Has Chris Fowler lost his mind ?

[LCN]

He never said that TCU would be in the BCSCG.

Fowler was arguing that it was irresponsible to talk about how the Texas v. Bama matchup would play out because all the votes weren't in and media coverage influences the voting process. When Sportscenter anchors use words along the lines of "So, voting's not over but we're all certain that Texas will be selected" they create a self fulfilling prophecy.

When you have a group of voters who actually give very little thought to the voting process, a relatively small group of people in the media can shape public opinion by pretending that their opinions represent the conventional wisdom that no one is seriously questioning.

You know, kinda like how American politics works.

Fowler said it was "a dangerous assumption" and attempted to spin support for his stance by pimping TCU . As expected , he was wrong . And as a former Sportscaster , I know delusion just as well as I know crap filler when I see , hear or read it . Besides , what was there to think about ? Bama and Texas playing for the BCS title was/is a certainty and was never at any point or in any way "a dangerous assumption" . That makes him , again , as expected , 100% wrong in my book .

On another point .... I never had a vote but have known a few who have and they took their voting privelage VERY seriously . When it comes to shaping opinion , if a voter is too incompetent or lacks enough confidence to cast votes reflecting their own personal conclusions , then they have no business voting at all . JMO

 

[Bamabuzzard]

You're missing the entire point. I never said they couldn't beat the BCS teams. It's the in betweens I've got a problem with. You tell me how many weeks Utah, Boise St and TCU have to play teams that are of equal to better caliber than they are? Go ahead, name them. At best they play one "challenging opponent" then have weeks to play obvious inferior talent to prepare for their second and final "competitive game".

Yet you've got teams like Alabama who will run a stretch of weeks where they play South Carolina, Ole Miss, LSU, Tennessee, Kentucky then on top of that schedule a Virginia Tech which is a top 15 team. Show me, please, show me where ANY of these "great" teams are playing stretches of games equivalent to that of what SEC teams do? I'll save you the time. They don't.

Yet you want to give these teams the same respect as you teams that go through a much tougher road to get undefeated? I don't think so. These teams are good enough to beat Alabama. But one game doesn't make a great team. Going through an entire season and the level of competition a team goes through and still comes out undefeated at the end of the year constitutes a great team. The media gets caught up in the "one game" and tries to project out that means these teams are playing equal competition. Which again, does matter because it takes a toll physically. You can ring the "Utah" bell til you're blue in the face but let them play a string of four to five weeks of equal competition then we can talk.

Good point. After all, there's no way a squad like, let's say Utah, running up gaudy numbers in a less respected conference, could beat a physical SEC team like Alabama in a BCS bowl game, right?

 

[Tide1986]

You're missing the entire point. I never said they couldn't beat the BCS teams. It's the in betweens I've got a problem with. You tell me how many weeks Utah, Boise St and TCU have to play teams that are of equal to better caliber than they are? Go ahead, name them. At best they play one "challenging opponent" then have weeks to play obvious inferior talent to prepare for their second and final "competitive game".

Yet you've got teams like Alabama who will run a stretch of weeks where they play South Carolina, Ole Miss, LSU, Tennessee, Kentucky then on top of that schedule a Virginia Tech which is a top 15 team. Show me, please, show me where ANY of these "great" teams are playing stretches of games equivalent to that of what SEC teams do? I'll save you the time. They don't.

Yet you want to give these teams the same respect as you teams that go through a much tougher road to get undefeated? I don't think so. These teams are good enough to beat Alabama. One game doesn't make a great team. Going through an entire season and the level of competition a team goes through and still is undefeated at the end of the year constitutes a great team. The media gets caught up in the "one game" and tries to project out that means these teams are playing equal competition. Which again, does matter because it takes a toll physically. You can ring the "Utah" bell til you're blue in the face but let them play a string of four to five weeks of equal competition then we can talk.

Ding, ding, ding...I'm on your page.

Edit: I'm afraid some get caught up in the optics of 12-0 or 13-0 without thoughtfully considering quality of competition.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Redwood Forrest]

You're missing the entire point. I never said they couldn't beat the BCS teams. It's the in betweens I've got a problem with. You tell me how many weeks Utah, Boise St and TCU have to play teams that are of equal to better caliber than they are? Go ahead, name them. At best they play one "challenging opponent" then have weeks to play obvious inferior talent to prepare for their second and final "competitive game".

Yet you've got teams like Alabama who will run a stretch of weeks where they play South Carolina, Ole Miss, LSU, Tennessee, Kentucky then on top of that schedule a Virginia Tech which is a top 15 team. Show me, please, show me where ANY of these "great" teams are playing stretches of games equivalent to that of what SEC teams do? I'll save you the time. They don't.

Yet you want to give these teams the same respect as you teams that go through a much tougher road to get undefeated? I don't think so. These teams are good enough to beat Alabama. One game doesn't make a great team. Going through an entire season and the level of competition a team goes through and still is undefeated at the end of the year constitutes a great team. The media gets caught up in the "one game" and tries to project out that means these teams are playing equal competition. Which again, does matter because it takes a toll physically. You can ring the "Utah" bell til you're blue in the face but let them play a string of four to five weeks of equal competition then we can talk.

I was going to post something along the lines of "for the love of God, am I the only person who understands college football?", but you saved me the trouble. Well said and right on the money.

And as I have said before, if Auburn were in the WAC they would be 12-0 right now and have a bunch of talking heads crying about how they ought to be in the Big Game. Boise would have Aubies record if they had played their SEC schedule.

 

[GPSnakeHandler]

He works for ESPN/ABC which happens to be the same network that has the Bowl selection show.....

No, Fox has the selection show. They televise all but one of the BCS bowls.

 

[atxhornfan]

I actually agreed with most of what he said. He basically stated that Bama deserved to be in the BCSCG, but that it as dangerous to assume Texas would be. The Horns did not look like a dominant team that is head and shoulders above TCU and Cincy.

Obviously, Texas will very likely play us, but I think TCU and Cincy merit discussion.

I agree Texas played pretty poorly against Nebraska, but they have one of the best defenses in the country. Alabama barely beat Tenn. We barely beat Nebraska. Teams have bad games, but at the end of the season we are both undefeated.

I am pretty pumped about getting to play you guys. SHould be fun.

 

[WishIwasInBama]

No, Fox has the selection show. They televise all but one of the BCS bowls.

semantics, ESPN has a 3 hour bowl selection "special" from 7-9 while fox is airing a 30 min. bowl selection show at 7:30.

 

[Jessica4Bama]

I just read an article on Fox Sports about Texas not deserving of a shot at the National Championship b/c of there performance yesterday. I think they will get it, but some people don't think they should.

 

[GulfCoastTider]

Good point. After all, there's no way a squad like, let's say Utah, running up gaudy numbers in a less respected conference, could beat a physical SEC team like Alabama in a BCS bowl game, right?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!?

They might do it once. But could they go on the road to Tennessee the next week, LSU the week after that, then host Auburn, and then host Arkansas... If any of these teams played the eight-game league schedule Kentucky and South Carolina did, they might scrape together a 4-4 conference record and make it to Shreveport.

They played hard against inferior opponents, won every game and scored lots of points. For their efforts, Boise State deserves to go to the Popcorn Bowl. Or, the Mixed Fruit Bowl. Or some other little bowl that means nothing to the national picture, but means a lot to the local economy of the host city.

But if one of these little snots ever get within spittin' distance of the BCS Championship Game, I'm leading the torch and pitchfork parade.

 

[WishIwasInBama]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!?

They might do it once. But could they go on the road to Tennessee the next week, LSU the week after that, then host Auburn, and then host Arkansas... If any of these teams played the eight-game league schedule Kentucky and South Carolina did, they might scrape together a 4-4 conference record and make it to Shreveport.

They played hard against inferior opponents, won every game and scored lots of points. For their efforts, Boise State deserves to go to the Popcorn Bowl. Or, the Mixed Fruit Bowl. Or some other little bowl that means nothing to the national picture, but means a lot to the local economy of the host city.

But if one of these little snots ever get within spittin' distance of the BCS Championship Game, I'm leading the torch and pitchfork parade.

I agree, its one thing to beat decent-good teams week end, week out and its another to beat a team that is coming off a heart breaking loss, missing Left tackle, another O lineman goes down early and plays down right uninspired football. I am not taking away the win for utah but if that game could have been played again over the next 4 weeks then bama would have won 3 to 1 in the series. The sugar bowl for utah was the super bowl for them and the independence for bama

 

[teamplayer]

He said he was thinking about putting TCU at #2 with his AP vote.

I am guessing that a few people will put TCU at #2, especially if they are Nebraska fans.

 

[Giant Squid]

Fowler said it was "a dangerous assumption" and attempted to spin support for his stance by pimping TCU . As expected , he was wrong . And as a former Sportscaster , I know delusion just as well as I know crap filler when I see , hear or read it . Besides , what was there to think about ? Bama and Texas playing for the BCS title was/is a certainty and was never at any point or in any way "a dangerous assumption" . That makes him , again , as expected , 100% wrong in my book .

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Exactly why was a Texas vs. SEC champion BCSCG a certainty? The answer is "because that's what people have been hearing all year." Fowler didn't mean that it was "a dangerous assumption" because it could be wrong, but that making assumptions like that in the media are dangerous to the integrity of the voting process.

On another point .... I never had a vote but have known a few who have and they took their voting privelage VERY seriously . When it comes to shaping opinion , if a voter is too incompetent or lacks enough confidence to cast votes reflecting their own personal conclusions , then they have no business voting at all . JMO

I'm sure many journalists take their obligation seriously, but the AP poll doesn't count. We know for a fact that a large percentage of coaches either don't watch the games or give the whole process over to lackeys in the athletic department. Their votes DO count.

You're missing the entire point. I never said they couldn't beat the BCS teams. It's the in betweens I've got a problem with. You tell me how many weeks Utah, Boise St and TCU have to play teams that are of equal to better caliber than they are?

I could go on and talk about the fact that TCU, Cincy, and Texas are all tied with two wins over current AP top 25 teams but if we're talking about "stretch runs" we can do that too.

At best they play one "challenging opponent" then have weeks to play obvious inferior talent to prepare for their second and final "competitive game".

Considering that Texas themselves played about seven teams with clearly inferior talent this year and then escaped on a last second field goal against a team that couldn't score at a women's prison with a fistful of weekend passes, I don't think the gap in opposing talent is all that huge. The SOS rating sure as heck doesn't either.

My main problem with your argument is that is effectively bans any team from non-automatically qualifying conferences from ever playing in the championship game. Those teams HAVE to play their conference schedules regardless of who they schedule as OOC games. TCU and and Cincy both scheduled and won challenging OOC games, but it doesn't make a difference in the end because of the teams they are forced to play.

You can ring the "Utah" bell til you're blue in the face but let them play a string of four to five weeks of equal competition then we can talk.

Are you really that sure that the Utah team who took a 12-1 Alabama team behind a woodshed couldn't have gone undefeated in the SEC or matched UF with one loss? I'm certainly not. Take a look at how many people from their team wound up on NFL rosters!

It's entirely possible that one year (or this year, for that matter) one of the two best football teams in America will be from a non-BCS conference. It just sucks that we'll never get to find that out because of media hype, bull-hockey preseason polls and name recognition.

Let me fire a question back: Can anyone give me a realistic scenario where a non-BCS conference team could possibly wind up in the BCSCG, or should we go with the overwhelming evidence showing that the system is a cartel?

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Here's the million dollar crystal ball question for you. Are you willing to put undefeated MWC teams in the BCS championships every time they go undefeated? Because if you take that step this year and lets say for arguments sake that Boise St or TCU gets put in the BCSNG over Texas. Seeing how much easier it is for those teams to go undefeated in the WAC and MWC conference then you better get used to seeing Boise St, TCU and Utah in the BCSNCG on a very consistent basis.

You don't see the problem that would much bigger than the problem we now have? Because once you let them in, over an undefeated Big 12 team then you better start going and buying Boise St, TCU and Utah T-Shirts and become a fan. Because it is very hard for Big12 and SEC teams to go undefeated through their conferences. However, that hurdle is much easier in the MWC and the WAC.

I also get the feeling that you are implying the MWC and the WAC conferences are on the same level as the SEC and the Big 12. Is that a correct statement?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Exactly why was a Texas vs. SEC champion BCSCG a certainty? The answer is "because that's what people have been hearing all year." Fowler didn't mean that it was "a dangerous assumption" because it could be wrong, but that making assumptions like that in the media are dangerous to the integrity of the voting process.



I'm sure many journalists take their obligation seriously, but the AP poll doesn't count. We know for a fact that a large percentage of coaches either don't watch the games or give the whole process over to lackeys in the athletic department. Their votes DO count.



I could go on and talk about the fact that TCU, Cincy, and Texas are all tied with two wins over current AP top 25 teams but if we're talking about "stretch runs" we can do that too.



Considering that Texas themselves played about seven teams with clearly inferior talent this year and then escaped on a last second field goal against a team that couldn't score at a women's prison with a fistful of weekend passes, I don't think the gap in opposing talent is all that huge. The SOS rating sure as heck doesn't either.

My main problem with your argument is that is effectively bans any team from non-automatically qualifying conferences from ever playing in the championship game. Those teams HAVE to play their conference schedules regardless of who they schedule as OOC games. TCU and and Cincy both scheduled and won challenging OOC games, but it doesn't make a difference in the end because of the teams they are forced to play.



Are you really that sure that the Utah team who took a 12-1 Alabama team behind a woodshed couldn't have gone undefeated in the SEC or matched UF with one loss? I'm certainly not. Take a look at how many people from their team wound up on NFL rosters!

It's entirely possible that one year (or this year, for that matter) one of the two best football teams in America will be from a non-BCS conference. It just sucks that we'll never get to find that out because of media hype, bull-hockey preseason polls and name recognition.

Let me fire a question back: Can anyone give me a realistic scenario where a non-BCS conference team could possibly wind up in the BCSCG, or should we go with the overwhelming evidence showing that the system is a cartel?

 

[TidePrideGA]

I was about 20 feet from him yetserday at Gameday, he must have been sipping whiskey instead of coffee.

 

[Giant Squid]

First, all of this would be solved if we had a playoff to settle it on the field. Why can't we just have a playoff? (Oh yeah, because the system is cartel).

Here's the million dollar crystal ball question for you. Are you willing to put undefeated MWC teams in the BCS championships every time they go undefeated?

No. For example, I don't think Boise St. deserves to be in the BCSCG discussion this year because their only impressive win was destroying the eventual PAC-10 champion.

I am, however, willing to put an undefeated team from any non-BCS conference in the BCSCG when they have scheduled and won OOC games against tough opponents, have a comparable strength of schedule to other top teams, have the same number of wins over top 25 ranked opponents as other top teams, and have impressed me throughout the year by consistently playing excellent football. I suppose that's what separates me from the majority on this board.

Because it is very hard for Big12 and SEC teams to go undefeated through their conferences. However, that hurdle is much easier in the MWC and the WAC.

This is why teams from MWC, WAC, CUSA, etc. need to schedule impressive OOC games and win them all. This is something that TCU did this year. Cincy also had a couple of impressive in-conference wins in addition to defeating the PAC-10 runner up.

I also get the feeling that you are implying the MWC and the WAC conferences are on the same level as the SEC and the Big 12. Is that a correct statement?

Not at all. I am saying two things:

1. Teams that play in non-BCS conferences will always take a strength of schedule hit. They should be given full credit for covering that gap by scheduling and beating strong OOC competition. The fact that a team plays in a non-BCS conference should not automatically disqualify that team from BCSCG consideration. All teams should have a fair chance to qualify for the game.

2. The question "Could TCU/Boise/Cincy/Utah 2008 really go undefeated in the SEC?" is an unfair argument because it's completely speculative. We just don't know. On the other hand, we do know that teams from non-BCS conferences have posted comparable SOS ratings, gone undefeated, sent multiple players to the NFL, and even beaten dominant SEC and Big 12 teams on neutral fields.

Now that I've answered your questions, please answer mine: Can anyone give me a realistic scenario where a non-BCS conference team could possibly wind up in the BCSCG, or should we go with the overwhelming evidence showing that the system is a cartel?

Please try to avoid answering along the lines of "Sure, all they'd have to do would be to defeat three BCS top 5 teams on the road! It'd be easy!"

 

[Bamabuzzard]

You've already partially answered you're own question and now are basically saying the same thing I am. They need to schedule harder OOC games. This is TCU's 2009 schedule results 2009 TCU Horned Frogs Football Schedule

I count eight obviously inferior opponents, one slightly inferior in Virginia and three equivalent opponents in Clemson, BYU and Utah. So out of twelve of their games they play three legitimate hard games. What am I missing here?

Even with a playoff system and considering these MWC and WAC teams kept their same type of schedule it would be extremely unfair to force an SEC team to play through their conference, a conference championship then have to then go through another gauntlet of a playoff. Yet a TCU plays eight obviously inferior opponents and basically has to make it through three games in their regular season and no conference championship game.

The answer is not necessarily a playoff system but these teams playing better competition. The sad reality is these three teams have "out grown" their conferences. Their conference hasn't kept up with their successes. They are now big fish in a very small pond. They used to be small fish in this small pond but they've grown and now they are stuck. Unless they start doing other things to get out of the small pond.

Now that I've answered your questions, please answer mine: Can anyone give me a realistic scenario where a non-BCS conference team could possibly wind up in the BCSCG, or should we go with the overwhelming evidence showing that the system is a cartel?

Please try to avoid answering along the lines of "Sure, all they'd have to do would be to defeat three BCS top 5 teams on the road! It'd be easy!"

 

[Giant Squid]

You've already partially answered you're own question and now are basically saying the same thing I am. They need to schedule harder OOC games. This is TCU's 2009 schedule results 2009 TCU Horned Frogs Football Schedule

I count eight obviously inferior opponents, one slightly inferior in Virginia and three equivalent opponents in Clemson, BYU and Utah. So out of twelve of their games they play three legitimate hard games. What am I missing here?

I see what you're saying, but I'd argue that Texas also played many obviously inferior opponents from their own conference, TCU and UT have comparable SOS, TCU and Texas have the same number of AP top 25 wins, and that TCU has simply struck me as a more consistently excellent team.

It's not that TCU is so much better than Texas. It's that there are three teams (Cincy, TCU, Texas) who are all equally deserving of playing Bama in the BCSCG.

Even with a playoff system and considering these MWC and WAC teams kept their same type of schedule it would be extremely unfair to force an SEC team to play through their conference, a conference championship then have to then go through another gauntlet of a playoff. Yet a TCU plays eight obviously inferior opponents and basically has to make it through three games in their regular season and no conference championship game.

Unfair as opposed to the current system, where non-BCS conference teams are never, ever going to get a chance to play for the national title because the process is tainted by preseason rankings and media coverage?

I'm not going into the kind of playoff I'd like to see personally, but let's point out that this rationale would be laughed out of school in any other sports situation.

"Why should Duke have to bother with March Madness after winning the ACC? Teams like George Washington/Fordham/Gonzaga/take your pick don't deserve a shot at them."

"The Yankees play in baseball's strongest division, and everyone knows they're the best team anyway. It's unfair for the Angels to beat up on a weak schedule and then get the same shot the Yankees do."

The answer is not necessarily a playoff system but these teams playing better competition. The sad reality is these three teams have "out grown" their conferences. Their conference hasn't kept up with their successes. They are now big fish in a very small pond. They used to be small fish in this small pond but they've grown and now they are stuck. Unless they start doing other things to get out of the small pond.

The fact is there's not much they CAN do. I've heard rumors that Boise might join the MWC, but even that would only do so much. The reality is that these schools have a hard time scheduling OOC because big name teams usually don't want to play them, or they place ridiculous demands such as a two game series where the BCS team is at home for both games.

I think you have a completely valid point that it is unfair for a team that played inferior competition to get the same shot as a team that played a tough schedule. I'm just saying that TCU played a schedule that SOS shows was very similar to Texas' and they looked better doing it.

You think it's unfair for from weak conferences being treated the same as teams from strong ones. I think it's unfair that so many teams, no matter how good they might be, are effectively disqualified from ever playing for the national championship before the season begins under our current system.

Seriously, let's be like every other sport on Earth and have a playoff to settle it on the field.

 

[Tide1986]

Let me fire a question back: Can anyone give me a realistic scenario where a non-BCS conference team could possibly wind up in the BCSCG, or should we go with the overwhelming evidence showing that the system is a cartel?

Uh...if Texas had lost to Nebraska last night, it looks like we would have been playing TCU in the BCSCG. Is that realistic enough?

But on the other hand, would a 12-0 TCU or a 12-0 Cincinnati really be better than a 12-1 Texas or a 12-1 Florida? Same number of wins...but differential quality of competition in my opinion...regardless of the "# of ranked teams" stat that keeps being thrown around, the Big 12 and SEC are clearly superior conferences.

For example, let's look for a moment at TCU's 2009 opponents:
Virginia (3-9) - ACC
Texas State (7-4) - Southland Conference (FCS)
Clemson (8-5) - ACC; TCU won 14-10; Clemson was beaten by a mid-tier, non-ranked SEC team at season's end
SMU (7-5) - Conference USA
Air Force (7-5) - Mountain West
Colorado State (3-9) - Mountain West
BYU (10-2) - Mountain West; ripped at home by a very mediocre FSU (6-6)
UNLV (5-7) - Mountain West
San Diego State (4-8) - Mountain West
Utah (9-3) - Mountain West
Wyoming (6-6) - Mountain West
New Mexico (1-11) - Mountain West

2009 Mountain West records versus the "big boy" conferences:
2-1 ACC (Clemson, Virginia; Florida State)
0-1 Big 10 (Minnesota)
2-4 Big 12 (Oklahoma, Colorado; aTm, Texas Tech, Colorado, Texas)
0-3 PAC 10 (UCLA, Oregon State, Oregon)

Overall record against the "big boy" conferences in 2009: 4-9. The most impressive of the conference's victories were 14-13 versus Oklahoma (7-5) and 14-10 versus Clemson (8-5).

I'm just not impressed with the Mountain West. With respect to TCU, I just don't see how they deserve a shot at the BCSCG before Texas, especially since Texas has won 10+ games each year for the last 9 seasons, has had no losing seasons under Mack Brown (not even close), and has already won a national championship under Mack Brown.

 

[GulfCoastTider]

First, all of this would be solved if we had a playoff to settle it on the field. Why can't we just have a playoff? (Oh yeah, because the system is cartel).

It's not as much a cartel as it is a very large majority of university presidents being opposed to the idea. There will not be a playoff in 2010. Or 2011. Or 2012.

Since the Mayan calendar ends it all in 2012, we can safely say that there will never be a playoff in major college football.

The bowls bring in too much money for the schools, and they're too important to the economic activity of the communities that host them. Until a proposed playoff system incorporates all the financially healthy bowls, we will have this argument every December.

 

[Giant Squid]

Uh...if Texas had lost to Nebraska last night, it looks like we would have been playing TCU in the BCSCG. Is that realistic enough?

Not really, considering that Cincinnatti wound up #3 in the BCS.

But on the other hand, would a 12-0 TCU or a 12-0 Cincinnati really be better than a 12-1 Texas or a 12-1 Florida? Same number of wins...but differential quality of competition in my opinion...regardless of the "# of ranked teams" stat that keeps being thrown around, the Big 12 and SEC are clearly superior conferences.

For example, let's look for a moment at TCU's 2009 opponents:
Virginia (3-9) - ACC
Texas State (7-4) - Southland Conference (FCS)
Clemson (8-5) - ACC; TCU won 14-10; Clemson was beaten by a mid-tier, non-ranked SEC team at season's end
SMU (7-5) - Conference USA
Air Force (7-5) - Mountain West
Colorado State (3-9) - Mountain West
BYU (10-2) - Mountain West; ripped at home by a very mediocre FSU (6-6)
UNLV (5-7) - Mountain West
San Diego State (4-8) - Mountain West
Utah (9-3) - Mountain West
Wyoming (6-6) - Mountain West
New Mexico (1-11) - Mountain West

2009 Mountain West records versus the "big boy" conferences:
2-1 ACC (Clemson, Virginia; Florida State)
0-1 Big 10 (Minnesota)
2-4 Big 12 (Oklahoma, Colorado; aTm, Texas Tech, Colorado, Texas)
0-3 PAC 10 (UCLA, Oregon State, Oregon)

Overall record against the "big boy" conferences in 2009: 4-9. The most impressive of the conference's victories were 14-13 versus Oklahoma (7-5) and 14-10 versus Clemson (8-5).

I see your point, but you are essentially penalizing TCU for how badly New Mexico sucks while ignoring the fact that large parts of the Big 12 are also a competitive wasteland (including virtually the entire North division) and the SEC this year was two excellent teams and one good team atop of a giant pile of mediocrity.

With respect to TCU, I just don't see how they deserve a shot at the BCSCG before Texas, especially since Texas has won 10+ games each year for the last 9 seasons, has had no losing seasons under Mack Brown (not even close), and has already won a national championship under Mack Brown.

"I just don't see how Arizona deserves a shot in the Super Bowl against Pittsburgh when Dallas has won so many more championships in the past and has a much more storied history." There's a reason why no other sport has to deal with these idiotic questions of who "deserves" a shot at the title.

Why does any of the stuff you listed matter? I thought the point was to find out which was the best team this year? Again, you're making an argument that disqualifies dozens of teams from playing for the title before the season even begins. How is any team supposed to build championship tradition if past success is a prerequisite to playing for the title?

The bowls bring in too much money for the schools, and they're too important to the economic activity of the communities that host them. Until a proposed playoff system incorporates all the financially healthy bowls, we will have this argument every December.

Cartel (noun): A coalition of interested parties, esp. to regulate output, prices or access to profitable activities.

You're completely right, but the current system is just so stupid.