Ideas to improve the BCS (without a playoff)

[Yeofoot]

I think the best part of the Bowl system right now is, it is the only time that football can truly help a school's academics. Here's my case. When teams go to bowl games, all of a sudden that piece of paper on people's walls makes it really cool to be from that school. From the biggest bowl, thousands and thousands of longhorn alumni, namely the wealthiest, will make the trek to L.A. to rub elbows with their fellow exes. Win or lose the game, UT wins big time, their alums get nostalgiac, and start giving money back to the school. Since UT's re-emergence to the national scene, their school's endowment has gone from 8.7 billion dollars to 11 billion dollars. This isn't just Texas, do you think that Rutgers will have a record year in contributions? DUH, of course they will. Rutgers Alums got together to celebrate going to Rutgers. Every year all these schools get to take their rich alums on vacation to another city and have a full week celebration and pride enhancing of where they chugged beer for 4 years. When schools make it to the big games, it is very common for them to spend more than what they are getting for the appearance to do things like fly the top alums out on a private jet, put them all at a fancy hotel, rent a few luxury suites to watch the games. If we end the bowl system, this will also end. Which is bad for our educational institutions. Most professionals can't take a month off of work to go to each playoff game, so they would either just be able to take the NC game off, or they could go to the game they think their team will lose, so they can go to their furthest playoff. It's all about the money. We all say that, but that is my argument for why it's okay to be all about the money.

[Yeofoot]

What I'm looking for here is Ideas to keep the annual alumni bowl trip dollars earned and having a better way to decide the national champion.

Here's mine, the last two games of the year remain open. Halfway through the season, the AD's get together with their two dates, and schedule those two contests. The higher ranked team has the upper hand on having the game played at home. The lower ranked team has less to lose, but if they win, they most likely move up to a higher tier bowl game. So halfway through the season, teams like USC might host Va Tech, because USC would rake a ton of money out of it, and VaTech would have a shot and being a contender. Texas might play Penn State, Texas would rake in the dough, Penn State could prove they should be in the NC game. This would throw a huge wrench into the BCS, BUT, any team that gets screwed has no one to blame but themselves. If Oregon schedules Baylor and squeaks out a win, they can't gripe about only having one loss and not being BCS, they should've scheduled a better team. Everyone knows what goes into the computers, and they know how the criteria voters use. I just came up with this, I like it.

[colorado_loves_football]

Ok, if I follow your argument through, I'm assuming you mean that the benefits of the bowl system outweigh the detriments, and I agree with that but not with respect to the BCS.
You seem to neglect the fact that the BCS discriminates in it's selections.
There's no simple way around this debate, Cane pointed out it's a #1 vs. #2 pairing which supposedly 'means' anyone in NCAA I-A.
I believe it's a well-thought-out conspiracy where only traditonal BCS teams participate, so it's inherently unfair.
Can anyone (other than myself) give an example where a non-BCS (by conference) was also a national champion? Well, it was 1984 when Brigham Young University finished the year undefeated.
So, in that case, there's a provision, to address that one (and only) example where a team outside the major conferences was #1 going into the bowls.
So, on the outside chance that ever happens again, the BCS has a way to address it, does that necessarily mean it works? Hell no!
Last year Utah was undefeated, beating Pittsburgh 35-7 in Fiesta Bowl, a mismatch in any respect, so that's justice? Not by a long shot.
There needs to be a way to select a unanimous national champion, and I believe last year proved that's not just a technicality, it's a necessity.
So, pair Auburn and Utah and let the winner play USC, where USC in all likelihood mops the floor with them.
But at least that would be fair, and that's what the BCS is missing right now, even this year.
I will admit USC or Texas will be most deserving of a national championship, but either way, I think it's not a fair way to select a national champion, it's very unfair, and if Penn State (or Notre Dame) or TCU or any other team were 11-0 I think maybe I'd have a few supporters.
So, I guess unless or until that happens, everyone will be singing praises to the BCS for being 'spectacular' after all they are giving us good pairings of teams.
But that's not fair, by anyone's definition.

[Yeofoot]

Oh, there's definitely still problems with the BCS, but it's so much better than years past. Ask JoePa how many undefeated seasons he had without a national championship. If teams like Utah wanted to win games they'd stay in the same conference, but everyone knows the reality of it, you're not going to have much of shot at a national championship from the MAC, C-USA, or any of the others. These teams play year in and year out in these conferences, then they have an anamoly of a team, that is arguably as good as the actual national champions. Utah made their bed, and they had to sleep in it. If their goal was to win a national championship, the first step would be to join a BCS conference. If we MADE them play the big dogs every year, they would cry and moan about how it isn't fair to get drummed every game. But then one time in the programs history they have a great team, they feel like they deserve to play them and it's unfair we don't let them. Utah is about the same level as Baylor year and year out. Baylor could take the easy road and switch conferences with Utah, and win lots and lots of games, but they have too much pride.

[colorado_loves_football]

Not sure where Baylor fits into this debate were they even bowl eligible this year?
Anyway, Utah did what was necessary to be BCS elibible and were selected (in 2004) and I felt did a good job representing the Mountain West Conference. They beat Big East opponent by a 35-7 margin, hardly a contest, really.
If your argument is that Utah wouldn't beat Texas in the Fiesta Bowl you might have a point. But Texas played in the Rose Bowl for whatever reason.
Make your argument appropriate to the circumstances, for it to be of any use in a reasonable debate. Otherwise don't refer to teams that aren't even involved in the process. Baylor wasn't bowl eligible last year either.

[Yeofoot]

No, I was using Baylor as an example that on the average year has the same talent as Utah, but Utah has better records because they play in a conference that is not taken as seriously. But, then when Utah has a great team, they feel like they deserve to play the big boys. You have to schedule the big boys during the season, all season to get to play for the national championship. If Utah thought they had a shot, they would have done what Texas did and schedule someone like OSU. Read the whole comment twice before you dismiss it. Take off the blinders, if your'e not BCS, you're not confident in your own team.

[colorado_loves_football]

WEll, as Cane already pointed out they scheduled Texas A&M, beating them fairly soundly, and Texas A&M went on to play in the Cotton Bowl.
They also played North Carolina, a team that was 6-5 in regular season and lost a close game to Boston College (Continental Tire Bowl)
That's two decent 'BCS' teams, along with their regular season wins in MWC.
ARe you saying they need to schedule Texas over Texas A&M? And why does that necessarily mean they're better. Until they played, it wasn't certain which was a better team. Even this year there was some doubt until they met in College Station a close game if memory serves, A&M nearly pulling off an upset over Texas.
At least Texas A&M is a relevant point of reference. But I"m the one who mentioned them,not you, so that's why I think you're lame.

[Yeofoot]

Wow, you ran out of arguments and had to start name calling huh? I'm telling you, why should college football change so that the once every 20 years national champion from a glorified D1-AA conference has a shot? You know the rules, play by them.

[colorado_loves_football]

Lame means weak, which you are if you have to resort to putting a 12-0 Utah team on par with a 3-8 Bayor team, irrespective of where they play.
Baylor did in fact beat Texas A&M, so you could have used that in your defense but you weren't intelligent enough I guess to do that.
tough break.

[Yeofoot]

Seriously, can you read, I was referring to the average Utah team's schedule, team, and conference. Not one anamoly where Utah was good. I'm not debating you on that fact. Utah was fricking amazing that year. Unstoppable. No one beat them. No Baylor team could ever beat them. Seriously, get the point. The point I was making is Baylor at least has enough pride and tradition not to play in a conference full of colleges where 7 out of 10 college football fans don't even know they exist. If life was a video game, the All-Time Utah team, would be 90% kids from the one year they were good. Baylor would rather be a tackling dummy in the Big 12, then hot stuff in the Mountain somethinorother conference. Has Utah ever tried to get into a major conference. Ok, I promise not to bring up Baylor anymore if you don't. Using Baylor as an example was completely arbitrary. USC didn't get to play in the Championship game two years ago, but still won the National Championship because they were Champions, bottom line. Utah was a great team, for a Mountain West Conference team, that's it. Deal with it. You're not going to be in history books. Deal with it.

[Guest]

So on the 'average' year I'm guessing you're implying a good Mountain West team is about 'average' or 'below average' in a major conference.
Well, again I disagree with you but you have a right to your opinion.
Baylor, to my way of thinking is an 'above-average' team, irrespective of where they play, and they happen to play in Big XII.
They were (along with TCU) mainstays in the South West Conference until about 10 years ago when that conference disbanded. Whether or not that was a good idea, still remains to be seen.
But to 'automatically' relegate Utah, and any other team to anything less than what they are is prejudiced, to say the least.
You might have noticed, I didn't discriminate, you did, I didn't make the distinction among conferences, because I feel they all play on a level playing field, which they do, last time I checked.
So, as much as you have a right to your opinion, it's a prejudiced one, and the fact you had to use a team that's struggled as point of comparison, really proves that point in my mind.
Why not use TCU for your argument? Probably because you already know that one wont' hold up, so you use Baylor, a team that has done well in previous years, but not recently.
Anyway, you have a right to your opinion,but I guess it's fair to say neither one of us will be remembered as integral toward making the BCS fairer, or at least you wont.

[Spence]

I think evert team should have to schedule at least one BCS conference team on their OOC schedule that is in the same "power tier". Example: Texas-Ohio State.

Mid -majors should have to schedule 2, since they play in weaker conferences. That should end the "we deserve" argument and it would give a fair comparison between the top conferences. The polls could be more accurate that way because voters would have something to compare.

[colorado_loves_football]

I translate "mid-major" to mean non-BCS and probably will from this point forward because I dont' agree that it necessarily means less-qualified, but rather not admitted.
Ok, so with that in mind, I'll maybe agree to your terms, notice I say 'maybe'.
TCU in that regard fails your test, but not by a lot, only scheduling one 'BCS' team, but playing one in Utah from the previous year.
I don't think you can completely ignore that fact in your argument, especially after how Utah played in the Emerald Bowl against a 'BCS' team.
So there's two teams for you, both beaten by TCU.
So they go, to the Fiesta Bowl against Oregon.
Ohio State and Notre Dame can play in Hertz Car Rental Bowl, sorry it's funny.

[Spence]

Im not saying that a mid major can't get it done. Just that is they are going to get that kind of respect they need to schedule a couple of games with BCS member schools to prove it, because overall the talent in the mid major conferences isn't as good.

If TCU would have scheduled Miami and Oklahoma OOC and beaten them this year, they may very well have gotten into the Fiesta Bowl. The road for a mid major will always be tougher because they aren't tested in conference like most of the BCS member schools are tested.

[colorado_loves_football]

Spence, after the shellacking Ga. Tech took, you are either delusional (admittedly possible) or simply blind to the fact that the Mountain West is a competitive conference already.
All I heard about was how outside Mountain West, a conference even I admitted was weak this year, TCU played nobody.
Well they played and beat Oklahoma, that's somebody, and beat them in Norman, Oklahoma.
So if its' about scheduling, I guess maybe they should have hired an 'architect' or someone to put in a TTU or even a Baylor but they didnt' they scheduled SMU and lost, a team that's been a thorn in their craw for over 70 years (or longer), keeping them from winning a national championship in 1935.
But if you want to debate whether or not SMU is good that's your right, but beware, you might discover they are good, but then again you might not. But leave Utah out of it, please they showed they are a good football team, probably better than half (or more) of the entire ACC.