(02-15-2011 11:33 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Frank, it's not so much of a fight over how the money is divided (although that is a small part of it), as it is a fight over who is in charge of doing the dividing. That's what it's always been about, no matter what anybody says. The people in charge of splitting up the money get a hefty chunk of change for that privilege, and they'll fight like rabid dogs to keep control of that money...

I'd say it's both, but would disagree about the relative weighting. Here's my account of the logic that maintains the current bowl system:

Who is in charge of doing the dividing? The conference commissioners. But, they must be responsive to university presidents. So it's the presidents too.

Those are the same presidents and commissioners that the bowls lavish perks on (like the 'junket' sponsored by the Orange Bowl) to keep them on board with the bowls.

But, these presidents have to be responsive to their broader university communities, particularly to the elites (in the case of state schools, key politicians (they get paid by the bowls too, of course), supervisory board members, big boosters, etc.), and most of those elites would not allow the presidents to just sell their schools up the river (meaning, take a lot less money from the bowls if more could be had by jettisoning them).

So, the university elites have to be kept on board, and how is that maintained? Partially by paying them off too (like the Fiesta did with AZ politicians), but moreso by the promise that .... under the bowl system, their schools get a much larger share of the money than would be had under a playoff system. That's what allows the university-elites to take their perks with a 'clear conscience', because they can think that despite the personal benefits they receive, they are also doing what's good for their school.

So ultimately, it is more about how the money is divided than who is doing the dividing ...

(02-15-2011 11:33 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Frank, it's not so much of a fight over how the money is divided (although that is a small part of it), as it is a fight over who is in charge of doing the dividing. That's what it's always been about, no matter what anybody says. The people in charge of splitting up the money get a hefty chunk of change for that privilege, and they'll fight like rabid dogs to keep control of that money...

Very true, as though they go hand in hand. The bottom line is that the AQ conferences don't want the college football postseason to be controlled by the NCAA. In order for that to happen, they need the bowl system to exist and continue to be profitable. I see a lot of playoff supporters always ask, "Why doesn't the NCAA take over the postseason? It would be so much easier that way." Well, that's the exact thing that the AQ conferences and BCS bowls want to avoid because they want control - and if they control the money, then of course they get to provide more of it to themselves.

(02-15-2011 11:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Very true, as though they go hand in hand. The bottom line is that the AQ conferences don't want the college football postseason to be controlled by the NCAA. In order for that to happen, they need the bowl system to exist and continue to be profitable. I see a lot of playoff supporters always ask, "Why doesn't the NCAA take over the postseason? It would be so much easier that way." Well, that's the exact thing that the AQ conferences and BCS bowls want to avoid because they want control - and if they control the money, then of course they get to provide more of it to themselves.

Right, but remember, "control" is largely a means to an end, not an end in itself. Sure, some individual might have the types of personalities that value control for its own sake, but ...

If the NCAA would agree to a playoff system that permanently allocates the same percentage of money to the current AQ conferences as does the bowl system, i think that would largely overcome the core problems those conferences have with the notion.

Steve, I think you're taking a rather cavalier view of the college football post season setup. When I'm talking about the people in control, I don't mean the university people. I'm talking about the bowl game executives themselves. If the NCAA takes over, they are effectively removed from the equation, or left with a very small piece of what used to be a huge pie for them. Those are the ones that will be doing all the hard fighting...

(02-14-2011 09:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've always wanted the Cotton Bowl to re-join the BCS. Maybe this could be leveraged somehow to oust the Fiesta?

trade sunny Arizona for frigid Dallas?

Not sure about that....especially after the Dallas SuperBowl freeze out this year. I would be happy if they just made these BCS bowl games accomodate geography a little bit better. There is no reason for UCONN to travel way across the country, especially in these economic times. Ditto for Pac10 teams having to travel to Miami.

(02-15-2011 12:55 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(02-14-2011 09:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've always wanted the Cotton Bowl to re-join the BCS. Maybe this could be leveraged somehow to oust the Fiesta?

trade sunny Arizona for frigid Dallas?

Not sure about that....especially after the Dallas SuperBowl freeze out this year.

Call me a hopeless nostalgic, but when i was growing up the "new year's day bowls" were the rose, cotton, sugar, and orange, and as long as we have bowls, that's what i'd like to return to.

Frigid Dallas gave us some classic cotton bowls back in the day, like 79 notre dame-houston.

(02-15-2011 12:18 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Steve, I think you're taking a rather cavalier view of the college football post season setup. When I'm talking about the people in control, I don't mean the university people. I'm talking about the bowl game executives themselves. If the NCAA takes over, they are effectively removed from the equation, or left with a very small piece of what used to be a huge pie for them. Those are the ones that will be doing all the hard fighting...

What independent power do bowl exec have? Stands to reason that the only way bowl execs keep their cushy positions (and they are indeed very cushy) is by forging alliances with the elites i talked about - the politicians who run the state schools and cities that benefit from the bowls, the university administrators, and the conference leaders ... Because those are the folks who ultimately govern college football.

... and they are very effective at keeping that coalition intact. There are multiple pressure-points of influence (e.g., city hotel and tourism businesses can put pressure on politicians and schools to maintain bowl ties that 'benefit the community', i.e., their businesses, etc.) and the bowls are surely adept at pushing them.

(02-15-2011 12:55 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(02-14-2011 09:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've always wanted the Cotton Bowl to re-join the BCS. Maybe this could be leveraged somehow to oust the Fiesta?

trade sunny Arizona for frigid Dallas?

Not sure about that....especially after the Dallas SuperBowl freeze out this year. I would be happy if they just made these BCS bowl games accomodate geography a little bit better. There is no reason for UCONN to travel way across the country, especially in these economic times. Ditto for Pac10 teams having to travel to Miami.

Yes we had a bad week of weather, in fact very unusual. Today it's in the 70s. Regardless Jerry's World is a great stadium as long as they are not trying to cram 103,000 in a 80-90,000 seat stadium. The DFW area is certainly better for those on the east coast instead of Arizona and California, and better for those on the west coast instead of Florida.

One thing I would look into, I know that Jones and the Cotton Bowl wants a Big 12 tie-in if/when they get a BCS slot, even with Nebraska and Colorado leaving most likely, because they are so Texas heavy. If the Cotton Bowl can't get the Big 12 the Big East could push heavily for the Cotton Bowl to get into the BCS with the agreement that we get an automatic tie-in. With TCU and the addition of a school like Houston we would have a lot of Texas flavor and could get interest from the Cotton Bowl.

(02-15-2011 09:46 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  One thing I would look into, I know that Jones and the Cotton Bowl wants a Big 12 tie-in if/when they get a BCS slot, even with Nebraska and Colorado leaving most likely, because they are so Texas heavy. If the Cotton Bowl can't get the Big 12 the Big East could push heavily for the Cotton Bowl to get into the BCS with the agreement that we get an automatic tie-in. With TCU and the addition of a school like Houston we would have a lot of Texas flavor and could get interest from the Cotton Bowl.

That would be a tremendous outcome, but i'm not sure how feasible it is likely to be, since it would involve ousting either the Big 12 (deep in the heart of Texas? Not gonna happen), or the SEC (when does the SEC ever get ousted from anything?).

Point is, they already have the Big 12 tie-in, and i don't think they would trade that for anything, even BCS status. Texas A&M vs LSU is precisely the kind of matchup they want to see ...