Proposal to “Cure” the BCS
The BCS annoys many people, but it was designed to ensure that the #1 team and the team #2 team face each other whenever possible. Before the BCS, the bowl tie-ins created a situation where the #1 team and the #2 team might not play. In recent years, there has usually been an ability to match the #1 and #2 teams. The debate has turned to how to decide the #1 and #2 teams, particularly where a Cincinnati, TCU, or Boise St. was left out. But, for the most part, the BCS has worked.
The problem for the BCS is that it awards money to conferences based on the matchups NOT featuring team #1 and team #2. The six major conferences get paid no matter what. This has been unfair to the major conferences when an 8-4 UConn team has gotten to represent the Big East. This was unfair to the conferences that had 10 win teams placed in inferior bowls or matched up against an inferior foe. This is also unfair to the lesser conferences, that have watched 10 or 11 win teams miss out while a worse team gets in.
The Confidential has a solution:
- The SEC, Big 10, ACC, Big XII, and Pac-12 get AQ bids with a full share payout.
- The Big East and MWC-CUSA are “semi-qualified conferences” get AQ bids with a full share payout, except 3, 4, and 5 below.
- The BCS representative of the Big East and MWC-CUSA merger must have 2 or fewer losses to participate.
- If either or both conferences cannot produce a champion that qualifies, the BCS is free to take a different team.
- Where a different team is taken, the conference of that school and the conference that lost its AQ status for that year (and only that year) split a share.
- If either of the semi-qualified conferences place a team in a BCS bowl for 5 straight years, the standard will be relaxed to 3 or fewer losses.
- If either of the semi-qualified conferences fail to place a team in a BCS bowl for 3 out of any 5 consecutive years, the BCS conferences can–by majority vote–exclude them from semi-qualification.
- There is no prohibition against any conference having 3 teams in BCS games in any given year.
This would allow the Big East to stay regional by taking Temple, Navy, East Carolina, UCF, Memphis, SMU, and Houston. The Big East can decide which ones get full membership vs. football only.
The other conference can have 10-20 teams, led by Boise St., that would anchor the West and Midwest (except SMU/Houston).
The merits of BCS membership would be decided by the teams and conferences and provide for long-term stability.
The 5 BCS conferences will not be stuck with an 8 or 9 win team from the semi-qualified conferences, and will instead get to have its own superior teams placed that year. Plus, in those circumstances, more money than under current system.
The Confidential 
Also, the idea behind this is that there would be better bowl matchups. If an 11-2 UCF makes it out of the Big East one year, imagine the fan support in the Orange Bowl? And so on. Plus, let’s say it is Wisconsin v UCF. Isn’t that like an away game? Makes it more entertaining than if they were playing Arizona St. or even Tennessee.
Too logical, it will never work.
The biggest problem I see is taking away full-AQ status from the Big East. That opens a huge can of worms. Anytime you take something away from schools you’re going to get politicians involved, and that leads to hearings and anti-trust claims and all kinds of other unpleasantness that college presidents just don’t want to deal with. Much easier to just keep the status quo.
That’s why you need to throw a bone to the Big East and the MWC/CUSA side. It’s theirs every year… all they need to do is have a worthy team. How more fair can you get?
Why the difference? Every other conference has two or more elite football programs.
What is Notre Dame’s arrangement with the BCS? Could you give the same/similar incentive to the Big East and MWC/CUSA that Notre Dame has?
Pertaining to AQ status, I like your proposal. Seems fair.
Taking it a step further, one must think about “playoff scenarios” that will feed off of this. I think the next BCS extension will address this somehow. A plus-one? I HIGHLY doubt they jump to 8 right away. But what about 6?
Give all of the 5 major conference champions an auto-bid…and the final bid goes to the highest ranked non-champ or a top 4 team from the Big East/MWC-CUSA side of things. 1seed/2seed get byes. 3seed plays 6seed in first round late Dec. 4seed plays 5seed too. Winners get matched up with 1 or 2 on Jan 1. Champ game in mid-Jan.
More likely though, I think the BCS commishes will wait for the “final fallout” of 16-team conferences to majorly reform the “playoff.”
Pingback: The College Football Overtime Rules Need to be Revised | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL