The NCAA News - News & Features

Bowl alliance lauded

Arrangement offers national-title game, but without playoff

ABC Television, the College Football Bowl Alliance, and the Big Ten and Pacific-10 Conferences announced that the Rose Bowl and three other bowl games will form an alliance to assure a championship game between the top two Division I-A teams. The agreement is effective at the end of the 1998 season.

"I am very pleased that this understanding has been reached, which will provide a place for college football and its fans to celebrate the end of the season with a true national championship game," said Southeastern Conference Commissioner Roy F. Kramer.

"This is a significant achievement and an important day for college football," said Eugene F. Corrigan, Atlantic Coast Coast Conference commissioner and NCAA president. "This gives us a wonderful opportunity to promote the sport at the college level."

After the 1998 season, the Rose Bowl and the three other bowls, which will be announced at a later date, will be involved in a rotation to host a game between the Nos. 1 and 2 teams in the nation. It remains to be resolved how the top two teams will be selected.

Besides the Big Ten and Pac-10, the champions of the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big 12 and Southeastern Conferences will be assured berths in the bowls. There also will be two at-large positions, one of which would be filled by the University of Notre Dame in most years. The Rose Bowl will host the No. 1 vs. No. 2 game after the 2001 season.

The Fiesta, Orange and Sugar Bowls, which compose the top tier of the current bowl alliance, will be provided with a first right of negotiation over 60 days to be part of the new "super alliance."

However, in a news conference announcing the arrangement, Kramer said it should not be inferred that those three bowls necessarily will be participants in the new alliance, although he also stressed that negotiations will be conducted in good faith.

ABC will televise all four of the games each year of the seven-year contract, which the participating bowls, conferences and Notre Dame have a right to cancel after four years. The parties did not divulge financial details, although the Los Angeles Times reported that ABC will pay $518 million for rights, including the three option years; if so, payouts would be about 50 percent greater than for this year's top-tier bowls.

The announcement of the championship game was such a blockbuster that the death knell for a tournament-style playoff was lost in the wake.

"Speaking for the institutions we represent," Corrigan said, "our membership agreed that what we didn't want was a playoff and that what the public wants is a national-championship game with some zoom."

The bluntest comments came from Big Ten Commissioner James E. Delany, who said, "Big Ten presidents and chancellors are resolute in their opposition to an NFL-type playoff structure for college football and believe the alliance provides a long-term solution to this challenge."

What opposition was expressed to the new arrangement was based primarily on concerns that the Rose Bowl, which traditionally matches the champions of the Big Ten and Pac-10, could be adversely affected in some years.

For instance, the Big Ten or Pac-10 champion will be obligated to participate in another bowl if it is one of the top teams; when that happens, its spot probably would be taken by an independent or a representative from another conference.

In a worst-case scenario, at least from the perspective of those who support the traditional Rose Bowl, the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions could be ranked 1-2 and required to play in another bowl if it was not the Rose Bowl's turn in the rotation.

University of Michigan athletics director Joe Roberson noted the potential to turn the Rose Bowl into "a loser's bowl," but went one step further and said he was concerned that "the first year we have three or four claimants to those first two spots, there will be a lot of complaining and that will result in more pressure, more demands for an NFL-style playoff.

"This is another step in the professionalization of college athletics. There are a lot more important things for these kids to be worrying about than who's No. 1."

The most recent surge of playoff fever began in January 1993, when then-NCAA Executive Director Richard D. Schultz said in his state of the Association address that "there is another source (of revenue) that is very obvious to this membership and has been discussed a number of times. That would be a Division I-A football championship game.

"While I realize that many are opposed to a full-blown playoff system, it would be possible to develop a single championship game after the New Year's bowls which would provide substantial new revenue for our member institutions."

In 1994, an NCAA special committee was appointed to study the possibility of instituting such a game. The committee compiled a large report that assessed potential revenue and explored formats. The special committee concluded that the concept of a playoff had merit but that it needed more time to explore the issue.

However, in June 1994, the NCAA Joint Policy Board declined to extend the life of the committee, thus turning discussion toward finding an alternative means of determining an on-the-field champion.