BCS Contraction???
This has been promoted to the front page
Recently while reading the California Golden Blogs, I stumbled across an interview with Cal's AD Sandy Barbour who was asked about BCS contraction...here's part of it:
Sandy question #4: What's going on with BCS contraction? Will we see fewer BCS conferences in the near future?
Response: This is on the minds of all AD’s right now, as we’re discussing the feasibility of contracting from 6 BCS conferences down to 4 within 4-5 years.
Well, I don't know what to say....I get why contraction is necessary occasionally, like right now NBA contraction is a hot topic but most people agree the season is too long and very few people care and too many team are losing money because their market shares are so divided, but in football? The NFL is expanding and the FBS/D1-A is growing so why shrink the BCS? Well, basically it all boils down to greed, let me explain.
The Big Ten and Pac12 aren't satisfied with the minor movements that occurred this summer, the Big Ten wanted Notre Dame and the Pac12 wanted the Pac16 with Texas, the state and the university (I'm obviously oversimplifying the motives but for the most part it is apt). Now that ESPN and others have quelled the great conference shift by stabilizing the Big 12, plus add in a stronger Big East with the addition of a solid TCU program, and its easy to see that the status quo may continue for the foreseeable future. However, the Rose Bowlers have decided to change the parameters of the argument by separating the haves from the have nots even further with BCS contraction.
By changing the size of the BCS from 6 to 4, it immediately benefits the "major" conferences. Think about it, 5 BCS games means 10 spots to fill, and if there are only 4 BCS conferences then its a sure thing that two teams from each conference will make a bowl game plus 1 non-AQ and an at large, this means more money for the AQs. Most agree that the Big Ten, Pac12, SEC, and the ACC are all safe, so that leave the Big 12, Big East and Notre Dame to possibly lose their AQ status. This would be a blatant attempt to force Texas and Notre Dame to merge with the only remaining AQ conferences left who all expand to 16 while allowing them to simultaneously cut the dead weigh from the AQ ranks.
While I hate these realignment posts, I'm going to simply explain the most obvious moves that could occur to the new 4 AQs (NOTE: this is just an example, I know most will disagree but that's not the point of the post).
Pac12+Texas+A&M+OU+Okie St=16
B1G+Rutgers+Syracuse+ND and Mizzou=16
SEC+Florida St+Clemson+GA Tech+Miami=16
ACC-4+WV+Pitt+UConn+USF+Lville+Cinncy+Kansas+Kansas St=16
This leaves many schools in the Big 12/Big East that CUSA and the MWC would fight tooth and nail over to get primarily Texas Tech and TCU. Sounds good though right? Could you imagine the MWC grabing Tech, TCU, Houston, Baylor, SMU, and UTEP?
Here lies the problem, before when the MW was going after AQ status they were comparing themselves to the lowly Big East but now the difference between a them and the lowest of the big boys will be even more significant. While the ACC will be significantly weaker than the other 3, the MWC would still be hard pressed to find its way into the AQ club. For arguments sake, let's say the MW does get really close to the new AQ standards like they were before this last round of expansion. What stops the big boys from simply changing the rules again, or expanding by 2/4/8 to 18/20/24? Nothing, the precedent would already be there. The Pac16 could take the best of the MWC and the SEC and B1G could take the best from the ACC and reduce the AQs down to just 3 conferences with 3 bids a piece into the BCS bowls.
This issue is setting up a bigger separation between the AQs and non AQs than the BCS could have ever imagined, and it is developing a blueprint for how the Conference Cartels can sustain their monopoly over collegiate football as we know it. My personal opinion on the subject is that either the US government should get invovled and fix this with some anti-trust laws (and that's from a libertarian so you know I think its a real problem) OR for the non AQ's to break off a start their own D1-A NCAA tournament with the MWC, CUSA, SBC, and MAC. What do you think? Is their an easy/better answer, or am I overreacting?
20 comments
|
Add comment
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
breaking away
may be the best idea yet for the Non-AQ conferences. What a grand idea for those conferences to just create a playoff amongst themselves (unless the AQs then determine that this would be a “play-in” jk). Hopefully, this is what the CUSA vs MTN WEST discussions lead to for all of the Non-AQs. I hate the exclusivity of the BCS setup. TCU going to the Big East is a ridiculous example the problem with the BCS.
If the BCS goes the route of contraction, what about those programs within the AQ conferences that are typically bottom dwellers. I was going to name of few, but thought not. Can you imagine the slippery slope contraction could create. My guess would be a breakup of the BCS before contraction would occur.
by Chris Holly Taylor on Feb 16, 2011 7:59 AM PST reply actions
16 team conferences
That is where this is supposedly heading, but I just don’t see it. Everyone wants Texas and with how the Big 10 and Pac-12 network restricts local rights Texas is not going anywhere, and the Big 12 will never go to 16 teams.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
Follow me on twitter!
I agree....
basically the only way they could do this is to ammend the rules for incoming teams with previous TV rights so Texas keeps its network but doesn’t get a share of the conference network.
Basically (and I didn’t go into a ton of detail on the specifics) contraction would tell Texas or Notre Dame that you’re either in with the haves or out with the have nots, now Texas and Notre Dame may still get in as a non AQ (what a joke) or as an at large, but I doubt they would want to be left out in the cold, even if it is for scheduling purposes (which is one of the reasons I read ND was considering joining the Big Ten if the Big East had gone under).
12 team conferences
make the most sense for scheduling purposes with conference championship games. The SEC model really has proven to work well for a 12 team conference model. The WAC bombed when they tried to go to a 16 team conference. There are more issues at play than just football even though football drives the economics.
I am warming up to the idea of a NAQ playoff though!
by Chris Holly Taylor on Feb 16, 2011 10:13 AM PST up reply actions
I agree with you about a non aq playoff so one team would get in
However, would that not add at least three more games to that scenario. mwc vs sbc. mac vc conf. usa. winners meet to see who goes to a bcs bowl and then you have extra third game?
The University of Utah is off to the Pac-12 Conference and will be in the South Division. Hopefully we will get to the first ever Pac-12 Championship Game. Jon " Bones " Jones gets his chance for the UFC Light Heavyweight Title when he faces off against Shogun Rua. Jon Jones will win.
by wolfmanshowlforever on Feb 16, 2011 12:00 PM PST up reply actions
not a "play in" playoff
it should be totally independent from the BCS AQ monopoly. Bowls games would be totally separate as well.
The winner would be the NAQ National Champion!
by Chris Holly Taylor on Feb 16, 2011 3:08 PM PST up reply actions
I can't agree with that. if your in fbs football there should be only one champion. otherwise go back to FCS.
A plus one would make most ecveryone happy except the SEC. would have worked for TCU and Utah. Not saying they would have won but they would have gotten their chance on the field.
The University of Utah is off to the Pac-12 Conference and will be in the South Division. Hopefully we will get to the first ever Pac-12 Championship Game. Jon " Bones " Jones gets his chance for the UFC Light Heavyweight Title when he faces off against Shogun Rua. Jon Jones will win.
by wolfmanshowlforever on Feb 16, 2011 10:06 PM PST up reply actions
FYI, the plus one
was officially proposed by the SEC and ACC who believed they only needed 4 conferences to get it started, the Big East signed on but the Pac10 and Big Ten did not (they were worried about the Rose Bowl), and they convinced the Big 12 commissioner that it was in their best interest to turn it down too, only to raid that conference by taking Colorado and Nebraska 2 years later…this is why I hate Dan Bebee.
how many years ago was that? the sec proposing the plus one?
i think mike slive has changed his mind considering the sec has won the last five BCS CG’s. if the pac-10 and big ten turned it down that was a bone head decision on their part and i’m sure they have changed their mind about that. larry scott and jim delaney can’t be that dumb can they?
The University of Utah is off to the Pac-12 Conference and will be in the South Division. Hopefully we will get to the first ever Pac-12 Championship Game. Jon " Bones " Jones gets his chance for the UFC Light Heavyweight Title when he faces off against Shogun Rua. Jon Jones will win.
by wolfmanshowlforever on Feb 17, 2011 10:46 AM PST up reply actions
Just set up a playoff
Invite all conference champions, indluding the BCS conference champs. Teams that get invites to the BCS games (and possibly the next tier of bowls, too) will decline a playoff invite (like teams declined the NCAA tournament in favor of the NIT back in the day), but the tournament champ will still be the official FBS champ. Eventually some relatively low-revenue AQ conference champion will accept the NCAA bid (and probably win the tournament), and that’s the beginning of the end of the BCS.
yes to the playoff, but as far the 16 team conferences...
I can see it working, play all seven in your division plus 2 in the other but instead of home one year and away the next it’d be home in year 1 and away in year 5, this way a 4 year Senior plays every conference team in football guaranteed once in his four year career. It could work, but basically it would be like the divisions kind of already are compared to the old way of playing everyone every year. Conference in name only…I could see that but the CCG would basically be a glorified play-in game like the current MWC/CUSA proposal which I’m not against, so I’m pretty sure it would and could work but lets hope it doesn’t come to that.
You're not the only one that noticed this
ESPN and the bowls hate the idea of super-sized major football conferences, and they’re a scheduling headache (or a conference in name only; the Pac 16 would have been the Pac 8 and Big 12 expats + Arizona Schools with an annual cross-division game and a championship game). Unless someone can really make more money setting one up — and not just a little bit more, either — then they’re not happening.
Good Post Tower
Although being a Tech grad & BSU grad not sure I want my alma maters in the same conference (e,g. MWC).
I realize that I am biased with the following statements, but I think Tech stands to bump Okie Lite if the Pac 16 occurred. Okie Lite’s one main pro being T. Boone’s money and being tied to OU.
Tech’s pros being large alumni population in the state of Texas, especially DFW (TV $$$), a larger endowment (3X larger systemwide), Tech has a Med School & Law School (OSU has a Health Sciences, but does not offer a MD), Tech is approaching Tier I status, Tech renews rivalries with ASU & UA & the front runner for the new AD at Tech is the Assistant Director of the Pac 12. Pac12 places large value on Education and Tech beats OSU in that category, not mentioning it provides much more TV sets to the deal.
Again I am biased, but I think that OSU has less to offer to the Pac 16.
Thanks, but...
(NOTE: this is just an example, I know most will disagree but that’s not the point of the post).
like I said I just used some common popular theories when getting into academic and political possibilities there are just too many options. But Tech and Okie St could obviously be interchangeable in the Pac16/MWC.
So if this starts going down...
…what stops the Big XII and Notre Dame football plus, say, BYU, coming together to bump the conference back up to 12? Not ideal for ND, but the Big XII is friendly to schools with their own media empires, and Texas, OU, A&M, ND, BYU is a pretty strong hand.
ND having no interest in joining a football conference
… and more lucrative options if it chose to join one (namely, the Big Ten, which has a lot of respectable options for a 14th if ND is the 13th).
You're right, ND would join the Big Ten as of right now...
but if they got their own network like Texas they would never give that up so then the Big 12 would be a viable option but I would assume they would only do it as a football only and stick with the basketball only schools of the Big East in all other sports if there was a split. Texas makes more money in the Big 12 than any school in the Big Ten does (currently), and ND would want to have that sort of deal, especially with their history of independence I bet that would be a more attractive offer to them.
can't split
sports between D-1 conferences (unless a conference doesn’t have a d-1 championship in a sport….like Hockey for example)
But I still think the Big 12 would be the #1 choice for ND if they ever joined a conference because of the media rights would be more valuable if they got to keep them than giving them to the Big 10 and the Big East just doesn’t make enough.
Colorado Rockies correspondent at My Team Rivals (www.mtrmedia.com/rockies) and my own site Rockies Reporter (www.rockiesreporter.wordpress.com)
If the Big East fb and bb schools split into two separate conferences...
ND could join the Big 12 as a football only and stay in the Big East in all other sports like how Hawaii is playing fb in the MWC but in the Big West for other sports because the Big West doesn’t sponsor football (who would be all basketball schools like St John/Providence/Georgetown/ect)

by 






















