|
|
Post by aifaman on Dec 6, 2007 15:07:44 GMT -5
You are misinformed. The schools do share the revenues from bowl games. My best friend played at the University of Alabama for 4 years and we had a long discussion about this very issue. None of the Athletic Directors like the rule. They say it takes away from the hard work done by each individual athletic department. The presidents of the universities are the ones behind it all. They just want to be able to get money into the athletic programs by any means possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Grim Reaper on Dec 6, 2007 15:57:02 GMT -5
Well I have a family member on the board of directors aat USC and they say different.
|
|
|
|
Post by frostbite on Dec 6, 2007 16:11:06 GMT -5
georgia is not the team they were 2 years ago? they went 10-2! they are #4 in the AP poll and #5 in the bcs. they went 9-3 last season and 10-3 two years ago - seem alot like the same bulldogs to me. at least they lost to a ranked team. teams ranked #2 lost eight times this season, six of those times to unranked opponents. 13 top-five teams have lost to unranked opponents, eight of them doing so at home, so no, i don't think losing to #17 on the road is piss-poor. again with the "if's" - they didn't beat iowa, not osu's fault. and they would have shared the conference title, not won it outright. IF osu had lost to michigan the wolverines would have shared the title too. it didn't happen, so there's no reason to bring your fantasies into the argument. bring facts next time. arguing opinion is one thing, but arguing facts will get you nowhere fast. here's FACTS: Inside some of the bowl payouts: •The Big Ten will divide $34.4 million and, after all expenses are taken out, each of the 11 schools will receive about $2 million. It will cost the conference about $10.95 million for the seven Big Ten teams to travel to their bowl destinations. •Other conferences, including the Atlantic Coast, Pacific-10 and Western Athletic, also divide money evenly after expenses. The Pac-10, said spokesman Jim Muldoon, gives "teams a set expense budget plus actual charter costs. It depends on what bowl you go to." Muldoon said the league will pay $300,000 for Arizona State to help cover expenses to the Sheraton Hawaii Bowl, calling that game a special case. •The Big East pays schools that make a bowl game on a tiered basis, with a BCS game worth $2.4 million, the second bowl $1.6 million, the third $1.3 million and the fourth and fifth $1.1 million. "We just take all our bowl money, put it together, and we distribute it fairly," said associate commissioner Nick Carparelli, adding that the league wants to make sure schools can cover their expenses. www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-12-06-bowl-payouts_x.htmbefore arguing with me again, please check your facts. |
|
|
|
Post by The Grim Reaper on Dec 6, 2007 17:52:05 GMT -5
ok I know when I have been licked you can get up off you knees now
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 6, 2007 18:53:30 GMT -5
ok I know when I have been licked you can get up off you knees now ;D |
|
|
|
Post by 1stDownStorm on Dec 6, 2007 22:30:21 GMT -5
Frostbite, if the schools of the Division I-AA, Division II, and Division III can handle a December playoff without interfering with the academics of players, I'm sure Division I-A schools would be able to cope as well.
Also, I do not believe that 16-17 games is too many. Plus, only seeds 7-10 who play in a conference championship game and make it to the semifinals would play 17 games. 15 or 16 games, which is what most of the teams would end up playing, is very similar to the season lengths of high school football, the NFL regular season, and the aforementioned college football divisions.
Finally, people have been calling for the BCS's head in previous seasons (BCS-Sucks.com has archives from 2002). Here is a list of debacles that the BCS has created:
1998- A team ranked 3rd in the BCS Standings was not invited to any BCS bowls.
2000- 1 loss Florida picked over a 1 loss Miami team they lost to and 1 loss Washington who beat Miami (Florida lost 13-2 in championship)
2001- Nebraska didn't win division or conference yet made it to the game (and lost 37-14)
2003- USC wins AP "championship", LSU wins BCS "championship"
2004- Undefeated Auburn, Utah, and Boise St. don't get a chance to play for the championship
|
|
|
|
Post by frostbite on Dec 7, 2007 1:52:28 GMT -5
most 1AA, DII and DIII champs play about 15 games, and they are done by mid-december at the latest. starting this weekend your 10 team playoff scenario would take us straight through till new year's to complete. 15 IS different than 17. if 1A would cut back from the 13 they now allow, and get some teams started earlier/cut out some off-weeks, they could get in a 3 week playoff and be done around the same time.
good luck telling the big boys in 100k seat stadiums they have to give back that 7th home game though.
i'm not opposed to a playoff, i'm just saying that's not the intent of the football bowl subdivision. the bowls generate alot of money for everyone, not just the schools that participate; it gets divided up at the conference level and they all make out tremendously. no one has figured out a way to keep all those bowls AND institute a playoff at the same time yet.
it has been, and will be for the foreseeable future, about money. some examples:
1998- A team ranked 3rd in the BCS Standings was not invited to any BCS bowls.
there were only 4 games then, not 5 like there are today. of the 8 teams to play, 6 slots went to conference champs by rule. texas a&m won the big 12, not k-state. osu was picked by the sugar and florida picked by the orange as the at-large bids. these choices are completely up to the bowl organizers, not the bcs. it was obvious to the sugar and orange bowl people that their financial positions were stronger with those two teams. osu travels very well and the orange bowl is in florida. k-state had no history on it's side, a complete mystery to bowl organizers and they played it safe.
2000- 1 loss Florida picked over a 1 loss Miami team they lost to and 1 loss Washington who beat Miami (Florida lost 13-2 in championship)
not sure what to say about this one. both florida AND miami went bowling, they played each other in the sugar bowl as the champs of the sec and big east. it was florida STATE (acc champ) who lost to big 12 champ oklahoma for the title. the rose bowl stuck to it's traditional big 10/pac 10 pairings and chose washigton and purdue. oklahoma and fla. st. were ranked #1-#2 by the bcs, which at that time favored the AP poll in it's figures, but failed to account for "quality wins" like they do now. three 1-loss teams all had valid claims.
2001- Nebraska didn't win division or conference yet made it to the game (and lost 37-14)
i agree w/ this one and cannot defend that pairing. theres no good reason why a team that didn't even win its conference should have played for the title. in hindsight, oregon should have been given the shot, but the human polls didn't give them any respect.
2003- USC wins AP "championship", LSU wins BCS "championship"
this is where the human polls come into play again and why the AP begged out of the bcs equation. when oklahoma got drilled in the big 12 title game they dropped from 1 to 3 in the human polls but still remained 1 in the computers because of their schedule strength. the polls loved usc but the computers did not (the pac 10 was WEAK) and lsu snuck in between the 2. weird scenario. all with 1 loss, big discrepancy in human and computer polls though.
2004- Undefeated Auburn, Utah, and Boise St. don't get a chance to play for the championship
there were FIVE undefeated teams that season, first time that had happened in 25 years. someone had to be left out. i feel for auburn, but utah and boise realistically had no shot b/c of their conferences. they just did not have the schedules to get them high enough in the computers to threaten the top two. usc destroyed oklahoma and auburn kinda struggled w/ va. tech, so most felt justified that they got the pairings right.
it's a flawed system for sure, but its better than the old system where the bowls fought over schools and the conference affiliations led to teams going to a certain bowl no matter what and we had more split champions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Standard Deviation on Dec 7, 2007 10:09:26 GMT -5
California University of Pennsylvania's football team continues its dream season by hosting Valdosta (GA) State this Saturday, Dec. 8, in an NCAA Division II national semifinal. I live about 5 miles from this school and take classes there. The playoff process has been phenominal for the team and students alike. The school as a whole has benefitted financially with revenues from hosting the playoff games, and has benefitted from the exposure they have received nationally. Th playoff systems works both on the field and off. Its time the NCAA gives it a chance for D1.  |
|
|
|
Post by herowebman on Dec 7, 2007 10:55:06 GMT -5
Turf Burn.. I love college football playoffs. I grew up going to I-AA playoff games at Marshall, no bowl game can come close to the excitement that we experienced back then. As for division I-A playoff, it's simple and Dan Wetzel wrote a great column on Yahoo that is right on the money.... sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=dw-playoff112707&prov=yhoo&type=lgnsA 16 team playoff with the first 3 rounds hosted at the higher seeds home stadium. Only the championship at a neutral site. All conferences.. that's right ALL conferences get an auto bid, then 5 at large. One reason why I think it will never happen is it will eventually even the playing field and the big conferences (B10, SEC, PAC 10 etc) don't want that. Now I know Turf Burn is talking about the excitement surrounding California University's playoff run. Now imagine a National Semi-Final Playoff game in mid-december between USC and Ohio State in Columbus? How hyped up would that be? And speaking of Wetzel's column, it looks like most of the college football world agree's with him... sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=dw-voice112907&prov=yhoo&type=lgns |
|
|
|
Post by frostbite on Dec 7, 2007 12:40:30 GMT -5
except the university presidents (who hold the power) and the bowl organizers (who control the money).
16 team playoff... so we now have to explain to those 48 other schools who would have had a postseason bowl game that since we want a more clear-cut champ, they are going to have to sit at home and watch from now on?
turf burn, i don't disagree with you that the school has benefitted financially from hosting the playoff games, but in the bowl format everyone gets paid, not just the school that hosted a playoff game.
one of the best arguments i've read opposing a playoff (and i don't necessarily oppose it, i just don't agree that's what div1a wants) is that you get what we see every year towards the end of the nfl season: teams that have secured their spots rest players and take it easy the last game or two to get healthy and prepare for a postseason run. that is unthinkable in college today the way things are. can you imagine ohio state resting wells and boeckman against michigan because they were already assured a home playoff game?
|
|
|
|
Post by herowebman on Dec 7, 2007 13:21:59 GMT -5
16 team playoff... so we now have to explain to those 48 other schools who would have had a postseason bowl game that since we want a more clear-cut champ, they are going to have to sit at home and watch from now on? There can still be bowls. We have the NIT in basketball. Same thing with the bowls. They are basically worthless post season games now anyway, so nothing changes. It will be what the NIT is to basketball. Another argument to having a playoff. Right now the college post season consists of a bunch of worthless bowl games that mean nothing. There is only one game that means something, the B_S championship (let's call it what it really is BS). With a 16 team playoff you have 15 games now that have a lot riding on them. |
|
|
|
Post by The Grim Reaper on Dec 7, 2007 16:19:20 GMT -5
Frostbite if you have all the answers why are you not running the NCAA to correct all of the problems. Then when you fix all of that why not try for world peace!!!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by The Grim Reaper on Dec 7, 2007 16:26:24 GMT -5
ok I know when I have been licked you can get up off you knees now ;D It worked the first time maybe it will work this time  |
|
|
|
Post by 1stDownStorm on Dec 7, 2007 22:31:48 GMT -5
Frostbite, with the way the teams are ranked, here's how many games they would have to play using my playoff system, depending on how far they advance:
14-15 games: Ohio State, Georgia
14-16 games: Hawaii, West Virginia, Kansas, USC
15-16 games: LSU, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, Missouri
Theoretically, it would end with 3 teams playing 14, 4 playing 15, and 3 playing 16. This is not in any significant way different from the number of games they play in other divisions of college football. There are two reasons why my playoff scenario goes on longer than those of the lower divisions. One, there is generally only one bye week in these lower divisions. Two, there is not a huge layoff between the 2nd to last game and the last game as there is in Division 1-A. The fact that my system ends in January is a benefit- players get time to rest and heal. They already get 2 bye weeks in the regular season obviously. Non-Playoff teams get the normal rest between regular season and their bowl. Teams in the Playoff semifinals would get approximately 10-14 days before the BCS bowls in January. Thus, the playoffs in the NCAA would indeed drag on longer but only for purposes of resting players (as well as keeping the big name bowl games at their normal dates).
I know the NCAA likes the bowl system and may not change it, but it's fun to think of a playoff that could be implemented, and I think my suggestion is feasible. Plus, the bowls get to remain under my system.
|
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Dec 7, 2007 22:51:03 GMT -5
I'd like to see a playoff too. And as I stated before, I have a plan. But I won't post it on here because I'm not interested in seeing another one of my posts dissected line by line by ???BITE. Take the BCS system and  it! frostbite + Dave Hodas =  Maybe just maybe their one in the same.....  |
|
it! 