BCS Two Team Conference Limit Helps The Pac-12
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 27, 2011 4:25 PM PDT
in Pac-12 General
Email
PrintKnock-knock.
Who's there?
The BCS.
...
Yeah, that's it, that's the joke.
The BCS is a pretty big joke, and it makes perfect sense that it would be the process to reward an dystopian institution like big-time college football. But for the near future it's the corrupt and malignant process we're stuck with, so the Pac-12 has to learn to work within the system to maintain the greatest possible advantage against the other football conferences.
It appears that some tweaking is in order. The New York Times reports that some changes could directly affect what schools end up smelling roses, tasting sugar, squeezing oranges, or playing for all the Tostitos.
Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive was asked during a teleconference Tuesday about the possibility of the BCS changing its rules to allow more than two teams from a conference to play in the five most lucrative bowl games in a year.
He didn't say if he would support a change, but did indicate that it might be considered by the conference commissioners.
"I do know this: That Bill Hancock has put together a list of issues that he believes the commissioners and the BCS bowl oversight committee ought to be looking at as the BCS develops a position on upcoming negotiations. I think that's one of them," he said.
"I think there are going to be several issues that are important enough to have serious discussion about, and that would be one of them."
If the two-team limit rule is on the table, it obviously makes perfect sense for Slive to try and do his best to abolish it. The SEC has the biggest fanbases in the country and could obviously fill up almost every Sugar Bowl or Fiesta Bowl if they were given the invites. Jim Delaney would do his best to fight this way for the Big Ten, which probably contains the second largest group of fanbases and some of the top TV markets directly interested in college football. The SEC and Big Ten have earned 18 of the 26 at-large major conference bids, and they would love to see that rule go down so they could get more of their schools involved in the January parades.
Which is why it obviously makes sense that Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott must fight to preserve the current structure.
Keep in mind the Stanford Cardinal would not have ended up in the Orange Bowl last season if they hadn't finished 4th in the final BCS standings, an automatic bid for the conference. If they had been one spot below, the BCS would have likely picked a school like Michigan State from the Big Ten because of ticket concerns. The BCS is a business, and they want tickets to be sold. They could care less about a team's performance throughout the regular season.
Expect a similar situation to occur with almost any other Pac-12 school. Only one school is guaranteed of having the ticketing and big market clout to earn an at-large bid--the USC Trojans, maybe the UCLA Bruins. The abolition of the two-team limit would make it very difficult for the BCS not to take any SEC, Big Ten or Big 12 school over whatever the second best Pac-12 school has to offer unless the second-place team plays perfect football and ends up in a situation similar to Stanford's. Allowing three SEC and three Big Ten teams into the party is pretty much a death sentence.
Scott must make sure the Pac-12's interests are protected and that any proposal at lifting the conference limit is stonewalled to ensure any shot at future at-large bids. The cards are already stacked hard against the Pac-12 at-large as is; no need to make it any harder.
Either that, or he should start thinking of a way out of the stupid structure the NCAA uses to reward their college football champions.
The Pac-12 could claim that the BCS is unfairly stacking the cards against the conference, and could start negotiating with the rest of the conferences for a better way to reward a champion. This might be above the heads of most of the players with big-time stakes in college athletics, but it could be the next big platform for Scott to tackle to elevate his conference.
There are lots of ways to go, but Scott has to protect his conference from predation, whether it means hunkering down or boldly going forward. And Scott is a forward-thinking individual ...
15 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
An attempt to drop the two school limit was expected
There has been talk about it for a couple of years ever since speculation about super conferences heated up. It’s also why the Pac12 presidents were short sighted when they didn’t add OU/OSU. Made sense short term, but not long. The only question is will the BCS die before the two school limit can be lifted. It’s just a question of time. No way does UCLA have that kind of clout, they don’t travel and they don’t draw. Remember the Cotton bowl fiasco?
Probably not ticket sales wise
But the TV market of LA can’t be ignored.
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 27, 2011 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes and no
Yes you do have a point, but the BCS bowls don’t get extra money from TV. The contract is already signed and the ads already sold. They either want a team which will travel well, or a team that will draw the other to travel extra. UCLA doesn’t do either of those. They will get eyeballs on TV better than most in the conference, but not sure that will get the PAC a second or third bid over someone from the Big10.
by ev on Sep 27, 2011 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Given current BCS structure
There is room for more than 4 super conferences everyone seems interested in building
Tweaking the BCS? Howabout dismantling it and starting from scratch. How many investigative pieces about bowl executive malfeasance do we need to read before rethinking the current structure? Oh, that’s right, some schools make some money so let’s all chase after what we know instead of seeing the big picture.
by SenorChuy on Sep 27, 2011 5:09 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
The big picture isn't about money
if that was the case we would already have a playoff (which I too want).
by ev on Sep 27, 2011 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions
If Slive and Delany want this
Then Scott has to work with two conference commissioners who would be out of a job if Scott’s Pac-16 had ever come to fruition either last year or this year and a third commissioner who is already two teams short of a super conference and is 3000 miles away.
There’s no assurance that the Big 12 would not vote for this (they have three teams that have realistic chances of finishing in the top 15 this year), meaning that the ACC and Big East have to hold their grounds as well to prevent a fourth vote, even though they’ve never had multiple BCS teams in a given year.
You also have to hope that, even if four super conferences don’t happen before 2014 that the commissioners don’t vote to voluntarily restrict their ranks from six to four, like they’ve been threatening to do.
I don't think he can get the ACC vote
They will soon be to 16 too, no reason to limit themselves at that point. ND will vote no as will the non-AQs, however he needs the Big12 and Big East. I just don’t see how this doesn’t happen somewhere down the line.
by ev on Sep 27, 2011 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions
I also can't imagine the ACC supporting this
Yes, they have a ton of teams, but again they struggle to fill stadiums, draw TV audience and have the worst overall BCS record (or so I think). Again, with exception to Clemson, Miami and Florida State, which team is a must have? The Virginia Tech bowl games have typically been some of the lowest drawing games (though, the Big East connection may be bringing them down).
I support the NBA player's union.
I'd expect nothing to happen before 2014
But I expect the Big East to lose its AQ status after then; SU & Pitt are the most recent exits, but it’s probably better than 50/50 that the every original Big East football member will have left the conference by the end of this academic year (and Louisville and UConn, too). Also, the Cotton Bowl is still pushing to get in the BCS rotation. That only opens up one more at-large spot, though; if they want to allow three teams per conference in, I’d think they’d need a 5th BCS bowl, though the Cotton’s been dying to get in.
I can't imagine the Big-XII supporting this
They have two big name programs, and that is it. Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, Mizzou would all be passed over if given the opportunity. They have experienced this before multiple times (KSU).
I support the NBA player's union.
Interesting
looks like mizzu is seroiusly looking at SEC. they have a meeting on tuesday, and theres a rumor that the sec gave them till wed to decide. Timeline seems to fit. Wonder what that would do to the big 12 if they left.
I think it guarantees Boise gets an invite if BYU joins
As long as Texas and OU stick together, the Big12 survives, only if OU leaves does it fall apart.
by ev on Sep 28, 2011 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Interesting post
I agree that it would hurt the Pac-12 even more than the current system does, so I’m sure Scott will either do his best to oppose it or find some other alternative.
BTW, very minor quibble but:
[The BCS] could not care less about a team’s performance throughout the regular season.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
