OSU Big 12 Football Champions

[nathanm]

Basically Alabama blew their chance, and now they are getting a redo. Good for them. Fair? I don't think so.

As did OSU. To a worse team. That's the entire problem.

[azbadpuppy]

As did OSU. To a worse team. That's the entire problem.

The BIG difference is that OSU didn't already blow it with LSU....there's no mulligan given to OSU. Alabama has already shown they can't beat LSU, and can't win their conference. Big difference.

The BCS slogan: Every Game Matters! Really? Apparently not if you're in the SEC....

Sooooo, what do you think happens if OSU blows away Stanford? Alabama squeaks by LSU 3-0? Still think the right team will be crowned champion? I know this whole thing is a lot of ifs and buts, but frankly, as a big college football fan I find the whole BCS system really frustrating.

[nathanm]

The BIG difference is that OSU didn't already blow it with LSU....there's no mulligan given to OSU. Alabama has already shown they can't beat LSU, and can't win their conference. Big difference.

The BCS slogan: Every Game Matters! Really? Apparently not if you're in the SEC....

Sooooo, what do you think happens if OSU blows away Stanford? Alabama squeaks by LSU 3-0? Still think the right team will be crowned champion? I know this whole thing is a lot of ifs and buts, but frankly, as a big college football fan I find the whole BCS system really frustrating.

I don't think I've ever said I'm terribly happy with the BCS as it is. All I'm saying is that the point of the BCS is to put the #1 and #2 teams in a game together, and sometimes it's a close call that really could go either way. I just don't see it as the scathing indictment that you do. As I said before, I'd rather OSU have gone. I think it would have been a more interesting game. They failed to hack it. I can't see any justification for penalizing a team that lost to a top ranked opponent more than a team that loses to an unranked opponent, no matter who it is.

By all means, let's have a playoff. But not because of this, because it would just be better.

And in your scenario, I'd say the team that beats LSU should take home the title. Football is often about coming back from a defeat. I just hope there's more action this time around. And a playoff.

[erfalf]

OK, here is my new BCS proposal. I feel this is the most fair especially for those "the whole season is a playoff" people.

An eight team playoff. The eight teams will consist of the following:

* Conference champions (must play a championship game) from the following six conferences: ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac 12 & the SEC.
* There are (currently) five other FBS conferences, so we will take the two highest ranked teams that won one of those conferences, for instance this season it would have been TCU from the Mountain West and Southern Miss from Conference USA.

So then you would have the following games per se:

LSU vs West Virginia (Sugar Bowl)
OSU vs Southern Miss (Fiesta Bowl)
Oregon vs TCU (Rose Bowl)
Wisconsin vs Clemson (Orange Bowl)

If higher ranked team prevail then you would have some fun ones:

LSU vs Wisconsin
OSU vs Oregon

The championship and semi-finals would be in a traveling location like the super bowl (ya know, "spread the wealth"). There are plenty of domed stadiums (Dallas/Houston/Indy/Detroit/St. Louis/Atlanta/Minneapolis) that aren't the Super Dome in New Orleans.

My whole thing with a four game playoff is someone is still going to get shafted. You should have to win your conference, it really is like a playoff because you actually play most of the teams. In my proposal a few teams will still feel like they got shafted (Sun Belt/WAC/Mid American winners) but not as many people will care.

[AquaMan]

Will these athletes ever have time for class? Seriously, you would be looking at a mid to late January playoff. Close to the superbowl and having to share advertising sources.

There is no real national champion in college football any more than there is a national champion high school football team. Even the press calls it a "mythical" national champion. You know why?

Because neither collegiate nor prep are in a professional league and should never be treated that way. Collegiate football is being exploited and shortly afterward so will high school ball. Best time to stop it is now. Either professionalize the teams and promote leagues or spin them off from the Universities much like fraternities. Or go back to some sanity and just use multiple ratings systems and let the fans argue ad infinitum.

The idea that colleges are perpetuating this fiasco in the name of money is pretty depressing.

[erfalf]

Will these athletes ever have time for class? Seriously, you would be looking at a mid to late January playoff. Close to the superbowl and having to share advertising sources.

Sure they will, start the games now (after finals) instead of taking a month long vacation. Consider also that only four teams will be playing any extra games, and they should be over Christmas break. And the Super Bowl is in February. This wouldn't even coincide with the NFL playoffs. Nothing is happening during this 3 or 4 week span anyways.

And yes there will be money involved, but why not just split it evenly between all participating conferences. It will be like Major League Baseball. Each team/league will be a franchise and we will have a luxury tax. The luxury being you rock at football and make tons of money. While being good will provide an economic benefit, it will put a bit of a cap on those four teams that play extra games (the 1%   )

Liberals should be loving this idea for goodness sake.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Or better yet, just do away with professional football in universities completely.  It is an institution of higher learning - allegedly.

[Red Arrow]

Or better yet, just do away with professional football in universities completely.  It is an institution of higher learning - allegedly.

I believe at many universities that the football program helps finance some of the less popular athletic programs. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

I believe at many universities that the football program helps finance some of the less popular athletic programs. 

Yeah, right...construction technology for bigger domes maybe.

Or getting a sugar daddy like Boone Pickens to donate.  What was it?  $265 million to football and 47 cents to academics?

But it's good to know that he got something out of it, too!  Win, win??

On July 28, 2007 the Board of Regents of Oklahoma State University approved a resolution to move $28 million from the OSU Foundation into Pickens' BP Capital Management company in Dallas. Oklahoma State has previously invested $277 million in the fund. Pickens has been waiving fees for the university's investments with his fund.

And while he was at it, he led the charge on the lies spewed by the Swift Boaters.  People who had absolutely no personal information concerning the service record of Kerry.  Versus what was said by everyone (except 1) who actually served with him.  But hey, truth doesn't really count in this day and age, does it?

[erfalf]

Or getting a sugar daddy like Boone Pickens to donate.  What was it?  $265 million to football and 47 cents to academics?

He has given over $400 million to the university with $265 going toward athletics. That means he has given $135 to the actual university. Not exactly chump change. He only made the largest single donation to a university in this state. What more do you want. Plus he has donated at least another $300 mil to other entities including a $100M endowment to two U of Texas hospitals

Back up from the ledge here. Mr Pickens can do what he wishes with all his money. He has vowed to donate half of his wealth (which I believe he has already accomplished and is adding to) If the strings attached are that the university has to reinvest in his fund and you don't like it, then blame the University. There were after all two willing participants in the transaction.

[heironymouspasparagus]

He has given over $400 million to the university with $265 going toward athletics. That means he has given $135 to the actual university. Not exactly chump change. He only made the largest single donation to a university in this state. What more do you want. Plus he has donated at least another $300 mil to other entities including a $100M endowment to two U of Texas hospitals

Back up from the ledge here. Mr Pickens can do what he wishes with all his money. He has vowed to donate half of his wealth (which I believe he has already accomplished and is adding to) If the strings attached are that the university has to reinvest in his fund and you don't like it, then blame the University. There were after all two willing participants in the transaction.

Actually, I am a big fan of OSU (even their football!) and am thrilled to death at what he has done for the school!  Just a little devil's advocacy here for a bit...

My only real gripe with him is the Swift Boat lies.  And I can forgive that for what he has done for OSU.

[nathanm]

Yeah, right...construction technology for bigger domes maybe.

I know at Arkansas, donations earmarked to the sports projects have paid for the football stadium, the indoor football practice building, the basketball arena, the new track venue, and the baseball stadium, and all the other nice sports-related stuff they have there. Football revenue pays for maintaining all that and the operations of the rest of the teams. It helps that the Razorback Foundation pays the bigger part of the coaches' salary in basketball and football.

Football is a revenue center, not a cost center, at least if you're in the SEC.

Edited to add: And a little hypothetical about how the picks for an 8 team playoff would not necessarily be much better than what we have now: Not long ago, Alabama and Arkansas were both 9-1, with Arkansas yet to play LSU. Had Arkansas beaten LSU (which isn't entirely outlandish if you've followed the series), Alabama would have probably gone to the SEC championship game and Arkansas would have been left out. Should Alabama really be the one to go to the playoffs in that scenario, despite losing to LSU in the regular season? Which one of them should be left out in favor of Clemson who would fold like a dollar bill when facing any of the three?

Why should the conference you're in matter so much when it's the SEC, but not when it's C-USA?

[AquaMan]

I know at Arkansas, donations earmarked to the sports projects have paid for the football stadium, the indoor football practice building, the basketball arena, the new track venue, and the baseball stadium, and all the other nice sports-related stuff they have there. Football revenue pays for maintaining all that and the operations of the rest of the teams. It helps that the Razorback Foundation pays the bigger part of the coaches' salary in basketball and football.

Football is a revenue center, not a cost center, at least if you're in the

That is a well worn spin by administrators of universities that they borrowed from the state legislatures. When the state started getting more money from casino gambling earmarked for "Education" they promptly cut their regular funding of education till it resembled the original budget. That way all parties involved get to say, "See, we support education, we even raised the funding" (just before we cut the funding).

Same thing in college athletics. Since that ruse has been so successful it has become accepted truth. Football has been promoted more, depended upon more and academia just can't say no to more football funding because it pays off. The other sports meanwhile are considered weak sisters. Yet, somehow those institutions that don't rely on football...still fund womens volleyball, hockey, swim, track, rowing etc. and they do well academically and in niche sports. Maybe because without football they can focus on those pursuits and find angels like Pickens.

[nathanm]

I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't run a university without football. The point is that the football team costs less than nothing to the university because they don't spend $48.5 million dollars a year on it, and that's what it brings in. That's completely unrelated to state funding or lack thereof. FWIW, UA got $186 million from the state last fiscal year, up from $184 million in 2008 and $143 million in 2002. Clearly, that number should be higher, but it hasn't been declining even as football revenue has skyrocketed.

Maybe it's different in Oklahoma, I haven't really investigated higher education funding here.

[AquaMan]

I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't run a university without football. The point is that the football team costs less than nothing to the university because they don't spend $48.5 million dollars a year on it, and that's what it brings in. That's completely unrelated to state funding or lack thereof. FWIW, UA got $186 million from the state last fiscal year, up from $184 million in 2008 and $143 million in 2002. Clearly, that number should be higher, but it hasn't been declining even as football revenue has skyrocketed.

Maybe it's different in Oklahoma, I haven't really investigated higher education funding here.

Yeah, its different here.

I am more than a little surprised that you can't understand what I'm saying. Doesn't matter really. Football rules.