Online Now 1581

BOL Round Table

The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet

Online now 1537
Record: 9097 (3/2/2012)

Boards ▾

BOL Round Table

The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet

The Water Cooler

BOL message board for off-topic posts

The Tailgate

Tailgating, recipes, cooking, food & drink

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell or swap tickets

Reply

CNN article shows the down-side of a playoff system.

  • airbj01 said... (original post)

    The financial argument is legitimate, assuming you are thinking as university president and not a fan. However, I would argue two points in you post. Why would all 12 conferences have to be represented? They arent now. Take the top 8 BCS teMs regardless of conference or take the 4 bcs conference champions and the 4 next highest ranked from the bcs poll. The other argument would be about the playoff starting today. I would start the playoffs the very next week after the conference title games, maybe with a bye week for the top seeds. The championship game could be played this weekend or next

    You just lost all your credibility in this thread when you suggested taking the top 8 BCS teams, or 4 BCS conferences champions and the 4 next highest from the BCS poll.

    In your previous post, you said...

    "Tell me where a one game single elimination where the participants are voted upon using mostly subjective criteria is more, or even as, legitimate as a 4-8 team playoff where a team at least has to sustain success over more than 1 game to "prove" that it deserves to be champion. Maybe you are not an NFL fan, but do you believe green bay didn't deserve to win the super bowl after backing their way into the playlets. Would you rather we just have voted new England and Atlamta into the Super Bowl"

    ...yet now you are suggesting that we still use that same subjective criteria and vote those 8 participants in. In other words, what you have shown is that you aren't complaining about isn't the system itself, but the number of participants...you want 8 instead of 2. You have just advocated using the exact same selection criteria that you previously condemned. That's why you have no credibility, and no one is taking you seriously in this thread.

  • Booau, (I didn't want to cut and past your whole message cause its long and takes up a lot of board room)
    Most of your arguements are about money. I promise you if the playoff sysytem was ran right, it was dwarf the money system we have now.

  • This post is for members of BamaOnLine only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial
  • BooAU

    airbj01 said... (original post)

    I don't understand how a playoff hurts anyone financially especially when you can keep the bowls for the teams that don't make the playoffs. The NCAA could market the hell out of a playoff. I think a playoff would be at least as big of a pay off for schools participating as a bowl game.

    Read cmj's post above. He states it about as well as anyone has.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Other than a regional plus one where the bcs games are played in the teams regions or a homefield advantage scenario perhaps, you aren't goin to get the fan numbers to make it work. Boise and tcu in the orange bowl in the quarters. How many will be there? Yet you are still using a poll system. The poster talking about people complaining about the number not the system is spot on.

  • If we had an eight team playoff that incorporates the upper tier bowls, that requires seven games...fourteen slots...to accommodate those eight teams. That means that, keeping the same number of bowls, there would have been six teams that didn't get in a bowl that are this year.

    Two of those teams that very possibly could have been left out are Mississippi State (6-6) and Wake Forest (6-6). I'm just going to go out on a limb here and predict that, in 50 years, those schools MIGHT get in a playoff once. I'm just thinking that the presidents of those schools that are perennially mediocre...who vastly outnumber the elite...really couldn't care less about having a playoff for the elite.

  • BooAU

    Bearyant said... (original post)

    Booau, (I didn't want to cut and past your whole message cause its long and takes up a lot of board room)
    Most of your arguements are about money. I promise you if the playoff sysytem was ran right, it was dwarf the money system we have now.

    Bearyant. Sure they could market a playoff system. However my argument is about allocation. I do not want a playoff system using the ideas currently being argued because it has the very real potential to slice the pie up into many more smaller pieces. Show me an idea that keeps the current revenue allocation in place and I will consider it. Using the NFL (which has equal revenue sharing among,what, 32 teams) and the college basketball tournament proves my point.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Sosa98 said... (original post)

    I have made my argument. When a team that has spent a whole season proving itself to not be the best team, giving them the opportunity to ruin the season for someone who has done the opposite illigitimizes the entire sport.

    The issue with this argument is you have 120 teams playing completely different schedules. it is merely your opinion and purely subjective to say one team earned it over another.

    signature image
  • gmc42 said... (original post)

    Other than a regional plus one where the bcs games are played in the teams regions or a homefield advantage scenario perhaps, you aren't goin to get the fan numbers to make it work. Boise and tcu in the orange bowl in the quarters. How many will be there? Yet you are still using a poll system. The poster talking about people complaining about the number not the system is spot on.

    Let's face it...the only possible playoff you can have that requires absolutely no poll, no voters, no committee, and no computer and is completely objective would be to take each and every conference champion, and no wild cards.

    And where will that have left us this year? Orlando. Thanks, but no thanks.

  • BooAU said... (original post)

    Bearyant. Sure they could market a playoff system. However my argument is about allocation. I do not want a playoff system using the ideas currently being argued because it has the very real potential to slice the pie up into many more smaller pieces. Show me an idea that keeps the current revenue allocation in place and I will consider it. Using the NFL (which has equal revenue sharing among,what, 32 teams) and the college basketball tournament proves my point.

    Do you really think the current bcs presidents would allow the money to be split among all 120 teams? The only way there would be a playoff is if they keep the money .....so you should probably assume bcs conferences get the majority of the money in a playoff.

    signature image
  • BooAU said... (original post)

    Bearyant. Sure they could market a playoff system. However my argument is about allocation. I do not want a playoff system using the ideas currently being argued because it has the very real potential to slice the pie up into many more smaller pieces. Show me an idea that keeps the current revenue allocation in place and I will consider it. Using the NFL (which has equal revenue sharing among,what, 32 teams) and the college basketball tournament proves my point.

    I don't think I have the perfect idea right now and I don't have time to think one up cause I am fixing to head to Lowes to buy a washer. But I think we should move in the direction of playoffs and see how we can make it work. The BCS thing has been tweeked every since it started to get it right. It will tough to get a 100% perfect system in place.

    I will say this though, the more we move toward a BCS, +1, playoff system the more advantage the SEC is going to have. And as long as we are winning, there will be plenty of money flowing our way......There is a way to have the best system in place to decide championshisp and still organize the money to get to the right places...The Playoffs debate is almost too complex to discuss properly on a forum.

  • Thehit86 said... (original post)

    Do you really think the current bcs presidents would allow the money to be split among all 120 teams? The only way there would be a playoff is if they keep the money .....so you should probably assume bcs conferences get the majority of the money in a playoff.

    And let's not forget that the independents and non-qualifying conferences make up 54 of those 120 teams. You could toss in the Big East and now you're at 62, because let's face it, even if a Big East team gets in a playoff, they probably aren't going anywhere. The elite conferences, even if they wanted a playoff, would never get one without the votes of the little guys. The Western Michigans and Toledos are never going to vote for a system that just lets Alabama and Texas get even richer.

  • BooAU

    Thehit86 said... (original post)

    Do you really think the current bcs presidents would allow the money to be split among all 120 teams? The only way there would be a playoff is if they keep the money .....so you should probably assume bcs conferences get the majority of the money in a playoff.

    My assumption is based on the examples that are being given to argue a playoff. Everyone is talking about March Madness, which I admit I do enjoy, and the use of a selection committee. Who oversees a selection committee? The NCAA? If so, then you will have equal revenue distribution. If not, and a playoff creates even more disparity between the super conferences and non-super conferences then we are back to the have's and have-not's arguments that are stirring this debate. And no I do not think the BCS conferences would equally share. Let the litigation and political grandstanding begin if that happens. Even worse than it is now.

    Gentlemen this is a fun debate.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • airbj01 said... (original post)

    I don't understand how a playoff hurts anyone financially especially when you can keep the bowls for the teams that don't make the playoffs. The NCAA could market the hell out of a playoff. I think a playoff would be at least as big of a pay off for schools participating as a bowl game.

    Keeping the bowl games along with a playoff is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time. Do you really expect those bowl games to remain viable? Do you actually think these bowl games would be able to retain the corporate sponsorships that make them possible?

    signature image
  • Bearyant said... (original post)

    I don't think I have the perfect idea right now and I don't have time to think one up cause I am fixing to head to Lowes to buy a washer. But I think we should move in the direction of playoffs and see how we can make it work. The BCS thing has been tweeked every since it started to get it right. It will tough to get a 100% perfect system in place.

    I will say this though, the more we move toward a BCS, +1, playoff system the more advantage the SEC is going to have. And as long as we are winning, there will be plenty of money flowing our way......There is a way to have the best system in place to decide championshisp and still organize the money to get to the right places...The Playoffs debate is almost too complex to discuss properly on a forum.

    I agree with you about the plus one in that it will actually benefit the SEC, especially financially.

    And that's exactly why I doubt that it will happen anytime soon. Sunbelt, MAC, CUSA, WAC, and MWC presidents really aren't interested in widening the gap between them and us.

  • BooAU

    This post is for members of BamaOnLine only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial
    signature image signature image signature image
  • Walsh Mathers said... (original post)

    I don't support a playoff, so there you go.

    Sosa is bringing the truth.

    Sosa is presenting a subjective argument as if it were objective. It is not truth, it is opinion. He states that even a plus one format would give 2-3 other teams a chance at the championship that don't 'deserve' it. Why wouldn't they deserve it? With this argument, LSU is the 2011 national champion. Alabama doesn't 'deserve' another shot at them, we've already lost to them in the regular season.

    This is the overall problem with those who want to see a playoff and those that don't. Anti-playoff people think the regular season determines the champion. As a matter of fact, if that's the case, then the regular season is in essence a lose-one-and-go-home playoff. This, I think, is why there is such a blowback against Bama this year. Under that type of playoff format, Bama should be out of the picture.

    cmj's numerical statistics may be accurate, but he's using the extreme case as the norm. Alabama is one of the most profitable programs in CFB. I guarantee you if you used average numbers across CFB it would not be nearly that much of a loss to cut a game or two from the regular season.

    Here is the biggest problem I have with anti-playoff arguments; in most cases they are simply logistical issues that could be worked out, but are presented as insurmountable problems that are completely preventative to a playoff. For example...

    Subjective Argument: Most fans won't travel to EVERY playoff game. The games won't sell enough tickets, won't make enough money, and therefore would be unprofitable, losing CFB or our favorite football program more money than its worth.

    Objective Truth: The money generated from ticket sales for a playoff round would probably be a VERY small percentage of the total revenue produced by that game. Television rights and advertising rights would be the big revenue producer. Watch any bowl games so far? How many of those stadiums looked sold out or even close to it?

    PS: I love how the CNN writer mentions that the lower division of CFB has playoffs, tells how that playoff will end January 7th, then in the same breath says a D1 playoff wouldn't end until after Valentine's Day. Opinions often cloud judgement.

  • This post is for members of BamaOnLine only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial
  • Walsh Mathers said... (original post)

    Keeping the bowl games along with a playoff is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time. Do you really expect those bowl games to remain viable? Do you actually think these bowl games would be able to retain the corporate sponsorships that make them possible?

    Why wouldn't they be able to retain their corporate sponsorships?

  • Walsh Mathers said... (original post)

    Keeping the bowl games along with a playoff is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time. Do you really expect those bowl games to remain viable? Do you actually think these bowl games would be able to retain the corporate sponsorships that make them possible?

    Yes, I do expect them to remain viable. That was one of the biggest arguments against a BCS-like system when 1 vs. 2 started playing each other on an annual basis back in 1992. A national championship game reduces the significance of the other bowls by a substantial margin. A 4-team playoff using the current BCS bowls wouldn't change much at all.

  • BooAU said... (original post)

    My assumption is based on the examples that are being given to argue a playoff. Everyone is talking about March Madness, which I admit I do enjoy, and the use of a selection committee. Who oversees a selection committee? The NCAA? If so, then you will have equal revenue distribution. If not, and a playoff creates even more disparity between the super conferences and non-super conferences then we are back to the have's and have-not's arguments that are stirring this debate. And no I do not think the BCS conferences would equally share. Let the litigation and political grandstanding begin if that happens. Even worse than it is now.

    Gentlemen this is a fun debate.

    The ncaa wil never control the money from a playoff .....I'm just not sure why we assume the financial aspect should resemble that of other sports.

    signature image
  • GrayBama said... (original post)

    Sosa is presenting a subjective argument as if it were objective. It is not truth, it is opinion. He states that even a plus one format would give 2-3 other teams a chance at the championship that don't 'deserve' it. Why wouldn't they deserve it? With this argument, LSU is the 2011 national champion. Alabama doesn't 'deserve' another shot at them, we've already lost to them in the regular season.

    This is the overall problem with those who want to see a playoff and those that don't. Anti-playoff people think the regular season determines the champion. As a matter of fact, if that's the case, then the regular season is in essence a lose-one-and-go-home playoff. This, I think, is why there is such a blowback against Bama this year. Under that type of playoff format, Bama should be out of the picture.

    cmj's numerical statistics may be accurate, but he's using the extreme case as the norm. Alabama is one of the most profitable programs in CFB. I guarantee you if you used average numbers across CFB it would not be nearly that much of a loss to cut a game or two from the regular season.

    Here is the biggest problem I have with anti-playoff arguments; in most cases they are simply logistical issues that could be worked out, but are presented as insurmountable problems that are completely preventative to a playoff. For example...

    Subjective Argument: Most fans won't travel to EVERY playoff game. The games won't sell enough tickets, won't make enough money, and therefore would be unprofitable, losing CFB or our favorite football program more money than its worth.

    Objective Truth: The money generated from ticket sales for a playoff round would probably be a VERY small percentage of the total revenue produced by that game. Television rights and advertising rights would be the big revenue producer. Watch any bowl games so far? How many of those stadiums looked sold out or even close to it?

    PS: I love how the CNN writer mentions that the lower division of CFB has playoffs, tells how that playoff will end January 7th, then in the same breath says a D1 playoff wouldn't end until after Valentine's Day. Opinions often cloud judgement.

    What makes college great is the atmosphere at the games, regular season games are much more fun than bowl games IMO. Your revenue angle is correct to an extent but the schools are responsible for x amount of tickets so you are going to still have schools that lose money.

  • BooAU

    Nice arguments gray. However, revenue allocation, which has been my argument all along is probably a little more complex than you are making it. Additionally the political pressures brought by cutting regular season games from merchants and local municipalities would be very real. For public institutions, that rely on taxes to supplement their budgets, that is no small matter. Not to mention, if you cut out the smaller conferences, thus creating more disparity you run the risk of even greater political involvement and litigation.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • I found some statistics from 2006 that show the semi-final round of the NCAA basketball tournament ALONE produced as much in advertising revenue as all the BCS bowl games combined.

    http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=977

    The NCAA basketball championship game produced an additional ONE BILLION DOLLARS in ad revenue.

    If there's a legitimate argument against a playoff, a reduction in revenue is not it.

  • BooAU said... (original post)

    Nice arguments gray. However, revenue allocation, which has been my argument all along is probably a little more complex than you are making it. Additionally the political pressures brought by cutting regular season games from merchants and local municipalities would be very real. For public institutions, that rely on taxes to supplement their budgets, that is no small matter. Not to mention, if you cut out the smaller conferences, thus creating more disparity you run the risk of even greater political involvement and litigation.

    I'm sure you are right about that. Although overall revenue would most likely be increased, I'm certain there would be a hit to municipalities and local businesses that would not be compensated. However, I'm not very certain that this is as much of a concern to the CFB machine that it would be a hindrance to any sort of "progress."

    This post was edited by GrayBama 3 years ago