[NU Sports] my blog today

Wed Dec 3 08:39:02 CST 2008

I agree with Mark that the BCS is working as intended - which is to keep
control and money in the hands of the BCS conferences and ND.  Yes, it also
occasionally works to place the top 2 teams in a championship game, but
often it just provides a talking point for those in the media and at the
water cooler.  The nice thing for Northwestern in all of this is that the
university is part of one of the BCS conferences, the Big Ten, and therefore
directly benefits in the form of conference revenue sharing from those
lucrative BCS bowls (and OSU, Michigan, PSU, and even Illinois - last year -
have helped the conference's cause by getting 2nd at-large berths in BCS
games, netting a few million more dollars to share).  Also, as others have
noted, NU would be left out in the cold the vast majority of years if a
full-scale playoff system - how often has NU ended up in the top 16 at the
end of the regular season?  And even with a successful year like this 9-win
one, you know that the "traditional powers" will get the benefit of the
doubt and end up in the playoffs year in and year out.

The fact is that college football, with 120 I-A/FBS teams, 11 conferences,
unbalanced schedules (even within some conferences, including the Big Ten),
a well-established pecking order (traditional powers, BCS conference teams
versus non-BCS conference teams), and the fact that polls submitted by
unqualified or ignorant voters have a giant effect on the game all make this
sport much different than any other in the country.  The pro sports all have
well-established scheduling methods to keep things balanced, as well as
things like salary caps, revenue sharing, drafts, etc. to keep things fair -
and playoffs work.  Other NCAA sports have clearly defined conferences and
ways of getting into the tournament, and the ability to play multiple games
in a week and many over a short period allow those to work.  But with
college football, the system is set up to feed off of the polls, TV
contracts, and bowls, and that isn't going to change if they keep getting
fed - and they are with ESPN signing huge TV deals with the BCS, SEC, Big
Ten, etc., the Big Ten Network's success, and games continuing to sell out
and bring in profits (at least at the bigger schools).

Personally, I would like to see much of the current system remain intact but
with a Plus-One, which would in fact fit within the current scheme - I
believe it would add value to the regular season as strength of schedule
would be highly valued to get into the top 4 and would retain the excitement
that is currently there.  The rest of the bowls should stay, although maybe
minus a couple of the lesser newly-added bowls that just allow more 6-6
teams to play in December.  While it would be very interesting if the NCAA
suddenly mandated that the I-A/FBS teams split into 10 12-team conferences
and redistributed the schools to balance the leagues and then instituted a
playoff system - that will never happen given the power structure in
collegiate athletics.

The Big Ten should remain as-is unless NBC dumps ND - in which case ND will
likely come running for shelter to the Big Ten - but, like any changes to
the BCS, that won't happen any time soon (remember NBC re-upped with ND
during their worst season ever last year).  Although it would be nice to
play a full round-robin league schedule to avoid unbalanced schedules, going
to a division/championship game system wouldn't buy a whole lot for the
league, IMHO - just look at the trouble it's caused the Big XII in recent
years.

Jonathan

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Sportsbiz <sportsbiz at gmail.com> wrote:

> There has been an awful lot of BCS bashing on the list lately, especially
> for a school for which the BCS at least this season has no real meaning,
> aside from OSU getting invited.  Tom accurately points out that the Texas
> travesty is not a BCS issue but a Big XII issue, which only adds to the
> ever
> growing list of issues that Texas has with the Big XII.  Whether that list
> has grown to the point that the Horns will seriously look at alternatives
> is
> something I don't know, but I don't think that this little dust-up will be
> a
> factor one way or another.  Texas has money issues with the Big XII, which
> have been festering since it first joined the conference.  It has been
> repeatedly promised that the revenue distribution would be reviewed but it
> hasn't.  The North Division schools also have issues, although theirs are
> in
> many the opposite of Texas - they believe that they are getting too little;
> Texas believes it is giving up too much.
>
> Save your breath about the BCS.  With the new contract signed between the
> BCS and the Worldwide Leader in Sports, there will be NO change in the BCS
> format until at least 2014.  The games will be moved to the WWLS, including
> the Rose Bowl ultimately, and the Big Six conferences will continue to cash
> checks.  Whenever you think about the BCS please remember the real reason
> it
> was formed was not to match the number one and two teams in the country or
> to determine a national champion.  The real reason it was formed was to
> ensure that control of college football and the money it generates,
> particularly the bowl money, would remain in the hands of the Big Six
> conferences and ND.  Everything else is just a smokescreen.  All was done
> to
> keep the NCAA from getting their hands on the cash machine.
>
> OK, rant over and back to your regularly scheduled bowl speculation (for
> what it's worth I'm feeling better about the Outback as the week goes on,
> based on nothing much more than a gut feeling and a desire by the Tampa
> folks for new visitors with big wallets)
>
> Mark
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Tom Maycock <tkmaycock at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Leaving Texas out of the Big 10 title game because of their
> > > BCS ranking will probably doom the BCS.
> >
> > You may be right, but to be fair, that situation doesn't really have
> > anything to do with the BCS itself. It's an issue of the Big 12's
> tiebreaker
> > rules. You'd have the same debate with using any sort of poll--coaches,
> > media, computers, or BCS, to make that determination.
> >
> > Mack Brown's point of contention is probably a good one: The SEC has
> > basically the same process, but their "BCS poll" step includes a caveat
> that
> > reverts to head-to-head if the top 2 teams in a 3-way tie are closely
> > ranked:
> >
> > "The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series
> > Standings following the last weekend of regular-season games shall be the
> > divisional representative in the SEC Championship Game, unless the second
> of
> > the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest
> ranked
> > tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked
> tied
> > teams shall determine the representative in the SEC Championship Game. "
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://secsports.com/index.php?s=&change_well_id=2&url_article_id=46
> >
> > and
> >
> >
> http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=1546006&DB_OEM_ID=10410
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nwu-sports site list
> > nwu-sports at tssi.com
> > http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
> >
> _______________________________________________
> nwu-sports site list
> nwu-sports at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
>

-- 
Jonathan W. Hodges
1237 Emerson St Apt 2
Evanston, IL  60201-3577
(847) 736-2449
jonathanwhodges at gmail.com