NCAA Football
- Thread starter BobbyJ_for3!
- Start date
chelle said:
Yeah, they are up 14-0, but they are playing Boise State
. Just kidding. I am soooo glad college ball has started.
. Just kidding. I am soooo glad college ball has started.
I think we can both agree that we want Wyoming to win. Boise St. is ranked #18 BTW and has great record over the last couple of years.Despite our obvious differences in opinion, it's nice to have fellow SEC fan here. It is the best conference after all.
Agreed about the SEC!!! I didn't realize that Boise was ranked 18!! Wow. I wonder how I missed that. I gave blood today. I must still be a little light headed. However, am clear enough to hope Wyoming crushes Florida!! (I guess I must confess that I AM pulling for the Dawgs!) Hopefully they can score with this interception.
UGA played awesome game and I was very impressed with Shockley, he's waited a long time to start and if he was nervous it didn't show. There were more dropped passes than there should have been but otherwise excellent job. Made my day, despite the fact that Florida and Tech also won.
They just compared oklahoma to the Kings on ESPN, obviously not a compliment!
Made my day, despite the fact that Florida and Tech also won.They just compared oklahoma to the Kings on ESPN, obviously not a compliment!
Last edited:
loopymitch said:
UGA played awesome game and I was very impressed with Shockley, he's waited a long time to start and if he was nervous it didn't show. There were more dropped passes than there should have been but otherwise excellent job. Made my day, despite the fact that Florida and Tech also won.
They just compared oklahoma to the Kings on ESPN, obviously not a compliment!
Made my day, despite the fact that Florida and Tech also won.They just compared oklahoma to the Kings on ESPN, obviously not a compliment!
I guess it a little obvious who my team is.... it's gonna be a rough year if we can't start to run the ball.
I can feel the stares even before I say this but, "USC's schedule is not exactly horrifying. I am not saying that they are not good, but I don't see them stomping Tennessee or Michigan like they did Hawaii."
I can feel the stares even before I say this but, "USC's schedule is not exactly horrifying. I am not saying that they are not good, but I don't see them stomping Tennessee or Michigan like they did Hawaii."
That is the one thing that makes college football suck. I love College Football but looking at ND's schedule compared to USC's or any of the other top teams for that matter just PO's me.
And it is all due in part because of the stupid BCS and Bowl system in general. The system has always been flawed and until we get a playoff I will hate this one thing.
And it is all due in part because of the stupid BCS and Bowl system in general. The system has always been flawed and until we get a playoff I will hate this one thing.
I think that is the sentiment of every college football fan. Basicaly, BCS is stupid and it should die.
Funny thing is, the ADs of the colleges didn't like the idea of a playoff bowl system because it added weeks of competition to the schedule and said it would disrupt school too much. I guess adding a 12th game to the schedule isn't adding an extra week. Supposedly the argument is its one extra game for all the schools, not up to 3 or 4 for a pair of schools...but still.
Funny thing is, the ADs of the colleges didn't like the idea of a playoff bowl system because it added weeks of competition to the schedule and said it would disrupt school too much. I guess adding a 12th game to the schedule isn't adding an extra week. Supposedly the argument is its one extra game for all the schools, not up to 3 or 4 for a pair of schools...but still.
You're right it is all about money...
But generating more money in a playoff system might not be completely fact. Think about it like this:
Let's say there is a 16 team playoff as opposed to the 28 bowl games...
Teams Perspective:
With the 28 bowl games that means you have 56 teams earning guaranteed money through bowl sponser payouts. The lower bowls like the Las Vegas Bowl has a payout of around $250,000, whereas the Capital One Bowl has a $1,500,000 payout. These payouts are regardless if a team wins or loses. Now take a middle of the line schools. Someone like Clemson, ASU, Iowa or any team that is consistantly 8-3 or 8-4. Those type of teams are usually making decent money just by appearing a mid-tier bowl. With a sole playoff system, now those type of teams won't have that consistant source of income.
Also, with a playoff system the regular season just lost a little bit of importance. Right now, with the BCS, the regular season is like the playoffs. If a team goes undefeated and goes 12-0, it's a good bet that you have your national champion. If you lose once, there is still a chance albeit a dim chance. If you lose twice, better luck next year. Each game has the potential to be that upset that ruins your team's chance of a national championship. With a playoff system, you will have two loss teams, possibly a three loss team competing for national championships. That means, if you lose a game during the regular season, it's not as important. Something like this could result in lower home attendances therefore less revenue generated. Now something like this won't affect the attendance of traditional powers like Michigan, Ohio State, FSU, Oklahoma (or other popular schools in small rural towns) But it could affect other schools without the powerhouse tradition or other schools in major metropolis areas (like USC)
NCAA Perspective:
As I said before, there are 28 bowl games with 56 teams and their fans travelling. That gives the NCAA the oppertunity to sell out 28 games. With a 16 team playoff, all of a sudden 28 potential sell-outs turns into 15 potential sell-outs. It doesn't take a quantam physics expert to see that 28 is more than 15.
I know you are thinking that all 28 bowl games do not sell out but that all 15 playoff games will definately sell out. I wouldn't be so sure of that either.
Lets make a hypothetical matchup (I'm using the top 16 from the AP) #2 Texas versus #15 Arizona State. Is that game going to make you book an airline, hotel and purchase tickets? A lot of people would if this was their sole bowl game. But given the match-up, a lot of people expect Texas to win and make it to the 2nd round where it would go up against Iowa(assuming no upsets). Much more intruiging match-up but still, a lot of people would expect Texas to win that game as well. Finally down to the semifinals where it could be a match-up between Texas and #4 Ohio State (or #6 Tennessee if there's an upset). That's a game where you would travel and spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to go see. But wait, Texas wins again and is now is playing for the national championship against #1 USC.
My point is that at the beginning of the play-off the stakes are not as high as the later rounds. The average college football fan will not travel 4 times to go see his or her team play. Nor could they afford that.
So I can see a lot of lost revenue given the fact that there are not as many games being played and that fans will not travel multiple times to watch their teams play.
Bowl's Perspective:
Finally, if there was a playoff what would happen with all the corporate sponsers? The Champs Sports Bowl, GMAC Bowl and other smaller bowl games may not matter much to the casual fan. But those corporations have invested a lot of money to have their names matched with their bowl game and it's much more serious to them. To get rid of those bowls, there would have to be a mass contract buy-outs costing millions (assuming there are no law suits which I am sure there would be). On top of all that, more bowl games would be lost to potential sponsership revenue as well.
It doesn't stop with the sponserships as well. Think of the local economies affected by a playoff system. I live in Orlando and our local economy is dominated by the tourism industry. We have the Champs Sports Bowl and the Capital One Bowl played here. Take those two bowls away and you've cost this city millions if not billions in lost revenue that could be used at local hotels, local restaurants and theme parks.
The Counter Argument
The only way I could see the NCAA gaining more money off a sole playoff system is through TV contracts. The NCAA could command a much larger deal due to the peaked interest from the fans. But that is the only facet and I don't think it would be enough to offset the loss from the lower attendances, fewer games and lost sponsers
But generating more money in a playoff system might not be completely fact. Think about it like this:
Let's say there is a 16 team playoff as opposed to the 28 bowl games...
Teams Perspective:
With the 28 bowl games that means you have 56 teams earning guaranteed money through bowl sponser payouts. The lower bowls like the Las Vegas Bowl has a payout of around $250,000, whereas the Capital One Bowl has a $1,500,000 payout. These payouts are regardless if a team wins or loses. Now take a middle of the line schools. Someone like Clemson, ASU, Iowa or any team that is consistantly 8-3 or 8-4. Those type of teams are usually making decent money just by appearing a mid-tier bowl. With a sole playoff system, now those type of teams won't have that consistant source of income.
Also, with a playoff system the regular season just lost a little bit of importance. Right now, with the BCS, the regular season is like the playoffs. If a team goes undefeated and goes 12-0, it's a good bet that you have your national champion. If you lose once, there is still a chance albeit a dim chance. If you lose twice, better luck next year. Each game has the potential to be that upset that ruins your team's chance of a national championship. With a playoff system, you will have two loss teams, possibly a three loss team competing for national championships. That means, if you lose a game during the regular season, it's not as important. Something like this could result in lower home attendances therefore less revenue generated. Now something like this won't affect the attendance of traditional powers like Michigan, Ohio State, FSU, Oklahoma (or other popular schools in small rural towns) But it could affect other schools without the powerhouse tradition or other schools in major metropolis areas (like USC)
NCAA Perspective:
As I said before, there are 28 bowl games with 56 teams and their fans travelling. That gives the NCAA the oppertunity to sell out 28 games. With a 16 team playoff, all of a sudden 28 potential sell-outs turns into 15 potential sell-outs. It doesn't take a quantam physics expert to see that 28 is more than 15.
I know you are thinking that all 28 bowl games do not sell out but that all 15 playoff games will definately sell out. I wouldn't be so sure of that either.
Lets make a hypothetical matchup (I'm using the top 16 from the AP) #2 Texas versus #15 Arizona State. Is that game going to make you book an airline, hotel and purchase tickets? A lot of people would if this was their sole bowl game. But given the match-up, a lot of people expect Texas to win and make it to the 2nd round where it would go up against Iowa(assuming no upsets). Much more intruiging match-up but still, a lot of people would expect Texas to win that game as well. Finally down to the semifinals where it could be a match-up between Texas and #4 Ohio State (or #6 Tennessee if there's an upset). That's a game where you would travel and spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to go see. But wait, Texas wins again and is now is playing for the national championship against #1 USC.
My point is that at the beginning of the play-off the stakes are not as high as the later rounds. The average college football fan will not travel 4 times to go see his or her team play. Nor could they afford that.
So I can see a lot of lost revenue given the fact that there are not as many games being played and that fans will not travel multiple times to watch their teams play.
Bowl's Perspective:
Finally, if there was a playoff what would happen with all the corporate sponsers? The Champs Sports Bowl, GMAC Bowl and other smaller bowl games may not matter much to the casual fan. But those corporations have invested a lot of money to have their names matched with their bowl game and it's much more serious to them. To get rid of those bowls, there would have to be a mass contract buy-outs costing millions (assuming there are no law suits which I am sure there would be). On top of all that, more bowl games would be lost to potential sponsership revenue as well.
It doesn't stop with the sponserships as well. Think of the local economies affected by a playoff system. I live in Orlando and our local economy is dominated by the tourism industry. We have the Champs Sports Bowl and the Capital One Bowl played here. Take those two bowls away and you've cost this city millions if not billions in lost revenue that could be used at local hotels, local restaurants and theme parks.
The Counter Argument
The only way I could see the NCAA gaining more money off a sole playoff system is through TV contracts. The NCAA could command a much larger deal due to the peaked interest from the fans. But that is the only facet and I don't think it would be enough to offset the loss from the lower attendances, fewer games and lost sponsers
I hadn't thought of all those things, JonBoy, but no one says there can't be bowl games beside a playoff system. Furthermore, in my mind, playoffs should be top eight, thus making the matchups more desirable to spend money to see. Top eight seems enough to me, and maybe add a rule of letting any undefeated team in somehow, although that could be controversial.
Having the regular season act as the playoffs is stupid, I think. Saying a team can't have a single bad game or get a call go the other way, causing them to lose, seems pretty wrong. This weekend Texas is playing Ohio State. Why should whoever loses be mostly out of the championship picture for losing to a top six team? The way it is now lets schools lean towards scheduling easier non-conference games. Schools shouldn't have an advantage just for scheduling schools they feel they absolutely can beat. Maybe they don't do it, but as is there is the oppurtunity for it. Sure, they may be jipped like last years Auburn because they don't have as tough a schedule, thus don't make it into the championship game, but still.
Having the regular season act as the playoffs is stupid, I think. Saying a team can't have a single bad game or get a call go the other way, causing them to lose, seems pretty wrong. This weekend Texas is playing Ohio State. Why should whoever loses be mostly out of the championship picture for losing to a top six team? The way it is now lets schools lean towards scheduling easier non-conference games. Schools shouldn't have an advantage just for scheduling schools they feel they absolutely can beat. Maybe they don't do it, but as is there is the oppurtunity for it. Sure, they may be jipped like last years Auburn because they don't have as tough a schedule, thus don't make it into the championship game, but still.
I don't agree that the regular season as a "playoff" is stupid. It makes each and every game that much more exciting. What I do think is stupid with it though is the fact that there is too much stock put into preseason polls and early losses.
For example: In 1997 my beloved Seminoles were perhaps the hottest team and arguably the best team in the nation. They were destroying every team they played. Then it came down to playing UF in The Swamp (this was Spurrier's heyday and UF was considered unbeatable at home). It was a great game but it slipped away late in the fourth quarter. We loss and it was the last game of the year. The Noles had no chance to build themselves back up to national champion contention. Now if that loss occured on the second game, we'd be 1997 Nat Champs. Why a team is penalized for losing one game at the end of the year as opposed to the beginning of the year is beyond me.
Also these preseason polls are an absolute joke and it creates an unfair curve. How can you judge the ranking of a team before it even plays one down?
Look at Oklahoma this year. They lost to TCU when they were ranked 7th. They lost early in the year, so kudos to them. They slipped from 7th to 18th so they still have a chance to get back towards the top of the polls.
Now lets flip the page over to Auburn. They lost their one game already to a better Georgia Tech team (better than TCU that is) But they were ranked number 16th and now have dropped out of the polls altogether. Now if Oklahoma were to win the rest of their games and finish the year 11-1 and Auburn were to do the same, Oklahoma would be ahead of them ONLY because they were ranked higher in the preseason poll. Auburn would have lost to a better team AND won a more difficult conference yet still be behind.
OK - I'm off my high horse.
For example: In 1997 my beloved Seminoles were perhaps the hottest team and arguably the best team in the nation. They were destroying every team they played. Then it came down to playing UF in The Swamp (this was Spurrier's heyday and UF was considered unbeatable at home). It was a great game but it slipped away late in the fourth quarter. We loss and it was the last game of the year. The Noles had no chance to build themselves back up to national champion contention. Now if that loss occured on the second game, we'd be 1997 Nat Champs. Why a team is penalized for losing one game at the end of the year as opposed to the beginning of the year is beyond me.
Also these preseason polls are an absolute joke and it creates an unfair curve. How can you judge the ranking of a team before it even plays one down?
Look at Oklahoma this year. They lost to TCU when they were ranked 7th. They lost early in the year, so kudos to them. They slipped from 7th to 18th so they still have a chance to get back towards the top of the polls.
Now lets flip the page over to Auburn. They lost their one game already to a better Georgia Tech team (better than TCU that is) But they were ranked number 16th and now have dropped out of the polls altogether. Now if Oklahoma were to win the rest of their games and finish the year 11-1 and Auburn were to do the same, Oklahoma would be ahead of them ONLY because they were ranked higher in the preseason poll. Auburn would have lost to a better team AND won a more difficult conference yet still be behind.
OK - I'm off my high horse.
But don't get me wrong, I would love to see a playoff system and I think the only way to make it exist is to have it coincide with the bowl season as well.
It's tough to agree on, but I think only having 8 teams involved is only going half way. There are 11 conferences and I think each conference champion should be represented in a true playoff. This gets rid of any mid-major debate since each conference has a chance. But in order to balance out the brackets, you need to add 5 more teams. Those 5 teams can be on an at-large basis and determined by the BCS formula. The BCS formula could also set the seedings as well. Lets look (based on last year):
#1 USC (Pac10) vs. #16 N. Texas (Sun Belt)
#2 Oklahoma (Big12) vs. #15 Toledo (MAC)
#3 Auburn (SEC) vs. #14 Pittsburgh (Big East)
#4 Texas (at-large1) vs. #13 Michigan (Big10)
#5 Cal (at-large2) vs. #12 Iowa (at-large5)
#6 Utah (MWC) vs. #11 LSU (at-large4)
#7 Georgia (at-large3) vs. #10 Louisville (Conf USA)
#8 V-Tech (ACC) vs. #9 Boise St. (WAC)
Look at that first round! Texas and Michigan! Georgia and Loiusville! Utah and Iowa! I mean there are some great match ups, no controversy. By doing this you have weeded out every team that does not deserve a national championship. You realize that every undefeated, one loss and two loss team is represented through the 5 at-large bids? (Only one exception being 2 loss Wisconsin)
The NCAA should make one extra weekend to do it the right way and have 16 teams play. Start the first round the weekend after conference championships and by the time the fourth week rolls around, it's the beginning of January and the tradition is still alive.
You would have 15 total games played through out the playoffs. You've got the Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl. So, in the first round you would have 4 different sites playing 8 games. I mentioned attendance could drop so you can sell tickets similar how the basketball tournement conducts its first round. Purchase a ticket to the first round and you have access to two games at that particular site. Of course, the ticket price would be higher to compensate for two individual games (the NCAA should get market analysis for this).
Round 2 you have four games, one played at each site. By this time, interest should be peaked lets look (assuming no upsets):
#1 USC vs. #8 Va Tech
#2 Oklahoma vs #7 Georgia
#3 Auburn vs. #6 Utah
#4 Texas vs. #5 Cal
If the first round is set on double games for one ticket, I'm sure there will be sell outs considering that each school will be given 'x' amount of tickets. So instead of a two way split, it would be a four way split. More people would have access to go to the second round.
By the time the 3rd round comes you've got two games (again no upsets):
#1 USC vs #4 Texas
#2 Oklahoma vs #3 Auburn
These two games will be flip flopped every other year. Year one: Fiesta and Orange. Year Two: Rose and Sugar. Definately not to worry about attendance any more.
Finally the Championship game and the site for the game will shift exactly how it is right now. First year Rose. Second year Fiesta. Third year Sugar. Fourth year Orange. Notice how the set up was in the previous round. You will never have one site "double dip" and get a third round AND a championship game.
All the while, you have the lower tier bowls playing and fans travelling to them, TV rights continue on, sponsers are happy. I know there won't be any importance behind them, but it's not like there is much importance right now. Well except of course for conference bragging rights.
Bring on the play off system and somebody contact the NCAA and get me a position on their developmental board!
It's tough to agree on, but I think only having 8 teams involved is only going half way. There are 11 conferences and I think each conference champion should be represented in a true playoff. This gets rid of any mid-major debate since each conference has a chance. But in order to balance out the brackets, you need to add 5 more teams. Those 5 teams can be on an at-large basis and determined by the BCS formula. The BCS formula could also set the seedings as well. Lets look (based on last year):
#1 USC (Pac10) vs. #16 N. Texas (Sun Belt)
#2 Oklahoma (Big12) vs. #15 Toledo (MAC)
#3 Auburn (SEC) vs. #14 Pittsburgh (Big East)
#4 Texas (at-large1) vs. #13 Michigan (Big10)
#5 Cal (at-large2) vs. #12 Iowa (at-large5)
#6 Utah (MWC) vs. #11 LSU (at-large4)
#7 Georgia (at-large3) vs. #10 Louisville (Conf USA)
#8 V-Tech (ACC) vs. #9 Boise St. (WAC)
Look at that first round! Texas and Michigan! Georgia and Loiusville! Utah and Iowa! I mean there are some great match ups, no controversy. By doing this you have weeded out every team that does not deserve a national championship. You realize that every undefeated, one loss and two loss team is represented through the 5 at-large bids? (Only one exception being 2 loss Wisconsin)
The NCAA should make one extra weekend to do it the right way and have 16 teams play. Start the first round the weekend after conference championships and by the time the fourth week rolls around, it's the beginning of January and the tradition is still alive.
You would have 15 total games played through out the playoffs. You've got the Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl. So, in the first round you would have 4 different sites playing 8 games. I mentioned attendance could drop so you can sell tickets similar how the basketball tournement conducts its first round. Purchase a ticket to the first round and you have access to two games at that particular site. Of course, the ticket price would be higher to compensate for two individual games (the NCAA should get market analysis for this).
Round 2 you have four games, one played at each site. By this time, interest should be peaked lets look (assuming no upsets):
#1 USC vs. #8 Va Tech
#2 Oklahoma vs #7 Georgia
#3 Auburn vs. #6 Utah
#4 Texas vs. #5 Cal
If the first round is set on double games for one ticket, I'm sure there will be sell outs considering that each school will be given 'x' amount of tickets. So instead of a two way split, it would be a four way split. More people would have access to go to the second round.
By the time the 3rd round comes you've got two games (again no upsets):
#1 USC vs #4 Texas
#2 Oklahoma vs #3 Auburn
These two games will be flip flopped every other year. Year one: Fiesta and Orange. Year Two: Rose and Sugar. Definately not to worry about attendance any more.
Finally the Championship game and the site for the game will shift exactly how it is right now. First year Rose. Second year Fiesta. Third year Sugar. Fourth year Orange. Notice how the set up was in the previous round. You will never have one site "double dip" and get a third round AND a championship game.
All the while, you have the lower tier bowls playing and fans travelling to them, TV rights continue on, sponsers are happy. I know there won't be any importance behind them, but it's not like there is much importance right now. Well except of course for conference bragging rights.
Bring on the play off system and somebody contact the NCAA and get me a position on their developmental board!
Normally , I would say (insert team) against Spurrier? Go (insert team)! Now, I have to say, "I hope Spurrier's return to college is a HUGE success! Go Gamecocks!!" I just have to find a way for Carolina to win and Spurrier to lose.
Anyway, The underdogs are going to send the top dawgs into the doghouse!
Favored by17? uhoh.- I will actually settle for not being embarrassed. NOT THAT IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!
Good luck!
Anyway, The underdogs are going to send the top dawgs into the doghouse!
Favored by17? uhoh.- I will actually settle for not being embarrassed. NOT THAT IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!
Good luck!
Jon, nice job with that possbile scenario, sorry meant to mention it earlier. The whole system need san overhaul and they're supposed to be "looking into it" but personally I'm not holding my breath. There's ways to make playoffs and still have it financially viable. I just hate it when teams get screwed like auburn did last year and they've got to find a way to avoid that.
Thanks chelle, normally I'd say I'm hoping for nice close game but Spurrier's "between the hedges" again and I never thought I'd say that so another 48-13 would be fine with me.
That Texas-Ohio state game should be good one also.
Thanks chelle, normally I'd say I'm hoping for nice close game but Spurrier's "between the hedges" again and I never thought I'd say that so another 48-13 would be fine with me.
That Texas-Ohio state game should be good one also.
I am watching! Can't believe that Carolina is up 2 at the half. I won't see the end. While LSU is not playing at home, we all decided that for morale, we are going to treat it as a home game. We are getting together to watch. Good luck on the rest of the game, but not too much! How is it possible that I am happy that Carolina is playing better than i expected, but am mad because "that man" is on the side line!!!!