[Husker] The fed bringing the heat on the BCS

[Don Mares]

I don't see this changing until the BCS Governors and University Presidents
decide its a good thing and something to seriously consider.  Until that
happens and we all sit around a table for a couple days and hash it out and
don't leave until a solution is in place.  It's not happening.

The only way that happens in the next 10 years is if Congress steps in.
Aside from that, I think we have the status quo or until the BCS TV contract
runs out and if I recall they just signed another deal for the next 6 or 8
years or something.

In my opinion, we are talking about the top X teams or in other words, the
teams that would go to a BCS bowl.  Those bowls not part of the BCS would
remain as they are and nothing changes as far as they are concerned.  For a
refresher, the BCS bowls are (Orange, Fiesta, Sugar, Rose).  Currently they
have a plus 1 format.  So all 4 bowls get their games.  Then #1 and #2 in
the BCS standings play each other at one of the sites a week later in the
national championship game and it rotates every year among the four sites.

Basically, the BCS sites get 1.25 games a year today.

There is no easy solution to this but I think nearly every fan in America
would like to see it happen.  I think most school administrators realize a
playoff TV contract would bring in a lot more money than the current BCS
bowls do.  Think NFL playoffs but college football playoffs.  Think NCAA
Final Four.  It would be big with major hype.  Much bigger than the singular
tostitoes fiesta bowl or fed ex sugar bowl is today.

Yes, there is the finals argument, travel and all that and I think
everything can be circumvented until you get to the idea you have 4 BCS
sites with controlling authority right now.  You would force them to accept
a deal where one of them would not get a game every year (in my opinion).
In effect, you would dissolve the history of the four BCS bowls and that's
just not happening.

In my opinion, about the only way to make this work is you have the top 8
teams (because it works in a playoff format)

First round is at home of seeds 1-4.  Travel argument dictates this needs to
be played at home sites of the teams involved.  Stipulation would be it must
be at a BCS school site that holds more than 65,000 or something.  So if
Boise State is in and only seats 30,000, we can do better than that.  Play
the game two weeks after the conference championships.  That would be Dec 19
this year, in some years it may interfere with Christmas.  The timing of
this game is going to be a challenge and you may have to push it out 3 weeks
after Conference championships.  Reason being, these players are in school
and they all have finals the week before Christmas.  I think you do want to
give them an extra week break as soon as the season ends now, its a long
season the way it is.  This game would more than likely be 3 weeks after
conference championships or Dec 26 in 2009 due to finals considerations.

Now, you have a final four.  This is played 1 or 2 weeks after the previous
round depending on when that is played.  Either way, this is taking place on
Jan 1.  These games are at two of the four BCS sites on a rotating basis.

A week later, you have the national championship game at one of the
two remaining BCS Sites Jan 8/9 or whatever just like we have today.

The real stickler in my opinion and I do not see how to overcome this
issue.  BCS governors have control of the BCS.  Who are these guys?  It's
the commissioners and presidents of the four representing bowls.  No way
those guys will ever agree to a deal where 1 year every four years they
don't get a game.  Essentially you are saying go from 1.25 games a year now
to .75  games a year in the future.  No way those guys ever agree to it.
Without their agreement (aka BCS agreement) its not happening.  Sure you can
say that .75 games is worth more total dollars than the 1.25 you are now
making as a whole and you will get your share.  But for that guy left out of
the party, he is going to cry foul every time and lose the tradition of
their bowl.

With all the history and tradition of the rose bowl or orange bowl or sugar
or fiesta, for there to not be a game there at that site and have it painted
on the field, no way those guys ever go for it.  I don't see a way to
overcome it with the BCS in control in its current state.

Eventually the dollars will become great enough and TV will say there has to
be a playoff or we are not giving you a contract and it will happen but
that's 10 years down the road at a minimum right now.  If that happens one
of the four leaves the BCS and goes off on their own so they can have their
rose bowl every year and the other three become the playoff sites.  Or
congress steps in but I have no idea what they are doing or arguing.

Just my opinion at the water cooler.

Don




On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:01 AM, David Strong <gbrlist at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Wha?
>
> Dave
>
>
> > From: Jon Johnston <jon.johnston at gmail.com>
> > If northern teams are stupid enough
> > to fall for a tournament like that, then we deserve to never
> > win another national championship. It's been 100 years that
> > warm-weather teams have gone to cold weather places to play
> > football, giving them a huge advantage.
> >
> > Look at your tournament in consecutive weeks. Nebraska
> > would potentially go to the Orange, the Sugar, and the Rose.
> > So, three weeks on the road against a team that's probably
> > playing in it's own state. And how many Husker fans do you
> > think can afford to make that trip three weeks in a row? And
> > how much does it cost the team to go a bowl game, and now
> > you want three of them? (Or two, or four, for that matter).
> >
> >
> > That is not a healthy format for a playoff system. The only
> > viable format would be the same as everyone else does it,
> > home field advantage, and the bowls go away because there
> > won't be money left for them.
> >
> > It's real easy until you consider logistics, then it's not
> > easy at all.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>