(01-04-2012 02:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The crazy thing is that the MWC and WAC commissioners are on board with this idea. It's still a mystery why that is the case from an access standpoint, as none of the BCS bowls would have ever taken a non-AQ school without the BCS system in place.

The reason given by Craig Thompson seems to be about the AQ/non-AQ status perception, which I can kinda sorta understand but seems to be missing the forest for the trees. Removing the AQ label is, at the most, lowering the status of the Big East. The other 5 AQ conferences will continue to be recognized as the power conferences in terms of perception. Is the removal of that AQ label truly worth giving up access to the top bowl games?

Now, there's one financial scenario where I can see for the non-AQ conferences getting on board with this: if the TV money from a plus-one national championship game would be shared equally by all of the FBS leagues. Maybe the power conferences would be OK with this, too, as the quid pro quo is that they would stop sharing the money from the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta Bowls with the non-AQ schools. In a way, it's financially "fair" (if you define "fair" as following free market principles as opposed to redistribution of income). The national championship game is the one game without any conference tie-in (although SEC fans will argue this point), so it's also the game that is "shared" by everyone. As a result, it's inequitable that the SEC would be getting paid more in national championship game TV revenue than, say, the MWC if TCU had made the title game last year. In contrast, the bowls serve a different purpose as they are seeking to fill up hotel rooms during the holidays and get attractive brand names for TV, so the more popular conferences justifiably should be paid more for their tie-ins.

In that scenario, the non-AQ conferences could conceivably make more money on an annual basis than the current system as they'd all get an equal share of the national championship game revenue. The AQ conferences would simultaneously actually increase their hold on bowl game revenue with their contractual tie-ins. It's a compromise from a revenue standpoint - the non-AQ conferences would be trading top bowl access for more national championship game revenue.

Good analysis. Supposedly, the Big East is the only conference that is still supporing the AQ idea.

Even if non-AQ schools get more revenue, they'll still be at a competetive disadvtange when the Champion of the C-USA goes the Liberty Bowl and the 4th or 5th place team from the SEC or Big 10 goes to a much better bowl game.

Under the current system schools like Utah, Boise, Hawaii and TCU have been able to crash the party. Without AQ status those schools won't get auto BCS bids and will be relegated bowls like Liberty or Vegas.

I'd rather get less revenue and still have the opportinity to earn a BCS spot with a top 12 ranking (as the non-AQ conferences currently have).

(01-04-2012 04:39 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 02:35 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  So we end up with more contests like The Gator Bowl and Sugar Bowl.
Can't wait. Give Delaney and his cronies time and they will destroy college football.
CJ

It's already there IMO. I'm pretty much done watching, with the exception of games involving my school.

Stories like Utah, Boise and TCU crashing the party have been great for the game. And the big boys are intent on flushing that down the crapper.

The commisioners of those leagues look like arrogant, exclusivist jerks for proposing closing off the system. I don't see how it doesn't drive many casual fans away. Certainly not all of them, I'll admit.

And it's not like they ever had to give a whole lot up. Small school takes one spot per year, two at the most, it doesn't even dent their collective checkbooks.

From the perspective of the non-AQs, the Big East's AQ status is a big problem. If we were stripped of AQ and our bid made an at-large, a #7 boise type nonAQ has a much better chance to be picked.

Stripping say the SEC of AQ doesnt matter, because the SEC champ will still get picked over a top ten nonAQ anyway, but not so an unranked Uconn, a #20 WVU, etc.

You are dreaming they can't take the BigEast AQ . So it's easier to just take all AQs and let the bowls choose and the bigger bowls will then pick lower ranked teams from the present AQ conferences over an at large from a nonAQ.

(01-04-2012 08:30 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  You are dreaming they can't take the BigEast AQ . So it's easier to just take all AQs and let the bowls choose and the bigger bowls will then pick lower ranked teams from the present AQ conferences over an at large from a nonAQ.

I have a feeling any attempt to return to the previous bowl system without some reasonable inclusion for the non-big 5 conferences will run into political problems. There could still be anti-trust issues, just the BCS wouldnt be the target, it would be collusion by the Big-5 and the bowls. Or congressman representing districts with non-AQ schools could easily move to attack the bowl system by launching IRS investigations of the big bowls "charity" finances. I suspect the big spending big bowl presidents wont wnat anyone checking out thier finances. While I beleive the Delanys of the world will push or a more exclusionary system, there will be more informed eyes watching this go around. Those eyes may be enough to get a Top-10 clause that would allow BCS access for non-Big 5 conference champs in the top 10.....of course, getting rated in the top 10 might suddenly become strangely more dificult and I have no idea how you police that.

(01-04-2012 09:26 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 08:30 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  You are dreaming they can't take the BigEast AQ . So it's easier to just take all AQs and let the bowls choose and the bigger bowls will then pick lower ranked teams from the present AQ conferences over an at large from a nonAQ.

I have a feeling any attempt to return to the previous bowl system without some reasonable inclusion for the non-big 5 conferences will run into political problems. There could still be anti-trust issues, just the BCS wouldnt be the target, it would be collusion by the Big-5 and the bowls. Or congressman representing districts with non-AQ schools could easily move to attack the bowl system by launching IRS investigations of the big bowls "charity" finances. I suspect the big spending big bowl presidents wont wnat anyone checking out thier finances. While I beleive the Delanys of the world will push or a more exclusionary system, there will be more informed eyes watching this go around. Those eyes may be enough to get a Top-10 clause that would allow BCS access for non-Big 5 conference champs in the top 10.

The government won't touch this with a ten foot pole. The LSU's and Texas A&M's of the world have politicians in their corner too so it isn't as if Houston or Temple can just point a finger and zap the big guys with a government penalty. Besides, the courts ruled in favor of the CFA which was as greedy and exclusionary a cartel as there ever was. There is no way they are going to come down hard on this. Like Frank The Tank said, those of you who think someone is going to save the little guys are really going to be sad when you see what actually happens.

(01-04-2012 08:30 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  You are dreaming they can't take the BigEast AQ.

er, why not?

In any event, it is clear that the Big East's AQ status hurts the nonAQs.

Illuminating thread, y'all, especially the idea that the non-AQ leagues will trade more access to the Plus One for less access to the money bowls. I mean, the Plus One is the end game here, right? This will be a compromise from the anti-playoff types (basically just Delany at this point): the big bowls get wedded to the traditional leagues in exchange for unfettered access to the Final Four I MEAN Plus One.

And I can kinda see Hair's motivation with wanting to do away with the AQ...he's probably thinking he can get some of the band back together, but I wonder if that horse hasn't left the barn. I mean, in the absence of an AQ does the New New Big East stay together because of, like, NBC paying for the basketball name combined with the "best" (debateable I know) of the leftover schools? Or does Boise say, "well, we tried, but this national conference thing is more trouble than its worth" and pulls the plug?

(01-04-2012 09:37 PM)Scroggins Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 09:26 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 08:30 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  You are dreaming they can't take the BigEast AQ . So it's easier to just take all AQs and let the bowls choose and the bigger bowls will then pick lower ranked teams from the present AQ conferences over an at large from a nonAQ.

I have a feeling any attempt to return to the previous bowl system without some reasonable inclusion for the non-big 5 conferences will run into political problems. There could still be anti-trust issues, just the BCS wouldnt be the target, it would be collusion by the Big-5 and the bowls. Or congressman representing districts with non-AQ schools could easily move to attack the bowl system by launching IRS investigations of the big bowls "charity" finances. I suspect the big spending big bowl presidents wont wnat anyone checking out thier finances. While I beleive the Delanys of the world will push or a more exclusionary system, there will be more informed eyes watching this go around. Those eyes may be enough to get a Top-10 clause that would allow BCS access for non-Big 5 conference champs in the top 10.

The government won't touch this with a ten foot pole. The LSU's and Texas A&M's of the world have politicians in their corner too so it isn't as if Houston or Temple can just point a finger and zap the big guys with a government penalty. Besides, the courts ruled in favor of the CFA which was as greedy and exclusionary a cartel as there ever was. There is no way they are going to come down hard on this. Like Frank The Tank said, those of you who think someone is going to save the little guys are really going to be sad when you see what actually happens.

Actually any equal access playoff plan is far more popular than the bowl system, even among fans of teams who would enjoy more favor in an old style bowl system. Anyone who thinks a politician would not run to get in front of a camera to be seen "fighting" for something that enjoys about a 85-90% support rate doesnt pay any attention to politics. Besides, all politics is local. If your district contains a university that is getting hosed then the issue will be very popular for your local politician. And if your local politician joins with a few others with similar interests--and they have control over a committe or two with jurisdiction in that area, well....you get the picture. Heck, these guys held hearings on steriods in baseball.

Truth is, this is more or less already happening with Oren Hatch leading the charge. The courts are an option--but not the only option. The courts dont have to be involved. Congess doesnt have to sue, they can simply pass laws that would regulate aspects of the bowls that might not be very popular with the bowls. Or maybe, they just threaten to regulate the bowl system unless--equal access is granted.

As far as the current AQ schools fighting back, do you really think politicians who represent Texas or Michigan or similar schools are going to stand up and fight against something as popular as including access to the national chmpionship bowls for ALL deserving schools? Why would they care? No one is talking about taking access AWAY from any school they might represent in thier district. The emphasis will be on giving access to everyone. Who would want to get in front of that train? Frankly, I dont think it gets that far. The threat will be enough. Like I said, the last thing these guys want is the governement authorities poking around the finances of these "charity" bowls.

Look, I think the plan is just what Frank The Tank says it is. I just think that this time, everyone understands the implications of the screw job better. Theres alot more people closely watching the back room than there was when the BCS was originally put together. Im not niave enough to think the final result will be fair, I just think there will be some sort of access built into the system to head off the type of trouble Im describing.

Exactly, attackfrog. I remember Obama talking about trying to get a playoff system in place for Div. I-A college football (if he's elected president) the night before Election Day '08. I'm not saying that had anything to do with his winning, but I did at least take notice.

If AQ goes away the big 5 will still have an AQ thru their bowl tie ins. Nothing changes for them other than 3 from same conf can get in. Unless they decide to add a bowl, BE will get locked out. Bowls will still work to set up best conf deals they can. The Big and SEC will get their choice of best bowls, Pac, B12, and ACC will keep an non AQ, AQ thru their bcs bowl contract deals. After the Bcs bowls and top 3 to 5 outside of bcs are settled, The Big 5 will eat up the best of the rest, The BE will be next in line and fill holes as needed. Alliance will do well to keep a liberty type bowl for champ. all the rest of current non bcs will go to garbage left over just like today, Only difference is BE Will get to a bcs bowl only every 3 or 4 years and the current non BCS will never sniff one again.

This is about exclusion not inclusion.

The divide will grow not shrink en.

(01-04-2012 08:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 04:39 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 02:35 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  So we end up with more contests like The Gator Bowl and Sugar Bowl.
Can't wait. Give Delaney and his cronies time and they will destroy college football.
CJ

It's already there IMO. I'm pretty much done watching, with the exception of games involving my school.

Stories like Utah, Boise and TCU crashing the party have been great for the game. And the big boys are intent on flushing that down the crapper.

The commisioners of those leagues look like arrogant, exclusivist jerks for proposing closing off the system. I don't see how it doesn't drive many casual fans away. Certainly not all of them, I'll admit.

And it's not like they ever had to give a whole lot up. Small school takes one spot per year, two at the most, it doesn't even dent their collective checkbooks.

From the perspective of the non-AQs, the Big East's AQ status is a big problem. If we were stripped of AQ and our bid made an at-large, a #7 boise type nonAQ has a much better chance to be picked.

Stripping say the SEC of AQ doesnt matter, because the SEC champ will still get picked over a top ten nonAQ anyway, but not so an unranked Uconn, a #20 WVU, etc.

yeah....and the acc and all it's glory continues to be a paper tiger

If they do away with the AQs will that also mean doing away with at larges, or will the non-Rose Bowl BCS bowls will keep some sort of alliance/ selection process to allow for at larges? I've seen different opinons on this.

(01-04-2012 04:53 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the BCS bowls in their current form is that the money the BCS pays out for participating teams comes primarily from the television contracts covering those games as a package.
If the BCS only covers the NCG, that means the other four bowls will be free to get whatever tie-ins they want, and will be free to negotiate for TV rights independently. That changes the entire ball game (pardon the pun). They become just another bowl game, albeit with potentially premium tie-ins.

The major bowls, and especially the BCS bowls, are generally owned and or run either by the local tourism board, in conjunction with it, or some combination of the two. Bowls, and by bowls I mean the cities that host them, make as much or more money on traveling fans spending money in the host cities as they do from TV in direct tax revenue, and the cities make out like bandits. BCS bowls bring anywhere from $100 - $200 million in new revenue from out of town visitors to their cities each year. The Fiesta Bowl Committee, a few years back, when they not only double hosted the Fiesta Bowl and the MNC Game, but also have the Insight Bowl before it, reported close to $400 million in economic impact in one year from the Bowls. All you have to do is look on the federal tax returns of any of the bowls, and you will see payments from $10 - $20 million in “sponsorships” from the local tourism boards, local hotels, or other businesses that profit from the extra tourism at a typically slow travel time.

THIS is why the bowls want no part of a playoff: especially the BCS bowl. Any playoff kills their economic structure, as there is no way you can have a playoff, and replicate the economic impact of traveling fans - fans will travel en mass to a preliminary playoff game, knowing they may have to do it again the next week save for maybe the national championship game, and that would be on such short notice, many may not be able to afford it unless it is in driving distance, at which point you get back to the lack of fans staying in town for a week. Note that the NFL has a playoff, and fans do not travel to the away games, save for the Super Bowl. Now the NFL gives you an economic model to look at showing you that a better TV product may make up the difference, but I can make an argument that a playoff would actually no be a more valuable TV product, and could actually be less valuable than the BCS. At a minimum, it will not be so much more valuable to make up the lost revenue that the bowls overpay with.

More than anything else, this is the biggest impediment to a playoff. Keep in mind, that in order to ensure that the bowl system stays in place, the BCS bowls pay out far more than the total amount of money they make at the gate and TV money, because their cities make out like bandits . This is also why the Sugar Bowl took what they thought was the “sure thing” in Virginia Tech over Boise St, Kansas St, etc. It is also why there was no doubt Michigan would be picked, despite being the last team eligible.

(01-04-2012 11:04 PM)justinslot Wrote:  Illuminating thread, y'all, especially the idea that the non-AQ leagues will trade more access to the Plus One for less access to the money bowls. I mean, the Plus One is the end game here, right? This will be a compromise from the anti-playoff types (basically just Delany at this point): the big bowls get wedded to the traditional leagues in exchange for unfettered access to the Final Four I MEAN Plus One.

And I can kinda see Hair's motivation with wanting to do away with the AQ...he's probably thinking he can get some of the band back together, but I wonder if that horse hasn't left the barn. I mean, in the absence of an AQ does the New New Big East stay together because of, like, NBC paying for the basketball name combined with the "best" (debateable I know) of the leftover schools? Or does Boise say, "well, we tried, but this national conference thing is more trouble than its worth" and pulls the plug?

I've read every post above yours but wasn't truly motivated to jump in until just now.

I think Thompson's motivation is exactly what you surmise. Although I once thought the guy was a pretty innovative commissioner, I now think he's just plain dumb. Although Thompson erred by contracting with CBS-Comcast for an entire decade, the "alliance" (now being more and more referred to as a "merger") with CUSA is the cherry on top of the crap pile. Yeah, Thompson will probably manage to bounce his TV contract until by a few pennies, but at what cost? The answer is bringing "low" majors like Rice and Tulane into the fold.

Assuming we're correct that he thinks some of us will want to return to that mess if Big East football falls apart, he's as clueless as Karl Benson has been all these years in thinking that MWC schools might return to the WAC. In short, if BE football DOES dissolve, there will simply be a couple new conferences created. And those new conferences will simply steal the creme of the crop from Thompson's Alliance crap pile.

Oh and for those who are thinking Thompson doesn't call the shots, guess again. Yeah, he has to have the support of his bosses. However, the way in which the guy has managed to get himself appointed commissioner over what looks to be at least a 17-member conference despite losing five of the top members of his current league is nothing short of brilliant.