Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

[Aggies67]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Yes you sure did and you may win this year, however tradition is built on a couple of years.

Historically, Texas has many more wins in the rivalry than Texas A&M.

However, since 1980, A&M holds the slight advantage, 16 games to 15. The longest winning streak in the last 30 years was 6 straight wins by Texas A&M.

[Perfect Zero]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Re-read what I've been writing about. I'm talking about MONEY. That is what is on the mind of the university presidents. The NCAA basketball playoff brings in $770 million per year in TV money. I would venture to say that a college football playoff would go for much more than that. I can't guess exact numbers, but I would think somewhere in the $1 billion range.

Again, this is predicated on the superconferences either forming their own division or disbanding from the NCAA so they don't have to share any of that money. I think that will happen.

It doesn't matter what the fans want, it matters what is going to make the schools the most money. A playoff will do that

Finally, you get what I'm talking about. The fans don't matter at all in this decision. What matters is what the different institutions think. It doesn't matter if you think that a playoff will make more money, it matters what they think about the system.

Too many people on here think that it's just a given that playoffs will make more money than the system that's now in place. However, there are just as many reasons as why it will work compared to why it won't work. It's easier and safer to keep the system we have now, even in the superconference scenario. It will be the same arguments: the new conferences are more challenging and thus are a playoff within themselves, you can't guarantee that a fanbase will travel to Timbuktu for three times in three weeks to watch their team play, and that the health and safety of the players should be paramount. You have to convence the guys at the top about that, because again, it doesn't matter what the fans want.

[Jr.]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Finally, you get what I'm talking about. The fans don't matter at all in this decision. What matters is what the different institutions think. It doesn't matter if you think that a playoff will make more money, it matters what they think about the system.

Too many people on here think that it's just a given that playoffs will make more money than the system that's now in place. However, there are just as many reasons as why it will work compared to why it won't work. It's easier and safer to keep the system we have now, even in the superconference scenario. It will be the same arguments: the new conferences are more challenging and thus are a playoff within themselves, you can't guarantee that a fanbase will travel to Timbuktu for three times in three weeks to watch their team play, and that the health and safety of the players should be paramount. You have to convence the guys at the top about that, because again, it doesn't matter what the fans want.

Finally? I have been talking about money this whole time, which has nothing to do with the fan's interests and everything to do with the interests of the presidents.

There are many people much smarter than me that predict a college football playoff would bring a ridiculous amount of money in for the universities. I've seen estimates over $1 billion for the TV rights, which would go to the schools involved.

You're right, fan bases likely would not travel well to neutral site playoff games. They would have to be played at home sites and that would have to be determined by people smarter than me as well.

I don't think it would be too difficult to convince the presidents that player safety when you tell them that they would have the opportunity to make millions more for their schools.

[superjames1992]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

New info from Texas A&M's Scout site:

http://tamu.scout.com/2/1104960.html

[Perfect Zero]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Finally? I have been talking about money this whole time, which has nothing to do with the fan's interests and everything to do with the interests of the presidents.

There are many people much smarter than me that predict a college football playoff would bring a ridiculous amount of money in for the universities. I've seen estimates over $1 billion for the TV rights, which would go to the schools involved.

If that was the case, why aren't there any playoffs going on right now? If it was just about the money, and the estimates were correct, we should be watching playoffs at the end of this very season. People like Cuban would have this thing up and going at the drop of a hat if it was that profitable.

And yet, here we are. I understand that many on here say it will only work with superconferences. What I'm saying is that if the money was really there, you wouldn't have to have these big conferences to have any playoffs.

You're right, fan bases likely would not travel well to neutral site playoff games. They would have to be played at home sites and that would have to be determined by people smarter than me as well.

So if my university finishes in a hypothetical second place, I should just give up a neutral site with a better chance of advancing plus extra revenue for a playoff spot? I'd bet you good money that if you went to a university with that idea, they'd tell you that the bowl game sounds like a much better deal. Less to lug around, more of knowing where you are going to go, and you don't have to worry about where you will be the next week.

I don't think it would be too difficult to convince the presidents that player safety when you tell them that they would have the opportunity to make millions more for their schools.

It's about perception. If these kids start having concussions and mental problems like the pros are having now later on in life, the university presidents sure as heck don't want the blood on their hands and large lawsuits in the future.

[Jr.]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

If that was the case, why aren't there any playoffs going on right now? If it was just about the money, and the estimates were correct, we should be watching playoffs at the end of this very season. People like Cuban would have this thing up and going at the drop of a hat if it was that profitable.

And yet, here we are. I understand that many on here say it will only work with superconferences. What I'm saying is that if the money was really there, you wouldn't have to have these big conferences to have any playoffs.

Like I've said so many times, if there were playoffs now, the presidents would have to figure out how to make it work for all teams involved at the FBS level and split the money with every conference in the FBS. That's why I keep saying that the schools in these superconferences would either have to create a new division of D1 football, or disband from the NCAA. Again, this is my opinion of the direction college football is headed.

I don't know if you're not reading when I'm saying these things, or just refusing to acknowledge it.

So if my university finishes in a hypothetical second place, I should just give up a neutral site with a better chance of advancing plus extra revenue for a playoff spot? I'd bet you good money that if you went to a university with that idea, they'd tell you that the bowl game sounds like a much better deal. Less to lug around, more of knowing where you are going to go, and you don't have to worry about where you will be the next week.

It's been shown that the vast majority of schools lose money going to bowl games. Like I said, they would have to figure out how to fairly set up the playoffs in regards to locations and ticket allotments. Maybe the schools split the ticket sales and the team that hosts get all of the profit from concessions and parking. I'm sure they could figure something out. But would you really rather go to a meaningless bowl game, rather than have the opportunity to play for a national championship, because your team has to play on the road?

It's about perception. If these kids start having concussions and mental problems like the pros are having now later on in life, the university presidents sure as heck don't want the blood on their hands and large lawsuits in the future.

The perception hasn't stopped them from adding a 12th game to the regular season schedule. Maybe it'll stop them from having 8 teams play 14-15 games instead of 13, maybe not. Judging from past decisions, I would say it won't.

Responses in bold

[Cardot]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

If it's two from each conference, and those games mean nothing, they aren't going to be playing starters all game. No one wants to watch games that don't count.

The majority of college football games don't have national championship implications. Yet stadiums are still packed.

[Cardot]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

So if my university finishes in a hypothetical second place, I should just give up a neutral site with a better chance of advancing plus extra revenue for a playoff spot? I'd bet you good money that if you went to a university with that idea, they'd tell you that the bowl game sounds like a much better deal. Less to lug around, more of knowing where you are going to go, and you don't have to worry about where you will be the next week.

I highly doubt that. You believe that a University would pass on an opportunity for a National Championship because of short term travel plans? I can't recall the last time that one of the 64+ teams that qualified for March Madness said "Thanks, but this is really a bit last minute for us. We'll pass".

Besides, your fan base doesn't need to travel. The home team will be able to sell out the stadium. And the best part is even if you lose this early December playoff game, you can still go the Chick-File Bowl or wherever you would go under the current system.

[DonkeyJote]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

The majority of college football games don't have national championship implications. Yet stadiums are still packed.

Because they have implications of some sort. Becoming Bowl eligible. BCS games. Conference Titles. If it's an 8 team playoff out of 4 super conferences (and At-Large births make no sense, imo - you have to go with all the "division" winners, don't you? Otherwise you'd have 4 teams that didn't win their division playing over teams that did, or you render the conference title game relatively meaningless if you can lose and still get in - that conference title game has to act as a first round playoff of sorts), then becoming bowl eligible isn't an issue (if you think that the bowl system will survive in a playoff world, you're kidding yourself - maybe you see an NIT-like playoff, but that's about it).

And those 3-4 OoC games become totally meaningless - they'll be like NFL preseason games, where starters play for a half, and are taken out. And even if it was big name school vs. big name school, since it doesn't count, ratings wouldn't be good. Hey, the big time teams are still going to sell out stadiums. But that's not where the money comes from. The money comes from TV, and TV ratings for the regular season would plummet if the early season games are rendered meaningless. Conference games can still do good ratings, but you're giving up 34 bowl games, and decreased ratings for the first 3 or 4 weeks of the year, in exchange for a slight kick in ratings for the conference championship games, and good ratings for the semifinal games. The National Championship game would likely see the same ratings. Why does anyone think ESPN or anyone else would pay $1 billion for 7 games a year?!?!? One of which already exists (NC game).

[Cardot]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

if you think that the bowl system will survive in a playoff world, you're kidding yourself.

Why? We currently have a two team playoff, and the rest of the bowls are exhibition games. What is the difference with adding 2 weeks of playoffs in December to decide which 2 of the top 8 teams play for the title? The 6 other teams go on to the Fiesta, Rose & wherever..as they do now......and they mean exactly as much as they do in the current system.

The closest thing to a playoff we have seen was a couple years back when Alabama and Florida were 1-2 and met in the SEC title game. Florida lost, but still went on to a BCS bowl.

[DonkeyJote]

1 and 2 go to a bowl. And Bowl games aren't exhibitions. They matter to teams and to fans. Do I care about all the bowls? No. But I do care about a lot more than the NC Game.

And how are you going to play a game or two (during finals for a lot of schools), then turn around and sell a bunch of tickets in a matter of two weeks for a bcs game. Then, you're also turning all these bcs games into consolation games. I can tell you, as a pac 12 fan, The Rose Bowl is a huge game, and I was pumped when Oregon played there a couple years ago. But if you get moved into that game solely because you lost in the tournament it stops being a prestigious game and becomes a consolation bracket.

The funny thing is, the biggest reason people want a playoff is so the "little guy" can get their shot. With the super conferences, they still wouldn't get their shot!

In the end, I think a plus-1 system is far superior to a playoff. You keep your traditional bowl setup, and you pick #1 and #2 following the bowl games. I don't see why people think the sport needs a playoff.

It's a moot point anyway. The NCAA basketball tournament makes a great amount of money, and they aren't going to split away from the NCAA, losing all that money. And, splitting from the NCAA would likely also draw the attention of state governments

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[wildthing2022000]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

1 and 2 go to a bowl. And Bowl games aren't exhibitions. They matter to teams and to fans. Do I care about all the bowls? No. But I do care about a lot more than the NC Game.

And how are you going to play a game or two (during finals for a lot of schools), then turn around and sell a bunch of tickets in a matter of two weeks for a bcs game. Then, you're also turning all these bcs games into consolation games. I can tell you, as a pac 12 fan, The Rose Bowl is a huge game, and I was pumped when Oregon played there a couple years ago. But if you get moved into that game solely because you lost in the tournament it stops being a prestigious game and becomes a consolation bracket.

The funny thing is, the biggest reason people want a playoff is so the "little guy" can get their shot. With the super conferences, they still wouldn't get their shot!

In the end, I think a plus-1 system is far superior to a playoff. You keep your traditional bowl setup, and you pick #1 and #2 following the bowl games. I don't see why people think the sport needs a playoff.

It's a moot point anyway. The NCAA basketball tournament makes a great amount of money, and they aren't going to split away from the NCAA, losing all that money. And, splitting from the NCAA would likely also draw the attention of state governments

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Bowl games are nothing but glorified exhibitions matches, if it weren't for the money that they get from playing I doubt many teams would even bother. Other than cash what incentive is there to play these neutral site games where fans have to travel hundreds/thousands of miles just to see their team play some non-rival in a game whose outcome means nothing.

You think there will be a problem to get fans to buy tickets for a game that actually matters? Every other sports doesn't have this problem so why would college football be any different? The other BCS bowls are nothing but consolation games as they are now, I doubt TCU is happy to have had no shot what so ever at the national title last year despite going undefeated again. What did they get for their undefeated season a paycheck and a chance to blow their undefeated season in a game that even if they won wouldn't give them the national title.

Plus-1 would be worthless in those years where you don't have 2/3 undefeated teams and have like 4-5 teams with 1 loss since the plus-1 would require a maximum of 3 teams and anything more would just be a crapshoot since it would lead to outside people rather than the teams themselves decide who can try to be the national champs. An 8 team playoff would allow for the most likely candidates to win the national title play for it instead of hoping the the voters pick them.

[DonkeyJote]

If you think games other than the NC game don't matter, then that's the problem. These games are huge to a lot of schools. To a Pac 12 or Big Ten team the Rose Bowl is a huge deal. Bowl games are rewards for schools. People get so focused on National Champion, that they lose sight of all the other things there are to play for.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[Perfect Zero]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

I'd rather have the bowl game system if I'm a university president because at least my team can have a chance to claim some sort of championship. Take a team like Texas Christian and see what winning the Rose Bowl has done for them. There is nobody, repeat nobody around the Fort Worth area that is complaining about not having a chance for the National Championship. That university is dressed to the nines with Rose Bowl Champions banners, and there are tons of fans who will proudly say that they defeated Wisconsin for the privilege.

If I'm making materials to promote my university, I'd rather have something like Idaho Potato Bowl Champions rather than NCAA Tournament Semi-Finalist. With a bowl, you have a one in two chance of being crowned a champion in one way or another. With a playoff, you have a much greater chance of being on the outside looking in.

Yet, even if the universities didn't care about the perception of their university's football team, you still have logistical problems. Just going through the last few posts, I found this gem.

I highly doubt that. You believe that a University would pass on an opportunity for a National Championship because of short term travel plans? I can't recall the last time that one of the 64+ teams that qualified for March Madness said "Thanks, but this is really a bit last minute for us. We'll pass".

Besides, your fan base doesn't need to travel. The home team will be able to sell out the stadium. And the best part is even if you lose this early December playoff game, you can still go the Chick-File [sic] Bowl or wherever you would go under the current system.

The March Madness part is kinda funny. Of course teams don't have a problem with that tournament because it's during the middle of the second semester at most universities. Not only that, but the number of fans you have to transport and accommodate is much less than it is in football. You also have to pool in the fact that there is less chance for crippling injuries both physically and mentally in basketball compared to football.

If you have some sort of playoff, you're going to have to have neutral sites. No university is going to want to play three weeks of road games without some sort of revenue and without having fans of their team travel with them. Not only that, but you're going to have problems getting these teams back and forth from their university during exam times and during the Christmas season.

There is also a good reason why bowls are played nearly a month past the end of the season, and that's because these bowl committees want to promote these games well in advance for ticket and hotel reservations. A month give you more time than a week does in this hypothetical tournament.

I've laid out my reasons why you will probably never see playoff football at this level of play. Of course, this all has nothing to do with Texas A&M football leaving the Big XII, but there is a lot that has to be dealt with before you see anything that resembles the playoffs. Hopefully they can find it, deal a death blow to games like the Rose, Cotton, Sugar and other bowls, and give satisfaction to a lot of fans.

[Cardot]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Then, you're also turning all these bcs games into consolation games. I can tell you, as a pac 12 fan, The Rose Bowl is a huge game, and I was pumped when Oregon played there a couple years ago. But if you get moved into that game solely because you lost in the tournament it stops being a prestigious game and becomes a consolation bracket.

The Rose Bowl would be the exact same thing it is today. The only difference is that if your team just barely ended up on the wrong end of and 2nd/3rd ranking by the journalists and computers, you at least have a chance to play for the NC.

In the end, I think a plus-1 system is far superior to a playoff. You keep your traditional bowl setup, and you pick #1 and #2 following the bowl games. I don't see why people think the sport needs a playoff.

The Plus-1 is a nice name for a 4 team playoff.