Executive Director Sorry That The BCS Played Role In Conference Realignment
by Year2 on Nov 15, 2011 1:19 PM EST
in SEC Football
Email
PrintBCS executive director Bill Hancock is sorry that chasing membership in automatic qualifying conferences was a concern driving conference realignment. He says that a goal of the next BCS agreement (the current one runs out after the 2013 season) will be to provide conference stability.
I would normally ignore something like this, but then Hancock dropped this doozy:
"The BCS is so misunderstood," he said. "It was created to match up No. 1 vs. No. 2..."
Maybe it technically was. It was also conceived as a way to consolidate money and power among the major conferences and keep it there. By having a blessed class of leagues that get the lion's share of the payout and an underclass that gets a relative pittance, you create incentives to do whatever it takes to enter (or remain in) the upper class.
BCS automatic qualifying status is just a shortcut for saying a conference is in the sport's top echelon. That perception of being important is far more valuable than an annual BCS bowl appearance.
For as much money as the BCS generates, it pales in comparison to regular season TV deals. The SEC's contracts with CBS and ESPN paid $60 million more to the conference's 12 member schools alone last year than the BCS paid out to all of the Big Six conferences combined. The SEC's prestige as a power conference allows it to rake in that kind of cash, and it would do so whether BCS AQ status existed or not.
Maybe things will calm down a bit if AQ status is done away with like Hancock suggests, but making that move doesn't do anything about the regular season TV money problem. If anything, it would heighten the importance of being in a league with a big regular season deal. Getting rid of that designation would solve the uncomfortable problem of doing away with the Big East's AQ status ("We didn't take it away from them. Look! No one has it!"), but it wouldn't stabilize conferences.
The three letters that can preserve conference alignment are not B-C-S. They are L-H-N, along with B-1-G and S-E-C. As long as Texas wants its private label network, the Big 12 will continue to exist because the Pac-12 will not expand without UT. Given that 16 seems to be the powder keg number, we'll probably also continue to have peace as long as the Big Ten and SEC do not hit it.
Reform should be on the BCS agenda. It should begin with making sure its components do not have obvious conflicts of interest, do not have laughable governance, and are not intellectually invalid. If they want to try to work in an option for conference stability they can, but it has bigger fish to fry in areas where it has more direct control.
7 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
To cut them some slack
Go back to the Bowl Alliance, or even before to Bowls choosing whomever they wanted. See how many opportunities Boise St, TCU, and Utah get then.
and to be fair
the BCS was actually created to match #1 & #2. The Automatic Qualifiers were inherited from the Bowl Alliance which were inherited from the Bowl Coalition etc. I know these are just different names for the same things but he’s actually correct.
Its not like the Bowls would be lining up for Boise if there weren’t automatic qualifiers. The fact that they won’t get an at large spot this year should tell you that.
by Mark Mandingo on Nov 15, 2011 2:21 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Bowls are always interested in who they think will make them the most money.
The only game out there that truly cares out the level of competition and who deserves to be there the most is the BCS title game.
All other games are worried about ratings and ticket sales.
Not to get overly technical, . . .
. . . but “1” is a number, not a letter.
(I kid, I kid.)
Manager, Dawg Sports, SB Nation's Georgia Bulldogs weblog.
Go 'Dawgs!
Bill Hancock is not credible
This is the guy that says the players wouldn’t give up their “bowl experience” for a shot at the championship. I know Alabama, and/or another seven or so teams who get shut out of the title game are going to be a lot happier with a pie eating contest and a tour of the local battleground memorial than a shot at the title. He’s just one of the fat dogs fighting over the NCAA bone. Why in the hell you or anything you represent is even in the conversation of how the NCAA determines a champion? The BCS is the anus of a corrupt bowl system that cheats everyone but the rich guys running it and whatever palms the grease along the way.
by s1216 on Nov 16, 2011 1:40 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I don't buy Hancock's crap at all.
It thoroughly separated haves from have nots and worsened the arms race. So many schools are on the bubble of BCS that they’ll prostitute themselves completely to get into the BCS.
by longboard8 on Nov 16, 2011 11:56 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
BCS = BS
The BCS, in my opinion, was created for several major reasons:
(1) To keep the bowls in power;
(2) To keep large amounts of money flowing to the bowls and to the school administrators who go along with it (as gifts, trips, etc.);
(3) To consolidate “power” with the more-respected/established conferences;
(4) To present an image (a false one) of a “national champion.”
The results:
(1) The bowls retain their power and keep a large portion of the money – far more than they should;
(2) All conferences lose out on what could be substantially higher payouts (not to mention fewer expenses) as compared to a possible playoff tournament;
(3) There is a clear set of “haves” and “have-nots” in NCAA football;
(4) Schools are lining up to join a depleted Big East because of its BCS AQ status, despite its incompetent leadership and mediocre football;
(5) There is far too much emphasis given to manipulated computer rankings (e.g. forced to ignore the margin of victory) and pollsters who can’t possibly have watched enough games to accurately rank the top teams (and as pointed out above may have conflicts of interest).
The BCS is not to blame for all the realignment chaos, but it has a strong role in it. The Mountain West schools that might jump to the Big East were already unhappy with their existing TV contract for that conference, and the Big East provides a potential shot at much more TV money. But the BCS AQ status contributes even more to the attractiveness of the Big East.
Looking at the major conferences that have separate 1st-tier and 2nd-tier rights (and ignoring the low Big East contract), these are the average payouts per year to the entire conference for 1st-tier rights:
SEC: $55 million
Big 12: $60 million
Big Ten: $100 million
Source: Television Contract Breakdown (Business of College Sports)
(ACC & Pac-12 have mixed Tier 1 & 2 packages; Big East TV package is not worth mentioning)
According to this post, the SEC on CBS will be a broadcast of 15 games (including the SEC championship) this year.
How much larger would a playoff payout be? Not 15 regular season games, but 15 playoff games?
The conferences should not renew the BCS contract. They should go to the NCAA and state that they want to institute a 16-team playoff tournament with 9 automatic bids and 7 at-large bids. It would still get more of the “big conference” teams into the playoff. (As a side note, if there was ever a 24-team playoff I’d advocate for all conferences receiving an automatic bid).
It would also actually do something tangible to stop chaotic conference realignment. It would give every conference a chance (but not a guarantee) that they would earn a playoff berth (the 9 automatic bids would be given to the best nine conference champions). It would mean that Boise State could stay in the Mountain West if it wanted to (and BYU might rejoin as a football-only member), and Conference USA could maintain its lineup, and the Big East …. can grab Temple, UMass, and whoever else they can persuade, I guess, or just give up on football.
The traditional power conferences would get multiple teams into a playoff tournament (my preference is for 3 teams max per conference) and receive higher payouts – the big five/six conferences would still get more money than the other conferences. But everyone would get paid.
The bowls wouldn’t get paid as much, but they could still exist outside of the playoff tournament. They could all compete to host the national championship game, but they’d be forced to give the NCAA a good deal (as opposed to the awful deals that schools participating in bowls receive now). Some bowls would die, and those would primarily be ones that shouldn’t exist anyway.
My thought on the two “mid major” football conferences (MWC and C-USA) was that they should form an alliance to grab a larger TV contract. It would never compete with the Pac-12 / Big Ten / SEC / etc. but it would be far better than what they’ve got.
With a playoff tournament, everyone can enjoy more football, more money (except the bowls), and there would be a true national champion.
The BCS needs to cease to exist. It is a cancer on college football, taking money away from colleges and keeping it with the bowls. That is not how it should be.
Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.
Recommended reading: Death to the BCS
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Team Speed Kills
Related FanShots on Team Speed Kills
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
