Did your favorite sports site or sports writer get all excited when the BCS proposed eliminating AQ status? Well, so did I!
Was he excited when he quoted Delany as open to the idea? Well, so was I!
Does he claim it would create more opportunities for mid majors, would create fewer lopsided match ups, or would open the top bowls to everyone? If so, it’s time to find a new favorite writer.
The proposal to the BCS
Remove the 4 bowls from the BCS. The NCG would be maintained as a separate bowl, and the only bowl under BCS control. BCS AQ status is eliminated. BCS ranking would only be pertinent to the title game. The NCG might be freed to market its location much like the Super Bowl.
Delany stated here "As long as I can go to the Rose Bowl, I'm OK without automatic bids. If (CUSA commissioner) Brit doesn't want automatic bids, that's fine with me. And if he doesn't want me to have one that's OK, as long as I can go to Pasadena. If they (CUSA and MWC commissioners) are saying, essentially, let the system be market based, I can't object to that." This is the closest you may ever see Delany understating his support for an idea.
If you aren’t in the B1G and Delany begins talking about a market based system, you had better rethink your position. If your favorite writer didn’t pause, he should be ignored on all NCAAF post season format and revenue issues.
Bowl Selection Criteria
Without the BCS, the 4 bowls are free to establish their own selection criteria. If you think they select based on rankings, you just failed NCAAF economics 101.
The bowls don’t care about rankings, they care about TV ratings. In a “Market based” system, the bowls compete with each other for an arrangement that will garner the highest ratings. The conferences compete for the arrangement most favorable to themselves.
Here’s the defacto tie-ins the moment this is passed:
Rose Bowl – B1G #1 and PAC #1
Sugar – SEC #1 and ???
Fiesta – Big 12 #1 and ???
Orange – ACC #1 and ???
The tie-ins are based on traditional tie-ins and TV ratings.
Who gets the 3 remaining invites? Here’s your hints – BCS Bowl Ratings since 1998 and all Bowl Ratings since 2002. For a fair comparison, I took out the National Championship (always #1) and Rose Bowl (always #2) in describing the rankings.
SEC #2 and B1G #2 have among the highest at-large ratings. In a competitive environment, the bowls will look to secure tie-ins to these 2 selections.
Don’t expect an option in years they place a team in the title game. The 3 bowls are competing with each other, 1 gets left with what’s behind door #3, and the B1G and SEC have a strong bargaining position. These conferences can point to the ratings their other bowl tie-ins – the Cap 1 (B1G vs. SEC) had the highest ratings of the other bowls in most years, and had higher ratings than at least 1 BCS bowl 3 years. When the Cap 1 wasn’t the highest, it was the Alamo twice (B1G-Big 12), Champs (B1G-ACC), Cotton (SEC-B12), and Gator – the SEC and B1G are ratings solid 3 teams deep – no need to be concerned with title game invites.
Who gets the 1 remaining invite?
The Big 12 #2 is a bit of an unknown with conference realignment, but they have done well inside and outside the BCS.
I don’t know what the ACC #2 ratings would be, but the ACC #1 ratings aren’t good. The ACC has generally been Miami or Florida State or a TV ratings bust.
The PAC #2 tie-ins outside the Rose get pretty bad ratings, so I wouldn’t expect much interest.
The mid majors have been dismal, and most mid majors who have BCS appearances have moved on.
Big East #1 BCS games have usually had dismal ratings. When they weren’t dismal, it had more to do with the opponent (Tebow’s final college game, etc.). Notre Dame might be the best example of “Brand” appeal and is a solid option in good seasons.
Look for this selection to include Notre Dame as an option with a tie-in to the Big 12, or an agreement to select 1 from multiple conferences. The mid majors won’t be included, inclusion of the Big East is a long shot, and inclusion of the ACC #2 is almost as unlikely. It isn’t their on-field performance; it is their TV ratings performance.
If you still aren’t convinced, then consider without the BCS, these bowls are just like the other bowls. Why would their selection be any different? Wishful thinking and plausible sounding scenarios don’t equate to reality.
2 major bowl tie-ins aren’t the only gains for Delany.
The PAC and the B1G no longer have to spread the wealth of the Rose Bowl. Bowl revenue sources are tightly tied to ratings. The Rose averages 24% of the yearly total BCS ratings since going to 5 games. The B1G and the PAC would collect very close to the revenue they currently get Before adding revenue from new tie-ins and the title game.
The BCS has been under legal threat. If frell heezed over and they succeeded, they can’t force a different format, but they can dissolve the BCS. With the BCS reduced to 1 game and revenue shifted to the Rose Bowl appearance fee, there is less risk.
Delany can now claim he wasn’t opposed to dismantling the BCS and elimination of BCS AQ status, replacing it with a fair, open market system just 1/5 its predecessor’s size.
The Supporters.
The MWC, WAC, and C-USA have been stripped of their flagship programs in search of BCS AQ status. Suddenly those checks from the BCS are a lot less significant.
The bowls like the idea – they would gain more control over their selection process, there is no hard distinction between the BCS and other bowls, and outside wanna-be hosts of the title game like the idea of it being marketed like the Super Bowl.
The PAC’s Scott, is of the same opinion as Delany "The thinking about AQ status is pretty different for the Pac-12 and Big Ten than it is for everybody else. It isn't as relevant given our unique relationship with the Rose Bowl. It doesn't really matter for us one way or the other whether there's AQ status or not."
The SEC’s Silve knows he can get 2 tie-ins and will still make more than his share of title game appearances (the equivalent to 3 BCS representatives).
The Big 12 likes the idea - they believe they can get 2 (or 3) teams in the major bowls more often thru the title game or a conference tie-in.
Notre Dame hasn’t chimed in, but a tie-in to a major bowl would be less difficult than the current BCS criteria.
The MAC and Sun Belt don’t care – they have little to do with the top bowls and title game.
The Opposition.
The schizophrenic Swafford of the ACC helped propose the original 2008 Playoff Format. Then he swapped, and supported the BCS in the 2009 Hearings and continued to defend the BCS through 2011 Discussions. He is now stuck walking the fine line of supporting a 4 team playoff while simultaneously supporting the current system with AQ status. He supports what is best for his conference, and the BCS reduced to 1 game isn’t good for the ACC.
The Big East received a waiver to continue AQ status in 2008. They just expanded to maintain AQ status and push the mid majors further back - this would make those moves useless.
Unlike Delany who would blow up any title format if it required more than 1 game, I don’t know if the Big East or the ACC have enough clout to block the BCS being dismantled (which only takes 1 vote against from an entity with a vote that counts) and replaced with 1 bowl game.
Will it lead to a playoff?
In a Detailed Series of the 1 and only reason they oppose a playoff, this doesn’t eliminate it. Some conferences will become more invested in the season and bowls strengthening opposition to a playoff.
The model isn’t a vote for “BCS or playoff” – it’s an arrangement that must be renewed by all who have a vote that counts, or nothing - whether it is unanimous against, or the vote of 1 against, it is dead if any of a few key conferences oppose it.
It is a choice of continuation of the BCS as is, the BCS as 1 title game, or nothing – Delany will be happy with any of these 3. Any other formats will be rejected.
So let’s get behind Delany on this one – a diminished BCS, decreased conference realignment, and a tie-in to the Sugar or Fiesta awaits the B1G if he succeeds!
