- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Death to the BCS
Posted on 1/4/11 at 1:34 pm to TigahRag
Posted on 1/4/11 at 1:34 pm to TigahRag
quote:
look at the sizes of these "official travel parties" that the school foots the bill from airfare to hotel to meals to tickets ... some lists are over 250 people at about $3K a pop
yeah, they don't get into stuff like where the schools could cut costs.
1
Posted on 1/4/11 at 1:48 pm to H-Town Tiger
The numbers in the book are wrong and the statistics are not used properly. Despite this fact the simple answer is a playoff would generate more revenue than the BCS bowls would, and more revenue overall = more revenue for each school.
16 team playoff has 16 games, the BCS has 5.
The 16 team playoff doesn't pay out to bowl sponsorships, so there aren't middle men getting fat off the kitty.
The 16 team playoff lets Stanford, Alabama (possibly), TCU, keep going and their season isn't over.
The book is flawed but the playoff proposal is infinitely better than the current pile of shite we call the BCS.
16 team playoff has 16 games, the BCS has 5.
The 16 team playoff doesn't pay out to bowl sponsorships, so there aren't middle men getting fat off the kitty.
The 16 team playoff lets Stanford, Alabama (possibly), TCU, keep going and their season isn't over.
The book is flawed but the playoff proposal is infinitely better than the current pile of shite we call the BCS.
Posted on 1/4/11 at 2:02 pm to JB Bama
quote:
the playoff proposal is infinitely better than the current pile of shite we call the BCS.
This. I've watched only a few bowl games this season, and only 1 BCS game so far. I've watched more of the 1-AA playoffs than I have bowls.
Posted on 1/4/11 at 2:06 pm to JB Bama
quote:
The 16 team playoff lets Stanford, Alabama (possibly), TCU, keep going and their season isn't over.
And also includes teams like FIU, UConn, Northern Illinois, Central Florida. How many do you think would be really interested in an Auburn / FIU matchup in the 1st playoff game? I'd watch it just because it's college football, but not a matchup I'd look forward to.
This post was edited on 1/4/11 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 1/4/11 at 2:35 pm to GeauxTigersLee
Probably more than watched Uconn vs. Oklahoma in an exhibition game.
Not to mention you are talking about the worst matchup of 8. Who wouldn't watch 5 OSU vs. 12 Arkansas in a playoff at OSU... or 6 Mich St vs 13 Va Tech. 0r 7 Wisconsin vs. 10 Bama or 8 Oklahoma vs. 9 LSU.
Not to mention the wet dream that is the 2nd and 3rd round of a college football playoff.
Not to mention you are talking about the worst matchup of 8. Who wouldn't watch 5 OSU vs. 12 Arkansas in a playoff at OSU... or 6 Mich St vs 13 Va Tech. 0r 7 Wisconsin vs. 10 Bama or 8 Oklahoma vs. 9 LSU.
Not to mention the wet dream that is the 2nd and 3rd round of a college football playoff.
This post was edited on 1/4/11 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 1/4/11 at 2:39 pm to GeauxTigersLee
quote:
How many do you think would be really interested in an Oregon / FIU matchup in the 1st playoff game?
I would surely watch more of this game, than I watched of the game last night that I dozed off during a few times.
quote:
Probably more than watched Uconn vs. Oklahoma in an exhibition game.
Good call.
Posted on 1/4/11 at 2:43 pm to JB Bama
quote:1st round games:
Probably more than watched Uconn vs. Oklahoma in an exhibition game.
FIU @ Auburn.............meh
Miami (Oh) @ Oregon......meh
UConn @ TCU..............meh
UCF @ Stanford...........meh
Virginia Tech @ Wisconsin
LSU @ Ohio State
Boise State @ Oklahoma
Michigan State @ Arkansas
Most of these matchups are great, but does anyone really believe that FIU, Miami (Oh), or UConn deserve a chance at the NC? The only way a playoff gets implemented is by the NCAA, and that's not going to happen without including all conference champions (see the NCAAB tournament) - 11 AQ conference champs and 5 at-large teams.
Posted on 1/4/11 at 2:48 pm to GeauxTigersLee
If your biggest argument against the playoff is that there will be 4-5 meh games in it then I can live with that.
Considering it will provide a much better landscape for college football as a whole.
Teams will have more incentive to schedule tougher OOC opponents. There will be no detriment to playing in a non-AQ conference you can still go undefeated or lose 1 game and enter the playoff. You can come back from dropping a game because of injuries, etc. and still prove you deserve to be the champion.
Late November games will actually have meaning with playoff slots and home field on the line (see Arkansas vs. LSU).
The top seeded teams will have an easier road, which the SEC has proven is a huge advantage in football as opposed to Baseball and Basketball that aren't as physically demanding.
Considering it will provide a much better landscape for college football as a whole.
Teams will have more incentive to schedule tougher OOC opponents. There will be no detriment to playing in a non-AQ conference you can still go undefeated or lose 1 game and enter the playoff. You can come back from dropping a game because of injuries, etc. and still prove you deserve to be the champion.
Late November games will actually have meaning with playoff slots and home field on the line (see Arkansas vs. LSU).
The top seeded teams will have an easier road, which the SEC has proven is a huge advantage in football as opposed to Baseball and Basketball that aren't as physically demanding.
This post was edited on 1/4/11 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 1/4/11 at 2:51 pm to JB Bama
quote:
16 team playoff has 16 games, the BCS has 5.
but there are 35 bowls
quote:
The 16 team playoff doesn't pay out to bowl sponsorships, so there aren't middle men getting fat off the kitty.
not sure what this means, sponsors like Discover, All-State, Cap One etc are paying to be sponsors, they are not paid. They are why bowl payouts are what they are. Clearly sponsor would be needed for a playoff.
quote:
The book is flawed but the playoff proposal is infinitely better than the current pile of shite we call the BCS.
I disagree, I'd rather a 4 team playoff, or just keep it like it is.
Posted on 1/4/11 at 2:52 pm to JB Bama
quote:
Late November games will actually have meaning with playoff slots and home field on the line (see Arkansas vs. LSU).
You mean like Jaxville-Houston this weekeend in the NFL?
Posted on 1/4/11 at 2:58 pm to JB Bama
quote:
If your biggest argument against the playoff is that there will be 4-5 meh games in it then I can live with that.
I'm not against a playoff, but I just don't see any path in order to get there.
There is too much $$ and power invested in the BCS bowls, conference revenue, and the bowl system to risk imploding it. Even adding a +1 game (which is what I would like) doesn't seem feasible because most fans aren't going to travel to bowl site 2 weeks in a row to see their team play. The alternative is hosting games at home, and then you're fighting the bowl system.
My ultimate dream would be a 4-6 team playoff using the BCS standings instead of a 16 team playoff. I just don't see 16 teams as having an argument to deserve playing for the NC. Losing 3 games imo should eliminate you, not determine home field advantage.
I'm probably one of the few that think that the NCAA basketball tournament already has too many teams. It's fun to watch the games, but I don't really believe that a team like GT who finished 7-6 in the ACC deserved a shot at the NCG. It totally eliminates the importance of the regular season.
Posted on 1/4/11 at 3:02 pm to GeauxTigersLee
quote:This would be the worst playoff game, roughly ranked the #15 game of the playoff of 16 games. Compare it to the #15 bowl game for a fair comparison.
And also includes teams like FIU, UConn, Northern Illinois, Central Florida. How many do you think would be really interested in an Auburn / FIU matchup in the 1st playoff game? I'd watch it just because it's college football, but not a matchup I'd look forward to.
Also, I still fail to see how a playoff would eliminate the bowls. The NIT still exists. They would just exist in a different way. I think we'd still end up with roughly 40-45 postseason games. 15 of them with actual meaning.
Aside from SFP's pathological hatred of small schools, I like the idea of letting every getting a shot. They'll likely lose, but it's mainly a payoff for allowing themselves to be schedules as patsies during the regular season. I'm a firm beliver that either you're D-1 or you're not. If these schools aren't D-1, then they should be kicked out and top schools SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SCHEDULE THEM. Having theis lesser tier of teams absolutely benefits the AQ conferences, giving them some bottom feeders to beat up on.
I'm also curious how good TCU is. Aren't you?
Posted on 1/4/11 at 3:09 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
An on-campus playoff, they argue, would make the schools and conferences much much more money
7 playoff games combined would not match the viewership total of the 35 current bowls, therefore, there would not be more money involved, unless networks want to piss their money away or you keep some bowls for the top teams that didn't get into bowls. Besides, how would you dictate who gets paid what for playoff games? So many variables that most of these guys and the average fan never even begin to take into account when dealing with these matters.
Posted on 1/4/11 at 3:17 pm to Baloo
quote:And I'm amazed that it does. You also have the CBI.
The NIT still exists.
Most don't know that teams that host a NIT game lose money. Even a CBI game costs the host school $61,000 - and those schools can't sell enough tickets to cover the cost...for a home game.
quote:
Also, I still fail to see how a playoff would eliminate the bowls.
The minor bowls are currently supported by sponsors and $$ from the larger bowls. All bowl revenue is collected by the conference and distributed evenly to all schools in the conference. Eliminate the larger bowls and you eliminate the structure that supports the smaller bowls. Tostitos, Allstate, Discover, Capital One aren't going to pay as big $$ to sponsor homes games or those respective bowl games without the major teams.
Posted on 1/4/11 at 3:52 pm to GamecockAlum
quote:
7 playoff games combined would not match the viewership total of the 35 current bowls
Why are many people under the impression that a playoff would have to totally eliminate all other bowl games?
Posted on 1/4/11 at 3:55 pm to GeauxTigersLee
The minor bowl games help support smaller programs within each school's athletic department.
Unless you find a network that is willing/stupid enough to pay what the current total bowl payout is to the BCS conferences for a playoff, then it just plain isn't going to happen. You're also going to have to deal with the stigma of hurting the economy of some of the towns/cities in which these bowl games are hosted in, as well as telling 62/54 coaches that had extra practice due to being in bowls that their practice time is being yanked from them.
Face it, playoffs may sound good in theory, but they aren't practical in application.
Unless you find a network that is willing/stupid enough to pay what the current total bowl payout is to the BCS conferences for a playoff, then it just plain isn't going to happen. You're also going to have to deal with the stigma of hurting the economy of some of the towns/cities in which these bowl games are hosted in, as well as telling 62/54 coaches that had extra practice due to being in bowls that their practice time is being yanked from them.
Face it, playoffs may sound good in theory, but they aren't practical in application.
Posted on 1/4/11 at 4:09 pm to JB Bama
quote:
Considering it will provide a much better landscape for college football as a whole.
giving much more money to the superconferences and castrating the shite conferences is not "better for the landscape of college football as a whole" broseph
quote:
Teams will have more incentive to schedule tougher OOC opponents.
wrong. more 1-AA opponents will matter to get the fewest losses to get ranked highly for the final open spots
quote:
There will be no detriment to playing in a non-AQ conference you can still go undefeated or lose 1 game and enter the playoff.
there is no benefit whatsoever
quote:
The top seeded teams will have an easier road,
how? home games?
won't fricking happen
Posted on 1/4/11 at 4:17 pm to Baloo
quote:
you're D-1 or you're not.
a schism is necessary (for title implications)
however, non-BCS schools/conferences don't want any part of the lost money
quote:
Having theis lesser tier of teams absolutely benefits the AQ conferences, giving them some bottom feeders to beat up on.
and it benefits the shite conferences by allowing them to leech off of the revenue generated by the producers
it's why they don't really complain
Posted on 1/4/11 at 4:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
Of course it benefits the lesser schools as well. I just don't like when we pretend that the SEC does not benefit by the existence of the Sun Belt and C-USA. We absolutely do. giving them a longshot title shot in a 16-team playoff is an even payoff for those rent-a-wins.
Posted on 1/4/11 at 4:50 pm to Baloo
quote:
giving them a longshot title shot in a 16-team playoff is an even payoff for those rent-a-wins.
as long as they get their appropriate share i don't think the SEC owuld be too mad
i bet they ask for more than they're worth
Page 2 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News