In a perfect world, we would like to believe that all football conferences played well together and wanted what was best for everyone. In reality, college football is a business, a lucrative one at that, and every conference, along with every individual team, must lookout for their own best interests. Conferences have expanded throughout history with the sole intention of making their union better and stronger. This is not new. So while the authors may imply that conference expansion is new, bad, and a fault of the BCS, history proves otherwise. The authors also hypothesize that if pushed to reform, the BCS couldn't go back to the old bowl system simply because it is worse than the BCS and because times have changed. At its most ruthless, the BCS is a power grab by the major schools and conferences, and those big schools in conferences will continue to wield the most power with the old bowl system and not a playoff. In order to get a playoff in place, the NCAA membership would have to vote on it and approve it, and I would be willing to be that it would be quite some time before the major football schools and conferences are willing to approve a playoff and give up a lot of power.
Conference expansion and realignment is as old as the conferences themselves. The Pac-10 (soon to be Pac-12) was originally made up of 4 teams in 1915. The SEC started with 13 members, then went down to 10, then expanded to 12 in 1991. The BCS did not start the realignment process in the least. More importantly, the conferences are now establishing extremely lucrative TV deals for the broadcast rights to their regular season games. The reason that these deals are so astronomical is obviously because of the ratings, and the high ratings are because of the value of the regular season that college football uniquely offers. The authors do bring up an interesting and accurate point that the Big Ten, among other conferences, are possibly willing to sacrifice the gobs of money a playoff could potentially offer to their own conference by keeping the BCS in tact, thereby keeping their level of power and influence very high by keeping the money centralized. Many of those in power readily admit that a playoff could provide more money overall, but what is not said by those in charge is that giving up the BCS would mean the 6 BCS conferences then give up a lot of power and influence. What this leads to is all conferences wanting to expand because the big conferences want to get bigger and more powerful, and the smaller conferences want to add teams so that they can increase their prestige and quality of play in hopes of being added to the BCS table. At the end of the day, it is the same conference realignment that has always happened, but now the goal is more clearly defined. Just don't think the BCS started it.
If the BCS is broken up, whether it by the President, Department of Justice, Congress, or internal fighting, the old bowl system will be in place, at least for some time. There really is no denying it. If the authors haven't noticed, the NCAA is no model of expediency. It seems to take them forever to get anything done. I fail to see how they think the NCAA could throw together a playoff system that everyone agrees upon in a reasonable amount of time, one that involves school presidents, conference commissioners, bowl games, head coaches, and television stations, is quite ambitious. The authors propose a very intriguing 16 team playoff throughout the book, but not everyone will think that it is best. Their assumption that college football couldn't survive simply because there is more money involved in the sport nowadays is simply misguided. A few bowls may go under, but with the TV revenue that all of the BCS conferences are going to be bringing in, they will be able to pay their head coaches and athletic directors. Obviously, some things will change, but BCS conferences won't be running towards a playoff because of lack of funds. Not to mention the fact that these schools and conferences have avoided a playoff for this long, and since they can't be forced to establish a playoff, you don't think they would “take their ball and go home” simply to avoid a playoff? The one thing we have learned about these conferences throughout the BCS is that they like showing off their power, and what better way to show it off than by standing in the way of a playoff. Maybe they would eventually come around, but we would be back to the old bowl system for at least a few years.
The system in place is a very beneficial one for many parties. While not perfect (what system is?), there is little incentive for many to change. The authors are correct in assuming that the Big East would suffer a lot with the demise of the BCS, as well as many of the lower quality teams in the BCS conferences. While the BCS conferences may always be looking to add the big name teams, it is the lesser teams that help the conferences adhere together. They would suffer the most if the BCS ended, because they don't spend as much money on their programs, yet they still receive a big chunk of the TV and BCS bowl money. They truly have no incentive to change the status quo. The big football schools will always get theirs, no matter the system. The smaller schools in the BCS conferences are the ones who are quite content with the way things are, and since the NCAA makes changes based on the votes of their member schools, those votes from the BCS conferences' smaller schools are not likely to rock the boat anytime soon.
