Mock BCS standings per ESPN

• WebFire

  Why, because I didn't spend 2 hours at work explaining it to you?
• like_that

  

  enigmaax;527264 wrote:So, let's see the business plan. I know, from the other thread, that you don't really think things through.

  
  Not a business major, so I can't prove it will be more or the same amount of money, but its hard to believe it will be anything less than the current system if they use a playoff. This is how I would do it.
  
  -12 team playoff like the NFL.
  -Use the top 12 teams in the BCS rankings to make the playoff. The 13th team will bitch, but chances are the 13th team would not be good enough to win it all. It's still better than rejecting 10 teams the chance to play in meaningful games.
  -The teams that don't qualify for the playoffs are eligible for the non BCS bowl games
  -Losers in the first round of the playoffs play each other in a BCS bowl game
  -Losers in the 2nd round of the playoffs (rd of 8) play each other in a BCS bowl game
  -Losers in the semifinals play each other in a BCS bowl game
  -And of course the BCS championship game is played.
  
  You have the ratings of both the bowl games and the playoffs. I don't see how they wouldn't make more money from it. You could do this, or everyone can remain to wait from late November until January to watch a meaningful bowl game.
• WebFire

  Here is my take:
  
  - 8 teams in the "BCS" playoff
  - BCS bowls would be expanded to 7 to account for all playoff games
  - Top 3 BCS bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Orange or come up with your own) would rotate amongst the NCG and the semi-finals
  - Remaining BCS bowls fill in the playoff schedule, so each bowl still remains
  - Other non-BCS bowls are filled in as usual
  
  The only think I haven't thought through is how BCS revenue would be split amongst the teams since all but 4 will play more than 1 game.
  
  Thoughts enigmaax?
• enigmaax

  I'm not a business major either and all of those plans are nice for fans, but they don't address any impact on dollars whatsoever. Do you even know how much money the bowls bring in? Saying, "I can't see how this wouldn't make as much money" is not going to get anyone who is on the hook for making the money to buy into your system.
  
  Here's my first instinct to counter why there's a risk of not making as much money.
  
  If you use the current BCS bowls as playoff/title games, you're killing their identity. First of all, the Fiesta Bowl markets a Fiesta Bowl experience to fans. Secondly, Tostitos (or whoever the hell) sponsors a distinct marketable product. While a national semifinal would draw some interest just for what it is, the marketing potential is drastically reduced. Is Tostitos going to pay the same for the Tostitos National Semifinal when Fedex is also going to have the Fedex National Semifinal?
  
  Next, the teams collect paychecks for their participation (and probably share that with their conferences). The operating costs are all on the bowl committees. So, the teams know what they are getting and will likely get that whether the bowl generates revenue for itself or not. If the NCAA instituted a playoff, there's not a great way around taking on some of the costs. They'd then be assuming a risk that they don't have now and there'd certainly be a potential there for losses that would directly affect the teams.
  
  Then you have the fact that a lot of fans make bowls a week long vacation. Will those fans shift from doing the entire experience to just making the weekend trips (now you may be costing event locations - again, losing support dollars) or will they just pick one week to go and take their chances? For a team like OSU, maybe thats not an issue...they could probably find enough fans to fill in each week. But what if Boise State runs through the playoffs? Are they going to generate the fan interest and travel dollars all three or four weeks?
  
  And finally, and perhaps this is the weakest but I'll stand by it. Even though there are so many and some lose money themselves, they exist because they each have a unique place in a unique system. When that system isn't the focus, the lower-tier bowls become even less viable. Less viability means less bowls, which means less schools/athletes experiencing the "reward". People will say there's too many bowls already and they're watered down and they should get rid of some anyway, which is fine is you don't have a stake in it. But again, you're taking away something from someone else and that someone else may feel a bit differently about losing it.
• WebFire

  My first reaction though, is that we've (well they've) built a money machine that we now have to live with so that someone can make their money. And that I think is wrong. College football fans don't give a hoot whether Tostitos makes 4 million or 5 million from a bowl game.
  
  Now, I know your argument will be about the financials supporting the bowls and/or playoffs, and that's legit. But there has to be a way. I don't think you give up on the idea just because money has taken over the sport.
  

  If you use the current BCS bowls as playoff/title games, you're killing their identity. First of all, the Fiesta Bowl markets a Fiesta Bowl experience to fans. Secondly, Tostitos (or whoever the hell) sponsors a distinct marketable product. While a national semifinal would draw some interest just for what it is, the marketing potential is drastically reduced. Is Tostitos going to pay the same for the Tostitos National Semifinal when Fedex is also going to have the Fedex National Semifinal?

  But doesn't each bowl become less marketable as you move down the ranking anyway? Do you think Tostitos is just as happy sponsoring the Motor City Bowl as the Orange bowl? Is the #12 vs. #18 bowl game as good as #1 vs. #2 now? I think the importance of every game in a playoff exceeds every bowl that exists now outside of the NCG. The way it is now, there is only really 1 bowl that matters. Plus, in a playoff bowl system, the games aren't competing against other bowls and tv time. They would only air 1 playoff game at a time.
  

  Then you have the fact that a lot of fans make bowls a week long vacation. Will those fans shift from doing the entire experience to just making the weekend trips (now you may be costing event locations - again, losing support dollars) or will they just pick one week to go and take their chances? For a team like OSU, maybe thats not an issue...they could probably find enough fans to fill in each week. But what if Boise State runs through the playoffs? Are they going to generate the fan interest and travel dollars all three or four weeks?

  This I think is the major setback. Say OSU is 12-0 and makes it to the NCG. The fans have now had to buy tickets and travel to 3 games across the country if they want to follow their team. I don't have the answer to this, but haven't put too much thought into it yet. For some reason, I have a feeling they wouldn't have any trouble selling out the games, but of course that is purely speculation.
• enigmaax

  WebFire;527670 wrote:My first reaction though, is that we've (well they've) built a money machine that we now have to live with so that someone can make their money. And that I think is wrong. College football fans don't give a hoot whether Tostitos makes 4 million or 5 million from a bowl game.
  
  Now, I know your argument will be about the financials supporting the bowls and/or playoffs, and that's legit. But there has to be a way. I don't think you give up on the idea just because money has taken over the sport.

  I guess we just differ on money's involvement. Money drives my own decisions. Sport is never just for the sports sake because nothing you do in this world can really escape money. It is a driving factor because it has to be and I just don't see that as any kind of injustice or knock on the integrity of the sport.
  
  
  

  WebFire;527670 wrote:But doesn't each bowl become less marketable as you move down the ranking anyway? Do you think Tostitos is just as happy sponsoring the Motor City Bowl as the Orange bowl? Is the #12 vs. #18 bowl game as good as #1 vs. #2 now? I think the importance of every game in a playoff exceeds every bowl that exists now outside of the NCG. The way it is now, there is only really 1 bowl that matters. Plus, in a playoff bowl system, the games aren't competing against other bowls and tv time. They would only air 1 playoff game at a time.

  Sure the lesser bowls are less marketable, but they're surviving. I don't think that'd happen with a shift in the system. Plus, remember that even with an 8-team playoff you're asking those 8 teams to fill the number of games that would normally be filled by 14 teams (7 games). We've mentioned the fact that those teams are traveling multiple weeks that way, but didn't specifically note that that also takes up six other spots on the "bowl chain". Doubt you're going to add any more games at the bottom to lose that (again, I know that isn't a bad thing to us).
  
  
  

  WebFire;527670 wrote:This I think is the major setback. Say OSU is 12-0 and makes it to the NCG. The fans have now had to buy tickets and travel to 3 games across the country if they want to follow their team. I don't have the answer to this, but haven't put too much thought into it yet. For some reason, I have a feeling they wouldn't have any trouble selling out the games, but of course that is purely speculation.

  Some schools would do fine. But you can't control who makes it that far and some schools wouldn't be able to carry it out. (Maybe...the NCAA championship does fine, so who knows. Its a risk, but...)
• krambman

  

  Let's make no mistake about it, college football is about one thing: making money. We can make all of the uninformed assumptions we want about whether a playoff system or the current bowl system would make the most money for the most people involved. The truth is though, that the people who make the decisions about a college football postseason and who are most directly affected by it (college presidents) have actually done the research to determine the system that will make everyone the most money. If a playoff would make more money, we'd already have one. It's obvious that it wouldn't, which is why we have the BCS.
• enigmaax

  krambman;527763 wrote: If a playoff would make more money, we'd already have one. It's obvious that it wouldn't, which is why we have the BCS.

  
  Yes. Which is why no one can ever really answer with a business plan that addresses that part (not just us schmucks, but even the presidents/coaches who want a playoff).
• WebFire

  That's the sad part about it though. We settle for something less than most want because the presidents want to maximize their dollars.