Once again... Big Jim proves to be king

[DwayneTwill]

How is a playoff going to force all teams to put winning first? What is going to change about how teams recruit or practice or how much they want to win with the implementation of a play off?

If anything, I think a playoff would just lead to a much greater divide between the haves and have nots in college football, and unfortunately I think Iowa would end up on the wrong side of that.

That's exactly what would happen.

It's ridiculous to believe that a playoff would 'force teams to get better', as if they're happy limping into mid-december bowls with 6 wins.

 

[Foval21]

jim is doing a great thing for the b1g. anyone that thinks a playoff system can bring in more money for college football doesnt understand the money from bowl games goes to that school and conference. in a playoff system if the b1g gets 1 team in and they lose in the 1st round there is no more money coming in. the teams that win are the ones making loads of money. in the bowl system 70 teams (i believe 35 games correct me if wrong here) each are making money for themselves and conferences. only 12 teams make the nfl playoffs and 11 games. tell me how 11 games and 12 teams makes more money than 35 games and 70 teams with sponsorships and travel accommadations for the cities, etc. someone said it earlier that a playoff only helps the elite of elite. we are in the top 20 most profitable programs because of delany, btn, and bowl games.

You make a great point regarding the BTN which everyone is happy with in Iowa. It makes a lot of money for all B10 programs and Delany deserves a ton of credit for it. But I'm not sure schools make much from the bowls. It costs a lot of money to send an entire team to a bowl and stay for a week. Here is an article from USA Today from 5 years ago. $17M BCS payouts sound great, but ... - USATODAY.com Basically it says each team in the B10 earned about 2 million after all expenses were paid. You made a point about a playoff only benefitting the elite teams which is correct. A playoff payout would benefit the participating teams which more than likely would be the "blue bloods" on a regular basis and the rich would get richer. But wouldn't that help the sport too? It would force athletic programs to be better and not settle for 6 & 7 win seasons. It would force all teams to put winning about just making money from sellouts & donations from loyal fans (like Hawkeye fans). Wouldn't that be a good thing for the overall product of the sport?

on the point of not settling for 6 or 7 wins i dont think any team settles for it they lose games they tried to win. actually they would lose more money because i think it would increase firings of coaches meaning more people would be getting paid a buyout when they dont make the playoffs. so a good hypethetical is we fire kf because we dont make the playoff and we dont want to settle for 7 wins. so then we are paying however many million on that and because we dont want to settle we go and spend 4 plus million a yr on another coach and they dont get us there in 4 yrs so we fire him and start all over. trust me kf isnt settling for 7 wins. according to herm edwards "you play to win the game" no one settles for 7 wins it just happens sometimes.

 

[DwayneTwill]

Thanks for the classy comment. Back in the 1960s when Sundays were observed more traditionally and the NFL had yet to gain serious popularity, I'm sure you're absolutely correct. It sounds like the NFL championship games observed Sundays as well.

From a quick check of recent years:
2010 Little Ceasers
2009 Music City & New Orleans
2008 New Orleans & Independence
2007 Hawaii & Independence

All played on Sundays.

If bowl games wanted to take place on Sundays its obvious they would as some already are.

Those games are the Bowl equivalents of the MAC or MWC or Sun Belt or other nobody-conference games that are played on a Tuesday night during the regular season. The Rose or Orange or Fiesta bowls would have the same big TV numbers on a Sunday as they currently get.

 

[Xerxes]

]How is a playoff going to force all teams to put winning first?[/B] What is going to change about how teams recruit or practice or how much they want to win with the implementation of a play off?

If anything, I think a playoff would just lead to a much greater divide between the haves and have nots in college football, and unfortunately I think Iowa would end up on the wrong side of that.

I was thinking because they would need to go all out to get to that playoff to get the money paid out to the participants.

Take Iowa & Wisconsin for example. In the current system Kirk knows that a 4-4 B10 record, a low tier bowl win in Tempe and its a good season. He goes home happy, so does the AD.
Wisconsin while in a much bigger bowl game goes home win or lose, great season but with about the same amount of money that Iowa does because of revenue sharing within the B10.

In a playoff system Wisconsin goes to the NCAA playoffs, gets a huge payday all to themselves, possible host of a playoff game or two which means more money, and has a shot at a legit NC.

Iowa gets left out of the playoff, goes to a meaningless bowl if bowls even survive in a playoff system and goes home with maybe 1/10 of what Wisconsin does.

That is the motivation. Be great or else. The current system promotes and rewards average performance. A playoff system rewards greatness.

But you are correct. A playoff system would very likely put Iowa on the wrong end of the power shift. They would still rake in plenty of money from the BTN though.

I don't have any issues with people who love the bowls. Tradition is important and tough to break from. I just don't agree with it. It is grown stale to me.

 

[hawkfan33]

on the point of not settling for 6 or 7 wins i dont think any team settles for it they lose games they tried to win. actually they would lose more money because i think it would increase firings of coaches meaning more people would be getting paid a buyout when they dont make the playoffs. so a good hypethetical is we fire kf because we dont make the playoff and we dont want to settle for 7 wins. so then we are paying however many million on that and because we dont want to settle we go and spend 4 plus million a yr on another coach and they dont get us there in 4 yrs so we fire him and start all over. trust me kf isnt settling for 7 wins. according to herm edwards "you play to win the game" no one settles for 7 wins it just happens sometimes.

I think that is a very good point. One of the big reasons for a push to increase the number of teams in the NCAA came from the coaches because that's how college basketball coaches are judged and allowing more teams into the tournament just increases their own odds of having a "successful" year.

Look at how any time Ferentz's accomplishments are listed having Iowa be bowl eligible for however many straight years is always one of them. Well when the paradigm changes and being bowl eligible is no longer the only standard you have to measure success against, well that's not going to look good for a lot of coaches.

 

[hawkfan33]

I was thinking because they would need to go all out to get to that playoff to get the money paid out to the participants.

Take Iowa & Wisconsin for example. In the current system Kirk knows that a 4-4 B10 record, a low tier bowl win in Tempe and its a good season. He goes home happy, so does the AD.
Wisconsin while in a much bigger bowl game goes home win or lose, great season but with about the same amount of money that Iowa does because of revenue sharing within the B10.

In a playoff system Wisconsin goes to the NCAA playoffs, gets a huge payday all to themselves, possible host of a playoff game or two which means more money, and has a shot at a legit NC.

Iowa gets left out of the playoff, goes to a meaningless bowl if bowls even survive in a playoff system and goes home with maybe 1/10 of what Wisconsin does.

That is the motivation. Be great or else. The current system promotes and rewards average performance. A playoff system rewards greatness.

But you are correct. A playoff system would very likely put Iowa on the wrong end of the power shift. They would still rake in plenty of money from the BTN though.

I don't have any issues with people who love the bowls. Tradition is important and tough to break from. I just don't agree with it. It is grown stale to me.

There will never be a playoff system where the money goes to individual teams instead of being divided up amongst the entire conference. What conference would agree to that? You would never be able to get a majority vote on that.

 

[Xerxes]

Those games are the Bowl equivalents of the MAC or MWC or Sun Belt or other nobody-conference games that are played on a Tuesday night during the regular season. The Rose or Orange or Fiesta bowls would have the same big TV numbers on a Sunday as they currently get.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagee with this with the exception of the Orange Bowl. I would like to see it happen and find it interesting that they don't try.

The Orange Bowl is attached to the ACC and until FSU gets back they are on the bottom of the BCS bowls. They don't draw much for TV and haven't since the Big 8 blew up. Outside of when they hosted the BCS title game.

 

[Xerxes]

There will never be a playoff system where the money goes to individual teams instead of being divided up amongst the entire conference. What conference would agree to that? You would never be able to get a majority vote on that.

I agree 100% with everything you just said. I don't believe we will ever see a legit playoff (plus 1 maybe???) but NFL style, not a chance.

I just would like to see it. But I know it is a pipe dream.

 

[DwayneTwill]

I was thinking because they would need to go all out to get to that playoff to get the money paid out to the participants.

Take Iowa & Wisconsin for example. In the current system Kirk knows that a 4-4 B10 record, a low tier bowl win in Tempe and its a good season. He goes home happy, so does the AD.

I think you're way off if you think coaches are happy with 4-4, 6-6.

You also said earlier:

But I'm not sure schools make much from the bowls. It costs a lot of money to send an entire team to a bowl and stay for a week.

That doesn't seem to mesh with your 'ADs are happy going to low-tier bowl games' theory above. You can't have it both ways and argue both sides depending on which is more convenient for your case.

 

[Xerxes]

I think you're way off if you think coaches are happy with 4-4, 6-6.

You also said earlier:


That doesn't seem to mesh with your 'ADs are happy going to low-tier bowl games' theory above. You can't have it both ways and argue both sides depending on which is more convenient for your case.

I didn't say that coaches would be happy with 6-6. I said 4-4 in the B10 because that gets you to 7-5 overall unless you're awful or have a tough schedule.
Tack on a bowl win and Kirk and Gary are going to be very happy guys tomorrow night at 8-5.

They are splitting money with every other B10 team. Bowls & BTN revenue. Everybody on about the same level. No reason to be too upset. Like I said, bowls reward average performance in the B10.

In a playoff system 7-5, 8-4 seasons aren't going to cut it. No sharing, low tier bowls pay out their $750,000 and Iowa will spend that much just getting there and lodging.

Meanwhile Wisconsin banks $20-25 million and possibly hosts a playoff game.

They still receive the same BTN money but Wisconsin is rewarded for their season and Iowa is rewarded for their season too. Just a huge difference in those rewards.

 

[greghammel]

We just got a playoff system which kind of tells the BCS to take a hike. The division leaders from the Big Ten and Pac 12 play each other in the conference championship with the winners playing in the Rose Bowl. This is a four team playoff! If the flawed BCS process continues to fail by allowing a non division/conference champion into their mythical national championship they will become dogma.

 

[greghammel]

So let the SEC continue playing weak OOC games and beating up on their bottom feeders. The truth will eventually start to show. The next move should be the PAC-12 and Big Ten stepping away from the BCS for the Rose Bowl. The Granddaddy of them all!

 

[silvanthalas]

anyone that thinks a playoff system can bring in more money for college football doesnt understand the money from bowl games goes to that school and conference

Uhh, even Delaney has admitted that the conferences are leaving money on the table - and a substantial amount of it, hundreds of millions - by not going with a playoff.

And how much money bowls are actually making is up for debate. How much did UConn lose on tickets for that recent BCS bowl? Something like $1.5 mil? That doesn't make the conference payout look nearly as good. Not to mention, several of the BCS bowls (and probably lesser ones, too) are run by corruption.

 

[Billso]

In a playoff system Wisconsin goes to the NCAA playoffs, gets a huge payday all to themselves, possible host of a playoff game or two which means more money, and has a shot at a legit NC.

Iowa gets left out of the playoff, goes to a meaningless bowl if bowls even survive in a playoff system and goes home with maybe 1/10 of what Wisconsin does.

Why do you assume payouts would be setup that way, when they aren't today for the NCAA men's b-ball tourney? That money is pooled and distributed to all teams based on # of scholarships and other formulae. The only money based on tourney appearances is distributed to CONFERENCES, based in part on the # of teams making the tourney on a rolling 6-year basis. There is no "huge payday" for tourney teams.

NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ironically, this level of financial parity, administered by the NCAA, is what bothers the large football schools/conferences most about a football playoff. Although the overall money pool would be larger in a playoff, under the current BCS/bowl system the big guys maintain more control so the rich can stay rich.

 

[JHHawk]

Delany wanted insurance against any threats to the Rose Bowl and he got it. The Rose Bowl is the single most valuable asset in college sports,and the Big Ten and Pac 12 have locked it up forever now.
This was a master stroke. They can be assured that no other conference or group of conferences can force anything on them. They got their own tv networks, huge markets, good academics and great fanbases....power in numbers.
Culturally it is the best fit also. Big Ten is a blue conference,like the Pac 12.
We even have a POTUS who is a Big Ten guy (U. of Chicago),with possibly another Chicago gal in line to take over in 2016. Federal research money,anyone?