Utah scheduling issues?

How about discussing the issues that Utah is having scheduling ANYONE from BCS conferences following the Fiesta and Sugar Bowl wins?

It would certainly highlight the extremes that the BCS schools and conferences will go to in order to lock out a non-AQ school.

Utah has sent out email updates regarding scheduling for 2010 and 2011 and, basically, all the BCS schools have declined to schedule Utah.

I think this needs to be highlighted so that, down the road when the S.O.S. argument comes up, this can be pointed out.

Sincerly,
Ben Leaver
Kaysville, UT

Utah wants a home and away series with a BCS conference member for 2010-2011. This hole was formed when Utah State decided that at this point in its program it would be better to only play one of Utah or BYU each year, not both.

The open question is whether a BCS conference member will agree to a home and away or if Utah will be willing to agree to a one and done for those years next year when the urgency is higher.

I have been wanting to expand on what constitutes a reasonable deal for home and away scheduling for a bit now. Historically arrangements fell into the home and away or one and done varieties. Recently two for one arrangements have become more popular.

For out of conference games, excluding traditional rivalries, these arrangement should be made based on average attendance to maximize the total value to the sport. Teams should host games proportionally to their respective fan bases. Examination of the current scheduling practices suggest that the following values are a good estimate of the market value of home field based on attendance.

More fans : Less fans
1:1 to 3:2 warrants a home and away series
3:2 to 5:2 warrants a two for one series
5:2 to 1:0 warrants a one and done

Utah has an average attendance of 45,542K. Utah's home and away range is teams with an average attendance between 30,361 and 68,313. Utah's one and done range is teams over 113,855 (the largest average attendance is 108571, so Utah should always hold out for a two for one deal). Utah should never visit anyone with an attendance under 18,217.

This gives the following realistic targets for various options for Utah:

One and done: None

Two for one: Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Tennessee, Texas, Georgia, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Auburn, USC, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas A&M, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, South Carolina, Clemson, FSU, Michigan State, UCLA, Iowa, Kentucky, Arkansas

Home and Away: Virgina Tech, Missouri, BYU, ASU, Washington, Illinois, California, West Virginia, Oregon, NC State, Virginia, Texas Tech, Ole' Miss, Arizona, Kansas, USF, Colorado, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Oklahoma State, Maryland, Georgia Tech, Iowa St, Miami (FL), UTAH, Kansas State, Oregon State, Mississippi State, Rutgers, East Carolina, Boston College, Hawaii, Louisville, UCF, Connecticut, Vanderbilt, Air Force, Fresno State, UTEP, Navy, Stanford, Baylor, Syracuse, Boise State, Cincinnati, Indiana, Wake Forest, TCU

Recent and up coming series with Louisville, Oregon State, Oregon, Boise State, Washington State, Iowa State and UCLA suggest this is not far from the realities of college football. Their are some SOS bargains in that home and away list that could allow Utah to get a home and away against a team that will give them ranking value.

Utah is a large enough program that they should be able to get good smaller programs to visit for a one and done. Central Michigan, Houston and Nevada are some of the more compelling teams that Utah could consider offering a two for one and expect consideration. One could even ask why Utah is willing to agree to a home and away with San Jose State based on this model.

This is part of the reason why Utah is not fighting hard to preserve the Utah-Utah State rivalry. This is also why the talk of restoring the Utah-Colorado rivalry is stirring (A home and away is set for 2012-2013).

This is also why BYU is able to get teams like FSU to visit when Utah isn't. They have an average attendance of 64,102 to FSU's 77,968, well within the 3:2 ratio. If Utah wants more big names to travel to SLC they need to expand the south end zone of Rice-Eccles Stadium and continue the increase in ticket sales from recent years. Utah is at 102% average capacity and is expecting to sell out of season tickets for the first time this year.

Utah can get games with the big names. If the big names have big fan bases Utah is going to need to travel. Utah has 4 OOC games per year. I would like to see 2 of those be a part of a two for one against winning teams with attendance figures over 68K, a home and away against quality teams with programs of a similar fan base and a hosting a one and done against smaller teams with bowl aspirations.

Comment on Utah scheduling issues?...

SEC annual spring meeting and the AFCA did WHAT??

The SEC met this week at Hilton Sandestin Beach Golf Resort and Spa to discuss various topics of interest.

Wait. The SEC, the premier conference in college football, is meeting 45 minutes from my home? What the heck, right? I got ideas, worse case nothing happens right? So after work I went to Hilton Sandestin Beach Golf Resort and Spa. This was a time to wear my "Utah Utes perfect season" tee shirt if there ever was one.

I enjoyed a Yuengling Lager at Barefoots Beachside Bar and Grill and a Captain and Coke at Sandcastles Lounge. The SEC was in a meeting, something about their image. Rumor has it the Rose Bowl officials were there.

There was another conference going on also so I wasn't likely to be able to tell who from whom. Anyways, I ran out of drink before the SEC would finish their meetings and would need to drive home eventually, so I went to the outlet malls to sober up fully, as I know the roads between there and home are one continuous DUI trap. That and the view was better. Something about the gender ratio and the warm humid weather. I also enjoyed seeing people do a double take to see if they really just saw a Utah fan. I really need to get more Utah apparel.

No Utah apparel was available at the outlet stores but I do highly recommend Rocky Mountain Chocolate. Didn't get to advance my ideas any, but it was fun. Can't say I didn't try.

Ok, back on track.

Slive laid down the law about the recent public bickering amongst the football coaches. Apparently there is a place to have these discussions, and the media is not that place. Though no names where mentioned it was made clear who was under the gun. Shame on Kiffin, Spurrier and Meyers. Indeed some leaks prior to the meeting suggested a Kiffin rule might be made to handle this.

With the news of the AFCA deciding to conceal the final ballet starting after 2010, Mark Richt and Steve Spurrier both expressed surprise and disappointment at the decision. Though not present for this meeting, BCS commissioner John Swofford appears to feel likewise.

The MWC proposal was discussed. I get the feeling the SEC is sympathetic with the idea, but a plus one appears to be gaining some more support, with Nick Saban publicly jumping on board. So the SEC is inching closer to full support of a plus one.

Which may be why the Rose Bowl was there, as if to say we will take our conferences away if you do.

The Rose Bowl does have a point. USC is a championship caliber team that might compete with an SEC team if they ever actually played one, unlike the Big 10 teams that get decimated every bowl season by whichever SEC team they face.

If the highest paid (and presumably best) coach can't get Alabama's players and fans excited about playing in a bowl with the rich history of the Sugar Bowl, if USC fans contend that it would be better for them to get out of the Rose Bowl deal to actually play one of the top SEC teams in a bowl game rather than beat down another Big 10 team, isn't that the most compelling reason to advocate for a change to the current post season system?

[note: some hyperbole was used in reference to the recent Big 10 vs SEC bowl performance, but not much]

Comment on SEC annual spring meeting and the AFCA did WHAT??...

Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke

On the day after Congress held hearings on swine flu, a House subcommittee set out to investigate the Bowl Championship Series. The results? Congressional leaders proved they know very little about college football, and even less about the BCS.

The House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection hosted the hearings. Of the twenty-nine House members on the committee, three showed up to participate

The hearing leader, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), introduced the key guest, BCS coordinator John Swofford, as the commissioner of the Athletic Coast Conference. Rep. Rush, I pretty sure it's the Atlantic Coast Conference, although they do play athletics, so I guess we'll give you partial credit, Congressman.

Craig Thompson was introduced as the commissioner of the West Mountain. Seriously? The West Mountain? Is Thompson the chief ski lift operator there or something? Could someone not point out to the leader of the BCS committee hearing that MWC is an acronym for the Mountain West Conference and not West Mountain?

None of the congressmen attending the hearing was aware that all eleven major conferences are members and financial benefactors of the BCS.

I mean... seriously... is this how our congressmen prepare for an on-the-record House hearing? I cringe to think what would happen if the discussion was the future of medicare. In the words of Britney Spears, "Ding dang, y'all!"

Rep Joe Barton (R-Tex.), an outspoken advocate for scapping the BCS in favor of a playoff format, demonstrated his grasp of playoff proposals by insisting that a March Madness style bracket format may be the solution for college football.

"You could have a playoff system with 64 teams, and use every bowl that's currently in there," Barton said Friday. "You could do that."

No you couldn't.

"We'd still be playing," Alamo Bowl CEO Derrick Fox quipped.

Congressman, if 64 teams are play in a single-elimination format... then it takes 63 total games to determine the winner. That's how it works.

Barton has proposed legislation that would forbid the BCS from awarding a "national championship" trophy. Within the bill, any organization would be barred from "the marketing, promotion, and advertising of a postseason game as a 'national championship' football game, unless it is the result of a playoff system. Violations of the prohibition will be treated as violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act as an unfair or deceptive act or practice."

Let me see if I understand the implication: Since the BCS does not award a National Championship trophy... the BCS would continue unchanged. Yep. The American Football Coaches Association would still hand out the Coaches Trophy. The AP would still crown its own champion as well. In other words, Barton's legislation would permit the BCS to continue unchanged.

So... Barton's bill means nothing to the BCS... at all? Well, yeah. Congressman Barton told Swofford during the hearing that the BCS wouldn't be obligated to institute any change.

"You don't have to change it. Our bill doesn't say you have to change it."

(That said... I would still love for someone to start handing out the "Barton Cup".)

Later Barton -- who's bill was the entire basis for the hearings -- left the committee meeting to catch a flight home.

Now maybe it's just me, but when you introduce a bill to change the BCS... that you GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to explain will not change the BCS... and then you leave your own hearing to fly home... I'm going to have a hard time taking you seriously. Maybe it's just me.

Rep. Rush went on to ask the Athletic Conference and West Mountain conference commissioners if they believed the current BCS system was fair. Thompson stated that the current system was "grossly inequitable." Swofford said that the revenue distribution "represents the marketplace", which is really just a nice way of saying some BCS teams are drawing 70,000+... for their spring practice games. Blutarsky points out that Georgia drew 42,458... which would have ranked them 54th in attendance last season (pdf!), just ahead of... UTAH!

Was Thompson hoping for a federal bailout with the "grossly inequitable" comment? Seriously, man... some of your schools don't even offer ESPN on campus cable networks??

But Thompson got in his own polite comment when asked if he believed Congress should intervene in the BCS.

"The U.S. Congress represents fans and constituencies," Thompson said. "Our university presidents work with that same group of constituents."

In other words, they guy who is paying lobbyists to push for an eight-team playoff would kindly like Congress to mind its own business and stay out of college football.

Well said, Commissioner. Well said.

The full hearing is posted online at CSpan, but -- I'm warning you -- regardless of where you stand on this one, you're probably going to hate yourself for enduring this.

Comment on Congressional hearings on BCS prove to be a joke...

BCS meets, no change.

Short version:
The BCS met this week and no change was made. The MWC proposal was reviewed and only the idea of a selection committee had any traction.

One might suspect this to be an inside threat from the same people who basically operate the selection committee that left SDSU and New Mexico on the sidelines for the NCAA basketball tournament after the MWC presented their BCS proposal.

Long version: Darth Prather unleashed
End of summer Summer 2008: Darth Prather encounters Bronco Mendenhall's concept of a play-in game and wheels begin turning. Echo's of Jedi Reagan's teaching about a flexible structure and two selection criterion help shape his subconscious thoughts. WEA attempts to warn the world of Darth Prather's imminent attempt to concur the world, somehow involving Utah and oppressive mathematical relations.

December 2008: Darth Prather, brandishing a new concept, emerges in the lull between Bowl selection and actual bowl games to awaken the boiling post season structure debate. Wrestling with Jedi Regan, on and off line, only left the concept stronger.

January 15 2009: Darth Prather launches a blog to sort through his concept in gory detail. The discontent with the status quo among fans reemerges. Initial attempts to contact Utah officials ends with futility.

March 4th: Days before Darth Prather was ready to send his first distillation of his concept to BCS authorities the MWC generates a buzz with a proposal of their own. Darth Prather delays his concept to make presentation changes in his distillation.

Spring Break: From his parents beach house in Panama City Beach, Florida, Darth Prather takes the week to make phone calls and submit his proposal to significant parties.

March 30th: Bill Hancock, the BCS administrator, is reached by phone and found to be surprisingly pleasant to talk with. Darth Prather e-mails his proposal to Bill Hancock and John Swofford for consideration.

March 31st: Darth Prather receives email:
"Darth Prather,
Got it; thanks. Will take some time to look it over and will let you know if we have any questions.
Bill"

and

"Darth Prather,
Wanted to let you know that John Swofford received your e-mail as well, and he has asked me to thank you for sending it.
Bill"

Darth Prather continues to contact MWC's Javan Hedlund about their proposal and is surprised to find out how intent they are about pursuing it. Attempts to contact the WAC failed. Content with the contact with Bill Hancock, urgency diminished and an attempt to consider revenue sharing was pursued.

April 3: The following e-mail is sent to Charles Bloom of the SEC:
"Thank you for your time. I am asking that you consider whether the following three ideas to improve the BCS system warrant forwarding on to the appropriate SEC representatives. They involve the limit of each conference to two teams, revenue sharing, and the structure itself.

Two team limit

In 2007 the BCS made a mid season executive decision to expand the list of eligible teams to the top 18 if not enough teams could be found in the top 14. In 2008 it was decided that a conference could have three teams if they had the top two teams in the BCS standings, neither of which are the conference champion.

The 2007 ruling allows for the possibility that certain events may occur that would lower the bar for the most prestigious games. I suggest the following rule to handle both cases:

A conference may have at most two teams eligible for a BCS bowl unless 1) they have the #1 and #2 team in the BCS standings and a third team is determined to be the conference champion or 2) their would not be enough eligible teams in the top 14 otherwise.

Revenue Sharing

The BCS is criticized for its revenue sharing plan, but what criteria is used to measure a conference's value? The BCS's revenue comes primarily through TV contracts. The TV contracts are supported by advertisers. Advertisers are drawn to games with lots of fans. If the revenue is to be distributed in a way to promote the kind of competition that is going to increase the value of the BCS, it needs to be tied to the fan base of each conference.

The bowls generate revenue that is incrementally increases at a reasonable rate until the BCS bowls are reached. Conference payouts comparable to these values would be 9 million for the first team and 4.5 million for additional teams from each conference or any independents. The remainder of the revenue should be distributed according to each conference's fan base.

This would amount to 54 million from the six automatic qualifying conferences plus 9 million from the at-large conferences. One should expect one at-large conference to participate each year, making 54 million a typical figure.

I have used NCAA average attendance figures over the last four years in the attached calculations. It is clear that the Big East's value to the BCS is closer to C-USA or the MWC than the SEC, Big 10 or Big 12.

A more robust system would allow season ticket waiting lists to be included if an annual fee or booster membership charge is required to maintain a place on the list. No fan could count for more than two seats regardless of the number of seats requested.

Post Season Structure

University of Georgia President Michael Adams and University of Florida president James Bernard Machen have expressed a desire for some form of change in the current structure. Formidable obstacles stand in the way.

Attached is a structure that:

** Maintains the current scheduling limits.
- Stays within the December 19th through the second Monday in January bowl window.
- Does not allow any team to participate in more than 16 games total.
- Does not reduce the current length of the regular season.
** Increases consensus at the cutoff.
- Allows all undefeated teams to participate.
- Keeps the number of teams small.
- Uses gaps in the average rather than ordinal values to determine eligibility.
** Adds transparency to the high profile decision making process.
- Explicitly specifies what warrants a particular designation.
- Explicitly states how changes in designation are handled.
** Restores college football traditions.
- New Year's Day once was a celebration of elite college football.
- Bowl timing once represented each bowl's level of prestige.
- Conferences and bowls tie-ins once had a competitive incentive.
** Minimizes impact on existing structures.
- Maintains the existing BCS bowls through 2014.
- Maintains the existing rotation of the National Championship Game through 2014.
- Improves the significance of conference tie-ins.
- Does not interfere with the regular season or conference championship games.
- Defines a role for bowls outside the BCS.

Thank you for your time. I can be reached at darth.prather@sethlord.com or by phone at (###)###-####.

Sincerely,

Darth Prather"

April 4th: Contact with PAC 10 and Big 10, the most prominent obstacles, fails. Input regarding the possible small impact of this proposal on the Rose Bowl was worth avoiding having teams like USC unhappy with their inability to get a game with SEC teams or Michigan getting left out of the title game was requested.

April 15th: Email from Charles Bloom:

"Darth Prather - I'll pass this on to Commissioner Slive in advance of next week's BCS meetings. Take care. Charles"

April 20-22nd: BCS meets and get nothing accomplished.

Future: Darth Prather's stadium sized BCS death ray under construction...

The truth is out there. Other than names, e-mail and phone numbers (to protect the true identity of Darth Prather) and the removal of some white space, the email's above are genuine. Death ray plans to be announced soon.

Comment on BCS meets, no change....