ND & Texas to the Big 10?

[DuffHouse12]

if the BCS games aren't good now, which i gather is what you're saying, why would those same teams playing in a playoff = great games.

you're talking about less than 20 of 40 games, most of which game in the past 5 years when 2 teams are brought in to fill voids left by the #1 and #2 teams in the nation.

what happens to the bowls when we subtract teams 1-4? we're talking about games featuring the 5th through 12th ranked teams in the nation, and maybe 1 BCS conference champion.

whats the point of that? i think they should get rid of the championship game and go back to the rotation method.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

if the BCS games aren't good now, which i gather is what you're saying, why would those same teams playing in a playoff = great games.

Weak conferences like the Big East and ACC won't exist after realignment. The only teams playing in a playoff would be the champions of extremely competitive superconferences. There are certainly arguments against the superconference -> playoff evolution, but the quality of the post-season isn't one of them.

 

[DuffHouse12]

Weak conferences like the Big East and ACC won't exist after realignment. The only teams playing in a playoff would be the champions of extremely competitive superconferences. There are certainly arguments against the superconference -> playoff evolution, but the quality of the post-season isn't one of them.

this isn't right. first of all, the big east isn't going anywhere.

second, and to the point - in a super conference world you're talking about longer conference schedules, which means the regular season will at least be the same length. regardless of where the pieces fall into place, there will not be enough calendar to have more than a 4 team playoff. so where do the rest of the teams play in the post season? in a degraded quality post-season.

 

[greyhammer90]

if the BCS games aren't good now, which i gather is what you're saying, why would those same teams playing in a playoff = great games.

you're talking about less than 20 of 40 games, most of which game in the past 5 years when 2 teams are brought in to fill voids left by the #1 and #2 teams in the nation.

what happens to the bowls when we subtract teams 1-4? we're talking about games featuring the 5th through 12th ranked teams in the nation, and maybe 1 BCS conference champion.

whats the point of that? i think they should get rid of the championship game and go back to the rotation method.

Because winning a BCS game means nothing. In this post season every game minus the NCAA championship is the equivalent of regular season game. It's anticlimactic and boring because there is nothing at stake. "Oh cool we got invited to the orange bowl! If we win we'll be... orange bowl champions? And if we lose then we're... orange bowl runner ups?" College football is the greatest sport in existence (IMO) it's about time it has a post season that's worthy of it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

this isn't right. first of all, the big east isn't going anywhere.

The Big East and the ACC certainly wouldn't survive realignment intact.

second, and to the point - in a super conference world you're talking about longer conference schedules, which means the regular season will at least be the same length. regardless of where the pieces fall into place, there will not be enough calendar to have more than a 4 team playoff.

We'd see the same 12 game regular season and a conference championship game like the SEC just had. Semi-finals on January 1st, and the Final a week later. Not very different from the current bowl schedule.

so where do the rest of the teams play in the post season? in a degraded quality post-season.

Because the Beef O'Brady Bowl is just overflowing with quality and prestige as it is.

 

[DuffHouse12]

the reason the BCS games a great, and every team wants to go (including Coach Kelly) is because you're invited, and it means people want to see the match-up of you v. another top level, worthy opponent. #3 v. #5 matters. in a playoff, you will be seeing #5 v. #10

that doesnt matter.

 

[DuffHouse12]

whiskey jack you just proved my point - 4 team playoff turns the Rose Bowl into Beef O'Brady Bowl.

thanks.

 

[DuffHouse12]

should have said "WITH a playoff you'd be seeing #5 v. #10" 2 posts up, meaning in the BCS games you'd have that level of a match-up

 

[DuffHouse12]

The Big East and the ACC certainly wouldn't survive realignment intact.

No one will leave Big East just for football. its a basketball conference. Pitt and WVU will not leave that just for football and Syracuse most certainly will not... UConn same thing.

USF might, but that's hardly a conference shattering move.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

the reason the BCS games a great, and every team wants to go (including Coach Kelly) is because you're invited, and it means people want to see the match-up of you v. another top level, worthy opponent.

It also injects a certain amount of subjectivity into the process, which isn't fair.

#3 v. #5 matters. in a playoff, you will be seeing #5 v. #10

Huh? How could Pac-16 champ v. B1G champ ever not matter?

whiskey jack you just proved my point - 4 team playoff turns the Rose Bowl into Beef O'Brady Bowl.

Now you're just making stuff up. Keep the Pac-16 v. B1G semi-final matchup in the Rose Bowl to preserve the history and the relevance. Rotate the championship game through the four BCS bowls. To be honest, I don't really care where they play the games. A playoff is (1) a simpler and fairer way to determine who's the best; (2) it will generate a lot more money for all relevant football programs; and (3) it will increase the quality of the postseason tremendously.

The bowls won't go away. Most of them are meaningless money-grabs right now anyway. If Beef O'Brady, Meineke Car Care, or whoever wants to sponsor a game in a post-realignment playoff CFB landscape, they can certainly continue to do so.

 

[TerryTate]

I could see the Big East and ACC merging, if they wanted to maintain their basketball prowess. However, football is usually the highest grossing revenue sport. The almighty dollar sign might shatter both of those conferences.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

No one will leave Big East just for football. its a basketball conference. Pitt and WVU will not leave that just for football and Syracuse most certainly will not... UConn same thing.

Basketball will definitely be a major consideration for how the Big East expands, but it can't sit put throughout realignment and remain a viable football conference. The proposed B1G we've been discussing in this thread would be a much stronger basketball conference. It's silly to say basketball trumps everything else in the Big East so realignment can't touch the conference.

 

[greyhammer90]

the reason the BCS games a great, and every team wants to go (including Coach Kelly) is because you're invited, and it means people want to see the match-up of you v. another top level, worthy opponent. #3 v. #5 matters. in a playoff, you will be seeing #5 v. #10

that doesnt matter.

So... let me get this straight... you're saying that a match up between two top ten programs that decides whether or not those two teams could continue in their dream of a national championship playoff run would be less exciting than... the University of Cincinnati and Florida battling it out for a trophy that has literally no worth. I just want to be sure.

 

[DuffHouse12]

here's what I'm saying -

right now the schools have it just about as good as it gets. they get huge TV ratings from the BCS games, and then the Championship Game being separate the following week.

if the goal is improve financially, the question must become what pockets are going to get bigger? right now the system as it exists is in place because of the money for the Bowls. the BCS itself is making loot hand over fist. why is important to remember? because it shows the schools have a track record for cooperating with the BCS. financially, the bowl's and schools interests are keeping a playoff out of football now, and nothing else. Personally, i think the calibur of each bowl game is what does this. if you detract the quality of them by removing potential teams for a playoff, you'd be reducing the per-game revenue increases. if i was a bowl i'd rather have the NCG and the two worst AQ teams in my bowl every 4th year than have even LOWER ranked teams and JUST a playoff game. to me that makes financial sense.

re: super conferences - again, what is the benefit of combining conferences? we have already seen that 1 particular conference may stand to gain by adding a new mega-TV market to their revenue sharing for example the Pac-12 and Texas. However this is not true of all conferences, and not every team has as much to offer as Texas. If you separate the super-conference issue first, you have way more obstacles to deal with than simply just playoffs. if you think playoffs first, then you can just stop right there, because the BCS year after year denies a playoff.

 

[DuffHouse12]

greyhammer - there is not enough room in the calendar to have a top 10 inclusive playoff. it would just be the top 4.

then you're looking at a #12 v. #5 BCS bowl game while the top 4 play in the tourney.

whiskey - you asked why the Pac-12 v. B1G champions game wouldn't matter - i'm saying it would be a playoff game, not the Rose Bowl. lets say it is the Rose Bowl, and the winner played AGAIN the next week. you're talking about CFB season going from Labor Day to Presidents Day for those two teams. in addition, you're talking about 1 BCS bowl being neither a semi-final or championship but a consolation game and distraction, v. how it is now where they each get a meaningful game every year, and the biggest game rotates. much much better.

 

[Rocket89]

DuffHouse, do you work for the BCS? Serious question.

Let me cover some of the things you've been talking about:

First, that you don't realize how much better playoff games would be versus stale BCS games, well what do you want me to say? You honestly think if the NFL adopted the bowl model that those bowl games would be exciting compared to what the NFL offers right now?

Let's just assume that the same teams that go to BCS games get to go into a playoff. First, I'd argue the games will be played on the campus of the higher ranked team. Already, the games are that much more exciting. Secondly, don't sit there and tell me those players wouldn't have a lot more to play for with a national title on the line if they lose. Sadly, we've seen many teams in bowl games mail it in because they are just playing glorified exhibition games.

Now just imagine a scenario where there are four (or five) super conferences and the winners of those leagues get into the playoff. Suddenly, mediocre teams like UConn last year are out of the picture and you have 4 (or 5) top 10-ish teams fighting for the national title. You really, honest-to-God love the BCS bowls that much that you would rather watch what we were given last year? Maybe you're just a stickler for the "tradition" of the bowls, but the vast majority of America disagrees with you.

And what does it really matter if the those 4 or 5 conference champions aren't in the bowls and the Rose, Sugar, etc. have to pick from the rest? Is it REALLY that big of a deal when the bowl games decided nothing to begin with? The BCS games are still going to include 10-win teams that finished 2nd or 3rd in their super conferences, and I don't see how that, on average, is really going to be that much of a step down from the current BCS games we are offered today.

I think your whole view point on the BCS system and bowl system is incredibly skewed and in fact, flat our wrong in some areas.

You keep saying the BCS games are so great. That's opinion and not a whole lot of people agree with you. When compared to what a playoff could offer, barely anyone would agree with you.

If you want to talk about money, the bowl system is terrible at maximizing revenue. College football is the second most popular sport in this country, not that far behind the NFL, and it's revenue is lagging way behind.

No, they absolutely do not get huge TV ratings for BCS games. Once in a while one of them games will get great ratings, but on average, those "huge" bowl games get pretty lackluster ratings. Go even further down the bowl schedule and the ratings become a complete joke.

Right now as the system stands, nearly half of the bowl games are on welfare with the universities that play in them basically propping them up financially. Most teams lose money by going to bowl games, it's no secret.

Now you may have a point that the universities (especially the presidents and coaches) have it in with the BCS, because the individuals running each organization make good money off of the current system. But the system as a whole is an incredible revenue drain on what should be a massive revenue generating system for ALL teams, not just a select handful.

Experts have already projected all of the economics for a playoff. Switch to a playoff and college football will be flush with two, three, possibly four times as much money than what is made right now. So the bowl games will take a 50% hit in revenue, but so what? The system as it is now makes $200 million and props up 20 bowl games every year who can't stand on their own financially without schools helping them for the "privilege" for playing in their crappy bowl game that gets terrible ratings and no one will remember. At least if you're going to continue the bowl system, why not have a playoff and bring in an extra $500 million and have the added benefit of those 3, 4, or 5 playoff games getting ENORMOUS ratings that make college football possibly the biggest sport in the country?

Does any of this make sense?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

whiskey - you asked why the Pac-12 v. B1G champions game wouldn't matter - i'm saying it would be a playoff game, not the Rose Bowl. lets say it is the Rose Bowl, and the winner played AGAIN the next week. you're talking about CFB season going from Labor Day to Presidents Day for those two teams. in addition, you're talking about 1 BCS bowl being neither a semi-final or championship but a consolation game and distraction, v. how it is now where they each get a meaningful game every year, and the biggest game rotates. much much better.

The schedule I outlined is very similar to the current SEC schedule; the only difference being that, Oregon and Auburn would have played in the semifinals on New Year's day, and then against each other at the usual NCG date. One extra week for one extra game.

And as Eric pointed out, the last Fiesta Bowl was UConn v. Oklahoma. Was that a "meaningful" game? UConn took a huge loss on that bowl because they couldn't sell most of their tickets. And then, to the surprise of absolutely no one, they got curb-stomped. /yawn

I truly don't know why you hold the BCS in such reverence. With the recent scandals, the congressional investigation, and consistently bad match-ups, it's not the monolithic institution you're portraying it as. There are myriad reasons why schools haven't moved to a playoff format yet, and to be honest, unless Congress forces it upon them, I don't think they'll voluntarily make the switch; thus, I'm not wasting time arguing for a playoff on its own merits.

I do think superconferences are inevitable, because TV contracts are where the money is, and superconferences will make all the top football schools rich. Once they're in place, a playoff is inevitable.

 

[DuffHouse12]

i don't have time to respond to those posts right now -but i will later on tonight - but NFL comparisons are a no-go. not even the same planet.

 

[Rocket89]

i don't have time to respond to those posts right now -but i will later on tonight - but NFL comparisons are a no-go. not even the same planet.

College will always be different, but financially speaking, it can approach the ratings of the NFL if it went to a playoff. Going to a playoff would also maximize the college's games revenue and inject a ton more money into the system. Even proponents of the BCS system agree about this.

Be prepared to do some research if you truly intend on showing us why this isn't the same planet.

 

[DuffHouse12]

alright so turns out i do have some time here

lets first look at the super conferences, which people are saying will lead to a playoff - i do not think the super conferences will form, and here's why. the conferences right now just act as a contractual entity and organize the revenue sharing of the teams and other less important things. this is why the Big XII is falling apart because of how polarized the revenue generating is in that conference with Texas. Texas had organized their own network and that has served as a vehicle for teams leaving and now legal action is being talked about by teams like Baylor ect. that would be left out. if 4 super conferences do emerge, it would require too much sharing; teams like Purdue and Northwestern will not gain enough by adding a team like Texas to make up for what they then lose to teams like Kansas State and Baylor who don't earn but just take (compare to NFL with J-Ville and Cincy). Then you have all the other Bowl Subdivision teams that are not in BCS AQ conferences being left out. The NCAA rules would have to change somehow to keep them eligible for winning championship. this is what last year people talked about those big super conference type contenders separating from the NCAA all together. that's when congress would step in because of current exceptions to anti-trust laws with the NCAA.

as for the playoff - the same things that block it now will block it then. The presidents of the school don't want it. they want the BCS. That's why we have it. Now if the dollar signs add up to a playoff (which many are saying they already do although there's no way to be sure), the problems that already exist with revenue sharing in the conferences will only intensify. that is why i think the schools have it as good as it can get right now. everyone is eligible and CAN win a championship. with a 4 team playoff of super conference champions that goes away.

if you increase the size of the playoff to include At-Large teams, you're looking at going back to the the Presidents with a 2 semester plan for football (which they already speak out against) and if they pass it, you're looking at even more playoff revenue to be shared with the Baylors and Purdues of the world, on top of the At-Large qualifiers sharing with THEIR conference teams like SJSU and La. Tech.

almost none of those issues matter in the NFL. the entire league shares in the money from TV no matter what. teams and divisions do not sign their own contracts with networks, the whole league does. also there are only 30 NFL teams to share with no matter what. never more, never less.

and lastly as a fan i don't think that the BCS games don't matter. right now winning a BCS game can put you right in position to win a national championship the next year. Alabama won the Sugar Bowl, lost their starting QB and a Heisman Trophy winning RB but still came out #2 in the preseason. there is something to play for in those Bowls. you could argue that winning a game would give you a chance at the playoffs the next season, but not if only conference AQ matters and gets you in. then the Bowls mean nothing.

you guys don't have to agree, but i hope that you understand at least what my perspective is now. it starts with super conferences then playoffs. i think we all agree that arguing about adding a playoff to the existing format isn't worth our time because its clearly not happening.

 

[Rocket89]

^ You make some good points. Until you try selling the BCS games again. And honestly I'm not sure the superconferences are coming any time soon either, and the playoffs might be even further away.

But still, revenue sharing is not going to be a problem. These conferences realize they can demand a lot more money than they are getting right now by adding more teams and truly solidifying their power. Honestly, I think that's what it's all coming down to, who can show they have the biggest nuts. Does the SEC really NEED Texas A&M? Not really...but they are willing to add them and maybe more teams because it solidifies their future. Eventually that will lead to a lot more money down the road, as I've said there is still considerable cash still out there for these conferences to acquire and college football is still growing every year.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Father Sorin via Twitter:

The Irish joining the Big Ten would be like the CSCs joining the Jesuits. The only thing I'll join in with the Jesuits is a steel cage match

 

[DuffHouse12]

I only sell the BCS games because as a fan I love them. I love getting to see all the teams stack up against each other, ESPECIALLY when the B1G ends up looking like a joke.

"These conferences realize they can demand a lot more money than they are getting right now by adding more teams and truly solidifying their power."

what makes this true is the increase in viewership. the money comes from the TV revenues. so when you're increasing revenues by adding a team, you have to be very careful that the ratio pans out. of course there is also the increase of national viewers who will tune in to see match ups that never before happened (like Nebraska v. Ohio State/Penn State). Some how there is a way to figure this all out, and my guess is that ESPN sees the $ in it, but the conferences i think have my perspective - "is it REALLY worth it??" they know it COULD be, but will it be?

as far as the SEC - I have some SEC guys on another board who know their stuff tell me that the SEC only told A&M to legally get cleared to negotiate so the SEC could avoid legal consequences regarding tampering. there has been no vote to expand, only meetings where expansion was discussed. My gut is that the SEC will be some of the lasts to expand. The geography favors them for this. those western teams don't really have anywhere to go.

another idea - if i was the Big XII I'd go get BYU, Boise State and Texas Cristian. I know TCU is with the Big East, but the Big XII should be doing all they can to get those schools in and tell Texas to stick their network where the sun don't shine. A Big XII revival like that could really save the existing conference layout and give The Oklahomas a place to roost for the future. I think football wise Boise could get comfortable in the Big XII. seems like a great place for them.