The reason college football owns the NFL Options

[Oasis]

It'll never happen. Not even worth discussing

[impala454]

Why don't you think it'll ever happen?

[Oasis]

Yet another reason college owns the NFL



I'M A MAN, AND I'M 40 YEARS OLD!!!

[2wolUTT]

That jersey is fire.

[hodge]

Why do you have to keep the same amount of bowl games? How would the logistics not work out? Extra games would make more money for everyone involved. A sixteen team playoff only adds seven games, I dunno where you're getting this "double the amount of bowl games" business.

did you forget your own post?

You could still have regular bowl games for those that don't make the playoffs. Or even a separate tournament like the NIT.

so imagine you have a playoff scenario, with only 16 teams. thats 15 bowl games right there alone. if the other.... 48 teams are to have bowl games, thats another 24. 39 total. but wait you mentioned maybe a seperate tournament, NIT style... now you are talking about even more bowls.

extra games != more money necessarily. it draws money from the shit(hi meineke car care bowl) bowls, which now everyone not in the playoff is playing in. those bowls already suffer attendance issue, and charge basically high school football prices to go to(hi $25 for the gator bowl). it also would cut down on money that schools receive for going to said shit bowls, something basically 3/4 of your conference is going to worry about.

but will is right, it wont change so no point to argue it.

[impala454]

did you forget your own post?
so imagine you have a playoff scenario, with only 16 teams. thats 15 bowl games right there alone. if the other.... 48 teams are to have bowl games, thats another 24. 39 total. but wait you mentioned maybe a seperate tournament, NIT style... now you are talking about even more bowls.

No I didn't forget my own post. Your math is correct. I'm trying to figure out where you came up with "double" the games from my post..

1. Currently 64 teams -> reg bowls: 32 games
2. 16 team tourney + 48 teams -> reg bowls: 39 games (I vote for this option)
3. 16 Tourney + 16 "NIT" + 32 teams -> reg bowls: 46 games

extra games != more money necessarily. it draws money from the shit(hi meineke car care bowl) bowls, which now everyone not in the playoff is playing in. those bowls already suffer attendance issue, and charge basically high school football prices to go to(hi $25 for the gator bowl). it also would cut down on money that schools receive for going to said shit bowls, something basically 3/4 of your conference is going to worry about.

Selling $25 tickets isn't how money is made at bowl games. The Gator bowl is going to pay out $5.5 million. You think Konica Minolta is just donating that money? TV & Advertising is what makes bowl games profitable. And bowl money doesn't go to specific schools, it goes to the conference and is split up. I don't see how it'd be any different with a playoff. They'd be even more watched than the regular bowls IMO, and more sought after by big name companies for sponsers.

check out the About Us page for the Gator Bowl:

25,000 out-of-town visitors
2 night / 3 day average stay
$18-20 million direct spending into local economy
$50 million overall economic impact to Jacksonville
The Konica Minolta Gator Bowl is televised nationally by CBS Sports
Game day telecast has a national average audience of 7 million viewers

but will is right, it wont change so no point to argue it.

So argue about it first, then say there's no point in arguing? Now that's the Techsans I'm used to.

[hodge]

The Gator Bowl Association is a 501©(3) not-for-profit charitable organization

looks like it is just giving money away.

on contracts with the BCS

The BCS has a TV deal through 2009 and the Rose Bowl has one through 2013, so we will probably have to wait until at least then. I do not think we will see one until the non-BCS bowls start to dry up and go away. I am not talking about bowls like the New Orleans Bowl or the Las Vegas Bowl, but more like the Capital One (formerly Citrus) or Outback bowls. Right now, there is no incentive for the big schools to create one. They get just about all their bowl-eligible teams into postseason football. There is not a playoff format that will put eight SEC teams (for example) into the postseason.

on my money point

Also, right now, they have this big pile of money from the BCS that they share among themselves. If there is a playoff, the pile of money might be bigger, but the wealth would get shared more evenly. Why would the big schools go for that?

i wonder why this is ? could they be greedy for their own school? no way!

The biggest political roadblock is that university presidents do not want one. Since the presidents run the NCAA, it is going to be a pretty hard sell to get one going. There has been no indication that the presidents are softening on this issue.

payouts. its not exactly "even." (schools get a travel budget + 2/13 of the payout per bowl) following this guide tech is getting ~1.2 mil of the 2.5 payout.

A school also gets more money if it plays in a bowl game.

The bowl games operate on different money levels. The first level is the bowl games that pay less than $1.5 million. The Independence Bowl would be an example of this kind of bowl.

The participating schools receive $800,000 and the rest of the money is split among the conference 13 ways, according to Bloom.

The second level is the bowls that pay between $1.5 and $3.9 million. An example is the Outback Bowl.

The school keeps $1 million and the rest is split among the conference 13 ways. The same goes for a bowl such as the Capital One Bowl which pays between $4.0 and $5.9 million. The school keeps $1.2 million and the rest is once again split 13 ways in the conference. The final level of bowls is the BCS bowls, which pay out over $6 million. The school keeps $1.7 million and the conference gets the rest to split 13 ways.

if you wanna keep it going i dont care. point is there isnt an infinite amount of market for college bowl games, and the market there is currently is being stretched thin enough for sponsers to get in on. would the top 1/4-1/3 schools in each BCS conference love a playoff? sure i bet. but they are the a vocal minority, like it or not.

[impala454]

looks like it is just giving money away.

That's the Gator Bowl Assoc, not the sponser, Konica Minolta. And they're getting 7 million viewers for their 5.5 million dollars.

on contracts with the BCS

So you think they'll just wait until 2013 and say "hmm now what do we do?" or start discussing it now? The BCS has only been around since '98, you think it's the end all be all?

on my money point

This makes no sense. The BCS money is already split up amongst all the schools in their respective conference. So now is Baylor gonna cry that OU gets 2/13 instead of 1/12?

if you wanna keep it going i dont care. point is there isnt an infinite amount of market for college bowl games, and the market there is currently is being stretched thin enough for sponsers to get in on.

So now it's not just double the games, it's infinite! But you're right, the college football market just isn't there . Your totally right that a playoff structure doesn't make any money for anyone. I mean, those dumb ol' NFL playoffs don't make anyone a dime. Neither do the playoffs in every single other NCAA & pro sport. Gimme a break man, it's not that much of a stretch to add seven games.

[Oasis]

Also, right now, they have this big pile of money from the BCS that they share among themselves. If there is a playoff, the pile of money might be bigger, but the wealth would get shared more evenly. Why would the big schools go for that?

I don't know if I agree with this.

In fact, I think the exact opposite would happen.

I think the BCS bowl system determines percentage payouts to schools and conferences. I'm not gonna research this shit, but I know for a fact that the Bowl Alliance had a different profit sharing system than the BCS does.

There won't be a playoff system when the BCS still has a contract, obviously. If they went to a playoff system when the BCS contract is up it would more than likely be the NCAA running the bowls and playoffs directly. That'd mean the profit sharing system was reworked, and most likely it would be a lot more even in terms of schools actually playing in the bowl games getting a larger (and probably more fair) cut.

It's the loser schools like Baylor who don't want a playoff because it would mean they'd be getting less money for effectively doing nothing other than being in a BCS conference. Remember 2004, when Mark Mangino started whining about how the refs were favoring UT because "it all comes down to the BCS"? Mark, because the refs "threw" the game your program got a cool $1.2 million extra. Sit down, shut the fuck up, and go eat another taco.

I don't know if this is right, but it makes a lot more sense than the quote. If the BCS schools got less of a cut, a lot more AD's would be screaming for a playoff system and there might actually be one in the future.


Oh, and the logistics of a playoff. An 8 game playoff would mean three additional games. That's 15-16 games a season. That's tolerable in the NFL, where guys are getting paid millions of dollars to play. These are still college kids who have finals and a Christmas break. 99% of them will not be playing football on Sundays. The three games would either have to be played concurrently with regular bowl games, effectively ruining their holiday break; or be played starting in early January, cutting in to the first few weeks of school. Not really feasible and it's the reason a lot of athletic directors will never agree to any sort of playoff system.

[impala454]

An 8 game playoff would mean three additional games for two teams. I didn't mention it in this thread but in our umpteen discussions here at work, we all agreed that the cream puff preseason needs to be scrapped anyhow. So say, have one maybe two preseason games, then play your conference games. Maybe 9-10 games total + reg bowl or playoff.

edit: not to mention, eliminate the f'n MONTH long layoff between the end of the season and the BCS games

[Oasis]

I agree about the non conference games.

Have one non conference game for each team. It doesn't take three games to "warm up" your team for conference play. That's what summer practices and scrimmages are for. Furthermore, if you aren't ready by the time the season starts, you probably deserve to lose to someone like Appalacian State.

The Big 10 is the absolute worst with this shit. You figure ten teams in the same conference playing a 12 game schedule would all play each other, right? Instead they have four non conference games and eight Big 10 games. Michigan and Ohio State play each other every year because it's tradition. But someone like Iowa can luck out and not have to face either team in 2007.

Of course, that will never happen either because AD's enjoy beating the shit out of a hapless opponent and small schools enjoy their $500k check they receive after they get their ass kicked

[hodge]

So now it's not just double the games, it's infinite! But you're right, the college football market just isn't there . Your totally right that a playoff structure doesn't make any money for anyone. I mean, those dumb ol' NFL playoffs don't make anyone a dime. Neither do the playoffs in every single other NCAA & pro sport. Gimme a break man, it's not that much of a stretch to add seven games.

you're bad at reading. the market is not infinite. as in the their is a point of diminishing returns, at which its too expensive to sponser a bowl for what you get back. thats simple economics. NFL markets work because you have a lot more money involved and a smaller amount of teams in which fans associate with. the game is also a streamlined machine in both how its presented and how its pushed world wide. same goes for baseball. college football, as much as we all love it cant touch the numbers of professional sports.

here's the ratings numbers if you want.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/weekend-tv-ratings.htm
http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/tvratings

(a mid sunday game tops all but the championship in ratings)

Will, the way the current system works is a flat amount + you split the rest based on conference size + 1, and you get your share +1. while kansas did get a share from texas how they place in a bowl effects their payout as well(higher paying bowl = more money for your own school), so in that manner he was covering his own ass. a win at that point is like a 400,000 difference and makes him look like a better coach.

its the bottom 2/3 schools in the conference that really benefit the most from current bcs systems. if you play with 1-2 guys who beat up on you every year and go to bcs bowls you get a fat check. in a playoff system you take a gamble on getting said check, and your payouts from the shit bowls go down as well(since you cannibalize the advertisers for the playoffs). hell schools right now are going in the red already going to bowl games.

So you think they'll just wait until 2013 and say "hmm now what do we do?" or start discussing it now? The BCS has only been around since '98, you think it's the end all be all?

no i dont think they will wait until 2013 but i believe the fervor people have about the current system is unfounded and perpetuated by things such as espn just to give themselves something to talk about. ask yourself how many times they had people sit down and argue for the bcs with logic. now how many times have they argued against? the bcs has changed once before, so obviously they are willing to evaluate and change it as needed.


btw check out how div AA/AAA playoffs payout. i recall reading teams going in the red there too. march madness is a funny exception due to the ability to cram so many games in such a short span and same facilities, and the lower cost of transportation.

[2wolUTT]

I can't wait till I turn 40, so I can bite his rant.

[impala454]

And what a rant it was... "you can't read" blah blah blah "BCS rules!" blah blah blah "AA & AAA don't make any money" LOL blah blah. That's all I read.. then again I can't read.