I have a hard time with this...is it really the "Haves" vs the "Have Nots" or is it the "Founders" against the "New Guys". Football wouldnt be popular if it wasnt for many of these old teams. As much as we may Hate on Notre Dame, if it wasnt for them then football wouldnt be where it is. They brought about a national prestige. Catholics from all over the world follow them...and non catholics too. All these teams get paid because they have viewership and fans...though some schools get paid because they are in a conference with these types of schools.
My argument is that the other schools who are making less are doing so for a reason. Economics dictates that where there is demand, price goes up. If Any of the CUSA, MWC, MAC etc. conferences had true demand, they would make more and in turn could invest heavier into their programs, recruit better and compete. They are not competitive because the system is flawed, they arent competitive because they do not have the demand to drive the dollars.
Texas is popular. Like it or not they are going to make money and use it to their advantage and I have no issue with it. We shouldnt hope for some socialist response of making a more level playing field. As in life, some things are more marketable then others and the dollars generated from that marketability will be used to solidify market share. Thats American as it gets.
Look at Nevada. They are on the cusp of losing Division 1 status. Their football program needs to overcome about a Million dollar deficit and they really dont have a way to do it. This is a team that was in the top 10. They won their bowl I belive, yet they do not have the fan support to maintain their status. Its not the systems fault. If they had the fans and support then they would be in the Pac12 and earning some serious cash. The system did nothing to them...their lack of fans and support did it.
So inclusion into a BCS conference hasn't helped USF tremendously? Where do you think they fall in the "Founders" vs. "New Guys" paradigm?
Don't you think legitimate access to a D-1A playoff would, at least in part, improve market share for schools shackled to "non-Elite" conferences. I'm not thinking a spot in a playoff for a MAC champion automatically equalizes MiamiOh's "market share" to the level of Ohio State, but I suspect it helps close the gap. Probably increases the revenue available to them to invest in their program/facilities. Do you think the gap between USF and Florida/FSU/Miami grew or shrunk after USF was invited to the Big East? Do you really think inclusion in the Big East had no bearing on your answer to that question?
Professional sports leagues are not, and really never have been, "free" market. They are oligarchies that collude to put money into the owners pockets. And within their league, they are highly, highly communal. Especially the modern NFL. Capitalism and competitive sports leagues are not necessarily compatible.
And a "free market" model for college football makes even less sense, given that it's predominantly state-run public schools who have the power.
Ultimately this comes down to what the real "purpose" of college football is. If it is to spill money into the coffers of the universities with the largest alumni bases, then the BCS system is fine. If it is to entertain people with a competitive product, the NFL has shown that "free market" ain't the way to go either. I think it's ultimately supposed to be about amateur competition.
Seems an incredible perspective coming from a fan of a school who not 20 years ago didn't have a football program. So it only takes 6 years to forget that you were ever a "have not?"
h34r:
