Say Whaaaaat?!? BCS proposes radical changes

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7248953/bcs-proposes-only-handling-national-championship-game-sources-say" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Don't know if this will happen, but it's kind of crazy if it did, would it make going to the Big East not such a good idea?

Maybe PAC teams will be more willing to schedule quality OOC opponents. There wouldn't be any good reason to keep scheduling FCS teams.

This would be huge and would be what millions of us have been wanting for years now. It seems like the easiest solution is to get rid of the auto-bids and take the ten top ranked teams.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I still think I like the idea of being in a conference better, because maybe you're not a good enough team to make a BCS bowl, but you could still win your conference, and so it still gives you something to play for even in November.

once again...BYU get close to a money bowl. and they change the system.



It's all about us and it's all a conspiracy.

Keep in mind that the BCS people are evil and very smart.



Here is how that will work.



The heavily biased East voters will continue to vote very high for the same programs they rank very high now and vote low enough to keep the others out by an inch and unless you, are not one of the biggest of the big boys, you need to be undefeated and the biggest of the big need to have a couple of losses, you still won't be in the NC. And if you are not one of the good ole boys, one loss and a 2 loss Ohio State team is going to edge you out.



That is why they want to take the limit off the per conference part - The SEC wants 3 or 4 teams in there with the Big 12 having 3 and the Big 10 getting two and PAC getting two ACC getting 1 and nobody else getting anything.



This is why superconferences have not happened yet - do you think SEC wants 16 teams with a 2 team limit?



Be careful what you wish for - but no matter how it turns out - BYU cannot afford to lose any games and needs to schedule accordingly.

I think it's a bad idea. Part of me thinks it's just the SEC wanting to strut around as much as possible.



I'll say this, though - I'd like it a whole lot more if the bowls were willing to establish some hard rules about who they would take. The idea that Steward Mendel proposed earlier today - the bowls pick 10 teams from the top 16 - is a recipe for keeping the underdogs out. Suppose one year you have a #9 Houston and a #15 Ohio State. My gut reaction is that Ohio State gets taken 19 times out of 20. Plus, the rallying cry of "Who did they play?" will get louder, so I don't think an independent BYU can cupcake their way to 11-12 wins and expect a BCS bid.



I don't know why we can't create a hybrid - make ranking AND AQ status count for something. My only problem with the BCS and AQs is when totally undeserving programs like UConn get the bid. Keep AQ statuses, but require that the AQ champs be ranked somewhere above #15-#17. If the conference fails to do that, there's an extra at-large bid on the table.



I'd be fine with that - if BYU won the Big East, ranked #24, and had 3 or 4 losses, I really wouldn't want to be in a BCS bowl anyway. I want easier access but I don't want to sleepwalk into a game where we'd get thrashed. My wife's family are Pitt fans and they were MORTIFIED at the prospect of BCS bowling last year because they knew they sucked. They were hoping for a loss or two to keep them out.



In terms of Indy vs. Big East - it makes the Big East less desirable, especially if the AQ is the main reason you find it appealing. (It's definitely up there for me.) But I don't know if that makes it less desirable than independence, unless you believe we're going to be able to consistently put together schedules that are both as impressive and as totally winnable as a Big East schedule would be. I actually think BYU has a decent enough following that we wouldn't get screwed over if we ever reached the upper echelons of the chart, but we have to get there first. I think a Big East schedule gives us more chances as that.



The last two years notwithstanding, the BE usually had at least one high-ranked team come the end of the regular season.

CougarClaw wrote:
once again...BYU get close to a money bowl. and they change the system.



It's all about us and it's all a conspiracy.

I know this is TIC, but you could be right. The article stated that this was proposed in response to the realignment craze, where teams are seeking BCS access. But think about the last 2 years of realignment:



Nebraska to Big 10 - No

Colorado to Pac-12 - No

Utah to Pac-12 - Yes

TCU to Big East - Yes

Texas A & M to SEC - No

Missouri to SEC - No

Pitt to ACC - not really

Cuse to ACC - not really

TCU to Big XII - not really

WVU to Big XII - not really



I wouldn't count those Big East departures as BCS-motivated. Conference stability due to superconference fears were the primary motivators, not better BCS access, and while the BE's AQ status may have been in jeopardy, it was really a self-fulfilling prophecy.



So you only have two real moves motivated by BCS access, and they were two of the least recent.



It's the CURRENT realignment - BYU, BSU, Houston, SMU, AFA, Navy and UCF - that's all about AQ access. This could be the BCS's way of making sure that nobody else comes and sits at their table.

For all the reasons we all have been touting over the last week, I still think a Big East with two divisions is not a bad idea, BCS berth or not. We'd be playing the teams we already have scheduled to some extent. and it would still be fun to be involved in a championship game. If the BCS goes away, why not still move forward to the Big East?

1967cougar wrote:
For all the reasons we all have been touting over the last week, I still think a Big East with two divisions is not a bad idea, BCS berth or not. We'd be playing the teams we already have scheduled to some extent. and it would still be fun to be involved in a championship game. If the BCS goes away, why not still move forward to the Big East?

I disagree. I think there were potentially two big draws about joining the Big East

1. BCS Automatic Qualifier

2. Takes care of November Scheduling



Now the first one could be gone in a cloud of smoke.



And really, the second one could be in our heads. BYU has not been really forth coming about their future schedule. We know that this year's schedule, and November schedule in particular, are bad, but they only had a few months to put it together. For all we know the future schedule on Holmoe's desk is looking really good.



Of course if the schedule on Holmoe's desk looks like the one this year, then BYU might be looking to land in the best conference it can, calling independent scheduling a failure. We don't know yet.

About the proposed new BCS system, it isn't really a good thing for BYU, but I can't really say it is unfair.



There are two motivations for bowls.

1. Establish a champion

2. Make Money



OK really there is only the second, but the BCS National Championship at least makes an attempt at establishing a Champion. It is no playoff, but at least it pits #1 vs #2. The rest of the bowls, including the other BCS bowls are there to make money.



Bowl eligibility is earned on the field, but make no mistake. Bowl invites are earned at the ticket office and TV ratings.



This idea basically has the BCS getting out of everything except the Championship, which is pretty simple for them. Setup a formula and take #1 and #2. They have taken a bunch of heat for things that other bowls do. The Capital One Bowl doesn't get heat for pitting the Big Ten against the SEC each year. And no one is screaming about the Cotton Bowl only taking Big 12 and SEC teams.



Relegate everything except the National Championship back to regular bowls and you would have to argue against the entire bowl system and not just the evil BCS.

This is bad for BYU. Until there's a playoff, the system will never be fair but maybe this is one step closer. If you win all of your games you should get to keep playing until everyone else has lost a game. Until then FBS football will continue to be a beauty contest and not a competitive sport. It doesn't really change anything for us as far as being #1 but now we won't even get to be #2-10. We could win every game by 70 points next year and the Rose Bowl isn't going to take us if they don't have too.



I like the Big East idea. The Larry Scotts of the world are going to make it impossible for an independant to every have a good November schedule. Granted, Utah's November schedule is weak too but nobody seems to care because of the AQ conf. tag.

I would title this current BCS plan as "Screw You".



Reading it didn't take much imagination that this was not an attempt to as the article quoted,

"I think the people in the room really want to get it right. They're tired of getting beat up. So you'll probably see us go slow on this one." from "one official that attended the meeting"



Yea right. They suddenly got a conscience. This is totally about them handling the issues of AQ and getting away with further walking away with the cash. How many BCS bowls do you think are going to sit there and wait to see who surfaces at the top of each conference at the end of the year to bring those teams to their game? The conference alignments will appear as individual conferences will contract with the bowls. The access by the past for non-AQ teams for the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, or Rose will disappear. The Big East most probably will be left out of one of the coveted bowls, which will not do as they are saying:

"And by eliminating the automatic qualifying clause, BCS officials hope that conference realignment and expansion -- in some cases, done in hopes of securing AQ status -- would subside."--Gene Wojciechowski ESPN.com



If you are USF, Connecticut, Louisville or Rutgers and have had that AQ, the first chance you have to join the Big Ten, Big 12, SEC or ACC, you're gone from the BE.



Now the question is if this will stop the move toward super conferences. That's a little more nebulous. Yes, that might stop "some" of the conference realignment and expansion, but those teams that were finding themselves lucky enough to be invited were doing so for access to the big bowls. This move would shut that door, so it's hard to say with a straight face that stopping the conference realignment is something positive for the non-AQ teams.



Dang I wish somewhow smarter minds, as opposed to greedier ones, would surface and get a playoff system. That's the only way this is going to ever get anywhere near equal playing ground and that in itself is theory only (that there is a way to get somewhere near equality).

But does this talk discourage me from wanting to join a conference? No. Even without the AQ with the Big East, I would still rather be playing descent games in November and be interested in a conference championship. So if the TV issue comes out okay, then I'm still for membership.

We're seeing a lot of "playing for a conference championship is playing for something," but what is it really playing for? An arbitrary distinction that is meaningless without true success.

Aren't these proposed changes more just bcs people talking out loud?



It could be a pr move as well given the current system really has helped teams like utah and boise and if you take it away i think it only helps the big conferences and teams continue their dominance even more.



hate to say it but the bcs is actually a relatively fair system. not as fair as a playoff but i think it is more equitable now than it would be under these new proposals.

I liked the comment about the bowls being about the money - mainly because it's true. A bowl that has the letters BCS in front of it is only important as it relates to the payout. If the BCS goes away (other than the title game), then the only real important bowls will be those with the huge payouts. If certain leagues have tie-ins with the more lucrative bowls and other leagues don't, we will continue to see the same complaining about the haves and have-nots and access to the richest bowls. Conference jumping will continue as schools try to join a conference that has access to the money bowls. Why do you think nobody wanted to play BYU in the Holiday Bowl in 1984? It wasn't because they were afraid of being beaten. They didn't want to lose the large payout of the big bowls they were going to.



If the Alamo Bowl and the Humanitarian Bowl, and the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl hosted a playoff with the same low payouts as they have now, do you really think the LSUs and the Oregons would leave the Rose and Sugar Bowls to participate in a playoff? You can do a heck of a lot more with money than you can with prestige. Cam Newton didn't go to Auburn for a chance to play for the national championship. Just follow the money, baby!

Schmoe wrote:
We're seeing a lot of "playing for a conference championship is playing for something," but what is it really playing for? An arbitrary distinction that is meaningless without true success.

What I don't understand about the "Playing for a conference Championship" crowd is imagine if we were still playing in the old MWC. We already lost to Utah and TCU, so we would be out of the conference championship race. And go ahead and complain about the weak competition, but New Mexico State is better than New Mexico this year, and basically swap Idaho for UNLV.



The difference is out of state fans can actually see the game, and BYU gets a ton more money.

jonnylingo wrote:
hate to say it but the bcs is actually a relatively fair system. not as fair as a playoff but i think it is more equitable now than it would be under these new proposals.

That's what I'm trying to say. I see this new posturing not as a move as they say to be such heroes and stop the raiding of conferences, but a way they can once gain get away with the money and look like they were trying to be of assistance. Moving targets will always be harder to hit and that's what I see this as.

Isola wrote:

What I don't understand about the "Playing for a conference Championship" crowd is imagine if we were still playing in the old MWC. We already lost to Utah and TCU, so we would be out of the conference championship race. And go ahead and complain about the weak competition, but New Mexico State is better than New Mexico this year, and basically swap Idaho for UNLV.



The difference is out of state fans can actually see the game, and BYU gets a ton more money.

This is easy. We want our cake and to eat it too. Yes, we might be out of the hunt for the MWC title, but our wins would still affect which bowl we were going to. Last season we accepted the New Mexico Bowl because that was better than nothing, even if it was the bottom of the barrel. There was something worth fighting for. There is nothing but pride now and that just is not as fun as pride and order of finish.