As I predicted last week, the end of the BCS...

Read the link.....Utah Attorney General will most likely file anti-trust charges on BCS if they do not come to a resolution today in a meeting in New Orleans.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/football/ncaa/11/15/bc.fbc.bcsfuture.ap/index.html

I predicted this would be the last year for the BCS, and it very well may be after all.

 

that would be nice!!!!

 

I think it should be tweaked some more but not done away with, it has done a better job most of the time.
If you think about it, we would be in the same pickle with the old
system wouldn't we?

 

A playoff system would be best. Just take the conference champs of the major (aka BCS) conferences, then the top few of the non-BCS conferences, and then out of the remaining teams take the highest ranked, to make a 16 team playoff. This way every few years a Marshall, TCU, Tulane, etc. can have their undefeated season against their weak opponents, show up in the playoffs to "have their chance", and then get slaughtered by one of the major teams.

And yes, if you take 16 you'll have the 17th team possibly saying "we should get in too!", but it would be a lot less sympathic, since if they just win their conference (if they're in a BCS conference) or win most/all their games in the other conferences they'd get in.

 

Cry babies.

There are more senators from BCS school states than non-BCS states that care one way or the other. Screw Toolame, Utah, etc. If they are not careful, the BCS schools will form their own organization and tell the NCAA to stuff it. There have already been meetings to discuss that step. The BCS schools are not going to give up their money.

 

True, the BCS schools are being very stingy with their dough. But, if anti-trust litigation is successful (and it stands a pretty good chance) are they really willing to tear the NCAA and traditional college football apart just to keep the have-nots out? I really don't think they want to go there. Playoffs are on the horizon, maybe not this decade or the next, but it's coming. All the signs point to a slow but certain move towards a playoff.

And I'll tell you right now, Congress will NOT get involved. They will NOT grant the BCS/college football an anti-trust exemption, they do not want college football to become the disaster Major League Baseball has become.

 

The BCS conferences do not want a playoff. In fact, the non BCS schools do not want a playoff either. They just want some minor changes to the current system. In a recent article at ESPN.com, at the college football page, they reported that the changes most likely to come from this are: adding a BCS game (opening two more spots to non BCS conferences) and possibly adding an extra BCS final Bowl matching the two top teams after the Bowls have been played.

The truth is that with a playoff system, only a few schools would benifit and the networks would be screwed. Right now they are getting NFL playoff game like ratings numbers, for college football games. The season is like one long playoff, keeping ratings high through out the season, instead of just during one month (which would happen under a playoff formated season). It's a money thing, the networks and schools are not going to give up the money bowls and the regular season currently generate to make a few "experts" at ESPN and FOX sports happy.

 

There is no anti trust violation

That is a smoke screen put up by the losers like Toolame, Utah, etc. Several weeks ago, Sporting News reported the BCS conferences had already met and had decided on a line in the sand they would not cross. Pulling out of the NCAA was a solution they all agreed to if necessary. Giving an extra bowl game is a joke.

 

Giving an extra bowl game might seem like a joke, but there is a better chance of that happening rather than the BCS conferences pulling out of the NCAA.

Schools like Tulane, Marshall, and Utah are not looking to bring down the system or anything like that. They are looking to open it up. Not allowing BCS teams with 4 losses into BCS games over undefeated non BCS teams, that is what this is about and the money it could bring those conferences. Everyone seems to think this is about ruining the BCS conferences title hopes or getting Tulane, Marshall, TCU, Utah, etc into the bowl games they don't deserve to be in over teams that do. That is not the deal. It is about rewarding schools on some kind of scale, allowing deserving teams a chance over teams that don't.

My point is that this is not about TCU replacing LSU, SC or Ohio St in the Sugar, but allowing TCU to get in over a 4 loss West Virgina team.

Thankfully LSU is competitive again, b/c the last time there was talk of schools pulling out of the NCAA and starting a Super 30 (early 90's), LSU wasn't inluded on the list.

 

Exactly LSUfan. There ARE anti-trust issues. The BCS schools DO INDEED have established, built-in, unfair advantages over non-BCS teams and have since the system began. Think of it this way; back in the 1920s and 1930s, the SEC was starting out on an even smaller scale than most of your current non-BCS schools are; playing in small, 30,000 seat stadiums that were only half full most of the time, small budgets, small travel costs, road trips by bus or train, etc., etc. The SEC, completely unfettered, grew into a competitive, established league of athletic excellence. They played good ball, and one day, someone took notice, and decided to include the SEC and all the other conferences that played good ball at a big grown-ups table where national championships would be decided. And the SEC and all the schools in it grew.

The schools in the Sun Belt, Conference USA, the WAC, the MAC, and the Mountain West only want one thing; the same oppurtunity to grow and prosper that the SEC had. Nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, since about the early 90s, a sign has been put up on the door to the room where the grown-ups table is that says "FULL. NO ADMITTANCE." And that is an obstacle to their continued success.

True, most of the smaller schools would have trouble competing with the larger BCS schools. But think of the best that the non-BCS has to offer right now; TCU, Southern Miss, Louisville, Colorado State, Utah, Boise State, North Texas, etc. Could these schools step right in and win the SEC, Big 12, etc.? OF COURSE NOT! And no one is suggesting that they can. But could they beat some, not a lot, not most, but some winning BCS programs on their own turf or at a neutral site? You bet! Are they competitive? Definitely! Do they deserve their shot to grow, prosper, and prove that they deserve to play 1-A football just as much as the rest of us? In my opinion, yes.

Why not have a playoff? Why not have it done the same way basketball does it? Because, other than LSU, some of my favorite college basketball teams are the Valparaisos, Gonzagas, Southern Utahs, Charlottes, and Kent States of the world, little schools who can, and do, play solid basketball and, when given the chance, can stick it to a big school. Due to the large scale, more team-oriented nature of football that can't ever happen on the same scale in football, but upsets would happen occassionally. And what would be wrong with that?

If TCU goes to a BCS bowl, or if the BCS is abolished, the sun will still come up tomorrow and the LSU Tigers would still be an awesome superpower of college athletics. It wouldn't be that bad.