Flush with success from the 2008 season - culminating with Utah's undefeated run and No. 2 ranking in the final AP poll - the Mountain West also managed to get the backing of a few congressmen. Its proposal seeks to use as much of the existing infrastructure as possible, with a few add-ons.
You can read the entire proposal, but here's the highlight:
-
Amending the automatic qualifier standard (so the MWC could be let in, of course)
-
Adding a fifth bowl to the rotation
-
Creating national semifinals, to be played a week after the New Years Day bowls
-
Pitting the semifinal winners in the national championship game, played a week later
-
Using a committee to select the 10 BCS teams (and ditching the BCS standings, putting the Guru out of business)
The MWC wants the proposal discussed at the BCS meeting next month. And ACC commissioner John Swofford, no doubt under some political pressure, said the proposal will get a "full airing."
So what's going to happen?
Nothing. Or not much, other than that there will be "continued discussions" about a new format. There are simply too many things at work here against this proposal, or any other proposal.
First, the BCS conference schools and Notre Dame, the big power brokers, like the way things are right now. And so do the smaller conferences that probably will never get a shot at a BCS bowl in the system proposed by the MWC, especially the WAC, the forefather of the MWC that has benefited enormously from the current BCS arrangement.
Second, there is no real political will behind this. The nation is in crisis, college football is not going to be a priority in an environment where unemployment is about to hit 10% and the Dow Jones is heading toward 6,500. Any politician talking too much about this risks being viewed as out of touch with reality. That's why you're not going to see much of a reaction out of any senators, let along President Obama.
Finally, that the proposal comes from the Mountain West actually de-legitimizes it. This sounds too much like a grievance filing immediately after one has been wronged. The MWC conveniently picked and chose whatever data suited its argument. As you can see from this table compiled by our friend Ben Prather, the MWC really is the seventh-best conference over the past four years, when objective and more robust data were used.
But putting aside all the machinations of the BCS, does the MWC proposal have merit?
Not much. Certainly not enough to warrant its adoption.
Beyond the arbitrary automatic qualification process, adding a fifth bowl is wasteful and unnecessary. But the biggest problem is having an eight-team playoff. It's simply impractical from a logistical standpoint. It's even more impractical when you try to jam it in at the end of the bowl season.
Keep in mind the number of people that need to be moved around for these bowl games. Going to one bowl game is a huge expense, even in a healthy economy. Going to the equivalent of three bowl games in three consecutive weeks will bankrupt most people, those who are stupid enough to try it. Given the current economic climate, that's a deal breaker right there.
The most ludicrous part of the proposal, however, is the concept of a 12-man committee. This idea is considerably worse than the BCS standings. To have 12 people, each with a vested interest, to vote on the teams that would divvy up nearly $100 million is insane. Even the coaches poll, fraught with conflict of interest, is far superior to this model - and that is merely one-third of the BCS standings. Just imagine the horse-trading that'd go on in that committee room.
At the end, the BCS commissioners will kick this proposal around, spew out a few platitudes, and feed it down the shredder when everybody else leaves the room.
Unfortunately, that's where it belongs.
