Potential BCS antitrust case (merged)

#226
#226
milohimself said:
Getting rid of that fargin six week break between the end of the season and the title game would at least be nice.
Click to expand...

Couldnt agree more. Problem is it goes into the whole bowl factor. The bowl and the hosting city want to maximize revenue as much as possible and that is to enticing fans to the game. The best time to do that is between Christmas and New Years which many people take off anyway or have a furlough. More fans = more bowl revenue = more tax revenue = etc.... Since these bowls are their sole source of income from the year their goal is to make sure as many are there as possible and that includes the match ups also. Good traveling teams ie UT, Bama, Fl, Aub will always get a nod over bad traveling teams ie Vandy, UConn, Miami.
 
#227
#227
I don't think the BCS is illegal. It's just ridiculous.

All it's done is watered down an already weak college football postseason. Prior to the BCS, there were usually multiple bowl games that played into the national championship picture. Now we get 34 pointless games and one game between two teams that won a beauty contest.
 
#228
#228
therealUT said:
Questions do not disappear with a playoff format; they simply change.
Click to expand...

I'd rather have questions about four-plus teams in a playoff chosen by a panel of "experts" that get to slug it out on the field than questions about two teams chosen by a panel of "experts" to play for a title.
 
#229
#229
GreveHaller said:
Couldnt agree more. Problem is it goes into the whole bowl factor. The bowl and the hosting city want to maximize revenue as much as possible and that is to enticing fans to the game. The best time to do that is between Christmas and New Years which many people take off anyway or have a furlough. More fans = more bowl revenue = more tax revenue = etc.... Since these bowls are their sole source of income from the year their goal is to make sure as many are there as possible and that includes the match ups also. Good traveling teams ie UT, Bama, Fl, Aub will always get a nod over bad traveling teams ie Vandy, UConn, Miami.
Click to expand...

When's the last time you've seen a bowl game at capacity that wasn't either the BCSCG or featured a team within a stone's throw? Problem is, particularly among the BCS games, most schools are obligated to prepay for a large quantity of tickets at high face value to participate, and these never get entirely sold the vast majority of the time. These games get huge gates and most schools end up having to eat huge bills, which frequently include public funding just to play. Yet everybody is afraid to go against the system on an individual basis because it would be against the status quo and would introduce a whole new host of issues.

If the people running these bowls were to let the ticket prices assume natural market value and cut off bowl welfare, most of these low-level games would cease to exist.
 
#230
#230
tvolsfan said:
What exactly are you trying to argue?
Click to expand...

My point is that the inclusion of an "undeserving" team with just one more loss isn't really a problem if they end up winning the whole thing, since they'd have the same record as everyone else and the head to head playoff victories.
 
#232
#232
milohimself said:
When's the last time you've seen a bowl game at capacity that wasn't either the BCSCG or featured a team within a stone's throw? Problem is, particularly among the BCS games, most schools are obligated to prepay for a large quantity of tickets at high face value to participate, and these never get entirely sold the vast majority of the time. These games get huge gates and most schools end up having to eat huge bills, which frequently include public funding just to play. Yet everybody is afraid to go against the system on an individual basis because it would be against the status quo and would introduce a whole new host of issues.

If the people running these bowls were to let the ticket prices assume natural market value and cut off bowl welfare, most of these low-level games would cease to exist.
Click to expand...

What the bowls built into the contracts are no different that what Hammy is doing at UT and that's ensuring a consistant stream of revenue regardless of the product. Its wrong in some ways, its right in some ways. Its a business and we see it as entertainment. A good example is the Rose Bowl. The money from the game goes to fund the Rose Bowl parade which is a big draw for LA.

Rick Hill, the VP of marketing for the Alamo Bowl laid it out the best on what a bowl brings not only to them but to the city as well.

To better understand the effects of a playoff on economic impact, the 2007 Big 12 Football Championship is a good case in point. When San Antonio hosted this game in December 2007 it featured #1 Missouri vs. #9 Oklahoma. The game was the highest profile football game in the city’s history and yet it did not sellout (nor crack the Top 15 attendance mark) and an economic impact study showed $30.5 million in direct benefit. It’s an impressive number but $12.1 million less than the Alamo Bowl three weeks later, which featured two unranked teams. Since the Big 12 Championship was essentially a playoff game to see which team would get to the BCS, it delivered less impact for the community for three main reasons: 1) fans had difficulty finding affordable travel arrangements with only a week’s notice of their team qualifying for the game, 2) fans told us they were saving their money for their bowl game as they couldn’t afford to travel twice and 3) this game (like a playoff game) was a 1-2 day trip which delivers less impact than the 3-4 night average stay for our bowl game.

Painting A Clearer Bowl Picture | Rick Hill | a mySA.com blog

That isnt any of us making up data. Those are the facts from one that has a financial stake in it. It can be argued over and over to nauseum on how many teams are included but in a playoff but until the above is overcome, what you see is what you get.
 
#233
#233
milohimself said:
Rusty as Auburn and Oregon looked in the title game, I'm not so sure TCU couldn't have beaten either team.
Click to expand...

This was actually the best year for either Boise or TCU. Normally, championship teams have a lot more talent all around.

Getting rid of that fargin six week break between the end of the season and the title game would at least be nice.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
#234
#234
rockytop9808 said:
Those idiot writers are wrong a lot of the time.

Why can't you understand that a lot of these mid-major schools have proven themselves against real BCS teams multiple times? Do you choose to ignore that little tidbit?
Click to expand...

TCU and who?

Boise has beaten some mediocre PAC 10 teams, an unmotivated Oklahoma team and VT (who has won one game against a top 5 ranked opponent in their history).

Utah beat a God-awful Pitt team awhile back and an Alabama team that didn't care.
 
#235
#235
rockytop9808 said:
I'd rather have questions about four-plus teams in a playoff chosen by a panel of "experts" that get to slug it out on the field than questions about two teams chosen by a panel of "experts" to play for a title.
Click to expand...

The only way to get rid of the subjectivity is to have a round-robin regular season. The NCAA is too large for that; however, what if it were structured like the English Premier League?

Get rid of the conferences. Restructure D-I into ten twelve team divisions. Every time a team wins their division title, they move up to the next division and remain there until they win that division. The only way to move down is to not win your current division for twelve years (as teams are continually replaced). This structure goes all the way up to the top.

While current teams would then be directly rewarded and/or punished for past teams' performance, it would certainly be objective.
 
Last edited:
#236
#236
justingroves said:
TCU and who?

Boise has beaten some mediocre PAC 10 teams, an unmotivated Oklahoma team and VT (who has won one game against a top 5 ranked opponent in their history).

Utah beat a God-awful Pitt team awhile back and an Alabama team that didn't care.
Click to expand...

And teams that are actually good aren't "unmotivated" or uncaring. Those are excuses. Using them as an argument to keep teams that may or may not be deserving out of the national title picture is pathetically asinine.
 
Last edited:
#237
#237
therealUT said:
The only way to get rid of the subjectivity is to have a round-robin regular season. The NCAA is too large for that; however, what if it were structured like the English Premier League?

Get rid of the conferences. Restructure D-I into ten twelve team divisions. Every time a team wins their division title, they move up to the next division and remain there until they win that division. The only way to move down is to not win your current division for twelve years (as teams are continually replaced). This structure goes all the way up to the top.

While current teams would then be directly rewarded and/or punished for past teams' performance, it would certainly be objective.
Click to expand...

A relegation system would be very, very interesting (and cool) but I doubt it would ever happen.

I feel like the average American sports fan would be too lazy or too unintelligent to figure out how it worked.
 
#238
#238
therealUT said:
The only way to get rid of the subjectivity is to have a round-robin regular season. The NCAA is too large for that; however, what if it were structured like the English Premier League?

Get rid of the conferences. Restructure D-I into ten twelve team divisions. Every time a team wins their division title, they move up to the next division and remain there until they win that division. The only way to move down is to not win your current division for twelve years (as teams are continually replaced). This structure goes all the way up to the top.

While current teams would then be directly rewarded and/or punished for past teams' performance, it would certainly be objective.
Click to expand...
It's hard to imagine something like this working.
 
#239
#239
rockytop9808 said:
And teams that are actually good aren't "unmotivated" or uncaring. Those are excuses. Using them as an argument to keep teams that may or may not be deserving out of the national title picture is pathetically asinine.
Click to expand...
It's pretty hard to pretend Alabama cared.
 
#242
#242
rockytop9808 said:
I know it's not. But do you really think Joe Redneck would accept a system similar to a major soccer league?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't accept it because I think it would suck to have a top division of 12 teams. Way too much turnover to even guarantee that would be the best division.
 
Last edited:
#243
#243
rockytop9808 said:
I know it's not. But do you really think Joe Redneck would accept a system similar to a major soccer league?
Click to expand...

You could always try to sell it by telling him it is what they do in a premier futbol league...if you say it really fast, he might hear it as football?
 
#244
#244
tvolsfan said:
It's not like Major League Soccer.

I wouldn't accept it because I think it would suck to have a top division of 12 teams. Way too much turnover to even guarantee that would be the best division.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about the MLS. The EPL is a major soccer league, bro.
 
#246
#246
rockytop9808 said:
And teams that are actually good aren't "unmotivated" or uncaring. Those are excuses. Using them as an argument to keep teams that may or may not be deserving out of the national title picture is pathetically asinine.
Click to expand...

It's been proven that beating a Bob Stoops coached team in a BCS bowl game isn't a big deal.

Alabama never left the hotel room against Utah.
 
#248
#248
That's even more reason to can the bcs, if these mid major schools are always getting lined up against eachother or against teams who are there as a consolation prize, why does it matter. Many here are clearly unwilling to give Utah credit for beating bama.

Doesn't matter when you've got 34 meaningless bowl games and only one anybody gives a damn about.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#249
#249
even if the 'can' the BCS, it wont bring a playoff. The BCS members as well as membership of D1 football will vote to revert to the old bowl system we had before. It all comes down to money and currently the bowl system, with or without the BCS, nets more money that what a playoff will. They've looked at the data from bb as well as the FCS and crunched their own numbers with the conclusion that a playoff at this will will not work now. Now, because if they had implemented a playoff back in the 50s or 60s, sure it might work. But now with the money it generates for the conferences as well as the hosting cities, its not worth the risk.

Then we'd have 35 meaningless games and even more debate. Careful what you wish for.
 
#250
#250
milohimself said:
That's even more reason to can the bcs, if these mid major schools are always getting lined up against eachother or against teams who are there as a consolation prize, why does it matter. Many here are clearly unwilling to give Utah credit for beating bama.

Doesn't matter when you've got 34 meaningless bowl games and only one anybody gives a damn about.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Utah whipped Alabama's ass.

However, it was obvious Alabama had curled up in the fetal position as soon as the game kicked off.

If Alabama had came out firing, that would have been a hell of a game.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top