No the BCS has finally allowed one maybe two teams per year to get the big payout, then then have to share the money around with the rest of the teams in their conferences. And the teams from the non-BCS conferences don't always get the same big payout as the teams from the BCS automatic qualifying conferences. Not only that, but history has shown that a non BCS team must go undefeated in the regular season to qualify for a BCS game, and even then it's no guarantee (see Boise State last year), while a team from a BCS qualifying conference can lose 3 or 4 games, as long as they win their conference they'll get a huge payout.
You're completely missing the point.
evilgEEk commented on the "misappropriation of funds" of the BCS
in particular, and how it benefits the AQ conferences and hurts the non-AQ conferences.
It is
only because of the BCS' existence that schools such as Boise State, Utah, TCU, and Hawaii were able to play in the Fiesta or Sugar bowls. Under the previous setup with the bowl tie-ins - in other words, before the BCS -
there was absolutely no way, no how, not a snowball's chance in hell of that ever happening. Ever. Zero. The bowls were tied into the conferences and chose their matchups based solely on how well they thought they could sell tickets.
You and many other BCS haters might not remember that system. The MWC didn't exist, the WAC champion was contractually obligated to play in the Holiday Bowl, the Big 8 champ got the Orange Bowl, the SWC champ got the Cotton Bowl, etc. And you got whatever that bowl paid you.
It's patently unfair and I think you know it.
It's no more unfair than Notre Dame getting their own TV contract. Why? Because NBC feels like paying them. It's that simple. The Rose Bowl feels like paying a PAC-10 and Big 10 team to play in its game. The bowls are not part of the NCAA; they're free to invite whichever teams they choose; or, more specifically, they're free to sign contracts with the conferences they choose,
and they always have been. The BCS hasn't changed that; if anything, the BCS has opened the only possible door for a school to play in a bowl to which its conference isn't contractually committed.
Especially when the system in place also removes any real chance at winning the national title from non BCS teams...
Close, but my comment wasn't about the NC, it was about "misappropriation of funds" by the BCS. But read on:
unless they go undefeated and play a much tougher schedule than the BCS teams
That's complete horse puckey, and you know it. Show me ONE fan who can
credibly say that a conference schedule of Wyoming, New Mexico State, and San Jose State compares with LSU, Georgia, and Florida State.
The fact is that there are haves, and there are have nots - I won't deny that. But it's not because of the BCS that those tiers of teams exist; they've always been around. There are 120 teams in D-IA. You're not going to have any type of parity, especially over the long-term when success breeds success (meaning the most successful programs are usually able to recruit the best incoming freshmen).
That is the system you should be bitching about.
That is why there are top-tier historical programs like USC, Texas, Oklahoma, and Michigan; and why there are always going to be teams that aren't likely to break into that upper echelon.
