The BCS selection process was supposed to help more clearly define who deserved to be playing for the national championship each year. Some say it is the best process we have found so far, others disagree and are advocates of a "play off" system. Whether one chooses one viewpoint or the other, there is one thing under the current system that seems innately unfair to me and that is the lack of governance in regard to how BCS conference champions are determined. Some play a straight conference schedule, while others are required to play their division teams and then play cross over games with another division and then conduct a conference championship. Conferences that conduct conference championship games find that one good team might suffer a loss that might move them out of the BCS rankings. This seems unfair when other conferences do not conduct championship games and play one game less than those who do.
The BCS does not address this issue and their criteria for participating in a BCS Bowl is as follows:
1. The top two teams in the final BCS Standings shall play in the National Championship Game.
2. The Champions of the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 10 and SEC Conferences will have automatic berths in one of the participating bowls after the 2006 and 2007 regular seasons.
3. The Champions of Conference USA, the Mid American, Mountain West, Sunbelt and WAC Conferences will earn an automatic berth in a BCS bowl game if they are ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS standings or if they are ranked in the top 16 and are ranked higher than a conference champion from the conferences listed in item #2 above. In no case will more than one team from these conferences receive an automatic berth. If two or more teams from these conferences do satisfy the provisions for an automatic berth, the team with the highest finish in the standings will receive the automatic berth and the remaining team will go into the pool for selection as an "at large" team.
4. Notre Dame will have an automatic berth if it is in the top eight of the final BCS rankings.
Well, this explanation of who gets in and who doesn't, goes on and on and reads like a contract to purchase Trump Towers. Personally, I am for bringing balance, equity and more simplicity to the process.
The first problem with all of this is that some conferences have conference championship games and others do not because of their size or conference rules. In all fairness, all conferences should be required to have conference championship games. The rules should be the same for all involved. Either all of the conferences should have a championship game or none of them should have a championship game. The conference championships are sources of additional revenues for the conferences as a whole and based on that, one would think that every conference would want to play that extra game. This is apparently not the case.
I believe that the first step towards some sort of parity calls for a realignment of conferences. The realignment I have in mind would boost the size of some existing conferences and essentially eliminate others so that every conference had a minimum of 14 teams. In this way, every conference would be large enough to conduct a rotation of play between divisions and this would also present the opportunity for every conference to conduct a conference championship game. Though this is not a final solution, it is food for thought and I believe it would not only work, but that an NCAA realignment would benefit all conferences and teams involved in terms of revenue sharing.
Here is my realignment:
BIG 10-They would no longer have just eleven teams. Iowa State would move from the Big 12 to the Big 10. Notre Dame would have their "most favored" status pulled by the NCAA and they would be required to join the Big 10 to be BCS Bowl eligible. Pittsburgh would move over from the Big East to the Big 10 and this would give the "Big 11" fourteen members. No excuse to not have divisional play and a conference championship game.
MAC-The MAC already has 13 members and by moving Cincinatti in from the Big East this takes them to the 14 teams they need and they would also be required to engage in divisional play and conduct a conference championship game.
SEC-The SEC is already in good shape but by moving the Louisville in from the Big East and moving Georgia Tech in from the ACC it expands the conference to 14 teams and retains its regional integrity.
BIG 12-The Big 12 would have to replace Iowa State but in order to expand the conference and continue to maintain its regional structure, TCU, Colorado State and Air Force would all move in from the Mountain West. TCU in the south and Air Force and Colorado State in the North.
PAC 10-The Pac 10 would remain unchanged except to absorb Hawaii and Fresno State from the WAC and BYU and San Diego State from the Mountain West. This gives them 14 teams and the requirement for divisional play and a conference championship game for BCS eligibility.
ACC-The ACC would have to replace the loss of Georgia Tech to the SEC but they expand to 16 teams adding S. Florida, Rutgers, West Virginia, Connecticut and Syracuse.
MTN West/Sunbelt-These two conferences would join one another in two divisions of 9 teams each. Arkansas State, Florida International, Middle Tennessee, North Texas, Troy, UL Lafayette, UL Monroe, New Mexico and Western Kentucky in one division and UNLV, Utah, Wyoming, Boise State, Idaho, Nevada, San Jose State, Utah State and New Mexico State in the other.
C-USA-Conference USA would expand to two eight team divisions of 16 teams absorbing LA Tech, Florida Atlantic, Army and Navy.
This would eliminate any "independents", the Big East and the WAC Conferences as well.
This is not to say that this is the only solution, let alone the "right" solution. What it does do is add teams to each conference and provides for divisional play and conference championships in every conference. This could potentially increase each schools share of conference revenues unless the teams that are added have less than the current average revenue that is generated by existing teams.
I believe every conference should be required to conduct a conference championship game and under this proposed format, that could be accomplished. If a conference does not have a conference championship game, I believe that they should have to play a "BCS Qualifying Game" against a conference of similar strength that also does not have a CCG. This too, might lend more parity. Still, I believe the combining of conferences as I suggested above would help everyone have more confidence in the system we have right now. At the very least, it would put everyone on more level ground.
But that is just my view........from outside the boundaries.
comments (14) write a comment »
write a new comment
2 months ago
Just a minor point...true parity won't be achieved for ALL conferences...under your plan, the Big East will be no more. That wouldn't be parity.
It would be more accurate to say that parity would be achieved for more teams. A minor point, I guess.
But I don't understand. After realignment, would there still be BCS bids? I could have missed it, but I didn't see where you have a plan of what to do with all the conference champions.
Not saying it won't work, just saying that I don't know where you go after conference realignment.
from 2 months ago
All the NCAA has to do is say, no conference shall have less than 14 teams and if you want to be included in the BCS format, you will comply........then watch the scrambling to realign. First place teams are an automatic bid, second place are at large bids. That would provide 8 champions and 8 "at large". It works. If you wanted to expand to 10 BCS Bowls, you just take 12 "at large" teams, but I can't see a need for that. By doing the "8 & 8" format, you essentially get the same thing as the "Sweet 16" in basketball without a playoff.
from 2 months ago
"All the NCAA has to do is say, no conference shall have less than 14 teams and if you want to be included in the BCS format, you will comply........then watch the scrambling to realign."
I could see that working if they were given a few years to sort things out...as I said below, a 5 year window to re-align.
I also like Jay's idea of a regional conference game of some sort.
2 months ago
Also, you run into the problems of the conferences being independently run. I don't see how you can force them to do this realignment. Also, what do you do with the infrastructure of the Big East? Not to mention teams who have had historically bad relationships with a conference being the "red headed stepchild". For example, several teams from the Big East once sued the ACC when three of its teams defected to that conference. I doubt those teams could count on the ACC now to treat them equally to the other conference members.
Not to mention, the fan outcry would be tremendous. Lots of WVU fans I know would be up in arms about being forced to join the ACC. You'd have some unhappy campers all along. Plus, Big East conference football members only have to divide up our revenues 8 ways, which results in each team getting a larger piece of the pie.
It will be hard when and if the system is overhauled, but I'm like you...I can't help but being intrigued about such a realignment, but it's hard to imagine a way to do it that won't create headaches for some and leaves others benefiting unfairly. Which, in essence, is what we have now.
2 months ago
While I cannot see any way for any school to be forced into another conference, it is in interesting premise. I suppose the NCAA could say all conferences must have 14 teams and a playoff and let the conferences figure out re-alignment based upon that which makes most geographic and monetary sense. We could call each "conference" a division and name them North South East and West and then just have the National and American Conferences and they could play in a "Super" Bowl game for all the marbles. Just so long as they don't have has been pop stars play at half time. I bet it would work. Now if we can just get the basketball teams to change their format to something along the same lines and the teams could play best of 5 or 7 series to really tell who is best, not just one game flukes.
2 months ago
"I suppose the NCAA could say all conferences must have 14 teams and a playoff and let the conferences figure out re-alignment based upon that which makes most geographic and monetary sense."
Maybe set a deadline of a few years to realign themselves. Say, give all the conferences 5 years to get the necessary schools to comprise 14 teams.
The only problem I see are that the teams that currently have a high number of teams would have less of a shakeup than smaller conferences. Being a fan of a Big East team, it would be harder to get six quality teams than for the Big 12 to add two. If the teams were really bad, this would put our SOS at a disadvantage, while it might affect established conferences less.
But, I can sit here and gripe all day, finding problems with every scheme. It's still interesting to think about it.
Getting the conferences realigned would definitely be the hard part. But I like the idea of a regional game of some sort among conferences. That part would be cool.
2 months ago
It is a good thought to either have championship games in all conferences, who does not like more football or in the conference view more money. I agree with the comment by Christopher about finding the right regional teams and giving a time line. The only other small problem is when teams want to move up to the I-A division from I-AA.
from 2 months ago
It doesn't intially involve consideration for teams who would want to move up. We have more problems wiht what we have now than considering those who wish to move up a division. If we can solve this problem now, we can solve all the other problems later.
2 months ago
This is a completely unfeasible solution, for several reasons. Here are a few:
Teams can't just move from conference to conference because of football realignment. Realize that these schools compete in their conference in most other sports. Shuffling everything for football's sake would muck up conference affiliations in all other sports so much it's not even worth explaining.
The NCAA doesn't have control over the BCS. The BCS is just made up of the BCS conferences and bowl games (and Notre Dame). The NCAA doesn't control the selection for the BCS, because they aren't the creator of the BCS. The NCAA does not even crown a champion--we just have the BCS champion (who is the Coaches' Poll Champion) and the AP champion. So to say that the NCAA could just require conference realignment for BCS eligibility is completely misguided.
There are certain things that, as college football fans, we must all learn to accept. At least until far, far into the future. Notre Dame is an independent. The Pac 10 and Big 10 value the Rose Bowl more than a true national champion. And conferences at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.
True, there was significant realignment in the 90's when the Big 12 formed and in the 00's when the ACC expanded. But both of those were done solely because the conferences wanted increased revenue from the championship game. Until the other conferences decide that expansion and a title game is more cost-effective, things are going to stay the status quo.
Articles about this kind of conference realignment are the most ludicrous part of college football discussion. They are usually written by uninformed NFL-type fans and are generally not worth reading.
from 2 months ago
While I don't agree with your first point-football is the money maker and teams will follow the money-the rest of your points are very strong.
One other thing. 14 teams is too many. By adding those other teams you build even more obstacles into the paths of the lower ranked teams. In other ways, I think you would also introduce more confusion. With more conference parity you would have more difficulty getting two undefeated teams into the national championship.
I don't necessarily think the system is broken. Right now NCAA football is always a hot topic. NCAA basketball doesn't have the same intrigue.
2 months ago
unfeasible, but you are addressing an important issue. Imho, we should rethink the selection process and standardize it regardless of conference size. Increasing total revenue by realigning does seem to be a good point though.
2 months ago
A good idea that won't happen. First off 14 teams are too many. 12 works better. Also some schools are more of a basketball school and you are breaking up stuff that won't happen.
The Big !0 would never take in Iowa State. If they expanded they would want a team that brings in $$$. TV revenue means WVU, Pitt and Iowa St. aren't coming. Notre Dame could be forced to join a conference if teams are told not to schedule any team not in a conference.
If the Big 10 expands the teams they would want are in this order : Notre Dame, Missouri (St.Louis tv market), Colorado (Denver Market). Other teams they would consider are Rutgers, Nebraska and Syracuse.
Cincy wants no part of the MAC.
The Pac 10 would most likely take two teams from the same state which is how they operate. Colorado and CSU or most likely BYU and Utah. The two Utah schools are also basketball schools which would help them as Colo and CSU are not BB powers.
You have a good idea but it won't work.
The Big 10 and Pac 10 would pull out and form their own Division and tell the BCS boys to shove it. They control the Rose Bowl after all and with the SEC they are the three dominant conferences followed closely by the Big 12.
from about 1 month ago
There are problems associated with any realignment proposal. Some teams want to do it, others don't. Conferences like the Big 10 and Pac 10 would oppose it, as would Notre Dame because they enjoy their current status and don't really want to be involved in a conference championship in which there can only be one winner. The lower tier conferences would be for it and the fact that you might have 14 team or 16 team conferences is really irrelavent to them. They would benefit from more money being funneled into their conference coffers and more than likely greater revenue sharing which in turn would help all of them fund the building and improvement of their individual programs so that they could become more competitive with the bigger players helping to achieve greater parity.
There has been talk for a number of years of Colorado making a jump to the Pac 10 because of their liberal commonalities. I don't see this happening. It makes more sense, with the cost associated with travel and maintaning a program, that the Pac 10 take teams from further west. Hawaii would be a natural fit for the Pac 10 and in a short time, that "Cinderella" team would be competing year in and year out with the rest of the Pac 10. But the Pac 10 enjoys a recruiting advantage over the rest of the country right now but flashing the lights of the big city, the year round very tolerable temps and their beaches, in the faces of potential recruits. If you are a kid who has a choice of going to Arizona or UCLA, which do you pick? Dumb question, right? See what I mean? But if Hawaii enters the mix, they can do a little flashing of their own and say "we play ina top Div I conference and look at what we have to offer". The USC's and UCLA's, Stanford's, Cal's, Oregon and Oregon State's of the Pac 10 world do not want to have to compete against that.
There are a lot of reasons to say no to a proposal like this, but there are a lot of very good reasons to say "yes" as well. I am not saying mine is the only proposal that makes sense, I am sure there a lot of formats that might work. But what we have to do is push for a fair realignment that requires EVERYONE to have a conference championship game and at the same time, have a realignment that helps, not hinders, the smaller schools enabling them to grow and become more competitive.
about 1 month ago
The point of the BCS is to act like a cartel formed by the major conferences, controlling the over $200 million dollars that come from the bowls.
Ask yourself:
- would a BCS conference want to dilute its member shares by adding new members?
- what pressures could force these conferences to realign? Not the NCAA, which has no control over
their actions. Not the fans.
The advantage is only to non-BCS teams, who would increase their slice of the pie.
The BCS is only a coalition held together by a four year contract among conferences who have gone out and signed independent contracts with bowls for their members. Any pressure to change against their interests without any further rewards or penalties would dissolve the coalition.
The current status is due to the Big 10 and Pac 10 joining. They could as easily leave it.
write a new comment