clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Bill Hancock Responds To Revenue Disparity Within The BCS

New, comment

Recently Arent Fox put together a chart that focused on the disparity in revenue with the Mountain West and WAC teams that participated in BCS games in comparison to the Big East and ACC teams.  The BCS recently responded to this chart with some fun quotes:

"It's important to remember that the BCS would not exist without the AQ conferences and schools; they have sowed for decades and now everyone is reaping.  College football has the most compelling regular season of any sport. It has a unique bowl system that benefits thousands of students and fans every year. I don't know why anyone would want to monkey with either of those."

I totally agree with the first statement that the current BCS conferences made the BCS and bring the fans which means more money for these bowl games that are in the business of making money.   Yes, the college football season has the best regular season because there are a so few games, but the bowl system is a joke.  These bowl games are exhibitions and some schools lose money in these games if they do not sell all of their tickets. 

All of the bowl games are a business and are in the business of making money which is why the International Bowl in Toronto folded after a few short years.  A lot of these people who are in charge of these bowl games get six figure salaries to put on a party that concludes with hopefully a good game.  That money is why these bowls do not want a playoff because their cushy job will be in trouble.

Now for the gem on the money talk straight from Bill Hancock himself:

"As for the revenue, each conference team that qualifies automatically brings in approximately the same revenue. Each team selected at-large by a BCS bowl brings in exactly the same revenue


Of course, the five non-AQ conferences have decided to share their revenue. That's the decision they feel is best for them.

Yes, each team does bring in the same amount of money for their bowl game and it is unfortunate to the Mountain West and the WAC that non-BCS teams share their share.  In 2004 that was not the case when Utah became the first outsider to make a BCS game.  This is all speculation, but the vote to have all non-BCS team share their money with the five non-BCS leagues would have been supported by all six leagues, Notre Dame, and then every league besides the WAC and the Mountain West.  

The BCS schools receive their share no matter what, so why not vote for the have-nots to share the money five ways instead of going straight to the league that qualifies a team.  Then the rest of the non-BCS most likely would never get a team in, so try to get the most money as possible.  Also, the quote sounds as if the non- BCS were to vote on the decision of sharing money by themselves.  Which would have been a 3-2 vote with only the WAC and Mountain West voting to allow each conference to keep their share.

Here is another quote that makes this more clear coming from Bill Hancock regarding the non-BCS sharing the revenue instead of giving it all to the league that qualifies:

The Sun Belt Conference, Conference USA, Mid-American Conference. Mountain West Conference and Western Athletic Conference have elected to pool their revenue and distribute it under a formula that they have developed... The decision to share revenue-and how to allocate it-was made, not by the full group of 11 BCS conferences, or by the six conferences that have earned annual automatic qualification, but by the five non-AQ conferences.

This next quote really gets at me with the contract talk between bowls and teams:

"As you know, there are two ways for a conference to earn an automatic BCS berth for its champion: one is for a bowl to contract with the conference. Any bowl can contract with any conference of its choosing. The other is for the conference's on-field performance to meet the three-pronged metric that was established by all 11 conferences unanimously: ranking of the conference's highest-ranked team, ranking of all the conference's members and number of teams in the top 25."

For the longest time my opinion about BCS inclusion was that there was a qualification process to earn an automatic bid for a BCS game.  Recently there has been talk about the ACC being able to keep their BCS bid because they have a contract with the Orange Bowl even though they currently do not fall within the criteria to earn an automatic bid.  

The problem looks to be with the decision to share the BCS money earned by non-BCS schools equally rather then reward the single league that earns their BCS spot.  

Follow Mountain West Connection via Twitter and Facebook for news quick hits and random nonsense.