Exactly.

Why should the big boys, who earn most of the money in the first place, just get it taken away from them and shared with all the little guys by the NCAA?

Well put, Gunner.

The BCS school presidents / BCS bowls / BCS conference offices will fight to maintain the status quo, even though it has lost all credibility, until they see a [financially] better system offered to them (and act on their own volition) OR until they have a different system shoved down their throat by legislation.

The latter option still sounds unrealistic, however, wasn't the creation of the NCAA mandated by the Federal Government during the Teddy Roosevelt administration to rescue football, via adoption of enforced rules ? If I am correct on this point, then there may be some legal precedent for legislative intervention, though that is far from reaching a critical mass at this point.

The NCAA just doesn't have the leverage in any way to take back control of Div I-A football... Miles Brand has his detractors, but he did stick his nose out with regard to Bobby Knight (while President of IU), and got involved with expanding the BCS to 10 teams with more mid-major representation last spring. In both cases, he was in a position to act with some power / leverage, and not be spitting into the wind.

For the NCAA to re-assert control, it would first need to assemble sufficient leverage (i.e. a proposal for a playoff system, with big bucks from TV all lined-up, but with the condition of abolition of the BCS framework, and acceptance of the NCAA as the sanctioning body for championship seeding, PLUS a bit of a legislative mandate [to act as a hammer in related negotiations]).

I don't think the NCAA in position to move yet, but that could change in the not-too-distant future. ABC and AP both have backed away from the BCS, and its credibility is kaput.

It would be helpful if college football fans boycotted the proceedings, until the system is fixed. It seems quite possible that TV viewers will start to reject (in terms of lower ratings) all but the #1-#2 match-up. That might compel the bowls to seek a system that makes each of the games more meaningful, which would inherently result in greater viewership and more TV revenue.

Nah........

Well said, Mr Ouija. :) You're absolutely right.

Excellent points throughout, Gunner. I will just say that the NCAA doesn't need to have everyone on board. The Big Ten & Pac Ten weren't initially on board with a BCS type championship initially, but they inevitably had to go along. Once the NIT got started in the '30s, the conferences, which for the most part refused to participate, had to come up with their own basketball tournament. Although it took time, eventually there was a single national championship torunament. If enough BCS conferences see the potential for greater revenue in a play-off & it gets off the ground, the others will eventually joinin.

Agreed, Friar, only the economic and functional scales of football differ slightly from basketball. AS you said the Big 10 and PAC 10 weren't thrilled with the BCS to begin with, Thus as it continues to get worse there's all the more reason for them to drop out, essentially signaling the need to help define a national champion isn't there. I also feel that if those two conferences took this route, they wouldn't be alone.

Does the NCAA need everyone on board? Nope, but the make up of who is on board impacts the viability of the effort. If the NCAA were to coordinate a playoff for 1-A without the current BCS conferences, it wouldn't pay as well, draw as much attention and eventually would be folded into 1-AA or something like that.

To achieve consensus it would take something that ensures the power conferences retain their current financial and social status above the other leagues. The basketball tournament with it's volumes of participants and pay-for-performance set up allows the cream to rise to the top and ultimately justify the power conference's willingness to provide equal opportunity and reward. An 8 team playoff in football wouldn't have that same edge unless there was BCS-like assurances for those power conferences. Even then, if the Big 10 were to earn slightly more money than at present even if they're only representative lost a first round playoff, the prospect the other conferences gaining so much ground in revenues and image might be cause alone not to pursue this prospect otherwise we'd have seen more options like this.

Bottom line, the BCS may come and go but I don't think there's enough energy to shake the status quo in how big time college football rewards revenue. And as a result, the post-season won't change too dramatically either.

Granted, I was wrong once last year, too!! ;)

I don't really think that the current BCS situation is analogous to the circumstances posed at the dawn of the 20th Century that prompted the creation of the organization that would come to be known as the NCAA...granted, TR was undertaking some well-fashioned political grandstanding (as he was apt to do), but I also believe that there were several highly-publicized instances of individuals dying as a result of injuries sustained on the playing field. Also note that this occurred amidst the backrdop of the "yellow journalism" of the Hearst press and the "Progressive" era and that the "amateurs" of the day were primarily from the elite social class...I'm not sure what political undertones could be invoked by Washington to intervene in the BCS situation (e.g. "antitrust?" "states' rights?")...granted California and Texas are much more heavily-populated than the "usual suspects" of proposed NCAA-related intervention (Alabama, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, etc., etc.)...

I believe your history is essentially correct, Mr. Ouija, regarding the creation of the NCAA. My alma mater was one that dropped football somewhere in the early 1900s due to [supposed] excessive violence in the game. I have no idea how rampant a problem this was, but incidents of deaths on the field were cited by various institutions as pushing the collegiate hierarchies to consider pulling the plug on football.

This clearly is NOT analogous to today's situation, however I mentioned it only as a precedent for legislative oversight.

Wasn't it this time last year when Scott Cowen of Tulane managed to have congressional hearings regarding exclusion of schools from non-BCS conferences, and various grand-standing politicians made some veiled threats against the BCS structure ?

The result was that the BCS was forced to sit up and take notice. Adding a bowl and a 9th and 10th team, starting next year, with greater access possible for I-A teams from non-BCS conferences.

Granted this was not a terribly significant format change (about as small a change as the BCS powers could get away with), but it did appear to be the result of succumbing to political pressure.






i