View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently August 1st, 2014, 4:07 am



Reply to topic  [ 128 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
 2010-11 bowl schedule 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
Pablo wrote:
Because it is win or go home. Really, you can't understand that? Would a Lions playoff win mean more than a regular season win? Hell ya.


And if it means the same in the regular season... then it has the same impact. You are just assuming put that into some structure and at the end of the year. I see no difference, the only difference is what game you call important.

Pablo wrote:
Based on your logic, hell just name Auburn the champion now - why do they even need to play a game since most people and the computers this Auburn was the best team in the regular season. Starting to see how flawed your argument is yet?


Why is that my logic? My logic is to match the two best teams and keep the tradition.

Pablo wrote:
But you still don't get it. Let's see OSU finishes one spot ahead of MSU in basically every poll but gets into a BCS game and gets $17M to the Spartans $4.25M, really one spot in the standing equals four times the payout? talk about a farce...


I said there is issues needing fixed, like UCONN or VT getting the BCS births but having terrible years. I never said the BCS was perfect, but the best fit for COLLEGE football.

Pablo wrote:
BTW - here is an interesting article on how the BCS rankings aren't checked and just another reason why they are flawed...

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... -final-bcs

This system is a joke, I can't believe anyone out there still supports it.


It isn't a joke, it needs refined.

Pablo wrote:
Football has to be a one and done playoff system as you can't have a multiple game series due to the recovery time of the sport.


Agreed already, Never said it should. I just noted that you see a difference already in the pro and college level BECAUSE of the differences. Basically a less optimal crowning process to fit within the needs of the sport and level. It is proof we are ok with compromise.

Pablo wrote:
I'm not complaining about the $ per se, I'm stating how flawed even that system is. One spot in the rankings = 4X the $, so MSU's other sports are screwed because the computers put OSU one spot ahead - that makes it fair? BTW - shouldn't the system be set up to distribute the $ in a fairer means?


Then let's fix the rules that send an unranked team to the BCS games. Not the baby out with the bath water. All the arguments i have heard so far only point to fixing the BCS, not replacing it.

Pablo wrote:
So it's the biggest sport, why change it? Hummmmm, to make it better - much better? A novel concept I know. GM was the biggest automaker in the world, did they need changing? Rome was the most powerful... Oh, I could go on and on blowing away that line of thinking. Your argument has been made by MLB for years, how is that turning out? Well, I guess they are still America's passtime.


That is an opinion, why is playoff better? You are assuming all change is good, you vote for Obama? ;)

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


December 6th, 2010, 5:32 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
TheRealWags wrote:
Who said anything about giving up the Bowl games??? Incorporate those bowl games into the playoff capping it off with a TRUE, LEGIT National Championship game. Why can't that be done? Why does it have to be Bowl game OR playoff? Not too mention, a true playoff system would probably generate MORE $$$ for the schools (and NCAA as a whole).


So the top rated teams get to get all the bowl money? There are 36 bowl games (I think) and that means 72 teams count on this for budget reasons. Let's take a 16 team playoff run, most supported so far. You then take up 15 of the top bowls. 8 of them will pay the first round of 16 teams. The winners then get to double dip in the second round eliminating 8 teams worth of money that was there before to spread around. The winners of that round then get to triple dip into the next round of bowls for the third round, 4 teams. Then the champs get the final game to quadruple dip. Sounds even worse of a $$$ distribution system than before that people didn't like...

Essentially a 16 team playoff using bowl games take the top 15 bowls, eliminating 14 teams that would have gotten money before at the bottom, pushing the ones that would have gotten the middle money bowl games to the even further bottom of the barrel, and keeping the top 15 bowl game money to 16 teams. The winner, then gets 4 bowls worth of cash! How do you distribute that money?

TheRealWags wrote:
First off, I'm sure we all know I am NO NCAA football expert (not really that big of a fan...)...that being said, here is my Q&D ideas for a potential playoff system:

ALL NCAA D1/BCS conferences will have a Conf Championship game (which could be some of the current Bowl games??)
The winners of those games, will face each other and so on until a true National Championship game is played.
Teams that don't make it to their Champ game will be going to Bowl games.

Granted that is very simplistic, but I'm sure you get the idea. Its not really that far fetched or that difficult to accomplish. Will it take some time? Sure, but the end result should eliminate all this ranking crap (which is purely subjective).


That is essentially how the BCS works, except they take the champions and rank them on how good they are, pick the best two, and make them have a "one game playoff" to be crowned the champ. You're "lose and your out" happens during the regular season, putting all the playoff importance in the regular season. Play an easy schedule, your bad, gamble if you want, but you might not have the SOS to get into the champ game.

There in no more "true" national championship game than the one that is generally accepted. The winners of a playoff are not for sure the two best teams. In fact, depending on the size of the tourney, the top matchup only has a chance of 51% being the top two teams. I think the BCS assures a better than 51% chance the top two teams are playing each other each year.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


December 6th, 2010, 5:50 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3119
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
steensn wrote:
In the NCAA football world, there is tradition, $$$, etc. at steak. The schools WILL NOT let go of bowl games because that keeps their programs running. For example, the OSU athletics actually funs the academics to some level. The small schools are playing for a chunk of change too, just to keep their athletics open. A playoff system WILL NOT distribute that kind of money. It simply won't happen because schools cannot afford it. The NCAA basketball can have their tourney because the FOOTBALL programs are raking in the dough to fund the athletic department. It's simple... tradition and $$$ will never see the bowl games go away. Even Pablo is complaining about not getting the $$$ yet wants to do away with it!?

The BCS looks to pit great match ups of the best teams. It did it this year, it has done it in years past. NCAA football doesn't need a 100% for sure winner... it is the biggest college sport by far even with it's flaws. Why change it? The goal doesn't need to be crown a champ on your way to losing the millions of dollars pumped into the schools. It isn't worth it because it isn't a NEED.

Actually steensn you're dead wrong about this. The bowl representatives make a lot of money for themselves. But the teams often lose money on bowl games. This was all detailed very nicely in a Sports Illustrated article about a month ago. Here's a couple snippets from it:

Of the 120 athletic departments that play I-A football, 106 lost money in 2009, according to an NCAA report.

Ask Iowa. Halftime entertainment at the Jan. 1, 2009, Outback Bowl was provided by the Hawkeye Marching Band. And how did the Tampa Bay Bowl Association, which runs the game, thank the band for that gratis performance? By charging the university $65 a head for each of the 346 band members. According to university records submitted to the NCAA, the school was forced to purchase face-value tickets totaling $22,490 for the band, even though the game wasn't sold out.

For their appearance in the 2009 Orange Bowl, Virginia Tech and the ACC agreed to purchase 17,500 tickets at $125 per seat, but they could sell only 3,342, according to university documents. The result: a $1.77 million bath for the school, not the bowl.

Ohio State ate $1.01 million in unsold tickets at the 2009 Fiesta Bowl.

Yes, you may be saying to yourself, but what about the big bowls, the major BCS games like the Fiesta, Rose, Sugar and Orange bowls? Surely the teams who play in those get lucrative bowl payouts? And, in fact, Ohio State earned $18.5 million for making it to the Rose Bowl in January 2010. That's a serious boost to any team's bottom line. So it would have been, if the Buckeyes actually got to keep the money, which they did not. The $18.5 million went to the Big Ten, where it was added to a pool of bowl revenue that was then sliced into 12 shares—one for each team, one for the league office. That still left Ohio State with a tidy $2.2 million to spend, which the Buckeyes did. Ohio State's team travel costs were $352,727. Unsold tickets ran the school a cool $144,710. The bill to transport, feed and lodge the band and cheerleaders came to $366,814. Throw in entertainment, gifts and sundry other expenses, and the Buckeyes lost $79,597.

So who does make money on this? The coaches, AD's, and the bowl representatives.

...it works out nicely for coaches, who land tidy bonuses for even minor-bowl glory. ADs, too, reap a windfall for a bowl invite. The going rate: one month's extra salary for an appearance in even the lowliest game. Oregon's Rob Mullens receives $50,000 if the Ducks go bowling. Kentucky's Mitch Barnhart collects $30,000.

even for such inconsequential games as the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl, whose executive director, Gary Cavalli, is unlikely to go hungry, having pocketed $377,475 in 2009. Cavalli, of course, is a bargain compared with Sugar Bowl CEO Paul Hoolahan, who made $607,500 in fiscal 2007. Coming in just behind Hoolahan is John Junker, who is president and CEO of the Fiesta and Insight.com bowls. Junker's salary is nearly $600,000; in addition, three times he's taken out zero-interest loans from the Fiesta Bowl, which he has since repaid.

As with most things, follow the money. I think this whole situation is best summed up by the following line from the story:

As former Michigan AD Bill Martin said after the 2009 season, "The fact we didn't go to a bowl game the last two years means we actually made money."

This article pretty much rips every reason for having the current bowl system to shreds. When you actually dig in an see the facts, you see that power and money are driving this. Not school financials or student well-being or anything else.

Here's the article:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1177192/1/index.htm

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


December 6th, 2010, 5:58 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
No, what the article is saying is that the lower tier bowl games are not financially viable. Again, a FIX to the # of bowl games being propped up by the bigger ones. The bigger ones ARE financially viable IF smaller ones don't pop up to suck the profit out. That is not a problem proving the bowl system is wrong, is it just proving the implementation of these small bowl are silly. Again, baby out with the bathwater... If OSU goes to a BCS game and splits the winnings with all the other members making a bowl game:

Quote:
Why do the schools put up with this? Why are universities so willing to engage in what WAC commissioner Karl Benson deemed "bad business deals?" Because it works out nicely for coaches, who land tidy bonuses for even minor-bowl glory. ADs, too, reap a windfall for a bowl invite. The going rate: one month's extra salary for an appearance in even the lowliest game. Oregon's Rob Mullens receives $50,000 if the Ducks go bowling. Kentucky's Mitch Barnhart collects $30,000.

"A few years ago our ADs came to me and said, 'You've got to start some bowls,' " Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson says. "I said, 'You'll lose money.' They [each] said, 'I don't care.' "

The truth is that the lower-tier bowls exist because athletic directors are willing to prop them up (in the process forfeiting their universities' money), and because most conferences pool all their bowl payouts, using the bigger-money BCS games to cover the losses incurred in the smaller games. Thus does the Rose Bowl help subsidize the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl—a bowl bailout system that indeed spreads the wealth. Bowl directors privately admit that fewer than half the bowls could survive without the financial support from the schools.



Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... z17N9kuYGY

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


December 6th, 2010, 6:15 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
I hear over and over a playoff system would generate much more money but have no seen any reasons why or how.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


December 6th, 2010, 6:22 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
Interesting read:

http://www.alexmeske.com/Essays/cfbisfine1.htm

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


December 6th, 2010, 6:26 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
Someone did the math for me ;):

Quote:
Let us say that USC was the best team in the country last year. Not exactly a bold statement, I will admit, but I will go out on that limb. That means that they should win every time that they play a game. Now let us assume that they are playing a 16-team bracket and they are way better than their opponents in the first two rounds. Let us say that they will beat either of them 95% of the time (i.e. They would win a matchup between the two teams 19 out of 20 times). Now let us say that they would beat their second-round team 9 out of 10 times for a 90% likelihood of winning. And let's say that Oklahoma gets to the title game and USC would beat them 80% of the time. Statistically speaking, the likelihood of USC winning a national title as the team that is clearly the best in the country is only about a 2/3rds chance (.95 x .95 x .90 x .80 = .6498 -- or 64.98%). Thus, there is a 1 in 3 chance that a team that does not deserve to win a title will actually with the title. Compare that with a 4 out of 5 chance if USC just goes ahead and plays Oklahoma in a bowl game.

The odds get even worse if you consider a team that is not as overwhelmingly superior to the teams that it plays. Let's say that you have a team like Tennessee in 1998. They played through a tough schedule and they had their ups and downs but always got the job done in the end. However, they still managed to beat the teams they played and they showed that they were the best team in the country by ending the season as they only undefeated team in the country. They survived 12 weeks of crunch time and now they have to go in and prove it all over again in four straight weeks of games. With the same idea in mind, they play a team they beat 95% of the time in round 1, 90% in round 2, 80% in round 3, and 75% in the finals. That's pretty good when you can play any given team 4 times and beat them 3 times. In fact, 3-1 is considered a pretty sound victory in the first round of the NBA or MLB playoffs. However, that leaves Tennessee with just about a 50-50 chance of getting a national championship out of their season, despite the fact that they are the best team in the country (.95 x .90 x .80 x .75 = 51.3%).

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


December 6th, 2010, 6:29 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9378
Location: Dallas
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
steensn wrote:
I hear over and over a playoff system would generate much more money but have no seen any reasons why or how.


simple math: more games + more interest = more $

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


December 6th, 2010, 7:18 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
If the bowl games lose money why would the playoff games make money?

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


December 6th, 2010, 7:28 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3119
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
steensn wrote:
If the bowl games lose money why would the playoff games make money?

The bowl games don't lose money. They make all sorts of it. The money just isn't given back to the schools. Make it so the people running the bowls don't get to pocket so much of it and then it becomes a profitable venture for the schools.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


December 6th, 2010, 9:40 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
steensn wrote:
If the bowl games lose money why would the playoff games make money?

The bowl games don't lose money. They make all sorts of it. The money just isn't given back to the schools. Make it so the people running the bowls don't get to pocket so much of it and then it becomes a profitable venture for the schools.


Again, so the issue isn't the BCS it is the way the bowls are operating. So it isn't a reason to kill the BCS but to fix $$$ distribution from bowls.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


December 6th, 2010, 10:22 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11945
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
steensn wrote:
Someone did the math for me ;):

Quote:
Let us say that USC was the best team in the country last year. Not exactly a bold statement, I will admit, but I will go out on that limb. That means that they should win every time that they play a game. Now let us assume that they are playing a 16-team bracket and they are way better than their opponents in the first two rounds. Let us say that they will beat either of them 95% of the time (i.e. They would win a matchup between the two teams 19 out of 20 times). Now let us say that they would beat their second-round team 9 out of 10 times for a 90% likelihood of winning. And let's say that Oklahoma gets to the title game and USC would beat them 80% of the time. Statistically speaking, the likelihood of USC winning a national title as the team that is clearly the best in the country is only about a 2/3rds chance (.95 x .95 x .90 x .80 = .6498 -- or 64.98%). Thus, there is a 1 in 3 chance that a team that does not deserve to win a title will actually with the title. Compare that with a 4 out of 5 chance if USC just goes ahead and plays Oklahoma in a bowl game.

The odds get even worse if you consider a team that is not as overwhelmingly superior to the teams that it plays. Let's say that you have a team like Tennessee in 1998. They played through a tough schedule and they had their ups and downs but always got the job done in the end. However, they still managed to beat the teams they played and they showed that they were the best team in the country by ending the season as they only undefeated team in the country. They survived 12 weeks of crunch time and now they have to go in and prove it all over again in four straight weeks of games. With the same idea in mind, they play a team they beat 95% of the time in round 1, 90% in round 2, 80% in round 3, and 75% in the finals. That's pretty good when you can play any given team 4 times and beat them 3 times. In fact, 3-1 is considered a pretty sound victory in the first round of the NBA or MLB playoffs. However, that leaves Tennessee with just about a 50-50 chance of getting a national championship out of their season, despite the fact that they are the best team in the country (.95 x .90 x .80 x .75 = 51.3%).

You do realize that is all hypothetical, right?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


December 7th, 2010, 9:51 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
The exact numbers are hypothetical but well within the realm of reality and understanding. I'm sure anyone here can name teams that fit these "hypothetical" match ups.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


December 7th, 2010, 11:03 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9378
Location: Dallas
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
steensn wrote:
Someone did the math for me ;):

Quote:
Let us say that USC was the best team in the country last year. Not exactly a bold statement, I will admit, but I will go out on that limb. That means that they should win every time that they play a game. Now let us assume that they are playing a 16-team bracket and they are way better than their opponents in the first two rounds. Let us say that they will beat either of them 95% of the time (i.e. They would win a matchup between the two teams 19 out of 20 times). Now let us say that they would beat their second-round team 9 out of 10 times for a 90% likelihood of winning. And let's say that Oklahoma gets to the title game and USC would beat them 80% of the time. Statistically speaking, the likelihood of USC winning a national title as the team that is clearly the best in the country is only about a 2/3rds chance (.95 x .95 x .90 x .80 = .6498 -- or 64.98%). Thus, there is a 1 in 3 chance that a team that does not deserve to win a title will actually with the title. Compare that with a 4 out of 5 chance if USC just goes ahead and plays Oklahoma in a bowl game.

The odds get even worse if you consider a team that is not as overwhelmingly superior to the teams that it plays. Let's say that you have a team like Tennessee in 1998. They played through a tough schedule and they had their ups and downs but always got the job done in the end. However, they still managed to beat the teams they played and they showed that they were the best team in the country by ending the season as they only undefeated team in the country. They survived 12 weeks of crunch time and now they have to go in and prove it all over again in four straight weeks of games. With the same idea in mind, they play a team they beat 95% of the time in round 1, 90% in round 2, 80% in round 3, and 75% in the finals. That's pretty good when you can play any given team 4 times and beat them 3 times. In fact, 3-1 is considered a pretty sound victory in the first round of the NBA or MLB playoffs. However, that leaves Tennessee with just about a 50-50 chance of getting a national championship out of their season, despite the fact that they are the best team in the country (.95 x .90 x .80 x .75 = 51.3%).


If you are trying to improve the odds that the best team wins the title, lets just give it to them - 100% chance of accuracy. Oh wait been there done that as well and didn't rely on all the $ and tradition to maintain that system - imagine that.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


December 7th, 2010, 12:44 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
Pablo... you are trying to play slippery slope here...

You need to tell me why picking the top two teams and having them play out crowns the real best team less times than a playoff system...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


December 7th, 2010, 12:53 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 128 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.