agree or disagree?

[CJHawkeyes]

Below is a quote taken from another board in a thread debating whether or not the new Big East deserves its auto BCS bowl berth. I'm curious how many here agree or disagree with this argument.

Example:
The Sunbelt (yes the Sunbelt) get's the auto bid and the Beast doesn't. Suddenly they're on TV constantly, getting national press (good, bad doesn't matter), recruiting picks up HUGE, a couple of teams have big years with the help of a weak schedule, a couple of balls bounce the right way in Bowl games, recruiting get's even better, and bam you have a BCS conf. that has respect and can tell everyone "see I told you so". Problem is, it doesn't change the fact that they never deserved the BCS auto bid at the beginning. Get it?

[aufan59]

I think the difference is the speed at which it happens. I doubt the Sun Belt would have had as fast of a turnaround as the Big East did. But to say it couldn't happen would be foolish.

[CJHawkeyes]

Just to clarify, the poster was arguing that a conference would not deserve an auto berth even assuming being granted one would eventually make them more competitive. Essentially, nonBCS conferences (and the new BE) do not deserve a level playing field because their lack of success on an unlevel playing field does not warrant it. Of course, that the poster thinks auto bids are about merit is itself ridiculous. It is all about power and money.

[CJHawkeyes]

Er, so let's break this down. If we start with the premise that the current BCS is set up so that conferences whose members "deserve" an automatic berth in the major bowls get one, then the passage you quote suggests that the converse: an automatic berth can create a deserving conference.

One part of the hypothesis I immediately have a problem with is "[s]uddenly they're on TV constantly". Really? There'd be big stories in the press, for sure. But would the networks really make a "sudden" jump to include nationally televised games between Louisiana-Lafayette and Troy? People in Mandel's Montana aren't going to watch Cal versus Tennessee just because the teams are from conferences designated "BCS". The many viewers who are not specifically fans of one of the schools will watch because they expect to see good football and they're familiar with the programs.

And if La-Monroe goes head-to-head against LSU in recruiting, would there ever come a time when LSU wouldn't have a huge advantage even if both schools are from "BCS conferences"?

If one were to force such a move as an experiment, the "see I told you so" would take place only eventually. It would take years (generations, maybe), if at all.

Who is and who isn't a BCS conference is just one part of the machinery to maintain the status quo.

I appreciate some of the logic behind that quote, but no: it ain't that simple.


I think you are missing his argument. The poster does not think the Sun Belt or any nonBCS conference DESERVES an auto bid even assuming being granted one would make them more competitive to the point that they would eventually reach the level of current BCS conferences. I'm sure he would agree that giving them one would not make them an overnight success. The point is that they suck now and do not deserve the opportunity to succeed or fail on a level playing field until they achieve some unknown degree of success on an unlevel playing field. I simply don't understand why anyone thinks a level playing field is something any team should have to earn especially since the teams in position to grant a level playing field never had to earn theirs.