Sports are about paydays and Ohio State, Hawaii and Kansas committed felony larceny this past football season.
They created a script for any school to back their way into a lucrative BCS payout; schedule cupcakes, sneak through your conference with a loss or undefeated and accept your multimillion dollar check.
These schools have set up a recipe for the ruination of college football. With knowledge of this scheme, there is absolutely zero motivation to play quality non-conference opponents.
No more Tennessee vs. Cal, Alabama vs. Florida State; why take the risk when FIU, FAU, UL-Monroe and North Texas are always looking to be your personal whipping boys. Not to mention all the I-AA squads looking for their $500,000 check to take a beating.
While everyone is outraged over the lack of a playoff system (I'm not part of the everyone, I'm a bowl system enthusiast) they are completely oblivious to the five-month fraud currently being allowed to transpire.
Two issues present themselves:
1. Teams playing weak competition and sleep walking into huge paychecks without earning their spot through beating quality opponents. (See Kansas circa 2007)
2. Teams from weak conferences sneaking into BCS. (See Hawaii, 2007 edition)
Sure Utah and Boise State beat their BCS opponent; that's none of my concern, they are good teams. The issue comes with their season being littered with perennial doormats as conference foes.
If your conference isn't one of the six belonging to the BCS, you don't belong for a reason. Sure being the WAC or Conference USA champ is great but does that really make you an elite program in the grand scheme of things?
One good worshipper doesn't validate an entire congregation of sinners; these schools are guilty by association.
- B/R Ticket Guide
As far as scheduling is concerned the big six should take steps to insure that frauds such as Ohio State ('08, '07), Nebraska ('00) and Oklahoma ('02) don't ignite the playoff talk among BCS haters. A sure fire way to silence the hate is to have battle tested teams emerging from the six conferences.
To help the John Swoffords of the world I've outlined a feasible and strategically plausible plan to insure the integrity of the bowl system and to maximize quality of the product on the field.
There are six BCS conferences, sixty-five teams. Three conferences have twelve teams (ACC, Big XII, SEC), one has eleven (Big Ten), another has ten (Pac-10) and one has eight (Big East).
With a rotating schedule somewhat similar to that utilized by the NFL, a non-conference schedule can be generated matching up similar teams from separate conferences. In practice it would work as follows:
—Conference champions would rotate between the six conferences playing each other.
—Corresponding teams in conferences would play with home and away sites designated through scheduling (seven home games per team).
—Teams are allotted one non-BCS conference game. This game can be against either a Division I-AA or a I-A team that doesn't participate in BCS division football. Call it a "tune-up game."
Here are several mock schedules created under this system, note the inter-regional match-ups and possibilities of additional exposure for recruiting purposes.
Also since money is the most important variable compare television rating possibilities as well as the overall influx of revenue (hotels, restaurants, tickets) due to big games at non-traditional meetings of teams.
North Carolina as a seventh-place ACC team would play: NCState, Duke, Miami, VT, UVA, GT, Clemson and BC for conference. Oklahoma State, Perdue and Cal as non-conference BCS match-ups and McNeese St in their tune-up game
LSU as a first-place SEC team would play: Auburn, Alabama, Arkansas, Miss. State, Ole Miss, Georgia and Florida as conference games. Ohio State, Oklahoma and West Virginia as non-conference BCS match-ups and Tulane as a tune-up game
Oregon as a fourth-place Pac-10 team would play:USC, UCLA, Oregon State, Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Stanford, Washington and Washington State as conference games. Auburn and Texas as non-conference and Houston as a tune-up game
Rutgers as fifth-place Big East team: Cincinnati, West Virginia, Louisville, USF, Syracuse, Pitt and UConn in conference. Penn State, Florida State, Texas Tech and UCLA in non-conference BCS games, and Temple as a tune up.
*Pac-10 teams play 9 conference games, Big East play 7 all other conferences play eight
As you can see there are quite compelling match-ups under this system as well as exposure in markets not generally reached by teams, both east and west coast.
Through creating big games between teams early in the season, television ratings would truly spike. And with continued success, new rivalries (Ohio State vs. LSU, West Virginia vs. Oklahoma) could be formed, adding to the pageantry of college football's landscape.
Teams emerging from this "gauntlet" styled scheduling with one or two losses would be tested and proven winners eliminating the need of a playoff and increasing regular season profits along the way.
comments (9) write a comment »
write a new comment
8 months ago
How are you going to guarantee 65 BCS football team 7 home games each?
- In your plan they mostly play eachother (for 11/12 of the games)
- Can you convince all of the non-BCS teams that they don't deserve home games against BCS schools? How much would that cost?
- Even if you can, that's still 6.5 homegames or 6 one year 7 the next. The lost revenue from that 1 game is enough to get the big teams (that make millions of dollars from that home game) to reject the plan.
8 months ago
You can guarantee the seven home games by ensuring 4 conference home games a year and two non-conference BCS games a year add in the plus one game and that is 7 home games a year.
It doesn't matter if the BCS games think they deserve the home games, BCS schools don't make money playing home and home with non-BCS schools, they generally pay those schools to come play them.
If you look at the schedules of teams now they're playing seven home games already and this system would only serve to increase the revenue made at home games. After pulling GaTech's schedule for this season at random I see they have home dates against Jacksonville St and Gardner-Webb as non-BCS opponents. Take Gardner-Webb out and add a home date against a comparable BCS team and you don't think Atlanta would more excited for a better team?
Its just a theory that would improve the BCS system and make teams like Ohio St. and Kansas have to actually play quality to earn a spot in the bowl.
8 months ago
You my friend are a moron in every sense of the word who clearly has no comprehension of the complexities of college football. You are a old-school traditionalist who wants to hold on to the days when six team ruled the country and everyone else was relegated to second tier status. Unfortunately for you, the face of college football is evolving and we need to do what is best for the game, the thousands of talented student athletes nationwide, and the growing fan-bases across the nation. Despite your comments there are non-BCS teams (Utah, Boise State, etc) that are pumping more of their own money and effort into their programs than some of the parasite teams within the BCS (Vanderbilt, Baylor, Duke, etc). These teams not only want to play on the same field, they do, and they have winning records against BCS opponents when given the chance. To say that they are forever black listed because they weren't invited to be in on the monopoly is to say that a team/program can never build itself into an elite program - Boise State can't be good in 2007 because they weren't any good in 1967. If that is the case, we might as well discount FSU and many other Va Tech because they too sucked back then. Your logic my friend reeks of short-sightedness. They only truly fair system is a playoff - take a note from every other sport in the world. It's good for BCS teams and non-BCS teams alike. It could end all the complaining about the injustices (from myself included) inherent in the current system. But I'm sorry, you missed the boat on this one.
8 months ago
First and foremost I do understand the workings of college football, the fact that it is a money machine that is driven by a handful of extremely succcessful schools and conferences. I'm not arguing that there aren't teams outside of the BCS that can compete my argument is that for the BCS to validate itself they need to strengthen the non-Conference schedules to avoid Ohio St and Kansas of this past season. My focus is to avoid deciding the BCS when a team plays Youngstown St., Akron and Kent St. or Central Michigan, SE Louisiana, Toledo and Florida International it should be created through playing tough schedules.
Under the current system and until the playoff comes to fruition the only answer is to limit teams ability to play low quality opponents. By playing teams from other BCS conferences that are comparable this trend could be avoided.
I understand that as a fan of smaller schools and a playoff this seams exclusive and leaves a bad taste in your mouth but I don't necessarily worry about hurting small schools feelings. Those aren't the teams that drive the NCAA or the BCS, they're great stories but in the end the BCS needs to protect itself from losing even more validity. That is why I wrote the article as a means for BCS teams to protect their own vested interest in the system.
I do appreciate the comment and I hope you read more even if it causes a little controversy.
8 months ago
I actually agree with you on the fact that strength of schedule matters and though I still disagree with your solution, I too am upset that teams like Hawaii got in this year given their weak sauce schedule. Though I am a proponent of the small schools, I should be clear about my stance: they deserve equal access, not equal representation. The burden of proving that they belong will always fall on them, which means they absolutely should be scheduling strong out of conference opponents. Your solution doesn't provide them even the opportunity to compete and I would take serious issue with that.
I admit that I am not a fan of the BCS and, therefore, don't care for your solution. I don't think there is any reason to protect it from its own lack of validity, or for that matter to try to save it from itself. Most fans would agree it is an unfair system that could be seriously overhauled (replaced with a playoff system) were it not for a few power hogs (Jim Delaney and company) that belong to the old boys club. I'm sorry, I appreciate your attempt to fix a broken system, but I think that your solution share some of the same basic short-sightedness of the BCS, namely its unwillingness to allow for the ebb and flow of dominance throughout the ranks of college football. There is no reason in a truly open market system that a school like Boise State can't put in the resources necessary and build a program that can one day compete for a national title. If the same group of teams are predestined to dominate each then where is the Nebraska of old?? You see, in time, these things can change and change can be a good thing. I know what I'm saying is not part of your main argument, but it does address an inherent flaw in your proposal that would cause it to have the same level of criticism that the current system has. Best of luck in the future with your ideas.. no harm intended.
8 months ago
No problem man, I appreciate this comment a lot more haha. I personally would be all for adding in either a fifth BCS conference or restructuring of the Big 10, Big East and Pac-10 to get to 72 BCS teams and all 12 team schedules. I'm sure that will never happen for the reasons you stated in your comments, pure traditionalists. If they did restructure you could see schools like Boise St, Utah or Hawaii in the Pac-10, ECU and Southern Miss in the Big East and Notre Dame to round out the Big 10. Thats just wishful thinking I know but its something that I've been thinking about. For me football is king and the way that it influences things should make preserving a quality field of opponents paramount in every conferences mind's eye.
6 months ago
fuck you man. FAU IS NOT A DOORMAT. WE WIL beat texas. It si not who the teams play that is destroying college football..it is the elitisim that biggots like you show.
6 months ago
FAU thanks for the read and sorry to hurt your feelings. I don't necessarily see myself as an elitist biggot so much as a guy detailing a way to shore up the system that is going to be in place until at least 2014. That way no more Ohio States and Kansas getting into top tier games after playing a schedule of lower ranking teams.
Sorry you took this article so personally, its not meant to be an indictment of your team, I understand that the Owls under Schnellenberger are going to keep improving, he's a great coach. The article is more of a way to improve upon the system by keeping teams honest in their level of competition.
from 5 months ago
Its really a chicken and the egg issue. The BCS teams are driving college football, but its they are driving college football because they are BCS teams. Look at USF, they jumped on attendance by 20,000 a game...this wouldn't have happened if they weren't in the BCS and a contender for a national championship game. As an FAU fan we like to hope that we can get in the Big East, but the real question is why can a team like Fresno State be able to win the Baseball national championship while down at the Football stadium half the teams are left disenfranchised. Its simply women's suffrage all over again...the men had a vested interest not to give women the right to vote, and its the same situation. The only thing different is that the "women" of college football are able to get millions of dollars to go play the big boys at their house. Your way is a solution, I will give you that, but it will result in half the teams either leaving the FBS (what you apparently would like to see) or those same teams rising up and demanding equal treatment.
Personally I would rather even the playing field with an 8 team or more playoff(good for the little guys), allow big teams to schedule body bags (good for big boys), and use a an RPI type system (good for competitiveness). If your system was in play Miami would not be the most succesful team of the past quarter century...they wouldnt even have football anymore.
GO OWLS! BEAT TEXAS!
write a new comment