OT: Mark Cuban Exploring BCS Alternative

Submitted by jhackney on

Not sure if this popped up in a thread somewhere. If it did, mods may fire at will.

Dallas Maverick's owner is sacrificing his dreams of owning a baseball team to invest his time and money into transforming college football from BCS to a playoff system.

Cuban said he has talked to two athletic directors from BCS conferences who were extremely enthusiastic about the idea. He intends to contact several school presidents and state senators in the coming weeks to determine whether the idea is worth pursuing.

Cuban said he envisions either a 12- or 16-team playoff field with the higher seeds getting homefield advantage. The homefield advantage, Cuban said, would ensure the college football regular-season games would not lose any importance.

What about bowls you ask?

The bowl games could still exist under Cuban's plan, but he said he would make it more profitable for programs to make the playoffs than a bowl.

He seems pretty cutthroat about how it is implemented and I wonder if the NCAA has some rule against any of his ideas. His first idea almost sounds like a bribe. I do however like his second idea. He goes right to the source of a lot of money and will light a fire under the scrotum of programs that have pro-playoff donors.

"Put $500 million in the bank and go to all the schools and pay them money as an option," Cuban said. "Say, 'Look, I'm going to give you X amount every five years. In exchange, you say if you're picked for the playoff system, you'll go.' "

One way to push school presidents toward approving the idea would be to lobby major donors of college athletic programs, Cuban said. He suggested convincing the donors to cut off their donations until their presidents approved a playoff system.

What is your E-pinion? Discuss.

Link to the article.

mGrowOld

December 15th, 2010 at 10:39 PM ^

I love this idea.  Does Mark Cuban have any interest in owning an NFL franchise by any chance?  Perhaps one with a snazzy Honolulu Blue and Silver color scheme?

Frank Drebin

December 16th, 2010 at 8:50 AM ^

This is not entirely true. The NFL rule says that you cannot own franchises in other cities that also have an NFL franchise. For example, when Stan Kronke bought the Rams, he had to give up majority stake in the Nuggets and Avalance to his kids in order to comply. However, Paul Allen owns both the Seahawks and Trail Blazers, and because there is no NFL team in Portland, this is not a problem. It also wouldn't be a problem if all teams were located in the same city, ie Illitch buying all Detroit teams.

maizenbluedevil

December 16th, 2010 at 10:02 AM ^

No thanks.

For all his micromanaging and hands-on involvement, where did it ever get the Mavericks?  All they've been this decade is a poor-man's Pistons.  They made the conference finals once or twice, never really achieved anything great.

He can stay in Dallas and, more importantly, stay out of college football.

iawolve

December 16th, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^

Our lockers were next to each other at the gym so I talked to him informally as well. I will tell you this, the guy is very smart and very dedicated to the cause. He is not burdened by what other people think you should or should not do. However, he can be a bull in a china shop and can be very off-putting to many people. It is just his nature, but I don't think he is malicious in his intent. With all that being said, they guy jumped out to drive HD content, took a lead in creating fan involvement with a sports franchise and has the cycles to devote to finding new ways of doing things. My only concern would that if you are on the other side of his opinion, you might not like the outcome since he will push it hard.

MGoCards

December 16th, 2010 at 12:35 PM ^

No, no you're not serious. The Mavs have been a competitive team in a difficult Western Conference since he bought the team. The team didn't make the playoffs once from 1991-1999. He bought the team in 2000 and they've been a playoff team ever since. In the 20 seasons prior to his purchase of the team, they had 40% regular season record. In the next ten years, they had a 69% regular season record. 

He turned a dismal team with virtually no history worth remembering into a team with serious cachet, and serious players, and a serious presence during one of the most talent-heavy eras of the league. How the hell have they been a "poor man's Pistons"? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever! Wow!

mGrowOld

December 15th, 2010 at 10:52 PM ^

I agree.  It would be absolutely horrible to have an owner of one of our professional sports teams be so impassioned about winning he's willing to pour hundreds of millions of his own money into getting the best players and facilities he can buy.  And to have that owner attend every game and even go to the extent of tracking referee performance because he wanted his team to win so badly would be unbearable. I would HATE having somebody like that around.

I prefer an owner who stays firmly and quietly out of the limelight and hires a novice GM with....oh i dunno....lets say broadcasting experience..... to make all the important decisions for the franchise.  And no matter how horrible the results are I want that owner to stick by the GM and not fire him as the franchise is run into the ground and becomes the laughingstock of the entire NFL. 

Yeah...Cuban would SUCK if he owned the Lions.

Vasav

December 15th, 2010 at 10:56 PM ^

I want a playoff, but a 16 team playoff would include 9-3 Alabama and a Va Tech team that lost to James Madison - they may even be in the 12 team version. Ergo the regular season matters WAY less. Also the championship teams would play four extra games, that's a minimum of 16 game season, probably 17, and could be as many as 18 for teams that play @Hawai'i. His playoff sucks. No more than 8 teams, I'd prefer 6.

NardDogg

December 16th, 2010 at 9:40 AM ^

Adding that many games shouldn't be done. Look at the argument the NFLPA is using to defend their season length.
<br>
<br>I agree that the bowl games will always have to be, but a 6 team or 4 team playoff seems the most reasonable.

Vasav

December 16th, 2010 at 9:24 PM ^

They're in the BCS because the ACC has an automatic berth to the Orange Bowl, which is 1/10, or ten percent of the slots in the BCS. Depending on how a playoff works, winning an AQ conference may not be enough to make the playoffs.

Also, VT has recovered beautifully after that loss. I think the way they've played has been inspiring and I hope they shock Stanford in the Orange Bowl. But I still think that their OOC losses, both the fact that there are two of them AND the fact that one of them came to a 1AA team, should disqualify them from the title "National Champion."

MCalibur

December 16th, 2010 at 1:00 AM ^

Let's say, hypothetically, that a 4-loss team actually finds itself seeded in Cuban's playoff. They'd have to go through four 1-loss or 0-loss teams on, call it, 6 weeks notice (1st week in Dec. through 2nd week in Jan.) after playing through an entire season (injuries and such) in order to claim the title. That's a champion, holmes.

Not to mention that your premise is a little ridiculous. Look at current BCS standings, the worst record in the top-16 belongs to Alabama at 9 - 3. If 'Bama made it through a 4-round playoff as a 16 seed, I'd go ahead and crown 'em. No questions asked.

A play-off just makes sense...not that anyone is actually interested in that.

Anonymosity

December 16th, 2010 at 9:25 AM ^

If the 16 teams are the top 16 by the rankings, then:

  • Number of 3-loss teams currently in the top 16: 1 (Alabama or Nebraska, depending on the poll)
  • Number of 4-loss teams currently in the top 16: 0

I wonder how many 4-loss teams have been top 16 at the end of the regular season in the last fifty years?  Zero?  Maybe one or two?

If the 16 teams are the 11 conference champs plus five at large, I think a legitimate case could be made that if you take care of business in your conference, then you deserve a shot at the national championship, regardless of record.  The at-large teams would all be one- or two-loss teams.

mark5750

December 15th, 2010 at 11:17 PM ^

If we had an eight team playoff it would take seven games to get to a champion.  How about if we use some of the current bowls as the playoffs.  NC game is still the NC game.  The Rose and Orange are the Semi-Finals.  The quarterfinals could be the Sugar, Fiesta and just as an idea adding in the Cotton and maybe the Florida Citrus (I think it may have a gay corporate name now) as the other two. It still maintains the bowls...all the others remain.  the other benifit would be that it would further limit the number of bowls that teams can go to making it a little harder and more prestigous to get to maybe to the point of requiring a 7-5 record to be eligable.

GoBlueInNYC

December 16th, 2010 at 12:09 AM ^

Pfft, -5 isn't so bad.

Personally, I don't think using the bowls for a playoff is "delusionally stupid," to borrow a phrase (though I'm not sure "delusionally" is a word). It has its downsides for sure, but we've all seen much more stupid things come down from the higher ups (e.g., the B10 rebranding). I don't think it would be a disaster, nor do I think it's that remote of a possibility.

I'd definitely like to see the bowls retained, most likely in the form of a post-season game for teams who didn't make the playoffs. But definitely retained in some form.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

December 16th, 2010 at 12:22 AM ^

The new Big Ten logo is hideous and still not as dumb an idea as "using the bowls."  The bowls don't generally attract a local crowd, at least, not one large enough to fill the stadium.  They depend on traveling fans.  You're telling me you think Oregon fans would travel from Dallas to Phoenix to Miami to Pasadena every week to support their team?  In the middle of the holiday season when people are saving up vacation time and money?  They'll travel once.  Period.  If you need any proof, check out what happens when Boston College goes to an ACCCG in Florida.  Check out the empty seats in arenas that host the first rounds of the basketball tournament - and those are 15,000 seat stadiums, not 70,000.

The bowls will not agree to enter a contract to host a game that they can't sell tickets to when the TV money all goes to the NCAA or whatever cockamamie organization Cuban sets up or whatever.  And the NCAA will not put on a playoff that they don't get TV money for.  The bowls will shut down first.  Actually, first they'll sue like the NIT did and force the NCAA to buy them out for millions apiece the way the NIT did.  So yes, "using the bowls" is delusional.  It's beyond delusional.  Of all possible playoff scenarios it is the absolute least likely.

MrWoodson

December 16th, 2010 at 1:26 AM ^

Not sure about anyone else, but I negged you for the gay comment. I have gay friends who are very cool and I would rather see this board kept free of gratuitous bashing of gays or anyone else (Buckeyes, Spartans and Leprechauns excepted, of course). It's also a bit lazy and tired to call something gay just to get a quick chuckle. Try coming up with something more original.

mark5750

December 16th, 2010 at 2:03 AM ^

Wasn't trying to do any gay bashing, I guess just a poor choice of words.  I wish I would of went to bed early tonight instead losing a third of my points on one bad post.  I can't wait until tomorrow when everybody that hasn't got to it yet negs away the rest of my points.  Too bad I can't just hit delete.  Oh well I guess I have to own it.

cbuswolverine

December 16th, 2010 at 9:45 AM ^

Make it a 16-team playoff with the first round games as home games for the 1-8 seeds.  Then use the bowls for the final eight.  That's how I would like it if it included bowls. 

I say fuck the bowls, though.  Make the first two rounds home games for the higher seeds and then have a final four that is played in a different location each year.