NATIONAL OVERVIEW : New Look Comes to Decidedly Old-Fashioned Game

Remember college football’s simpler days, when the most pressing issue was: Leather helmets--fashion statement or necessity?

Remember when moving the goal posts back 10 yards qualified as cataclysmic change? Remember Notre Dame before it began receiving favored-nation status from the television networks?

Way back when (translation: pre-1990), the college game was as dependable as Greenwich time; as unchanging, relatively speaking, as a nun’s hemline. Sure, you had your occasional blips on the screen, but for the most part, college football and its hierarchy set the gravy train on cruise control and sped along with nary a worry.

Now look at it. This year alone we get the dawning of a new bowl system, the debut of NBC’s $35-million series, “Notre Dame Home Games--Please Save Us,” a handful of much-debated and--surprise!--innovative NCAA off-field rules, a potential landmark ruling regarding antitrust laws, the formation of a new conference and the possible realignment of more old reliables.

Other than that, things have been as quiet as a Harvard study hall.

“I think college football has been successful, but I think the structure is somewhat fragile,” said Chuck Neinas, executive director of the College Football Assn. “I would hope that the changes that take place would not be radical.”

Too late. At every turn, it seems, a clash between old and new exists.

Of course, not all of the changes come as surprises. The courting of major independents and disgruntled league members began more than a season ago when Penn State joined the Big Ten, effective in 1993, and Arkansas announced its intention to leave the Southwest Conference in time for the Southeastern Conference’s 1992 season.

Rumors of mass defections ensued. Florida State, South Carolina, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, West Virginia, Temple, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and Fresno State have taken the football conference plunge. So far, they say, the water is fine.

Nor should it come as a shock that Notre Dame and NBC are partners for the next five seasons. The Irish informed the College Football Assn. membership 19 months ago that it was ditching the CFA’s television package for its own sweetheart deal with NBC. Still, it will seem strange to think of Arthur Kent and the Irish as co-employees.

As for the remaining developments, consider yourself a witness to college football history. Seriously--the three major bowls and television networks in bed together? Meaningful NCAA reform? The Big East Conference, which has yet to play its first football game, already considered an impact player? Can’t be.

Perhaps not since the advent of two-platoon football has the complexion of the sport undergone such a metamorphosis. And all because of four major changes, each vital in its own way.

The rankings:

No. 1--The Bowl Alliance (or, How Two Conference Commissioners and Four Guys Wearing Bad Polyester Sport Coats Might Have Saved the Bowl System).

In the grand tradition of Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland, a few of college football’s movers and shakers decided to put on a show in time for the 1992 season. After much haggling and hush-hush negotiating, the following formula was born:

--Four bowls will participate in the so-called alliance: the Orange, which features the Big Eight Conference champion; the Sugar, which has the Southeastern Conference champion; the Cotton, which brings the Southwest Conference champion to Dallas, and the Fiesta, which has no conference arrangement.

The Rose Bowl, which has the Pacific 10 and Big Ten champions, and the Holiday Bowl, which has the rights to the Western Athletic Conference champ, won’t be involved in the plan.

--The bowl with the highest-ranked team will draft from a pool that includes TV-rich Notre Dame, the newly formed Big East Conference champion, the Atlantic Coast Conference champion and two wild-card teams, consisting of independents or conference runners-up.

For example, say Oklahoma wins the Big Eight title and is ranked No. 1, and Notre Dame is ranked No. 2. The Orange Bowl would then have its national championship game. But if, say, Southwest champion Texas A&M; is ranked second, the Orange Bowl will be forced to look elsewhere because of the contract between the Cotton Bowl and the SWC.

--If the No. 1 and No. 2 teams don’t have bowl tie-ins, they automatically become the prized possessions of the Fiesta Bowl. Otherwise, the Fiesta will get the two highest-ranked teams not selected by the three other bowls.

If it sounds simple, then you must have had a perfect score on the math portion of your SATs.

The bowl alliance didn’t happen by accident. For starters, the various executive directors of the major bowls were desperately looking for a way to stave off talk of a national playoff system. The way the directors figured it, a playoff meant certain demise to the bowls.

Not only did the bowl representatives need to discourage the possibility of a playoff, they also needed to energize a tired and questionable selection process. After all, 10th-ranked Tennessee vs. unranked Virginia in the Sugar Bowl? Please. Or No. 20 Alabama vs. No. 22 Louisville in the Fiesta Bowl? Whoopee.

In short, they needed a plan bold enough to create a quasi-playoff system and gentle enough to keep the bowls in business.

The bowl folks got their wish in early April when ACC Commissioner Gene Corrigan spoke with Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese about forming a postseason coalition of sorts. Tranghese and his new football league were looking for a commitment from a major New Year’s Day bowl, probably the Fiesta. Corrigan was looking for a way to protect the interests of the ACC in the bowl power struggle.

“The Big East is very aggressive from the standpoint of marketing,” Corrigan said. “Mike wanted to go out and make a deal. I told him, ‘I don’t know if you need to rush.’ ”

Enter Tom Mickle, ACC assistant commissioner. Mickle walked into Corrigan’s office one day and said, “How do you like this?” and proceeded to outline an alliance comprising the Orange, Cotton and Sugar Bowls, the Big East, the ACC and Notre Dame. Notre Dame and the Sugar later insisted on the addition of a fourth bowl, fondly known as Bowl X.

“I think this is a great answer,” said John Junker, executive director of the Fiesta. “I still don’t see any practical interest in a playoff out there. This provides universities, the players, the fans and the viewers with the best answers of all.”

Even Thomas Hansen, commissioner of the Pac-10, acknowledges the potential of the new system.

“I don’t think making money is a factor with the bowl people,” he said. “I think they want to avoid a playoff, maximize the attention paid to the (bowl) game and help college football. If they do all those things (with the alliance), they’ll make money.”

The advantages seem obvious: an increased chance for a No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup; less emphasis on early bowl invitations--thus, lessening the chances of game-day duds; a way to prevent every major bowl from having a conference tie-in. Had the ACC--which is in the final year of its deal with the Citrus--and the Big East signed up with separate bowls, New Year’s Day would have featured way too many conference champions vs. league runners-up.

“And that means less ratings, less dollars and maybe a national playoff,” Tranghese said.

The formula isn’t foolproof. For instance, which set of rankings--the Associated Press writers’ or USA Today coaches’--will the alliance use in drafting its teams? Will there be a gentlemen’s agreement as to how many victories Notre Dame must have to remain eligible? And what happens to the complicated system if the Rose Bowl happens to feature the Nos. 1 and 2 teams?

“Well, you’ll get a champion crowned at the Rose Bowl,” Junker said. “(The alliance) isn’t meant to create a clear-cut champion every year.”

Not that those involved would mind if it did.

No. 2--The Advent of the Superconference (or, So Much for the Meek Inheriting the Earth).

“When Penn State decided to go to the Big Ten, that’s what kicked off all of this,” said Corrigan, who watched the developments the same way everyone else did--with astonishment. “Eastern football lost its jewel.”

Suddenly it was every conference for itself, and pity the commissioner who didn’t react quickly and decisively. Corrigan spearheaded the move to bring Florida State to the ACC. SEC Commissioner Roy Kramer persuaded Arkansas and South Carolina to join his conference. Tranghese created an instant Big East football market by recruiting Miami, converting basketball-only members Syracuse, Boston College and Pitt, and filling out the remaining spots with reputable Eastern independents such as Temple, West Virginia, Rutgers and Virginia Tech. The WAC welcomed Fresno State to the fold.

The Pac-10, which last year considered adding Texas and Texas A&M;, decided to stand pat. The SWC, after talking with Tulane, also did nothing--for now. The Big Eight, which ultimately could join in some type of partnership with the SWC, also made no move. The Big West wept. Then it went out and got Nevada to replace Fresno beginning in 1992. Hardly a fair swap.

No word on what may happen next. Corrigan predicts further expansion.

“But I don’t have anything specific in mind,” he said.

He did offer some possibilities: Texas and Texas A&M; being wooed by the SEC; the ACC going after more teams; the Big Ten, now 11, shooting for an even 12.

Other than that, who knows?

Also to be determined is the future of the independent. Consider the leftovers once Florida State, Miami, Penn State & Co. leave for good: Notre Dame, then a big drop to Louisville, Southern Mississippi, Memphis State and East Carolina. From there, it’s Louisiana Tech, Southwestern Louisiana, Northern Illinois, Army, Navy and, well, oblivion.

The prospects may be more frightening for mid-level conferences such as the Big West, which have little bargaining power at the moment.

No. 3--College Football Assn. 1, Federal Trade Commission O.

That sigh of relief you heard recently came from each of the 63 schools involved in the CFA’s television package. On Aug. 6, James Timony, an FTC administrative law judge, ruled that the CFA, whose membership includes every Division I-A football program except those in the Big Ten and Pac-10, wasn’t in violation of antitrust statutes, as an FTC investigation contended.

The FTC has appealed the decision, which means the case will be sent to five FTC commissioners for independent evaluation. If the FTC commissioners rule against the CFA, the case then could go to the Federal Court of Appeals.

But Neinas said he doesn’t anticipate a FTC victory.

“We’re extremely encouraged with (the initial) decision,” he said. “(We’re) encouraged not only by the judge’s ruling, but by his decision. He wrote a very strong decision. I think it will be difficult for anyone to review that decision and overturn it.”

In question is the future of the CFA television contract. The complaint filed by the FTC caused conference commissioners, athletic directors and school presidents to re-evaluate the pros and cons of the CFA arrangement. For example, Tranghese already had formulated a contingency plan based on an FTC antitrust victory.

“If the FTC ruling would have come down against us, our directors would have received a detailed memo on what we should do,” he said. “I feel confident we would have made ourselves a pretty good television deal.”

That’s fine for the Big East, which is located in a market that features 33% of all the television households in the country. And it might be fine for the SEC, a market that generally is free of competing professional franchises. But what would have happened to the other conferences?

“Everybody would have run for the hills and tried to make their own deal,” Tranghese said. “There would not have been enough for everyone.”

The CFA’s deal with ABC and ESPN expires after the 1995 season. And then, the possibilities are numerous.

A school could attempt to do what Notre Dame did, which is make its own TV deal. Judging by the number of remaining independents, it’s unlikely such an attempt would work.

Or an entire conference could package itself for viewing. The Big Ten and the Pac-10 did it with ABC. The Big East, said Tranghese, could do it. So could the SEC, what with its intriguing divisional play format in 1992.

Neinas counsels patience.

“The unknown is the face of television in the mid-’90s,” he said. “What’s beyond the ’95 contract is for the members to decide.”

No. 4--The NCAA Speaks.

Make no mistake as to who won the power struggle between the college presidents and their athletic departments. In a battle of wills, the presidents won, going away.

Among the reforms: a 20-hour-a-week limit on athletic participation; a reduction in the number of scholarships, from 95 to 85 by the end of the 1993 season; a reduction in the number of assistant coaches; less emphasis on the recruiting process and a gradual elimination of athletic dormitories.

The 20-hour rule was motivated by academics. The thinking was simple: the less time spent on a sport, the more time available for the classroom. Still to be determined is how the rule can be enforced. Nonetheless, the reform has been embraced, for the most part, by administrators and coaches.

The remaining changes were inspired by obvious financial concerns. A 10-scholarship reduction at a school that charges, say, $10,000 for in-state fees, would save an athletic program a cool $100,000 a year. And aside from cost containment, Dick Schultz, the NCAA’s executive director, suggested in a recent NCAA publication that fewer scholarships might actually benefit the sport.

“I would be surprised if it had any detrimental impact on I-A football at all,” he said in the NCAA Football Review. “In fact, in some ways it may do the same thing that happened when we went from 120 to 95 (scholarships). It will increase the parity because there are going to be that many more athletes available for schools that are struggling to get their programs up. It also could have some positive impact in I-AA and maybe even Division II because it would be hard for that number of scholarships to be absorbed by I-A schools.”

Whatever the outcome, expect more slicing and dicing of budgets.

“I don’t necessarily think it’s all over yet,” Corrigan said.

So this is what college football has come to: a situation so fluid that not even the major players know exactly what will transpire in the next six months, to say nothing of the next year or two. In this, the era of real change, predicting the outcome is as easy as counting a handful of sand grains.