Just For Fun: If College Football had a playoff (and had a postseason like bball)

• WebFire

  krambman;730573 wrote: Look, I'm no economist, but I know that people have done extensive research on the financial viability of a D-1A playoff, and everyone comes back saying the same thing: a college football playoff won't make nearly as much money as the BCS and current bowl system does. You're entitled to your own opinion on the issue even if that opinion is wrong. You may think a playoff will make more money, but all the facts say otherwise.

  Can you cite some sources?
• Sykotyk

  

  The difference in money between a playoff and the bowl system isn't the issue. Studies have already been documented that, OVERALL, a playoff would produce more money. The problem with a playoff is the money is more evenly distributed amongst all teams, including the 'have-nots'. In a playoff, if the ACC rep loses in the first round, that ends their cash-flow. If TCU won two games, the MWC suddenly gets a lot more money, etc.
  
  In a bowl system, the BCS schools generally horde the money for themselves, win or lose. With ten BCS spots and six major BCS conferences, even if two slots go to non-BCS leagues, that still means the 'big dogs' are only fighting over which one gets the 18 million or so for the two remaining slots.
  
  Guaranteed Money, even a lower amount, beats a chance at more money.
  
  I believe it's the whole, "bird in hand is worth two in the bush" argument.
  
  If I offered you a deal, $8 million guaranteed, or you could opt instead for a chance to win anywhere between $1 and $16 million, which would you take?
  
  
  {edit}
  
  http://www.collegefootballcafeteria.com/bcs/mark-cuban-takes-another-step-toward-a-playoff/
  
  Mark Cuban is offering $100 million a year to be divided by all teams just for a commitment to participate in a playoff if chosen, and if not chosen can still play in a bowl game (and still collect that appearance fee). Meanwhile, he will still pay participants for playing in the playoff, and he feels he can make back more than enough to cover the $100 million, plus all other money.
  
  And considering that's more than all the money paid out by bowls combined, I'd say a playoff would make more money. But, the keyword is 'all', not just 'BCS'.
  
  Sykotyk
• stlouiedipalma

  Whatever the scenario, I have doubts that the Fiesta Bowl will be a part of it, given the scandal which is brewing in Tempe.
  
  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/03/29/fiesta-bowl-junker/index.html?xid=si_topstories
• krambman

  

  Sykotyk;729219 wrote:It's not a playoff. Otherwise teams that lose would stop playing.
  
  I really get sick of hearing that argument. Nowhere in a true playoff do two teams vying for a championship NOT play eachother, but must hope and pray that some 2-8 school plays world-beater and knocks out #1 or #2 to give their team a chance. In a true playoff, everybody has an opportunity to prove themselves.

  
  
  You’re right, people shouldn’t say that the regular season in college football is a playoff, but it is like a playoff in the sense that once a team has lost a game they are essentially out of contention for the national championship and their destiny has now been completely taken out of their hands. True, it is possible for a one loss team to make it into the title game and even a two loss team won the title once, but those occurrences are the exception, not the rule. It’s not a playoff, but it’s like a playoff because if a team loses once, they are likely out of contention, if they lose twice they are almost certainly out of contention.
• krambman

  

  trep14;730700 wrote:I don't really think this is even worth arguing. There is literally no way that you can say that the BCS as it is currently set up is a better indicator of the best team than a playoff. But there are already a ton of playoff vs BCS threads on this forum that you can find and I really don't want to rehash the same argument over and over again before Enigmaax and ytownfootball come in here and bring up the same points over and over again so I bring up the same points over and over again. So I'll leave it to rest.

  
  
  If you didn’t think that this was worth arguing then you shouldn’t have come on here and quoted me and said “Couldn’t disagree more.” If you’re going to say that then you should be prepared to explain why. We’re 25 posts into this thread and Enigmaax and ytownfootball haven’t yet commented. Even if they do, you don’t have to respond to them. The issue here is between you and me. I’ve not participated in those other BCS threads, so I don’t know what the argument is that continues to be rehashed by you three. Quite frankly it’s pretty weak that you would comment and then give excuses instead of defending your opinion when given the opportunity to do so. Unless you defend your opinion I’ll assume that you agree with me that the BCS gives us the best team more often than not.
• krambman

  

  WebFire;730703 wrote:

  krambman;730573 wrote:They could never cut the season back to 11 games. I'm just taking a guess here, but I assume that would cost the average school about $1 million a year and the bigger schools even more.

  
  Ummm, it hasn't been 12 game regular season for very long. They COULD easily go back to 11. Now, they may not WANT to, because, gasp, they may lose money.

  
  
  You’re correct that college football hasn’t been playing a 12 game schedule for very long. This past season was the eighth season with 12 regular season games (the 12 game schedule began in 2003). However, if they were to change back to an 11 game season it wouldn’t be able to happen for several years because of how far out the schedules are made. Sure, teams could cancel future games, but too many commitments have been made to do that. College football would likely be in breach of contract with the TV networks as well for not providing the number of games the networks were contracted for.
  
  Could they go back to an 11 game schedule? Yes. Would it be easy as you seem to think it would be? Not a chance. And it’s not that they may lose money, they would lose money. Every college football program in America would lose money if the schedule was shortened, which would not only hurt the football programs at all D-1A schools, but all varsity sports and in turn all of the universities themselves.
  
  Unless a playoff could make up for the loss of revenue of playing one less game a year for every single team in college football there’s no way that the season could be shortened by a game.
  

  WebFire;730703 wrote:

  krambman;730573 wrote: As far as a playoff and money goes how can you honest think that the college president's wouldn't do what would make them the most money? A college president's job simply is to increase enrollment, hire the best faculty and support staff, and increase revenue for the school. Since their primary job is to bring in money for the school they aren't going to continue doing something when there's another option out there that's better financially.

  
  So you are saying that they are at the absolute best solutions, financially, that they ever will be? Why was the bowl system born then? The BCS? Things evolve man. By your theory we wouldn't be playing bowl games because "I'm sure someone thought it through and if they could make more money they'd do it." But guess what, they could make money and they implemented it.
  
  Money should be part of the equation, not the entire equation.

  
  No, I am absolutely not saying that they have arrived at the best solution financially that there ever will be. What I’m saying is that at this point in time they are using the system that is the most financially beneficial. What they will continue to do is to reevaluate the current system (BCS and bowl) and look into different systems (playoff) to see which is the best financially. If a playoff becomes more financially beneficial for all involved at some point in the future then we’ll have a playoff. Until that point we’ll continue to have the BCS or some other system that makes even more money.
  
  You are right when you say that “Money should be part of the equation, not the entire equation.” This is absolutely true. And money isn’t the entire equation, but it is certainly the biggest factor. While fairness or “getting it right” perhaps should be the most important factor, the truth remains that money is the most important. Any argument for or against a playoff that doesn’t consider money as the primary factor becomes invalid, because you begin to talk in ideals and you begin to work in a hypothetical environment. If you want to make a valid argument then you need to make your argument based on the factors that actually exist (and their actual priority level for those that make the decisions) rather than making your argument based on the factors as you wish they were (and with the priority you wish they had).
• krambman

  

  WebFire;730708 wrote:Can you cite some sources?

  
  Yes, but I just wrote out about a billion responses and it’s late, so I’m not going to find them right now, but I will.
• krambman

  

  Sykotyk;730884 wrote:The difference in money between a playoff and the bowl system isn't the issue. Studies have already been documented that, OVERALL, a playoff would produce more money. The problem with a playoff is the money is more evenly distributed amongst all teams, including the 'have-nots'. In a playoff, if the ACC rep loses in the first round, that ends their cash-flow. If TCU won two games, the MWC suddenly gets a lot more money, etc.
  
  In a bowl system, the BCS schools generally horde the money for themselves, win or lose. With ten BCS spots and six major BCS conferences, even if two slots go to non-BCS leagues, that still means the 'big dogs' are only fighting over which one gets the 18 million or so for the two remaining slots.
  
  Guaranteed Money, even a lower amount, beats a chance at more money.
  
  I believe it's the whole, "bird in hand is worth two in the bush" argument.
  
  If I offered you a deal, $8 million guaranteed, or you could opt instead for a chance to win anywhere between $1 and $16 million, which would you take?

  
  
  I think you’re pretty much spot on right now. A playoff would need to generate more revenue for everyone involved, not just for some. Since the six BCS conference get a bigger chunk of the pie right now, they would still need a bigger chunk in a playoff.
  
  The BCS pays out $18 million for the six AQ conference champions and $4.5 million for each of the other four at-large spots. Basically each of the six AQ conferences gets $18 million and if they get a second team in the BCS they get an additional $4.5 million. Who if anyone makes a BCS bowl from a non-AQ conference really doesn’t matter, as the BCS gives a lump sum to all five non-AQ conference to divide however they want (though if any non-AQ schools participate in a BCS bowl that sum goes up). Last year the BCS paid these conferences nearly $25 million. They decided to distribute it by giving the MWC the biggest piece of the pie (because they qualified a school for a BCS bowl), the WAC got the second largest amount, and then CUSA, MAC, and Sun Belt split the rest. Also Notre Dame get’s $1.3 million and Army and Navy get $100,000 annually from the BCS and if they make a BCS bowl they get $4.5 million (this makes thing roughly equal to what they would get if Notre Dame were in an AQ conference and if Army and Navy were in non-AQ conferences).
  
  Somehow a playoff would need to guarantee equivalent revenue for the six current AQ conferences whether any of their schools make the playoffs or not, give additional revenue for those conferences that do put teams in the playoff, give additional revenue for schools that advance in the playoffs, and greatly increase the amount that the non-AQ conferences are paid annual. A playoff may provide more money overall than the BCS does, but it wouldn’t be nearly enough to make everyone, even the non-AQ schools, happy.
  

  Sykotyk;730884 wrote:{edit}
  
  http://www.collegefootballcafeteria.com/bcs/mark-cuban-takes-another-step-toward-a-playoff/
  
  Mark Cuban is offering $100 million a year to be divided by all teams just for a commitment to participate in a playoff if chosen, and if not chosen can still play in a bowl game (and still collect that appearance fee). Meanwhile, he will still pay participants for playing in the playoff, and he feels he can make back more than enough to cover the $100 million, plus all other money.
  
  And considering that's more than all the money paid out by bowls combined, I'd say a playoff would make more money. But, the keyword is 'all', not just 'BCS'.
  
  Sykotyk

  
  First we need to acknowledge that your source on this is a blog and that Cuban hasn’t put forth any formal plan, just some very vague ideas.
  
  Cuban said the idea would be to put $500 million in an account and pay out that money over five years which is where you got your $100 million a year number. This number is one that Cuban created out of thin air. He certainly isn’t going to commit that much of his own fortune to make a playoff happen. Right now he’s in the very early exploratory stages where he is gauging interests of possible investors to see how much money he could actually promise. He’s made no indication where this money would come from, or if it would be sustainable or growable over time. Also, there are 120 D-1A college football teams, so $100 million a year means that each school would get less than $1 million annually for making itself available for a playoff. That’s not a lot of money.
  
  I also don’t know where the author of that article got his information that the BCS only paid out $48 million to the AQ conferences or that they paid out only $75 million total last year. The BCS bowl payouts alone total $126 million. Overall between paying the AQ conferences, the non-AQ conferences, the independents, and their annual payout of nearly $2 million to D-1AA football, the BCS paid out over $150 million last year. Mark Cuban would need to come up with far more than $100 million annually for a playoff.
  
  Cuban has also indicated that he favors a 16 team playoff with all 11 conference champions automatically qualifying, and five other at-large teams being selected. As I’ve explained earlier, this can create logistical nightmares, up to 70,000 seat discrepancies between host schools, ticket sale issues, sponsorship problems, etc. An eight team playoff would be more feasible.
  
  Cubans plan could potentially bring in more money overall, but unless he’s giving out $500 million a year, then it’s not going to be enough for anyone to agree to it. Right now, his plan is years away from becoming a viable option.
• Classyposter58

  

  A plus one would be perfect IMO. Just alternate the bowl games every year. For instance the Rose and Fiesta would do the 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 matchups one year and the Orange and Sugar the next. Then 10 days later play the BCS National Championship game between the 2 winners. I mean this year it would've been Auburn v Stanford and Oregon v TCU. Tell me those wouldn't be terrific bowl games.
  
  Another way to do the bowl games is just to go back to traditional bids in the BCS Bowls and then after they've played we can just do another week of rankings and put the top 2 teams after each bowl game in the National Title
• stlouiedipalma

  I still find it hilarious that Division I football is the only NCAA sport without a playoff or tournament to decide its champion on the field of play. After seeing the article I posted about the Fiesta Bowl, it begins to make a little more sense.
• trep14

  krambman;730970 wrote:If you didn’t think that this was worth arguing then you shouldn’t have come on here and quoted me and said “Couldn’t disagree more.” If you’re going to say that then you should be prepared to explain why. We’re 25 posts into this thread and Enigmaax and ytownfootball haven’t yet commented. Even if they do, you don’t have to respond to them. The issue here is between you and me. I’ve not participated in those other BCS threads, so I don’t know what the argument is that continues to be rehashed by you three. Quite frankly it’s pretty weak that you would comment and then give excuses instead of defending your opinion when given the opportunity to do so. Unless you defend your opinion I’ll assume that you agree with me that the BCS gives us the best team more often than not.

  
  Ok. I'll bite. How can you argue that the BCS lends itself towards choosing the best team when it already eliminates so many other teams that have very few flaws in their resume from contention for the title? This past year Auburn didn't even have to play an undefeated TCU team that beat a Wisconsin team in the Rose Bowl that many thought was playing the best football at the end of the year. And sure, maybe in a playoff TCU and Auburn don't meet. But then we would know that TCU wasn't one of the best teams anyway. Or maybe *gasp* its Auburn that loses early and it turns out that they weren't the best team that we all thought they were anyway. You're saying that we know we're getting the best teams in the championship game when in reality, that is a huge assumption and stretch to assume that those "best teams" would be able to defeat a quality opponent or two to get there. So few teams in college football have common opponents that we would have no idea what would happen. And I don't put much stock in the whole "best team throughout the season" thing in college football. If you're as good as your season suggests, you should win the playoff.
• WebFire

  trep14;731066 wrote:Ok. I'll bite. How can you argue that the BCS lends itself towards choosing the best team better than a playoff does when it already eliminates so many other teams that have very few flaws in their resume from contention for the title? This past year Auburn didn't even have to play an undefeated TCU team that beat a Wisconsin team in the Rose Bowl that many thought was playing the best football at the end of the year. And sure, maybe in a playoff TCU and Auburn don't meet. But then we would know that TCU wasn't one of the best teams anyway. Or maybe *gasp* its Auburn that loses early and it turns out that they weren't the best team that we all thought they were anyway. You're saying that we know we're getting the best teams in the championship game when in reality, that is a huge assumption and stretch to assume that those "best teams" would be able to defeat a quality opponent or two to get there. So few teams in college football have common opponents that we would have no idea what would happen. And I don't put much stock in the whole "best team throughout the season" thing in college football. If you're as good as your season suggests, you should win the playoff.

  
  And "throughtout" the season includes the end as well.
• trep14

  WebFire;731098 wrote:And "throughtout" the season includes the end as well.

  
  Yup.
• bogey

  I've always liked an 8 team format. You're always gonna have the argument over someone getting left out, but I would much prefer to argue over an 8 or 9 team as opposed to a 3 or 4 team as we do now. One major problem I have with the current format is scheduling. I'm okay with powerhouses playing one opening game against a patsy, but the current system encourages multiple games with overmatched matched opponents in order to maintain eligibility for a National Championship. As stated above, I don't agree with the whole "best team throughout the season" idea either because the bottom line is, it comes down to when you lose.....lose early to a mediocre team and you have time to right the ship, lose late to a good team and watch your team fall below that team that lost early. Just doesn't make sense to me.