We know what you are. We’re just haggling over the fee.

Dennis Dodd manages to distill my unease over where the BCS discussion is about to go into two sentences.

Left to their own market-driven desires, the commissioners themselves damaged the history and the tradition of the sport with conference realignment. There is a feeling that a plus-one could slow that process.

Because why, exactly?  Their stellar track record managing postseason play?  Right.  Some sudden enlightenment such that we’re supposed to believe they’ve finally learned their lesson?  That’s highly doubtful.

“Once that first toe goes in the revenue pool, it’s a lot easier to jump in when someone says the water is better in the deep end,” said the high-ranking BCS source. “How quickly does it creep to where no one really wants it to be, but where you can’t say no because of all that potential revenue?”

These people don’t trust themselves to do the right thing.  Why should we?

I’ll leave Roy Kramer to set up the punchline.

“You have to make sure you don’t totally destroy the foundation of the sport for minimal gain,” Kramer said.

But for the right amount of gain…

6 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs, It's Just Bidness

6 responses to “We know what you are. We’re just haggling over the fee.

  1. paul

    I just threw up a little bit.

  2. AusDawg85

    Turn out the lights, the party’s over….

  3. SCDawg

    I can’t believe they said it out loud.

  4. Cojones

    Why didn’t all of these possibilities come up when everyone was asked for input as to wanting a playoff system? Like, “Do you want a playoff system instead of a BCS, non-NCAA-binding system like present that will end up in expansion to 16 team conferences necessary to support such an undertaking and will threaten iconic and historical matchup games and the bowl system?”. And don’t tell me that God, the Senator and everybody was trying to tell us of this evolution when the question was put. Over 83% replied “Yes!” to the playoff question. If the other druthers had been pasted to the end of that question, I would say “No!!”, along with most.

    I have been consistent by suggesting that the top 8 bowl games be established and to get the playoff teams from the winners. Seeding the 8 teams would be sufficient to preserve the playoff to those teams’s observed poll rankings. If the polls are wrong, that will be evident in the first round. This model would: 1) Keep the bowl system ; 2) Keep the importance of polls tantamount; 3) Not necessitate expansion to larger 16 team conferences; 4) Preserve iconic and historical regular season matchups.

    It also would mean that we should go to a 9-game SEC schedule despite what any other conference does.

  5. JRsec

    It’s third parties extraneous to the playing surfaces deciding who is in and who is not that we are all wanting to avoid. No more polls, no more votes of regionally biased sports writers, no more athletic directors voting for their coaches and no preprogramed computer rankings. The NCAA is not a video game! Play in your conference, win it, and make the playoffs. What is so $%#@* hard about that. If you get rid of the voting then winning your conference will be all that matters. Win that and you get a shot at the big prize. No need for beauty pageants if your not getting selected by the so called impartial judges. One loss or two in your conference will not keep you out if you win the conference. Bye Bye cupcakes, hello stronger conference schedules.

  6. G marmalard

    Why is no one interested in most of the bowls? Because there are too many and most are meaningless. Why do we have so many meaningless bowls? Because there was money to be made from lots of bowl games. What’s the solution? Start a playoff system. How could you make more money from a playoff system? Expand it . . . . .