Replies

We've differed in the past, but I do appreciate the effort and thought you've put into your plan. Here's my objection: it cheapens the regular season. Second, I looked it up - at my school booster contributions and ticket sales account for 75% of football revenue, TV something less than 30% (and that's in the SEC, with the best TV payout of any conference). I think you perhaps overestimate the importance of TV money. Would be interested in any informed opinion about the total TV revenue take from your system, though.

The regular season is a big deal for the people who pay the freight. My conclusion is that support for a playoff comes mainly from sportcasters (who fly in the day before and out immedialtely after the game - at somebody's else's expense - and thus, have no knowledge of the social aspect), fans of marginal teams whose season would be made by upsetting a top team in the playoffs, and couch potato fans who haven't bought a ticket since college, but want more games for TV. Can you show me any evidence (not opinion) showing a great interest among boosters at the perennial powers for a playoff? If not, I'm afraid you might be out of luck.

Finally, as I've said before: look at it as a political issue. What happens in politics is that when an issue gains traction, defenders of the status quo will move slightly towards the innovators and thereby coopt the support of the mild supporters of the new plan. To me, that's partially responsible for the SEC and Big 12 having championship games. That certainly describes how the BCS developed. Best bet: look for more incremental changes.

With it being the Rose Bowl's first chance to host the game accompanied by Oregon's complaints, any immediate major change would have to originate from the PAC-10. If it doesn't come form there, it won't, in the short run, come from anywhere else.

Thanks again for the thought-provoking post. Now I can't blame not cleaning out the garage on college football. I can't wait 'til August 31!

And thank you for your lengthy response, I was hoping that you would reply, you made several good points. No, I don't have access to any of those types of figures, nor really the time to delve deeper. This is simply a catalyst post, at most perhaps I might e-mail it to several sports media types here in Dallas(who probably have already received thousands of similar proposals, but what the hey, ya never know.)

IMHO, the importance of the regular season is preserved by the limited number of non conference champ teams involved and the home-field factor of the semi-finals almost always being rewarded to conference champs(which is huge). There is very little difference from the current BCS, the major difference is the extension after the bowls, but almost nothing changes prior to January 4th.

Agreed on the incremental approach, but the basic plan here is only two steps beyond what we have now. The most likely scenario is that in Feb. or April the BCS will announce some lame tinkering with the formulation, hoping it will hold off the hounds for several more years. But sooner or later there will be another debacle, and then they'll take the firs step, one game after the New Year's bowls. Either way, my gut says whoever gets the next TV contract will insist on at minimum an extra 3 games of playoffs after 2006 as part of the contract. Hence my proposal for the BCS bowls to stay ahead of the curve, do just enough to pacify most of the major criticism, and control their destiny.

So who knows, but I'm willing to bet good money that something close to my basic formula is in place by 2007. And I'll strongly bet for pride that it is implemented before the current contract expires. Time will tell.