I thought I’d separate these three items out from the buffet and give them separate treatment:
- I’ve written about Andy Schwarz’ position on antitrust and the BCS before. He’s returned to the subject with this post in which he suggests that the NCAA won’t put up a barrier any more to parties wanting to compete against the bowls in the postseason. I’ve got a few quibbles with what he writes. First off, I’m not sure the NCAA abandons the field, so to speak, as it could always come up with some regulations to limit the entry of others. Second, it’s not something that a third-party entrepreneur would sell to individual schools, but to the conferences, and I’m don’t know that the power conferences would be interested. Third, this become moot if D-1 splits as I expect it will in the coming years. That being said, I can see the mid-major conferences being interested in something like this. It would garner more attention and probably more money than seeing the top mids in less than top bowls. (Not to mention that it would probably lay the seeds for what they’d do in the wake of a D-1 breakup.)
- I think Barrett Sallee gets this exactly backwards. If/when D-1 splits and we get a set of superconferences composed of 64 schools, I don’t see how that necessarily results in a four-team playoff. If anything, four two-division conferences almost beg for an eight-team set-up with the conference championship games comprising the quarterfinals. Maybe I’m missing something here.
- Good to see that Dennis Dodd is getting on the 4 vs. 5 controversy bandwagon early on. Five years from now, that’ll be the excuse to expand.