Response to Load of BCS article

Here is my response to the article by Drew Ellis (http://www.themorningsun.com/articles/2010/08/02/sports/srv0000008988157.txt)

Good afternoon Drew,

I hope you're doing well. Living in Austin, TX, I unfortunately don't have the pleasure of reading your paper regularly, but thanks to the wonderful people behind Google News, I was able to access your article as I try and stay on top of what is going on in the world of college football.

Now, right off the bat it is clear that we disagree on one major topic: the BCS. While I recognize it has its flaws, it is a better system than a playoff, and certainly a better way to determine the best team in a given year than a 16 team playoff. While I'm not going to go through why I believe that, I will simply focus on what is in your article.



I would disagree when you say that the presidents are worried about losing a dollar. From what I understand, it is well known that a playoff system would bring in much more money than the current BCS system, a fact that BCS coordinator at the time recognizes (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andy_staples/01/09/playoff/ ). So they are already aware that a playoff will make more money, but they want to keep the integrity of the regular season intact. I actually think its rather refreshing for a large entity like that to make a decision that is not driven by money.

I fail to understand how you don't see how the BCS has anything to do with non-automatic qualifying schools getting into the bigger bowls which award more money. Before the BCS, each bowl had conference tie ins. Teams could be ranked as high as they wanted to be, but they were forced to go to the bowl that was designated to their conference. That's why BYU went to the Holiday bowl in 1984 instead of a more prestigious bowl. Currently, if you are ranked high enough in the BCS standings, you play in one of the BCS bowls. Utah, Boise State, Hawaii, and TCU would not have had the opportunity to play in the higher-paying BCS bowls without the BCS. They would have been relegated to the lesser paying bowls and would have received less money for participating. Where is the confusion?

The 6 top conferences are awarded more money and more opportunities to the big-paying bowls. There is nothing stating which conferences; it is the 6 best according to the criteria. If you want your conference to be included and they are currently not included, play better football. If the MAC champion doesn't want to lose money going to a bowl game in Alabama or DC, don't go. Teams are welcome to refuse invitations to bowl games.

Again, I don't understand why you think a MAC team (or any other non-AQ team) can't get into the championship game. The WAC may have a team in the championship game this year with Boise State. Sometimes it happens that you win all your games and you don't get in, and that is unfortunate, but it happens, and it's important to note that schools from automatic qualifying conferences get left out too. An undefeated Big East and SEC team has been snubbed in the past. You may be right, there may not be a non conference schedule that a MAC team can play to get their schedule strength high enough. But should other conferences and teams suffer because the MAC's teams aren't as good? No. The MAC needs to figure out a way to play better football.

Your opinion that you think that the BCS is all about money is disappointing because the BCS is about keeping the regular season valuable. I noticed that you didn't argue against the fact that a playoff system would devalue the regular season. If you follow the debate, that is the main point that keeps resurfacing among BCS proponents. College football has the best regular season in all major sports, and that is the driving force behind keeping the BCS alive. The BCS helps each game continue to be important and a playoff would hurt that trait. If there is a playoff, especially something as grotesque as a 16 team playoff, we may have a team that lost 3 games in the regular season have a chance at the national championship. If we have multiple undefeated teams and 3-loss teams with the same chance at a national championship, what is the point of the regular season? I already know that a 3-loss team isn't the best in college football, so why should they have a chance?

I know that you are a busy person, but a response to this note would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for the time. Have a great day.