Death to the BCS- What this year's playoff would have looked like!!!

Page 4 of Originally Posted by Show Stopper I completely understand that but I was just offering a scenario to leatherneck to reduce the number of games if the h... 48 comments | 1659 Views | Go to page 1 →

  1. #46

    Some have claimed that the system won't change because it's "all about the money". If true, so what? Shouldn't the universities be concerned about the money? I think they should. Heck, as a taxpayer, I want the state funded universities in Ky to be very, very concerned about the money. With the amount D-1 coaches are paid and with the huge football budgets, the university Presidents better be dang well concerned with choosing the system that generates the most money. I don't understand the it's "all about the money" criticism. I really don't. Have the universities jack up the ticket prices to make up lost revenue, or cut the recruiting budget, or lay off some professors, etc., etc. and we'll again hear it's "all about the money". It's a dang if you do, dang if you don't proposition to me.

    Sorry folks, the playoff concept may be more interesting or more fair to some fans, but the Presidents of the state funded universities have a fiduciary duty to go with whatever system they believe will generate the most money for their schools. If that's the current system, so be it.
    Advertisement

  2. #47

    Join Date
    Jan 03
    Location
    Have love in your heart and an ax in your hand. Hug and swing discriminately- Jim Wendler
    Posts
    15,356

    Quote Originally Posted by leatherneck View Post
    Some have claimed that the system won't change because it's "all about the money". If true, so what? Shouldn't the universities be concerned about the money? I think they should. Heck, as a taxpayer, I want the state funded universities in Ky to be very, very concerned about the money. With the amount D-1 coaches are paid and with the huge football budgets, the university Presidents better be dang well concerned with choosing the system that generates the most money. I don't understand the it's "all about the money" criticism. I really don't. Have the universities jack up the ticket prices to make up lost revenue, or cut the recruiting budget, or lay off some professors, etc., etc. and we'll again hear it's "all about the money". It's a dang if you do, dang if you don't proposition to me.

    Sorry folks, the playoff concept may be more interesting or more fair to some fans, but the Presidents of the state funded universities have a fiduciary duty to go with whatever system they believe will generate the most money for their schools. If that's the current system, so be it.
    I don't see it as the current system. As is, there are about 25 meaningless Bowl Games, w/ 1 game deciding the champion. Yet, college fans attend their team's meaningless game in Mobile. Now, imagine having a 16 team playoff w/ the first games played Thanksgiving weekend. Those 8 losers advance to fill in the existing bowl slots for their conferences, whether they are BCS games or not. (Since this has become a concern even though it doesn't effect the student athletes at the lower levels) take a two week break for finals. After that, you play the quarterfinals w/ those losers filling in the open bowl slots. The next week you have the Final 4 played at neutral site, and then the championship. You still have your bowls that bring in a ton of money. You have the playoffs where you play 2 games at a University and then 2 at a neutral site, splitting the gate. Finally, you get a FINAL 4. Now that's more games to watch that will actually bring the casual fan to the TV to watch. Which do you feel makes more money?

  3. #48

    Join Date
    Nov 04
    Location
    5 Miles from nowhere
    Posts
    20,629

    I don't think a 16-team tournament would affect the "meaningfulness" of the regular season. In fact, it could enhance it.

    1. First, and most importantly, a 16-team field would include everybody. By allowing every conference champion an automatic bid, no team could complain about being left out. The little guys would finally get a fair chance.
    2. The fact that there would be only 5 at-large bids would still place a premium on winning games every week and winning your conference championship to ensure you're in.
    3. More teams would be in contention so there would be more big games on a weekly basis. A loss wouldn't take you out of the discussion as it does so often with the current setup.

    The games would still be huge because winning your conference would still be a premium with only 5 spots left for the rest.

    JMO

    This seems like a really good setup to me.

    The majority of the bowls could still be played and a playoff would make them no more meaningless than they already are. They'd be the basketball version of the NIT. Heck, they might could just have a football NIT to boot.

  4. #49

    Quote Originally Posted by mexitucky View Post
    I don't see it as the current system. As is, there are about 25 meaningless Bowl Games, w/ 1 game deciding the champion. Yet, college fans attend their team's meaningless game in Mobile. Now, imagine having a 16 team playoff w/ the first games played Thanksgiving weekend. Those 8 losers advance to fill in the existing bowl slots for their conferences, whether they are BCS games or not. (Since this has become a concern even though it doesn't effect the student athletes at the lower levels) take a two week break for finals. After that, you play the quarterfinals w/ those losers filling in the open bowl slots. The next week you have the Final 4 played at neutral site, and then the championship. You still have your bowls that bring in a ton of money. You have the playoffs where you play 2 games at a University and then 2 at a neutral site, splitting the gate. Finally, you get a FINAL 4. Now that's more games to watch that will actually bring the casual fan to the TV to watch. Which do you feel makes more money?
    Okay then the schools' reluctance to go with a playoff system is not about the money then.

Top