clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Of Course Bill Hancock will Defend the BCS System

Bill Hancock addressed the media today and surprise! surprise! defended the BCS system that he is now in charge of running.  His quotes are quite humorous as we all have seen the tv ad from Playoff Pac where Hancock reiterates from an interview with Dan Patrick about saying 'well you had a great season.'

So far the BCS seems to might have gotten it right -- just don't talk to Boise fans -- with Boise State and Florida defeating TCU and Cincinnati  as the only two teams with a real threat at a split title.  He is safe on that part, but Mr. Hancock keeps putting his foot squarely in his mouth with statements that do not make too much sense.

"I know this is not completely popular, but I believe in it, I believe it is in the best interest of the universities.  College football has never been better and I believe the BCS is part of that."

So, you believe it is in the best interest of the Universities?  The non-BCS schools are forced to sign onto the BCS in order to receive their tiny share which is tossed down from their gold plated buildings from within the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange Bowl offices.  How, is it in the best interest for Boise State that went 14-0 yet have virtually no shot at a title. Just for arguments sake TCU and Cincinnati who went undefeated during regular season also had no chance at a national title. 

"It works at that level (FCS), I can't deny it, but if you look attendance for those games, only Montana had decent attendance," he said. "Many teams didn't draw as well as they did in the regular season."

At least this is an original argument, but weak nonetheless.  Part of the reason attendance is low is because they are FCS schools with a less student population, alumni base, and typically in a small town.  Just look at the FBS verse FCS games those stadiums are sell outs for the major programs; those same programs that would be in the playoffs.  I am pretty sure if a matchup of Oregon against Texas in Austin for a playoff game would sell out rather then have it be 85 percent full.  Plus, the biggest factor is that no one knows if attendance would dip at all since there has never been a playoff for the FBS division; my guess is that attendance would be at an all time for playoff games.  So, why not give a playoff a try for a few years and if attendance is low then scrap the playoff idea, but get actual proof before making comparisons.

"The fact is what we have right now works," Hancock said. "Who would you ask not to be a part of this?"

How about the teams that can lose money on bowl games due to the six figure executives who put on the football game, where the bowl requires each school to pay their own travel, their ticket allotment even unsold ones, and at times come out in the red for a meaningless exhibition game.    'Right now it works' if you consider that two schools from a major conference that get the benefit of the doubt to play in your mythical title then yes it works.  If you ask if it really works the answer is no, because there are great teams left out with zero chance to prove themselves.

"I think there is some sense now that it is time to be a little bit more open about that (adding the MWC as an AQ)," he said. "It's all objective, based on the data."

With political pressure racing down your neck the BCS better be open to change.  The last sentence sums it all up: "It's all objective, based on the data."  Umm, I am know math wiz but unless one manipulates the data how can such be objective?  Numbers based on hard data are not objective, no wonder the BCS is never going to reveal the exact extent of their criteria to become an automatic qualifying league.