Death To The BCS - A Book Review

by Scipio Tex on Nov 30, 2010 6:03 PM CST in Texas Longhorns and Other Football

The BCS - like many corrupt and bloated organizations - exists and operates in alliance with the bowl system manipulating the landscape of college football with relative impunity largely because no one knows what it is, what it does, or how it operates in its own self-interest.

In fact, most can't even agree who exactly runs it (Jim Delany, more or less, along with five other commissioners of the major conferences) and who benefits most from its presence (backslapping golf pricks wearing garish Century 21 jackets, the aforementioned commissioners, corrupt athletic department employees).

This confusion is evidenced by the fact that the NCAA gets thousands of angry letters and phone calls every football season, as college football fans erroneously assume that they must be in charge of this thing, given that screw-up and NCAA are used in synonym as often as politician and shameless.

To understand a thing, one must call it by its proper name.

For a group of Yahoo reporters (Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter, and Jeff Passan) who wrote Death To The BCS, the proper name for the BCS is clear:

Cartel.

Whether the BCS meets the strict legal definitions of a cartel is a matter of debate as it isn't a truly organized structure, but rather a gentleman's agreement between two dozen major bowls, the major conferences, and key athletic directors. However, the arguments against BCS proponents and the clear evidence that they offer of cartel-like behaviors (collusion, exclusion, bid rigging, total industry output, political manipulation) suggests that the BCS and bowl system is far more interested in the self-preservation and enrichment of a few - and by few I mean individuals, not necessarily schools or conferences - than the strengthening of college football as a whole. Indeed, Wetzel estimates that a 16 team playoff system is worth 750 million dollars to the coffers of FBS schools, with payouts vastly dwarfing BCS payouts (the current system generates around 150 million) - a figure that even BCS apologists like Jim Delany agree to.

Wetzel argues capably that the personal enrichment of a bowl representatives and the appeal of a monopoly on power for a few ADs is holding the game hostage from greater revenue generation and a creation of a post-season tournament that would eclipse March Madness in excitement, fervor, and, arguably, create some fairness in a broken system. This financial windfall isn't understood by most college administrators as the BCS has done an effective - if intellectually absurd - job of providing disinformation.

I can't possibly cover the numerous choice morsels of corruption and good-ol-boyism detailed in the book, but a few choice excerpts include:

Perjury

Alamo Bowl CEO Derrick Fox - representing the BCS (and his own $400,000 a year salary for acting as the figurehead for a once-a-year event which requires almost no event staging from the Bowl itself) in testimony to the House and Energy subcommittee perjures himself rather spectacularly when he claims that "almost all postseason games are put on by charitable groups and local charities receive tens of millions of dollars from them each year."

The problem, of course, is that none of the bowl games are charities - one quarter of them are strictly for profit - and the rest simply enjoy 501c status which exempts them from paying taxes. Not-for-profit doesn't mean charity, by the way. It simply means that there is no distribution of profit to owners or shareholders. It's an accounting designation, not a moral right. Bowl chairman and reps spend millions of dollars on lavish swag, parties, their own salaries - and, in the case of the Fiesta Bowl, illegal campaign contributions to bowl friendly politicians.

As for charity, the bowls actually draw a toll from local municipalities while often donating not a single red cent. The Sugar Bowl made 11.6 million tax free dollars in 2007, still received an amazing 3 million dollars in direct funding from the state of Louisiana, and drew massively upon public resources: fire, police, traffic, clean up - with no recompense. How much did this noble "charity" give to the state? A state still in the throes of Katrina?

Zero.

Not a penny.

The Sugar Bowl was no outlier. What was the total combined payout of all bowls to charities? 3.2 million dollars. From a group of bowls that made 186 million dollars in revenue, had 140 million in net assets, and carries 80 million in combined cash reserves. And half of that 3.2 million came from the Orange Bowl and Chick-Fil-A Bowl.

The Lie of Bowl Payouts

Most schools come out even or lose money in bowl games. Even the big money BCS games. Bowls encourage schools to engage in bidding wars for guaranteed ticket sales to determine invites, charge for band and administration seating, and athletic departments knowingly operate at a fiscal loss to attend a bowl in order for athletic directors, coaches, and administrators to collect hefty contractual bowl bonuses and live it up with friends and family at the school's expense.

Right now there are Division I sports being cancelled at major universities blaming revenue shortfalls while athletic departments knowingly operate at a loss in collusion with bowl reps. The BCS, it seems, is present in all of us.

The Bad Blazers

There's no group of golf pricks quite like bowl representatives in their loud jackets, quaffing martinis in luxury boxes in college football's best stadiums as they "scout" teams for their bowl that the team will never be in, while running up absurd expense accounts at their non-profit, non-taxable enterprise. However, these buffoons are smarter than we are. For one week of "work" - work done by the schools themselves, a simple contract event planning hire, and the local municipality - two dozen bowl directors made in excess of $300,000 last year. That doesn't include massive expense accounts, paid travel, fringe benefits, and "scouting excursions" - some of them at the local Gentleman's club. The Sugar Bowl CEO made $607,500 last year.

Those loud jackets disguise the sound of robbery.

And we're supposed to take seriously those who question whether there are vested interests in preserving the current structure of the BCS?

The Computers Are Dead

The BCS process of evaluating which teams are worthy of inclusion are a mixture of the beauty pageant opinion of human pollsters - many of them sports journalists - a substantial number of them functionally retarded if what I read in my local paper or see on Around The Horn is any indication - and coaches (read sports information directors) who haven't seen any other teams play and are notoriously corrupt in supporting their conference or burying an axe in high profile peers (see 2008 Texas Longhorns, Stoops Sewing Circle, Gary Patterson punitively voting down Cincinnati in '08). Remember the coach's revolt when the public demanded that they make their ballots public? People with nothing to hide welcome transparency.

Then there are the computers.

The BCS has tweaked their computer formulas three times in its short existence, dropped computer models, added computer models, disallowed reasonable differentiation by factoring in margin of victory, and almost universally the participants in the BCS computer models agree that they don't stand by their rankings because the BCS forces them to adhere to precepts that are both irrational and unscientific.

Other than that, the BCS model for determining worthy championship participants is ironclad.

Criticisms

I recommend you purchase and read this book, so take any criticisms within that context. These guys are real reporters with discernible intellect and Yahoo Sports continues to engage in actual, real substantive journalism (see USC investigations) while many of their peers could be mistaken for the Bowl representatives of the newsroom.

If the book has any weakness, it's that its own criticisms about competitive fairness and the implicit contention that none of us can truly identify or discern quality (i.e. the Boise State conundrum) forces a non-optimal solution in the structure of their 16 team playoff. Namely, they can't decry the arbitrary nature of the BCS without including everyone and so they recommend every conference champion be seeded in a 16 team playoff along with 5 at large bids. That means Conference USA, the MAC, Sun Belt and God knows what else springs up, receive automatic bids to determine the college football champion.

Thus they spend 192 pages critiquing the BCS for its illogic and irrationality and then push for the inclusion of a number of teams in the playoff that may not rank among the Top 75 teams in FBS. They mistake inclusion for fairness and equality for justice. Mostly to shelter themselves from the same criticisms of arbitrary selection that they pound the BCS for.

It's unnecessary.

First, the notion that some athletic body called a conference has some innate meaning or significance for qualification is foolish. As we saw this offseason with the Pac 10 and Big 10 and with Boise State and TCU's migrations, a conference has no inherent meaning. It is a loose confederation of shared interests, as fungible and arbitrary as a Las Vegas wedding. There is nothing that magically imbues an affiliation of teams with some innate value or a qualification for participation in a playoff. Conferences thrive or disappear. Conference quality rises and falls. One could argue compellingly that the SEC West probably deserves 2 or 3 teams in a post-season playoff this year, yet we must indulge a potential Florida Atlantic instead? March Madness dodges this bullet with a 64 team field, but the nature of basketball - in which a team can play twice a week - allows it. Further, the fundamental structure of basketball allows upsets far more readily.

The Sun Belt champion isn't taking down 2009 Alabama in Tuscaloosa. Spare me your counterarguments. It's a meaningless sacrificial lamb on the altar of inclusiveness.

As with the NCAA tournament, a group of disinterested parties, working with data, their own eyes, and transparency, could identify the best 16, 12, 10, or 8 teams in college football. Conferences would be also competitively rated. The top 6 get their champion an automatic invite. In that way, you don't guarantee any conference a presence and you account for shifting tides. The Big East could very well fall out and the WAC could rise. There's no need to create artificial fairness so that you can make your argument ironclad against the criticisms you levy against the Cartel. Inclusiveness as an absolute good in our society is vastly overrated and consistency of argument is too often confused with logic.

Under their proposed structure, using last year's teams, their playoff would begin with Alabama facing Sun Belt champion Troy at home, Texas hosting East Carolina, Cincinnati hosting Central Michigan from the MAC. A layer of unnecessary games of dubious quality that excludes additional at-large bids from better teams or disallows bye weeks for the top teams (my preference).

My way is better.

How It All Blows Up

These are my thoughts, so spare Wetzel et al the criticism if you disagree.

All cartels are brought down by the same thing: the members themselves. Whether it's OPEC, Colombian coke lords, corrupt unions, or lazy auto manufacturers. As the Cartel fights and bickers within its own ranks - attempting to lasso each other's teams, lying to each other about "production", plotting against some member's future inclusion, engaging in reckless expansion - they sow the seeds for their own destruction.

The eventual creation of super conferences guarantees a playoff.

Why?

Because massive conferences with quality guarantee losses. And the sharp delineation between have (member of 4-5 elite conferences) and have-not (everyone else) will only be highlighted. And losses - the great taboo no-no of BCS qualification - necessitate that the power schools find alternative constructs for fulfillment that outweigh the corrupt interests in their own athletic departments and bowl tie-ins.

Further, the most compelling and broad-based argument against the BCS is not found in the little guy left out from the main table. Whatever you think of Boise State and TCU, they have no pull, no fan base, and no clout. And when they develop sufficient capital, they are co-opted into the haves (see TCU and the Big East). That is the nature of all effective dissent - co-option into the mainstream. Political, corporate, or otherwise. Ask Nelson Mandela. Ask the next competitor that Google acquires. Ask the guy who used to bitch about accounting errors at Enron that shut up after a pay raise.

Thankfully, all Cartels eventually slit their own throat. It's basic game theory, a form of the prisoner's dilemma. Human beings struggle to maintain agreements that limit short term self-interest, even at the expense of shared longer-term interest.

Indeed, members of the Cartel almost managed suicide this offseason, but DeLoss Dodds unwittingly slapped the razor out of their hand.

Someone else will wield that knife eventually.

Tweet Comment 42 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

There is another member of the cartel.

There are 35 Bowl games this year — and 34 of them will be telecast by a member of the ESPN family.

They might be a weak link in the cartel when it begins to break up, but right now they get a lot of Holiday inventory at bargain basement prices.

by srr50 on Nov 30, 2010 6:18 PM CST reply actions

ESPN actually OWNS six bowl games too.

ESPN will go where the wind blows if they see the playoff writing on the wall. And they’ll laugh all the way to the bank.

Imagine a national championship quarterfinal and what those ratings would look like.

by Scipio Tex on Nov 30, 2010 6:31 PM CST reply actions

Scip: Absolutely, which is why ESPN is the weakest link in the cartel. They don’t have to worry about sharing their end of the play off revenue stream—which is what scares the hell out of the BCS right now.

by srr50 on Nov 30, 2010 6:37 PM CST reply actions

We’re on the same page except that I don’t think ESPN is in the cartel, by definition.

And that’s why so many of their pundits feel free to call out for playoffs.

ESPN is happy as a pig in slop with whatever happens. They own college football and they would own a college football playoff.

by Scipio Tex on Nov 30, 2010 6:43 PM CST reply actions

I read the book and agree the mid-majors don’t get a seat at the table unless they are in the top 16 teams. That 1st round would be a joke for the top teams. Get the polls out of the equation and let the average out several good computer polls. There is always going to be the team at #17 bitching, but now it starts with the 3rd ranked team. This would add value to playing a decent non conf schedule as tough losses might add more than blowouts against crap teams.

by Kilgore Trout on Nov 30, 2010 7:31 PM CST reply actions

My favorite story from the book was when Florida won the MNC in 2006 in Miama. School was paid ~$18M for the win. After they split with the SEC and got their 1/12th share and paid out several million in bonuses for the coaches and AD – they had a $47,000 profit to show for it.

by Kilgore Trout on Nov 30, 2010 7:43 PM CST reply actions

Great summary. I liked the book as well.

I think they used the 16 team model as a way to show how much $ could be made with a playoff. I also thought they left us without a way to bring the cartel down. Maybe they don’t have an answer. Public pressure obviously doesn’t matter.

by The BCS on Nov 30, 2010 8:19 PM CST reply actions

More money won’t help college football at all. Texas has raked in $1/2 billion under Mack, and we still have Greg Davis.

Cheating is as rampant as ever in the SEC.

The officials still won’t call holding.

Fix those 3 things, and college football will be perfect.

by Dave on Nov 30, 2010 8:44 PM CST reply actions

Google to buy Groupon. So there’s that.

Great stuff, Scip. To the Amazon queue!

by jc25 on Nov 30, 2010 8:57 PM CST reply actions

I liked the book and thought it made great points, but, for me, their ridiculous 16 team play-off kind of ruins it. I don’t think they actually believe that a 8 team play-off is the best from a competive stand point. As Scip points out they can’t decry how unfair the system is without including everyone. As all books like this, it only represents one side of the argument and does not even address really some of the positives of the BCS and the bowl system.

I really did not have a problem with the BCS until they expanded to the current format. Before they have added the double hosting format, I didn’t mind or hate the BCS with the passion that I do now. I thought it was flawed and the way they selected the two teams was wrong, but, for the most part, I thought it was the better than what we had before. Sure it got some national title games wrong badly, but it also gave us some great games as well.

But when the BCS went to being covered by FOX and going to the double hosting format is when I realized what a joke the BCS is and how ridiculous college football is. Instead of giving us a plus one they just ensured that more bad BIg Ten teams can keep kicking field goals to BCS games and that the stupid Rose Bowl doesn’t have to play at night and on a day other than January 1st.

A play-off is inevitable and will happen, but, at the same time, I kind of like this format. No other sport demands perfection, except college football and I like that. When a play-off happens that will be gone. Also if we did have a play-off USC would have won like six more national championships. In a play-off they would have won it all in ’02, ’03, ’06, ’07 and ’08. So at least the BCS spared us more Trojan hype.

by PrimeTime on Nov 30, 2010 8:57 PM CST reply actions

Dave-

You should have added that Texas has raked in $1/2 Billion under Mack and yet has only two conference championships in 13 years to show for it while Bob Stoops will win his 7th with college football legends Landry Jones, Josh Heupel, Nate Hybel, Jason White, Paul Thompson, and Sam Bradford at quarterback.

I can’t believe Stoops is going to win another one. Just disgusting.

by PrimeTime on Nov 30, 2010 9:02 PM CST reply actions

Kilgore -

Great Florida anecdote. Agreed – it highlights the folly of this stuff nicely. The ridiculous excesses of athletic department personnel – funded through massive ticket prices and exorbitant Foundation demands – is pretty indefensible.

BCS -

Thanks. My opposition isn’t to a 16 team playoff – it’s the composition of the teams. And my plan maximizes revenue and ratings while East Carolina-Texas throttles them.

Dave -

People like you are fascinating to me. Truly.

by Scipio Tex on Nov 30, 2010 9:02 PM CST reply actions

Scipio where is the outrage from the fanbase that Stoops is going to win another conference title with another mediocre quarterback, yet Mack could only pull out two even though he had two of the greatest to play the game for seven seasons? No one else finds it ridiculous that Stoops is going to win another one?

by PrimeTime on Nov 30, 2010 9:09 PM CST reply actions

Yes Primetime, the mood of Longhorn fans is one of complacency and satisfaction right now. Stop derailing the thread with inanity.

by Scipio Tex on Nov 30, 2010 9:29 PM CST reply actions

There are IRS regulations that could, upon an audit, result in the loss of a bowl’s tax-exempt status. 501c3 status isn’t simply an election. There are standards that must be upheld.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

A 501c3 is either a private foundation or a public charity, organized for certain exempt purposes, such as religious, educational, scientific…international amateur sports competition….(somebody paid a lobbyist to get that put in there specifically, no doubt)

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=175418,00.html

The anecdotes described in Scipio’s book report could, upon audit, result in the loss of 501c3 designation. Losing tax-exempt status not only means that profits are taxable, it also means that the organization would need to pay sales taxes on purchases of goods and services. In some states, that’s an extra 7-10%. Also, employees and directors could be forced to pay an excise tax for benefits received that are determined to be excessive.

Potentially one could file a complaint as a whistleblower in order to try to instigate an audit. Perhaps Wetzel’s book might have the effect of institigating a closer look into abuses.

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/article/0,,id=180171,00.html

The problem is that the IRS, contrary to conventional wisdom, has the time/staff to audit very few organizations. If everybody paid their taxes honestly, we wouldn’t have near the deficit issue that we do. Just like SEC recruiters cheating on NCAA regulations, there are millions of people running or working in businesses that engage in tax evasion, whether its underreporting cash sales, or tips, or overreporting expenses. Our society, myself included, would prefer to err on having the IRS too small rather than too large, conducting not enough audits rather than too many. So pick your battles. Personally, I’d prefer to have the IRS focused on hedge fund abuses rather than bowl game abuses, but to each his own.

by horninexile on Nov 30, 2010 9:32 PM CST reply actions

“How much did this noble "charity" give to the state? A state still in the throes of Katrina? Zero. Not a penny.”

Are charities now defined solely by how much money they donated to Hurricane Katrina responses? How is donation to one particular cause at all relevant? The BCS gives a large amount of money to universities and athletic conferences every year; these are charitable distributions. Yes they take in significant revenue that is not charitably distributed, but you can’t pretend that the BCS is doing nothing but enriching itself.

“Great Florida anecdote. Agreed – it highlights the folly of this stuff nicely. The ridiculous excesses of athletic department personnel – funded through massive ticket prices and exorbitant Foundation demands – is pretty indefensible. "

In 2007, Florida football turned a profit of $32.4 M. How is a high operating cost indefensible if it is massively profitable?

Yes, the BCS sucks, but this book grossly overstates the case against it.

by LongCat on Nov 30, 2010 10:47 PM CST reply actions

I think ESPN, and the other major players in the college football television market, are the real cartel. If they felt that a college football playoff would increase revenue, without damaging other properties, they would demand it tomorrow and refuse to negotiate another BCS deal. I don’t know much about TV ad rates, but I suspect there is fear that the football market would be saturated in December/January were they to go to a college playoff and that NFL revenues may take a hit.

Also, the playoffs would generate too much money. Sounds preposterous, but these kids have to deal with gambling syndicates already, and imagine the pressure of a real playoff system and the kind of action that would attract. The NFL is the NFL because of gambling every Sunday, and especially during the playoffs. The athletes would have to be paid, because otherwise they would be far too easy to target. And then, how do you organize that? Allow them to form a union and collectively bargain? The college system does not have the infrastructure to manage pay-for-play issues, and a true minor league system is far too great a logistical/personnel investment for the NFL.

Lastly, if we did have a playoff system, how long do the Texas Techs of the world maintain a football program, and by extension an athletic department? Schools that cannot consistently make the playoffs and generate additional funds from television, ticket sales, advertising, merchandise, etc. will quickly find themselves losing the arms race with no means of catching up. If their football programs cannot turn a tidy profit, and float the rest of the athletic department, how long can they maintain athletics on their campus? They could try to cut non-revenue sports, but Title IX would be a killer.

by KB on Nov 30, 2010 10:52 PM CST reply actions

Guys, guys… can’t you see how great the BCS is?

In fact, I bet in a few years they’ll get rid of the NCAA backetball tournament and replace it with bowls. Instead of a playoff where everybody loses but one team (how do the players survive that emotional trauma?), we’ll just let each team play one postseason game against an almost-random opponent determined by conference affiliation. And then, in the climactic finale, we’ll vote on the champion! Or at least some of us will… and maybe a computer or something… Well, don’t worry about those details ‘cause it’ll be awesome!

by hoju on Nov 30, 2010 10:54 PM CST reply actions

Thanks for a great writeup.

I suspect we’ll get a playoff from the next round of BCS negotiations. May be as small as the Plus One (where the BCS bowls are played and then the top 2 winners play each other in a title game) but that will inevitably transform into a larger playoff. The BCS bigwigs have already publicly mentioned that they are considering it, so apparently there are no NCAA hurdles that could prevent it. Once you have a Plus One there is no valid argument why another round or two could be added between the New Year’s BCS bowls and a title game.

I’m for an ultimate 8-12 team playoff, 6 AQ champs and 2-6 wildcards. With 8 you’re only adding a round of 2 games that can be played on campus to reduce costs, protect the bowls as the single vacation trip for most fans to preserve attendance (title game tickets will be as hard to get as Super Bowl tickets) and provide incentives for a teams not to slack off if they clinch their division/conference title early (refuting the “Protecting the regular season” anti-playoffs BS.) If the politicians insist on keeping BCS/playoff invites at 10 or more, add 1 more round and give 1 or 2 teams a bye.

No need for adding more AQ conferences, if Boise finishes top 10 they almost certainly can get a wildcard slot in a 12 team playoff. Anything more than 12 starts to really water a playoff down. In fact I’d like to see it set at just 8, with a couple of consolation BCS bowls with the big BCS payouts to mollify the politicians and wannabe conferences the same way going to 10 BCS slots did. A non-AQ team could make the playoffs by either being one of the top 2 BCS-ranked schools not an AQ conference champ or if they are 3rd and the lowest ranked AQ champ has at least 2 or 3 more losses (in which case they would then miss the playoffs but still get BCS money in a BCS consolation bowl.)

Lots of ways to do it, but the quickest and most likely way to the playoffs is working within the system rather than overthrowing it. Get a Plus One and the foot is in the door.

by Perestroika on Nov 30, 2010 11:50 PM CST reply actions

Take two:

Once you have a Plus One there is no valid argument why another round or two couldn’t be added between the New Year’s BCS bowls and a title game.

by My kingdom for a preview function on Nov 30, 2010 11:55 PM CST reply actions

I’ve got it.
Let Congress vote on who should be in a playoff, and when and where.
It might not help college football, but it would have the side benefit of keeping
our legislators busy enough so they don’t have time to do anything REALLY stupid.

by LurkerintheDark on Dec 1, 2010 12:32 AM CST reply actions

I don’t know why Texas’ fans would have a problem with the BCS. We’re one of the main schools in the cartel! That’s like Saudi Arabia trying to blow up OPEC.

by tjarks on Dec 1, 2010 2:00 AM CST reply actions

I don’t know why Texas’ fans would have a problem with the BCS. We’re one of the main schools in the cartel! That’s like Saudi Arabia trying to blow up OPEC.

It’s the fans who get the shaft in this deal tjarks. “The fans” are not in the cartel, personnel in our AD and our conference commissioner are in the cartel. It’s an important distinction.

by t1climb1 on Dec 1, 2010 8:59 AM CST reply actions

And to take your analogy, the Saudi royal family and Sheiks would be interested in preserving OPEC to preserve their lavish lifestyle, the Saudi people who were living below the poverty line while watching the few in charge outfit another 727 in solid gold would be clamoring for a different system.

by t1climb1 on Dec 1, 2010 9:02 AM CST reply actions

Fuck the fans. The fans have no God-given right to the closure of a play-off system. Closure provides no tangible benefit for fans.

This is about money. Money for my University of Texas. Preserving and assuring cash flow is not per se corrupt.

by 50 Years Watching on Dec 1, 2010 10:00 AM CST reply actions

How about this:

You do a 16 team playoff. With #17 and lower (assuming bowl eligibility), you play bowl games. What’s wrong with that? teams that are nowhere near the top still get to play bowl games, we get a playoff, and there is still a ton of football being plaid.

Someone tell me that this wouldn’t be a great way to do it.

by mikecrabtree on Dec 1, 2010 12:57 PM CST reply actions

50 / Whistling / Bill Bixby / Casual Observer /

I’m getting the sense that you’re getting some things off your chest today, this blog is your couch, and we’re the collective shrink.

The problem is we don’t give a shit. Take your multiple personalities, 50 years of watching and the economy sized jug of Metamucil elsewhere.

Or just go smear shit on the wall. It would be more productive.

by Vasherized on Dec 1, 2010 1:00 PM CST reply actions

Damn you beat me to it as I’m reveiwing the book at One Foot Down.

by Eric Murtaugh on Dec 1, 2010 1:42 PM CST reply actions

LongCat -

They gave no money to ANY charity. Given that Katrina was still ravaging New Orleans, that seemed a likely candidate for help since, I don’t know, the state of Louisiana gave the Sugar Bowl 3 million dollars and provided millions in city services gratis. And the Sugar Bowl is located in New Orleans. Jesus Christ.

The charity work they do is almost negligible. When you give 3.2 million (two bowls providing half of that sum) while holding 80 million in cash reserves, anyone who claims that your primary function is charity is a liar. And if you think that’s a substantial sum vs earnings, you’re alone in that.

The notion that they “give” money to universities is laughable. And their bait and switch is explained in my post.

And Florida is indefensible because they gut the fan to pay for this exorbitance. You’re having trouble differentiating an athletic department benefiting themselves and the people that actually, you know, pay for the program. The people that buy tickets, give donations, fill the stadium. Not the few who live it up for a week with friends and family at the bowl.

by Scipio Tex on Dec 1, 2010 2:41 PM CST reply actions

KB -

ESPN is not the cartel. They provide a service. If they were in the business of telling college football what to do, they wouldn’t have to bid billions of dollars for contracts competitively. You’re confusing horses and carts.

Your playoffs must lead to more gambling must lead to athletes being paid is silly. College sports are heavily bet on right now. Just because colleges would receive greater revenues doesn’t mean that somehow this money would invigorate the gambling world. That’s a bizarre contention. The gambling world is plenty interested in college sports already.

As for Texas Tech, playoff money isn’t winner take all – a portion of it would go to the conferences per conference agreements. A playoff would greatly benefit Texas Tech.

Some of you are having trouble grasping the concept of growing the pie instead of fighting for a bigger slice in a cupcake.

by Scipio Tex on Dec 1, 2010 2:52 PM CST reply actions

Perestroika -

Agreed. However, the BCS knows that. That’s why the Plus One or Plus Two proposals brought to it by the SEC commish ten years ago was voted down unceremoniously. I think the more likely unraveling happens when Cartel members can’t control their own expansion desires.

t1climb1 -

Exactly. Again, people are having real trouble distinguishing betweens fans who pay the bills and are gutted by the bowls and their own athletic departments and the athletic departments who pretend that they are “the program.”

The program is the fans. The people that fill the seats and pay the foundation money. Period.

50 Years -

You’re literally too stupid to be on this blog. Seriously. You followed nothing I wrote.

Eric -

I’ll look forward to your review as well.

mikecrabtree -

That’s exactly what the book proposes. The bowls don’t have to die. They’re free to exist. They just won’t be calling the shots anymore and the bowls that aren’t self-sustaining will – and should – die.

Let the market work. The worthy bowls will thrive. The weak will die.

by Scipio Tex on Dec 1, 2010 2:58 PM CST reply actions

Scip— you have to have all conferences with an automatic qualifier or you should reduce the field to 12or 8. This season i really don’t want to see OK State in the playoffs after loosing thier last game at home to OK. You want to let the Sun Belt champion have a shot to knock off the #1 seed. They may never do it but they will get close due to the #1 seed overlooking them. It would make for unbelievably exciting tv. With only 5 At Large teams you would have to be great and played a good non-conference schedule to get in. I love the 16 team playoff he proposes including the Championship game in the Rose Bowl every year.

by 87Bee on Dec 1, 2010 3:37 PM CST reply actions

Scip, actually I don’t have time to read it. Just time to stir the pot a bit. Give Vash something to trash someone over so he doesn’t feel so useless.

by 50 Years Watching on Dec 1, 2010 3:39 PM CST reply actions

50 Years -

Thanks for at least admitting that you’re worthless and add no value. That’s at least something.

87Bee-

A #1 vs. #16 seed in would not be a close game. There is no upset potential. We’re talking about the sorts of teams that FBS schools schedule as sure wins in September in the playoffs while a quality 2 loss major conference team or a 1 loss Boise sits at home.

I like the rest of their proposal. I think they just give the notion of a conference some magical investment of quality or qualification that they do not possess.

by Scipio Tex on Dec 1, 2010 3:51 PM CST reply actions

Yeah, my previous post did not connect the dots too well. I wanted to avoid a long rebuttal, but took some leaps. I am essentially trying to work backwards as to why administrators would fear a playoff system, and using two AD quotes as my starting points. We have Dodds stating that the administrators are well aware of how much the pie would grow under a playoff system, and we have Gee’s recent quote that a playoff system would be a slippery slope towards professionalism.

So, if I were an administrator, why would I knowingly refuse the massive revenue infusion from a playoff system, and believe that it would lead to professionalism? They must believe that a playoff would be inherently flawed, more flawed than the BCS, and that the unintended consequences would be ruinous. I don’t think the greater TV contracts themselves would create more leverage for professionalism. Football would be generating massive profits, of course, but it already does at the elite programs and they are comfortably able to stave off open payments. If I don’t think the revenue increase would lead directly to professionalism, then I assume (and I could certainly be wrong) that the catalyst would be gambling and a major gambling scandal. If the sport survived that, then you would be forced to compensate the players in some way in order to attempt to prevent future scandals.

Sure, there is already a healthy amount of gambling on college football, but the action is almost entirely domestic and small enough to be comfortably regulated. Moreover, the lines are usually huge and the post-season consists of a bunch of glorified exhibitions and one meaningful game that has heavy action. But, if I were an administrator I would be scared to death of creating a playoff that drew massive action, and put us on the radar of the Asian syndicates, when our labor pool is unpaid and most are not moving on to the professional game. Now, I am an avid soccer supporter, so the Asian gambling syndicates are a little more well known to me, but that would be the main reason I would continue to turn down the playoff revenue. I think there are other unintended consequences that would reduce the number of football schools and conferences in the long term, but I think a major gambling scandal would happen shortly after inception.

And, I think gambling is why players who take money from agents and their runners, as well as the schools (USC) who turn a blind eye, get hammered while players who get paid by boosters (Auburn) tend to skate. Runners tend to have criminal backgrounds, or at least connections to criminal organizations, and if a player tries to stiff a runner while he is still playing he is wide open to extortion. I know there are laws against it, but these runners have connections. How do we feel about the Bush lateral knowing what we know now? Was it just a moment of madness? I’m just trying to think like an administrator and ask, why would I turn down the playoff money? Or float half measures like a Plus One? There seems to be a presumption in the playoff debate that the playoff would create massive revenue, most bowls would continue to operate and awesomeness would ensue while everything else about college football remains unchanged. I think that is a dangerous presumption because we don’t know that.

What we do know is that we have a system that satisfies most parties. The BCS, by and large, works. Look at how quickly Boise and TCU have climbed the gears to bigger conferences. In conversation with friends I often compare the BCS to Champions League soccer. The challenge for the Champions League is providing enough incentive to smaller clubs that the Sporting Lisbons and Rangers of the world spend enough to stay competitive and keep the tournament interesting, while rewarding the big clubs enough to keep them from creating their own league and telling UEFA to piss off. The BCS has to walk the same tight rope, and does. Boise and TCU can reasonably expect that a successful season will be rewarded with a BCS game, if not necessarily the MNC, while the big boys know they have more at-bats for the major prize(s).

by KB on Dec 1, 2010 9:26 PM CST reply actions

So now we have the Triads infiltrating college football playoffs? If that was the case they should have long ago infiltrated college basketball. There’s lots of betting on that but as yet we haven’t seen any shenanigans like this. The system we have now satisfies bowl representatives and other who live off the fat of the current system. It’s better than nothing, but not nearly as satisfying as a playoff would be. We would probably have to cut back to 11 regular season games. The 12th game amounts to crap anyway as all the powers that be schedule a home game against a cupcake and like Scip says they screw over the fans with what amounts to a glorified scrimmage. What the BCS rewards is not playing anybody and going 12-0. If a playoff pits the top 16 teams in the nation against each other, the fans will come and so will the money. Every game counts in the season as you need to perform well over the course of the season to be in the top 16. It would also increase viewers for games you might not normally watch in the regular season. You would watch games involving teams your team might play in the tournament. The last few weeks of the season would be compelling drama as teams jockeyed for playoff positions. Viable bowl games would still exist for teams that don’t make the tournament – hell you could let teams that lose in the 1st round play in a bowl game.

by Kilgore Trout on Dec 1, 2010 10:44 PM CST reply actions

I really enjoyed your site. That is always nice when you find something that is not only informative but entertaining. Excellent.

by Farhana Puri on May 25, 2011 4:43 PM CDT reply actions

You can certainly see your enthusiasm within the work you write. The sector hopes for even more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to mention how they believe. At all times follow your heart.

by sportske on Oct 15, 2011 11:47 AM CDT reply actions

I just like the valuable information you supply in your articles. I’ll bookmark your blog and take a look at once more right here regularly. I am rather certain I will be informed plenty of new stuff right right here! Good luck for the following!

by series online on Nov 30, 2011 12:32 PM CST reply actions

Hello, i believe that i noticed you visited my web site thus i got here to go back the desire?.I am trying to in finding things to improve my site!I assume its ok to make use of some of your ideas!!

by online dating coach on Dec 6, 2011 2:08 PM CST reply actions

Fantastic goods from you, man. I’ve be aware your stuff previous to and you’re just extremely wonderful. I really like what you have got right here, really like what you’re stating and the way wherein you assert it. You are making it entertaining and you continue to take care of to keep it sensible. I can’t wait to learn much more from you. That is really a wonderful site.

by manteaux moncler on Dec 6, 2011 8:46 PM CST reply actions