No wonder half the college football world refuses to take the Western Athletic and Mountain West conferences seriously.
On the table Wednesday was the Bowl Championship Series' new four-year deal with ESPN, which will pay roughly $500 million for television, radio and digital rights to BCS games beginning after the 2010 regular season. Even if none of their teams made it to a BCS game, the WAC and Mountain West each could get about $11 million over the life of the deal, which in reality amounts to table scraps.
By refusing to agree to the deal, WAC and Mountain West teams would not have been allowed to participate in the five BCS games and would not have been eligible for a cut of the yearly $125 million payment. But credibility often comes with a price, and the leagues would have gained considerable clout in their fight to change the system by saying no.
Instead, they decided to take the money and run.
"The repercussions were just too dramatic and too costly," Boise State president Bob Kustra said. "Can you really take that chance?"
The answer is yes, you take that chance.
Consider that much of the WAC's reputation has been built by taking an unconventional approach, right down to the blue turf of Boise State's Bronco Stadium.
In the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, Boise State stunned Oklahoma, 43-42, with a dazzling array of trick plays, topped by Ian Johnson's winning two-point conversion on a Statue of Liberty play. The following season, Hawaii made its run to the Sugar Bowl with Colt Brennan passing on nearly every down.
But when WAC presidents were given the ball Wednesday, they pulled a Woody Hayes, voting unanimously to accept the table scraps.
The Mountain West has been squawking ever since Utah beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, saying the Utes deserved a shot at the BCS title. The squawking could be heard all the way to Washington, but when it was time to take a stand, Mountain West presidents took a knee.
The leagues say they will continue to fight the system, which is laughable. It's impossible to change the system when you're part of it.
"The leagues say they will continue to fight the system, which is laughable. It's impossible to change the system when you're part of it."
Jay, come on... give us a break. How on earth can the MWC and WAC not sign? We're totally caught between a rock and hard place.
Why has no one written a column about the fact that the Duke freakin' Blue Devils will get more cash out this deal that Utah?
This is a cartel. And then they have the gall to ask why we don't just man up "play a schedule like Nebraska did last year"
I'd love to see the mighty Huskers sing a home and home with my Horny Toads, but they won't, because we'd give them a bit too much to think about. Damned if you do...
Posted by: Sam | July 09, 2009 at 05:59 AM
The fact of the matter is that if the BCS is dissolved by governmental pressure, the old bowl system will be back in play--not a playoff. Under the old bowl system, the undefeated Utah team would have either played in the Holiday Bowl or the Fiesta Bowl. And they would have actually had a chance at being named national champion if they knocked off a team ranked high enough to warrant the respect. Bring back the old bowl system!
Posted by: Will Smithrock | July 09, 2009 at 10:20 PM
And who is the power behind the throne? None other than Disney sports that has the dollars that drive the whole system. How many of the new bowl games are created in partnership with ESPN? The $495 million came from where? And who sets the agenda for college football?
Just seems awfully goofy to me.
Posted by: Brian | July 10, 2009 at 05:07 AM
"The leagues say they will continue to fight the system, which is laughable. It's impossible to change the system when you're part of it."
Somebody failed their history courses.
There are two options of the MWC/WAC...take the funding, which is WAY more than they were getting in the past. Or don't...in which case, college football goes on and they get relegated to basic I-AA levels because they now have ZERO chance to play for a national title.
You realize if the BCS dissolves, we're just going to the old bowl lineup? Is that what you really want? A playoff is not happening. As long as the TV partners & the universities are making billions of dollars..it aint happening.
No playoff is worth enough to the SEC & the Big Ten. You don't mess with the billion-dollar goose egg.
Posted by: Sean | July 10, 2009 at 08:12 AM
If the BCS dissolves, would college football automatically default to the old bowl system? A hefty percentage of teams lose money in the current bowl system and by the time the MWC/WAC pay for their postseason trips under the new deal, they will be lucky to have 25 cents on the dollar. The only people who are guaranteed success in the bowl business are the bowls. (No wonder ESPN now sponsors six bowls.) The money is in a playoff.
Posted by: The Wiz | July 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Get the fans, get the money, earn the respect, and then maybe someone will start listening. You want the rest of college football to pay for your team. It's not the SEC/Big 12/Big 10 's problem you can't draw fans or draw viewers to TV. Once you do, it won't matter how good you are (see ND). You'll have the clout to demand whatever you want.
Posted by: Bob | July 10, 2009 at 01:50 PM
I must say, I have to agree with Sam. What do you expect these two conferences to do? Do you expect their members to vote solely in spite, to their financial detriment? As Dr. Saturday said on his blog, this would be spurning the good in favor of the perfect. With some schools in the Big Sky conference (admittedly further down the college athletics totem pole, but not too distant from the WAC) discussing getting rid of their football program, is this the best time to say the hell with financial gain in favor of a principled stand? You have to be smarter than that in my opinion. I would love to see a playoff, but to expect these two conferences to turn down an opportunity to make money is a bit ludicrous.
Secondly, I continue to think the possibility of government intervention in the BCS is about as likely as Mark Sanford running for president. Orrin Hatch is nothing but a grandstander, and should be an embarrassment to the state of Utah. Same goes for Joe Barton and his cast of clowns at the House hearing this spring. And they wonder why their approval rating is south of 20%?
Posted by: nomorespinsports | July 10, 2009 at 03:06 PM
Why take the popular bowl system and change it? Just to make some Boise State or Utah fans happy?
#1 vs. #2 is great and the debate is what makes it exciting. Making it "fair" will destroy what makes it interesting.
Posted by: T-Bone | July 10, 2009 at 08:09 PM
"Popular" bowl system? I'm gonna have to say that might be a slightly inaccurate way to put it. And no, arguing about who should play in what games is not that fun. Watching actual football games with clearly defined implications is what is fun.
Either way, a 4-team playoff is where this thing is headed. It really wouldn't require all that much of a deviation from the current system. Just wait til the current contract runs out. Everything's gonna be fine in a few years.
Posted by: Bobby Fenton | July 11, 2009 at 10:12 AM