|
|
Post by boblowe on Dec 26, 2010 9:26:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Dec 26, 2010 9:49:04 GMT -8
Bob,
My proposal is to have the SEC, Pac-12, Big-10 and ACC keep their current playoff game for their conference championship to earn an automatic bye for the first round of the playoffs. Those conferences could keep the money from those games to themselves as an inducement to go to a playoff format.
The remaining best eight teams would then playoff among themselves and seeded best v. worst with home field advantage. The four winners of those games would then play the bye teams from the four conferences with a playoff/play-in game. The highest ranked teams would be the home teams for each game. This format would allow the top 12 teams (presuming each of the four bye teams are ranked in the top 12) to have a playoff with only three additional games required since eight of those teams would ordinarily go to a bowl game anyway. The seven playoff games should generate $200 to $400 million per year not including the four conference playoff games with automatic byes.
In future years, four other conferences could expand to 12 or more teams to have a conference playoff format (Big-12, MWC, Big East, C-USA) allowing 24 teams including eight bye teams with a total of seven additional games.
My hope would be that the four conferences with automatic byes would cooperate in the distribution of revenue from the playoff format. How that money would be distributed is the key question. Some monetary incentive should be given to teams/conferences that earn a playoff or playoff berths. But how that money is distributed is really the sticking point in my opinion.
If this format had been implemented this year the playoffs would look like this:
First Round Byes:
Auburn
Wisconsin
Oregon
Virginia Tech
First Round Games:
LSU @ TCU
Boise State @ Stanford
Michigan State @ Ohio State
Arkansas @ Oklahoma
Second round games:
Virginia Tech @ Auburn
Oklahoma @ Oregon
Ohio State @ TCU
Wisconsin @ Stanford
Although ranked at # 12, Missouri, would not be in the playoffs because of Virginia Tech's conference championship play-in game.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwildcat on Dec 26, 2010 12:50:15 GMT -8
I hate the BCS system.
|
|
|
|
Post by firemedic619 on Dec 26, 2010 13:40:18 GMT -8
Bob, My proposal is to have the SEC, Pac-12, Big-10 and ACC keep their current playoff game for their conference championship to earn an automatic bye for the first round of the playoffs. Those conferences could keep the money from those games to themselves as an inducement to go to a playoff format. The remaining best eight teams would then playoff among themselves and seeded best v. worst with home field advantage. One of the biggest problems of the BCS is money, and access to it. But, the other problem is that it doesn't give every Div-IA team a shot at winning a national championship. The latter would be a problem I would see with your proposal. The proposal from the "Death to the BCS" authors is the BEST I've read about, IMHO. It's all about equality, and at the same time, maximizing the amount of money available to all schools. It retains the bowl system, for the most part, and also decides the National Champion on the field and not through ridiculous human polls and computers. If you don't have the book, you can pretty much get the gist of it here: rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-playoff120610 |
|
|
|
Post by firemedic619 on Dec 26, 2010 13:43:18 GMT -8
Bob, I read it the first week it came out in October, and I also read it cover to cover on the same day. The push to a playoff in lieu of the BCS is more so now than I've ever seen it. If you're on Facebook, I'd recommend the following "Likes": "Death to the BCS" Official Facebook Page www.facebook.com/home.php?src=fftb#!/deathtothebcs You've probably already heard about Mark Cuban's plans to bring about a playoff. He's using his HD Net Facebook page to chronicle this experience: www.facebook.com/home.php?src=fftb#!/pages/HDNet-CFB-Playoff-Series/171212686252635 |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Dec 26, 2010 13:50:48 GMT -8
Wetzel's proposal doesn't address who gets the television revenue. That is what this is all about. A 16-team format is fine with me but what happens to the conference championship games with the ACC, SEC, Big-10 and Pac-12? Those conferences don't have to share in any of the money relating to those games so why would they just give that up for a playoff unless forced to? But the real question remains....who gets the tv money for a playoff system?
|
|
|
|
Post by boblowe on Dec 26, 2010 15:43:39 GMT -8
I want a playoff, but if the BCS was smart they would add the "and one" game next soon. That would make more money and keep congress and the rest of the awake at bay for a few years. Not what I want, but they cannot keep taking the beating from the public for much longer without change....
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Dec 26, 2010 16:34:44 GMT -8
The "roadblocks" to a playoff from what I can tell are the Pac-12 and the Big-10. Perhaps just leaving them out might be a better approach to a playoff. It would cost a lot less money to fund a playoff without the Big-10 and Pac-12 and it would seriously impact the influence of both conferences in any future negotiations.
|
|
|
|
Post by firemedic619 on Dec 26, 2010 17:17:56 GMT -8
Wetzel's proposal doesn't address who gets the television revenue. That is what this is all about. A 16-team format is fine with me but what happens to the conference championship games with the ACC, SEC, Big-10 and Pac-12? Those conferences don't have to share in any of the money relating to those games so why would they just give that up for a playoff unless forced to? But the real question remains....who gets the tv money for a playoff system? He mentions it in his book, but not in the online article. The 16-team playoffs could give anywhere between $750-800 million. That would mean that each school that makes it to the 16-team first round would pocket approx. $25 million EACH. That's more than what the BCS NCG game payout is ($17.5 million). The 8 teams that make it to the 2nd round will pocket another $25 million each. The 4 teams that make it to the semi-final round would pocket another $25 million each. And then, the last two teams standing would pocket another $25 million each. Now of course, the take home money of the above payouts would be determined by each conference. Each conference, right now with the BCS system, uses some sort of post-season pooling of funds, payment of any subsidies (travel, ticket and hotel guarantees, etc.), before distributing the money equally between all conference members, usually with a little more incentive for those schools who actually made it to bowl games. I don't envision this process changing at all. Contrast the payouts above with the 220 million total that the BCS is providing in total payouts now! It's a HUGE difference. And the take home to the conferences from the BCS now is actually in the $140 million neighborhood once travel costs, ticket/hotel guarantees, and other sundries are paid for! What's even more beautiful about Wetzel's 16-team playoff format? Those playoff rounds in the 1st, 2nd, and semi-final rounds would be played at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. In terms of money, it means schools wouldn't be responsible for ridiculous ticket prices and guarantees, hotel guarantees, etc. The SCHOOLS are calling the shots, the way it should be, and taking the profits without the middle man of bowl executives. The conference championship games for those conferences that have one can continue having those just as they are now. They won't go away because that's how those specific conferences crown their champion. Being the conference champion is the means for getting an automatic seed into the 16-team playoff system. Who cares if they don't share that revenue from those games with other conferences? Why should they? It's their specific conference's championship game, and the TV revenue that comes from them is because of what that conference has worked out with TV affiliates. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Dec 26, 2010 17:57:23 GMT -8
The SEC makes a whole bunch of money on their conference championship game as will the Pac-12 and Big-10 next year. A playoff format would give those teams that don't have to play a conference playoff game an unfair advantage because they would have to play one less game to get into the playoffs. But more importantly it would dilute the money generated by those conference championship games. I think the SEC game alone makes $20 million or more in tv revenue.
The point I'm trying to make is that if the SEC, Big-10, Pac-12 and ACC are going to cooperate with a playoff proposal they are going to need some offsetting compensation for the loss of money relating to those conference championship games. My proposal incorporates those conference championship games by giving teams that play a conference championship game a bye in the first round. Ideally, you'd have eight conferences with 12 teams each playing a conference champiionship game leading to a bye in the first round with 16 other teams (totaling 24 teams). Those 16 teams would play each other and then play the winners of the eight conferences.
This format would require a total of 8 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 or 23 playoff games. However. the first eight would be for the conference championships among the eight conferences with a conference championship game. The second round would essentially be a "bowl" game for the 16 teams playing in those eight games. The next seven games (4 + 2 + 1) would be additional games required for the playoff format. So for an additional half billion dollars you play another seven games. And the 24 teams selected would be the top 24 teams in the USA.
And this format might encourage more smaller conferences to avoid having to play a conference championship game for a first-round bye.
|
|
|
|
Post by firemedic619 on Dec 27, 2010 1:58:03 GMT -8
I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense, but I don't think it's necessary.
In Wetzel's playoff example, the conference champions of all 11 FBS conferences get an automatic bid into the playoffs, and also a high seed. Because of this reason alone, I don't believe the money generated by the conference championship games will be diluted at all.
As far as the unfair advantage of those conferences who don't have a championship game, it's almost like water under the bridge. Those that have conference championship games (CCG) wanted to create them for the specific reason of additional revenue. No one forced them to expand and create a CCG. The BCS is the reason why there are all these ridiculous conference expansions, realignments, and talk of super conferences now. Yes, the current SEC had 12 members since '92 (the oldest of all the current conferences with a CCG), but they wanted to create their CCG for the money, so let them lay in it. If they complain about having to play an "extra" game that not all other conferences have to play to get into the playoffs (again, their own "fault"), they could easily play a round robin to determine it's champion by having 11 in-conference games and one OOC game. Problem solved. But I know they would rather play 8 in-conference foes, 4 cupcakes, and their SEC CG instead.
It comes down to this: Those conferences without a CCG don't need one because they play EVERY member in their conference. Those conferences with a CCG need one because they don't want to play all their conference member, and only play EIGHT members in their conference (in a 12 member conference), NINE when counting the CCG. So in essence, conferences like the SEC are playing 9 conference foes, which is the same as the Pac-10 who DOESN'T have a CCG, and one more conference foe than the current MWC. The ONE extra game that conferences like the SEC are complaining about is essentially a scrimmage between a cupcake like Arkansas State or Chattanooga, so suck it up.
This unfair advantage "problem" is actually no different than it is now. If an undefeated SEC school wins the SEC CG, the SEC uses that as a catapult saying that they're more worthy of a higher rank than an undefeated school in say, the MWC. If an undefeated SEC school loses the SEC CG, the SEC says that that school is still better and more deserving than an undefeated school in say, the MWC. So, again I say they wanted to expand, they wanted to add a CCG, so suck it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Dec 27, 2010 9:14:40 GMT -8
The Big-10 was about to expand to 16 teams as was the Pac-12 then decided against it If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly they wanted to create mega-conferences and hope that the ACC and SEC follow suit resulting in four mega-conferences with a total of 64 teams. With 64 schools they would have a majority of the votes in the FBS (120 schools in FBS currently). However, the Big-10 may be rethinking their position about expanding to 16 teams because it may dilute their revenue on a per team basis unless they can somehow generate additional revenue. The only way they generate enough additional revenue to offset the dilution from 16 teams is to be able to control more of the money from bowls and/or a playoff. My guess is there may be an attempt on the part of the mega-conferences to expand to 16 teams each (total 64) in order to create a "super division" of college football with the specific intent of gaining more market share or simply more money per team and then creating a playoff system among those 64 exclusive schools. This would be a naked "in your face" attempt to relegate all other schools in the FBS to second class citizenship in order to make more money for themselves. However, the NCAA would have to approve any such "super division" so I doubt that is going to happen. Bottom line then would be to try to incorporate the current system including the bowls into a playoff of 12, 16 or 24 teams. My preference would be to be as inclusive as possible and also to have as many games as possible. Let's face it, the best football games of the season are the NFL playoff games leading up to the Super Bowl. The more of those games, the better IMO......and more money of course.
|
|
