Death to the BCS - What a True Playoff Would Look Like

[The_Wippuh]

With the BCS season here for us all to enjoy, I wanted to plug a book I read last year that I thoroughly enjoyed.
 
Death to the BCS: Totally Revised and Updated: the Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series.
 
http://www.amazon.com/Death-BCS-Definitive-Championship-ebook/dp/B0052RCW3Y/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1354551770&sr=8-3&keywords=death+to+the+bcs
 
Want to see the insane money involved with college football and understand why there are so many shitty, shitty bowl games.  This book will tell you and leave you hating everything about the system.

Amazon Description:

Every college sport picks its champion by a postseason tournament, except for one: Divsiion I-A football. Instead of a tournament, fans are subjected to the Bowl Championship Series, an arcane mix of polling and mathematical rankings that results in just two teams playing for the championship. It is, without a doubt, the most hated institution in all of sports. A recent Sports Illustrated poll found that more than 90% of sports fans oppose the BCS, yet this system has remained in place for more than a decade.
 
Building upon top-notch investigative reporting, Wetzel, Peter, and Passan at last reveal the truth about this monstrous entity and offer a simple solution for fixing it. Death to the BCS: Totally Revised and Updated is brought up to date to cover the 2010-2011 season, listing which teams were screwed by the BCS (such as TCU), how much money college football left on the table by not having a playoff (based on 2011 tax filings), and how the calls for the abolition of the BCS grew even louder this past year. The book also includes findings from interviews with power players, as well as research into federal tax records, congressional testimony, and private contracts. The first book to lay out the unseemly inner workings of the BCS in full detail, Death to the BCS is a rousing manifesto for bringing fairness back to one of our most beloved sports.

Wetzel's proposed solution for the crappy BCS is a 16 team playoff.  You take the conference champ from all 11 Div-1 conferences, so EVERYONE has a shot and add in 5 at large bids, from the highest remaining ranked teams.  Then you let the first three rounds be played at the higher seed's field (regular season is ultimately important all of a sudden), champ game in a neutral location.  This is proposed $1 BILLION dollar scenario that brings in an additional 300% of revenue :x 
 
To tell you what this would look like, lets take a look at what this season's 16 team playoff would look like.  Since Tulsa, Ark State and Wisconsin were all out of the top 25, I took a look at the AP poll and placed them as they received votes
 
Conference - Team - Final Ranking
ACC - FSU - 12
Big 10 - Wisconsin - a
USA - Tulsa - c
MAC - NIU - 15
Pac 12 - Stanford - 6
SEC - Alabama - 2
Big 12 - KSU - 5
Big East - Louisville - 21
MWC - Boise -  19
Sun Belt - Ark State - b
WAC - Utah State - 22
 
At Large Bids
Notre Dame - 1
Florida - 3
Oregon - 4
Georgia - 7
LSU - 8
 
So, first round games would be
Notre Dame (1) vs Tulsa (16) in South Bend
Alabama (2) vs Ark State (15) in Tuscaloosa
Florida (3) vs Wisconsin (14) in Gainesville
Oregon (4) vs Utah State (13) in Eugene
KSU (5) vs Louisville (12) in Manhatten
Stanford (6) vs Boise (11) in Stanford
Georgia (7) vs NIU (10) in Athens
LSU (8) vs FSU (9) in Baton Rouge
 
Yes, some snoozers, but you bet that those first round games vs lesser teams would be worth it to the big boys to get some "rest"?  Think of the magnitude of Alabama losing to Ark State (Malzahn, ex Auburn OC) in Tuscaloosa!
 
Potential second round games would be
Notre Dame (1) vs LSU (8) in South Bend
Alabama (2) vs Georgia (7) in Tuscaloosa
Florida (3) vs Stanford (6) in Gainesville
Oregon (4) vs KSU (5) in Eugene
 
Your liver wouldn't survive.  We have never had a weekend like this in college football!  Gameday would have to put a crew at each location.  The scenes at those stadiums would be out of control, much better than the generic, commercial bs of playing in Dallas :(
 
Semis
Notre Dame (1) vs Oregon (4) in South Bend
Alabama (2) vs Florida (3) in Tuscaloosa
Think the NFL makes money on the playoffs?

I just loaded up my Kindle edition and will post quote some of the highlights from within as the thread goes along.

[pissclams]

we're obviously heading in the right direction, it's just at a painfully slow pace.

i wonder how the lack of travel week in and week out would effect the 16 team playoff...

[The_Wippuh]

Eleven of the thirty-five bowl games scheduled for 2011-12 are privately owned, seven of them by ESPN and another by a fledgling, bootstrap outfit known as the New York Yankees.  So nearly a third of bowl games are the opposite of charities.  They exist purely and expressly for profit.  They even pay taxes.

This is from the chapter where they bash the Sugar Bowl for saying they're a charity, yet don't put any money back into the community :(

[The_Wippuh]

The remaining twenty-four bowls aren't run by charities either.  They simply enjoy 501(c)(3) nonprofit status from the Internal Revenue Service, which allows them to avoid paying federal, state, and local taxes.  It's a sweetheart deal.

Fiscal cliff?

[The_Wippuh]

It's been that way for years.  In 2008, the PapaJohns.com Bowl advertised a payout of $300,000 per team yet required both schools to buy 10,000 tickets, which cost each athletic department $400,000.  While Rutgers beat North Carolina State 29-23, nearly half of the 71,594-seat Legion Field in Birmingham, Alabama, sat empty.  Television producers had fans sit on one side of the stadium so it looked crowded.  Nothing could hide that both teams were financial losers.  For $300,000 and a pizza bowl appearance, N.C. State spent $730,000 and Rutgers spent almost $1.2 million.

Scary stuff, but probably explains a LOT on why LaTech did what they did in terms of holding for a different bowl.

[The_Wippuh]

Pick a page, practically any page, and John Junker's name appears.  The report cites him more than five hundred times, almost always in unflattering terms  Like how Junker used Fiesta funds to funnel tens of thousands of dollars to his pet politicians.  Or Junker's yearly credit-card ledgers that show $4,856,680 expensed to the bowl over the last decade - an average of $1330 a day, every single day, for ten years.

Junker's the guy that took the Fiesta bowl from obscurity to the BCS game it is now.

[The_Wippuh]

"The fact that we didn't go to a bowl game the last two years means we actually made money," former Michigan AD Bill Martin said in 2010, trying to find the only bright side of the Wolverine's recent struggles.

That is probably one of the most sobering statements made in the entire book, to me at least.

[MadCat]

"The fact that we didn't go to a bowl game the last two years means we actually made money," former Michigan AD Bill Martin said in 2010, trying to find the only bright side of the Wolverine's recent struggles.

That is probably one of the most sobering statements made in the entire book, to me at least.

Okay, so what is the reason for accepting a bowl game?  I suppose it would vary.  For Bill it means more practice time, specifically for next year's crop of kids.  I guess it is the price of doing business.  That being said, does any of the money fall into the hands of the conferences to be disbursed amongst the teams?  Maybe that's how they make the money, get the conference share without the expense of travelling to a bowl game...

[3maw]

 
So, first round games would be
Notre Dame (1) vs Tulsa (16) in South Bend
Alabama (2) vs Ark State (15) in Tuscaloosa
Florida (3) vs Wisconsin (14) in Gainesville
Oregon (4) vs Utah State (13) in Eugene
KSU (5) vs Louisville (12) in Manhatten
Stanford (6) vs Boise (11) in Stanford
Georgia (7) vs NIU (10) in Athens
LSU (8) vs FSU (9) in Baton Rouge
 

dnr after this 

[The_Wippuh]

Okay, so what is the reason for accepting a bowl game?  I suppose it would vary.  For Bill it means more practice time, specifically for next year's crop of kids.  I guess it is the price of doing business.  That being said, does any of the money fall into the hands of the conferences to be disbursed amongst the teams?  Maybe that's how they make the money, get the conference share without the expense of travelling to a bowl game...

Most coaches and ADs go to bowl games for 1 reason and 1 reason only, their jobs.  If they don't go, they lose their jobs :(  It's the pressure of the fans that do not understand how the games work behind the scenes.

Yeah, money does go to other schools.  Say Auburn goes to that BCS game and gets $14 mill.  They spread that out over the conference.  Once you're done making Vandy money, your portion is not even enough to cover your expenses.  That season, both Oregon and Auburn lost money on the championship game :(

This season, Auburn will make plenty, heh.

Sorry, my ignorance of the spelling of Manhattan is pretty rough :(

[The_Wippuh]

Between the bball tourney and football, some interesting notes...

Perlman and his fellow presidentes gleefully cash checks from college basketball, which requires exponentially more missed class time.  And they relentlessy expand their conferences, with travel increasing likewise - in Nebraska's case, joining the thousand-mile-wide Big Ten in 2011.  And at the University of Alabama, they closed the entire school for three days due to the 2010 BCS title game.  Yes, the entire school.  For the 2011 BCS Championship game, Oregon players missed over a week of classes.  Not to actually play the game but to hang around Arizona and promote it through daily media sessions.

Organizers could conduct an entire sixteen-team playoff in the current time span it takes to put on thirty-five bowl games.  Most, if not all, games would take place during semester break.  The missed-class-time argument is so specious-"That's just crap," Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson said-even the Cartel can't stand by it.

[OK_Cat]

one aspect that people are ignoring is that the bowl games benefit the host cities greatly.  If there were to be a playoff, having host cities for every game might be ok.

The other problem is travel.  Fans will have to start choosing between a conference champ game, or holding out for a playoff game...multiple playoff games?  seems like a lot of $$$ for fans to dish out.

[Rage Against the McKee]

one aspect that people are ignoring is that the bowl games benefit the host cities greatly.  If there were to be a playoff, having host cities for every game might be ok.

The other problem is travel.  Fans will have to start choosing between a conference champ game, or holding out for a playoff game...multiple playoff games?  seems like a lot of $$$ for fans to dish out.

I think the only way these playoff games would ever be well attended would be to give the higher seed a home game all the way up to the semi-final.

[The_Wippuh]

one aspect that people are ignoring is that the bowl games benefit the host cities greatly.  If there were to be a playoff, having host cities for every game might be ok.

The other problem is travel.  Fans will have to start choosing between a conference champ game, or holding out for a playoff game...multiple playoff games?  seems like a lot of $$$ for fans to dish out.

Myth.

Cities like New Orleans have to pay the non profit/charity bowl games to actually have them come there.  They actually subsidize the games and usually end up not making any more than they would if the game didn't take play.  The BCS tells the schools where to put their team/band/cheerleaders etc... usually at an inflated price too.  The Sugar Bowl is absolutely absurd in its charity status, putting something like only $10,000 back into the community :x

You would eliminate the conference games and the playoff games would be at the home school's stadium. It may be a long haul for the away team, but you would want to win all season long so you could have your fans easily at your playoff game.

[Shacks]

one aspect that people are ignoring is that the bowl games benefit the host cities greatly.  If there were to be a playoff, having host cities for every game might be ok.

The other problem is travel.  Fans will have to start choosing between a conference champ game, or holding out for a playoff game...multiple playoff games?  seems like a lot of $$$ for fans to dish out.

Who cares about the host cities?  Which location would you rather see benefit: Phoenix from the Oregon/KSU Fiesta Bowl or Manhattan because KSU is hosting a semifinal game?  Also, travel isn't an issue if all playoff games are played on campus.  Put the title game at a rotating neutral site and have everything else be played at the home field of the higher seed.

[OK_Cat]

one aspect that people are ignoring is that the bowl games benefit the host cities greatly.  If there were to be a playoff, having host cities for every game might be ok.

The other problem is travel.  Fans will have to start choosing between a conference champ game, or holding out for a playoff game...multiple playoff games?  seems like a lot of $$$ for fans to dish out.

Who cares about the host cities?  Which location would you rather see benefit: Phoenix from the Oregon/KSU Fiesta Bowl or Manhattan because KSU is hosting a semifinal game?  Also, travel isn't an issue if all playoff games are played on campus.  Put the title game at a rotating neutral site and have everything else be played at the home field of the higher seed.

i didn't say that i cared about host cities.  i'm saying that's one of many reasons why a playoff will never happen.

I doubt half of the things that this auburn guy is posting, but I don't care enough to google it.  every year people gripe about the bcs because they think their team "got screwed."

the bcs always gets it right.  they got it right again this year.

[Shacks]

one aspect that people are ignoring is that the bowl games benefit the host cities greatly.  If there were to be a playoff, having host cities for every game might be ok.

The other problem is travel.  Fans will have to start choosing between a conference champ game, or holding out for a playoff game...multiple playoff games?  seems like a lot of $$$ for fans to dish out.

Who cares about the host cities?  Which location would you rather see benefit: Phoenix from the Oregon/KSU Fiesta Bowl or Manhattan because KSU is hosting a semifinal game?  Also, travel isn't an issue if all playoff games are played on campus.  Put the title game at a rotating neutral site and have everything else be played at the home field of the higher seed.

i didn't say that i cared about host cities.  i'm saying that's one of many reasons why a playoff will never happen.

I doubt half of the things that this auburn guy is posting, but I don't care enough to google it.  every year people gripe about the bcs because they think their team "got screwed."

the bcs always gets it right.  they got it right again this year.

The BCS doesn't always get it right because it assumes that only two teams are worthy of a shot at the title even though that is rarely the case.  Just off the top of my head, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 had controversial title game matchups.  I doubt any of us would be saying the BCS got it right if the title game was 13-0 Alabama vs 12-0 Notre Dame while 12-0 Kansas State is relegated to the Consolation Bowl.

The BCS always gets it right if you're a fan of Oklahoma (not counting this year), Ohio State or an SEC team.  Not so much for the rest of us.

[The_Wippuh]

Feel free to buy the book and read it, it's all there.  These are direct quotes and the authors wrote the thing like a research paper, footnotes and everything.  I understand where you're coming from, I was there too until I read the book, now I'm just sick of it all.

Did the BCS get it right when Auburn went undefeated yet got shut out of the champ game, where USC blew OU out?

[OK_Cat]

The BCS doesn't always get it right because it assumes that only two teams are worthy of a shot at the title even though that is rarely the case.  Just off the top of my head, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 had controversial title game matchups.  I doubt any of us would be saying the BCS got it right if the title game was 13-0 Alabama vs 12-0 Notre Dame while 12-0 Kansas State is relegated to the Consolation Bowl.

The BCS always gets it right if you're a fan of Oklahoma (not counting this year), Ohio State or an SEC team.  Not so much for the rest of us.

it got it right every year.  and we didn't gripe this year because it didn't happen.  Had KSU beaten Baylor, we'd be playing ND and the BCS would have it right, still.

[pissclams]

There's a good HBO Sports piece on the bowl system where they specifically highlighted the Sugar Bowl's treatment of NOLA.

Here's a short snippet, can't find the entire segment but it's probably available on HBO GO

[OK_Cat]

Did the BCS get it right when Auburn went undefeated yet got shut out of the champ game, where USC blew OU out?

yes

[Shacks]

The BCS doesn't always get it right because it assumes that only two teams are worthy of a shot at the title even though that is rarely the case.  Just off the top of my head, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 had controversial title game matchups.  I doubt any of us would be saying the BCS got it right if the title game was 13-0 Alabama vs 12-0 Notre Dame while 12-0 Kansas State is relegated to the Consolation Bowl.

The BCS always gets it right if you're a fan of Oklahoma (not counting this year), Ohio State or an SEC team.  Not so much for the rest of us.

it got it right every year.  and we didn't gripe this year because it didn't happen.  Had KSU beaten Baylor, we'd be playing ND and the BCS would have it right, still.

I remember this board getting collectively butthurt about what would happen to KSU if all four of us, Alabama, Notre Dame and Oregon won out.  Of course that didn't happen, but it didn't keep most of us from getting preemptively angry at the BCS for screwing us.  I can understand the argument about the BCS getting it right in years like 2011 - Okie State beats Iowa State and they're in so they shouldn't complain - but it's really hard to defend the BCS in years like 2004 when there are multiple undefeated teams.

[OK_Cat]

The BCS doesn't always get it right because it assumes that only two teams are worthy of a shot at the title even though that is rarely the case.  Just off the top of my head, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 had controversial title game matchups.  I doubt any of us would be saying the BCS got it right if the title game was 13-0 Alabama vs 12-0 Notre Dame while 12-0 Kansas State is relegated to the Consolation Bowl.

The BCS always gets it right if you're a fan of Oklahoma (not counting this year), Ohio State or an SEC team.  Not so much for the rest of us.

it got it right every year.  and we didn't gripe this year because it didn't happen.  Had KSU beaten Baylor, we'd be playing ND and the BCS would have it right, still.

I remember this board getting collectively butthurt about what would happen to KSU if all four of us, Alabama, Notre Dame and Oregon won out.  Of course that didn't happen, but it didn't keep most of us from getting preemptively angry at the BCS for screwing us.  I can understand the argument about the BCS getting it right in years like 2011 - Okie State beats Iowa State and they're in so they shouldn't complain - but it's really hard to defend the BCS in years like 2004 when there are multiple undefeated teams.

protip:  even with a playoff, there will be human voters who will be perceived as "screwing" another team.

[Pete]

The great thing about the 16 playoff idea is that you could have another 16 team "NIT" version, and even another 16 team "CBI" version as well....each played on home fields and happening simultaneous to the main tournament. 

[Shacks]

The BCS doesn't always get it right because it assumes that only two teams are worthy of a shot at the title even though that is rarely the case.  Just off the top of my head, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 had controversial title game matchups.  I doubt any of us would be saying the BCS got it right if the title game was 13-0 Alabama vs 12-0 Notre Dame while 12-0 Kansas State is relegated to the Consolation Bowl.

The BCS always gets it right if you're a fan of Oklahoma (not counting this year), Ohio State or an SEC team.  Not so much for the rest of us.

it got it right every year.  and we didn't gripe this year because it didn't happen.  Had KSU beaten Baylor, we'd be playing ND and the BCS would have it right, still.

I remember this board getting collectively butthurt about what would happen to KSU if all four of us, Alabama, Notre Dame and Oregon won out.  Of course that didn't happen, but it didn't keep most of us from getting preemptively angry at the BCS for screwing us.  I can understand the argument about the BCS getting it right in years like 2011 - Okie State beats Iowa State and they're in so they shouldn't complain - but it's really hard to defend the BCS in years like 2004 when there are multiple undefeated teams.

protip:  even with a playoff, there will be human voters who will be perceived as "screwing" another team.

True, but I have a lot less sympathy for #5 or #9 or #17 getting screwed than I do for #3 and #4 in years when they have just as strong of an argument as #1 and #2