Sadly its not really Notre Dame's fault for remaining independent and for not joining the Big Ten where the school clearly belongs.
Its the Bowls and TV, which is what the BCS is really all about. Spare us the "BS" the BCS is trying to get the best two teams play in the same championship bowl.
Why is Boise State not playing Ohio State?
Notre Dame not only embarrassed itself last night in the Sugar Bowl, however, embarrassed the BCS or better put embarrassed the current major college football post season structure more than any time in the recent past.
It should embarrass any of us die hard college football fans for watching such a bad deal that TV has created for us.
Of course the BCS as usual may turn its back depending on the TV ratings and we will get to that in the last part of this post. I am a die hard college football fan and this game was just not fun to watch regardless if you hate Notre Dame and want to see them lose. I actually turned this game off in the second half the first time ever for any BCS game. There have been some dude BCS games in the past and managed to watch the entire games in the past.
I don't like or dislike Notre Dame and do not want to find my self filling sorry for any team playing in an over-matched game especially if the bottom line was for money.
Maybe it was the great BCS Fiesta game just two days early with such a great finish that made the next bowls more accountable or we are just looking at the other bowls with more expectations to create some form of life or excitement in a game.
I think Notre Dame is probably ready for the Big Ten and needs the nudge to get there.
The only way Notre Dame is going to ever join the Big Ten is by actions of the college football fans.
Turn the TV games off when Notre Dame is playing and we willl soon find Notre Dame needing the Big Ten.
You're right about it not being Notre Dame's fault for remaining independent. Any school, whether it's Notre Dame or Boise State, is going to do what's best for them and will go where the incentives are.
The inherent issue is that for better or for worse, the BCS bowls are geared toward the casual fan that might not watch college football until the very end of the year as opposed to those of us that follow the entire season closely. Anyone that's paid attention to college football knows that Notre Dame has been overrated for the last two seasons when you examine how they've performed against their top opponents. I'm sure most of the people on this board would have rather seen Rutgers or, if conferences were allowed to have more than 2 teams in the BCS, Wisconsin as opposed to Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl. However, it's the average "Joe Blow" off of the street that drives national TV ratings, and that guy usually only tunes in when a big name such as Notre Dame is involved.
Also, the BCS's job is to find the top 2 teams to play in the championship game. While I firmly believe that it does an awful job of doing this, it's important to note that, other than the rule that compels a non-BCS team that finishes in the top 12 to be invited to a BCS bowl, the final BCS standings serve little purpose to the other BCS bowls. Each of those BCS bowls consider the ability to sell tickets to be nearly as important as the TV ratings, so the Sugar Bowl has a built-in incentive to pick the "marquee" teams such as Notre Dame that will guarantee a sellout.
On that note, I don't blame the Sugar Bowl for choosing Notre Dame. Whether we're talking about college football or life in general, it's all about "risk vs. reward". If I'm running that bowl and I'm virtually guaranteed to make the maximum amount of money by picking a proven commodity such as Notre Dame while there's no financial upside that justifies the risk of taking a less well-known team, it's hard to fault the bowl's choice.
It's easy to say that a bowl (or in terms of expansion talk, a conference) should take a risk on an up-and-comer as opposed to going back to the same handful of power schools, but in terms of business the only reason why you would ever take such a risk is that you'd get an even higher return in the end. At your own job, if you're taking a bigger risk yet there's no chance of you receiving a higher return than if you had just made the "safe" pick, you'd be fired pretty quickly.