Somehow the prestige and tradition of the bowls needs maintained or it isn't going to happen. Just a fact that is not easily subverted. To much $ to be lost.

jordo212000 wrote: At the end of the day I think it comes down to the fact that everything needs to be decided on the field. We can both go back and forth all day about who we think is deserving and who played a tougher schedule, but the best solution is for a playoff of some kind.

Yeah. The thing is, those are two different conversations. The NCAA doesn't care about crowning a champion, they don't even recognize a champion in FBS football. So the starting point for a playoff is never going to be, "let's decide it on the field". The day that more money can be made with a playoff is the day there becomes a realistic chance of a playoff. And that day is probably still really far off.

enigmaax wrote: The day that more money can be made with a playoff is the day there becomes a realistic chance of a playoff. And that day is probably still really far off.

See, I hear that argument all the time, and IMO you could make just as much, if not more from a playoff system. I'm not saying the playoff has to be something crazy with 16 teams. Just something small like 4-8 teams. All of the other bowls would stay the same.


What is the basis of the argument that the current system makes more $$$?

jordo212000 wrote:
See, I hear that argument all the time, and IMO you could make just as much, if not more from a playoff system. I'm not saying the playoff has to be something crazy with 16 teams. Just something small like 4-8 teams. All of the other bowls would stay the same.


What is the basis of the argument that the current system makes more $$$?

I don't know enough to know whether it's legit, but I'd say if the powers-that-be haven't found a way to make more money then it isn't going to happen. The money they need to generate from football is far too important for them to just arbitrarily decline a playoff - I'm assuming they've weighed the financial factors heavily enough to make an informed decision.

Still, off the top of my head, I'd say that corporate dollars aren't going to be as strong for something that isn't exclusive. The example I've used before is, how much is the Tostitios Quarterfinal worth as opposed to the Tostitios Fiesta Bowl? Even is your name is on the ad, there's not a uniqueness to having four of the same exact games with a different sponsor. The bowls allow individual marketing and branding and that carries a completely different value.

Additionally, the bowls allow a fair amount of flexibility for those sponsors. To an extent, they pick their teams or at least have a fairly safe and proven method for being able to generate a return on their investment. That wouldn't necessarily be the case is a 1st round game had to match, well, Boise State and TCU for starters. Even if that matchup does happen in a BCS bowl this season, there's a difference between saying, you have to pay $17 mil to each team and you pick the teams versus saying, you have to pay $17 mil to each team and we tell you who you get.

In theory, you could still have the lower tier bowls and a playoff, but I still think the distinction of the bowls would be lost and that wouldn't generate as much money. As it is, all bowl games can kind of present themselves as a championship of some sort. There are lots of winners by the time the season is complete. If you have eight teams playing for a "real" title, then the lure of other bowls is diminished. I understand that there is one "real" title game now, but there is still an identity for all the other bowls.

And finally, the investment that fans are willing to make into one bowl game is going to be significantly different if it has to be split up between three games. I've heard about the hosting in the first round and all that, but I just don't think you're going to get the dollars flowing for seven games involving eight teams that you do for seven games involving 14 teams each with a unique experience.

enigmaax wrote:

jordo212000 wrote:

enigmaax wrote:
Just curious, did you think Hawaii deserved a title shot a couple years ago?

True... but what about Utah last year? Or Boise State the year they won their game against Oklahoma?

I'll maintain the "winning one big game doesn't mean anything" line. I understand that Utah and Boise State and maybe TCU this year can and will beat the big boys from time to time. The problem still comes back to the fact that they don't have to do it on a weekly basis.

Nobody thought Hawaii should be playing for the title over a 2-loss team even before they got smoked. Is that because their "name" wasn't Boise State? Same conference, but it was looked at differently because they didn't have the history of success and thus, hadn't "proven" themselves. So either the conferences are equal and undefeated champions should be treated as such or they aren't.

It is all about the lovable underdog. The Mountain West is the conference who has had a couple nice wins (nobody talks about the losses) so TCU gets to ride Utah's success. Boise has won a couple games, so all of a sudden they are legit. Did people feel the same way about Ball State before they lost last year, despite the fact that the MAC won four or five games against the Big Ten? Nope, because there was no other history there.

The argument is against the "name" schools, yet that same argument is only applied for those "little name" schools.

I think the big difference between TCU this year, and the teams you mentioned of Hawaii in 07, and Ball State last year (and even to an extent Boise State a few times and Utah last year), is that people can look at them, watch them, and see they have a viable defense. As basic of an argument as that may sound, I think a lot of people thing of mid-majors in WAC, MAC, and even Mt. West as as sort of "fun-n-gun" type conferences (Houston and Rice in CUSA are great examples of my point) that can certainly pile up the yards and score points on just about anyone, but the problem is most-midmajors don't get the athletes on defense that BCS schools do. Now obviously, this is only my personal opinion, but what sets TCU apart this year and why they should get SERIOUS consideration for a NC spot, is because of that "history" you talk about, and consistent defense...in the Gary Patterson era, TCU has a great defense virtually every year. Last year, when Oklahoma and Bradford were dropping 50 something PPG on the Big12, TCU held them to 35. You would think that as a mid-major, OU would have been able to name the score, but not the case. What they've always struggled with is having an offense that's been able to compete with the best 2-3 teams on their schedule every year. THIS SEASON, they have both. It really is one of the best non-BCS teams probably since BYU from the 80's ('84 was their NC year I believe?). Not only are they a top-10 defense again, but they are scoring like they are not used to in Ft. Worth. As I've pointed out a few times, the last six games they're beating teams by like 35+ PPG. Even their special teams is very solid, with several put and KO returns for TD's this year, and a solid FG kicker.

As you said maxx, it doesn't matter if it doesn't come down to a bid for the NC game, but if it DOES, (meaning a Texas loss vs. Nebraska) I think you have to look very hard at TCU and not only access what they've done, but what kind of team they are. It's easy to see when you watch them they are extremely athletic, especially for a midmajor, and a 3 facets of the game, they are strong in. If I was a human voter for the polls, I would have to think that, especially against a Tim Tebow or Mark Ingram rushing attack(s) in the NC game, TCU's defense would match up much better than the defense I've seen consistently from UC this year. UC reminds me of the "typical" mid-major built team I alluded to above. Can throw it and run it everywhere, but very porus defense, who would rather have you score so they can have the ball back, than to try and stop you on defense. From what I've seen from UC this year, I just can't see them having any success stopping an SEC team's running attack, especially if it's Florida and Tebow. I can see TCU stopping them. That makes for a better game. JMO though.

red skin - Yeah, good points. In taking a quick look at TCU's scores, I believe that have held every single opponent below its season scoring average. That is pretty damn impressive.

TCU does have a defense that can stop people; those other teams we've mentioned had questionable ones at best.

UC scored more points than every team they played ppg allowed... so its a matter of is TCU's defense better than Cincy's Offense? I say no. Besides, UC's defense has had just 3 games where it gave up more than 20 points, 21 to WVU 36 to Illinois, and 45 to UConn. Other than those games UC has been solid on the defensive side of the ball. They were leading the nation in tackles for loss... not sure if that still stands.

goosebumps wrote: UC scored more points than every team they played ppg allowed... so its a matter of is TCU's defense better than Cincy's Offense? I say no. Besides, UC's defense has had just 3 games where it gave up more than 20 points, 21 to WVU 36 to Illinois, and 45 to UConn. Other than those games UC has been solid on the defensive side of the ball. They were leading the nation in tackles for loss... not sure if that still stands.

Yeah, when you look at the numbers Cincy doesn't look that bad points-wise. It is still about one TD and 115 yards more than what TCU allows per game (TCU actually also averages more points per game). I guess the biggest thing is that the defenses seem to be going in opposite directions.

TCU gave up 28 to Utah but the final score was the closest Utah came after about three minutes into the 2nd quarter (55-28 was the final). In six of their last seven games, they haven't given up more than one TD.

The three scores you referenced for Cincy are their last three games, two of which they won by a field goal or less (they did also give up 20 to Fresno). Also, they gave up about two more TDs each than what Illinois and UConn normally score in a game.

UC's D isn't that great; they're pretty undersized when you compare them to most BCS defenses.... the only thing they've really got working for them is speed, which people have figured out how to neutralize.

Then again, Uconn, WVU, and Illinois are a little tougher than Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah... Yes WVU is better than Utah, alot better.

Stacking up UC's schedule against TCU, Theres no doubt in my mind that UC's is better. I guess I'm not quite as impressed as most when I see TCU beat the Mountain West by 30 points.