Re: Michigan Law Prof and 2L Hooker
 

Idiot. If you're going to arrange an anonymous BDSM encounter over Craigslist, get. It. On. Videotape. A word to the wise is sufficient.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

No, you're still on Skim.

Re: Coke with Stevia
 

Can't be any worse than that gyro I had yesterday.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

D-II and D-III football have playoffs. The World Cup has playoffs. Many other non-US leagues have playoffs. Perhaps the presence of playoffs in nearly every sport suggests that they are universally regarded as the best (or least bad) way to decide a champion. Having no playoff is not "unamerican" it's "unsport", like figure skating, gymnastics, and anything that relies on judges to decide winners.

Ah the tradition argument. A more regular winner than "unamerican".

Not really. I'll bet if you asked Boise State whether they wanted to be in a playoff even if all the money went to the majors, they'd say yes.

But the issue isn't really sharing the wealth, because the majors would do as well if not better with a playoff system. Sure, the money would be spread more ways, but they'd be more of it for them as well.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

Yes, but so what? That outrage, much like the outrage that an NCAA basketball team doesn't make it to the Big Dance is short-lived and inconsequential once the playoff begins. Sure teams will get screwed and not make the playoffs. But people want the championship settled. Like I said, all that matters is that you have a legitimate championship game. And a playoff is as legit as it gets.

So you're saying a playoff isn't as inclusive as it should be in an ideal world where teams don't get to pick their regular season games, so it doesn't work even though you have the exact same problem right now? Sounds like you're just arguing to have a bigger playoff pool.

TM

Re: Michigan Law Prof and 2L Hooker
 

I noticed their spelling was similar.

S_A_M

Re: Michigan Law Prof and 2L Hooker
 

ah, but according to dtb I date realdolls, not escorts. fwiw realdolls don't call the police, nor do they call their owners weird, even though every owner is.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

I think what he's saying is that the current monopoly created by the major conferences is worse than the prior monopoly created by the major conferences in which not only did they pre-assign who was in the bowls, they also preassigned which bowls they went to.

I really don't see why any of this is so hard. Take the six conference champions. Take the highest ranked team from outside those conferences. Take the next highest ranked team after that (whether in the six or not, so it could be Texas or it could be Boise St. this year). Seed 'em, play 'em, and award a giant trophy with dollar bills floating down like confetti on the college presidents.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

That is at best an assumption.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

I am just giving you the argument that will be made. Personally, I don't care whether Boise State is left out of the current one game playoff or the soon to come eight game playoff.

Re: Michigan Law Prof and 2L Hooker
 

Strangely enough, though, she is a much better writer. Given that we are lawyers, that means we have to believe her side of the story, right?

ETA: Oops. You meant Hank's spelling is similar to the Slappy Professor's.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

bowl games often undersell. I'm getting several emails trying to sell me tickets to MSU's bowl game, it isn't sold out. If we were in a playoff that day I think it would sell better. the problem will be the next week's game if we win the first. in an 8 team playoff the 3rd game will be easy to sell out.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

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.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

I'm saying that playoffs would sell better than the current bowls, contrary to Adder's contention.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

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

And if the playoff game was Boise State against Troy State, how much tv revenue would it generate?

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

My contention was that there are factors that cut in both directions and it isn't clear which would sell better.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

Absolutely. And if you keep the rest of the bowl games in some pre-playoff weeks, the sales won't be any worse, because it will still attract teh same fans that care about an otherwise meaningless game.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

Are you kidding? The TV contracts are years in advance, and they're not being sold on having Troy State/Boise matchups yearly. And, if you have this matchup it's because both teams are great, and viewers will tune in.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

I've been getting e-mails weekly telling me to hurry, before the tickets to the Texas Bowl (Rice vs. Western Michigan) sell out.

ETA: apparently Notre Dame declined the gracious invitation, opting to go to Hawaii instead.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

We would probably be in fewer bowls, but would be in one this year. I assume the playoffs would take up some of the current bowl games, so the lesser teams (of which MSU is one) would appear less frequently.

given how playoffs are seeded that won't happen unless one of them is somehow number 1.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

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.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

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.

I suspect the ratings would not agree with you.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

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.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

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.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

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.

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.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

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

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

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.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

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.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

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.

Well duh.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

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.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

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

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

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

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.

Jesus
 

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

Doesn't someone have a boob gif or something?

Re: Jesus
 

http://sait.usc.edu/recsports/spirit...008squad07.jpg

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

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

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).

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

So you're cool with the Supreme Court deciding elections, too?

Re: Jesus
 

I wonder if any of these girls will mind if I tag them, pi!

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

Dude. You are making this a lot harder than it is. You are saying that a playoff system is going to be more profitable. I'm saying that is an assumption because there are factors that cut both ways, one of which is that the Gator bowl can pass over Minnesota to select Wisconsin even if Minnesota had a better record, because Wisconsin will sell more tickets and draw more viewers.

Not to mention is the playoffs were certain to be more profitable, we would already have a playoff (ignoring that distribution issue).

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

If I thought elections didn't matter, yes.

Re: put down the pitchforks
 

A monopoly is more profitable . . . for the monopoly.