Despite the University of Utah being invited up to the big leagues the Attorney General of the Mormon Beehive state still wants the BCS disbanded under anti-trust laws. It’s no surprise to anyone that the BCS is a system of big and small. The auto-qualifying conferences certainly derive more benefit from the system, but its also true that some of the smaller schools have gotten opportunities that in the past would likely never have happened. Would Boise State have had the opportunity to play in the Fiesta Bowl to beat Oklahoma? Utah in the Sugar Bowl to victoria over Alabama? Or TCU in the Rose Bowl? All three schools appear to have benefited from the exposure with two invited to AQ conferences and all three (and others like Nevada) seeing their stock rise, the ability to climb the rankings like never before and nationwide exposure.
A judge might be able to rule against the BCS alliance of Bowls, but he won’t be able to force a playoff into existence. It’s not unlikely that without the BCS we would just go back to independent bowls. The Rose Bowl would be Pac-12/Big Ten every year and we’d almost never get a 1-2 matchup, clear cut or not. Perhaps it might open up the way for a playoff, but it certainly doesn’t guarantee one.
It is a little suprising. I figured that one reason that Utah was invited to the Pac-10 was to buy off Orin Hatch and the Utah AG (I’m generally not a knee-jerk conspiracy theorist, but given the corruption of the NCAA, I’m not willing to give the benefit of the doubt here).
I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t the real anti-trust issue the conferences? My understanding of anti-trust from a layman’s perspective is a group of individuals banding together in order to reduce compeition, shut out others from an economic market, and thus gain unfair economic advantage and profits. To me this sounds just like the SEC or the Big 10. The quality mid majors (Boise State, TCU, Utah) may want to play Alabama, Florida, Ohio State, and college football fans may want to see these matchups, but really the big boys can just ignore the upstarts as they please, and just play each other. In a BCS conference, it doesn’t matter who you play in the OOC games as long as you win your conference. Furthermore, certain BCS conferences are so “strong”, namely the SEC, Big-10, and Big-12, that it doesn’t really matter who you play OOC for consideration for the national championship. By banding together, the big conferences don’t just monopolize the BCS bowls. They monopolize the big TV contracts and big games. The truth is, even with a playoff, the mid majors will still be heavily disadvantaged because they’re forced to play scrub games with limited fan interest (thus limited monetary potential). A 16 game playoff would be fairly open to quality mid-majors, but I seriously doubt they’ll ever go to that. The most I see is 8 games.
I don’t see how you’d pursue the conferences on anti-trust grounds. Its a free association of schools. Would you start forcing Washington to schedule MAC or C-USA or Sun Belt teams instead of Oregon or USC or Stanford or Washington State?
The BCS has provided more opportunities for the small schools, not less.
I mean what kind of changes would they need to implement to NOT upset the AG? Force the bowls to choose schools they don’t want? That won’t be financially beneficial?
Andy Staples has a smart take on this, and why the small conferences should call the BCS’s bluff as far as a return to the old bowl system.
He makes the following assertion
“If they do, they’ll face two choices: the old system, which would bring in far less money, or a playoff, which would bring in far more”
How does he know a playoff would bring in far more? Because the basketball playoff brings in a lot of money? So what, football is a different beast. The logistics of shipping more teams and more fans to more places for more weeks? Would people really tune in in droves for that first round matchup between Alabama and Temple?
Further, lets say his scenario plays out and the Pac-12/Big Ten return to the Rose Bowl and the Big 12/SEC play in the Sugar. The big four could put together a couple more compelling matchups to fill out a couple more big name bowls on their own. You could do ACC champ vs SEC #2 in the Orange Bowl. SEC #3 vs Big Ten #2 in the Capital One Bowl. Pac-12 #2 vs Big 12 #2 in the Cotton. I doubt the ACC gets left out, the Big East probably. How about Pac-12 #3 vs MWC#1 in the Fiesta? Don’t forget theres also Notre Dame and BYU that you could invite to one of those slots too. Even if you vote for a playoff whats to stop the big 4/5 from bolting the NCAA altogether, possibly as part of a super conference push?