First the BCS screws Texas Christian...now it's costing me readers

It's a sham of a system the schools support, so it's really not a sham.

 

Flexmaster, what you say is true, but that does not jive with your assertion that TCU is "screwed" by a system it is a willing participant in.

Every year schools complain about the BCS. Well, shut up and change the system already. Or, don't complain about the results. TCU is in a league that includes Colorado State, New Mexico, UNLV and Wyoming, four teams that would -- with the possible exceptions of Washington State and Vanderbilt -- be the worst team in either the SEC or the Pac-10 if they played in those leagues. That's HALF of TCU's conference schedule being played against teams that are probably worse than ANY team on Oregon or Auburn's conference schedule.

I know TCU can't do anything about that. But again, they are a willing participant in this system. They are happy with their Rose Bowl money and a No. 2 finish.

 

Being a willing participant in the only game in town doesn't automatically justify the only game in town.

 

No it doesn't. But it does cut down your right to claim you've been "screwed" by that system. That's all I'm saying. If the BCS didn't work the way it was designed to work and that happened at the expense of TCU, then they would be screwed. But the BCS worked the way it was supposed to work and TCU is a willing participant in it, so they are not screwed.

Hell, reading comments from Patterson and TCU players, it doesn't look like THEY feel screwed. They understand how the process works.

 

What else can Patterson do? He doesn't want to come across like another whining coach from the state of Texas.

 

TCU isn't really a member or willing participant in the BCS. It's among the teams from non-BCS conferences begrudgingly being thrown a crumb in an effort by the BCS schools to keep the bulk of the bowl money to themselves.

 

I'm with you entirely, except that the thing that hasn't been brought up in this conversation is: TCU HAS done something about it. They're joining the Big East. Utah (which has had two perfect seasons the last 7 years) HAS done something about it and will join the Pac-10. You'd have to imagine Boise State thought they were doing something about it by joining the Mountain West, until BYU, TCU and Utah bailed on the conference. And if Boise State continues its run of excellence (I see no reason why they wouldn't), they'll probably make their way into a BCS conference at some point too.

 

I'm a TCU graduate and went to the Rose Bowl. I'm fine with the way the BCS game turned out. No arguments about those two teams playing in the game. My problem is people ripping TCU and saying they would have gotten hammered if the Frogs had played Auburn or Oregon. No one knows what might have happened. My problem with the whole situation was ESPN announcers saying that if Auburn or Oregon had lost on the final week, that teams like Alabama or Stanford should leap TCU and play in the title game.

 

A willing member would get a full cut of the BCS Rose Bowl money and just share it will the other MWC teams. Instead TCU shares it 18 million with all the non-BCS schools. Seems really fair.

 

They are also a member of the bowl subdivision of Division I, which can always adopt a playoff format.

 

Yes, but the move is more about access to money by going to a BCS league. But is that really any different than the NCAA basketball tournament? In the NCAA tournament, the conferences shares are distributed based on the number of teams in the tournament and how deep they go. So the Big East will get money for something like seven teams this year. Chances are several will get past the first round, which is more money for the whole league. Chances are, somebody or maybe more than one team will make the Final Four, which means a ton of money for everybody.

So access to post-season money doesn't fundamentally change by eliminating the bowl system.

Again, I may be coming across as an apologist for the bowls, but I'm not. They should do a playoff. I'm just saying the MWC made out just as well financially on this deal as they would have made out in a playoff. So they don't complain and are, more or less, fine with it.

 

Isn't that true of all conferences. In other words, doesn't Wisconsin share their share with the entire Big 10? It's just that when you are in a BCS conference, you are sharing money from seven-eight bowl appearances, including two BCS bowls and if you are not in the BCS, you are sharing money from 2-3 smaller bowls and maybe, if you are lucky, one of them is a BCS bowl.

Very similar to what happens with NCAA tournament appearances.