Really? You thought it was unclear that my post might have suggested that the computers guaranteed the outcome of every game? Probably not - but whole point is that they don't have to run the table in the ACC to get into the BCS. I think they'd have a very real shot of winning the ACC and thus getting into the BCS with a few losses by virtue of being the conference champion.
Well the cotton bowl was big when the southwest conference was well respected. Since Houston, Rice, TCU and SMU were in the same conference as Texas, Arkansas and ATM, they all could make the big bowl by winning the conference. When those teams split, UH, Rice and others were downgraded to a lower conference. I don't think (with the exception of the championship game) the % of money was different pre-BCS than after. College football is making more money than it did at that time. If I understand it, Cotton Bowl- Southwest Champ Orange Bowl- Big 8 Champ Rose Bowl- Pac 10 vs. Big 10 Sugar Bowl- SEC And the Fiesta bowl got popular late since it didn't have any tie in. So these bowls were still the premiere matchups and where the money was at.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/6712367.html A congressional committee called in some of the keepers of the Bowl Championship Series for explanations this past spring. A Democratic congressman, Bobby Rush of Illinois, chaired the hearing. A Texas Republican, Joe Barton of Ennis, characterized the BCS as "like Communism: You can’t fix it." A Texas Democrat, Gene Green of Houston, brought a Houston Cougars helmet to the proceedings. "This," Green said, "goes across party lines." The good news for those who would like the BCS to suffer an excruciating death is that members of Capitol Hill are asking hard questions about why the highest level of college football does not have a playoff system. The bad news for BCS detractors is that Rush, Barton and Green were the only ones who saw fit to attend that particular hearing. To BCS administrator Bill Hancock, it sounded like echoes of seasons past. "Politicians have discussed this many times," Hancock said. "I guess in the real world, we wish everybody loved it. They don’t. Some people don’t like apple pie and motherhood." Barack Obama made a vow to put his presidential powers of persuasion to eradicate the BCS — not motherhood or apple pie — from the face of the planet. Barton introduced a bill earlier this year known as the College Football Playoff Act of 2009. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) called a Senate hearing in July and followed up last month with a letter urging the president to launch a Justice Department inquiry into whether the BCS system violates antitrust law. Millions of college football fans regard the BCS as an evil empire designed to protect the interests of the marquee schools. And in a season that could see five teams go undefeated before the bowls, they might have a point. If Texas and either Florida or Alabama go undefeated as champions from the Big 12 and Southeastern Conference, they will be certain to meet in the BCS title game. But what about potential unbeatens such as TCU and Boise State — not to mention Cincinnati, which is a Big East member? When such teams appear destined to be stuck on the outside looking in at the BCS title game, the cries to scrap the system in favor of a playoff tend to escalate into screams. "It’s sort of the car-race fan theory," Hancock said. "Some people go to a car race to see a crash. I think some people would like to see the BCS crash because they think it’s fun. We completely get that. The fact is, we continue to be confident that this is the best way to decide a champion." There is organized opposition that strongly suggests otherwise. The Playoff PAC, a federal political action committee established this fall, is dedicated to galvanizing support it takes to establish a football playoff. Playoff PAC calls the BCS system "inherently flawed," charging that it "crowns champions arbitrarily and stifles inter-conference competition." The organization contends a playoff system would better serve fans, players, schools and corporate sponsors. Auburn went 13-0 in 2004 and got squeezed out of a chance to play in the title game in favor of Southern California and Oklahoma. Utah went 13-0 last season and got left out of the title game in favor of once-beaten Florida and Oklahoma teams. "People deflect criticism with, ‘How would a playoff work?’" said Playoff PAC board member Matthew Martinez, a Houston attorney. "That’s not really the point at this stage of the game. We could make some kind of playoff that would work for everybody. The current system isn’t working." BCS proponents would argue that the system is working exactly as intended. Hancock points out that the BCS was never designed to be a substitute for a playoff, that it was simply designed to pit the No. 1 and No. 2 teams in a championship game. Under the old structure, the No. 1 and No. 2 teams in the Associated Press poll met in bowls eight times between 1936 and 1992. Since the BCS emerged in 1998, the AP’s top two teams have met eight times. "There is a whole generation of fans — or half a generation — that doesn’t remember what the season was like before the BCS," Hancock said. "The other thing the people don’t think about is college football is more popular than ever. We think the BCS has something to do with that. Certainly, people in Texas before the BCS couldn’t have cared less about the outcome of Boise State-Oregon. With the BCS, they need to watch that game." Count UH president Renu Khator, whose school is in contention for a Conference USA championship, among those who would rather see a playoff. Khator said, "A championship should be decided on the field," though she added the disclaimer that a playoff shouldn’t extend the season to the point of negatively affecting the athletes. "Given the rich tradition of college football and its bowl games, a playoff system is not feasible any time soon," Khator said. "A plus-one or an eight-team tournament would be the easiest system to implement and would leave the ranking system intact. "But the (system) is resistant to change. There are many obstacles to overcome before a playoff system has any chance of becoming a reality." Contrary to popular belief, the BCS isn’t an actual entity. The BCS is a five-bowl arrangement (Fiesta, Orange, Rose, Sugar and National Championship Game) managed by the 11 NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) conferences and Notre Dame. Six conferences — Big 12, Big Ten, Southeastern, Pac-10, Big East and Atlantic Coast — plus Notre Dame (if it meets certain criteria) have automatic qualification (AQ) into the BCS bowls. The top two teams in the Bowl Championship Standings — a compendium of two human polls and six computer ranking systems — meet in the title game. The automatic qualifiers, along with a pool of at-large teams, fill out the other spots in the lucrative BCS bowls. A team from outside the AQ conferences can earn an at-large bid by finishing in the top 12 in the BCS standings. The BCS bowls are not contractually obligated to take more than one team from outside the AQ conferences, creating a precarious situation for TCU (No. 4 in the latest BCS standings), Boise State (No. 6) and UH (No. 15). "We realize there are other, more important issues," Martinez said. "We also feel it is a $1 billion business and that it’s important to a lot of people. Maybe they can take time away from naming a post office or the hundreds of other things Congress does to take some time for this issue." Green said that shouldn’t be a problem. "Hopefully, members of Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time," said Green, a UH alum. "This is nowhere near on the level of health care or appropriations or protecting our nation. But our constituents still have interest in this, too." On the other hand, Green conceded that Capitol Hill is unlikely to do anything more than apply pressure for change. Barton’s Playoff Act of 2009 doesn’t actually call for the creation of a playoff; it simply calls for the end of billing the marquee BCS event as a national championship game. In any case, the conferences have a contractual obligation to the BCS system through the 2013 season. "Every year, people raise questions about it," Hancock said. "But the majority of the (university) presidents, athletic directors, commissioners and coaches continue to believe it’s the best way to select a national champion. It’s just so much better than what happened before. We haven’t found a better system."
