- 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
re: Boise State NOT getting a BCS bowl - Could this scenario play out
Posted on 11/21/10 at 2:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 11/21/10 at 2:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
would you be in favor of BSU being required to wear their whites at home?
No, because the whole "team blends into the blue turf" excuse is bogus. Nobody complains that Oregon blends into their green field when they wear green at home.
I wouldn't mind seeing them wear that orange uniform at home at least one game a year, though. Those look sharp.
1
Posted on 11/21/10 at 2:42 pm to BeeEssYou
quote:
Nobody complains that Oregon blends into their green field when they wear green at home.
UO's colors are not the color of grass, though. BSU's uniforms/field are an exact match
Posted on 11/21/10 at 2:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
BSU's uniforms/field are an exact match
No they aren't.
Notice how the uniform's shade of blue is substantially darker than the turf's shade of blue.
Posted on 11/21/10 at 2:44 pm to BeeEssYou
quote:
it's because the WAC, MWC, CUSA, etc. are part of the FBS too, and therefore deserve to compete for the same championship as AQ conferences, like it or not.
The championship in college is awarded by the AP and Coaches Poll. Why should the big conference be forced to have a playoff if they feel its not better for them? This is a free country so the AP can name who ever they want as champion, sorry if it offends you that a group of writers think Oregon and Auburn are better. Under the current system anyone can win the NC, Boise or TCU could easily make it this year, TCU was close last year. But if the little guys want a playoff, why not start one?
Posted on 11/21/10 at 2:50 pm to H-Town Tiger
Why should the little conferences be forced to accept restraint of trade and payouts that favor the big conferences?
Posted on 11/21/10 at 2:52 pm to BeeEssYou
quote:
Why should the little conferences be forced to accept restraint of trade and payouts that favor the big conferences?
they're not
nothing prevents the WAC or MWC from making their own contracts with any bowls
*ETA: except pre-existing contracts
This post was edited on 11/21/10 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 11/21/10 at 2:58 pm to BeeEssYou
quote:
Why should the little conferences be forced to accept restraint of trade and payouts that favor the big conferences?
How is the Rose Bowl picking the teams they want a restraint of trade? Is the SEC CG and contract with CBS a restraint of trade for the teams outside of the SEC?
What is stopping the Non BCS conferences from negotiating a deal with bowls and TV networks? What's stopping them from starting a playoff if it will be so lucrative and people want to watch Boise?
Posted on 11/21/10 at 2:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
let's step away from the BCS for a second so i can discuss your last point
what outside forces are preventing the MWC from say, getting an invite to the Gator bowl (whatever it is called now) when its contract runs out?
what outside forces are preventing the MWC from say, getting an invite to the Gator bowl (whatever it is called now) when its contract runs out?
Posted on 11/21/10 at 3:02 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
What's stopping them from starting a playoff if it will be so lucrative and people want to watch Boise?
Would this proposed playoff still allow for non-AQ's to get into the title game? If not, it's a waste of time for all teams involved.
As far as the big schools go, they are idiots if they feel the bowl system is better for them than a playoff. Schools LOSE MONEY on bowls. A playoff system would make more money than the BCS. If a couple big schools get butthurt when a playoff inevitably gets introduced, I have no sympathy for them because they'd be idiotically supporting a money-losing system.
Posted on 11/21/10 at 3:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what outside forces are preventing the MWC from say, getting an invite to the Gator bowl (whatever it is called now) when its contract runs out?
The MWC has bowl tie-ins already, with the Maaco, Poinsetta, Independence, Armed Forces, and New Mexico Bowls. It's the BCS bowls that are a problem, because the tenuous non-AQ tie-in to the Sugar Bowl creates a logjam of non-AQ teams.
If we absolutely must keep the BCS, I think there should be more bowls added to the BCS, and every FBS conference (plus the highest-ranked Independent) gets a tie-in to one BCS bowl.
Posted on 11/21/10 at 3:09 pm to BeeEssYou
well, in terms of playoffs, people have to decide what the system will be first. we're years away from that right now
secondly, distributing the money is a really hairy issue. and it's one that you likely won't like. the big conferences/schools will get more money, and it will create a bigger gap between the two sides
also, things like where the games will be played is big. if it's home-field, then this will lead to even more discussions about money. if that happens, there will be an even bigger divide (within conferences as well)
playoffs will either shake college football up, or we have to wait for the structure of college football to change before playoffs make sense
secondly, distributing the money is a really hairy issue. and it's one that you likely won't like. the big conferences/schools will get more money, and it will create a bigger gap between the two sides
also, things like where the games will be played is big. if it's home-field, then this will lead to even more discussions about money. if that happens, there will be an even bigger divide (within conferences as well)
playoffs will either shake college football up, or we have to wait for the structure of college football to change before playoffs make sense
Posted on 11/21/10 at 3:11 pm to BeeEssYou
quote:
The MWC has bowl tie-ins already, with the Maaco, Poinsetta, Independence, Armed Forces, and New Mexico Bowls
what outside forces prevented the conference from getting better bowl tie-ins?
quote:
If we absolutely must keep the BCS, I think there should be more bowls added to the BCS, and every FBS conference (plus the highest-ranked Independent) gets a tie-in to one BCS bowl.
why?
why force this when the market does not dictate it? why does college football need to become socialist?
Posted on 11/21/10 at 3:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
Home-field advantage would have to go to the conference champion or highest-seeded team in each matchup. Either that, or turn the bowl games into neutral-site playoff games.
Posted on 11/21/10 at 3:14 pm to BeeEssYou
quote:
Home-field advantage would have to go to the conference champion or highest-seeded team in each matchup. Either that, or turn the bowl games into neutral-site playoff games.
it's not that simple
logistics play a large role. we want fans to go to the games, and they won't if they have to travel multiple times/they'll wait for the national title game
fanbases don't often fill up stadiums for bowl games, even BCS bowl games. using bowls for the playoff game sites will multiply this out
Posted on 11/21/10 at 3:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what outside forces prevented the conference from getting better bowl tie-ins?
Pre-existing contracts for better bowls with other conferences.
quote:
why does college football need to become socialist?
How is that socialist? It adds more competition into the college football market.
If anything, the current system is more socialist, since the bowls regulating their matchups - the "college football market" of sorts - is reminiscent of government regulating and placing restrictions on the free market, which is socialist in nature.
Posted on 11/21/10 at 3:19 pm to BeeEssYou
You have absolutely no leg to stand on in this argument.
The BCS gives non-AQ teams their shot for the title. That's all it should do.
The bowls should have a right to put whoever they want in their games and make their own tie-ins. PERIOD. They are exhibitions and not sanctioned by the NCAA. Oh, but we should bend over backwards for a JUCO that claims to be a full university.
The BCS gives non-AQ teams their shot for the title. That's all it should do.
The bowls should have a right to put whoever they want in their games and make their own tie-ins. PERIOD. They are exhibitions and not sanctioned by the NCAA. Oh, but we should bend over backwards for a JUCO that claims to be a full university.
Posted on 11/21/10 at 3:20 pm to RightKindaGuy
quote:
then why was their game against TCU last year so low in the ratings?
thats a lie. it was the 4th highest rated bowl game
can you link something to that effect?
I thought I remembered reading that was a very poorly rated game on TV
Posted on 11/21/10 at 3:20 pm to BeeEssYou
quote:
Pre-existing contracts for better bowls with other conferences.
at some point the better bowls had a choice and decided the MWC was not the best option though, right?
quote:
How is that socialist?
the market has already decided the conferences who best suit the bowls. the very best bowls and their respective conferences, decided to join together to maximize their profits through a television deal
forcing the networks to play shittier bowls with teams that don't generate revenue is socialist. your taking money from the top to give to the bottom to try and be nice to those at the bottom. the bottom hasn't earned it
that is socialism
quote:
the current system is more socialist, since the bowls regulating their matchups - the "college football market" of sorts - is reminiscent of government regulating and placing restrictions on the free market,
the bowls, networks, and conferences are all freely making choices in the way that best maximized their desires (money, exposure, tradition, etc)
there is no overruling body forcing the parties to do something they don't want to
Posted on 11/21/10 at 3:21 pm to molsusports
quote:
can you link something to that effect?
there are 5 BCS bowls. these will be the top 5-rated bowl games
being the 4th highest-rated bowl game is the 2nd worst BCS game
Posted on 11/21/10 at 3:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
forcing the networks to play shittier bowls with teams that don't generate revenue is socialist. your taking money from the top to give to the bottom to try and be nice to those at the bottom. the bottom hasn't earned it
The current bowls don't generate any revenue for AQ teams, so there's that.
Also, I would say that schools like Boise, TCU, Utah, BYU, Houston (before Case Keenum got hurt, anyway), Fresno State, Hawaii, Nevada, etc. have earned better exposure by being decent-to-amazing programs, capturing the headlines, and in the case of Boise State, drawing strong ratings.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News