Since the BCS was dicussed recently and the Mountain West Conference reluctantly decided to sign the new agreement I've been thinking about the BCS a little bit this week. I can't believe I'm even going to present this argument but can the BCS be a good thing for the smaller conferences compared to the way things used to be? Before you think I'm crazy, just think about it for a minute.
Before the BCS existed each conference had affliations with certain bowl games (still exists in the current system). The Big 12 Champion went to the Orange Bowl, Big 10/Pac-10 Champion in the Rose, SEC to the Sugar. These affliations still exist. However, the difference is this past year my own beloved Utah Utes played in the Sugar Bowl. In 2004, my Utes played in the Fiesta. As I thought about the BCS this week I realized that under the old system the Utes wouldn't have had either of these opportunities. They would have been stuck playing in the Las Vegas Bowl or something similar because the prior system did not allow any outlet whatsoever to play in the big ones.
I'm not saying the BCS is fair or that I'm in favor of it. The point I'm trying to make is that allows more access than existed prior to its existence for teams like Utah and other non-BCS conferences than existed in the old bowl system.
No comments:
Post a Comment