Posted on 01/06/2002 1:13:46 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:38:55 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The move for a playoff has to come from within, and ABC may well be the instigator. I predict we'll have some form of a playoff no later than the year after the contract expires. But it is also closer than many people realize, perhaps in just a couple of years. Just as soon as ABC can renegotiate the contract. But how do you bring the Conference Commissioners and BCS bowls to the table? Money.
Here's a solution outlined in detail: A playoff that saves the bowls and quiets the critics, basically taking the four BCS bowl winners for a January playoff, and not touching any of the bowls. Lets take some ballpark figures from the above articles. ABC paid $75 mil. per season for 4 BCS bowl games. Three Jan. playoff games will likely bring in at minimum an additional $50-60 mil. First, don't touch the bowls and the BCS, and declare only the three Jan. games a playoff. Thus the six conferences can keep their $140 mil. in BCS money. Yet they also will get a cut of the additional playoff revenue, while the other conferences will benefit, too. So a broader base of support in Div. I and the NCAA.
Now the bowls are worried a playoff might cut into fan travel to them. So set aside a cut for the four BCS bowls as a form of indemnification. Lets say the average fan pays the bowl $100 for tickets, food, parking. $1 mil. per bowl covers the potential loss of 10,000 fans. So $4-8 million covers the potential loss of 10-20,000 fans per bowl. Plus in renegotiation the bowls could benefit from a inflation-type bump in payout per year over the current $75 million. Sure they give up some of their potential prestige, but its about survival. The contract is up in 2006, and the bowls could be shut out of the decision-making then, basically all power then will rest in the Conference Commissioners. If current trends and ratings continue, ABC will be pushing for a playoff, and even with competitive bidding most playoff scenarios will attract bigger bids than the current BCS sytsem. So here's a way for the BCS bowls to preserve and enrich themselves while controlling their destiny. Viewership of the other 3 bowls will increase because now they will still matter. A Big 12 or Pac 10 fan might not have paid much attention to the Sugar Bowl after the second quarter, but if a Big 12 or Pac 10 team was likely to face LSU in the playoff, there is a greater likelihood that fan would watch more of the game to learn more about their future opponent.
Is this perfect or fair? No, but it finally gets the playoff started, and can always be tweaked later. Sometimes you have to compromise and deal with the devil to get it done. This is just sports, not a principled issue of importance such as abortion or the 2nd amendment. Its a realistic incremental approach. In fact, the first change may be just a simple one-game post-bowl playoff. But at least that opens the door.
Working people don't get to watch Rose Bowl games. Even if that game is situated later in the day, the competition from other programming is much more accute.
Duh!
Are they surprised!!!
They had #1 against a questionable #2.
After that we should have seen a 3 vs 4; 5 vs 6; 7 vs 8.
Instead we got matchups that were 6 and more points separated in the ratings. What does it prove to play a single digit team against a double digit team? Who really cares?
They sorely need a playoff.
ABC, get a clue. In a playoff EVERY game would be a ratings winner. And the final eight would keep me glued to the set. Everyone keeps saying this. Why so slow to do the right ($$$) thing!?
B. The games SUCKED!
Wrong. They had #1 against #4. Only a bunch of idiots thought Nebraska was #2. Sportswriters and head coaches knew better.
I'm not so sure. The way ABC shamelessly hyped Eric Crouch for the Heisman Trophy, I think they wanted Nebraska in the Rose Bowl and I wouldn't be shocked to find out some day that they manipulated the BCS results to get the matchup they wanted.
Crouch deserved the Heisman even less than Nebraska deserved to play in the Rose Bowl. He had more INTs than TDs. But don't forget that Grossman was an SEC player (who appears on CBS).
Normally, I'd say, "If you don't think this major media conglomerate didn't have their hands in Nebraska being chosen, then you must be Jamaican and smokin' da ganja."
In this case, though, I detest the alphabet socialist media outlets. They're probably stupid enough not to realize that they have leverage as to who gets chosen.
Wasn't it AFTERWARDS they were ranked #4?
You miss the point, though. They could have had Smith/Amherst in there against Miami and it wouldn't have mattered to me.
None of this means anything without a playoff.
AFTER the Rose Bowl, the Cornhuskers fell to 8th in the polls. (btw - I agree that isn't your point. The playoff is what's needed but 16 teams is too many).
That said, this has nothing to do with any "boycott." It was simply a boring, lop-sided game in which one of the contenders--the loser, as it happens--had "backed in" to the berth.
FWIW, I don't watch college football any more. The best college players never make it to their senior year, and the level of play in Division IA has dropped to about Division III level as a result.
Got to agree with you there. The quarterback from Oregon was a better QB if you ask me.
The BCS has ended that tradition. I didn't watch any TV New Years Day, I didn't watch any of the BCS games except the second half of the Miami-Nebraska game as I was at the office late and forgot about the game.
I suspect there are a lot of people out there with similar stories.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.