Just some speculation about the future, trying to consider a bunch of factors and previous discussions.

First, I believe sincerely that discussions about future bowl agreements are almost for naught. I believe a playoff is coming, pretty soon. I’ve said this before, and been wrong, but the pressures are coming from more directions and I don’t think Div IA football will hold out much longer.

Some of those pressures are:
Too many bowls- Or so say the media pundits. Honestly, I'd have to agree, but opinions differ on which bowls should go.
Bowls w/ bad match-ups-Self explanatory
The repeated failure of the BCS/fan disgruntlement- Fans never liked it. Typically 80% or more of fans want a playoff. The past 2 years have been extraordinarily bad.
Bad BCS teams- Pitt
Poor TV ratings/attendance- You can only hide this for so long. Good games get ratings, the bad ones don’t. The BCS has produced too many bad ones.
Potential revenue from a playoff- I remember reports of consultants saying a playoff would generate 2x the revenue of the bowls. And expenses would be lower. What astonishes me is that I believe the BCS teams have been vying for all of that among their 65 team clique. Two times the revenue split among half of the teams?! Talk about greed!
Fox picking up the BCS- I expect they’ll shoot for changes. Murdoch has a keen eye for what generates profits.

A few weeks back, an SBC visitor said he discussed this w/ someone from the NCAA and they speculated that the NCAA would send the xBCS teams to their own division and give them a playoff. Then they’d soon turn the BCS into a playoff system as well. That might prevent lawsuits based on “equal access

Quote:First, I believe sincerely that discussions about future bowl agreements are almost for naught. I believe a playoff is coming, pretty soon. I’ve said this before, and been wrong, but the pressures are coming from more directions and I don’t think Div IA football will hold out much longer.

You may believe a playoff is coming, but I haven't seen any credible evidence to support that notion. Some folks talk about it, but there hasn't really been any substantial action.

Quote:Too many bowls- Or so say the media pundits. Honestly, I'd have to agree, but opinions differ on which bowls should go.
Bowls w/ bad match-ups-Self explanatory

As a member of the media, I'm glad to say that media pundits don't make such decisions because they are, quite frankly, business decisions, something most self-proclaimed media pundits simply don't understand. As long as bowls are financially viable, they stay. That simple. The Silicon Valley will die this year for not reaching the 3-year attendance minimum. There are already strong signals from Indianapolis and Toronto that a new bowl will replace it.

Bad matchups are part of college football. But if a bad match up produces a profitable game and some happy alumni, what's the harm?

Quote:The repeated failure of the BCS/fan disgruntlement- Fans never liked it. Typically 80% or more of fans want a playoff. The past 2 years have been extraordinarily bad.
Bad BCS teams- Pitt

80% or more? Where are you getting those figures? If it's some sort of non-scientific Web site poll, disregard them. The BCS is no cure-all, but it's not the only system that has produced questionable results. If not for the BCS, there's No Way the #1 and #2 team meet in a bowl. That's not the way they were set up before. Yes, Pitt is an example of why the BCS needs work. Yes, there are three potential #1 teams right now. That doesn't mean the system will be thrown away.

Quote:Poor TV ratings/attendance- You can only hide this for so long. Good games get ratings, the bad ones don’t. The BCS has produced too many bad ones.

Really?Poor ratings based on what figures? And, again, the market should make this determination. If the games don't draw well, they eventually will not be able to command major advertising dollars, which is what we know fuels the machine anyway. It's basic market-driven economics.

Quote:Potential revenue from a playoff- I remember reports of consultants saying a playoff would generate 2x the revenue of the bowls. And expenses would be lower. What astonishes me is that I believe the BCS teams have been vying for all of that among their 65 team clique. Two times the revenue split among half of the teams?! Talk about greed!

That's all news to me.

Quote:Fox picking up the BCS- I expect they’ll shoot for changes. Murdoch has a keen eye for what generates profits.

The entire process has been in constant flux since it started, so you're right to expect more changes.

[quote]Div IA will turn into 8 12-team leagues. The Pac 10 will pick up Utah and BYU. The MWC will merge the “best

BGSUalum1987 Wrote:

Quote:Potential revenue from a playoff- I remember reports of consultants saying a playoff would generate 2x the revenue of the bowls. And expenses would be lower. What astonishes me is that I believe the BCS teams have been vying for all of that among their 65 team clique. Two times the revenue split among half of the teams?! Talk about greed!

That's all news to me.

Seek and ye shall find. Simple google search, and it was repeated yesterday:

<a href='http://cbs.sportsline.com/general/story/7970453' target='_blank'>http://cbs.sportsline.com/general/story/7970453</a>
(about halfway down)

Quote:The debate is not new. The Bowl Coalition began in 1992 and the Bowl Alliance attempted to improve that system three years later. ABC began putting the major conferences together in 1998 -- holding the Rose Bowl as a trump card -- and persuading the other four major conferences to begin a "playoff" system in 1998 -- called the Bowl Championship Series.

Ironically, the Swiss conglomerate ISL proposed a 16-team college football playoff around that time. Colleges immediately rejected the proposal, though the $350 million annual payoff would have been twice the $181 million paid out to the 28 bowls this year alone.

This is probably the single biggest driver. You can talk about how the market influences the status of the other games, but the potential of a playoff trumps everything. I doubt it will be ignored much longer.

I'd be interested to see the long-term impact of moving to a 16-team playoff. This year, you had 60 football teams in the hunt for a post-season game, which certainly had to help interest in many programs.

A 16-team playoff seems to take us back to the days when there were just a handful of bowl games and only the Chosen Few ever really had a chance to play in the postseason.

The professional sports have been expanding their post-season in an effort to sustain fan interest. Seems like this plan would go counter to that trend.

Quote:A 16-team playoff seems to take us back to the days when there were just a handful of bowl games and only the Chosen Few ever really had a chance to play in the postseason.

The thing is, a 16-team playoff doesn't mean all the remaining bowls would have to disappear. Financially-sound bowls could continue to invite teams from among the bowls not involved in a playoff, and the bowls involved in the playoff could be rotated, so that no bowl is left out entirely. Alternately, a form of revenue-sharing might suffice.

The biggest stumbling block, IMHO, is: how do you determine who gets to the playoffs? Obviously, conference champions should be first in line. After that, the remaining five would have to be based on a formula or...maybe a committee vote?

Pitt isn't an example of why the BCS doesn't work.

The BCS was not designed to be fair. It was designed to get the six conference champions their traditional tie ins with the four major bowls, and try to get the top two teams in one game so there would not be any disputes as to who was national champ.

The stammoring and clamoring for who should be three and four and five is an unintended side-effect of the system. It wasn't designed to get 3 vs. 4 and 5 vs. 6 and 6 vs. 7.

BGSUalum1987 Wrote:A 16-team playoff seems to take us back to the days when there were just a handful of bowl games and only the Chosen Few ever really had a chance to play in the postseason.

That is a down side. Bowl games could continue, but it would much more like playing in the NIT.

The upside is the revenue a playoff would produce. I believe it would blow the current system out of the water -- so much so that I question the hold up (even though I'm not a playoff advocate). BCS programs could enrich themselves and still afford to share a little more equitably with non BCS programs.

CMichFan Wrote:After that, the remaining five would have to be based on a formula or...maybe a committee vote?

I wonder if a committee vote would be better.

This is all over-driven by football.

The idea of 8 12-team conferences is putrid. Destroying the great baskeball conferencea (ACC is already shooting themselves in the foot) for the sake of football makes me sick. The wonderful "everyone plays everyone at home and the road" is already gone, and that's pathetic. Splitting up an excellent mid-major basketball conference like the MAC for the sake of being cannon fodder in football is also very sad.

If anything, I see a total split, where football totally separates from all of the other sports. That way, the intriguity of the great basketball conferences can remain and football can do what it needs to to be more fan-acceptable.

bopol Wrote:This is all over-driven by football.

The idea of 8 12-team conferences is putrid. Destroying the great baskeball conferencea (ACC is already shooting themselves in the foot) for the sake of football makes me sick. The wonderful "everyone plays everyone at home and the road" is already gone, and that's pathetic. Splitting up an excellent mid-major basketball conference like the MAC for the sake of being cannon fodder in football is also very sad.

That's probably the biggest opposition to my speculation.

I'm not saying what I wrote is "best", I just think it seems fairly probable given the different factors involved. That includes people/legislators from Nev, Utah, NM and others who don't care to see their beloved schools shut out from such a big windfall.

Quote:That is a down side. Bowl games could continue, but it would much more like playing in the NIT.

Look at Akron this season. I doubt they'd turn down an "NIT" bowl, at this point. With a 16-team playoff, you're only taking about 1/4 of the bowl-eligible teams available. Even if you believe there are too many bowls -- I'm not inclined to argue much on that point -- that still leaves at least another 16 quality teams out there to select from.


In case anyone's wondering, I say @#$% the BCS.

My thoughts.

#1. The presidents have suspected for years that they were leaving money on the table. Since 1999 they have known they could increase post-season revenue about 2.5 times and those numbers were based on ISL making a profit (since they were a for-profit biz). The actual number is probably 3x.

#2.The I-A/I-AA Enhancement Committee's idea of renaming I-A Division I Bowl and I-AA Division I Playoff (or Division I BCS and Division I PCS) isn't going to fly because it makes a degree of sense.

#3. The I-A criteria is going to evolve in such a way to make moving up all but impossible while staying in I-A will be made easier because the presidents aren't terribly interested in a smaller I-A and but they don't want a gold rush to I-A. There are some changes that can be made that can survive anti-trust scrutiny, while the attendance criteria almost certainly cannot survive.

#4. 8 leagues of 12 is a nice idea BUT it has practical issues, among them the Pac-10's vehement opposition of going to 12 and the Big 10's decision to wait for Notre Dame to humble itself before they will go to 12.

#5. If a playoff does come 12 team leagues are bad. A nine team league has just as good a shot of sending 2 teams as a 12 but without the risk of knocking a team out and with only 9 sharing revenue vs. 12.

I'd prefer to see the Top 8 teams in the BCS standings period regardless of conf. affiliation and (regardless if you win your conference or not) to go to a playoff, and the remaing 6-5 team are eligible for a bowl game.

You keep the integrity of the bowls and produce what the fans want in a playoff. This is a needed change, but nothing drastic that would offend too many "power ups" involved in Div. 1-A college football.

mpurdy22 Wrote:I'd prefer to see the Top 8 teams in the BCS standings period regardless of conf. affiliation and (regardless if you win your conference or not) to go to a playoff, and the remaing 6-5 team are eligible for a bowl game.

If you only take the top 8 of the BCS standings, every year a big conference is going to be left out of the picture. The powers that be won't let that scenario happen. Any post season system is going to have auto bids for the PAC-10, Big 10, ACC, Big 10 and Big XII.

I like the bowl system because college football is a regional sport driven by alumni fan bases. Unless you're talking about a school averaging 80,000 at home with broad National appeal, I don't think they would draw well on a neutral site for multiple games. You could have the playoffs at home stadiums, but that wouldn't be fair to the visitors.

One element of the current BCS system that I'm in major disagreement with is the heavy reliance on the ESPN and AP polls in determining the National Champion. USC and Oklahoma had an unfair advantage over Auburn by starting the season ranked #1/#2. I think the human polls should just be averaged in with the computer polls.

Other than the human polls taking over the BCS, I'm thrilled with some of the changes made to the BCS. I like the simplification of the BCS system down to just the computer and human polls. And I also like the new BCS access rules for the coalition schools. A top 12 ranking or top 16 ranking if a BCS champion is rated below 16 is fair for the little guy. The coalition schools are finally playing by the same rules. Coalition conferences don't have automatic berths, but taking in consideration the average finish of even the worst BCS conference which is above top 12, coalition conference do not deserve an automatic berth. Maybe, just maybe the MWC deserves an automatic bid, and maybe the Big East should not have one. MAC, WAC, CUSA, SBC don't belong in the club. Many of those schools should be in 1-AA, and some will be going there with the attendance rule.

Honestly, I liked it back before there was a BCS.

Those were the days when there was only 15-20 bowls.
Those were the days that you had to watch every game because if Team A beat Team B then that might allow Team C if they beat Team D to be the National Champions.
I didn't mind split NC since we have the same thing now.
Those were the days when the big bowl games were actually played on New Years Day...and it was an honor to do so.
Those were the days when only good teams went to bowl games.
Those were the days when it was called the Sugar, Fiesta, Cotton.....not the Nokia, Tostitos or SBC.

Money seems to ruin everything that is pure in this world. :rolleyes: :(

They were also the days when a press box full of bowl representatives meant something.

I imagine being a bowl rep was much more fun back in those days as well.

Kit-Cat Wrote:Maybe, just maybe the MWC deserves an automatic bid, and maybe the Big East should not have one. MAC, WAC, CUSA, SBC don't belong in the club. Many of those schools should be in 1-AA, and some will be going there with the attendance rule.

Umm... You may want to keep the MAC in there. The MAC is the only Non-BCS conference to finish with two Top-25 teams (TWICE!)

FtLauderdaleRocket Wrote:Honestly, I liked it back before there was a BCS.

Those were the days when there was only 15-20 bowls.
Those were the days that you had to watch every game because if Team A beat Team B then that might allow Team C if they beat Team D to be the National Champions.
I didn't mind split NC since we have the same thing now.
Those were the days when the big bowl games were actually played on New Years Day...and it was an honor to do so.
Those were the days when only good teams went to bowl games.
Those were the days when it was called the Sugar, Fiesta, Cotton.....not the Nokia, Tostitos or SBC.

Money seems to ruin everything that is pure in this world. :rolleyes: :(

Totally agree. BCS most years has totally messed things up. The word tradition has been stomped and trashed due to the BCS. Could you imagine these "traditional" match ups this year?

Rose (pac 10 v big 10): USC V. Mich
Sugar (sec v. at large): Auburn v. TX or cal or utah
Fiesta (big 12 v at large): Oklahoma v. CAL ot tx or utah
Orange (ACC v at large): V Tech v. Utah or cal or tx


You could have a situation where Utah could be the national champion.

The BCS inflates the supposed national championship game, and diminishes the worth of the other major bowls.

One last gripe: Have all the games on Jan 1st for Chryst sakes.

Say it, brother

Quote:This is all over-driven by football.

The idea of 8 12-team conferences is putrid. Destroying the great baskeball conferencea (ACC is already shooting themselves in the foot) for the sake of football makes me sick. The wonderful "everyone plays everyone at home and the road" is already gone, and that's pathetic. Splitting up an excellent mid-major basketball conference like the MAC for the sake of being cannon fodder in football is also very sad.

If anything, I see a total split, where football totally separates from all of the other sports. That way, the intriguity of the great basketball conferences can remain and football can do what it needs to to be more fan-acceptable.