Text Size

College Sports Arena

BCS and the non-AQ schools

Talk Buckeye football and hoops, Viking hoops, as well as all other discussion on college sports in here.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, danwismar, furls

BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby danwismar » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:20 pm

Jesse makes a great point in his column today...one that I think doesn't get enough emphasis...

By the Way: Don’t tell me Boise and TCU and non-BCS schools in general are getting “screwed” or “hosed” by the BCS system. The BCS has been the best thing that has ever happened to those programs. Remember the 2006 Boise State team that beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl? The BCS is the reason Boise played in that Fiesta Bowl and not the Humanitarian Bowl. It’s the reason Hawaii got a Sugar Bowl bid a few years ago and not an Aloha Bowl bid or whatever. The BCS is the only reason schools like those are even in the discussion.

The second point that follows from this is that people who clamor for a playoff system to remedy the supposed slights to the non-automatic qualifier conferences never want to acknowledge that the schools like Boise would be the least likely to survive, say...an 8-team playoff, in which they would have to win 3 games over the likes of OSU, Auburn, or Oklahoma.

A playoff would hurt, not help the chances of a Boise St. winning the national title.

Anyone disagree?
"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

Dan's OSU Links - http://bit.ly/1o9DwFo
danwismar
 
Posts: 2550
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby GodHatesClevelandSport » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:33 pm

I wonder why OSU is being lumped in with Auburn.
GodHatesClevelandSport
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:48 am
Favorite Player: Joe Smith
Least Favorite Player: Joe Smith

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby Triple-S » Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:04 pm

danwismar wrote:A playoff would hurt, not help the chances of a Boise St. winning the national title.

Anyone disagree?


depends on the talent that a team like Boise St. is able to accumulate.

In college basketball we've seen time and time again mid-majors make quite a run, Gonzaga, Memphis and Utah all being obvious examples. Hell, in 1991, UNLV won a National Title over Duke.

I really don't think theres that much difference between Boise State's roster as it stands right now, and a middle of the pack of the PAC 10 team, so I don't think there's really a question that I think that at the very least they could compete with some of the bigger teams out there.

A lot of factors we're just not sure of at this point, because we've never been able to see it at work. I mean, I'm having to use BASKETBALL as an example.
Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.


Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.
User avatar
Triple-S
All-time leader in moral victories
 
Posts: 6374
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: Kent-Green, Ohio
Favorite Player: Yuengling
Least Favorite Player: Nati Light.

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby danwismar » Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:31 pm

GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:I wonder why OSU is being lumped in with Auburn.


Just trying to name three examples of schools that play in BCS conferences and that one can imagine being in the Top 8 at the end of any given season. OSU is as good an example of such a program as any other. (Auburn probably not a great example, given that description.)
"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

Dan's OSU Links - http://bit.ly/1o9DwFo
danwismar
 
Posts: 2550
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby danwismar » Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:44 pm

Triple-S wrote:I really don't think theres that much difference between Boise State's roster as it stands right now, and a middle of the pack of the PAC 10 team, so I don't think there's really a question that I think that at the very least they could compete with some of the bigger teams out there.


I agree...and I'm a big fan of the Boise St. program...but middle of the pack PAC-10 teams don't make the BCS. Does anyone think Boise or TCU would be undefeated if they played in any of the top four conferences, and had to play, say OSU, Wisconsin and Iowa every year...or LSU, Alabama and Florida?

Does anyone think their chances of winning the NC would be improved...(relative to the chances of teams that play tougher schedules)...if they had to win two or three games against top caliber programs instead of one? My point is that a playoff system wouldn't help these schools' chances to win it all. The BCS system that currently exists is the best shot they'll ever have, and like Jesse says...it's what has made them even remotely relevant in college football.
"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

Dan's OSU Links - http://bit.ly/1o9DwFo
danwismar
 
Posts: 2550
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby GodHatesClevelandSport » Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:46 pm

danwismar wrote:
GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:I wonder why OSU is being lumped in with Auburn.


Just trying to name three examples of schools that play in BCS conferences and that one can imagine being in the Top 8 at the end of any given season. OSU is as good an example of such a program as any other. (Auburn probably not a great example, given that description.)


I'm joking. OSU would get run by Auburn (this year).

Of course, historically OSU would drum them, most likely.

But then again, OSU gets schooled by every SEC team they breathe on, so maybe not.

I was just implying that OSU shouldn't be lumped in with elite teams, as they've mostly lost when playing those elite teams in recent years.
GodHatesClevelandSport
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:48 am
Favorite Player: Joe Smith
Least Favorite Player: Joe Smith

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby danwismar » Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:54 pm

GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:
I'm joking. OSU would get run by Auburn (this year).

Of course, historically OSU would drum them, most likely.

But then again, OSU gets schooled by every SEC team they breathe on, so maybe not.

I was just implying that OSU shouldn't be lumped in with elite teams, as they've mostly lost when playing those elite teams in recent years.


No arguing with that. 0-2 in BCS title games vs the SEC...0-2 vs USC, 1-2 vs Texas

The Bucks may get another chance to break the SEC streak this year, with a shot at what might be a one-loss Auburn team...or maybe LSU. I'd like their chances against either of those teams this year.
"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

Dan's OSU Links - http://bit.ly/1o9DwFo
danwismar
 
Posts: 2550
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby GodHatesClevelandSport » Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:55 pm

Although I do think it is a good point that perhaps Boise, TCU, and others have benefitted more from the BCS than they've been hurt by it. Maybe they wouldn't have been in those big bowls and made their programs into what they are today. Maybe they would have.

Still a joke not to have playoffs.
GodHatesClevelandSport
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:48 am
Favorite Player: Joe Smith
Least Favorite Player: Joe Smith

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby hermanfontenot » Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:08 pm

GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:I'm joking. OSU would get run by Auburn (this year)


Do not concur.
User avatar
hermanfontenot
History Buff
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:52 am
Location: NE Ohio
Favorite Player: Big Z
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby Sea Foam Green » Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:21 pm

I know I’m late to the party, but I thought I’d post some thoughts anyways.  Always enjoy a good BCS conversation.
 
In general, I don’t think a playoff would increase Boise State’s chances of winning a NC.  Take a look at this year, which is the ‘easier route’?  Hope one of two teams loses and beat 1 quality opponent or beat 3 quality opponents?  I see one that is easier, but one that is more fair.
 
I think the point being left behind here is that it’s taken Boise State 5 years of, quite honestly, excellent football to get to this point.  So yes, the BCS gives Boise State an easier shot at a NC championship this year, as compared to a playoff, but only because they’ve gotten themselves into the conversation.
 
So instead of looking at Boise State, let’s look at a team like Boise State.  Let’s say next year Brady Hoke continues to do his thing and SDSU knocks off a BCS OOC then runs the table in the Mountain West.  Think they get even a sniff of a chance at the NC?
 
Take it a step further.  Next year a hypothetical MAC team knocks off a 2nd tier Big Ten Team then a middle of the pack ACC/Big East Team and then runs the table in the Mac.  Think they even end up ranked in the Top 10?
 
Looking at it from this angle, I think it’s obvious that a playoff provides a much clearer path to a NC for a non-BCS team.  Yes, it would still take winning 3-4 tough games at the end of the season, but it could be done during the span of one magical season, as opposed to having to sustain excellence over the course of half a decade.
Sea Foam Green
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:10 am
Favorite Player: 1st Round Draft Pick
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby JCoz » Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:13 pm

danwismar wrote:Jesse makes a great point in his column today...one that I think doesn't get enough emphasis...

By the Way: Don’t tell me Boise and TCU and non-BCS schools in general are getting “screwed” or “hosed” by the BCS system. The BCS has been the best thing that has ever happened to those programs. Remember the 2006 Boise State team that beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl? The BCS is the reason Boise played in that Fiesta Bowl and not the Humanitarian Bowl. It’s the reason Hawaii got a Sugar Bowl bid a few years ago and not an Aloha Bowl bid or whatever. The BCS is the only reason schools like those are even in the discussion.

The second point that follows from this is that people who clamor for a playoff system to remedy the supposed slights to the non-automatic qualifier conferences never want to acknowledge that the schools like Boise would be the least likely to survive, say...an 8-team playoff, in which they would have to win 3 games over the likes of OSU, Auburn, or Oklahoma.

A playoff would hurt, not help the chances of a Boise St. winning the national title.

Anyone disagree?


Right Dan, but I know very few people who clamour for a playoff because of non-AQ schools. Maybe if you are talking about legislators...

This all comes down to money anyways, it has shit to do with NC's.

Its the BCS money that has Utah legislators/congressman lobbying to change the system the other year.

Anyone talking about the actual competition is not talking about non-AQ's IMO.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby JCoz » Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:15 pm

Oh, there is absolutely no debate that non-AQ's have benifitted from the BSC post rule changes that allowed them to qualify for those big pay days....

There is not a soul in the universe that can argue to the contrary. It simply isn't an opinion or point. It's just plain fact.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby furls » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:10 am

Hell, in 1991, UNLV won a National Title over Duke.


Not sure if that is a joke or not. That 1991 (and 1992) UNLV team was one of the greatest NCAAB teams ever. There may be some guys here that are too young to remember, but UNLV was one of the superpowers of NCAA hoops before the Tark was fired and the program destroyed by scandal.

When Duke won beat that undefeated UNLV team in the 1992 tourney it was one of the biggest final four upsets in 15 years.

As for the whole playoffs/BCS thing; there are some obvious points here that have been addressed but summarized and itemized into a nice easy list for consumption:

1. BSU exists as a relevant BCS team because of (not inspite of) the BCS. 15 years ago they would have never got there shot at anyone in any relevant bowl. Also remember, 15 years ago there were about 5 bowls that mattered and they all had traditional tie ins.

2. Cinderella gets to dance at the NCAA tournament, but football is different than basketball. In NCAA hoops you can ride a hot horse a long ways through the tournament, in football, your best player only plays 1/2 the game at the most.

3. The fact that there is not a playoff yet is a testament to the power and $$ involved in the current bowl system. Until you find a way to make more money in a playoff, it will not happen. You also have to find a way to distribute that money. Making brackets is easy, making more money than 35 bowl games???? That is hard.

4. Replacing bowl practice for non playoff qualifiers is a sticky problem. Now you are of course going to say, well you can keep the bowl system, but how many years will they remain financially viable as a dumbed down version of the NIT after being relegated to complete exhibition status, particularly under the hype of the playoffs? No one will care at all, except for games involving their specific teams. There just won't be enough big hitters to draw interest unless you limit the playoffs to 4 teams (why bother at that point). Once you go to 8, you lose almost all of your star power.

5. How does a playoff really solve the problem? Some one is already left out. How do you decide who gets in? Conference championship games? How do you measure the success of at larges, this year's hot tamales are BSU and TCU (WAC and MWC) do you give those conferences AQ status? What about this year where TCU, BSU, and several others are clearly better than anything coming out of the Big Least or possibly even the ACC? Where is fair there? I will say the same thing that I tell my kids daily, "Life is not fair, deal with it."

6. I would argue that the odds of BSU and TCU making the NCG are better under this system in which the cards are stacked against them simply on the basis that I don't believe that they would have the same level of success winning in a real conference. If you take both TCU and BSU's non con schedule and make it OSU's, it would be 2007 all over again when OSU took a bunch of crap in the media for having no marquee games in the non-con. In short your best chance to play in the NCG is to win all your games, the easier that is, the more likely you are to make that happen.
Coming from a Wolverine, we're the football equivalent of a formerly abused wife of a meth addict who just remarried the safe nice guy. We're just glad we have someone who's aware that it's a rivalry and that tackling on defense is integral. Baby steps.

-Kingpin74
User avatar
furls
Buckeye Insider
 
Posts: 6424
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Chic Harley
Least Favorite Player: Desmond Howard

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby leadpipe » Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:25 am

furls wrote:
Hell, in 1991, UNLV won a National Title over Duke.


Not sure if that is a joke or not. That 1991 (and 1992) UNLV team was one of the greatest NCAAB teams ever. There may be some guys here that are too young to remember, but UNLV was one of the superpowers of NCAA hoops before the Tark was fired and the program destroyed by scandal.

When Duke won beat that undefeated UNLV team in the 1992 tourney it was one of the biggest final four upsets in 15 years.

As for the whole playoffs/BCS thing; there are some obvious points here that have been addressed but summarized and itemized into a nice easy list for consumption:

1. BSU exists as a relevant BCS team because of (not inspite of) the BCS. 15 years ago they would have never got there shot at anyone in any relevant bowl. Also remember, 15 years ago there were about 5 bowls that mattered and they all had traditional tie ins.

2. Cinderella gets to dance at the NCAA tournament, but football is different than basketball. In NCAA hoops you can ride a hot horse a long ways through the tournament, in football, your best player only plays 1/2 the game at the most.

3. The fact that there is not a playoff yet is a testament to the power and $$ involved in the current bowl system. Until you find a way to make more money in a playoff, it will not happen. You also have to find a way to distribute that money. Making brackets is easy, making more money than 35 bowl games???? That is hard.

4. Replacing bowl practice for non playoff qualifiers is a sticky problem. Now you are of course going to say, well you can keep the bowl system, but how many years will they remain financially viable as a dumbed down version of the NIT after being relegated to complete exhibition status, particularly under the hype of the playoffs? No one will care at all, except for games involving their specific teams. There just won't be enough big hitters to draw interest unless you limit the playoffs to 4 teams (why bother at that point). Once you go to 8, you lose almost all of your star power.

5. How does a playoff really solve the problem? Some one is already left out. How do you decide who gets in? Conference championship games? How do you measure the success of at larges, this year's hot tamales are BSU and TCU (WAC and MWC) do you give those conferences AQ status? What about this year where TCU, BSU, and several others are clearly better than anything coming out of the Big Least or possibly even the ACC? Where is fair there? I will say the same thing that I tell my kids daily, "Life is not fair, deal with it."

6. I would argue that the odds of BSU and TCU making the NCG are better under this system in which the cards are stacked against them simply on the basis that I don't believe that they would have the same level of success winning in a real conference. If you take both TCU and BSU's non con schedule and make it OSU's, it would be 2007 all over again when OSU took a bunch of crap in the media for having no marquee games in the non-con. In short your best chance to play in the NCG is to win all your games, the easier that is, the more likely you are to make that happen.


Can't be explained much better than this.

I would add that the BCS is the best system college football has ever seen. This is a point that seems missed in the argument. All the playoff hypotheticals may be in theory, but they've never existed, and right now there's no way they are financially feasible. As stated in the past - a playoff system that generated the revenue a bowl system does would've been figured out yesterday. All the bullshit about the kids well being etc. is just smoke. If that mattered Nebraska wouldn't be in the Big 10. What time the hoops players going to get back on campus on a Tuesday night?

Look, the AP polls took till about 1950 to wait until the end of the season to vote their national champion. Team won the championship that actually lost their last game.

In 1969 Richard Nixon famously preferred undefeated Texas over undeafeated Penn State. Texas was your champion.

History reveals many more rating systems than most fans realize. And they all had many more flaws and subjectivity than the BCS. Every last one of em'.

Lastly, the real problems with the Boise/TCU arguments is plain ans simple - we're trying to mesh things that just aren't fair. Not real easy to do. How much of an advantage they have against various conferences will ALWAYS be subjective, therefore, you aren't going to get an exact result that will satisy the masses. Impossible.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby furls » Sat Nov 20, 2010 3:25 pm

How much of an advantage they have against various conferences will ALWAYS be subjective, therefore, you aren't going to get an exact result that will satisy the masses. Impossible.


I would go one step further and say it is UN-possible
Coming from a Wolverine, we're the football equivalent of a formerly abused wife of a meth addict who just remarried the safe nice guy. We're just glad we have someone who's aware that it's a rivalry and that tackling on defense is integral. Baby steps.

-Kingpin74
User avatar
furls
Buckeye Insider
 
Posts: 6424
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Chic Harley
Least Favorite Player: Desmond Howard

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby Madre Hill, Superstar » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:19 pm

leadpipe wrote:All the playoff hypotheticals may be in theory, but they've never existed, and right now there's no way they are financially feasible. As stated in the past - a playoff system that generated the revenue a bowl system does would've been figured out yesterday.


The more I think, the less I can concur. Pick the top four/eight/ten teams for a playoff system and keep the remaining bowls, and not only do you pull in the revenue you have now but the extra ones you'd get for the extra playoff games. Its not like the Emerald Bowl is any more compelling today. Given playoff expansion in every professional sport, I can't see why this wouldn't be a financial windfall.

Unless the goal is to line the pockets of primarily the BCS conferences and not the entirety of Division I.
"The fucking Who...... If I want to watch old people run around ill go set fire to a nursing home." - CDT
User avatar
Madre Hill, Superstar
Eternal Optimist
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:06 am
Location: Parma, OH
Favorite Player: The Playa
Least Favorite Player: The Game

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby leadpipe » Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:47 pm

Madre Hill, Superstar wrote:
leadpipe wrote:All the playoff hypotheticals may be in theory, but they've never existed, and right now there's no way they are financially feasible. As stated in the past - a playoff system that generated the revenue a bowl system does would've been figured out yesterday.


The more I think, the less I can concur. Pick the top four/eight/ten teams for a playoff system and keep the remaining bowls, and not only do you pull in the revenue you have now but the extra ones you'd get for the extra playoff games. Its not like the Emerald Bowl is any more compelling today. Given playoff expansion in every professional sport, I can't see why this wouldn't be a financial windfall.

Unless the goal is to line the pockets of primarily the BCS conferences and not the entirety of Division I.


Well, better send your plan in, because it'd make you a fortune.

I'd guess they are into the thousands of man hours into this by this point. It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that the only thing that matters is the dollar. A simple problem with what you bring up Fulrs alluded to, the other bowls outside the playoff would immediately become minor league, and you'd have 10 people there. Also, they would lose the TOAL CONTROL they have now. Who travels well to where, and so on. Take 8 or 10 teams away from the control and it becomes much tougher to leverage the cash.

Again, there are smarter people than all of us working on this. For years. They are not deaf to the cries. Thay just can't make it work financially. Period.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby Madre Hill, Superstar » Sun Nov 21, 2010 12:32 am

leadpipe wrote:I'd guess they are into the thousands of man hours into this by this point. It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that the only thing that matters is the dollar.

A simple problem with what you bring up Fulrs alluded to, the other bowls outside the playoff would immediately become minor league, and you'd have 10 people there.


This post brought to you by the Little Caesar's Motor City Bowl featuring Marshall and Ohio U. They're minor league already.

Also, they would lose the TOAL CONTROL they have now. Who travels well to where, and so on. Take 8 or 10 teams away from the control and it becomes much tougher to leverage the cash.


But six are already out of their control as it is, and you can pretty much guess the other BCS teams. You are right, however, I'm getting the feeling it is about control.

Again, there are smarter people than all of us working on this. For years. They are not deaf to the cries. Thay just can't make it work financially. Period.


Again, financially for who? The NCAA Tournament is a bloody cash cow. Playoffs would make money hand over fist. But its not the current system that ensures guaranteed $18 million payouts flowing to the six majors, so you get the bullshit arguments from the BCS you hear today.
"The fucking Who...... If I want to watch old people run around ill go set fire to a nursing home." - CDT
User avatar
Madre Hill, Superstar
Eternal Optimist
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:06 am
Location: Parma, OH
Favorite Player: The Playa
Least Favorite Player: The Game

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby leadpipe » Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:41 am

Madre Hill, Superstar wrote:
leadpipe wrote:I'd guess they are into the thousands of man hours into this by this point. It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that the only thing that matters is the dollar.

A simple problem with what you bring up Fulrs alluded to, the other bowls outside the playoff would immediately become minor league, and you'd have 10 people there.


This post brought to you by the Little Caesar's Motor City Bowl featuring Marshall and Ohio U. They're minor league already.

Also, they would lose the TOAL CONTROL they have now. Who travels well to where, and so on. Take 8 or 10 teams away from the control and it becomes much tougher to leverage the cash.


But six are already out of their control as it is, and you can pretty much guess the other BCS teams. You are right, however, I'm getting the feeling it is about control.

Again, there are smarter people than all of us working on this. For years. They are not deaf to the cries. Thay just can't make it work financially. Period.


Again, financially for who? The NCAA Tournament is a bloody cash cow. Playoffs would make money hand over fist. But its not the current system that ensures guaranteed $18 million payouts flowing to the six majors, so you get the bullshit arguments from the BCS you hear today.


Look, I'm not gonna sit here and claim I know where all the money goes, why, how and who.

What I do KNOW, is that all that matters is the dollar.

They are not voluntarily in a system which makes less of these dollars, if a system that made more was even remotely feasible.

They aren't in a system without playoffs just to cock around with the general public, while making less profit doing so.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby furls » Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:30 pm

Madre Hill, Superstar wrote:
leadpipe wrote:All the playoff hypotheticals may be in theory, but they've never existed, and right now there's no way they are financially feasible. As stated in the past - a playoff system that generated the revenue a bowl system does would've been figured out yesterday.


The more I think, the less I can concur. Pick the top four/eight/ten teams for a playoff system and keep the remaining bowls, and not only do you pull in the revenue you have now but the extra ones you'd get for the extra playoff games. Its not like the Emerald Bowl is any more compelling today. Given playoff expansion in every professional sport, I can't see why this wouldn't be a financial windfall.

Unless the goal is to line the pockets of primarily the BCS conferences and not the entirety of Division I.


Dumb argument Madre. Once you pick the tope 4/8/16 teams out and generate a playoff you turn the rest of the bowls into the NIT. I will concede that the Little Caesar's bowl is largely not relevant, yet it still draws and sells, a future that becomes very cloudy in a playoff. You cannot treat the Playoffs and bowls as though they are isolated systems, they are not. What happens with playoffs will certainly affect the financial output of the Bowls. You cannot simply say that bowls make X money and a playoff makes Y money and then add the two to determine future revenue.


The BCS is already making a ton of money, and is probably actually maximizing overall revenue by maintaining the status quo and having 35 revenue generationg games. Furthermore, the financial disparity from BCS $$ would only be worse under a system where your NC is playing in 3 bowl games. The haves will simply make more, while the revenue for the Little Caesar's bowl goes down.

Like LP said, if a playoff made more money it would already be occurring. The closest thing you could see in the near future is a plus one system with the top 4 playing each other. The #5 team is still going to bitch about it and it is still going to stack the deck against the BSU's and TCUs of the world, unless simply winning is all it takes to get in, in which case it will be unfairly biased against teams that play in real conferences.
Coming from a Wolverine, we're the football equivalent of a formerly abused wife of a meth addict who just remarried the safe nice guy. We're just glad we have someone who's aware that it's a rivalry and that tackling on defense is integral. Baby steps.

-Kingpin74
User avatar
furls
Buckeye Insider
 
Posts: 6424
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Chic Harley
Least Favorite Player: Desmond Howard

Re: BCS and the non-AQ schools

Unread postby JCoz » Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:39 pm

furls wrote:
Madre Hill, Superstar wrote:
leadpipe wrote:All the playoff hypotheticals may be in theory, but they've never existed, and right now there's no way they are financially feasible. As stated in the past - a playoff system that generated the revenue a bowl system does would've been figured out yesterday.


The more I think, the less I can concur. Pick the top four/eight/ten teams for a playoff system and keep the remaining bowls, and not only do you pull in the revenue you have now but the extra ones you'd get for the extra playoff games. Its not like the Emerald Bowl is any more compelling today. Given playoff expansion in every professional sport, I can't see why this wouldn't be a financial windfall.

Unless the goal is to line the pockets of primarily the BCS conferences and not the entirety of Division I.


Dumb argument Madre. Once you pick the tope 4/8/16 teams out and generate a playoff you turn the rest of the bowls into the NIT. I will concede that the Little Caesar's bowl is largely not relevant, yet it still draws and sells, a future that becomes very cloudy in a playoff. You cannot treat the Playoffs and bowls as though they are isolated systems, they are not. What happens with playoffs will certainly affect the financial output of the Bowls. You cannot simply say that bowls make X money and a playoff makes Y money and then add the two to determine future revenue.



IMO, that's laughable. First off, allot of these bowl do or come close to losing money right now. Those tiny bowls would cede no relevance whatsoever, because they aren't relevant now.

You could maybe make an argument that the cap 1 or a couple of those JUST under the BCS would lose something but IMO you are VASTLY overrating the lower bowls financial and social status in that comment.

And the schools don't move all that quickly, so the argument regarding they aren't doing it already so it must not be profitable doesn't seem as cut and dry either.

How long did it take to add the 12th game? Would you have said before that, "well, if having 12 games instead of 11 made more money, they'd already be playing 12 games"??

No. You wouldn't.

Have they figured out a playoff scenario that would make more money yet? Probably not, but how hard do you even think they are trying? With the BCS they make a ton and can sit on their thumbs rather than rock the entire college football landscape forever.

They could have run the numbers and said we can make slightly more, but that isn't worth the possible collateral damage.

Also there is not only the question of making more money, but how that total pie would potentially be split that maybe means more than anything here.

You could make alot more, but if the inclusion of more teams/conferences is part of that, it could be a net negative for the big conferences, which isn't something they are looking to do to themselves.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith


Return to College Sports Arena

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests