I think it will simply help the rich get richer. Right now there are 10 spots in BCS games and no conference can have more than 2 participants, unless somehow a conference ends up with #1 and #2 playing in the BCS championship game, but a third team from that conference actually winning the conference (this is almost impossible).

The highest ranked champion from the C-USA, MWC, MAC and the WAC are gauranteed a spot if the win their conference championship and finish in the top 12. Boise has done it twice. Utah and Hawaii have done it. Houston had it wrapped up this year until they lost in the C-USA Championship Game.

If the AQ is dropped then I can see something like this shaking out...

BCS #1 vs #2
Rose Big 10 #1 vs Pac 10 #1
Fiesta Pac 10 #2 vs Big XII #1
Sugar SEC #1 vs ACC #1
Orange Big 10 #2 vs SEC #2
Cotton SEC #3 vs Big XII #2

Depending on performance, I think we can gain interest and take one of those spots.

(01-04-2012 12:05 PM)Butterfly Wrote:  Depending on performance, I think we can gain interest and take one of those spots.

That and a dollar will buy you a candy bar. Performance has zero to do with it. This is not the NFL.

(01-04-2012 11:54 AM)3601 Wrote:  I think it will simply help the rich get richer. Right now there are 10 spots in BCS games and no conference can have more than 2 participants, unless somehow a conference ends up with #1 and #2 playing in the BCS championship game, but a third team from that conference actually winning the conference (this is almost impossible).

The highest ranked champion from the C-USA, MWC, MAC and the WAC are gauranteed a spot if the win their conference championship and finish in the top 12. Boise has done it twice. Utah and Hawaii have done it. Houston had it wrapped up this year until they lost in the C-USA Championship Game.

If the AQ is dropped then I can see something like this shaking out...

BCS #1 vs #2
Rose Big 10 #1 vs Pac 10 #1
Fiesta Pac 10 #2 vs Big XII #1
Sugar SEC #1 vs ACC #1
Orange Big 10 #2 vs SEC #2
Cotton SEC #3 vs Big XII #2

This is the REAL goal of "eliminating" AQ status. Anyone that thinks that it's going to be based on some type of merit-based system (i.e. top 10 ranking) is going to get blindsided.

The best hope for the new Big East to get a spot in an "open market" system is to offer extensive access to Notre Dame (i.e. if ND is ranked higher than the BE champ in *any* year - not just once or twice every 4 years - the bowl can take ND instead).

(01-04-2012 01:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 11:54 AM)3601 Wrote:  I think it will simply help the rich get richer. Right now there are 10 spots in BCS games and no conference can have more than 2 participants, unless somehow a conference ends up with #1 and #2 playing in the BCS championship game, but a third team from that conference actually winning the conference (this is almost impossible).

The highest ranked champion from the C-USA, MWC, MAC and the WAC are gauranteed a spot if the win their conference championship and finish in the top 12. Boise has done it twice. Utah and Hawaii have done it. Houston had it wrapped up this year until they lost in the C-USA Championship Game.

If the AQ is dropped then I can see something like this shaking out...

BCS #1 vs #2
Rose Big 10 #1 vs Pac 10 #1
Fiesta Pac 10 #2 vs Big XII #1
Sugar SEC #1 vs ACC #1
Orange Big 10 #2 vs SEC #2
Cotton SEC #3 vs Big XII #2

This is the REAL goal of "eliminating" AQ status. Anyone that thinks that it's going to be based on some type of merit-based system (i.e. top 10 ranking) is going to get blindsided.

Exactly. You've got a bunch of people in message boards all over the internet who are living in Candyland. They think there is about to be some sort of utopia where everybody plays nice and everyone gets lollipops and teddybears.

The reality is that the changes that will be coming will make the greed, hypocrisy, and selfishness we've seen until now look like an episode of The Care Bears or Barney the Friendly Dinosaur. Intercollegiate athletics have been on a straight trajectory of greed and selfishness for decades. I've seen nothing to indicate that the train is now heading in the opposite direction.

AQ ain't going away - it's just morphing into a have-more scenario for the haves. I think your scenario is pretty smack on.

What will be interesting is the response. If it becomes so blatant, will the have-nots find their balls and stand up to the haves?

Apparently many college presidents are happy with the non-playoff system. I think it might be time to get the 120+ presidents on record stating their preference. Would be great to hear their rationale and hold them accountable. Prolly a pipe dream, I know, but would be nice!

By the way... if we were in this much discussed "everyone in the top 10 is in" scenario, We would have had a grand total of one Big Ten, and no ACC teams in the BCS bowls this year

(01-04-2012 12:07 PM)Scroggins Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 12:05 PM)Butterfly Wrote:  Depending on performance, I think we can gain interest and take one of those spots.

That and a dollar will buy you a candy bar. Performance has zero to do with it. This is not the NFL.

Boosters are awfully reluctant to support sucky teams, so are networks, recruits and everyone else. Say what you want about BCS bias, 99% of the teams who aren't in the Big 6 are garbage in contrast.

(01-04-2012 02:25 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  By the way... if we were in this much discussed "everyone in the top 10 is in" scenario, We would have had a grand total of one Big Ten, and no ACC teams in the BCS bowls this year

This is exactly why when you see Jim Delany saying, "I don't care about AQ status as long as we have the Rose Bowl", everyone should know what the intended result is. If Delany is on board, it's certainly not to cut down on the Big Ten's access to the top bowls. Far from it - this is about getting 3 or more contractual Big Ten tie-ins to what we now call BCS bowls.

If AQ goes away it'll still be about bowl contracts (just like it is now). All the offical removal of BCS AQ status will accomplish is removing the BCS from the legal arguments against the current bowl system... Which in the end could still be a step towards a playoff because at the point the bowls themselves will be exposed in a similar fashion.

(01-04-2012 02:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 02:25 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  By the way... if we were in this much discussed "everyone in the top 10 is in" scenario, We would have had a grand total of one Big Ten, and no ACC teams in the BCS bowls this year

This is exactly why when you see Jim Delany saying, "I don't care about AQ status as long as we have the Rose Bowl", everyone should know what the intended result is. If Delany is on board, it's certainly not to cut down on the Big Ten's access to the top bowls. Far from it - this is about getting 3 or more contractual Big Ten tie-ins to what we now call BCS bowls.

Loved Delany's faux-pas. Really showed what a prick he is.

Will the former BCS bowls really be able to keep high payouts if left to "market value"? Will be interesting, because wouldn't the bowl organizers want to just keep more of the money for themselves? Y'know, being non-profit and all...

Payouts could drop considerably. Depends on how the new TV contracts regarding the bowls shakes out.

(01-04-2012 02:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 02:25 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  By the way... if we were in this much discussed "everyone in the top 10 is in" scenario, We would have had a grand total of one Big Ten, and no ACC teams in the BCS bowls this year

This is exactly why when you see Jim Delany saying, "I don't care about AQ status as long as we have the Rose Bowl", everyone should know what the intended result is. If Delany is on board, it's certainly not to cut down on the Big Ten's access to the top bowls. Far from it - this is about getting 3 or more contractual Big Ten tie-ins to what we now call BCS bowls.

And the SEC...who is actually pushing the idea to the BCS to do away with the 2 team max spots...as they want to get 3 (or maybe even MORE) into the biggest/highest paying bowl games too.

(01-04-2012 02:21 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  AQ ain't going away - it's just morphing into a have-more scenario for the haves. I think your scenario is pretty smack on.

What will be interesting is the response. If it becomes so blatant, will the have-nots find their balls and stand up to the haves?

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.

(01-04-2012 02:42 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  And the SEC...who is actually pushing the idea to the BCS to do away with the 2 team max spots...as they want to get 3 (or maybe even MORE) into the biggest/highest paying bowl games too.

Absolutely. Mike Slive may support a 4-team playoff, but he still wants the bowl system to be every bit as exclusionary as Delany.

(01-04-2012 02:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 02:21 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  AQ ain't going away - it's just morphing into a have-more scenario for the haves. I think your scenario is pretty smack on.

What will be interesting is the response. If it becomes so blatant, will the have-nots find their balls and stand up to the haves?

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.

I haven't heard anything about Hair's rationale (we "affectionately" refer to Craig Thompson as "Hair", because of his copious coif).

Personally, I think they should just band together and demand a playoff. But for reasons that remain unclear, the non-AQ conferences seem to enjoy getting pushed around during voting and then complain later, and it seems the university presidents are all against a real post-season. It is the biggest puzzle to me - it's like none of them have any economic sense. Isn't there a professor in one of the universities that could explain to the college presidents how much money they stand to earn with a playoff over the current system? I mean, if this is really driven by money, then why leave so much on the table???

(01-04-2012 03:02 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  I haven't heard anything about Hair's rationale (we "affectionately" refer to Craig Thompson as "Hair", because of his copious coif).

Personally, I think they should just band together and demand a playoff. But for reasons that remain unclear, the non-AQ conferences seem to enjoy getting pushed around during voting and then complain later, and it seems the university presidents are all against a real post-season. It is the biggest puzzle to me - it's like none of them have any economic sense. Isn't there a professor in one of the universities that could explain to the college presidents how much money they stand to earn with a playoff over the current system? I mean, if this is really driven by money, then why leave so much on the table???

They've done this many times. The MWC proposes an 8 or 16-team playoff at virtually every single BCS meeting.

For the latter "leaving money on the table" issue, it's not just about absolute dollars (which is what 99% of all playoff proposals out there seem to miss). It's about the revenue GAP in and of itself. Big Ten making $30 million per year from a playoff as opposed to $25 million per year from the bowl system sounds nice in a vacuum as a revenue increase. However, a playoff also means that the MWC gets $30 million per year from a playoff, too (as opposed to $5 million per year). The Big Ten might be making $5 million per year more in a playoff system, but their advantage over the MWC went from $20 million to zero. *That's* what is unacceptable to the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12, ACC and Big 12.

Show me a playoff system where the 5 power conferences get to keep 90% of the revenue (just as they get to keep 90% of the bowl system revenue) and you might actually see a playoff coming to fruition. An NCAA Tournament-style revenue sharing system, though, is exactly what the power conferences do NOT want. They want to avoid that type of system for football at ALL costs. Concentrated control of the system is every bit as important as money itself.

Plus, you have to look at postseason money in conjunction with the regular season. I love the NCAA Tournament, but it has made the TV value of regular season basketball games a rounding error compared to football TV money. That's a massive reason why expansion is almost completely about football. The university presidents have a REAL fear of a football playoff eroding football regular season TV revenue (which is where the power conferences truly make their money). There are certainly logical arguments against that fear (i.e. a 4-team playoff could make more regular season games more interesting and valuable), but note that they saw what happened to basketball with their own eyes, so they're VERY skeptical. The stance of the power conference presidents isn't very crazy at all when looking at the entire season as a whole.

As i have been saying, if AQ ends, it will actually only end for the Big East, not for the other AQ conferences.

Which is why it will end. The SEC, PAC, ACC, and B1G no longer feel the desire to give a slot to a diluted Big East.

(01-04-2012 02:42 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 02:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 02:25 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  By the way... if we were in this much discussed "everyone in the top 10 is in" scenario, We would have had a grand total of one Big Ten, and no ACC teams in the BCS bowls this year

This is exactly why when you see Jim Delany saying, "I don't care about AQ status as long as we have the Rose Bowl", everyone should know what the intended result is. If Delany is on board, it's certainly not to cut down on the Big Ten's access to the top bowls. Far from it - this is about getting 3 or more contractual Big Ten tie-ins to what we now call BCS bowls.

Loved Delany's faux-pas. Really showed what a prick he is.

Will the former BCS bowls really be able to keep high payouts if left to "market value"? Will be interesting, because wouldn't the bowl organizers want to just keep more of the money for themselves? Y'know, being non-profit and all...

Payouts could drop considerably. Depends on how the new TV contracts regarding the bowls shakes out.

A couple of things:

(1) The 4 BCS bowls (or whatever they are called in the future) would likely still host and run the national championship game on a rotation basis, so they'd maintain the same or higher payouts. They might not be called "BCS bowls" anymore, but they still are owners of the championship system.

(2) In an unseeded plus-one system (which is what I personally believe is what will be put into place for the next BCS contract), the bowls will look like what they did in the pre-BCS era, only that the rankings are re-tabulated after the bowls are completed and the plus-one #1 vs. #2 national title matchup is set at that point. This is a good thing for the top bowls as they get their conference tie-in champs back no matter how highly they are ranked, so they become relevant in the national title race again. They aren't true playoffs, but any bowl with a highly-ranked tie-in is going to be a quasi-playoff game. Those bowls will be more attractive to the TV networks than the current bowl system, so this is another way that the high payouts would be maintained or go even higher.

(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.

(01-04-2012 04:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 02:42 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 02:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 02:25 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  By the way... if we were in this much discussed "everyone in the top 10 is in" scenario, We would have had a grand total of one Big Ten, and no ACC teams in the BCS bowls this year

This is exactly why when you see Jim Delany saying, "I don't care about AQ status as long as we have the Rose Bowl", everyone should know what the intended result is. If Delany is on board, it's certainly not to cut down on the Big Ten's access to the top bowls. Far from it - this is about getting 3 or more contractual Big Ten tie-ins to what we now call BCS bowls.

Loved Delany's faux-pas. Really showed what a prick he is.

Will the former BCS bowls really be able to keep high payouts if left to "market value"? Will be interesting, because wouldn't the bowl organizers want to just keep more of the money for themselves? Y'know, being non-profit and all...

Payouts could drop considerably. Depends on how the new TV contracts regarding the bowls shakes out.

A couple of things:

(1) The 4 BCS bowls (or whatever they are called in the future) would likely still host and run the national championship game on a rotation basis, so they'd maintain the same or higher payouts. They might not be called "BCS bowls" anymore, but they still are owners of the championship system.

(2) In an unseeded plus-one system (which is what I personally believe is what will be put into place for the next BCS contract), the bowls will look like what they did in the pre-BCS era, only that the rankings are re-tabulated after the bowls are completed and the plus-one #1 vs. #2 national title matchup is set at that point. This is a good thing for the top bowls as they get their conference tie-in champs back no matter how highly they are ranked, so they become relevant in the national title race again. They aren't true playoffs, but any bowl with a highly-ranked tie-in is going to be a quasi-playoff game. Those bowls will be more attractive to the TV networks than the current bowl system, so this is another way that the high payouts would be maintained or go even higher.

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 NCG is just one game held on a rotating basis. Even now, it doesn't supplant the other "BCS" game.
So the payouts for the former BCS bowls will depend on A) the amount the bowl can raise via TV contract and B) how much they are willing to offer to the participating teams.
And if they behave as they have so far, their self-interest trumps anything else, so the payouts could conceivably go down - perhaps considerably.