The NCAA sent out a short memo two days ago that Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg was resigning from the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Committee.
When someone bothered to ask why, there was a whole new story.
"Because of the Big East-ACC situation," said Weiberg, in his fifth year as the league's commissioner.
The BCS must reshape itself if it is indeed going to exist after the 2006 bowls. Weiberg wants to get a head start. The ACC has expanded. For the first time, one of the BCS members, the Big East, is in turmoil.
Even though he doesn't succeed the Big East's Mike Tranghese as Bowl Championship Series chairman until next July 1, Weiberg felt his basketball resignation was required to concentrate on the college football landscape in the next year.
"I thought I needed to do that to get prepared for BCS responsibilities," Weiberg said.
They are significant responsibilities. During his two-year term, the BCS/ABC contract will expire. The Big East will find out if it will continue to be a BCS conference. College football's postseason is almost certainly going to change in some form.
It is not a stretch to suggest Weiberg, a 47-year-old from Anthony, Kan., will be BCS chairman at one of the most significant times in college football history. He has shown steady, low-key leadership since replacing the Big 12's first commissioner, Steve Hatchell, on Dec. 4, 1998.
He has experience at every level. He graduated from Kansas State. His first job was at Wayne (Neb.) State. He was in various administrative duties at Wichita State and Maryland. Weiberg was Jim Delany's right-hand man in the Big Ten (deputy and associate commissioner) for almost a decade before coming to the Big 12.
Compared to the job faced by his BCS predecessors -- the ACC's John Swofford and Tranghese -- Weiberg might end up wishing he was being paid for the voluntary position. Instead of concentrating on NCAA basketball duties, Weiberg wants to "shadow" Tranghese during the next 11½ months. Tranghese already had Weiberg run the June 30 meeting that brought together the six-member BCS presidential advisory committee for the first time.
Turns out there is more news in this already active offseason, according to Weiberg. The BCS presidents have requested a face-to-face meeting with CEOs of non-BCS schools to hear their concerns about being left out of the big time. That meeting furthers speculation the non-BCS leagues will have easier entry into the process when a new landscape is developed after the 2006 bowls.
What won't be coming any time soon, it seems, is a playoff. The presidents have issued a mandate to the BCS commissioners, Weiberg said, that any new postseason model will not conflict with academics. That means not impinging on December finals or the start of second semester in January.
Because of the rather abrupt action taken this week, SportsLine.com asked Weiberg a series of BCS-related questions by phone Wednesday.
SportsLine.com: What are your duties now considering you don't take over as BCS chairman for almost a year?
Weiberg: Mike Tranghese asked me to take over management of the June 30 BCS presidents meeting. What I really plan to do is shadow him through the course of this year.
It's awkward in that he's having to devote a lot of his time to his conference situation. It's more of a time-management issue. He's done a great job with BCS coordination, brought a lot of additional certainty to how we conduct our business -- minutes after meetings and lot of things that weren't always there.
SportsLine: What was the significance of that June 30 meeting?
Weiberg: There were two things of significance.
First, (the BCS presidents) did want to have a face-to-face opportunity with presidents and chancellors from conferences that don't have automatic access. They want (NCAA president) Myles Brand to participate in that. They are going to extend an invitation to a meeting that, I assume, will occur in late August or early September.
Second, they asked the BCS commissioners and athletic directors (advisory) group to begin working on options for future consideration. They sent us a fairly clear message they are very concerned about models that would expand the number of games being played or would cut into final exam periods or extend the season into the start of second semester. We received word that we really shouldn't be thinking about models that go down that path.
SportsLine: That doesn't necessarily mean there couldn't be extra games in the postseason?
Weiberg: I don't think they said, "No more games." They clearly said there is a limit to what is reasonable and practical here.
SportsLine: Why did the ACC expansion occur, and what does it mean?
Weiberg: Clearly I think it shows concern about the future. The decision-making process, as I observed it, was to build a more secure position for the future. Personally, I don't think that has a lot to do with postseason football, however. Even when the ACC was at nine members, they were going to have a place in the structure of the BCS.
It had more to do with the television landscape, concerns about flat or lower rights fees in the future.
SportsLine.com: There is some thought that ACC expansion is the first step toward college football evolving into a series of mega-conferences. Your thoughts?
Weiberg: Clearly there is potential for some additional movement. But I guess we still have to see whether the ACC is intent on going to 12 members. I don't think it necessarily follows that the Big Ten and Pac-10 are going to be larger.
SportsLine.com: When the time comes to decide the BCS fate of the Big East, do you think some BCS members will feel that the BCS "owes" the conference its BCS bowl berth because of the ACC raid?
Weiberg: I would have to say no to that. In the longer term, there has to be some evaluation process, the issue of automatic qualification. Certainly there are other conferences out there that feel like they deserve to have a chance.
The BCS was created to enhance the chances of a No. 1 vs. No. 2 game. It wasn't necessarily created to provide a home for everyone's champion.
SportsLine.com: Tulane president Scott Cowen is rallying support from his non-BCS peers for what seems like some sort of legal action against the BCS (a July 22 conference call is scheduled). Your thoughts?
Weiberg: There is clearly a perception out there that the BCS brand has become such a strong identification (that) if you're not associated with it in a direct way, you're second-class status. But if you really look at the numbers and bowl games that aren't part of the BCS, look at attendance numbers. I don't know if you'd see a lot of change from where we are today and where we were a few years ago.
That isn't to say we shouldn't listen to those terms and try to do what we can do to address them. But some of these things boil down to local problems, ability to sell tickets to your facility and generate revenues to build your program.
I think it would be interesting to see how the BCS presidential group connects with these others presidents, what comes out of that.
