You make a valid point about the financial aspect. You're right, it's not fair, but an AD of one school is obligated to his school, not all NCAA member institutions. And, BGSU's admin has finances to worry about as well. I don't know this to be a fact, but I'm guessing it's true, BGSU would make more $ going to the pig house or Ohio Stadium than they would if they hosted a game with Mich or OSU. (This is exactly why SDSU asked for their home game with OSU to be switched to Ohio Stadium in 02 (maybe it was 03) - they knew the visitors cut of 100,000 seats assured is better than 40,000 at best.)BigAppleBucky wrote:Why would a fiscally responsible Wisconsin athletic director, allow Wisconsin to play in front of, to be generous, 40,000 at a MAC venue, when the FB team can earn 85,000 X $50 (or more average ticket price) at home?
Is that fair to the MAC?
Of course not.
My best suggestion for long term competitiveness in college football is a 16 or or even 24 team division 1A playoff system which would (obviously) include the non-BCS conferences.
Bowls and the BCS schools are afraid that would reduce their revenue and importance.
I think, if properly planned and run, such a system would actually increase revenues to BCS schools while also making non-BCS schools more competative in football. The bowls could stay involved.
I like the idea of greater, not less, competition in college football. I love the sport and want to see it prosper. I'd hate to see schools like EMU, CMU, Buffalo, etc. relegated to division 1AA. Instead, I'd rather see them going toe to toe with major conference schools.
Of course, I'll still be cheering for UW to beat BGSU come September.
I disagree about your 16 to 24 game playoff. The theory isn't bad on it's face, and I too would like to see more competitiion in CFB, the problem one of the best things about CFB is it's the last sport where the Regular Season matter. (Villanova won the NCAA in 1985 (Hoops) there is NO WAY that was the best team in the nation that year, and just goes to show that a "hot" team can win it all and the reg. season is meaningless (so long as you qualify) I used to like the idea of a 8 team tourney, but as I reflected on it, there are not 8 teams in the nation that can stake an honest claim to the title each year, let alone 16 or more. Hell, it's rare there is as many as 4, but there often are 3. I'd accept a 4 team tourney, but that doesn't solve the issue we're discussing.
I recognize that hurts the midmajors, so we're left with the same problem. I think a large part of the solution is individual mid majors taking the risk and building a program they can't necessarily afford - that is to say, as an example - Ohio State took such a risk once, in 1922. It paid off. However, it doesn't always. Harvard, I think it was, once built a huge stadium (for the time) and they don't draw like OSU does today, obviously. Harvard's FB program isn't the cash cow Ohio State's is. In any case, this risk it idea is not a tasteful solution and could end up making some schools drop football altogether.
I think the answer may be more schollie limits. The last round of limits surely helped... If this was 1975, PJ Pope and Omar Jacobs would not be at BG, because some team, maybe OSU, maybe Michigan, maybe PSU etc.. would have snatched em up - unlimited roster space produced player hoarding in those days. Even today, with the 85 limit, schools like USC have more talent than they know what to do with. (USC isnt' the only one, of course, but I didn't want to use the same schools for every example) Could USC win the NC with 75? Probably. Those 10 kids not signed wouldthen be available for other schools, .. I guess it's a "trickle down" idea at it's core.
