# Simple, elegant BCS improvement that will never happen. **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [November 24, 2008, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-elegant-bcs-improvement-that-will-never-happen/474320 "2008-11-24T21:06:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-elegant-bcs-improvement-that-will-never-happen/474320/21 "2008-11-26T17:04:59Z")
I think the plan would screw the non-BCS conferences. Boise State has enough trouble scheduling BCS conference teams as it is now. If there were more incentive for BCS conference teams to play BCS conference teams, there’s no way Boise State or Utah could become eligible. They’re usually trying to ADD BCS games to the schedule, not dodge them. They know they won’t make the big bowl games without wins over BCS conference teams. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-elegant-bcs-improvement-that-will-never-happen/474320/22 "2008-11-26T18:46:49Z")
> [@HookerChemical](#): > > I think the plan would screw the non-BCS conferences. Boise State has enough trouble scheduling BCS conference teams as it is now. Boise chooses not to play more BCS teams because they don’t want to go on the road. [Cite.](http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2008/09/11/bmurphy/fresno_state_amps_nonconference_schedule_bcs_conference_teams_sh) ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-elegant-bcs-improvement-that-will-never-happen/474320/23 "2008-11-26T19:15:09Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Boise chooses not to play more BCS teams because they don’t want to go on the road. [Cite.](http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2008/09/11/bmurphy/fresno_state_amps_nonconference_schedule_bcs_conference_teams_sh) My point that it’s difficult for a non-BCS team to book non-conference teams stands. Fresno State is accepting a disadvantage (going on the road) to play teams that the BCS system already assumes are better than Fresno State. Boise State has said they aren’t going to accept that disadvantage and have a tougher time scheduling BCS conference teams because of it. Agreeing to play 2 road games for each home game is like spotting the BCS teams 2 points in the extra road game. [Cite](http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt06.htm). Would Michigan agree to play two games in Ohio for every game played in Ann Arbor? Of course not. While a smaller team could increase their BCS games by going on the road, it’s not reasonable to expect every team to accept that disadvantage. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-elegant-bcs-improvement-that-will-never-happen/474320/24 "2008-11-26T19:44:40Z")
> [@HookerChemical](#): > > Fresno State is accepting a disadvantage (going on the road) to play teams that the BCS system already assumes are better than Fresno State. Boise State has said they aren’t going to accept that disadvantage and have a tougher time scheduling BCS conference teams because of it. Agreeing to play 2 road games for each home game is like spotting the BCS teams 2 points in the extra road game. [Cite](http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt06.htm). > > Would Michigan agree to play two games in Ohio for every game played in Ann Arbor? Of course not. While a smaller team could increase their BCS games by going on the road, it’s not reasonable to expect every team to accept that disadvantage. Life isn’t fair. You deal with it or you don’t. The traditional powers have a built in-advantage; that’s the way it is, and that’s they way it’s going to be for the forseeable future. Mid-majors are going to have to live with that, unless and until they get a rare chance to move up to a power conference (And I say this as someone who is a fan of a mid-major). Pretending otherwise is not dealing in reality. Here’s the schedule Boise needs to play under my proposal: One 1AA team at home. One other mid-major in a home-and-home. Two BCS teams, probably in two-for-ones. Add 4 conference home games, and you wind up with a median 6.17 home games a year. Once every three years you play two BCS teams on the road. I don’t think that’s too demanding a slate to ask of a team from the WAC who wants to be considered for national championships. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-elegant-bcs-improvement-that-will-never-happen/474320/25 "2008-11-26T20:24:17Z")
> [@furt](#): > > How many big-six teams are ALWAYS BAD? Not usually mediocre, but consistiently terrible? Less than five. Even at that, do you think the difference between say, Duke (always bad) and NC State (mediocre) is so huge that Texas is willing to pay Duke millions upon millions for a game? Don’t be absurd. > > I suspect that what the smaller schools want instead of a cash payout is home-and-home games; if Ohio State wants to play Baylor that badly, they can play one in Waco. And yeah, that’ll be a payoff for Baylor. Call me crazy, but revenue sharing has worked pretty good for the NFL. I don’t see the harm in encouraging parity by giving the smaller schools semi-equitable budgets; who knows, maybe they’ll be able to afford to keep their coaches. You don’t seem to understand the issue as it is now. Teams are _already_ paying millions of dollars to directional schools in order for them to play road games against the bigs. The reason it’s not a scourge is because that money tends to go to a broad pool of schools and those schools are using that money to improve themselves and win their small conferences. It tends to be the very good Appalachian States that get those payments, not the hopeless Lehighs. Since they aren’t in the same conference as the bigs paying them theres no disincentive to success. It’s the fact that there’s so few consistently terrible teams that makes it such an issue. The scarcity would make them way too valuable, and you’re insane if you think Duke would be able to insist on a home-and-home with LSU, the fact that Duke is a BCS school would just drive up the cost of the bribe before they agreed to a road game. > [@](#): > > How exactly would this be different from the status quo? It’s not. And based on the early-season broadcast schedules, the networks prefer airing competitive games between lesser teams than blowouts; they’d rather show Cal-BC than Ohio St-Baylor. The middle guys play each other, which is pretty much the way it is now. It’s different because Indiana is getting millions while Illinois is not. It’s not going to change their scheduling, just their profits. > [@](#): > > If they’re harboring national-title or BCS-game hopes, they ought to be thrilled. Right now, Utah has five teams ahead of them; two played wimp schedules. Boise has another team that played a _very_ wimpy schedule ahead of them. Throw a loss or two in there, and both of those teams are in much better shape (although, Boise frankly needs to start improving their own schedule). > > As to the idea that BCS teams wouldn’t play the good mid-majors … why do they play them now? Because the polls matter. Strength of schedule matters. I’m not suggesting that change. Some teams will duck the Utahs, but others won’t; just like now. The point is that it creates an even greater disincentive for the bigs to play games against these schools, locking them on the outside even worse than they are now. You seem under the mistaken impression that _anyone_ other than the LSU and OSU of the world have any negotiating power at all. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-elegant-bcs-improvement-that-will-never-happen/474320/26 "2008-11-26T21:50:21Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > You don’t seem to understand the issue as it is now. Teams are _already_ paying millions of dollars to directional schools in order for them to play road games against the bigs. The reason it’s not a scourge is because that money tends to go to a broad pool of schools and those schools are using that money to improve themselves and win their small conferences. It tends to be the very good Appalachian States that get those payments, not the hopeless Lehighs. Since they aren’t in the same conference as the bigs paying them theres no disincentive to success. > > It’s the fact that there’s so few consistently terrible teams that makes it such an issue. The scarcity would make them way too valuable, and you’re insane if you think Duke would be able to insist on a home-and-home with LSU, the fact that Duke is a BCS school would just drive up the cost of the bribe before they agreed to a road game. See, and this is just where I think you’re overstating the competitive difference, and the degree in which teams would be willing to pay for the right to play against Indiana. It’s still a free market both ways. If IU wants $2 million to come to LSU (the current rate for money games is actually $500K -$1 M) then LSU is free to call Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, etc, none of whom are consistiently much better than IU (remember – last year “doormat” IU was a bowl team, and Minnesota was 1-11.) And that’s just in the Big 10. LSU can also call up a whole host of BCS mediocrities: Arizona, Stanford, Iowa State, Baylor, UConn, Rutgers, etc… there’s a whole parade of midlevel BCS teams that could take the place of Indiana. Remember – most of them are now obligated to toughen their schedules up, too, if they want to be NC-eligible. > [@](#): > > It’s different because Indiana is getting millions while Illinois is not. Again, you seem to be saying that teams will pay millions upon millions for Indiana, but not a farthing for Illinois. Sorry, but that flies in the face of economics and common sense. > [@](#): > > It’s not going to change their scheduling, just their profits. Yes, it will change the scheduling; LSU’s “easy” game is now a BCS school instead of a Sun Belt. For their part, that BCS school will have a tougher schedule, now, too; the payout is compensation for that, and morever they now have the opportunity to play the bigs. You think the coaches, players and fans of, say, Rutgers wouldn’t like to see their guys get the chance to play a traditional powerhouse once a year? You think that wouldn’t help recruiting? This ain’t the NCAA videogame, where the way to build your program is by beating up on Tulane every season. In the real world, the only way to move up is to play up. > [@](#): > > The point is that it creates an even greater disincentive for the bigs to play games against these schools, locking them on the outside even worse than they are now. You seem under the mistaken impression that _anyone_ other than the LSU and OSU of the world have any negotiating power at all. I’m sorry, but I just don’t find this at all persuasive. The big schools that are opting for the easiest possible noncons are ALREADY ducking the good mid-majors. And schools that schedule aggressively will still schedule aggressively, and for the same reason: because the poll voters know that that win over Boise by team A is impressive, but the win over Utah State by team B is not. The only change this would be sure to have is to set a floor – a minimum acceptable standard for scheduling. It’s not a revolution; it’s just a marginal improvement. ---
**Author:** ![notfrommensa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f14d63/32.png) [@notfrommensa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notfrommensa)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-elegant-bcs-improvement-that-will-never-happen/474320/27 "2008-11-26T21:54:42Z")
All the BCS conference teams will be scrambling schedule traditional BCS football doormats like Duke, Northwestern, Baylor and [Snark]Notre Dame[/Snark]. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2008, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-elegant-bcs-improvement-that-will-never-happen/474320/28 "2008-11-29T01:11:52Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > How would you handle Notre Dame? Easy. Disband the team, tear down the stadium and never let Lou Holtz appear publicly again. Come to think of it, this is a pretty good idea no matter what the BCS does. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-elegant-bcs-improvement-that-will-never-happen/474320.md?page=1)