Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by tante, Apr 14, 2015.
Objection, slippery slope argument.
Over ruled..... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
More playoffs, please
I find you in contempt! Officer, please escort that man out of the message board!!
Not sure the $$ numbers would expand all that much with an 8 team playoff. This is because that could really push the 'traditional' bowls off of Jan 1 and even the big ones would not be considered remotely premier anymore. While the CFB playoff brought in an additional $200 million, the non playoff bowls brought in $300 million to bring the total to $500 million. That's in a non Rose Bowl/Sugar Bowl year. Those are going to pay ~$35 million (per conference) next year, and that will escalate as the TV contract continues. So P12 will get ~ $50 million from the CFB playoff, and $35 million from the Rose Bowl (but only in 2 of 3 years due to the rotation). Next year the BT, SEC, P12 and B12 all gain a contract bowl. The BT/SEC and ACC however lose a contract bowl with the Orange going to the semis. That still means an extra ~$70 million due to non playoff bowls, so the payouts would nominally be $570 million total, $200 million for the CFB playoff and $370 for the sum of the non playoff bowls. In 2016-17, all 3 contract bowls would be played, so that pushes the total to $640 million, with only ~$200m coming from the playoff. Of course in 2017-18, that resets back to the low figure. Probably the best way to look at it is an average of the three years, which would be about the $370/$200m split between non playoff bowls and playoff payments. Both are likely escaating at the same rate, by the way, as is the P12 regular season TV contract.
So if the format moves to 8 teams, and the additional Rose Bowl payout goes away, it's not going to be all that much $$ extra for an 8 team playoff - and there might have to be a lot more sharing with the smaller conferences while the Rose Bowl (or Sugar Bowl or Orange Bowl) goes directly into a P5 conference without anyone else watering it down. If the system makes the round of 8 permanently located at the traditional bowls, there will not be a double payment, just a larger one for the additional round.
Now when the current contract is up, maybe the $$$ will make more sense. There very well could be quite a lot of erosion of the Rose/Sugar Bowl brands by then due to skipping years and having multiple non-champion matchups. If people stop watching the New Year's Day Bowls, I'd think ESPN would be eager just to throw money and push tradition side. ESPN did screw up by paying for the semis on Dec 31st in 1 of 3 years, but why should the P5 change to suit ESPN (without $$)? There are still other networks to bid though, so if the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl are well attended and well viewed, that just might be more profitable to continue next round of TV contracts (at least for the P5).
The NCAA distributed $481M for the 2013-2014 NCAA tourney, compared to roughly $500M for the just passed 2014-2015 bowl season, including the playoffs. Given the viewer ratings of the regular season games, football should be at least double basketball, possibly triple, if they get the post season set up properly.
the playoffs will continue to expand - it is all about the $$$
Only a matter of time... $$$ talks
eh, who needs a national champion anyway?
Yeah but it is way easier to play a ton of games in BBall than it is football. That is the only reason it is almost the same at the bowl season payout. I really enjoyed the four team playoff but would not want it to be much bigger beyond that.
ERRONEOUS! Emulate the NFL and make it a 12 or even 14 (where the NFL is going) team playoff with the top 4 or 2 teams getting byes.
Then you start making football a 2 semester sport which really makes it tough for the athletes to accomplish the responsibilities they have academically. I know that the student part of student athletes has become smaller and smaller, but they still have work to do to stay eligible. Also you run into a problem with all 120+ teams in D1 getting their standard practice time each year and then the top 8-12 get an extra 2 months. Only way it would work is if the playoff started the week following the conclusion of the reg season. Couldn't wait until Jan 1 like they did this past year.
Exactly. The month between the conference championships and the "big" bowl games is ridiculous. In my scenario, the playoffs would take 4 weeks and could easily be done if they started the week or two after the conference championship games.
What's a bowl game?
I don't care how many teams get in a playoff, 6 or 8 seems the most to me; just as long as whatever the committee decides on selection day, they continue to **** Bailer! That was funny.
I wish they'd radically alter the bowl season. I'd like to see an 8-team playoff and an 8-team NIT-like playoff (with NIT-like playoff to be played on home campuses). I think this would do two things: expand number of games for teams that everyone wants to watch, and develop interest in secondary playoff system to reward good-but-not-great teams. The 7-6/6-6 teams can still have their no-name bowl games but I think this two-tiered system would greatly benefit the postseason.
that is a really interesting and novel thought. I'm not saying I like it, just that I never heard it before -- give me something to think about with 140 days until college football.
I'm almost thinking the bowl system is losing a lot of luster as far as popularity/TV ratings goes. I wonder how long sponsors will keep supporting some of the lesser ones. And I understand that several are sponsored by the communities they are in. But is the current bowl system sustainable? How many people watch a Monday afternoon game on December 14th or whatever?
Personally I love bowl season. Football on pretty much every day for 2 weeks. Its great distraction during the holidays anyway
Yup. Nothing better than slinking off to the basement couch with a 6 pack while family members rage an epic holiday argument upstairs.
This is a non-argument that University Presidents hold up because they love being able to talk up their key donors for a week leading up to a bowl game while having a 50/50 chance at finishing the season on a high note with a win. Men's and women's bball play over two semesters and I have never once heard a call from these same folks so concerned about football bleeding over that somehow bball players are at academic risk.
A big part of the pure awesomness of this last years' playoff was that the sytem worked. That was due, in no small part, to the teams themselves not screwing the pooch somewhere along the line. We got the best four teams in the country, no question about it. But what would have happened if Auburn had upset Alabama, or Oregon lost the P12 CG? It could have been awful.
I absolutely loved the way the system worked this year, but I expect it's too much to ask that it be that way forever. I see an 8-team playoff on the horizon. The arguments about this turning into a two semester sport are grasping at straws. Hoops is already that way. And the season is only extended for a very small number of teams. It's insignificant in that regard.
I'd be very interested in seeing how they decide who gets into an 8-team playoff. P5 conference champions for sure. Who gets the three at-large bids? Lots and lots of politicing over that.
I'd also be interested in seeing how they incorporate the existing bowls into the system. It was great this year because the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl really meant something again. That gets diluted a lot in an 8-team playoff scenario.
I'm just assuming that you define awful as "**** baylor gets in the playoff," and you're right, it could have been awful.
That's certainly part of it. Imagine this: At some point during the season, Florida upsets FSU, Auburn beats Alabama, Stanford beats Oregon, and Michigan State beats Ohio State.
In that scenario, we get a final four of **** bailer, TCU, Michigan State and maybe Mississippi State. Tell me how much that would have sucked.
but at least college football would not have ended up with a "National Champion" that lost a home game to a unranked 6-6 team.
I like it!
What about the 1984 BYU team? They played an easy schedule and their championship game was versus a 6 win team.
apples and oranges
1. college football didn't have a "national championship" back in 1984. there were several organizations that selected and named their own MNC back then, but the organizing body of the sport wasn't one of them.
2. the 1984 Cougars went undefeated in their 'championship' year. OSU lost a home game to a really bad team in their most recent championship year.
3. I don't think many besides you would refer to the 1984 Holiday Bowl as a "championship game", as Michigan wouldn't have been anyone's MNC if they had they won. BYU went to that bowl because of conference tie-ins, not because it was to determine the MNC.
Separate names with a comma.