gdayre Wrote:Gunner, there is no way the big 10 or pac 10 would leave either. Dont fool yourself about the Rose bowl either. If either conference decide to leave, both conferences schools would have nobody to play but each other...
The Rose bowl is not more powerful than the ncaa. Stop that foolish thinking. It is just a bowl game and that is it. The only power it has is on who it will take. The Rose bowl could be replaced by the Cotton Bowl very easily.
a) Anything that the Big Ten and PAC 10 are responding to will likely be influencing the other BCS conferences as well, so I'm not supposing any move would be done in a vacuum. The point is that those conferences are among the leaders in such issues and will not let the NCAA lead their collegiate sports where they do not wish to follow. At the absolute least they'd comfortably abstain from any post-season format they disagree with and be like the Ivy League of 1-A.
b) Don't think of the Rose Bowl as just a game and a committee. It's guidance comes from two of the oldest and most respected conferences in the country, which yield strong economic and political influences and have some of the largest alumni organizations going. There's a reason ABC and the Rose Bowl provide $14M of the $17M BCS payout from that bowl, and that ABC held onto that contract but gave up on the BCS, and that reason is that triumvirate is arguably the most powerful group in college football.
c) If it were so easy the NCAA would've already done something like you're proposing. Clearly it's not. The value of the BCS would crumble if the Big Ten and the PAC 10 declined to participate, which if the BTN succeeds they could easily forgo the $3M each conference makes from that involvement.
Quote:The ncaa would unite and stop that quickly and dont be surprise either when congress would get involved too. Remember, Congress gave the ncaa Exemption statue, and dont think they wouldnt have a say in this also. Dont think that the ncaa wouldnt put that bowl against it and it could hold its own. The only things they could do is try to start a new division and there would be criteria for entry for other members, I dont believe the ncaa wont another division to governed either. They will fall in line with the rest. end of theory!
Whose "uniting" in this scenario? The SEC and the Sunbelt? Not a chance in hell the power conferences will acquiesce to full equality with the have-nots. The gap in broadcast money alone between the SEC and CUSA is a margin of millions, to say nothing of where the Sunbelt, SoCon and others reside. Why the hell would the power conferences "fall in line" with any measure that would dramatically alter their status? They may offer some compromises, allow more access, etc, but there is no reason the SEC, Big 12, etc, would willingly support a measure that substantially dilutes their power, money or status.
Re: Congress - Their involvement in 2003/4 was ridiculed from the start and there are 3 lawsuits in progress that will ultimately define the shape of collegiate sport before congress could get involved again. As I've said, the BCS conferences could easily deflate any legal challenge to their current status by simply dropping the national title leverage and simply maintain a bowl like structure. They'll sooner walk away from a unified form of national championship then they will from an oligopoly on the money and exposure of college football in general.
Thoughts like yours suggest you're young enough to struggle with the concept of football without a BCS or Bowl Alliance. Maybe someday that will be the case for the majority of fans, but for right now there's a large enough faction against some all-out playoff that we've yet to see one come even close enough for a vote. That's been done by keeping ultimate control of the football post-season away from the NCAA and in the hands of the conferences. Call it a new division, call it a new league, whatever, barring tremendous circumstances there will always be a classification of mostly existing BCS schools that will be above or separate from the rest.
