Sticking It to The BCS

I found this interesting.

I don’t know what to think about it really- other than the current talent allocation schematic in I-A stinks for C-USA/Sun Belt/Big West style teams. Almost any change has almost got to help Tulane.

It is clearly counterintuitive. In the sense that, for years, the lesser I-A teams have been complicit toward restricting scholarships. First they joined the BCS schools in a desire to control costs. Second, they see it as a way to level the playing field- spread out the talent. This guy argues the exact opposite- that you should democratize the process to achieve democratized results. To wit- the status quo favors large current powers- so change the status quo. Put another criteria in there: cost. Won't hurt the Alabamas competitively versus the C-USA program directly- but it will add a criteria to the status quo (a willingness to spend) that some schools might be willing to ante up to.

I dunno- but it does offer institutions a way to spend their way to a sort of excellence. But I’m not sure if the inherent, institutional disparaties between Applachian State and Yale that he illustrates are as great as those between LSU and Tulane. I mean, ASU isn’t in a cabal getting 95% of all the monies.

But I also think that just hinting at raising the expenses might force the BCS to compromise. I'm sure Alabama and LSU are not looking forward to fighting some sort of scholarship level war: 100, 150 schlorships- where would it end?

And I’m all about raising issues that cause the BCS pain: academic standards, recruiting limitations, adding "costs", anti-trust threats- to force concessions (see, for example, the fifth BCS game)