|
Post by coachd5085 on May 7, 2008 11:28:14 GMT -6
[quote author=auburn board=general thread=21830 post=199408 time=1210178758 Gosh, I don't know, but it seems that a playoff system works very well in every other sport on the face of the planet!
[/quote]
I don't think anyone has ever said a bowl would not work.
Basketball is much more "tournament" friendly..as well as "tv" friendly. Quick cutting cinematography, buzzer beaters, a more frantic paced sport... But yes, they do love it. No disagreement, and nobody has ever suggested otherwise.
All of these are things that have been known for years. As Huey correctly points out, none of these things are the true reasons. There is simply ONE factor at play, and this factor ...although slowly losing some of its influence as ESPN/ABC and other TV networks gain influence and power in sports entertainment. That factor is :
BOWLS ARE BETTER FOR THE SCHOOLS/COMMUNITIES INVOLVED IN THEM. Period. End of story. As phantom and I have pointed out, the bowl expierence is definitely preferred over a playoff experience for players and fans. The bowls are a better financial deal for the schools, as the money does not flow through the NCAA. The bowls are a MUCH greater event for the host cities than playoffs ever would be.
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on May 7, 2008 13:36:42 GMT -6
Prove that!
And you/we know this how? How do you know you prefer vanilla over chocolate, if you're afraid to try chocolate and never have, and keep finding reasons not to?
No reason the money can't flow the same as it does with the bowl system. Most of the bowls would remain as is anyway as were only talking about 8 or so teams. The #1 Big 10 team hasn't played in the Rose Bowl in the last 2 years. And I think over this decade the RB has been without the #1 Pac 10 or Big 10 team more often than not under the current BCS.
You keep asserting these kinds of things with nothing to back it up, and all else says CFB is a money maker regardless if the right teams are playing. I have no vested interest in OSU vs Mich but I sit down to watch the game, like most CFB fans. If Ohio State and USC played in Atlanta for the second round of the playoffs, the Dome would be full of fans from both sides as well as neutral fans just there for the game, and the TV ratings would be huge. Play at one or the other's home field, and you got no problems with fans there either.
Money does and will drive it, but I say you're wrong that it wont make more money. Think about it. They just added a 12th game to the regular season...why? Even if Auburn/Florida/OSU/Neb/USC/Tx plays West Rhode Island School for the Deaf and Blind, money is made. If they play a mid major with some name recognition, more is made on TV. Nope, you aint gonna convince me more money wont be made with great post-season matchups. It's fear of upsetting the "tradition" apple cart, fear of change, and the money is too good now. Sorry, I'm not buying it. It's like I said, and I believe this. So much money is now being currently being made, there's no incentive get off their butts, create and promote the whole deal.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 7, 2008 13:50:17 GMT -6
auburn, seriously ... telling someone to "prove it" on their viewpoint doesn't validate your viewpoint.
1> do you know how the money flows now? 2> if so, how can you lay out the structure for the 'new' system? 3> where is the investment opportunities for ALL sponsors? are they the same? will they have the same return? 4> along the lines of #3, how can a sponsor get all it's return when there is no longer the same "bowl week" atmosphere in which they make pitches, etc.? a team can't travel to a "bowl" 3 straight weeks for this. so, likely that if your system is run, then the bowl becomes a game ... not a week. will sponsors pump THE SAME AMOUNT of money into that game as they do for the bowl? 5> how do you pick the 64 teams for the 'tournament'? does qualifying for the playoffs mean the same amount of monetary gain for each school regardless if they are in the 8-team playoff or just in a 'bowl'? 6> Does a team get more money if they win a playoff game, and thus, get to play in another game? Here may lie a major sticking point ... because if i can't (as a school) get the same for 1 playoff game in this scenario as i can for a bowl game (in current scenario) where is the ultimate incentive? if i get same amount for 1 bowl game, what do i get if i play ANOTHER game after that? More money? will THAT much more money truly be generated to offset my costs?
I could go on. i'm not the guy with the answers ... THEREFORE ... i'm not the guy proposing any solution. But, these are legitimate questions that must be addressed and unless we understand the total workings of the NCAA, the sponsorships, the money intake, money distribution then we can't. just knowing how to put together a 16 team field or whatever, crap, that's nothing .... Just saying "there will be tons of money" ... isn't moving us anywhere? How is the money generated? How is the money dispersed? Incentive for sponsor? Incentive for school?
All schools want a playoff? really? really? what was hawaii's take this year? you think they get that with a playoff system? maybe they do, depending on how it is divided and laid out .... but that brings back to the same questions i've already mentioned that need to be thought through.... how?
can't think like a fan. need to think like a businessman. investment vs return? current vs new?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 7, 2008 13:54:26 GMT -6
As the system is now.
You and your friends are fans of Central University. You are pulling for ole Central....
Central is in the BCS rankings in November....how do they matchup in their title game, and if they win, what would be their potential seeding?
Okay, they win the conference title and are gonna go to the Coach Huey.com Bowl on Dec 29th.
So you and your friends get your money together and plan 4 days staying at the Killeen, TX for the bowl game. You guys enjoy the pregame festivities during the week, the pep rallies and take in the sights and spend $$$. The bowl game is an entire day affair. Central wins the Huey Bowl Title, you're happy and go home enjoying a great time....as a reward for following the team all season.
Now, you think most CFB fans are gonna be able to repeat this in another week or two weeks?
What for?
Just so passing 'fans' can declare a "winner"? Why is that so important? Why rob the experience of what the college game has become because you want more smack talk leverage?
If you need the best-of-the-best superior team declaration....well, isn't that what the NFL is for?
There is a difference between the CFB fan and the NFL fan. They are two different experiences for those fans.
If the Cotton Bowl is no longer closure for a season, but now a "means-to-an-end"....it diminishes the value of the event. If the value is diminished, it inevitiably effects the sponsorship, viewership, television coverage, fans in attendance (would you rather go see THE game, or just "another" game?).
|
|
|
Post by cmow5 on May 7, 2008 14:09:26 GMT -6
All of you guys have brought up points that I have never considered. I do have a quick question since I voted for the +1. could that work and how? or is the money factor still the problem?
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 7, 2008 15:25:59 GMT -6
All of you guys have brought up points that I have never considered. I do have a quick question since I voted for the +1. could that work and how? or is the money factor still the problem? I believe that of the possible solutions, that one is by far the most likely scenario, because it would be the most similar to the disbursement of $ that the college football system has now.... If you look at the top 4 BCS schools from last year before the bowl games, and put them in a +1 format, then you would have ended up with 1 vs. 4 = Ohio State vs. Oklahoma 2 vs. 3 = LSU vs. Virginia Tech Many of the "experts" who want a +1 system so that teams like USC and Georgia could have "had a chance" don't even stop to look at the matchups that they would have gotten. First of all, who wanted to see LSU vs. VaTech again? Not even me, and I'm a huge LSU fan... been there seen that! Secondly, Ohio State vs. Oklahoma would be a pretty good game, but then we would still be having the arguement of how Oklahoma got in, and USC/Georgia were left out... It wouldn't really "solve" the situation. If you step back and look at it objectively, the system is set up the best way it can now for THE PROGRAMS AND TOWNS THE BOWLS ARE IN... Not for the fans! If you want to change the system, that's fine. Just come up with a system that doesn't take any money from the towns or programs that go to current bowls!
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 7, 2008 15:44:05 GMT -6
good posts by both brophy and cq ... and, when cq says it's not set up for the fans he is referring to the TV fans ... those that don't travel anyway. so, sure, why would I care if they gotta play another game ... bring it on, right? haha.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 7, 2008 16:27:02 GMT -6
Wing74 Valid points regarding the scheduling. Of course, now you have some teams with different prep times for the following week... so a short week..plus a travel day... Yes it may happen during the regular season sometimes, but that doesn't mean that it is desirable. And two weeks, still not the easiest travel arrangements for the fans.. I can understand why people want a playoff. It is better for "THEM". Heck, I won't lie, I would probably enjoy it more, and there would be more drama for me sitting at home in my recliner eating pizza and chips and such watching an elimination game rather than a bowl game. HOWEVER, having been on both sides, and living in a major bowl city... I don't think this is something that should be done "for the fans" Also, what about the other Gosh, I don't know, but it seems that a playoff system works very well in every other sport on the face of the planet! Teams and fans in the NCAA B-ball tourney seem to love their playoff. Oh, and then the whole Div 1AA, Div 2, Div 3...even all the other colleges levels have a playoff, so the whole "school work will suffer" BS don't fly with me. ANYBODY saying it can't work and wont be profitable is being intellectually dishonest. There are sports and TV gurus who, if they chose to, could make the college FB playoffs every bit or almost as big, profitable, and workable as the NFLs. There's just too much money being made now for anyone to be motivated to make the change. Shorten the regular season to 11 games, EVERY conference plays a championship game, and then that void in DEC where a bunch of 6-6 teams are playing their bowls can be augmented with some really good, and meaningful games. Screw the Rose Bowl too! The rest of the CFB is tired of being held hostage by the Pac 10 and the Rose Bowl. And don't fool yourself in to thinking that doesn't play a major part in not having a playoff system. It's not the Pac 10 and Big 10. Don't kid yourself. Very few decision makers in D. 1A football want a playoff. You made my argument. The BCS schools are making too much money. Why would they want to change? You can't compare the NCAA b-ball tournament with a football playoff. Getting a couple of thousand fans to a prearranged site is one thing. Getting 20,000 or so is another. Huey brings up recruiting and that is certainly a consideration. Calling a recruit from an oceanside hotel makes a big impression. Recruiting in a playoff system seems to me like it would be a nightmare. Most of here have coached in the playoffs and know what a grind that is. This is prime recruiting time, though, so you can't give that up.
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on May 7, 2008 18:15:34 GMT -6
As the system is now. You and your friends are fans of Central University. You are pulling for ole Central.... Central is in the BCS rankings in November....how do they matchup in their title game, and if they win, what would be their potential seeding? Okay, they win the conference title and are gonna go to the Coach Huey.com Bowl on Dec 29th. So you and your friends get your money together and plan 4 days staying at the Killeen, TX for the bowl game. You guys enjoy the pregame festivities during the week, the pep rallies and take in the sights and spend $$$. The bowl game is an entire day affair. Central wins the Huey Bowl Title, you're happy and go home enjoying a great time....as a reward for following the team all season. Now, you think most CFB fans are gonna be able to repeat this in another week or two weeks? What for? Just so passing 'fans' can declare a "winner"? Why is that so important? Why rob the experience of what the college game has become because you want more smack talk leverage? If you need the best-of-the-best superior team declaration....well, isn't that what the NFL is for? There is a difference between the CFB fan and the NFL fan. They are two different experiences for those fans. If the Cotton Bowl is no longer closure for a season, but now a "means-to-an-end"....it diminishes the value of the event. If the value is diminished, it inevitiably effects the sponsorship, viewership, television coverage, fans in attendance (would you rather go see THE game, or just "another" game?). Keep all the bowls...8 team playoff = 7 games. Top 8 teams in the country get a shot at a national championship. All the other teams play in the traditional Bowls. And the championship bowl continues to rotate among the big 4. You're basically adding 6 more bowl games. I would love for my beloved Badgers to be ranked #7 and get a shot at a championship. I'm going to all 3 games if they make it that far. You're taking 8 teams out of the picture. Everything else stays the same. Heck, maybe the Coach Huey Bowl is between #8 and#9 as a play-in game. Money...I don't understand what coach huey is talking about, it's why I'm not passionate about the subject because if everyone is happy money wise, can't argue. But you'd think this would be addng more games to a team's schedule...more games = more money? I dunno...
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 7, 2008 18:31:56 GMT -6
Prove that! And you/we know this how? How do you know you prefer vanilla over chocolate, if you're afraid to try chocolate and never have, and keep finding reasons not to? No reason the money can't flow the same as it does with the bowl system. Most of the bowls would remain as is anyway as were only talking about 8 or so teams. The #1 Big 10 team hasn't played in the Rose Bowl in the last 2 years. And I think over this decade the RB has been without the #1 Pac 10 or Big 10 team more often than not under the current BCS. You keep asserting these kinds of things with nothing to back it up, and all else says CFB is a money maker regardless if the right teams are playing. I have no vested interest in OSU vs Mich but I sit down to watch the game, like most CFB fans. If Ohio State and USC played in Atlanta for the second round of the playoffs, the Dome would be full of fans from both sides as well as neutral fans just there for the game, and the TV ratings would be huge. Play at one or the other's home field, and you got no problems with fans there either. Money does and will drive it, but I say you're wrong that it wont make more money. Think about it. They just added a 12th game to the regular season...why? Even if Auburn/Florida/OSU/Neb/USC/Tx plays West Rhode Island School for the Deaf and Blind, money is made. If they play a mid major with some name recognition, more is made on TV. Nope, you aint gonna convince me more money wont be made with great post-season matchups. It's fear of upsetting the "tradition" apple cart, fear of change, and the money is too good now. Sorry, I'm not buying it. It's like I said, and I believe this. So much money is now being currently being made, there's no incentive get off their butts, create and promote the whole deal. Haha..I know you have already said that you aren't a coach, so I won't spend much time teasing you about your "fanboy" post ( ) Also, I won't spend time bringing up the litany of SEC Auburn jokes that I could use (all in good natured fun) Let's look at your last point first. Brophy did a good job describing what happens during a bowl. Just a quick websearch brings up articles with the following data regarding the 07 sugar bowl (first post katrina) SUGAR BOWL ECONOMIC IMPACT TOPS $125 MILLION NEW ORLEANS, La. (March 23, 2007) ----- The Sugar Bowl Committee's 2007 Allstate Sugar Bowl Football Classic and festival events produced an economic impact of $126.7 million for the city and state according to a study completed by Dr. Timothy Ryan of the University of New Orleans. "Given that this Sugar Bowl game was held just 15 months after Hurricane Katrina and in light of some of the questionable publicity the city has received, the Sugar Bowl still had an exceptionally strong impact for the area," Ryan said. "The Sugar Bowl continues to be a positive and highly important national event, and we have every reason to believe the Bowl will continue to be a premier economic catalyst for the area." .... Comprising the Bowl's overall economic impact figure was a sum of $68.71 million in direct visitor spending and an additional $57.99 million in secondary spending. State and local governments also realized $9.9 million in tax revenue as a result of Bowl activities. "This study shows the positive effect that championship caliber college football can have in the recovery of our city, the region and state," said Ray Jeandron, president of the Sugar Bowl Committee. [ incidentaly, he was one of the partners of the Big Four accounting firm that lured me out of coaching] According to Ryan's study, city hotels reaped substantial benefits in association with the 73rd Allstate Sugar Bowl as nearly 60 percent of those attending the game stayed in local hotels and spent $21.02 million. The average length of stay was 2.46 nights. This is the key stat. Bowls allow for a longer length of stay than quick weekend playoff games. Keep in mind, the "model" that you are using...the NCAA basketball tournament..IS not a one day sessino but a thurs-sat or Fri-Sun events. Eating and drinking establishments fared well also as Bowl visitors spent $13.19 million in New Orleans area restaurants and another $7.07 million in local bars. Entertainment and shopping venues realized an estimated $11 million in new revenue from Bowl guests. So,thisis all just 15 months after Katrina..and it was a LOW year. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As far as the bowls being better for the schools, simply look into what the student athletes get from the bowl environment. (There are actually minimum requirements for the value of the bowl booty. Phantom gave some anecdotal evidence with his own son as the subject regarding the bowl experience vs the 1AA playoff experience) Again, I already addressed the typical "fan" reply of "MORE MONEY" in an early post. More money for who? As Huey as stated, do you even have the slightest idea what the distribution structure of bowl payouts are? How it works? How they flow? Like you said, teams are adding more games to the schedule..to increase revenue. THEIR school revenue. A playoff would not do this. A playoff would increase the NCAA revenue. Not the same thing for schools. To make an analogy....is it a great thing for salaried employees to work 50 hour weeks so that the company can make "MORE MONEY" With all do respect, to make a coaching analogy, your argument (along with 99% of the fans out there saying the same thing) is equivalent to the person saying that a coach needs to " 'make adjustments.' The OC needs to 'get more creative' in his play calls. The DC needs to 'blitz more, and be more aggressive'. " All very vague and uninformed comments. The bottom line again, is that the vast majority of those who "clamor for/want/demand/need" a playoff... are those who will experience said playoff firmly entrenched on their sofa armed with beer, chips and a remote. That irks me a bit. Kind of like allowing people who don't own property to vote on property tax increases...
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 7, 2008 18:32:02 GMT -6
Money...I don't understand None us TRULY understands the money issue ... which is why I find it so laughable when I hear fans clamor, "All you have to do is take the top 8 teams and blah, blah, blah" .... really? That's all we have to do? Well, why didn't they think of that?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 7, 2008 18:37:06 GMT -6
I would love for my beloved Badgers to be ranked #7 and get a shot at a championship. I'm going to all 3 games if they make it that far... I would just question, think about not being a TEACHER, y'know most folks don't have the last half of December off along with the first half of January as well. Most folks (alum) take their vacations to take time off for a BOWL game. So, now, instead of taking a week (or two) off of work to meet up with alum at a bowl game.....now, you're gonna take essentially 3 weeks off, with lodging....because these aren't "home games". You'd be willing, available, and financially secure enough to go from New Orleans, to Pasadena, then to Miami all within a span of 2-3 weeks? Now, how realistic to think others would follow your lead?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 7, 2008 19:16:09 GMT -6
I would love for my beloved Badgers to be ranked #7 and get a shot at a championship. I'm going to all 3 games if they make it that far. Really? Right now, the tickets for Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange bowls on average START at about $200 bucks. So thats $600 for 3 tickets. Plus travel (what maybe $300 per round trip) ..plus lodging--SPECIAL EVENT LODGING at that so maybe $100 a night for dirt cheap, I know in Nola it would be a great deal more-... plus incidentals... And don't think that it is very easy. Just a little research shows that for the Sugar Bowl (can't comment on the other three, didn't research) that THE ONLY FLIGHTS INTO NOLA for that first Sugar Bowl back were charter flights. The fans had completely booked all the commercial flights in. Again, coach..to make the coaches analogy, for a coach to say "oh, just take the top 8..or just take the conference champs, or Just ___ ANYTHING" is equivalent to having the fans say "Why don't they just run the ______" or "They should just give ___________ the ball" or anything like that.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 7, 2008 19:33:42 GMT -6
All of you guys have brought up points that I have never considered. I do have a quick question since I voted for the +1. could that work and how? or is the money factor still the problem? The plus one... would probably be handled in the manner the bowls are, so the money would be handled similarly. I would estimate there would be a little drop of in economic impact at the bowls, simply because some would hold off for the " + one" game. One issue with a + one format was displayed this year in the NFL. If you have a dominant team, and KEEP putting challengers out there, at SOME POINT the BEST team is going to lose. A sub issue of this is that all conferences aren't the same (as discussed), and a plus one might have some schools having to win a conf championship, THEN the major bowl, THEN the plus 1... Like I said, you keep putting hurdles in front of the BEST teams, and they will falter. Another issue could be seen a few years ago. TX USC. Was there any "doubt" that those were the two "best" teams. Any need for a "plus 1" there? All a plus one can do there is screw it up. I actually voted to just to abolish the BCS. Who needs it? I really dislike the fact that by its very nature, the BCS essentially crapped on the bowls other than the BCS game. I say, hey, set up the bowls, play them, I will watch them, and who really cares who is "#1".
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 8, 2008 5:20:47 GMT -6
so what would happen, in a plus 1 scenario...if.....
#1 Florida vs #2 Ohio State......Ohio State squeeks by Florida, 34-32 #3 Missouri vs #4 Michigan.......Michigan trounces Missouri after Chase Daniels gets a concussion in the 1st Qtr......45-10
Now you have, for the NC game........Michigan vs Ohio State.............ugh.......and the Big 10 getting ALL the money for the NC game.
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on May 8, 2008 6:08:29 GMT -6
coach5085,
I figured someone would call me down about not being a coach at some point. If you post here, you'll notice I never argue X's and Os, but do involve myself in matter of "people" and things of general interests. Please tell me "coach boy" how you being a coach makes you qualified to comment more intelligently on the economic or social impact of bowls vs. a playoff system that's never been tried?
I normally hate people that "due" this...because so long as I can get the point of your post it shouldn't really matter, but you "due" teach kids as part of your job, if nothing else the game of football, and you've started the little pokes and cheap shots. (No I'm not mad, just playing along) It's: all due respect. Now, I've also learned that anytime that phrase is used, whatever follows it will be intended with much disrespect. It's not the same analogy, as many people understand more about economics, than they do football. Are you a D-1 coach now or have you ever been? D-1 player ever? What's your experience base that "qualifies" you to know that the bowls are better for the D-1 game than a playoff that has never been tried? What bowl have you ever played or coached in that you think was a better experience than the playoff appearance at the D-1 level you played or coached in? What's your education and experience in sports marketing and TV that tells you that the money just isn't there and that it would be too troublesome for fans to enjoy? Other's have said it is the money that drives this, now to argue with me, you say that's not it. So, what is the REAL reason that D-1 CFB is the ONLY sport in existence that doesn't play for all the marbles in a playoff, and allows the media and computers to pre-determine midseason who the #1 and #2 are, and so long as those two win out, it matters not what 117 others do in their season, and anyway the 3rd undefeated team will like the "bowl experience" much better anyway? (ie Auburn 2004) Is it because the Sugar Bowl helped Katrina relief a couple of years back? What makes it right that some arbitrary computer system determines who will play for the NC among 3 teams from BCS conferences all with 1 loss? (LSU/OU/USC 2003). What's right about a system that factors in so heavily WHEN you lose, more over how many you lose, or who you lose to?
The bottom line is that's the people that drive college football. TV revenue makes it what it is! That's exactly why bowls like the Poulan Weedeater Bowl that draws a small crowd of people on site exists. Look, I'm among the 87,000 in the stadium at Auburn every saturday they play at home. But hundreds of thousands are watching on TV when it's Auburn vs LSU/UGA/TN/Bama. Sorry, that gripe was one typical of an emotional gripe from a coach complaining about what stupid fans say. In this case, your gripe is against the very fan base that make college football what it is today! Many of the true blue fans trek to their favorite school or Alma mater each saturday. But many can't afford to or wont take an entire day out for one game. Many, THE MAJORITY, watch games all day long on saturday from their sofa or recliner. They're the ones "Game Day" with all it's big money sponsors are there for. Game day isn't about the crowd that gathers to get on TV, its about the ones watching TV. They're there to make money.
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on May 8, 2008 6:14:24 GMT -6
By the way Coach...
Look back up at the top to the poll, as of this post, of 57 votes, only 13 favor keeping it like it is, or going back to the old way, the vast majority of your coaching compodres favor at least a "Plus 1" and most some form of playoff! Are you smarter than all of them?
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 8, 2008 6:51:13 GMT -6
gonna go to the Coach Huey.com Bowl on Dec 29th. I vote Starting August 2nd the sun should start rising in the west. It would screw up our practice schedule. I'm against it.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 7:07:50 GMT -6
so, auburn ... can you answer any of my questions? haven't seen you really elaborate on your point other than to divert attention from it by asking someone else to "prove it" or to engage in an arguement of sorts with them while not fully disclosing any details. i'm totally unconcerned with the opinion that fans want this, colleges want that. want in one hand and ... well...
what i'm concerned with is the actual details involved in this playoff system. i've asked questions regarding this (and have a ton more). you seem passionate about this little topic so i would expect you to have thought it out quite a bit. your being involved in a rebuttal shows belief that it can work, which leads me to believe you have an understanding of what is currently involved and how (generally, of course) things could be distributed within your proposal.
what are some of the brass tacks here?
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 7:22:01 GMT -6
Please tell me "coach boy" how you being a coach makes you qualified to comment more intelligently on the economic or social impact of bowls vs. a playoff system that's never been tried? it is tried, d2, d3, d1aa (fcs) ... none of those schools get near the money as the others. in fact, the only money received is that for expenses - and they limit the number of things which can be included (players, personnel, travel, etc.). good strawman tactic. when nothing factual can be argued, one questions the validity of the other party. divert attention from validating your own points by simply questioning the background of the other side. FYI ... unless you take ONLY conference champions, then there will ALWAYS be an arbitrary computer ranking system of some sort to determine who actually makes the playoffs. And, if you ONLY take the conference champions to your "playoff bracket" (and rest go to the 'bowls') , well tell me how someone like North Texas winning the Sun Belt Conference deserves to be in the playoffs more than Auburn which may come in 2nd in the SEC? oops, too bad Auburn, going to the Citrus Bowl while North Texas reaps the benefits (because there HAS to be a monetary benefit to playoff system or we would have one) of getting blasted in first round by Oklahoma (while Missouri plays Auburn for 'citrus' money). elaborate here on exactly how this sponsorship will be ponied up? how will it increase again? how will a school be compensated if they play 1 playoff game? what if they play 2 playoff games? what if they 'only' make the bowl portion of the postseason? brass tacks here. spitting out statements and i'm not following. not disputing, but make us see it? divulge more of the plan...
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 7:46:18 GMT -6
so in your system, the big 12 gets the same amount of teams playing postseason play (roughly every year) and gets the same amount of money (at least)? all this while essentially losing 24 games for the conference?
OR
is it only 16 teams, period for postseason play? so you propose to take away postseason payouts and opportunities for schools?
SO
the sunbelt winner and the mac winner should ALWAYS be included even though it will never workout that the 2nd best team from the Pac-10, SEC, Big 12, ACC, Big East, Big 10 can? with only 4 wildcards then coming in 2nd in the Big 12 can very well mean nothing but winning the sun belt gets you in .... justify THAT to the BCS conferences ...
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 8:22:02 GMT -6
so, you want to dissolve the major conferences? i'm not following ... if you are georgia, florida, lsu, tennessee ... you probably need to leave the SEC because i'm pretty sure they are already doing all they can to compete for a national title in the recruiting, game planning, overall decision making process of their program. so, all 4 not likely to get in every year so where is the incentive to stay in the SEC now? if i'm lsu why don't i just try to join the sun belt? schedule some sec teams for non-conference then cakewalk through to the playoffs... over time, all the big conferences dissolve, spread out over the country into the other conferences and we get the true 16 best teams in the country ...
is that the goal of the courts? dissolve the major conferences? is that your goal?
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 8:26:56 GMT -6
before anyone else has a 'solution' ... think about ALL the factors. all i see are oneside things like schedule, # of teams, how teams are chosen .... we're focusing on the games themselves and not including incentives for sponsors, procedures for sponsors, incentives for schools, payouts for each round, each game, how much money does a conference get .... HOW IS MONEY NOW GENERATED AND (more importantly) HOW IS IT NOW DISTRIBUTED ..
shortsighted 'proposals' leave us right here... arguing over "no, the top 8 should go.... NO, the top 16 should go .... NO, conference champs plus the bowls" .... it's comical
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 8:55:03 GMT -6
i'm not proposing a plan ... all i'm saying is it is silly to say "here is all you got to do ......" without having a little more thought than "people will watch" or "everyone gets a fair shot" ...
all i wish to see from those with these grand schemes is specifically ..... SPECIFICALLY ... how the money is generated and specifically .... SPECIFICALLY ... how the money is distributed.
what makes a sponsor wish to drop significantly more money into a game when they will now be sharing that timeslot with possibly up to 4 other games? can they still get the same return? get specific on WHEN the games are played... what does a sponsor get exactly? broadcast on all the games that day? for the same fee as before? will their exposure be any more than they get now? and, by exposure i mean number of ads relative to the other ads ALSO needing to be run that day.
the ncaa has sponsors, too ... and don't think for a minute the economic impact a sponsor has on that decision ... i.e. those bowl weeks generate serious cash for cities ... cities in which sponsors are located .... which means that the bowl system may be (may be, now ... haven't seen all the suggestions on how the playoff system can be but won't dispute logical data) better for a sponsor ... so, said sponsor leans on ncaa to keep the current system.
you see, with each "idea" or "point" we discuss, 3 more get discovered. this is truly the most complex thing in all of sports at this time. with the longstanding "tradition" of it ... and by tradition i mean .... "hey, i'm the big 10 and i get lots of money from our traditional ways" ... lol
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 8, 2008 9:10:04 GMT -6
I think I may have started a bad topic by posting this poll... but there is a lot of good discussion going on!
I personally think that the way they have it now is the best we have to keep the schools happy ($$$), and MOST objective fans of college football.
The USC-Stanford game ended up being one of the biggest games of the year last year because it basically kept USC from the NC Game... That was their playoff loss.
The Georgia-South Carolina game on SEPTEMBER 8th ended up being a huge game last year as well... If Georgia wins that one, then they get a chance to play LSU in the SEC Championship game, and they could have won the NC.
The Missouri-Kansas game was basically a playoff game last year to keep one teams hope of a NC alive, and for the other, it left them hoping that they could "sneak-in" to the BCS with some help from WVU losing and other teams ahead of them falling.
The fact that Missouri got another shot at Oklahoma meant that their own fate was in their own hands... not at the mercy of computers or other teams losing.
EVERY GAME is basically a playoff because it could have HUGE ramifications at the end of the season... The LSU-Appalachian State game will probably be on National TV this year because even this 1A (FBS) vs. 1AA (FCS) matchup has huge impact on the national landscape.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on May 8, 2008 9:15:20 GMT -6
Is it really necessary to crown ONE, singular champion.......and if so, how many times does that champion have to prove it? I typically agree with you, but I think the answer to this question is yes. Name me one other team sport in high school, college, or pro levels that doesn't crown a single champion. As a high school coach, do you tell your team that it would be the perfect season if you have a winning season and won your last game? Or do you strive for a championship? Why or why not?
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 9:23:49 GMT -6
got it ... great solution ... get the supreme court involved ... case solved.
just another question... how many sponsors are involved currently? with fewer games will there be the same number of sponsors involved? at the same prices? only so many minutes of commercials, ya know ... will fedex pay the same money they pay now but have to show time with outback? will fedex now pay more money so that outback doesn't have commercials being run ... i.e. basically pay more for same return in essence?
even with the courts getting involved in saying "you must have a playoff" ... we can't answer everything simply ... it is complicated, and not just by those who truly want it ... but by everyone because sponsors are businessmen and want good return. schools need to understand bottom line of expenses vs revenue.
again, one solution, 3 more questions.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on May 8, 2008 9:50:44 GMT -6
First, I will admit I am no expert on how money is divided among teams, but my guess is that there are enough financially savvy people involved with the institutions of higher learning that can figure out a fair a reasonable way to divide money among conferences. I am under the impression that most conferences split the money their teams receive and that BCS teams receive “bigger” money. So now playoff teams would get “BCS” type money and non-playoff teams would have no change in the amount of money they receive from non-playoff (same as non-BCS) bowls.
As far as the argument to whether there will be more money available, I think that is a no brainer that more money would be put up for a Division I playoff. If you polled the fan base for college football, I think an overwhelming majority of people would be in favor of a playoff system. Sponsors want what sponsors always want, consumers. I think sponsors would fall all over themselves to sponsor a Division I National Playoff because it would be a huge fan draw and more concentrated fan draw. Imagine the number of people that would tune in for the tournament. The exposure for the sponsors would be enormous. So yes, I do think BIG, BIG money would be available for the teams in the tournament and subsequently the conferences those teams play in.
As far as the bowl locations go, only 8 locations would be potentially effected at all if you had a 16 team tournament. I would propose a system which “bowls” would be changed to site locations. Each round, until the championship, would have a site location in which 2 games will be played at each site. So in first round, where 8 games are played, there are 4 site locations. In second round, 4 games are played at 2 site locations, semi-finals are played at 1 site location and then the champion it is at the final site location. That means the playoffs are played at 8 site locations and thus no economic impact change from losing a “bowl” game. Not to mention that each city will now get more revenue as they will now get 4 sets of fans instead of 2. I don’t think lots of people travel to bowl games that aren’t fans of the teams involved. With 2 games in one weekend, you might get more interest in the event. The site locations would benefit more economically than they ever did with bowl games. The other teams not part of these 16 playoff participants will go play in the same insignificant bowls they do now without change. Right now every team with 6 wins is considered and that doesn't need to change. We still have the Boise Bowl with two teams that are fun to watch because at least it is football when there is no other football going on.
Will there be less people inclined to make it a week long vacation? Probably and along with the financial ability for fans to travel multiple times might be a draw back that can’t be all together corrected. Giving fans many chances to travel though could encourage lots of fans that don’t normally go to take a chance, especially as their teams progress. As a fan of Nebraska, I can go to some Bowl game almost any year, but how often can I go to the National Semi-Finals. I better travel now while I have the chance.
My favorite argument is that of the 15 games it would take to win a National Championship (if your made 11 games schedules the max) and how taxing that would be on these athletes. In fact the irony is quite laughable. If in fact many of these kid’s goal is to make the NFL, which I think a majority of them it is there goal, whether or not they have the ability to accomplish that goal. In the NFL there regular season ALONE, not all games, is 16 games long. So 15 games is too many for a college junior, but the next year he is going to play 4 preseason games, plus 16 regular season games, and if he is lucky playoff games on top of that. I guess that one year of maturity makes him that much more a physical specimen? Doubtful and laughable.
So in the end, the only reason why Division I (FBS) football is the ONLY team sport in the world that doesn’t have a playoff (and thus has never crowned a true champion) is money. Even the Olympics, which is supposed to be about the spirit of competition crowns a true champion through a playoff system. So if we want to have a t-ball everyone wins something mentality in DI football that is fine for all but 16 teams, we can have the Insight.com Bowl that may be fun to watch, but no one outside of fans of that team or people that live in that city really care about.
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on May 8, 2008 9:51:23 GMT -6
Was merely giving back what I received. The other coach attempted to dismiss my opinion as one of an ignorant "fan boy" making statements on matters of which he doesn't have any knowledge. My question is valid to that point. If coach is asserting that he, as a football coach, has some greater insight in to how to make this playoff thing work, I'd respectfully submit, he better come at it with more direct experience than the average fan as it pertains to TV revenues, and sports marketing. Unless he's coached, or somehow been intimately and directly involved in D-1 football, I don't see his point of view having significantly more credibility than mine. He, as I will concede, has much more insight in to coaching kids, motivating them, and Xs and Os than I, but he's bringing nothing more to the table in this debate than the average fan without direct experience. JMO, YMMV.
On to your questions. Honestly I didn't see any directed directly at me until now. Maybe I missed that. I will answer it simply like this: In reality with most of the proposed scenarios, we're only talking about adding to the sum total of games played in the post season by just a few games. The bowls would remain largely in tact, with only the big 4 being impacted, but still existing. You are correct that unless we go to only conference champions, some "arbitrariness" will still exist. It's my strong opinion that you'll never hear too much whining from a 2-3 loss team ranked #11 or 12 about how they deserved a shot. Some? Always! But it would fall on deaf ears mostly. Back to logistics. I'm not in football operations on any level. I know that often the SEC West or East champ doesn't know they're going to Atlanta until a week before. So, last minute prep and travel can be done. As for TV, and revenue. I'm not involved in that. I am aware enough to know this. When USC plays ND, they're on TV, and lots of people watch. Same with AU vs LSU, OU vs TX, FL vs OSU, OSU vs Mich, FSU vs Miami, etc, etc. They're on TV, they're on in one of 3 major TV time slots depending on rankings and TV contracts, and they sell advertising to these TV broadcasts. In doing some quick math in my head, more football = more $. In applying my own personal logic, more football games played where both teams are highly ranked = even bigger $. In reality, the sum total of all football games played in a college season would only be added to by just a few games, depending on which format you go to, from 7-15 games. Those games would be spread out from early Dec thru Early Jan. A time when many people are planning lots of off time before Christmas, and a time when everyone expects the final games of the season to be played in early Jan. Would avg fan get to travel to all the 2, 3, or 4 extra games if his team won? Probably not. So? At any major bowl, the crowd is at best 1/2 the fans of the teams, combined with a bunch of folks just there to see a good bowl game because it was close enough to be affordable. I doubt the Big 10 travels more than 15K to the Rose Bowl, unless it's for a NC game, and it's home game for USC. The stadium is filled for every major bowl because two very good highly ranked teams are playing, and the TV spots sell for premium dollar. It's why we no longer play all the big bowls on Jan 1. They all want max viewer ship. So, my assertion that the money will work itself out is due to my basic math that says more quality prime time football = more money. I'm sure I could be wrong though.
I have tried to address what you asked. I can't give specifics on the money trail because, honestly I don't know the specifics of how it flows now. I know that some money goes directly to teams, and some goes to the conferences to be divided among teams. I know that I pay $500 a year for the privilege of getting to pay $50 a seat (x2 seats) for 7-8 home games a year. That's the lowest level of donation you can make and be assured of the availability of tickets, and the cheapest seats in the house. Factor that x 87,000 a game, and it's clear to me that money is being made there, concessions, sales of team apparel, and then the TV money. More football = more $$$$.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 8, 2008 10:28:33 GMT -6
As far as the argument to whether there will be more money available, I think that is a no brainer that more money would be put up for a Division I playoff. If you polled the fan base for college football, I think an overwhelming majority of people would be in favor of a playoff system. But fans ALWAYS say that... just like with the NCAA Basketball Tournament! But how many people actually watch the GAMES during the first two rounds? Nobody... because even the networks don't let you watch an entire game. The first and second round games (many) are extremely boring and nobody watches. Of course we all tune in every so often to see how our Office Pool is going, but do we actually funnel money into the first two rounds? How many people would watch these first round games in a 16 team tournament from last year?: 1v16 = Ohio State vs. Tennessee 2v15 = LSU vs. Clemson 3v14 = VaTech vs. Boston College (already saw that bore-fest) 4v13 = Oklahoma vs. Illinois (oklahoma didn't handle the spread well in their bowl) 5v12 = Georgia vs. Florida (already saw that one too) 6v11 = Missouri vs. Arizona State 7v10 = USC vs. Hawaii (your joking right?) 8v9 = Kansas vs. West Virginia (I'll admit this would have been a good one) Assume: Ohio State STILL would have lost to an SEC team... lol LSU beats up on a weaker Tiger team... Matt Ryan beats VaTech again... Illinois spread causes Oklahoma the same torment that WVU did... Georgia was on fire and beats Florida... Chase Daniel beats Arizona State... USC by 100... Kansas & WVU could go either way, so we'll say KU/WVU the rest of the way... Second Round: 16v8/9 = Tennessee vs. KU/WVU 2v7 = LSU vs. USC (Possibly the greatest college game you could have last season) 14v6 = Boston College vs. Missouri 13v5 = Illinois vs. Georgia Assume: KU/WVU spanks Tennessee... LSU/USC debate could go on FOREVER about these two... Missouri's offense is way too good for BC's defense... Georgia spnks Illinois Semi's: 8/9v6 = KU/WVU vs. Missouri (already saw one, but WVU vs. Missouri would be good) 2/7v5 = LSU/USC vs. Georgia (again another good game either way) Assume: KU/WVU find a way to stop Chase Daniels... SLUGFEST BETWEEN LSU/USC/Georgia is a ... Now the national championship game would be either: 1) KU vs. LSU 2) KU vs. USC 3) KU vs. Georgia 4) WVU vs. LSU 5) WVU vs. USC 6) WVU vs. Georgia Would any of these 6 games bring in more money than the Ohio State vs. LSU game this year?... Even if it did, then you would still have tons of fans pissed off because LSU, USC, and Georgia all were on the same side of the bracket and had a much more difficult path to the NC game. I think that we can all agree that the best game in the whole thing would have been USC vs. LSU! But I'm gonna echo what some have said above... NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, NOT EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY!
|
|