There are definitely legitimate issues with the BCS system.
But the OPs problems seems rather to be “Wah! My team is getting jobbed in my opinion.”
Is that a succinct description?
And their Nebraska win was pretty tainted.
1 - BCS sucks for everyone because it’s based on voting
2 - KSU has traditionally had an extremely weak schedule, but I gained a lot of respect for them in the late 90’s and early 2000’s - they were often a pretty good team
And the new system should be based on [fill in the blank] _________________________.
Oh, I’ve got this one: Tiered divisions, with the best two regular-season records in the top tier playing for the championship. Teams can only play other teams in their tier, except for two games a year which don’t count for final standings (so teams can play historic rivals in other tiers). Worst two teams in tier I are sent down to tier II next year, replaced by the two best from tier II (and tiers II/III swap two teams and so on down). Put tiers III and lower into geographically-based divisions so teams don’t have to travel as far.
Lots of advantages: Top teams are tested every week, with no cupcake of the week Alabama 72 Mobile Teachers College 0 scheduling; one fluky loss won’t immediately disqualify a team for the title; completely fair playoff system; and meaningful games and seasons all up and down the line, as mid-level teams fight to move up a tier or avoid moving down.
Sure, it means most teams are out of contention for the championship before the season starts no matter how good they are this year, but that’s really the way it is now (cough Boise cough). At least with promotion/relegation, some team could play their way into contention, rather than having to invent a history storied enough for idiotic sportswriters to respect them.
Actually, deciding who gets at-large bids to BCS bowls isn’t based on voting (after a certain point - I can’t remember the exact rule off the top of my head, but it’s something like, “Top 14, or 15-16 if you’re ranked higher than any team getting an automatic BCS bid”). Each bowl committee makes the decision on its own, and usually, as already said, it’s based primarily on how much money the bowl and its host city can make (so “teams that travel well” play a significant factor).
If you’re talking about getting screwed, just ask Missouri; four years ago, they beat Kansas, only to lose the Big 12 championship game to Oklahoma the following week - and then watch as Kansas went to the Orange Bowl (despite Missouri still being ranked higher), leaving Missouri out entirely because of the “no more than two teams per conference (well, unless a conference has two at-large teams ranked 1 and 2)” rule.
Besides - just about every NCAA team tournament has “voting” to decide who gets in, even if it’s just by a small committee. (At least in an “individual” sport, like swimming, it’s based solely on each athlete’s best times during the season.)
How do the SEC, B1G, Pac12, and BigXII react to this idea? Do they have half their teams in tier 1, and half in tier 2? Do they let Ole Miss, Purdue, Arizona, and Kansas drop to the 2nd tier while Boise State, Syracuse, and Houston go in the 1st tier? I’m not against the idea on face value, but I’m not sure how it would operate in reality with so many conference affliliations and rivalries potentially lost.
The prime reason for Kansas State being passed over in BCS selections is simple and obvious. Bill Snyder’s handshake deal with the dark lord of the underworld is only good for Snyder’s eternal life and success in the Big 12. Beelzebub wasn’t willing to also cough up BCS bowls for Snyder’s soul.
And when are you guys ever going to play in Ames again? Seems like it’s been about 12 years. I think the Cyclones might have taken you down last Saturday if we got to play at home.
Fiat, based solely on my opinions with no other input. 
Probably, we’re going to see four 16-to-20 team “BCS” superconferences and a plus-one one day. It might take twenty years, but that’s my gut feeling. It’s neither what I’d want, or what most fans would want, but I have a feeling that the non-BCS conferences are eventually going to melt back into FCS, unable to sustain the financial arms race of playing on a level field with the big teams. A few teams like Boise State are going to latch on somewhere, and who knows what Notre Dame will do, but eventually we’re going to be left with 64 to 80 FBS schools.
And, yes, it’s going to be about money. Not about the money from bowls, because the smaller bowls can’t possibly sustain themselves without television cash, and ESPN holds that sword of Damocles. No, it’s because even with guarantee money from getting slaughtered by the big guys, a lot of teams in non-BCS leagues are struggling financially. A while back, for example, the NCAA decided that FBS teams needed to have minimum home attendance requirements to retain FBS status. That bylaw was quietly shelved when half of the MAC, and several other non-BCS teams, failed that test. You can’t tell me that those teams are doing well financially.
I once heard a rumor that the only reason the NCAA hasn’t just kicked a bunch of non-BCS teams back to the FCS curb is that the BCS teams needed them. The BCS teams needed whipping boys to pad their schedule (and, again, this is not just K-State but most BCS teams nowadays) so that they could get to six wins, and thus the bowls could fill out their schedules. As it is, there have been years where there almost haven’t been enough bowl-eligible teams…what an embarrassment that would have been for the NCAA, had there not been enough teams to go around! Maybe teams like Akron or New Mexico or Florida Atlantic would be better off in FCS–but then those teams might be the difference between a BCS team going 6-6 instead of 5-7, and then you’ve got one more team to fill a bowl, no matter how putrid that team actually is.
But, eventually, that whole house of cards has to fall. Not every team has a T. Boone Pickens waiting to flood them with cash, and especially not at non-BCS level. And the money that is in college football isn’t flowing to everyone. Sure, non-AQ teams have qualified for BCS riches, and with that BCS money has flowed to every team in their league. But you’re probably not ever going to see a MAC or Sun Belt team in a BCS bowl. If the money isn’t there for a school, eventually football won’t be there either, and one by one teams start to drop. And that’s the point, I think, when the NCAA will step in and say, “OK, we’re only going to allow teams that can afford to play at FBS level stay in the FBS. Here’s the guidelines; you’re in or you’re out.” I honestly think you’d see a lot more out than you’d think. Then you’re left with 64-80 teams in FBS instead of 117. Result: massive realignment, probably on the superconference model.
I’m still trying to figure out why after all of the passovers over the years why any of the non-BCS conferences/schools still want to maintain the status quo.
speculation: Money (because it almost always is). A good chunk of their yearly gross revenue is derived from being the AQ teams 2 or 3 patsies a year.
Here are a couple sample conference games from Sunbelt and MAC in late September. Before the season has been lost, and should have relatively little weather issues.
Sunbelt Conference game. Arkansas St @ La Monroe Attendance 15,000.
MAC Conference game Ohio U @ Miami (OH) Attendance 14,100.
But when these teams go play LSU or Michigan etc. they get 6 figure or 7 figure paydays.
Problem is, those “guarantee games” aren’t paying the bills. According to this graph (I know it’s hard to read but it’s the best I could find at short notice) about two-thirds of non-BCS teams ran an operating loss in football between 2003 and 2009. By comparison, the only BCS teams that had a loss were Rutgers, Duke, and Wake Forest. Even pretty well-established non-BCS teams like SMU and Marshall took operating losses.
Bottom line is, the BCS money is largely flowing only in one direction these days, and “guarantee games” aren’t going to change that.
And how much red ink would these non AQ teams if they were not designated patsies for the AQ teams.
Losing $100,000 a year is better than losing $1,000,000/yr.
But that doesn’t answer the question of “why put up with the system”. It would be better for a team like Akron to drop football entirely or at least go to FCS. But doing that would hurt BCS schools as outlined above. It’s why the system is unsustainable.
Not that I don’t trust the accountants, but I do know that figures don’t lie but liars figure.
I am not an accountant, but I have stayed at Holiday Inn Express.
And I do know enough about accounting that not all revenues and expenses go towards the right places.
Even if you’re assuming that some schools are fiddling the numbers, your own account of low attendance at non-BCS games indicates that ticket revenues aren’t going to be particularly high. And when’s the last time you saw someone in LA Lafayette gear? Hard to turn a profit when your money in is low.
In my humble (or not so humble) opinion, the entire system is corrupt and doomed to eventual failure.
But, it is based on an enormous amount of money and will most likely not be supplanted by anything other than a similarly powerful syndicate. It sucks, but them’s the breaks.
You’re misunderstanding the point. Why do non-BCS AQ conference still put up with the current system with the few have and the rest have-not and even when they are BCS eligible, they get passed over for the big boys in favor of the haves (e.g. Boise St. & Michigan this year)
Money. Isn’t that always the answer?
At least from the POV of my own school (Rice), alumni, particularly the alumni who donate money, demand the schools put up with the current system. Even if the football program itself is a money loser (it’s a close thing at Rice, though athletics in general is unprofitable), it’s profitable to keep rich alumni happy.