PonyFans.com

Introduction and First Chapter here:

Click on the "READ FIRST CHAPTER FREE" on the right of the page

This is an interesting read and I believe will be worth buying.

Cartels that function as monopolies never do anything that isn’t in the cartel’s interest. It will take more than a book to end the BSC.

Politicians aren't quick to take money away from the big schools either where their voting constituents live and support.

Nothing will ever happen until the college presidents who got shafted (meaning - us - the shaft-ee) stand up & fight it - which will never happen. Until then, this is all a wasted exercise. It is what it is.

I support the BCS until a system can be put in place that solves the following issues:

A. Allow the NCAA regular season to maintain it's playoff caliber feel week in and week out. For many of us who prefer the college game to the pro game, the intensity with which each game is played is a major part of the equation. Every week is do or die in the major conferences.

B. The OOC schedules are mandated to a degree where schools like USC or Miami can't schedule soft OOC opponents, making it easier for them to win their division (or run the table) and ensure that spot in the would-be-tournament.

C. Make sure we don't lose the Bowl system, or regular season games.

D. How to make the tournament A POSITIVE addition, rather than an equally political/polarizing process. In other words, say we do add a tournament, how many teams go? How are those teams selected? In the current format, as we all know, the BCS selects six conference winners, and four at large teams. A ten team tournament wouldn't be feasible, and a bye week for any team would become just as political as having no tournament. With 8 teams, how do we select the two at large?

E. There is no system in place that tells us for sure which conference is really the best. Honestly, that's what many of us look to the bowls for at the end of the season. Fact is, there are too many teams in the NCAA to get a good grasp on who is better than who in the FBS. How do we really know the SEC is better than the Pac 10, without having enough evidence to look at (at least 6 to 7 interconference games)?

F. If you recommend the four team tournament, than you REALLY need to just get rid of conference play all together. The Big East winner that runs the table (Cinci last year) will get into the tournament ahead of the 1 loss SEC team (Florida last year), and that would just make an even bigger mess. Not to mention one of the undefeateds (TCU or Boise) would have been left out of last years 'tournament' all together, just making the mess worse than it already was. Last year we saw what could have been the NCAA's biggest disaster in years (5 undefeated), resolve into a pretty satisfying solution. Those who argued Boise over Alabama had a mild case, but for the most part it wasn't taken as seriously as if say... Cinci had beaten Florida.

I can keep going on, but if you dig deeper, the odds of the little guys like SMU, or even the middle guys like TCU and Boise, getting into the 'tournament' are close to zero. With the system in place now, a school like SMU could make it to the BCS any given season. Had we run the table with the schedule we had this year, we would be in a BCS bowl game. If we were to run our schedule in an 8 team tournament, we would be left out because of the AQ's.

I know this BCS conversation has been had OVER and OVER and OVER again, and I know that my ramblings here won't convince anybody. I just felt like venting out.

Bandwagonesque wrote:I support the BCS until a system can be put in place that solves the following issues:

A. Allow the NCAA regular season to maintain it's playoff caliber feel week in and week out. For many of us who prefer the college game to the pro game, the intensity with which each game is played is a major part of the equation. Every week is do or die in the major conferences.

B. The OOC schedules are mandated to a degree where schools like USC or Miami can't schedule soft OOC opponents, making it easier for them to win their division (or run the table) and ensure that spot in the would-be-tournament.

C. Make sure we don't lose the Bowl system, or regular season games.

D. How to make the tournament A POSITIVE addition, rather than an equally political/polarizing process. In other words, say we do add a tournament, how many teams go? How are those teams selected? In the current format, as we all know, the BCS selects six conference winners, and four at large teams. A ten team tournament wouldn't be feasible, and a bye week for any team would become just as political as having no tournament. With 8 teams, how do we select the two at large?

E. There is no system in place that tells us for sure which conference is really the best. Honestly, that's what many of us look to the bowls for at the end of the season. Fact is, there are too many teams in the NCAA to get a good grasp on who is better than who in the FBS. How do we really know the SEC is better than the Pac 10, without having enough evidence to look at (at least 6 to 7 interconference games)?

F. If you recommend the four team tournament, than you REALLY need to just get rid of conference play all together. The Big East winner that runs the table (Cinci last year) will get into the tournament ahead of the 1 loss SEC team (Florida last year), and that would just make an even bigger mess. Not to mention one of the undefeateds (TCU or Boise) would have been left out of last years 'tournament' all together, just making the mess worse than it already was. Last year we saw what could have been the NCAA's biggest disaster in years (5 undefeated), resolve into a pretty satisfying solution. Those who argued Boise over Alabama had a mild case, but for the most part it wasn't taken as seriously as if say... Cinci had beaten Florida.

I can keep going on, but if you dig deeper, the odds of the little guys like SMU, or even the middle guys like TCU and Boise, getting into the 'tournament' are close to zero. With the system in place now, a school like SMU could make it to the BCS any given season. Had we run the table with the schedule we had this year, we would be in a BCS bowl game. If we were to run our schedule in an 8 team tournament, we would be left out because of the AQ's.

I know this BCS conversation has been had OVER and OVER and OVER again, and I know that my ramblings here won't convince anybody. I just felt like venting out.

Are you Tim Cowlishaw?

Bandwagonesque:

A. You are correct, but the regular season games are just as important to non AQ Conferences as they are to the AQ's.

B. You cannot be more incorrect. Most AQ Schools do everything they can not to schedule tough games for their OOC Schedule. As a rule they will schedule one tough game out of four.

C. You are correct. The Current Bowl system is the only thing that brings funds into Non AQ Conferences.

D. This is easy. Only conference Champions get into the tournament. After a few years the quality of the conferences will even out. SMU, TCU, ECU...etc will get even access to the best talent in the country. The conference schedules will be more meaningful than they already are. This would make a 12 Team tournament (BE, SEC, ACC, Pac-10, Big Ten, Big XII, Sun Belt, WAC, USA, MWC, Sunbelt, and +1 At Large/Independent ranked 12 or Higher). Seedings can be based on strength of schedule.

E. Immaterial. Every FBS Conference will have a Rep. The best conference is the one with the +1.

F. See Above

You misinterpreted B.

What I stated was if it went to tournament style, would those schools still schedule tough OOC games? The answer is probably, no. Right now USC, Miami, Ohio State, all schedule tough ooc games because they know it will help them in the BCS standings later on. If it were a tournament, and winning your conference was enough, you can bet the farm that Ohio State is not scheduling Miami or USC.

Wait... so E. Is immaterial, yet a conference is still going to have a +1?

1. SEC
2. Pac 10
3. Big 10
4. Big 12
5. ACC
6. Big East
7. MWC
8. C-USA
9. WAC
10. Sun Belt
11. MAC

Ok so that's 11. And you're suggesting we give two teams byes, yes? Then how is what I said Immaterial? What I was saying is, how are we to say that the SEC is better than the Pac 10 definitively? There is no way. Thus, why should the SEC send two just because we 'think' they're better. Pretty much you're asking to keep the BCS ranking system in place if you're going to have a +1.

And then the ranking system... if Miami, Texas, USC, Tennessee, and West Virginia all run the table, which ones will we give the bye to? Is a conference with another one less team really superior? Can't that be interpreted as inferior to the conference that beats itself up?

And finally, who gets to play the Sun Belt winner and who is forced to play the Big 10 winner in that scenario.

What about independents? Are we gonna force Army and Navy into conferences?

And no, the conferences will never "even out." Sure, winning the Sun Belt will be an easy target, but not every recruit chooses their college based on the probability of winning a national title. Fact is, Texas will always have the ability to out recruit all because of money and location, and Louisiana-Lafayette will always get a handful of one and two stars. The 4 and 5 stars wont star moving to the Sun Belt just because they want a shot at a Big 12 team in the tournament.

Besides, the Bowl system is already set up that way... to reward the small schools with national exposure if they have a good season.

Bandwagon you definetly did not read the first chapter which answers all of your concerns. the play off would be 16 team (the conference winers plus 4 at large chosen by a selection committee like the NCAA tourney.

The season stays relvent because wining your conference gets you a shot. Teams are rewared for tough non-conference games because if they slip and don't win their conference a strong non conference helps with the at large. Also the at large saves your precious 1 loss major conference teams. There are no buys in this system it starts when bowl season starts currently with a two week break in the middle for holidays and exams. The top sead is rewarded by playing the lowest ranked team and having home games until the championship which is the only nuetral site game.

I'll continue explaining why the system is the best option if you can think of more reasons why you can't get behind it

The reason the BCS remains in place is because of the powerful conferences and schools (with graduates in positions of political power and influence) that are currently "in" and eligible to receive a big money payout at the end of the season - other schools in those same conferences still benefit by this "have" and "have not" system due to revenue sharing. When it no longer becomes more of a long-term financial advantage to be "in" the BCS than not they will look to other alternatives.

All comes down to the Benjamins.