nothing changed for a few more years? I have not heard anything on the BCS since right after the Sugar Bowl. Is their a time limit to have something in place for the upcoming season? Wonder what will be different, margin of victory, only coference champs in title games, or a College Superbowl after the traditional bowl games.
Stewart Mandel with SI interviewed the new incoming BCS Coordinator earlier this month. Sounds like end of April is the target date. Here's the link ... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/stewart_mandel/01/08/weiberg.bcs/index.html
Yep, they don't want to make "rash" decisions, so they wait until April each year to discuss changes. That's what I heard one of the BCS guys say, anyway.
My guess at what's going to happen after 2005. First, there will be a fifth BCS bowl designation. There will be somewhat of a fight, but it will be awarded to the Cotton Bowl. The Big East will be booted from the "BCS conferences". However, there will be ONE "non BCS conference" member that will be given a birth in the BCS bowls from all of the non-BCS conferences, i.e., just ONE team from the 60 or so non-BCS teams. There will then be a four team playoff. The way it will work is that three bowls will be picked as the "Championship Bowls" for each year on a rotating basis. Two of these bowls will act as "semifinal" games pitting "1 versus 4" and "2 versus 3". The other Bowl in the "Championship Bowl" will host the winners of those two bowls for the National Championship. There will still be A LOT of bitching and moaning over who gets that fourth spot. This year, Michigan would have gotten it and 5 or 6 teams would have bitched about it. They didn't this year because it didn't matter. But, with a chance to get into a 4 team playoff, the b!tching will be just as great. Developing a system for rotating the five BCS bowls is going to be a B!TCH as well. The two bowls that aren't a part of the "Championship Bowls" are going to be just like any other bowl that year without even as LITTLE fan fare as the non-NC BCS bowls currently receive. But, this system will somewhat appease EVERYONE. The non-BCS conference will still b!tch a little, but they're being thrown a bone in that they have a chance to get some of the BCS money. And, the media, who wants a playoff, will finally get about as close to a playoff as is possible in football. Captain Krispy Kreme will still want a bigger handout for ALL conferences, but his Sherman Act argument will have even less merit than it currently has. I think you'll also see all the BCS conferences going to 12 teams. If they can manage a way to shut N.D. out (at least theoretically), N.D. might feel pressure to join the Big 10. The Pac 10 will pick up two more SAD SACK teams out of the MWC - probably BYU and Colorado St. This way, all conferences will have a Championship Game. Just my .02/prediction.
If the Cotton Bowl wants that fifth game in your scenario, then they are going to have to either tear it down and start over or do a major renovation. Of course, there is talk of a new Texas Stadium for the Cowboys, so when that is built, you can bet it will be state of the art. Perhaps the Cotton Bowl would be played there. I'm hoping that stadium gets built in Collin County, north of Dallas, where I live.
don't hold your breath on the Cotton Bowl..... they were origianlly offered one of the BCS bowls, but in the end were spurned because the city of dallas did not want to pony up to the table and pay some money to be part of the BCS. Look where that got them.....3-5 in Big 12 vs 3-5 in SEC. Dallas barely is hanging on to the Texas/OU game due to money issues. Add in the fact the Cotton Bowl is garbage, and there you go....
The solution to the BCS "controversy" is so obvious that it's ridiculous. Don't change a thing. Merely educate the public that the BCS consists of 9 polls, 2 of which happen to be human. No one poll carries more weight than another. The BCS rankings are based upon cumulative scores of all 9 polls. The biggest complaint was that "Number one wasn't even in the Sugar Bowl". For years, the human polls determined who was #1 and the public was conditioned to proclaiming those poll leaders as "Number One". The BCS changed that but by failing to properly educate the public and the media (who should know better but creating and sustaining controversy is their lifeblood) the BCS contributed to the very thing their system was supposed to prevent.
You won't get much argument here because of the way things ended up this year, but we wouldn't have been quite as happy if we'd been locked out of the Sugar Bowl. But you're right. It's BS that the media didn't know how the BCS works. They wanted, and created, tremendous controversy to give them something to write and talk about. Period. Add in a dash of not liking their power being decreased, and there you have it. Many Americans will believe what the media WANTS them to believe.
I think the only change should be to ignore the BCS rating if the AP and Coach's polls agree on 1 and 2. Earlier I thought they should go to a 4 team playoff, but this year that would not have been fair because Michigan did not deserve to be in it. I don't even think now they should make a rule that a team that does not win its conference can go to the NC game. If Oklahoma had lost by one point to Kansas State, they probably would have kept their number one ranking even though they did not win their conference. If you put the conference rule in, you are back to a controversy If the AP and Coach's polls agree on 1 and 2, then ignore the BCS and send those two teams to the NC game. There is no way a playoff system is compatible with the bowls, and the bowls are not going to be eliminated. Well, not unless you want games played in front of half empty stadiums. Fans are not following their teams all over the country for 3-4 weeks. It won't happen.
