Non-BCS schools unite

By JOSH DUBOW, AP Sports Writer
July 22, 2003
The major college football schools left outside the Bowl Championship Series united Tuesday in an effort to get access to the lucrative postseason and reduce the requirements to belong in Division I-A.

Tulane president Scott Cowen convened a teleconference of 44 presidents from non-BCS schools and created a Presidential Coalition for Athletic Reform. The goals of the coalition are to improve access for all teams to postseason football, reduce the financial requirements for remaining in Division I-A and raise academic requirements in college athletics.

The presidents accepted an invitation to meet with representatives of the BCS on Sept. 8 in Chicago but said they were prepared to press the issue even further.




``We believe that the Bowl Championship Series is anticompetitive and has characteristics of a cartel,'' Cowen said.

``Tulane met last year with antitrust lawyers. I don't think it's productive for higher education and universities to sue each other. But with such an important issue, we can't rule out any options now.''

Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg, whose conference is part of the BCS, said the system does not violate antitrust violations.

The two major issues are the new Division I-A requirements, which go into effect in August 2004, and the postseason. The major conferences ruled out an NFL-style playoff system on Monday.

Cowen said it was not ``appropriate'' to rule out any options before the meeting and pushed for a playoff system that would include all of Division I-A. The BCS includes the champions of the Pac-10, Big 12, Big Ten, Southeastern Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference and the Big East, who all get automatic bids, and two at-large teams.

The goal of the system is to pit the top two teams in a championship game. Notre Dame, an independent, is the only school outside those six conferences to play in a BCA bowl in the first five years of the system.

``We simply want access like we have in all other sports,'' Cowen said. ``We want a level playing field. There's not a level playing field in college football. We're not looking for some handout. We're looking for access.''

Teams from non-BCS conferences are guaranteed a bid to one of the four major bowl games only if they are ranked in the top six. In 1998, Tulane went undefeated but could only play in the Liberty Bowl because it was ranked 11th in the BCS standings.

But in the 20 years before the BCS started, only one school other than Notre Dame that is not currently in those six conferences played in one of the series' four bowls.

The BCS has paid out more than $80 million to the major conferences each year, compared to about $8 million to the schools from the other five conferences.

``Let's not ask about them giving money to us,'' said Bill Greiner, the president of Buffalo. ``They want to drive people out of competition at the Division I-A level unless we come up to some standard they decide to set in terms of expenditures and attendance. That is plain flat-out wrong.''

The increased requirements for Division I-A will require schools to sponsor 16 varsity teams instead of 14; average 15,000 paid attendance per game; and give at least 200 total athletic scholarships or pay $4 million in scholarships.

Weiberg said the BCS shouldn't be blamed for the changes.

``The I-A membership requirements were voted on by the NCAA membership,'' Weiberg said. ``They were not designed by the Bowl Championship Series schools. An NCAA subcommittee created these standards.''

I wonder who was on that subcommittee. :-/ ??? :D ;D

It wasn't exactly heavily stacked with MAC and Sun Belt schools! The Buffalo president said objections to the committees plan were ignored. It was obvious at the time, the BCS had come up with a general plan (it was being discussed for a couple of years before the committe was formed) and then the committee fleshed it out. Then it was voted on by the IA schools in a governing structure in which the BCS schools have 2/3 of the votes.

Here is an excerpt from a story in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette quoting Sun Belt Commish Wright Waters about the meeting of the non-bcs presidents.

“We’ve said repeatedly that we think the focus doesn’t need to be on bringing the BCS down. It needs to be on bringing us up,” Waters said. “That’s why I think the good thing about what has happened with Doctor Cowen’s call is that it may have been this BCS issue that has brought this group of presidents together, but now the challenge is to focus them in a positive direction.
“Can we bring those five leagues to the table? Can we get in geographic regions that make sense? Can we negotiate bowls together? Can we negotiate television together? What can we do to advance our schools?”

A meeting has been scheduled Sept. 8 between representatives of the BCS and non-BCS conferences.

“The future? I’m not sure about the future,” Waters said. “I think our challenge is to be vigilant and be prepared to take advantage of any realignment opportunities that become available to our membership and our conference.

Waters said the best thing about the recent conversations among the non-BCS leagues is that they are at least showing some unity. "I think the first step is that we've got to get people in conferences that are regionally aligned that make sense."

Do you think that this could be the beginning of a realignment within the non-bcs schools for regional purposes?

Now, everyone here should know by now I would like to see a system where by the national champion is clear and identified on the field. I can't say I've got the right solution as I've seen multiple things that would work in my eyes.

But some of the arguments being touted by the non-BCS schools, IMO, are not legit nor helping their cause. I find it funny that all these schools are becoming this irate over a system (the bowls) that has seemingly been in place since college football was created. Particularly from schools that recently moved up from 1-AA. "Gee. I thought I'd be eleigible for the Orange Bowl right away, regardless of conference affiliation!"

If, after the bowls, the BCS champion played the non-BCS champion, do you think the non-BCS schools would be happy? Simple approach; guarantees "equal opportunity for #1. There. Problem solved. Oh, wait. There's the money issue! They don't just want a shot at some trophy, they want some of the money. In fact, I dare say they're irate over the national champion issue now ONLY because it involves so much money.

Funny thing, though; The BCS conferences earned that money. Don't think so? They already had the big bowl deals and the TV viewership before all this began. The BCS is little more than a hybrid television contract for those four bowls, BASED ON THE TEAMS LIKELY TO BE IN THOSE BOWLS.

Go back to pre-BCS (and bowl coallition) days. Multipile media resources identified their own national champion (and still do!). the bowl organizers simply picked the best combination of quality programs that could and would sell tickets and commercials. Many funny match-ups resulted, including the likes of #2 Ga. Tech vs. #17 Nebraska in the Citrus Bowl, or Washington and Miami unable to meet to decide a clear national champion. The only thing that's changed since then and now is that the major conferences have found a way to package their bowl games for more money.

If the matter were simply about access to the title "national champion," the non-BCS schools would be challenging the NCAA over the management of that matter. By challenging the BCS schools, they're asserting that they want some of the BCS money, whether or not they earned it. Yeah, there is a lot of money involed in college football and issues concerning taxes, student payements, etc. But that's a matter of NCAA standards and sports policies all together, not just a BCS issue. If the president of Tulane is concerned that sports is beginning to overwhelm the acadmeic priorities of his school, then perhaps they should've dropped the program. Or perhaps the BCS can simply say they're not playing for the national title, just the BCS title.

Maybe

There are some I-AA schools that think this way: Georgia Southern & Montana. They think because they've won numerous I-AA national titles, they should be immediately eligible to win a I-A title. You and I both know it isn't going to happen. There are probably some IA schools that think this way too, but most I-A schools believe you have to earn the right to play for one of the BCS bowls.


Not necessarily, Gunnerfan. I think many non-BCS schools would jump at the chance to play the BCS champion for a national Div IA championship. Money is a factor, but if TV networks would give some of these non-BCS conferences a few tv slolts, that might pacify them for awhile. It would also give BCS conferences some much-needed competition on televised games. Who wants to watch Tennessee beat up poor Vandy? Wouldn't you rather watch Ga. Southern and & Troy State duke it out in double OT??


Some teams have been wronged. TCU is one team that claim it has been wronged. It used to be in a BCS type conference when the SWC was still around, but now it's not because the SWC went under. Why do you think UConn, WVU, & Pitt are suing the ACC? Could it be that they saw themselves as possible other TCU's???

Agreed, DawgNDuckFan. As I said in the lead in, I do want a system where everyone has an equal chance to play for the national title, and I do agree that not every school is so concerned about the money. The latter issue is (IMO) the impetus for the lawsuit, if not the advertised reason.

Yeah, TCU, Tulane and Marshall have been hosed by the bowl-tie in situation. Or, to be more exact, the ranking systems. Seemingly, just adding every conference champion to the equation would resolve the issue, but is highly unlikely becuase the perception is that would not bring in much more TV dollars and thus the BCS conferences wouldn't be inclined to further divide the pot. I suspect the compromise will be a relaxation of the rankings required for participation, and/or play-in games from weaker conferences without their own championships. However, the justification for which conferences must endure the play-in games could be just as sticky an issue. The Pac 10 and BE would unlikely let conference size alone be the factor. And what happens if the champion of one of those leagues does finish the regualr season undefeated and ranked #6 or higher? Now they have to face another hurdle previously unnecessary?!

As I stated in earlier post, it is most ironic that the loudest cries for BCS inclusion (at least at the moment) are coming from Tulane, a school who essentially chose academics over athletics by voluntarily withdrawing from the SEC in 1966, two years after Georgia Tech did the same. Tulane could have stuck it out in the SEC and reaped monetary benefits similar to those currently received at "similar" schools like Baylor, Northwestern, and Vanderbilt, but elected not to do so. While Georgia Tech was relatively able to negate its ill-conceived and attain ACC membership, Tulane was never presented with such an opportunity and remains bitter over a decision that it apparently now realizes it never should have made.

Overlooked in all of this is that the BCS conferences control an enormous number of bowls besides the big 4 normally mentioned so that their 5th, 6th, etc. teams can play in bigger bowls. The non-BCS schools have no shot at these as well.

Gunnerfan, the way the formula is stacked it is virtually impossible for a non-BCS school to qualify for a championship game & so remote to rank #6 or higher that it's not worth mentioning. Marshall ranked as high as #4 in some computer rankings in its best season . . . but not in the BCS rankings.

Before posting the following comment, I want to make it clear, that I favor opening up BCS procedures, and adding a fifth bowl.

Nevertheless, I think the tactics of the non-BCS folks leave a lot to be desired, and are only stiffening resistance. To illustrate, here is Big10 comish Delany's comment from today's article in the South Bend Tribune:

"Delany seemed to stiff-arm the prospect of including all Division I football conferences in the BCS. He pointed out that the Tulanes and Southern Mississippis of the collegiate football world had not contributed to growing the tradition of the Rose Bowl or the Orange Bowl. He said that giving the 'mid-majors' a share of BCS revenue may have been a mistake, because it is leading toward those schools asking for full inclusion in the BCS."

In other words, keep it up and we'll withdraw all paychecks of any kind, and leave you to your own resources... Though cold, he is right. Who started the Rose Bowl? Who started the Orange Bowl? It is a relationship between schools who can attract viewers, their fans who want a nice newyear's trip, bowl organizers, and tv networks, determined by market forces, the very heart and soul of our free enterprise system... :)

Now, you might well ask, what better tactics might work? ...a subject for a later post, perhaps.... ;)

"If, after the bowls, the BCS champion played the non-BCS champion, do you think the non-BCS schools would be happy? Simple approach; guarantees "equal opportunity for #1. There. Problem solved. Oh, wait. There's the money issue! They don't just want a shot at some trophy, they want some of the money. In fact, I dare say they're irate over the national champion issue now ONLY because it involves so much money.

Funny thing, though; The BCS conferences earned that money. Don't think so? They already had the big bowl deals and the TV viewership before all this began. The BCS is little more than a hybrid television contract for those four bowls, BASED ON THE TEAMS LIKELY TO BE IN THOSE BOWLS. " -Gunnerfan

I completely disagree with you. The BCS conferences did not earn that money. 20 of 64 teams earned that money. Has Duke, Vandy, UConn, Arizona, Oregon St. northwestern etc... earned that money? If TCU was in the Big 12 would they not finish higher than kansas, baylor, iowa st. every year? If byu or Utah were in the PAC 10 would they not be middle of the pac and even win it sometimes (at least as much as cal, stanford, ariz, oregon oregon st.)? If Marshall was in the big east would they not be in the running most years? Hell in the last 10 years Purdue has won the Big10.

Lets be real here there are 20-25 teams in college football who are perennial winners. They are responsible for the money. The only difference between the other 40-45 bcs teams and the non-bcs teams is they have access and revenue sharing while the others don't. Its as plain and simple as that. The Non-BCS teams want that same advantage that is all they are asking for.

I don't think control would be the right word, as the bowl committees engage in contracts with whomever they wish. If the bowls feel the SECs 6th best school is more attractive for them than the MAC 3rd best, that's their call to make.

I agree with you that the formula for inclusion in the BCS is stacked, and I favor ramping down the requirements for non-BCS schools to make it in. I say take any undefeated non-BCS conference champion, or champions with 1 loss and rankings of 8 and higher. Or something like that.


on Today at 09:40:23, Cre55 wrote:



You're partially correct saying not every BCS member school "earns" their share. Except for these facts; The BCS pays out money to non-BCS conferences as a stipend to support college football, every year, guaranteed. Not much, maybe $42 million as a whole since the BCS started, but it's money to all 1-A programs. Also, if you were to add more members to BCS conferences, or swap the Dukes and Vandys of the world with Marshall and So. Miss, you'd still have to have someone finish dead last in each conference! Not even the SEC can find a home for its last place team, erego some schools are always going to float near the bottom. That's up to the conferences who they want, and many of the schools that are regarded as poor football programs more than make up for it in other sports, academics or community participation.

In the end, the schools that would likely have been going to the Orange, Rose, Fiesta and Sugar Bowls, and getting the $ for going there, are probably the same ones that in fact are going there. And those schools get the lions share of the money, moreso than their conference counterparts unless the conference rules dictate as such. And, IMO, neither play-offs nor an abandonment of the BCS will change this fact, or just barely if at all.

Now here's an example of a much more realistic and reasonable approach to getting some non-BCS inclusion in the BCS bowls. This item is taken from an interview with Benson, the commissioner of the WAC:

"In a plan presented to officials from the six Bowl Championship Series conferences in April, the WAC proposed adding a fifth BCS bowl game. Under the plan, one of the 10 bowl slots would be given to the team that had the best BCS ranking at the end of the year from the non-BCS conferences".

This would be a good start. If this bowl always produces a non-BCS victory, rankings will improve, there will be more public pressure for greater inclusion, etc...

:D

Java I agree with you that that would be a great idea but I highly doubt it happening. A 5th Bowl would mean less appeal for the "Old 4" plus it would have all the money split 5 ways instead of 4. I would personally love to see it happen but in the eyese of the BCS schools it accomplishes nothing. IMO a playoff system where the BCS Bowls plus a 5th and 6th are used as quarterfinal, semifinal, and finals venues on a rotating basis would be the best option. Again though, it means maybe a little more money for alot more contributors.