- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The answer to why there will not be a playoff in college football
Posted on 1/25/11 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 1/25/11 at 1:36 pm
College football conferences will get a record take of about $170 million from this year's bowl games, including a new high of $24.7 million for the five conferences that don't get automatic bids to the Bowl Championship Series.
8
Posted on 1/25/11 at 1:37 pm to Geaux1967
It always comes down to money.
Posted on 1/25/11 at 1:38 pm to Geaux1967
we're smart enough to figure out how to fold a playoff into our current bowl system. Aren't we?
Posted on 1/25/11 at 1:47 pm to Geaux1967
Why not add two games to the BCS system, perhaps the Cotton and Cap One, and then do something like this. The top eight teams play in the BCS playoff system, the rest of the teams play in other bowls.
The BCS playoff system is the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton and Cap One. Four of the games every year are the preliminary playoff round and the other two are semi final games. The choice of which two bowls are semi final games could rotate each year.
Anyway, the winners of the semi finals play in the BCSNC game.
You could use the top 8 in BCS rankings to determine the participants, or take the champs of the 6 automatic qualifying conferences plus two at large selections.
The BCS playoff system is the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton and Cap One. Four of the games every year are the preliminary playoff round and the other two are semi final games. The choice of which two bowls are semi final games could rotate each year.
Anyway, the winners of the semi finals play in the BCSNC game.
You could use the top 8 in BCS rankings to determine the participants, or take the champs of the 6 automatic qualifying conferences plus two at large selections.
Posted on 1/25/11 at 1:52 pm to oompaw
quote:
It always comes down to money
That's exactly right, which is why there could be more money made with a playoff.
More games = more money.
Posted on 1/25/11 at 1:53 pm to CovingtonTiger
I like that idea
Posted on 1/25/11 at 1:57 pm to CovingtonTiger
There is no money in bowl games.
None.
Do you know how much money Florida brought home from The 2009 BCS NCG?
$49,000.
That's it. By the time a team buys all of the alloted tickets at FACE VALUE, pays for lodging, food and band and cheerrleading they in most games will LOSE money. Who is getting all this capital? Bowl directors, bowl staff and "Expeditures" for bowl related activity.
A little education goes a long way in refrence to these bowl games.
None.
Do you know how much money Florida brought home from The 2009 BCS NCG?
$49,000.
That's it. By the time a team buys all of the alloted tickets at FACE VALUE, pays for lodging, food and band and cheerrleading they in most games will LOSE money. Who is getting all this capital? Bowl directors, bowl staff and "Expeditures" for bowl related activity.
A little education goes a long way in refrence to these bowl games.
Posted on 1/25/11 at 2:01 pm to DEG
A plus 1 approach is probably doable. A playoff system ala Division 1A is probably not going to ever happen because the big boys will not be willing to shorten the regular season (resulting in 1 or 2 fewer home games and several million in lost revenue not made up by the playoffs), and I don't think the BCS conferences will support adding 3 or 4 playoff games to a 12-13 (counting championship games) regular season. Moreover, it probably isn't in the players best interest to extend the season and increase the risk of NFL career ending injuries. I would guess the longer the season, the more likely one is to get injured (fatigue, etc. setting in).
TV fans would like a playoff system. Schools that think that they would get a bigger share of the pot (i.e., schools that don't get much from the current BCS system) would like it.
Fans who would have to pay more exorbitant ticket prices and pay for travel to more away games, probably not as interested. Players and their agents-to-be, probably not all that interested. While bowls could host playoff games, there is likely to be more instability for them (risk of smaller crowds, travel costs for fans, etc.), and fewer of them, so they are not all that likely to support the playoff system. Bowls outside the playoff system (and there are arguably too many), will not like it.
From a financial point of view, the big conferences and profitable programs (though there are really relatively few of them) don't see an attraction, so the current system isn't likely to change dramatically, but a plus 1 system appears to have some support and could happen.
TV fans would like a playoff system. Schools that think that they would get a bigger share of the pot (i.e., schools that don't get much from the current BCS system) would like it.
Fans who would have to pay more exorbitant ticket prices and pay for travel to more away games, probably not as interested. Players and their agents-to-be, probably not all that interested. While bowls could host playoff games, there is likely to be more instability for them (risk of smaller crowds, travel costs for fans, etc.), and fewer of them, so they are not all that likely to support the playoff system. Bowls outside the playoff system (and there are arguably too many), will not like it.
From a financial point of view, the big conferences and profitable programs (though there are really relatively few of them) don't see an attraction, so the current system isn't likely to change dramatically, but a plus 1 system appears to have some support and could happen.
This post was edited on 1/25/11 at 2:02 pm
Posted on 1/25/11 at 2:05 pm to COF
quote:
By the time a team buys all of the alloted tickets at FACE VALUE
Are you referring to the tickets that they then sell to the fanbase? They make that money back easily.
Posted on 1/25/11 at 2:06 pm to COF
quote:
There is no money in bowl games.
None.
But one must also look at the totality of the money generated by the current system. How much did Florida get from the SEC's distribution of TV money? A playoff system would dramatically change the way money is distributed throughout college football (which is why the havenots are pushing for a playoff system) and would probably lessen the overall take of the SEC teams by shortening the regular season to boot.
Moreover, if teams lose money in the current bowl system, they would inevitably lose much more in a playoff system since they would have more travel and ticket expenses.
Posted on 1/25/11 at 2:10 pm to Geaux1967
nonsense.
8 team playoff would double that paltry take and you can keep your bowls between the C-USA and MAC and the WAC vs the non-playoff BCS 2nd tier teams.
8 team playoff would double that paltry take and you can keep your bowls between the C-USA and MAC and the WAC vs the non-playoff BCS 2nd tier teams.
Posted on 1/25/11 at 2:13 pm to ottothewise
Indeed, otto. Indeed. 
Posted on 1/25/11 at 2:15 pm to CovingtonTiger
Quit playing rent-a-win games and start the playoffs early in the season. We could probably have the same number of games.
Posted on 1/25/11 at 2:16 pm to RealityTiger
quote:
That's exactly right, which is why there could be more money made with a playoff.
More games = more money.
But more money for whom? It is much more likely that the "haves" would get less money in a playoff system because the money would be more widely distributed to the havenots. (Which is largely why the lesser conferences are pushing a playoff system.) The additional amount generated by the playoffs would be less than the current system. There would probably be fewer total games played since the regular season would likely be shorter for all teams, and only a relatively small number of teams would be in the playoffs, reducing the total number of games. Teams like Ohio State, LSU, Alabama, Texas, Notre Dame, etc., would lose money in a playoff system. They give up home games to shorten the season, reducing revenue. There are more conferences and teams splitting the money generated by the playoffs. A team in the playoffs will have more expenses and probably not a significant amount more to cover them per playoff game (breakeven at best). Assertions that there will be more money are probably simply wrong if one looks at the total season, not just the playoff/bowl season.
This post was edited on 1/25/11 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 1/25/11 at 2:18 pm to COF
Another reason there's not a playoff is the increase of the number of games to the schedule. The schools will definitely not consider shortening their season to accomodate a playoff. Why? Because they would lose money.
It's all about money.
That's why LaTech is in the WAC instead of the Sunbelt...because of the money they receive from conference payouts.
It's all about money.
That's why LaTech is in the WAC instead of the Sunbelt...because of the money they receive from conference payouts.
Posted on 1/25/11 at 2:19 pm to COF
As for tickets go yes this is okay for the BCS championship. You will most likley sell all of them.
What about the pappajohns.com bowl. You think Toledo can buy 50,000 tickets and sell all of them? No. They eat that expense. All $150,000 of it. Then pay for team and band and cheer team and food and lodging you start to lose money. When you have a $300,000 pay out and you spend $400,000 just to play, this hurts the school.
What about the pappajohns.com bowl. You think Toledo can buy 50,000 tickets and sell all of them? No. They eat that expense. All $150,000 of it. Then pay for team and band and cheer team and food and lodging you start to lose money. When you have a $300,000 pay out and you spend $400,000 just to play, this hurts the school.
Posted on 1/25/11 at 2:20 pm to ScootiniTiger
quote:
Quit playing rent-a-win games and start the playoffs early in the season. We could probably have the same number of games.
Do the math. Those rent-a-wins generate millions in revenue. The playoffs won't replace that money because the money will be split among more conferences. If LSU gives up $3 to $7 million in revenue due to fewer games, do you think that the playoff system will replace that money? Not likely.
There may be more games for some teams, but those who don't make it to the playoffs will have fewer games. For schools that make money and who don't get in the playoffs, they stand to lose millions.
Posted on 1/25/11 at 2:23 pm to CovingtonTiger
Your plan is simple, logical, and well reasoned. It will never be accepted by the College elites, bowls and conferences.
Posted on 1/25/11 at 2:29 pm to ottothewise
quote:
nonsense.
8 team playoff would double that paltry take and you can keep your bowls between the C-USA and MAC and the WAC vs the non-playoff BCS 2nd tier teams.
I agree with ottothewise on this issue - there were plenty of empty seats at those bowl games.
The better of these exhibition matchups all happen right at the end of bowl season, and many of the SEC games that I was interested in were played at the same time.
Posted on 1/25/11 at 2:29 pm to ottothewise
quote:
8 team playoff would double that paltry take and you can keep your bowls between the C-USA and MAC and the WAC vs the non-playoff BCS 2nd tier teams.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News