Kevin Weiberg Transcript from BCS Meetings
April 26, 2005
BCS Coordinator Kevin Weiberg's Statements from BCS meetings in Phoenix.
Opening statement
This was a day where we had an opportunity to hear from all of our bowl partners as well as both of our television network partners, both ABC and our new partner, FOX Sports. Our annual meeting is always an opportunity for that kind of interchange with the bowls and with our television networks to see where there may be issues that need to be addressed based on last year's games and looking forward to next year's games.
It also afforded us an opportunity for the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl on issues related to his facility and issues we still had pending with the Fiesta Bowl, and we were pleased to have been able to resolve those issues today.
Also, I think you received a copy of a letter distributed by the BCS conferences to members of Congress today. It was our desire to make sure we followed up on the agreement that was reached among the conferences as a result of us going forward BCS relationship that we communicated that message to elected leaders in Washington about the BCS. Quite honestly, there had been a lot of questions about whether all conferences were on board supporting this plan, moving forward, and we were pleased to be able to present a unified front in that regard. All 11 conferences and Notre Dame signed off on the letter that talked about the agreement that had been reached among the conferences, the fact that we remained committed to the bowl system and that we're moving forward with this agreement in a common way. We thought it was just important that that message be communicated to members of Congress as part our ongoing correspondence and that we state our support generally for the bowl system. I think it is significant given where we came from a year ago. At that point, we had a lot of deviancies and questions being raised about access to these bowl games. We just felt like it was important to follow up with elected leaders that we have support from presidents, chancellors, commissioners, athletic directors from all 11 conferences at this point, knowing that we still have a lot of work to do relative to the BCS as it moves forward.
Today, we spent more time on the BCS standings formula. It remains one of our key component parts of these meetings. It would be fair today based on the discussions we had up to this point that the focus continues to be on finding a replacement poll for the Associated Press poll. We had good conversation about a full-range of options, but I think as we move forward from these meetings the focus will continue to be on seeking a replacement for that element of the BCS standings formula. That's not to say we have taken off the table other options that may be available to us, but I would have to say that the consensus at this time seems to be more around the idea of moving forward with the standings formula assuming we can find a replacement poll. There's still a lot of work to be done in that area.
On what options the BCS is looking at regarding a replacement poll:
We had presentations here from the National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame as well as the Division I-A Athletic Directors' association. We continue to look at a poll that we would potentially include a panel of voters that would be comprised of individuals who have had experience with the sport, either as administrators, coaches or perhaps former players. That's where we're putting most of our focus on at this point.
On the issue of transparency for the replacement poll:
I think the issue of transparency continues to be a primary concern for us. We have not resolved those issues. It is one of the considerations in determining whether we can move forward with a replacement poll. I think without a doubt that that issue continues to be foremost in our mind, both for the coaches poll and for any replacement poll that we would plug into that spot.
On finding a panel of voters who would agree to make their vote public:
We have to see if there is a panel of voters who would agree to our criteria to participation and those kinds of things.
How many voters would a replacement poll have?
That's one of the remaining questions. Do you have to have a panel as large as 60 voters or are there other alternatives based on the nature of the poll. That's an open question at this point.
What would the start date be for the new poll?
I think it would clearly be our preference for that poll to not start until sometime in early October. We think it's important for games to be played, for voters to have a chance to see the results of those games. So that would be a criteria that we're very interested in. No final decision has been made about this piece, but that's something we would be very interested in as we look out to see what might be our options.
Is the BCS worried about the credibility of the new poll?
It depends on what your definition of credibility is. Is credibility tied to how long a poll as been in existence, or is it tied into the nature of the people voting, the system unto which their voting, the transparency associated of their votes. I think those are the questions that loom large in our mind and we need to have more discussion about. But I don't think you can take the position that simply because a poll may be new, it lacks credibility in some way. But I understand that there will be issues about how it's made up, who is voting, and about what is expected of voters.
On the issue of revealing the votes from a replacement poll:
The primary issue related to transparency in our minds is disclosure of final votes. I don't think our expectation at this point that we would expect votes to be released each week throughout the season. We need to understand more about how voters would feel about that and whether that will be a problem.
On weighting issues if a replacement poll is used:
We haven't resolved all those issues yet. Right now, we'll continue to focus on the feasibility question. The weighting issues is something we will have more discussion about.
Despite the problems of last year, there was a feeling that the changes made last year to simplify the component parts, to put more weight on the human elements in that process, were the right kind of changes. To that extent, I think there is a greater comfort level with the parts of the formula. What remains to be seen is whether we can come up with a second human poll to be part of the system.
I think it's also important to say here that the standings serve a number of other purposes beyond just the 1-2 matchup. That is certainly an important way, but it also serves as access for conferences without automatic qualifications, it determines the at-large pool of teams in which the bowls can select. So, as we think about weighting issues, there are factors that come into play that are greater than the 1-2 matchup that have to be thought through.
Is this a major shift of the BCS?
I don't know if it's a 180 degree reversal, but it is the evolution of the system. You would have to say that. The issue of access was one that was very prominent as we worked through issues with other conferences. As you may remember, there were congressional hearings about these issues, so it has been part of the evolution of this system as we moved forward.
Are the other options still on the table?
I think the focus remains on the issue of a replacement poll. That isn't to say we might not in the next few weeks decide we can't make that work, and back up and consider another approach. At this point, I would say that's where our focus is.
On Fiesta Bowl announcement—the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl will host the first BCS championship game in January 2007:
It is my pleasure to say that we have, while working with the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, been able to resolve the remaining the outstanding issues relative to the BCS national championship game for 2007. It's terrific in our mind as we launch the first game under this new model that we'll be doing so here in Phoenix and with the leadership of the Fiesta Bowl.
The Tostitos Fiesta Bowl will take place Jan. 1, 2007, followed by the BCS National Championship Game on Jan. 8, 2007.
Who will sponsor the BCS National Championship Game?
Under the new model as we go forward, FOX Sports will continue to have the right to sell entitlements to these games. They're in the process now of beginning to package these rights, and get out in the market place and discuss it with the incumbent sponsors at this time. I think it's mostly likely their intent to continue as much as possible with existing sponsors, with the hope that the existing sponsors will be part of both the Fiesta Bowl on an annual basis but also the national championship when it's here in Phoenix. Those issues still have to be resolved.
On the rotation of the BCS National Championship Game:
Right now, we're looking at the 2007 championship game here and continuing forward under the rotation as it has existed with Pasadena having the 2010 championship game.
What will the championship game be called?
It will be the BCS National Championship game, and we may have a title sponsor associated with the game.
On the feeling for the replacement poll:
Based on our discussions, I feel we can come up with a suitable replacement poll. I don't want to rank it from the standard of putting a number on it because I still think we need to work on it some more.
<a href='http://www.bcsfootball.org/news.cfm?headline=90' target='_blank'>Latest from BCS Chairman on BCS Status</a>
Here is a link to the letter from the BCS to the United States Congress:
<a href='http://www.bcsfootball.org/files/letter050426.pdf' target='_blank'>BCS Letter to Congress</a>
