bcs games
 

nick saban had an interesting point the other day.

winner of the sec championship is going to the title game. the loser won't get a bcs bid, but will drop below fla. why? why does florida get to benefit by losing one game, not winning the east, and then moving ahead of the sec #2? in the gold medal games in olympics, the team who loses gets the silver-not the bronze.
of course, it's ironic that nicky is the one mentioning it. he benefitted from the same screwy system last year, that saw his team on the outside looking on on sec championship day, but still get to the title game.


as for the bcs bowls....whoever set these up should be whipped. teams play their tails off, and get left out because of automatic bowls for some conferences. so top ten teams will go to lesser bowls, and some crappy teams will get the good ones. but we all know why. it's not for anything other than money, so that a school gets in and gets the money to share with its fellow conference members. whacky stuff.

What would be so wrong about the SEC Champ game loser (who will have 2 conf losses) not getting in while a 1-loss Fla does? I understand UGA fans may b.itch about having beaten Fla, but they were extraordinarily fortunate to win that game.

Because the team they beat to play in the championship (extra) game moves ahead of them by NOT playing? It doesnt matter if GA was fortunate to beat FL because the system only penalizes losses.

The problem is the SEC championship game (and ACC and Pac 12, etc) is a farce that is created soley for a paycheck for the conference. It has almost nothing to do with the BCS which is supposedly the way that the national championship is determined. Last year Alabama which didnt even play in the conference championship game and yet still played for the Nat'l championship and won Nat'l Championship.

College football has an imperfect system mostly because of greed. It isnt that different than racing but they do a better job of hiding it.

exactly!
fla doesn't get to play for the conference, didn't win their division, so they're going to get a better bowl. how does that make sense? the division east and west winners should be sec #'s 1 and 2. sec #1 goes to the title, so sec #2 gets the sugar. a runner up shouldn't be able to leapfrog the division winner who played for the conference championship. the loser tomorrow should get the sugar, not florida. if they didn't have a championship game, ga or ala would get the sugar bowl. so let's penalize one of the two because there's a game?

My favorite this year is a team that went 4-4 in a pretty weak big 10 this year could make the BCS. I'd say Wisconsin has a 50-50 shot to beat Nebraska. I find it all a joke. AFter a full season of football it's obvious who deserves the BCS bid in the probation laden Big 10...it's Nebraska. Thankfully Notre Dame did save the BCS from a duplicate situation this year with the SEC champ playing Florida for the title. I'll watch the championship game this year, I didn't last year. Had no interest for me. I understand the SEC is the best conference in football, but the title game last year was meaningless.

Until the NCAA completely ends it, the BCS, bowl system etc, they are hypocritical beyond comprehension with their money whoring. Get rid of conference championship games, end the seaon Thanksgiving weekend, and have a 16 team playoff and have the championship game at a warm weather neutal site. The end. It seems to work at division 1-AA, 2, and 3 just fine. They have even expanded beyond 16 teams I think with higher seeds getting first round byes. It would work and everyone knows it would work.

sure it would work.

it's the money. all about the money. for many of these schools, the football program funds the rest of their sports. maryland for example cut 8-9 sports in the past year, they didn't have the funds.

playoffs work for the smaller schools because they don't have a lucrative bowl system already in place. you can bet your behind if fbs finds a way for playoffs to pay what bowls do, they'll change. until then, forget it.
they made the deals to take conference champs to keep money going to more schools. if you go by top ten alone, you'll have sec taking home the bulk of the cash. in the current system, you have many schools sharing the tv wealth. change to playoffs, and that will all go away. then only a few schools would have the funds, and the others would disappear.

bcs games
 

Muschamp had the right take on this earlier in the week. When asked to comment on Sabin's bemoaning the fact that the loser of the 'Bama/GA game will not go the Sugar Bowl, he simply offered to take the Tide's place against GA for the title game.

:tro::tro::tro:

"With Northern Illinois, Louisville and Wisconsin all earning BCS bowls, it marks the first time in the BCS era (since 1999) that three teams ranked lower than No. 15 earned a BCS bowl berth."


the rule that created the above illustrates perfectly why there will not be a playoff. conferences have to be assured a spot so as to provide funds to schools. this is why schools jockey to get into certain conferences, so they can share the wealth. it's why notre dame, other than football, joined a conference. and only notre dame has enough backing to forego joining a conference in football. so that should tell you just how much money is flowing into that school.

always very easy to talk trash when it's hypothetical.

talk trash? he was responding to trash.

I'm sure Northern Illinois is going to lose money by going to the Orange Bowl. See UConn's Fiesta Bowl trip 2 years ago, and UConn is in the Big East.

Currently the rule for Notre Dame is that they have to be in the top 8 in the BCS to go to a BCS bowl game, that is actually tougher for them to show than a non-BCS qualifying with a Top 16 rank (thanks to the weak BCS conference of the Big East).

Now this may had changed with Notre Dame's pact with the ACC. Notre Dame could be the ACC representative still for the Orange Bowl where they would have to share all Orange Bowl revenue with the ACC. They also get the luxury of being protected on being an ACC rep for an ACC contracted bowl. Again they would have to share revenue with the ACC. Now if they qualified in the future and ended up going to a different BCS Bowl, then all revenue goes to Notre Dame themselves. This of course can be renegotiated in the future when and if Notre Dame football join the conference. They are also subject to the ridiculous $50 million exit fee even without being fully in the ACC conference.

On a side note, Notre Dame football will not share its NBC contract, and will not receive any revenue from the ACC for its contract with ESPN. I doubt this will ever change unless Notre Dame football joins the conference or may possibly WNDU becomes an ABC affiliate when Notre Dame football's TV contract comes up in 2015. Not saying that it would happen but its a possibility. Then I would a assume the ACC would renegotiate with ESPN with the help from Notre Dame.

i don't know that a team would lose money by going to a bcs bowl. it's an absurdity to me that they have 12 vs 15 in a bcs bowl to begin with. but they made rules about conferences and auto bids, and no more than one in a bcs from a conference (unless one goes to the title game) to keep the money going to more pots/conferences. it's too bad. they don't want all that tv money going to the sec (for example) but want to redistribute revenue to all conferences, which is what causes farcical match-ups like the orange bowl this year.
it's too bad. but what are you going to do?

My favorite college team...
 

...is any who plays Notre Dame

Here's one article on UConn's Fiesta Bowl's experience

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/R...wl-1038914.php

I'm sure Northern Illinois will have the same experience. Hey maybe the Notre Dame and Alabama fans could make a vacation out of it and help out by buying tickets from Northern Illinois.

Price gouging for these bowl games doesn't help for anybody either, fan or school.

I saw an article yesterday where an anonymous Notre Dame alumnus will pay half of every student ticket purchased. A great gesture and very cool for the students since face value is $300.

like i said:

"the university foresees residual benefits from the Huskies playing in the Fiesta Bowl, from recruiting, admissions, ticket sales and donations, Enright said.

The blow from the money lost on the Fiesta Bowl will be cushioned by the $3.8 million UConn will receive from the Big East, probably in late spring. Each football-playing school in the league will receive that amount as its cut from bowl and television revenue."



between exposure and their other benefits they mentioned and the cut from tv, they did just fine. and so did all the other schools in that conference, who get their share from the revenue. those shares are exactly why you have acc and others with guaranteed bcs bowl bids-it's so they get a cut whether they have a good team or not, and each school in that conference gets a portion.


i wonder if all the money that the big east receives is paid out in full to the schools. if not, what do they do with whatever share they keep?

The idea that the BCS is more lucratitive than a playoff system is just not correct. The conferences and teams would get far more money by eliminating the bowls and keeping the money for themselves. However the presidents of the SEC, Big 10, ACC and Pac 12 dont want to be controlled by the NCAA (the BCS is a seperate entity from the NCAA) and are willing to tie themselves to this bastardized system where third parties (bowls) are getting a huge share. Lets not kid ourselves that the bowls arent siphoning off cash, benefits to college administrators, athletic directors, etc.

Dan Wetzel I think of Yahoo.com did a great series of articles on this a year or so ago. The NCAA just signed a 14 year, 10.8 billion dollar deal to cover the NCAA basketball tournament. What do you think a footbll tournament could bring in? Considering that college football ratings dwarf basketball ratings you could make case that a playoff might bring in 1 billion a YEAR! Please explain how that isnt more than what they are already getting? Oh yeah the athletic directors wont get their swag, the presidents wont call the shots and in the end the slush funds wont be available anymore.

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dol...big-moneymaker

Because the BCS has sold out to the bowls and has a limited playoff system the number that ESPN paid seems to be a lot less than what was thought to be the going rate

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...970790516.html

Thanks for the reminder. I forgot about this article.

a playoff system might be more lucrative. however, a playoff system wouldn't reward teams like wisconsin and the conference its in. right now some conferences have a guaranteed spot in the bcs because of how the system is set up. thus, their conference also benefits, as does the other teams in the conference.
believe me, if everyone involved thought they could get more money going with a playoff, it would happen. but you won't have smaller conferences (like the one northern illinois is in) involved, because they wouldn't finish high enough to get in a playoff. so that conference wouldn't get squat.
and another question-how would it be decided who played? winners of conferences, or rankings?
if it's conference winners, you still don't have the best facing the best. if it's based on rankings, you would have conferences left out, and they wouldn't get their cut of the $ they get now.

so, the total pie might be a big chunk of change-the trick is getting everyone a piece of it.

they don't go strictly by rankings now for bcs, it's by division. a playoff wouldn't necessarily change who goes where, if it's still based on winning a division. you'd still have your wisconsins and fla states in the playoffs, and teams like georgia and lsu out of it. because if it went by merit, conferences would get no bowl money. and that's the main issue.

i'm not an advocate of either program by the way, i'll watch regardless of what post-season mess they create.

No you would have the best teams regardless of conference though the idea that the Big 10 or SEC or other big conference wont have 2 or more teams in a 16 game alignment is crazy. Not to mention the shared amount would be so much greater that it wouldnt matter as much. Plus you eliminate all the needless bowl expenses that are still going to have to be paid by those who go.

Wisconsin and FSU arent great examples because clearly Ohio state is the best team in the Big 10 and would be in any system if not for being on probation and FSU would be in a proper 16 team tourney.

Taking the top 16 in the AP poll as of today would put 6 SEC teams, 3 Pac 12, 2 big 12, 2 ACC, 1 Big 10 team, 1 MAC team and notre dame.

Last year would have gotten you 4 SEC teams, 4 Big 12 teams, 3 pac 10, 3 big 10, 2 mountain West teams

2010 would have been 4 SEC, 3 big 10, 2 Pac 12, 3 Mountain west, 1 ACC, 3 Big 12

The Mountain west and Big East are pretty much gone. Who else is there?

so top 16.

currently, 70 teams play in a bowl. that's a big difference isn't it?

sorry, i just think if a playoff was more lucrative, they'd have done it. but right now people get cuts that perhaps would not in a different system. conferences have multiple teams in a variety of bowls. there's no way that the amount of playoff games and teams involved would match what is currently made with the 35 bowls being played.

8 first round, 4 second round, semis and the final. 15 games. a third of the games, and less than a fourth of the teams that are currently involved.

ncaa basketball is mentioned with their finals as an example. 64 teams go there. so, numbers-wise regarding teams, it's very similar in how many play in the post season.

there are 11 fbs conferences, so if each conference champ was an auto, that leave five at large bids.
if the intent is to have the 16 best teams to play in a playoff, that automatically excludes some conferences. so in what way would they benefit with that change? they wouldn't.
so they would demand an auto seed, which means now you don't have the 16 best. so what would be the point?
wisconsin is 8 and 5, and in the rose bowl and they aren't even ranked. but certain conferences get an auto bid because of their conference...so if you took the champs, you leave out a lot of good teams in order to keep each conference happy, and money going their way.

there is no way to assure conferences their money, and guarantee the top teams playoff under that scenario. it wouldn't clear up the year-end question of who's better, because bad teams would get in (like now) and good teams would be left out (like now).

Most of the bowls are not money makers for the team because the money is divided among all the conference teams and may of the bowls dont pay enough to cover travel expenses alone for the teams. Only the top 7 or 8 bowls pay big money which are the ones the BCS and big conferences have locked up. The playoff would be far more lucrative overall, that can hardly be disputed. Everyone would get a bigger cut under that system including teams from lessor conferences. Not to mention instead of buying tickets to their own game the NCAA would be selling them. Giving away profits to a unnecessary third party is something that no other business on the up and up would do.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/spo...1-million.html

FYI the vast majority of bowls are now owned by ESPN who uses them as cheap program filler knowing they will draw good ratings because college football is popular.

You dont have to have conference champions be automatics. The stupid conference championship games will be eliminated and replaced with a 1st round of playoffs. The Sun Belt, Conf USA, Big East, MAC dont get a seat at the table but if they have a team good enough to be ranked in the top 16 then they get a shot. The NCAA tourney is forced to take the winners of minor conference championships but there are 220 or so teams and a lot more conferences in basketball.

Not having any automatic bids allows the best teams to get in, encourages teams to play tougher schedules/less cupcakes because 1 loss doesnt eliminate you (if you arent an SEC school) and allows teams from lesser conferences with very good records to get a shot. The big conferences will still get a lot of representation, because they are making so much more money from the tournament, every team will get a good paycheck even those small schools who currently have to be a sacrificial lamb to get a check from Alabama or Florida, it can be structured so that the final 4 or final 2 and champion get a big share. The power conferences will get more than they do now, the smaller conferences will get more than they get now AND actually have a shot at winning the Nat'l title on the field which should be the ultimate goal. But of course they have simply expanded on a bad system which doesnt give all teams a chance to win and still squanders hundreds of millions to retain that power and receive those "extras".

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/spo...1-million.html

The entire idea that the conferences wouldnt get paid under a playoff is silly. If the total revenue pool grows to over a billion a year AND that money all goes to the conferences and schools how is that not better than 281 million a year going to the conferences and schools?

there's a reason why they don't go to a different system, and i can't help but think it's all green. someone, or several someones, benefit from this system and wouldn't if they changed. what else can it be?
as for the money split, that's what schools like the most. they get money even if they don't do well, because they're in a conference with money to share.
anyway, like i said, i'll watch either way. but until they solve the puzzle of why this system is wanted by the powers that be, it won't change.

The money is currently being pocketed by the Bowls themselves, and the BCS commissioners. I want that job. You are in charge of one event a year. How much time and work does it take to set everything necessary up for your bowl game? Then get paid like these guys do.

From Cannons post: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--...ff-system.html

yeah, i read the articles. and just like everything else, it's the money that dictates what happens. and those with the money have the power to keep things from changing.
besides, for schools, bowls are a lot of exposure and a recruiting tool. being one of 70 is a lot more doable than being one of 16.
i wonder if they'll ever make a change.