Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skipaway
Why would people bother helping the non-BCS teams? What did they bring to the table? More poor people to share the wealth?
|
Because they're part of the same level of play as those "uber awesome" BCS teams. Plus it's not always the fault of the non-BCS team that they're not in a BCS conference.
Want to know the real reason Baylor is in the Big 12 instead of say TCU? Because Ann Richards, a Baylor alum, as governor of Texas at the time the SWC disbanded and UT and A&M were heading to merge with the Big 8. Richards basically told Texas and A&M that if they didn't take Baylor with them, they'd lose their state funding. The same reason is why Texas Tech is in the Big 12, because some of the prominent people in the state legislature at the time were Tech alums.
Should be it be TCU's fault to lose out on the millions of BCS dollars all because of who was at governor at the time of the Big 12's formation? I'm not sure the circumstances of other schools, but I'm sure TCU's case isn't an isolated case of politics getting in the way of college football. Heck, I know because of politics, every time the MWC talks of expansion, UNLV is required to bring up Nevada for inclusion no matter if it wants to or not because of the state politics.
The other part is the fact that there's no set requirements that say that if a conference does X, Y, and Z they can become a BCS conference as well. Or if a BCS conference does A, B, and C, they lose their BCS status. The fact that it's a rigid system and doesn't allow for flux is another reason for the detest of it.