This is just an idea, but if there was no strength of schedule and everybody had the "schedule cream puff" mentality, wouldn't the competition become more spread out? Imagine this: The big time schools know they have a rough conference schedule almost every year, so they schedule the smaller schools like the WAC and Sunbelt. The smaller schools want more exposure and revenue, so they gladly accept. Eventually, the small schools will beat the big schools, build some notoriety, get better recruits, make the conference better, etc. Dare I say it -- build a tradition? The great thing about a playoff is that a small school could prove to the BCS schools that "they have the stuff" to win in the big time. But then the big schools say, "well, one game isn't a good indicator of a program." To that I say that ALL football playoffs/bowls/championships are determined by one game. Anyway, obviously I'm not a fan of the blatant, exclusionary, we-are-the-elite-therefore-you-don't-deserve-a-chance attitude. I just want the WAC, MWC, MAC, Conf USA, Sunbelt and independents to have a chance to prove themselves. I'm not saying it will ever happen, just that this antitrust/monopolistic system needs to actually allow that chance and I don't think the current system allows for that.
Man!! I rambled on that one!
I realize this scenario will probably never happen, but I think a playoff system would be a step in the right direction. I really fail to see the problem with a 16 team playoff. All the conferences could be represented like the basketball tournament, then the "big leagues" could take up all the at-large berths. I doubt any of the non-BCS teams would reach the final game (how often does one reach the Final Four? Utah comes to mind, but other than that...) so why are they so afraid of the upset that probably will never happen? Is Boise going to beat USC, Nebraska, and Georgia three weeks in a row to win it all? I don't see any "real" argument for the BCS.
|