BCS move to avert Super Conference playoff

[Jacie]

It has been suggested that should Super Conferences (64 teams in four 16-team conferences) become reality it would lead to a playoff and an actual championship in Division 1 football instead of the current beauty pageant, and not coincidentally, the end of the BCS.

The conferences (with their legions of adminstrators and bureaucracies) thought they were pretty smart, raiding each other for choice targets to fuel expansion and increase revenue. The dream of getting a playoff and taking control of the elephant in the room (i.e. the last remaining untapped and potentially largest revenue event in collegiate sports) seemed within their (collective) grasp. Not so fast my friend.

With all that money at stake, do you think the greedy old men who concocted a multi-billion dollar deal to scam money from the universities are going to lie down and take it? They didn't win the sweetheart deal of the century in a lottery. They engineered the bowl system then morphed it into the BCS, rammed it down our throats and made sure everyone who could gum up the works was properly bought and paid for to toe the party line.

So what will they do to counter the Super Conferences? The BCS honchos are now considering allowing deserving conferences (insert SEC, Big 10, Pac 12 here) to have more than two BCS bowl slots (ACC and Big East, are you paying attention?). That would give the BCS money grubbers the leverage to keep the college presidents and AD's in line, dangle the chance they could get an extra BCS slot for their conference (and the good but not great payout that goes with it). The BCS reps will retain the power to play one conference against the other everytime playoff talk threatens to chop down the money tree they have so carefully tended. It is actually a brilliant move on their part and all but insures compliance to their whims and wishes for post season college football for the foreseeable future.

And to all you fools who think this a good thing, here is the not-so-well-kept secret, the emperor has no clothes . . .

[8timechamps]

Just finished reading Death to the BCS, and admit, I had no idea the kind of disgusting practices that went on with the Bowls and the BCS. You're right, the BCS is going to do everything in it's power to retain monetary control over whatever ends up out of all this realignment.

If you haven't read the book I referenced, and you love college football, then you should check it out. I got it on Amazon for about $5.

[rekamrettuB]

I don't see what the difference between the Super Conferences and what we have now is going to spurn a playoff. There will still by some 64 other teams outside the Super Conferences that will be left out?

[Jacie]

I don't see what the difference between the Super Conferences and what we have now is going to spurn a playoff. There will still by some 64 other teams outside the Super Conferences that will be left out?

Yes. Not too much lost though since to date only 45 teams have appeared in even one BCS game and with only a few notable exceptions (Boise State, Hawaii and Notre Dame), all of those were teams from Big Six conferences. If the four SC's formed, there could be a three-game playoff the first year. Expansion to five games would allow for two from each conference, possible one of those supplanted by Notre Dame as the situation warrants.

[jkjsooner]

It has been suggested that should Super Conferences (64 teams in four 16-team conferences) become reality it would lead to a playoff and an actual championship in Division 1 football instead of the current beauty pageant, and not coincidentally, the end of the BCS.

This would never happen. It sounds good but when you look into the details it's just not feasible. There is no way that the SEC would agree to an equal representation in a playoff scenario with the other conferences. That's especially true if every conference had a championship game (or games) and only one team from each made it to the four team playoff.

If there ever is a playoff, it will have to be completely separate from the conference affiliations. The stronger conferences will make sure that they're not put at a disadvantage simply because their conference is stronger (at least not more of a disadvantage than what exists now).

The BCS has nothing to be worried about - at least related to this scenario.

The push for more than two teams into a BCS bowl is simply a push from an expanding SEC. It has nothing to do with a potential playoff. In fact, the fact that the SEC wants to allow more than two teams in a BCS game just emphasizes the point that this "4 superconferences of 64 teams meeting in a playoff" idea would never fly with the SEC. They want the exact opposite of this. If they're gonig to be so strong they want a higher representation. None of these superconference scenarios you cite take this into consideration and once you try to take this into consideration the simplicity of the 64 team / four superconferences idea breaks down.

[rekamrettuB]

Yes. Not too much lost though since to date only 45 teams have appeared in even one BCS game and with only a few notable exceptions (Boise State, Hawaii and Notre Dame), all of those were teams from Big Six conferences. If the four SC's formed, there could be a three-game playoff the first year. Expansion to five games would allow for two from each conference, possible one of those supplanted by Notre Dame as the situation warrants.

But no team is excluded currently. It might be damn tough to make it in but every team has an opportunity. What it sounds like you are saying is the 4 Super Conferences forming a separate division of D1 (or whatever it's called now).

[SoonerMarkVA]

I don't see what the difference between the Super Conferences and what we have now is going to spurn a playoff. There will still by some 64 other teams outside the Super Conferences that will be left out?

With the 6 conferences, they have more teams to select to make up the pairings. Going to 4 super-conferences, they would have to fill 4 slots from non-AQ conferences to fill out the slate, which would never fly. By allowing some conferences (hint: those that are likely to super-size) 2 teams, then they can still fill out most of the slots with AQ-conference teams even as/if things move to the super-conference arrangement; thus, they've averted the impetus that the super-conferences give to moving to a playoff.

At least that's my take.

[SoCal]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/bcs/bcs-index.php

An Arizona Republic investigation of the BCS bowls

[soonertravis]

The problem with the bowl selection process is that it is not based on merit. It is based solely on dollars. That is why adding more than two teams from a conference is a bad idea. You can continue to prop up the idea that certain conferences are stronger than others by stating they get more teams into the BCS when you are in fact the one arbitrarily selecting who gets in. Which conference has been better the last 10 years Big 12 or Big 10? Big 12, but the Big 10 gets more bids. Why? Money.

It is the same reason that conference realignent has destroyedd the Big 12. Money is not great in the Big 12. If the league could have stayed together long enough to get to the bidding for Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights, out money would have dramatically increased and we would have stayed on the level with the other leagues. A playoff would have also done this. As it is, we will fall apart because of bad TV deals and not enough revenue from the BCS, not because of the quality of the league.

The sooner we can end the BCS and move to a playoff, the sooner we are back on more even footing with other leagues.

[pphilfran]

I think they will have a hard time capping it at 64 teams...

[humblesooner]

I'd like to see this (64 teams) done with something similar to some leagues in Europe done.
We have 64 Teams that are Division 1A and another 64 that are Division 1AA.
Each year, the 4 (or 6 or 8) worst teams in A are demoted to AA and the 4 (or 6 or 8) best teams in AA are promoted to A to replace them. This would allow everyone a legitimate shot and encourage the bottom-feeders to strive to improve their product to get back to the grown-up table.