Is the BCS supposed to be fair?

Let me say up front that I have my own issues with the BCS. I believe it is in the best interests of college football to do away with the current format after the four-year contract between the BCS and ESPN expires after the games of January 2014.

I would like to see a seeded four-team playoff.  We would put the magic back into New Year’s Day by playing the semifinals in two of the big bowls on Jan. 1. A week later the two winners would play for the national championship. I believe this is the best way to move the sport forward without disrupting the current college football calendar and while keeping the bowl system intact.

And believe me folks, the university presidents are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the bowl system and the current college football calendar. Any changes in the post-season will have to fall within those presidential parameters. The presidents run the show. Not the media. Not the fans. Not the coaches or the players. The presidents who make up the BCS oversight committee will ultimately make this call.

Therefore, any proposed change to the system has to be rational and fact based, not emotion based. The presidents are not going to vote for an eight-team playoff because the majority of the fans and the media want it. They are not going to vote for a playoff because politicians know that bashing the BCS is like bashing the IRS: It’s easy and it plays well to the folks back home.

Now all of that is a preface to our question of the day:

Is the BCS supposed to be fair?

I’m serious.

What prompted the question was an email I received from Mr. Alan Fishel, whose law firm represents the fine people at the Mountain West Conference. In his email Mr. Fishel included a “BCS Revenue Discrimination Chart.”

I did not make that up.

Mr. Fishel’s point was that over the past four years the Mountain West and the WAC, who do not have automatic qualifier status,  have outperformed the ACC and the Big East (who do get automatic bids) when it comes to BCS TV ratings, rankings, and attendance. Here is his chart:

http://www.arentfox.com/email/fishel/BCS%20Revenue%20Discrimation%20Chart.pdf

Counselor, I will stipulate that your figures are correct and those conferences have performed better over the past four years than the Big East and ACC.

Mr. Fishel also points out that that the six equity conferences that formed the BCS back in 1998 (ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, Pac-10) have benefitted  substantially more from the BCS than the other five Division I-A conferences. Again, Mr. Fishel is right. In fact, I went back to 2004 when Urban Meyer’s Utah team earned a spot in the Fiesta Bowl.  Here are the total dollars paid out by the BCS, per conference, since 2004.

Big Ten——————$128.2 million

SEC———————–$123.6 million

Big 12——————–$119.1 million

Pac 10——————-$105.6 million

ACC———————-$105.6 million

Big East——————$105.6 million

Mountain West———-$42.4 million

WAC————————$31.3 million

C-USA———————-$12.6 million

MAC————————$9.7 million

Sun Belt——————–$8.2 million

Note: Notre Dame earned about $23 million in this same time period.

If you are keeping score at home, that’s about $687 million that has gone to the six equity or “privileged” conferences (as Senator Orrin Hatch likes to lovingly call them) and about $104 million to the other five “non-privileged” conferences. That’s a gap of about $583 million over six years.

Mr. Fishel goes on to say that “The revenue discrimination chart attached is meant to begin the process of shining light on what is occurring and will continue to occur, under the  BCS unless there are significant changes.”

Just out of curiosity I did a Google search on the words “BCS” and “fair” and there were tons of items, including Boise State president Robert Kustra who, not surprisingly, had looked at Mr. Fishel’s numbers and decided that the BCS was not “fair.”

I get nervous when politicians, media, and college presidents start throwing around words like “fair.” It is a moving definition. Some people think that if their neighbor drives a nicer car than them that it’s not fair. The term is too vague.

But however it is defined I must ask again: Where is it written that the BCS is SUPPOSED to be fair?

Here is the problem that I have with Mr. Fishel’s sometimes breathless argument:

No. 1: All of these numbers he cites are a matter of public record. Nobody has to shine a light on anything. It’s all out there. The six BCS equity conferences that put this deal together in 1998 and marketed it and grew it make a lot more money from this deal than the other five conferences. It was designed that way in 1998 by the television networks who were putting up the money. No news there.

No. 2: I want the five non-equity conferences to get as much money as they can out of the BCS pool. Keep pushing. Keep negotiating. Keep reminding the other conferences of your value. The Mountain West has a chance to play its way in to an automatic bid in 2012 and 2013.

But to say these conferences are the victims of “revenue discrimination” (I’ve got to write that one down for future use) is to presume they had a pre-existing claim to the BCS money pool that is somehow being denied.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany mentioned this last week and it bears repeating: Colleges and universities have institutional advantages based on geography, tradition, enrollment, endowments, etc. Institutions trade on those advantages, in some cases built over 100 years, in order to field the best athletics teams, the best law schools or to hire the best faculty. The lawyers produced at East Idaho State Teachers College may be every bit as good as those who from Harvard. But the lawyer with a sheepskin from Harvard has an advantage and that, gentle readers, ain’t gonna change.

So let’s tone down the rhetoric about “revenue discrimination” and come up with a plan that works. If the Mountain West keeps doing what it’s doing, it will become the seventh conference with an automatic bid in 2012. Then that league will get a full share of the BCS pie. The five non-automatic qualifier conferences were given a path to become an AQ.  The MWC, I believe, is going to succeed.

Last season, for the first time ever, two teams from non-AQ conferences (Boise State, TCU) went to a BCS Bowl. As a result the five conferences shared a record $24 million. Should they get more?

Yes, and they will. This year the BCS contract improves from $80 million per year (under Fox) to $125 million per year (under ESPN). So if the MWC and WAC get back to the BCS there will be more money available.

Maybe I’m wrong about all of this. Maybe the BCS should just throw all the money into one pot so that the Sun Belt and the Mid-American conferences, which have sent no teams to BCS bowls, will get the exact same share as the SEC, which has won four straight national championships and sent 10 teams to the BCS in six years. Maybe that would be the “fair” thing to do.

You tell me.

Please follow me on Twitter:

www.twitter.com/MrCFB

PROGRAMMING NOTE: I will be subbing for Brandon Adams today on the “Brandon and Woolvey Show” at 11 a.m. on 790 The Zone. We’ll be taking a detailed look at the SEC, ACC, and Top 25 heading into the summer.

www.790thezone.com

255 comments Add your comment

Dusty Moore

May 29th, 2010
1:32 am

Life isnt fair

Mikeyv

May 29th, 2010
3:44 pm

I don’t think the money has to be fair to anyone. Life is not fair. however i think the teams who win should get a bigger cut. if you finish with a losing season why do you deserve more or eqaul to some one undefeated? I agree with a 4 team playoff with an ultimate winner at the end of the season. Boise state, Utah, TCU, and B.Y.U. and maybe even Fresno have had to battle thier way to these games and for that the b.c.s. is credible. Once you get to the big games the largest amount of that money should go to the winner. I think everyone knows it but the old men back east dont want to part of thier income being distriputed amongst the teams who have earned it. I think if you deny the fact the money should go accordingly your team is losing in some big confrence. why not? If the B.C.S. is so big and bad why not try this for three years non bcs vs bcs championship game i think the nation will be shocked. Alabama was gonna beat Boise? I dont think so. we’ll see at the end who was right eventually Boise will be in the big game whuppin up on another bcs hype team. thats right i said boise is the best team in the nation right now. we’ll see.

hansenkd

May 31st, 2010
9:12 am

Regarding the comment that things are better now than in the old bowl system–the counter to that is that under the old bowl system, BYU was able to win a national championship out of the Holiday Bowl in 1984. In fact, BYU’s championship so horrified the fat cats and blue bloods that they screamed “NEVER AGAIN!”, and created the precursors of the BCS in response, so that it would indeed never happen again. So don’t use the old bowl system as a threat. Under the old system, a team like BYU could and did win a championship.

GaStatePanther

May 31st, 2010
12:43 pm

As a 50 plus college sports fan, I have to address this more from a philosophical perspective.

What should college athletics really be? Why should a jock get a free ride to a college anyway?

At the very least, shouldn’t college athletics strive to be as ETHICAL as humanly possible? Nothing is completely fair, but does anyone believe the BCS is remotely ethical?

I’ve read a lot of stories and articles over the years concerning college athletics and I remember well Bob Devaney, Bud Wilkinson, John McKay, Bear Bryant, etc…. The real truth is, these Equity Conference programs were built via practices that are illegal now. The Marshall’s and Boise State’s are required to operate under different rules today. Why is SMU the only program to get the death penalty?

I’m not so much for a playoff system as I am oversight that really does clean up college athletics. Albert Means, Reggie Bush, Maurice Clarett, etc are examples of what the BCS is contributing to.

[...] the Original article Posted in [...]