The BCS set 3 fair criteria:
1. Highest ranked team in the final BCS poll. They want the conferences with an automatic bid to typically supply a big name program.
2. Average BCS ranking for all of the teams in a conference. Having 1 or 2 big name programs won't cut it.
3. Average Conference Raking in the computer polls. The question is a conference level question - this is the BCS factoring in SOS which comprises the bulk of the computer poll ranking.
The BCS looks at the above criteria over a 4 year time span. Having 1 good year won't get your conference an automatic invite.
They have not specified, but I suspect that compared to a single current BCS conference, a mid major would need to perform better in the criteria:
1. At least 2 out of 4 years.
2. At least 1/2 of the measurements (3 criteria x 4 years = 12 total, half would be 6)
Even if they reach this hurdle (which I don't think they are close to yet), the BCS reserves the right to expand to 7 automatic bids or contract to 5.
The decision of 5 vs. 7 becomes a financial issue for the BCS. They could gain in net TV ratings by granting the at large automatic bid to a displaced former major and inviting another 2nd place team from the remaining 5 conferences.
The irony is meeting the criteria could make it harder for a mid major to qualify for a bowl game, not easier by adding a current major to the ranks of the non-BCS programs.
8. Forget about a Playoff
For reasons to fill many blogs, it just isn't going to happen.
If it did come, it will be of the seeded 4 team variety. There is evidence the pollsters are looking to elevate a mid major to qualify for the BCS, but stopping shy of the title game. If it impacted the title game, the mid majors might find the glass ceiling just a little bit lower in the voting polls - while the mid majors point to a couple of wins, regional voting will have pollsters promoting their local major champion into the top 4.
What isn't well publicized is that all conferences are against a playoff for financial reasons unless it expands to give an automatic bid to their mid major conference. It is a financial decision in which the mid majors pull the short straw in most scenarios.
9. Combine Their Marketing to the Bowls
Other than the BCS, bowls operate on a tie-in system. There are lots of clauses, but in general the bowls sign agreements for the selecting order from a conference.
The economic performance of the mid majors in the bowls is horrendous. Their bowl payouts lag far behind those of the majors. This is directly tied to the poor TV ratings detailed in part 1 which is typically less than half that of the majors. Breaking down the payouts for 2008:
$2,606.000 average for the majors
$ 975,000 average for the mid majors
$2,090,000 non-BCS average for the majors
$ 822,000 non-BCS average for the mid majors
It could have been worse. The mid majors made 24 bowl appearances, but they only have 17 conference tie ins.
$797,000 average for the top 9 mid major tie ins (1 from Sun, 2 from the other 4)
$769,000 average for the 17 mid major bowl tie ins
$750,000 appearance fee of the 5th lowest bowl (for comparison)
To put this into perspective:
The mid majors have only 1 tie in with the top half of the 34 bowls (ranked by bowl payout). They only have 2 bowl tie ins with a payout more than $1 Million.
A mid major typically earns more filling in for a spot vacated by a major than they can earn filling their conference top bowl tie-in.
A mid major can earn more signing to play a regular season road game against a major than the majority of their bowl appearances. If you include the additional expenses of a bowl appearance the regular season game is usually more profitable.
There is proof they should be getting better bowl invites. The Poinsettia bowl featured 2 top mid major teams and had the 15th highest TV ratings. This is well below the expected ratings of 2 similarly ranked teams from the majors, but it does show they have some drawing power on their own.
The problem for the bowls is they have no idea what they are getting from the mid majors. They could get a ranked team from a large university, or they could find themselves choosing among a handful of ratings dogs.
The answer is to combine their marketing to the bowls forming a coalition. Combining into a single entity, they can contract the top 2 selections from each of the 5 conference (after the BCS hopefully takes 1) to the most interested bowls. They can generally offer at least 3 ranked teams from this pool (typically more). Rather than contracting for the 1st and 2nd selection from a single conference, the bowls would contract for the 1st, 2nd, ..., 10th selection from any of the 1st 2 selections from each of the mid major conferences. The larger pool of teams makes the coalition more (ratings) attractive to the bowls.
Note: I gave details of this near the end of blog Please Sir, May I have Some More? The difference is that I referred to creating a series in the blog. Subsequent consideration from a comment left by Norka has me believing providing the bowls with a chance to select 1 mid major team would be more lucrative.
Once the tie ins are secured, the mid majors can work to promote these bowls.
The mid majors can also work to improve the net profitability of the bowls. A prime example is the requirement by the bowls the programs purchase motel rooms they don't used. This can be a lot of rooms (often over 100) for an extended time (often 11 days or more) with a price tag in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In negotiating their relationship with the bowls, they can decrease the number of rooms to an amount they are likely to occupy. They may also be able to decrease costs by decreasing the length of their stay to a week.
Also refer to 12 Needed Changes for the Mid Majors - Part 1
1. Quit crying to the BCS
2. Quit griping to the NCAA
3. The Best of the Rest Invite
12 Needed Changes for the Mid Majors - Part 2
4. Forget the Courts Anti-Trust Suits
5. Forget about Political Intervention
6. Promote Themselves
12 Needed Changes for the Mid Majors - Part 4
10. Stop the Clown Proposals
11. Up the Appearance Fees
12. Imagination and Urgency
Let me know your thoughts, and thanks for reading.
Cintia Dicker
Shanon Lersh
Did You See That?
Nation's Top Basketball Recruits
Comments (17) Add A Comment
It's all about those TV dollars. In many ways it's a Catch-22 for the Mid-Majors, as soon as a team shows promise, many times the Coach is lured away to a bigger program among many other pitfalls that plague the little five.
But let's not kid ourselves, with 120 FBS teams, the interest (TV$) is bound drop off drastically at some point, with the bigger programs continually raking it in (the new SEC-ESPN contract for example) while the lesser programs get by on Ramen noodles.
norka
Bubba Spot, GA
Total Comments (4083)
By "TV interest dropping off at some point" I didn't mean at some point in 'time', meant to read 'at some level in the rankings'. I have an assumption that the top 40 or so programs possibly generate 70% of the entire FBS revenue.
norka
Bubba Spot, GA
Total Comments (4083)
I think this might be very true, though I don't know how I would go about showing it.
It is certainly true in the bowls.
I would expect it to be true if you looked at the athletic budgets - BYU has the largest among the mid majors, yet it would take nearly 3 BYU budgets to match a tOSU, UF, or Texas.
If you went by conference TV revenue, I would suspect you would hit 70% of the revenue somewhere around 46 teams (ND plus 4 of the major conferences) (including the scrubs riding the conference coat tails).
This would have me beieving that it is likely less than 40 teams (33%).
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6720)
You are dead on - the mid majors are improving in revenue, but not as much as the majors making the disparity even greater.
Unfortunately the mid majors are doing nothing productive to help themselves. A quick glance at the bowl payouts vs. ratings would have the coalition increasing mid major revenue $4Million, perhaps more for 10 teams... but they continue to settle for $750K per team payouts.
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6720)
In the last 3...I'd get a bit nasty and suggest an all out attack on the Big East. The apparent "weakest link" in the BCS chain. Challenge BE teams at every opportunity in the OOC schedules. However, i expect the Big East would refuse to play those teams. Then, challenge teams that play BE teams. The MWC needs to present as much head-to-head evidence as possible and the Big East is the most vulnerable.
PSUinToolbox
Total Comments (10900)
To elaborate on 7 above...
The BCS can contract to 5 teams rather than expand to 7 if this occurred. Lets look at the pros and cons of expansion to 7, contraction to 5, or replace the East with a mid major.
From the BCS Perspective
The East typically has rather poor ratings in th BCS bowls unless they have a top rated team (like WVU). The mid majors are worse.
If the BCS no longer gave an automatic invite to the East, when the East has a top rated team the BCS could grant the automatic mid-major invite to the East.
With contraction to 5 BCS conferences, the BCS would get to select a 2nd team from the remaining 5 majors which likely has a larger audience than the East or a mid major.
If the BCS contracted to 5 rather than remain at 6 or expand to 7, they would have more control over who gets invitations to the BCS.
So... Would the BCS:
A. Invite another ratings dog from the ranks of the mid majors to expand to 7?
B. Swap 1 dog for a smaller dog and remain at 6?
C. Say no to both dogs and contract to 5?
In the end, if a mid major passed the East in the criteria, the ratings of the East would be so dismal the BCS would be joyous at the opportunity... to drop the East, not invite the mid major.
BCS Bowls
The other teams of the majors typically have larger followings than the East fan base. They would love to see both a boost in ratings and more fans making the bowl a center piece of their week long family vacation - something the East and mid majors haven't shown an ability to do.
So... would the bowls
A. Expand to 7 BCS conferences with 2 small followings?
B. Swap the small following of the East for a smaller following of a mid major?
C. Contract to 5 BCS conferences and gain increased control over who gets an invite?
Hint - always pick C.
Other BCS Conferences
Contraction would open an invite for another of their teams. They could expect to average 2 teams in the BCS bowls 4 out of 5 years.
Contract and the booty is split among 5 rather than 6 or 7 conferences.
So... would the other 5 BCS conferences
A. Expand to 7 and split the booty, giving up a BCS invite in the process?
B. Replace the East with a mid major?
C. Contract to 5 conferences with automatic invites?
I suspect they would shed a couple of crocadile tears and give the East a firm hand shake as they escorted them out the door with the comment "So sorry - try harder and we will invite you back in 4 years" adding after the door closed "NOT!"
Other mid majors
If the BCS even cared about their opinion, they would favor expansion to 7 teams boosting their shared revenue and chances of getting a BCS invite, oppose contraction, and could care less about seeing the East replaced with an existing mid major.
The MAC and SUN are a long, long, way from getting an invite in the 4 year criteria cycle - their vote could be easily bought with a tad bit more shared revenue. The other 2 would be concerned about how much more money... assuming there wasn't a change in criteria making it harder for the mid majors to get an invite.
In the final vote, the East and the mid major in question would have a hard time finding support for anything but contraction to 5.
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6720)
That reminds me of a quote...
Governor Tarkin: Princess Leia, before your execution, you will join me at a ceremony that will make this battle station operational. (destruction of the Big Aler... errr. East Conference). No star system will dare oppose the Emperor (BCS) now.
Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Joining Sen. Orrin Hatch in the rebellion are the Senators of the Republic... eerrrr... Eastern Seaboard: Gillibrand, Kirsten E. - (D - NY), Schumer, Charles E. - (D - NY), Lautenberg, Frank R. - (D - NJ), Menendez, Robert - (D - NJ) , Byrd, Robert C. - (D - WV), Rockefeller, John D., IV - (D - WV), Dodd, Christopher J. - (D - CT), and Lieberman, Joseph I. - (ID - CT). Theses notable civil servants now find themselves in a state without a Major BCS team. I can hear the speeches now... "Foul! Conspiracy! Monopoly! Give me a Championship or Give me Death!"
Go ahead and contract to 5, it will seal the death of the BCS.
PSUinToolbox
Total Comments (10900)
...so you have a few more added to the ranks of posturing elected reps, making the case the BCS would go to 7 teams (6 teams would still leave the East out and their reps in opposition)...
They still have to make an anti-trust case (6 vs. 7 conferences doesn't change that argument).
The chances of a special law specific to the BCS... passed over the opposition of programs from more populus states... if the law wasn't deemed illegal by the courts... is so marginal it isn't worth mention.
In the end, government intervention is a pipe dream puffing hot air. Witout a violation of the law (covered in an earlier blog) they have no influence that would surpass the financial aspects.
...but if they did have success and eliminated the BCS...
Why would the majors care?
The option isn't a mid major friendly format - it is a return to the conference tie in system for the major bowls.
The PAC and B10 would still hold the Rose Bowl, currently 2nd only to the title game in viewership. It alone could provide as much revenue to these conferences as their share of an expanded BCS format.
The SEC, B12, and B10 would like their chances of getting a 2nd tie in with the major bowls based on their TV ratings.
They can take a subatantial hit in revenue and still come out ahead. They no longer have to pay the non-BCS conferences $9 Million, the 6th conference their share of the booty, or $9 Million for a BCS buster. Even if they couldn't find a legal means to keep the title game, the prudent financial decision still doesn't include the mid majors.
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6720)
The reasons still point towards contraction.
How exactly does 5 conferences instead of 6 or 7 make a difference?
-Will the other 4 mid majors pass up funds to help out the 5th and/or the East?
-Does it fundamentally change the anti-trust arguments?
-Would a few more elected reps lead to the government taking unprecedented action?
If adding a mid major as a 7th team doesn't make financial sense now, how would adding them as the 6th team make any more sense?
-Somehow giving up 14% of the revnue doesn't make sense in adding them now, but not increasing their revenue by 20% would make sense to the other majors?
-Having 2 ratings dogs is better than no ratings dogs?
The East was placed on notice to improve or else when Miami, VT, and BC departed for the ACC. A strong OOC record agsinst the other majors coupled with some impressive performaces by WVU in the bowls kept their auto bid status by showing their performance was closer to the majors than the mid majors.
The BCS wasn't concerned about politics then. The BCS might contract to 5 conferences just on a drop in performance of the East... there is no reason to believe they wouldn't be dropped if they were passed by a mid major.
The problem with your analogy is that the BCS is not an empire with an infusion of power for the mid majors if they launch a torpedo down an exhaust shaft. It is a business entity centered around 4 independant bowls which can remake itself under a different format or operate independantly.
The BCS doesn't hold a tight grip on the bowls or the member conferences - it is the member "Star Systems" that comprise the BCS and throws $9-18 Million a year to the mid majors as appeasement.
There is nothing to point towards a few more elected reps changing the situation.
There is a lot to show a post BCS format would have the mid majors scratching their heads wondering "...but... we won... so where's our check? How did we end up worse off than before?"
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6720)
I don't buy this for a second. Oh sure, the BCS blow-hards rant and rave and huff and puff about taking their ball and going home. However, there are two problems with the old bowl format (note lack of champion isn't one of them): 1. There are no contractual obligations through either TV networks or Bowl sponsors that support the old format. All negotiating would start over. 2. The old Bowl format won't make as much money as the BCS (which is why they switched in the first place).
If the BCS was faced between the old bowls and a plus-one, they would add the additional game, and take the increased revenue to the bank.
PSUinToolbox
Total Comments (10900)
What the heck - the idea of congressional intervention was fun enough, why not... it is not particularly difficult to follow the money trail. I am using ratings from 2002 thru 2008 and 2009 BCS payouts because they are readily available.
1. Contractual Obligations - do you really think they would have problems signing new contracts? it only takes 1 bowl and 1 conference to split off.
If the BCS dissolved, their contracts would dissolve with them. None of the major 4 bowls are going to have any trouble signing a new lucrative TV contract, especially if they have tie ins that don't include the ratings dogs of the East or mid majors. The Rose could expect a boost in their contract - as 1 of the 5 bowls, they average nearly 1/4 of the viewing audience.
I do not think this would have a large effect the bowl sponsors. The major sponsors (FedEx, Tostitos, Allstate, Citi) have ties with the individual bowls.
2. If it was a choice between the old format and opening up appearances to more mid major teams, the ratings definitely goes to the old format.
-Since the departure of Miami, the BCS bowl featuring the Big East team has had the lowest ratings 4 of the last 5 years.
-In their 3 bowl appearances the mid major has finished 4th twice, 5th the other time.
-The only time the East and mid major didn't fill the last 2 spots was 2007, when a highly ranked WVU squad played closely followed OU and edged out Kansas-VT by a ratings margin of 7.7 to 7.4 (KS and VT aren't exactly ratings monsters themselves).
-In the last 2 years 1 if not both have had lower ratings than the Cap 1 bowl. In other years they have barely edged out the Cap 1 and Alamo bowl by less than 1 Nielson point.
-To put some hard numbers to it, the average BCS ratings for the mid majors and East over the last 5 years is 7.46. The average of the rest excluding the title game is 11.1 or 149%
If that isn't a large enough ratings anchor, keep in mind the 4 bowls would get to host the top 2 teams. In the end, their ratings get a huge boost, not a drop.
The NC game doesn't get the Super Bowl like ratings many think. Over the last 3 years, its ratings have averaged 16.9
To close the gap, eliminating the East and mid major and the audience of the 4 bowls can be expected to increase the equivalent of 7.28
If an open formt added another mid major, eliminating the 3 of them would be expected to boost ratings the equivalent of 10.9
With more attention given to the 4 major bowls and the appearance of the top 2 teams in these bowls, getting the equivalent of another 6 ratings points isn't a stretch.
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6720)
But they don't have to make up the full ratings difference to get the same net profit in the end.
With payouts at $17M per major conference, $9M for the mid majors, $9M for the BCS buster, $4.5 Million to each of the 3 2nd place BCS teams from the mid majors, and another $1M to ND, the total payout is $136.5M
Elimination of the BCS buster, mid major payout, East payout, and the ND payout would cut payouts by $36M, or over 26%... not exactly proportional to comprising only 20% of the teams, and certainly not proportional to their ratings.
This is about 10% of the total TV revenue (not certain about the total revenue with sponsors, or net revenue after expenses but before payouts).
...but with the total ratings for all of the bowls combined averaging 52.6 over the last 3 years, they could drop in the rating 5-10% and still break even with the net margin they currently get.
For the conferences, it is a lot easier to calculate - 2 ratings dogs disappear and a bowl departs with them, but they get to split 26% of the revenue these teams ued to receive. Any conference signing to a tie in with 2 of the 4 bowls, and likely all 5 of the conferences see a revenue boost.
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6720)
The Plus 1...
Well, I could go over the pros and cons, but a plus 1 isn't precluded from existing with the 4 major bowls switching to a tie in system with 5 conferences, so it really isn't part of this discussion.
I don't see a break up of the BCS changing the dynamics - all the reasons against a plus 1 still exist, but the likelihood of getting the only playoff format the majors have said might be acceptable - the seeded 4 - would become less likely.
In fact, a conference tie in for the 4 major bowls still wouldn't preclude a title game... it would just be difficult given a whole new set of limitation placed on it by a court ruling.
The advantages of the BCS favors keeping it for the bowls and the majors in the current environment, but it is not the lopsided advantage many would think. It wouldn't take a lot of changes to tilt the advantage back to the conference tie in structure.
Do you have anything to show the opposite?
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6720)
2 corrections...
Should have read "...2nd place BCS teams from the majors..."
and
"...This is about 28.8% of the total TV revenue..."
The 2nd would allow for a much larger drop in the TV audience and sposors than the listed 5-10% and still generate the same net revenue... in fact this could almost make up for the revenue lost with the elimination of the title game (32% of the TV audience). Throw in 7 or 8 ratings points by eliminating he East and the BCS buster, and we are likely very close to the point where it would be financially better for the other 5 major conferences to return to the old conference tie in structure.
(Yikes - I figured it was close, but had no idea it might be a difference of just a few percent)
Now if you really want to make a case against shrinking to 5 conferences, you might try looking for something to show interest would drop off if teams from fewer states were part of the BCS (don't think you will find enough to make up for 7-8 ratings points overall).
If you really want to make the case for the BCS over the old conference tie in structure, you might try looking for evidence there was a boost in the ratings of the 4 bowls when the BCS was formed. I don't know where you will get those numbers from. I doubt this is the case - the Rose was on top before the BCS, the addition of a 5th game only added an average of 4.2 ratings overall, and the comparable ratings in over 1/2 the years by the Alamo or Cap 1 bowl would indicate the ratings are more closely related to the followings of the teams and tradition of the bowls than to the fact they have "BCS" associated with them.
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6720)
Of course not, only common sense. You've got the entire history of college football from which to draw ratings numbers.
I'm supporting a hypothetical, yet sensible approach.
Current System > Old System
Current system + 1 more (very lucrative) game > Current System
You spend a great deal of energy arguing why things should NOT change for the BCS rather than taking the approach of finding ways to make things better.
BCS = Bowl Caste System and it's flat out wrong.
PSUinToolbox
Total Comments (10900)
This hasn't bee a discussion about what should be changed in the BCS, nor was the bulk of the content of the series of blogs.
I have put forth an argument for a "Best of the Rest" auto bid here. I briefly touched on how the post BCS format would not help the mid majors - which is related to the topic of the series.
A plus 4 has its own drawbacks, but a seeded 4 is quite possible if the concerns of the BCS reps who have a real vote can be allieved... but why would I cover that in a blog that addresses the things the mid majors can achieve to improve their situation?
The mid majors aren't in a position to force major changes in the BCS structure or force a playoff - the only thing they could achieve is to eliminate the BCS - which would return it to a format that would exclude them, cut their finances, and would make the possibility of a seeded 4 harder to achieve.
This is dedicated to the things the mid majors can accompolish to improve themselves.
Now... if you want to discuss the pros, cons, and obstacles to the different playoff formats, you could start with the link below to an old blog which contains links to some very good reference articles, or you can hang out and wait for the next 20 playoff blogs and message board topics to appear.
...and yes, I do shoot down playoff format proposals - all 114 of them - because if there is to be a workable playoff, it has to address the oversights their proponents overlook (in fact, as a bit of irony, it is the wide ranging discussion is likely the biggest obstacle to a seeded 4).
If there isn't a voice explaining the reasons against, then few understand the obstacles, and the chances of a playoff coming to pass decrease. Do you think thousands, even millions of voices have any impact if they don't understand the issues for and against?
...and yes, the current system is > the tie in system in the current make up, but would not be with most proposed changes, and from an overall financial perspective may not be better then the original 4 game format of the BCS (the 5th game did not even come close to adding 20% to the combined ratings).
Hiow about some other equations:
1 team in the BCS > 0 teams in the major bowls for the mid majors
$9-18 Million from the major bowls > $0 for the mid majors
Mid major ability to bring about a playoff = 0
The chances of a playoff if it doesn't net an OVERALL financial gain = 0
Chances of a playoff in the current BCS landscape > playoff chances in a post BCS landscape
More money overall > more money from a few games but less overall
...because these are the only types of equations that have an impact.
http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/194417
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6720)
Very insightful. The mid-majors are going to have to get creative and take control of their own destinies rather than whinning and complaining. That is counterproductive and just makes the powers that be less likely to make any feasible changes.
E in Austin, Texas
Total Comments (1708)
Comment
Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.