CJHawkeyes
05-07-2007, 01:06 PM
transparency and accountability intentional? BCS schools already know that their teams are essientially ranked best to worst record. Therefore, these schools have a blueprint for making the national title game. Go unbeaten and hope for less than two others. However, nonBCS schools do not have a blueprint for making the title game or even a BCS bowl and even assuming a nonBCS school scheduling Florida, Ohio State, USC, and LSU would do the trick, these schools gain nothing by playing the Boise States of the world. Why risk a loss to Boise State, no matter how slight that risk may be, when a win versus a nonBCS bottom feeder will do?
It is my contention that if college football adopted a single set of transparent objective rules which did not allow BCS schools to play for unbeaten seasons as if they were the same guarantee that they are today and nonBCS schools had a blueprint for making the title game then parity would increase. However, BCS schools do not want that to happen and are happy to live with a system that favors best records among their teams while demanding the nonBCS schools load their schedules with the very teams that don't need to play them.
It is my contention that if college football adopted a single set of transparent objective rules which did not allow BCS schools to play for unbeaten seasons as if they were the same guarantee that they are today and nonBCS schools had a blueprint for making the title game then parity would increase. However, BCS schools do not want that to happen and are happy to live with a system that favors best records among their teams while demanding the nonBCS schools load their schedules with the very teams that don't need to play them.