Mr T Jobs To Me Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Look, when the BCS first set up shop, small schools could go 13-0 and still finish in the 30's by their formula. It was by its very nature meant to exclude smaller schools. However, through the years, dramatic steps have been taken to make it possible for smaller schools to earn a BCS berth and get the big payday that comes with it. But honestly, until a small school plays a nonconference schedule that is ambitious as Fresno State's (where they play 4 very good major conference teams) and goes undefeated, I won't think any small school is deserving of a National Title Game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthsiddus2 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 the BCS is an outdated system which needs to be thrown out the door. plain and simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickC13573 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Look, when the BCS first set up shop, small schools could go 13-0 and still finish in the 30's by their formula. It was by its very nature meant to exclude smaller schools. However, through the years, dramatic steps have been taken to make it possible for smaller schools to earn a BCS berth and get the big payday that comes with it. But honestly, until a small school plays a nonconference schedule that is ambitious as Fresno State's (where they play 4 very good major conference teams) and goes undefeated, I won't think any small school is deserving of a National Title Game. While that is true, and i agree whole heartedly; I think another topic of discussion most of the time missed is the amount of money and the disparities In addition to concerns about the inclusion of non-BCS conference teams in the five BCS bowls, some critics have noted the disparities between the amounts paid to the six BCS conferences and their respective schools, as opposed to other conferences and their own schools. The official BCS website discusses the payouts for the 2008-2009 BCS bowls.[1] Each BCS conference is guaranteed approximately $18 million, plus an additional $4.5 million should a second conference team be selected. Although each conference has its own arrangement for the distribution of these funds, the average income per school in each conference is as follows (One team selected/Two teams selected): Atlantic Coast (12 teams): $1.5M / $1.875M Big East (8 teams): $2.25M / $2.813M Big Ten (11 teams): $1.636M / $2.045M Big 12 (12 teams): $1.5M / $1.875M Pacific 10 (10 teams): $1.8M / $2.25M Southeastern (12 teams): $1.5M / $1.875M Notre Dame is guaranteed 1/66th of net revenues, or approximately $1.3 million. If selected to play in a BCS bowl, Notre Dame will receive $4.5 million. Independent programs Army and Navy will each receive $100,000 for allowing their teams to participate in the selection for BCS bowls. A total of approximately $1.8 million will be paid to the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA), which consists of 122 football programs. As a result, although the actual distribution will vary significantly, each school will receive an average of $14,754. Nine percent, or approximately $9.5 million, is guaranteed in aggregate to Conference USA, the Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt, and Western Athletic conferences. If a team from one of these five conferences plays in a BCS bowl, an additional nine percent (approximately $9.5M) will be given in aggregate to the conferences, and if a second team participates, those conferences will receive an additional $4.5M. These five conferences are composed of a total of 51 teams, broken down as follows: Conference USA - 12 teams Mid-American - 13 teams Mountain West - 9 teams Sun Belt - 8 teams Western Athletic - 9 teams Therefore, if the payouts to these conferences were broken down equally per school (which is not the case), this would amount to an average of $186,275 per school. If one team from these conferences were to play in a BCS game, that figure would increase to $372,549 per school. Should two teams be selected, the average per school would rise to $460,784 per school. As a result, in the best-case scenario schools from the non-BCS conferences would receive approximately 34% of the least of the schools in the BCS conferences, including Notre Dame. These numbers are not the actual amounts paid to each school, but look at the amounts paid to each school on average. The BCS Media Guide claims that over the first 10 years of the BCS arrangement, a total of $100 million has been given to the 51 non-BCS Football Bowl Subdivision schools and the 122 Football Championship Subdivision schools. This gives an average of $10M/year, or $58,803 per school year. By comparison, EACH BCS conference (between eight and twelve schools) is guaranteed $18 million this year, an average of $1.66M per school for the 65 participating institutions. These disparities are clearly defined within the Media Guide. The disparities between BCS conferences and non-BCS conferences continue outside the Bowl Championship Series to other bowls, but since the payouts for the five BCS bowls are so much greater than other bowls, the BCS has a major impact on revenue distribution paid to the various Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) schools. A 2003 study[2] described the disparities between the different schools. In 2003, there were 24 bowls other than the BCS bowls, creating opportunities for 48 teams to participate in bowl games. Of these 48 teams, 33 were from BCS conferences. In 2003, the Big Ten led all conferences with $31.9 million from its seven bowl appearances. By comparison, Conference USA, which led the non-BCS conferences with five bowl appearances, brought in a total of $5.75 million. TCU led all non-BCS schools with $1.37 million from its Liberty bowl appearance. As a result, there has been significant criticism regarding the revenue distribution by bowls, specifically the BCS due to its significantly higher payout to participating teams. This disparity coupled with the comparative difficulty for non-BCS teams to participate in BCS bowls, compounded by the uneven split even for non-BCS teams competing in a BCS bowl, have raised calls for further reform in the revenue distribution structure. These concerns have also called into question the underlying motivations of the BCS, insofar as revenue is concerned. These issues have been the center of some Congressional inquiries, as well.[3] the BCS is an outdated system which needs to be thrown out the door. plain and simple i agree that it is outdated but i think there is a slim! SLIM possibility that the BCS, with some tweaks, could be an alright system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthsiddus2 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 slim? how bout not a chance. the BCS has gone through so many tweaks and changes you can't fathom how much its changed from what it origionally was. it was good then but now since so many teams want an opportunity to play in a bowl or the national championship can't. we need a playoff system. even president-elect obama says we need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDE71 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 If you will take the time to go back and read my previous posts, I advocate a 16 team playoff. It works for what was 1AA and D2 and D3. If those kids can play and miss school, then the big boys can too. Also, the whipping Utah put on Alabama shows that a team that shouldn't win can. Another thing is Utah beat the only school to beat USC. Utah handled Alabama easier than Florida did. It doesn't matter if Utah would have been eliminated in the quarters or semis, we would have had a playoff and the other 15 schools could just shut the hell up and we would have a true national champion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDE71 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 One last thing and then I'm done with this thread. The biggest thing that keeps the non-auto bid schools from getting in the BCS championship game is the pre-season polls which have them outside the top 10 and usually outside the top 15. There shouldn't be ANY polling until October. I know the first BCS poll is not a pre-season poll, but it uses polls that have pre-season polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickC13573 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 If you will take the time to go back and read my previous posts, I advocate a 16 team playoff. It works for what was 1AA and D2 and D3. If those kids can play and miss school, then the big boys can too. Also, the whipping Utah put on Alabama shows that a team that shouldn't win can. Another thing is Utah beat the only school to beat USC. Utah handled Alabama easier than Florida did. It doesn't matter if Utah would have been eliminated in the quarters or semis, we would have had a playoff and the other 15 schools could just shut the hell up and we would have a true national champion. but then people would be saying that the seeding is unfair, leading to speculation of a Champions League Style grouping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthsiddus2 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 its worked for college basketball why can't it work for college football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 there is an automatic 7th, it goes to the non-BCS conf who is ranked in the top 12 of the BCS, so if Utah was the only one there and at 12 in the BCS ranking then they would be in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CQI13 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Technically 8 then, since ND gets automatic bid if it's in the Top 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Then that works 6 bids needs to stop being said because we have no talked about 2 more And I forgot who said it but they said "the game between OU and UF doesn't determine the NC, it's just another game" Well then wouldn't that mean the last what 10 NC games would just be games and nothing else, that since a National Champion has been crowned it didn't mean anything because they didn't win it through a playoff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDE71 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Then that works 6 bids needs to stop being said because we have no talked about 2 more And I forgot who said it but they said "the game between OU and UF doesn't determine the NC, it's just another game" Well then wouldn't that mean the last what 10 NC games would just be games and nothing else, that since a National Champion has been crowned it didn't mean anything because they didn't win it through a playoff? I said it an that's pretty much been the case. I'm gone from the thread again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grudge Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 its worked for college basketball why can't it work for college football? This to me is the deciding factor, yea it does work for college basketball. But compare the popularity of college football to college basketball. It will never change, and a part of me doesn't want it to, because if we had a playoff would we really still be talking about college football right now? No way! The playoff system is better for the fans, the BCS is better for the sport, and I'll take what's best for the sport anyday quite frankly. I'd rather be able to see all 30+ bowl games on television, then only catch 6 games in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astil Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Anyone who thinks Texas could beat Florida is crazy. Did you watch Texas against a crappy Ohio State team? Also, please note that it's not about the BEST team on paper, it is about who can survive a playoff. Witness the NFL this year. What wins games in the playoffs. Defense. Coaching. Especially in College: Coaching. So if it were a playoff I'd take USC or Texas. They played bad versus a good OSU team, and still won. They beat Oklahoma. USC's D is dominating. Pete Carroll, Mack Brown two great coaches. Alas, Florida's the champ in a one game playoff. That's how it is, and will be for a while. Even Obama backed off. I'll just watch the NFL and enjoy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astil Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 This to me is the deciding factor, yea it does work for college basketball. But compare the popularity of college football to college basketball. It will never change, and a part of me doesn't want it to, because if we had a playoff would we really still be talking about college football right now? No way! The playoff system is better for the fans, the BCS is better for the sport, and I'll take what's best for the sport anyday quite frankly. I'd rather be able to see all 30+ bowl games on television, then only catch 6 games in the playoffs. Make the Bowl System the College football NIT. If you really want to see UConn v. Buffalo that bad. And this is not the good type of "still being talked about". This is the revelaing of the man behind the curtain running the sport typed of "talked about" and finally fans = sport. Just ask the NHL. or the AFL. or the XFL. or the ABA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grudge Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Make the Bowl System the College football NIT. If you really want to see UConn v. Buffalo that bad. And this is not the good type of "still being talked about". This is the revelaing of the man behind the curtain running the sport typed of "talked about" and finally fans = sport. Just ask the NHL. or the AFL. or the XFL. or the ABA. sponsors make the sport. I don't see anyone refusing to watch college football because they don't have a playoff. The BCS gives them everything to gain and nothing to lose. Now you have 4 teams which came out just as prestigious this year as the team that won it all. If you had a playoff the results are much more limited. It's better for the schools, sponsors, and students, with this in regard the fans sadly are an afterthought. Oh and any publicity is good publicity. Because now Utah will sell more tickets next year, and do better on the recruiting trail and everyone in Utah will be hoping for a shot next year. Don't get me wrong I'd like to see a playoff, but only if it could work finacially. Nothing would be worse than to see college football sink to the level that college basketball and baseball are at. Right now the most popular college sport is the only one that does not have a playoff, I'm not saying this is why but if it ain't broke............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astil Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 sponsors make the sport. I don't see anyone refusing to watch college football because they don't have a playoff. The BCS gives them everything to gain and nothing to lose. Now you have 4 teams which came out just as prestigious this year as the team that won it all. If you had a playoff the results are much more limited. It's better for the schools, sponsors, and students, with this in regard the fans sadly are an afterthought. Oh and any publicity is good publicity. Because now Utah will sell more tickets next year, and do better on the recruiting trail and everyone in Utah will be hoping for a shot next year. Don't get me wrong I'd like to see a playoff, but only if it could work finacially. Nothing would be worse than to see college football sink to the level that college basketball and baseball are at. Right now the most popular college sport is the only one that does not have a playoff, I'm not saying this is why but if it ain't broke............ Woah Woah Woah. Ok, lets say round number, there are ... 32 bowl games. 16 team playoff. 15 big, money making sponser grinding HUGE games. Keep 17 bowls. Sponsership. Money. Lesser teams getting a cut. Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl, Gator Bowl, Capitol One Bowl etc, etc. tradition stays in tact, big business gets the money and fans get the playoff system. But, do not tell me the football team helps the school or studients. UConn's getting a nice new basketball complex, and golf course. The biology building's falling apart. Sports are sport. Schools are schools. A good amount of the money is never seen by students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veygan Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Here's the reality check folks : The economy in America WILL dictate a playoff setting for College football. Why? It was reported years ago, that most of the schools sending teams to the annual bowl games...lose money on those games. Why? Simply because only the top prized bowl games have a payout that's high enough to cover the travel costs for the teams. Adding that thousands of jobs are being lost every day, while hundreds of companies are filing bankruptcy each month in the US, there's just no viable solution to keep the current bowl system in place. While the elite colleges may be able to afford the travel expenses through private sponsorship money, most of the nation can not...including the fans who are seeing more and more pink slips with each passing day. FINAL SCENARIO : The NCAA will see a huge drop-off of bowl sponsors due to the lagging economy and lower ticket sales to those games. The payouts for these games will drop, thus forcing schools to reconsider whether or not to even accept the invitation. What sponsor would want to be associated with a bowl game, viewing on national tv, with EMPTY seats? People won't be able to afford the rising ticket prices and concessions - while sitting on unemployment !!! This means that all businesses and colleges associated with all of the NON BCS bowl games will lose money...in a time when money is hard to come by. IT WON"T HAPPEN. Plain and simple...the NCAA will be forced to "consolidate" its bowl strategy. We've had way too many bowl games for about 20 years. It's time for change, unless the economy picks up before the start of the 2009 season. Even then, it might be too late. As recovering a small fraction of the 2.5-3.5 million jobs that will have been lost by this fall, it's probably unlikely to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDE71 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I get tired of the excuse of "Oh they played bad". Well the other team usually is what makes them "play bad". Add to that, that Ohio State was rather average this year and you can't seriously think Texas had a chance against USC or UF or UTAH for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veygan Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 A PLAYOFF SETTING : Similar to what the lower Divisions do by holding the playoffs in a designated "host city". They may even consider following Basketball by holding several "regional" host cities with one pre-determined city for the National Championship ( this site could keep the current rotation for the BCS Championship Bowl game ). Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grudge Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 the playoff system would have to have a host city that was somewhere between the two schools because it's just not feasable for these schools to travel the distances that the pros do for weeks on end. And this is why the bowls we have now would not apply to the playoff system. For instance, lets say that Florida had to play in the Rose Bowl the week before the big game, they win and now after coming from texas last week they now have to fly to florida and thereby miss at least 2 weeks of school. And believe me I know that the sponsors are hard to find these days. That's why Nascar is getting hit so hard and the NFL won't have as many sponsors for the superbowl! Seeing as these are hard times for all of sports I say college football should do what they need to to stay afloat and give us the most games we can get. And right now that's via the BCS. I'm sorry but I don't see a playoff system in NCAA football as the solve all problem. Because even in the NFL there are problems with the playoff system. How do you think the patriots feel, 11-5 and they miss the playoffs but yet right now the Eagles and Cards are in the NFC championship game with 9 wins each. So no matter what someone is always going to feel slighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthsiddus2 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 you sir are of the select VERY few who don't want a playoff system. sorry but the BCS is not needed anymore weather you'd like to believe it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veygan Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 OR.... 1) 10 Bowl games. *These will be the non-playoff games. **To be played within the first 2 weeks of December. 2) Playoff setup : 8 teams overall, 4 teams @ each host city. *BCS rankings used to determine the top 8 eligible. This equates to 2 games per Regional winner...From Saturday to Saturday that's 2 games in 1 seven day stretch, starting in week three of December. 3) 2 Regional host cities ; 1 - West Coast , 1 - East Coast 4) Championship host city - Central time zone *There are several large cities like Dallas and others with NFL stadiums that can accommodate, in this timezone. This game will be scheduled 1 week from the day the Regionals are finished. You said it's "not feasible" to have a consolidated bowl format, but you're mistaken. The game attendance and bowl game ratings tell the tale for most of the non BCS bowl games. Think about it like this : If they consolidate the surviving sponsors from the current Bowl games into just 10 bowls with an 8 team playoff field, then you should have nice payouts with the cost spread out amongst many different companies. The problem started back in the early 90's, when the NCAA increased the number of bowl games --- NOT to increase revenue, but answer the whims of conference champions that weren't getting into the bowls and teams with 6-5 records. 7-5, 6-5, or 6-6 records should NOT be going to a bowl game, regardless if they won their conference championship. STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE some how got lost in the mix when the NCAA decided to expand the Bowl game numbers, to accommodate those weak conferences whining about getting an invite. I'm sorry, but how many people across the country care to watch, or did in fact switch the channel to view, the magicjack St. Petersburgh bowl with Memphis (6-6) and South Florida (7-5) ??? These 2 teams should have never even been invited to a bowl. Bowl games used to carry "prestige". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veygan Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 "...they win and now after coming from texas last week they now have to fly to florida and thereby miss at least 2 weeks of school. " Bowl games are all about revenue. The schools are more interested in the money they can make from the "players" than the grades produced from the "student" part of the team . University Endowments = Net Worth (LINK) Check out the listing. You'll see that schools like Harvard would have a higher GNP than most third world countries. Ohio St. and many other "powerhouses" are also on this list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CQI13 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Rather than go to the more prestigious bowl, they'll go to the higher paying bowl closest to their city (for the most part): i.e. The Hawaii Bowl (Hawaii), USC & The Rose Bowl. I'll believe the NCAA doing away with an archaic bowl system when it happens. If you hold a playoff, hold the first few rounds in the higher seed's school, then go for the big games. Guaranteed sell outs, some are bigger stadiums than the pros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.