MWC Loses Fight With BCS
by umass09 on Jul 9, 2009 2:30 PM PDT
Email
Print
Disappointing news for people who are not fans of the BCS. Today the Mountain West Conference signed the agreement between the BCS and ESPN, which runs through the end of the 2013 season. The MWC was fighting over the past six months to try and change the BCS in hopes of a more clear tournament to decide the national champion.
Unfortunately, this is a step back for the mid-major conference that would like a different kind of postseason system, but the MWC realizes at this point, they will not win the argument. In the past, the MWC has proposed an eight-team playoff system that would determine a national championship and would make it possible for any conference to have a shot at the tournament.
The MWC along with other mid major conferences are looking for a system that is equal and fair for all schools and conferences when it comes to competing in the postseason. The BCS, which started in 1997, clearly does not favor the small schools or schools from the mid-major conferences. The MWC is not one of the conferences where the conference champion would automatically qualify for a spot in one of the major bowl games, which is not fair to the conference.
Utah has went undefeated twice since 1997, and they have never made it to the national championship game. Yet, when they have played a team from a major conference in a bowl game they have won.
As with most things in business, it comes down to money and making profit. Unfortunately, the revenue stream is at the expense of athletes, students and fans having the chance to see their teams play and compete on college football’s biggest stage and a chance to win a national championship.
6 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Kinda surprised
that the Sun Belt, C-USA etc etc didn’t stand with them.
from the forest itself comes the handle for the axe
MWC loses
I think the WAC was holding out with the MWC too, but they finally caved in and I think that led to MWC deciding to sign the agreement. Plus, if they didn’t then they would put all of their teams in jeopardy of not having any postseason opportunity.
not really shocking
This is not a surprise that they signed. There is no way either league would hold out on the money
Non-BCS conferences need collective bargaining.
As things stand now, the BCS conferences get the glory (the only chance to win a title), the money (massive payouts from bowl games), and the lion’s share of the media spotlight. One school, or one conference, is not going to be able to shake up the existing power structure.
But the BCS schools are more dependent on the non-BCS contingent than they’d like to admit. BCS schools regularly buy home games with non-BCS opponents, both to line their pockets with additional revenue and to reach the “bowl-eligible” six-win mark.
What if the BCS schools gave out invitations, but no one accepted? What if BCS schools were only able to schedule other BCS schools, because none of the non-BCS schools returned their calls?
Yes, there would be negative financial ramifications for the non-BCS schools who have chosen to sell themselves. But non-BCS schools could adjust to that. A boycott would have a much more damaging effect on the six BCS conferences: without the ability to buy home games, significantly fewer BCS schools would be bowl-eligible. That would open up the door for more non-BCS representation in the bowl system, and a bigger slice of the bowl pie than the leavings currently distributed in “buy games”.
If the BCS schools won’t share access to the system they created, fine. Wall ’em off, and create something that works for the rest of us.
Collective Barganing is impossible
What if BCS schools were only able to schedule other BCS schools, because none of the non-BCS schools returned their calls?
Although you are right in theory BleedBlue42, in practice it would never work. The non-bcs and FCS schools need the BCS schools a lot more than the latter needs them. Almost all of the revenue derived in college sports comes from the six major conferences. You can liken it to our own countries tax system… the top 1% of households, which make 19% of pre-tax income, pay 39% of all individual income taxes. Those low income owners depend entirely on that small percentage of peoples at the top to pay for everything… their country (i.e. athletic programs) would come to a screeching halt if they didn’t have the ability to make money (taxes) from guaranteed games for their football and basketball teams.
Wont happen
In theory that is nice, but too many schools NEED the pay day to make their athletic budget. Just look at a Sun Belt schedule
by Jeremy Mauss on Jul 11, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
