bcs games

[Danzig]

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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?

[Danzig]

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.

[Danzig]

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).

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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).

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?

[Danzig]

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.

[Crown@club]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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

These are the numbers athletic directors discuss among themselves – that and the outlandish spending of bowl games, the most famous being former Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker.
An internal Fiesta Bowl investigation found him living the high life on the bowl games dime for nearly two decades. The game paid for his four country club memberships, his $2,250 a month car allowance and a $33,188 birthday party he threw for himself. It picked up a $95,000 tab for he and other college sports power brokers to play a round of golf with Jack Nicklaus.
One year, he averaged an almost impossible $2,111.96 per day in expenses on his AMEX Black card.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Crown@club

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.