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.