Mr. SWAC
F*** THE LAKERS!!!!!!
link
Non-BCS schools clamor for inclusion in lucrative system
07/28/03
By PHILLIP MARSHALL
Times Sports Staff pmarsh9485@yahoo.com
From the outside looking in, some see the Bowl Championship Series as the very face of evil and greed in college football.
For those on the inside, it seems a good, if not perfect, way of choosing a national champion and a system that brought structure to a once-chaotic bowl system.
One thing is beyond debate: It is extremely lucrative for the 63 teams from the six member conferences.
Southeastern Conference champion Georgia got $1.784 million for playing in the Sugar Bowl last season. The other nine SEC schools not under NCAA sanctions got $1.136 million from the Sugar Bowl's $16.5 million payout. The seven SEC schools that played in bowl games took home between $2.5 million and $3 million as their shares of the total bowl money. When two SEC teams go to BCS bowls in the same season, the bowl pool is substantially larger.
But the BCS is under fire. Led by Tulane president Scott Cowen, the 53 non-BCS Division I-A schools are screaming for a piece of the pie. They say they want to have a better shot at playing in one of the four BCS bowls - Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta. They want to have a legitimate chance at a national championship. They say the current rule, which allows a school from another conference ranked in the top 6 nationally to get into the mix, is not enough.
"We have no chance," Cowen said. "The rankings are biased in favor of BCS schools."
History says they have never had much of a chance at major bowls or national championships.
Since the inception of the Associated Press poll in 1950, Brigham Young's 1984 national championship is the only one that went to a school not part of one of the current BCS conferences.
SEC commissioner Mike Slive has seen it from both sides. He was commissioner of Conference USA before succeeding Roy Kramer.
"I always felt when I was at Conference USA that the best thing Conference USA could do was control what it could and get good enough to qualify," Slive said. "When you think about the BCS, the purpose was to create a 1-2 game in the context of the existing bowl games. That's what we've done and done successfully.
"When you go back and look at the participants in major bowls, they have come from the conferences that are still going to those bowls. In a sense, there was no access before and there is access now.
"Whether or not that access is satisfactory is a subject for discussion. That discussion is now taking place."
The effort to assure a national championship game without a NFL-style playoff began with the Bowl Coalition. It was updated and the name was changed to the Bowl Alliance in 1995. When the Pac-10, Big Ten and Rose Bowl joined in 1998, it became the BCS.
While football programs at most BCS schools prosper, others struggle to make ends meet. Often they don't meet, meaning money that could be destined for academics must go for athletics.
With the Tulane football program awash in red ink, the board of trustees earlier this year considered moving to a lower division or giving up the sport altogether. After the trustees decided Tulane should stay a member of Division I-A, Cowen launched his attack on the state of college athletics in general, and the BCS in particular. He threatened to file an antitrust lawsuit against the BCS. He organized a conference call of 44 presidents from non-BCS schools.
Things heated up even more when Miami and Virginia Tech announced they would join the Atlantic Coast Conference, leaving the Big East's future viability as a BCS conference in doubt.
"We struck a chord, and right now that is escalating by the day," Cowen said. "It really is catching on. How far it will go, I don't know."
The BCS, whose $525 million TV contract with ABC runs through 2005, is at least paying attention. Last spring, it formed a presidential oversight committee that includes one president from each member conference. The committee plans a meeting Sept. 8 in Chicago to discuss access with presidents from non-BCS leagues.
Cowen wants to discuss a national championship tournament. That idea isn't going anywhere in the BCS conferences. The BCS presidents are willing to discuss adding another bowl to the BCS mix or even adding a championship game at the end of the current bowl system.
But a playoff, for now, seems out of the question.
"I don't know that you could have a playoff without making significant changes in the regular season, and that would be a tragedy," Slive said. "The regular season in college football is the best in any sport. What happens on Aug. 30 is still going to matter a whole lot when we sit down in December. That's very special.
"You don't want to tinker with that, especially in the SEC where our games are a way of life. Generations come together on Saturdays to go to SEC football games."
Though NCAA sanctions will keep Alabama out of a bowl for the second straight year, no school has benefited more from the bowl system. Athletic director Mal Moore says no system that would weaken the bowls should be considered.
"All the bowls we've attended, the Cotton, Sugar, Orange, the Rose Bowl, all of them have been great for our school," Moore said. "The bowls have been good for college athletics for a long time. You'd hate to see it end in any way."
Moore says he doesn't believe the current system is unfair to smaller schools and less prominent conferences. He says those schools have it better than they once did.
"For many years, there were very few bowls," Moore said. "None of the those schools, at that time, were very much involved. In the last 20 to 30 years, it's been stunning the number of bowls that have been added. More teams get the opportunity to go to bowl games than ever before."
Bowl games aren't the issue to those who complain. It's the four BCS bowl games and the money they generate. Cowen says the BCS is an illegal cartel. Slive says market forces made the BCS valuable.
"When you look at the concept of creating a 1-2 game and some other bowl games that go along with it, the end result is a television contract that has a lot of value," Slive said. "There is a commercial aspect to college football. No question about it. College football is athletic competition in the context of higher education, but the marketplace has decided its value. We didn't decide it."
Cowen isn't buying it.
"We believe that the Bowl Championship Series is anticompetitive and has characteristics of a cartel," Cowen said. "Tulane met last year with antitrust lawyers. I don't think it's productive for higher education and universities to sue each other, but with such an important issue, we can't rule out any options now."
Penn State president Graham Spanier says he doesn't believe that argument will stand.
"We're quite confident that there isn't an antitrust problem here," Spanier said. "If you look at the history of these bowls and their historic relationships with the conferences, if anything, there ought to be less of an antitrust issue now than ever. There are opportunities clearly defined for schools that achieve a certain ranking and rating to have an opportunity to play in the bowls and share in income that results."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both sides make some valid points, but I personally think the non BCS teams are just biaatchin'. :bawling:
Non-BCS schools clamor for inclusion in lucrative system
07/28/03
By PHILLIP MARSHALL
Times Sports Staff pmarsh9485@yahoo.com
From the outside looking in, some see the Bowl Championship Series as the very face of evil and greed in college football.
For those on the inside, it seems a good, if not perfect, way of choosing a national champion and a system that brought structure to a once-chaotic bowl system.
One thing is beyond debate: It is extremely lucrative for the 63 teams from the six member conferences.
Southeastern Conference champion Georgia got $1.784 million for playing in the Sugar Bowl last season. The other nine SEC schools not under NCAA sanctions got $1.136 million from the Sugar Bowl's $16.5 million payout. The seven SEC schools that played in bowl games took home between $2.5 million and $3 million as their shares of the total bowl money. When two SEC teams go to BCS bowls in the same season, the bowl pool is substantially larger.
But the BCS is under fire. Led by Tulane president Scott Cowen, the 53 non-BCS Division I-A schools are screaming for a piece of the pie. They say they want to have a better shot at playing in one of the four BCS bowls - Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta. They want to have a legitimate chance at a national championship. They say the current rule, which allows a school from another conference ranked in the top 6 nationally to get into the mix, is not enough.
"We have no chance," Cowen said. "The rankings are biased in favor of BCS schools."
History says they have never had much of a chance at major bowls or national championships.
Since the inception of the Associated Press poll in 1950, Brigham Young's 1984 national championship is the only one that went to a school not part of one of the current BCS conferences.
SEC commissioner Mike Slive has seen it from both sides. He was commissioner of Conference USA before succeeding Roy Kramer.
"I always felt when I was at Conference USA that the best thing Conference USA could do was control what it could and get good enough to qualify," Slive said. "When you think about the BCS, the purpose was to create a 1-2 game in the context of the existing bowl games. That's what we've done and done successfully.
"When you go back and look at the participants in major bowls, they have come from the conferences that are still going to those bowls. In a sense, there was no access before and there is access now.
"Whether or not that access is satisfactory is a subject for discussion. That discussion is now taking place."
The effort to assure a national championship game without a NFL-style playoff began with the Bowl Coalition. It was updated and the name was changed to the Bowl Alliance in 1995. When the Pac-10, Big Ten and Rose Bowl joined in 1998, it became the BCS.
While football programs at most BCS schools prosper, others struggle to make ends meet. Often they don't meet, meaning money that could be destined for academics must go for athletics.
With the Tulane football program awash in red ink, the board of trustees earlier this year considered moving to a lower division or giving up the sport altogether. After the trustees decided Tulane should stay a member of Division I-A, Cowen launched his attack on the state of college athletics in general, and the BCS in particular. He threatened to file an antitrust lawsuit against the BCS. He organized a conference call of 44 presidents from non-BCS schools.
Things heated up even more when Miami and Virginia Tech announced they would join the Atlantic Coast Conference, leaving the Big East's future viability as a BCS conference in doubt.
"We struck a chord, and right now that is escalating by the day," Cowen said. "It really is catching on. How far it will go, I don't know."
The BCS, whose $525 million TV contract with ABC runs through 2005, is at least paying attention. Last spring, it formed a presidential oversight committee that includes one president from each member conference. The committee plans a meeting Sept. 8 in Chicago to discuss access with presidents from non-BCS leagues.
Cowen wants to discuss a national championship tournament. That idea isn't going anywhere in the BCS conferences. The BCS presidents are willing to discuss adding another bowl to the BCS mix or even adding a championship game at the end of the current bowl system.
But a playoff, for now, seems out of the question.
"I don't know that you could have a playoff without making significant changes in the regular season, and that would be a tragedy," Slive said. "The regular season in college football is the best in any sport. What happens on Aug. 30 is still going to matter a whole lot when we sit down in December. That's very special.
"You don't want to tinker with that, especially in the SEC where our games are a way of life. Generations come together on Saturdays to go to SEC football games."
Though NCAA sanctions will keep Alabama out of a bowl for the second straight year, no school has benefited more from the bowl system. Athletic director Mal Moore says no system that would weaken the bowls should be considered.
"All the bowls we've attended, the Cotton, Sugar, Orange, the Rose Bowl, all of them have been great for our school," Moore said. "The bowls have been good for college athletics for a long time. You'd hate to see it end in any way."
Moore says he doesn't believe the current system is unfair to smaller schools and less prominent conferences. He says those schools have it better than they once did.
"For many years, there were very few bowls," Moore said. "None of the those schools, at that time, were very much involved. In the last 20 to 30 years, it's been stunning the number of bowls that have been added. More teams get the opportunity to go to bowl games than ever before."
Bowl games aren't the issue to those who complain. It's the four BCS bowl games and the money they generate. Cowen says the BCS is an illegal cartel. Slive says market forces made the BCS valuable.
"When you look at the concept of creating a 1-2 game and some other bowl games that go along with it, the end result is a television contract that has a lot of value," Slive said. "There is a commercial aspect to college football. No question about it. College football is athletic competition in the context of higher education, but the marketplace has decided its value. We didn't decide it."
Cowen isn't buying it.
"We believe that the Bowl Championship Series is anticompetitive and has characteristics of a cartel," Cowen said. "Tulane met last year with antitrust lawyers. I don't think it's productive for higher education and universities to sue each other, but with such an important issue, we can't rule out any options now."
Penn State president Graham Spanier says he doesn't believe that argument will stand.
"We're quite confident that there isn't an antitrust problem here," Spanier said. "If you look at the history of these bowls and their historic relationships with the conferences, if anything, there ought to be less of an antitrust issue now than ever. There are opportunities clearly defined for schools that achieve a certain ranking and rating to have an opportunity to play in the bowls and share in income that results."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both sides make some valid points, but I personally think the non BCS teams are just biaatchin'. :bawling: