"Big East on the verge of adding Boise State, San Diego State and three other schools

[SAMCRO]

That's not what would happen. The set up would be the BCS only controls the BCS title game, and the other bowls are just on their own, free to do and choose schools, so no tied-in automatic qualifiers, etc. That would be a death knell to the Big East.

Yup, it will also open up new locations to play the championship game, won't just have to be at one of the four current BCS bowls. Dallas is in play, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Tampa, Indianapolis, the current BCS sites, and any other large enough venue could bid on hosting the game (similar to the Super Bowl), putting even more money in the BCS honchos pockets.

The times they are a changing.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

So let me get this straight. The BCS goes away. Then the "Big 4" conferences get aligned with the best bowl games and leaves millions of "eyeballs" from the East/Atlantic coast to pick up the scrap bowls like the MAC or C-USA?

I don't buy it.

I suspect the Fiesta and Orange badly want to maintain the "BCS" label on their bowls. The "BCS going away" is just another in a long line of empty threats. The postseason is struggling for relevance as is, the last thing the BCS wants to do is eliminate the difference between the "majors" and the rest of the bowls.

 

[RS9999X]

I suspect the Fiesta and Orange badly want to maintain the "BCS" label on their bowls. The "BCS going away" is just another in a long line of empty threats. The postseason is struggling for relevance as is, the last thing the BCS wants to do is eliminate the difference between the "majors" and the rest of the bowls.

ABC/ESPN pays $150 million for the 5 BCS games.

The conferences want to go back to each having their own Bowl affiliation and a non-affiliated National Championship game in Jerry Jones Stadium. The 4 Affiliated bowls will get the Champions or #2 if they are in the NC game. The at-large spots are wide open meaning they will pick among themselves (which really means whoever ESPN wants that year). They Big 4 will each get $50 million under the next contract ($200 million or better in 2014) and guarantee $10 million to the visiting teams which will be a paper transfer as they they will inbreed like Southerners and occasionaly throw a Florida ACC team a bone if they win the ACC and toss them $10 mil and tell them to shut up.

As far as ratings go---UConn doomed the logic that the BCS sacrifices eyeballs if they inbreed and exclude the East Coast teams. They have a mountain of Nielsens that tells them Kansas State v Wisconsin is a better draw nationally than Clemson v UConn on New Years Day.

 

[RS9999X]

The BE and ACC and ND could enter an ageement to have their champs face off and go head-to-head against the Big 4 on New Year's Day. There isn't much ammo there. If Notre Dame is 10-2 and Miamia10-2 the Big 4 will select them as at-large and pay them more than their pathetic Yankee Bowl paycheck. A bone once a decade/

 

[nelsonmuntz]

ABC/ESPN pays $150 million for the 5 BCS games.

The conferences want to go back to each having their own Bowl affiliation and a non-affiliated National Championship game in Jerry Jones Stadium. The 4 Affiliated bowls will get the Champions or #2 if they are in the NC game. The at-large spots are wide open meaning they will pick among themselves (which really means whoever ESPN wants that year). They Big 4 will each get $50 million under the next contract ($200 million or better in 2014) and guarantee $10 million to the visiting teams which will be a paper transfer as they they will inbreed like Southerners and occasionaly throw a Florida ACC team a bone if they win the ACC and toss them $10 mil and tell them to shut up.

As far as ratings go---UConn doomed the logic that the BCS sacrifices eyeballs if they inbreed and exclude the East Coast teams. They have a mountain of Nielsens that tells them Kansas State v Wisconsin is a better draw nationally than Clemson v UConn on New Years Day.

The ratings for the Fiesta or Orange will crater for the average fan if they do not have a "BCS" label attached. Look at what happened before they 4 big bowls formed their cartel. The last thing ESPN wants is a free for all with Fox and NBC jumping in backing random bowls with big money in prime time against one of the "majors'.

I think it is an empty threat. It is more likely that the BCS adds the Cotton as a major and raises the # of teams a conference can send to BCS games. Slive wouldn't have brought up the issue if the BCS was simply going away.

 

[Adios]

Kids from Texas, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc., will have the chance to go to urban areas of significance. It's a nice marketing ploy for recruiting.

 

[Chin Diesel]

The ratings for the Fiesta or Orange will crater for the average fan if they do not have a "BCS" label attached. Look at what happened before they 4 big bowls formed their cartel. The last thing ESPN wants is a free for all with Fox and NBC jumping in backing random bowls with big money in prime time against one of the "majors'.

I think it is an empty threat. It is more likely that the BCS adds the Cotton as a major and raises the # of teams a conference can send to BCS games. Slive wouldn't have brought up the issue if the BCS was simply going away.

One of the few times you make any sense.

Jerry is gonna get in to the fold one way or another. Easiest way to appease everyone? Add another BCS bowl, making the number 5, plus the nat'l championship game and you have twelve teams making the BCS every year.

The only losers? Schools and fans being on the hook for buying 17,500 tix each up front.

Keep the AQ for the six conference champs and you still have six at large bids for the the Pac-12, B1G, Big 10 and SEC to divvy up. Each of the conferences get a second BCS bid and two of the four can send a third team to a BCS game. With Boise and TCU in the fold, the only schools outside the top six conferences that can encroach are NDU and BYU.

On the other hand, down here in the panhandle of Florida it's widely assumed the BCS is going away and a free for all is going to break out. BCS championship is the only survivor.

 

[Jericho]

Pretty much, and I highly doubt it goes away. A BCS system, which gives no access to the Big East or Non-AQ's, would come under a far greater firestorm than it does now. I would expect tweaks, but nothing more.

On a personal note, I'd like to see the Cotton Bowl become part of the BCS.

Actually, you have it backwards. The biggest criticism of the current BCS is that it may violate Antitrust law. Now, that's a pretty questionable argument as is, although as somehow who has studied American Antitrust law, I can tell you antitrust law itself makes little sense. So no argument is without some merit. If the politicians get involved, that's the biggest point of attack.

Without AQ, it leaves the bowls to choose whomever they want. That's a free market and the exact opposite of antitrust. Such a system would kill the Antitrust argument, to the extent it exists now. That does not mean politicians cannot become involved. But by removing the one major legal argument, their use decreases dramatically.

 

[businesslawyer]

I suspect the Fiesta and Orange badly want to maintain the "BCS" label on their bowls. The "BCS going away" is just another in a long line of empty threats. The postseason is struggling for relevance as is, the last thing the BCS wants to do is eliminate the difference between the "majors" and the rest of the bowls.

This. Much of what you are hearing is the Big XII interfering with the Big East's expansion. The Orange, Fiesta and Sugar benefit greatly, greatly, from having the "BCS" designation in terms of marketing and TV rights. The designation is not going away that easily.

 

[uconNYC]

With regards to the teams added - I say just keep it at 10. Play everyone for 9 games. Ensures that we have a game in Florida and Texas plus an appealing match-up with Boise St. every year.

 

[RS9999X]

The ratings for the Fiesta or Orange will crater for the average fan if they do not have a "BCS" label attached. Look at what happened before they 4 big bowls formed their cartel. The last thing ESPN wants is a free for all with Fox and NBC jumping in backing random bowls with big money in prime time against one of the "majors'.

I think it is an empty threat. It is more likely that the BCS adds the Cotton as a major and raises the # of teams a conference can send to BCS games. Slive wouldn't have brought up the issue if the BCS was simply going away.

I think they will compromise but you know ESPN is also thinking more matchups like UConn in the Fiesta and opposng networks can schedule against them with impunity and the BCS cachet no longer has value.

SUwas in the 18th rated Yankee bowl and the best BE appearance last year ourside of UConn followed by Pitt in 20th place and WVU in 21st. Skim Pitt and SU and WVU take away the AQ for the BE and that leaves the Big East teams in bowls that pull about the same as the average non-marquee college game.

>>The Fiesta Bowl’s first time on ESPN — a 48-20 Oklahoma victory over Connecticut on Saturday — produced a 6.7 overnight rating, which won the prime-time race against all broadcast and cable networks. But that was significantly lower than the previous three years, when Fox televised the game and received ratings of 8.6, 11.6 and 8.4<<

 

[gars44]

Actually, you have it backwards. The biggest criticism of the current BCS is that it may violate Antitrust law. Now, that's a pretty questionable argument as is, although as somehow who has studied American Antitrust law, I can tell you antitrust law itself makes little sense. So no argument is without some merit. If the politicians get involved, that's the biggest point of attack.

Without AQ, it leaves the bowls to choose whomever they want. That's a free market and the exact opposite of antitrust. Such a system would kill the Antitrust argument, to the extent it exists now. That does not mean politicians cannot become involved. But by removing the one major legal argument, their use decreases dramatically.

Pretty accurate assessment. The one variable is politics. Anti-trust law itself is founded on politics, given the fact that the whole body of law is based on a federal statute that of course was the product of political compromise. It is an abstruse area. All that being true, the last thing the bowls want is to lose their BCS affiliation, so one has to assume that it has great economic value. And that value appears closed to a large group of consumers/participants. It does approach "embargo" status in some ways. BCS has survived thus far by being judiciously inclusive enough to ward off any legal challenges. Will they continue this judicious course? One would think.

 

[RS9999X]

The conferences can contract their own Conference Championship game. No one argues that. No bowl committees to fuss with.

Marketing 4 top tier bowls as "Champions" Bowls from the PAC-12, BiG, B12, and SEC and adding it to their conference contracts to the tune of $50 million a year per bowl? Easy (The Rose went for $30 mil a year in 2004).

Selecting any at-large teams they want and inbreeding? Perfectly legal. Select the best available #2 teams (from the Big 4 of course) The Conferences can bid the games out to the highest stadium deals and get rid of the Bowl Committee fiascos and old facilities like the Orange Bowl.

If ESPN pays for the Champion Bowls and markets it, it will replace the BCS name in one year.

Skimming the Top 2 teams off for a National Bowl based on the BCS ranking system? Perfectly legal. Then the BCS manages the bowl, not a Bowl Committee. They could wait until after the Champions Bowls are played and take the best two team based on the BCS polls at that point and perfect their inbreeding.

I'd propose that in a heartbeat if EPSN pays.

 

[Druken Friar]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...tate-others/iigqapMOQMAnefPZIs9JDL/story.html

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Actually, you have it backwards. The biggest criticism of the current BCS is that it may violate Antitrust law. Now, that's a pretty questionable argument as is, although as somehow who has studied American Antitrust law, I can tell you antitrust law itself makes little sense. So no argument is without some merit. If the politicians get involved, that's the biggest point of attack.

Without AQ, it leaves the bowls to choose whomever they want. That's a free market and the exact opposite of antitrust. Such a system would kill the Antitrust argument, to the extent it exists now. That does not mean politicians cannot become involved. But by removing the one major legal argument, their use decreases dramatically.

5 conferences colluding with each other to exclude everyone else from the top 5 bowls does not eliminate the anti-trust problem. Where do you get that? The long term relationships between bowls and conferences reeks of market allocation, which is an anti-trust violation.

You also realize that market share is a test in anti-trust cases right? 100% market share for major bowls between 50% of the market participants would be a problem.

 

[RS9999X]

If the ESPN money goes to the conferences for a Champion game against an at-large competitor and fixed time slot and the conferences bid out the bowl facility contract it will pass legality easily.

NBC can compete and offer Boise against Southern Miss at at Yankee Stadium and create whatever dumb ass competition they want and go against those time slots on New Years Day or look at some nice quiet week night.