Blog Entry

B12 commish senses big change in BCS

Posted on: November 9, 2011 10:08 am
Edited on: November 9, 2011 12:52 pm

There is growing support toward eliminating automatic qualifier status in the next evolution of college football’s postseason according to Big 12 interim commissioner Chuck Neinas.

The concept has been discussed informally among the game’s power brokers and would represent a fundamental shift in the way the sport’s postseason is administrated. Neinas supports the change because he said eliminating the so-called “AQ” status would slow or stop conference realignment.

“I think there is growing sentiment to eliminate the automatic qualification part of the BCS,” Neinas told this week. “You can see what’s happening. They [conferences] are gerrymandering all over the place under the intent to maintain an automatic qualification. History has shown you don’t need that if you are qualified.”

Removing AQ status would, in part, continue to benefit the power conferences who are currently bound by a two-team limit in the BCS. But it would also allow so-called non-AQs a more consistent, fair entry into the BCS. No changes would take effect until the 2014 season.

There are currently 10 slots among the five BCS bowls. One discussed configuration would allow the top 10 teams in the final BCS standings at the end of the season to play in BCS bowls no matter what conference affiliation. For example, if the Big Ten or SEC had three or more teams in the top 10, all those schools would get BCS bowls.

It’s not clear what the Rose Bowl’s stance is on the issue. It is known the Rose wants to keep its Pac-12-Big Ten game as often as possible. Eliminating AQ status may be the interim step between the BCS and a playoff. Various officials from four of the six BCS leagues have been in favor of at least a plus-one model at one time or another in the last three years.

The changes supported by Neinas wouldn’t occur until after the 2014 bowls when the current BCS deal expires with ESPN. Commissioners and ADs will discuss the changes as part of their next BCS meeting Monday in San Francisco.

“I imagine it will be one of many things they will be talking about," said Bill Hancock, BCS executive director. "It’s really premature to speculate about what the group might do."

The game’s administrators will have to have a new model going forward when ESPN reaches its exclusive negotiating window in October.

It’s not clear how much support there among commissioners. It would seem that at least the ACC and Big East would be against change. The ACC champion has finished out of the top 10 three of the last four seasons. Both leagues failed to have a team in the top 10 team at the end of last season.

It’s also not clear how money would be divided. Currently, 85 percent of the BCS bowl take is divided among the six power conferences. Last year approximately $200 million was made off the BCS bowls. If one of the six major conferences is not guaranteed a BCS bowl that could change the distribution model and potentially be a deal breaker.

Those six power conference champions – SEC, ACC, Big East, Big 12, Pac-12, Big Ten – are guaranteed a BCS bowl. The champions of the five non-AQ leagues – MAC, WAC, Conference USA, Sun Belt, Mountain West – are not. The best schools in those leagues must meet a set of benchmarks to get in.

Using the final 2010 standings as example going forward, the Big East (UConn, out of the BCS top 25) and ACC (Virginia Tech, No. 13) would not have had a BCS team because those conferences champions finished out of the top 10. The Big Ten would have had three teams – Wisconsin, Ohio State and Michigan State.

In that configuration schools like Missouri (2007), Texas Tech (2008), Boise State (2008, 2010), Iowa (2009), Georgia Tech (2009) and Michigan State (2010) would have made BCS bowls simply by finishing in the top 10.

To date the Big Ten has played in the most BCS bowls, 23. The SEC is second with 21.

Neinas said he senses support for the change among his peers. The scramble for automatic qualification has affected three of the six BCS leagues just in the last couple of months. TCU and West Virginia joined the Big 12, in part fearing instability in the Big East. Syracuse and Pittsburgh joined the ACC for the same reason. Meanwhile, the Big East is trying to reconstitute itself to be a BCS league going forward.

Commissioners will have to decide if the Big East even merits AQ status if the system remains the same. It currently has that status because of a waiver granted by BCS commissioners in 2008.

“You can make it on your merit without having to be in an automatic qualifying situation,” Neinas said. “That would solve some problems here with people just scrambling because they think they have to take in certain institutions. Let’s eliminate automatic qualification. If you merit it, you’re in …

“The point is, then you wouldn’t have this effort to cobble together a conference for the purpose of automatic qualification.”

Neinas also said he senses “strong sentiment” for conferences to remain with current membership until 2013. That would mean Syracuse and Pittsburgh would remain in the ACC, Missouri and Texas A&M would remain in the Big 12 and West Virginia and TCU would remain in the Big East.

The Big 12 is in a state flux with its television partners (ESPN, Fox) because it needs at least 10 members in 2012 for its payout not to be affected, Neinas said.

“We have to provide inventory to our TV partners and also we have some bowl partners,” he said. “Of course the major problem is scheduling.”

West Virginia has been sued by the Big East to fulfill its obligation to give 27 months notice before leaving the league. Big 12 sources are upset that Missouri intends to leave by July 1, 2012. Neinas remarked that it was “awful short notice” by the school.

Both Texas A&M and Missouri are still haggling with the Big 12 over exit fees owed to the conference. Those fees could range from $15 million-$30 million per school according to reports.

If both Missouri and West Virginia aren’t in the league in 2012, that would leave only nine members. With only nine members, each Big 12 team would have to find another non-conference game on short notice for 2012.

Asked if he expected Missouri to be in the league next year, Neinas said, “That would be nice, sure. Is that possible? I don’t know.”

He was then asked if there is any sentiment within the league for legal action against Missouri, Neinas said, “I don’t’ think I’ll comment on that.”


Since: Oct 21, 2011
Posted on: November 9, 2011 11:50 am

The NCAA needs to once again define and certify

each school who wants to compete at the D1 level.  No school should be allowed to meet the critieria simply because of conference affiliaton.  Thus any conference that wants to be ALL D1 can form or retain its members based on a written and attainable criteria by any school in America regardless of size, location, or age.

Going forward a playoff system should end the year that is truly earned on the field and not be an invitational as the BCS has become.

All conference champions should be automatic participants since every school in every conference has met D1 certification from the NCAA that is established in writing for any one who wishes to attain.  As in other NCAA sports and a certain number of computer ranked teams who did not win their championship would also participate.  No "people" polls should be used in the process.  Compter programs are astute enough in today's world to decide with reasonable certainty which teams are good and which are not based on who they played this year, and thus the at large field could be computer determined.

Every game from early September on counts for every team and only this years results punch the ticket.  Schools that have had good teams over many years aren't "perceptually invited" because the goal is to have this years championship based on the quality of this years team.

The interest and the revenue such as system would generate boggles the mind.  But a word of warning to's how you play, not who you are, that will reward under such a system.  Some folks are going to have a hard time with that.

Since: Oct 26, 2011
Posted on: November 9, 2011 11:40 am

B12 commish senses big change in BCS

<strong>The NCAA cares about nothing and nobody except the money,plain and simple.They need to be put out of business.</strong>

Since: Oct 26, 2011
Posted on: November 9, 2011 11:39 am

B12 commish senses big change in BCS

The NCAA doesn't care about anything but the money,plain and simple.They need to be put out of business period.

Since: Nov 19, 2006
Posted on: November 9, 2011 11:31 am

B12 commish senses big change in BCS

The NCAA does not adapt well to change.  Basically, change has to occur at a snails pace for the NCAA to give it their blessings.  Those who think that the NCAA will go from what they have now to an 8 or 16 team playoff just do not get it.  It is NOT going to happen people, so drop it.  Now what can and should happen is this.  Keep the AQ Conferences with this exception.  Any AQ Conference Champ that has 3 or more losses does NOT automatically qualify for a BCS Game.  This will open the door for teams like Houston, who could go undefeated and not play in a BCS Bowl this season, while eliminating the likes of last seasons Big East Champ, UConn, who lost 4 games during the regular season, and was embarrassed in the Fiesta Bowl.  I would also expnad the BCS Bowl games to include the Cotton Bowl, and then have the two survivors of the BCS Bowl games lay in a BCS Championship game.  My "Plus 1" system, if you will.

Since: Jun 5, 2011
Posted on: November 9, 2011 11:09 am

Thanks for actually writing about football today

It's great to see some football on the football page again.  The BCS needs to get rid of the BS Sham-pionship game and have a playoff that involves conference champions and a couple of at large bids.  I am in favor of automatic qualifying for major conferences that have a championship game, because those games would constitute a de facto opening round.  At large teams could have a play-in game on the same weekend as the conference championship games.  
My "system" will never happen, though, because it is too straightforward, too fair, and too easy.  It would require the massive egos of those who run the BCS, NCAA, and the bowls to get out of the way and let a great sport play itself out to a logical conclusion on what would be the biggest stage in college athletics.   
The bottom line?  The NCAA and BCS are too interested in being a bigger story than the games themselves to actually worry about such trifles as fair play and determining a worthy champion.   

Since: Dec 7, 2009
Posted on: November 9, 2011 11:07 am

B12 commish senses big change in BCS

It's funny that when the conference realignments are affecting the AQ conferences, they want to re-evaluate how things are done and implement changes that would benefit "everyone".  But when it's affecting only the Non AQ's, everything works just fine and the system is better than what we had before.  Not only does it not benefit everyone, but it benefits the "BIG" conferences even more that it has.  Going off a system such as this would further require the Non AQ's to hope that teams from the BIG conferences lose just so they can stay in the top ten.  Right now they only have to stay in the Top 12.  This new proposed system is garbage.

Since: Apr 6, 2009
Posted on: November 9, 2011 10:41 am

B12 commish senses big change in BCS

Just imagine if there was a 16-team playoff. Conference champ from each of the 11 conferences get an auto bid, and then the top 5 remaining at-large teams in the BCS standings. All seeds determined by the BCS standings.
Here's what it looks like going into week 11: 

Since: Apr 6, 2009
Posted on: November 9, 2011 10:39 am

B12 commish senses big change in BCS

Just imagine if there was a 16-team playoff. Conference champ from each of the 11 conferences get an auto bid, and then the top 5 remaining at-large teams in the BCS standings. All seeds determined by the BCS standings.
Here's what it looks like going into week 11: 

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or