BCS the Big Concocted Stinkpickle

Yet again, we have all become victims to the inept system that is the BCS. Every year the only people we hear defending it are those who are paid by the BCS. A system built on greed and dedicated to the proposition that the rich should get richer even if they haven't done anything to warrant it. It is the anti-meritocracy, the equivalent to members of the communist party in the Soviet Union becoming the only upper-class in the nation, simply because they were, because they belonged to the party (like say a Baylor).The first argument for the BCS is that it is the best system to match up the 2 best teams in college football that there can be, because the athletes grades would suffer if the season was expanded by a playoff.1aa. They have had a tournament for years and it works fine and some of the finest academic institutions in the country belong to this league. The truth is that the BCS is intent on creating an artificial divide between the haves and the have-nots, because they know that the difference in talent is not as great as the myth that they constantly perpetuate and if the "mid-majors" were left to their own devices, the power dynamics would shift over time as they always have (remember the military academies used to be powerhouses as well as many of the smaller schools in the midwest). Look at what Gonzaga has done for there basketball program without a system like the BCS stacking the odds against them. Utah was able to rise and compete on the national level, Loyola Maramount, UNLV the list goes on.The next argument is that it creates controversy and hence is good for college football.Rebuttal- Doesn't March Madness create a lot of buss with Cinderella teams coming out of no where every year and isn't that much more exciting then having the same old-BCS teams going to the same games every year? I want to see young innovative coaches implementing new exciting schemes in the mix! Wouldn't it be great to see if Boise State could win the whole thing or if Utah would've done it two years ago? This is what made the movie Hoosiers so compelling, a small school with big heart and a great coach, playing a Powerhouse, the David and Goliath story, retold every year.Next we're told that these smaller teams couldn't compete with the "big boys" and hence they don't deserve to be there. "Maybe if they would put real teams on their schedule", we are often told.The truth, however, is that the so called "big" schools are afraid of putting these "mid-majors" on their schedules. Think about it. Does anyone want to play Boise State this year? Oklahoma is gotta be shaking in their boots. They have nothing to gain, because they have created the perception that the WAC is so much worse than the BIG 12 so if they lose, they look bad and if they win, even though beating a good team, they are told they were supposed to win. When the "bigger" conferences schedule these teams, they will often only do it if is a 2 for 1 deal, therefore stacking the odds against the smaller school. Many won't play unless it is a deal requiring the unfortunate non-BCS school to play only at their place, like Utah at Michigan. But we see that when BCS schools go into non-BCS stadiums, they often lose. Look at Utah beating California and Texas A&M two years ago. In its glory days, BYU routinely stuck it to BCS foes coming into Edwards Stadium. Miami, Penn State, Texas, Notre Dame, Texas A&M are a few examples.Well why don't they play in a real conference? I hear this one a lot.This is because the BCS schools have contempt for non-BCS schools and don't want to elevate them. When you think of BYU - Arizona State or BYU - Washington or BYU - Oregon, aren't you conditioned to think, well those PAC 10 schools are much larger programs? Come on you think that don't you? Well consider this, BYU's attendance, which has dropped off the last 5 or 6 years because of the damage the BCS has done, was at 60,524 this year. There were only 3 PAC10 schools higher than that; USC 91,480, California 62,951 and UCLA 60,676 so UCLA only averaged 150 more per game. Utah's attendance (and they are known for being fair-weather fans) was higher than 3 PAC 10 schools. So there is more interest in BYU and Utah than many BCS programs (come on, I go to Uconn, but you can't tell me they are more deserving of access to the BCS than BYU), but these conferences don't want them a part of theirs, because that would elevate their status and they would have to compete for recruits. Look at Ben Olson, he went to UCLA over BYU (even though he is LDS), because he wanted a chance to at least compete for a title.The argument I was recently presented with by a Uconn student, who defended the BCS was this, "you make some good points, but these schools don't belong to conferences that are steeped in tradition, and have played one another for over 100 years, like say the BIG 10".It baffles the mind, it really does. Don't these people think for themselves? With the Internet, information is just a click away. Don't they know that the University of Utah was founded in 1850, before ANY PAC 10 school and BYU in 1875 before most of them. BYU and Utah were playing against one another in 1896 before UCLA was even founded in 1919!The bottom line is this, either you are division 1a or you are not. This is the only sport with no legitimate championship. It is a total joke that any team in sports can go undefeated and not have a championship or the right to earn it on the field! What is the point of playing, why don't we just hold a vote on the Internet, which team is the most popular each year? Is this football or professional wrestling?Clint