Congratulations Slave and Catrin!!!

[notcasesensitive]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

MSU must have shitty fans,* then, because any SEC, ACC, or Big XII team would have the fans lined up in RVs ready to go. The Pac-10 perhaps not, but they have the rockies to cross. If the first games aren't on campus, you do regions, and it's even easier to do than with basketball, since you know there's one in the west (LA, SF, Seat, Phoenix), one in the midwest (Minn. Stl., or Indy), one in the southwest (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio) and one in the south (New Orleans, Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville)


* Oops, I should point out that this is another problem with the "100 years of tradition bowl system"--there are too many bowls featuring crappy teams. Every team with a winning record gets to play, so it's nothing special. The payouts are tiny on these games. It usually costs the university money to play. They do it for the extra practice time that it allows, not because they get anything in return.

I was surprised to find out last week that they changed the system t have this BCS Championship game. Shows how much attention I pay to college football.

As to shitty teams going to worthless bowl games, Mr. Man is aggravated that Wisconsin even made a bowl this year considering how horribly they played (all of this is heresay to me, as I didn't intentionally watch a single game this year), but he points out that Wisconsin will basically always be invited to some bowl game because they are known as a school whose fans travel. And yes, that is mainly because the fans want an excuse to get the hell out of Wisconsin in December/January.

I'd be happy if they did away with the bowls (one of my least favorite things about New Year's Day, other than the inevitable hangover) and, heck, I might even watch a college playoffs series. Intentionally.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Are you kidding? The TV contracts are years in advance, and they're not being sold on having Troy State/Boise matchups yearly.

It only takes it happening once for the price of the next contract to drop through the floor. Or, more likely, for the rules to be changed again to avoid it.

And, if you have this matchup it's because both teams are great, and viewers will tune in.

I suspect the ratings would not agree with you.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Adder

It only takes it happening once for the price of the next contract to drop through the floor. Or, more likely, for the rules to be changed again to avoid it.

Why? In a five year contract there would be 20 first round games. If one is a "dud" matchup like this, 5 are going to be blowouts. That's much more likely to affect the contract price. And even then, I doubt it--the NFL has some weak matchups the first weekend of the playoffs (the mediocre division winners against the wildcards) and the NFL hasn't taken a hit.

Besides, as hank points out that's likely to be a championship game, and there's no way the nets can't promote the hell out of a cinderella vs. cinderella story.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

* Oops, I should point out that this is another problem with the "100 years of tradition bowl system"--there are too many bowls featuring crappy teams. Every team with a winning record gets to play, so it's nothing special. The payouts are tiny on these games. It usually costs the university money to play. They do it for the extra practice time that it allows, not because they get anything in return.

The big bowls are cash cows for the teams and their conferences. Read Wetzel's article. The big bowls are so awash in cash that they have to find creative ways to spend it (they're all non-profits). It's the lesser bowls that have popped up in recent years that don't benefit the entrants financially, and I wouldn't call them part of the bowl tradition.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I doubt it--the NFL has some weak matchups the first weekend of the playoffs (the mediocre division winners against the wildcards) and the NFL hasn't taken a hit.

I don't think we know that. The NFL never had the opportunity to have it's post season feature the Giants against the Patriots every year.

Besides, as hank points out that's likely to be a championship game, and there's no way the nets can't promote the hell out of a cinderella vs. cinderella story.

Yes, Hank has a good point. The dud game is unlikely to be in the first round if the teams are seeded appropriately. And you are right that later round games might do even better if the matchup is the result of upsets.

Some proponents of a playoff system favor keeping the traditional bowl matchups though (e.g. Rose as PAC 10 vs. Big 10), which could lead to some less appealing contests in the other games.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

Would MSU even have a bowl game if there was a playoff system? If it did, would it sell more or fewer tickets?

Why wouldn't it? They have no shot at the title either way. It's just an extra game for the more successful teams. If they can't sell tickets to a crap bowl game after a playoff is instituted, then the only reason why we have them now is pure greed.

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't think we know that. The NFL never had the opportunity to have it's post season feature the Giants against the Patriots every year.

.

Huh? Every year, the Super Bowl could be a matchup of two wild card teams. It hasn't happened because the better teams usually win. So what you're hypothesizing is that an extremely unlikely outcome might reduce TV contract rights, so the whole proposition is a bad idea.

And if the NFL did it like the BCS, last year the Patriots would have played the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. Packers fans would have been bitching that they had just as good a record, and shouldn't have the road loss against the Cowboys, without Brett Favre, count against them. Meanwhile, the Giants would have played in Memphis against the Jacksonville Jaguars two weeks before the Super Bowl, in a game attended by ncs, but not Mr. Man, and a few other diehards. Meanwhile, the Bills and Saints would be playing as well, somewhere, on ESPN2.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Adder

Some proponents of a playoff system favor keeping the traditional bowl matchups though (e.g. Rose as PAC 10 vs. Big 10), which could lead to some less appealing contests in the other games.

My understanding of those proposals is that the traditional "host" conference would have its team play in a given bowl (Rose: Pac 10; Sugar: SEC; Orange: Big XII; Fiesta: whoever). That makes some sense, but the real motivation is to gain support among the existing bowls for a playoff and show their ox wouldn't get gored.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Why wouldn't it? They have no shot at the title either way.

I don't know. Do you think if we end up with a 16 team playoff (which is where I think we are eventually headed), the rest of the bowls will survive? Maybe, but I don't know.

If they can't sell tickets to a crap bowl game after a playoff is instituted, then the only reason why we have them now is pure greed.

Well duh.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Huh? Every year, the Super Bowl could be a matchup of two wild card teams. It hasn't happened because the better teams usually win. So what you're hypothesizing is that an extremely unlikely outcome might reduce TV contract rights, so the whole proposition is a bad idea.

Let me try again. Right now, the bowls get to pick the matchups according to which teams will make them most money (ticket sales and tv viewers). They get to do that almost without regarding to which teams are better than others.

You are comparing that to the NFL, where the matchups are selected only by performance. And arguing that the NFL system doesn't lose money because it can't pick matchups for their profitability.

I'm saying you can't say that, because we don't know what the NFL would get if it got to pick matchups to maximize profits.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't know. Do you think if we end up with a 16 team playoff (which is where I think we are eventually headed), the rest of the bowls will survive? Maybe, but I don't know.

If MSU can't manage to be good enough to be one of the 16 teams that make the playoffs, should I care?

Originally Posted by Adder

Well duh.

I no longer understand what you're arguing. If it's a matter of pure greed, have a playoff system where 64 teams are invited, each game is given a bowl name and a sponsor, the college football season is extended accordingly and we spend all the money on hookers and blow.

I think the most important thing here is that we have a legitimate championship game and a legitimate champion. I don't understand why you think either voting for a champion or the current system is better than having a playoff system.

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Adder

Let me try again. Right now, the bowls get to pick the matchups according to which teams will make them most money (ticket sales and tv viewers). They get to do that almost without regarding to which teams are better than others.

You are comparing that to the NFL, where the matchups are selected only by performance. And arguing that the NFL system doesn't lose money because it can't pick matchups for their profitability.

I'm saying you can't say that, because we don't know what the NFL would get if it got to pick matchups to maximize profits.

But you're describing a system that hasn't existed for years, if ever. In the 1980s, most of the bowls matched the best team in a conference against either the best team in another conference, the best team not in a conference with a bowl team, or the best available "independent" team (of which there were many more). And they all stumbled all over each other fighting for those few good teams before the season was over. So teams would have bowls lined up before playing their last two or three games.

Then the Bowl Alliance came along in the 1990s, where you still had conference tie ins, but a more orderly selection process. the order was the bowl with the highest rated team tied to it got to pick first among the at large teams, and so forth. If 1 and 2 were both tied in, then #2 could play #1.

Then the BCS.

So at no time in the last 30 years have the bowls been able to pick matchups based on the most fan interest or tv. Instead, they've been able to pick matchup with significant constraints, and only then maximizing the attractiveness of the matchup. So if you want me to take the comparison further, that's fine, but what it will involve is the champion of the NFC East automatically playing the champion of the AFC west, unless the champion of the AFC east is #1 and the champion of the NFC east is #2, in which case, NFCE plays AFCE.

If you really believe the old system was more profitable than the new system, then why have they kept changing the criteria to allow more freedom for matchups and fewer bowl tie ins? Perhaps because that's more profitable? If so, then saying the old system was better has no legs to stand on. A playoff is just one (or two) steps further--get the best matchups except in a playoff.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Enough with the BCS. I thought we stopped at "intellectual masturbation"?

Doesn't someone have a boob gif or something?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Enough with the BCS. I thought we stopped at "intellectual masturbation"?

Doesn't someone have a boob gif or something?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If MSU can't manage to be good enough to be one of the 16 teams that make the playoffs, should I care?

I think there are currently 34 bowl games. So that leaves 52 team who might care.

I think the most important thing here is that we have a legitimate championship game and a legitimate champion.

That is our fundamental disagreement. I both don't think it matters that we have a "legitimate" champion and don't think that expanding to an 8 game playoff makes it much more legitimate. 16 probably does, but I just don't see the value in messing with it (including the BCS).