BCS history
 

When we're having anger towards the BCS system, let's remember where it started.

The big bowls: Orange, Rose, Cotton, Sugar (then Fiesta replaced Cotton) had major conference tie-ins and never invited non-BCS teams. The at-large bids were usually offered a month before the season was out, to ensure they had big name school. So not only did non-BCS teams not make it, but we also commonly had bad bowl matchups.

BYU's never being invited to a BCS bowl doesn't just go back to 1995 or whenever the BCS was started. It goes all the way to when these bowls were created.

The BCS, as bad as it is, was an upgrade on the crappy bowl system that existed before.

deleted because I'm an idiot.

Exactly. And this is why the BCS is the biggest farce in sports.

But with the crappy bowl system as it was then, every team in Division I had a shot at a so-called national championship. It was still far superior to the BCS.

The BCS is an improvement
 

I'm not angry at the BCS, I'm angry at BYU for not bothering to show up against TCU. TCU's operated under the same restrictions imposed by the non-BCS label and they proceeded to throttle BYU.

I just wish the bowls would see the light of day and start a 4 or 8 team playoff system. Reduce the automatic births to 2, 3 or 4 and every conference has the ability to earn the automatic birth by their performances on the field. I couldn't care less about the inclusion of the MWC into a proposed playoff system. If they want it, they're going to have to earn it.

The playoff could could be done using the bowls and people have hashed that out numerous times.

I also don't want more than 8 teams in any playoff, and the automatic births would have to be reduced due to the frequency of two BCS conferences sucking balls big time in any given year. Why should the Big East, Pac 10, or ACC have an automatic birth this year? USC would get in regardless and wouldn't need the automatic birth. The other two conferences don't have a single worthy team.

There would be more money in it for the bowls, conferences, and individual teams. The presidents of the BCS schools would sign off on it if a scenario were ever introduced that would ensure that they would still maintain a lofty perch. For some reason, the 1aa school presidents don't have a problem with a playoff. Besides, only 4 schools would be playing 14 games, and 2 schools, 15 games (Big 12, SEC, or ACC champ would get to 16 potentially). All the other schools would still be playing 12 or 13 games.

I think a national championship game including USC and Penn State would shut out the Big 12 and SEC in a year where the two conferences are clearly a cut above the others. The beef would be with 1-loss USC out of the Pac 10 getting preference over a 1-loss Texas or Alabama because USC "lost early in the season." Of course, the SEC got shut out in 2004 with an undefeated team and nothing came of it. There just needs to be a continuous cluster**** with the big powers (the Big 12 and SEC) in college football getting shutout for things to change.

I agree. They should all have to labor it out. ;)

Jay I completely agree that the BCS is better than what college football had prior to its creation. Obviously not as good as a playoff but it is better.

People are coming around slowly but surely to a playoff. Today on Cowherd's show Gary Danielson (the guy who does color for many of the SEC games on CBS) said there needs to be a playoff that includes non-bcs teams. Hell even Mac "I Trade Sexual Favors for Coaches Poll Votes" Brown said there should be a playoff when he was on the radio last week. The tide is slowly turning.

PC is in favor of a playoff.

I think it is the school presidents that have the say, not the coaches.

USC might not win the Pac-10 this year....just an fyi. Oregon State holds the tie breaker and if you know anything about the beavers it is that they get better as the season progresses.

The athletic side has no power or influence. None, except maybe at Kentucky or Florida.

A loss would abort the whole process, of course.