OT: Mark Cuban Exploring BCS Alternative
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.
December 15th, 2010 at 11:26 PM ^
The difference between our ideas and his is that he has $500 million to put in a bank.
December 16th, 2010 at 12:17 AM ^
But just because he is worth a couple billion does not mean he has $500 million to throw at a windmill idea. At heart, Cuban is a businessman (whether he is a good one or not, I will leave to others to argue about). He failed in his efforts to buy the Cubs. He failed in his efforts to buy the Rangers. He has failed, thus far, in his stated goal of making the Mavericks champs of the NBA. Cuban talks a lot, be even he is not stupid enough to throw large amounts of his money into non-economically viable business ventures.
No one has a greater economic interest in a playoff than ESPN and ESPN has far greater access to "capital" (Cuban's word, not mine) than Mark Cuban does. If there was a simple business model with a 12 or 16 team playoff that is both fairer to all 120 FBS schools than the BCS and more beneficial to the major football schools, ESPN would have been able to convince those schools to move to a playoff by now. Over time, additional "tweaks" to the current system will be made that will move us closer to a playoff, but those changes will largely need to preserve the entrenched interests of the major football schools.
As for blackmailing the major football schools into accepting something they do not want, I wish Cuban good luck. The top 10 programs alone bring in over a billion dollars per year. It would be a fool's errand to pour $500 million into a project that effectively is a plan to bribe and/or bully the major football schools into doing something that is not in their own best interests when those schools generate more than twice that amount of money every year under the current system.
December 16th, 2010 at 1:40 AM ^
The BCS actually works out quite well for ESPN. First of all, even when ESPN didn't control the BCS rights, they still held the rights to a bunch of reasonably interesting bowl games. And they now hold the rights to the BCS games for the next several years. This is a very good position for ESPN, because when they make a fair amount of money off the bowl system whether they own the rights to the BCS games or not and they'll make even more than usual for the next several years.
A playoff, on the other hand, will thoroughly eclipse the bowl system and make the surviving bowl games (if there even are any) much less valuable from a television perspective. This is a big issue for ESPN because it means that a) they'll make less money in years where they don't own the rights to the playoff and b) they'll have to pay a lot more money to get the rights to a playoff. A playoff system could make a ton of money for the schools/conferences involved, but it will bring a lot of risks to ESPN. Thus, it makes little sense for ESPN to attempt to get the FBS subdivision to form a playoff.
December 16th, 2010 at 4:27 AM ^
This is a big issue for ESPN because it means that a) they'll make less money in years where they don't own the rights to the playoff and b) they'll have to pay a lot more money to get the rights to a playoff.
I used ESPN as a shorthand for all TV networks as a group. My point has nothing to do with which network owns the rights. Given that ESPN/ABC/FOX/CBS/NBC each have greater access to "capital" than Mark Cuban, this has never been a question of insufficient capital. Rather, it is a question of convincing the major football schools that some sort of a playoff is in their best interests.
December 16th, 2010 at 9:11 PM ^
Consolidating into a playoff creates a winner-take-all situation for the postseason, as opposed to the current system where there are a multitude of bowls to bid on. This would entail risks for all the networks, as they would have to fight each other for one grand prize. Thus, a playoff could easily backfire on any of them and its doubtful that they'd want to spend their capital to create a situation that could blow up in their faces.
December 16th, 2010 at 9:57 AM ^
The 500 million is just a number he threw out there. It's not somehow now a requirement that somebody come up with 500 million or a playoff won't work. He mentioned multiple angles to attack this thing from.
Even if 500 million were a requirement to make this happen, Mark Cuban is most definitely not the only guy in America with money who wants to see a college football playoff. If/when a playoff happens, somebody is going to turn a profit. If a group of investors does have to scrape together 500 million to get this rolling, I imagine they will come out okay in the end.
December 16th, 2010 at 10:17 AM ^
As for blackmailing the major football schools into accepting something they do not want, I wish Cuban good luck. The top 10 programs alone bring in over a billion dollars per year. It would be a fool's errand to pour $500 million into a project that effectively is a plan to bribe and/or bully the major football schools into doing something that is not in their own best interests when those schools generate more than twice that amount of money every year under the current system.
How much revenue they generate is irrelevant. Let's talk about profit.
A recent NCAA report stated that only 14 of the 120 athletic programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision made money. The Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) includes all BCS conferences (PAC 10, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, etc) so odds are your favorite athletic program is losing money.
December 16th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^
Let's talk about profit.
Yes, let's.
The 14 schools who made a profit are the major schools Mark Cuban needs to make his plan work. Last year, UM and PSU each made $25-26 million "profit". OSU's was a little over $18 million. Texas and Alabama were the highest with nearly $30 million and $44 million respectively. You can find all the numbers here:
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/index.aspx
The bottom line is no one cares what Boise State or Louisville or Virginia or any of the other non-major football schools think or whether they make a "profit" or not. And you can come up with all the "better" ideas you want, but unless schools like Texas, Oklahoma, OSU, UM, Alabama and Florida play ball (no pun intended), your ideas are worthless. A playoff system that does not include most (if not all) of the major football schools would be a joke. In fact, we already have something similar today -- it is called the FCS.
December 15th, 2010 at 11:28 PM ^
I am in the minority I know. I don't want a playoff. Trading 100+ years of tradition and the uniqueness of the bowl system for something that has major problems itself is troublesome to me. And please stop with "we can use the bowls for playoff sites" garbage. If we scrap the current system for a brand new one, why would any Big 10 or Big East or Northern ACC Athletic director ever agree to play far away from home every single late round playoff game including the National Title game. That seems like a great plan if your a southern/Texas/California School, but for those of us in the North I can promise that if DB signed us up for that system I would be pissed because playing sec schools, Texas, USC... is hard enough without constantly having to play them in their own back yards. The only plan that I would be happy with is adding the Cotton Bowl to the BCS lineup and playing all 5 BCS games on Jan 1, then having a vote or a committee chose two of those schools to play in a national title game that would rotate around the country a week later (preferably rotating 2 northern sites to every one south/west location to make up for the bowls being played in the South/west) Preserving Bowl tradition and restoring Jan 1 while still having some form of +1.
December 15th, 2010 at 11:39 PM ^
I agree with you on the majority of your points. However, a playoff system will eventually happen. Being a big fan of the bowls I would rather preserve them in some version that is still meaningful than lose them forever. Or even worse lets say that some version of the Cuban playoff happens and we have a 4th place Big Ten team playing a 3rd place PAC 12 team. I would rather have no Rose Bowl than a completely mediocre and watered down version.
December 15th, 2010 at 11:55 PM ^
I would rather have no Rose Bowl than a completely mediocre and watered down version.
Under a playoff, especially one like Cuban's, you'll be forced to choose between one or the other.
December 16th, 2010 at 9:16 AM ^
No playoff. The bowl system is great, and was better before all of this BCS nonsense.
My solution: play all the bowl games the way we used to before the BCS, and have a final game on Jan. 8 between the #1 and #2 teams after the bowl games are finished. I guess that is what they call the "plus-one" system but it eliminates the whining from the TCUs of the world. They can play in whatever bowl game they want; if they finish the bowl season in the top two, they're in the championship game.
December 15th, 2010 at 11:47 PM ^
It's an awesome idea, even though Cuban is a nozzle. It's obviously the right way to go. A 16-team field would keep all the good teams playing like wild dogs till theist snap. And, sure, a few teams play a couple more games than they normally would. Something tells me they won't mind. Would you mind if M did so in order to reach the Final Four? Didn't think so.
<br>
<br>And I find the old "the regular season" won't mean as much" trope absurd. Football isn't hockey. They only play 13-odd games a year. And they'd all be playing either to win a playoff spot or to keep a rival from doing so. College football is built on rivalries. You think Michigan-OSU would matter any less to M if it weren't eligible for the sweet sixteen that year?
<br>
<br>The country would rather watch, in December, a bunch of hugr games among top teams than 20 Pizza Bowls featuring Kansas Tech. It would be insane.
<br>Until this decade, there were only about 20 bowls total. The country doesn't give a shit about most bowl games. The Gator Bowl will not be a ratings hit. The post-season ought to be for the best teams. (Not every team that beats just enough cupcakes.) That's how it works in every other sport.
<br>
<br>An 8-team system would be too restrictive. Play 16. Get rid of the bowls. Good riddance.
<br>
December 16th, 2010 at 12:24 AM ^
How about Michigan and OSU resting their starters in the '06 game because they were resting for the playoff push and knew that neither would fall out of the top 16 with a loss? Not quite the "Game of the Century" is it?
December 16th, 2010 at 1:02 AM ^
Resting for a playoff push when that means losing home field or seeding advantages? Wouldn't bet on it.
December 16th, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^
There would be no home field, these games would have to be played at neutral sites. There is no way that Boise fans are travelling to Auburn one week, Michigan the next, USC the next, etc. Top college teams are so spread out that it would have to be NCAA basketball tournament style. As far as seeding goes...who cares? The NCAA tournament shows on a yearly basis how worthless it is, and a one-loss team isn't dropping very far in the seeding anyway when you're sure to have multiple 2 and 3-loss teams getting into the playoffs. Ask the '07 New York Giants how much "seeding" means.
December 15th, 2010 at 11:55 PM ^
December 16th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^
If you have tweleve teams, seeds #1-#4 have a bye, seeds #5-#8 play home games against the corresponding #9-12 teams. The next week (or two weeks later), the #1-#4 play their home game against the winners of the early game.
After that, you have a "Final Four" which are at neutral sites in early January - those can either be the bowls or not.
I used to love the bowls, but since they are basically corrupt non-profits (e.g., paying their commissioners high six figure salaries for doing basically nothing; charging participating schools so much most lose money on their bowl game) who have thrown their tradition out the window (e.g., I'm fine with TCU being in a big game; I'm not fine with TCU being in the Rose Bowl), I could really care less what happens to them. They can go take their powder blue and bright orange blazers and go find another group to scam.
December 16th, 2010 at 12:31 AM ^
I'm totally willing to admit that there are flaws to any system, but I don't really get why there needs to be anything more than a plus 1 system. Usually, the debate about which team is the best is restricted to the top 4. Why have a 16 team playoff where you would get some of the same crap that happens in basketball (I think MM is tonnes of fun, but it does a pretty bad job of actually crowing the deserving national champion)?
That said, I hate the closed nature and overall sliminess of the BCS. I wish someone would blow up it up by giving the Cotton Bowl tonnes of money to spend as they wished on luring teams. As far as I understand the BCS and NCAA would not be able to do anything about it. Teams do not have to accept invitations, right?
"Sure, Auburn and Oregon, you could play in the BCS game, or you could come to Texas and get double the money for you and your conference."
December 16th, 2010 at 12:39 AM ^
The bowls' contracts are with the conferences, not the teams, so the Cotton Bowl wouldn't be able to get in a fight with the Fiesta Bowl over the Big 12 champion, and the Big 12 champion couldn't just decide to go to a different bowl.
December 16th, 2010 at 5:59 AM ^
Yeah, you are correct. Although, can I pretend in my fantasy world* that crazy money would convince conferences to do this?
*My fantasy worlds revolve around concrete logic. I have very sad fantasies.
December 16th, 2010 at 1:53 AM ^
Really? How many undeserving champions make it through a field of 64 teams to win the championship? I can't remember too many teams who ran that gauntlet and have no claim to be the best team in the nation.
I think it's a much better achievement to win a national championship in basketball because all teams that enter a playoff have a chance to be champions by simply winning games. They don't need style points, they don't need to play in the most hyped division, etc.Championship worthy teams win when the pressure is on and teams that lose their head-to-head games have no excuses. A champion should be settled on the field rather than polls. It's a joke that there is a possibility of having TCU throttle Wisconsin in a bowl game and still having no chance to earn a national title. The system now is a joke.
16 teams is the way to go because of the way the current divisional alignment is set up. If only the top conferences are getting in the playoffs then what is the point of having conferences like the Sun Belt or MAC conferences in Division 1. In basketball and pretty much every other college sport, every team has a chance to win their national title at the beginning of the year. If you do a plus one system or 8 team playoff, you produce a situation where there is heavy dependence upon the conference you are in deciding whether or not you reach a championship game. It's anti competitive. 16 team playoffs that add conference champions allow all conferences to have the chance to win their national championship. I love college football but it's about time powerful people like Mark Cuban get together to change the anti competitive situation Division 1 football is creating.
December 16th, 2010 at 6:04 AM ^
Well, Villanova in 1985 was not a legite champion. I could argue about a few others, but what I also mean is that a lot of teams, if we concede that the regualr season matters, don't really belong in the final four?
December 16th, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^
Absolutely, I've been a huge fan of plus-one for years. No national title controversy has ever involved more than 4 teams anyway.
December 16th, 2010 at 12:53 AM ^
I love the part about the highest ranked teams getting home-field advantage. Even if it is only for the (hypothetical) first round... I would love to see a playoff whereby the teams who have always so graciously turned off our hot water... I mean... "hosted" us in bowl games were forced to play a game or two in the cold. Something seems much more traditional about football played in a light dusting of snow as opposed to 32(+) games played under palm trees.
I would also suspect that the B1G would fare pretty well in those rounds (heck, Ohio St. might even beat an SEC team.)
December 16th, 2010 at 1:00 AM ^
... (heck, Ohio St. might even beat an SEC team.)
NSFMF. Even home field advantage has its limits.
December 16th, 2010 at 12:56 AM ^
Right now, there isn't a college president or AD in the country who can get more coverage on a daily basis than Cuban can. All he has to do is announce something, and it is "news." When someone who can get in front of as many people as often as Cuban can talks, everyone might not listen, but enough will to start the ball rollling.
It may not be Cuban who does it, but this will cause a lot of people who don't take the idea of a playoff seriously to have second thoughts. Death to the BCS, indeed.
December 16th, 2010 at 1:12 AM ^
Just because you are a celebrity does not guarantee that people will take you seriously when you talk. Mark Cuban made a ton of money on one internet deal before the bubble burst. Since then, he has primarily been a high profile (due to his own self-promotion) owner of an NBA team. If he revolutionalizes college football, I will be the first person to eat crow. For now, I see this mostly as standard fare Mark Cuban PR at work.
December 16th, 2010 at 2:33 AM ^
The more PR against the horrible BCS system, the better. The more people with loads of money against the BCS system, the better. It gets the ball rolling in the right direction.
Whether they take Cuban seriously or not is beside the point. The issue is, how many people will hear his argument and find it reasonable? Sure some people might think Cuban himself is a jackass but that doesn't mean they will think his argument against the BCS is unreasonable.
The guy at least has some power(money) behind his ideas rather than most anti BCS idealists. Maybe Cuban relays his plans to a few rich friends and they a) have a similar disdain for the current system and/or b)see an opportunity to make profits. At some point a few billionaires united have ways of getting things done.
December 16th, 2010 at 1:02 AM ^
The idea is involve winning programs to end the post season with money and laurels. Having a playoff system makes it hard for anyone to distinguish between say 5 teams with 7-5 records, who maybe ranked from 15-20. But the BCS and bowl system allows one to have flexibility to pick teams as they want.
A playoff and a bowl system would not only piss people and teams off but would be too time consuming at the same time.
December 16th, 2010 at 7:37 AM ^
December 16th, 2010 at 8:37 AM ^
We desperately need a really rich guy to help us make this happen. I read all the tired, old arguments about tradition and so forth, and they make me want to puke. I think having the playoff right over top of the bowls is brilliant. Just set up the brackets and whoever wants to show up does. That way if the SEC is still in bed with the BCS in the next couple years, they can still play a meaningless bowl. Meanwhile most of the teams would show up for a playoff.
Even if a team loses to a AA team, if they are in the top 16 they go to the playoff. The whole idea is that if you beat all the best teams, you are the champion. It is really taking the importance out of the hands of ABC and putting it back into the hands of actual football teams. Anybody root for Butler last year? They earned their way in, and deserved much respect.
Anyone suggesting Michigan would rest players for "The Game" is not a Michigan fan and hasn't lived a life of a Wolverine. Yes, I'm calling you out. Even dreaming about us throwing this game is just stupid. If/When Michigan gets back to 11-12 win seasons, they would still want to make sure to have home field advantage throughout the playoffs. (Which for us might have to be in Detriot because of crazy Michigan weather, or maybe not)
ABC is making so much money out of this dog-and-pony show that it makes me sick. It will never change unless they are forced to by a visionary like this crazy bat Cuban. I support him 100% and would go further still. I would donate money every year to help make this happen. I dream of seeing a College football Championship tourney before I die.
December 16th, 2010 at 8:43 AM ^
December 16th, 2010 at 10:51 AM ^
This is the only scenario I would approve of for a 'playoff' in any form.
Because the four seeds are winners of their conference, and therefore had to defeat every team in their conference (through playing a round-robin in their division and beating the opposite division champion), this would be an acceptable playoff to me.
Plus, I'm principally opposed to a playoff of more than 4 teams for college football due to the nature of the way college football is structured. Any attempt to compare college football to other professional sports or March Madness doesn't address the issue of why a playoff system would be better than the current system.
How many teams really deserve to claim the national title each season? 3, 4, maybe 5 on a crazy year? I don't understand why a playoff system is better for college football as a whole compared to the BCS system - it's still going to be an exclusive system that is open to human interpretation. Teams #9, #10, and #11 or teams #17, #18, #19 are still going to bitch and complain they deserved that last spot. I honestly just think it's optimistic fanaticism of people that think their team will win the national title more in a playoff.
I agree with Bo's sentiment here: we focus on what we can control - a Big Ten title - and let the rest work itself out. If we go undefeated and win the Big Ten, then we can have an actual argument to the national title. If we ever get to four superconferences, bring the four winners together to play it out. Until then, give me my bowls!
December 16th, 2010 at 9:12 AM ^
This website will simulate games 1001 times to predict outcomes in advance. They were about 75% right this season in college football. This is their 16 team bracket of what it would be this year if we actually had a playoff.
http://whatifsports.com/decmadness/
Check it out - Wisconsin vs Stanford in the second round. OSU vs TCU, Auburn vs Arkansas, and Oregon vs. LSU - I would LOVE to see these games in a few weeks... It will be interesting to see who they advance to the end.