Bowl welfare.

[milohimself]

Listening to a fascinating interview with Jeff Passan, the author of "death to the BCS."

He's got many interesting viewpoints, the one that stuck out at me most was bowl revenue sharing from BCS bowls in order to prop up these low-level bowls like the GMAC Bowl, Humanitarian Bowl, Music City Bowl, etc. He said Florida netted a total of $47,000 from their 2008 national championship.

He also said that there have already been conservative estimates of the revenue a 16-team playoff would draw ($750mil according to numerous TV executives) that would promise FAR more money than the system that's in place, and that the existence of the BCS is simply about power for the major conferences.

 

[milohimself]

He also said that we'd be surprised by the amount of damage that Boise appearing in the title game could do to the BCS.

 

[Volstylexx]

I hope Boise gets in the title game... and i hope the BCS is finally done away with.

 

[Volgrad98]

He also said that we'd be surprised by the amount of damage that Boise appearing in the title game could do to the BCS.

So just appearing could do that much damage?

 

[Cartervol]

Bowl welfare? What if 70 teams don't end up with the 6 wins necessary. Then some 5-7 team will be playing in one, that would be welfare or charity one.

 

[Volst53]

Bowl welfare? What if 70 teams don't end up with the 6 wins necessary. Then some 5-7 team will be playing in one, that would be welfare or charity one.

He is talking about money, not wins big guy.

 

[milohimself]

So just appearing could do that much damage?

Apparently. The way he put it, the BCS essentially IS constructed to keep the mid-majors from playing for/winning the national title.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with him, just relaying what I took his opinion to be.

I think the problem right now is this; even if Boise does play for the title, the way things are constructed, the odds of a mid-major ever playing for the national title are so minuscule they probably don't have to worry about it. Basically, it seems like you'd have to have a Boise or TCU go undefeated AND have a situation like 2007 where all the best big conference teams finish with at least 2 losses. We're all sitting here talking about how likely it is that a one loss Pac-10/Big XII/Big Ten/SEC champ will get preference over unbeaten Boise and TCU for the title game.

I'm honestly starting to believe government intervention is the only thing that will even get us to a plus-one, let alone 8 or more teams in a playoff.

I was one of the last ones to jump off the BCS bandwagon, but now I view it as a truly evil entity. Over 50 schools are being robbed in the worst way of never being able to play for the national title and gain the notoriety that comes with it. Ultimately it IS hurting these schools, and the consequence of the BCS's existence, whether intended or not, is a La Cosa Nostra of sorts where the big six are hogging all the glory for themselves.

Though Florida only gained a measly $47k from winning the '08 national title, there have to be all sorts of unmeasurable benefits from having that level of football success has. More applications makes the university more selective and thus better in the long run. Championship football does good things for a university.

Again, the way the BCS is constructed renders it so roughly half of D-IA can never play for a national title, no matter how many games they win. That is absolutely indefensible.

 

[milohimself]

Also, though I'm all for any team with a winning record getting to participate in some sort of post-season play, if a bowl game cannot sustain itself financially, it needs to go away.

 

[Cartervol]

He is talking about money, not wins big guy.

Yeah i know, i just thought with the title that would fit right in.

 

[Ohio Vol]

It wouldn't be difficult to stack the deck to ensure that small conference teams never truly contend for a national championship with a playoff either. Of course, instituting a playoff would also basically wipe the small conferences out completely anyway.

To point #1, take the best small champion and pair them against the consensus best teams in the first round. Take the worst small champions (MAC, Sun Belt) and pair them against the worst big conference schools. Voila! All the small conference schools get knocked out early.

To point #2, the ally of small conferences is the TV time that comes from bowl games, the exposure from the mid-week games, and the revenue from going to a bowl. Take the small bowls away and thus reduce the regular season games within those conferences to nothing, and what happens? You'd be looking at 50 or so schools dropping down to 1-AA, D-2, or dropping football entirely. All so the crybabies in Idaho can pummel Cream Puff U and get a free pass.

 

[milohimself]

Even then, it's at least proven on the field. Even if you had the Sun Belt champs getting crushed by Oklahoma and Ohio State every year, at least it would be determined on the field.

 

[Ohio Vol]

Even then, it's at least proven on the field. Even if you had the Sun Belt champs getting crushed by Oklahoma and Ohio State every year, at least it would be determined on the field.

Maybe it's just me, but 12+ games during the regular season provides a pretty good idea of what can be determined on the field and who has earned that right.

Good for Temple and Louisiana-Monroe for beating up on their pathetic conferences, but the first four weeks of the season says all that needs to be said about exactly how good of opponents they are. If a small conference team rips through their conference after having beaten a superior non-conference schedule, then they'll get their chance to prove if they're a championship team. Since that has not happened a single time since the BCS came into existence (or the Bowl Coalition before it), I'm not losing any sleep.

If you want to see teams with brutal schedules, come up to Ohio and watch what the Catholic schools have to do. There aren't enough to fill an entire large conference schedule, so most have a big chunk of their schedule as open dates. They either have to play much larger schools (up two or three divisions, or in one case a couple years back, up five divisions) and/or each other. This is how, in amongst the 9-1 and 10-0 teams in the postseason, you'll see teams with 6-4 or 5-5 records. And that's why the teams that play no one and slide in on record alone get the living snot beaten out of them early on.

Guess which one Boise is? They can go 12-0 until the end of time, but until they actually go out of their way to put four extremely tough non-conference opponents on the schedule, they'll continue to lag behind the rest of the country in spite of what the pinheads who vote in the human polls may do.

 

[Nightowl]

He also said that we'd be surprised by the amount of damage that Boise appearing in the title game could do to the BCS.

This is literally the ONLY reason that a small part of me (a very small part) wants to see the Broncos get to the BCS Title Game.

 

[Volgrad98]

Thanks for the input milo.

 

[The Ron Mexico]

I think we are forgetting the under-the-table deals all the rich, old white guys are getting from the bowls. The whole system is filled with corruption and might be too far gone to fix.

 

[bUTrosbUTrosVOLie]

Maybe it's just me, but 12+ games during the regular season provides a pretty good idea of what can be determined on the field and who has earned that right.

Good for Temple and Louisiana-Monroe for beating up on their pathetic conferences, but the first four weeks of the season says all that needs to be said about exactly how good of opponents they are. If a small conference team rips through their conference after having beaten a superior non-conference schedule, then they'll get their chance to prove if they're a championship team. Since that has not happened a single time since the BCS came into existence (or the Bowl Coalition before it), I'm not losing any sleep.

If you want to see teams with brutal schedules, come up to Ohio and watch what the Catholic schools have to do. There aren't enough to fill an entire large conference schedule, so most have a big chunk of their schedule as open dates. They either have to play much larger schools (up two or three divisions, or in one case a couple years back, up five divisions) and/or each other. This is how, in amongst the 9-1 and 10-0 teams in the postseason, you'll see teams with 6-4 or 5-5 records. And that's why the teams that play no one and slide in on record alone get the living snot beaten out of them early on.

Guess which one Boise is? They can go 12-0 until the end of time, but until they actually go out of their way to put four extremely tough non-conference opponents on the schedule, they'll continue to lag behind the rest of the country in spite of what the pinheads who vote in the human polls may do.

Well, BSU's SOS this year is ranked 30+ above Nebraska's (read on yahoo sports-check it out for yourself) and nobody would sniff at Nebraska losing one and playing for the BCS.

 

[hmanvolfan]

They can go 12-0 until the end of time, but until they actually go out of their way to put four extremely tough non-conference opponents on the schedule, they'll continue to lag behind the rest of the country in spite of what the pinheads who vote in the human polls may do.

That's exactly what the BCS conference members are doing in the guise of their conference games being so tough. Scheduling out of conference cream puffs, that is.

 

[milohimself]

Well, BSU's SOS this year is ranked 30+ above Nebraska's (read on yahoo sports-check it out for yourself) and nobody would sniff at Nebraska losing one and playing for the BCS.

Nebraska and Boise's SOS is going to be a relatively negligible difference by the end of the season. Texas is in the middle of what is probably their worst season in forever and Nebraska won't have had a single top notch opponent until they meet Oklahoma in the BXII title game.

What's better, sweeping the BXII North or beating up on the WAC with a road win against VATech (who may very well win the ACC) and a stout Oregon State squad?

IMO undefeated Boise easily gets consideration over a one loss Nebraska.

 

[bUTrosbUTrosVOLie]

Nebraska and Boise's SOS is going to be a relatively negligible difference by the end of the season. Texas is in the middle of what is probably their worst season in forever and Nebraska won't have had a single top notch opponent until they meet Oklahoma in the BXII title game.

What's better, sweeping the BXII North or beating up on the WAC with a road win against VATech (who may very well win the ACC) and a stout Oregon State squad?

IMO undefeated Boise easily gets consideration over a one loss Nebraska.

I don't really care much what BSU does this year (or any year)....just glad to see Nebraska get exposed before they ran the table with their good (for them) schedule and overranking. They get ranked like Notre Dame does-a "hope" ranking if they win their first two games against anybody and the team is above average. I meant only to point out that BSU would get more criticism here than Nebraska no matter what, IMO. Seems silly to me.

 

[Ohio Vol]

Well, BSU's SOS this year is ranked 30+ above Nebraska's (read on yahoo sports-check it out for yourself) and nobody would sniff at Nebraska losing one and playing for the BCS.

Which is no different than what you see every election year. When 20% of the returns are in and the guy who was getting pounded in the polls has a 72-28 margin in his favor, they'll still project the other guy as the winner because there are plenty of other factors that go into it.

Boise State, to this point, has played a schedule that's on par with the rest of the country's top teams. But while everyone else is facing tough in-conference opponents, Boise finishes with Louisiana Tech, Hawaii, Idaho, Fresno State, Nevada, and Utah State. Nevada is the only one that could be described as better than "middling", and the dregs of any major conference would mop the floor with the other teams.

It's not that the big conference schools have their own also-rans. It's the fact that those also-rans would beat the living snot out of a good chunk of the WAC, save for one or two teams. Kansas has looked absolutely terrible this year, and they'd win the MAC or the Sun Belt and place very high in the WAC and C-USA.

That's exactly what the BCS conference members are doing in the guise of their conference games being so tough. Scheduling out of conference cream puffs, that is.

Reference my above post. There are varying degrees of "brutal" as well. Ohio State had a relatively low schedule strength in spite of having played Miami, mostly because Eastern Michigan would be toward the bottom of 1-AA ball if they played that schedule (the Sagarin Rankings have EMU below 60 1-AA teams, to use but one example).

What Boise and other small-conference schools can not do is have any cream puffs on their schedule if they can help it. They can stomp their feet and say "We're only doing what everyone else is doing", but with the WAC being as bad as it is every single year, it's not like they can honestly be shocked by Idaho being a feeble opponent having a single down year.

 

[utman47]

What happens to these other bowls that the majority of teams appear in? A playoff would completely overshadow all other bowls, and possibly spell the end of some of them. To me, if I'm a mid-major and I realize that I have no shot of making the playoffs anyways, I would like to know that there are bowls I could go to where I could still net some money. Unfortunately, I think that some of the sponsors of the bowls would get scared off by the possibility of losing television exposure and would drop their sponsorship. Just my take on it...
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Ohio Vol]

What happens to these other bowls that the majority of teams appear in? A playoff would completely overshadow all other bowls, and possibly spell the end of some of them. To me, if I'm a mid-major and I realize that I have no shot of making the playoffs anyways, I would like to know that there are bowls I could go to where I could still net some money. Unfortunately, I think that some of the sponsors of the bowls would get scared off by the possibility of losing television exposure and would drop their sponsorship. Just my take on it...
Posted via VolNation Mobile

That's pretty much exactly what would happen. At this point in time, the small conferences are in exactly the same position that minor league baseball was in back in the early 1900s. Hopefully they get their collective heads out of their asses and realize that, although a playoff system would benefit the perennial small conference champions, it would ONLY benefit those champions. You'd be looking at 50 or 60 schools dropping down to 1-AA within 10 years of a playoff being implemented, never to return.

 

[Velo Vol]

How would Boise State in the championship game do damage to the BCS?

 

[milohimself]

How would Boise State in the championship game do damage to the BCS?

My guess is it plays out like this...

In light of the fact that virtually everybody in the business, from TV execs to university presidents, know that any playoff system is virtually guaranteed to make more money than the BCS, the only other explanation is to ensure there is a system that is kept in place that only allows major conference teams to play for the national title. Not saying they all agree on this, but a large enough portion of them do to keep the BCS in place for one reason or another. This may or may not be intentional, but its the way it plays out, and the evidence based on the structure of BCS precursors says it is intentional.

Bill James, an all-time great sports statistician and writer, believes that the implicit purpose of the BCS is to keep the national championship in the hands of the power conferences (Bill James urges his colleagues to boycott the BCS. - By Bill James - Slate Magazine).

That would be a hell of a party for Boise to crash, especially if they were to win the title. However, looking at a few things like the transparency (or lack thereof) with which the BCS operates, the system would be deemed "broken" and further readjusted so that, essentially, mid majors have even less of a shot at the title.

It all goes back to the original point of this thread -- there is too much in the way, major conferences wanting to keep the national titles for themselves, smaller schools demanding handouts from football without actually competing in football, even full-scale revolt and defection from the NCAA, from a playoff happening.

Again, I can guarantee you that the status quo, as entirely jacked up as it is, is going to stay in place and the only thing that will change it is full-scale congress intervention. After BYU won the 1984 national title out of the WAC, the long term backlash was for the big conferences to tighten the screws on the mid majors.

Football is a big enough deal in academia and for the health and progress of these other schools that denying them the fair shot to compete for a national championship is an actual crime. The BCS is simply the current tool used by the mafia of big football programs to ensure they stay at the top.

 

[Ed12111]

My guess is it plays out like this...

In light of the fact that virtually everybody in the business, from TV execs to university presidents, know that any playoff system is virtually guaranteed to make more money than the BCS, the only other explanation is to ensure there is a system that is kept in place that only allows major conference teams to play for the national title. Not saying they all agree on this, but a large enough portion of them do to keep the BCS in place for one reason or another. This may or may not be intentional, but its the way it plays out, and the evidence based on the structure of BCS precursors says it is intentional.

Bill James, an all-time great sports statistician and writer, believes that the implicit purpose of the BCS is to keep the national championship in the hands of the power conferences (Bill James urges his colleagues to boycott the BCS. - By Bill James - Slate Magazine).

That would be a hell of a party for Boise to crash, especially if they were to win the title. However, looking at a few things like the transparency (or lack thereof) with which the BCS operates, the system would be deemed "broken" and further readjusted so that, essentially, mid majors have even less of a shot at the title.

It all goes back to the original point of this thread -- there is too much in the way, major conferences wanting to keep the national titles for themselves, smaller schools demanding handouts from football without actually competing in football, even full-scale revolt and defection from the NCAA, from a playoff happening.

Again, I can guarantee you that the status quo, as entirely jacked up as it is, is going to stay in place and the only thing that will change it is full-scale congress intervention. After BYU won the 1984 national title out of the WAC, the long term backlash was for the big conferences to tighten the screws on the mid majors.

Football is a big enough deal in academia and for the health and progress of these other schools that denying them the fair shot to compete for a national championship is an actual crime. The BCS is simply the current tool used by the mafia of big football programs to ensure they stay at the top.

Just wait till we have "super conferences" the rich will get richer