PDA

View Full Version : BCS Selection



Brutus
11-01-2009, 12:40 AM
Not a Bearcats fan, but I'm intrigued at their potential match-ups. I do have an incredible amount of respect for the coaching job of Brian Kelly. If he sticks around (which I keep hearing he'll be on the first flight out of town if a national program comes calling), the sky is the limit for UC. Certainly they're on the verge of dominating the conference, and while I don't expect them in the near future to compete toe-to-toe in the state with OSU for recruits, I think regionally, Kelly could really be a nuisance to the Buckeyes in the Southwest portion.

In fact, on a side note, I'm hearing Maty Mauk, the sensational sophomore QB from Kenton (and younger brother of Ben), might be a strong early lean to Kelly - even if the Buckeyes were to go after him (and even if Kelly went somewhere else).

That aside, Cincinnati might get a real true test of their program this January.

Here are how things would look if things ended today (rough estimate, of course)...

Automatic bids:

Big East (Cincinnati)
ACC (Georgia Tech)
Big Ten (Iowa)
SEC (Florida or Alabama)
Big 12 (Texas)
Pac-10 (Oregon)
Non-BCS (TCU)

That leaves three at-large bids to come from a pool of:

Pittsburgh
Virginia Tech
Penn State or Ohio State
Oklahoma State
Alabama or Florida
Boise State or Utah
USC

LSU could not be a possibility as a conference can have no more than two bids.

Selection process:

Iowa and Oregon go to the Rose Bowl. Georgia Tech goes to the Orange Bowl. Florida goes to the Sugar Bowl and Texas goes to the Fiesta Bowl.

Then, the BCS Championship game selects. They get No. 1 vs. No. 2, obviously. That would be (as of today) Florida vs. Texas (I'm assuming Texas passes Alabama and we know one of Florida or Alabama will lose anyhow).

So those bowls then replace their teams by order of ranking.

The Sugar would replace Florida. This is easy. They'd pick Alabama in this scenario. The Fiesta replaces Texas. This is not as obvious, but I believe it's a decent bet they go with USC, taking one of the at-large spots away.

Then, the rotation this year goes: Orange - Fiesta - Sugar.

The Orange Bowl has left to choose from: TCU, Cincinnati or an at-large selection. Because of the ACC, we can rule out Virginia Tech. Pittsburgh would not likely be an attractive option. Oklahoma State, without Dez Bryant and getting whacked tonight, probably is out. Of these teams, the Orange likely goes with Penn State or Cincinnati. The Nittany Lions travel pretty well and have a good Orange Bowl history. Cincinnati would obviously be attractive as an undefeated team. I could see this going either way, but I think the Orange goes with the money draw here and picks the Nitt's.

This leaves the Fiesta with two options: Cincinnati or TCU to play USC. My guess: if the Bearcats keep winning, an undefeated BCS team is more attractive, despite TCU's closer proximity. I might be misreading what the Fiesta Bowl would do here, but I believe it would be the 'Cats.

This leaves TCU for Sugar Bowl/SEC fodder.

This means:

Florida vs. Texas
Oregon vs. Iowa
USC vs. Cincinnati
Alabama vs. TCU
Ga. Tech vs. Penn State

Should Ohio State beat Penn State, Iowa and Michigan, the Buckeyes would slide into the Rose Bowl with Iowa likely grabbing the Orange Bowl bid. If Penn State beats Ohio State and Ohio State beats Iowa, it's Penn State that goes to the Rose, with Iowa to the Orange.

I'm actually hoping this is how it plays out. Though it's possible Cincinnati would face the ACC winner (presumed to be Tech), I would rather see them against USC in the Fiesta.

Cyclone792
11-01-2009, 01:09 AM
As a UC fan, if the National Championship is out of the question, then my preference for remaining BCS Bowl games would be the Fiesta Bowl. FWIW, Fiesta Bowl reps have already been visiting Nippert during home games this season. The Sugar Bowl would be my second choice, and it goes without saying that the Rose Bowl is virtually impossible due to the conference obligations.

As a fan who'd likely travel to the game, the Orange Bowl would be my least BCS Bowl preference. For one, I went there last season, and secondly ... Dolphin Stadium (or Landshark Stadium or whatever it's called now) down in Miami is a pure dump.

First thing is first, though ... UC has four games remaining to win, including a tough road game in Pitt on December 5th.

Brutus
11-01-2009, 01:23 AM
As a UC fan, if the National Championship is out of the question, then my preference for remaining BCS Bowl games would be the Fiesta Bowl. FWIW, Fiesta Bowl reps have already been visiting Nippert during home games this season. The Sugar Bowl would be my second choice, and it goes without saying that the Rose Bowl is virtually impossible due to the conference obligations.

As a fan who'd likely travel to the game, the Orange Bowl would be my least BCS Bowl preference. For one, I went there last season, and secondly ... Dolphin Stadium (or Landshark Stadium or whatever it's called now) down in Miami is a pure dump.

First thing is first, though ... UC has four games remaining to win, including a tough road game in Pitt on December 5th.

No doubt Cincinnati has to take care of business. I think it's safe to say that it would be the Orange or Fiesta if they win out. The Rose is for all practical purposes, impossible (even if Oregon or Iowa snuck into the BCS, they wouldn't be on the replacement list). And they're not likely to be passed up by both the Orange and Fiesta, so the Sugar is likely out.

Even if Texas falls, it seems they're not going to sniff the Championship game unless something radical happens. Though I don't agree with it, TCU seems to be getting more love nationally, and Oregon would likely leapfrog Cincinnati even if they remain undefeated.

SeeinRed
11-01-2009, 08:11 PM
I'd love to see UC play USC if they can't make the National Championship game. I hate the BCS process, but I will say that there are some very exciting matchups to be had.

FWIW, I don't think BK goes anywhere this offseason. I keep hearing he likes it at UC and it would have to be one of a couple programs to pull him away. He'd rather build a new program than take over a "National Program." He has a lot more control that he can get at a lot of other powerhouse programs. He has a short list of programs he would go to headed by Notre Dame. There are very few programs with easier paths to the BCS games also. A lot of the leaving talk comes more from national media.

Brutus
11-01-2009, 09:12 PM
I'd love to see UC play USC if they can't make the National Championship game. I hate the BCS process, but I will say that there are some very exciting matchups to be had.

FWIW, I don't think BK goes anywhere this offseason. I keep hearing he likes it at UC and it would have to be one of a couple programs to pull him away. He'd rather build a new program than take over a "National Program." He has a lot more control that he can get at a lot of other powerhouse programs. He has a short list of programs he would go to headed by Notre Dame. There are very few programs with easier paths to the BCS games also. A lot of the leaving talk comes more from national media.

I will disagree with you on Kelly. People close to him have commented that he would be very willing to leave (not that he doesn't like Cincinnati). I don't think he'll go just anywhere in a BCS conference, but it's not just a short list that would pull him away.

SeeinRed
11-02-2009, 08:46 AM
I will disagree with you on Kelly. People close to him have commented that he would be very willing to leave (not that he doesn't like Cincinnati). I don't think he'll go just anywhere in a BCS conference, but it's not just a short list that would pull him away.


Again, nobody knows until something happens, but I hear the exact opposite from some close sources. He won't just run for the money. He did after all turn down the Washington job last year.


You have to believe that Iowa will lose and fall in the BCS eventually, although they have won thus far so who knows. Texas seems to be able to sail through the rest of its schedule, but its still hard to go undefeated. Should be fun to watch going down the stretch. I didn't think UC would jump both Boise State and TCU in one week, but the BCS is still very fickle at this point in the season. UC should stay ahead of them with thier schedule as long as they keep winning. Looks like a 5 team race going down the stretch because Iowa is certainly in the race as long as they keep winning.

Sea Ray
11-02-2009, 09:28 AM
Boise has to be given a good look seeing as how they beat Oregon and now the Ducks look like world beaters. UC has a tough road ahead. In fact I'm guessing they'll be underdogs vs Pitt

NatiRedGals
11-02-2009, 11:07 AM
Boise has to be given a good look seeing as how they beat Oregon and now the Ducks look like world beaters. UC has a tough road ahead. In fact I'm guessing they'll be underdogs vs Pitt

Without Pike i could see this. But with Pike i do not see us as underdogs and if we are its only because its on the road

SeeinRed
11-02-2009, 11:26 AM
Boise has to be given a good look seeing as how they beat Oregon and now the Ducks look like world beaters. UC has a tough road ahead. In fact I'm guessing they'll be underdogs vs Pitt


To be honest, I almost hope UC is an underdog to Pitt. Pitt scares me and if BK can get a little more motivation going in that wouldn't hurt my feelings at all.

jimbo
11-02-2009, 11:26 AM
Again, nobody knows until something happens, but I hear the exact opposite from some close sources. He won't just run for the money. He did after all turn down the Washington job last year.


I know we've had this discussion before, but I'm still not buying it.

Listening to a talk radio show yesterday, the host was talking about just this. I think you had already mentioned Kelly's interest in Notre Dame. I'm guessing this job may be open after this season. If so, and Kelly doesn't get it, this guy mentioned rumors that Urban Meyer would have interest in it. If he goes to Notre Dame, do you really think that Kelly would have no interest in the Florida job? I'm sure there would probably be interest on their part.

I can't help but always think of Thad Matta when talking about the possibility of Kelly leaving UC.

kaldaniels
11-02-2009, 12:51 PM
I don't follow UC football but am intrigued by their success of late. Will an undefeated UC get into the NC game if there is only 1 other BCS conference team unbeaten? Cause frankly, that would be cool.

Caveat Emperor
11-02-2009, 12:56 PM
I know we've had this discussion before, but I'm still not buying it.

Listening to a talk radio show yesterday, the host was talking about just this. I think you had already mentioned Kelly's interest in Notre Dame. I'm guessing this job may be open after this season. If so, and Kelly doesn't get it, this guy mentioned rumors that Urban Meyer would have interest in it. If he goes to Notre Dame, do you really think that Kelly would have no interest in the Florida job? I'm sure there would probably be interest on their part.

I can't help but always think of Thad Matta when talking about the possibility of Kelly leaving UC.

If Boston College or Notre Dame ever came calling, Kelly would be gone before the other end of the line heard dial tone. Anything else is pure speculation.

He's in a very unique spot right now -- he's at a place with no football tradition or history whatsoever (apologies to Sid Gillman) that can be a national championship contender as soon as this year. If he stays next year, he can be expected to command a pre-season Top-25 ranking (especially given what Collaros has shown in his 2 starts this year), which puts him in prime-position to challenge again next year.

He's got a choice to make, and I think he understands it very well: He can go to a school like Notre Dame or Florida and have access to the top of everything in college football (and the expecations that go along with it), or he can stay at UC without some of the nicer amenities, build the program, and be the guy they name the football stadium after when he retires.

Just listening to his interviews, I think this year has brought that choice into focus for him (with the Heisman buzz Pike attracted pre-injury and the talks of a national title shot). Before this year, I was 90% he leaves, 10% he stays. Now I'm down to 60% he leaves, 40% he stays.

Brutus
11-02-2009, 01:21 PM
Again, nobody knows until something happens, but I hear the exact opposite from some close sources. He won't just run for the money. He did after all turn down the Washington job last year.


You have to believe that Iowa will lose and fall in the BCS eventually, although they have won thus far so who knows. Texas seems to be able to sail through the rest of its schedule, but its still hard to go undefeated. Should be fun to watch going down the stretch. I didn't think UC would jump both Boise State and TCU in one week, but the BCS is still very fickle at this point in the season. UC should stay ahead of them with thier schedule as long as they keep winning. Looks like a 5 team race going down the stretch because Iowa is certainly in the race as long as they keep winning.

Most all that you hear is just posturing. He did not turn down the Washington job, because he was never offered it. Sarkisian was Washington's main man after the flirtation with Mike Leach didn't work out. The reason you hear he turned it down is because it puts him in higher demand and gives him more leverage within the program.

Now let me make it clear, Kelly likes Cincinnati a lot. It's not like he wants to take the next flight out of town. But he's a master of keeping his name alive and bantered about for jobs, and there's a reason it's happening - he wants it to.

Trust me on this. While he's probably going to be a little more selective now than he would have last year, Cincinnati will have a hard time keeping him around long term.

SeeinRed
11-02-2009, 01:31 PM
Most all that you hear is just posturing.


Most of what I hear isn't just posturing, trust me. Sorry to have started this conversation, but I don't want to hijack the tread so I'll leave it at that. This conversation is better suited for the UC Football thread.

About the BCS, this would be a great year to start a playoff. I think the teams are a lot closer than most believe and it would create a lot of great games. I know it would never happen, but could you imagine the matchups you could have with the top 16 teams.

jimbo
11-02-2009, 01:39 PM
He's got a choice to make, and I think he understands it very well: He can go to a school like Notre Dame or Florida and have access to the top of everything in college football (and the expecations that go along with it), or he can stay at UC without some of the nicer amenities, build the program, and be the guy they name the football stadium after when he retires.


That sounds great, in a fairy-tale sort of way, but how often does this actually happen in this day and age of college athletics? It's always the old same song and dance with coaches, they always come out and profess their commitment to their current program and and say things like they can't foresee a scenario that would persuade them to leave. Then, a few months down the road, they've packed their bags and left.

I don't know Kelly, maybe he really does come from a different mold. Maybe he is not your typical college coach. If so, and he stays at UC and does exactly what you say he may, then I'll gain a whole new level of respect for him. The college game needs coaches like that.

I'm just trying to look at it from an outside perspective while considering the reality of college athletics in today's world.

Brutus
11-02-2009, 01:40 PM
Most of what I hear isn't just posturing, trust me. Sorry to have started this conversation, but I don't want to hijack the tread so I'll leave it at that. This conversation is better suited for the UC Football thread.

About the BCS, this would be a great year to start a playoff. I think the teams are a lot closer than most believe and it would create a lot of great games. I know it would never happen, but could you imagine the matchups you could have with the top 16 teams.

You'll have to trust me. I've got ties on this that are as good as it gets.

Sea Ray
11-02-2009, 01:40 PM
Without Pike i could see this. But with Pike i do not see us as underdogs and if we are its only because its on the road

Two reasons. Pitt is at home and they also have an awfully good RB. UC has shown that it has trouble stopping the run allowing the other team to control the clock

Eric_the_Red
11-02-2009, 01:57 PM
Just for fun I set up a tournament style bracket for the top 16 BCS teams, and it created some interesting match-ups:

16 OSU @ 1 FL
9 LSU @ 8 Oregon

13 Pitt @ 4 Iowa
12 USC @ 5 UC

14 Utah @ 3 Alabama
11 Penn St @ 6 TCU

15 Houston @ 2 Texas
10 Ga. Tech @ 7 Boise St.

How this system would not make more money than the current Bowl system is beyond me.

Caveat Emperor
11-02-2009, 02:29 PM
That sounds great, in a fairy-tale sort of way, but how often does this actually happen in this day and age of college athletics? It's always the old same song and dance with coaches, they always come out and profess their commitment to their current program and and say things like they can't foresee a scenario that would persuade them to leave. Then, a few months down the road, they've packed their bags and left.

I don't know Kelly, maybe he really does come from a different mold. Maybe he is not your typical college coach. If so, and he stays at UC and does exactly what you say he may, then I'll gain a whole new level of respect for him. The college game needs coaches like that.

I'm just trying to look at it from an outside perspective while considering the reality of college athletics in today's world.

It doesn't happen very often because it's an almost completely unique circumstance:

1. State institution (minimal academic pressures)
2. Developing football tradition (minimal booster expectations)
3. Favorable Conference Placement (minimal competition from traditional powerhouse programs)
4. BCS Eligible Conference Ties (ability to win a national title)
5. Access to Ohio HS Recruiting (ability to locally recruit top talent)

I'm not saying he'll stay -- in fact, I fully expect him to be elsewhere this time next season -- but I am saying there are some fairly compelling arguments to be made for staying if his goal is to be a national championship winning head coach.

Cincinnati is still very much a "stepping stone" job -- but it's got some things going for it right now that ought to give Kelly a moments pause. In the end, though, Kelly is your typical coach and he'll head out at a moment's notice when he perceives that he's got a better deal waiting. The difference now is that he has the ability to be more selective and choose a deal that works for hmi as opposed to the first thing that comes his way.

Chip R
11-02-2009, 03:28 PM
Just for fun I set up a tournament style bracket for the top 16 BCS teams, and it created some interesting match-ups:

16 OSU @ 1 FL
9 LSU @ 8 Oregon

13 Pitt @ 4 Iowa
12 USC @ 5 UC

14 Utah @ 3 Alabama
11 Penn St @ 6 TCU

15 Houston @ 2 Texas
10 Ga. Tech @ 7 Boise St.

How this system would not make more money than the current Bowl system is beyond me.


Only one thing wrong with that: No Notre Dame. ;)

Sea Ray
11-02-2009, 05:17 PM
Again, nobody knows until something happens, but I hear the exact opposite from some close sources. He won't just run for the money. He did after all turn down the Washington job last year.


You have to believe that Iowa will lose and fall in the BCS eventually, although they have won thus far so who knows. Texas seems to be able to sail through the rest of its schedule, but its still hard to go undefeated. Should be fun to watch going down the stretch. I didn't think UC would jump both Boise State and TCU in one week, but the BCS is still very fickle at this point in the season. UC should stay ahead of them with thier schedule as long as they keep winning. Looks like a 5 team race going down the stretch because Iowa is certainly in the race as long as they keep winning.

It's looking more and more like Michigan is going to be in the head coach market again real soon. Let's hope they prefer Jim Harbaugh over Brian Kelly but I'm worried. Michigan would be a very tough job to turn down and they've already recruited some athletes that'd fit Kelly's system nicely.

paintmered
11-02-2009, 06:08 PM
Most all that you hear is just posturing. He did not turn down the Washington job, because he was never offered it. Sarkisian was Washington's main man after the flirtation with Mike Leach didn't work out. The reason you hear he turned it down is because it puts him in higher demand and gives him more leverage within the program.

Now let me make it clear, Kelly likes Cincinnati a lot. It's not like he wants to take the next flight out of town. But he's a master of keeping his name alive and bantered about for jobs, and there's a reason it's happening - he wants it to.

Trust me on this. While he's probably going to be a little more selective now than he would have last year, Cincinnati will have a hard time keeping him around long term.

He's also very good at keeping his name alive out there as leverage to get the university to buy into his demands. The tactic is the reason why UC very nearly has the money in pocket to start the practice facility. And don't forget the new president is supposedly a huge college sports fan.

In the end, I don't know what it will mean. Kelly is extremely savy and may have something in mind that none of us have even considered yet.

Highlifeman21
11-02-2009, 06:19 PM
Just for fun I set up a tournament style bracket for the top 16 BCS teams, and it created some interesting match-ups:

16 OSU @ 1 FL
9 LSU @ 8 Oregon

13 Pitt @ 4 Iowa
12 USC @ 5 UC

14 Utah @ 3 Alabama
11 Penn St @ 6 TCU

15 Houston @ 2 Texas
10 Ga. Tech @ 7 Boise St.

How this system would not make more money than the current Bowl system is beyond me.

Pitt v Iowa, Utah v Bama, PSU v TCU, GTech v Boise St are great examples of how that system wouldn't make money, and definitely wouldn't make more money than the current system.

SeeinRed
11-02-2009, 06:29 PM
You'll have to trust me. I've got ties on this that are as good as it gets.


After a claim like this I see no way this conversation can be constructive. Sorry, but I'll just bow out of this one. I've been trying to figure out how to respond, but I think its better just to nip this one in the bud by leaving the conversation as a gentleman.

Brutus
11-02-2009, 06:53 PM
He's also very good at keeping his name alive out there as leverage to get the university to buy into his demands. The tactic is the reason why UC very nearly has the money in pocket to start the practice facility. And don't forget the new president is supposedly a huge college sports fan.

In the end, I don't know what it will mean. Kelly is extremely savy and may have something in mind that none of us have even considered yet.

I absolutely agree with you that he's also trying to leverage the university. No doubt about it. It's not that he has his foot out the door, so he knows if that if he were to consider staying around, he's going to get everything he can in terms of a commitment from the program. Definitely true.

dougdirt
11-02-2009, 07:05 PM
Pitt v Iowa, Utah v Bama, PSU v TCU, GTech v Boise St are great examples of how that system wouldn't make money, and definitely wouldn't make more money than the current system.

And then the winners of those games go on and play each other and so on.

hebroncougar
11-02-2009, 07:26 PM
Pitt v Iowa, Utah v Bama, PSU v TCU, GTech v Boise St are great examples of how that system wouldn't make money, and definitely wouldn't make more money than the current system.

Sorry, but you give the higher seed home games the first round, and the TV contract on a 16 team tournament? It would blow the current BCS system payout out of the water.

dabvu2498
11-02-2009, 07:35 PM
Sorry, but you give the higher seed home games the first round, and the TV contract on a 16 team tournament? It would blow the current BCS system payout out of the water. If the big money corporate sponsors agreed, it would have been done already. And I am pretty sure you would have to lose a regular season game with a lengthy playoff. And that ain't happenin.

Caveat Emperor
11-02-2009, 10:58 PM
If the big money corporate sponsors agreed, it would have been done already. And I am pretty sure you would have to lose a regular season game with a lengthy playoff. And that ain't happenin.

This is the real answer -- there's no way you convince the ADs at schools like Ohio State and Michigan to give up a chance to fly some mid-major or D-1AA program into town in Week1 or Week2 and sell 100,000 tickets to the game. Similarly, there's no way you convince a lot of smaller schools to give up the opportunity to get those paydays.

A college football playoff, in the long-run, might end up making more money once ratings became a known commodity and the TV contract came up for bid a few times, but there's no way they chuck a system that's making a ton of money right now for one that *might* make more money down the road.

Eric_the_Red
11-03-2009, 07:42 AM
Pitt v Iowa, Utah v Bama, PSU v TCU, GTech v Boise St are great examples of how that system wouldn't make money, and definitely wouldn't make more money than the current system.


For the sake of argument, let's say the higher seeds advance through the tourney. Here would be the final games:

National Championship:
Florida vs. Texas
Semi-finals:
Florida vs. Iowa
Texas vs. Alabama
Quarter-finals:
Florida vs. Oregon
Iowa vs. UC
Alabama vs. TCU
Texas vs. Boise St.

Those are 7 games that I think would make money, not counting some of the better 1st round games. Are there really many more than 7 good games in last year's bowl games? http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3444571

Plus, the teams that don't make the tournament could still play in the lesser bowl games like they do now.

dabvu2498
11-03-2009, 11:27 AM
Any matchup involving Iowa or TCU doesn't do much for me. And Boise barely creates any interest either. And honestly, most of the country would feel similarly about UC.

Eric_the_Red
11-03-2009, 11:51 AM
Any matchup involving Iowa or TCU doesn't do much for me. And Boise barely creates any interest either. And honestly, most of the country would feel similarly about UC.


So, only the top 2 or 3 are of interest to you/the nation? If that is the case, why even play any of the other kajillion bowl games outside of the national championship game?

And, in a playoff system, the top 2-3 teams would most likely play in multiple games, which would then generate more interest, no?

Boston Red
11-03-2009, 12:19 PM
Any matchup involving Iowa or TCU doesn't do much for me. And Boise barely creates any interest either. And honestly, most of the country would feel similarly about UC.


Yes, I hate watching good football too. How boring. More Florida State/Miami please!

Chip R
11-03-2009, 12:22 PM
Any matchup involving Iowa or TCU doesn't do much for me. And Boise barely creates any interest either. And honestly, most of the country would feel similarly about UC.


There is one big reason why a college football playoff - even one involving Iowa or Boise St. or UC or TCU: Gambling.

Whether it be office pools or going online or just going to Vegas and watching the playoffs at a sports book and laying money down on it. You really think people care that much about every team in the NCAA basketball tournament? They have a vested interest in the tourney because they've filled out a bracket or three or they have money on the game.

dabvu2498
11-03-2009, 02:33 PM
So, only the top 2 or 3 are of interest to you/the nation? If that is the case, why even play any of the other kajillion bowl games outside of the national championship game?

No. I think some of the matchups you have listed above would be great. Oregon v. LSU. USC v. UC. But you'd have a hard time selling some of those matchups to sponsors. Some. At least with the current bowl system, sponsors and TV networks have a good idea what they're going to get. With a playoff, it's kind of a crap shoot. Like CE said above, with the current system, they know they make a ton of money. Would they tear that down for the possibility of making more? It would require some risk.

And yes, there are way too many bowls in the current system, but so long as they can find networks to broadcast them and sponsors to put up the dinero, they'll stay.

dabvu2498
11-03-2009, 02:36 PM
Yes, I hate watching good football too. How boring. More Florida State/Miami please!

Which do you think got better ratings at the beginning of the season? Miami v. FSU or Oregon v. Boise?

There are reasons one of them was on Thursday and one of them was primetime Saturday. And quality of football wasn't one of them.

And for the record, I'm not sure I would put Iowa in the "good football" department. :)

dabvu2498
11-03-2009, 02:37 PM
There is one big reason why a college football playoff - even one involving Iowa or Boise St. or UC or TCU: Gambling.

Whether it be office pools or going online or just going to Vegas and watching the playoffs at a sports book and laying money down on it. You really think people care that much about every team in the NCAA basketball tournament? They have a vested interest in the tourney because they've filled out a bracket or three or they have money on the game.

I've filled out several Bowl pools in the last few years.

BuckeyeRed27
11-03-2009, 04:39 PM
Which do you think got better ratings at the beginning of the season? Miami v. FSU or Oregon v. Boise?

There are reasons one of them was on Thursday and one of them was primetime Saturday. And quality of football wasn't one of them.

And for the record, I'm not sure I would put Iowa in the "good football" department. :)

Do you think a Week 1 Miami/FSU game would get better ratings than a first round Iowa vs. TCU playoff game?

My only problem with the playoff idea is that no matter what format you go to you ruin the bowls. So you either have a big playoff which devalues the regular season a lot or a small playoff and then you only have a handful of teams that are playing meaningful football in November.

KoryMac5
11-03-2009, 04:51 PM
TCU has taken a lot of shots lately in regards to its attendence issues. Here is a pretty good argument defending the school that I happened to stumble upon. Never knew the school was that small in comparison to others.

http://angrytrey.blogspot.com/2009/11/tcu-attendance-issueend-of-discussion.html

dougdirt
11-03-2009, 05:02 PM
Do you think a Week 1 Miami/FSU game would get better ratings than a first round Iowa vs. TCU playoff game?

My only problem with the playoff idea is that no matter what format you go to you ruin the bowls. So you either have a big playoff which devalues the regular season a lot or a small playoff and then you only have a handful of teams that are playing meaningful football in November.

There are only a handful of teams playing meaningful football in November as it is. If they aren't playing for a conference title or a national championship is it really meaningful if you finish 7-5 or 8-4?

Boston Red
11-03-2009, 05:09 PM
one of them was primetime Saturday.

Joke's on YOU! FSU/Miami was on Labor Day night! I'm aware that actually helps to make your point.

Sea Ray
11-03-2009, 05:10 PM
Do you think a Week 1 Miami/FSU game would get better ratings than a first round Iowa vs. TCU playoff game?

My only problem with the playoff idea is that no matter what format you go to you ruin the bowls. So you either have a big playoff which devalues the regular season a lot or a small playoff and then you only have a handful of teams that are playing meaningful football in November.


I don't see that it ruins the Bowls. It just changes the format for choosing which teams go to Bowls. There's any number of ways to do it but for example let's say we've got 8 teams playing off in 4 games. Play those four games in the Sugar, Orange, Citrus and Gator. Play the semi finals in the Rose and Fiesta and the finals in the National Championship game like it is now.

Another option is to do the "playoffs" in December and let the losers go to a Bowl Jan 1st or when ever.

There's plenty of ways to do it and it would make a ton of money.

dabvu2498
11-03-2009, 06:11 PM
Do you think a Week 1 Miami/FSU game would get better ratings than a first round Iowa vs. TCU playoff game?



Absolutely.

Caveat Emperor
11-03-2009, 06:46 PM
I've filled out several Bowl pools in the last few years.

Yeah, but the speculative "more" money we're talking about here is from the untapped pool of casual viewers who buy into $5 office pools during March Madness and then sit around watching games to see how their teams do. Everyone posting here is pretty irrelevant as far as BCS v. Playoffs go -- we're all college football fans and we're probably going to watch no matter what the format is. The issue is generating that extra fan interest and water-cooler discussion that March Madness gets which the BCS does not.

A playoff format has the opportunity to generate that additional interest, additional ratings and additional money, whereas the current system is probably tapped out on fan participation. Nothing about the BCS is going to draw new fans to college football or draw additional casual viewers to the games beyond what it already does -- whereas, in theory, the potential exists to bring more people to the table with a playoff.

I used a lot of "weasel words" here (potential, in theory, opportunity) because there's no guarantee either way. March Madness is something of a national phenomenon and it's silly to think that just because you copy a format to another sport that it'll be as successful (indeed, part of what makes March Madness special is the large number of teams and the "who the hell are they?!" factor of the low-seeds that wouldn't exist in an 8 or 16 team college football playoff).


There are only a handful of teams playing meaningful football in November as it is. If they aren't playing for a conference title or a national championship is it really meaningful if you finish 7-5 or 8-4?

Although I don't personally understand it (perhaps because I went to a school that doesn't have such an opponent), the issue came up a lot in the previous Ohio State thread that a lot of people consider it a successful season (regardless of record) so long as the Buckeyes beat Michigan.

So, although it seems like OSU isn't playing "meaningful" football since they're completely out of the BCS title race, they still have the OSU / Michigan game -- which, apparently, means as much to many alums as any national title shot.

BuckeyeRed27
11-03-2009, 08:23 PM
So, although it seems like OSU isn't playing "meaningful" football since they're completely out of the BCS title race, they still have the OSU / Michigan game -- which, apparently, means as much to many alums as any national title shot.

Well I would say its still meaningful to play in the Rose Bowl in the current system. The goal right now is to play in the best bowl game you can and hopefully that is the NCG. So with so many bowl games a lot of teams have something to play for. For the very top that's the NCG, but for everybody else it's just trying to get in a higher profile game or a game at all for some of the more average teams.

dougdirt
11-04-2009, 11:52 PM
Although I don't personally understand it (perhaps because I went to a school that doesn't have such an opponent), the issue came up a lot in the previous Ohio State thread that a lot of people consider it a successful season (regardless of record) so long as the Buckeyes beat Michigan.

So, although it seems like OSU isn't playing "meaningful" football since they're completely out of the BCS title race, they still have the OSU / Michigan game -- which, apparently, means as much to many alums as any national title shot.

Well unless my math is wrong, Ohio State can still beat Iowa and win the B10 title, thus qualify for my 'playing important football in November' scenario.

Chip R
11-05-2009, 12:53 PM
The WAC has hired a PR firm to pimp Boise St. for the BCS Championship game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4623676

BuckeyeRed27
11-05-2009, 12:58 PM
The WAC has hired a PR firm to pimp Boise St. for the BCS Championship game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4623676

That seems like a good use of money.

cumberlandreds
11-05-2009, 01:14 PM
The WAC has hired a PR firm to pimp Boise St. for the BCS Championship game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4623676

Looking at the schedules of Texas,Florida and Alabama it's almost inevitable that a Texas and SEC BCS championship game will happen. The biggest land mine left for the three is Alabama playing LSU this weekend. LSU is capable of winning that game but I find it unlikely. Boise is just wasting their money. They should be happy to go to the Fiesta Bowl and play TCU.

Cyclone792
11-05-2009, 01:55 PM
Looking at the schedules of Texas,Florida and Alabama it's almost inevitable that a Texas and SEC BCS championship game will happen. The biggest land mine left for the three is Alabama playing LSU this weekend. LSU is capable of winning that game but I find it unlikely. Boise is just wasting their money. They should be happy to go to the Fiesta Bowl and play TCU.

That PR firm has shifted their focus into simply getting Boise into any BCS game, not necessarily the championship. The WAC recognizes the fact that if TCU runs the table, they'll get the automatic berth and Boise will need an at large berth. That PR firm is trying to help Boise land an at large berth.

Caveat Emperor
11-05-2009, 05:39 PM
The WAC has hired a PR firm to pimp Boise St. for the BCS Championship game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4623676

The WAC and the MWC have the same problem -- there are too many awful teams in both conferences. No amount of PR or money is going to change that fact.

They'd be better of combining forces with their best programs: TCU, Boise State, Utah, BYU, Fresno State, Hawaii, and Air Force and getting rid of all the garbage.