Bowl Coalition = Bullshit

[MylesKnight]

What a Fricking Joke!! This is seriously a Damn Cartel we have going on in Division I-A College Football. How do they get away with this?

..and don't think I feel this way just because I'm an Alum and absolute avid supporter of one of the I-A Schools left out in the cold. No my friend I would feel this way even if UCF were to be offered a spot in the ACC tomorrow morning with full BCS privledges. I hope they'd turn the damn thing down and form an alliance with the other I-A Non-Cartel Members to take down the BCS.

It's time to open this thing up to everyone or, if not, it's time for the "Cartel" Schools and Conferences to create their own Governing Body/NCAA.

By the way, my favorite quote from the article below is this..

"'I'm skeptical a national champion could be determined in a playoff without infringing on a student athlete's welfare,'' said Penn State president Graham Spanier, a member of the committee."

LMAO!!! First off, since when is the Student-Athlete's Academic Welfare the major issue? Someone send me that memo, I obviously didn't get one.... And secondly, I suppose the academic requirements for athletes from schools competing at any other level of NCAA or NAIA Football must be an absolute cakewalk, seeing as all other Divisions of College Football do in fact compete in a Playoff Format to decide the Champion. Hmmm, yes I must say that Kansas State University Degree is FAR more prestigous than that of that youngster over there from Holy Cross or that one over in the far corner from Johns Hopkins.

Here's the Article and the Link (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/202/sports/BCS_won_t_consider_playoff_:.shtml)..


BCS won't consider playoff

By Josh Dubow, Associated Press, 7/21/2003 18:42


Forget about a college football playoff for now.

The committee overseeing changes to the Bowl Championship Series won't consider using a tournament to determine the national champion despite pleas to open up the postseason to more schools.

The BCS Presidential Oversight Committee on Monday directed the six conference commissioners to come up with proposals for changing the BCS without a playoff.

''I'm skeptical a national champion could be determined in a playoff without infringing on a student athlete's welfare,'' said Penn State president Graham Spanier, a member of the committee.

The panel also said it would meet with representatives from the other five Division I-A conferences Sept. 8 in Chicago to hear their concerns about the current system.

Tulane president Scott Cowen, who is holding a teleconference with 44 other university presidents from non-BCS schools on Tuesday, said the invitation was a positive step.

But he was disappointed that the committee refused to consider a playoff, which the NCAA has in all other divisions and sports and which would improve access for schools from non-power conferences.

''If we're going to have a dialogue, all options have to be open,'' Cowen said. ''If they are eliminating options before the dialogue, then what are we talking about?

''No matter how good we are, we can't get into BCS bowls. The rankings are biased against non-BCS schools.''

In 1998, Tulane went undefeated but could only play in the Liberty Bowl because it was ranked 11th in the BCS standings. Teams from non-BCS conferences are guaranteed a bid to one of the four bowl games if they are ranked in the top six.

But in the 20 years before the BCS started, only one school other than Notre Dame that is not currently in those six conferences played in one of the series' four bowls.

''The trend in the BCS is not very different than what existed in the decades before the BCS,'' Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said. ''The only thing that really has changed is we've created a 1 vs. 2 game.''

Money is a major issue. The Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange bowls generate more than $100 million a year for the BCS conferences. The BCS gives about $8 million a year to the schools from the other five conferences.

The BCS was formed in 1998 in an effort to match the top two teams in a national title game. The system takes the champions from the six major conferences Pac-10, Big 12, Big Ten, ACC, SEC and Big East and two at-large teams to play in the BCS bowls.

The system worked perfectly last season when it paired Ohio State against Miami in the Fiesta Bowl in a matchup of the only undefeated teams a matchup that couldn't have happened under the old system of conference tie-ins.

''Since we reorganized a little bit to allow for No. 1 vs. No. 2 game, there really has been no change in the schools that would have qualified before and that qualify now,'' Spanier said.

University of Nebraska-Lincoln chancellor Harvey Perlman said the commissioners could consider adding a championship game after the four BCS games, as well as adding another game to the system to give schools from smaller conferences a better chance to get into a major bowl game.

The committee also said the Big East would remain a member at least until the current contract ends after the January 2006 bowls despite losing powerhouses Miami and Virginia Tech to the ACC.

Delany said the Big East's chances of remaining in the BCS in the next contract depend on how attractive the reconstituted conference would be to television networks.

Also, the Big Ten is not looking to add a 12th team and wouldn't want to start a conference championship game even if an NCAA rule change allowed it for conferences with 10 or 11 teams.

While such a game could generate as much as $12 million for the conference, Delany said the drawbacks outweigh the extra money.

''It makes it much more difficult for your champion to run the table,'' Delany said. ''Then, the loser of the game is 'less interesting' to bowls because it's coming off a loss. Also, fans who made a major trip from their homes to the venue may be less inclined to go to a bowl game. Lastly, it inevitably has a way of diminishing traditional rivalries in a conference.''

[tucker342]

LAME!!!!!

Don't worry, in a couple more years we won't have to deal with the BCS, hopefully the NCAA will start a playoff after the their deal with the BCS is up(ya right)

[cthomer5000]

I honestly don't think many big college football fans even want a playoff. It's like pissing on the game's entire history. It seems to me like the casual fans are the ones who get all riled up about a playoff system, and make all the noise when news like this is stirred up.

I'm pretty neutral on the subject myself.

[MylesKnight]

CT, this issue is not about Bowl vs. Playoff to me. It has more to do with the door basically being shut on roughly half of the Football Programs competing in Division I-A when it comes to actually competing for a National Championship.

Can you say this of any other NCAA Sport at any other Division? No you can't.

Take the NCAA D-I Hoops Tourney for example. Sure, UNC-Asheville would have one helluva time winning 6 consecutive games as a #16 Seed to win the whole damn thing but you know what, at least they have the opportunity to do so.

As it stands right now a Non-Cartel member can, and has done so already (see Tulane and Marshall), go unbeaten for an entire season and not even receive a token BCS Bid to one of the Non-Championship Game Bowls, not to mention the actual Championship Game/Bowl. This is not right..

...and with the financial differences and advantages we are talking about for Bowl Cartel Affiliated Teams and Conferences compared to those not among the Cartel, hell this really is illegal isn't it?

If the system can be "fixed" while keeping the current Bowl Format then fine, although I think a Playoff System would be much more entertaining personally. Just get rid of the BCS Cartel..

[vtbub]

As long as College Football runs as an independent entity like the NCAA runs Division 1-A, there will be no playoff.

Quite simply the Bowls generate revenue and they aren't about to cut that cash cow.

[ice4277]

I consider myself to be a huge college football fan, and actually like the system we have now. College football is all about tradition, and scrapping the bowl system would kill most of that tradition off. The way the sport is now, every game in the regular season is like a playoff; lose one, and you are probably out of title contention. And I like it that way. If you have an eight or sixteen-team playoff, there will be a much greater margin for error, taking away some of the importance of each game. And as for Tulane and Marshall having undefeated seasons, to say that those teams were just as good as the top 1 or 2 in the country, or even 5 or 6, just doesn't cut it with me. I went to a MAC school but do I think any MAC school has, or has had, the talent levels to legitmately compete for a national title recently? Hell no.

[MylesKnight]

Originally posted by vtbub

Quite simply the Bowls generate revenue and they aren't about to cut that cash cow.

VT, seriously wouldn't you think a Playoff would generate more? I think we're talking very close to NCAA Hoops Tourney dollars here.. Ahh, but then the "Big Boys" have to share. Oops, did I say the "S" word?

It's all about one word, Greed. But the Cartel Schools/Conferences are doing is illegal and would be judged as so in a court of law. It's up to the Non-Cartel Members to stand together and fight, which has not happened yet and the BCS Members are betting won't happen in the future.

[MylesKnight]

Originally posted by ice4277

And as for Tulane and Marshall having undefeated seasons, to say that those teams were just as good as the top 1 or 2 in the country, or even 5 or 6, just doesn't cut it with me.

Let me argue with this Ice... As far as a consistent, year-by-year basis, you're right, I agree schools like Tulane & Marshall among others cannot compete among the Top Ranked Schools in Division I-A Football.

BUT, in a particular season I think they can, in the same way that schools such as Gonzaga and Tulsa can compete from time to time deep into the Big Dance. You know, a couple of small breaks and either of those schools could have a Men's Basketball National Champion Banner hanging. The same goes for a 12-0 Marshall Team or 11-0 Tulane Team. The only difference is they do not even get the opportunity and that's the issue.

[cthomer5000]

Tulane's 1998 schedule:

Sept. 5 *Cincinnati Away 6 p.m.
Sept. 12 Southern Methodist Away 7 p.m.
Sept. 26 Navy Home 5 p.m.
Oct. 3 *Southern Mississippi Home 5 p.m.
Oct. 17 *Louisville (HC) Home 2:30 p.m.
Oct. 24 Rutgers Away 11 a.m.
Oct. 31 SW Louisiana Home 5 p.m.
Nov. 7 *Memphis Away 1 p.m.
Nov. 14 *Army Away Noon
Nov. 21 *Houston Home 5 p.m.
Nov. 26 Louisiana Tech Home 5 p.m.


This schedule is a complete joke Myles. Now, if their non-conference games had been some REAL teams (that they almost certainly would have had to play on the road), then maybe we could talk. If they had beat Nebraska, Virginia Tech, and Notre Dame instead of the bums they played out of conference (yes, that includes Rutgers), they might have had a legitemate stake at a BCS game. College football is very reliant upon scheduling, and when forming a schedule like that you automatically take yourself out of serious consideration for a national title.

[vtbub]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
VT, seriously wouldn't you think a Playoff would generate more? I think we're talking very close to NCAA Hoops Tourney dollars here.. Ahh, but then the "Big Boys" have to share. Oops, did I say the "S" word?

It's all about one word, Greed. But the Cartel Schools/Conferences are doing is illegal and would be judged as so in a court of law. It's up to the Non-Cartel Members to stand together and fight, which has not happened yet and the BCS Members are betting won't happen in the future.

No, I don't.

Twenty, twenty-five years ago when the NCAA controlled the TV package, it could have.

The conferences have so much power in football, that it's not in their interests to share.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
The only difference is they do not even get the opportunity and that's the issue.

i know you posted this just before, but see my post about scheduling. They told the football world they were not to be taken seriosuly with that schedule.

Just because Rutgers could beat any team on any given day, should they be given a shot at a national title? Any team can upset another team (even if the odds are 1 in a 1000). Under the current NCAA football structure, you can either give yourself a chance by scheduling serious (out-of-conference) opponents, or you can concede you don't belong in the upper echelon by scheduling Army and Southwest Louisiana.

[MylesKnight]

You got me there CT, can't argue with that. But I will say that a Playoff Format would most certainly point a "imposter" like that out if they were in fact just that.

And what about the issue of a good Non-BCS Team that tries to upgrade their Non-Conference Schedule but is unable to because no one wants a game with them? This has happened numerous times before, why penalize them?

[Anrhydeddu]

Good, I'm glad the NCAA is not being stupid, for once. I would rather have a BCS Bowl matching 2 of the top 3 or 4 teams as oppose to a playoffs where a low seeded, 2-3 loss team can get lucky. Last season, Miami and Ohio State deserved to have played for the championship - any other matchup would have been a joke. If that prevents less elite teams from having a chance, so be it.

[ISiddiqui]

i know you posted this just before, but see my post about scheduling.

However, a LOT of big time teams will not schedule good low reputation teams because it would be a big blow if they got knocked off by them. There are plenty of stories of these little guys trying to get the big boys to play them, but they won't.

[MrBug708]

*stands up and claps*



Well done. I am against a Playoff system. I'd hate to be that 17th ranked team

[MylesKnight]

Originally posted by vtbub
No, I don't.

Twenty, twenty-five years ago when the NCAA controlled the TV package, it could have.

The conferences have so much power in football, that it's not in their interests to share.

I agree with your comments VT.

I am a bit of an extremist (no, not that kind of extermist :D) when it comes to some issues though, one being Revenue Sharing among I-A Schools when it comes to TV Revenue. If you're going to put restrictions and guidelines down for schools to maintain their I-A status then I say some sort of revenue sharing should be introduced to compensate the "lesser known" programs that are able to compete at that level. NCAA Basketball does it, but they are able to do so because of the Tournament.. College Football doesn't have that, at least not currently. But what they could do is figure out some sort of fair (and the key word here being "fair") formula to split Television Revenues among all Division I-A Schools. Again, I'm not saying a even piece of the pie for everyone, but a fair piece that can be agreed upon.

I just think College Football would be so much nicer with a Playoff Format similar to that of the NCAA Basketball Tournament though..

[MylesKnight]

Keep in mind, as I'm sure you're already well aware of Anrhydeddu, that the BCS Format has hardly been "The Solution" to the problem of matching the two best teams year in and year out in College Football's National Championship Game.

Anyways, I think a lot of people would actually change their opinion about the whole Bowl vs. Playoff issue if we actually had the chance to see a 16 Team National Championship Tournament play out. I think a whole lot of folks would enjoy the heck out of it.. I'll say this much, a 1st Round Matchup between the #6 and #11 Seeds would be much more entertaining than the Continental Tire Bowl.

[vtbub]

You would have to do a 16 team playoff to be fair, meaning that a Big 12/SEC team would have to win 5 neutral site games to win the championship. A conference game and 4 playoff games.

[Airhog]

And just think, if you root for a big name school, then you have the opportunity to watch more ball games :D


I have to agree with dropping the BCS. I say go with the formula, and take the top 8 teams. If it works maybe expand to 16 teams. But even 8 would be a step in the right direction.

Now another thing they should do, is lessen the impact that the AP poll and the Coaches poll has on the teams. No way does any sports analyst watch all of those teams. Or coach even.

[MylesKnight]

Originally posted by vtbub
You would have to do a 16 team playoff to be fair, meaning that a Big 12/SEC team would have to win 5 neutral site games to win the championship. A conference game and 4 playoff games.

But isn't it those Conferences choices to have a League Championship Game? Just because you have 12 teams doesn't mean you must have a Championship Game.

As for those teams having to win 5 straight neutral site games, not necessarily my friend. A 16 Team Playoff Format would certainly leave room for a few At-Large Invites and I would have to think the loser of the Big 12 or SEC Title Game would more than likely be one of those invitees. Still, it would take 4 straight W's to win a National Title with that Playoff Format (by the way, I'm all for Homefield Advantage in at least the 1st Round with this format, possibly even the Quarterfinals as well. This would give the Higher Seeds the kind of advantage they earned by having the kind of Regular Season they did).

[ISiddiqui]

I wouldn't mind a compromise playoffs. Have every 1-A conference winner face off in a playoffs, and have one at-large. Make it a 12 team playoff with the 1-4 ranked teams having a bye in the first round.

Then again, I just want a playoff system, no matter what ;).

[MylesKnight]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
I wouldn't mind a compromise playoffs. Have every 1-A conference winner face off in a playoffs, and have one at-large. Make it a 12 team playoff with the 1-4 ranked teams having a bye in the first round.

Then again, I just want a playoff system, no matter what ;).

Good point Iszy, although I don't think 12 Teams would be enough with all Conference Champions getting an Automatic Invite.

I do believe each and every Division I-A Conference Champion should get an invite into a Playoff type Tournament. Hey, Coppin State, Texas Southern and Wagner get their chance in the Hoops Tourney why shouldn't North Texas get their's in the Football Version?

[MylesKnight]

Man, I just love talking College Football with my FOFC Compadres. ;)

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
However, a LOT of big time teams will not schedule good low reputation teams because it would be a big blow if they got knocked off by them. There are plenty of stories of these little guys trying to get the big boys to play them, but they won't.

This is true at times, and I can understand why. For the big-boys, here are the two possible outcomes:
you win like you're supposed too, the fans don't say a word
you lose. "what! we lost to Troy State!!. heads roll
It's almost a no-win situation for big time schools.

That being said. If there WAS a playoff system, how would you get around the problem of bigger programs REAAAAALLLLLY padding their schedules with fluff. I mean, why even play non-conference games if all it takes is a conference title or an at-large bid to make the playoffs?

[Cards4ever]

To have a playoff system, I think they should scrap the conferences and start new conferences, end the non-conference games and just play in conference. Of course we already have that, it's called pro football, but, most people want to believe that a playoff system is the answer. I like the Bowl system myself, but, I think it's on it's way out, too many people want playoffs.

[MylesKnight]

Originally posted by cthomer5000

That being said. If there WAS a playoff system, how would you get around the problem of bigger programs REAAAAALLLLLY padding their schedules with fluff. I mean, why even play non-conference games if all it takes is a conference title or an at-large bid to make the playoffs?

CT, I don't have all the answers my friend. ;)

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
CT, I don't have all the answers my friend. ;)

nor do I. I just think that most people who are pro-playoff don't examine the million ways in which it would affect college football as you currently know it. for instantce: Marshall would instantly become much, much more attractive to recruits. They'd be basically guaranteed a trip to the tournament annually. What do you do with independents?

I think if someone suggests changing the system, they have to be able to provide reasonable answers to all these questions.

Most importantly though, you'd need to be able to show a financial model for how a 8 or 16 team playoff would make the conferences more money than it does now. You'd have to figure out where the games would be played, etc..


EDIT: grammar

[Airhog]

Maybe the teams would schedule more fluff. And maybe that would impact the game more. But with unbeaten teams like marshall getting left out, even if they did play 11 patsys, is no way to determine a champion.

How can you call yourself a champion if you havent played the best???

[MylesKnight]

Alright, let me give a couple of answers now that I've had a chance to reflect a bit.. :)

Teams would continue to play Non-Conference Games because of one thing... $$$$. TV Deals and the $$$ generated from Gate Receipts would make this happen.

The bigger issue would be the first one you mentioned CT.. How do you get the "Big Name" Programs to schedule games with the Troy State's of the world? Especially when it comes to the "Big Boys" playing at Troy's place.

I think this would require the NCAA, or whatever governing body would be in charge at that point, to step in and create a few rules in regards to Non-Conference Scheduling. Maybe by making Conference A play Non-Conference Games against teams from Conference B, C & D only for a 2 Year Period, Home and Away. That is each Conference A Team plays one team from B, C, & D and work it out so the teams that finished 1st the year before the 2 Year Plan begins play one another, the two 2nd Place Teams play one another, and so on...

As for Conferences that have an uneven number of teams, ie the Big 12 vs. the MWC for example.. well we'll figure that out later, but I would say that may be where the Independents come in, if there are any left at that point.

Just an idea but there would have to be some kind of measure taken by the Governing Body.

As for your comment about a school like Marshall dominating, what makes you think Marshall is so far removed from the rest of their Conference currently anyway? Teams such as Toledo, UCF, Bowling Green and Miami of Ohio are nipping right at the heels of the Herd and would only improve just as Marshall would with a new Postseason Format available. I just don't think you'd see any 1 team dominating for a long stretch of time in any of the "1 Bid Conferences".

As for the whole Financial Issue of it all, which is of course far and away the #1 issue when all is said and done, I would need to do a bit of research on that issue but I do believe it would be at least the kind of moneymaker that the BCS System is for the current "Cartel Members" and that is with me including all of the other I-A Schools that would receive their piece of the financial with the Playoff Format.

And as for how a 16 Team Format would work, I say this is where you reward the Higher Seeded Teams for their excellent Regular Season. Give Homefield Advantage to the Better Seeded Team in the 1st Round and possibly in the Quarterfinals as well. They've earned it, plus you've got to give a few of these teams some kind of incentive to do more than just make the Tournament Field. Plus, keep in mind College Football works a lot differently than College Hoops, only 1 Game a week vs. 2+ for the Basketballers. I don't know if 4 Neutral Site Games for the 2 Teams that would eventually make the National Championship Game in a 16 Team Format would work out well Attendance Wise for those schools... Definitely not in comparison to say Home Games the first two Rounds of the Tourney.

[Chief Rum]

Actually, the big reason teams would continue to play strong nonconference schedules is because a playoff system would require some kind of grading system, like the BCS currently uses.

Unless you guys are actually suggesting the media polls would be used for that--you're not, are you? I hope not.

Anyway, a computer system, maybe event he very same one the BCS uses now, would grade out all 117 teams, and spit out the top sixteen. And, of course, since strength of schedule would be a big part of that equation, it would behoove teams with championship dreams to actually schedule better than Kansas State--which I might add has probably missed on at least three BCS bids in the last 6-7 seasons because Snyder is a puss.

Chief Rum

[Cards4ever]

Get Div 1 to go to 112 teams, 8 conferences of 14 teams, everyone plays a 13 team schedule, the 8 winners go to the playoffs.

[Craptacular]

They do need some major conference restructuring, as well as consistent scheduling requirements, before I'd support a playoff system.

[Darkiller]

I am appreciative of the Bowl history...but I think now is the time for each and every team to have a fair shot at winning the whole thing, just like in the NFL.

A Playoff system is, without questions, the better way to procede because if the team is "that" good, the "best"..than they will prove it on the field and go all the way.
If not, well that's because another team will have been more deserving.

The conferences would need some major overhaul indeed. But all in all, that sould do for the best.
I would be mure more excited at following a College Football Playoff instead of watching the "My Taylor is Rich Bowl" between 2 sub-par teams...that's worthless...and everyone knows it.

[Darkiller]

dola.

I think there is a lot of hypocrisys surrounding College Football.
money is a damn pivotal issue while they keep pretending and claiming out loud indeed that NCAA institutions are, as a matter of fact, not meant for the sake of makeing money...

well, thank you.

Those same institutions that make millions every year with they Bowl Cartel arrangements prohibit their star players, who make them win (!), from making themselves some money...(because remember, we are touted "NCAA" uhhhh)
Common, if those college presidents and conference commissionners begin by re-thinking their complete approach of "college sport" and its purpose, then we would be off to a good start. but that's unfortunately unlikely to happen.

I wonder if College Sports (football) hypocrisy is only at its beginning...

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
As for the whole Financial Issue of it all, which is of course far and away the #1 issue when all is said and done, I would need to do a bit of research on that issue but I do believe it would be at least the kind of moneymaker that the BCS System is for the current "Cartel Members" and that is with me including all of the other I-A Schools that would receive their piece of the financial with the Playoff Format.


How? Show me something concrete! Now that money would be spread amongst ALL conferences, rather than piled on the top 6, why would the BCS conferences be in favor of this?

Would a playoff system generate more than twice as much money (through less games), so that splitting it amongst all conferences would work out better for the big boys than the current system?

[QuikSand]

Is there anything in this debate that actually surprises anyone any longer?

[ShagVT]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
I'll say this much, a 1st Round Matchup between the #6 and #11 Seeds would be much more entertaining than the Continental Tire Bowl.

See, this is actually the heart of the argument. Did you watch the Continental Tire Bowl last season? It was played here in Charlotte so I did. It was a great game between West Virginia and Virginia.

For the entire first half, West Virginia was just taking it to the Cavaliers. They were moving the ball largely at will, but UVA's defense was shutting them down when they started getting close to the redzone. UVA's offense was getting stuffed. The Cavaliers needed a way to move the ball, so they broke out gimmick plays.

A wide receiver reverse option. A quarterback screen. A flea-flicker. And despite being completely outplayed for the 1st 30 minutes, at halftime the Cavaliers were up 21-6.

It was an outstanding game. And I am certainly no fan of either school.

At last, I get to the point...
But neither of these teams were in the top 16 in the country. The bowl game was a way of rewarding two schools that had great seasons with a chance to have one more big game against a comparable opponent, giving the fans of those schools a fun road trip.

(OK, it was a road trip to Charlotte, but still)

But what fan could afford to make bowl trips on four consecutive weeks to watch their team play? Especially since airplane tickets generally require 21 day advanced purchase?

And I wonder if the rest of the bowls would survive while the playoff is going on. How much attention does anybody pay to the NIT in college basketball? If this kills off the bowl system, are you really going to argue that college football is better with 16 teams getting a post season instead of the current 56?

[ShagVT]

Dola.

Originally posted by cthomer5000
How? Show me something concrete! Now that money would be spread amongst ALL conferences, rather than piled on the top 6, why would the BCS conferences be in favor of this?

The other side of this is remembering who the casual college football fan turns on the TV to watch. Why does Notre Dame have such a fat TV contract? Because people like to see Notre Dame play, and the big name opponents that Notre Dame schedules.

A college football playoff would be mcuh the same - it would still be stocked mostly with teams from the current power conferences. It would still mostly have the teams everybody thinks of when they think college football: Michigan, Southern Cal, Miami, Florida State, Tennessee.

It sounds like the playoff supporters are also in favor of equal revenue sharing. How does this make sense? Virginia Tech spends $30M a year on its football program to keep it at the top of the heap. Other premier schools invest similar amounts. There is no comparison with UCF, Troy State, North Texas, etc. So we will punish the schools that provide the marquee teams and give the money to schools that most college football fans have not heard of? (Sorry Myles, but it's true)

[Cards4ever]

Originally posted by Darkiller
dola.

I think there is a lot of hypocrisys surrounding College Football.
money is a damn pivotal issue while they keep pretending and claiming out loud indeed that NCAA institutions are, as a matter of fact, not meant for the sake of makeing money...

well, thank you.

Those same institutions that make millions every year with they Bowl Cartel arrangements prohibit their star players, who make them win (!), from making themselves some money...(because remember, we are touted "NCAA" uhhhh)
Common, if those college presidents and conference commissionners begin by re-thinking their complete approach of "college sport" and its purpose, then we would be off to a good start. but that's unfortunately unlikely to happen.

I wonder if College Sports (football) hypocrisy is only at its beginning...


Is that the same hypocrisy that European Football follows?

[Darkiller]

I don't get your point Card....
can you elaborate ?

[Cards4ever]

Originally posted by Darkiller
I don't get your point Card....
can you elaborate ?

What would happen to the Man U's of the world if they had to share the TV money that is awarded to the Premier League? I'm sure there are teams in the French League that are the same, maybe PSG or Monaco. I know Real Madrid also is allowed to sell their own TV rights. Wouldn't those leagues be alot more fair if TV money is shared? Wouldn't it help to have a more competive league? Or are they just interested in dominating their league and soaking up the UEFA money awarded to making the Champions League?

I've seen talks of making a Super League, where the best teams join together and leave their countries competition. One big critisicm of that is, why do we want to be like American sports? We want to keep our tradition! So, I say to you, clean up your sports before you start messing with our traditions here.

[Darkiller]

ouch.
Ok it get it. And you obviously know quite a lot about european soccer, this is all to your credit because you seem to know what you are talking about, about what happens in sports on this side of the world.

Just one thing though : you are comparing professionnal soccer (players being PAID by their clubs) to NCAA football.
you just can't do that.

See that I wasn't talking about the NFL (professionnal football)..I was talking about the hypocrisy surrounding COLLEGE FOOTBALL (NCAA) where the pride of these people is the "values of the game because WE have nothing to do with MONEY like big brother NFL" (as they use to say).

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
Tulane's 1998 schedule:

Sept. 5 *Cincinnati Away 6 p.m.
Sept. 12 Southern Methodist Away 7 p.m.
Sept. 26 Navy Home 5 p.m.
Oct. 3 *Southern Mississippi Home 5 p.m.
Oct. 17 *Louisville (HC) Home 2:30 p.m.
Oct. 24 Rutgers Away 11 a.m.
Oct. 31 SW Louisiana Home 5 p.m.
Nov. 7 *Memphis Away 1 p.m.
Nov. 14 *Army Away Noon
Nov. 21 *Houston Home 5 p.m.
Nov. 26 Louisiana Tech Home 5 p.m.


This schedule is a complete joke Myles. Now, if their non-conference games had been some REAL teams (that they almost certainly would have had to play on the road), then maybe we could talk. If they had beat Nebraska, Virginia Tech, and Notre Dame instead of the bums they played out of conference (yes, that includes Rutgers), they might have had a legitemate stake at a BCS game. College football is very reliant upon scheduling, and when forming a schedule like that you automatically take yourself out of serious consideration for a national title.

You can't really ask them to do something that most major college teams don't do. No one is going to play VT, Nebraska, and Dame out of conference unless they were promised a lot of cash up front and had no aspirations for the year.

Ohio State played Washington State last year but also Kent State, Cincy, and Texas Tech. At least Miami had Florida and Florida St along with their Florida A&M game. But you kindof have to do that when you play in the Big East. Third ranked Georgia had a schedule even weaker than that one Tulane played with Clemson, South Carolina, Northwestern St., and New Mexico State. I mean, scheduling like that, you'd think they were rebuilding not #3 in the country.

You can't penalize a team like Tulane because they aren't allowed to play with the big boys. The counter example is: How about Fresno State a couple of years ago who couldn't crack the top 10 even after beating Colorado, Washington, and Oregon State? Face it, unless you're in a big conference, you don't get a sniff and a playoff would be the only way to get some of these teams the shot they deserve.

SI

[Cards4ever]

Originally posted by Darkiller
ouch.
Ok it get it. And you obviously know quite a lot about european soccer, this is all to your credit because you seem to know what you are talking about, about what happens in sports on this side of the world.

Just one thing though : you are comparing professionnal soccer (players being PAID by their clubs) to NCAA football.
you just can't do that.

See that I wasn't talking about the NFL (professionnal football)..I was talking about the hypocrisy surrounding COLLEGE FOOTBALL (NCAA) where the pride of these people is the "values of the game because WE have nothing to do with MONEY like big brother NFL" (as they use to say).

DK, my point is that there is hypocrisy in just about everything and nothing is perfect as much as we would like it to be. The money that a football program makes at a major college is a big deal because if you have decent football team, it will fund alot of the non-profit Title IX sports that each college has, hence, helping the whole entire athletic program.

So, if Nike came in and offered the NCAA more money than what the bowls give them to have a playoff, don't you think there would be a playoff? The only way College Football could ever be pure again is to eliminate the bowls and just play their conference season, that will never happen. It is all about the money, just like soccer in Europe and how the big clubs screw over the little clubs.

Hell Little League baseball is a money maker, so what is pure?

One day there will be a playoff system, you can be assured of that. How it happens, who knows, maybe Nike and Coke have to cosponsor to get the dollars right, but it will happen.

[Darkiller]

Originally posted by Cards4ever
It is all about the money, just like soccer in Europe and how the big clubs screw over the little clubs.
.

I agree 100% with your last post.
So what is the big deal now for College Football not to recognize that they indeed NEED and WANT money and are money makers…instead of keeping that same attitude which is to say “that’s not our purpose"...

They hide behind “Tradition” and don’t assume what we all know, that “amateurism” is a noble concept that has no meaning anymore (at least the way they are organized/shaped up now)

at least the NFL and professionnal soccer are clear with their objectives : we ought to make money.

[Cards4ever]

Originally posted by Darkiller
I agree 100% with your last post.
So what is the big deal now for College Football not to recognize that they indeed NEED and WANT money and are money makers…instead of keeping that same attitude which is to say “that’s not our purpose"...

They hide behind “Tradition” and don’t assume what we all know, that “amateurism” is a noble concept that has no meaning anymore (at least the way they are organized/shaped up now)

at least the NFL and professionnal soccer are clear with their objectives : we ought to make money.


Well, once the money comes for a playoff they will spin it another way. It will happen, you can be assured, it's just a matter of time. You have a excellent point with the amateurism being a noble concept. I keep going back to soccer, because I think it's a sport you probably have followed closer than any other during your life, but, don't you think there are players that play for the national team for endorsement purposes just as much as not more for that reason?

The NFL I agree is clear with their objective, mainly because of the revenue sharing, but soccer, well, the clubs talk a good game, but they are only interested in keeping up a good practice league for them to stay sharp for Europe(Man U). I follow West Ham, they had no chance of keeping Ferdinand once the big clubs decided they wanted him, just like Joe Cole probably will not play much more than a year or two more, the TV money needs to be shared so that the smaller clubs don't have to be seller clubs and can hold on to their youth talent.

[ISiddiqui]

I just think that most people who are pro-playoff don't examine the million ways in which it would affect college football as you currently know it.

I have examined a lot of a ways it would affect the game, and I welcome all the changes :D.

[MylesKnight]

You make some very good points Shag, my friend.. I'll respond with some comments of my own shortly. It may be one of those long, essay type posts. :)

..and CT, in regards to the Financial Justification of switching to a Playoff Format, I think we all can agree that the only way it would actually happen would be if it was a distinct financial advantage for the current "Cartel" Schools and Conferences to do so, as they control the current way of doing things. And again, this is including splitting the revenue among all Division I-A Conferences, ala the NCAA Hoops Tourney.

The other point CT is that what is being done in Division I-A College Football currently is illegal. It's only a matter of time before either a major lawsuit is filed and things are restructured to include everyone, or, the Greed of the "Big Boys" leads them to form their own Governing Body outside of the NCAA.

My predicition, some sort of anti-trust lawsuit is filed by the current Non-BCS Members, but before anything actually goes to court a compromise is found, with a new network (Fox maybe) throwing in huge amounts of $$$ to create the kind of Playoff Format I've been talking about. Revenue sharing will happen as part of the agreement, but with the kind of money the Division I-A Schools will be receiving from the Tournament's Broadcast Rights among other things, the current "Cartel" members will be okay with this. They will actually make out with more money in the end.

[MylesKnight]

By the way, I'm not in favor of a huge Conference Reshuffling in order for a Playoff Type Format to take place in Division I-A. That doesn't need to and shouldn't happen. Maybe a shift here or there but definitely not something along the lines of 8 or so Conferences with 12 Teams each, etc..

I think a Playoff Format would work using the current Conference Allignments.

[vtbub]

Never happen, a 16 team playoff will never happen.

You could do an 8 team playoff with seven bowls, or take the consensus 1 and 2 after the bowls and have them play.

There isn't any central power in 1-A college football, none. Florida State will not take the chance of hosting a game it might lose.

Also the economic thing, there are as many players on two football teams as their are on 16 basketball teams. December is exam time, remember these are students.

Another answer is sending all but the 6 power conferences down to 1-AA, allowing the Big six to have a bowl based playoff.

[MylesKnight]

Originally posted by vtbub
Never happen, a 16 team playoff will never happen.

You could do an 8 team playoff with seven bowls, or take the consensus 1 and 2 after the bowls and have them play.

There isn't any central power in 1-A college football, none. Florida State will not take the chance of hosting a game it might lose.

Also the economic thing, there are as many players on two football teams as their are on 16 basketball teams. December is exam time, remember these are students.

Another answer is sending all but the 6 power conferences down to 1-AA, allowing the Big six to have a bowl based playoff.


Why wouldn't a 16 Team Tourney ever be a possibility? I don't think you can say that..

First off, I don't understand your comment in regards to not having a central power in College Football and FSU not taking the chance of hosting a game it might lose. Are you telling me a school like FSU would be scared to host Louisville in a 1st Round Tournament Game or Michigan in a Quarterfinal Matchup? Why? By the way, I'm not saying there should be Homefield Advantage all the way through a Playoff Format.. Just for the 1st Round and maybe the Quarterfinals... After that, use the current Major Bowl Game Sites.

As for schoolwork and Final Exams possibly getting in the way, why don't we hear of this complaint from any of the Football Players at the Division I-AA, II & III levels? Because it works out.. The only thing I see that may be an issue is the timing of it all. That is the season may need to be pushed up a bit to make sure the Championship Game is played before Christmas Break if need be, ala the I-AA, II & III Levels.

[vtbub]

There hasn't been a central power in college football since the conferences broke away from the NCAA back in 1982. The game is run by the conferences and until they can see why their should be a playoff, it's not going to happen.

No school would share any more revenue from a home game, not one dime. They would all have to be neutral games.

Yeah, SEC/Big 12 and probably ACC teams would have to win 5 games on neutral sites to win a championship. That's fair for who? They would have to play 17 stress filled games for free? The players certainly don't get money for this.

It's not a problem for smaller schools because they don't generate the revenue that the big schools do, plus they are 8 team playoffs coming off 8 or 9 game seasons. Florida or Oklahoma would be playing 13 or 14 games before a playoff while the Union's and Augustina's play 11 in total.

The other factors, the end of the NFL season. The networks you want to televise these playoff games, aren't available. CBS, FOX, ESPN do Saturday games in December to help defray the cost of the NFL contract.

Exams? These are students. Classes are their JOB.

Twenty years ago, your plan would have worked. Not now.

[Airhog]

And here is another point that has been made before, but needs to be made again. Keep the bowls. Meaning that the 16 teams that dont make the playoffs still have a shot at a bowl game, it would just be as meaningless as they are today.

[ISiddiqui]

Exams? These are students. Classes are their JOB.

As said before every other level of college football doesn't have problems with exams, why must 1-A?

[vtbub]

Season is shorter.

[ISiddiqui]

Why can we move the playoffs in January if you concerned about cutting into exams?

[vtbub]

NFL playoffs.

Listen, I'm not in love with the current system either. A 4 team post-bowl or 2 team post-bowl championship would preserve the bowls(money) and give the game a championship.

The powers that be have made it crystal clear that a playoff is not in the cards. Are they wrong? Probably.

This comes down to money. To say that the NCAA has any real power over 1-A football is as silly as saying the Queen of England is the commander of chief of United Kingdom. When they gave that up, about the time the CFA formed, all chances of a real unbiased playoff went with that.

[MylesKnight]

Originally posted by vtbub
Season is shorter.

VT, I respectfully disagree with your comment.

I-AA teams play 11 Game Regular Season Schedules (12 this Season for those that want a 12th Game, ala I-A), and then compete in a 16 Team Playoff.. Total for teams making it all the way to the Championship Game - 16 Games this Season, 15 Games in normal 11 Game Regular Seasons.

The majority of Division II Teams play 11 Game Regular Season Schedules. A few schools play only 10. As for their Playoff Format, it's the same as is the case in I-AA - 16 Team Format. Total Number of Games for the two teams that make it to the Championship Game - More than likely 15.

As for Division III, it is a bit of a crapshoot here, but the majority of the teams that compete for a Playoff Berth play 10 Regular Season Games. There are a few D-III Conferences whose winners don't get Automatic Bids to the D-III Tourney and a number of the teams in those leagues only play 9 Games. As for the Playoff Format, 28 Teams actually make this field, with only 4 getting 1st Round Byes. So under these circumstances, a team making the Championship Game that had to play a 1st Round Game will end up playing 15 Games while a team with a 1st Round Bye who makes the Finals plays 14.

Not much difference, if any at all, between these and the "Big Boys" is there?

[vtbub]

Moneywise it's an incredible difference.

[MylesKnight]

EL BUMPO!!

[ShagVT]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
You make some very good points Shag, my friend.. I'll respond with some comments of my own shortly. It may be one of those long, essay type posts. :)


Heh - instead of bumping the discussion, why not actually send the reply you promised?? :p

[MylesKnight]

Originally posted by ShagVT
Heh - instead of bumping the discussion, why not actually send the reply you promised?? :p

I'm working on it my friend.. These things take time.. ;)