The day has come for when Commissioner Craig Thompson announced his plan that would allow greater access to the BCS, to be more specific better access for the Mountain West. As the writer of this site in my mind the inclusion to the BCS would be the ultimate goal for the league, however this proposal is full of fatal flaws and we know will not happen.
The jist of the proposal is to essentially have an eight team playoff, but there are mighty twists within the proposal. The only good thing to come out of this is the proposal that there is a committee similar to the one that decides the field of 65, which would include one member from each league and one from Notre Dame First off there would be five BCS games, that is right five not sure why there would be five when this is basically an eight team playoff:
The Mountain West Conference has proposed a new plan for the Bowl Championship Series that includes an eight-team playoff to determine a national championship for college football and eliminates the current BCS standings based on computer rankings and human polls.
Under the new plan that would start in 2010, the standings that decide the 10 teams playing in the five BCS games would be determined by a 12-member committee consisting of one representative from the 11 Division I-A (FBS) conference and one from Notre Dame.
What would happen is that the current automatic qualifying leagues would get a spot, and then there would be a seventh auto league if they met certain standards. The standards are quite low and to no surprise would include the MWC if it were to take place next season. All the provisions account for is that during a two year period any non auto qualifying league would have to play 40 schools from AQ leagues and get a .400 or better winning percentage.
WHAT!!
That is crazy, because Washington, Washington State, Duke, Indiana, Syracuse, and other bottom dwellers would be prime opponents to rack up wins to become eligible. Below, is a chart of the past two years and the past four years of non-conference games against AQ leagues.
2007-2008
MWC 16-13 (.552)
ACC 22-18 (.550)
Big Ten 10-9 (.526)
Pac-10 10-9 (.526)
Big East 14-15 (.483)
Big 12 12-14 (.462)
SEC 13-16 (.448)
WAC 6-28 (.176)
MAC 11-57 (.162)
Sun Belt 5-43 (.104)
C-USA 4-44 (.083)
2005-08
Pac-10 - 32-20 (.615)
SEC - 43-36 (.544)
Big East - 36-38 (.486)
Big 12 - 35-37 (.486)
MWC - 29-32 (.475)
ACC - 45-52 (.464)
Big Ten - 29-37 (.439)
WAC - 13-62 (.173)
MAC - 17-109 (.135)
C-USA - 11-92 (.107)
Sun Belt 6-78 (.071)
Another eye sore in the proposal is that the the teams would not be seeded by ability in the first round, but rather in the similar bowl traditions. Also,, there is no clear cut way the semis would be seeded, but one would assume the highest seed would play the lowest. This is obviously to appease the high and mighty Rose Bowl so they can preserve their Big 10/Pac 10 matchup, and Mitch Dorger who is the CEO of the Rose Bowl has all ready
shot down this idea:
"It would change the whole nature of the bowl experience, we would compete with the pros, it would extend the season into the second semester and there is wear and tear on the players' bodies. I could keep going down the list."
If I could add on the list that he is afraid to say which is money, and unless these bowls are part of a playoff and guaranteed more money then they are getting now then nothing will change. The argument that it is a wear on the players is bull, because players get about three weeks off a year from some type of work out or training. This idea of keeping bowl alliances the same could be troubling because what happens in a year when the Rose Bowl - by the way the only bowl to have two conferences alligned - pits the number one team against the number two team. Then what happens the top two teams pit in the first round, yes a great game but that is not a playoff.
That fifth BCS game, what is the point? That is just a curve ball thrown out there to get another bowl involved for some reason and probably guarantee that a non-BCS school gets to play in a big boy bowl game. This playoff idea has been brought up
before and shot down before and the last time it came from the SEC and ACC, that was shot down because a plus-one would ultimately lead to an extended playoff.
Tom Buchanan, University of Wyoming president and chairman of the MWC board of directors put it nicely:
"We all believe that change is needed. The current system is not fair and somebody needs to stand up and say that and ask for dialogue amongst all the parties involved."
Change is needed and the MWC is making small chips at this armor, and the only real way to make change is to have more non-BCS schools go to and win BCS games, and also have teams ranked above the BCS league champs consistently to prove they are as good or better. Eventually the BCS will succumb to a playoff, why? Well there is too much money involved in a playoff that would line the current gold pockets even more. The problem is that the current Big 6 want to keep the money for themselves.
As stated may times here, the best playoff is for inclusion which would be either a 16 or 24 team playoff with all 11 conference champs being included and the rest are at large.
Cinderella is amazing in hoops with George Mason, Gonzaga's early runs, and Villanova winning the title as an eight seed. Games would be better because talent would trickle down to the MAC, Sun-Belt, C-USA, and the other lower level leagues because of a chance to make it to the tournament. Also, not to mention the money that would go to each league to improve facilities and recruiting. Just cut off a week or two of the regular season, play the first round at home of the higher seeds and then move to bowl sites to keep them happy, and finish by mid January.
One last note is that the MWC is currently the only team to not sign the new BCS television deal that moves the games to ESPN. That contract most likely will be signed once their proposal is pushed under the rug in April during the next BCS meetings.
If you like what you read be lazy and Subscribe to The Mountain West Conference Connection by Email or in your Feeder or follow us on Twitter.
