Bcs Folks Might Be In Hot Water Soon

untjim1995 · January 7, 2009

This is the exact reason that I think either the BCS will expand to include a new 12-team MWC, or they will "ask" the PAC-10 to expand to include Utah and someone else. Too much litigation risk that is still out there.

http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/11230586

untgeorge · January 7, 2009

This is the exact reason that I think either the BCS will expand to include a new 12-team MWC, or they will "ask" the PAC-10 to expand to include Utah and someone else. Too much litigation risk that is still out there.
http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/11230586

Why would the BCS require MWC to expand to 12?

Three of the top six conferences have less than 12 fb members. One has fewer than the MWC does now.

greenminer · January 7, 2009

I'm totally on their side, but what sort of argument do they have that is anything new?

Litigation, unfair financial disadvantages, antitrusts...I thought these have already been tried.

SilverEagle · January 7, 2009

I'm totally on their side, but what sort of argument do they have that is anything new?
Litigation, unfair financial disadvantages, antitrusts...I thought these have already been tried.

How about a political atmosphere (ie our new President) that is more favorable towards BCS busting.

untjim1995 · January 7, 2009

Why would the BCS require MWC to expand to 12?
Three of the top six conferences have less than 12 fb members. One has fewer than the MWC does now.

If you go to the MWC and say that you will be invited to join if you take on Boise, Hawaii, and Fresno, then the BCS just eliminated the top three non-BCS challengers to their party. That is why I think that the MWC will eventually get in to the party--and it will be with 12 teams, not 9.

NT80 · January 7, 2009

If you go to the MWC and say that you will be invited to join if you take on Boise, Hawaii, and Fresno, then the BCS just eliminated the top three non-BCS challengers to their party. That is why I think that the MWC will eventually get in to the party--and it will be with 12 teams, not 9.

Is Texas happy about the BCS selection system this year...no. It's not just the non-BCS schools that are saying the current system is flawed. The Georgia Prez to the Tech AD all want another form of determining champ. The only true way is a playoff, and with access to all 1-A schools somehow.

LongJim · January 7, 2009

This is the exact reason that I think either the BCS will expand to include a new 12-team MWC, or they will "ask" the PAC-10 to expand to include Utah and someone else. Too much litigation risk that is still out there.
http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/11230586

I don't think it'll ever happen. Some of the biggest BCS school boosters are lawyers. They will fight tooth and nail.

NM Green · January 7, 2009

Heard Beano this morning and he was talking about Texas and Alabama's hangover. Can't wait for a playoff because there would be no hangover. Everybody would be happy to be playing another game!

Of course I don't believe much of what Beano says because by the end of the show he predicted Notre Dame would go 11-1 next year only losing to USC. riiiiiighhht Beano!

GO MEAN GREEN!!!

Beat Ball State!!!!!!!!

UNTflyer · January 8, 2009

I'm totally on their side, but what sort of argument do they have that is anything new?
Litigation, unfair financial disadvantages, antitrusts...I thought these have already been tried.

There has been talk for years, but I don't think anyone has ever actually filed suit.

drex · January 8, 2009

Just what we need--Obama and the Feds sticking their nose in this situation. I think Obama will have plenty to keep him busy without getting involved in this issue.

UNT90 · January 8, 2009

And the debate goes on about who should/shouldn't be national champ. Maybe even a high profile lawsuit. Yep, sounds like the BCS is getting just what they want.