College football 2009

[nickagneta]

But the bowl money is already on top of the guaranteed money the universities get for the money national and local television packages that are in place that make the universities as a whole hundreds of millions of dollars a year already. 12 separate newtworks have paid rights to broadcast college football. The amount of money being thrown around for these rights is already staggering as a cumulative number. ESPN has already paid JUST THE SEC $2.25 BILLION for the rights to televise their games through 2025. The total television money already being thrown around is more than what you have suggested.

Ok ok. You've got me there so let me just put it this way. The presidents preside over both sports. I'm just saying there is presumably one best way to make the most money.  I assume it's a tournament and that both sports would have tournaments. Baseball and hockey also have them.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the best way to make the most money is with one championship game and a bunch of elite meaningless games. So let's just say that's the best way. Then I'd think that the presidents would move towards a BCS system in those sports too.

I' just saying I would think that one way would make the most money and that's what all the sports would have and I'd assume it's a playoff.  But maybe I'm wrong. If I'm wrong why are the presidents leaving all that extra money on the table?

I doesn't work that way for a number of reasons. You are trying to use logic here and logic just doesn't work. The unique nature of the number of games in football, the higher popularity of college football over the other college sports, the tradition and history of the game and it's place in college life and the money making revenue streams that have been in place for close to a century make it impossible to use your logic on this particular subject. It doesn't work that way.

[Eja117]

But the bowl money is already on top of the guaranteed money the universities get for the money national and local television packages that are in place that make the universities as a whole hundreds of millions of dollars a year already. 12 separate newtworks have paid rights to broadcast college football. The amount of money being thrown around for these rights is already staggering as a cumulative number. ESPN has already paid JUST THE SEC $2.25 BILLION for the rights to televise their games through 2025. The total television money already being thrown around is more than what you have suggested.

Ok ok. You've got me there so let me just put it this way. The presidents preside over both sports. I'm just saying there is presumably one best way to make the most money.  I assume it's a tournament and that both sports would have tournaments. Baseball and hockey also have them.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the best way to make the most money is with one championship game and a bunch of elite meaningless games. So let's just say that's the best way. Then I'd think that the presidents would move towards a BCS system in those sports too.

I' just saying I would think that one way would make the most money and that's what all the sports would have and I'd assume it's a playoff.  But maybe I'm wrong. If I'm wrong why are the presidents leaving all that extra money on the table?

I doesn't work that way for a number of reasons. You are trying to use logic here and logic just doesn't work. The unique nature of the number of games in football, the higher popularity of college football over the other college sports, the tradition and history of the game and it's place in college life and the money making revenue streams that have been in place for close to a century make it impossible to use your logic on this particular subject. It doesn't work that way.

In a way I completely agree. This has nothing to with logic or sports or tradition or funny feelings in knees and has everything to do with money, and I just would have thought they'd make the most money on a tourney and give the people what they want while raking it in, but if that's not where the money would be then I'm wrong.

I just assume there are people with degrees in accounting and finance that would sit in a room and after a couple months be like "We'd make the most money doing this" and that's what they'd do.

Otherwise I think they leave themselves wide open to lawsuits here. I just think there's only so long they can do this for. At some point I just think a handful of mid west senators looking to get votes would be like "Hey Florida. You can't keep screwing state universities from Idaho and Utah out of tens of millions of dollars a year and think everything will be ok".

[Roy Hobbs]

The problem with a playoff is that the most popular models suggest either 8 or 4 teams.  That still means non-BCS teams will miss out.

Only a 16 team playoff fixes the problems folks are complaining about in this thread.  The problems with that are that would add three more games to the season than there are now.  Four playoff games not only puts a ton of wear and tear on the body, but also requires a ton of travel for these "student athletes".

[ToppersBsktball10]

Florida's overrated.

[nickagneta]

My friend who is at an ACC school was at a MAC school before going to a better position at his current university(these jobs can be nomadic as these guys move amongst different schools every few years). One of the years he was there his school won the right to go to the Motor City Bowl.

Here's the problem. Not a lot of Mac teams make bowl games and because they were good enough to be the only MAC team going to a bowl that year the money they got they had to split with everyone in the league. It cost their university more money to travel to Detroit to play in the bowl game than they made playing in the game because they had to split the payment from the MCB.

[Eja117]

The problem with a playoff is that the most popular models suggest either 8 or 4 teams.  That still means non-BCS teams will miss out.

Only a 16 team playoff fixes the problems folks are complaining about in this thread.  The problems with that are that would add three more games to the season than there are now.  Four playoff games not only puts a ton of wear and tear on the body, but also requires a ton of travel for these "student athletes".

I guess but the basketball, hockey, and baseball "student athletes" play a ton of games too, and they have very big tourneys.  Plus you add a few games, but for those 16 schools you take one out too. Heck. The girls play in tourneys

[Bahku]

Boise State is a great team ... if the BCS doesn't give them the respect they deserve, I'll be very upset. Talk about over-achieving ... what an amazing bunch of guys!

[Roy Hobbs]

Boise State is a great team ... if the BCS doesn't give them the respect they deserve, I'll be very upset. Talk about over-achieving ... what an amazing bunch of guys!

I think last night's game is going to hurt them.  Playing their schedule, they need to absolutely dominate everyone.  Instead, they've had too relatively close games against vastly inferior competition.

The win against Oregon is going to help them big time, but they really need to crush everyone else to prove they belong.

The BCS has them behind seven other undefeated schools.  I'd probably have them #4, but they're going to get knocked down due to strength of schedule.

[Eja117]

Boise State is a great team ... if the BCS doesn't give them the respect they deserve, I'll be very upset. Talk about over-achieving ... what an amazing bunch of guys!

I think last night's game is going to hurt them.  Playing their schedule, they need to absolutely dominate everyone.  Instead, they've had too relatively close games against vastly inferior competition.

The win against Oregon is going to help them big time, but they really need to crush everyone else to prove they belong.

The BCS has them behind seven other undefeated schools.  I'd probably have them #4, but they're going to get knocked down due to strength of schedule.

I agree with Roy that BSU has to do better than push through wins against La Tech, but to me if they beat a team like that by 10 points it shouldn't be worse than if Bama beats unranked Tennesee at home by 2 points on a last second miracle play, but I think to voters it is.

I will be curious to see how some of this shake sout when some undefeated teams start defeating each other (like I guess Bama and Florida)

[Donoghus]

With the exception of today's SEC showdown, I'm not too enamored with this week's slot of games. 

Alabama v. LSU- Obviously the big game of the week.  Alabama looking to stay undefeated and the SEC West title is at stake.  I can't see LSU's offense doing much damage on that 'Bama defense.

Penn St. v. Ohio St.- Big 10 battle.  If Iowa slips up down the stretch, one of these teams could sneak away with the Big 10 title.  Also, the winner of this game keeps their "at-large" bid hopes alive for a BCS bowl.

Oklahoma v. Nebraska- Although both teams have had their struggles this year, its still a classic old school "Big 8" rivalry. 

UConn v. Cincinnati- Bearcats look to keep their undefeated season going with a national televised affair against the Huskies who came off that emotional last second loss last week.

B.C. v. Bye Week-  Liking this matchup a lot for the Eagles.  I expect some points here.

[nickagneta]

Huskers inept offense decides to take week off and I say Nebraska wins bye 2 TDs or more against Oklahoma once again confirming the myth that was Oklahoma being a great team this year.

Go Big Red!!!! Go Huskers!!!!

[Eja117]

This article speaks to something a poster was saying last week and to what Roy has been saying for 3 weeks.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-boise110709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

It basically says Boise St has called every good team in the country offering to show up and play any time anywhere, without asking for a return trip to Idaho, but every school in the country is afraid to play them. He's specifically asking for 2011.

So if they won't play them, in 2011 they should automatically be ranked #1 in the preseason, right? I mean if you're afraid of Boise St, it's because you think they're better, right?

And I guess Oregon should be ranked #2 since they're the only ones that will put themselves on the line. Don't expect USC to line up to play Boise St.

What I'm surprised about is that other teams outside the BCS don't line up to play each other. I'd think if TCU, Boise St, Utah, BYU, and whoever else was good and was supposed to be good last year lined up (I guess Central Mich is best in the MAC, and Troy is best in the Sun Belt, and Houston in CUSA) then nobody could make the ridiculous exclusionary arguments against these schools and you'd have a legit #1 non-BCS team one of these years.

[Donoghus]

Longhorns offense struggling early against UCF.  They definitely have the defense.  The offense has been very inconsistent this year.  Colt McCoy has looked like he's taken a step back this season.  

[nickagneta]

Longhorns offense struggling early against UCF.  They definitely have the defense.  The offense has been very inconsistent this year.  Colt McCoy has looked like he's taken a step back this season.  

I believe that team is wildly over rated. They play a weak ass schedule, in a very weak power conference this year, and they look very ordinary at times.

[Donoghus]

This article speaks to something a poster was saying last week and to what Roy has been saying for 3 weeks.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-boise110709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

It basically says Boise St has called every good team in the country offering to show up and play any time anywhere, without asking for a return trip to Idaho, but every school in the country is afraid to play them. He's specifically asking for 2011.

So if they won't play them, in 2011 they should automatically be ranked #1 in the preseason, right? I mean if you're afraid of Boise St, it's because you think they're better, right?

And I guess Oregon should be ranked #2 since they're the only ones that will put themselves on the line. Don't expect USC to line up to play Boise St.

No, they shouldn't automatically be ranked #1. Boise State faces a Catch-22.  They play in a below average non-BCS conference and they also play in a system where teams are becoming more reluctant to schedule tough non-conference opponents because of the BCS implications.  For example, playing in the SEC alone amounts to playing two or three "make or break" games a year.  Why make life harder by also scheduling a tough non-BCS team?  Its about bowl payouts, not fearing opponents.  Playing a tough non-conference schedule on top of your conference schedule could mean quite the decrease in bowl revenue coming your way.

Once again, this has nothing about what's going on, on the field. It has everything to do with economics.