Bob Stoops calls out the BCS

[Leonidas]

Some guy on CNN.com had Auburn #1 in his rankings. I Stoops gonna go after him too? Give me a break. I guess people can only have an opinion as long as it agrees with him.

[ISiddiqui]

It's just politiking for votes... no biggie.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

I guess people can only have an opinion as long as it agrees with him.

So Stoops can only have an opinion if it agrees with you?

That's all he's doing is saying that he thinks ESPN is pushing public opinion in order to justify a ratings-based controversy, and he's probably right. Even if he's not, though, he's entitled to that opinion as well just as someone's entitled to rank Auburn number one if they see fit. I don't think Stoops has any issue with people's opinions on who should be in and who should be out. But I do think he has a problem with trying to influence people's opinions solely for the purpose of television ratings.

[The_herd]

The thing is that this, along with the classless attempt to run up the score against Nebraska, may be losing him more votes than gaining. He's starting to look like a coach that is desperately trying to convince voters that they should stay in the top 2 instead of taking the higher road and letting things take care of themselves. In the past week I've lost a good deal of respect for a very good football coach.

[SunDancer]

Again,
How does ESPN play a roll in the polls? ESPN does NOT vote in the poll, they just sponsor it.

The USA TODAY/ESPN Board of Coaches is made up of 61 head coaches at Division I-A institutions. All are members of the American Football Coaches Association. This season’s board: Barry Alvarez, Wisconsin; Chuck Amato, North Carolina State; Gary Barnett, Colorado; Frank Beamer, Virginia Tech; Mike Bellotti, Oregon; Phil Bennett, Southern Methodist; Jack Bicknell, Louisiana Tech; Bobby Bowden, Florida State; Tommy Bowden, Clemson; Jeff Bower, Southern Mississippi; Gregg Brandon, Bowling Green; Mack Brown, Texas; Watson Brown, Alabama-Birmingham; Lloyd Carr, Michigan; Larry Coker, Miami (Fla.); Gary Crowton, Brigham Young; David Cutcliffe, Mississippi; Gary Darnell, Western Michigan; Darrell Dickey, North Texas; Bill Doba, Washington State; Dennis Franchione, Texas A&M; Ralph Friedgen, Maryland; Phillip Fulmer, Tennessee; Joe Glenn, Wyoming; Walt Harris, Pittsburgh; Dan Hawkins, Boise State; Fitz Hill, San Jose State; Pat Hill, Fresno State; Terry Hoeppner, Miami (Ohio); Brady Hoke, Ball State; Lou Holtz, South Carolina; Dirk Koetter, Arizona State; Jim Leavitt, South Florida; Rocky Long, New Mexico; Sonny Lubick, Colorado State; Dan McCarney, Iowa State; Andy McCollum, Middle Tennessee; Glen Mason, Minnesota; Les Miles, Oklahoma State; Joe Novak, Northern Illinois; Houston Nutt, Arkansas; Tom O'Brien, Boston College; George O'Leary, Central Florida; Joe Paterno, Penn State; Gary Patterson, TCU; Bobby Petrino, Louisville; Gary Pinkel, Missouri; Bob Pruett, Marshall; Mark Richt, Georgia; Steve Roberts, Arkansas State; Rich Rodriguez, West Virginia; Nick Saban, LSU; John L. Smith, Michigan State; Bob Stoops, Oklahoma; Mike Stoops, Arizona; Jeff Tedford, California; Jim Tressel, Ohio State; Tommy Tuberville, Auburn; Ron Turner, Illinois; Charlie Weatherbie, Louisiana-Monroe; Tyrone Willingham, Notre Dame.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Again,
How does ESPN play a roll in the polls? ESPN does NOT vote in the poll, they just sponsor it.

They also cover college football. They provide the most and probably highest rated pre-game and post game shows (Game Day and Game Day Final).

It's common knowledge that most coaches don't actually vote in the polls, but rather that their sports information director or some other representative votes for them. These people are usually covering their own games most of the day, and don't get to see many other games live. What they might be able to see is a show like Game Day Final, and if every single talking head on the show is raving about how good Auburn is and how Auburn should be ranked ahead of Oklahoma, it just might have some influence. The voters (be it the coach or the SID) are human and subject to persuasion and propaganda.

Is it a conspiracy? Probably not. A directive from on high at ESPN to pimp Auburn? Doubtful. But, does it have some influence? Probably so. How much? I don't know.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by The_herd

The thing is that this, along with the classless attempt to run up the score against Nebraska, may be losing him more votes than gaining. He's starting to look like a coach that is desperately trying to convince voters that they should stay in the top 2 instead of taking the higher road and letting things take care of themselves. In the past week I've lost a good deal of respect for a very good football coach.

Well you can respect or not respect whomever you choose, but I think your facts are somewhat suspect. First of all, Stoops admitted that he shouldn't have done what he did against Nebraska and apologized for it. He said that he just feels like he's caught in a strange position, and he wants his players to get what he thinks they deserve. It takes class to admit a mistake, and the way he handled it earned my respect after I was somewhat upset by White still being in the game late in the fourth quarter against NU.

And as to this whole issue, how is he desperately trying to convince anyone of anything? He has said many, many times if you ever read his quotes or listen to his news conferences that things will "take care of themselves." He has said many, many times that he thinks voters will make up their own minds. He has said many, many time that it's not his place to tell them how to vote.

Like I said in my very first post about this, it's already being blown out of proportion, and I think this post is an example of it. Not to attack you personally, herd, but I've been hearing it on sports radio and stuff, and it's starting to bug me a little bit.

All Stoops did was agree with a reporter who said that ESPN had an interest in creating controversy, and that ratings impact the content of sports programming. I think it's being grossly misrepresented.

[The_herd]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Well you can respect or not respect whomever you choose, but I think your facts are somewhat suspect. First of all, Stoops admitted that he shouldn't have done what he did against Nebraska and apologized for it. He said that he just feels like he's caught in a strange position, and he wants his players to get what he thinks they deserve. It takes class to admit a mistake, and the way he handled it earned my respect after I was somewhat upset by White still being in the game late in the fourth quarter against NU.

And as to this whole issue, how is he desperately trying to convince anyone of anything? He has said many, many times if you ever read his quotes or listen to his news conferences that things will "take care of themselves." He has said many, many times that he thinks voters will make up their own minds. He has said many, many time that it's not his place to tell them how to vote.

Like I said in my very first post about this, it's already being blown out of proportion, and I think this post is an example of it. Not to attack you personally, herd, but I've been hearing it on sports radio and stuff, and it's starting to bug me a little bit.

All Stoops did was agree with a reporter who said that ESPN had an interest in creating controversy, and that ratings impact the content of sports programming. I think it's being grossly misrepresented.

First of all, the facts are suspect because they aren't facts, nor did I claim that they were. They are my opinion. Nothing more. I'm entitled to it. If you wish to jump on me for it and claim they are suspect facts, that's your choice.

And as to this whole issue, how is he desperately trying to convince anyone of anything? He has said many, many times if you ever read his quotes or listen to his news conferences that things will "take care of themselves." He has said many, many times that he thinks voters will make up their own minds. He has said many, many time that it's not his place to tell them how to vote.

This contradicts his actions and his words.

Asked whether he thought ESPN had an impact on poll voters, Stoops said, "It probably impacts some people."

Of course he's going to appologize for trying to run up the score against Nebraska. It backfired on him and he looked like a jackass for it. Why would he try to run up the score if he had faith in the voters and think they will make up their own minds? Why would he even comment on the ESPN question if he felt that way? Its my OPINION that he's getting nervous because Auburn is gaining on his Sooners in the polls.

Like I said in my very first post about this, it's already being blown out of proportion, and I think this post is an example of it. Not to attack you personally, herd, but I've been hearing it on sports radio and stuff, and it's starting to bug me a little bit.

This goes with just about anything on this board that is seen as a possible slight on Oklahoma. It quickly becomes a 3 page thread with half the state of Oklahoma rising up to defend its Sooners. Not to attack you personally, but its starting to bug me a bit.





EDIT: I did not mean half the state in a literal sense. This was an exaggeration and should not be perceived as suspect facts.

[cartman]

go Baylor

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by digamma

They also cover college football. They provide the most and probably highest rated pre-game and post game shows (Game Day and Game Day Final).

It's common knowledge that most coaches don't actually vote in the polls, but rather that their sports information director or some other representative votes for them. These people are usually covering their own games most of the day, and don't get to see many other games live. What they might be able to see is a show like Game Day Final, and if every single talking head on the show is raving about how good Auburn is and how Auburn should be ranked ahead of Oklahoma, it just might have some influence. The voters (be it the coach or the SID) are human and subject to persuasion and propaganda.

Is it a conspiracy? Probably not. A directive from on high at ESPN to pimp Auburn? Doubtful. But, does it have some influence? Probably so. How much? I don't know.

But didn't Stoops use the contract ESPN has with the SEC as the reason. But doesn't ESPN have contracts with the Big Ten, ACC, ect., and doesn't ABC (the dad if you will, have a contract with pretty much all the big conferences expect the SEC to carry the best games). I think the coverage of the games and the game-day shows are two differnet items.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

But didn't Stoops use the contract ESPN has with the SEC as the reason. But doesn't ESPN have contracts with the Big Ten, ACC, ect., and doesn't ABC (the dad if you will, have a contract with pretty much all the big conferences expect the SEC to carry the best games). I think the coverage of the games and the game-day shows are two differnet items.

Of course Stoops argument has holes in it. Gaping ones. You asked what role ESPN plays though, and that's what I answered (or attempted to answer).

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by digamma

Of course Stoops argument has holes in it. Gaping ones. You asked what role ESPN plays though, and that's what I answered (or attempted to answer).

Oh, I agree with your argument 100%. I just wanted to make sure it was seperate from Stoops' remarks.

[ISiddiqui]

This goes with just about anything on this board that is seen as a possible slight on Oklahoma. It quickly becomes a 3 page thread with half the state of Oklahoma rising up to defend its Sooners. Not to attack you personally, but its starting to bug me a bit.

I think the same thing goes with Southerners and the SEC.

Man... if I hear another sports talk person down here talk about how it's a travesty that Auburn isn't #1, I'm going to drive there myself and shoot someone!

[SunDancer]

Man,
I tell ya what. The BCS may or may not work (that's your personal view), but it created something the NCAA must be loving, the hype and the media attention. I'm not sure a playoff would produce the drama that the BCS puts out.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'm sorry, but I don't buy any of the arguments about more than 4 to 8 teams being too many, and that colleges couldn't sell out 3 playoff games.

Division 1-AA has ~120 teams, similar to Division 1-A, and they have a 16 team playoff. This works out to 1 extra game for 8 teams, 2 extra games for 4 teams, 3 extra games for 2 teams, and 4 extra games for the teams that will play in the championship game. A strong case can be made for teams being left just outside the top 4 or 8, but only weak ones can be made for being left outside the top 16.

And college football teams have the largest stadiums of any sporting event, outside of NASCAR, and they are almost always filled for every game, especially for the top flight teams, no matter what the competition. If a team is in the march towards a national championship, they will have no problem selling seats for the games.

Exactly. People who think that these playoff games would not sell out are on crack. I can guarentee sell outs for every college playoff game.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think the same thing goes with Southerners and the SEC.

Man... if I hear another sports talk person down here talk about how it's a travesty that Auburn isn't #1, I'm going to drive there myself and shoot someone!

That's what you get for listening to 790. I haven't heard anyone on 680 saying that Auburn should be number one (Perry is a USC fan and spent all day talking about how over-rated Auburn was).

[Noop]

Originally Posted by The_herd

This goes with just about anything on this board that is seen as a possible slight on Oklahoma. It quickly becomes a 3 page thread with half the state of Oklahoma rising up to defend its Sooners. Not to attack you personally, but its starting to bug me a bit.

I pretty much agree with that statement. Cuckoo usually makes his points without attacks or sometimes he may poke fun but all in good nature. The OU nation is a bunch with alot of passion.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That's what you get for listening to 790. I haven't heard anyone on 680 saying that Auburn should be number one (Perry is a USC fan and spent all day talking about how over-rated Auburn was).

They talk about sports on 790? When did they start this? I thought it had turned into a 24 hour restaurant guide/bad comedy station.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by digamma

Stuart Mandel of CNNSI reminded me of something the other day when he was on a radio show. He pointed out that Division I-A college football is the only sport where the NCAA is not involved in the post-season. It goes back to before the BCS. Remember the CFA of the 80s (I think it was a suit involving UGA that created the thing). So, we're not dealing with the NCAA here. We're dealing with the conferences and the university presidents on a more direct level. You have a different set of incentives, and many more parties with which to deal.

(Incidentally, I'm against a play-off, but not because of silly arguments about who should be number 2--though I certainly enjoy participating in those.)

Point? I know exactly who is at fault in preventing a playoff system (the school presidents who recieve huge kick-backs from the Bowl groups). Of course, that doesn't let the NCAA off the hook either. They aren't exactly scrambling to create a playoff system. It is all politics and corruption.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by The_herd

Its my OPINION that he's getting nervous because Auburn is gaining on his Sooners in the polls.

Hey, we do agree on something. I think he's getting extremely nervous, and I think that explains why he did what he did against Nebraska. When I watched the game, I was sitting in my living room, and I said to my wife, "This is a bad move, and he's going to catch a lot of heat for it."

See, I'm one of the Sooner fans (and I've said this before) who would rather be left out of the title game but not do anything to embarass another team and leave the season with class that have to pop in a few extra touchdowns in the fourth quarter on a beaten team just to get to play for the championship. But I don't have any obligation to the players on the field. Stoops does. So you can degrade his "class" or lose respect for him all you want, but I'm sure that he feels like he's caught between a rock and a hard place.

I think Stoops probably sees a situation where his kids are being punished for the BCS computers that benefited them a year ago, and his team is being raked over the coals for the sole purpose of stirring up controversy. He's trying to deal with it, and he has made mistakes. But to characterize him as classless because of those mistakes, is in my opinion not being aware of all the facts. So argue as you will about fact versus opinion, I was trying to make you aware of some of the facts about Stoops under the assumption that you don't listen to him on a regular basis. I do, and I feel like your opinions were incorrect given the "facts."

As to the Sooner fans, on this board or anywhere else, I don't know what to tell you herd. I'll say the same thing I told Noop: there are idiots cheering for every team. I'm sorry that you have the impression this is indicative of a majority of OU fans.

And just as someone pointed out, the radio shows around Auburn are going nuts with the same kind of stuff for their team. In the end, it's all about controversy. And that's the only thing Stoops was trying to say, I think.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Point? I know exactly who is at fault in preventing a playoff system (the school presidents who recieve huge kick-backs from the Bowl groups). Of course, that doesn't let the NCAA off the hook either. They aren't exactly scrambling to create a playoff system. It is all politics and corruption.

The point is, the NCAA can't scramble to create a play-off. They don't have total control over D-IA college football like they do over other sports. Perhaps my reply was improperly placed as a reply to your post, but I think its something that people (not you) forget--they just want the NCAA to snap its fingers and have a play-off and the NCAA can't do that.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by digamma

The point is, the NCAA can't scramble to create a play-off. They don't have total control over D-IA college football like they do over other sports. Perhaps my reply was improperly placed as a reply to your post, but I think its something that people (not you) forget--they just want the NCAA to snap its fingers and have a play-off and the NCAA can't do that.

Nope, but they can push toward that system and they do have some resources to do such. They chose to play into the corrupt system as much the conferences and the school presidents do.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Nope, but they can push toward that system and they do have some resources to do such. They chose to play into the corrupt system as much the conferences and the school presidents do.

They can certainly push, but I think (as I think you recognize) the politics get tricky here. They don't have much leverage over the BCS schools and conferences, and even though the Non-BCS'ers would probably sign up in a heartbeat, that doesn't get you very far. The NCAA would need to be a broker for a sweeter deal than the conferences and schools get now. I think that's a tough task.

By the way (and as an aside), here's a link to the 1984 Supreme Court case (NCAA vs. Board of Regents), which gave the CFA the right to cut its own television deals and provided the groundwork for the power that the BCS conferences enjoy today. http://www.ripon.edu/Faculty/bowenj/...t/ncaavuok.htm

[Huckleberry]

Huh? The NCAA should absolutely launch a National Championship Playoff for Division 1-A. You say that only getting the non-BCS conferences at first would damage its credibility, but that's exactly what happened with the basketball tournament, isn't it? The NIT was first and more prestigious, but the NCAA started their own tournament and eventually it took over.

Same thing would happen again. It wouldn't take long for the "Utah Utes - 2004 NCAA Football National Champions" shirts and caps to be the hottest selling NCAA merchandise in the country.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Huh? The NCAA should absolutely launch a National Championship Playoff for Division 1-A. You say that only getting the non-BCS conferences at first would damage its credibility, but that's exactly what happened with the basketball tournament, isn't it? The NIT was first and more prestigious, but the NCAA started their own tournament and eventually it took over.

Same thing would happen again. It wouldn't take long for the "Utah Utes - 2004 NCAA Football National Champions" shirts and caps to be the hottest selling NCAA merchandise in the country.

Those Delaware 2003 I-AA football champion shirts are also selling like hotcakes, I'm sure.

There was no television when the NCAA basketball tournament took over. The NCAA can't craft an attractive television deal without the BCS schools, and the BCS schools aren't going to join unless the deal is sweeter than what they have now.

Seriously, you can't think a Boise State-Utah tournament final is going to bring in a ton of ad revenue.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by digamma

Those Delaware 2003 I-AA football champion shirts are also selling like hotcakes, I'm sure.

You're overlooking the biggest aspect. The protests from the fans would be huge, and the merchandise would sell simply as a protest against the BCS. I can guarantee you I would buy a Utah NCAA National Champions t-shirt this year if the playoff were in place.

And then I'd wear it straight to the President's Office at the University of Texas.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

You're overlooking the biggest aspect. The protests from the fans would be huge, and the merchandise would sell simply as a protest against the BCS. I can guarantee you I would buy a Utah NCAA National Champions t-shirt this year if the playoff were in place.

And then I'd wear it straight to the President's Office at the University of Texas.

I'm not overlooking it--maybe underestimating it. Of course my argument would be that you are overestimating the protest aspect.

GrantDawg has this one right. It is money and politics.

Unless you are a television executive or a 7 figure donor (maybe you are), I'm not sure if the UT president would care if you had on a Utah shirt, an OU shirt, or no shirt at all.