Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

[untrugby]

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

You don't know me, so don't pretend like you know a thing about me over a message board. I've played sports my whole life, and am actually an extremely competitive person.

I don't value this notion that there has to be a definitive national champion. You know why TCU is so happy with their Rose Bowl win? Because being National Champion was never a goal for them. Pete Carroll always set winning the Rose Bowl as the goal. Playing in and winning the National Championship game was a bonus. It just isn't the goal. I'm sure TCU would love to play in a tournament. But not any more than they loved playing in the Rose Bowl. They finished their season as Champions. Just because you don't value that championship, don't make the mistake of thinking that others don't. Losing a game like the Rose Bowl (and don't kid yourself into thinking it'd be the same if teams had to lose to get there) would be a travesty in College Football.

Let's not also forget that a playoff would put the game count at 16 games for some teams. That's just way too much. What's the real benefit College Football would see from a playoff? They'd be giving up a lot, and risking more, to get very little in return.

the bowl ties wouldnt have to go away so you can still have a pac-16 team vs a big 10 team in the rose bowl quarter final game. its only 15 games if you have the super conferences no more championship games. and of course the main thing to gain is money. the playoff games would rake in just as much money as a BCS game except you get 7 of them instead of 5. You'd have the orange, sugar, rose, cotton, fiesta and peach bowls for the 4 quarterfinals and 2 semifinals and then a yearly rotation for the NC. Intersperse the rest of the bowls as usual with their tie ins and overall it would look similar to the current system.

[TDenverFan]

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

You don't know me, so don't pretend like you know a thing about me over a message board. I've played sports my whole life, and am actually an extremely competitive person.

I don't value this notion that there has to be a definitive national champion. You know why TCU is so happy with their Rose Bowl win? Because being National Champion was never a goal for them. Pete Carroll always set winning the Rose Bowl as the goal. Playing in and winning the National Championship game was a bonus. It just isn't the goal. I'm sure TCU would love to play in a tournament. But not any more than they loved playing in the Rose Bowl. They finished their season as Champions. Just because you don't value that championship, don't make the mistake of thinking that others don't. Losing a game like the Rose Bowl (and don't kid yourself into thinking it'd be the same if teams had to lose to get there) would be a travesty in College Football.

Let's not also forget that a playoff would put the game count at 16 games for some teams. That's just way too much. What's the real benefit College Football would see from a playoff? They'd be giving up a lot, and risking more, to get very little in return.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Over $1 Billion is very little in return?

Also, many high schools, FCS, Division 2, and Division 3 teams play this many games (With a playoff), and they can make it work. I'm sure the big boys can figure it out, too.

[Redacted01]

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

I agree 1000% with this. I still can't believe 1/3 of the ranking comes from people who will never have the time to watch even 3 of the other teams in the top 25 every week (the coaches). Not to mention the computer formulas that are not required to be public.

I'd rather it all be computer-based. Get rid of the humans. Even if the computer formulas were public, 95% of people wouldn't understand it. Hell, I could hardly explain my ranking system in layman's terms once I finished it; too mathematically-based at that point.

[lonewolf371]

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

Should we rename this the "Conference Re-Alignment Thread" and throw all that stuff in here?

[Perfect Zero]

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

Okay well this is one of the more ridiculous arguments that I've ever read. Giving up a shot to play for a National Championship because it's more difficult than winning 1 game is incredibly dumb to me. You think it's a reward to your team and coaches to take away their shot at a National Championship?

If you could ask any player for TCU if they would have rather played Auburn, at Auburn, if it were part of a National Championship playoff, or go to LA and play Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl, I would think they would pick the former over the latter. I know I would have.

Again, it's a one in two shot to be a champion of a bowl game compared to a one in eight or sixteen (with further odds stacked against you if you have the other team has home field advantage, which is big in college sports).

And yet your argument is based on the idea that we live in a realm where you can choose to play in a playoff by asking the question " You think it's a reward to your team and coaches to take away their shot at a National Championship?" Texas Christian never had a shot at the National Championship under the current system. In a playoff system where there is home field advantage, as the majority of posters in this thread envision, you stack the odds further against the lower ranked teams.

But as we should know from the current state of college football, the game on the field doesn't really matter. It's what the administrators think and do. If you go to a player, or a coach, or an admin, or anybody associated with the football team and ask them what their reward was, they'll show you a ring. They'll be proud to tell you that they had a chance to prove themselves against Wisconsin and won the so-called "Grandaddy of them all." I'd wager a week's pay that none of them would say they got screwed by the system. Furthermore, you'd find that the campus is filled with pride and greater enrollment because of their victory. These bowl games count, and they help the universities in more than one way. This is yet another reason why you wont see a playoff.

I know we've reached an impasse here, and I think we're just going to have to disagree on this subject. This isn't to say that I don't want a playoff in college football. I think it would be great if we could have the top eight teams or whatever play each other for the National Championship. However, I don't see where administrations would line up on the issue. If it was easy to implement, we would have a playoff structure right now. It's not easy, and if they go down the road it will be a difficult task to get rid of the bowl system (as I thoroughly believe they will have to do; nobody watches the NIT in college basketball, and I feel that it would be a likewise thing with college football). Maybe we'll see it some day, but I just don't see it happening under the current atmosphere.

BTW, I played in a local golf tournament a few weeks ago. I didn't have a chance but loved it. I guess I should have tried out for the U.S. Open instead...

[Cardot]

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

In a tournament, it'd be great if my team won the national championship, but otherwise it's a big let down. In the bowl system, a lot of teams get to finish the year with momentum, and feeling good about their year. In a playoff, one gets to feel better.

Yet I don't see this arument being made for the NFL (or any other league/sport for that matter) to drop their playoffs in favor of a model similiar to the BCS. It would be comical to even bring it up.

[superjames1992]

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

Orangebloods has a new article out regarding Oklahoma to the Pacific-12...

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1263940

[Jr.]

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

Again, it's a one in two shot to be a champion of a bowl game compared to a one in eight or sixteen (with further odds stacked against you if you have the other team has home field advantage, which is big in college sports).

And yet your argument is based on the idea that we live in a realm where you can choose to play in a playoff by asking the question " You think it's a reward to your team and coaches to take away their shot at a National Championship?" Texas Christian never had a shot at the National Championship under the current system. In a playoff system where there is home field advantage, as the majority of posters in this thread envision, you stack the odds further against the lower ranked teams.

But as we should know from the current state of college football, the game on the field doesn't really matter. It's what the administrators think and do. If you go to a player, or a coach, or an admin, or anybody associated with the football team and ask them what their reward was, they'll show you a ring. They'll be proud to tell you that they had a chance to prove themselves against Wisconsin and won the so-called "Grandaddy of them all." I'd wager a week's pay that none of them would say they got screwed by the system. Furthermore, you'd find that the campus is filled with pride and greater enrollment because of their victory. These bowl games count, and they help the universities in more than one way. This is yet another reason why you wont see a playoff.

I know we've reached an impasse here, and I think we're just going to have to disagree on this subject. This isn't to say that I don't want a playoff in college football. I think it would be great if we could have the top eight teams or whatever play each other for the National Championship. However, I don't see where administrations would line up on the issue. If it was easy to implement, we would have a playoff structure right now. It's not easy, and if they go down the road it will be a difficult task to get rid of the bowl system (as I thoroughly believe they will have to do; nobody watches the NIT in college basketball, and I feel that it would be a likewise thing with college football). Maybe we'll see it some day, but I just don't see it happening under the current atmosphere.

BTW, I played in a local golf tournament a few weeks ago. I didn't have a chance but loved it. I guess I should have tried out for the U.S. Open instead...

You're completely missing my point. Of course TCU didn't have a choice last year. I was asking you, that if you had a choice, what would you pick? You said you would rather take the safe bet of being Rose Bowl "Champs" over a chance to be a National Champion because the road might be tougher. To me that is completely insane.

If you had the chance to play in the U.S. Open, rather than the golf tournament, you wouldn't want a shot at the U.S. Open Championship? I sure would have no matter how little the odds of me winning were. I guess that's where we differ

[Jr.]

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

You don't know me, so don't pretend like you know a thing about me over a message board. I've played sports my whole life, and am actually an extremely competitive person.

I don't value this notion that there has to be a definitive national champion. You know why TCU is so happy with their Rose Bowl win? Because being National Champion was never a goal for them. Pete Carroll always set winning the Rose Bowl as the goal. Playing in and winning the National Championship game was a bonus. It just isn't the goal. I'm sure TCU would love to play in a tournament. But not any more than they loved playing in the Rose Bowl. They finished their season as Champions. Just because you don't value that championship, don't make the mistake of thinking that others don't. Losing a game like the Rose Bowl (and don't kid yourself into thinking it'd be the same if teams had to lose to get there) would be a travesty in College Football.

Let's not also forget that a playoff would put the game count at 16 games for some teams. That's just way too much. What's the real benefit College Football would see from a playoff? They'd be giving up a lot, and risking more, to get very little in return.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Sorry, I didn't mean that personally. I'm just saying that I've never heard a competitive person say they would rather take the safer route and not have a shot at the top prize.

Again, you're missing my point. I understand setting the goal of winning the Rose Bowl, because that is what they can control. You win the Pac-10/12, you get to the Rose Bowl. These teams can't ensure that they will be in the BCS Title Game because of the way the system is set up so you set a goal that you can control the outcome of. That's rule #1 of goal setting.

However, if teams could ensure that by winning their conference, they would get a shot at a National Championship, I guarantee more teams would list that in their goals. If there was a playoff during Pete Carroll's time at USC, I am willing to bet that the Rose Bowl wouldn't be on their mind, a National Championship would be.

The benefit would be a LOT more money to the schools. And that's all that really matters these days.

[doom41]

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

You're completely missing my point. Of course TCU didn't have a choice last year. I was asking you, that if you had a choice, what would you pick? You said you would rather take the safe bet of being Rose Bowl "Champs" over a chance to be a National Champion because the road might be tougher. To me that is completely insane.

If you had the chance to play in the U.S. Open, rather than the golf tournament, you wouldn't want a shot at the U.S. Open Championship? I sure would have no matter how little the odds of me winning were. I guess that's where we differ

Understand, I would rather see a playoff system.
However, you are lookng at this from a fan side. Of course any player, coach or fan would rather have a shot at a NC, but they are not the ones deciding this.
The decision makers are school presidents with little to no athletic backgrounds. They are all looking at the probabilities, not he possibilities. One thing very few have mentioned is the exposer that playing in bowl games brings to a University. It's free advertising for the school on national television. That is why schools are willing to take a loss on travel expenses (though when you factor in the overall bowl payouts by the conference, very few schools actually lose money).
So what is more benefitial to a school, through the eyes of a school president. Having an 8 out of 120 chance of playing for a NC, or having a 60+ out of 120 chance of playing in a nationaly televised Bowl game.
Until there is a guaranteed "Profitable for ALL" playoff system, the Bowls are here to stay.
I do not buy the $1 Billion talk. The BCS games minus the Rose Bowl get $125 Million from ESPN. That is $31.25 Million per game. While I'm sure playoff games would get more, I don't think it will be astronomicaly more. The BCS games are very high profile games after all. Lets say a playoff system gets 50% more per game. That's $46.875 Million/game for 7 games. Thats only $328.125 Million for the TV contract. Where is the other $671 Million going to come from?

[AUChase]

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

Should we rename this the "Conference Re-Alignment Thread" and throw all that stuff in here?

Wouldn't be a bad idea.

[Jr.]

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

Understand, I would rather see a playoff system.
However, you are lookng at this from a fan side. Of course any player, coach or fan would rather have a shot at a NC, but they are not the ones deciding this.
The decision makers are school presidents with little to no athletic backgrounds. They are all looking at the probabilities, not he possibilities. One thing very few have mentioned is the exposer that playing in bowl games brings to a University. It's free advertising for the school on national television. That is why schools are willing to take a loss on travel expenses (though when you factor in the overall bowl payouts by the conference, very few schools actually lose money).
So what is more benefitial to a school, through the eyes of a school president. Having an 8 out of 120 chance of playing for a NC, or having a 60+ out of 120 chance of playing in a nationaly televised Bowl game.
Until there is a guaranteed "Profitable for ALL" playoff system, the Bowls are here to stay.
I do not buy the $1 Billion talk. The BCS games minus the Rose Bowl get $125 Million from ESPN. That is $31.25 Million per game. While I'm sure playoff games would get more, I don't think it will be astronomicaly more. The BCS games are very high profile games after all. Lets say a playoff system gets 50% more per game. That's $46.875 Million/game for 7 games. Thats only $328.125 Million for the TV contract. Where is the other $671 Million going to come from?

I can't explain the economics of the playoffs. I'm simply going off of what I've heard sport economists say. I've read over $1 billion from a few sources (I'll see if I can find them but it's been a while) and I think that's based off of what the NCAA basketball tournament brings in and people assume that a college football playoff would get more because the sport is more popular and therefore have higher ratings.

I don't think the bowl system has to be completely thrown out because of a playoff. There won't be 35 bowls, but I think 10-15 can stay profitable. There will still be plenty of quality teams to choose from and I think they could still bring in solid ratings.

[gerg1234]

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

I can't explain the economics of the playoffs. I'm simply going off of what I've heard sport economists say. I've read over $1 billion from a few sources (I'll see if I can find them but it's been a while) and I think that's based off of what the NCAA basketball tournament brings in and people assume that a college football playoff would get more because the sport is more popular and therefore have higher ratings.

I don't think the bowl system has to be completely thrown out because of a playoff. There won't be 35 bowls, but I think 10-15 can stay profitable. There will still be plenty of quality teams to choose from and I think they could still bring in solid ratings.

I hate to go completely off topic....but.....who is that girl in your av? Wow.

[DonkeyJote]

I can't explain the economics of the playoffs. I'm simply going off of what I've heard sport economists say. I've read over $1 billion from a few sources (I'll see if I can find them but it's been a while) and I think that's based off of what the NCAA basketball tournament brings in and people assume that a college football playoff would get more because the sport is more popular and therefore have higher ratings.

I don't think the bowl system has to be completely thrown out because of a playoff. There won't be 35 bowls, but I think 10-15 can stay profitable. There will still be plenty of quality teams to choose from and I think they could still bring in solid ratings.

The basketball tournament is 67 games. A football playoff would be 7 games. One of which is already there (nc game), and four of which would be getting replaced as well (bcs bowls). So you're talking 2 new games. Who's going to pay $1 billion for that.

And how often does this system get it wrong? Do you really think tcu was better than Oregon last year?

The NFL is different than college. It's professional for one. Also, they all play in the same league and play a similar schedule. It's apples and oranges.

And high schools do not play 16 games. A high school team plays about 9 regular season games, a D2 school plays 11. An fbs team already plays 12-13 before the post season.

College Football is different than other sports, and that's what makes it great. LSU/Oregon would've meant nothing with a playoff in place, but it was a huge game. Why would you want to risk these great games so you can have a playoff?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[doom41]

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

I can't explain the economics of the playoffs. I'm simply going off of what I've heard sport economists say. I've read over $1 billion from a few sources (I'll see if I can find them but it's been a while) and I think that's based off of what the NCAA basketball tournament brings in and people assume that a college football playoff would get more because the sport is more popular and therefore have higher ratings.

I don't think the bowl system has to be completely thrown out because of a playoff. There won't be 35 bowls, but I think 10-15 can stay profitable. There will still be plenty of quality teams to choose from and I think they could still bring in solid ratings.

The NCAA Tourney also has 65 games. What makes a game proffitable for a network? Advertising. 65 games allows for a whole lot more advertising than 7 games. Ad time for the football games would have to sell for over 9X more than the ad time for the basketball games just to make the two equal in terms of advertising value. There is no doubt that football is more populare than basketball, but there is no way you can compare the value of a 65 game playoff to a 7 game playoff.
If a playoff system was worth $1 Billion dollars, then there would be a playoff system. Currently schools are making around $2 Mill on avg. from their conference Bowl pay out. $1 Billion split evenly b/w 120 schools would be over $8 Mill per school. Even if 50% of that $1 Billion went to the NCAA, BCS or whoever, It would still be $500 Million payout to schools vs. less than $250 Million total payout by the bowls. There is no way that they would still be playing bowls if that kind of money was really possible.