Lets play Devil's Advocate...Make a case FOR the BCS
-
lhslep134
And S&L, before you even think about posting NFL attendance numbers, know that there is a pretty decent amount of tickets that most teams give away for basically nothing to charities and stuff of that sort because they can't sell them, and they give them away to avoid blackouts. The other big 3 professional sports are all experiencing downturns in attendance. -
SportsAndLady
Obviously Southwestern Louisiana State, Bowling Green University, schools like that probably have decreasing attendance, but is that because of the economy or just becuase of their shitty teams? I would venture to say if those smaller schools had a team that was 8-0, 9-0, 12-0 the attendance numbers would go up.lhslep134 wrote:
WOW ignorant statement of the thread. If you're so sure of this, I'm sure you can find me numbers that say that attendence isn't decreasing, right? While you're at it, find me the numbers that show that all of the BCS games sold EVERY ticket to the participating schools. I'll help you out and say that I know for a fact the Sugar Bowl didn't sell all of the allotted tickets to both Cinci and Florida, as my friends that go to UF were able to get tickets 4 days before the game if they wanted to, which they didn't.SportsAndLady wrote:
The economy is bad, but this aint the damn Great Depression. Look around you, where's one place in society that people will still shovel out money for something that isn't a need? Sports.lhslep134 wrote:Hell, I live in today's economy. I know how crazy people are about NOT shelling out $2400 to see 3 games, at the minimum (ticket, airfare, hotel). Rich old alumni might, but not students. Maybe in a fantasy world, but not the one we live in.
Oh and no shit Cincy and Florida couldn't sell all their tickets, who the hell would wanna spend that much money and go that far just to watch an ass whoopin? But what I do know is that Cincinnati actually had to ask for MORE tickets, becuase their alloted tickets were sold out.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/id/6279/cincinnati-sells-out-sugar-bowl-allotment
Sure, the economy has a bit to do with Florida not being able to sell their tickets, but I'd say it's more of the disappointment of not making it to the title game, after getting murked by Alabama in the SEC title game. Why would they want to go and watch a relatively meaningless game against shitty ass UC (no offense UC fans), when they were all expecting to grab tix to the title game?
Florida's assistant AD seems to agree with me
Oh and here are your numbers, big guy.wrote:"People really had their hearts set on the BCS Championship Game," Gajda said. "When we didn't make it, it was a little downer in some peoples' minds and they're simply not going (to the Sugar Bowl).
wrote:college football may prove to be recession-proof. According to figures compiled by the NCAA, 17,095,932 fans have attended Division I-A games this season -- an average of 48,430 a game. Both figures are on pace to break the NCAA attendance records set last season; if attendance remains consistent, 38,211,587 will pass through turnstiles this season. -
lhslep134
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-ncaaattendance
Hmmmm my numbers say attendance dropped.Attendance at NCAA football games was down slightly in 2009 compared with the record 2008 season.
The NCAA reported Monday that almost 48.3 million fans attended games at the 630 NCAA schools, including home, neutral-site and postseason games. That’s down about 1 percent from the 48.8 million in 2008.
Numbers have been rising the past 5 years because of so much stadium expansion.
I'm not doubting that a team can sell out 1, and I've made that point pretty damn clear on here, but I'm telling you that fans won't shell out huge bucks 3 times for playoff games.
Which is why, IMO, the best playoff system is one where the first games are home games for the 1-4 seeds, then the next round of games at 2 BCS venues, and the championship game at a third rotating venue, except with a break of 2 weeks to allow fans to make accommodations. The 3rd and 4th BCS venues would host BCS games for the 9-12 ranked teams (well, the other teams who would be in the BCS that don't qualify for the playoff).
I can see fans shelling out money for a BCS venue AND a championship game, but even then it might get too expensive. And paying for 3 games at bowl sites is out of the question. It would end up being too expensive for anyone but rich alumni, which is the point I'm trying to make. -
SportsAndLady
Here's some more for you.
wrote:In a study appearing in the June issue of the Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, Fort examines what kind of impact the 11 major recessions in the last 50 years has had on the leading indicators for economic health for FBS college athletic departments. Indicators include attendance, media revenues, post-season revenues, operating revenues and expenses of athletic departments, and competitive balance. He also looked at business management responses in athletic departments during the first year of the recent recession that began in 2008.
Fort found very little evidence of any recessionary impact on any of the economic health indicators, with two exceptions during the 2001 recession: Bowl Championship Series payouts and operating revenues to the largest athletic departments dropped. However, the rebound and renewed growth in both was quick.wrote: A new University of Michigan study supports what college football fans and rabid tailgaters already knew: Nothing can keep diehard fans away from tailgate parties on game day.
Despite plummeting portfolios, fans of college Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) teams (formerly Division 1-A) have continued to buy tickets to watch their favorite teams. Indeed, college football is doing better than ever in many regards, says Rodney Fort, professor of sport management at the U-M School of Kinesiology.
College basketball:
wrote:March Madness is recession-proof. CBSSports.com has already reported that advertising on its live streaming service (March Madness on Demand) is expected to hit record levels of clicks and sales. It is gleefully looking at some $30 million in sales from its digital online offerings, up from $23 million last year. Clicks are expected to exceed last year's record of 2.5 million-plus. Even the "Boss Button" an office worker can click to put a fake spreadsheet over the ballgame on a computer screen (should a supervisor appear) has an official sponsor! I do, however, predict that a lot of workers who have watched the games during work hours will be a bit more hesitant to do so than in the past as a result of the need to remain employed. But, one thing is definite: No advertising agency offices will come to a total standstill during March Madness.wrote:March Madness has become part of the American fabric. Like the Super Bowl (which achieved higher-than-expected ratings and record ad revenues), it is an excuse to celebrate. It brings folks together. This is partly due to the wager factor. People who normally don't follow college basketball become bracket filler-outers and get involved in the wagering with the "experts."
Professional Sports:
wrote:"Are sports recession-proof? That is the question," said Christine Brennan, USA Today columnist and ABC News consultant. "I think the answer is no and we are seeing some evidence of that, but so far the answer seems to be yes and that is a real stunner." -
SportsAndLady
Lol GTFO of here.lhslep134 wrote: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-ncaaattendance
Hmmmm my numbers say attendance dropped.
Numbers have been rising the past 5 years because of so much stadium expansion.
I'm not doubting that a team can sell out 1, and I've made that point pretty damn clear on here, but I'm telling you that fans won't shell out huge bucks 3 times for playoff games.
Which is why, IMO, the best playoff system is one where the first games are home games for the 1-4 seeds, then the next round of games at 2 BCS venues, and the championship game at a third rotating venue, except with a break of 2 weeks to allow fans to make accommodations. The 3rd and 4th BCS venues would host BCS games for the 9-12 ranked teams (well, the other teams who would be in the BCS that don't qualify for the playoff).
I can see fans shelling out money for a BCS venue AND a championship game, but even then it might get too expensive. And paying for 3 games at bowl sites is out of the question. It would end up being too expensive for anyone but rich alumni, which is the point I'm trying to make.
Your "facts" come from a dude's blog with no credibility. My facts come from a study from the University of Michigan. -
lhslep134
Check my new link, it's from Rivals, now you can GTFO.
-
SportsAndLady
Ah good, you changed your source.
I was about to say lol -
SportsAndLady
Your new link says "the economic downturn could have been a factor"lhslep134 wrote: Check my new link, it's from Rivals, now you can GTFO.
So what does that prove for you? Nothing. -
NNN
2009 and 2004 are not the same, just like an unbeaten Big Ten team in 2004 wouldn't be looked at the same as one in 1998.Red_Skin_Pride wrote: Sorry, but I will use 2004 Auburn because if that's 2009, there's no way an undefeated SEC team is not playing for a NC. How about Nebraska getting in the NC game when they lost 63-36 to colorado in the Big12 championship game? There were a number of people who didn't feel OSU belonged in the NC game in 2002 or 2007. The only year you can really argue they had the best case to be there was '06 when they went wire to wire #1. How bout LSU getting in in the same year, 2007 when one week before they were like #7 in the polls with 2 losses? Do you think OSU and LSU were the two best teams that year? I don't. Texas getting left out comes to mind from last year. And argue it all you want, Utah would have beat any team in the BCS the night they played Alabama, but they weren't popular enough and them and their 12-0 record got stuck in the sugar bowl with ZERO chance to win a NC, instead of being tossed in a playoff where they had a chance to EARN a NC. And under the current BCS system, that's all you need. It's about 1 game, but you have to win the popularity contest to get there. It's not just about who the best team may be. It's about who's ONE of the best teams that will bring in the most money and ratings, with the money and ratings taking precedence over the on the field football aspect of it, instead of playing to determine who can consistently beat the other "best" teams in the country which is that way basketball does it. You're right, Duke and Butler may have not been the best teams at the start of the tournament, but they were at the end, because both played better together as a team than any other teams in the tournament. Which is exactly why Kansas and Kentucky got beat.
I asked for the times that the best team was kept out, not the time that there was an argument over #2. Nebraska was there in 2001, but Miami was clearly the best team (and they got in). OSU was probably the best team in 2006 and 2007 and they got in.
You keep railing on this "popularity contest' strawman like it's something meaningful. If it is in fact a popularity contest, then explain two things:
1) Why computer polls are used (since a computer cannot comprehend popularity), and
2) How the NCAA basketball selection process, which relies on a committee of divergent opinions, isn't a popularity contest
See the two questions above.You can't look 3 teams with the same record who have played completely different competition in completely different conferences, with all the variables like injuries, suspensions, weather etc and say "you two are the best, you get in...but you, you're not good enough so you don't get in". Thats complete subjective CRAP. And that's what we have. A subjective system that rewards the most popular teams (i.e. the cash cows) and leaves teams out of ANY BCS game who have an 11-1 record while 2-3 loss teams get in over them because that's who "the bowl wants" because they bring in more money. It's about the integrity of the sport, and sadly all the people running the postseason of that sport have NONE of it. The BCS is barely more than a charade that likes to claim they crown a NC when they only thing they're really out to crown is their own bank accounts.
When Boise State plays something resembling a real schedule, they can get in. They play Virginia Tech and Oregon State this year? How does that compare to any of the BCS conference schools who play teams on the same level plus six more during a season? If you want to tell me that Boise State running the gauntlet that is the WAC comes close to the Big East, then there's simply no point in continuing this conversation.Oh, and BTW, how many years is Boise State going to have to go undefeated and win a BCS bowl game before they get a chance? Everyone says if they do it this year, playing VT and Oregon State, "this is there year", but I think we'll see the BCS coming up with more crap excuses this year as to why the don't get in even if they do go undefeated. Might as well take out that "C" and just call it the BS. -
lhslep134
I'll use hard facts to show attendance is decreasing.
http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3592:inside-the-numbers-final-2009-mlb-regular-season-attendance&catid=56:ticket-watch&Itemid=136With Major League Baseball feeling the full weight of the recession and decreasing seating capacity in two new ballparks, the 2009 regular season ended with 73,418,529 in total attendance a decline of 6.58 percent.
And if you feel like being proven wrong, here's a site with some links about how the NBA fudges their attendance numbers, so I would assume that those numbers are decreasing as well.
http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2008/12/looking-at-nbas-and-nets-history-of.html -
SportsAndLady
Lol oh man...ouch.NNN wrote:You keep railing on this "popularity contest' strawman like it's something meaningful. If it is in fact a popularity contest, then explain two things:
1) Why computer polls are used (since a computer cannot comprehend popularity), and
2) How the NCAA basketball selection process, which relies on a committee of divergent opinions, isn't a popularity contest
By the way, I have the first part in my debate notes...but I'll have to add that 2nd one lol -
lhslep134
It proves EVERYTHING. I'm saying that fans won't shell out big bucks BECAUSE of the economy. How does that NOT prove my point?SportsAndLady wrote:
So what does that prove for you? Nothing. -
lhslep134
BTW, S&L I'm loving this healthy debate, I know that sounds extremely homosexual but rarely can people actually get in a real debate on here.
-
SportsAndLady
I'm using opinion? Oh that's rich.lhslep134 wrote: While you and your ignorant brain wants to use OPINION, I'll use hard facts to show attendance is decreasing.
Your entire argument here is you "thinking" that fans of OSU won't be shelling out money to see 3 games in a playoff...and your reasoning behind that is...? YOUR OPINION...or it's because the NBA regular season (NBA, where the regular season is more devalued than any other regular season in pro sports) attendance numbers have decreased lol seriously man...GTFO. -
SportsAndLady
I disagree whole heartedly. I don't think a journalist for Rivals saying "the economy COULD be a factor" proves that OSU fans wouldn't shell out money to go see a playoff. Fans have been pushing for a playoff for years, and you're saying that if they got it, fans wouldn't go?lhslep134 wrote:
It proves EVERYTHING. I'm saying that fans won't shell out big bucks BECAUSE of the economy. How does that NOT prove my point?SportsAndLady wrote:
So what does that prove for you? Nothing. -
SportsAndLady
Agreed.lhslep134 wrote: BTW, S&L I'm loving this healthy debate, I know that sounds extremely homosexual but rarely can people actually get in a real debate on here. -
lhslep134
I changed my wording lol I realized it was contradictory.
I'm saying I can see fans pay for 2 playoff games at the most, only because the 2nd one would mean a national championship appearance.
Well technically under the system I feel strongly about fans would pay for 3 games, but the first would be in Columbus (hopefully) so ticket prices would probably be about the same as they are now and the same number of people would attend (106,000). And if OSU was a 5-8 seed, I would assume that OSU could sell out their portion of tickets, but that number would be so small because we'd be the away team. -
lhslep134
And in terms of relevance to your debate, here's the points I would use:
1. Talk about how asinine college football was before the BCS, with the #1 ranked team sometimes playing the #8 ranked team in a bowl game because of conference affiliations, and split national championships.
2. Revenue
3. Logistics of a playoff, depending on how and when it would be setup
4. If you're going to use a playoff, how are you going to rank teams 1-8, polls? If it's polls, it's not even that much of an upgrade because how do you know the #9 team isn't good enough to win it all, but lost a game or two due to injury. In fact, I'd say even if you kept the playoff system, you still use the BCS formula because it's the most objective way we have right now to rank the college teams. -
Zoltan1.) It preserves the bowl system which has been a fixture of college football for years and years
2.) It gets it right almost everytime, with Aurburn being the only school I can think of that had a real gripe
3.) It only requires travel of players family/fans to one destination.
4.) It creates controversy that keeps college football in the news, contributing to its success and growth -
NNN
#5 - A playoff would have to be 16 teams, with 11 conference champions and 5 at-large spots.
The smaller conferences have shown a willingness to litigate, so creating a system that puts their conference champions on a lesser level (via exclusion) compared to another one on the basis of what conference it's from is a sure-fire way to end up in court.
In the basketball tournament, the highest-ranked team that can expect to sweat out the selection is somewhere in the 40s. In football, it's entirely possible for top-8 teams to be left out (since I'd imagine that there'd be a cap of one at-large per conference). -
lhslep134
Not always true, although for the most part it is. In '04 Utah State was ranked and missed out because they lost in their conference tournament.NNN wrote: #5 - A playoff would have to be 16 teams, with 11 conference champions and 5 at-large spots.
The smaller conferences have shown a willingness to litigate, so creating a system that puts their conference champions on a lesser level (via exclusion) compared to another one on the basis of what conference it's from is a sure-fire way to end up in court.
In the basketball tournament, the highest-ranked team that can expect to sweat out the selection is somewhere in the 40s. In football, it's entirely possible for top-8 teams to be left out (since I'd imagine that there'd be a cap of one at-large per conference). -
thedynasty1998
I've stayed out of this conversation, but I completely agree. I've enjoyed reading your posts going back and forth and making arguments respectfully.SportsAndLady wrote:
Agreed.lhslep134 wrote: BTW, S&L I'm loving this healthy debate, I know that sounds extremely homosexual but rarely can people actually get in a real debate on here. -
BigAppleBuckeye
I haven't read through all the pages, but to me, it's simple: while the BCS system isn't perfect, it does in fact make the college football regular season the most exciting of any sport, with the most at stake week-in and week-out. Every Saturday to me feels like a playoff game.
While the NCAA hoops tourney is tremendous, it makes the regular season really mundane, knowing that my team can lose 10-12 games and still have a shot at the title. -
jordo212000
Counter-argument? It makes the postseason the least important of all other sports. If you don't get the nod to play in the championship, your game doesn't mean anything. Can you ever imagine Joe Maddon (TB Rays manager) quitting right before the opening round series in the playoffs to take a job with the Mets? I can't, it will never happen because managers/coaches/players have something to play for and aim at. Coaches leaving their teams right before a bowl game tells me everything I need to know about the system. Furthermore, what do the majority of these bowl games decide? Absolutely nothing. I guess you could argue it helps determine which 7-6 piece of crap team is better than the other, but that's about it.BigAppleBuckeye wrote: while the BCS system isn't perfect, it does in fact make the college football regular season the most exciting of any sport, with the most at stake week-in and week-out. Every Saturday to me feels like a playoff game. -
cats gone wildRed_Skin_Pride wrote:
Sorry, but I will use 2004 Auburn because if that's 2009, there's no way an undefeated SEC team is not playing for a NC. How about Nebraska getting in the NC game when they lost 63-36 to colorado in the Big12 championship game? There were a number of people who didn't feel OSU belonged in the NC game in 2002 or 2007. The only year you can really argue they had the best case to be there was '06 when they went wire to wire #1. How bout LSU getting in in the same year, 2007 when one week before they were like #7 in the polls with 2 losses? Do you think OSU and LSU were the two best teams that year? I don't.
Redskin. Do some research before you post nonsense. LSU was ranked #5 before conference championships. Missouri, WVU, OSU, and Georgia were in front of them. Missouri and WVU got beat while OSU was a automatic with them losing. LSU jumped Georgia because Georgia didnt play in the SEC title game, thus setting up OSU and LSU. The bigger crime was Oklahoma jumping from #9 to #3 after the conference championships. ihslep........I finally agree with a post from you.lhslep134 wrote:Red_Skin_Pride wrote:
2. LSU was the best team in the country that year. They had 2 losses but both were when they were injury depleted. When healthy, they beat a fellow BCS team, V Tech 48-7. They were CLEARLY the best team in the country when healthy. And you want to cry about them jumping from #7 to #2? Then what's your excuse for the teams ahead of them losing? If Oklahoma or WVU or USC wins their game, they're in instead of LSU. Can't blame LSU for everyone else losing, just like you can't blame Duke for everyone else losing (Syracuse, Kentucky, Kansas).
.