PDA

View Full Version : Hatch challenges Obama to walk the walk



Brutus
10-21-2009, 05:13 PM
Senator Orrin Hatch, Utah, has written a 10-page letter to the White House and the Justice Department, reminding Barack Obama of his intent to "throw his weight around" to change the BCS. He also is claiming the BCS is a violation of the Sherman Trust Act.

Hatch Asking Obama to order Justice Department to probe BCS (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4582814)

While he might have a point about being a violate of the anti-trust laws, generally I've always despised elected officials for butting into sports. As much as I'd love to rid of the BCS in favor of an actual playoff system of some sort, I don't really want the government intruding to do so. And while I'm not an Obama fan, which obviously is not the point for this forum, I am happy he wants to 'throw his weight around' to change things (pun intended). Still, I am not a fan of big government, and I don't support this.

Nonetheless, if they're going to do it anyways, I hope they succeed.

--------------------------------------

Updated: October 21, 2009, 2:30 PM ET
Hatch seeks Justice probe of BCS
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Shortly after winning last year's presidential election, Barack Obama said he was going to "to throw my weight around a little bit" to nudge college football's Bowl Championship Series to move to a playoff system.

On Wednesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch took him up on that.

Hatch asked the president to launch a Justice Department investigation into the way the BCS -- a complex system of computer rankings and polls that often draws criticism -- crowns its national champion.

"Mr. President, as you have publicly stated on multiple occasions, the BCS system is in dire need of reform," Hatch, R-Utah, wrote in a 10-page letter, obtained by The Associated Press.

Hatch, who held a hearing on the BCS in July, told Obama that a "strong case" can be made that the BCS violates antitrust laws.

Under the BCS system, some conferences get automatic bids to participate in top-tier bowls while others don't, and the automatic bid conferences also get far more of the revenue. Hatch's home state school, the University of Utah, is from the Mountain West Conference, which does not get an automatic bid. The school qualified for a bid last season but was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated.

The system "has been designed to limit the number of teams from non-privileged conferences that will play in BCS games," he wrote.

Hatch said that the BCS arrangement likely violates the Sherman Antitrust Act, because, he argued, it constitutes a "contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce," quoting from the law.

He said that the system "artificially limits the number of nationally-relevant bowl games to five. The result is reduced access to revenues and visibility which creates disadvantages to schools in the non-privileged conferences." Hatch is the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary's subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights.

The senator said that the hundreds of millions generated by college football "are hardly trivial sums," given that many schools use such revenue to fund things like other athletic programs.

The White House declined to comment. The Justice Department and BCS officials had no immediate comment.

Hatch's letter comes a few days after the BCS released its first standings of the year. And on Monday, a group of college football fans launched the Playoff PAC, with the hope of electing more lawmakers who will pressure the BCS to switch to a playoff system. Several lawmakers have introduced bills this year aimed at forcing a playoff system, but none of the bills has moved.


Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press

Joseph
10-21-2009, 09:10 PM
I thought I was going to have to lock this one. :)

I agree that politicians need to butt out of this kind of thing. It is not a good system at all, but I'd rather them focus on other things than college football right now.

Truth be told I don't care a lot about college football so I don't really care if it ever changes.

kaldaniels
10-21-2009, 10:58 PM
Count me as one that is disgusted in Congress meddling in the college football arena.

WVRed
10-21-2009, 11:01 PM
Going to a playoff will never happen. The NCAA has way too many sponsorships lined up for these bowl games that pump all kinds of revenue into the schools.

The only way a playoff might work would be to take the BCS teams and put them into a playoff system each week through December until the championship.

RedsManRick
10-21-2009, 11:17 PM
How could it possibly take 10 pages to make that point? Even it writing Senators love to hear themselves talk.

Brutus
10-21-2009, 11:24 PM
Going to a playoff will never happen. The NCAA has way too many sponsorships lined up for these bowl games that pump all kinds of revenue into the schools.

The only way a playoff might work would be to take the BCS teams and put them into a playoff system each week through December until the championship.

It would be very easy to set up a playoff system that retained sponsorship and incorporate the BCS bowls within the playoffs themselves. Heck, it doesn't take much creativity. I have, and I'm sure hundreds if not thousands of others have crafted such a scenario that takes into account a lot of their concerns in less than a day.

redsfandan
10-22-2009, 05:44 AM
When I first started reading the 1st post I couldn't help but laugh. A politician wanting to force the BCS into a playoff. What's next. The argument about a possible anti-trust violation is interesting though. I'm not getting my hopes up but if they do nudge the BCS towards a playoff that would be fine with me.

LoganBuck
10-22-2009, 07:30 AM
Man imagine if the new contract for the BCS was to be broadcast on FOX. Obama would be all over that.

I wish Alabama hadn't been so crippled last year when Utah faced them.

DTCromer
10-22-2009, 07:58 AM
Count me as one that is disgusted in Congress meddling in the college football arena.

Seeing as how their performance has been for quite some time, would you rather them be working on anythign else?

Boston Red
10-22-2009, 09:19 AM
Hatch is certainly doing his job. I'm guessing that a great deal of his constituents in Utah are very, very interested in this issue.

bucksfan2
10-22-2009, 09:32 AM
Hatch is certainly doing his job. I'm guessing that a great deal of his constituents in Utah are very, very interested in this issue.

Yep. I would imagine that BYU and Utah are two of the largest employers in the state of Utah.

I am always mixed on politics getting mixed up with athletics. Part of me says that sports play such a large part in the American society that politics needs to get involved at time to time. But another part of me says lets keep sports out of the political arena.

While I though Congress bringing up steroids in baseball was a good thing, I think the President and Congress has more pressing matters to worry about than the college football playoff or lack there of.

IslandRed
10-22-2009, 10:57 AM
It would be very easy to set up a playoff system that retained sponsorship and incorporate the BCS bowls within the playoffs themselves. Heck, it doesn't take much creativity. I have, and I'm sure hundreds if not thousands of others have crafted such a scenario that takes into account a lot of their concerns in less than a day.

The problem with most solutions that attempt to incorporate the bowl games is, they brush off the reason the bowl games exist in the first place: tourism. Bowl committees are unabashed civic booster organizations. There's a reason the traditional bowl games started playing on New Year's Day rather than right after the end of the season; they know the slow week between Christmas and New Year's is the best time to lure football fans to their town to party for several days. The TV money is nice, but local economic impact is what they're after. With a playoff, instead of fans focusing on one trip at the perfect time to get away for several days, they'll be looking at possible multiple weekend trips. Wherever they go, they won't stay as long or spend as much. It may not matter to us, but it matters a great deal to the people who run the bowls.

Brutus
10-22-2009, 12:44 PM
The problem with most solutions that attempt to incorporate the bowl games is, they brush off the reason the bowl games exist in the first place: tourism. Bowl committees are unabashed civic booster organizations. There's a reason the traditional bowl games started playing on New Year's Day rather than right after the end of the season; they know the slow week between Christmas and New Year's is the best time to lure football fans to their town to party for several days. The TV money is nice, but local economic impact is what they're after. With a playoff, instead of fans focusing on one trip at the perfect time to get away for several days, they'll be looking at possible multiple weekend trips. Wherever they go, they won't stay as long or spend as much. It may not matter to us, but it matters a great deal to the people who run the bowls.

The system I've advocated takes this into account already.

For instance (this is one variation I've always supported):

8 team playoff with two play-in games (total of 10 teams)

* 4 highest conference winners (regardless of conference) in the BCS standings receive automatic bids with the 4 highest receiving the top 4 seeds

* Next four (4) conference winners meet in the two play-in games at the highest-ranked team's home field the second week in December and given seeds 7 & 8

* The two highest teams to not win their conference receive at-large bids and shall be given seeds 5 & 6

Then, the third Saturday in December shall be the first round. All four games shall be held on the higher seed's home field, allowing an extra gate (more $) and less travel. Each game shall have a corporate sponsor of one of the four existing BCS bowls, and each bowl shall receive a portion of the revenue from that first round game.

The semifinals shall be on New Year's Day in rotating fashion. For instance, the Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl might host the two Final Four games. These games still retain their bowl and sponsorship names. "Florida vs. Ohio State in the FedEx Orange Bowl" as part of one semifinal. A third BCS bowl out of the rotation will receive a BCS game on New Year's day (or the day after) of the top two teams of their choosing that did not make the playoffs. Finally, one week from New Year's (January 8), the National Championship shall be in the fourth bowl game.

This keeps sponsorship and BCS bowl affiliations alive, with still basically the same 10 teams that would make the BCS now getting in in this new scenario, but also a chance for the other conferences to have a shot at playing for a title - or at least more of a shot.

This also keeps travel to a minimum for fans. Obviously it would not be easy to have a team travel four weeks in a row, but since the first round and play-in games would be at a home site, not many tickets would be available for the opposing teams anyhow. Only two teams would have to travel two weeks in a row on a neutral site.

Third, this still keeps some time during the holidays, allows a little bit of time to make travel accommodations, and keeps the tourist aspect of the bowl games intact.

There are many ways to do this, and this is not by any means perfect. But it does take into account many of the 'obstacles' mentioned by detractors of a playoff.

bucksfan2
10-22-2009, 01:26 PM
The semifinals shall be on New Year's Day in rotating fashion. For instance, the Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl might host the two Final Four games. These games still retain their bowl and sponsorship names. "Florida vs. Ohio State in the FedEx Orange Bowl" as part of one semifinal. A third BCS bowl out of the rotation will receive a BCS game on New Year's day (or the day after) of the top two teams of their choosing that did not make the playoffs. Finally, one week from New Year's (January 8), the National Championship shall be in the fourth bowl game.

This keeps sponsorship and BCS bowl affiliations alive, with still basically the same 10 teams that would make the BCS now getting in in this new scenario, but also a chance for the other conferences to have a shot at playing for a title - or at least more of a shot.

This also keeps travel to a minimum for fans. Obviously it would not be easy to have a team travel four weeks in a row, but since the first round and play-in games would be at a home site, not many tickets would be available for the opposing teams anyhow. Only two teams would have to travel two weeks in a row on a neutral site.

Third, this still keeps some time during the holidays, allows a little bit of time to make travel accommodations, and keeps the tourist aspect of the bowl games intact.

There are many ways to do this, and this is not by any means perfect. But it does take into account many of the 'obstacles' mentioned by detractors of a playoff.


If a playoff is instituted, I just don't think there will be a whole lot of luster for using the bowl names anymore. I think if started it may work for a year or two, but no bowl or sponsor would want to have the final four game, but not the championship game. I just don't think the sponsor money will continue to come in for those games.

I am all for a playoff if it is done like the NFL. I want the best teams to have the best opportunity to win a bowl game. I would love to see a southern team come up to Columbus in the dead of winter to play a playoff game. I would have no problem with a southernly located championship game, but let home field determine everything before that.

LoganBuck
10-22-2009, 01:34 PM
I am all for a playoff if it is done like the NFL. I want the best teams to have the best opportunity to win a bowl game. I would love to see a southern team come up to Columbus in the dead of winter to play a playoff game. I would have no problem with a southernly located championship game, but let home field determine everything before that.

Exactly or go to a regional setup with games in the North South East and West. It is only fair that southern teams should have to put up with the cold weather. Imagine if they had a regional game at PBS, or Soldier Field and Florida had to play in the snow versus an Ohio State, Michigan, Louisville or Cincinnati. Fans in the south would hate it, but man that would be fun.

bucksfan2
10-22-2009, 01:49 PM
Exactly or go to a regional setup with games in the North South East and West. It is only fair that southern teams should have to put up with the cold weather. Imagine if they had a regional game at PBS, or Soldier Field and Florida had to play in the snow versus an Ohio State, Michigan, Louisville or Cincinnati. Fans in the south would hate it, but man that would be fun.

Just think of a couple of years ago. It may have been a completely different game had OSU played LSU at PBS or Cleveland Browns Stadium instead of in the Louisiana Superdome.

dabvu2498
10-22-2009, 02:29 PM
Exactly or go to a regional setup with games in the North South East and West. It is only fair that southern teams should have to put up with the cold weather. Imagine if they had a regional game at PBS, or Soldier Field and Florida had to play in the snow versus an Ohio State, Michigan, Louisville or Cincinnati. Fans in the south would hate it, but man that would be fun. There is no chance of those games being played outside, up north, in December. Domes, maybe.

Chip R
10-22-2009, 02:44 PM
I am always mixed on politics getting mixed up with athletics. Part of me says that sports play such a large part in the American society that politics needs to get involved at time to time. But another part of me says lets keep sports out of the political arena.

While I though Congress bringing up steroids in baseball was a good thing, I think the President and Congress has more pressing matters to worry about than the college football playoff or lack there of.


Unless the these organizations police themselves, the only way to get them to change is to use the political hammer. And if you're in favor of politicians using their muscle in one sport, then it's a double standard if you don't want them to get involved in another.

Do they have more pressing matters to deal with? Sure they do. But having some aide spend an hour writing a press release on the BCS isn't going to send the country down the drain.

Brutus
10-22-2009, 03:00 PM
If a playoff is instituted, I just don't think there will be a whole lot of luster for using the bowl names anymore. I think if started it may work for a year or two, but no bowl or sponsor would want to have the final four game, but not the championship game. I just don't think the sponsor money will continue to come in for those games.

I am all for a playoff if it is done like the NFL. I want the best teams to have the best opportunity to win a bowl game. I would love to see a southern team come up to Columbus in the dead of winter to play a playoff game. I would have no problem with a southernly located championship game, but let home field determine everything before that.

I don't think it would be possible to get it done without keeping some sort of sponsor/bowl affiliation intact. Too much money at stake for those parties to go down without a fight. It's all about branding, really. If you build each game up as its own bowl game, but within the playoff system, I don't think any luster would be lost. The sponsorship would still have some luster because of the sheer number of people watching the game. Think about it... right now a lesser BCS bowl game (think Pitt-Utah) might draw a 5.0 rating. Suddenly if that bowl draws a national semifinal, it's not at risk of having that kind of match-up, and even if it did, the very fact it's within the playoff system might double such a rating. The very number of viewers will increase the sponsor appeal.

IslandRed
10-22-2009, 03:23 PM
The system I've advocated takes this into account already.

I'll grant that it at least tries, but it's still worse than the status quo from the bowls' perspective. The sponsorship and TV money is cool, but most of that dough goes right back out as payout to the teams/conferences in the game. The primary objective of hosting a bowl game is to get people to come to their city, stay awhile, and spend a lot of money. (Back in the old days, the game also used to serve as a televised travel brochure, but not so much anymore.)


The semifinals shall be on New Year's Day in rotating fashion. For instance, the Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl might host the two Final Four games. These games still retain their bowl and sponsorship names. "Florida vs. Ohio State in the FedEx Orange Bowl" as part of one semifinal. A third BCS bowl out of the rotation will receive a BCS game on New Year's day (or the day after) of the top two teams of their choosing that did not make the playoffs. Finally, one week from New Year's (January 8), the National Championship shall be in the fourth bowl game.

So the four bowl games are:

1: The two teams know a month in advance they'll be there, but the game won't mean anything. Same as it is now.

2 & 3: Fans of the teams in the semifinals have shorter notice of being in the game, and will have had one or two extra games right before it and possibly one right after. From an economic-impact standpoint, this is a loss for the bowls hosting the semifinal games versus today. The fans aren't going to stay as long or be as spendy.

4: Playing the title game after New Year's without regard for day of the week (and with one week's notice after playing 2-3 more games in between) means fans will be there only as long as they have to be. It's a big loss, economically. This is why the BCS National Championship Game as it exists today is held in one of the bowl cities, but in addition to the bowl game, not instead of it.

Not to mention that it would be very difficult to keep the current bowl atmosphere where the teams get there several days in advance and there are a bunch of events in the days leading up to the game. Bowl games are not just about football. But no one will have time for all that nonsense if they're resting up from one playoff game and possibly playing another the next week.


This also keeps travel to a minimum for fans. Obviously it would not be easy to have a team travel four weeks in a row, but since the first round and play-in games would be at a home site, not many tickets would be available for the opposing teams anyhow. Only two teams would have to travel two weeks in a row on a neutral site.

College football isn't as city-centric as the NFL. It varies by school, but for a lot of fans, home games are travel games, too.

Having said all that, I'm okay with a playoff, when or if it happens. But it's just common sense that the traditional bowls will suffer under most playoff scenarios.

Cyclone792
10-22-2009, 04:06 PM
The BCS Guru's playoff format - it adds merely two games and doesn't upset the current BCS Bowl breakdown.

http://bcsguru.blogspot.com/2009/04/only-playoff-that-works.html


The BCS annual meeting is set to take place next Monday in Pasadena, where the commissioners are expected to hobnob and mostly wring their hands before declaring the BCS a "success."

There will be a couple of issues. The pesky Mountain West has a proposal and it wants to be heard. It will be, but just like the last words from a death-row inmate, it's not going to make any difference. And there's the congressional pressure, but with re-election coming up in 18 months, that may be played off by a pledge for "more studying."

But sooner or later, the BCS will have to deal with this. As it nears the conclusion of its third four-year contract, the public is fed up with a system that provides very little satisfaction in crowing a true champion. The concept of a "national champion" in Division I-A is as mythical as ever, as none of the past three BCS champions may lay an undisputed claim to the title.

It doesn't have to be this way.

The Guru has devised a "playoff" scheme that creates minimal conflict with the current regime and may be implemented immediately. The concept is tested against the 11 past BCS seasons, which proved that it would have stifled any controversy in the course of determining a true champion. The beauty of this proposal is in its simplicity.

So here it is:

1. Add two games to the current format - national semifinal games played on campus sites the week after the last regular-season games are played and BCS standings are released.

2. The semifinalists will be the four teams meeting the following criteria -

a) The four highest-ranked conference champions, provided that they're in the top six of the final BCS standings.*

b) Any team that finished in the top two but failed to win its conference.

c) In case of a conflict between a) and b), b) takes precedence over the lowest-ranked conference champion.

* Conference champion may be from any conference, regardless of BCS affiliation. In the case of conferences without a championship game, a co-champion is accepted and no tiebreaker needs to be applied. Notre Dame belongs in this group as well.

3. The higher seeds host the lower seeds on campus sites, with the winner advancing to the national championship game, to be played one week after New Year's Day.


4. All bowl games and their affiliations stay in tact. The losing semifinalists are guaranteed a spot in one of the BCS bowls, in accordance with their conference affiliations. Second-place teams may be invited in place of the semifinal winners, as it is the case now with the top two teams.

That's it. And here's the historical data on how this system would've worked over the past 11 seasons:

2008: No. 6 Utah (MWC champion) at No. 1 Oklahoma (Big 12); No. 5 USC (Pac-10) at No. 2 Florida (SEC) ** No. 3 Texas and No. 4 Alabama did not qualify

2007: No. 4 Oklahoma (Big 12) at No. 1 Ohio State (Big Ten); No. 3 Virginia Tech (ACC) at No. 2 LSU (SEC)

2006: No. 6 Louisville (Big East) at No. 1 Ohio State (Big Ten); No. 5 USC (Pac-10) at No. 2 Florida (SEC) ** No. 3 Michigan and No. 4 LSU did not qualify

2005: No. 6 Notre Dame at No. 1 USC (Pac-10); No. 3 Penn State (Big Ten) at No. 2 Texas (Big 12) ** No. 4 Ohio State and No. 5 Oregon did not qualify

2004: No. 6 Utah (MWC) at No. 1 USC (Pac-10); No. 3 Auburn (SEC) at No. 2 Oklahoma (Big 12) ** No. 4 Texas and No. 5 California did not qualify

2003: No. 4 Michigan (Big Ten) at No. 1 Oklahoma (at-large); No. 3 USC (Pac-10) at No. 2 LSU (SEC)

2002: No. 4 USC (Pac-10) at No. 1 Miami (Big East); No. 3 Georgia (SEC) at No. 2 Ohio State (Big Ten)

2001: No. 4 Oregon (Pac-10) at No. 1 Miami (Big East); No. 3. Colorado (Big 12) at No. 2 Nebraska (at-large)

2000: No. 4 Washington (Pac-10) at No. 1 Oklahoma (Big 12); No. 3 Miami (Big East) at No. 2 Florida State (ACC)

1999: No. 4 Alabama (SEC) at No. 1 Florida State (ACC); No. 3 Nebraska (Big 12) at No. 2 Virginia Tech (Big East)

1998: No. 5 UCLA (Pac-10) at No. 1 Tennessee (SEC); No. 4 Ohio State (Big Ten) at No. 2 Florida State (ACC) ** No. 3 Kansas State did not qualify

A quick review of the data reveals the following:

* Controversies over the past three years, as well as in 2004 (when there were four unbeaten teams), 2003 (three one-loss teams), 2001 and 2000 (when a No. 2 team was beaten by a No. 3 team during the season), would have been quelled as all teams in question would be semifinalists and could settle things on the field.

* Twice, a non-BCS conference champion - Utah in 2004 and 2008 - would've made the playoffs. Notre Dame qualified in 2005.

* Two at-large teams - Nebraska in 2001 and Oklahoma in 2003 - made the field.

* Conference breakdown - Pac-10 (9), Big 12 (9, including 2 at-large bids), SEC (8), Big Ten (6), Big East (5), ACC (4), MWC (2), Notre Dame (1).

* Recent trends - USC would've been in six of the last seven playoffs, missing only 2007; SEC champion would've been in the field also in six of the last seven, missing only in 2005; Oklahoma would've been in four of the last six; and Louisville was the only Big East team to make it after Miami and Virginia Tech left for the ACC.

For emphasis, here's why this plan should be strongly considered by the commissioners and needs to be put in place as soon as possible:

1. It's logistically sensible: In contrast to most "playoff" proposals, this does not take on unreasonable logistical and travel cost. Only two teams are doing the extra traveling, with games played at home venues that can easily sell out on short notice.

2. It doesn't upset the BCS apple cart: The BCS standings can use a tweaking, but the pressure on the existing system should be relieved considerably - with four teams in the mix instead of just two. It also should minimize voter meddling in creating the "championship matchup." Look at the historical data, just about every team worthy of a shot at the championship that season would've been in the "playoff."

3. It keeps the bowl structure in tact: The current bowl infrastructure stays completely in tact with just one exception: All non-BCS bowl matchups are announced at the same time as they do now, but BCS bowl lineups will be revealed after the semifinals, creating an extra week of excitement and suspense.

4. It preserves the meaning of regular season: It rewards conference champions, but also gives non-champions a chance, with a bar set high at the top two slots. As you can see with the historical precedents, it's possible for a non-champion to still qualify, but champions of all conferences have a fair chance of reaching the "playoff," whether they're in a BCS conference or not. It behooves teams to schedule tough and win their conference.

5. It creates attractive matchups: In two of the last three seasons, you would've seen USC playing Florida in the semifinals - in the current scenario, the Trojans have never faced an SEC team in a BCS bowl. The title game would have even more meaning and legitimacy because whoever emerges as the winner would be crowned as the true champion.

Roy Tucker
10-22-2009, 04:51 PM
Perhaps there will be a new cabinet position, Secretary of the BCS.

They will oversee the Department of the BCS with a staff of thousands and a budget of billions. Referees will be civil service workers who can't be fired.

Brutus
10-22-2009, 04:59 PM
I'll grant that it at least tries, but it's still worse than the status quo from the bowls' perspective. The sponsorship and TV money is cool, but most of that dough goes right back out as payout to the teams/conferences in the game. The primary objective of hosting a bowl game is to get people to come to their city, stay awhile, and spend a lot of money. (Back in the old days, the game also used to serve as a televised travel brochure, but not so much anymore.)



So the four bowl games are:

1: The two teams know a month in advance they'll be there, but the game won't mean anything. Same as it is now.

2 & 3: Fans of the teams in the semifinals have shorter notice of being in the game, and will have had one or two extra games right before it and possibly one right after. From an economic-impact standpoint, this is a loss for the bowls hosting the semifinal games versus today. The fans aren't going to stay as long or be as spendy.

4: Playing the title game after New Year's without regard for day of the week (and with one week's notice after playing 2-3 more games in between) means fans will be there only as long as they have to be. It's a big loss, economically. This is why the BCS National Championship Game as it exists today is held in one of the bowl cities, but in addition to the bowl game, not instead of it.

Not to mention that it would be very difficult to keep the current bowl atmosphere where the teams get there several days in advance and there are a bunch of events in the days leading up to the game. Bowl games are not just about football. But no one will have time for all that nonsense if they're resting up from one playoff game and possibly playing another the next week.



College football isn't as city-centric as the NFL. It varies by school, but for a lot of fans, home games are travel games, too.

Having said all that, I'm okay with a playoff, when or if it happens. But it's just common sense that the traditional bowls will suffer under most playoff scenarios.

All that about economic impact doesn't matter to the bowls themselves. Sure, perhaps (perhaps) the cities themselves might see a small decrease, but it won't change the bottom line for the event organizers. Ticket sales and broadcast revenue will only skyrocket.

You make some good points, but the points you mention have to do with the locations of the bowls, and not so much the bowls themselves.

dabvu2498
10-22-2009, 05:34 PM
All that about economic impact doesn't matter to the bowls themselves. Sure, perhaps (perhaps) the cities themselves might see a small decrease, but it won't change the bottom line for the event organizers. Ticket sales and broadcast revenue will only skyrocket. You make some good points, but the points you mention have to do with the locations of the bowls, and not so much the bowls themselves. The real driving force, economically speaking, is the corporate sponsors. And this may not be the time to try to drum up several million dollars more in sponsorship money for each level of playoff you are talking about adding. The corpos are also the reason you won't see home site playoff games or playoff games in northern climates in December.

IslandRed
10-22-2009, 06:30 PM
All that about economic impact doesn't matter to the bowls themselves. Sure, perhaps (perhaps) the cities themselves might see a small decrease, but it won't change the bottom line for the event organizers. Ticket sales and broadcast revenue will only skyrocket.

You make some good points, but the points you mention have to do with the locations of the bowls, and not so much the bowls themselves.

The bowls do not exist disconnected from their locations. They're intertwined to the point of being indistinguishable.

Take the Orange Bowl, for example. It says right on their website: "The Orange Bowl Committee was created in 1935. Its mission then was to generate tourism to South Florida through an annual football game and supporting Festival." A lot has changed since 1935, but the point of hosting the Orange Bowl hasn't. The Orange Bowl committee is a non-profit organization and the money they make goes back to the community, doing the things non-profits typically do. The makeup of the committee? Civic leaders, business leaders, money trees and money-tree shakers... the very people that care a great deal about economic impact and are often in a position to profit directly or indirectly from it.

You'll find that same structure for most bowls: non-profit organization, committee made up of local bigwigs.

And if you really think they don't care about economic impact, watch all the teeth-gritting that goes on every time a bowl is stuck inviting a team that doesn't travel well.

Brutus
10-22-2009, 06:40 PM
The bowls do not exist disconnected from their locations. They're intertwined to the point of being indistinguishable.

Take the Orange Bowl, for example. It says right on their website: "The Orange Bowl Committee was created in 1935. Its mission then was to generate tourism to South Florida through an annual football game and supporting Festival." A lot has changed since 1935, but the point of hosting the Orange Bowl hasn't. The Orange Bowl committee is a non-profit organization and the money they make goes back to the community, doing the things non-profits typically do. The makeup of the committee? Civic leaders, business leaders, money trees and money-tree shakers... the very people that care a great deal about economic impact and are often in a position to profit directly or indirectly from it.

You'll find that same structure for most bowls: non-profit organization, committee made up of local bigwigs.

And if you really think they don't care about economic impact, watch all the teeth-gritting that goes on every time a bowl is stuck inviting a team that doesn't travel well.

The teeth-gritting is because of ticket sales. I'll admit to being rather cynical, but this day and age, profit is king. I'm sure once upon a time these bowl games cared about community, and it's a nice little subplot they're able to insert in yearly press releases, but let's be honest - it's not the driving force. These bowls themselves have become huge money-makers. I'm not sure of their NPO status, or how their taxes are done, but the bowls themselves are raking in money hand-over-fist in one way or another. I'm not going to say they don't care about the locations, but I will say this: I had a long conversation one day with a Fiesta Bowl rep while I was doing my job, and believe me, bowls are interested in making money.

GAC
10-22-2009, 07:24 PM
Count me as one that is disgusted in Congress meddling in the college football arena.

Think of the implications? They could devise a system that would improve on the BCS? ROTHFL