[NU Sports] could the BCS form its own division?

Mon Nov 9 11:15:23 CST 2009

Good thought, and I've thought of this as well.  In fact, ESPN ran a piece
earlier in the year to this effect and even had a mock draft of 40 teams to
include (although it's obvious the 6 BCS conferences and their 65 teams plus
Notre Dame would be the ones in the mix).

Here are the 2 problems:

1. The BCS schools rely on the "mid-majors" for home games (revenue) and
wins.  Big schools need 7+ home games per year to fill the seats and bring
in revenue - the fact is that ticket sales are still the major source of
revenue for most schools.  See the following chapter in the Knight
Commission's latest report on the economics of collegiate athletics (the
entire report is a good read):

http://www.knightcommission.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=367:3-revenue&catid=53&Itemid=87

Also, the "mid majors" allow the BCS schools to load up on wins and pad
their stats.  It allows them to get to bowl games.  Note that I'm not
complaining since NU is as guilty of this as most other teams.

Finally, don't forget that the "mid majors" are, in fact, benefiting from
this arrangement.  They get a token amount every year from the BCS pie and
have their own (admittedly lower tier with lower payout) bowls.  AND they
get to go to the big schools and get big payoffs every year, which help keep
their athletic departments running.  Delaware State even took a forfeit this
year for going to play Michigan in order to get the paycheck (they had a
conference game scheduled for that date but went to Michigan anyways - and,
of course, they were pasted by Michigan).

2. Such a change would require a vote of all of Division I (like when
I-A/I-AA split in 1978).  The vast majority of members (there are upwards of
320 schools) are not BCS conference members in football and likely wouldn't
let this fly since it would be purely a money move and they would never have
a shot of sharing the pot.  In fact, this is the same reason why a playoff
won't fly - because the membership would never let such a playoff happen
without serious revenue sharing, something the BCS conferences don't want to
share.

So, instead, we're stuck with an unofficial pecking order that everybody
knows and nobody can do anything about.  Don't expect anything to change
because I don't think that anyone will suddenly become generous for the sake
of fairness.  It's interesting that people go nuts about it in college,
while there is a certain pro sports league (baseball) that has a huge
disparity in revenue between some teams (NY vs. Kansas City, for instance)
that directly affects competition, yet everyone knows there's no real
solution there with the well-off owners unwilling to give up their big piece
of the pie.

Jonathan

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Arthur Miller <artmiller_news at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Mark, do you think there's any likelihood that the BCS conferences would
> ever withdraw and form their own "division"?  Every year, there seems to be
> more and more of an outcry from non-BCS schools, politicians, and the media
> about revenue sharing and the lack of "fairness" in the bowl system.  What
> if the BCS conferences decided to take their ball and go home: create their
> own division, play games only among themselves, and define their own
> postseason structure?  Do you think this would be bad or good?
>
> Personally, I tend to think this would be a good thing, even if it meant
> we'd have to trade nonconference games against MAC or I-AA teams in favor of
> fellow BCS schools.  The BCS schools are, by and large, those schools that
> have been playing college football the longest.  They have the most
> invested, and can take the most credit for its current popularity.  Even
> though NU hasn't historically dominated the Big Ten, we can take credit for
> being part of that history.  I don't find it obvious that we should have to
> share revenue with any school who decides it wants to play I-A
> football--there are too many programs as it is, and the gap in resources
> between the top programs and bottom is tremendous--it makes a joke of the
> idea that we are all at the same "level".  If the NFL does not allow just
> any football club to join, why should the BCS conferences be forced to share
> millions in bowl revenue with the likes of Boise State, who has been playing
> at the I-A
>  level since only 1996?
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 11/8/09, Sportsbiz <sportsbiz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Sportsbiz <sportsbiz at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NU Sports] Can this day get any better???
> > To: "Jonathan Hodges" <jonathanwhodges at gmail.com>
> > Cc: nwu-sports at tssi.com
> > Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009, 8:45 PM
> > Not that i necessarily want to turn
> > this into an entire thread rehashing the
> > relative merits or lack thereof of the BCS, but I felt
> > compelled to respond
> > to the idea that the impending mess posed by the
> > possibility of an
> > undefeated TCU (not so likely with Utah left) and Boise
> > State (likely since
> > outside of Oregon they don't play anybody) and a bowl
> > appetizing Miami,
> > which while they don't travel well, the Florida bowls still
> > love the Canes.
> > Investigations by Senator Hatch or the House Ways and Means
> > Committee which
> > is investigating the NCAA's tax exemption and has made
> > noises about taking
> > on the BCS as well, don't particularly bother the
> > presidents of the BCS
> > schools, which is where the power lies.
> >
> > There is no, I repeat NO, sentiment for a playoff of any
> > kind among the
> > overwhelming majority of BCS school presidents and that
> > includes a plus one
> > format.  No amount of fan wailing or Senate saber
> > rattling will change
> > that.  The presidents know what power and money they
> > wield through the BCS
> > system and have absolutely no intention of giving it
> > up.  When a plus one
> > format was raised at the last BCS Commissioners meeting,
> > the only president
> > who indicated an interest was the president of Florida, who
> > was joined by a
> > couple of other SEC presidents.  The Big Ten, Big
> > East, Pac-10 and Big XII
> > are nearly unanimous in opposition.  Don't know about
> > the ACC but they're
> > irrelevant at this point given the stance of the other
> > four.
> > If a major legal movement that has substance gets underway,
> > the BCS will
> > simply dissolve and we'll all go back to the system in
> > place before the BCS
> > began.  There are a number of presidents who would
> > prefer that anyway.
> >
> > At its heart, this is an argument about power and money, in
> > that order.  The
> > BCS presidents have a disproportionate say on matters in
> > Division I board
> > discussions at the NCAA and they are not about to give that
> > up either.
> > Football means revenue and revenue means power.  When
> > only 18 schools have
> > athletic departments that are revenue neutral or positive
> > without a subsidy
> > from the school's general operating budget, you can be sure
> > that no
> > president is inclined to upset the apple cart no matter how
> > rosy a picture
> > ESPN may paint of the payoff from a true playoff.
> >
> > Sorry for the long message but once I got started I
> > couldn't stop.
> > Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nwu-sports site list
> nwu-sports at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
>