Ping SI, CR et al (re: BCS debate)

[Buccaneer]

You two asked what is really behind my opinion regarding the BCS debate and playoffs. After thinking about it, it has nothing to do with the mechanics but more with the perception of value and worth. As stated before, I believe there is way too much emphasis placed on athletic programs in college (and on sports in general society, but that’s another debate). You would counter that the money it brings in is beneficial but I believe it only benefits a few (relatively speaking). College tuition has been skyrocketing causing it harder for some to go to college or more accurately, causing most to incur tremendous amount of debt. Colleges are still rife with political overtones and corruption. So where are the real benefits besides instant gratification? Now you want to add more complexity and more importance to college football (re: playoffs) on top of the BCS? I see it as still continuing down the same slippery slope. As far as the “insecurity” card (bad choice of word), let’s take an extreme viewpoint. What if there were no bowl games/postseason at all? Would you accept that? If not, how about just a couple of bowl games? Not enough? About allowing half of the teams in? Still not enough? Where does it lead to? Don't answer, it's rhetotical for I don't know either.

[Abe Sargent]

I like the Bowl System as it is now and would not prefer a playoff because most playoff proposals eliminate some or all bowls. Going to a Bowl is a reward for the university (exposure), team (money) and alumni (pride). Most playoffs proposals that I have seen involve 8 or 16 teams at best and would therefore exclude many quality teams.

Besides, no matter where the cutoff line is, wouldn't we argue about which teams should have made it in as opposed to those that did get in? Don't we debate over the 64 (er...65) teams that make it to the NCAA Basketball tournament every year? I don't see why people are viewing a playoff as the panacea that they usually do.


-Anxiety

[Huckleberry]

Why exactly could the teams that aren't in the playoff not play their bowl games?

The NCAA leftovers play in the NIT. It's not like they would outlaw the existence of the Outback Bowl.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And the NIT amounts to how much benefit for those teams?
Reality check say -- damned little.

Compare to the lift that some programs get for "going bowling", even if it's the "PissAnt Diddly Squat Bowl".

Among other things, the bowl system allows for what, some two dozen teams to finish the season on a winning note? That alone is enough to keep some coaches/AD's/fans in favor of it.

[Huckleberry]

You completely failed to address the question of why they wouldn't still play the bowl games. And if non-playoff teams still play bowl games, then they still get to "finish the season on a winning note". And they still get a lift from going to the PissAnt Diddly Squat Bowl.

As I said, no different from how it is now.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Well as someone who goes to minor bowls, I think its neat to see some teams you would never see. I have seen some other teams recently in the Cotton Bowl that I would never see under the old system. Oregon was one.

For instance, TCU played USC in the Sun Bowl a few years back and they played Virginia in the Independence Bowl, they never played them before if I remember. I don't remember seeing Boise State either.

What I don't like is when they schedule two teams that could easily play each other during the regular season, like when they had TCU vs A&M in a bowl.

[Buccaneer]

For some (many?) teams, going to a minor bowl is a money-losing proposition. The payout ($750,000) is not enough to cover travel expenses in some cases like when Air Force goes to a minor bowl game. There are probably intagibles but do they outweigh draining time and resources for the university? I still believe that sending nearly half of the 1-A teams to a postseason bowl is ludicrous. Why are we rewarding a 6-6 or 7-5 that finished in the bottom half of your conference, with a losing conference record as well? I guess this is part of the slippery slope I am referring to.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Bucc unless the bowls have changed recently, the only money you have a chance of losing is if you do not sell the allotment of tickets your school is given. For instance they don't expect Houston to go to Hawaii and sellout half the stadium. They are given a smaller percentage maybe 8-10000 seats. What they don't sell is their loss. Usually those tickets not sold end up going to underpriviliged kids (I know that for sure at least in the Liberty Bowl's case).

Team expenses are at least partially reimbursed to the best of my knowledge.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
For some (many?) teams, going to a minor bowl is a money-losing proposition. The payout ($750,000) is not enough to cover travel expenses in some cases like when Air Force goes to a minor bowl game. There are probably intagibles but do they outweigh draining time and resources for the university? I still believe that sending nearly half of the 1-A teams to a postseason bowl is ludicrous. Why are we rewarding a 6-6 or 7-5 that finished in the bottom half of your conference, with a losing conference record as well? I guess this is part of the slippery slope I am referring to.

In NHL a bunch of teams make the post-season. Ditto the NBA, although to a lesser extent. That is nothing new. But ask the exact opposite question - why SHOULDN'T a team be rewarded for having a winning season?

There's also, of course, the infrastructure issues. I've yet to see an inclusive playoff system (by inclusive, I mean including enough teams to actually serve a purpose as opposed to just the top four or something similar that would obviously exclude quality teams with a shot at winning.

-Anxiety

[TroyF]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
And the NIT amounts to how much benefit for those teams?
Reality check say -- damned little.

Compare to the lift that some programs get for "going bowling", even if it's the "PissAnt Diddly Squat Bowl".

Among other things, the bowl system allows for what, some two dozen teams to finish the season on a winning note? That alone is enough to keep some coaches/AD's/fans in favor of it.

Well, the NIT winner traditionally has a great year the next season.

In footballs case, the lower grouping of teams would still be playing in minor bowls.

Buc,

I understand what you are saying, but I still want to see a national championship playoff. Watched some of the Division 2 playoffs on the dish this weekend. Great games and great enthusiasm by the crowds. Somehow, all the kids still made it to school and don't seem bothered by it.