An uphill climb

BCS outsiders' campaign is admirable ... but unrealistic

More in this column: • ACC, Big East bosses still differ • Big Ten prefers status quo • Worth noting: Smoker's status

Call it the Battle of the Dueling Teleconferences.

Or just call it what it really is: Jealousy.

On Tuesday, 44 presidents and chancellors representing Division I-A's disenfranchised held a long-scheduled conference call kicking off an organized lobbying effort against the injustices of college football's postseason structure.

The group, led by Tulane's Scott Cowen, bestowed themselves an official-sounding name, the Presidential Coalition for Athletics Reform. They launched a Web site. And in a weird cross between politics and boxing, they challenged the presidents and commissioners of the BCS conferences to a public debate Nov. 11 in New Orleans.

Meanwhile, not coincidentally, the BCS' Presidential Oversight Committee hastily scheduled a teleconference of its own for the day before, effectively telling the media, "Hey, we're willing to listen to anything they have to say," even inviting the outsiders to a meeting Sept. 8 in Chicago. This after opening the proceedings by officially ruling out the one alternative Cowen's group wants most, a playoff.

And, oh yeah, they too launched a new Web site.

Welcome to college football's version of the peasants storming the castle. Only in this case, the castle is heavily, heavily fortified and its inhabitants have a whole bunch of important allies.

The timing for this attempted uprising can be traced to the confluence of several prominent events in college athletics. First and foremost is the impending expiration of the BCS contract after the 2005 season. Understandably, schools outside the six conferences (and Notre Dame) that are currently guaranteed access to the four BCS bowls want greater inclusion when the next agreement is negotiated. The BCS' aforementioned presidential committee held its first face-to-face meeting last month and is expected to begin formulating proposals in the coming months.

But the leaders of the protest movement are pulling out more than just the bowl card. Cowen's group is milking the public backlash generated by the ACC's recent purge of the Big East, as well as the NCAA's new, more restrictive requirements for I-A membership, to suggest that college football's reigning powers are out of control. A couple congressmen are mentioning a possible antitrust investigation.

"It is absolutely classic cartel behavior, totally unjustified," said Buffalo President William R. Greiner. "I look upon the BCS, the Big East fiasco, these new [I-A] requirements as just symptoms of a much larger problem in which we have big-time football now dominating all aspects of athletics. What we have is some people who think they are the 'haves,' and for reasons that escape me ... do their damndest to beat on the have-nots."

The "haves" contend they've become an unfair scapegoat for everyone else's problems. They're quick to point out that little has changed in terms of postseason access -- in the 20 years prior to the BCS' existence, 159 of the 160 participants in the Orange, Sugar, Rose and Fiesta bowls came from within their present membership (the one exception: Louisville in the 1991 Fiesta Bowl). And they've distributed revenue to the other conferences -- about $42 million over the eight years of the contract -- that didn't previously exist.

In other words, beggars shouldn't be choosers.

"I think one of the big issues that has been very unintended, but very much reinforced by the media, is using this term [BCS] over and over again for purposes for which it was never considered," said Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany. "It was simply a way to support the bowl system and to provide a 1 vs. 2 game for the coaches, the players and the public. It's been really difficult for the conferences that don't have automatic ties to the Rose Bowl, the Sugar, the Orange or the Fiesta to constantly hear that they are 'non-BCS.'"

Intended or not, there's no question that the BCS has contributed to a widening financial gap within I-A's membership since its 1998 inception. According to a Chronicle of Higher Education study, the average budget of a BCS-affiliated program rose from $14 million in 1997 to $34 million five years later, with an average profit of about $3 million per school. During that same time, the average budget of I-A's other teams rose only slightly to about $15 million, with the average school failing to break even.

It's no wonder the have-nots are clamoring for a bigger piece of the pie.

However, college football and the BCS don't operate in a vacuum. If this were solely a matter of college administrators sitting in a room deciding what's fair, maybe Cowen's group could effect real change. But basic rules of economics apply to this situation, as they do any business.

"While a lot of this has sort of a political overtone of presidents, commissioners, ADs, coaches and media, the fact is this is really about a relationship between the [TV] network and a conference, and a network and a bowl," said Delany. "We might want to bring forward another conference or five conferences or 10 conferences, but if the network tells us there's no added value ... there will be no one to have the discussion with."

Bidding for the next television contract will begin no earlier than January, said Big 12 commissoner Kevin Weiberg, but don't be fooled. While attending this week's ACC media days, officials for ABC Sports -- which has televised college football for 37 years and, in addition to the BCS bowl games, has contracts with five of the six BCS conferences -- expressed their hope they'd be consulted before then.

And assuming the BCS wants to fetch at least the $525 million it did in the last go-around -- a tall order, considering the state of the economy and declining ratings for televised sports -- you better believe there will be some serious consulting.

"Over the years, the marketplace has established that the major revenue streams go to the bigger schools and conferences because they generate larger audiences," said former CBS Sports president Neal Pilson, now a consultant to the networks. "That has nothing to do with the credibility of their education, nothing to do with the quality of their play, it has to do with the viewing preference of the American public. I don't think the president of Tulane or any smaller Division I or II school could dispute that."

The only guaranteed way to up the value, said Pilson, would be to stage a playoff, which also happens to be the preference of Cowen's group. But Penn State President Graham Spanier put those hopes to rest Monday when he said, "As we look at the [63 BCS-affiliated schools] I just don't think there's any support there at all, and only a couple of people who would be even willing to say 'What if?'"

It's still too early to say exactly where this is all headed. Will there be a fifth bowl? An extra game after the bowls? Will the Big East still be included?

But here's guessing all the lobbying in the world will produce only minimal change on the issue of access.

To send a question or comment for Stewart's Mailbag, click here.

 

Related information

Stories

Mandel: Our eyes are upon Texas Stewart Mandel: FSU reluctant favorites Non-BCS schools unite in effort to gain access

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video