(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 ...