If Notre Dame is in your game, your going to get better ratings, better advertising, and better ticket sales - period, end of discussion.
The BCS has made its bed - and the Irish are right there in it. Do the Irish deserve the BCS? Doesn't matter - they're there. They're in because the bowls and networks want them in. And so do fans. UND has long enjoyed a love/hate relationship with most of the CFB fan base. No, Bret Bielema, the Irish aren't going to be left out of the BCS any time soon.
Bielema has a good point. Unfortunately - as long as the BCS has any say - it's also a moot point.
Comments:
cctke455 said:
posted on April 19, 2007 12:01 PM — 168.216.24.38 — link — abuse?
Sadly, Because the BCS and NCAA Football is based on the hope of making tons of money...Notre Dame will be included because of their fan base and T.V. ratings.
But I agree if the players, conferences, and fans were taken into consideration...Notre Dame would not be included. They are like the Yankees of College football, the league/world revolves around them. That is why I hate ND and NY yanks.
Diggs the Mountie said:
posted on April 19, 2007 2:24 PM — 68.48.90.248 — link — abuse?
I almost want to start boycotting whatever BCS Bowl Notre Dame is in for that year. They're clearly media darlings and nothing more. I say we "don't" give them what they want.......and that is T.V. ratings. Just flick that little button on your remote control............
MrGamecockFan said:
posted on April 19, 2007 4:13 PM — 63.167.255.204 — link — abuse?
Down with Notre Dame and the golden child mentality of the BCS. That school needs to earn their way just like every other team in Division 1 football. The BCS also needs to scrap that stupid rule preventing more than two teams from any conference from having a chance at a BCS game. Notre Dame may have a great and storied history, but the fact of the matter is they suck, and they have been worse than awful for many years now. They need to step aside and let the these better teams play.
TampaGator said:
posted on April 19, 2007 4:41 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
With all due respect to Wisconsin:
Citrus Bowl '07 (Wisconsin v. Arkansas) attendance: 60,774 (capacity: 70,000, though record is 73,000+).
Wisconsin coach whining about getting squeezed out of the BCS Bowl, while Wisconsin left upwards of 10,000 seats empty in the Bowl they did attend...must surely ring hollow to the folks who pay the money out after the Bowl games.
Seriously Coach; what do you think a Bowl game is, a freak'n trophy? A reward for a good season? Naive child; prove your program can be profitable to the folks paying out...then call for change. Until then, try winning the Big 10.
Just my $.02.
GO GATORS!!
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on April 19, 2007 5:11 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
#4:
If you're going to make a limp attempt to insult or attack my team at least get the simple facts correct so you dont look foolish. FSU got in with 8 wins (not that its a huge difference). The point is though FSU went through a conference schedule, they didnt put the 3 military cupcakes on their schedule along with any other pushover they want. An ACC schedule is tougher than any weak crap ND puts together. Plus, your point is a bit invalid. Mainly due to the fact that despite FSU got in with 8 wins - they pushed the #3 ranked team in the nation (penn state) to the limit and took it to 3 OT's. It was an exciting game to watch. ND cant say the same because they've been completely blown out their past two BCS games.
So yes, give me an 8 win conference CHAMPION over ND in a BCS bowl any day of the week. Despite your obviously dislike of the ACC - I'd put my money on the ACC champ over ND most years.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 19, 2007 6:34 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
This is another reason to like this Coach.
But its Not About how a team (ND, in this case) has preformed in recent/past Bowl Games, its strickly about which team has "earned-what" in any ONE given Season.
Oregon 2005 was Rated No. 5!!! heading into Bowl season, and got passed over -- rated below Oregon, NotreD still got the At-Large bid.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 19, 2007 6:41 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Coach Bellotti had it right...
- USA TODAY [Nov. 2005]
"It would be another one of those typical mistakes to not allow us in a BCS game (at 10-1)," says Bellotti. "But I stay out of that. I don't know enough about it really"...
But Bellotti does know something about the BCS. He knows that his 2001 Pac-10 title team, which was 10-1, didn't play Miami (Fla.) in the national championship game at the Rose Bowl. Instead, Nebraska, in one of the most controversial decisions in the BCS' tumultuous eight-year history, wound up playing the Hurricanes despite not winning its division in the Big 12.
The BCS formula that sent the Cornhuskers to Pasadena was tweaked shortly thereafter.
So does the BCS owe the Ducks?
"No, if we're 10-1, they don't owe us (based on what happened four years ago)," Bellotti says. "But they owe these players. They've earned it."
usatoday.com/sports/college/football/pac10/2005-11-16-oregon_x.htmSo Cal USMC said:
posted on April 19, 2007 7:03 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Florida St 2005 faced Duke (1-10), Syracuse (1-10), and *Citadel (*Non-Div 1A)...
Enough of the Attempts of trying to bash Notre Dame for facing the Service Academies...
SEMI-NATION and everyone else here, lets not make Notre Dame's schedule/conference affiliation the focus here. This is about the people in control who rig the $y$tem.
And btw,
Navy is a solid Mid-Major program, "decent" at worst. Navy, the past 4 yrs: 9-4, 8-4, 10-2, 8-5
Air Force has dropped-off a bit recently, but has been a fine Mid-Major program under Coach DeBerry (23 Years).Jack said:
posted on April 19, 2007 7:06 PM — 75.15.58.158 — link — abuse?
Tampa Gator, with all due respect I was at that game and the Badger fans can't be expected to buy all the tickets!
The Arkansas contingent was not anywhere near the numbers of the Badger contingent, and historically the Badgers are notoriously good at travelling to bowls. Remember that it was the second year in a row we went to the same bowl as well, which notoriously doesn't sell well...and we still had a great turnout.
Be honest. If Florida was 11-1, didn't place in the top of the SEC, and went to a lower tier game I bet you're coach would be crying as well. Speaking of which have you forgotten how much Urban Meyer complained the last couple weeks of the season to get to the championship? You should be the last fan to tell anyone not to ask for what they think they deserve. AND you proved it...why shouldn't we be given that chance?
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on April 19, 2007 7:19 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
So Cal the most important part of the post is this:
"despite FSU got in with 8 wins - they pushed the #3 ranked team in the nation (penn state) to the limit and took it to 3 OT's. It was an exciting game to watch. ND cant say the same because they've been completely blown out their past two BCS games."
I'm saying ND should be forced to join a conference before they are eligible to play in a BCS bowl game. A 8-4 (going into the bcs game) conference champion puts up a better fight than ND does in a BCS bowl.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 19, 2007 7:44 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
SEMI-NATION,
Notre Dame, in 2005, "pushed" the #2 ranked team in the nation (USC) to "the limit", and it was an exciting game to watch aswell, in the regular season...
Heading into Bowl Season 2005...
Notre Dame was BCS-Rated No. 6 (9-2)
Florida St was BCS-Rated No. 22 (8-4)
(Note: FSU was 7-4! in the Conf-REGULAR-Season)SEMI-NAT, youre missing it. You cant use hindsight! with what happens in the BCS Bowls (who wins/who losses) to make an arguement one way or another.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 19, 2007 7:55 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
ANY WHICH WAY WE CUT IT, the Bowl selection process should be based on MERIT.
Nevermind Notre Dame in 2006 & 2005... FSU 2005, Pitts 2004 are two glaring examples of teams that truely didnt "Deserve" a BCS Bowl spot.Id like to hear Bielema acknowledge THAT!
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on April 19, 2007 8:00 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
All i was saying is a conference champ is more deserving than ND. Yes, ND does have an easy road throughout the regular season and this past season the two good teams they did play they were destroyed. What makes you think this past year they should have been in a BCS bowl? There's no hindsight, before the bowls started people cried foul. Everyone and their momma knew LSU would slaughter them and they did accordingly. If ND can win a conference (geographically speaking the Big 10 would be a perfect fit - along with their rivalry with Michigan) than they deserve a BCS birth but not until they win a conference.
ND Fan said:
posted on April 19, 2007 8:34 PM — 129.74.117.210 — link — abuse?
First I'll say that I am a huge ND fan. Beside that, I do agree that ND(especially this past season) did not deserve a BCS bid. There were many deserving teams and we got it. Honestly though, you can't say that in Charlie Weis' first year, ND didn't deserve a BCS bowl. During regular season, the team went 9-2. One loss in overtime to Michigan State, who always give the Irish problems, and the other to #1 ranked USC on the Bush Push. Yes ND got blown out by superior opponents. Then again, so did Ohio State this season (I believe it was also 41-14). Why doesn't Bielema talk about that. Wisconsin lost to Ohio State, and Ohio State was crushed by Florida...Just like ND was crushed by LSU. Everybody complains that ND gets into a BCS game and is blown out, while their team gets a second tier bowl and wins. If Bielema wants to get blown out by a superior SEC opponent, then go ahead...cause I'm tired of seeing ND lose to teams they shouldn't be playing. And don't hate because we have the most storied college football program....live with it.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 19, 2007 8:41 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
SEMI-NATION,
Youre tossing me a loaded question here - "What makes you think this past year they [NorteDame,] should have been in a BCS bowl?"
Its about MERIT. Bowl selections should be based on Merit, who earned what, etc. Heading into the 2006 Bowls season...
Wisconsin was BCS-Rated No. 7 (Computer-Cons No. 10)
Notre Dame was BCS-Rated No. 11 (C-Consensus No. 9)
Wake was BCS-Rated No. 14 (C-Consensus No. 18)I might make the arguement that neither Notre Dame nor Wake Forest (the ACC Champs) earned a BCS bid.
To me, its a bigger issue than "Notre Dame".
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 19, 2007 8:53 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
SEMINOLE, there's no Reason/Value in pointing out that Norte Dame got beat in their Bowl Game... the arguement that Notre Dame didnt deserver a BCS bid would have had the SAME WORTH even if Notre Dame WON their Bowl Game! had NotreD blown-out LSU, they still werent deserving of the BCS Bid. Hindsight on specific outcomes, changes NOTHING, one way or the other.
*claification*
I wasnt implying in, Post 23, that ND was deserving of BCS spots... I was pointing to Two other, more egredious examples which involved "Conference Champs" - Expanding my arguement beyond just Notre Dame.So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 19, 2007 9:00 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
ND Fan,
2006, Wisconsin DIDNT EVEN PLAY Ohio State !!!
... and that brings to light a whole other issue that raises further questions about the Selection/Ranking process.
10-Team Conferences. In a true round-robin system, every team plays Every Other team.
Zac said:
posted on April 19, 2007 9:12 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
I say it's high time ND made a choice. Join the Big 10, making it a 12 team conference. (I know; that doesn't make math sense, but, that's not my fault.) Then, the resulting conference can have an east vs west or north vs south multi-million dollar play-off game. Not to mention, geographically this makes sense. OR, go all in on the Big East, and help to lend them a little more credibility from a conference schedule standpoint. Otherwise, big TV contract or no big TV contract, people are gonna stop watching. (Heck, they're already watching for the wrong reasons...to see ND loose.)
badgerballer said:
posted on April 19, 2007 11:25 PM — 70.58.189.119 — link — abuse?
1. WAY TO GO, COACH!!! Needless to say, I whole-heartedly agree. Its a gripe with merit. The Bowl Championship Series NEEDS to feature the top ten teams in the final BCS rankings. That only makes sense. Its not whinning, to finish a season ranked BCS #7, get sent to the Capital One Bowl (for the second year in a row), then have to sit and watch the BCS #11 - regardless of who it is - leap over you & go and play in a BCS bowl. And, take home that nice BCS check.
2. Tampa - what the hell are you talking about?? Please, please, please tell me that you are not serious. 'Prove you can sell seats, and then maybe you get to go to the bowl you deserve?' Is this really what we want college sports to come to? Should that be the criteria?
What a sad, sad statement. As a player, all you can do is win the games on your schedule. That's it. You'd really punish student-athletes, based upon fan-base ticket sale numbers? Granted, that may have a root in reality, but the game is suppposed to be about athletic competition.
3. ND, get it right. Wisc did not play OSU in 2006.
4. SoCal USMC, get it right. The Big 10 is not a 10 team conference.
5. The notion of each conference having mandatory representation in the BCS is crap, and we all know it. 8-4 FSU in 2004(?). Its ridiculous, but Tampa is correct, its all about the Benjamins. If Wisc., Mich, and OSU all went BCS last year, that's three slices of the BCS $ pie that would've gone to the Big 10 - and we can't have that. We need to make sure that the lousy ACC, or whomever, gets some of the booty - or university presidents everywhere start crying. Since the BCS committee is made up of these same presidents, they're going to make sure that they're home conference is never frozen out of the money.
6. As posted by me before, here's my solution to the ND problem:
Big 10 Athletic Conference
West:
Wisconsin
Purdue
Norte Dame
Minnesota
Iowa
IndianaEast:
Michigan
Michigan State
Illinois
Northwestern
Penn State
Ohio StateDiggs the Mountie said:
posted on April 20, 2007 12:56 AM — 68.48.90.248 — link — abuse?
So Cal #23,
Uh yeah............those are 2 totally different teams.........and FSU and Pitt do not have poor showings in BCS games year after year, after year, after year, after year, after year, after year, after year and so on.............You get the point huh?
Now, I know that your trying to pump notre dame up because USC schedules them year in and year out(How convenient that you'd defend notre dame might I ask?) but.......give everyone on this blog a break with you supporting notre dame crap.
You know that if it was a team that didn't have to face USC...........you'd find every possible way to bash them. I find it funny that someone like you (a stat man) defends notre dame:)
JUST AN OBSERVATION..................
Martin said:
posted on April 20, 2007 1:58 AM — 68.35.200.186 — link — abuse?
Please explain to me what FSU making the BCS in a completely different year has to do with this?
The issue is Wisconsin instead of ND in 2006. FSU didn't make the BCS in 2006. In 2005, both FSU and ND made the BCS. Wisconsin wasn't in the mix. FSU wasn't in the mix in 2006. The issue is a one loss national champion contender vs. a two-loss ND team. ND gets a free pass. That's the issue.
If you are going to defend ND, then defend them against Wisconsin in 2006. For the love of pete. Please.Nolen1999 said:
posted on April 20, 2007 8:55 AM — 207.203.238.6 — link — abuse?
Kevin, Post#4:
That's the thing, we won our conference and beat a VT that was expected to dominate. I was surprised to see my Noles come out with a win. I was at the Orange Bowl versus Penn State, what a game. We fought hard and played well against the #3 team in the nation. One thing I will say about Penn State fans that were there, WERE LOUD AS HELL!!! They're a bunch of great fans as well, met some nice people.
I think you're still bitter over that game, back in 2003... in South Bend.
FSU - 37
ND - 0Ouch!!! 9 losses in every bowl appearance??? LOL... get in a real conference and win, then you can start talking.
SEMINOLE_NATION, Post#13:Amen...
Doug said:
posted on April 20, 2007 8:59 AM — 169.200.185.26 — link — abuse?
Notre Dame had a chance to join the ACC. I can hit a golf ball from my house and hit the ACC offices in Greensboro. I had a few connections during the expansion (grandover estate janitor, the groundskeeper at the golf course) ----- Anyway you know the three teams that joined and the jilted lover Syracuse got left out. Well my friends more then those 4 had the offer on the plate. Who backed out? You know who!
Maurice said:
posted on April 20, 2007 9:09 AM — 208.17.179.66 — link — abuse?
ND does not deserves an automatic BCS bid if they finished 11th. But ND is like the Dallas Cowboys of the 1970's Americas Team. ND could Finish 6-5 and sale out a bowl game. I believe ND should be in a major BCS confernce anyway. They could join the Big East or Big Ten or even the Pac 10. Bret you are so so right
TampaGator said:
posted on April 20, 2007 10:19 AM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
Jack/#17:
"...have you forgotten how much Urban Meyer complained the last couple weeks of the season to get to the championship?..."
No, I haven't forgotten how mythological in proportion Coach Meyer's ONE SIMPLE STATEMENT about the quality of opposition in the SEC was blown out of proportion by....
...the WHININGEST CONFERENCE EVER (BIG 10).
Every last Big 10 member still whines about Meyer whining, when Meyer never whined at all.
Now Badger Coach whines about getting snubbed from a BCS Bowl.
That's pretty damn funny to me.
GO GATORS!!
domehead said:
posted on April 20, 2007 10:27 AM — 12.214.50.5 — link — abuse?
Not long now until the IRISH are playing for the NC fellas..accept it. Times are changing in South Bend, as much as people hate to admit it. Did we deserve a bowl bid last year..nah. Are we going to be playing in a BCS bowl this year??? hmmm...could be. Are we ever going to join a conference?? heck no...why? people are standing in line to play us, treating it like their own little NC. Media darlings....you bet!
GO IRISHTampaGator said:
posted on April 20, 2007 10:32 AM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
Badgerballer/#32:
"....what the hell are you talking about?? Please, please, please tell me that you are not serious...is this really what we want college sports to come to?..."
It ain't news bra; that's the way it's always been.
Before judging Notre Dame, put yourself in their shoes. Say your the president of ND; ACC, Big 10, SEC, whoever comes around, and says:
"...hey, you want to join our conference?"
Your reply:
"...what's in it for us?..."
The day someone can an$wer that question to ND'$ $atisfaction, is the day Notre Dame will join a conference.
As for Bowls:
Say you're in charge of operating a Bowl. You have the choice of inviting 8-4 ND or 11-1 Team X. Your livlihood, your reputation, everthing rides on how profitable the Bowl is.
You look at Team X's Bowl last year, and see 10,000 empty seats.
You look at ND, see they got pasted in 9 previous bowls, but they sell out and blow-up the nielson ratings of every Bowl they appear in.
Are you going with Team X, or ND?
As for what's done on field; the players know this before they sign up.
As for Arkansas; sure, but I'm not hearing Huston Nutt gripe.
...and finally: yeah, I'd be a bit put out, if UF got snubbed by ND under the same circumstances as Wisconsin did last year....but I wouldn't pretend to not understand why.
GO GATORS!!
badgerballer said:
posted on April 20, 2007 11:32 AM — 70.58.189.119 — link — abuse?
@ #35
Martin,It has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, it has everything to do with the point I was attempting to make, namely, that the 'power conferences' BCS tie-in is ridic. The fact that the conference champions get an automatic bid to the BCS is simply bad policy. And I was using FSU's 4-loss regular season, (got the year wrong), as an example to help make the point.
That year, the ACC was down - way down. As can happen to any conference. The point is; even though the conference was lousy, its champion HAD to go to a BCS game. 4 losses, 5 losses, 10 losses - doesn't matter. The champ gets the automatic bid. That year, FSU did not deserve a bid. No one in the ACC did. But it doesn't matter. Win your conf. championship game, and you're automatically in. Feel me?
Regan said:
posted on April 20, 2007 12:29 PM — 192.24.243.21 — link — abuse?
Ah, to be the ugly duckling on this thread... :-)
My question to everyone is (with regards to 2006): why not?
Here were the BCS rankings before the Bowls:
1) Ohio State
2) Florida
3) Michigan
4) Louisiana State
5) Southern California
6) Louisville
7) Wisconsin
8) Boise State
9) Auburn
10) Oklahoma
11) Notre Dame
12) Arkansas
13) West Virginia
14) Wake Forest
15) Virginia TechThe other BCS teams were: Ohio State, Florida, Michigan, Southern California, Oklahoma, Boise State, Louisiana State, Wake Forest, and Louisville.
Who in the BCS top 15 does this leave for that last spot?
#7 Wisconsin (11-1)
#9 Auburn (10-2)
#11 Notre Dame (10-2)
#12 Arkansas (10-3)
#13 West Virginia (10-2)
#15 Virginia Tech (10-2)Wisconsin and Auburn could not get into the BCS because their conferences already had two other teams in it. Agree or disagree with the rule, it is actually for the sake of fairness. (ie: no one can "Know" which conference is better until after Bowl Season).
I will also point out that Wisconsin and Auburn only beat their respective non-BCS bowl opponents by 3 points each.
The logic that Notre Dame shouldn't have gone to the Sugar Bowl is obvious IN RETROSPECT. Right then and there, they were the highest ranked eligible BCS team.
Also, as far as people complaining that ND doesn't play in a conference, let me remind you of their schedule: @GT, PSU, MICH, @MCST, PUR, STAN, UCLA, @NAVY, UNC, @AF, ARMY, @SCAL.
The three service academies were the cupcake- and cellar dwellar- level teams right there with all other teams, and the rest of the teams are ALL from BCS conferences, and even the ones that were weak are USUALLY decent.
Trust me, I understand why there is a lot of frustration about ND. If you hate them, enjoy watching them get beat by the LSU's of the world every New Year's. But your spokesman needs to be someone other than the Wisconsin coach whose team didn't even schedule more than one powerhouse (which they lost to).
As far as any other year, it is much easier to go after Nebraska 2001 or Oklahoma 2004, so I would suggest that if you want to grab the torches and pitchforks... :-)
Bill Rocklin said:
posted on April 20, 2007 12:36 PM — 24.8.131.80 — link — abuse?
ND is the envy of 99.5% of the schools with althetic programs. They have been in a holding pattern on the Top 25 for a number of years with the main reason being barely adequate recruiting versus the Big Dogs and perhaps some of the puppies as well. It appears Weiss has turned the corner for the recruting to match his coaching capabiities. The Irish will do fine this season and in 08/09 we'll see if they can meet the expectations of Top 5 Contender - I think it inevitable. I'd love to see my AF Falcons have a a third of the talent Weiss is bringing in. I think the Irish will surprise on defense this season and score enough points with a new O to pull 1-2 upsets ( USC and Michigan ). I guess if the Irish do indeed meet the expectations of most in the next 1-3 seasons - the ND haters ( not sure why they 'hate' any school ) will be running for the prozac.
GatorMatt said:
posted on April 20, 2007 1:05 PM — 128.227.178.143 — link — abuse?
What I don't think is fair is the fact that Notre Dame get destroyed every year, yet they still take home about $8 million each BCS game, while actual conferences (SEC) are forced to split all the revenue they generate. I do not see how the BCS let's this crap go on year to year, especially given the fact that Notre Dame is terrible
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on April 20, 2007 1:57 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
GatorMatt #46:
Great point. The money issue is an unfair advantage. The BCS should require teams to play in a conference to be eligible to eliminate all the "built-in" advantages ND has. ND has HUGE advantages yet still get their @$$ beat.
SEMINOLE EDUCATION said:
posted on April 20, 2007 2:03 PM — 151.198.210.30 — link — abuse?
SEMINOLE_NATION needs a lesson in grammar.
That FSU diploma must be hard to obtain.
"I'm glad Bret Bielema came out and said what he did. Finally a HC from a big program steps up and calls BS on ND. He's totally write."FAN1 said:
posted on April 20, 2007 2:09 PM — 151.198.210.30 — link — abuse?
Please take SEMINOLE_NATION's comments for what they are worth. Take a second to refer to his initial post.
"I'm glad Bret Bielema came out and said what he did. Finally a HC from a big program steps up and calls BS on ND. He's totally write."gatorstud said:
posted on April 20, 2007 2:36 PM — 69.95.111.248 — link — abuse?
c'mon bill...havn't they been saying that for years....i live 25 minutes east of soouth bend and i can tell you that the arrogance notre dame and its followers have is unbelievable these people around here think notre dame should be in the top 5 every year........i have been here for 14 years...and it started with..."just wait till davie get his recruits going".....and then it was.."just wait till willinghams recruits get going"......and now it's.."just wait till weiss get his recruits going"..its the same ol' story...
i will say that the weiss affect has been better recieved than davies or willinghams....but the outcome has been the same....so far....beating the sub-par teams while taking a beating from the better ones....charlie has a lot of work left to do.....we will all see if he runs out of time...just like the others....
TampaGator said:
posted on April 20, 2007 2:50 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
Badgerballer/#43:
"...The fact that the conference champions get an automatic bid to the BCS is simply bad policy..."
What??? But they won their conference.
So how do you B-10 boys want it--do you want a pure merit system that rewards stictly merit (e.g.-conf. champs), or a subjective system that measures intangibles? (e.g.--3rd place in conf. team with 11-1 record more worthy than ND).
That sounds suspiciously like "...SEC Champ Gators don't deserve to play for NC; B-10 2nd place Michigan does..."
Face it; what you (and UW's coach) are really saying, is:
____________________________________________
"Notre Dame doesn't deserve special treatment...the 3rd best team in the Big-10 does".
____________________________________________If you want to argue intangibles, then show us HOW and WHY the 3rd best team in a conference deserves special treatment.
Frankly, like it or not, Notre Dame has met the burden of showing why they deserve special treatment ($$$)...
...while Wisconsin has not (yeah you beat a good SEC team, but left 10,000 seats empty in the process, registered abyssmal nielson ratings...burden not even close to being met).
Go and win your damn conference (i.e.-earn it)--then you won't have to worry about getting snubbed in favor of ND.
GO GATORS!!badgerballer said:
posted on April 20, 2007 3:11 PM — 70.58.189.119 — link — abuse?
Tampa,
Simple, b/c the 3rd best team in a conference, MAY be the 3rd best team in the country. Being the best team in a poor conference, does not make you an elite team on a nationwide level. It happens, one conference may well produce 3 or 4 or 5 of the best teams in the nation. Being in SEC country, I can't see how you don't follow this.
"so how do we want to do it, a pure merit system"
Gee....imagine that. YES. That's exactly what I'd like to see. Its simple, really. 5 BCS bowls, the top 10 teams in the final BCS rankings go. What is the problem."Go and win your damn conference (i.e. earn it)
No reason to get personal, bro. And it just so happens that some years 11-1 is not enough to win one's conference. Wisconsin's biggest problem is, we picked the wrong year to be good. Punish the athletes for that, but reward a 4 or 5 loss team for being mediocre. This makes no sense and doesn't even register on the fairness scale. You can't, honestly, say that you do not see my point."But left 10,000 seats empty..."
You keep banging that drum. That's a another discussion for another day. At issue here is merit, not ticket sales. Can you really blame Badger fans for not being as enthusiastic to go see a repeat bowl, after a stinging BCS snub? You probably can, but its not at all germane to the topic at hand.badgerballer said:
posted on April 20, 2007 3:38 PM — 70.58.189.119 — link — abuse?
#50
WHAAAAAT in the world are you talkinga about?!? If anyone was handed anything last season, it was Norte Dame.
Having an 11-1 season, and finishing the season BCS #7 IS earning a BCS birth. How is that wanting something 'handed' to us? There are 5 BCS bowls, hence, 10 teams that go. If you finish #7, you should be in. Its that simple. That's not whinning. That we didn't go to the BCS is not for a lack of earning it, its systemic in nature. They system is such that a school can be deserving, but still not go. While other, less deserving schools, do go.
The fact that last year it happend to Wisconsin, and I am a Wisconsin fan/alum, has nothing to do with it. Honestly, I would be singing this same tune if it were another school...(well, maybe except OSU). Its simply an unfair system.
Portis said:
posted on April 20, 2007 3:51 PM — 24.140.92.2 — link — abuse?
It's official, I AM A WISCONSIN FAN. It's great to see someone besides Rich Rod step up and question the role of Notre Dame in the BCS. It's a crock that they get all of the breaks in the "BS" Championship, while more deserving teams are left to play in the International Plumbers Union of San Francisco bowl.
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on April 20, 2007 4:26 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
#49 & 50:
Haha. Well I'm glad that makes you feel better about yourself. You must feel proud to point out a typographical error. Way to go. Really, I'd love to commend you on your amazing discovery but you are hiding behind an alias name. Your posts are a waste of my time and even your own. Stop hiding behind a name, attempting to make lame insults and personal attacks, and actually talk football and give your opinions about the threads.
TampaGator said:
posted on April 20, 2007 4:42 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
"SEMINOLE EDUCATION" (i.e. Grammarboy)/#49:
I'm guessing you're a Notre Dame fan.
Why? Because I've visited a bunch of ND blogs before, and it's standard protocol to pull "grammar police" in those blog threads. What's more, you almost never see "grammar" posts in Fanblogs until fans start talking about ND.
Coincidence?
In any event, I don't care who does it, or in what context, but those "grammar police" posts--like yours in "49--are the most chickenshit type of post, second only to the "drive-by" posts. You-whomever you maybe--managed to pull both off in one post.
Read my posts in this thread, and you'll notice that I've gone to bat for ND, and your post was directed at an arch rival of mine; no matter. chickenshit is chickenshit.
At least try to incorporate some substance in your posts...and please spare us the grammar lessons.
GO GATORS!!
beattherush said:
posted on April 20, 2007 4:49 PM — 71.201.178.203 — link — abuse?
"He's totally write"
"It about time a coach came fourth"
"its strickly about which team has "earned-what" in any ONE given Season."
"Heck, they're already watching for the wrong reasons...to see ND loose"Glad to see college football's brain trust coming out to defend the NCAA against big bad Notre Dame.
"The BCS also needs to scrap that stupid rule preventing more than two teams from any conference from having a chance at a BCS game"
Hate to tell you this, but the author of those rules was... the conferences. Don't blame ND because the conferences prefer a system where they get guaranteed money over a system that fairly picks the best teams.
"All i was saying is a conference champ is more deserving than ND"
The BCS guarantees the BCS conference winners go to the BCS games, even if they post 4 or 5 losses like a certain Florida team a couple of years back. How is ND impacting those conference winners again?
Hey Wisconsin: you want to go to a BCS game? Either win your conference (you didn't) or play a real schedule (you didn't). Notre Dame routinely plays 7 or 8 bowl teams a year. As soon as Wisconsin does that they'll get well-deserved recognition. Until then, take your gripes to the conference commissioners who set up the system you are mouthing off about in the papers.
TampaGator said:
posted on April 20, 2007 5:19 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
Badgerballer/#54:
The bottom line, is that absent a playoff system, there will inevitably be a subjective element to who gets in, and who does not. One of the most objective aspects of the complicated calculus in place now, is the conference champion automatic bid.
I think you're contradicting yourself by calling for objectivity in BCS classification, then favoring subjective aspects over objective ones.
Illustration: UW ranked #7 in BCS, is subjective--even under BCS (since BCS is based on human polls). Winning a conference championship, is objective.
As between Notre Dame and #3 team of any conference--explain how the subjectivity of that analysis could ever be eliminated (rhetorical; you needn't actually reply).
Once you realize the door is open to subjective anaylsis, and understand that anything is therefore fair game for consideration--you can not an escape economic analysis.
Therein lies the problem with the coach's gripe: he's basically asking that the current subjective system be replaced with a new but equally subjective system that simply favors one set of subjective criteria over another, while the "other" is more economically profitable to the NCAA, BCS, TV, etc., by favoring ND. His suggestion simply seeks to reward more worthy also-rans, at the expense of $$$ for the NCAA, etc.
Good luck selling that one.
All that said, I do "feel" ya'; it would suck to go 11-1, and get rewarded with a trip to the Citrus Bowl.
But I don't think you, or most of the Notre Dame haters, appreciate what Notre Dame means to college football in general. I'm not saying you wouldn't still be bitching about last year's result...I just think you might look at ND a litle bit differently.
GO GATORS!!
Jarred said:
posted on April 20, 2007 5:44 PM — 12.178.128.146 — link — abuse?
Post 59. You just sold it yourself. I appreciate Notre Dame. I don't like how they are consistantly overrated and overhyped. They aren't the only ones. However, that is a poll issue. If the polls don't get them in, something else will.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 20, 2007 6:26 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Diggs, Diggs, Diggs, part of my point was that We Can Not base our reasoning/where we stand on the arguement, Based on what happens AFTER THE FACT!... meaning, whatever happens in the Bowl Game. We also Can Not base it on how a team, ANY TEAM (not just NotreDame), Performed in previous Bowl Games!!!
This is Fundemental. This goes beyond the question of Notre Dame-being-Independent/getting-preferential-treatment.
Florida St 2005 and Pitts 2004 were both/each LESS Deserving of those BCS Bids than Notre Dame was in 06 or 05, arguably.
-----
Now, regarding your misplaced assumptions/vain accusations...
Notre Dame is gonna be a limp team this year (rebuilding)... Im not "trying to pump" anything up, Diggs. How-the-Hell do you come up with this !?!? ...
"You know that if it was a team that didn't have to face USC... you'd find every possible way to bash them."
Bratha_Please, you gotta be kidding.
Paul in Brooklyn said:
posted on April 20, 2007 6:47 PM — 74.73.13.238 — link — abuse?
Umm, why should ND be forced to join a conference? I'm not sure I understand that. It strikes me that joining a conference is about getting the benefits of that affiliation (read: finances) but ND does very well independently on the monetary front so the benefit isn't prounounced for them.
Whatever team you support, wouldn't you be very pleased if not being stuck in a conference were a viable option? Telling ND they have to join a conference smacks of sour grapes (not to mention the fact that when ND did want to join a conference they were rejected...)
As for Bielema's comments, the Big 10 signed off on the BCS rules - no one forced them to do it and ND certainly wasn't the driving force behind the "two per conference" clause.
Finally, before you bash the playing of the service academies, do a little reading - Notre Dame, as a university, would probably not exist today if it weren't for the academies support during WWII. It should be viewed as an honor to play those schools, not as a chore.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 20, 2007 6:54 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Diggs, I guess you missed this, that I told SEMINOLE NATION...
"I might make the arguement that NEITHER Notre Dame nor Wake Forest (the ACC Champs) earned a BCS bid [in 2006]." ... Impling that Wisconsin (#7) & Auburn (#9) did instead.
And about "defending Notre Dame"... the only Direct example of that (from Me) was when SEMI_NATION use the Schedule vs the Service Academies that Notre Dame maintains to criticize their SOS.
Like I told SEMI, "Enough of the Attempts of trying to bash Notre Dame for facing the Service Academies [(Specifically)]..." Air Force has been among the best Mid-Major programs in the country under Coach DeBerry (23 yrs). Navy, over the past 4 yrs is 9-4, 8-4, 10-2, 8-5. Lay-off of the Service Academies; in that sense, thats who Im "defending" here.
OU Fan said:
posted on April 20, 2007 7:00 PM — 84.146.12.109 — link — abuse?
I don't know about anyone else and I can understand everyones' hatred toward the Fighting Irish, but to me, coach Bielema saying "Notre Dame hasn't won in the last nine bowl appearances, or whatever it is" is very, very, very UNPROFESSIONAL and shows a lack of class. I mean cmon coach Bielema, you're supposed to be a coach, a leader, a role model, not cry baby! Quit whining, suck it up, and drive on. Go Sooners!
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 20, 2007 7:13 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Coach Bielema didnt go Far Enough with what he said. I like that he spoke-out, but his focus is too narrow.
Not only did Wisconsin "deserve" a BCS spot over Notre Dame in 06, but they deserved one over Wake Forest too!
badgerballer said:
posted on April 20, 2007 8:40 PM — 70.58.189.119 — link — abuse?
#69 So Cal USMC:
RIGHT ON! In my mind, this is not a ND hater topic. Its a rage against a system. Wake had no business being in a BCS game. Period. But, SOMEBODY had to win that conference.
# 60 & #61:
You points are completely, totally and absolutely moot. Wisconsin's schedule in 06 makes zero differnce. None. Our schedule did not hurt us. How many different ways can I possibly say this?
WE FINISHED THE SEASON RANKED #7.
That said, schedule doesn't matter. Signature win, or lack thereof, doesn't matter. "The computers" did what they do, figured it out, and pegged the Badgers #7. End of discussion. Teams ranked behind us, like Wake, leaped over b/c of a ridiculous bylaw. Just like the bylaw that says, "If Norte Dame finishes in the top 8, it gets an automatic bid."
At the end of the day, of course Tampa is right, its about the $. But that doesn't change the fact that it sux.
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on April 20, 2007 9:01 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
Lets not knock WF and how they didnt "deserve" a BCS bid. That's BS. WF deserved it just as much as anyone. Guess what? WF actually WON their respective conference, they didnt finish THIRD. Like it or not, WF played a tougher schedule than Wisconsin and finished the regular season 10-2. I've read how an 8-4 champion doesnt deserve a BCS bid blah blah. Well guess what, WF was a 10-2 conference CHAMPION and not a 3rd place runner up. WF did more with LESS. In no way did WF have near the talent of the teams they faced - yet the won. They only lost to than #15 Clemson (a game they SHOULD have won) & #19 VaTech. WF beat ranked teams, they beat #16 BC & #23 GT. Mean while, Wisconsin only played ONE ranked team during the regular season and we all know what happened - Michigan doubled their point total.
You can be upset with the system all you want. Dont try to discredit what a 10-2 conference CHAMPION did just because your 3rd place team got left out. WF had the most impressive season of anyone (except maybe Boise St.) and they "deserved" to be in a BCS just as much as anyone. Yes, even more than an 11-1 3rd place Wisconsin team with a weak schedule.
badgerballer said:
posted on April 20, 2007 9:02 PM — 70.58.189.119 — link — abuse?
I think the over-riding point of those on my side of the discussion is simply this - ND's special treatment in the BCS. They are garunteed a BCS bowl spot, with a top 8 finish - while no other school in the nation has such a garuntee. That's Belimea's beef, and its a good one. To wit; Wisconsin. A #7 finish, but, "Sorry Charlie, you're out".
Zac said:
posted on April 20, 2007 11:09 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
The BCS system was presumably created to alleviate issues regarding the Top 25 teams in the country, in particular the Top Ten, and ultimately to systematically select the best two for a National Championship game. While conference affiliation should have some limited impact in this selection (There are stronger conferences than others.), and strength of schedule should account for something (again limited), ultimately it should amount to wins & losses. Yes, that means on occasion, the Utah's, BYU's, & Boise St's of the world have to be given their due. That having been said, we've seen the end-of-season Top 15 (Post 44). Based upon this strange rule of no more than two teams from a conference in BCS games, two Top 10 teams didn't go BCS'n. Well, that makes no sense to me any more than automatically choosing a conference's champion to go. If the infinite wisdom of the BCS has determined a team has made the Top 10 and there are 5 BCS games, then, by God those are the teams that should be in them. Yes, there shall be wailing and much gnashing of teeth. Then again, isn't there always?
With regards to this issue, it's not whether or not ND should or should not join a conference. That is a subject for another argument. It is whether or not ND is in the Top 10. They were not; they should not have gone.
I would remind you, had WVU & Louisville ended the regular season 11-1 (There had been much made of their schedules.), would they have been ranked above WI? WI's schedule wasn't any better. In all fairness, they did distinguish themselves much better against MI, than did ND. The point is this: Only a select few of you have pointed out WI's schedule deficiencies from 2006. Last year, the Big Least/Big Easy was all you heard. It is for this reason, particularly for teams like Boise St, I'd like to see a play-off system. Just the Top 10. None of this "only so many from a conference goes," etc. If a conference is particularly good that year, why should they be punished for it? We've all admitted and accepted that conferences have down years, such as with the ACC last year. Well, conferences have good years too. If you're going to penalize using the strength-of-schedule argument, than you have to reward by virtue of the same argument. That would be only fair. So, how about it? Did I hear, "It's play-off time!!!"???
badgerballer said:
posted on April 21, 2007 12:45 AM — 70.58.189.119 — link — abuse?
Strong retort, Nation. An excellent defense of Wake. No qualms with your arguement.
I'll make my final post like this. Coach B's arguement is very, very strong. His point being that ND has its own set of rules, the rest of college football another.
ND's rule is that if it finishes in the top 8, it goes to a BCS game. Garunteed. No one else has such a garuntee. Ala, Wisconsin. Finished #7, no BCS game.
And ND has this arrangement for what reason? Not in a conference? Too much $$ for the NCAA? Take your pick. Its a double standard. Wisc. was victimized by it in 06, time will only tell who's next. But I can promise this, whoever it is, that team's coach - if he's worth his weight in salt - will be singing the exact same tune. Its not fair to the athletes.
Now, I think this horse is sufficently dead. Great, great thread though. I loved the conversation.
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on April 21, 2007 10:22 AM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
badgerballer #74:
I completely agree with that statement. ND has a silly "guarantee" to get a birth. It IS about the money unfortunately. ND wont join a conference BECAUSE of the money, they get to keep ALL their BCS money (a cheap advantage IMO), and they are the only school with their own national TV contract (conferences wouldnt allow that). So yes, ND is a gold mine. It may not be fair, we may not like it, but there's one positive about it - we can always enjoy watching ND get whacked by a superior team.
Tomcat said:
posted on April 21, 2007 11:12 AM — 68.89.131.18 — link — abuse?
Wisconsin had an outstanding season and even beat Arkansas in their bowl appearance.I can understand the coaches veiwpoint and its part of the coaches job to do whatever he can to help his team. The Badgers did not face OhSU and the Big10/11 does not have a CCG.The ND Irish also had a good year with victories over Ga Tech and PSU and UCLA.
The ND Irish do play a tough schedule and do seem to be the media darlings.
The Irish Bowl record really speaks for itself 0-9and unfortunately until they join a conference or hell freezes over they will always have an advantage over other teams.
As a Longhorn fan we have to beat OU, Neb Twice, A&M, Ok St, T Tech,K St and all OCC games in order to get a bid.
That would be the same as Wis beating OSU then Mich twice, PSU, Iowa, Mich St etc. etc.
Hookem-Horns
Go HookiesBlueGold95 said:
posted on April 21, 2007 4:30 PM — 24.7.238.54 — link — abuse?
Notre Dame does not have a BCS "birthright". Coach Bielema should be ashamed of his whining. I've always liked Barry Alvarez and the Badgers, but I think my opinion is starting to change. You have an automatic conference bid that could have won. You have a second berth you could win by playing decent non-conference teams. The Badgers didn't do it. Talk about the things you could have controlled, or work with your AD to change your situation, but don't whine about "the system". What terrible role modeling for young men.
For the record, I'd rather see a playoff to determine the national champion. But we aren't talking about the championship. Wisconsin played in a great January 1 bowl against a solid opponent, and won an exciting game. They get a share of the maximum amount of money a conference can get from the BCS (for placing UM and OSU). Why take cheap shots at Notre Dame?
The Fighting Irish are only "media darlings" because people watch them on NBC, or in the Sugar Bowl. The bowls have always been about inviting teams' fans to travel, and now also about TV revenue. We all know that, so why whine about it? If the Sugar Bowl hadn't wanted to host ND, I'd rather hear Charlie Weis talk about how to beat Michigan or Southern Cal next season than hear him fuss about the rules of the system.
Tom said:
posted on April 21, 2007 5:32 PM — 128.164.132.33 — link — abuse?
#13 wow. who cares about the conference? i don't get this conference nonsense. everyone plays 12 teams, who cares, out of a given, stagnant group of 10-12 teams, who does best? how does this help us measure who the best in the country anyway? Have you seen, recently, how we have to compare teams? it's like playing 7 degrees of separation.
let's just take the best and put them in bowl games. i think things would be better if: we just got rid of conferences all together, we pretending MAC schools (in general) are as good as most D1A schools (those that are should be put in stay D1A, those crappy schools in conferences (i'm talking to you IL, KY, KS, and any school in Washington) and moved them down to D1AA, and stopped playing D1AA schools.
FSU can't ever complain again that ND got a bowl this year (ranked #11) when FSU got a BCS bid with 8 wins. ACC has been horribly weak these past few years (worse than ND over the last 2). Who cares that you won your conference? you were the best out of a bunch of crappy teams. let me slow hand clap for you. Saying you're the conference champion of a conference whose teams didn't play any better than your average group of Cheerleaders would isn't saying much.
That's what makes bielma look so foolish. The reason FSU got a bid? Money for the ACC. reason ND got a bid? Money (okay, and a #11 ranking). Bielma, however, gives the FSU bid a pass saying he "understands it." It's just a conference, friend. We are talking about who DESERVES a bid, and evidently being deserving is a function of being the best team for the bowl. But Bielma understands the money in one case but not in the other. That's either disingenuous (no he just doesn't want to take to task a system that give automatic bids to conference champions whether they deserve it or not) or evidence that he's a barely functioning retard. obviously, it's both. And here people are cheering for him because he said something about ND's tie-ins. Well who exactly isn't? it's not exactly like this is a taboo subject. The problem isn't that people are afraid, the problem is that the logic has no force (or is substantially outweighed by other, more important considerations).
Saying that FSU deserved to go b/c they won their conference means you should also support the notion that any MAC team that wins their conference should go--they did win a conference, right? Oh, but not all conferences are equal? Okay, i agree. The problem, then, sparky, is that the ACC 2 years ago played like a MAC conference. 8-4 and you're going to pull out the commander-in-chief trophy? Did you blush when you wrote that? i'd have been so ashamed of that specious logic i'd still be hiding under my desk.
FSU pushed the #3 team? well hey, any given saturday (or whatever day of the week it was). Was it FSU playing an average game, a great game, or PSU not playing very well? In any case, that wasn't a vindication of 8-4 + MAC-level conference play + BCS bid.
And finally bringing up what's happened in past bowls is laughingly silly. I'm going to take some graduate exams in 2 weeks. What role should the test i took on native american indian tribes in the 3rd grade play in my exams? New season. that's how things work.
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on April 21, 2007 7:08 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
Tom #78:
Your assessment of the ACC is way off. Last year you could argue the ACC was weak (because it was). Two years ago though, I could easily argue the ACC was THE toughest conference. Yes, FSU won with an 8-4 record, guess what? EVERY conference with a championship game has had a 4 loss team in the championship game at least once. Two years ago the ACC had more teams in the top 25 than any other conference, a total of 9 teams were ranked in the ACC's first year of being a 12 conference. That shows the ACC's depth that year, 9 teams were ranked - top to bottom good teams. The ACC also tied the Big 10 for highest bowl winning % that year. Also, after the season the ACC set an NFL draft record for the most players taken in the first round from the same conference (including the #1 overall pick), indicating the ACC had a ton of great players and talent. So lets review, most teams ranked, tied for highest bowl winning %, NFL draft record - show me whats weak about that. Yes, FSU came into the game HUGE underdogs to a highly ranked VaTech team and pulled out a small miracle. That in no way reflects the strength of the conference. You need to re-think your assessment of the ACC because it's way off, especially two years ago.
ksuwild said:
posted on April 21, 2007 8:52 PM — 170.35.224.63 — link — abuse?
Tom(post 78),
Bringing up what happened in past bowl games is silly??? Why? Because it exposes how ridiculously OVER-RATED ND has been through the years??? Sorry Tom, you can rationalize it any way you want but from the mid 90's on ND has been absolutely crushed in bowls they obviously should never have been in to begin with, especially recently.
Also, don't compare the ACC to the MAC conference. Here is a quote from you "The problem, then, sparky, is that the ACC 2 years ago played like a MAC conference". Those kinds of statements make YOU look like a barely functioning retard who doesn't know anything about CF. The season before last the ACC along with the Big 12 tied for the most bowl wins out of ALL the conferences and there were about 6 teams from the ACC that year that would have wiped the floor with ND.
Greg said:
posted on April 21, 2007 10:08 PM — 128.175.141.30 — link — abuse?
Bielema is wrong. Notre Dame was more deserving. The only teams Wisconsin played that were any good were purdue and psu. Notre Dame beat them too right ? Oh and Wisconsin also played powerhouses like Buffalo, SDSU, W. Illinois, and BGSU. Whereas ND beat GT, UCLA, and Navy. Although I know it wasn't their choice they didn't have OSU on their schedule, but they could have scheduled good teams. At least Notre Dame schedules USC and Mich. And another thing, Notre Dame is in a conference, its called Notre Dame. Give Notre Dame some time, they'll be back and very very deserving of the BCS.
badgerballer said:
posted on April 22, 2007 2:33 PM — 70.58.189.119 — link — abuse?
Greg,
Good Lord, how many times does this need explaining? One last time:
Wisconsin's schedule did not hurt them! "Deserving" is based on final rank. WE FINISHED THE REGULAR SEASON BCS RANKED #7! That's all that matters. Its over. Picking apart schedules is now a waste of time. The BCS computer ranking system took strength of schedule, and a bunch of other stuff, into account and generated a ranking of #7.
Wisconsin was penalized for not winning its conference (or, for finishing 3rd in its conference, choose your verbage). A penalty which CANNOT be enforced on ND. If ND finishes in the top 8, they go to a BCS game. Period. Wisc. finished #7, and didn't. Schedule be damned. NOBODY ELSE has that guaruntee. NOBODY.
Good greif this is getting old.
(but then again, I keep coming back to this thread, so I guess I'm doing it to myself.)
beemo said:
posted on April 22, 2007 2:51 PM — 216.222.173.98 — link — abuse?
Greg- you're all wet.
Bielema was right. Refer to all the previous posts to see what the real issue is- BCS rankings, not schedule. Since the inception of the BCS system, Bowl match ups are supposed to be based on computer rankings, not biased personal preference.
ggb said:
posted on April 22, 2007 6:39 PM — 128.175.141.30 — link — abuse?
I'm pretty sure Notre Dame has been an independent much longer than Wisconsin has been in the big ten. So maybe instead of Notre Dame joining a conference, Wisconsin should leave the big ten. They won't, they want the security of being in a conference and the bowl tie ins and the tv deals and blah blah blah.
But this won't even matter in the future because Notre Dame will actually have the talent, experience, and the right to be in these games. Notre Dame is Notre Dame after all.
BlueGold95 said:
posted on April 22, 2007 10:25 PM — 24.7.238.54 — link — abuse?
I’m sorry, badgerballer (#82), but I guess you will have to keep explaining. Wisconsin might have been ranked in the top 4 of the BCS by beating, say, California and Texas A&M (two reasonable opponents, one of them on the road) instead of any two of their four patsies. That would have guaranteed a BCS bowl berth. Wins over I-AA schools and Buffalo certainly should not persuade human polls or computer rankings. So scheduling DOES matter.
Alternately, Wisconsin could have finished #14 but been a conference champion (see Wake Forest), and gone to a BCS bowl. That is a guarantee that Notre Dame DOES NOT have. In fact, the Irish would not be eligible, as they would have failed to be in the top 12.
I think Bielema’s real complaint here is with the other conferences, not Notre Dame. They’re the ones that wanted a limit on the number of teams a conference could place, and “they” includes the Big Ten. Notre Dame made big concessions in the new BCS agreement, and did not complain, yet folks like Bielema still like to single out the Irish.
badgerballer, you and beemo and ksuwild and everyone else saying ND should not go to bowl games, please look at http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/tvratings. Fox Sports apparently has not posted this past season’s TV ratings and attendance numbers, but you can see the ND-Ohio State Fiesta Bowl had better attendance and much better ratings than the previous two seasons where it also wasn’t the championship game. Bowls are about tourism and TV viewers, so clearly Notre Dame “deserved” to be playing. Again, I'd love to see a playoff, but we don't live in that world right now.
My point is that Wisconsin had a great season last year, and has a bright future. Why complain about the past? And why short-change your players by whining about a system that your school helped to create? Lastly, please explain a more fair way of including Notre Dame in the BCS system.
TampaGator said:
posted on April 23, 2007 10:07 AM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
So Cal USMC/#'s 25-68:
I missed your 25 before-not trying to dodge the issue.
Short Answer: If UF or Miami ever argue that 3rd best team in their respective conference deserves BCS bid over Notre Dame, we/they can expect to have '01 Sugar Bowl thrown in our/their faces.
As for that game: I went to it. I vaguely recall it being reported as a sell out before I even arrived in New Orleans...and I distinctly recall scalping tickets--presumably based on that information. Perhaps I was misinformed (and maybe my recollection is faded; it was some time ago).
But I also recall seeing quite a few empty seats near the rafters of the Superdome, thinking that it sure didn't look like a sell out, and wondering why I scalped. I did land great seats by scalping, but they were in the Miami section--(which made for a very long night) while had I purchased from TO, I might have been upper deck.
In any event, I wasn't jabbing Wisconsin for traveling poorly--just pointing out that they don't travel as well as Notre Dame, and they don't bring what ND brings to the table.
And when it comes down to it, what Wisconsin coach is saying, is that his team deserved special treatment, and Notre Dame didn't. Hence, he brought the comparison on himself, and as I stated in prior post, it is inescapably a subjective anaylsis, which in turn opens the doors to economic considerations.
GO GATORS!!
badgerballer said:
posted on April 23, 2007 10:27 AM — 75.70.18.179 — link — abuse?
#85
" Wisconsin might have been ranked in the top 4 of the BCS by beating,.... That would have guaranteed a BCS bowl berth."NO IT WOULD NOT HAVE! That's the beef. Man, oh man. The rule is, no conf. may send more than two representatives to the BCS. Love it, or hate it, that's the law. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that, in a given year, two, three or even four of the best teams in the nation may be in one conference. Recruiting runs in cycles like that.
I would think that those of you in SEC country are especially sympathetic to this point. I'm not an SEC fan, but I respect the fact that, for the last few years & probably the next few, that conference is murderers row. Its not reasonable to expect any one school is going to run that gauntlet unbeaten. The level of play is just too good. Like Wisc. in 06, a school could easily finish 3rd in the SEC, but still be one of the 5 best teams in the nation. If so, that team's coach would be P.O.'d over the snub and, imho, rightfully so.
As to your other comment, that ND does not have the guaruntee of a birth via winning its conference - that's a good point. I hadn't considered that. Kudos to you for bringing that one up, first in this thread, I think.
And your final question - a more fair way. Easy. ALL of the BCS births are at large. Period. No conference tie ins, no guaruntees. Nothing. Everyone has an equal shot, MAC, Big12, Mountain West, Atlantic Ten, whatever.
ksuwild said:
posted on April 23, 2007 4:36 PM — 71.237.67.235 — link — abuse?
BlueGold95,
I checked that link, as well as read Bill Plaschkes' desperate article about why a "Playoff really isn't needed after all". Let me address Plaschke first. I love how everyone against a playoff has convinced themselves(for some reason unknown to me)of the idea that the bowl system would crumble if a Playoff were implemented. NONSENSE!!! There are over 30 bowls right now and that number grows EVERY YEAR.......so why on earth couldn't you take 8 teams(4 bowls)for a Playoff and leave the rest of the bowls for the other bowl eligible teams(which there are tons of every year)? Also, he writes as if nothing magnificent or exciting could ever happen in a Playoff(like that's what a playoff is for). No way, that's impossible. Exciting games are already happening with the current BCS system so there is obviously no need for a Playoff. What an idiot. He couldn't be missing the point more about the real reasons we need a Playoff. Playoffs are fair to everyone, they can handle crazy scenarios(BCS can't),and they effectively decide a TRUE #1 team. Not to mention a Playoff would dwarf the earnings and TV ratings the BCS currently makes for all you people obsessed with what makes the College Football world go round. Again, another desperate & futile effort to prevent progress.......in order to appease Lord only knows who? I guess I see why it's so hard to change the current system.......why have a fair system when you're profiting from an unfair one? HMM BCS.org
Back to your comment BlueGold95. To me College Football is not defined by the money it generates or the TV ratings it is capable of pulling in. You make the argument that Bowls are about tourism and TV viewers and that ND obviously deserves to be in because of the money and ratings they generated. That's faulty reasoning my friend. Why not put them in the National Championship every year? They would generate the most revenue, which obviously makes them a deserving choice. Right?
Wrong. A teams play on the field defines whether they deserve to be in any given bowl game. Period. All the other stuff falls by the way side. It's not a popularity contest man. No one should be skipped over by another team for the sole reason that they can pull in more ratings and are more popular. At the end of the year Wisconsin was ranked #7 and ND was #11. That's what it comes down to.
I don't agree with the conference tie ins the BCS has right now. Conference champions should certainly be rewarded but they dominate the selection process, they are the selection process. I would much rather see an 8 team Playoff system that only has 4 automatic bids that go to the 4 highest power rated conferences champions. The conferences would be power rated based on the play that year and that year only. The 4 at large bids would be for the next 4 best teams regardless of what conference they are from. That would allow for the very best conferences(SEC last year)teams not to be punished for having multiple teams in the top 10. This would ensure the very best teams made the Playoff every year.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 23, 2007 8:17 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
BlueGold85,
I think that the under-lying concern or complaint here is actually about the way/method/rationale that the System in place determines which teams are "deserving" of BCS Bowl bids... and in a broader sense, Bowl bids in general.
I agree with you when you say "Bowls are about tourism and TV viewers"... But I say that That should change.
The way Any team should be included in the "BCS Bowl System" is by earning being Rated/Ranked one of those TOP 10 Teams (5 BCS Bowls, 10 spots) at the end of the season... er, based on Merit.So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 23, 2007 8:58 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Tampa Gator,
Youre response was "If [Florida] ever argue that 3rd best team in [the SEC] deserves BCS bid over Notre Dame, we can expect to have '01 Sugar Bowl thrown in our faces." -- Im gonna tuck that away somewhere...
... But anyway, I wanted to get to what you implied about Wisconsin & their Fan following, cause from every indication I get it seems that Wisconsin has one of the Best-Traveling fan bases in College Football. I dont know if thats true/reality, nor do I know how It compares to Notre Dame's fan base, but whatever the case, The Deeper Issue is about/should be about what makes a team "Deserving" of those BCS Bowl bids!
Bielema has a Point. But he is mainly looking out for his own. From what I make of what he said, he's not think "Big Picture" necessarily, and thats where we part ways... especially when he gets into Notre Dame's Past Bowl performances - Stupid rationale.
Still, I dont think you can criticize Him/Wisconsin (about how Notre Dame qualifies for a BCS Bowl as an independent) based on how well their Fan base Travel$ -- Or how well Any Team Travels (or how well they do in TV Rating$, etc). Thats where "we" start heading down another Moronic path... and by "we" I mean You, or whomever follows that logic.
BlueGold95 said:
posted on April 23, 2007 9:11 PM — 24.7.238.54 — link — abuse?
badgerballer (#87):
Thank you for your response. The way the BCS rules are written, if UM, OSU, and Wisconsin had finished in the top 4 and Wisconsin were the lowest ranked, you are right that the Badgers would have been left out. Also, I was wrong that ND would not have qualified at #14 – with the added fifth game, the rule was changed from top-12 to top-14 finish. They still would not have been automatic like WF.
However, I still say that a Badger team that had beaten a decent non-conference team in the pre-season and then beat another on the same day the Wolverines lost to the Buckeyes (instead of playing Buffalo that day) would have had a decent chance of finishing as the second-ranked Big Ten team. So I say that scheduling does matter, and that the Badgers should be accountable for their choices rather than blaming ND for playing by the agreed-upon rules. It was cheap of Coach Bielema to single out the Irish. That is my main objection.
So your suggestion is that the top 10 of the BCS standings go to the five bowls? You’re right that would be fair, but I cannot see the conferences OR the bowls going for that arrangement, for the same reason that the conferences don’t want to allow more than 2 teams. As an Irish fan, though, I think your plan would be quite fair to Notre Dame.
ksuwild (#88)
First off, I agree with most of your rant against the “playoff not needed” article, particularly your point that the bowls could co-exist with a playoff. Well said. I think we are past time for a playoff.
But come on. It’s nice that “to you” college football isn’t defined by money. “To me”, it isn’t either. To bowl games, which were created for the very reason of tourism when it is warm in the South and cold in the North, money determined whether the game was played or not. It’s really not a matter of our opinion, and it’s also a clear fact that Notre Dame is highly marketable.
Regarding your comment that it is not a “popularity contest”, it is worth noting that Wisconsin finished #5/6 in the polls and #10 in the computers, while ND finished #11/T-10 in the polls and #9 in the computers. Have you read any of the articles about poll voting, or looked at published ballots? Polls are often regionally biased, which seems a lot more like a "popularity contest" than the computer rankings, and those would have placed the Irish ahead of the Badgers.
You know as well as I do that the Irish should not be in the title game based on marketing. We are not talking about the title game here. Notre Dame’s play on the field made them eligible for selection in the BCS, and the Sugar Bowl reps picked them. They did not have to.
I think it is reasonable for the BCS to determine who is eligible for the bowls (top-12, top-16, etc.), so that it’s not like 1994 when an unranked, 6-4-1 Notre Dame team went to the Fiesta Bowl. I’m just not as convinced that the bowls should have to pick simply the top 10 from the BCS standings, and I’m quite convinced that the bowls and conferences would never agree to it.
I have lots of thoughts on playoff arrangements, but that’s probably better for another thread. Your scenario has merit, for sure. It would be nice if there were a way to incorporate 12 or 16 teams and get all of the conference champs, even the little ones, involved to represent the entire nation in the “national championship”.
BlueGold95 said:
posted on April 23, 2007 9:43 PM — 24.7.238.54 — link — abuse?
So Cal USMC (#89):
First off, it's 95 not 85. Please don't make me any older than I am. :-)
Isn't your argument a little bit like arguing against capitalism? Fine. I can agree that the system is not a strict meritocracy, and perhaps it should be. I still don't see where that's Notre Dame's fault such that Coach Bielema was justified in his remarks.
The more I think about it, the more I think the coach should have complained about the Big Ten schedule. That's what prevented his team from playing Ohio State and proving its status. Wouldn't it be nice if USC could play 8 conference games and avoid Cal or UCLA now and then?
Lastly, for the record:
1) Thanks for sticking up for the honor of playing the academies. People don't realize that the Navy bailed out Notre Dame in the 1940s, and that the annual game is an open invitation to Navy that the Middies could refuse at any time. I'm not saying ND's schedule is the toughest in the country, but it's certainly comparable to what conference teams play.
2) Speaking of schedules, I don't think USC gets enough credit for its non-conference opponents. You have 3 slots and you pick Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame. Don't mistake me for a Trojan fan, but I have a lot of respect for a team that truly plays for "national" titles. It's good for football fans!
TampaGator said:
posted on April 24, 2007 10:10 AM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
So Cal USMC/#90:
Keep that quote handy; if you catch me singing a different tune, by all meants, call me out! My memory ain't what it once was, but my instincts are primial, so I trust my reaction will be at least consistent.
As for the remaining substance of this thread, the only thing I'll add is that substituting a forumula that disregards conference tie-ins in favor of strictly polls (per your #89), in my opinion, is going backwards. What's the difference between that, and the old AP/UPI system? Computers?? (that base their conclusions on what data??) At least through the conferences, you can objectively ascertain a champion, then match champions v. champions.
I'll will however, join BlueGold95 in commending you for defending the academies, and add that if the point was to schedule patsies, there's about 80+ D-1 cadidates that would love to take their place.
Hence I commend Notre Dame for keeping the acadmies on their schdule for a few reasons:
1. Those games are living, on-going pieces of americana; great traditions, great occasions of patriotism.
2. No matter how bad the academies may be in any given year, the opportunity to play Notre Dame affords them exposure on a national level that they otherwise wouldn't get.
3. Notre Dame doesn't have to play the acadamies, and they'd get their national exposure no matter who they played.
4. As you pointed out, the acadmies are pretty good some years--especially of late.
My $.02.
GO GATORS!!
M GO BLUE said:
posted on April 24, 2007 12:33 PM — 216.46.209.12 — link — abuse?
Notre Dame will NOT be going to a BCS bowl this year!
9-1-07 - Georgia tech L
9-8-07 - At Penn st L
9-15-07 - At Michigan L
9-22-07 - Michigan st L
9-29-07 - At Purdue L
10-6-07 - At UCLA L
10-13-07 - Boston coll L
10-20-07 - USC L
11-3-07 - NAVY W
11-10-07 - Air Force W
11-17-07 - Duke W
11-24-07 - At Stanford W07 record 4-8 NO BOWL GAME!
But hey! look on the bright side.....ND won't lose a bowl game this year!
ksuwild said:
posted on April 24, 2007 3:01 PM — 170.35.224.64 — link — abuse?
BlueGold95, these are the final BCS rankings from before the Bowls were played last year.
BCS Standings
1. Ohio State
2. Florida
3. Michigan
4. LSU
5. USC
6. Louisville
7. Wisconsin
8. Boise State
9. Auburn
10. Oklahoma
11. Notre DameI copied and pasted that right from ESPN's web page? So I'm not sure if when you refer to the computer rankings you are referring to BCS rankings or other rankings. Let me know about that.
You're right about what bowls are about man. I don't agree with it but that's the way it is---for now anyway. I am not naive when it comes to the way the CF world works; again, I just wish it was different.
Let me know about the "rankings" you're referring to and I'll get back to you.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 24, 2007 5:14 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
BlueGold...5, Yes! You get it.
It is absolutely like "arguing against Capitalism".
But THIS is within the Context of SPORTS!!!... Ya know some people are raised Catholic, or Babtist, or Muslim... well I was raised Capitialist. I dont right-it-off as a concept, but...
College Football SHOULDNT be about THAT.
Thats my deeper point.
The "meritocra
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on April 19, 2007 10:56 AM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?I'm glad Bret Bielema came out and said what he did. Finally a HC from a big program steps up and calls BS on ND. He's totally write. This is why the BCS is a joke, it appears they put the MONEY first and then the best teams playing second. I think the BCS (or a playoff system if one ever happens) should REQUIRE teams to play in a conference to be eligible for a BCS (or playoff one day) bid. ND has proven time and time again they dont DESERVE to play in a BCS game. I say make them win a conference first before they get another chance.