thebiga:

malaisej:

Why couldn't the BCS force each conference participating in the potential big pay day to play eachother in the nonConf sched?

To put it simply, this doesn't happen because the people who run the BCS aren't stupid. 

Do you know who comprises the BCS?  It's the chancellors and ADs of the conferences (and ND).  In other words, they are people who already control scheduling.

The BCS wants their 5 games played in January to be the 5 most important games of the season.  Why would they give the public anything in September that could ruin a game in January?  That doesn't make sense.  The BCS makes no money off of any games played in September. 

It's why the OSU-USC game this season is so rare.  If those 2 meet up again in the Rose Bowl, it will take some luster off that game.

Below is exactly who runs the BCS and it includes the Bowls also.  So yes, the bowls want the games to make as much money as possible, but with the matchups we have gotten the last couple of years, I wonder how the bottom line is doing?  I know the contracts are setup ahead of time, but if the games outside of the NC game continue to be dogs, the advertising dollars could shrink enough to where something may change.

I guess the only hope is to have completely awful games other than the Champ game for a couple of years to drive down advertisers, and maybe then the system will get shooken up. 

But I see your point, the people with their hands in the cookie jar, own the cookie jar.

BCS Governance
The BCS is managed by the commissioners of the 11 NCAA Division I-A conferences, the director of athletics at the University of Notre Dame, and representatives of the bowl organizations. The conferences are Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt, Pacific 10, Southeastern and Western Athletic.

The conference commissioners and the Notre Dame athletics director make decisions regarding all BCS issues, in consultation with an athletics directors advisory group and subject to the approval of a presidential oversight committee whose members represent all 119 Division 1-A programs.

A conference commissioner serves as BCS coordinator. For the 2008 and 2009 regular seasons, the coordinator is John Swofford, commissioner of the Atlantic Coast Conference.

Presidential Oversight Committee
David Frohnmayer - President, University of Oregon
Rev. John Jenkins - President, University of Notre Dame
Robert Khayat - Chancellor, University of Mississippi
Mark A. Nordenberg - President, University of Pittsburgh
John G. Peters - President, Northern Illinois University
Harvey Perlman - Chancellor, University of Nebraska
Graham Spanier - President, The Pennsylvania State University
Charles W. Steger - President, Virginia Tech

Conference Commissioners and Notre Dame Athletics Director
Coordinator - John Swofford (ACC)
Britton Banowsky (C-USA)
Dan Beebe (Big 12)
Karl Benson (WAC)
Rick Chryst (MAC)
Jim Delany (Big Ten)
Tom Hansen (Pac-10)
Mike Slive (SEC)
Craig Thompson (MWC)
Michael Tranghese (Big East)
Wright Waters (Sun Belt)
Jack Swarbrick (Notre Dame)

AD Advisory Group
Gene Bleymaier (Boise State - WAC)
Joe Castiglione (Oklahoma - Big 12)
Gene DeFilippo (Boston College - ACC)
Jeremy Foley (Florida - SEC)
Keith Tribble (Central Florida, C-USA)
Ronald Guenther (Illinois - Big Ten)
Tom Holmoe (Brigham Young - MWC)
Tom Jurich (Louisville - Big East)
Dean Lee (Arkansas State - Sun Belt)
Jim Livengood (Arizona - Pac 10)
Mike O'Brien (Toledo - MAC)

thebiga:

I think 10 conference games would do the opposite to the NC schedule.  It'd make it even softer.  ADs would work harder, but it'd be to find even easier games for them to play.

You're right...they'd probably 'f' it up.  Anything to give us what we don't want.

thebiga:

Nice idea but that would mean the NCAA would actually have to give a crap about something other than making money.  I know you know that won't happen in our lifetimes.  As long as people are buying it, and they are, the NCAA will do little to change the current structure of the game.  Always have, always will.

Right again.  greek stole my descriptor...."pipe dream."  I have a lot of them as it relates to CFB.  Oversight on scheduling and a 48 team playoff tournament played at campus sites until the semifinals.  Who wouldn't want to host a sudden death playoff game in your own place?  CFB doesn't know how much they are missing out on while they lap up the dollars from the rinky-dink and outdated bowl system.  A tournament would put NCAA basketball to shame.

puddyellow:

thebiga:

I think 10 conference games would do the opposite to the NC schedule.  It'd make it even softer.  ADs would work harder, but it'd be to find even easier games for them to play.

You're right...they'd probably 'f' it up.  Anything to give us what we don't want.

thebiga:

Nice idea but that would mean the NCAA would actually have to give a crap about something other than making money.  I know you know that won't happen in our lifetimes.  As long as people are buying it, and they are, the NCAA will do little to change the current structure of the game.  Always have, always will.

Right again.  greek stole my descriptor...."pipe dream."  I have a lot of them as it relates to CFB.  Oversight on scheduling and a 48 team playoff tournament played at campus sites until the semifinals.  Who wouldn't want to host a sudden death playoff game in your own place?  CFB doesn't know how much they are missing out on while they lap up the dollars from the rinky-dink and outdated bowl system.  A tournament would put NCAA basketball to shame.

If the BCS is so concerned with making money, I do find it difficult why they are not pushing for a playoff of some kind.  That is where the maximum amount to be made lies.  The ratings and dollars made from a 4 or 8 team playoff would seem a lot more profitable than the 5 BCS games now.  I don't see how something like this is always shot down by the BCS if it is money they care about.

malaisej:

So yes, the bowls want the games to make as much money as possible, but with the matchups we have gotten the last couple of years, I wonder how the bottom line is doing? 

Considering the new fat contract the BCS got from ESPN, I'd think the bottom line is just fine.

malaisej:

If the BCS is so concerned with making money, I do find it difficult why they are not pushing for a playoff of some kind.  That is where the maximum amount to be made lies.  The ratings and dollars made from a 4 or 8 team playoff would seem a lot more profitable than the 5 BCS games now.  I don't see how something like this is always shot down by the BCS if it is money they care about.

I think it's a safe assumption that a playoff would make more money.  How much more is debatable.

There's a few problems with a playoff that I don't think the powers that be want to touch.  The first is that not all of them want a playoff.  The BT, Pac10 and Rose Bowl clearly don't want it.  They love the Rose Bowl, and the Rose Bowl loves them.  The Rose, I believe, is the only BCS bowl that still has its own tv contract.  That's why it was on ABC when the rest have been on Fox.

The big conferences also have much more control in the BCS system.  Everybody would have to share equally in a playoff pie.  Now, the payout is tilted towards the big boys.  Why would the SEC want to help the Mountain West?

A playoff would cannibalize the rest of the bowl system, no matter how big or small you make the playoff (except for maybe a plus one system).  If you have a big tournament, say 48 teams, there won't be bowls any longer.  If you have a smaller tourney, say 8 teams, no one will give two sh*ts about a bowl game when there's an actual tournament going on.  The bowls (especially the current BCS bowls) don't want to become the NIT of football even though they probably are that now to a certain extent.  I'm also sure there will be more than a few very messy lawsuits there since almost all the bowls are aligned with a conference, the same people who control the BCS.

These people also like to put forth the illusion that the players are student athletes (well at least outside the south they do).  You have them play an additional game or 2 as a result of a playoff and their hypocrisy is further exposed.

Add all this up (and I'm sure some things I've missed) and the additional $ to be gained from a playoff don't seem like they're worth the effort.

thebiga:

There's a few problems with a playoff that I don't think the powers that be want to touch.  The first is that not all of them want a playoff.  The BT, Pac10 and Rose Bowl clearly don't want it.  They love the Rose Bowl, and the Rose Bowl loves them.  The Rose, I believe, is the only BCS bowl that still has its own tv contract.  That's why it was on ABC when the rest have been on Fox.

They could preserve three of the bowls as the semifinals and finals and rotate them.  Or just keep the Rose as the championship.  They probably don't want to get in that quagmire, though.  It's too hard to disappoint so many backslappers.

thebiga:

A playoff would cannibalize the rest of the bowl system

Yes.  Bon Apetit!

thebiga:

These people also like to put forth the illusion that the players are student athletes (well at least outside the south they do).  You have them play an additional game or 2 as a result of a playoff and their hypocrisy is further exposed.

This is the cowardice.  In a 48 team playoff (less teams than currently bowl) most teams would be eliminated before the 1st of the year.  Saving the semifinals and finals for just before the Super Bowl.  What a great combination!  Only 4 teams would have a longer (and slightly, at that) season.   The rest would be shorter by several weeks.

thebiga:

Add all this up (and I'm sure some things I've missed) and the additional $ to be gained from a playoff don't seem like they're worth the effort.

I'll disagree.  I believe there is more to be made by a longshot.  They are CONTENT to keep things the way they are because it is easy.  And they probably assume that it is not worth the hassle of implementing a drawn out change. 

For an individual school, they should have incentive to host one or more of these games with things like concessions, parking, merchandising, and a cut of the ticket sales.  Plus, one team doesn't have the burden of packing up the entire program and guests to the tune of x million dollars as they do in the bowls now.  (one of the odd "perks" of the bowls...staff trips to Shreveport!)  The local economies would rake it in as well like the biggest game on the regular season schedule.

puddyellow:

I'll disagree.  I believe there is more to be made by a longshot.  They are CONTENT to keep things the way they are because it is easy.  And they probably assume that it is not worth the hassle of implementing a drawn out change.

You're probably right that a lot more money will be made.  Not going to argue that.  But I also think assumption that the additional money isn't worth the hassle is valid.  It'll cost tens of millions or more to buy off everyone who'll have their hand out if they change the current system--bowl organizers, bowl sponsors, local gov'ts, stadium operators, tv networks, local hotel operators, etc.  All of them are going to want a piece if the current arrangement is somehow altered.  Even if those claims aren't valid, you're still going to be paying lawyers and spending time to fend them off.  Frankly, the system as is has gotten too large and been around for too long for a major change to happen at one time.  The best that can be hoped for is slow change.  The BCS has at least opened the door to that.

thebiga:

puddyellow:

I'll disagree.  I believe there is more to be made by a longshot.  They are CONTENT to keep things the way they are because it is easy.  And they probably assume that it is not worth the hassle of implementing a drawn out change.

You're probably right that a lot more money will be made.  Not going to argue that.  But I also think assumption that the additional money isn't worth the hassle is valid.  It'll cost tens of millions or more to buy off everyone who'll have their hand out if they change the current system--bowl organizers, bowl sponsors, local gov'ts, stadium operators, tv networks, local hotel operators, etc.  All of them are going to want a piece if the current arrangement is somehow altered.  Even if those claims aren't valid, you're still going to be paying lawyers and spending time to fend them off.  Frankly, the system as is has gotten too large and been around for too long for a major change to happen at one time.  The best that can be hoped for is slow change.  The BCS has at least opened the door to that.

 

I know...they're a bunch of wusses!  They're like guys who lap up the balls of SEC football teams and ACC basketball teams.