FORT WAYNE, Ind. - (KRT) - And you thought the reinstate-Pete-Rose debate was contentious.
Welcome to the Bowl Championship Series world of unintended consequences, where sharing a little spurred a drive to share a lot, where big-school reward ignited small-school posturing.
In this college football standoff, the have-nots demand to have - more access to major bowls, a bigger piece of a likely billion-dollar-plus future deal.
Or else.
"A system that has divided Division I-A into two camps, haves and have-nots, and which essentially prevents 53 universities from competing for a national championship, should be dismantled," Tulane President Scott Cowen said.
The haves, of course, see it differently.
"The BCS had a limited agenda - to produce a 1 vs. 2 game and to keep the bowl structure intact," Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany said. "Everybody now has access to a 1 vs. 2 game. That wasn't always the case. There's more access to the Rose Bowl than there's ever been, but you have to have a competitive enough team to access it. We've shared $42 million from the Rose and other bowls, which we never did before."
Future sharing is uncertain as the major conferences, boosted by the three-sided hammer of attendance, TV ratings and tradition, prepare to help shape a new deal when the current one expires in 2005.
The Cowen-led coalition of non-BCS conferences, lacking such influence, counters with threats of legal action and congressional lobbying.
"I assume the rhetoric will calm and we'll work with them in some way that is helpful," Delany said.
Does that mean we could we see a day a day when Tulane meets Michigan in the Rose Bowl or Ball State faces Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl?
Would we want to?
Delany suggests no. Cowen asks why not.
And so next Monday, both sides will gather in Chicago to push their versions of the future.
"We'll listen and try to be sensitive," Delany said, "but I don't see it."
First, a little background. The BCS consists of the Big Ten, Pac-10, Atlantic Coast Conference, Big 12, Big East, Southeastern Conference, Notre Dame, ABC and the four major bowls_Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange.
BCS schools have reaped most of the rewards from the eight-year, $930 million deal. According to federal filings, the Big Ten made $104 million in bowl revenue in the 2001-2002 season. That same year, the non-BCS Mid-American Conference made $3.3 million. Conference USA totaled $27 million.
Non-BCS schools cry foul. They say the system is flawed. They insist that the complex computer formula that determines the national title game participants and the rest of the BCS bowl lineups is so skewed in favor of BCS schools that small schools have no chance.
In fact, in the BCS's five years, no non-BCS school has played in a BCS bowl.
Big deal, said Delany, who finds justification in pre-BCS history.
From 1978 to 1998, 159 of the 160 participants in the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta Bowls were from the Big Ten, the ACC, the Pac-10, the Big 12, the Big East or major independents. The lone exception was Louisville, which played in the 1991 Fiesta Bowl.
"These bowls and the relationships they have with the (BCS) conferences go back a hundred years," Delany said. "For anybody to opine that Tulane or Southern Mississippi or Colorado State has done something to grow the Rose Bowl is erroneous."
Cowen and his fellow non-BCS members, however, find error in that mindset. They insist fairness demands change. Delany insists the BCS has been more than fair.
"This is Rose Bowl revenue," he said. "This is Sugar Bowl revenue. These bowls were built by programs in (the major) conferences. Do you think the Big Ten or Pac-10 would have given up their positions in the Rose Bowl just to share?"
The problem, Delany suggested, was sharing at all.
"Maybe that was a mistake at the threshold," he said. "Maybe we left the impression that more would be shared in the future.
"We wanted to help the I-AA conferences. And if you look at it, these conferences have more bowl tie-ins and more TV than before."
But more is not enough in an era of mounting athletic department deficits, which is why next Monday's closed meeting has such significant implications.
"The presidents of the conferences are going to have to make a determination of what they want the future to look like," Delany said. "Whether they want a lot of Tulanes and Southern Mississippis in the Rose Bowl, or whether it should look like it has in the past."
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/6665080.htm
Welcome to the Bowl Championship Series world of unintended consequences, where sharing a little spurred a drive to share a lot, where big-school reward ignited small-school posturing.
In this college football standoff, the have-nots demand to have - more access to major bowls, a bigger piece of a likely billion-dollar-plus future deal.
Or else.
"A system that has divided Division I-A into two camps, haves and have-nots, and which essentially prevents 53 universities from competing for a national championship, should be dismantled," Tulane President Scott Cowen said.
The haves, of course, see it differently.
"The BCS had a limited agenda - to produce a 1 vs. 2 game and to keep the bowl structure intact," Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany said. "Everybody now has access to a 1 vs. 2 game. That wasn't always the case. There's more access to the Rose Bowl than there's ever been, but you have to have a competitive enough team to access it. We've shared $42 million from the Rose and other bowls, which we never did before."
Future sharing is uncertain as the major conferences, boosted by the three-sided hammer of attendance, TV ratings and tradition, prepare to help shape a new deal when the current one expires in 2005.
The Cowen-led coalition of non-BCS conferences, lacking such influence, counters with threats of legal action and congressional lobbying.
"I assume the rhetoric will calm and we'll work with them in some way that is helpful," Delany said.
Does that mean we could we see a day a day when Tulane meets Michigan in the Rose Bowl or Ball State faces Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl?
Would we want to?
Delany suggests no. Cowen asks why not.
And so next Monday, both sides will gather in Chicago to push their versions of the future.
"We'll listen and try to be sensitive," Delany said, "but I don't see it."
First, a little background. The BCS consists of the Big Ten, Pac-10, Atlantic Coast Conference, Big 12, Big East, Southeastern Conference, Notre Dame, ABC and the four major bowls_Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange.
BCS schools have reaped most of the rewards from the eight-year, $930 million deal. According to federal filings, the Big Ten made $104 million in bowl revenue in the 2001-2002 season. That same year, the non-BCS Mid-American Conference made $3.3 million. Conference USA totaled $27 million.
Non-BCS schools cry foul. They say the system is flawed. They insist that the complex computer formula that determines the national title game participants and the rest of the BCS bowl lineups is so skewed in favor of BCS schools that small schools have no chance.
In fact, in the BCS's five years, no non-BCS school has played in a BCS bowl.
Big deal, said Delany, who finds justification in pre-BCS history.
From 1978 to 1998, 159 of the 160 participants in the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta Bowls were from the Big Ten, the ACC, the Pac-10, the Big 12, the Big East or major independents. The lone exception was Louisville, which played in the 1991 Fiesta Bowl.
"These bowls and the relationships they have with the (BCS) conferences go back a hundred years," Delany said. "For anybody to opine that Tulane or Southern Mississippi or Colorado State has done something to grow the Rose Bowl is erroneous."
Cowen and his fellow non-BCS members, however, find error in that mindset. They insist fairness demands change. Delany insists the BCS has been more than fair.
"This is Rose Bowl revenue," he said. "This is Sugar Bowl revenue. These bowls were built by programs in (the major) conferences. Do you think the Big Ten or Pac-10 would have given up their positions in the Rose Bowl just to share?"
The problem, Delany suggested, was sharing at all.
"Maybe that was a mistake at the threshold," he said. "Maybe we left the impression that more would be shared in the future.
"We wanted to help the I-AA conferences. And if you look at it, these conferences have more bowl tie-ins and more TV than before."
But more is not enough in an era of mounting athletic department deficits, which is why next Monday's closed meeting has such significant implications.
"The presidents of the conferences are going to have to make a determination of what they want the future to look like," Delany said. "Whether they want a lot of Tulanes and Southern Mississippis in the Rose Bowl, or whether it should look like it has in the past."
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/6665080.htm
