From: SCHMIDT@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jon Schmidt)
Subject: NCAA Postseason Football Subcommittee
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:11:25 GMT

   The Postseason Football Subcommittee of the NCAA Special Events
Committee held a meeting earlier this month on August 3 at Kansas City,
Missouri.  All subcommittee actions are subject to approval of the
NCAA Council.  Here are some highlights of the meeting, extracted from
the August 5, 1992 issue of The NCAA News.
 
 o Voted to recertify the Copper Bowl for 1992 but rejected the
   California Raisin Bowl's bid for recertification.  The two bowls
   had been given 90-day extensions of the April 1 recertification
   deadline for postseason football games.  The subcommittee had
   concerns about the bowls' initial requests and granted the
   extensions so they could meet the financial requirements for
   conducting open bowl games.
 
   The Copper Bowl met these requirements by signing a television
   contract with ESPN and reaching a title-sponsorship agreement
   with Weiser Lock Co.  In addition, the bowl received a $200,000
   commitment from the city of Tucson, Arizona, where the game will
   be played December 29, at 8 p.m. Eastern time.
 
   However, the California Raisin Bowl's recertification request was
   denied primarily because it did not have the financial foundation
   necessary for an open bowl.  Traditionally, the California Raisin
   Bowl had been a "closed" bowl involving the champions of the Mid-
   American Athletic Conference and the Big West Conference, and as
   such it received certain exemptions from the requirements of open
   bowls, which can issue at least one at-large bid.  After
   dissolving its association with the two conferences, the
   California Raisin Bowl tried to enter the bowl field as an open
   bowl, thus bound to the requirements for minimum payouts to
   participating institutions ($650,000 this season) and other
   guarantees.  This effort failed when the bowl could not secure
   either a title sponsor or a television contract.  If the
   California Raisin Bowl applies for certification in the future,
   it will have to go through the initial-certification process,
   which requires that a $1 million letter of credit be secured one
   year before the first game.
 
 o Received a letter from Val Pinchbeck Jr., National Football
   League vice-president for broadcasting and productions, stating
   that the NFL will not hold any games Saturday, January 1, 1994.
   The subcommittee had been concerned that the NFL schedule
   expansion to New Year's weekend could reduce television
   opportunities for bowl games.
 
 o Voted to continue the policy of assigning neutral officiating
   crews for all bowl games except the Las Vegas Silver Bowl, which
   will have a split crew of officials from both participating
   conferences.  The Las Vegas Silver Bowl was certified in April
   and is a "closed" bowl which will match the champions of the
   Mid-American Athletic Conference and the Big West Conference.
 
 o Recommended that invitations to participate in a bowl game be
   issued at a location other than the locker room to minimize the
   potential for negative reactions to media inquiries after a
   difficult loss.
 
 o Received a report that the National Association of Collegiate
   Directors of Athletics had been contacted about the possibility
   of moving the preseason Disneyland Pigskin Classic, which
   benefits NACDA, to a date after all bowl games.  The
   subcommittee expressed its opposition to this proposal because
   it is in conflict with the reform agenda established by the
   Presidents Commission and has the potential to damage certified
   postseason bowl games.
 
This last item is very intriguing and raises many questions.  Who made
the proposal to NACDA?  Could it have been the Home Shopping Club, the
people who last year offered $40 million for a special event game
matching Miami and Washington?  Also, when would the participants be
selected - before or after the bowls - and would bowl teams be excluded?
Exactly how does the proposal conflict with the Presidents Commission
reform agenda and could it be adjusted to conform?  And, WRT damaging
the current bowl regime, would anybody in the country (excluding bowl
committee members) care about screwing the bowl system if a college
superbowl game matching #1 vs #2 were guaranteed every year?
 
-- 
Jon_Schmidt@stortek.com  Storage Technology Corporation
(303) 673-3581 - voice   2270 South 88th Street
(303) 673-6039 - fax     Louisville, Colorado 80028-5209