The cumulative effect of this skewed revenue distribution system is staggering. Over the past 6seasons
a time when non-AQ teams appeared in 5 BCS bowls
the BCS gave 6 AQconferences $521 million more than the other conferences.
The BCS unsurprisingly claims ignorance of its discriminatory scheme, as stated by BCSPresidential Oversight Ch
air Harvey Perlman: “It’s hard for me to see how these conferences canclaim to be disadvantaged.”
Well, Chancellor Perlman, let us enlighten you. Non-
AQs aren’tcomplaining because of the $521 million funding gap’s size, though the disparity’s amount i
smeaningful. Rather, the $521 million funding gap is offensive because it has no basis.
Under the BCS, there’s little correlation between on
-the-field performance and financialreward. For example, in 2006, the BCS awarded the one-win Syracuse Orangemen
theamount it gave the
WAC, a 9-team non-AQ conference.
In 2009, the
WashingtonHuskies brought home more BCS dollars than the
Utah Utes, a non-AQ team.
Andnon-AQs are 3 and 1 in BCS bowls against AQ teams; however, each victorious team receivedonly a pittance compared to its defeated opponent.
If the BCS money scheme isn’t based on game performance, then why do AQs get $521million more? Chancellor Perlman argues that “revenue is distributed based on the contri
made to the value of the product.”
Okay, that sounds reasonable. Except it’s not true.
Just look at game attendance. Twice in the past three post-seasons, non-AQ contestsboasted the second-highest attendance of any BCS bowl exhibition game, trailing only the
outsized stadium capacity of the Rose Bowl. In fact, 2010’s Boise State
-TCU matchup outdrewprevious Fiesta Bowls featuring Texas, Ohio State, West Virginia, and Oklahoma. It was thehighest attendance for a Fiesta Bowl since the last time Boise State traveled to Arizona in 2007.And the Fiesta is no fluke. Non-AQs put people in seats for the Sugar Bowl too. Previous Sugar