sCam Newton

[billybud]

and the official PC NCAA clarification issued because of the hoopla surrounding Cam's declaration of eligibility.

http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ ... ligibility

[donovan]

This certainly is not the first awakening, at least not on this board, by a myriad of posters, of the NCAA's ineptness and proclivity for chicanery, as well as the conferences, none except. Well there be changes...not betting the mortgage nor investing anymore emotional involvement.

[Spence]

This certainly is not the first awakening, at least not on this board, by a myriad of posters, of the NCAA's ineptness and proclivity for chicanery, as well as the conferences, none except. Well there be changes...not betting the mortgage nor investing anymore emotional involvement.

There will be changes - probably not for the better - that is the problem.

[Derek]

That is why --a Justice Department investigation into BCS and NCAA will probably take place for racketeering and other antitrust considerations. The entire system is corrupt. This move all but pushes Playoffs into the picture -- right or wrong.

You can't have it both ways. This is one of the reasons the FBI is on this case. Remember, Justice Department calls the shots -- FBI investigates and turns over findings for review.

I still have my doubts that a playoff will happen given the amount of college presidents against it. I think it may go back to the old bowl system. Everyone gets their bowl tie ins and they play and 32 teams go home happy thinking they are number 1 and boosters are righting big checks for the experience.

I, for one, have no problem with this.

I like the old system, but I also like the BCS better than a playoff.

[Cane from the Bend]

silverfox wrote:That is why --a Justice Department investigation into BCS and NCAA will probably take place for racketeering and other antitrust considerations. The entire system is corrupt. This move all but pushes Playoffs into the picture -- right or wrong.

You can't have it both ways. This is one of the reasons the FBI is on this case. Remember, Justice Department calls the shots -- FBI investigates and turns over findings for review.

Except, the BCS is not a government program, nor an NCAA program.

Say what you will, however, in the end, anti-trust laws have to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

The midmajors are aware of what is expected of them to play in a BCS bowl game, and their chances of playing for a National title awarded by the BCS.

If the justice dept investigates, they'll also find that the Associated Press has the right to acknowledge their own National Champion; and hasn't given one to a midmajor teams either . And they are independent from the BCS.

Also, with the conferences shifting so dramatically, there is know way to nail down on any BCS affiliation, as, who can justify their own acknowledgment for leaving assumed lower conference, and attempting to join with teams of assumed higher competition in another conference.

When you move your athletics program into another conference to play for a possible championship; you are admitting to what the critics of your conference have been saying, as being true.

Note:

The non-automatic qualifier conferences have the opportunity to play for a BCS bowl game. Yes, they likely have to finish undefeated, yet, will get a larger payday should they be successful.

The BCS bowl games come with prestige and a bigger $$$. In the last so many seasons, the BCS has showcased teams from the Mountain West & WAC.

The label, National Champion, is not exclusive to the BCS, and therefore does not infringe on anti-trust laws.

As well; no media source has issued a National Championship to a non-BCS conference team since the Committee's foundation.

A Big East Conference team would not be offered a chance to play in the BCS title game without an undefeated record; even with 1 loss Big East champion, a 2 loss SEC & 1 loss Big Ten/Big 12 team would get the available #1 - #2 rankings.

An undefeated Cincinnati team was not considered for the BCS title game last year. There were more complaints about TCU & Boise State not getting the opportunity.

<>

Let's be honest here:

For the fans of the midmajors; it's about getting a chance to play for a title.

However, for the universities, it's about $$$, plain and simple. the National Championship is simply their way of expressing aggrievence with the system, in order to make it a more politically correct issue. They will not say publicly, it is all about money. They will instead proclaim lack of competition fairness.

And yet, I can break apart all of the supposed anti-trust grumblings right here ... what do you think the BCS lawyers will be able to do.

It's nonsense, because the National title only holds value in acknowledgment. It does not offer anything more. It is not a sanctioned award by the NCAA, nor has it ever been at the Bowl division level. Therefore, no monopoly can be claimed on it.

.

.

.

[Eric]

I agree Cane. Case in point, if the unthinkable happens and both Oregon and Auburn lose tomorrow, what will the BCS championship probably be? Wisconsin and TCU. But that's already the Rose Bowl. So, moving the game to Glendale magically makes it a national title game?

[billybud]

If Auburn or Oregon loses...TCU will play in the NC....

I'd still, in my book, have an Auburn that went undefeated regular season and lost the CCG above a one loss Wisconsin.

[donovan]

Auburn and Oregon should go regardless. The new book on the BCS may be full of errors...but....a most compelling financial argument for the NCAA to take it back. Not sure which crook is best...but....Bowl directors making 600,000 a year to direct one bowl....not the salary...it is the money that is taken out of College football...sure the teams get something...but much more to be made. Not worth my time to read..but...Hancock of the BCS is sure trying to do damage control.

[Cane from the Bend]

Auburn and Oregon should go regardless. The new book on the BCS may be full of errors...but....a most compelling financial argument for the NCAA to take it back. Not sure which crook is best...but....Bowl directors making 600,000 a year to direct one bowl....not the salary...it is the money that is taken out of College football...sure the teams get something...but much more to be made. Not worth my time to read..but...Hancock of the BCS is sure trying to do damage control.

Now, this I agree with.

The Bowl directors should be more so representatives for the Bowl games they are attached to. When an individual is making most of the profit these collegiate programs should be acquiring; there is something terribly wrong with the system.

Even being paid 1/6 of that $600,000 allotment is more than suffice pertaining to "a" singular function. Especially when the institutions showcased in those extravaganzas are the reason the TV market is there.

Of course, there are a lot of over paid people in the NCAA, as well; who get paid to regulate the amount of payment, and how those payments are allowed to manifest, each of the athletic programs within collegiate sports ~ just the same, they are also paid to reprimand those programs who receive payments outside of the authorized accepted method of payments received.

Essentially, the authoritative figures overseeing the NCAA, get paid to tell schools how they are allowed to get paid, for those institutions' athletics programs.

The Bowl committees are paid, to tell certain schools how much money, if any, they will receive for post season participation.

.

.

.

[billybud]

Bowls and bowl committees are independent of the NCAA. A true example of the private enterprise system at work. Highly populated by republican supply side theorists I would imagine.

"Gimme the money...some will trickle down".

[Spence]

Bowls and bowl committees are independent of the NCAA. A true example of the private enterprise system at work. Highly populated by republican supply side theorists I would imagine.

"Gimme the money...some will trickle down".

Lots of people in those cities make money not just the chairman. Lots of hotel workers, restaurant owners, tourist haunts, fishing charters, and other businesses employ people with money made from those games. So yes it does trickle down. If there was no game those people would be laid off.

[strawman]

According to Danny Sheriden on the Paul Finebaum show, the NCAA is still investigating Auburn and the claim is they have a name for the bagman who may have paid the Newtons plus a witness to the transaction(s). DS wouldn't give up the name for fear of being sued so this may be much ado about nothing.

[Cane from the Bend]

And the wheel keeps right on spinning.

.

.

.

[donovan]

Bowls and bowl committees are independent of the NCAA. A true example of the private enterprise system at work. Highly populated by republican supply side theorists I would imagine.

"Gimme the money...some will trickle down".

Now I chuckle. I can not believe you even published sentence one. Or were not rolling on the floor with number two. Number three, I think you do subscribe to in general.

As for your quote ... I am sure glad no wide eyed liberal ever said anything ridiculous....I am sure they haven't or I would publish it. Where is my Jimmy Carter Quote book....?

[Spence]

The college environment is chock full of republican free market types. Everyone knows that.