Posted on: December 31, 2010 7:27 pm
Well, it's been over six months this blog has been active. It started as a way of reporting on the have-nots of college football, the non-automatic qualifier BCS schools, the barbarians so to speak. From that it morphed into a platform exposing the lies of the New Jersey media and their attempt to bring down the Rutgers' football program. And finally, we got involved in the great Big Ten expansion debate.
The circle has turned and it's time to get back to the roots. The support of a national collegiate football championship that doesn't exclude Division I teams merely because of the conference they're in, still seems a worthy cause. Two things have brought this to the fore again: the book Death to the BCS, and Mark Cuban. If you haven't read the book, buy it. If you think you understand how and why the BCS works (it doesn't by the way) you don't. The book explains it all.
What it comes down to, as many have always suspected, is nothing more than an attempt by traditional football powers in the Big Ten, the Pac Whatever, and the rest to control college football in this country. Nothing more, nothing less. Jim Delany, one of the biggest supporters of the BCS admits that a playoff system would make more money for the colleges. So why would he and the rest of the Big Ten, and the other big boys be against it? Because as crazy as it sounds, they would rather make less money and be in control than make more money and be merely a participant in a national championship. If this doesn't make sense to you, you need to go work in a law firm. I remember how shocked I was to learn that a senior partner who would make more money by bringing in a younger partner would rather make less money and not share control.
In a privately run organization, these decisions are made routinely. The problem is that this privately-run organization, the BCS, along with its bosom buddies, the bowls, have managed to parlay this desire into holding a national championship in college football hostage. If you play football for UCF, Boise State, Northern Illinois, or any other team that not part of the "in" crowd with the BCS, you will never play for a national championship. Never. Doesn't matter how good you are. You're simply not in the right conference. Well, we'll join the right conference, you say. Nope, sorry, membership is closed.
How can this be tolerated today? Well the BCS makes a lot of money and the bowls pay this money to the schools. Even schools that don't make it to bowls sometimes get a piece of it depending on the conference their in. So if not for the BCS, the schools would get less money.
Wrong. Death to the BCS shows how the system is rigged to cheat schools out of bowl money. Florida won the National Championship. How much money did they make for being in the BCS "Championship?" Well, according to the book $47,000. How can this be? Well all those great bowl payouts you hear about? They get offset but something called ticket allotments. When a school is invited to a bowl they're given a block of tickets to sell. If they don't sell them, they have to pay for the empty seats. This year UConn is going to the Fiesta Bowl. A great achievement for the Huskies right? Athletically, no doubt. Financially, it's a nightmare. UConn is required to purchase 17,500 tickets for the Fiesta Bowl. That's a cool 3.5 million. UConn's expected bowl payout?$2.5 million.
So why does a school have to become a ticket agent for a bowl game? Why can't these multimillion dollar making bowls sell their own tickets? Let the schools pay for the tickets they need, and tell the bowls to sell their own tickets. Just one, of many baffling questions for the BCS. To be continued.
Posted on: June 17, 2010 4:47 pm
As a Big East fan, I hate this idea. Unfortunately, I don't see any other way out for the BE other than merging with another league. Beware Big East fans, this is not for the faint of heart.
By Selling It's Soul to Notre Dame
Posted on: May 25, 2010 11:05 pm
What the hell, time to stick your neck out. No, I have no inside information other than what I read from readily available news sources. And no, I have no connections with CBS so don't link to this and say "CBS reporting that . . " Just good old reading newspapers and reading between the lines. With that the winners are: <>
Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers
Posted on: April 19, 2010 10:36 pm
Well that's what Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune thinks anyway. With more Big Ten meetings this week, expansion will definitely be on a "front burner." My picks for the expansion? The Big Ten takes the big plunge and goes to 16. Here are the teams:
and at long last, Notre Dame finally climbs on board as #16.
Here's the reasoning:
Posted on: April 13, 2010 8:59 pm
For some reason, I thought it would be worthwhile to summarize what's happened on the Big Ten expansion front since they opened this can of worms back in December. Included are quotes from the Big Ten AD's and commissioners that people seem to forget with time.
Guide to B10 Expansion
Posted on: April 8, 2010 2:18 pm
Yes according to Tony Barnhardt. It still all revolves around Notre Dame.
Is the Big Ten Expansion Expanding?
Posted on: March 23, 2010 3:35 pm
CBS' Dennis Dodd reported today that the commissioner of the Pac-10 has had conversations with the Big 10 and Big East about holding a championshp game with less than the NCAA-mandated twelve teams.
Posted on: March 20, 2010 4:24 pm
Just when Big Ten expansion rumours were starting to quiet down, whistling in from the heartland of the nation comes this gem:
Radio host Steve Daece in Des Moines, Iowa quotes "sources in the Michigan athletic department" believing that Notre Dame, Rutgers, and Boston College are likely to be announced as winners of the Big Ten Beauty Pageant in 2-3 months. Posters in Iowa have on the one hand alleged that Daece's source is the guy who drives the Little Debby Snacks truck to cafeteria and on the other hand lauded Daece as an accurate prognosticator. So anyone's guess on the validity of this one is, well, valid.
So let's look at this premise. 1. Notre Dame. Duh! Yes the Big Ten will be happy to open its doors to the Golden Domers despite being spurned in the past. Rumours from the Big Ten indicate that ND will have to do the courting this time. This is like that hot chick that shot you down has to give you a sign that she's interested now. So if ND looks coyly at the Big Ten and smiles, they're in.
2. Rutgers. Yes I can hear the wailing and gnashing of elitist teeth already. No Texas? Uh, no. But the Big Ten deserves better. Yes and I deserve to retire right now to a life of playing golf, drinking good bourbon, and doing whatever the hell I feel like. Ain't gonna happen. Let me spell it out. The Big Ten Network wants to make more money. They want the NY/NJ television sets. A lot of them. Sorry Michigan, Penn State and whatever other Big Ten school that has at least one alumnus in NYC, you're just not getting it done. Furthermore, the duo of Rutgers and Notre Dame on the BTN is a pretty good argument to get it on the basic tier. And maybe, just maybe the BTN can get a bump in Philadelphia rates (4th largest DMA) with Rutgers in the fold as well. So despite many Big Ten fans' belief that Rutgers isn't worthy of the Big Ten, the fact remains that the Big Ten Network isn't worthy of getting on the basic tier in the NY/NJ area without them. Deal with it.
3. Boston College. Now this one to me is a stretch. Yes, you traditionophiles, BC has it, they have a rivalry with ND, they've had success in football having made it to the ACC championship twice. But if you talk to the ACC, you kinda get the impression that they're not that happy with new member Boston College. Well at least their bowl partners anyway, that try to shun the Eagles every year because of their poor fan support. The fact is, even the ACC Championship draws poorly when BC's in it. BC wasn't in the original "5 team report" bandied about in the Chicago Tribune. Add in that BC's 44,500 seat Alumi Stadium would be the smallest in the Big Ten and BC looks like a questionable choice. How about Boston TV sets? Boston has the 6th largest DMA, better than any Big Ten home city with the exception of Chicago (Northwestern). The TV argument is there along with adding another state to the Big Ten footprint. Will BC really increase the pie of the Big Ten Network enough to justify its addition? I don't have the answer but from what I read, BC has been somewhat of a disappointment in the ACC TV wise. Could it change if they're playing Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State instead of Virginia Tech, Clemson, and Georgia Tech? My guess would be yes.
How about Notre Dame's coattails? Suppose ND says we'll only join if we can bring BC with us. Now why Notre Dame would do this other than that they're both private Catholic schools is beyond my comprehension. In fact Notre Dame apparently got rather tired of being beaten by Boston College on the football field and has not renewed the series. Notre Dame doesn't need to bring rivals to the Big Ten, it already has plenty.
If Notre Dame is campaigning for BC's admission, it would explain why the Eagles are being mentioned now while being omitted from the "Report of Five." The idea of the Big Ten's two eastern outposts located in the DMA of over 10% of the nations total number of TV sets does have some allure to it. You would think that the Fighting Irish would have a few fans in New York and Boston as well. If the trend is toward superconferences, the Big Ten would pluck some prime real estate in the NYC, Philadelphia, and Boston areas if it does pull this off. Who knows, maybe the ACC would be happy to swap out BC and swap in a West Virginia, that actually has rivalries with Maryland and Virginia Tech? Well it passes the giggle test anyway.