BCS system minimizes revenue gap between BCS schools and non-BCS

[jay santos]

This point was made to me by an anti-playoff guy on another board that I find interesting.

Assumptions for the model:

current bowl revenues: $250M
current revenue split: 95% BCS, 5% non-BCS
expected playoff revenues: $500M
expected playoff revenue split: 90% BCS, 10% non-BCS

Gap would widen with a playoff:

$250M*.95 - $250M*.05 > $500M*.9 - $500M*.1

[mpfunk]

Originally Posted by jay santos

This point was made to me by an anti-playoff guy on another board that I find interesting.

Assumptions for the model:

current bowl revenues: $250M
current revenue split: 95% BCS, 5% non-BCS
expected playoff revenues: $500M
expected playoff revenue split: 90% BCS, 10% non-BCS

Gap would widen with a playoff:

$250M*.95 - $250M*.05 > $500M*.9 - $500M*.1

I have not seen it laid out specifically like this, but I have been anti-playoff for a long time. I have two problems with a playoff system. The BcS conferences hold all the power to change, and they will only change if it benefits them. They want the gap to exist between their conferences and other conferences. They already had the advantage chipped away at with the scholarship reductions. Thus if they ever agree to a playoff it will favor them. The move to the Bowl Alliance and than to the BcS, hur the conferences outside the BcS.

The other reason is that as the system is currently set up every game matters. Add a playoff and it minimizes the importance of the regular season. I am probably the only anti-playoff guy on this site, but I am anti-playoffs.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by mpfunk

I have not seen it laid out specifically like this, but I have been anti-playoff for a long time. I have two problems with a playoff system. The BcS conferences hold all the power to change, and they will only change if it benefits them. They want the gap to exist between their conferences and other conferences. They already had the advantage chipped away at with the scholarship reductions. Thus if they ever agree to a playoff it will favor them. The move to the Bowl Alliance and than to the BcS, hur the conferences outside the BcS.

The other reason is that as the system is currently set up every game matters. Add a playoff and it minimizes the importance of the regular season. I am probably the only anti-playoff guy on this site, but I am anti-playoffs.

Boo!

[tooblue]

You realize all of these same arguments were made against the NCAA basketball tournament. After all they already had the NIT tournament, it's revenu and selection system that appeared to be equitable.

The reality is Men's college basketball is as popular as it is primarily because of the NCAA tournament and not despite it.

The big conferences don't want a football playoff because they would be forced to be more inclusive than they already are, and that would erode their power base significantly.

What will be interesting to see is how regional television such as the MTN and the future Big Ten television channel impact on the BCS. IMO Such channels will further regionalize college football, diminish the strenght of all of the big conferences and create some interesting voting dynamics.

One could argue that has already happened ... Auburn goes undefeated and doesn't even get a snif at the national championship game. Why? LSU and Florida this year get a snif but against who? In fact who must those SEC teams with poor CBS distribution ALWAYS play against, or be pitted against in the title game? The darlings of ABC and ESPN ... who are already a vast regional college football network!