Great article breaking down the domination by the PAC-10 this season in college baseball.  We need Chase on the national poll committee!

Continue reading this post »

I tried to comment in the comments section, but there was no avenue for doing so on this website.  Not sure why, but here is my response to this idiotic rationalization.

Dave,

The fact that college football only plays 12 games in a season is why everyone pays attention to the games more so than say, basketball which has 40, or baseball which plays upwards of 55-60 games.  It is a simple dynamic relating to the laws of supply and demand.  With less opportunity to view a contest, the demand is greater.  It has nothing to do with the BCS.

The reason why demand in the past was less than the current BCS era, from the 1950's per say to 1990, is the fact that cable television and the internet hadn't reached its zenith and grown to an exponential level like it has now.

More people watch it today because more rural areas have cable television, and with the rapid expansion of the internet, due high speed, wireless and satellite capabilities, more people have access to watch ALL of the games.  They don't watch it because of the BCS's influence, they watch it because it is popular as it always has been, but there are simply more avenues to view a game.

College football is more popular now because there is more access.  All the BCS does is bring down the game at the end of the season because the majority of the fans do not agree with it's conclusions to a large degree.

I agree that a "NORMAL" style of playoff is not the answer, which is why I have developed the playoff proposal as part of my book manuscript over at www.ncaa-schedule.com

My proposal eliminates the bogus September match-ups by requiring all teams to begin their seasons with the conference games, much like Oregon and UW this coming season, and saves room in the regular season (last 4 weeks) to determine the conference championships.  Thus you would have an 8 team tournament in the BCS bracket during weeks 11 and 12 and the results of this bracket would determine the bowl games.  There would be four brackets (BCS, Holiday, NIT and Sportsmans) which would determine the bowl games.  With this method, we would truly get a true and battle tested match-up as the elite teams (determined by the actual results on the field - not a unionized poll mechanism) would be on a collision course to meet on the field.  

The problem with the BCS, is the fact that teams do not play legitimate schedules and yet are still rewarded (via a pretty record) with a BCS bowl game.  In the BCSBusters Model, you would not only have to earn your bowl berth, but your schedule in the process.

Dave, please give us some critical thinking instead of the same old and tired mandates that support the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commision and the Council on Foreign Affairs, which are the true shadow administrators that control not only our Government, but the BCS through continuous and media supported mind wars emphasizing the control of the American Population in an effort to provide us with the NEW WORLD ORDER, of which the BCS plays part to.  

If you question this, simply follow the money trail in college football, which will lead to Big Oil, which will lead to the Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations, which will lead to the UNITED NATIONS and COUNCIL ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

College football is a trillion dollar industry and now plays a direct role in world economies since it has become a certain fact that we have now entered the post-oil era.  The slightest shifts involving any economic indicator will have drastic effects on the world economy and college football is big business to the oil industry and American economics, which is big business to the world economies.  

Due to the fact that the media has become corrupt and politicized (the Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller and Rothschild families own the media - ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and ESPN) the year-to-year poll shenanigans allow the teams that have the greatest impact on the game financially to profit from the BCS, and hence, the central banks profit the most as well.  If you have ever wondered why college football, especially under the BCS, has the strong odor of Monarchy, Oligarchy and Monopoly, you simply need to understand that the people who OWN (literally) and control the game have operated under this mode of operandi for nearly 300 years, dating back to the very roots of our country.  

The problem here is the fact that although the LSU's, Ohio State's, Florida's and USC's of the world have a greater connection to these foundations (which support the Council on Foreign Affairs, which support the NEW WORLD ORDER), it doesn't equate into superiority on the field as the Boise State's, Oregon's, Kansas's and Missouri's of the world have proven.  

Thus we get the same old tired propaganda which supports the BCS (essentially all of the issues involving in the comments section have been presented before, and this couldn't be father from the truth).  

DC -

I didn't catch on at the time but you mentioned the Trilateral Commission & Freemasonry in a response to a post I wrote when I wrongly claimed that Bellotti was coming the UCLA, which are obvious references to the New World Order conspiracy theory in your latest response to one of my diary responses. 

My research in the BCS Controversy has led me to the Rockefeller empire, following and connecting the dots from the Oil and Gas empire.   What can you tell me as far as what you know from the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group and the New World Order.  So far I have connected 15 business model characteristics that are strikingly similar in comparing the business models of the BCS and the New World Order.

Apparently UCLA's seniors decided to utilize an age old Bruin tradition by blowing off practice.  Honestly, as a coach with nearly 20 years experience and as an athlete who played multiple sports in high school, not to mention college and professional baseball, I have never heard of this at an institution before.

I am simply appalled by this!

I have been a staunch PAC-10 supporter all of my life, but this is one time I hope Tennessee (and the SEC) actually throttles a PAC-10 team.  If I was coaching this team, I would send the seniors packing and begin the new era with underclassmen as I find the timing of this unified walkout simply pathetic and I would not be surprised if many programs use this as psychological motivation against the Bruins.  I know if I was playing against UCLA, I would flat out refuse to lose to a team that walked out of a practice.

One of the aspects I have tried to instill in my teams is the importance of constantly outworking your opponent each and every day - Win The Day, for every day you waste in life is one you cannot make up for in the end.  I think this pretty much defines the UCLA program and for all of us who were wondering how in the world UCLA could look great one week and a total disaster the next...here is our answer.  The team cannot even suck it up for 15 spring practices...How in the world will they suck it up in the fourth quarter of a tight football game.  UCLA is a four letter word...SOFT!!

Here is the link for the article:  http://www.dailynews.com/ucla/ci_8939415

Bumped...Our good friend BCS Busters has another great take on out of conference scheduleing. Paragon

In a recent article that can be found here:

Some interesting stats between USC and LSU:

In the final analysis, the fact that LSU fans continue to discredit a USC program, who in their mind competes in the Pathetic-10 or a West Virginia program who competes in the Big-Easy, while boasting of their own BCS accomplishments, the fact remains that the three best teams over the course of the last four seasons have yet to meet each other on the field.  

The fact that LSU had an open date (they recently added Appalachian State) and could have easily scheduled West Virginia or USC this coming season (or in any of the past 5 seasons) speaks volumes to the dismay of college football in general and the BCS in particular, and is once again a glaring example of the BCS largess that the SEC holds over all of the other conferences.

Still disagree with this assessment?

Consider the following.  USC not only has a superior overall record as compared to LSU since the year 2002 (70 - 8 versus 64-15), but a better bowl record (5-1 versus 4-2).  USC not only has a superior QOF-Rating (22-5 versus 17-11), but has beaten more BCS non-conference opponents (19) than LSU has even played (12), and even more significant to the argument, has beaten more winning programs with 7 plus wins a seasons (37) than LSU has even played as well (36).

Of the 12 BCS teams that LSU has played since 2002,  8 had elite 9 (plus) win seasons.  Of the 21 BCS teams that USC has played since 2002, 15 had elite 9 (plus) win seasons.  Once again, USC has beaten more elite BCS non-conference opponents than LSU has even played (12).  

Based on these numbers alone, how can anyone discredit USC and the fact that they have essentially been barred on many occasions from competing for the national championship when the numbers scream of the injustice.  Both USC and LSU were 8 points from a perfect season in 2007, why the discrepancy in the polls?  

University of Oregon football coach Mike Bellotti mentioned last year that he didn't think the Cougars of BYU would fare as well as they would inside the confines of the Mountain West Conference, if they had to take on a full PAC-10 Conference slate every season.

Given the fact that Oregon used to be well below the Cougars within the college football organizational hierarchy when coach Bellotti arrived in Eugene nearly 15 seasons ago, I found this statement to be a little obtuse.  

Continue reading this post »

Word on the street is that Mike Bellotti is heading to UCLA.  Should be announced within the next few days.  Will be interesting to see how this affects recruiting this year as they were absolutely killing it on the recruiting trail this year.

Chris Petersen and Jeff Tedford look to be the front runners now with Oregon.  I believe this will be a good thing for both Mike Bellotti and Oregon.  14 years is a long time to stay at a given school with todays media and I think the media situation along with the criticism he has taken with his family situation and the Dennis Dixon injury ordeal has created some friction among the staff.  This is very credible information and just passing it along.  If I end up being wrong I will sincerely apologize.

bcsbusters

Heard from a very reliable source tonight that Mike Bellotti will be taking the UCLA job within the next few days.

Chris Petersen is now the front runner to take the job at Oregon along with Jeff Tedford of California.  Again, I wouldn't post this if I didn't have inside information.

Bellotti is looking for a change as their is a rift growing with the Oregon press over his family issues and the way he handled the Dennis Dixon ordeal.  I've heard from one of the assistant coaches family members that none of the staff knew that Dixon actually had a torn ACL going into the Arizona game.

I would describe the atmosphere in the Casonova Center right now between the staff members as ICE COLD and it shows in the way the players and coaching have melted down to end the season.

I've known this family up close and personal for a number of years and this is a good thing for Oregon football - Things have a way of coming out in the wash in the end.

Kyle,

I wrote a nice article regarding the overall parity displayed this year in college football.  Thought you'd like to read it and respond.  Might give you an idea for a future article.

Your blog ranking looks good, although I'd give Missouri a little more credit for their performance thus far.  It's anyone's guess at this point.

I think it would be wise to put a poll up this week showing groupings of teams rather than a numbered list.  Kind of like the Aces, Kings, Queens and Jacks found on Stewart Mandel's list from early last summer.  The whole numbered thing is really unreliable for what is the difference between 1-5, 6-10 or 11 through 15 and so on.  Just a thought.  Let me know what you think!

For a better view of this article - please visit the bcsbuster website at wordpress.

A true championship team should have a balance of both - a stellar defense and an offense who can score in quick strike fashion - for a championship team must be able to function and survive in the following three game scenario's:

   1. Does the team go for the jugular in blow-out wins, quickly putting away an inferior opponent?

   2. Can it come back after falling several scores behind, especially on the road in hostile venues?

   3. Can it stand toe-to-toe without flinching while avoiding the knock-out punch in a tilt of championship implications with another heavyweight contender?

Although it is difficult to rank the difference between the teams at such an early juncture in the season, I would say we are at a point (Week #3) where the polls are actually starting to take on some validity. At this point in the season, my rating scale is heavily weighted to the defensive side of the ball, but a team can rise swiftly if they show a healthy balance of both.

The BCSBusters Top-6 hasn't changed since last week, although I did bump USC from the 3 spot into #2, which dropped Oklahoma down one. In all seriousness, I would consider it a four way tie for number one at this point, but there is no way to insert this and it would draw the "irons of fire" from fellow pollsters - Grow Some Hair!

Continue reading this post »

 Week #2 Poll from BCSBusters

   1. LSU
   2. Oklahoma
   3. USC
   4. Florida
   5. W. Virginia

   

Continue reading this post »

Week #2 Poll from BCSBusters

  1. LSU
  2. Oklahoma
  3. USC
  4. Florida
  5. W. Virginia

 

Continue reading this post »

Week #2 Poll from BCSBusters

   1. LSU
   2. Oklahoma
   3. USC
   4. Florida
   5. W. Virginia

Continue reading this post »

Week #2 Poll from BCSBusters

1. LSU
   
2. Oklahoma
   
3. USC
   
4. Florida
   
5. W. Virginia
   

Continue reading this post »

BCSBusters Top-25

1. LSU
   
2. Louisville
   
3. Oklahoma
   
4. USC
   
5. West Virginia
   
6. Georgia
   
7. Penn State
   
8. CAL
   
9. Florida
   
10. Auburn
    
11. Texas
    
12. Wisconsin
    
13. Virginia Tech
    
14. Boise State
    
15. Nebraska
    
16. Miami
    
17. Ohio State
    
18. Clemson
    
19. Georgia Tech
    
20. Oregon State
    
21. Rutgers
    
22. TCU
    
23. UCLA
    
24. Boston College
    
25. BYU

Off the Radar this week:
Texas A&M
Hawai'i
Missou
ASU
Michigan
Tennessee

Kyle, you can send these to Brian if you'd like.  

I introduced a new concept called the Quality Opponent Factor (QOF) Rating which focuses on how teams have performed against other elite teams. I set the bar at a nine win minimum. The purpose of this was to come up with a rating variable to rank the top teams in the country as it becomes very difficult to effectively rank the difference between Penn State, Georgia, UCLA, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech and Rutgers.

Continue reading this post »

1.  USC - For Petes' Sake:  Pete Carroll continues to build a dynasty in the PAC-10.  Despite what Les Miles said last week about USC's easy ride in the PAC-10, a considerable advantage in his mind on the road to the BCS championship game, the carnage continues.  The Trojans have a 57-6 Record, with 4-of-the-six losses coming to rival PAC-10 teams.  During this streak they have beaten Notre Dame five times, by a combined score of 208-82.

Poll

Who Will Play for the National Championship in 2007

14%

4. Tennessee & Virginia Tech

1 votes

0%

9. Nebraska & Notre Dame

0 votes

0%

5. Alabama & Florida State

0 votes

14%

10. Other

1 votes

0%

1. Notre Dame & West Virginia

0 votes

0%

6. Wisconsin & Louisville

0 votes

28%

2. USC & LSU

2 votes

0%

7. Texas & Michigan

0 votes

42%

3. Auburn & California

3 votes

0%

8. Ohio State & LSU

0 votes

7 votes | Poll has closed

Continue reading this post »

Bumped from the diaries, and yikes is it thorough. According to a verifying email, new diarist bcsbusters is a former All-Pac-10 baseball player at Oregon State and is currently teaching and coaching in Oregon. He . . . doesn't care for the BCS. I see that he's already posted another diary on the SEC's bashing of the Pac-10, but quite frankly, I haven't read it yet because I'm still only halfway through one of Kyle's prodigious posts and my ration is one post of intimidating length per day. Y'all are wearing me out! You can get still more from the Enemy of the BCS at his blog. Posted by: bcsbusters | 24th Jul, 2007 The History of the BCS Controversy.  When I first broached this subject, nearly four years ago, my view on the subject was very limited as I did not understand all the issues that are at play in college football. On the surface, much like an iceberg, the issues are obvious and plain to see. But if you dive deep beneath the surface, you begin to understand just how complex the issues and dangers can be in recommending an NFL style playoff for college football. This article will expose and attack the issues that have affected college football over a fifty year period, because it goes beyond simply stating "Yes, I think a playoff is needed." As a result, you the reader, will begin to understand the dynamics and parameters that have prevented college football from moving forward, because the issues are multifaceted, complex and constantly changing from season-to-season. So if you can hang with me for a few moments I can dive deep and expose the major hurdles that have truly prevented college football from entering the new century.

The real dilemma facing the BCS and NCAA decision makers regarding a playoff type of system is how to change the system without causing, for lack of a better word, the most change. There are so many things that you would have to change that the project seems massive in scale. There is no doubt the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) is in violation of the antitrust laws of the Sherman Act. As a matter of fact, given the history of college football, we have simply managed to exchange one coercive monopolistic barrier for another throughout its history and specifically in the television era.

Poll

What is the percentage of the Original Members of the CFA (College Football Association) have played in BCS Bowl Games

0%

25%

0 votes

33%

100%

3 votes

11%

55%

1 votes

11%

75%

1 votes

11%

85%

1 votes

22%

10%

2 votes

11%

95%

1 votes

9 votes | Poll has closed

Continue reading this post »

Every year the self-fulfilling prophecy continues...the over hype regarding the continued dominance of the South-Eastern Conference, better known as the SEC. Every year, it happens like clockwork and this year is no exception. Les Miles, the Head Football Coach at LSU began his rant against the PAC-10 Conference by proclaiming the dominance from top-to-bottom within his own conference, and the relative ease of USC romping through their own conference due to the fact they are the only decent team in the PAC-10. You see, this happens every year with glaring regularity and there is a reason for this, but I will get to that later.

First and foremost, like most things in life - if it seems to good to be true, it probably is. What is often overlooked in college football is that the BCS actually only rewards a team over the course of a two-to-three year run. The 2005 Rose Bowl is a glaring example. A teams run to the BCS Championship actually takes a minimum of two, and most likely three years to complete the process. In the 2002 season, the USC Trojans manhandled a highly ranked Iowa program (11-1, only loss to National Champion Ohio State) 38-17 in the Orange Bowl, completing a 11-2 season and capping a renaissance return to the glory years that Trojan fans had become so accustomed to from the late 1960's to the early 1990's.

In the season opener a year later, the Trojans shut-out Auburn on the road 23-0. Many people felt that if a playoff was in place, USC would have most likely won the championship in 2002, much like Oregon State (11-1) might have won it in 2001 after their 41-9 dismantling of perennial power Notre Dame. These two victories over the course of two seasons propelled the Trojans to the AP National Championship during the 2003 season as the Trojans defeated Michigan 28-14 in the Rose Bowl, capping a 12-1 campaign.

LSU defeated Oklahoma that same season 21-14 in the Sugar Bowl to win the BCS National Championship. However, this was the second straight season that the national championship participants included a team who didn't win their own conference as Kansas State manhandled Oklahoma 35-7 in the Big-12 Championship game that year, and a year earlier, Nebraska gained enterance after being blown out by Colorado 63-28 in the season final, which was even more shocking because the loss dropped the Cornhuskers out of the Big-12 championship game altogether.

So when (11-1) USC was left out of the BCS title game after ending the season being ranked number one in both polls, it left college football on shaky ground. There was a dead rat to be found because the stench was everywhere in college football over the course of the previous three seasons.

The next season in 2004, a three-way trifecta occurred as USC and Oklahoma both won their conference championships (12-0), but the new blip on the BCS radar was Auburn, who also won their conference championship (12-0). Much was made regarding the lack of respect for the SEC due to Auburns omittance from the championship game, but what people fail to realize is that the BCS doesn't reward a one-year wonder with entrance into the national championship game. Sure you can get into a money-loaded BCS game, but not the big game. This takes a minimum of a two year run and many times, a three-year run is needed.

The same 2004 season turned out to be a breakout year for Vince Young and the Texas Longhorns as they defeated Michigan in one of the all-time great Rose Bowl venues 38-37 on a last second 45-yard field goal in the closing seconds. Due to the emergence of Vince Young as a Heisman trophy candidate and their big game the following season (2005) in week two against mega power Ohio State, who won the 2002 BCS championship in thrilling fashion as well (31-24 OT victory over Miami), the winner of this game would likely face USC in the national championship if everything worked out. Indeed it did as both teams romped through the regular season undefeated, capping perhaps the greatest game in the history of college football with a 41-38 comeback vicotry by the Longhorns in Pasadena for the BCS National Championship.

The SEC, however, has never gotten over the disrespect shown to Auburn, but again, the BCS doesn't reward one year wonders. It was very similar to Oregon's BCS slight in 2001 when the Ducks were left out of the national championship game while the fore-mentioned Nebraska team gained entrance while not even competing for their conference championship. Every year the big ol' chocolate chip on the SEC shoulder has gotten bigger and bigger as their self-fulfilling claim as the best conference in the country gets louder and louder, all the while bashing that conference out west called the PAC-10. Now there is a history behind all this whining and bashing, but once again, I'll save that for the grand finale.

I have stated many times that every conference has two dominant teams, a couple of very good teams, a bunch of average teams and two horrible teams. In just about every season this rings true. The average fan of the SEC claims that the conference is so strong from top-to-bottom. With a closer look, I think we can put this notion to bed. The reality is that the conference does have 4-to-5 traditional powers that gained much of their authority in college football from the emerging and ever growing television industry.

Walter Byers, who was the original president of the NCAA developed a television resolution in 1952 that gradually destroyed the foundation of college football as the ever growing revenue from television would turn many administrators into green eyed monsters. The original television resolution mandated that every team could only be shown once nationally and twice regionally during a season and the revenue from the broadcasts would be equally shared.

Many administrators, specifically in the southern sector where footbal reigns supreme distrusted Walter Byers and his legion of generals from the Big-10 and PAC-10 Conferences. Although the NCAA controlled both price and output of the regular season, the bowl season was open game. It operated in a free market controlled only by public demand.

The Big-10 and PAC-10 Conferences cut their own throats here initially as they only sent their conference champions to the venerable Rose Bowl, considered by many to still be the grand daddy of them all. So if you didn't win the conference championship you didn't go bowling.

In the Southeast, Southwest and Atlantic Coast Conferences, due to the money available from televised bowl events, they often sent as many as five or 6 teams per conference to season ending bowl games. As television gained more popularity and raced ever onward toward critical mass, the teams from these three southern conferences became forever branded in the eyes of television as the elite programs. They still harness much of their branding identity created from the early days of television today, even though their overall records since 1990 are less than stellar.

Since 1990, the SEC records against rival conferences is not as impressive as the SEC die-hards would lend you to believe: Big-12 (20-16), PAC-10 (10-9), Big East (15-20), Big-10 (30-23), ACC (65-50) and the old Southwest Conference (20-19). So against the BCS Conference members since 1990, the SEC has an overall mark of 160 - 127. While this is good, it isn't exactly dominant. But what the SEC teams hang their hat on is their record against the non-BCS regime: BWest (30-0), Sun (43-3), MAC (33-5), WAC (32-6), CUSA (57-20) and MWest (9-4) for an overall mark of 204-38.

The overall records inside their own conference supports my hypothesis. There are only two teams with over 100 conference wins since 1990. They include Florida (116) and Tennessee (101). There are three teams with at least 80 conference wins. They include Alabama (84), Auburn (83) and Georgia (81), while LSU is within five games of this group with (76). After that it gets downright ugly. Arkansas and Ol' Miss (56), Mississippi State (47), South Carolina (45), Kentucky (36) and Vanderbilt (20).

So the SEC in reality has two dominant programs, four pretty good programs, four very average programs and two completely awful programs over the course of 16 years. However, what makes the SEC so dangerous today is that Arkansas, Kentucky and South Carolina are on the rise, but the reality for me is only South Carolina with Steve Spurrier has the chance to sustain their emergence. Arkansas and Kentucky will prove to be one or two year wonders and then drop back to reality.

Now if you need a little more proof and your convinced these statistics are too old, lets take a look at the last couple of bowl outcomes. Sure this past season, the SEC went six and three in bowl games, but the season before they went a dismal three and three. So their two year bowl record of 9-6 isn't exactly off the charts. Coupled with the fact that the All-time Chick-fillet bowl record matching the ACC and SEC Conference teams is 8-6 in favor the ACC throws a big monkey into the SEC domination theory as well.

What the SEC really has is six of the all-time television darlings of college football coupled with a great atmosphere of rivalry games. Most importantly, given the fact that the College Football Association flag, now better know as the Bowl Championship Series Alliance, runs deep through the heart of SEC country, we can begin to put some substance behind the continual bashing of the PAC-10 Conference.

You see, back in the mid 1970's, when the civil war over television revenue broke out in college football, the Big-10 and PAC-10 Conferences supported Walter Byers and the NCAA. In fact the only two schools from each conference who supported Chuck Neinas and CFA was USC and UCLA from the PAC-10, and Ohio State and Michigan from the Big-10. These are the only two schools who have drawn the favor of the CFA alliances since the CFA revolution took place in 1984. Thus, they have special priviledges within the BCS framwork.

In fact, if you look at the history of the participants in the BCS bowl picture, nearly all of the participants have been schools who whole-heartedly supported and defended the CFA cause. While schools like Utah, Oregon State, Oregon, Louisville, Boise State and Wisconsin have been granted the occasional entrance into BCS events, none of the fore-mentioned teams have gotten to the championship game, even when an undefeated or one-loss season may have merited a berth. Since the original Bowl Alliance in 1992, over 85% of the participants in the BCS type bowl games have originated from the CFA side of the equation.  That is more than just happenstance.  There is a reason for all of this conference bashing and self-fulfilling prophecies that occur each and every year.

So in conclusion, much has been made of the possibility of moving to a Final Four for college football. The reality of this is that the four participants are most likely to be the original members of that southern fried fraternity called the CFA. The BCS is nothing more than the evolutionary extension of the College Football Association movement and coupled with the Big-10 / PAC-10 / Rose Bowl Alliance, it feeds the continual self-fulfilling hypocrisy of the SEC, ACC and Big-12 Conferences, who are at the heart of the BCS Controversy due to their original alliance with Chuck Neinas and the CFA. We are less than 45 days from the controversy continuing. So from Les Miles and company, let the smear campaigns and self-fulling prophecies begin as they are proven strategies to oust all non-BCS members (now exposed as non-CFA members) from ever competing for the national championship.