Bill Hancock is charged with the task of defending something that is utterly indefensible. So it should be no surprise that his responses to valid criticism of this defunct system are becoming more and more desperate. As William Wilberforce says in the movie, “Amazing Grace,” if he “continues to scrape the bottom of the barrel, he’s liable to get splinters.”
The latest drivel from Billy-boy came in response to a chart developed by Alan Fishel (a Washington DC attorney) that shed light on how discriminatory the BCS has been in revenue distribution over the last couple years. His rebuttal in all its stupidity can be found here. Although this response kind of “disproves itself” and makes Billiam look stupid of its own merit, I figured I’d drive the point home further, just because I can.
“Certainly we’re as proud of the Mountain West’s and WAC’s success as anybody. The BCS has done many great things for all of college football—and for those two conferences in particular.”
That’s so touching. Those BCS saints have done so much for the little guys. Excuse me while I wipe away a tear *sniff*. Give me a break. You expect the MWC and WAC to be grateful to you for systematically eliminating them from championship contention before the season even starts?? You expect them to thank you for discriminating against them when distributing revenue? Sure, they make more than they used to, but it’s still a heck of a lot less than they deserve. It’s like comparing the Jim Crow laws with slavery. The Jim Crow laws may be a small step up, but don’t expect blacks to be overcome with gratitude for those who came up with them.
“It’s important to remember that the BCS would not exist without the AQ conferences and schools; they have sowed for decades and now everyone is reaping.”
Don’t remind me. And what exactly does “sowing for decades” mean? Investing more time and money into their football programs in the past decades has already generated the deserved returns in high attendance, merchandising, TV contracts, etc. But no, that’s not enough, they think their past “investments” entitle them to more. So they have colluded to form this system which predominantly benefits their schools, regardless of which schools are actually making the money. The chart proves that non-AQ schools make just as much money in BCS games as AQ schools do, and sometimes more! Remember that investing in a school’s football program is different than investing in the formation of the BCS. I sincerely doubt that it cost that much money to form and establish the system in the first place. It’s true that more money is made as a result of this system, but it’s still less than would be made with a playoff.
“College football has the most compelling regular season of any sport. It has a unique bowl system that benefits thousands of students and fans every year. I don’t know why anyone would want to monkey with either of those.”
I’m sure a monkey could have come up with a more equitable system than the BCS. Granted, college football has a compelling regular season, but what this moron and morons like him fail to recognize is that the regular season would only be enhanced by adding a playoff at the end of it!! Sloppy Joe has illustrated this point time and time again, so I don’t think I’ll beat that dead horse. Also, remember that under Joe’s proposed system, the bowls are still staying intact. They’re still benefiting thousands of students and fans every year. The only difference with adding a playoff is that now more students and fans are benefited than before. If “monkey”-ing with the system means making it better, then by all means, monkey away.
“As for the revenue, each conference team that qualifies automatically brings in approximately the same revenue. Each team selected at-large by a BCS bowl brings in exactly the same revenue. Goodness gracious, is that discriminatory? Of course, the five non-AQ conferences have decided to share their revenue. That’s the decision they feel is best for them.”
Uh oh, Bill threw the “goodness gracious” bomb. Seriously, Bill, let’s keep this clean. First of all, how in the world is giving an auto-qualifier more money than an at-large team fair? Let’s look at the numbers. Georgia Tech and Cincinnati were two teams in BCS bowls from different conferences and each made $17.7M for its conference. That’s $35.4M cumulatively. TCU and Boise St were two teams in BCS bowls from different conferences and they made $24M cumulatively. Regardless of how they decided to share their money, that’s still an $11.4M gap. Add to that the fact that the TV ratings for the Fiesta Bowl were actually higher than the ratings for the Orange bowl (i.e. they made more money), and you have a true injustice. Goodness gracious, how is that not discriminatory?? They may not be forced to share their money with the rest of the non-AQ conferences, but they certainly are forced to take less than the big boys.
“As you know, there are two ways for a conference to earn an automatic BCS berth for its champion: one is for a bowl to contract with the conference. Any bowl can contract with any conference of its choosing. The other is for the conference’s on-field performance to meet the three-pronged metric that was established by all 11 conferences unanimously: ranking of the conference’s highest-ranked team, ranking of all the conference’s members and number of teams in the top 25.“
He’s just proving our point for us here. If a conference contracts with a bowl, they don’t even have to worry about on-fielf performance. They’re sitting pretty. They can have the worst teams imaginable in the conference; doesn’t matter. The BCS is valuing marketability, business acumen, team name, and negotiating skills over on-field performance when determining who gets automatically accepted into a BCS bowl. Sound fair to you?
“If Alan Fishel is advocating a system where television ratings and attendance are the sole metrics … golly, I’m pretty sure the 11 BCS conferences would unanimously disagree with the Washington lawyer on that proposal.”
Let me ask you something, Billy – where do you hacks get your money? You get it from lucrative TV contracts and stadium attendance. Where else? You may also bring in revenue from the actual bowl sponsors, but there’s no way those sponsors are going to pay you big money if the television ratings and stadium attendance are down. All the revenue that is made by the BCS is linked to those two factors. This graph shows that the non-AQ teams are making more revenue for the BCS than the AQ teams in these 2 conferences since their TV ratings and stadium attendance are higher. Yet they receive less. Fishel is exploiting this inequity for all to see, he’s not advocating for a system based solely on these two factors, you doofus. We’re talking solely about money here, Bill, so you of all people should understand what Fishel is getting at. Those who make the most money should receive the most money. It’s not that hard.