BCS rant

[bhop]

Here's something that really hacks me off about the BCS that not many people seem to talk about. Of course, the four BCS bowl games distribute vastly more money to the participating conferences than do the other bowls (approx. $13 million per team). And of course the non-BCS teams are all but locked out of those games. But what the BCS has done that has really squeezed the non-BCS schools is to become "partners" with all of the good non-BCS bowls as well.

For example, the Cotton Bowl, which features a nice payout (about $2.5 million, I think), is technically a non-BCS bowl. But it has a contract with the SEC and the Big-12 (BCS conferences) and is therefore closed to anyone not in one of those conferences. SMU could have the dream season, go 12-0, defeat all the Big-12 schools on our non-conference schedule, be nationally ranked, and we'd still not be invited to play in the Cotton Bowl.

Now, if the BCS schools don’t want us to have a shot at their stupid national championship game, that’s fine with me. But at least give us a shot to play in the friggin’ Cotton Bowl for crying out loud!

The same arrangement (partnership with BCS conferences) exists with every one of the non-BCS bowls that features a decent payout. Is it just me, or does that arrangement effectively make all those bowl games "BCS bowls." Basically, the non-BCS conferences are left with the bottom-tier toilet bowls that don't pay anything.

A wonderful example:

Last season, the Liberty Bowl featured 10-2 Colorado State (who had wins over BCS schools UVA and Colorado and was ranked no. 25) and 10-2 TCU (ranked no. 23). Each team was paid $750,000. The Independence Bowl featured 7-5 Nebraska (unranked) versus 6-6 Ole Miss (unranked and losers of 5 of their last 6 going into the Independence Bowl). The Huskers and Rebels were each paid $1,260,970. Two teams who couldn't finish higher than 8th in their respective conferences walked away with a combined $1,000,000 more than the Rams and Horned Frogs, each conference champs. What kind of bull**** is that?

I know, I know . . . its all about who puts butts in the seats.

[ponyboy]

Nice post. And as a free market libertarian, I would seem to have to agree with your last statement about butts in the seats. But I can't. There is something outrageously unfair about this system. Seems to me either they get on with the plan and force all non-BCS schools to the next division down or they open it up and allow free access to ALL bowls to those whose onfield -- not instands -- performance merits it. It is infuriating! Let the best teams play, regardless of conference affiliation!

[Water Pony]

I agree with the unfairness, but why would the local Bowl committees (Cotton, Independence, etc.) want to give up guaranteed access to a BCS school/conference given their fan base and TV interest?

The cartel does exist but the bowls are run independently by local Chamber of Commerce types. How do you get them to change?

Can someone report on the attendance or TV ratings of these bowls (Cotton vs Liberty vs Independence)?

[Greenwich Pony]

You don't keep the bowls. You decertify them all. They are part of the reason we're in this mess now. While I understand the desire to keep the bowls within a playoff structure for tradition's sake, but since tradition, the chief selling point for college athletics has been thrown out the window for cash, I see no point in keep an antiquated and unfair system that is not conducive to the betterment of college athletics. Bowls only semi-worked with stable and sensible regional conferences; but we ditched that system for money and a pseudo-playoff. What needs to happen is all the bowls be ditched and a true playoff system needs to be adopted.

Can you think of any other sport where local yokels are allowed to impact the outcome of the championship? No, their role should be bidding to be a playoff site just as is done with March Madness, period.

[This message has been edited by Greenwich Pony (edited 07-30-2003).]

[bhop]

I recognize the financial realities and don't claim that my gripe makes economic sense. It just pisses me off that the BCS and bowl committees have created this cozy relationship that (intentionally or not) has squeezed the non-BCS schools out of any decent bowl game.

I remember in 1997, there were some Independence Bowl guys at the SMU/TCU game and the word was that if we won (and I still can't believe we didn't. . . sorry, different topic) we would get an invite to the Independence Bowl. Now, just six years later, it would not be possible for us to get an Independence Bowl bid if we were in the same situation. Its really amazing how fast the rug has been pulled out from under the non-BCS schools.

And its only now, when the non-BCS conferences have been almost totally squeezed out of the big time college football picture, that they are starting to put up a fight. It amazes me how they have just laid down up to this point. Its like they couldn't see where the wind was blowing until it was too late.

[This message has been edited by bhop (edited 07-30-2003).]

[Mike Damone]

Just out of curiosity, if a team from the WAC was to go undefeated and be ranked highly (like Fresno had the chance to do a couple of years ago), would they be able to accept one of the two at-large invitations to a BCS bowl or would they have to respect the tie-in with the Humanitarian Bowl?

[Sam I Am]

Sue the bast--ds! Of course the bowls are controlling the NCAA, and the coaches are afraid to buck them for fear of losing invitatioins to play and get the big pay outs. BUT a true playoff system would generate even more money when every playoff game mattered, and some of the same bowl people would still make their profits without having to market the games as hard as they have to do now. Go figure.

[Southland]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bhop:
<B> I remember in 1997, there were some Independence Bowl guys at the SMU/TCU game and the word was that if we won (and I still can't believe we didn't. . . sorry, different topic) we would get an invite to the Independence Bowl. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Now that this Independence rumor has swirled for a few years, let's get real... here's the backstory:

The 1997 Independence Bowl matched 9-2 LSU, who was ranked in the top 15, versus 7-5 Notre Dame...

At that time the Bowl had a contract with the SEC and an opening for an at-large.

Unfortunately for this rumor, Notre Dame had committed to the Independence Bowl the Monday before the TCU-SMU game, after the Irish had won their sixth game to improve to 6-5 (they won the last game by 1 point over Hawaii and entered the bowl 7-5).

The Irish had started 2-5 that year, and were a bit of a laughing stock. The Independence Bowl targeted Notre Dame early, because the Irish had "ruined" LSU's season a couple of weeks earlier with a major upset in South Bend. With an Auburn win over Alabama, they would get LSU (which was very likely), so they secured Notre Dame early to generate a ratings winning rematch.

I remember this well, because the Notre Dame alumni were pissed the University choose such a low profile bowl game, when they had played in the Fiesta Bowl two years earlier with a 6-5 record… I digress.

The only chance a WAC school had of going to a Bowl game was to qualify for an automatic spot that was contracted through the league (at that time the league had 3 spots). Colorado State and Air Force had Top 25 rankings, and fewer losses combined than SMU.

Our league had implemented a rule that the Division Champion was guaranteed a spot, after Wyoming had been robbed of a bowl bid the year before (they were 11-2, with an OT loss to BYU in the title game). Hence, the Mountain Division Champion would get the final bowl bid.

We needed a win over TCU, a loss by New Mexico, and a Utah win over BYU to win the division… none of those things happened.

===================

SMU actually had a lot better chance at a bowl game the following year, when the Sun Bowl was hell-bent on having a Texas school fill their at-large opening... unfortunately, we lost the two overtime games and were ineligible at 5-7... the spot went to 6-5 TCU instead (who we beat, and finished higher in the WAC Standings than), and the rest is history.

[KnuckleStang]

The playoff could be referred to as "December Derangement." Or, "December Dementia" also has a nice ring to it.

[fan]

The 1998 loss to Ole Miss was the killer for the Sun Bowl. The folks in El Paso would have loved to have us. Had we beaten USC like TCU did (I bet we would have the way USC played) we'd be singing a different song right now.