Interesting article on the first round of playoff meetings...lot's of work to do!

[Stech]

So should Toledo U get the same money as VT even though their schools and fans don't invest/spend the same money as VT?

My opinion is that their is a big divide like there was twice in the 70's and the split was good for both parties.

[Shut Up Brent]

So should Toledo U get the same money as VT even though their schools and fans don't invest/spend the same money as VT?

My opinion is that their is a big divide like there was twice in the 70's and the split was good for both parties.

No, I don't think Toledo should get the same money as VT. That's why I had been arguing against a playoff for the last decade and a half. And it's why I think most of the people who were pushing a playoff are going to be massively disappointed with what they get, because they never understood the reality of what they were going to get.

The best case scenario college football playoff is still going to end up being worse for VT than the current system. And the best case scenario isn't terribly likely to occur.

[gern]

Why does it always come down to an us-vs-them? This is collegiate athletics. You aren't trying to bankrupt schools. You aren't trying to eliminate competition. You should be trying to expand competition opportunities.

Yup. The entire playoff/no playoff debate has been about NCAA v. BCS control from Day 1.

And the BCS isn't "them". The BCS is "us". VT is 1/65th (???) of the BCS. VT is *part* of the BCS power structure. Tp hand power over to the NCAA where VT is appx 1/1200th of the power structure just doesn't make sense if you're a VT-first guy.

[Shut Up Brent]

NCAA promotes intercollegiate athletics for a lot of the US. The fact that the BCS schools can not find it either in their heart or their head that this organisation is good for all and is worth 1% (or less by WAG) of each schools athletic budget, then maybe it is time for fans to "screw you all" and just support the NFL.

"I'm from the NCAA and I'm here to help"?

Yeah. Not buying it. When there's actual money involved, the NCAA is just as greedy and corrupt as the next guy. In that situation, I'd prefer the decision making in as few hands as possible, as long as my representative's hands are two of them. Therefore, BCS > NCAA, for VT.

When there's no money to be made, when there's no money to be distributed, the NCAA does a decent job. Not a particularly good job (what non-revenue sport has managed to become significantly bigger [ie- beyond normal growth explained by expanded media markets] under NCAA promotion?) through NCAA promotion? Volleyball isn't any bigger, and it's a marketing dream. Women's bball isn't bigger, and it's had the WNBA and the Don Imus controversy to promote it. Did the NCAA jump on that bandwagon to use Imus to promote the sport? Did they even acknowledge the controversy in their marketing? Throw some attractive women's basketball players into some promos and push the sport?

Since 1998, the beginning of the BCS Era, the BCS has pushed college football harder and made the sport grow a lot farther than the NCAA has managed to push and grow any of the non-revenue sports. As a business, even a non-profit business, you put your money on the BCS school.

[Shut Up Brent]

Why does it always come down to an us-vs-them? This is collegiate athletics. You aren't trying to bankrupt schools. You aren't trying to eliminate competition. You should be trying to expand competition opportunities.

Sure. But you're trying to get more of the pie in your mouth. That's competition, too. Or are you fine if VT drops out of the ACC and returns to being a vagabond independent with all the sports other than football in the CAA (since the Metro is gone and if the CAA is still around- not bothering to look it up)?

Nobody is trying to push the MWC or CUSA out of business, but if the BCS schools generate 90%+ of the revenue in college football (which they do), why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to keep 90%+ of the revenue in college football?

[gern]

Why would they get the same money? If there is a 16-tm field and they have 1 rep in it and play 1 game (most likely outcome), their conference would get 1/30th of the payout (assuming they are in top 16 at all - might not be if you don't give midmajor conf champs auto bids, total teams in 16tm playoff... 16+8+4+2=30 teams in games). That first round game payout wouldn't be much more than $1-2mil (think late Dec bowl payout). If VT just gets 1/30th payout like Toledo, that would mean the ACC had 1 team make it in top 16 and they lost their first game. How much money should *ANY* conference be if that is what they contribute?

[ahokie4u]

The issue of inclusion will exist as long as someone is left on the side. Even after the four team playoff is worked out. It will have to expand to more teams, split or drop the bcs type game all together.

Personally I would like a split with basketball splitting off as well. That would help the acc as well because it's strength comes back on the revenue side. The problem with the tourney is not Cinderella everyone likes that. However to get that you have the money goes to NCAA and then back out divided by way too many. The definition of Cinderella would change it would be like Jim valvano and nc state.

[Shut Up Brent]

Why would they get the same money? If there is a 16-tm field and they have 1 rep in it and play 1 game (most likely outcome), their conference would get 1/30th of the payout (assuming they are in top 16 at all - might not be if you don't give midmajor conf champs auto bids, total teams in 16tm playoff... 16+8+4+2=30 teams in games). That first round game payout wouldn't be much more than $1-2mil (think late Dec bowl payout). If VT just gets 1/30th payout like Toledo, that would mean the ACC had 1 team make it in top 16 and they lost their first game. How much money should *ANY* conference be if that is what they contribute?

So Autin Peay should get the same money from the single game they're playing against VT as VT nets from that game?

People are tuning in to watch VT play. Just as anyone tuning in to watch Toledo in playoff is tuning in to watch their opponent. Oh, there's be some novelty value to seeing Toledo on the field, but that's what it is: a novelty act.

Play a 16 team NCAA (basketball or football, doesn't really matter) playoff with 16 teams from BCS conferences. "Big schools", if you will. Now do the same with 16 teams from small conferences. If you think for a minute that the second playoff will generate 1/10th of the revenue, ratings, and attention of the first playoff you're delusional, gern.

The Big Schools generate the money. The Little Schools are just there as a foil. They're damn near anonymous. Cinderella isn't a unique property: there are millions of beggar maids in the world. Prince Charmings are the unique properties. Cinderella only matters when she's matched to Prince Charming, not the other way around.

[Shut Up Brent]

There is already *PLENTY* of money in these athletic departments as it is.

Yeah, let's be sure to mention that to the 66%+ of BCS schools that operated their athletic departments in the red last year.

The issue of inclusion will exist as long as someone is left on the side. Even after the four team playoff is worked out. It will have to expand to more teams, split or drop the bcs type game all together.

...which is why I think the people who had been pushing playoffs for the last several years are going to be highly unhappy with what they end up with. They didn't think things through.

[gern]

If they generate 90% of the revenue in CFB and get 12+ bids to a playoff, they should be getting about 90% of the revenue from the playoff (ie beat the midmajors in an easy rd 1 playoff game). 1+done won't bring much money to a conference... BUT that little bit extra money (guessing less than $100k per midmajor team after conf split) means a *LOT* more to a Toledo, Kent St, etc than it ever will to a VT, FSU, tu, or any other BCS school. Big boys can run their programs without worrying about a rd 1 payoff.

It's like giving scholarship money to people that can't afford it knowing their improvement raises everyone. That is what you would be doing by giving them a seat at the table.