Conferences warn non aq leagues

[VA Husker Fan]

Not only this, but when big names do try to play them, they coward out or ask for a ton of money that they don't deserve. Nebraska tried to play them and they said only if NU gives them $1 million and I believe if they play in Boise. They should be begging for the heavy hitters if they want to be considered instead of being comfortable at playing the nobodies

I never heard the details of what Boise asked for, but there's NFW they asked us to pay $1M AND play in Boise. They were either looking for money (like all the other rent-a-game schools do but a little more) to go play in Lincoln, or they were looking for a return game in Boise, or maybe even a 2 for 1 with some money thrown in.

[mmmtodd]

One thing we have to realize is that we have gotten into bed with the single biggest anti-playoff man in all of college football: Jim Delany. Delany has long been the most powerful figure in college athletics, and has long been a proponent of the bowl system. He's put the kibosh on playoff talk for a long time now. As much as we like to gripe about the stranglehold DeLoss Dodds and Texas have over the Big XII, Dodds a powerful figure in college athletics in his own right, has run up against a brick wall in trying to circumvent Delany and his opposition to a playoff system.

 

Whether you like the BCS or not (and I very much do not), this is the man who's going to be guiding the future of Husker athletics, and Big 10 athletics, for the foreseeable future. It's probably in our best interest to get comfortable with him, and with the BCS.

Very true, but I believe a lot of Delany's stance against a playoff comes from the fact that in the last 10 years A) the conference has been down, and B ) the conference has had a liesurely stroll into their 2 BCS games nearly every year.

 

With the addition of NU, and the conference championship game...those days are over. It's highly unlikely you'll see 3 11-1 teams in the Big10 ever again. It's also a 1 in a million chance you'll see 3 11-1 teams and all of them have a stregth of schedule worse the Boise State. Going undefeated in this conference will be a thing of the past. BUT - there could easily be 4 teams in the top 12-16 each year. This conference could very well be the one that benefits the most from a playoff in the future - whereas right now they would have benefited the least.

 

I think the addition of the championship game will drastically alter they Big10 in regards to the BSC bowls. Delaney might change his stance in the next 3-6 years as that plays out.

this is an excellent post. While most of the big ten lies in wait for us to lose some games against their tough slate, they are in for a much harsher reality with the gorilla of divisions and a CCG. Winning one thing just became two big ten folks. You think its hard now getting your conferences slot in the BCS...just wait until division standings become more important than your total win loss record if u want to have a chance at getting in the dance.

[VA Husker Fan]

Not only this, but when big names do try to play them, they coward out or ask for a ton of money that they don't deserve. Nebraska tried to play them and they said only if NU gives them $1 million and I believe if they play in Boise. They should be begging for the heavy hitters if they want to be considered instead of being comfortable at playing the nobodies

I never heard the details of what Boise asked for, but there's NFW they asked us to pay $1M AND play in Boise. They were either looking for money (like all the other rent-a-game schools do but a little more) to go play in Lincoln, or they were looking for a return game in Boise, or maybe even a 2 for 1 with some money thrown in.

Here you go. Jamrog said they wanted $1M to play in Lincoln. That's just $200K more than Idaho got. They don't deserve it? Why does Idaho deserver $425K more than SDSU got? We'll sell out the game no matter what.

 

http://omaha.com/article/20100908/SPORTS/709089803/0#

[kansas husker]

 

I have a great deal of respect for Delany, but his stance in this is wrong. Last year with Boise St. & TCU going undefeated was a great example, as is this year with TCU. No, their strength of schedule isn't comparable to an SEC team, a Big 12 team or a Big 10 team, but that doesn't mean they can't vie for the title. ANY team that has a solid record should have a chance - but with the BCS, only two teams have a shot at the title. With a playoff you give solid teams like Boise and TCU a chance to fight their way through tough teams into a championship game. It legitimizes a championship, and would eliminate the "Mythical" tag most people put on it today.

 

 

So what your saying is that with Boise's schedule this year (which had maybe 1 hard game) should be ranked with the conferences that plays atleast 3 to 4 hard teams within their own conference let alone outside of theirs? Lets look at Boise, yes they beat VT, but that was it and then when they get to Nevada, they blow it (which Nevada isn't all that great, but there really the best they had in the match-up this year). No way should they be looked at IMO.

 

Not only this, but when big names do try to play them, they coward out or ask for a ton of money that they don't deserve. Nebraska tried to play them and they said only if NU gives them $1 million and I believe if they play in Boise. They should be begging for the heavy hitters if they want to be considered instead of being comfortable at playing the nobodies.

 

 

 

 

AS knap said if the choice comes down to only two temas than no they shouldn't get the shot over other undefeateds from major conferences, but the whole debate is why only limit it to two teams. An eight or even a six team playoff would put the debate to rest, make the arugement that one team will aloways be left out if you want but you just defending a crappy system.

 

I can see why they aren't doing a play off system. IMO conferences would lose a ton of money. If they only went with an 8 team play-off, which 8 teams would you pick out of all the conferences? Hell you would have more arguments then you have now. The NFL does 10 and that is with just to conferences. As of now, you have a ton of teams playing in bowls and they all receive money. How would they distribute the money if say just the SEC and Big 10 (or however they would separate it) teams made it to the semis and bowl?

 

 

 

Edit: didn't think I took 30 mins to type this and krill beat me to the money part.

 

There are several ways to offest the money, you can stil have the lesser bowls in conjunction with the playoffs. I think the nfl style playoff with 12 teams would be a bit much. I like 8 to 10 with the number one and two seed gettig a first round bye. I think it would remove all doubt about a true champion. Bowls could play in the later rounds and select teams that have been eliminated, that way the schools that bring the most fans still mkae the most money. If you do the first two rounds at a home stadium it elimnates the problem of trvel for several weeks. ESpically if it is an 8 team playoff with a three round playoff.

[krill]

 

Some decent points here, but how is playing SDSU good for the fans? I'm not a season ticket holder since I'm 1000 miles away, but if I was I'd gladly pass up paying for that ticket and instead staying home to watch a good road game on TV. Those rent-a-game opponents are good for the athletic dept budget, and that's pretty much it. That's totally a revenue thing, just like your other points, and have nothing to do with what fans want.

 

Conference champions? Meh. I'm more concerned about having a good way to determine a national champion. Some conferences have a CCG, some don't. Get some consistency here.

 

As far as revenue sharing, I'd like to see what the total payout would be for a playoff. I have a feeling it would be a humongous pie that would yield big slices for everyone. Maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe some schools don't want just a bigger slice, they want to make sure the lesser schools don't get a bigger slice too. Screw that.

 

Season ticket holders are required to make a "donation" of anywhere from a few hundred dollars to over $3000 per seat. Of course that's a tax write off for most people but those amounts become harder to justify with fewer games.

 

I still think conference championships are important. Making them less important with a large playoff of say, 32 teams would water down a lot of the conference rivalries associated with a path to a conference championship.

 

A playoff would be a humongous pie indeed but again, how's it going to be sliced? Here's how the NCAA basketball tournmannnt revenue is divided:

 

The Division I Men's Basketball tournament is the only NCAA championship tournament (officially, the BCS Football Championship is not an NCAA event) where the NCAA does not keep the profits. Instead, the money from the multi-billion-dollar television contract is divided among the Division I basketball playing schools and conferences as follows:

 

* 1/6 of the money goes directly to the schools based on how many sports they play (one "share" for each sport starting with 14, which is the minimum needed for Division I membership).

 

* 1/3 of the money goes directly to the schools based on how many scholarships they give out (one share for each of the first 50, two for each of the next 50, ten for each of the next 50, and 20 for each scholarship above 150).

 

* 1/2 of the money goes to the conferences based on how well they did in the six previous men's basketball tournaments (counting each year separately, one share for each team getting in, and one share for each win except in the Final Four and, prior to the 2008 tournament, the Play-in game). In 2007, based on the 2001 through 2006 tournaments, the Big East received over $14.85 million, while the eight conferences that did not win a first-round game in those six years received slightly more than $1 million each

 

I don't see that happening for football when the commercial interest have become so heavily entrenched in the BCS system.

 

Let's not forget that a playoff system also has fairness issues in how teams are seeded to reward teams with the most impressive regular season. The seeding could be just as controversial as the BCS system. It would open the door to more teams but you'd still have teams with easier paths than others.

[Lil' Red]

I really think the money would actually be better with a playoff system. Didn't Delaney say that an NFL style playoff system would bring in at least 3 times as much money as the BCS? Also a lot of schools actually lose money on bowl games.

[VA Husker Fan]

Let's not forget that a playoff system also has fairness issues in how teams are seeded to reward teams with the most impressive regular season. The seeding could be just as controversial as the BCS system. It would open the door to more teams but you'd still have teams with easier paths than others.

A #9 team with a loss or two may whine as much as an unbeaten #3 team does today, but nobody will listen to them.

 

I'm not sure I get the point of the basketball playoff sharing scheme. If you throw enough money, I'm sure people will un-entrench themselves from the BCS and bowls and figure out how to divide playoff revenue.

[okaive]

 

There are several ways to offest the money, you can stil have the lesser bowls in conjunction with the playoffs. I think the nfl style playoff with 12 teams would be a bit much. I like 8 to 10 with the number one and two seed gettig a first round bye. I think it would remove all doubt about a true champion. Bowls could play in the later rounds and select teams that have been eliminated, that way the schools that bring the most fans still mkae the most money. If you do the first two rounds at a home stadium it elimnates the problem of trvel for several weeks. ESpically if it is an 8 team playoff with a three round playoff.

 

Not trying to beat the horse, but the true question is: How are you going to pick just 8 or 10 teams with 5 BCS conferences and then again with the non?

 

I just don't see how it can happen with less whining that we are hearing now from the top exects.

[krill]

A #9 team with a loss or two may whine as much as an unbeaten #3 team does today, but nobody will listen to them.

 

Here's one scheme I saw for a 16 seed playoff. All 11 FBS conference get 1 automatic bid with the remaining 5 at large.

 

 

Doesn't look like much of an improvement to me and so much of the excitement and drama of the regular season is robbed. You probably have to give up a CCG and 1 regular season game for this system. The top teams still cruise through Sun Belt, MAC, or C-USA teams first round and then play a few games that are CCG caliber anyway to get to the NCG.

[knapplc]

Delany himself said that there are potentially "hundreds of millions of dollars" left on the table in a playoff format.

 

MR. DELANY. I think that number would probably be about $22 million divided by 11. Each institution, whether they play or not, will receive about $2 million. To put it into context, in order to support 8500 male and female athletes on 250 teams, there is about $650 million annually that is necessary. Of that $600 plus million, about $20 million to $25 million comes from the BCS, maximum. And so it is an important part of what we do. The relative point I was trying to make is that I am absolutely sure that an NFL-style football playoff would provide maybe three or four times as many dollars to the Big Ten than the present system does. In fact, a number of corporations have come forward and tried to lure us into a playoff with those kinds of dollars. There is no doubt in my mind that we are leaving hundreds of millions of dollars on the table for the reasons that have been expressed here around this table, so there is more money out there and we have turned our back, we don't get very much credit. We get credit for taking it, but for not turning our back on it.

 

There is one reason, and one reason only that we do not have a playoff in D1A football: The Rose Bowl:

 

MR. DELANY. I will be candid and to the point on this. From the Big Ten's perspective, and when I talk about the Big Ten, I am talking about a super majority of presidents and chancellors, a super majority of athletic directors and football coaches. Those are the people that I interact with, either work with or work for. They will support what we have now. My sense is that if it expands beyond where it is, they would prefer to go back to the traditional Rose Bowl relationship. So on their behalf, I have to be clear and candid. Now, are there individuals among presidents who would consider a plus one? There are individuals, maybe an individual. And among athletic directors there may be an individual, but the super majority of people that I am speaking for here would either support the system we have here or move back to the traditional system if there is an effort to expand to something that looks like a slippery slope to them, a plus one that would then lead to an eight game, 16 game, 12 game. They think that would be bad for--

 

Delany testimony before Congress, 12/7/05

[knapplc]

A #9 team with a loss or two may whine as much as an unbeaten #3 team does today, but nobody will listen to them.

 

Here's one scheme I saw for a 16 seed playoff. All 11 FBS conference get 1 automatic bid with the remaining 5 at large.

 

 

Doesn't look like much of an improvement to me and so much of the excitement and drama of the regular season is robbed. You probably have to give up a CCG and 1 regular season game for this system. The top teams still cruise through Sun Belt, MAC, or C-USA teams first round and then play a few games that are CCG caliber anyway to get to the NCG.

 

That playoff format is a farce. There is no way you're going to take ONLY the top teams from each conference. A 16-team format is the only way to go, with some poll mechanism being used to determine the teams. Yes, there will be griping from team #17, but the case for the 17th team is FAR worse than the case for the #3 team in the current format. Even in a plus-one format, the #5 team often has an argument as legitimate as team #4. As you go further down the polls those arguments lose legitimacy, making a 16-team format the ideal solution.

 

A four-round playoff would not ruin the current format of games. You could start the last week of August, play your 12-week schedule, then have your playoffs. There is no reason to eliminate games, and the regular season's games do not become watered down because only slightly greater than 10% of your teams can actually make the playoffs. Yes, two teams will play a 16-game season, but that's only one game more than Villanova and Montana, the two teams in the D2 Finals last year, played.

 

If we could break these ridiculous bowl game ties from these conferences we could have a playoff. It's simple, it's been done for years by D2, and it makes sense. Enough with the BCS. Enough.

[krill]

That playoff format is a farce. There is no way you're going to take ONLY the top teams from each conference. A 16-team format is the only way to go, with some poll mechanism being used to determine the teams. Yes, there will be griping from team #17, but the case for the 17th team is FAR worse than the case for the #3 team in the current format. Even in a plus-one format, the #5 team often has an argument as legitimate as team #4. As you go further down the polls those arguments lose legitimacy, making a 16-team format the ideal solution.

 

A four-round playoff would not ruin the current format of games. You could start the last week of August, play your 12-week schedule, then have your playoffs. There is no reason to eliminate games, and the regular season's games do not become watered down because only slightly greater than 10% of your teams can actually make the playoffs. Yes, two teams will play a 16-game season, but that's only one game more than Villanova and Montana, the two teams in the D2 Finals last year, played.

 

If we could break these ridiculous bowl game ties from these conferences we could have a playoff. It's simple, it's been done for years by D2, and it makes sense. Enough with the BCS. Enough.

 

If the whole point of playoff is to give the non-AQ's a chance they are still going to be held to a different standard if the seeding is by poll. If they go unbeaten they have an "easier" road to the later rounds and if they lose one game then there's a debate on the qualification bubble with teams that have 2 or 3 losses in stronger conferences.

 

Just some other random thoughts here on a playoff.

 

-Wear and tear with a gauntlet of up to 16 games. Right now the most any team plays is 13 with 3-4 week break before a bowl game. Yes, the lower divisions do it but the top dogs in FBS are playing with bigger guys and a lot of spread offenses where QB's are already being subject to a lot of hits.

 

-Playoffs running through finals week. I don't know how many scholarship athletes take their degree seriously but the system now works pretty well for football players to have a break during fall finals.

 

-Loss of CCGs. What happens to the Big 10 / Pac 10 / SEC CCGs?

 

Again...I'm not completely against a playoff system. All I'm saying is there are a lot of dynamics here that people may not be looking at when trying to understand why the status quo, imperfect as it is will probably not change. Also, as the commissioners said they are more inclined to regress to the old bowl system if the current regime falls apart. Who wins if it comes to that?

[knapplc]

If the whole point of playoff is to give the non-AQ's a chance they are still going to be held to a different standard if the seeding is by poll. If they go unbeaten they have an "easier" road to the later rounds and if they lose one game then there's a debate on the qualification bubble with teams that have 2 or 3 losses in stronger conferences.

 

Just some other random thoughts here on a playoff.

 

-Wear and tear with a gauntlet of up to 16 games. Right now the most any team plays is 13 with 3-4 week break before a bowl game. Yes, the lower divisions do it but the top dogs in FBS are playing with bigger guys and a lot of spread offenses where QB's are already being subject to a lot of hits.

 

-Playoffs running through finals week. I don't know how many scholarship athletes take their degree seriously but the system now works pretty well for football players to have a break during fall finals.

 

-Loss of CCGs. What happens to the Big 10 / Pac 10 / SEC CCGs?

 

Again...I'm not completely against a playoff system. All I'm saying is there are a lot of dynamics here that people may not be looking at when trying to understand why the status quo, imperfect as it is will probably not change. Also, as the commissioners said they are more inclined to regress to the old bowl system if the current regime falls apart. Who wins if it comes to that?

 

The whole point of a playoff is to determine a champion. It has nothing to do with non-AQ schools getting a legitimate shot. If Boise got a high seed this year based on their record they'd have gotten bounced in the first round or two anyway. TCU would have survived longer because they're a better team, but that's really immaterial. The only people worried about the non-AQ schools are the non-AQ schools. What most people are worried about is giving those five-six teams with a legitimate shot at a title the chance to win that title.

 

The "wear and tear" argument fails because, as noted above, the D2 champions already play more games than ANY D1A school. If wear and tear was really an issue, they'd stop running a playoff in the lower divisions. It isn't, and they haven't. In fact, it's going strong.

 

Finals schminals. Again, D2 does this. This is perhaps the most tired and most untrue of the anti-playoffs arguments. College volleyball, basketball and wrestling run through Finals weeks. Are those kids better students that they can handle it and the football kids can't?

 

Loss of CCGs? Until 15 years ago or so nobody had them. Is that really a big loss?

 

You're right in that there are a lot of dynamics to be looking at. The examples you've listed are red herrings tossed out by the bowl committees and the Jim Delanys of the world who want to keep the bowl money - and the "prestige" of the Rose Bowl - in the hands of those few people.

 

Delany raises a good point about the Rose Bowl - the Big 10 and the Pac-10 have spent decades building it into what it is, and it's not fair to them to have Non-AQ schools jump into the Rose Bowl ahead of non-championship Big 10 & Pac-10 winners. But my answer to Mr. Delany is, with all due respect, Life is not fair. Get over it.

[kansas husker]

A #9 team with a loss or two may whine as much as an unbeaten #3 team does today, but nobody will listen to them.

 

Here's one scheme I saw for a 16 seed playoff. All 11 FBS conference get 1 automatic bid with the remaining 5 at large.

 

 

Doesn't look like much of an improvement to me and so much of the excitement and drama of the regular season is robbed. You probably have to give up a CCG and 1 regular season game for this system. The top teams still cruise through Sun Belt, MAC, or C-USA teams first round and then play a few games that are CCG caliber anyway to get to the NCG.

 

That playoff format is a farce. There is no way you're going to take ONLY the top teams from each conference. A 16-team format is the only way to go, with some poll mechanism being used to determine the teams. Yes, there will be griping from team #17, but the case for the 17th team is FAR worse than the case for the #3 team in the current format. Even in a plus-one format, the #5 team often has an argument as legitimate as team #4. As you go further down the polls those arguments lose legitimacy, making a 16-team format the ideal solution.

 

A four-round playoff would not ruin the current format of games. You could start the last week of August, play your 12-week schedule, then have your playoffs. There is no reason to eliminate games, and the regular season's games do not become watered down because only slightly greater than 10% of your teams can actually make the playoffs. Yes, two teams will play a 16-game season, but that's only one game more than Villanova and Montana, the two teams in the D2 Finals last year, played.

 

If we could break these ridiculous bowl game ties from these conferences we could have a playoff. It's simple, it's been done for years by D2, and it makes sense. Enough with the BCS. Enough.

 

 

I'll disagree with knapp a little this format is ok, however it needs a lot of tweaking. Conf. usa, the MAC, and Sun Belt should not have automatic spots in the tourny. Alos I would say you add a minum reocrd lets just say 9-3 to get in. The more qualifcations, the more clear cut, the less contoversy. I'm afraid the point is moot, no matter what solution there will always be a new problem. This is the only level of footabll that does not have a playoff and no matter how good of systems that gets sugested it's probably going to stay that way for a long time to come.

[krill]

 

You're right in that there are a lot of dynamics to be looking at. The examples you've listed are red herrings tossed out by the bowl committees and the Jim Delanys of the world who want to keep the bowl money - and the "prestige" of the Rose Bowl - in the hands of those few people.

 

Delany raises a good point about the Rose Bowl - the Big 10 and the Pac-10 have spent decades building it into what it is, and it's not fair to them to have Non-AQ schools jump into the Rose Bowl ahead of non-championship Big 10 & Pac-10 winners. But my answer to Mr. Delany is, with all due respect, Life is not fair. Get over it.

 

So all the arguments against playoffs are red herrings and the argument for playoffs in regards to what happens to the bowl regime is too bad, life is not fair?

 

I guess the Big 10 should be thinking twice about our application because what's the point of having enough teams for two divisions without a conference championship. In fact I like our chances of a national championship a lot better in the Mountain West, because that's all that matters right? Who's #1 in in a system that cannot possibly determine who's really the best?