Why the BCS Bowls Need to Include Non-BCS Schools

[Water Pony]

The attached "Five Thoughts" on the first week of the FB season is entertaining, but read No. 5 and the writer's satisfaction in seeing Northern Illinois upset No. 15, Maryland.

This is why access should be expanded; so the Long Shots actually get a chance. With a weaker Strength of Schedule for non-BCS schools, even a perfect record (like Tulane's a couple of years ago)can't get you in.

Won't the public enjoy the David and Goliath thing in an expanded Bowl arrangement? You bet. Enjoy the last part of Number Five.

<A HREF="http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2003/5_Thoughts/Five_Thoughts.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2003/5_Thoughts/Five_Thoughts.htm</A>

[ponyte]

Tulane went undefeated (including kicking our tail) and doesn't get into the BCS cartel bowl series. A couple of years ago, a very weak Notre Dame makes it to the BCS bowl series and gets blown out. Last year Fl State makes it to the BSC based on conference guarantee. The fact that Fl State wasn't ranked (except by the BSC system, how convenient) was not a BCS concern. Nebraska couldn't even win its own conference's championship game yet got to play for a national championship. The cartel list of protecting its monopoly goes on and on. That money from the BCS flows to BCS teams and that money help support other sports. So non-BCS teams lose not only football money but other sports lose money as well. Why the NCAA allowed this cartel to function as a monopoly is beyond reason.

[GoRedGoBlue]

The point is, exclusing from the BCS necessarily hurts non-BCS teams because BCS teams use that as a recruiting advantage against non-BCS teams...it's a self-fullfilling prophesy where the BCS can then say, "See you guys cannot compete, therefore you don't deserve to be in the BCS bowls".

Duh, if we were allowed in to the party, then maybe we would be able to recruit just a little bit better.

[Hoop Fan]

I see your points, but the best arguement will never be that Florida State and Nebraska didn't deserve to play in BCS games. Those are the geese that lay the golden eggs. Everybody has to concede that the market power of certain schools will influence selections whether it be bowl games or a playoff system. The real problem that is unfair, anti-competitive and unAmerican is why should a program like Rutgers enjoy BCS money, prestige and access when a much more deserving school like BYU does not? Bad luck? Geography? Thats where the NCAA fails in it oversight of college football.

[This message has been edited by Hoop Fan (edited 09-05-2003).]

[GoRedGoBlue]

I'm tired of the argument that since these schools have more alumni, then football ratings are higher so that is why the bowls/TV want those teams over lesser non-BCS teams...that is total bunk.

If that were the case then why is MIAMI or ND or USC followed with such high esteem? Because they are WINNING programs, period.

When the argument from the BCS is made that there hasn't been a participant outside the BCS in the Four major bowls except ND since 1955, that is bogus as well...Miami, Penn State were INDEPENDENTS as was PITT.

And to the falacious argument that there were only 4 good bowls....they weren't the ONLY major bowls...up until the BCS, so was the COTTON, and to the lesser extent, the COPPER / PEACH / GATOR bowls, depending upon who was doing well in whatever conferences that year.

SO when the BCS argues that NO non-BCS school has been to a major bowl since 1955, they are forgetting 2nd ranked SMU in 1983 in the COTTON bowl, and any other schools not in the BCS AT THAT TIME, such as MIAMI, PSU, PITT, etc...

[No Cal Pony]

It is a shame that the games that was college football grows increasingly farther and farther from its roots. History has long been forsaken. I know that the big $$ schools have tried to slowly make it a "I've got mine game." This is why the BCS was created. Fairness had nothing to do with it, and now they have a wonderful lackey in Brand, who should be taken out and given a thrashing. But then again, he is a big 10 guy, and the one who protected some guy named Knight for a long time. Why??

Show me the money.

Go Ponies!

[Hoop Fan]

Guys, I'm with you emotionally about the old days, but market power has always and will always be a factor. Thats America, we better embrace that reality. Its about equal opportunity, not equal treatment. Even March Madness has a large degree of bias in the at-large selections. Every school needs to create its own market power. Like SMU did in the early 80s. Like Miami did in the mid 80s. Like TCU is trying to do now. The issue is, could Miami have become "Miami" in todays environment? The answer seems to be no. Meanwhile, Rutgers, Wake Forest and Iowa States of the world are cashing serious BCS checks.

[ponyte]

Monopolies have a good or service of which there is no close substitute product and other organizations are prevented form entering that market due to barriers. The advantage of a monopoly is that the monopoly has more market power. Monopolies in this country are heavily regulated by the government (Utilities as an example).
The BCS is a cartel that functions collectively as a monopoly. By using its advantage of market power, it can prevent non-BCS schools from successfully competing. Can non-BSC teams make it to a major bowl? Yes if they can overcome huge barriers to prevent them form making it to the bowls.

We need to win and improve our marketability. Of that there is no doubt. But we also need fair access to opportunities to improve our marketability. The BCS prevents that (as well as preventing TCU, BYU, and many others).

One may say that the BCS isn’t a monopoly but an oligopoly. If that is the case, then we have to look at the microbrewers and their success as a model for us. In other words, a niche market without a chance of being a big boy.

[Stallion]

...that's a good analysis but really quite frankly the thing that concerns me the most about the BCS is ability of the members to "tie" in anti-trust language their market power to other products. For example, the ACC, Big 12 etc have created a monopoly for a national football championship which is so popular among recruits and coaches that they can tie that market power into better bowl games with mandatory conference affiliations, expansion options for teams wishing to join BCS conferences, TV contracts, player recruitment and coaching procurement. Its similar to how Microsioft tied its marketpower in the software development market to other markets that used its software-which by the way the Courts found violated the antitrust laws. SMU may never play in a BCS bowl but we are also "locked out" of the Sun Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Independence Bowl, Ft. Worth Bowl and the Houston Bowl because of this tieing power created by the market power of the BCS conferences. An 8-3 SMU might well be attractive to one of these bowls if they were free to select the teams which would be the best option in a given year. Instead you have East Coast teams playing in West Coast bowls mandated by tied conference bowl affiliations when it otherwise makes little financial sense for either the school or the bowl. This system has disrupted the free market system for the bowls and teams to make those decisions based on more financially reasonable and efficient grounds.

[Hoop Fan]

yea, but Stallion, nobody puts a gun to the heads of the West Coast bowl reps to sign deals with the eastern leagues. If the Copper Bowl doesn't want a Big East team in a given year, they have no one to blame but themselves: why did they enter that agreement?

[Stallion]

The Big 10 doesn't play in any bowl-universities in the Big 10 do-each are separate business firms-the bowls signed the contract because of the ILLEGAL market power-that's the point-because they want to be considered a BCS Bowl not necessarily because it will assure the most attractive and economically efficient opponent. The schools are also often forced into less economically efficient bowls. If a particular conference was one business firm that would be fine because the free market system would result in the best financial alternative for both the universities and the bowl but this a conference of business firms(a contract, combination and conspiracy in anti-trust terms) which collectly forces alternatives which may not be the best financial alternative. BTW the word conspiracy has a criminal connotation which laymen may over emphasize in the anti-trust. All that is necessary to prove a contract, combination or conspiracy is 1) an agreement 2) by 2 or more persons or entities 3) to illegally restrain trade. Clearly the signed BCS agreement and Bowl affiliation agreements meet the requirements of a "Contract" or "combination" It doesn't mean that you have to catch a bunch of old men in a smoky back room seeking to destroy the non-BCS schools. Its the effect of the agreement on trade that will be focused on.

[This message has been edited by Stallion (edited 09-05-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Stallion (edited 09-05-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Stallion (edited 09-05-2003).]

[EastStang]

Look at the bowls that locked up the #4 or #5 teams from various BCS conference playing each other. Yawwwwn. Look at the Liberty Bowl, which had the MWC champ vs. the CUSA champ. Yawwwn. Wouldn't it be a more interesting match-up to have the BE #2 play the CUSA champ?

[Hoop Fan]

Stallion, maybe I am techically wrong, but there are only 4 BCS bowls that I know of: Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta. How does the desire to "be BCS" effect the decisions of the Copper, Seattle or Holiday bowls? They are NEVER going to be part of the BCS rotation that determines a champ and they know it. Therefore, I am saying that they in fact, must be acting in their economic best interest in contracting with the BCS leagues for their also rans. Now, where it gets tricky is tv. If there is some quid pro quo going on that ABC gets the contract for the national title game, as long as ESPN ensures a Big 10 also ran plays in the Holiday Bowl and is televised by ESPN then that is the definition of collusion to me.

[Stallion]

monopolists and co-conspirators are always acting in their own best interests but if it illegally restrains trade then it violates the anti-trust laws. Bill Gates and Henry Ford as well enjoyed the fruits of a monopoly too. The anti-trust laws were designed to protect the market not the monopolist and its conspirators. Take this scenario SMU finishes 12-0 in 2007 led by Heisman Trophy Winner Richuel Massey but finishes 7th in the country under the BCS formula. Are you telling me that the free market system has not been restrained if each Texas bowl is contractually prevented from inviting SMU because SMU is "locked-out" due to conference affiliation agreements? Not only that but the Humanatarian Bowl in Boise Idaho or the Silicon Valley Bowl in San Jose California would be forced by the WAC affiliation agreement to accept SMU, a school thousands of miles away when they might have a 10-1 Fresno St. or 10-2 Boise St that would sell more tickets in their own backyard even though SMU would be attractive as an undefeated team. A free market would allow each individual bowl make the decision based on its own best interests as a separate business firm.

[This message has been edited by Stallion (edited 09-05-2003).]

[Hoop Fan]

I see what you are saying, and like I said in my first post is this thread, I don't think a Miami could rise in today's environment, which makes me lean to believing a monopoly in fact exists within the BCS itself (Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta). Nevertheless, when you say a free market would allow EACH bowl (ie Holiday) to make a decision based on its best interests, I say EXACTLY. And, at least ostensibly, there is no reason to believe that the mid tier and minor bowls don't already do exactly that. Thats the point I was responding to.