Post by elp525 on Aug 25, 2009 4:43:46 GMT -5
August 24, 2009
By Dave Hickman
Staff writer
MORGANTOWN - It is what it is.
Are you like me? Do you hate that? Does it conjure up nightmarish flashes of Dennis Green incoherently screaming, "They are who we thought they were!''
It is what it is. I suppose you could say, "Get used to it,'' or "Live with it.'' And like death and taxes there's nothing you - or I or pretty much anyone else - can do about it.
Same with the Big East trying to come up with a bowl lineup that you or I or almost anyone will like.
It is what it is. And it ain't good. And the sooner you start accepting that, the sooner you can move on to things that you have some control over.
Face it, the league isn't a hot commodity. More specifically, the majority of its teams aren't hot commodities. And thus you get a lineup where the champion is constantly defending its place in the Bowl Championship Series and, starting in 2010, the second-best team goes to something called the Champs Sports Bowl, the third-best probably heads to the Meineke Car Care Bowl and anyone else that qualifies heads to Birmingham or St. Petersburg or Toronto. Maybe.
Here's the thing, though. Is that much different than it's been recently, when the runner-up went either to the Gator to play the third-best team from an arguably even worse-performing conference (the ACC) or to crime-ridden El Paso?
It is what it is, and here's why: The league and its members, on the whole, just don't strike an appealing chord with bowls or their sponsors or the ticket-buying public at large. And that's not something that's going to change overnight.
Oh, sure, the Big East has had its moments and its share of pretty good - sometimes bordering on great - football teams. But as far as sustainable excellence on the part of enough teams to convince a bowl to sign on the dotted line for a four-year commitment, well, it's just not there.
nn
We're not talking about West Virginia here, folks. Nor are we talking about Cincinnati rising from football obscurity; or Rutgers and Louisville putting together a dream season; or South Florida and
Connecticut growing into forces; or even Pitt or Syracuse resurrecting past glory. We're talking about it all.
If you're running a bowl game and gambling millions on it every year, where is the confidence that the Big East is not only going to produce a worthy BCS team, but every year for four years will produce a second and a third and a fourth and even a fifth team that excites anyone?
And don't bother bringing up three BCS wins in four years because that's not the point. In fact, it only serves to illustrate the position of the bowls that we're talking about here. They couldn't care less how strong the Big East is at the very top, that it produces BCS winners consistently. Those aren't the teams coming to their bowls.
I'm not bashing the Big East here. I'm not arguing that the league, at least on the field, is inferior to anyone. All I'm saying is look at the lineup from a standpoint of tradition and name recognition and consistency because that's all that bowls have to go on when committing their resources - yes, gambling them - as much as five years in advance.
If you're that bowl, do you gamble on the Big East No. 2 or on the No. 3 or 4 or 5 from absolutely any other conference? Yes, even the ACC. You can argue all you want that it's the ACC that has been the BCS doormat of late and not the Big East. And you'd be right. It's not even worth arguing. The ACC lost eight straight BCS games before Virginia Tech finally beat Cincinnati in the Orange Bowl in January.
But in the negotiation for bowl deals, that means nothing. Zero. This does: In securing the No. 3, 4, 5 or even No. 6 team from the ACC a bowl is looking at the very real probability of getting Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, N.C. State or Maryland. In getting even the No. 2 or 3 choice from the Big East, a bowl is looking at the very real probability of getting West Virginia, Pitt, Cincinnati, Rutgers, South Florida or Connecticut.
Are those stronger teams? Well, maybe. It depends on the year. More than likely, though, there's not much of a difference. But the bowls don't give a rat's behind about that. The considerations are name recognition, ticket sales and marketability for television. And, like it or not - fair or unfair - those ACC teams have more of almost all those qualities. So do teams from any other BCS conference. No, Miami's not going to travel well and perhaps a few of the others won't, either, depending upon how their seasons went. But if you're making a value judgment on where to wager your millions of dollars four years from now, those teams - on the whole - are better bets.
Shoot, given a choice of the Big East teams, the bowl with the No. 2 pick is sitting there praying that West Virginia isn't in the BCS. And even if the bowl does manage to land the Mountaineers, it's only a good West Virginia team and not a great one - one with perhaps some star quality and a fan base, but also with a piddling TV market. In Pitt you get some name recognition and tradition, but lousy ticket sales and a TV market obsessed with the Steelers. The others may or may not bring a decent TV market (overrated in many cases because those cities, like Pittsburgh, are obsessed with the NFL, not the colleges) and a few might even bring some fans. But as far as name recognition they are all big yawns, at least right now.
nn
That having been said, however, the real problem the Big East faced in negotiating bowl deals during this particular year was timing.
Granted, I made the argument that the actual football power of the leagues was secondary to how the teams can be marketed and how many tickets they might sell, but in a timing-is-everything world recent performance does matter to an extent. The Big East was like a baseball player in his contract year: crank it up a notch in the last year of a contract and cash in for the big bucks. Well, the Big East didn't cash in.
Do it a year or two earlier when West Virginia was ranked No. 1 for what, five minutes (2007); or when first WVU and Louisville and then Louisville and Rutgers played high-profile games between unbeatens (2006); or when South Florida rose to No. 2 in the rankings (2007); do it after any of those seasons and maybe bowls are knocking down the league's door because not only was there star power at the top, there was excitement in the second tier, as well.
But do it after Cincinnati gets drilled by Oklahoma and Connecticut and still wins the league; after West Virginia loses nearly as many games (four) as it had in the previous three years combined (five); after Rutgers starts 1-5 and South Florida goes 2-5 in the conference; after Louisville has dropped completely off the map (joining Syracuse there); after Pitt loses its opener at home to Bowling Green and then competes for the league title (oh, and loses a bowl game by the exciting score of 3-0); negotiate a new bowl deal after all of that and the deafening silence of offers shouldn't be at all surprising.
Blame John Marinatto? No. You can argue the new Big East commissioner is falling flat on his face in his first real test, but who could have succeeded? This is not a matter of shrewd negotiating because Marinatto went to the table without a hand and everyone knew it. Quite frankly, getting out of Jacksonville and into Orlando was a pretty good deal and losing a gig in El Paso is no great shakes.
And you want to throw Notre Dame out of the mix, too? That's lunacy. Steve Hogan from the Champs Sports Bowl insisted that his group was thrilled to have the Big East even without Notre Dame, but don't believe that for a second. Marinatto is no dummy and if he or anyone else involved in the negotiations had even an inkling that a deal could have been done without the Irish they would have pushed for it. But until four or five Big East teams play at a consistently high level and develop some of that name recognition, Notre Dame is a necessary partner.
Sorry, but it is what it is.
By Dave Hickman
Staff writer
MORGANTOWN - It is what it is.
Are you like me? Do you hate that? Does it conjure up nightmarish flashes of Dennis Green incoherently screaming, "They are who we thought they were!''
It is what it is. I suppose you could say, "Get used to it,'' or "Live with it.'' And like death and taxes there's nothing you - or I or pretty much anyone else - can do about it.
Same with the Big East trying to come up with a bowl lineup that you or I or almost anyone will like.
It is what it is. And it ain't good. And the sooner you start accepting that, the sooner you can move on to things that you have some control over.
Face it, the league isn't a hot commodity. More specifically, the majority of its teams aren't hot commodities. And thus you get a lineup where the champion is constantly defending its place in the Bowl Championship Series and, starting in 2010, the second-best team goes to something called the Champs Sports Bowl, the third-best probably heads to the Meineke Car Care Bowl and anyone else that qualifies heads to Birmingham or St. Petersburg or Toronto. Maybe.
Here's the thing, though. Is that much different than it's been recently, when the runner-up went either to the Gator to play the third-best team from an arguably even worse-performing conference (the ACC) or to crime-ridden El Paso?
It is what it is, and here's why: The league and its members, on the whole, just don't strike an appealing chord with bowls or their sponsors or the ticket-buying public at large. And that's not something that's going to change overnight.
Oh, sure, the Big East has had its moments and its share of pretty good - sometimes bordering on great - football teams. But as far as sustainable excellence on the part of enough teams to convince a bowl to sign on the dotted line for a four-year commitment, well, it's just not there.
nn
We're not talking about West Virginia here, folks. Nor are we talking about Cincinnati rising from football obscurity; or Rutgers and Louisville putting together a dream season; or South Florida and
Connecticut growing into forces; or even Pitt or Syracuse resurrecting past glory. We're talking about it all.
If you're running a bowl game and gambling millions on it every year, where is the confidence that the Big East is not only going to produce a worthy BCS team, but every year for four years will produce a second and a third and a fourth and even a fifth team that excites anyone?
And don't bother bringing up three BCS wins in four years because that's not the point. In fact, it only serves to illustrate the position of the bowls that we're talking about here. They couldn't care less how strong the Big East is at the very top, that it produces BCS winners consistently. Those aren't the teams coming to their bowls.
I'm not bashing the Big East here. I'm not arguing that the league, at least on the field, is inferior to anyone. All I'm saying is look at the lineup from a standpoint of tradition and name recognition and consistency because that's all that bowls have to go on when committing their resources - yes, gambling them - as much as five years in advance.
If you're that bowl, do you gamble on the Big East No. 2 or on the No. 3 or 4 or 5 from absolutely any other conference? Yes, even the ACC. You can argue all you want that it's the ACC that has been the BCS doormat of late and not the Big East. And you'd be right. It's not even worth arguing. The ACC lost eight straight BCS games before Virginia Tech finally beat Cincinnati in the Orange Bowl in January.
But in the negotiation for bowl deals, that means nothing. Zero. This does: In securing the No. 3, 4, 5 or even No. 6 team from the ACC a bowl is looking at the very real probability of getting Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, N.C. State or Maryland. In getting even the No. 2 or 3 choice from the Big East, a bowl is looking at the very real probability of getting West Virginia, Pitt, Cincinnati, Rutgers, South Florida or Connecticut.
Are those stronger teams? Well, maybe. It depends on the year. More than likely, though, there's not much of a difference. But the bowls don't give a rat's behind about that. The considerations are name recognition, ticket sales and marketability for television. And, like it or not - fair or unfair - those ACC teams have more of almost all those qualities. So do teams from any other BCS conference. No, Miami's not going to travel well and perhaps a few of the others won't, either, depending upon how their seasons went. But if you're making a value judgment on where to wager your millions of dollars four years from now, those teams - on the whole - are better bets.
Shoot, given a choice of the Big East teams, the bowl with the No. 2 pick is sitting there praying that West Virginia isn't in the BCS. And even if the bowl does manage to land the Mountaineers, it's only a good West Virginia team and not a great one - one with perhaps some star quality and a fan base, but also with a piddling TV market. In Pitt you get some name recognition and tradition, but lousy ticket sales and a TV market obsessed with the Steelers. The others may or may not bring a decent TV market (overrated in many cases because those cities, like Pittsburgh, are obsessed with the NFL, not the colleges) and a few might even bring some fans. But as far as name recognition they are all big yawns, at least right now.
nn
That having been said, however, the real problem the Big East faced in negotiating bowl deals during this particular year was timing.
Granted, I made the argument that the actual football power of the leagues was secondary to how the teams can be marketed and how many tickets they might sell, but in a timing-is-everything world recent performance does matter to an extent. The Big East was like a baseball player in his contract year: crank it up a notch in the last year of a contract and cash in for the big bucks. Well, the Big East didn't cash in.
Do it a year or two earlier when West Virginia was ranked No. 1 for what, five minutes (2007); or when first WVU and Louisville and then Louisville and Rutgers played high-profile games between unbeatens (2006); or when South Florida rose to No. 2 in the rankings (2007); do it after any of those seasons and maybe bowls are knocking down the league's door because not only was there star power at the top, there was excitement in the second tier, as well.
But do it after Cincinnati gets drilled by Oklahoma and Connecticut and still wins the league; after West Virginia loses nearly as many games (four) as it had in the previous three years combined (five); after Rutgers starts 1-5 and South Florida goes 2-5 in the conference; after Louisville has dropped completely off the map (joining Syracuse there); after Pitt loses its opener at home to Bowling Green and then competes for the league title (oh, and loses a bowl game by the exciting score of 3-0); negotiate a new bowl deal after all of that and the deafening silence of offers shouldn't be at all surprising.
Blame John Marinatto? No. You can argue the new Big East commissioner is falling flat on his face in his first real test, but who could have succeeded? This is not a matter of shrewd negotiating because Marinatto went to the table without a hand and everyone knew it. Quite frankly, getting out of Jacksonville and into Orlando was a pretty good deal and losing a gig in El Paso is no great shakes.
And you want to throw Notre Dame out of the mix, too? That's lunacy. Steve Hogan from the Champs Sports Bowl insisted that his group was thrilled to have the Big East even without Notre Dame, but don't believe that for a second. Marinatto is no dummy and if he or anyone else involved in the negotiations had even an inkling that a deal could have been done without the Irish they would have pushed for it. But until four or five Big East teams play at a consistently high level and develop some of that name recognition, Notre Dame is a necessary partner.
Sorry, but it is what it is.
