Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - The death-knell of the BCS

RoadRage · 12-08-2003, 12:18 AM

The BCS is up for renewal after the 2005 season. The BCS currently has a majority of I-A schools, 62 (63 if you include Notre Dame) out of 117 (118 next year, Florida A&M). With the Big East's replacement of ACC-defector, the total would be 65 (or 66).

Scuttlebutt had it that the Big Least would be scuttled on the next contract. With the booting of insufficient-attendence schools, the BCS would maintain a majority even without the Mountain East.

Now, the Pac-10 might not resign with the BCS. They've got good reason to tell the BCS to stick it, they think they've been screwed three times in the past 4 years by the BCS: this year with Southern Cal, 2001 with Oregon, and 2000 with Washington. They still have yet to play for the title, and after 2005 they may tell the BCS to take the title and shove it.

The approval of a majority of I-A is required to give the BCS its mandate, and to prevent its dissolution every four years. Without the Pac-10, the BCS has 55 (56) out of 118, no majority. In order to regain a majority they would have to: 1) kick 7-9 teams back to I-AA ("insufficient attendence" being the preferred excuse), and 2) retain the Big Easy despite its inferiority to the Mountain West and possibly the WAC or MAC, and/or 3) bring in the Mountain West, WAC, MAC, or Conference USA to replace the Pac-10.

Given the Pac-10/Big-10 history, the Pac-10 leaving the BCS will make at least some Big-10 members reconsider their conference's association with the BCS. Maybe you could still call it a National Championship without the Pac-10 (and 2 of the 10 largest TV markets), but you certainly can't without the Big-10.

Tweaking the formula won't solve this problem. They tweaked the formula back after the 2000 season, and Oregon got screwed for it. They tweaked it again after 2001, and this time Southern Cal got hosed. The Pac-10 won't settle for a tweaking, a wholesale change is what they're going to demand.

This summer the BCS honchos ruled out playoffs in the next incarnation. Now it may not be their decision to make, depending on if the Pac-10 forms a coalition with the "Have-Nots" to kill the BCS once and for all. The question remains if this coalition would support a playoff or a return to the bowl situation of the 1980s, where #1 playing #2 was almost guaranteed not to happen.

12-08-2003, 12:18 AM	#1 (permalink)
RoadRage Stay off the sidewalk! Location: Oklahoma City, OK	The death-knell of the BCS The BCS is up for renewal after the 2005 season. The BCS currently has a majority of I-A schools, 62 (63 if you include Notre Dame) out of 117 (118 next year, Florida A&M). With the Big East's replacement of ACC-defector, the total would be 65 (or 66). Scuttlebutt had it that the Big Least would be scuttled on the next contract. With the booting of insufficient-attendence schools, the BCS would maintain a majority even without the Mountain East. Now, the Pac-10 might not resign with the BCS. They've got good reason to tell the BCS to stick it, they think they've been screwed three times in the past 4 years by the BCS: this year with Southern Cal, 2001 with Oregon, and 2000 with Washington. They still have yet to play for the title, and after 2005 they may tell the BCS to take the title and shove it. The approval of a majority of I-A is required to give the BCS its mandate, and to prevent its dissolution every four years. Without the Pac-10, the BCS has 55 (56) out of 118, no majority. In order to regain a majority they would have to: 1) kick 7-9 teams back to I-AA ("insufficient attendence" being the preferred excuse), and 2) retain the Big Easy despite its inferiority to the Mountain West and possibly the WAC or MAC, and/or 3) bring in the Mountain West, WAC, MAC, or Conference USA to replace the Pac-10. Given the Pac-10/Big-10 history, the Pac-10 leaving the BCS will make at least some Big-10 members reconsider their conference's association with the BCS. Maybe you could still call it a National Championship without the Pac-10 (and 2 of the 10 largest TV markets), but you certainly can't without the Big-10. Tweaking the formula won't solve this problem. They tweaked the formula back after the 2000 season, and Oregon got screwed for it. They tweaked it again after 2001, and this time Southern Cal got hosed. The Pac-10 won't settle for a tweaking, a wholesale change is what they're going to demand. This summer the BCS honchos ruled out playoffs in the next incarnation. Now it may not be their decision to make, depending on if the Pac-10 forms a coalition with the "Have-Nots" to kill the BCS once and for all. The question remains if this coalition would support a playoff or a return to the bowl situation of the 1980s, where #1 playing #2 was almost guaranteed not to happen. __________________ Join TFP Team SETI 43K workunits complete, 34 members, more of each needed.