Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Jens1893, Jan 4, 2008.
On page 3, right above the "Determining A True Champion" header, the article reads:
"Delany, the Big Ten commissioner, declined to be interviewed for this story, but recently told Sports Illustrated his conference's original decision to join the BCS "was not considered the first step toward a playoff, but the last step.""
What does that quote mean? It's got a very curmudgeon-ey tone to it, but when he said "the last step" was he intending to say "the last step before a playoff would come to exist" or "the last step, and by that I mean the definitive end to any discussion of a playoff ever existing in college football, even though my nearly indecipherable quote in no way makes that statement"?
From his past comments I would take it as the one and only step the B10 will make.
From everything I've heard, it's not the Pac 10, nor the Rose Bowl that is the major obstacle to the playoff. It's the Big 10.
I say screw them. Let them play their little game while the rest of college football does it right. They can become more irrelevant than they already are.
The only way we are going to have a playoff is if it makes financial sense to do it.
The article points out the reason ABC dropped the BCS bowls (other than Rose) was the declining viewership and the BCS's demand for more money. What the BCS gods didn't anticipate is that by matching 1 and 2 up it diminished the market value of the other three bowls. My guess is that ABC wanted Plus One to be like a playoff as part of the deal because it would have boosted ratings for all the bowls. We would have had another week of BCS computations and then big ratings going into the championship game.
I believe that TV ultimately will be the force that dictates to the BCS that we have a playoff. The BCS wants big TV contracts and that money will only come from the networks. The networks have to have good ratings or they will not buy in.
If that were truly the case, we would have had a playoff a long time ago. A 16-team playoff would generate gobs more money than the system they have now. 15 bowl games, all of them sold out with everybody watching on TV. The rest of the bowl games could still be played for the teams that didn't make the playoff.
It's simple, I know.
It's occured to me that we could legislate a playoff system. We could add a ballot initiative that forbids state public institutions from accepting any money or participating in any post season BCS event that does not involve a 16 team head to head playoff. Or something to that effect. That would make the Presidents and the Conferences have to come up with a new plan.
It would really only have to pass in Florida or California or Texas and that would be it. You get that on the ballot going into the fall election in a few big states and watch out BCS. It's sad that it would have to come to that.
There was not a single school that played in the BCS this year that would have been affected if such a law passed in those three states. USC is a private school. Neither Miami, Fla, or Florida State was in the BCS and neither was Texas or A&M.
Your right that it would not effect private schools. I'm saying that this would require a coordinated effort and must be placed on the ballot of multiple states but those three big states would clinch the deal.
It is the bowl committees that are the problem. A tournament takes away their reason to exist.
Thats why I like the ballot initiative that is voted on by the public at large. This whole issue is tangled up in a quagmire of money, power, and politics. The public is not a slave to those issues and what they want will either preserve the current system or erase it forever.
A real tournament would and national championship game would do it. I think a marketing firm offered the NCAA over $100M for the rights a couple of years ago.
I think this is a good approach. It reminds me of the NCAA and NIT tourneys in college basketball. If you are good enough you make it to the big dance if not you still get a carrot for a respectable season. Those "lesser" bowls might not have the broad appeal but loyal fans would still support them and I think there would be more tv revenue than a person might think.
The one thing that is really evident right now is the current system isn't really what most fans want which is ironic because w/o fan support they are nothing.
OK, so we have ABC/ESPN on the outside looking in at this point. What's to stop them from bidding on a tournament format? If ABC offers a payout to 15 different bowl games of some insane figure like a billion dollars, who's to stop those bowls from falling in line? It's not like ABC/ESPN doesn't have the money. They're part of Disney. They have more money than God. I would think even the Rose Bowl would have to sit up and take notice at something like that. If the Rose Bowl is offered $50MM to host the national semifinal game, don't you think they'd be tempted to throw tradition out the window?
Again I ask, why does the Rose Bowl get special treatment? Why do they get to negotiate their own contract?
The Rose Bowl is the Notre Dame of college bowls. They think they're special. In reality, they're just another big bowl game.
In theory they could but the bowl committee would have to give up all power. IMHO it would be better to abandon the bowls then to try and work with them. The 'bowls' are so much more than a place to play.
What power do the bowl committees have anyway? All they do is choose which two teams are going to the game. It's not like that would be completely stripped from them. And remember that they'd be getting a boatload of money. Using the Rose Bowl as an example, if they were given the choice of hosting the national championship game or hosting a 2nd round game that would in all liklihood provide a B-10 and a Pac-10 team, which would they choose? Leave that up to them, I guess.
I'd prefer to incorporate the existing bowls into the playoff system. They already know how to put on a football game pretty well. Why not take advantage of that expertise?
Bowl committees have a huge budget and are major jock-sniffing organizations. This is old-school money and local businesses. The business 'sponsors' the bowl. The bowl puts the CEO on the committee. He gets to scout several games charged to the bowl committee every year. He also gets to pick people on his group to help 'scout' the possible teams [he gets to pick ex-jocks and business associates to take with him to the games]. IMO none of this is really needed but has been done for years.
I believe someone tried to get Miami and Penn State to play each other for a couple mil each back in the 90s when they split a mNC. I also believe that the bowls had or now have language that prohibits such a venture with the conferences and teams in the contracts. Both Miami and PSU were independents I believe so there was a possibility.
PSU and fuskers in 1994. PSU was locked into the Rose and the fuskers were locked into the Orange.
This helped bring about the BCS because the sympathy vote for CTO when most thought PSU had the better team.
Your sig sucks, BC.
Check that. It was 1989 when Notre Dame and Miami (remember who we beat?) split the title. There was some private money that tried to organize a head to head meeting to settle it.
Separate names with a comma.