http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...03731.html
"In the letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, obtained by The Associated Press, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote that the Justice Department is reviewing Hatch's request and other materials to determine whether to open an investigation into whether the BCS violates antitrust laws. "
Senator Hatch (Utah) continues to be an important critic of the BCS.
If the BCS conferences got together and formed a new athletic association, keeping the same system in place, could they successfully argue that they no longer are violating anti-trust laws since they are now "competing" with the NCAA?
Some think the discussions by Congress are going to lead to a playoff but I doubt that is what is going to happen or that its even necessary. A few changes could be made to keep everyone happy.
The orginal intent of the BCS was to organize the major bowls in such a way to stage a national championship game. It was not to grant smaller conferences access or to be some kind of breakaway system.
Changes I would make:
1. Adopt a plus 1 format. There is a lot of quibbling among the power conferences as to who should be playing for the national title. Often a deserving team is left out of the picture.
2. Add the Cotton Bowl as the 6th BCS game. That would bring another large market into the BCS and raise the value of the contract. The Big XII would be the host conference.
3. Add the MWC+Boise State to the BCS. The MWC has proven on the field that it deserves an automatic berth. It would also go along way toward giving wider geographic inclusion by adding the states of New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Idaho into the ranks of the BCS. They can become the host conference of the Fiesta Bowl to replace the Big XII.
4. For the 45 or so schools which are not in the BCS, give them a BCS play-in game that will pit the top 2 non-AQ champions with the winner making a BCS bowl. Give the non-AQ which wins this game a full share of BCS money to go along with it.
Using this formula the BCS bowls would have been the following:
Rose (Oregon vs. Ohio St)
Fiesta (Iowa vs. Central Michigan/East Carolina)
Cotton (Texas #2 vs. Cincinnati #3)
Sugar (Alabama #1 vs. TCU #4)
Orange (Georgia Tech vs. Florida)
Championship (Texas/Cincinnati vs. Alabama/TCU)
That would have only left the WAC and SBC champs (Fresno St and Troy) out of the BCS picture by virtue of not having good enough overall records.
One of the things MAC fans should FEAR is the MWC getting an automatic.
MAC, C-USA and SBC are sharing big bucks because a non-AQ team has been playing in a BCS game.
Do we want the MWC to be say like the B12? What good does that do us?
(01-31-2010 05:21 AM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ]One of the things MAC fans should FEAR is the MWC getting an automatic.
MAC, C-USA and SBC are sharing big bucks because a non-AQ team has been playing in a BCS game.
Do we want the MWC to be say like the B12? What good does that do us?
Let's say this is exactly what happens, the MWC becomes like the Big XII.
The MWC moves to 12 teams by adding Boise State, Fresno, and Houston. This destroys the WAC which will then have 7 schools.
From the WAC, La Tech and NMSU rejoin the SBC to have a conference to play in. Hawaii and Nevada go independent. SJSU drops its football program. Utah State and Idaho move down to the Big Sky FCS.
CUSA is then looking for a 12th member with the loss of Houston and adds Temple leaving the MAC at 12.
That leaves 40 schools, MAC-12, SBC-12, CUSA-12, Army, Navy, Hawaii, Nevada competing for 1 BCS bowl. That is better than the current sitution of 55 schools competing for 1 at-large slot.
The only non-AQ programs that have a chance at the BCS at this point are Boise, BYU, TCU, Utah. I know Hawaii made it one time when those four had an off year but that is what it will take an off year by Boise, BYU, Utah, and TCU.
With this in mind the MAC has no realistic shot at making a BCS bowl. If you place the MWC and Boise in the BCS as they should be then the at-large rules do what they were intended to do; reward the small market teams.
That would be terrible idea. So in that scenario then you have 40 teams not ranked in the bcs standings. So for the next 10 years we will have no at large teams from non aq conferences. So that at large bid will go to another AQ conference making them richer while the little guys continue to suffer. If the MWC moves up we all move down unless they move they move the Big East down but with the rise of Cincy and Pitt sticking around the top it wont happen. I am still in favor of rigging the schedule in our favor and letting teams rise to the top and staying there through cheating to give the illusion they are good until those teams dont need the help. Which Im pretty convinced that the MWC has been doing for years now if not they are blackmailing the hell out of the BCS.
(01-31-2010 04:45 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote: [ -> ]That would be terrible idea. So in that scenario then you have 40 teams not ranked in the bcs standings. So for the next 10 years we will have no at large teams from non aq conferences.
No...right now, Boise St, TCU, Utah and BYU are the teams to beat; at the rate they are going, they will always for the most part be the BCS busters because they have consistently proven themselves, thereby rarely allowing anyone else for a BCS bid. If those teams go to the BCS, that opens the field up to the remaining non-BCS teams. Last year when Ball St was on the verge of going undefeated, they fit the guidelines of making a BCS bid (of course, they would eventually lose the final 2 games but not the point). If they had finished undefeated, they would not have gotten the bid because 3 other non-BCS teams were ahead in the standings (the notorious TCU, Utah and Boise). So the MWC going to the BCS would actually increase the MAC chance for a bid. (Assuming the non-BCS bid rules stay in place with the increase of the BCS to 7 conferences).