“There’s a lot of stuff being thrown at the wall.”

And so we enter the end game about what the powers-that-be want to do with college football’s postseason.  To what should be no one’s great surprise, that involves making sure the powers-that-be stay in firm control of college football’s postseason revenue stream.

… According to sources with direct knowledge of meetings held in San Francisco earlier this week, the suggested change calls for the BCS to sever its direct ties with the so-called BCS bowls — the Allstate Sugar Bowl, Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, Discover Orange Bowl and Rose Bowl Game presented by Vizio — and concentrate solely on arranging a No. 1 vs. No. 2 national championship matchup.

In addition, the BCS title game could potentially be bidded out to nontraditional sites, such as Jerry Jones’ Cowboys Stadium.

The proposal also would eliminate automatic BCS bowl qualifying status currently given to the six major conferences. All conferences would be free to make their own deals with the 34 other existing bowls.

The reconfigured BCS would undergo significant change relative to its present revenue sharing system, too.

If you’re having trouble sorting out what that means and who the winners and losers would be, this should clear things up for you:

The source of one college football postseason idea pitched this week shouldn’t be surprising.

According to a person in the room at Monday’s BCS meeting, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany pitched a model whereby only the No. 1 and No. 2 teams would be matched in the postseason. That would basically eliminate the other BCS bowl tie-ins in the 14-year-old system.

The proposal essentially is a roll back to the old Bowl Alliance that was in effect from 1995-97. On its face, the proposal seemingly benefits the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12 and Pac-12 the most.

It’s not like he didn’t warn you before, small fry.

With all the conference rejiggering, this was simply inevitable.  If you’re a school that’s not able to latch on to one of the major conferences – and as the Big East is sadly learning, that’s not the same thing as being in one of the current BCS AQ conferences – it’s not going to be pretty.  And the thing is, by returning the system to more of an every-bowl-for-itself arrangement, it’ll have the effect of making things more impervious to an anti-trust challenge.

All this proves once again is that it’s not a winning strategy to screw with Jim Delany.


Filed under College Football, It's Not Easy Being A Mid-Major, It's Just Bidness

8 responses to ““There’s a lot of stuff being thrown at the wall.”

  1. George

    Delany is one scary dude when he wants to be. When he’s done with it all, there will be 64 teams and 4 conferences with a 4 team playoff. Should be interesting….


  2. haws1178

    The only way to truely eliminate all the bs is to have a playoff. Don’t know why the powers to be haven’t gone to one yet. It sure would get rid of all the jockeying for position and after last nights okie state lose it’s really about to fire up again. Every year some sort of scenario comes up that proves how inadequate the bcs system is.


    • MT

      A playoff would still have legal ramifications… a team like Boise could allege collusion by the BCS in terms of seeding, site selection, etc.

      There’s always a legal complaint until the BCS completely steps back. Think of this as a reaction to all the Senators out West talking about Congressional investigations into the BCS/NCAA.


  3. we have a problem with the BCS (allegedly) created by idiots at the BCS,NCAA and the likes of Delany and your solution is t allow these very same idiots to institute a playoff system. Do I need to define insanity for you? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,right. It’s not the system ….its the people, Throw them all out .


  4. The only problem with Delaney is that his members can’t recruit d-linemen that can run down running backs. His teams will continue to be boat-raced in matchups with the SEC.


  5. Bryant Denny

    From what I just read, I’m not sure this is a bad thing.

    The BCS would decide #1 and #2 and decide the location. This is a good thing. Sites like Atlanta, Dallas or wherever could bid on the title game. That’s a good thing and it also will maximize revenue.

    Also, no more potential Sugar Bowl matchups versus Boise or Hawaii. That’s a very good thing.

    What am I missing here?