Why The BCS Needs To Be Eliminated!

The greatest fundamental benchmark development affecting the entire history and landscape of college football occurred in 1984. In a pivotal case involving the NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, the Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust laws. It was determined that the NCAA, through limitations regarding television appearances and restrictions upon negotiating their own television contracts, was unreasonably restraining the trade of college football.

Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA’s television plan prevented schools across the country from securing the market demand, including both price and output, of their football products.

The rationale supporting this decision is clearly evident when looking at the advancements in terms of facilities, programs and technology that has improved the actual on field performance of the athletes who have participated within this sport in the last 23 years.

As a result of this case, the NCAA no longer held the authority over schools to prevent them from negotiating their own deals. If we fast forward to present day we clearly see the effects of this pivotal decision in regards the NCAA’s inability to challenge the BCS model. They’ve lost the authority to govern the sport in regards to maintaining the financial competitive balance, integrity, and overall health of the game. The super-conferences, along with the networks, are now running the show.

Due to the fact that television revenue is growing exponentially and teams are racing to reap the rewards, a very hypocritical and revenue gleaning environment is enveloping the college football world today. The NCAA has been powerless to reverse the perversity of this trend due to the NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma in 1984.

Soon after this Supreme Court ruling in 1984, the major conferences began negotiating their own deals with the television networks. Although many schools were rewarded with greater freedom to negotiate their own deals, they lost the security of the NCAA’s role as a collective negotiator who’s main goal was to maintain the integrity and competitive balance of the game, rather than seek more money for given institutions.

The startling outcome of this Supreme Court decision was that although these schools had this newfound freedom to negotiate, their profit margin was much less than the traditional NCAA-negotiated plan had been producing. This was primarily due to the knowledge, skill and relentlessness of Walter Byers. It took nearly a decade to match and overcome the expertise and power that Walter Byers had at the negotiation table in developing television contracts with the networks.

Blinded by their own greed, and eager to reap the rewards, the elite schools failed to understand the basic dynamics of supply and demand. Although the glitz of games revolutionized college football, and the popularity, passions and traditions reached an all-time high, the money generated for each school was much less than what Walter Byers had provided them for nearly four decades.

In the Byers era, due to the fact that fewer games were on the air, advertisers had fewer opportunities to place their ads. Thus, the price was up because the opportunity was less. After the results of NCAA v. Board of Regents at Oklahoma University, each conference negotiated their own contracts with the various networks involved. Suddenly, advertisers had many options and could walk away from one table, knowing they had another option that may be just as good or better. Thus, the competition drove the price down.

Faced with a new crisis in trying to overcome this loss of revenue, the scholarship restrictions were further dropped to no more than 25 scholarships per year and no more than 85 total athletic scholarships overall. As these events coincided with cable television reaching critical mass, suddenly, the game went boom! It exploded with not only the rise of the non-BCS schools, but also it enabled the weaker sisters of the power conferences to rise as well.

Literally overnight, programs like Oregon, Oregon State, Kansas State, Washington State, BYU, Colorado, Virginia, Virginia Tech and West Virginia were able to compete with the traditionally elite schools like Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, Georgia, Arkansas, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, UCLA and Washington.

It also enabled the smaller, now known as the non-BCS schools, to rise as well. Fresno State, Utah, Louisville, Southern Mississippi, Air Force, Colorado State, Bowling Green, Tulane, Marshall and many others began to upset the major schools right and left.

The game had entered a new era, but unfortunately, the old Great Wall of China, cold-war divided mind set created from the College Football Association (CFA) civil war was still in place. This will be the next hurdle that the game will have to overcome, and if history is any indicator, we are not going anywhere soon. Although the non-BCS schools can now win any game, on any given day, they are still held with great disdain and a high degree of skepticism. Much of it has to do with strength of schedule, in which these schools have very little control over.

We have two spectrum’s occurring simultaneously in college football. One spectrum has the elite power schools who continue to monopolize the marketplace in college football, relying on their historic traditions and pageantry within the game which somehow creates a branded identity that they deserve the spoils because they have contributed the most in terms of the development of the game.

The other spectrum is the 85 scholarship rule and the leveling of the playing field as a result. The over riding theme of this spectrum is that on any given day, any team in America can beat another, irregardless of the historic traditions,level extravagance, or number of fannies their stadiums will hold. Throw in a few penalties, injuries and turnovers with a well coached game plan capitalizing on field position and time of possession, and any team can win.

Unfortunately, although the overall health of the game is at an all time high, the networks and the polls still continue to uphold the traditions, pageantry and money greased relationships of the elite power structure within college football. The long term affects of this Supreme Court decision have certainly created positive affects in terms of the quality of the competitions on the field, but the behind the scenes issues occurring in this race for greater revenue have tainted the game with improprieties in relation to integrity and issues of fairness.

Although they have been around forever, as a result of the stakes of the game being at an all-time high, and the fact that there is increasing media coverage and scrutiny with each passing year, recruiting scandals involving money, sex and drugs for athletes seem to be occurring with alarming regularity. The teams who are stigmatized as non-BCS schools are locked out of the BCS equation. They are simply using these perverse recruiting tactics to allure the top talent available in an effort to keep up with the elite teams that are protected within the BCS model. The elite teams, specifically those with southern sensibilities in college football, have been involved in recruiting scandals for decades. The problem now is that everyone seems to be involved, continuing the downward spiral of the ethical compass in college football.

Once again, the presidents, chancellors and administrators are highly concerned with these recruiting scandals and have even developed a “Committee for Athletic Reform,” but it seems ludicrous to me that they will not move to eliminate the actual cause of these scandals, which I believe is the BCS model itself. So with the advent of the Bowl Alliance, Coalition and BCS models governing college football, some very serious and possibly fatal outcomes are starting to emerge from this Supreme Court decision of 1984.

It is also important to note that by 1990, the elite members of the College Football Association (CFA), focused largely on competing individually within their own power structure, soon turned their backs on the less successful, tradition starved programs, in pursuit of greater revenue. In essence, the greed monster was born as many of these same elite teams control, support and defend much of the BCS system today.

So the NCAA v. Board of Regents of Oklahoma actually resulted in the death of the CFA itself, which finally occurred in 1997. Or did it? I believe the BCS is just an evolutionary extension of the CFA as the elite schools have finally evolved the game into their liking, and have considerable power and control for the first time in 50 years. They no longer have the NCAA and its legion of ant sized programs standing in their way.

However, as a result of our nations thirst for a true national championship event, the BCS mess is just now bringing the effects of these pivotal benchmark events into focus for all the college football fans to witness and observe. That is, if college football fans truly want to look at the BCS system for what it actually is. A product of the political infighting that has occurred surrounding the entitlement and power that the elite schools have wrestled away from the NCAA. The television networks, driven by market demand, which is supported by the season ticket holders, have paved the way.

The majority of fans supporting the game are virtually blind, or uneducated regarding the significance of these benchmark events in relation to the system we have in place today. The aim of this article is to bring the history and evolution of college football as they have coincided with these benchmark events into the open to encourage all fans to make an informed decision regarding their support of the current BCS model.

The race for revenue generated from BCS bowl invitations is now fanning a flame of greed that has been smoldering beneath the surface of the game for nearly three decades. The class system that is growing today has been in existence for years, and due to the BCS ramifications, it is beginning to widen exponentially.

The teams supporting and controlling the BCS model, are in fact, the same elite schools who turned their collective backs on the tradition starved members of the initial CFA organization. These same elite schools who have dominated college football for the past 30 years are behind the effort to control 93% of the revenue created from the BCS events.

No longer concerned about the majority of minorities who have meddled in their business for years, they are ultimately controlling college football, and the NCAA has become nothing more than a mere spectator in the mass hysteria. The current BCS power structure will not surrender their influence and control over this system that perpetuates revenue in their own favor. It has taken them 50 years to harness and control this system, and it may in fact take another 50 years to wrestle it away. This is the very heart of the BCS issues and controversies, which has a long and bitter history.

The benchmark development that essentially busted the College Football Association (CFA) occurred in 1990. The University of Notre Dame broke away from the CFA, and negotiated its own deal with NBC Television. Although you could write several articles, or perhaps even another book relative to this elite school, this historical event has led to the race for revenue between the elite schools, who aim to create a controlling monopoly within the game today.

The historic contract that Notre Dame signed with NBC Television also precipitated the super-conference realignments that have occurred since 1990 , and also caused the breakup of the CFA as the elite schools were now scurrying to catch the “Golden Dome.” This historical movement created a trickle-down effect as all the traditional powers in college football scrambled to strengthen their stronghold with the networks and bowl associations in an effort to obtain an even greater slice of the revenue pie. During the process, they shot themselves in the foot.

Notre Dame, who patiently considered the best interests of the elite schools for over four decades has historically been competing as a separate entity. As the NCAA was stripped of its collective power in controlling television revenue due to Board of Regents in 1984, the individual schools initially attempted to secure television contracts on their own.

Immediately following the pivotal NCAA vs. Board of Regents decision which voided the NCAA television contracts with ABC, NBC and TBS, the members of the CFA met with Big-10 and PAC-10 officials to begin working on a new contract arrangement. Notre Dame athletic director Gene Corrigan tried repeatedly for three months in an effort to reunite the sides.

The Big-10 and PAC-10 officials, with significant ties to Walter Byers, the orchestrator responsible for the bureaucratic rise of the NCAA empire, whole-heartedly supported the Walter Byers led NCAA issues. The rival members of the CFA resented the two conferences throughout the 10 year battle featuring the CFA, Board of Regents and the NCAA. As the NCAA utilized the same coercive, strong arm tactics utilized to boycott Notre Dame and Penn back in 1952, the tactics were similarly used against the CFA.

The Big-10 and PAC-10 conferences, initially a part of the CFA uprising, backed out of the organization due to their belief that the CFA represented a threat to the NCAA and was clearly motivated by the financial possibilities of harnessing and controlling the power in negotiating television contracts with the networks. From the Big-10/PAC-10 point of view, the CFA initiatives simply went too far. As a result, to this day, their is a political smear campaign run every year from the Big-12, SEC and ACC Conferences designed to weaken the PAC-10 Conference.

Due to the fact that two thirds of the schools regularly involved in the 30 bowl slots during this time period originated from the CFA side of the equation, the CFA had considerable clout and power with the television networks, and they still have this same power and clout to this day and you could even say it has increased with each passing year of the BCS existence.

The CFA desperately needed the Big-10 and PAC-10 to topple the NCAA and gain control of the market. It was well understood for years that the PAC-10 and Big-10 administrations were hand picked or approved by Walter Byers. It was a tight inner circle. When push came to shove, the Rose Bowl alliances sided with Walter Byers and the NCAA. To this day, the Rose Bowl has still maintained a thorny status with the BCS goals and objectives.

Unfortunately, as the NCAA evolved into a socialistic empire, the CFA was clearly outnumbered by a vas majority of weaker, lesser schools. They needed the other members of the major conferences, which at the time were the Big-10 and PAC-10 members to sustain the monopoly. As the PAC-10 and Big-10 conferences chose sides with Walter Byers and the NCAA, many of their conference representatives where messengers for Byers in communicating with the CFA officials. Byers, who significantly feared the CFA movement as a major threat to his NCAA empire, was unwilling to compromise with his socialistic methods of sharing revenue among all the NCAA members.

Back during the era of NCAA controlled television mandates, before the CFA uprising, the CFA schools were deeply concerned with the rising costs of running a big-time championship level football program, and were further troubled by the fact that the smaller schools received an equal share of the television revenue even though their games were presented to less than 10% of the market.

For example, a Michigan-Ohio State game earned the same amount of money as a Middle Tennessee-Vanderbilt affair, even though Michigan-Ohio State was shown to 90% of the country while Middle-Tennessee-Vanderbilt was shown to 10% of the nation. The pay-outs were the same irregardless of the percent of television markets who viewed it.

The Great Wall of China, Cold-war divided mind-set and disdain the elite members of the CFA had for the smaller, mid-major programs was forever cemented because of this and the other mandates pushed upon the elite power structure of college football.
Even though the game had advanced a decade in length since the original formation of the CFA, by the time the negotiations for a new era of television contracts were ready to be developed and negotiated by Notre Dame Athletic Director Gene Corrigan, the damage had already been done. The communication hurdle proved too big to overcome. Once again, human nature and its destructive powers set in. Fear of loss, fear of the unknown, jealousy, envy and the thirst for ultimate power were the emotions that kept the two sides apart.

While the CFA initially took a beating in terms of matching the Byers led television revenue, they had a newfound freedom to eventually work the market into their favor and control. It wasn’t necessarily the money they were after as much as it was the control in manipulating the market and the process of determining bowl games. As the television networks had discovered long before, the market demand was greater and potentially more prosperous for certain teams. Eventually the power hungry CFA schools and the networks joined forces by spawning the super-conference realignments, thus exploiting a little known NCAA by-law that provided for a conference championship game if a given conference had 12 members.

As the nations thirst grew for championship type events, the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition and Bowl Championship Series models were created to help make sense of a complicated and poorly orchestrated bowl structure. Initially viewed a loser under the newly developed free market plan, twenty-some years later in 2007, the elite schools have cornered the market with the BCS revolution, and the networks with the lure of greater and greater revenue are leading the way. No longer determined simply to match-up the top two teams, the top two teams now also have to qualify in garnering the top television markets as well.

The formation of the SEC super-conference and the formation of the conference championship event spurred the final major benchmark development in the game we know today; the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition and Bowl Championship Series Models of aligning a Number One versus Number Two season ending bowl game match-up to determine the national champion. The mess we are witnessing today is the result of the major benchmark developments occurring over a 50 year history that has coincided with the exponential growth of television coverage of college football.

Thus, the same 15-20 members of the CFA continue to dominate through special status and privileges granted by the networks, and is justified by the media as the free market at work. The status quo (a teams 30 year social economic status in college football) is more important than the actual on field performance, which is why the up and coming teams like Boise State have very little chance, even in spite of their heroic victory this past year over original CFA founding father Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl, of ever competing for a national championship.

Therefore, I believe we need to develop a playoff system which is inclusive, equitable and fair and does not damage the morale within and among all of college football. The fans and student athletes themselves, as primary stake holders, deserve so much more. I believe a system can be created that not only saves the current bowl structure but significantly enhances it in the process. I believe a system can be created which allows for a 13 game season, creates a conference championship for every conference, creates a branding identity for the non-BCS factor, truly makes every game a playoff in college football and most importantly upholds the significance and tradition of the bowl season. All it truly takes is an open mind and a fair heart.