Could conference expansion be answer to BCS?

#1
C

CMcEver

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
1,844
Likes
902
#1
Could conference expansion to 4 16-team conferences, totaling 64 teams, be a good answer to the BCS? That would give us 4 teams able to be in a 1-week playoff, then leaving ample time to rest and allow for the money-machine bowls at the end of December and the NC to end it all in January. So, adding only 1 week to the schedule and able to have a playoff of sorts.
 
#2
#2
Probably... Only problem I foresee is that those left on the outside looking in will have even less of a chance to play with the big boys. If they were strictly sports franchises, I wouldn't care, but because this is collegiate, it's a major issue. There needs to be fluidity.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#3
#3
Well, 6 conferences would make up 96 teams, but as I see it, outside of the top 60, you're not gonna have any teams that will compete anyways. Or even have a wildcard system on the minor conferences or something.
 
#4
#4
Really, really simple answer: No.

Until someone can present a plan where the schools will NET as much or more than what they currently get, there will be no playoff. Period. Exclamation Mark.

You can have 2, 4, 16, 32, 5 million teams but you do not change a successful business strategy unless you are desperate. As of right now, they are not. Every year the money continues to increase and viewership increases also. There is not one iota of a reason to change. Not one plan has been presented to them where they have even given it consideration.

In the end, put this wishy-wanty thing to bed. Until the money begins to go down hill what you see is what you get.
 
#5
#5
GreveHaller said:
Really, really simple answer: No.

Until someone can present a plan where the schools will NET as much or more than what they currently get, there will be no playoff. Period. Exclamation Mark.

You can have 2, 4, 16, 32, 5 million teams but you do not change a successful business strategy unless you are desperate. As of right now, they are not. Every year the money continues to increase and viewership increases also. There is not one iota of a reason to change. Not one plan has been presented to them where they have even given it consideration.

In the end, put this wishy-wanty thing to bed. Until the money begins to go down hill what you see is what you get.
Click to expand...

Actually it would really only create 1 more game per year after the conference championships. Basically a high-profile OOC game, which the victors of both go to the NC. All bowls still there, only difference is, the conference to conference would be clear and no teams snubbed of the NC game. In reality, it would create 2 highly watched games which would only increase revenue, and we can go back to the secondary bowls being what they once were. IE, the rose bowl being PAC vs BIG. By no means am I saying they will go to something exactly like this, but with conference expansion, its only going to shut the smaller schools out even more as the ACC will probably begin to split, leaving 3 super conferences and then the small ones.
 
Last edited:
#6
#6
Greve, I don't want to get into it again with you because you refuse to buy into anything that doesn't support bowls or the bcs, but there have been numerous playoff models presented, that even with the most conservative estimates would generate exponentially more revenue for the shools.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#7
#7
milohimself said:
Greve, I don't want to get into it again with you because you refuse to buy into anything that doesn't support bowls or the bcs, but there have been numerous playoff models presented, that even with the most conservative estimates would generate exponentially more revenue for the shools.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Key word - Estimates.

Yeah, dont want to get into it either but it doesnt matter because all you have are guesses. I can give you specific dollar amounts, specific increases in dollars, attendance in bowls, increase in bowl attendance, and specific votes by 120 D1 presidents that have said no. That's not even taking into what the the attendance figures show in D1-aa football on playoff vs regular season attendance or how little people attend March Madness. And you have......guesses. Sorry but guesses wont cut it in a billion dollar industry.
 
#8
#8
Notice that even Mark Cuban has drank a big cup of s.t.f.u. when he said he'd back a playoff.
 
#9
#9
GreveHaller said:
Really, really simple answer: No.

Until someone can present a plan where the schools will NET as much or more than what they currently get, there will be no playoff. Period. Exclamation Mark...
Click to expand...

The key is that it will NET more than they currently get. The difference is that it won't be "NCAA" with shared revenue to the Little Sister's School of Blind Cosmetology and every other school. Revenue will go to the "big 64" or whatever emerges. They can also set up their own rules without having to get half of the NCAA to vote with them.
 
#10
#10
That's assuming they break from the NCAA altogether with football... Which could happen. At least I would like to see that happen. Half of FBS already can't even compete for a national championship even if they go undefeated forever, it would become official if the 64 team super conference set up happens. There is a clear divide in level of play between BCS conferences and the WACs and Sun Belts of the world. They need their own division.
 
#11
#11
I haven't thought through how it would work...but 4 super conferences to me easily lends itself to a 16-team playoff. The top three teams from each conference, two at-large slots to catch extra SEC teams :) , and two slots for the best non-super teams.

Just a random thought.
 
#12
#12
milohimself said:
Greve, I don't want to get into it again with you because you refuse to buy into anything that doesn't support bowls or the bcs, but there have been numerous playoff models presented, that even with the most conservative estimates would generate exponentially more revenue for the shools.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The extra revenue would have little to no effect on whether a playoff is instituted. This is all about preserving the revenue that is currently generated...and specifically how it lands in the pockets of bowl executives. A playoff likely cuts them out of the picture...and they'll fight tooth and nail to make sure that doesn't happen.
 
#14
#14
It could lead to the best of both worlds. The 4 champions face off in semi finals (current BCS bowls) then winners play a plus 1. Rotate the semis through the current four BCS bowls and that leaves 4 at large spots in 2 other BCS games or add the Cotton Bowl for a 5th BCS bowl.

Face it, with 4 - 16 team conferences no team outside of those 64 would have a shot anyway. Assuming 1 of the 4 would pick up Boise State.
 
#15
#15
With the Cotton Bowl at Jerry World, I'm surprised he hasn't made a push to turn it back into a major bowl.
 
#17
#17
GreveHaller said:
Key word - Estimates.

Yeah, dont want to get into it either but it doesnt matter because all you have are guesses. I can give you specific dollar amounts, specific increases in dollars, attendance in bowls, increase in bowl attendance, and specific votes by 120 D1 presidents that have said no. That's not even taking into what the the attendance figures show in D1-aa football on playoff vs regular season attendance or how little people attend March Madness. And you have......guesses. Sorry but guesses wont cut it in a billion dollar industry.
Click to expand...

If you think the bowls are more profitable to the schools than a playoff would be, then you really don't know what you're talking about.

What about the schools that make it to BCS bowl games and then lose money, because their expenses were greater than their revenues?

I will quote Dan Wetzel of Yahoo: No other business outsources its most profitable product (he wrote something to that effect).

One reason a lot of administrators vote in favor of bowl games is the kickbacks they get from the bowl committees, like paid-for cruises.

Enjoy:

BCS conducts shallow probe as party rages on - College Football - Rivals.com
 
#18
#18
GreveHaller said:
Key word - Estimates.

Yeah, dont want to get into it either but it doesnt matter because all you have are guesses. I can give you specific dollar amounts, specific increases in dollars, attendance in bowls, increase in bowl attendance, and specific votes by 120 D1 presidents that have said no. That's not even taking into what the the attendance figures show in D1-aa football on playoff vs regular season attendance or how little people attend March Madness. And you have......guesses. Sorry but guesses wont cut it in a billion dollar industry.
Click to expand...

How little people attend March Madness? Are you serious??? What stats are you looking at? A Thursday afternoon game in Salt Lake City between Providence and Florida State?

Are you trying to convince people that attendance would be low for a football playoff?

Are you just trolling, or are these really your opinions?
 
#19
#19
GreveHaller said:
Really, really simple answer: No.

Until someone can present a plan where the schools will NET as much or more than what they currently get, there will be no playoff. Period. Exclamation Mark.

You can have 2, 4, 16, 32, 5 million teams but you do not change a successful business strategy unless you are desperate. As of right now, they are not. Every year the money continues to increase and viewership increases also. There is not one iota of a reason to change. Not one plan has been presented to them where they have even given it consideration.

In the end, put this wishy-wanty thing to bed. Until the money begins to go down hill what you see is what you get.
Click to expand...

See that's the thing. Most schools lose money under the current system. It is only in the financial interest of a select few. Schools would stand to make much more money under another system.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#20
#20
Since this has got a bit sidetracked as milo said, lets not get this started right now. We're just at the beginning of the fb season and have a long time until things slow down. Lets bring this up again and re-address it mid Dec-January when there's no other fb to talk about. Until then, lets worry about UF, then Ga, then LSU, then Bama, etc... Go Vols.
 
#21
#21
I'd want to stop talking about it too if I was completely wrong.

But yeah... Go Vols!!
 
#22
#22
The_Orange_Pearl said:
I'd want to stop talking about it too if I was completely wrong.

But yeah... Go Vols!!
Click to expand...

well, I'm not wrong but I dont want to go into all the detail. Again, bring it up in Dec-Jan and I'll be happy to show you all the business reasons why they do not want to switch.
 
#23
#23
GreveHaller said:
Key word - Estimates.

Yeah, dont want to get into it either but it doesnt matter because all you have are guesses. I can give you specific dollar amounts, specific increases in dollars, attendance in bowls, increase in bowl attendance, and specific votes by 120 D1 presidents that have said no. That's not even taking into what the the attendance figures show in D1-aa football on playoff vs regular season attendance or how little people attend March Madness. And you have......guesses. Sorry but guesses wont cut it in a billion dollar industry.
Click to expand...

LOL really?? you think attendance is where the money is made??? really?? one word for you... TV... Everything is about ratings and advertisements... not attendance.. Not to mention that NOTHING WOULD CHANGE!!! ALL THE BOWLS WOULD STILL HAPPEN... The only difference would be a couple of playoff games for the TOP TEAMS.. You think that wouldn't make money?? Really?? I'm glad you aren't my financial adviser..
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top