Strong Rumor Texas will stay in Big "12"

[GGGG]

Great questions you ask, but it should come to no surprise that due to the fact we are talking about the NCAA here..you couldn't expect for this "rule" to make sense..just as many NCAA policies are poorly constructed.

On another topic  - can someone educate me on who conceptualized the BCS, and is it true that the NCAA has little jurisdiction over the BCS system?

The BCS was formed for a couple of reasons.  First, to provide some sort of system to attempt to determine a champion.  But more importantly, it was done by the major conferences (and Notre Dame) to consolidate the four main bowls into a coordinated package deal and maximize revenue. 

The NCAA has jurisdiction in that they have rules to determine who is bowl eligible, etc., but they play no part in the selection process nor do they receive any revenue from the games themselves.

[NersEllenson]

The BCS was formed for a couple of reasons.  First, to provide some sort of system to attempt to determine a champion.  But more importantly, it was done by the major conferences (and Notre Dame) to consolidate the four main bowls into a coordinated package deal and maximize revenue. 

The NCAA has jurisdiction in that they have rules to determine who is bowl eligible, etc., but they play no part in the selection process nor do they receive any revenue from the games themselves.

Thanks a lot for the clarification...yet I'm dumbfounded as to how the NCAA could allow the above type of scenario to come to existence??  First off, why not just have the NCAA establish an 8 team playoff, and the remaining teams ranked 9 - bottom of bowl eligbile be slotted in other bowl games.  The NCAA allowing the major conferences to form the BCS, effectively hurt all the mid major conferences.  Lastly, how in the WORLD can the NCAA not get any revenue from the BCS games (which feature NCAA teams), yet the NCAA takes a huge chunk of the money for March Madness??  This is beyod oxy-moronic or paradoxal to me...is there something I'm not understanding, or failing to realize in all of this?

[GGGG]

Thanks a lot for the clarification...yet I'm dumbfounded as to how the NCAA could allow the above type of scenario to come to existence??  First off, why not just have the NCAA establish an 8 team playoff, and the remaining teams ranked 9 - bottom of bowl eligbile be slotted in other bowl games.  The NCAA allowing the major conferences to form the BCS, effectively hurt all the mid major conferences.  Lastly, how in the WORLD can the NCAA not get any revenue from the BCS games (which feature NCAA teams), yet the NCAA takes a huge chunk of the money for March Madness??  This is beyod oxy-moronic or paradoxal to me...is there something I'm not understanding, or failing to realize in all of this?

Yes, you are failing to understand a number of things.  First, the NCAA doesn't get revenue from bowl games because it doesn't sponsor them.  They are sponsored by local groups, who find a sponsor, sell TV rights, etc.

Second, the NCAA has no leverage to force the BCS conferences to do anything.  If the NCAA decided to force the playoff issue, the BCS conference would probably just say "see ya!" and form their own governing body...and there goes most of the basketball revenue.  The BCS schools accept that the NCAA gets basketball money with the understanding that they keep their hands off the football money.

[NersEllenson]

Yes, you are failing to understand a number of things.  First, the NCAA doesn't get revenue from bowl games because it doesn't sponsor them.  They are sponsored by local groups, who find a sponsor, sell TV rights, etc.

Second, the NCAA has no leverage to force the BCS conferences to do anything.  If the NCAA decided to force the playoff issue, the BCS conference would probably just say "see ya!" and form their own governing body...and there goes most of the basketball revenue.  The BCS schools accept that the NCAA gets basketball money with the understanding that they keep their hands off the football money.

I guess I didn't think the NCAA got a lot of money from the bowl games (though I thought they'd get a cut).  I'm still unclear as to how the governing body of college athletics, doesn't control all things college athletics?  How does the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) have the ability to dictate to the NCAA what its teams do/don't do?  Why would the NCAA just not mandate that the Top 8 teams in college football go into an NCAA sanctioned single elimination tournament.  The NCAA sells the rights to a network, just like they do for March Madness...and then keep all of the revenue (which would be much more) from the football championship?? 

[GGGG]

The NCAA is a membership organization, and like most organizations of that type, it can only do what its members empower it to do.  And the members who are the biggest and richest have the most influence.  And those influential members don't want the NCAA to do touch football...otherwise they will no longer be members.

The BCS is a creature of those same members.  They have empowered their conferences to create this system so they don't have to share the bulk of the revenue outside of themselves...which is unlike basketball.

[NersEllenson]

The NCAA is a membership organization, and like most organizations of that type, it can only do what its members empower it to do.  And the members who are the biggest and richest have the most influence.  And those influential members don't want the NCAA to do touch football...otherwise they will no longer be members.

The BCS is a creature of those same members.  They have empowered their conferences to create this system so they don't have to share the bulk of the revenue outside of themselves...which is unlike basketball.

Thanks for the clarification - I wonder how long it will be before these same members mandate the NCAA basketball tournament become a BCS only type of invite party, with all revenue going to BCS schools?  It comes as no surprise now as to why these money hungry influential NCAA members who formed the BCS are so reluctant to pay college athletes..as that would take money away from them.  Sad.

[GGGG]

It comes as no surprise now as to why these money hungry influential NCAA members who formed the BCS are so reluctant to pay college athletes..as that would take money away from them.  Sad.

They're getting paid a free education.

[bilsu]

Thanks for the clarification - I wonder how long it will be before these same members mandate the NCAA basketball tournament become a BCS only type of invite party, with all revenue going to BCS schools?  It comes as no surprise now as to why these money hungry influential NCAA members who formed the BCS are so reluctant to pay college athletes..as that would take money away from them.  Sad.

The NCAA tournament would probably make less money, if the non-BCS schools were pushed out. One of the atttractions is the potential of a non-BCS school beating one of the power houses.

[GGGG]

The NCAA tournament would probably make less money, if the non-BCS schools were pushed out. One of the atttractions is the potential of a non-BCS school beating one of the power houses.

Probably?  They would make substantially less money if the BCS schools left.  It would also effectively kill a lot of the D2 and D3 championships because the NCAA uses basketball money to fund those championships.

[ChicosBailBonds]

As said so many times, the NCAA doesn't control college football at the highest level.  It's the networks and the BCS as well as specific schools that control it.  The bowls are independent of the NCAA as is the BCS system....for that matter, so is the Heisman Trophy and many other football related items.

Just as the NCAA can't tell a school which conference to go to, but they can put limits on minimum number of participants to form a conference. 


So many people get confused on what the NCAA is and what they do.  No wonder why they are blamed for so much when, in reality, there are a number of college sports related issues they have no jurisdiction over.

[Husker4MU]

Thanks a lot for the clarification...yet I'm dumbfounded as to how the NCAA could allow the above type of scenario to come to existence??  First off, why not just have the NCAA establish an 8 team playoff, and the remaining teams ranked 9 - bottom of bowl eligbile be slotted in other bowl games.  The NCAA allowing the major conferences to form the BCS, effectively hurt all the mid major conferences.  Lastly, how in the WORLD can the NCAA not get any revenue from the BCS games (which feature NCAA teams), yet the NCAA takes a huge chunk of the money for March Madness??  This is beyod oxy-moronic or paradoxal to me...is there something I'm not understanding, or failing to realize in all of this?

How has the BCS hurt mid-major conferences?  Since it's inception in 1998, 6 non-BCS schools have played in BCS games.  All 6 of those have come in the last 6 years.  In the previous 11 years, only 1 non-BCS school played in the now-BCS bowls.  That was Louisville in the Fiesta Bowl against a 7-4 Alabama team.  From 1970 to 1997, there were 8 undefeated (many had ties) non-BCS schools and only 1 played in a BCS bowl.  That was Arizona St in the Fiesta Bowl.  Back then the Fiesta was a shell of its current self and ASU wasn't in the Pac 10.  You can complain about the BCS being a crappy way to determine a champion, but it has changed the rules and become way more inclusive than the previous bowl systems.

[NersEllenson]

How has the BCS hurt mid-major conferences?  Since it's inception in 1998, 6 non-BCS schools have played in BCS games.  All 6 of those have come in the last 6 years.  In the previous 11 years, only 1 non-BCS school played in the now-BCS bowls.  That was Louisville in the Fiesta Bowl against a 7-4 Alabama team.  From 1970 to 1997, there were 8 undefeated (many had ties) non-BCS schools and only 1 played in a BCS bowl.  That was Arizona St in the Fiesta Bowl.  Back then the Fiesta was a shell of its current self and ASU wasn't in the Pac 10.  You can complain about the BCS being a crappy way to determine a champion, but it has changed the rules and become way more inclusive than the previous bowl systems.

Good points you make.  I have no good rebuttal.