Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ran into something interesting: As reported by ESPN.com the Department of Justice is taking a closer look at the BCS and alegations that it violates Federal Anti-Trust Laws. "Serious questions continue to arise suggesting the current Bowl Championship Series system may not be conducted consistent with the competition principles expressed in the federal antitrust laws."
Since my team is a non-AQ that's been left out in the cold several times, this really got me thinking. College football is the most lucrative sport in the USA bar none. We all know that the big money and big payouts go to the big conference teams, not based upon merit but being in the right conference.
UConn in no way deserved to be in a BCS game and consider the payout - $17 million - all for being the best team in an absolutely awful conference. UConn went 8-4 on the season. Another 8-4 team was Temple and they didn't even make it to one of the little kiddie bowls that payout $700,000 or so. Temple actually had no post-season.
The best payout for any bowl played between two non-AQ teams was $1 million - the Las Vegas Bowl with Utah vs Boise State. This means that the best you can hope for without an AQ team in the mix is 1/17th what the BCS guarantees teams like UConn they are contractually obligated to take no matter what. If you look over the list of last year's bowl games and how teams get in, you realize that it's not just the BCS. The entire bowl system is programmed to keep the big payouts going to the big schools and the paltry amounts going to the non-AQ schools. The truth of the matter is that the BCS was a move in the right direction and the end goal is to hammer out a playoff system -- either with the bowl games built into it or getting rid of the bowl game system to make it possible.
So what I'm wondering is what everyone else thinks. Does the Department of Justice have a valid case against the NCAA for anti-trust and anti-competative practices? And is a playoff system the best solution?
UConn in no way deserved to be in a BCS game and consider the payout - $17 million - all for being the best team in an absolutely awful conference. UConn went 8-4 on the season. Another 8-4 team was Temple and they didn't even make it to one of the little kiddie bowls that payout $700,000 or so. Temple actually had no post-season.
Temple made more money than UConn by not going to a bowl. UConn lost money by going to the Fiesta Bowl.
That is the real problem with the BCS. BCS got their money but the school had to pay to play? WTF?
Why the need for the DOJ to let people know they "are looking into" the BCS? How about just letting us know when you launch a formal investigation.
UConn in no way deserved to be in a BCS game and consider the payout - $17 million - all for being the best team in an absolutely awful conference. UConn went 8-4 on the season. Another 8-4 team was Temple and they didn't even make it to one of the little kiddie bowls that payout $700,000 or so. Temple actually had no post-season.
You forgot to mention that Temple BEAT Connecticut during the 2010 regular season.
If you want to blame people blame the system, UConn held up it's end of the bargain.
Anyway, Orrin Hatch can holler all he wants, I don't see Florida, Texas or California senators stepping up in complaints. Until that happens and you get a cadre of complainers good luck.
Temple made more money than UConn by not going to a bowl. UConn lost money by going to the Fiesta Bowl.
That is the real problem with the BCS. BCS got their money but the school had to pay to play? WTF?
I don't know that UConn loses money in the deal, it's not easy to blow through $17 million. You obviously know something I don't and I'd love to hear more about it.
But at the end of the day, bowls are more about a public display of prestige for your football program. By playing a big-time school in a bowl game, at minimum UConn makes their presence known, and may have positively impacted recruiting -- and they're not really an elite football program to begin with. Players coming out of high school are going to tend to want as big of a spotlight on them as possible so the NFL scouts notice them. So if you're a top prospect and you want to be a giant among boys (rather than a giant among giants) and still get plenty of national TV time, the Big East is a good place to be.
That's how this all plays out. The added attention and prestige of being in one of the BCS bowls can provide a huge boost to your recruiting.
UConn just highlights what you knew all along would happen eventually: One of the AQ conferences was going to absolutely suck from top to bottom at some point. The MWC and WAC were easily stronger conferences. The Big East ran equal to the MAC, C-USA and may have been a tad better than the Sun Belt Conference. I know perfectly well where the contractual obligations came from, but still - this is the problem with being contractually obligated to include somebody. You might get a lemon rolled your way.
Quote:
Why the need for the DOJ to let people know they "are looking into" the BCS? How about just letting us know when you launch a formal investigation.
I don't think that the DOJ wants to launch a formal investigation, I think they want FBS to do the right thing on their own. Trouble is we've been waiting for over 100 years for that to happen, so I don't know what they think is going to happen, but there it is anyways. This move comes down to saber-rattling at the very least and just maybe it's a precursor to actual litigation is the NCAA resorts to their default mode: Do nothing, leave it like it is.
The DOJ obviously wanted this to go public so that America knows that something is being done (for those that want it changed.) And if College FBS Football really is breaking anti-trust and anti-competition laws, the DOJ may not have any choice in the matter. They've made it know that they're looking and it will make them look stupid if all goes quiet from here on out.
If you want to blame people blame the system, UConn held up it's end of the bargain.
Agreed, they did. But it exposes the flaw in having conference champions get in automatically rather than earning their way in by actually being a good football teams.
Quote:
Anyway, Orrin Hatch can holler all he wants, I don't see Florida, Texas or California senators stepping up in complaints. Until that happens and you get a cadre of complainers good luck.
The day that the Longhorns go undefeated but get left out of the NCG, I think Texas' attitude changes in a big hurry. Same deal if the Gators get left out. But lets not forget that one of the mighty SEC's own, Auburn, already had that happen to them once. And we've seen more than one case where several AQ schools with a good case for being in the NCG weren't.
Without even bringing non-AQ schools like BYU, Tulane, Marshall, Utah, Boise State and TCU into the picture, you have a solid case for a playoff system. The reason that the AQ schools are so against it is puzzling to say the least. On any given year it might be their school that gets screwed and left out of the NCG. But I think they don't want schools and conferences that they consider to be far beneath them to get equal chance to compete - for fear of getting embarrassed by them in a high-profile post-season game.
The only playoff system that would be ironclad against all anti-trust/anti-competition based litigation would be one that takes all 11 conference champions. That means any playoff is going to take 4 weeks minimum to complete (which is actually the same amount of time it takes for Bowl Season to run currently.) If it's going to run 4 weeks anyways, might as well take 5 at large berths to give you an even 16 teams. In the end, it just makes sense: If you want to get into the playoffs, winning your conference is the only guaranteed way to do it. If somebody gets left out and wants to whine about it - well - they should have won their conference, better luck next year.
By having a post-season with games that actually mean something, I think you'll see vastly improved ratings and public interest. So the central focus of FBS football - money - comes out better as well: Everyone would make more of it.
I don't know that UConn loses money in the deal, it's not easy to blow through $17 million. You obviously know something I don't and I'd love to hear more about it.
The conferences get the money then split it up between the teams within the conference. The school though has to buy back unsold tickets from the BCS @ face value.
"The university incurred total expenses of $4,280,998 at the Fiesta Bowl while only receiving a payout of $2,523,200 from the Big East."
"By far the largest expense the university incurred came from absorbed ticket sales. The university sold only 2,771 out of an allotment of 17,500 tickets, resulting in the university absorbing 14,729 tickets worth $2,924,385."
The BCS is a racket that does not benefit NCAA teams. ESPN loves it though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
