BCS conferences leaving NCAA?

[havoc]

As everyone keeps going on, remember that conference affiliation means a lot. When you're in the B1G or the Pac or whereever, you're in it academically in addition to athletically. Any solution to realignment/a new division has to account for that.

The first step has to be disassociating football with conferences first. Once you get a system up and running that allows football to be separate from the other sports in all facets, then you can do some of these things. But as long as football is tied directly to existing conferences, that are designed to serve its member schools in all sports and academically, many of the solutions presented (namely promotion/relegation, and maybe the creation of a new division) is impossible.

Oh, my relegation dream would require an incredible reworking of the entire system. Which is why it'll never happen. It would create true, fair competition, though.

Promotion/Relegation would be extremely difficult in college athletics where there is so much mandatory turnover of athletes. I also think a major paradigm shift is needed in the US sports culture for promotion/relegation to ever take hold in any sport.

Indiana recently implemented a "tradition factor" to high school sports where a team is given so more points depending on how far they make it in the post season tournament. If you accumulate enough points over a 2 year period, you must play "up" a class for a certain period of time. We'll see how that goes.

[rlh04d]

Promotion/Relegation would be extremely difficult in college athletics where there is so much mandatory turnover of athletes. I also think a major paradigm shift is needed in the US sports culture for promotion/relegation to ever take hold in any sport.

Indiana recently implemented a "tradition factor" to high school sports where a team is given so more points depending on how far they make it in the post season tournament. If you accumulate enough points over a 2 year period, you must play "up" a class for a certain period of time. We'll see how that goes.

That'll be really interesting to keep track of.

[Mikovio]

Welp, I had a nice lengthy screed prepared and was just about finished when my computer restarted for Windows Update. Anyway, here's the Cliff notes:

-I don't think there's a magic timeframe but the MAC has gotten better over the last few decades. In the 90s, the AQs had almost nothing to fear from any MAC team except Marshall for a few years. For 2003 they briefly were competitive like this past year, but you could write that off as the work of a few great individuals like Roethlisberger, Urban Meyer and Michael Turner. I think last year was a legitimate step up and seeing how facilities and recruiting have improved markedly it may be sustained. Phil Steele says 17 of the top 18 offensive players return in the MAC, so there's good reason to believe last year wasn't a fluke like you say.

-Re: facilities, what I'm getting at is the law of diminishing returns. In other words, even though the MAC schools spend less on facilities, they're getting more return on their dollar, while the BCS schools beyond a certain point get less and less. That's why, even though it sounds counterintuitive, they're catching up despite spending less. Like for example the guy who goes from no car to a Ford Focus, while spending less than the guy who goes from a BMW 3 series to a 6 series, gets the greater jump in QOL.

-The fact that WV/Clemson had the worst BCS ratings in history actually hurts your argument that nobody wants to watch non-AQs, because it means the worst watched game featured all AQs. The WSJ's "study" doesn't define the "expected" criteria so the line you drew may or may not be what they used. Either way, Florida State's star has faded A LOT in recent years, and I'm betting so has their drawing power. No program has fallen further the last 5-10 years (maybe Miami). So while a study of their drawing power in the recent past may be relevant, there's good reason to believe it overrates it at the moment. I think even a few years ago they were still in the afterglow of the Bowden glory days. Just now are they finally creeping back into the top 10.

-OB yardage disparity is misleading because the strength of NIU's defense last year was its performance in the red zone. NIU's defense last year gave up a lot of yards between the 20s and stiffened in the red zone, like they did for the first 3Q in the OB. Also Xavier Rhodes blatantly committed pass interference on Moore in the end zone in the 2Q which affected momentum. Also, it didn't help that NIU was missing its coach. I know, more excuses. I think FSU wins anyway but it was competitive and probably should have been moreso.

-The MAC's computer average is dragged down by a few bottom feeders that may be better suited for the FCS. To be clear, I believe it's not the competition from the bottom dwelling non-AQs that the AQs fear, but the best of them which threaten to qualify for BCS bowls and the millions of dollars that come with it, and any among the rest that might reach that stage. Their goal is to make any such further mobility by them impossible and hoard all the TV revenue.

-I fundamentally disagree that a line "must be drawn." I'd get rid of the FCS/FBS distinction and let schools compete where they want. The arbitrary attendance distinction pushed by the big schools in the early 80s crippled many storied Ivy League programs with more tradition than any of them (sans Rutgers), and some of them were very competitive nationally, like Penn at the time.

-I agree with your take on relegation but it will never happen.

[rlh04d]

Welp, I had a nice lengthy screed prepared and was just about finished when my computer restarted for Windows Update. Anyway, here's the Cliff notes:

Been there

-I don't think there's a magic timeframe but the MAC has gotten better over the last few decades. In the 90s, the AQs had almost nothing to fear from any MAC team except Marshall for a few years. For 2003 they briefly were competitive like this past year, but you could write that off as the work of a few great individuals like Roethlisberger, Urban Meyer and Michael Turner. I think last year was a legitimate step up and seeing how facilities and recruiting have improved markedly it may be sustained. Phil Steele says 17 of the top 18 offensive players return in the MAC, so there's good reason to believe last year wasn't a fluke like you say.

I'm NOT saying last year was a fluke. The MAC might very well have turned the corner. However, my education is mostly in economics and statistics -- I'm arguing from statistical evidence. I don't watch the MAC except for a few games from the top teams, so you're far more of an expert on the quality of the MAC than I am. What I CAN say is that, statistically, the MAC has had other big years and has always has a let-down year following it. What I can say is that one season does not represent a trend, but represents a statistical anomaly until proven otherwise.

The MAC might be awesome this year, but they have to prove it. You can't assume it based on the stats.

-Re: facilities, what I'm getting at is the law of diminishing returns. In other words, even though the MAC schools spend less on facilities, they're getting more return on their dollar, while the BCS schools beyond a certain point get less and less. That's why, even though it sounds counterintuitive, they're catching up despite spending less. Like for example the guy who goes from no car to a Ford Focus, while spending less than the guy who goes from a BMW 3 series to a 6 series, gets the greater jump in QOL.

It's a good argument, but I think "catching up" is the wrong phrase to use. The guy who buys the Ford Focus has a greater jump in his QOL, but he certainly isn't "catching up" to the other guy just because he had a relative jump. China is making huge strides in QOL relative to US income, but they're a hell of a long way from catching up to us in per capita GDP.

-The fact that WV/Clemson had the worst BCS ratings in history actually hurts your argument that nobody wants to watch non-AQs, because it means the worst watched game featured all AQs. The WSJ's "study" doesn't define the "expected" criteria so the line you drew may or may not be what they used. Either way, Florida State's star has faded A LOT in recent years, and I'm betting so has their drawing power. No program has fallen further the last 5-10 years (maybe Miami). So while a study of their drawing power in the recent past may be relevant, there's good reason to believe it overrates it at the moment. I think even a few years ago they were still in the afterglow of the Bowden glory days. Just now are they finally creeping back into the top 10.

Actually, it says that no one wanted to watch Clemson, which was the second best ACC team that year, face off against West Virginia, which was clearly a mediocre team that magically got the Big East's AQ bid despite a three way tie for the conference championships and barely even qualified for the AQ bid. Both of those programs also have rather mediocre fan support nationally. Clemson was #15 that year and West Virginia was #23. That game was a joke to be played as a part of the BCS bowl system, and it would have been higher had it included Boise State, who were #7 that year. Those two teams were not two of the best teams in the country, which is what the BCS bowl system is supposed to provide.

My argument is that people want to watch competitive games. People will absolutely watch Boise State, because Boise State has proven to provide good competition. It's not a black and white AQ/non-AQ line. It's competitive/non-competitive.

As for FSU, again, you keep giving gut feelings and I keep proving you wrong with numbers FSU has faded a lot, but the number I gave you was the end of FSU's dead period as we were turning the corner (which I always laugh about, because at our worst we still never finished under .500 or worse than 3rd in our conference -- what accounts for a "bad season" is very relative. Michigan, USC, and others have had FAR worse years recently, and I've never heard those programs referred to the way FSU was during our dead period). Actually, that number was low for FSU, because it was heavily weighted by FSU's glory days -- FSU's biggest benefit to bowl ratings has been by participating in the Champs Sports Bowls and Gator Bowls of the world for a program that has BCS-bowl national perception. They've provided huge bumps to a lot of those smaller bowls that they've participated in. But, like I said, numbers:

2012/13 season: We've already covered the Orange Bowl.
2011/12 season: FSU participates in the Champs Sports Bowl against Notre Dame. Game scores anywhere from a 3.28 Nielsen rating to a 3.8 -- I've seen all listed, but I'll go with the lowest. Previous season had a 2.1, the following season had a 1.1. I don't think you even want me to go into the percentage change FSU (along with ND, another big draw despite being heavily weighted by their glory days) amounted to over the previous and following bowls.
2010/11 season: FSU participates in the Chick-Fil-A Bowl against South Carolina. Game scores a 5.0 rating, the highest of any non-BCS bowl. Previous year was a 4.2, following year was a 3.6. Again, huge change.
2009/10 season: FSU participates in the Gator Bowl against West Virginia. Game scores between a 4.0 and 4.3 rating. Previous year was a 4.1, following year was a 2.0. Again, assuming the lower number, this would have been the only year I've ever seen FSU not result in an increase from the previous year -- but the ratings were less than half the following year.
2008/09 season: FSU participates in the Champs Sports Bowl against Wisconsin. Game scores a 4.5 rating. The following season scores a 3.9. The previous year I couldn't find an actual rating for, but the 2008 FSU game had 5.1 million viewers, while the previous year only had 3.6 million.

Those games all took place in the period you're describing as FSU having a faded star that diminishes their impact on ratings.

-OB yardage disparity is misleading because the strength of UNI's defense last year was its performance in the red zone. UNI's defense last year gave up a lot of yards between the 20s and stiffened in the red zone, like they did for the first 3Q in the OB. Also Xavier Rhodes blatantly committed pass interference on Moore in the end zone in the 2Q which affected momentum. Also, it didn't help that UNI was missing its coach. I know, more excuses. I think FSU wins anyway but it was competitive and probably should have been moreso.

Excuses

-The MAC's computer average is dragged down by a few bottom feeders that may be better suited for the FCS. To be clear, I believe it's not the competition from the bottom dwelling non-AQs that the AQs fear, but the best of them which threaten to qualify for BCS bowls and the millions of dollars that come with it, and any among the rest that might reach that stage. Their goal is to make any such further mobility by them impossible and hoard all the TV revenue.

It absolutely is their threat to qualify for BCS bowls and the money involved that they fear. But they fear that primarily under the idea that the non-AQ teams have an easier road to make a BCS bowl by going 12-1 against inferior competition, and thus sending, say, a top 35 Northern Illinois team into a BCS bowl. Because a top 35 team is a quality team, but it's not a team that deserves to be in a BCS bowl.

Granted, this is a problem that the BCS conferences have created for themselves by refusing to play the non-AQ teams on a fair basis, thus creating no means of comparison between the BCS conferences and the non-BCS conferences.

-I fundamentally disagree that a line "must be drawn." I'd get rid of the FCS/FBS distinction and let schools compete where they want. The arbitrary attendance distinction pushed by the big schools in the early 80s crippled many storied Ivy League programs with more tradition than any of them (sans Rutgers), and some of them were very competitive nationally, like Penn at the time.

Maybe "must be drawn" is the wrong statement. "Will be drawn." The line will be drawn. It's already been drawn, and it will be redrawn. It'll do so primarily to keep MAC and such teams from stealing spots in the BCS bowls and particularly the playoff, but it'll also serve to increase the level of competition from the average game. And the MAC will almost certainly be on the wrong side of the line from your perspective.

-I agree with your take on relegation but it will never happen.

Alas. This is about money, not pure competition.

[m-v-c]

-The fact that WV/Clemson had the worst BCS ratings in history actually hurts your argument that nobody wants to watch non-AQs, because it means the worst watched game featured all AQs. The WSJ's "study" doesn't define the "expected" criteria so the line you drew may or may not be what they used.

Good points throughout. Also would point out that WVU/Clemson was not the only BCS bowl game that has rated lower than Northern Illinois/FSU. So did the Connecticut/Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl and Va. Tech/Cincinnati Orange Bowl, both from a few years back. A number of others are just barely above NIU/FSU, but also have to remember that ratings were bound to slide a little the past two years when the BCS games went strictly to cable from over-the-air. The Boise State/TCU Fiesta Bowl from several years back actually posted a quite a bit higher rating than a good share of BCS bowls, including an Ohio State/Arkansas Sugar Bowl the year after. The idea that 'no one' wants to watch teams like Boise State or Northern Illinois, or that 'no one' will watch a Final 4 game between Butler & VCU, is a nice myth mostly pushed by the BCS types, but the actual ratings don't support it. Of course the biggest ratings go for the biggest of the big names, usually a group of no more than 10-15 teams at any given time in CFB or CBB, but after that, the non-BCS schools do just fine.

And NIU trailed Florida State by a TD with the ball going into the 4th quarter last year. If that was two SEC teams playing it's called a good, competitive game. Somehow with NIU the storyline was that they were 'blown out', which was ridiculous.

[CaseyGarrisonforPrez]

And UNI trailed Florida State by a TD with the ball going into the 4th quarter last year. If that was two SEC teams playing it's called a good, competitive game. Somehow with UNI the storyline was that they were 'blown out', which was ridiculous.

The thing about it is that if it were two SEC teams then those defenses would be incredibly stout. It is exihilerating watching that level of defense. The defensive talent in that conference is in a complete different galaxy.

For my money the Orange Bowl has been a complete snooze fest for roughly a decade. Who can forget Louisville/Wake Forest or Kansas/Va Tech? Snore. I watched very little of the Orange Bowl last year. I'm sure that the Florida State kids were completely bored and the Northern Illinois kids were playing the biggest game of their lives. You saw something similar in the Sugar Bowl last year and then the one where Utah beat Alabama in like 2008 or something. Those Florida State and Florida kids were looking forward to partying in Miami and New Orleans respectively then hoping that they don't suffer an injury before the NFL Combine. They are exhibition games that don't adequately illustrate the eye popping difference between BCS football and the rest of FBS. You can cherry pick data (none of this second paragraph is meant at you specifically m-v-c) and use all sorts of metrics to try to prove something but the eye test will tell you the true story.

[rlh04d]

The idea that 'no one' wants to watch teams like Boise State or Northern Illinois, or that 'no one' will watch a Final 4 game between Butler & VCU, is a nice myth mostly pushed by the BCS types, but the actual ratings don't support it.

I'm not sure where you're getting any of that. I specifically said this discussion wasn't relevant to basketball, where a Final 4 game between Butler and VCU would have already included both teams proving themselves against great competition to get to that point. The problem with Northern Illinois in the Orange Bowl was that they hadn't proven themselves against anyone.

I also specifically mentioned that Boise State wasn't included. Boise State is recognized as a great team and seen by the general public as deserving their place at the top.

And UNI trailed Florida State by a TD with the ball going into the 4th quarter last year. If that was two SEC teams playing it's called a good, competitive game. Somehow with UNI the storyline was that they were 'blown out', which was ridiculous.

FSU had more than double Northern Illinois' yardage, and Northern Illinois barely crossed the 50 yard line once in the entire first half. Northern Illinois didn't start moving the ball until FSU started playing backups on defense. No one would have said that was a good, competitive game that wasn't a MAC fan.

And I certainly don't know where you're getting the idea that UNI had the ball going into the 4th. FSU had the ball on UNI's 9 yard line going into the 4th. FSU extended the lead to 14 points on the first play of the quarter.

We didn't throw a single pass in the entire 4th quarter. Northern Illinois entered FSU's red zone twice, and only made it within the 38 yard line three times.

I'd like to know who was watching that game on the edge of their seat. FSU moved the ball all over the field, and UNI could barely cross the 50 yard line.

[Mikovio]

So I watched the Orange Bowl again for the first time since watching it live, as painful as it was. It's like you and I saw two different games.

A few points:

-FSU fans certainly looked very nervous late in the 3Q when Lynch was driving to tie at the 20, right before he threw the pick. They showed plenty of crowd shots and it was very obvious.

-The game was closer than the score indicates. No, really! More excuses ... Lynch was very much off his game and constantly throwing behind his receivers, who were finding ways to get open. The FSU touchdown in the corner of the endzone scored seconds before halftime was an eyelash away from being out of bounds (and it wasn't clear that it wasn't). And the big NIU fumble in the 4Q that essentially sealed the game was a bad call. It was reviewed and I still don't know how the refs couldn't tell Brown's knee was down. You keep pulling out yardage, but the NIU corners were giving receivers a cushion most of the game. It's a bend but don't break style defense that's used to prevent the big play but concedes gobs of yards until they hit the red zone. It was a good strategy as for the most part NIU stopped FSU in the red zone, with the exception of the 3rd down miracle catch right before halftime and a couple Lonnie Prior breakaways, who I think probably wasn't accounted for, maybe because we didn't have a coach.

I may be wrong about FSU's drawing power fading so much in recent years. I think the Notre Dame bowl game isn't convincing, because ND itself, while faded at the time, always draws strongly thanks to a loyal national following (and anti-following) and its own NBC contract. So I'm inclined to far more attribute the boost to them. The Chick Fil A stats are somewhat convincing, although I still think it's probably faded some in the last 2 years since that time. It's worth noting that the Chick Fil A (former Peach) is arguably the most prestigious non-BCS bowl anyway (alongside Cotton), and for this past year featuring Clemson and its "mediocre fan support", its ratings were even higher than FSU's game (5.6 compared to 5.0). The WSJ article though, by going back to 1998 when FSU was perennially a top-5, I do think is terribly skewed. I think FSU helped the ratings, but that article greatly overstates it.

WVA and Clemson was certainly a bad matchup. I think you and I would both prefer it if the BCS bowl bids went to the top 10 ranked teams irrespective of conference affiliation, but unfortunately the AQ heads have rigged the system to make sure they're guaranteed to get theirs, and so we have 6-6 UCLA teams playing in Pac 12 title games. So long as they do that they have to leave the door open a smidge for the non-AQs or face possible Sherman Antitrust action.

I don't buy that the AQ boys are worried about 35th-ish teams squeaking into BCS games. Hate to sounds like a broken record here, but non-AQs are 5-2 in BCS games. And they seem to have no problem with unranked AQ teams like UConn qualifying just because they win an AQ conference. Bad teams like GA Tech and UCLA have come close in recent years. No, they don't care about the integrity of the competition. They're just interested in tweaking the rules so they can shut out non-AQs and hoard more money. In the end, that's all this is about.

[rlh04d]

So I watched the Orange Bowl again for the first time since watching it live, as painful as it was. It's like you and I saw two different games.

We can probably go back and forth on that forever, but I guess it really isn't relevant to the greater discussion As an FSU fan, technically our games against USF and Miami were relatively close score-wise until the 4th quarter as well, but I was never worried there, either. I know the personnel enough to know that when certain players start coming in late, or we just start running the ball on every play, our coaching staff is taking the victory stance and they aren't worried in the least.

I may be wrong about FSU's drawing power fading so much in recent years. I think the Notre Dame bowl game isn't convincing, because ND itself, while faded at the time, always draws strongly thanks to a loyal national following (and anti-following) and its own NBC contract. So I'm inclined to far more attribute the boost to them.

I think that's weird given the stats that I showed you that clearly state that FSU contributes a greater boost to the ratings of bowl games they participate in than ND does.

Notre Dame is a bigger name, but their star had faded FAR more than FSU's until this year.

The WSJ article though, by going back to 1998 when FSU was perennially a top-5, I do think is terribly skewed. I think FSU helped the ratings, but that article greatly overstates it.

The other way of looking at it is that by going back to the period where FSU was perennially a top-5, you're comparing FSU's ratings against other top-5 programs. You're comparing FSU in the national championship game against other teams in the national championship game. I think it's pretty clear that FSU's impact on ratings would be greater when they're being compared to "lesser" programs from a national viewership standpoint. And so the biggest impact FSU would have on ratings is now rather than in the 1998-2002 range. FSU would have less of an impact on a game that would feature other big teams.

Although if it compares the Fiesta Bowl with FSU as the national championship game compared to the Fiesta Bowl without the national championship, that would heavily skew it. But, as I pointed out with the last five years, FSU's impact on ratings of prior and following years is actually higher than it was stated in that WSJ piece.

I think you and I would both prefer it if the BCS bowl bids went to the top 10 ranked teams irrespective of conference affiliation, but unfortunately the AQ heads have rigged the system to make sure they're guaranteed to get theirs, and so we have 6-6 UCLA teams playing in Pac 12 title games. So long as they do that they have to leave the door open a smidge for the non-AQs or face possible Sherman Antitrust action.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, though, I think the system is going more in the other directions. The bigger conferences are extending their conference schedules further pushing out the opportunity for non-conference games against non-BCS conferences. The less ability there is for a non-BCS program to prove itself against BCS programs, the less chance there is that an undefeated Northern Illinois team even breaks into the top 10 in the future.

And if we get to that point, there is literally no reason for the non-BCS conferences to be considered in the same category as the BCS conferences, because there is nothing they can do to crash the system.

I don't buy that the AQ boys are worried about 35th-ish teams squeaking into BCS games. Hate to sounds like a broken record here, but non-AQs are 5-2 in BCS games. And they seem to have no problem with unranked AQ teams like UConn qualifying just because they win an AQ conference. Bad teams like GA Tech and UCLA have come close in recent years. No, they don't care about the integrity of the competition. They're just interested in tweaking the rules so they can shut out non-AQs and hoard more money. In the end, that's all this is about.

They definitely don't care about the integrity of the competition -- that's not what I meant at all. They care about teams from their conferences making the BCS bowls. But if a 35-ish team can make a BCS bowl from the non-BCS conferences, a lot of programs that are better than 35 have a legitimate complaint that they were better teams with better resumes that got passed over.

It's about money, but a system that sends the 35th best team in the country is going to complained about. And when that is also taking money away from the major conferences, they might actually listen to the complaints.

[Mikovio]

I think that's weird given the stats that I showed you that clearly state that FSU contributes a greater boost to the ratings of bowl games they participate in than ND does.

Notre Dame is a bigger name, but their star had faded FAR more than FSU's until this year.

I don't think the WSJ study is current and their methodology wasn't sufficiently detailed for me to fully appreciate or even accept its findings (see below).

I see ND as college football's version of the Cubs or Yankees, in that their brand is heavily ingrained and brand loyalty (and hatred) has been developed for generations, to the point that even if they're bad, the average Joe will still tune in to root for or against them. So even though their star was faded at the time and they were middling, I don't think it impacted their ratings as much as it would FSU. If FSU and Miami have bad years, I don't think they have the same pull.

I realize I have no data to support this, and I could be horribly wrong. It's just the way I perceive things. I think a lot of people care about ND football, good or bad, but I can't say the same for FSU.

The other way of looking at it is that by going back to the period where FSU was perennially a top-5, you're comparing FSU's ratings against other top-5 programs. You're comparing FSU in the national championship game against other teams in the national championship game. I think it's pretty clear that FSU's impact on ratings would be greater when they're being compared to "lesser" programs from a national viewership standpoint. And so the biggest impact FSU would have on ratings is now rather than in the 1998-2002 range. FSU would have less of an impact on a game that would feature other big teams.

Although if it compares the Fiesta Bowl with FSU as the national championship game compared to the Fiesta Bowl without the national championship, that would heavily skew it. But, as I pointed out with the last five years, FSU's impact on ratings of prior and following years is actually higher than it was stated in that WSJ piece.

Again, the WSJ methodology leaves us guessing. There's any number of ways for them to try and measure ratings impact relative to what's "expected" (What's expected? Why? How many years are we going back? Adjusting for strength of teams or fan followings for those teams? How are they apportioning the ratings boost among the participants?).

Re: "But, as I pointed out with the last five years, FSU's impact on ratings of prior and following years is actually higher than it was stated in that WSJ piece."...

... Are you suggesting that the Chick Fil A Bowl's increase this past year was due to 2010 FSU's participation?

I'm not convinced the evidence shows I'm wrong about FSU's drawing power fading. The 2011-12 increase I attribute to Notre Dame more than FSU; 2010-11 was a good rating for that bowl but it was topped this year; 2009-10 saw no increase from the previous year. So the evidence seems questionable.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, though, I think the system is going more in the other directions. The bigger conferences are extending their conference schedules further pushing out the opportunity for non-conference games against non-BCS conferences. The less ability there is for a non-BCS program to prove itself against BCS programs, the less chance there is that an undefeated Northern Illinois team even breaks into the top 10 in the future.

And if we get to that point, there is literally no reason for the non-BCS conferences to be considered in the same category as the BCS conferences, because there is nothing they can do to crash the system.

You may be right. Although the AQ programs need the non-AQs to give them extra home games and the wins, and (perhaps more importantly) the revenue that comes with it.

For example, Ohio State plays 3 buyout games per year and earns an average ticket revenue per game of $5.2MM. That's $15.6MM (minus $3MM in buyout payments) for a net of $12.2MM for those 3 OOC games. Change those to 1:1s and they lose 1.5 home games per year which is $7.8MM in ticket revenue + travel expenses.

They definitely don't care about the integrity of the competition -- that's not what I meant at all. They care about teams from their conferences making the BCS bowls. But if a 35-ish team can make a BCS bowl from the non-BCS conferences, a lot of programs that are better than 35 have a legitimate complaint that they were better teams with better resumes that got passed over.

It's about money, but a system that sends the 35th best team in the country is going to complained about. And when that is also taking money away from the major conferences, they might actually listen to the complaints.

I guess what bothers me is the lack of outrage over the bad AQ teams that qualify and the focus on the non-AQs that do. Obviously Georgia had a legitimate complaint, but they had as much beef with Wisconsin as they did NIU. There wasn't near the outrage over UConn and that was a BAD team. So I see some hypocrisy there.