Truly jordo you are not living in the same world as the rest of us. You are selfish because you do not realize how much money the bowls actually make and in turn give to the conferences. $17M is paid out to the participants' conferences for the BCS bowls. The bowls can afford to pay out this amount because of sponsors and tv contracts. You can be sure that a hypothetical playoff would have a tv contract, but how much would a network pay for it? Like I've said repeatedly, numbers don't lie and numbers show that no one would watch a game that wasn't between 2 big names. If you're rolling the dice that a national championship game could consist of Utah vs. Boise State, theres no way a network would pay top dollar for that contract like they do for the BCS. The sponsors would be gone....seriously Tostitos would never attach their name to a game without the name recognition and prestige of the Fiesta Bowl. And even if they would, they wouldn't pay nearly as much for it.

So lets do the math (I know...math, numbers, figures, facts, SCARY!)
17M per school (to their conference) to 10 teams in the BCS.
17x10= $170M
As enigmaax said, this money goes to the conferences and gets divied out to the member schools to fund other sports that lose money. This is $170M that you would somehow need to come up with to fund a playoff. So then how would you pay out that money to the teams that made the playoffs? Would you give $20M to each school that made the playoffs? If so, do you NOT reward a team with more money for going further in the playoffs? Or do you have to pay out less for making the playoffs and use the rest to fund further bonus payouts for moving on to the next round? If this is the case you can be sure the conferences would never sign off on this because they wouldn't be GUARANTEED a certain amount every year.

enigmaax wrote: Then why are they still in a crappy little conference?

first off, ask some of the top programs around college football how good Boise is. Oregon this year, Oklahoma a few years ago.

Second there is a whole heck of a lot more to the conference thing than "how good you are" If you believe "how good you are" is the main aspect, then I lose all respect for your previous posts that seemed to show some football intelligence on your part.

jordo212000 wrote:

enigmaax wrote: Then why are they still in a crappy little conference?

first off, ask some of the top programs around college football how good Boise is. Oregon this year, Oklahoma a few years ago.

Second there is a whole heck of a lot more to the conference thing than "how good you are" If you believe "how good you are" is the main aspect, then I lose all respect for your previous posts that seemed to show some football intelligence on your part.

Okay, then ask the 17 BCS/AQ schools that beat them before their two moments of glory. And you are right on your second point - see my Edit above and tell me what exactly about Boise's overall contribution to the landscape makes them worthy.

jordo212000 wrote: Let me start off by saying that a playoff system would be just as lucrative IMO. And no I cannot prove it, just as you can't prove the current system would be more lucrative.

Let me start off by saying that the sun is actually a big giant flashlight in the sky IMO, and no I cannot prove it

enigmaax wrote: red skin - Three reasons why you can't charge as much for that advertising: 1) the sponsor doesn't get the week long exposure to fans that makes the big money, 2) sponsors would also incur additional travel costs associated with the sponsorship if they were to sponsor more than one week because they'd have to set up their events in multiple cities that aren't determined until a week before the next game, and 3) the exclusive title of the bowl game and unique marketing opportunity is worth far more than sponsoring a game that has three or seven or fifteen others just like it.

Well, the "big money" bowls (Rose, Orange, Fiesta, Sugar) and the Cap1, Outback, Cotton bowl etc. would still get their exposure for however long they wanted to because they would still be played on/near the same day they are now, and would not be moving locations, so virtually nothing would change about their sponsorship abilities vs. how it is now, as well as the NC game, setting itself a week apart from the rest of the games. Sponsors wouldn't HAVE to sponsor any more than one game; if they did so, that would be of their choosing, and I'm assuming that they would understand the cost/potential income ratio before they committed to that. And your third part is completely illogical. All the bowls now are in the same situation you describe in part 3. What the hell's the difference between the Liberty Bowl and the Humanitarian bowl? The big bowl games, the ones that make the vast majority of the money, have already been covered at the top, and you still have other bowls, like the ones that are on this week, being played like they normally would be. Whether it's for a playoff or for the BCS, if you slap your name on the side of the Rose bowl game, people are going to see it.

Each playoff game may not make quite as much money as a single BCS game would, but you have 10 other games that would help make up for it. Not to mention, the two semi final games the week before the NC game, would be highly lucrative. Do you think basketball makes any money off of the "Final Four"? Hell yes they do. Those two games alone, along with the NC game (which we all know is lucrative; if people feel like two teams who have won 3 straight games against good competition are playing for a national title, there will a lot of interest) as well as the four traditional "big" bowls on new year's day, would provide a similar, if not increased level of revenue as what we have now. Imagine if you have a system that organizes the playoff system like the BCS governs it's system. They tell a large company (hey bill gates, want to advertise during a few games??) that they will run X amount of commercials for their company during the 3 hour playoff game for X amount of money; however, if they want to advertise for TWO games (either back to back or in consecutive weeks) they can get double the air time (essentially 6 hours of advertising to national audience) for less 1.5 of the X amount of dollars listed above. Between the television deals for 15 nationally televised games (which like the superbowl, companies would flock to) and the sponsors that slap their names on the side of the big bowl games, the money wouldn't be hard to find. Companies want exposure; if you can give them that, they will pay the money in return. All more games do is guarantee more time for exposure, and will turn more companies on to college football, that maybe don't get a chance to sponsor a game right now.

How would they be played "on or near" where they are now? By Jan. 1 it would be the semifinals and therefore there would only be 2 games. So 2 out of the 4 BCS bowls would have to be played a week before that. It would never happen. And the sponsorship money would drop.

red skin - Odds and ends:

Now you are saying that companies will flock to 15 games, just like they do the Super Bowl.....which is one game. NFL playoff games don't demand the same money as the Super Bowl, so why would 15 college playoff games (especially with a Sun Belt team)?

Then you are talking about cutting a company a deal for sponsoring two games, which means you are cutting into your potential profits for that second game. If you have so much advertising space to fill that you can offer a discount, you don't have a sure fire marketing plan in place to begin with.

We probably won't reach a middle ground at all on the next one. I think a playoff would kill the bowl system. You don't. Bowls are valuable because they ARE the postseason. If they are overshadowed by a playoff system, you aren't going to pretend they are as important.

If the bowl system is killed, you could even assume that the three final four games will pull as much as the current title game and two other big bowls. That leaves you 12 games to make up for 31 other games, with less markets directly available (your teams are repetitive), and the fact that you are still two major bowls short money wise. There is already a National Championship game, so you probably aren't going to increase revenue from that exclusively.

Remember also that those ad dollars tie to ratings. The BCS has had its share of poor matchups, but really, with a playoff system that has the Sun Belt, MAC, and so on playing one third of your games, how are you going to demand top dollar when you are basically promising a low rating? Compare the lowest bowl ratings with the crappy bowls there are now and then see how that translates to half of your playoffs.

Mooney44Cards wrote:
Let me start off by saying that the sun is actually a big giant flashlight in the sky IMO, and no I cannot prove it

Enlightening. At least ytown & enigmaax are contributing useful debate

Shhhhhhh, the adults are talking.

sherm03 wrote: I didn't read this whole thread...so maybe someone has asked/answered this already.

For those in favor of a playoff...are you also in favor of a playoff for the conference championships? If playoffs are the only fair way to determine a national champion, then it would follow that playoffs are the only "fair" way to determine a conference champion. How is it fair that Ohio State gets to be named the Big 10 Champ and get a pass into your playoff system...and they might not even have to play the second best team in the conference in a given year.

That's illogical.

Most teams play everyone else in their conference (or all but 2-3 teams); plenty of opportunities to sort out who's the best.

Not so with a national champion. Multiple undefeated teams coming from entirely different paths (this year), or multiple one-loss teams (last year) leaves one scratching his head (or flipping a coin, leaving it to a computer) to determine the 2 best.

Mooney44Cards wrote:

jordo212000 wrote: Let me start off by saying that a playoff system would be just as lucrative IMO. And no I cannot prove it, just as you can't prove the current system would be more lucrative.

Let me start off by saying that the sun is actually a big giant flashlight in the sky IMO, and no I cannot prove it

I like how you didn't even address the second part of the post.

Good I'm glad you liked it.

It was a dumb statement. Of course nobody can prove anything in a hypothetical situation but in debate you still provide facts, numbers, etc to back up your opinion. To provide a blanket statement like "a playoff would be just as lucrative" without anything to support the statement is ridiculous. My smartass comment was meant to show how ridiculous that actually is.

Mooney44Cards wrote: Good I'm glad you liked it.

It was a dumb statement. Of course nobody can prove anything in a hypothetical situation but in debate you still provide facts, numbers, etc to back up your opinion. To provide a blanket statement like "a playoff would be just as lucrative" without anything to support the statement is ridiculous. My smartass comment was meant to show how ridiculous that actually is.

How the F can I provide facts and numbers for something that has never happened?

People do it all the time. What do you think a "proposal" is? Cities provide facts and figures to show why a super bowl would be successful in their cities or the ncaa tournament or whatever. The trick is use critical thinking skills coupled with existing data to show why a playoff might be successful. Where would the money come from, how would it be distributed, etc. How do you account for the boost to 34 different local economies? These are just a sample of the hundreds of questions that need to be answered before you can even dream about a playoff. The mistake of people like you that whine for a playoff is twofold: 1)You think the money that is being made by like five rich fat guys with cigars but a LOT of money is being made by the actual schools. And 2) Nobody would be affected by a playoff except those 5 guys. Believe me a lot of businesses count on a big boom around new years every year and you would like to take that away from them in the name of "fairness". That's REALLY fair.

Mooney44Cards wrote: How do you account for the boost to 34 different local economies?

well to boost those 34 economies, you're also taking money away from 68 other local economies

dazedconfused wrote:

Mooney44Cards wrote: How do you account for the boost to 34 different local economies?

well to boost those 34 economies, you're also taking money away from 68 other local economies

Right, because the people of Gainesville, Austin, Columbus, South Bend, Ann Arbor, Eugene would be eating at restaurants and staying at hotels every night. Wow that was probably the dumbest statement I've heard in this thread.

Mooney44Cards wrote: People do it all the time. What do you think a "proposal" is? Cities provide facts and figures to show why a super bowl would be successful in their cities or the ncaa tournament or whatever. The trick is use critical thinking skills coupled with existing data to show why a playoff might be successful. Where would the money come from, how would it be distributed, etc. How do you account for the boost to 34 different local economies? These are just a sample of the hundreds of questions that need to be answered before you can even dream about a playoff. The mistake of people like you that whine for a playoff is twofold: 1)You think the money that is being made by like five rich fat guys with cigars but a LOT of money is being made by the actual schools. And 2) Nobody would be affected by a playoff except those 5 guys. Believe me a lot of businesses count on a big boom around new years every year and you would like to take that away from them in the name of "fairness". That's REALLY fair.

Why would a group of college football fans have to develop an entire playoff proposal complete with dates, locations, and expected income, distribution of money, and expected expenditures for another group of college football fans on a freaking message board? Your post just showed how beyond stupid this whole "debate" has become. Seriously, as fans, its not our job to worry about the breakdown of money, and that should have no bearing in factoring whether or not you, as a fan, support a playoff system or not, the key word being support. As Jordo already referenced earlier in this thread, the NCAA shouldn't even be worried about money at the end of the day. They are the ones who cried and whined about how they were an "educational institution" when Congress questioned them about their tax-exempt status just a few years ago, while the BCS is about as good of an example of corporate greed as it gets, when it is arguably detrimental to the student-athletes who the NCAA claims to "educate". And again, lets be real, its not like the NCAA is going to be prostituting itself on street corners looking for extra cash to balance its budget if a playoff system were implemented.

haha I wasn't suggesting he make a proposal. He just acted incredulous that I suggested that he use facts to support his opinion. I pointed out that people do that all the time.

Yes you're right in the grand scheme of things it SHOULDN'T be about money. But that doesn't change the fact that it IS.

playoff=big mistake--HUGE!!!

Mooney44Cards wrote: Right, because the people of Gainesville, Austin, Columbus, South Bend, Ann Arbor, Eugene would be eating at restaurants and staying at hotels every night. Wow that was probably the dumbest statement I've heard in this thread.

what's dumb about it? it's the holiday season people are spending everywhere not just at restaurants and hotels. if people from columbus are in los angeles for a bowl game, they're certainly not spending money at easton or at the giant eagle on the corner to buy groceries for their holiday get-togethers.

And as we all know, ALL Ohio State fans live in Columbus.

lol dazedandconfused's genius plan to fix the economy: no more vacations, cuz it takes away from your local economy the few days you're gone.

Mooney44Cards wrote: And as we all know, ALL Ohio State fans live in Columbus.

lol dazedandconfused's genius plan to fix the economy: no more vacations, cuz it takes away from your local economy the few days you're gone.

i'm sure none of them live in los angeles either :rolleyes: and where did i say people couldn't go on vacations? you said the bowl system boosts 34 local economies and all i said was that it also takes money away from 68 local economies - no matter how big or small that dent is

you know what have the fucking bowls...i don't care anymore - i'm not watching any of these wretched things anyways

Mooney44Cards wrote: haha I wasn't suggesting he make a proposal. He just acted incredulous that I suggested that he use facts to support his opinion. I pointed out that people do that all the time.

Yes you're right in the grand scheme of things it SHOULDN'T be about money. But that doesn't change the fact that it IS.

Yes I know what a proposal is. In fact I probably know more about proposals than you do. My main source of disbelief came from the fact that you expected another fan on a freaking message board to do research and a proposal. Even if I wanted to do a proposal, I probably would have a hard time doing one, seeing how I probably wouldn't have access to all the information I would need.

^^Such is the case when trying to convince non-playoff proponents. We've spent 13 pages arguing and debating and frankly, we would've been better off arguing with rocks.

Nobody (well at least not me, jordo, and others) is saying a playoff would be perfect, or easy to implement, or the end-all, be-all in college football. But to suggest that you couldn't have a playoff (8 teams, not 16 or more like some suggest) and still make money at the precious 34 bowl sites is ludicrous.

You have to find ways around what has transpired over the last 10-12 years in order to have any type of play-off.

What you are asking for in reality is an NCAA sanctioned champion.

Pre BCS...we had one...or two...based on tha AP rankings. Yeah, 2, people hated that, and still do.

Enter the BCS, a private entity sponsoring and crowning a champion. They used the AP in their calculations until it became obvious that regional bias and concensus rendered data unusable. They got rid of it in favor of using six computer models, throwing out the high and low for each team, not perfect but a better representation of numbers that actually have validity.

The BCS guarantees money through profit sharing...guarantees

Pre season rankings - They were never a huge part of the equation until the BCS was initiated. Now, find yourself outside the top 25 and you might as well forget it. They WILL NEVER GO AWAY, they sell, like it or not. The only thing that would make them less relevent would be an NCAA sanction that precludes them from use early in the season. Good luck with that.

Then of course you have those things that involve tradition dating back nearly a century, bowl games. It's a big hurdle not easily overcome. Old turds are stubborn about anything that detracts from their importance, hell I'm surprised they locked in for as long as they did with the BCS.

Don't forget the BCS members are contractually obligated.

Show me a solution that addresses these issues and results in a better system, sans the touchy, feely fairness whining that is associated with it. Quite frankly, it serves as nothing more than mental masturbation imo.