PDA

View Full Version : Why the BCS offers us more money than a playoff



ERCougar
12-02-2008, 08:14 AM
Under the current system, we (the non-BCS conferences collectively) will likely have a team in a BCS bowl every year (4 out of 5 so far). We get a total of approximately 10% of the total BCS bowl money.

I don't like our chances of consistently getting into a 4 or even 8 team playoff. But even with an 8-team playoff, there would be a total of 7 games. We'd likely lose in the first round, due to either unfair seeding or just not being good enough, meaning we'd take home, at most, 1/14th (7%) of the totaly take. It would probably be less as I'm sure that the earlier games would have lower payouts than the later games. The numbers get worse with a 12 or 16 team field.

As a football fan, I'd love to see a playoff, but I think it would only worsen the monopolizing effect of the BCS.

TripletDaddy
12-02-2008, 10:05 AM
Under the current system, we (the non-BCS conferences collectively) will likely have a team in a BCS bowl every year (4 out of 5 so far). We get a total of approximately 10% of the total BCS bowl money.

I don't like our chances of consistently getting into a 4 or even 8 team playoff. But even with an 8-team playoff, there would be a total of 7 games. We'd likely lose in the first round, due to either unfair seeding or just not being good enough, meaning we'd take home, at most, 1/14th (7%) of the totaly take. It would probably be less as I'm sure that the earlier games would have lower payouts than the later games. The numbers get worse with a 12 or 16 team field.

As a football fan, I'd love to see a playoff, but I think it would only worsen the monopolizing effect of the BCS.

So you are basically saying that the BCS is right...that on the whole, the best non-BCS schools are not going to fare very well at all against the best BCS schools in a playoff. Hence, they will lose in the first round most of the time.

il Padrino Ute
12-02-2008, 10:06 AM
Under the current system, we (the non-BCS conferences collectively) will likely have a team in a BCS bowl every year (4 out of 5 so far). We get a total of approximately 10% of the total BCS bowl money.

I don't like our chances of consistently getting into a 4 or even 8 team playoff. But even with an 8-team playoff, there would be a total of 7 games. We'd likely lose in the first round, due to either unfair seeding or just not being good enough, meaning we'd take home, at most, 1/14th (7%) of the totaly take. It would probably be less as I'm sure that the earlier games would have lower payouts than the later games. The numbers get worse with a 12 or 16 team field.

As a football fan, I'd love to see a playoff, but I think it would only worsen the monopolizing effect of the BCS.

My understanding is that in the basketball tournament, the tv revenue is divided equally between all the conferences. It most likely would be the same for football.

My idea for a playoff would be to eliminate all the bowls and only conference champions plus 5 at-large would participate. The tv revenue would be huge if something like that ever happened.

Mormon Red Death
12-02-2008, 10:10 AM
My understanding is that in the basketball tournament, the tv revenue is divided equally between all the conferences. It most likely would be the same for football.

My idea for a playoff would be to eliminate all the bowls and only conference champions plus 5 at-large would participate. The tv revenue would be huge if something like that ever happened.

IN bball tournament the conference gets dollars for each game they are in (like 1.6 million)

il Padrino Ute
12-02-2008, 10:42 AM
IN bball tournament the conference gets dollars for each game they are in (like 1.6 million)

Ok, thanks for the correction.

I'd still rather have the playoff. Finding a true champion is the primary reason for the post season. The money should only be secondary.

jay santos
12-02-2008, 10:49 AM
My understanding is that in the basketball tournament, the tv revenue is divided equally between all the conferences. It most likely would be the same for football.

My idea for a playoff would be to eliminate all the bowls and only conference champions plus 5 at-large would participate. The tv revenue would be huge if something like that ever happened.

I bet you're a liberal who believes in wealth redistribution, right? You want to take Florida, Texas, and USC's revenue and give it to the poor and needy.

The big conference teams will always generate the bulk of the revenue and probably should receive it as well.

Here are a couple posts back when we were discussing the topic a couple years ago.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5377

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5351

One of the lamest anti-BCS/pro-tournament arguments is the idea of wealth redistribution. If the non-BCS leachers could give up this dream, we might be able to move closer to a college football tournament.

TripletDaddy
12-02-2008, 10:51 AM
One thing that Dan Patrick brought up against a playoff....it was actually a pretty good point.

As of now, bowls and bowl communities count of alumni and tourist travel for a period of 3 or 4 days prior to the bowl. Everyone gets into town, there are bowl festivities, rallies, alumni events, etc.

In a playoff format, such a buildup would be impossible. You couldn't do that each week. Also, since a school can never be sure when it would be eliminated, it would kill all the alumni events (which are critical to fund raising).

I still think that a playoff is the better route, but a playoff would truly be the death of the bowl system as we now know it. However, is that such a bad thing? Who wants to go to spend 4 days at the El Paso Sun Bowl, anyway?

il Padrino Ute
12-02-2008, 11:06 AM
I bet you're a liberal who believes in wealth redistribution, right? You want to take Florida, Texas, and USC's revenue and give it to the poor and needy.

The big conference teams will always generate the bulk of the revenue and probably should receive it as well.

Here are a couple posts back when we were discussing the topic a couple years ago.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5377

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5351

One of the lamest anti-BCS/pro-tournament arguments is the idea of wealth redistribution. If the non-BCS leachers could give up this dream, we might be able to move closer to a college football tournament.

No, you obviously misunderstand me, or I wasn't clear enough.

I want a playoff because it is the only way to find a true champion. The money should only be secondary.

I know you're a BCS guy, and that's fine. But being a BCS guy, you do not want what's best for college football.

jay santos
12-02-2008, 01:59 PM
No, you obviously misunderstand me, or I wasn't clear enough.

I want a playoff because it is the only way to find a true champion. The money should only be secondary.

I know you're a BCS guy, and that's fine. But being a BCS guy, you do not want what's best for college football.


I'm not a BCS guy. I want the anti-BCS argument to be clear and logical.

ERCougar
12-02-2008, 02:36 PM
So you are basically saying that the BCS is right...that on the whole, the best non-BCS schools are not going to fare very well at all against the best BCS schools in a playoff. Hence, they will lose in the first round most of the time.

Sure, although that's not really my point. I think Utah 2004 could have beaten about anybody, but if you seed them in the first round against your beloved Trojans, it's a pick'em game. Yes, I think we'd screwed a little in seeding, but most of the time, it'd be somewhat justified, so we can't plan on winning most first-round games.

Mostly, I just want to point out that the current BCS setup is probably the best possible one, from a financial perspective.

il Padrino Ute
12-02-2008, 02:45 PM
I'm not a BCS guy. I want the anti-BCS argument to be clear and logical.

I don't think it can be much more clear or logical than saying that the BCS gives the 6 conferences with auto bids an unfair advantage.

TripletDaddy
12-02-2008, 02:51 PM
I don't think it can be much more clear or logical than saying that the BCS gives the 6 conferences with auto bids an unfair advantage.

keep in mind that technically, there is no "BCS." There is no formal BCS organization. It is simply a collection of contracts and agreements between those 6 conferences and Notre Dame.

So why wouldnt those 6 conferences act in their own best interest?

il Padrino Ute
12-02-2008, 02:56 PM
keep in mind that technically, there is no "BCS." There is no formal BCS organization. It is simply a collection of contracts and agreements between those 6 conferences and Notre Dame.

So why wouldnt those 6 conferences act in their own best interest?

You're correct about no formal organization existing.

When it acts in it's own best interest, but tries to claim that it is what is best for all of Division I football, it deserves any and all criticism. It's not like the 11 conference commissioners in all of D1 football got together with the 4 bowls and decided that this would be the best way to do things.