Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
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
|
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.