PDA

View Full Version : Political group planning to run College Football play-offs ad



SPuL
1/4/2010, 05:03 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls09/news/story?id=4795383

I don't know if this was posted already. my bad if it was.




WASHINGTON -- A new political action committee plans to run ads this week touting a college football playoff system in the markets of two undefeated teams who were bypassed for the national championship.

Playoff PAC says it will run the 30-second ads in Dallas-Fort Worth and Boise, Idaho, into the homes of fans of TCU (12-0) and Boise State (13-0), who face off Monday night in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. The ads also will run in Salt Lake City, where fans are still angry that undefeated Utah didn't get to play in last season's title game despite going undefeated.

The PAC plans to run the ads ahead of Thursday's Citi BCS National Championship Game between Texas and Alabama.

The commercial shows highlights from TCU and Boise State, along with their unblemished records. It then plays a clip from the Dan Patrick Show, in which Bill Hancock, the executive director of the Bowl Championship Series, responds to a question about what he would tell an undefeated team that doesn't get a chance to play for the title: "You guys had a great season," adding, "not everybody can play" in the title game.

The commercial answers that with the words: "They can, it's called a playoff." A copy of the ad, which also will run on the Web in a longer form, was obtained by The Associated Press on Monday ahead of its official release.

Matt Sanderson, one of the founders of Playoff PAC, said the size of the TV ad buy will depend on the response the group gets in the next few days, but that the group will definitely run TV ads.

"It matters when they exclude teams like this from the national championship not just because it denies fans bragging rights, but because there are significant institutional benefits that come with that," Sanderson said, such as funding and boosts in admission.

In an e-mail to the AP, Hancock argued that colleges and universities support the BCS system because it's the best way to match the top two teams in a bowl. A playoff system, he said, "would mean a great loss to the game we love by diminishing the regular season, ending the bowl games as we know them, and burdening students and fans with extra weeks of travel to faraway places."

He said the schools and conferences will take up the matter again when it's time to plan for 2014 and beyond, and that they'll be open to all suggestions.

The current college bowl system features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer rankings. Eight other schools play in the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose bowls.

Under the BCS, the champions of those six big conference have automatic bids, while other conferences don't. Those six conferences also receive far more money than the other conferences.

Last month, a House subcommittee approved legislation that would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision game as a national championship unless it results from a playoff. But the bill faces a tough road ahead in Congress.

The PAC was founded with an eye toward helping such efforts, aimed at electing allies in Congress to put further pressure on the BCS to change.

Crucifax Autumn
1/4/2010, 05:09 PM
Good thing we're back to full employment and a sound infrastructure so these guys have time for football.

stoops the eternal pimp
1/4/2010, 05:24 PM
all the folks wanting a playoff should be thrilled politicians are getting involved...

Crucifax Autumn
1/4/2010, 05:29 PM
I "sorta" want a playoff, but wasting time with congress right now is just ridiculous.

stoops the eternal pimp
1/4/2010, 05:33 PM
I have no problem with people having that opinion, even though I don't share it....I just think congress getting involved is stupid and if anybody can **** up college football, its congressmen

Collier11
1/4/2010, 05:35 PM
I agree 100% STEP, my only issue is that someone with power needs to step up, even if it is a waste of resources

stoops the eternal pimp
1/4/2010, 05:36 PM
they get involved in that, the next thing you know they'll be sticking their noses in baseball....wait

Crucifax Autumn
1/4/2010, 05:38 PM
LOL

I just think there are pressing matters to attend to and this shat oughtta be ranked in the low billions in order of importance to lawmakers.

Collier11
1/4/2010, 05:38 PM
LOL, yea it does kinda scare me that they will likely fudge it up. I just wish the people in charge of this crap system would listen to the fans and players

KantoSooner
1/4/2010, 05:48 PM
I'm not 100% for a playoff - I remember the fun arguments about the 'national champion' back before the BCS.....when the sports writers and coaches, with all their biases, decided things.
But, when you look at it, it is a bit odd that so much money is being held hostage by the major conferences. It's not a full lock, there are chances of 'BCS Busters' but seriously, the table is way slanted. It's helped OU in the past, so it won't break my heart if it stays the way it is; but any game this rigged and this big will, sooner or later, attract regulatory attention.
Surprised it's taken this long.
Just as the NCAA were forced to give up their monopoly on tv rights (how'd they ever gotten them, anyway? What a brilliant scam/con THAT was), the BCS (who died and made them God?) are not going to hang on to the money spigot forever.
It won't kill the bowls, it won't kill the regular season, it won't burden fans or players, academically, logisitically or otherwise.
It will render a bunch of half-azzed bureaucrats who couldn't make it in government but managed to find an alternative sugar tit obsolete. Roll on that.

SPuL
1/4/2010, 06:54 PM
If they do do a play-off hopefully they won't keep it past 8 teams. Also, the more teams they try to involve in a play-off the less important the regular season becomes i'd say

ELP Sooner
1/4/2010, 07:26 PM
I would be for a system that allows for Nebraska to play for a NC in the state of Nebraska. Ohio State to play for one in Ohio..and so on. LSU winning 2 bcs NC at the superdome is unfair and I think that Big 10..Big 12 schools deserve to host a NC game in one of their cities. I wonder how OU UF would have turned out if it was played in "neutral" Kansas City?

Leroy Lizard
1/4/2010, 07:37 PM
LOL, yea it does kinda scare me that they will likely fudge it up. I just wish the people in charge of this crap system would listen to the fans and players

If they listened to the fans, they would find out in a hurry that as soon as a playoff system is described, the fans argue like Hell. Not a good thing.


If they do do a play-off hopefully they won't keep it past 8 teams.

Past history indicates that playoffs only grow in size. 16 is a given. 32 might be down the road.

Be careful what you wish for.

finster
1/4/2010, 07:46 PM
The lack of a play-off system for these poor teams is Barbaric.

ouduckhunter
1/4/2010, 07:51 PM
all the folks wanting a playoff should be thrilled politicians are getting involved...

Yup, thank goodness I love flag football!

StoopTroup
1/4/2010, 07:55 PM
Cincy had no business being involved in a playoff.

To many things will need to be changed and if the Congress is forcing this...it will be about as even as how many electoral votes a State gets. States will have more say in these matters and votes and pressure will be more important than the game and the kids. It's all about money too. The NCAA better re-think their current system some more IMO. I think leaving them to clean up their end is going to be much better for the game. The Playoff is just for the Fans and the power hungry.

SPuL
1/4/2010, 10:05 PM
hell, i'd be happy if they just went to that plus-one format. That way they could keep the bowls.

Leroy Lizard
1/4/2010, 10:07 PM
What's the difference between a plus-one and a four-team playoff?

WA. Sooner
1/5/2010, 12:05 AM
Return the BCS to how it was in 2001, 2002 and do a plus 1. No big play off, no rendering the season less important, and it removes the bais that has been added (usc) when the computers didn't like cupcakes and the press liked ratings (usc).

SPuL
1/5/2010, 12:11 AM
What's the difference between a plus-one and a four-team playoff?

Well, I guess the plus one would be when you'd actually keep the bowls.

just pitt the first ranked BCS team with the 4th in a bowl, and then the 2nd with the 3rd. And winner plays in the title. I don't know, it'd probably have to get rid of the conference loyalties in the bowls though.

But one year springs to mind and that's 2003. When everyone said LSU should have played USC to determine the real champ.

then maybe 2004 USC plays Auburn? I don't know.

Leroy Lizard
1/5/2010, 01:24 AM
But one year springs to mind and that's 2003.

Actually, the year that springs to my mind is 2020, when the quaint four-team playoff that everyone thought would make everyone happy turns into a 16-team playoff that no one wants.

GKeeper316
1/5/2010, 05:05 AM
it isnt a waste of politicians time to debate the issues important to thier constituents.

personally id rather have them talking about football than bailing out any more failed auto makers and banks, but thats just me.

Jacie
1/5/2010, 07:13 AM
From the CNN article about college football finances, the final paragraphs sum up why there is not going to be a change in the status quo no matter who is lobbying for one.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/31/news/companies/college_football_money/index.htm?cnn=yes

Under the current structure, the five non-BCS conferences will get an equal cut of the approximately $24 million of BCS money available because of the success of Boise State and TCU and then split that money among their respective schools. That works out to just over $500,000 each for Boise State and TCU.

By way of comparison, each of the six big-money conferences are guaranteed a total of $18 million in BCS money, or between $1.5 million to $1.8 million per school, depending upon the number of teams in each conference. In addition, any BCS conference that sends more than one school to a major bowl is eligible for an extra $4.5 million.

These huge payouts make it very unlikely that the big conferences will ever agree to a playoff system to determine a champion -- even though many college football fans, including President Obama, have lobbied for a playoff.

This is clearly a case where the haves are going to make sure they remain the haves, no matter what the have-nots and many fans think is fair. There are more than 2 billion reasons why nothing is going to change soon.

stoops the eternal pimp
1/5/2010, 08:06 AM
it isnt a waste of politicians time to debate the issues important to thier constituents.

personally id rather have them talking about football than bailing out any more failed auto makers and banks, but thats just me.

why is it so important to their constituents?...and just how many of them is it important to?

MeMyself&Me
1/5/2010, 08:32 AM
Well, I guess the plus one would be when you'd actually keep the bowls.

just pitt the first ranked BCS team with the 4th in a bowl, and then the 2nd with the 3rd. And winner plays in the title. I don't know, it'd probably have to get rid of the conference loyalties in the bowls though.

But one year springs to mind and that's 2003. When everyone said LSU should have played USC to determine the real champ.

then maybe 2004 USC plays Auburn? I don't know.

Just to clarify, what you describe is simply a 4 team playoff.

When people first started using the "plus one" term, they meant keeping the bowls along with old conference tie-ins, like before BCS. After the bowls are played, then the top two ranked teams play each other. Hence, no playoff, just an extra game.

It does seem that more and more people are calling a plus one exactly as you describe it though. I just think people are forgetting that it was an idea originally used to try to solve issues people had with the system without going to a playoff.

I've also heard people that thought we actually got a 'plus one' when they added the extra BCS game.