Date: Thu May 1 10:11:11 2008
Sender: Morris Cohen
It seems that the idea of sticking with the current BCS system, and rejecting a
playoff, is surprisingly unanimous.
Sure, most of the actual Big-6 conferences (and Notre Dame) were opposed to the
"plus one" idea, which is basically a 4-team playoff. But the opposition is
not just limited to them.
The WAC, Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West, and Sun Belt conferences were all
apparently quite pleased with the current BCS system, even though it makes it
awfully difficult for their schools to win a national championship.
I'm pleased that those who are actually running programs at universities and
seeing the actual dynamics of the industry understand how a playoff would ruin
the excitement for most of the college football season.
This general anger with the BCS is basically completely generated by pundits
and TV commentators looking for something to yell about, supplemented by
coaches or ADs from whichever schools got the short end of the stick in a given
year.
Date: Thu May 1 10:28:48 2008
Sender: Jay Schlegel
Oh, come on. Of course they all agree: they are all making an insane amount of
money with the current system. That includes the MAC et al. who would only
have a slightly-greater-than-zero chance of winning a playoff (comparable to
their current chance of sending anyone to the BCS), but currently have a 100%
chance of making money off of the current BCS system. You can bet they've
crunched the numbers and determined that a playoff system *could* *maybe*
*possibly* *somehow* cost them some profits, so no way would they risk it until
they can figure out a way to make even more money than they're making right
now. If it ain't broke (meaning: if the fans are still forking over the money)
don't fix it.
Sure, the pundits are making something out of nothing -- that's their job.
Still, I think there should be a playoff, not because any particular school
gets shafted, but because EVERY other NCAA sport has a playoff. It smacks of
hypocrisy: "Son, in athletics, you settle things on the field... except, of
course, for the BCS where we bring in the computers, and the voters, and the
TV-money, and...". I suppose it is a good lesson for how to prepare kids for
the real-world though.
Date: Thu May 1 10:37:23 2008
Sender: Morris Cohen
Not quite. If it were all about money, this would be a no-brainer to accept a
playoff. It just means MORE big time games at the end, MORE TV deals and
corporate, sponsorships, and MORE money. That's why playoffs keep expanding in
other sports. So, staying away from a playoff system must be for another
reason.
Date: Thu May 1 10:39:39 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
No it isn't unanimous at all. Slive put forth the proposal, Swofford would like
to see it seriously considered but as the chair of the committee is taking a
diplomatic approach publicly. Tranghese and the Big 12 guy (forget his name)
have said that they're interested in the idea but want to see more details.
The only people that are foursquare against it are Delany and Hansen, who are
the same people that have always been against it for their own self-serving
reasons.
No idea why the non-BCS conferences are in favor of maintaining the current
system, especially ones like the MAC and Sun Belt. Maybe they've just given up
hope that they'll be included in anything.
Did March Madness ruin college basketball? Hardly. A playoff would in no way
ruin college football. To the contrary, it would enhance it by making for more
important postseason games and bigger TV draws for those games. If done
correctly, it would also maintain the presence and increase the importance of
the bowls (none of which mean a lick now), especially the major ones.
I think college football is actually better suited for a playoff than college
basketball. Football has one game a week, so a 16 team playoff would build
interest and drama every week to a crescendo on championship day (much like the
NFL playoffs). Basketball goes from 16 to 4 so fast that that buildup doesn't
really happen, then from 4 to 1 the same way.
The general anger with the BCS is nothing of what you say. It can be summed up
with a simple question and answer.
Q: Did the two best teams meet in the the championship game last year?
A: We have no idea.
Date: Thu May 1 11:22:52 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
LOL...
Does anyone realize the past two years the unanimious undoubtedbly, "Two Best
Teams in the country"- accoridng to BCS
have lost?
I suppose we have forgotten the Ohio State- Michigan "rematch" the BCS
wanted...
oh wait they both lost-
math formulas can't step onto a field with real grass, real people and
determine who will win.
Date: Thu May 1 12:34:18 2008
Sender: Jay Schlegel
Morris -- it IS all about the money: the money made by every second- and
third-rate bowl that would become even less meaningless than they are right now
if a too-small playoff system is implemented. Unless the playoff system is 32-
or 64-teams, and they can use every existing bowl site for a playoff game, you
will have more than enough people voting it down. No way all those teeny/tiny
bowls in the south will vote to see their gravy train leave town. Right now,
every one of those backwater bowls gets TV exposure, and the
ad-revenue/vacation-dollars that go along with it. If everyone becomes busy
hyping a 16-team playoff, who will want to visit Mobile, AL for the Weedwhacker
Bowl (or whatever it is called)? If it is a playoff game, they'll pack every
one of those stadiums (which I daresay they are not doing now).
I suspect the impass may have some vague considerations for conflicting with
finals in December, and the risk analysis that even the fatcat alums may not be
able to follow their team to every venue for 5 weeks in December/January, but
probably moreso that the BCS conferences wouldn't want to share the wealth with
everyone else.
Date: Thu May 1 12:43:48 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
If it's all about the money, they should demand to be paid in Euros.
Dolphin Simulation Games is not responsible for the content of posts.
Please report any offensive messages to help@dolphinsim.com.
