Emails in on BCS, Blazers & steroids
The new emails are in, and lots of talk about the BCS, the Blazers and steroids. Let’s get to the BCS and my support for it.
Chad: “The BCS system should provide a real quagmire now that Congress has waded in. Not even Congress will probably have the weight to move it one way or another. But there is a precedent in Teddy Roosevelt for the hearings one supposes. I thought the BCS did a pretty good job up to this point in putting the right teams together. And even Utah didn’t suffer the humiliation of Arizona State years ago when it went undefeated, beating Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl, and was not considered the national champion. What I would like to see Congress do is to nullify the BCS decision to allow cable television to handle every single one of the games we want to see. Put it back on the public airwaves and forbid it to leave. There’s a recession going on, and if this economic situation keeps up, who’s gonna see the darn game anyhow? Even sports has gone to the special interest groups.”
Teddy Roosevelt did indeed step in on college football rough-housing more than a century ago. But Chad raises a better question that the BCS. Could the economy cause the public to pull the plug on some of its sports enterprises? So far, no, judging by ticket sales. But if times get tougher, the least of anyone’s problems is going to be the post-season.
Coltan: “Get over it. OU was closer to the ‘05 Holiday Bowl team in their ‘06 Big 12 championship season than they were to a national championship contender. A decent OU team got lucky, won the Big 12 and barely got beat by the greatest Boise State team in its history. OU will be contending for mythical national championships long after Boise State has faded from the college football scene. Let it go. There is no reason to hold animosity toward non-BCS teams. As for your reasoning. Do you guys that support the BCS ever listen to your arguments? The Jim Crow laws are the best because they are better than slavery? The BCS is awesome because it’s not the old bowl system? Really? Officer, I beat my wife less than I used to, doesn’t that make it OK? Oh, and the old system allowed an Independent nobody (Miami) to win a national championship and become a college football power in only five years. How? By winning. The new system eliminates success like that.”
This whole thing reminds me of a M*A*S*H episode, when Col. Blake brought home a pretty young thing he met in Seoul. Said he was in love. Hawkeye and Trapper proceeded to remind him about his wife. But anyway, Henry is ga-ga over this girl, yet while Henry is in surgery, the girl comes on to Hawkeye and he utters the immoral line: “One of us loves Henry Blake, and I think it’s me.” Well, listening to all these playoff junkies makes me say: One of us loves the mid-majors, and I think it’s me. The mid-majors would be shut out of a playoff system. They shouldn’t be; I actually advocate an 11-team playoff, with each league’s champion admitted. But we won’t get that. We’ll get an 8- or 16-team playoffs. In an 8-teamer, the mid-majors won’t get a sniff. In a 16-teamer, a couple will get to play and will get a road game at Florida or USC or somewhere, where they have no chance to win. Within five years, the mid-majors will look back longingly on the days when they had the chance at a fair fight.
Bruce: “If the BCS is illegal, then I guess the SEC, Big Ten and ACC are as well. With all the grandstanding by Congress in the BCS mess, the only thing that may even be slightly illegal and under the purvey of Congress is the claim by the BCS or any of its members or sponsors as it being the national championship, which I don’t ever recall seeing. They call it the BCS National Championship Game, which it most certainly is. But they would probably be best served by calling it the BCS Championship Game. The BCS is basically a super conference comprised of six conferences, the television networks and the major bowl games whose goal is to match the two highest ranked teams based on a predetermined criteria. Anything that the BCS-affiliated conferences give to teams outside the six including a guaranteed spot for an non-BCS team, provided it meets certain criteria, seems like a favor and completely unnecessary. For the feds to come in and make some determination otherwise (by legislation, executive action or through the courts) is seriously out of bounds. Now is the BCS totally fair to all Division I-A teams? No, but it’s also not totally fair that if I open up a convenience store that I don’t get the same wholesale price for a case of Doritos that Wal-Mart does. Size, power and reputation do matter, and if it didn’t then the Sun Belt would have the same television contract as the SEC.”
Bruce actually has arrived at the crux of the problem. Division I-A football is unwieldy. Too many schools. Too many dissimilar programs. Kent State should not be in a division with Ohio State. Louisiana-Lafayette should not be in a division with LSU. It would be like baseball’s Montgomery Biscuits playing in the American League. Or the Shreveport Mudbugs playing in the NHL. And don’t give me college basketball. College basketball has 340 teams in Division I, but that’s a smokescreen. There are sub-divisions in Division I, playing entirely different games. The lower schools serve as fodder for the big schools and help fill out the immensely popular 64-team bracket, with no reasonable hope of success. Sometimes it does happen. Davidson to the elite eight. George Mason to the Final Four. And sometimes Boise State wins the Fiesta Bowl and Utah the Sugar Bowl.
Rich: “You make an interesting case that the Mountain West is biting the hand that feeds it. I don’t know that I agree entirely, but then again, I’ve always been a big fan of Rocky Balboa. I hate Wal-Mart, and I think Bill Gates sold his soul in exchange for the strokes of fate that brought about his empire. I’d be curious to know your thoughts on the bowl system and how it could fit within a redesigned BCS playoff system. Why couldn’t that work better than what currently exists? Why wouldn’t it produce more revenue for all schools involved while maintaining the integrity of the regular season? I guess I’m just too much new school, because I think the existing system just stinks and needs to evolve into a playoff just like every other sport out there.”
I think there are all kinds of viable playoff plans. The problem is, the major schools don’t want them. The presidents, the athletic directors, the coaches. They like it the way it is. Every other sport out there has a playoff, administered by the NCAA, which would do the same for an expanded playoff. And then the money goes to the NCAA, which will dole it out to schools. Uh-oh.
Richard: “You said that in the 54 seasons before 2004, four mid-majors made BCS bowls or the high-paying, New Year’s Day bowls that eventually formed the BCS: Air Force in the 1959 Cotton and 1971 Sugar, Wyoming in the 1968 Sugar and Louisville in the 1991 Fiesta. However, BYU played in the Fiesta Bowl in 1974.”
True enough, except the Fiesta Bowl in 1974 was not a major bowl. The Fiesta entered major status, I would say, with the 1986 season, when Penn State and Miami played for the national title.
Tim: I know I am stretching an analogy about sports (the BCS) to the breaking point when I talk about serious history, but I want you to see how ridiculous your argument looks to the other side. In the early days of the Industrial Revolution, the factory owners rationalized horrendous working conditions and child labor by saying that the workers had it better than they would on the farms. I mean, they chose to work in the factories didn’t they? I am sure the Russian nobility rationalized that their serfs were mostly happy and that they were better off with the noble’s paternal oversight. I am sure that plantation owners in the Antebellum South told themselves that their slaves were better off in their fields than they would be in the jungles of Africa. A generation or two latter, the descendents of those plantation owners probably said Jim Crow laws were fine because it was an improvement on the days of slavery. As if the only alternative to Jim Crow was slavery. The fact that some members of the side that have benefited from a corrupt and biased system have managed to convince themselves that they are doing a favor for those they oppress is NOT a convincing argument, not convincing at all. In short, the fact that supporters of the BCS, especially supporters of the three conferences (Big 12, Big Ten & SEC) that have made out like bandits, have lied to themselves well enough to believe that they deserve their privileged place in a un-American and unjust system, does not make the system any less shameful. Besides the argument that the BCS system has been relatively good for the excluded programs is hogwash and not born out by a simple analysis.”
I love history. I was a history major. And you’re right; you stretched the analogy to the breaking point. Here’s the truth that people don’t really like to talk about. College football is controlled by those six major conferences, excluding the little guy, no doubt about it. But the door is not closed to the little guy. If a school really wants to play big-time football, it can get there. Arizona State, Arizona, Louisville, Cincinnati, all were mid-majors not that long ago. Outside the circle. What did those schools do? Built up their programs, invested, worked hard and were invited in. That’s the American way. If Brigham Young wants in a BCS league, it can be before sundown. If East Carolina or Boise State wants elevation, it’s possible, with a serious financial commitment. In fact, before the Fiesta Bowl, I wrote that if Boise State won, it would be in the Pac-10 within 10 years. I don’t think that’s crazy talk. I still think it’s possible. College football doesn’t live under Jim Crow laws. It lives under the laws of economic realities.
Nils: “So by now your mailbox is filling up with angry emails. Let me add mine. Life is not fair? Tell Mizzou fans that after the 1990 Colorado game. However, when good schools won’t play you because you are too good but the BCS won’t rank you highly because you don’t play good enough teams. What is Utah to do? Or Boise State for that matter, but Oklahoma fans must still be stewing over that one. What this really boils down to is ‘more money for us’ and less money for non-BCS teams.”
You’re exactly right. This is a money deal. And it’s a scheduling deal. The plight you described is exactly what the Mountain West (and others) face. But it’s not corrected by a post-season, for crying out loud. That would only exacerbate the problem. You think the big boys cower now, wait until you have a 16-team playoff. You won’t see a decent game the entire month of September.
Jason: “First, let me state that Congress should not be wasting time on college football. I think Hatch is being a typical politician just looking for votes in the next election. Enough on that, now on to the school, coaches, players and fans. I think Utah looks around and sees Fresno State with a national championship in baseball. They see George Mason earning its way to a Final Four. I think they look at their main rival displaying that joke of a national title from 1984. The BCS has given some sweet to the mid-majors, but not without some sour. Florida wins the national title with maybe their biggest win coming against Alabama. At least it was until Utah dominated that same Alabama team in SEC country. What if? They couldn’t have beat Florida anyway, they’re too good. Before the Sugar Bowl game, Alabama was too good too. The BCS has given more money and opportunity to these teams than ever before, but if you’re a competitor, what do you want more than money or a bowl trip? I think you want a chance to compete for a championship. I’m sure they look at that Sugar Bowl trophy with great pride, but I imagine it is accompanied with a thought of, what if?”
You know what would be a good survey. Talk to Division I-AA players, from Appalachian State or Georgia Southern or wherever, and ask them which they prefer. A 16-team playoff, in which they play home games or fly or bus to road games and turn around and go home, with a national title game in Chattanooga or some such place. Or would they prefer a bowl system. Would they like to go play a relatively-meaningless game in Tampa or San Antonio or San Diego and spent 4-5 days practicing but otherwise taking a vacation. I don’t think the playoff junkies want to know the answer.
Martin: “Great article on the BCS. Couldn’t agree with you more. As much as I love college football, I side with the presidents. These are college students after all. The season is long enough. The BCS works well, warts and all.”
The academic issue is a red herring. A playoff would not encroach on academics. But the length of the season is a real issue for players. It’s already 6-7 months, counting the virtually-mandatory summer workouts. Now you want to either add in a big chunk of December or a big chunk of January? Don’t buy the talk that players all want a playoff. What they’d really like is some free time.
Craig: “I loved the old way because OU won more championships. They didn’t have to necessarily beat the No. 1 team or the beast team to be No. 1. I’d rather win a title from the back door (1975) than lose head on (2003, 2004, 2008). It definitely made New Year’s Day more anticipated and eventful. It gave the No. 3 through No. 8 teams a shot and an argument for being No. 1 after the bowls were played out. However, don’t know if it could match the excitement in today’s college football as it wouldn’t be much different than many college football weekends as almost every meaningful regular season game is televised and so many weekends are drama filled and argued over in determining No. 1 and 2.
I hated the old way. In fact, all the current BCS complainers, I sort of feel their pain, because that’s how I felt about the old days. I like the current system because we have a championship game. All we’re really arguing about today is how to get to that title game. The way I see it, as long as we have a game, that’s all that matters.
OK, enough BCS. Don wrote about Jack Mitchell: “I was delighted to read your blog about Mitchell and the split-T. Your research into the origin of the option was remarkable. I had not known that the option pitch had prior to Mitchell been pre-determined and that Mitchell actually ‘read’ it. Good stuff. I saw Wilkinson’s teams play Faurot’s several times, and I had always wondered what the fuss was about Faurot’s split-T: pedestrian and unimaginative. One of the things other than the option which made the split-T so hard to stop was the dive/slant tandem. The splits were wide so that Wilkinson’s small quick linemen merely had to occupy briefly the opposing d-lineman/linebackers. They did this with a swift hard first blow. I saw Gomer demonstrate this with his linemen at a football clinic back in 1962. The halfbacks would find the crease quickly, then peel pack against the grain searching for the long gain. But really, what made the split-T devastating was the fullback slant. The fullback would shave off the halfback’s rump sharply to the outside, between the tackle and end. Usually, the defense could not see this coming, as the halfback shielded the handoff to the fullback. This, of course, set up the option, as the fullback was already in a position to block outside. You will notice that Wilkinson almost always had a great fullback. Leon Heath, Buck McPhail, Billy Pricer, Prentice Gautt, Jim Grisham. I’ve always wondered why more teams even today don’t run the split-T. In my experience, it is actually more difficult to stop than the wishbone and it offers four quick receivers for the short passing game.”
I’m not sure modern fans realize how much Oklahomans embraced the split-T. Much the same way that 20 years later the wishbone became the coolest thing ever. It was the identity of Sooner football.
Mike wrote about my column saying fans don’t really care about steroids: “I’m a consultant who travels coast to coast. As is my nature, I strike up conversations in airports, the business office, restaurants, etc. I’ve met coaches, athletes, former minor league and major league players, fathers, uncles, cousins and so on. What I’ve come to learn is that most men who are fans and are over 40 consider illegal steroid/HGH users cheaters and those players should not be voted into the Hall of Fame or, at least, some stigma should be attached to the player’s stats (kind of supports your hard-core fan stance). Most men 40 and under believe that all athletes use steroids/HGH so what’s the big deal? Without the conscience of the sports media, the younger fans will continue to not care, in my humble opinion. This is probably the strategy that MLB has embraced and the sports media has complied with — right or wrong. As one of those over-40, hard-core fans I abhor illegal steroid/HGH users and feel their stats are tainted enough to be ineligible for the Hall of Fame, consideration/historical comparison. I’d have Roger Maris and Hank Aaron still atop the home run categories with footnotes saying Barry Bonds exceeded their numbers but his numbers were attained using illegal steroids. I think that’s pretty fair. He’s in the books but doesn’t get the records. To those who feel that pro sports are entertainment, then let’s give those athletes Emmys and Oscars and establish a sports entertainment Hall of Fame. Use ESPN’s ESPY awards as the starting point.”
I think once you start categorizing the record book – most home runs without steroids, most home runs with steroids, most victories in the dead-ball era, etc. – you are inviting people to put it down and never pick it up. As for the ESPYs, I’d rather watch a C-SPAN book review show.
Clay: “You are right the fans don’t care if a player is cheating if it helps their team win. They even call it performance enhancing drugs. Baseball is no different than football, cycling or anything other sport. Don’t for a second think football players aren’t on growth hormone and/or testosterone. There was no outrage a few years ago when the entire Panther O-line was found to be using after their super bowl season.”
There is no outrage whatsoever in the NFL. Shawn Merriman was suspended four games for doping and was named the league defensive player of the year.
Jim: “Baseball purist like myself can, and I repeat can, separate stats and old records from what is taking place in the steroid era. And I am afraid that high school players will follow in the footsteps of the major leagues. I think they already do take body building chemicals right now in many cases. But what the major league players take or do, I could care less and let’s not waste any more money investigating this so-called scandal. I hate that some members of Congress get involved in commissions to control football playoffs and steroids.”
I don’t think separating the records is as easy as you say. We only have conjecture about some of the older modern players. And we have unknowns about the more recent players, like Pujols. Everyone is under suspicion. It’s a big mess. That’s why the easy answer for some of us is to just quit caring.
Now, on to the Blazers. Corbin: “The Blazers represented the CHL and what minor league sports are about. I knew when Brad left things were going the wrong way, as Funk Jr. has much bigger plans than the Blazers could fulfill. I hope that Lund comes back to manage the replacement team if that becomes a reality, though it won’t be the same. I remember going to Blazers games in my childhood. Being on the ice when the team won its first championship was one the best moments of my childhood.”
The unfortunate truth about minor league hockey is that it has a boom-and-bust element. Goes great guns, then slacks off. I think the Oklahoma City market is strong enough that minor league hockey always will be with us, but the glory days of the early Blazer years probably are gone.
Budd: “Good hockey story. We’ve been Blazer regulars for three years and usually need a magnifying glass and a seeing-eye dog to find a decent Blazer story. Have never seen a single mention by you until now, when it was time to write their obituary. At my age, 80 going on death, I don’t ever expect to see another hockey game at the Ford (Thunder) Center where I could sit in my wheelchair right up behind the Blazer bench at a reasonable price. Ah, well….there’s always deep sea diving.”
Hang in there, Budd. Sounds to me like you could outlive the next hockey franchise, too.
Eddie: “If you are wondering about the demise of the Blazers, as a hockey dad and fan I can give you several reasons. First is the level of play, They claim to be AA hockey, but anyone who follows hockey knows it is Class A hockey at best. The only true AA league is the ECHL. The vast majority of the players in the CHL have little or no chance of moving up. The ECHL has players moving up to the AHL and beyond. Players getting cut from the ECHL end up playing in the CHL. When the Blazers started in 1992, the talent was much better than it is now. Mike McEwen and Mark Berge were the coaches. They, along with the players, got involved in youth hockey and got a lot of kids playing , which in turn created more hockey families and fans. The support for youth hockey has not been there for a very long time, and I know for a fact that has turned a lot of people off. You talked about the attendance numbers, but I would be willing to bet those numbers are skewed , and for several recent years a great number of those tickets were given away. The demographic for the Blazers has changed dramatically in the past 10 years. The crowd they have now is just looking to see a fight, and that is usually what they get. If I want to see numerous fights I will buy a ticket to boxing or MMA. Just like many hockey fans that I know, I would not go to a Blazer game if you paid me. If OKC can get a AHL or even a ECHL team here, I will buy season tickets. As for now I will enjoy watching the OU and UCO hockey teams when the season rolls back around.
I can’t say that I’m disappointed with the Blazers folding, but I do hope those guys can find another place to play.”
Sorry, but I don’t buy that level of play. I know the Blazers are a good step below the AHL or even the ECHL, but you can’t tell me hockey novices in Oklahoma can tell a noticeable difference. Eddie, if you’re a transplant from Duluth, OK, I’m buying it. But otherwise, sorry.
Butch also wrote about the Blazers and brought up the interesting point about owner Bob Funk’s lawsuit with previous owner Horn Chen, on how much money the Blazers actually were worth: “Let me answer your questions. 1. If the Blazers don’t make financial sense in the Central Hockey League, how will they make it in the more-costly AHL? ‘Run it like a business and not a hobby. Don’t forget Bob Funk has been going through a divorce with his wife of 45 years. Business slows down, divorce…..the golden goose is not as perky as she once was. Shut down the dog and let Junior start fresh. It will be interesting to see what happens after the lawsuit and divorce are settled. 2. Why not just sell the Blazers? ‘If this lawsuit is going Funk’s way, then sell the team and move on. If it’s going Horn Chen’s way, don’t sign a lease, cut your losses, shut it down and give it back to the previous owner. Funk made some counter claims about the team that are going to scare off potential buyers. Junior confirmed some of that in his press release. If you think you were conned into buying the team and the judge isn’t going to see it your way, then close it down and say here’s your team back.’ 3. Is the city looking to squeeze out the lower-level CHL, as it tried to do nine years ago in favor of the International Hockey League? ‘From what I saw I don’t think the city is too concerned either way. They have the NBA. None of this really matters to the Funks either. If all things were equal and there was not a lawsuit and there was not an opportunity with the AHL, the Blazers would be here next year. Bob likes having his Express Personnel banners hanging up in the arena and he likes getting the free publicity that he gets. That’s been worth the expense.”
You know, that lawsuit is an interesting element we haven’t discussed. Funk says the franchise isn’t as profitable as he was led to believe. Horn Chen says it was. Funk tries to prove how unprofitable by shutting it down. Interesting. Very interesting.
Berry Tramel can be heard Monday through Friday from 4:40-5:20 p.m. on The Sports Animal radio network, including AM-640 and FM-98.1. You can e-mail him here and follow him on Twitter @BerryTramel.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment