Congress & the BCS system

MSUFAN · Post by **MSUFAN** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:56 pm

I don't know who deleted it (Well; I probably do, .....) but I posted a take weeks ago on why the NCAA will never institute a true playoff for D1, as they have in II and III. I asserted the cash (Billions) involved is what drives the whole scam. TV advertisers, and network executives have NO REASON to allow the NCAA to hold a playoff of say 8 teams. Just TWO freagin extra games beyond what they would play in their normal bowl season. Why would they, when there's so much cash to be made?

All this CRAP you read and hear about travel, and where to play the games; and problems with fan's logistics to go to the extra two games is just that. Crap.

Make no mistake, Congress should know this as well as anyone, since they are the KINGS of money grubbing elitist power grab scams. The driving force that keeps the D1 sector of football teams from having a true playoff, is CA$H Cold --- hard -- Cash.

The NCAA D1 football revenue is around $4 Billion dollars. The NCAA's top 6 conferences rake in about a Billion & a Half from just these BCS games, as well as the underlying bowls. (Like the one Michigan and Nebraska are playing in.

) So the TV networks, and the NCAA themselves divy up the remaining $2.5 Billion. A LOT of scratch!

And why has it evolved into a LOT of scratch? - Easy. The creation of a BCS poll and points system that puts emphasis on teams and their fans who are in, or nearly in; BCS contention.

The last few weeks of the regular season involves around 10+ teams, all who may be one win, (or a top BCS teams loss) from moving into that elusive top 2 spots. The point system keeps (litterally) millions of extra fans wanting to halt their Saturday chores to watch 4 hour Notre Dame football games on National tv, complete with 3 minute commercial breaks for every change of posession on the field. Why do you think the NCAA instituted the Overtimes? How many OT's does it take now to settle these games? They last an extra half hour! And that keeps viewers. Duh! TV ads! You can see where I'm going with this.

If the NCAA (Actually the TV people, since they obviously run NCAA D1 Sports now) were to put in an eight team playoff, the late season games by some of those top 8 teams would be of little or NO significance, imho, to fans of a lot of schools. This would reduce viewership, costing millions in advertising revenues.

The fans of Penn State, which were ranked around #10 a month or so ago, have a very good reason to be watching LSU - Auburn; two teams that were "BCS" ranked ahead of them. Again, if enough teams lose, the PSU team moves up closer to a "Championship" game in the Rose Bowl, which only the top 2 teams get to play in.

Now; imagine if there were two BCS teams ranked around #4 and #5 playing each other in November. (It happens a lot) If an eight team playoff was in place, the loser of that game probably won't fall all the way to #9. The loser will probably still be in the field of eight. But, in the current system, the fans of those two teams, (plus the PSU fans, as I asserted above) would be transfixed on their screens! And also watching the Miller Lite refs commercials! You can understanding this. Just one stinking loss, and your team is most likely out of the "Championship" game. Especially if you lose in November!

And obviously there are more teams that are in the predicaments I described above. The viewership for far more TV "markets" is what drives this BCS crap. If there's only TWO teams allowed to compete for a "Championship", even the Tx. and USC fans are glued to their sets every saturday. But worse, just think of the PSU and Ohio State and ND and Oregon fans glued to some STUPID assed B-12 Championship game with Tx. playing Colorado! Who the hell outside of Austin and Boulder would give two rats asses about that game?! If there was an 8 team playoff, Tx fans, and PSU/OR/ND/OSU fans sure wouldn't give a crap!

Therefore, if Congress wants to hold hearings on why, or what for, the NCAA won't hold a true playoff in D1, they need look no further than the GREEDY corporate advertisers and networks, who have spent decades trying to wrench every single dollar they can from your wallets.

And that subject should be like 2nd grade math class for those shitheads on Capitol Hill !!!!! What's all the discussion about?! It's all about making more cash off the fans! - DUH!!!!!

the_ouskull · Post by **the_ouskull** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:41 pm

Hey Scully just called. She's in trouble. Go save her...

the_ouskull

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:03 pm

The truth is out there.........

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:57 pm

It's babs. You'll need a manseed squeegee, also.

MSUFAN · Post by **MSUFAN** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:37 pm

All the cursory responces from the
predicted asswipes. - Whatever.

Just posting my opinion.
There HAS to be some kind
of rational reason for this bullshit
nonsense of NOT having a D1 playoff.
The only rational one I can think of is
that the TV networks have been raking
in too much cash off the way they
have it now. Why else won't they
have a playoff of 8 teams? TWO teams
would be playing two more games than they
normally would the way they have it now.

TWO teams! FOUR teams would play ONE more fucking game than they do now! What's the problem here?!

Tin foil, or not. This has GOT to be the reason.
Too many fans wouldn't watch the last few
big games, if they knew that the field of 8
is allready set. For the examples I descibed above.
The way to make the most cash is to keep as many
teams fans watching basically meaningless games (like Tx v. CU) than would be if the 8 teams were probably set. The race for #8 might be interesting, but those teams are 2nd tier anyway. The real MEAT of teams, who actually have what it takes to win it all, are ranked further up than #8 or 9.

Go ahead, post your "Take", if you think you know why the NCAA (see TV's Bitch) won't allow a playoff to decide a true champ, like every other NCAA sport!

I'll wait patiently, seeing as how we've gotten so many brilliant takes so far in the thread.

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:44 am

PSUFAN wrote:It's babs. You'll need a manseed squeegee, also.

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:33 pm

I disagree with 88's take about the playoff, so I'll play devil's advocate here:

88 wrote:Babsy-

You do know that the television networks would broadcast those playoff games, and thus would "rake" in big cash during such games, don't you?

I actually agree with this point. For my money, a playoff would rake in more money for the networks than the current system does.

1. There is monumental money infused into the local economies of the cities that host bowl games. They depend on hordes of alumni and fans to come to the game, spend a few days blowing cash seeing the sites. Most people cannot afford to attend three bowl games in consecutive weeks, and thus would either skip the first or the second, or chintz out on both. It would cost too much money for average fan to go.

Agree that the bowl games are monumental money makers for their local economies (over a short period of time, anyway), but I'm not sure that attendance would suffer in a playoff. As it is, Joe Sixpack Fan isn't going to the bowl games, anyway. With the stakes that would be on the line in a playoff, I'm sure you'll see packed houses for those games in any event, although it might be a greater mix of locals and corporate types than you see at present.

2. If you have a D-1 playoff, what would the purpose of the other bowls be? WGARA about the Peach Bowl or the Humanitarian? They are marginalized to some extent by the BCS right now, but they are still bowl games just like the BCS games are bowl games, and every school that qualifies for a bowl only plays in one bowl. You start a playoff system in D-1, and the lesser bowls simply collapse. See #1 above.

Disagree with this one. In college basketball, the NIT has continued to exist even though the NCAA tournament has grown and continued to make it less meaningful over time. I could see the remaining bowl games emerging as something of college football's version of the NIT. My proposal always has been to incorporate some of the bowl games into a playoff, and if this were to come to pass, the remaining bowl games would become more compelling matchups than they presently are.

3. If you have a D-1 playoff system, you don't need a conference championship game unless you are going to have guaranteed slots. And you can't do that if you are going to pick the best 8 by poll results. If you do away with conference championship games, the conferences lose more $$. So do the host cities and the television networks.

This point is true, except that conference championships have always held some meaning independent of the national championship, and I don't expect a playoff would change that entirely.

Another point to consider is that, at least under the current NCAA rules, only three BCS conferences out of six have conference championship games. The rules could always change, of course, but assuming that they don't, I don't think you see any additional conferences holding playoff games anytime soon. The Pac-10 is certainly a big fish in a small pond out west, and could expand just about anytime it wanted to, but hasn't done it yet. And I don't see either the Big Ten or the Big East going to 12 teams as long as ND is an independent and either conference thinks they have a ghost of a chance to land ND as a member. Conversely, I don't see ND joining either conference anytime soon. The Big East will expand in the foreseeable future, but it won't happen until the basketball conference splits along football/non-football lines, which will happen about 5 years down the road (with ND going with the non-football schools to form the Catholic Conference), and then the Big East will only add one school, at least initially (likely Central Florida or Memphis).

4. If only 8 schools get into the playoff each year, the substandard athletic programs like Michigan State will suck even more because the best players will go to Michigan or Ohio State and only shitty players will got to MSU. Come to think about it, that already occurs, so scratch that idea. A D-1 playoff might affect recruiting, but probably not at Michigan State.

I advocate a 16-team approach myself, and I think the great advantage there is flexibility. A secondary advantage would be to make recruiting a bit more competitive.

Having said that, recruiting has been made somewhat more competitive by the fact that, in the period of my recall, the number of scholarships per school has been reduced twice (first to 95, then to 85). Also, not to mention that even an 8-team field would result in more, not less, teams having a shot at the national championship each year. Exactly how that would hurt competitiveness in recruiting is beyond me.

MSUFAN · Post by **MSUFAN** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:31 am

I dissagree with 88's insinuation that networks would stand to gain more cash if there were a playoff. If that were true, I guarentee you we'd have a playoff.

That's precisly why I make the argument. That being, that a BCS format thay have now, makes MORE games in Nov. - Dec. have MORE meaning and fan interest towards different TV markets.

If they went to an 8 team playoff, I feel that the total money would be even less, to what they make now by dragging it out over the last few weeks of the reg. season. With a broader interest to more fans of more teams. (As I said in my initial post)

The way the BCS (see Networks) do it now, they get to hype WAY more games leading to a BCS Selection SHOW every December! Keeping litterally millions of fans following their broadcasts.

My contention is that these network people are pretty damn smart. They have offices FULL of pencil pushers, and researchers who have concluded that there is more coin to be made if they keep just TWO lucky participants at the end of the season, while the fans of the next 5-8 teams sit and watch and pray.

All 88's other arguments are just nonsense. Underlying Bowls not having meaning, (like they do now?). Fan attrition. = All crap.

Just look at the NFL. Those are basically the same damn fans who'd be following their favorite college team through their playoff. And the NFL is the top money making conglomerate there is in sports. (With March Madness being awfully close)

If all those thousands of NFL fans can go 2-3 games straight, then why not College? Just because some kids won't be able to lay out that much time and cash for tics and travel?, so WHAT!? Too fucking bad! Since when was it ever about the students? It's always been about viewers and tv ads for sale to the top bidders.

At least the college age fans have the satisfaction of seeing their team win a TRUE Championship! And a lot of them can do it at their basketball arena's watching on the giant screens for $5 bucks a pop. That's just another way the U. stands to make money off a playoff. The U. can also do as they do for Hoops. Give specially priced tickets to selected students.

I don't buy it. Someone at the networks, or NFL, is blocking the NCAA from having a D1 playoff. There has to be a reason. And since this is America, (Greed, corporate TV $ drives everything) I tend to think it's because there is MORE cash to be made, keeping it the way they do now.
Either that, or the NFL doesn't want to share the month of January. Which is quite feasable too. Because of those "blended" fans I typed about. Some might opt for the D1 playoffs, rather than go to the NFL games. The NFL might lose some revenues! Gasp! We can't have that! Right?!

Just mho. I still haven't read anything that disputes what I say, or sways me to keeping it the way it has been.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:14 am

All 88's other arguments are just nonsense.

Ha ha. But really, they're not. They're solid enough for you to stand in opposition to them, should you be inclined. Apparently, you are not so inclined, and you turn tail and squelch out. Not that I mind, it's a funny read...

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:55 pm

MSUFAN wrote:I dissagree with 88's insinuation that networks would stand to gain more cash if there were a playoff. If that were true, I guarentee you we'd have a playoff.

Babs, I've been through this before, but there are two huge opponents of a college football playoff: university presidents and college coaches, albeit for different reasons.

University presidents oppose a playoff, at least nominally, on the basis of academics. Academics is a smokescreen, of course, but as a result of this argument, if you expect a playoff proposal to even get a fair hearing, your proposal can't make academics an issue, e.g., you can't propose a playoff for the month of December.

College coaches oppose a playoff because the status quo protects and rewards mediocrity. Go 6-5 in a BCS conference for 10 straight years and you can say that you've been to 10 straight bowl games.

That's precisly why I make the argument. That being, that a BCS format thay have now, makes MORE games in Nov. - Dec. have MORE meaning and fan interest towards different TV markets.

If they went to an 8 team playoff, I feel that the total money would be even less, to what they make now by dragging it out over the last few weeks of the reg. season. With a broader interest to more fans of more teams. (As I said in my initial post)

The way the BCS (see Networks) do it now, they get to hype WAY more games leading to a BCS Selection SHOW every December! Keeping litterally millions of fans following their broadcasts.

My contention is that these network people are pretty damn smart. They have offices FULL of pencil pushers, and researchers who have concluded that there is more coin to be made if they keep just TWO lucky participants at the end of the season, while the fans of the next 5-8 teams sit and watch and pray.

How many teams would be involved in sitting, watching and praying if you had an 8-team or a 16-team playoff, Babs? A helluva lot more than is the case at present.

As it is, right now, with a few notable exceptions (ND being one of them), college football is a remarkably regional sport, and if anything, the trend is toward college football getting even more regionalized. ABC's television deal, with most games shown only regionally, certainly isn't helping in that regard. A playoff would reverse that trend, and would push fan interest higher than it is. Casual fans of college football would become real fans -- March madness has done the samething for college basketball.

I don't buy it. Someone at the networks, or NFL, is blocking the NCAA from having a D1 playoff. There has to be a reason. And since this is America, (Greed, corporate TV $ drives everything) I tend to think it's because there is MORE cash to be made, keeping it the way they do now.
Either that, or the NFL doesn't want to share the month of January. Which is quite feasable too. Because of those "blended" fans I typed about. Some might opt for the D1 playoffs, rather than go to the NFL games. The NFL might lose some revenues! Gasp! We can't have that! Right?!

You might be onto something about the NFL not wanting to share the month of January. But in the end, that doesn't matter. The NFL has a limited exemption from federal antitrust laws; the quid pro quo for that exemption is that they can't compete directly with college football (which is why you don't see any NFL games on Saturdays until late in the season or unless a natural disaster figures to impact the game).