Mark Cuban working on a playoff system

[IndySooner]

Big difference though between playing a game on Dec. 1 and waiting until Jan. 10 to play one game then playing weekly for three straight weeks after Christmas, as some are proposing.

No difference if only TWO TEAMS were playing one week into the spring semester. ZERO difference. Remember, in a playoff, only eight teams would be playing after Christmas. Four teams would play New Year's Weekend and two would play the week after.

Same as happens right now.

[Leroy Lizard]

Leroy, I'm going to paraphrase something you said earlier. You said that the "moving target" presented by soonerfans.com posters shows why we will never have a playoff system.

I've argued why this is an unrealistic expectation you put on us and you have never responded to that argument.

Here is the reason:

If playoff proponents really want to get anywhere, they're going to have to quit contradicting themselves. Putting forth that we need a playoff for the little guys and, in the same breath, suggesting that we need to cut down the number of minor bowls, is inherently contradictory.

If you want a playoff simply because you want the additional tv entertainment, just say so. Don't hang your hat on ideals for which your actual playoff schemes subvert.

[IndySooner]

Here is the reason:

If playoff proponents really want to get anywhere, they're going to have to quit contradicting themselves. Putting forth that we need a playoff for the little guys and, in the same breath, suggesting that we need to cut down the number of minor bowls, is inherently contradictory.

If you want a playoff simply because you want the additional tv entertainment, just say so. Don't hang your hat on ideals for which your actual playoff schemes subvert.

Both Cuban and Wetzel have proposed systems that would not cut down the number of minor bowls. In fact, Cuban's would have the 8 teams that lost the first round playing in the BCS bowl games. I'm sure you'll tell me this won't work without being able to back it up, though.

[Leroy Lizard]

No difference if only TWO TEAMS were playing one week into the spring semester.

The notion that only one or two teams is affected is not a good argument, because the players on those teams are human beings too.

Using your argument, so what if TCU is screwed out of a national championship. That's only one out 119 teams, so who cares?

[Leroy Lizard]

Both Cuban and Wetzel have proposed systems that would not cut down the number of minor bowls.

Not explicitly. Of course not.

What will happen to these bowls if national attention is diverted more on a playoff? The minor bowls worry. If you are truly a fan of these weaker teams, you would worry too.

[IndySooner]

The notion that only one or two teams is affected is not a good argument, because the players on those teams are human beings too.

Using your argument, so what if TCU is screwed out of a national championship. That's only one out 119 teams, so who cares?

LOL. So, why is it okay for Ohio State, Oregon and Auburn to do this in the BCS? A playoff wouldn't change the academic argument at all.

[IndySooner]

Not explicitly. Of course not.

What will happen to these bowls if national attention is diverted more on a playoff? The minor bowls worry. If you are truly a fan of these weaker teams, you would worry too.

Those games will have the same meaning with a playoff that they do without one. Very little.

[IndySooner]

Not explicitly. Of course not.

What will happen to these bowls if national attention is diverted more on a playoff? The minor bowls worry. If you are truly a fan of these weaker teams, you would worry too.

And by the way, my heart's not bleeding for the little guy like you assume. I don't think that any undefeated team should have to go without a shot at a championship, though.

[jkjsooner]

I don't see anything unrealistic about asking proponents of an idea what it is that they actually want.

I've told you what I want. What others want is not my concern nor does it imply that a compromised solution could not be achieved.


Actually, I have quite commendable evalutions. It turns out that asking people with lofty ideas to defend their ideas is okay in the eyes of students.

Do you hold one student accountable for the ideas of another? Do you expect all of your student's ideas to align?

[85sooners]

I love playoffs

[jkjsooner]

Here is the reason:

If playoff proponents really want to get anywhere, they're going to have to quit contradicting themselves. Putting forth that we need a playoff for the little guys and, in the same breath, suggesting that we need to cut down the number of minor bowls, is inherently contradictory.

That's not the way it's going to work. We're not going to convince them with our brilliant ideas. They will have to first come to the conclusion that a playoff is in their own best interests. This will require them to abandon their discredited (and hypocritical) arguments about academics.

This might not happen. That doesn't mean I'll stop wanting it to happen.

College football has made significant changes over the last 20 years and I think a plus 1 game (which would be a four team tournament) would be a minor change compared to many of the other changes so I'm not about to admit that it will never happen.

I think there are two possibilites. One is a slow expansion with the addition of a +1 game. I believe this would stop at eight teams simply because of many of the reasons you mentioned.

(By the way, posters on your side argue that we won't have a playoff because of the toll it takes on the body and on academics but they they turn around and argue that it will lead to a slippery slope of an ever larger playoff. I could make a case that these are conflicting arguments as well but again I don't know that these two arguments have been advanced by any single poster.)

One is some type of radical revolt by a few major institutions. It would only take a few for the rest to scamble to get in line.


Note: I think one impediment is going to be the reluctance of NFL bound players to play too many additional games. We've already experienced a new phenomena of players not playing in bowl games because they don't want to risk injuries. Given, NFL coaches recognize the type of player you're dealing with (Malcolm Kelly) and this practice will not continue to be in the best interest of players.

[Leroy Lizard]

LOL. So, why is it okay for Ohio State, Oregon and Auburn to do this in the BCS? A playoff wouldn't change the academic argument at all.

It would and I already explained why.


Do you hold one student accountable for the ideas of another? Do you expect all of your student's ideas to align?

If they want to change the way I structure my class they'd better get behind a unified idea. Bitching about problems here and there isn't going to accomplish squat.

And maybe that's my biggest beef with playoff proponents: They're good at complaining, not so good at solving.

[Leroy Lizard]

I love playoffs

Here ya' go: www.nfl.com

[Leroy Lizard]

Those games will have the same meaning with a playoff that they do without one. Very little.

You're going to have a hard time selling the minor bowls on that one.

[IndySooner]

You're going to have a hard time selling the minor bowls on that one.

Who cares about the minor bowls? Screw them. They're out to generate money for themselves at the expense of small schools. Ask Florida Atlantic, who essentially paid the Motor City Bowl to play there in '09.

You completely blew off my academic point. My guess is you don't have a rebuttal.

Ohio State, Auburn and Oregon are ALL playing games during their spring semesters. You said that one major downfall was that a playoff would extend the season into the spring semester. You also mentioned finals week, which would be a dead period for a playoff.

So, how exactly would playoffs have a negative effect on academics?

[Leroy Lizard]

That's not the way it's going to work. We're not going to convince them with our brilliant ideas. They will have to first come to the conclusion that a playoff is in their own best interests. This will require them to abandon their discredited (and hypocritical) arguments about academics.

This might not happen. That doesn't mean I'll stop wanting it to happen.

College football has made significant changes over the last 20 years and I think a plus 1 game (which would be a four team tournament) would be a minor change compared to many of the other changes so I'm not about to admit that it will never happen.

I think there are two possibilites. One is a slow expansion with the addition of a +1 game. I believe this would stop at eight teams simply because of many of the reasons you mentioned.

It won't stop the unhappiness among fans, it will only make it worse. Fans will not be happy with a four-team playoff, nor an eight-team playoff.

Right now we have (at least technically) a two-team playoff that guarantees a #1 versus #2 game. Before we had no playoff at all and the #1 team and #2 team rarely met. Are fans happier? No, they complain just that much more.

It's a product of a spoiled generation that just can't be satisfied unless they have entertainment 24/7.

I suggest we stop and smell the roses. What makes college football so special? It isn't the quest for the national title. It's the rivalries, the game, the fans, the colors, the marching bands. That's what we should focus on, not this playoff crap.


One is some type of radical revolt by a few major institutions. It would only take a few for the rest to scamble to get in line.

I think the revolt you're going to get is a return to the old bowl alignments.

[IndySooner]

I also find it hilarious that everyone is so scared of a playoff expanding, due to success, but no one is concerned that EVERY SINGLE YEAR more bowl games are added that are NOT financially successful for the institutions they are supposed to be good for.

[Leroy Lizard]

Who cares about the minor bowls? Screw them. They're out to generate money for themselves at the expense of small schools. Ask Florida Atlantic, who essentially paid the Motor City Bowl to play there in '09.

They wouldn't be playing in the bowl game at all unless there was some benefit to it. Think about it.


You completely blew off my academic point. My guess is you don't have a rebuttal.

Ohio State, Auburn and Oregon are ALL playing games during their spring semesters. You said that one major downfall was that a playoff would extend the season into the spring semester. You also mentioned finals week, which would be a dead period for a playoff.

What playoff are you specifically referring to? Out of the 1,000 schemes, which one am I supposed to rebut?

Again, the ever-shifting target. There is this magical playoff system that morphs from one form to another, depending on what barriers present themselves to adoption.

The one that was mentioned had teams playing for three straight weeks after Christmas with no break. This is clearly different than having players prepare for just one game, but is this the system?



[So, how exactly would playoffs have a negative effect on academics?

Again, which playoff scheme are you talking about? When are the games played exactly? Tell me a little more.

[Leroy Lizard]

I also find it hilarious that everyone is so scared of a playoff expanding, due to success, but no one is concerned that EVERY SINGLE YEAR more bowl games are added that are NOT financially successful for the institutions they are supposed to be good for.

Apples. Oranges. You can add as many bowl games as you wish no effect on academics because teams still only play in one game post-season. Academically, having 10 bowl games is no different than having 30.

As for finances, the teams still play in the games, so they must be worth it to them in some way. Once the number rises to the point that the teams lose enough money, the number will ebb since teams will start to refuse invitations.

[IndySooner]

Again, which playoff scheme are you talking about? When are the games played exactly? Tell me a little more.

I've outlined mine numerous times here:

16 teams
11 conference champs
5 at large
hosted by highest seeds until championship
working around finals and Christmas
First round before finals
Final three rounds after Christmas (when bowl prep would be taking place anyway)

Please tell me how this would have any more of an effect on academics than the current system.

[jkjsooner]

You're going to have a hard time selling the minor bowls on that one.

I don't see how some minor bowl would be impacted by a small playoff. They're already minor. They're already not relevant to the title hunt. They're already not designated as a BCS bowl.

The impact would be greater on the major bowls as they would lose teams to a playoff.

The only way a minor bowl would be impacted is that there would be a few more teams siphoned out of the bowl pool. In an 8 team format with the final game being at a bowl site, that would mean that six teams would be siphoned out of the bowl pool. That would mean either three less bowl games or those three lowest bowls would have to find six additional teams to fill their slots.

Either way, there's no reason to think the minor bowls would cease to exist. If not being part of the national title hunt (or BCS for that matter) made them so dispensable they would have long disappeared.

Teams will still want to take trips. Fans will still want to watch their teams play one more time.

This would merely force the bowls to move down in pecking order a few slots (if they weren't the title game). I absolutely can't see how it would kill these bowls.

[Leroy Lizard]

I've outlined mine numerous times here:

16 teams
11 conference champs
5 at large
hosted by highest seeds until championship
working around finals and Christmas
First round before finals
Final three rounds after Christmas (when bowl prep would be taking place anyway)

Please tell me how this would have any more of an effect on academics than the current system.

Preparing for three straight games while trying to attend classes at the start of a new semester is much tougher than preparing for one game.

In consecutive weeks, you could be traveling to Norman, OK. Then to Miami. Then to Los Angeles.

You don't see the difference? Okay, fine.

[Leroy Lizard]

I've got to work now. Will jump back in tonight.

[jkjsooner]

It won't stop the unhappiness among fans, it will only make it worse. Fans will not be happy with a four-team playoff, nor an eight-team playoff.

Right now we have (at least technically) a two-team playoff that guarantees a #1 versus #2 game. Before we had no playoff at all and the #1 team and #2 team rarely met. Are fans happier? No, they complain just that much more.


I am a heck of a lot happier. The BCS didn't go far enough but it did make the situation a lot better. I think most who are old enough to remember the old system would agree.

I'd also be happy with a four team tournament and even happier with an eight team tournament. I think with either situation you would come a lot closer to having a true national champion.

There will always be complainers but the level of complaining would drop.

[IndySooner]

Preparing for three straight games while trying to attend classes at the start of a new semester is much tougher than preparing for one game.

In consecutive weeks, you could be traveling to Norman, OK. Then to Miami. Then to Los Angeles.

You don't see the difference? Okay, fine.

14 of the 16 teams wouldn't even have to prepare for ONE game at the start of a new semester. They would be done before the semester started. Two teams would be affected by the start of the semester. This year, because of the calendar, it might be four. Of course, this year, they could have moved the second round up to this week, too.

There's NO difference. None. Zero.

You DO realize that there are no classes between the second week of December and the second week of January, right?

[IndySooner]

I am a heck of a lot happier. The BCS didn't go far enough but it did make the situation a lot better. I think most who are old enough to remember the old system would agree.

I'd also be happy with a four team tournament and even happier with an eight team tournament. I think with either situation you would come a lot closer to having a true national champion.

There will always be complainers but the level of complaining would drop.

I agree with this. The reason I am stuck on 16 teams is I think it's the only way you could build a consensus including the small conferences and avoiding legislative interference.

[MeMyself&Me]

Leroid, you just give them easy target when you keep harping on it can't happen. That's why it's a stupid argument.

[IndySooner]

Preparing for three straight games while trying to attend classes at the start of a new semester is much tougher than preparing for one game.

In consecutive weeks, you could be traveling to Norman, OK. Then to Miami. Then to Los Angeles.

You don't see the difference? Okay, fine.

Also, this is no different than what they do in the regular season in the middle of the fall semester.

Should we cancel the NCAA Tournament? I know when I was in school, the basketball players missed mid-terms because they were playing IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WEEK in the NCAA Tournament.

Your academic argument is extremely weak.

[silverwheels]

I've got to work now. Will jump back in tonight.

I'm sure everyone is waiting with bated breath.

[pphilfran]

I've said NUMEROUS times that the only system that would work is a 16-team system. All conference champions and five at-large teams. All games are hosted by the highest seed until the championship game.

It's inclusive, it's going to generate cash and it will be done to accommodate the academic needs of the universities.

The only way this isn't coming is if the conferences combine into 4 16-team conferences in order to create a 64-team division and that would only require an 8-team playoff starting with the conference championships.

You just destroyed the BCS bowls...you continue to ignore that fact...

[IndySooner]

You just destroyed the BCS bowls...you continue to ignore that fact...

First of all, no I didn't. First round losers go to the BCS Bowls. They have three weeks (plenty of time) to get ready for them.

Second of all, who cares? They'll make it if they are viable.

[pphilfran]

First of all, no I didn't. First round losers go to the BCS Bowls. They have three weeks (plenty of time) to get ready for them.

Second of all, who cares? They'll make it if they are viable.

Your attempt to blow off the BCS games won't hold water...

Those folks built the bowl system....they created the many millions of dollars that currently go to the schools...they spent decades building their brand...but with a wave of your hand you can cost those games and cities money and tourism...

The "Who cares" attitude is part of the reason why I can't take your position seriously....

[IndySooner]

Your attempt to blow off the BCS games won't hold water...

Those folks built the bowl system....they created the many millions of dollars that currently go to the schools...they spent decades building their brand...but with a wave of your hand you can cost those games and cities money and tourism...

The "Who cares" attitude is part of the reason why I can't take your position seriously....

It will take a competing entity to beat the BCS Bowl Games. Again, as I've said all along, these bowls are built to benefit themselves. They don't care that UConn and Virginia Tech are both going to lose money while making themselves MILLIONS.

The schools would get MANY MILLIONS MORE in a playoff scenario. That should, and will, speak volumes once people start seeing the forest through the trees.

As for the cities who host the bowls, they are beginning to get screwed in this deal, too. The small bowls are starting to choose teams in close proximity more and more because it helps them fill the stadium, thus making more money. In the process, they are attracting people for a day instead of a vacation. Host cities and states (Norman and Oklahoma in our example) stand to benefit greatly from a playoff system and the money spent locally in such a system.

The reason they will go away, if they do, is because they don't compete.

Times change. If the bowls aren't willing to change with the times, they'll go away. That's the bottom line. Their brands are less and less compelling every year. TV ratings and ticket sales prove that.

[bigfatjerk]

I can't tell the difference between some of these BCS and non BCS bowls anymore as a fan. What's the real difference between the Cotton and Capital One and the Fiesta Bowl this year? Of course we care more about the Fiesta for example because we are fans. But what about Florida vs Cincy last year. Nobody cares about that type of game. The BCS needs to be tweaked with it's current system. The best way to do that is to fix the automatic bids so you have to be highly ranked to deserve one.

[Leroy Lizard]

14 of the 16 teams wouldn't even have to prepare for ONE game at the start of a new semester. They would be done before the semester started. Two teams would be affected by the start of the semester. This year, because of the calendar, it might be four. Of course, this year, they could have moved the second round up to this week, too.

By the same token, over 100 teams wouldn't be affected by anything a playoff does. This isn't about the percentage of teams affected.


You DO realize that there are no classes between the second week of December and the second week of January, right?

Which school are you referring? All of them? Care to argue that?

[Leroy Lizard]

Leroid, you just give them easy target when you keep harping on it can't happen. That's why it's a stupid argument.

It can happen. It's just not desirable.

[Leroy Lizard]

First of all, no I didn't. First round losers go to the BCS Bowls.

I would rather OU not go to a bowl than go to an officially-designated consolation game. It's one thing to go to a minor bowl because you didn't do well enough to get into a better bowl, but to go to a bowl designated for the loser of a prior game is just worthless.

[texaspokieokie]

Leroy Boy;

how would you pass the time away if these morons quit arguing with you ??

my bad, that'll never happen.

[Scott D]

I've said NUMEROUS times that the only system that would work is a 16-team system. All conference champions and five at-large teams. All games are hosted by the highest seed until the championship game.

It's inclusive, it's going to generate cash and it will be done to accommodate the academic needs of the universities.

The only way this isn't coming is if the conferences combine into 4 16-team conferences in order to create a 64-team division and that would only require an 8-team playoff starting with the conference championships.

16 doesn't work for the same reason 8 won't work and 4 won't work. It wouldn't be long before 4 became 8 became 16 became 32 became 64. It's Pandora's box and it would ruin college football.

[pphilfran]

Indy...before a playoff can be put into place a win/win situation must be found....

The current system was a win/win....each BCS bowl/city gets an extra big money game every four years...the non BCS conferences get a couple of spots in the BCS for their teams...a win/win...

The Rose was not too happy about losing their tie in with the Pac/Big 10 teams...but the extra game helped soothe the wounds of losing their long time conference tie in....

If Leroy and I are wrong and you are right a playoff system would be in place...but you continue to refuse to understand what the forces against you believe in...and with a flip of the wrist decide to take millions and/or tradition from groups that started the whole thing and give that prestige and money to some johnny come lately that wants in on the money grab...

Until all sides can see a benefit there will not be a playoff because it will not be a win/win...all sides include: coaches, administration, bowls, host cities, conferences, and fans...to date you have not produced a plan that produces a satisfactory solution to each of those groups...

You dig in your heels and refuse to look at all sides....you know what YOU want but have no clue as to the wants and expectations of the other side...and then on top of that you don't give a chit about the other sides wants and expectations, only your own...you should be in Congress, you would fit in nicely....

Again, I don't give a damn one way or another..I am just trying to get you to understand the forces working against your wants...

[bigfatjerk]

I don't know if the current system is a win/win yet. The only reason the current system sucks is because sometimes the 2nd best team isn't really the 2nd best team.

[Scott D]

I don't know if the current system is a win/win yet. The only reason the current system sucks is because sometimes the 2nd best team isn't really the 2nd best team.

the current system isn't win/win it's more win/break even. The problem is that a playoff isn't any more viable and conclusive without restructuring FBS, but since you're not going to convince schools to drop back down to FCS, D2, D3 like they probably should it makes the picture murkier.

People shouldn't use the FCS model either, because I believe last time I looked it up (it's in an older thread on this subject on this forum) I believe that over 1/3 of the conferences in FCS don't participate in their playoff. So, in a way, wouldn't that make their playoff system just as flawed as the BCS system? In short, yes.

[bigfatjerk]

I think that's actually a good thing. We used to actually have that in college football. If we get rid of about 15 bowls and have 1/3rd of our teams in bowls the regular season would mean a heck of a lot more than it does now. The regular season in college football is killed by the bowl system.

[IndySooner]

Indy...before a playoff can be put into place a win/win situation must be found....

The current system was a win/win....each BCS bowl/city gets an extra big money game every four years...the non BCS conferences get a couple of spots in the BCS for their teams...a win/win...

The Rose was not too happy about losing their tie in with the Pac/Big 10 teams...but the extra game helped soothe the wounds of losing their long time conference tie in....

If Leroy and I are wrong and you are right a playoff system would be in place...but you continue to refuse to understand what the forces against you believe in...and with a flip of the wrist decide to take millions and/or tradition from groups that started the whole thing and give that prestige and money to some johnny come lately that wants in on the money grab...

Until all sides can see a benefit there will not be a playoff because it will not be a win/win...all sides include: coaches, administration, bowls, host cities, conferences, and fans...to date you have not produced a plan that produces a satisfactory solution to each of those groups...

You dig in your heels and refuse to look at all sides....you know what YOU want but have no clue as to the wants and expectations of the other side...and then on top of that you don't give a chit about the other sides wants and expectations, only your own...you should be in Congress, you would fit in nicely....

Again, I don't give a damn one way or another..I am just trying to get you to understand the forces working against your wants...

I understand the forces, but ultimately, the only ones that matter are at the universities. The bowls and the bowl cities don't ultimately matter. They certainly have a huge lobbying force right now, which is why they hold the power. As soon as someone comes along with a larger lobbying voice (Cuban & Co. ?) then the discussion will begin.

This, and the fact that in Wetzel's system (the one I have liked the best, and the driving force behind Cuban's crusade) the Rose Bowl is included as the championship site EVERY year, make it viable to me, once there's a large enough lobbying voice.

The bottom line is the universities and the cities that those universities are in stand to make TONS of money in a playoff. The approximate payout in Wetzel's plan is $25 million per team per game, and that's a conservative estimate. If that's divided amongst the conference teams as it is right now, that would be MUCH more than the current system is paying. Also, the small conferences would be GUARANTEED a $25 million payout every year, allowing them to become fiscally competent and competitive.

90 of the 120 Div. I athletic departments LOST money in 2008, and that doesn't include the private schools who don't have to report it. This would make most, if not all, athletic departments self-sufficient, which would be desirable to the universities if they would just allow the discussion.

In '07, Mike Slive tried to get a +1 to the table and the Big 10, Pac 10 and Big 12 didn't even allow it to go to a vote. It would have passed 8-4. (The Big East being the other dissenter) The university presidents haven't even been allowed to see a viable playoff option, and frankly, most probably don't even really think about it much. What has to happen is for someone to get the presidents' ears and show them the money. I truly think it will happen and it will happen very soon.

Right now the Big 10 is holding everyone hostage, while raiding the other conferences for their best revenue producers. They don't want to share ANY of their financial advantage (which is VERY large right now, even compared to the SEC). Why are we, now as the 4th or 5th strongest conference at best, allowing the Big 10 to run the show, when there's more opportunity for us in another system?

[jkjsooner]

Your attempt to blow off the BCS games won't hold water...

Those folks built the bowl system....they created the many millions of dollars that currently go to the schools...they spent decades building their brand...but with a wave of your hand you can cost those games and cities money and tourism...

The "Who cares" attitude is part of the reason why I can't take your position seriously....

Nobody cared when the Cotton Bowl was moved way down the bowl pecking order. Heck the Fiesta was a minor bowl until two independents (PSU and Miami) chose to play there in January of '87. Tradition can and has changed.

In my eight team format, if you wanted to preserve the current BCS games you could with the following scheme. One bowl would be the championship game. One bowl would be a third place game. Two bowls would be played among first round losers.

It's not perfect of course as losers may not want to play an additional game. It would preserve the bowls. It would give all of the teams a final week long less business-like trip at a neutral site that they all desire.

I'm just throwing that out there for discussion. I personally don't feel that the BCS bowls absolutely must be preserved. Leroy, there will be bowl proponents who hate this idea. Despite your assertions to the contrary, this is all part of a normal debate process.


Edit: I meant there will be playoff proponents who hate this idea.

[jkjsooner]

16 doesn't work for the same reason 8 won't work and 4 won't work. It wouldn't be long before 4 became 8 became 16 became 32 became 64. It's Pandora's box and it would ruin college football.

There is almost a 0% chance of this happening. College presidents would never allow an extension of the season by 6 weeks. It's a lot easier to grow a playoff in basketball than football.

If they add a +1 game someday, I'll be fully confident that it will never grow to 32 or 64 teams.

I think even Leroy would agree that this slippery slope argument ignores the reality.

[jkjsooner]

Indy...before a playoff can be put into place a win/win situation must be found....


Please explain what win/win the Cotton Bowl got when the BCS was formed.

[jkjsooner]

playoff. So, in a way, wouldn't that make their playoff system just as flawed as the BCS system? In short, yes.

I believe a lot of those are the traditional black schools. (Don't they have their own tournament or championship game?) If they're not willing to join the majority in a playoff then to heck with them. They can take their ball and play with themselves. That doesn't threaten the legitimacy of a title among teams that are willing to join such a tournament.

[silverwheels]

The Ivy League also chooses not to participate in the FCS tournament.

[jkjsooner]

The Ivy League also chooses not to participate in the FCS tournament.

That's fine as well. None of that threatens the legitimacy of the D1AA championship.

I don't think any Ivy Leaguers or tradition black schools are questioning the legitimacy of the champion. It would be absurd to do so since they could always join if they wanted.

I can't see any D1 school opting out of the tournament. Possibly the service academies would but that would be about it. You're not going to see 1/3 of the teams opt out.

This goes back to my original point. Some teams or conferences will do this on their own. Some may delay (like the Big 10 and PAC 10 in the Bowl Alliances) but in the long run none will want to be left out.

[pphilfran]

Please explain what win/win the Cotton Bowl got when the BCS was formed.

There was no change to the system when the Fiesta replaced the Cotton...4 BCS teams before and 4 after...

The Cotton Bowl did not keep the stadium up to date and the Fiesta took over by outbidding the Cotton for the 4th spot...

Something is going to happen with the new Cotton Bowl...there will probably end up being an attempt by Jerry at hosting a BCS games...

[silverwheels]

I think the Cotton Bowl moving to Jan. 7th this year is a big indicator that they will push hard to get included in the BCS in the next contract.

[jkjsooner]

The Cotton Bowl did not keep the stadium up to date and the Fiesta took over by outbidding the Cotton for the 4th spot...

So it is possible to abandon tradition with $$$. Thanks for making my point.

[silverwheels]

Conference realignment is more evidence that money trumps tradition.

[Leroy Lizard]

That's fine as well. None of that threatens the legitimacy of the D1AA championship.

I don't think any Ivy Leaguers or tradition black schools are questioning the legitimacy of the champion. It would be absurd to do so since they could always join if they wanted.

This calls into question one of the basic premises of playoff-proponents: that teams and players naturally want to play for a national title. They point to FCS, but there are many teams that simply refuse to even enter the playoffs. And players still sign on to play for these teams.

So how badly does the issue "Who's #1?" need to be settled?

[Leroy Lizard]

The bottom line is the universities and the cities that those universities are in stand to make TONS of money in a playoff. The approximate payout in Wetzel's plan is $25 million per team per game, and that's a conservative estimate. If that's divided amongst the conference teams as it is right now, that would be MUCH more than the current system is paying. Also, the small conferences would be GUARANTEED a $25 million payout every year, allowing them to become fiscally competent and competitive.


I think that's a pretty wild estimate. The payout for each team in the BCS national championship game last year was about $31 million, and you are claiming that a first-round playoff game, played on only one week's notice, is going to generate $25 million?

The BCS national championship game was sold out and just about every college football fan on the planet watched it. So where is this extra revenue coming from?

[IndySooner]

I think that's a pretty wild estimate. The payout for each team in the BCS national championship game last year was about $31 million, and you are claiming that a first-round playoff game, played on only one week's notice, is going to generate $25 million?

The BCS national championship game was sold out and just about every college football fan on the planet watched it. So where is this extra revenue coming from?

Leroy, go ahead and read "Death to the BCS". In the final chapter, he outlines exactly what the TV executives and others estimate for the financial package for the entire playoff.

By the way, your payoff on the national championship game is way off. That was the TOTAL payout for the two teams. In reality, every Big XII school got $2 million dollars or so in revenue after expenses were taken care of. In a playoff system in 2008, when OU, Texas and Tech would have been involved, the Big XII would have made $225 million (before expenses) to split between the teams. That is more, just from the playoffs, than any of the teams make for an entire season of the TV package right now.

[Leroy Lizard]

By the way, your payoff on the national championship game is way off. That was the TOTAL payout for the two teams. In reality, every Big XII school got $2 million dollars or so in revenue after expenses were taken care of. In a playoff system in 2008, when OU, Texas and Tech would have been involved, the Big XII would have made $225 million (before expenses) to split between the teams. That is more, just from the playoffs, than any of the teams make for an entire season of the TV package right now.

First of all, Mark Cuban's plan is for a four-round playoff, but that is almost universally opposed by those that really matter.

All this huge money flies in the face of one of the playoff proponents' biggest arguments: That college presidents want to stay with their bowl commitments because they're so lucrative.

Essentially, it goes like this: College presidents supposedly don't care about academics; they're greedy and only care about chasing money. Here is a playoff system that is going to give their schools tons of money. So why are college presidents so anti-playoff?

Maybe it's a good idea to not let ourselves get blinded by greed. Let's not Cam Newton college football.

[IndySooner]

First of all, Mark Cuban's plan is for a four-round playoff, but that is almost universally opposed by those that really matter.

All this huge money flies in the face of one of the playoff proponents' biggest arguments: That college presidents want to stay with their bowl commitments because they're so lucrative.

Essentially, it goes like this: College presidents supposedly don't care about academics; they're greedy and only care about chasing money. Here is a playoff system that is going to give their schools tons of money. So why are college presidents so anti-playoff?

Maybe it's a good idea to not let ourselves get blinded by greed. Let's not Cam Newton college football.

First of all, they haven't been presented with a four-round playoff that would be in their best interest. Once they were, they would probably come around.

Second of all, since I had some good points, and also pointed out that your figures were incredibly wrong, you go straight back to your talking points instead of rebutting. Well done.

[Leroy Lizard]

First of all, they haven't been presented with a four-round playoff that would be in their best interest. Once they were, they would probably come around.

I thought they were driven by money. So why aren't they coming around?


Second of all, since I had some good points, and also pointed out that your figures were incredibly wrong, you go straight back to your talking points instead of rebutting. Well done.

You pointed out that the $31 million payout was total, not per team. My mistake, but that just further backs my point.

We've been through this all before. About ten years ago a Swiss pharmaceutical firm said it was willing to sponsor a national playoff for $3 billion over 8 years, which is about the same payout that Cuban is discussing. They didn't even get a nibble.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/704543/Proposed-grid-playoff-could-make-NCAA-billions-Swiss-firm-is-trying-to-convince-ADs-it-will-work.html

[IndySooner]

I thought they were driven by money. So why aren't they coming around?



You pointed out that the $31 million payout was total, not per team. My mistake, but that just further backs my point.

We've been through this all before. About ten years ago a Swiss pharmaceutical firm said it was willing to sponsor a national playoff for $3 billion over 8 years, which is about the same payout that Cuban is discussing. They didn't even get a nibble.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/704543/Proposed-grid-playoff-could-make-NCAA-billions-Swiss-firm-is-trying-to-convince-ADs-it-will-work.html

Major difference today: The Internet.

The Internet is driving MUCH MORE opposition to the system than there was 10 years ago. It is also releasing MUCH MORE information about the financial viability of the bowl system. Neither is good for "The Cartel" as Wetzel likes to call them.

A "sniff" isn't going to come as long as the conference commissioners and bowl executives are shielding the real decision makers from the information they need. That curtain is being pulled up, and more and more decision makers are seeing the light.

Cuban knows he has to get buy in from important people before he pitches a system. That's what he's doing right now.

[IndySooner]

Actually, Cuban's playoff is double the revenue that the Swiss playoff was, but whatever.

[Scott D]

I hate to see what Cuban will want to do with Animal Shelters if he ever reads "Run, Spot, Run"

[Caboose]

Debating this has become pretty pointless because the two sides have completely incompatible goals.

The anti-playoff side's goal is to have a post-season that best determines a national champion over the course of the entire season. To them the post season is a means to an end.

The pro-playoff side's goal is to have a playoff. To them the playoff IS the end. The best way to have a playoff is always to have to have a playoff.

[Scott D]

I think this thread needs to go back to what books Mark Cuban can read and then come up with silly ideas from.

[silverwheels]

What if he reads Slaughterhouse-Five?

[Caboose]

What if he reads Slaughterhouse-Five?

Better than the Necronomicon.

[Scott D]

really you should all be afraid if he reads Flowers for Algernon.