interesting article on he bcs and maybe it's future

[retro44]

a

 

[Scooch]

The existence of AQ has never made any sense to me. It's divisive, harmful, and an invitation for Congressional action.

I've advocated for a long time that they should either just let the top 8, 10, or whatever into those bowls, or use a conference ranking system that places the top 7 winners into the BCS. That way if the Mountain West, or C-USA, or whomever complains about not getting a AQ bid they could simply say that they use a Sagarin-like conference ranking system, and if the MWC, for example, finishes in the top 7, then their champ gets in.

The AQ is just straight-up greed. And incredibly short-sighted.

 

[UnderHisOwnPower]

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/33203093

The BCS may be the greatest beneficiary of all this conference realignment underway. It distracts from the sham they are running when crowning a "national champion" each year.

 

[oldpinepoint]

Interesting, Would pretty much makes the Big East even more useless

 

[arbitragegls]

...so then, what becomes of fact that 4 or 5 SEC teams are ranked highly and all go to BCS or whatever we call the bowls...I am all for non conference teams making it into the bowl picture and NC; but really, once you get rid of the BCS...one or two conferences will dominate teams invited...
My rec is simple...make it like the NCAA bball tournament...the top rated teams go to bowls 1-however many and that is it...so a Boise St this year would have a great chance of going for NC

 

[All4SU]

OF course the power conferences favor doing away with AQ status. If the SEC has LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Florida and Georgia all in the Top 10, ALL 10 would go to BCS games. Gee, can't imagine why they would support that.

Dumb.

 

[kingottoiii]

The existence of AQ has never made any sense to me. It's divisive, harmful, and an invitation for Congressional action.

I've advocated for a long time that they should either just let the top 8, 10, or whatever into those bowls, or use a conference ranking system that places the top 7 winners into the BCS. That way if the Mountain West, or C-USA, or whomever complains about not getting a AQ bid they could simply say that they use a Sagarin-like conference ranking system, and if the MWC, for example, finishes in the top 7, then their champ gets in.

The AQ is just straight-up greed. And incredibly short-sighted.

Agree. Why didn't they just keep things as is except have a NCG? Wouldn't that be better for the Big 5? Why even have a BCS?

1 vs 2 in the NCCG
Rose B1G 1 or 2 vs P12 1 or 2
Sugar SEC 1 or 2 vs who ever they want
Orange ACC 1 or 2 vs who ever they want
Fiesta B12 1 or 2 vs who ever they want

If you do the above wouldn't it be the same thing except the Bowls would pick teams at random to fill the slots vs having to take teams that qualify via the BCS? Wouldn't the non Big 5 be on the outside looking in? And if you are the Bowls why do you want to HAVE to take the highest non BCS or BE champ? And wouldn't going to the old system make Bowl selection more fun?

 

[Millhouse]

The existence of AQ has never made any sense to me. It's divisive, harmful, and an invitation for Congressional action.

I've advocated for a long time that they should either just let the top 8, 10, or whatever into those bowls, or use a conference ranking system that places the top 7 winners into the BCS. That way if the Mountain West, or C-USA, or whomever complains about not getting a AQ bid they could simply say that they use a Sagarin-like conference ranking system, and if the MWC, for example, finishes in the top 7, then their champ gets in.

The AQ is just straight-up greed. And incredibly short-sighted.

i don't even think it's straight up greed. straight up greed would lead to them making everyone aq and bank on the rigged computers and pollsters always favoring the conferences that are currently AQ anyway

just create another BCS bowl with a smaller payout, always relegate the have nots there and wash your hands of it, hey we included everyone, not our fault that they're ranked lower