MWC Struggling To Keep Up With Power Five Michigan Ends Legends Uniform Program Drake's Pics Draw Univ. Of Kentucky's Ire UAB Football Returning In '17 NCAA Giving $18.9M To D-I Schools Bob Bowlsby Happy With Big 12 Setup ACC To Let Schools Handle Punishments Sun Belt Wants Fewer Big-Money CFB Games Patterson Quashes Reports Of Texas Issues C-USA Commish Stepping Down For CFP Role
SBD/April 30, 2012/Colleges
Conference Affiliation Could Determine Location Of College Football Semifinals
Published April 30, 2012
BEST OPTION CONSIDERED? In Orlando, Matt Murschel writes the best model “may not be one that is considered.” Murschel: “I’m talking about a four-team playoff that involves playing semifinal games on host campus sites. You can talk about preserving traditions in college football all you like but what better way to demonstrate that idea than having a college town host a semifinal?” (ORLANDO SENTINEL, 4/30). In Tulsa, John Hoover wrote under the header, “BCS Has Been Good For College Football.” Even more than “matching the game's top two teams for a (mostly) undisputed champion, the BCS did something no one saw coming.” It “grew the sport of college football beyond anyone's expectations.” Univ. of Oklahoma AD Joe Castiglione Friday said, "While there are all sorts of opportunities for debate and disagreement and differing opinions, the actual sport itself benefited because people were really excited about it.” Castiglione said, “Absolutely the BCS has worked. It has worked. It's given us a 1 versus 2 game that seldom happened before, and it's been a tremendous benefit for the non-(automatic qualifier) conferences. But, of course, we have heard the people who are saying they want something more. And we're listening." He added, “It’s been exceptionally good, even with some of the controversy along the way” (TULSA WORLD, 4/29).
WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS? In K.C., Sam Mellinger wrote under the proposed plan, sports fans “will eventually realize an uncomfortable and awkward truth: This is absolutely no help to college athletes for whom this is supposed to be about.” The extra revenue will “almost certainly come with more shameful waste and extravagance instead of important changes.” Mellinger: “No matter where you stand on college athletes being paid, this is exploitation” (K.C. STAR, 4/29).