OT: Yahoo Sports: Playoff talks driven by desire to stop the financial fleecing by the bowls

Submitted by NateVolk on April 25th, 2012 at 11:06 PM

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--bowls--extravagant-revenues-are-closely-examined-as-the-ncaa-mulls-a-playoff-system.html#more-id

The gravy train is finally about up for the bowls.  The financial breakdown of how the football post-season has been working is laughable if it weren't so corrupt.

Personally, I could care less if any of them survive if this is how they vampire money from the schools. Rose included.   A 16-team playoff would be way better and make way more money anyways. 

Comments

Farnn

April 25th, 2012 at 11:32 PM ^

The only reason I would ever be in favor of a 16 team playoff is if it meant that everything but the championship was a home game for the higher seed.  I don't see any way they could make the players or fans go to a different neutral site every week for a month for games, but the stupidity of the NCAA never ceases to amaze me.

Kilgore Trout

April 25th, 2012 at 11:44 PM ^

1. Wetzel has invested a lot in this revolution in college football and is going to cast the seeming inevitability of a 4 team playoff in a light that makes his book and previous work look spot on.  I think he's mainly correct, but there's probably more to it.

2.  This is certainly on topic.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

April 26th, 2012 at 11:39 AM ^

Correct.  Everyone must keep in mind that this is pretty much exactly the same situation as Rosenberg/Snyder.  Jon Chait pointed out that their credibility was shot because they were doing investigative work concurrent with their opinion work.  Wetzel is doing the exact same thing.  The only difference here is that folks are willing to leave that alone because they want a playoff.  But Wetzel has spent a long time campaigning against the BCS (and being totally obnoxious while doing so, IMO) and he stands to benefit a lot here.  So he's not a good source for the same reason Rosenberg should never have been "investigating" Rich Rod.

bo_lives

April 26th, 2012 at 12:04 AM ^

the NCAA tournament started with 8 teams. Now there are 68. And while March is wonderful, I do not care one bit about any regular season game that Michigan doesn't play in.

Yes I realize this is an old argument, and yes I know there are way more D1 college bball teams than FBS football teams - but still, you have to admit that the 2050 B1G champion will be pretty bummed when they lose their first round bowl game to the football equivalent of 2011 UConn.

The +1 formula is the only acceptable option imo since it's the minimum necessary to be considered a playoff. Any more than that and you're never going to be able to answer the question, "why not more?"

Michigan_Mike

April 26th, 2012 at 1:30 AM ^

If being fleeced by the bowls is the main reason to create the playoff. Then why would they send the games to neutral sites to just end up getting fleeced over by the those guys?

The obvious solution would be on campus semi-final games, but then "OH NOES SEC MIGHT HAVE TO PLAY IN COLD WEATHER!"

ryebreadboy

April 26th, 2012 at 1:39 AM ^

I seriously don't understand how anyone takes that seriously.  What do they think no one would come?  The Big House somehow manages to sell out at the end of November.  People will deal to see their team play.  SEC athletes might have a tough time?  Well, shucks.  Don't they think our players have a hard time considering they aren't used to 95 degree weather in January?  Guess it doesn't apply that way.

HELLE

April 26th, 2012 at 3:00 AM ^

of complaining about getting fleeced by these bowl games. It means absolutely nothing unless somehow my season ticket prices go down and we all know that is not going to happen. If the schools get a better deal through the playoff system (not going to happen), then we might as well cut and paste this article and title it " Fans Getting Screwed by Athletic Departments". I don't expect to have the savings passed down to us.

wildbackdunesman

April 26th, 2012 at 6:11 AM ^

I've actually heard that a lot of college presidents were against a playoff because the NCAA owns the legal rights to a football playoff and has a poor track record of getting money back to colleges.  Not sure if this is still true, but 3 BCS bowls get more money back to colleges than the entire 68 team NCAA basketball tournament.

mongoose0614

April 26th, 2012 at 7:05 AM ^

from existence.  THey are an inept organization.  The lack of punishment from obvious violations and the lack of investigation abilities have shown they have no teeth and no purpose except to organize a basketball tournament and print out recruiting mauals that they have no intention of enforcing.

The conference heads are loony at times but have showm much more competence than anything that has come from the NCAA.

Greed and TV money will doom the NCAA within the next 20 years.

burtcomma

April 26th, 2012 at 8:59 AM ^

You do understand that it is a VOLUNTARY organization that all the schools have decided to belong to and that it derives whatever rules and powers it has from the colleges and universities themselves it is currently set up to rely on the Universities and Colleges to investigate and police themselves and file lots of reports?

It is not a governmental or criminal investigative body funded by the government or established by law, thus it has no subpoena powers and not a lot it can do to compel individuals to tell it the truth.

Instead of whaling about the NCAA as if it is somehow a separately run body, you should be whaling about the universities and their Presidents and representatives that run the NCAA and vote in the rules and allow all this to go on.

 

 

mongoose0614

April 26th, 2012 at 7:00 AM ^

If we get a 4 team playoff because of the bowls fleecing the schools, the NCAA and the AD's will get greedy and eventually expand it in the name of fairness of other schools.

They will do it out of greed not fairness.  The first step is just for them to get off their arse and get a playoff.  Everything else will fall into place.  

Wolvie3758

April 26th, 2012 at 7:22 AM ^

has a playoff with at least 16 teams and nobody objects or finds these BS reason NOT to have one for them...Its all ONE BIG SHAM and the SEC is the only benefactor to the current system and they want to preserve it as much as they can..Including NOT having to go up north to play...they want as much as competitive advantage as humanly possible...Remember this is the league that almost EVERY single member (cept Vandy) has been or is ON PROBATION for cheating

Tater

April 26th, 2012 at 7:35 AM ^

Eight teams would be fine: every major conference champion, one mid-major conference champion, and the top independent.  

The author, of course, wrote "Death the the BCS," which may have started the ball rolling.  It's nice to see that college presidents are finally deciding that their own perks are secondary to their schools getting fleeced.  

When people in positions of power do things that don't make sense, one can usually find the true reasons by following the money trail.  The Big Ten and Pac 12 have been used their power to kibosh talks of a playoff for more than twenty years.  Since everyone would make more money otherwise, the most logical reason is that the Rose Bowl is giving some very nice perks to the individuals who run the Big Ten, Pac 12, and it's member schools that they wouldn't get from a playoff system.

Wetzel started the discussion.  The Wall Street Journal got a totally different demographic talking about it.  And now, finally, the schools are starting to ask the right questions.  It's at least fifty years too late, but still a great development.

Red is Blue

April 26th, 2012 at 8:31 AM ^

Top independent???  Aren' there only currently four independents (slated to go to three with Navy joining a conference in the future)?  Why should someone from that group automatically be invited?  I hope you mean top at-large.

justingoblue

April 26th, 2012 at 11:07 AM ^

You mean to say that the "winner" of ND, Army and BYU doesn't deserve an automatic bid to the playoff? But they have such illustrious records over the past ten years (77-69, 31-88 and 82-44 respectively), it's hard to imagine a playoff without them.

That's as stupid as saying the winner of The Game gets an autobid, it's corrupt and it's terrible reasoning. The difference, of course, is that most years the M/Ohio winner would at least be somewhat deserving.

Edit: To elaborate, ND finished ranked three times in the past decade, 17/17 in 2002 after losing by 22 to NC State in the Gator Bowl, 9/11 in 2005 after losing by 14 to Ohio in the Fiesta, and 17/19 after losing by 27 to LSU in the Fiesta. Army did not finish a season ranked since the millennium, and BYU managed to finished ranked five times (NR/25 in 2001, 15/16 in 2006, 14/14 in 2007, 21/25 in 2008, and 12/12 in 2009).Out of thirty seasons, eight teams finished ranked, and none inside the top ten.

According to the polls, 2005 Notre Dame was the best team from the independents in the past decade. I'd love to see 2005 ND go against 2004 USC, 2005 Texas, 2009 Alabama or 2002 Ohio. I'm sure they could compete.

Mr Miggle

April 26th, 2012 at 9:00 AM ^

Not even Notre Dame would dare to suggest a playoff formula so favorable for themselves. Can you imagine how much that would help their recruiting? 

This conference winners only setup reminds me of the basketball tournament pre-1975, 25 teams and most of the top 25 excluded  I don't think any 8 team playoff proposal that routinely includes several teams well outside the top 12 is going to fly.

I think the BCS had a reasonable way of selecting teams.Their basic outline could be adjusted to fewer teams. Five auto-bids, 3 at-large, with a little consideration to non-aq conference champions and no more than 2 teams from any conference. The biggest problem with the BCS matchups was the Big East auto-bid and that's easily corrected.

 

TrppWlbrnID

April 26th, 2012 at 8:33 AM ^

its more about who is doing the fleecing. if the bcs or ncaa can take control of these games, i don't think any of the ticket prices or hotel issues or anything go away.

i think we will see the conferences taking over the bowl games sooner or later, anyway. that is basically a bowl game anyway, a cross conference agreement.

michiganfanforlife

April 26th, 2012 at 9:41 AM ^

the fleecing will not stop. The point is to have most of the profits of said fleecing to go to the schools, who are responsible for providing this entire event. It's like charging a band money to play a show at a stadium. Ridiculous. Anything that starts the tournament ball rolling is awesome in my eyes.

I still want at least a 16 team bracket. If you include 16, then small schools from crap conferences actaully have a shot for the first time in a long time. A four team playoff still excludes the small undefeated schools who might actaully have a legit shot at a title. I can always dream.... Plus think about how many years Michigan would be in.  People who think teams would throw games at the end of the season aren't college football fans. They will never understand.

 

Drew Sharp

April 26th, 2012 at 10:55 AM ^

I still don't understand the opposition to home semifinal games.  I assume it's because of the format, meaning that since it's not called a "playoff" that there are no semifinals.  It just seems that there are no legitimate reasons for opposing home games, just that they don't want to for some reason so we get bogus excuses. 

 

And no, it's not because the SEC won't head north.  That's tired and not true.

MichiganExile

April 26th, 2012 at 11:42 AM ^

Where does Brian's post say that the SEC, BXII, and Pac don't want to travel north? Brian certainly doesn't say it's specifically those conferences. The article he cites doesn't even name those conferences. In fact, the article cited says,

"Holding the semifinal games on campus received a lot of early support, especially from Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany. In a poll of the 11 commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick by CBSSports.com last month, the respondents slightly favored holding the semifinal games on campus."

MichiganExile

April 26th, 2012 at 1:24 PM ^

The reasons that suck are all reasons outlined by the BCS execs not by the commissioners. And yes, those reasons do suck but the BCS execs are giving them because they don't wanna come out and say "we like getting tons of money."

If I had to guess I would say that of those conference commissioners polled on the possibility of home games all of the big 6 (Pac-12, Big 12, B1G, SEC, ACC, and Big East) favored home games. The commissioners that didn't favor home games probably were from the WAC, MAC etc. because they know they are probably never going to host one of those games and the money generated isn't gonna go in their pockets.