Tuesday, January 04, 2005
BCS Changes?
The majority of this article at ESPN.com just makes me roll my eyes. But two of the tangential bulletpoints at the very bottom intrigue me greatly.
First, it indicates that the BCS is trying to come up with a way that "will allow all Division I-A conferences the opportunity to earn an automatic BCS bid." I'm not sure what that means. There are 11 conferences, and if each one of them gets an automatic bid, there are going to have to be at least six games (for the record, I do like the idea of adding more BCS games if we can't have a playoff). However, as we saw with Pitt this year, sometimes an automatic bid for a conference champion who isn't very good isn't a good idea.
What IS a good idea, however, is the end of the cartel. My #1 gripe about the BCS isn't the fact that it isn't effective at determining a national champion. As a matter of fact, I think it does a pretty good job of that. What I hate about it, and the reason I want it to die die die, is the fact that it declares that six of the eleven conferences are "better" than the other five. That a team from the Big XII is by definition better than a team from the WAC. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, as good recruits refuse to play for a snubbed conference, and it's bad for the sport. If the BCS truly works out a way to include ALL ELEVEN CONFERENCES (yes, including the Sun Belt Conference), I will probably stop most of my griping about it.
Knowing them, though, they'll have some sort of rotation. ("OK, this year we're giving automatic berths to the Big XII, Big 10, SEC, ACC, PAC-10, MWC, and C-USA. Next year, it's the Big XII, SEC, ACC, Big East, WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt.")
Secondly, I'm very intrigued by the implications of Fox having the rights to three of the BCS bowl games. One minor problem with the BCS (that is, less important than its marginalization of nearly half the football teams in the country) was the fact that it was a partnership with ABC, which owns ESPN, which is far and beyond the #1 source for national sports news and commentary. I read ESPN.com all the time (that's how I found this article), and watch it on TV when I get a chance, but I'm skeptical when the commentators talk about the BCS or the tweaks that need to happen to it. The bottom line is that ESPN is a for-profit business, and as long as ABC gets advertising money from the BCS bowl games, ESPN has a financial stake in perpetuating the BCS and marginalizing the other five conferences. How will ESPN behave once that financial incentive is removed??
First, it indicates that the BCS is trying to come up with a way that "will allow all Division I-A conferences the opportunity to earn an automatic BCS bid." I'm not sure what that means. There are 11 conferences, and if each one of them gets an automatic bid, there are going to have to be at least six games (for the record, I do like the idea of adding more BCS games if we can't have a playoff). However, as we saw with Pitt this year, sometimes an automatic bid for a conference champion who isn't very good isn't a good idea.
What IS a good idea, however, is the end of the cartel. My #1 gripe about the BCS isn't the fact that it isn't effective at determining a national champion. As a matter of fact, I think it does a pretty good job of that. What I hate about it, and the reason I want it to die die die, is the fact that it declares that six of the eleven conferences are "better" than the other five. That a team from the Big XII is by definition better than a team from the WAC. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, as good recruits refuse to play for a snubbed conference, and it's bad for the sport. If the BCS truly works out a way to include ALL ELEVEN CONFERENCES (yes, including the Sun Belt Conference), I will probably stop most of my griping about it.
Knowing them, though, they'll have some sort of rotation. ("OK, this year we're giving automatic berths to the Big XII, Big 10, SEC, ACC, PAC-10, MWC, and C-USA. Next year, it's the Big XII, SEC, ACC, Big East, WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt.")
Secondly, I'm very intrigued by the implications of Fox having the rights to three of the BCS bowl games. One minor problem with the BCS (that is, less important than its marginalization of nearly half the football teams in the country) was the fact that it was a partnership with ABC, which owns ESPN, which is far and beyond the #1 source for national sports news and commentary. I read ESPN.com all the time (that's how I found this article), and watch it on TV when I get a chance, but I'm skeptical when the commentators talk about the BCS or the tweaks that need to happen to it. The bottom line is that ESPN is a for-profit business, and as long as ABC gets advertising money from the BCS bowl games, ESPN has a financial stake in perpetuating the BCS and marginalizing the other five conferences. How will ESPN behave once that financial incentive is removed??
Comments: Post a Comment
