Anyone going to read "Death to the BCS".

[fsquid]

From what I've read from sports writers who've read the advance copy, it really puts college admins in a horrible light.

http://www.deathtothebcs.com/site/about_the_book/

[buckeyefan78]

I won't read it.

Just from reading the link these folks sound like most of the pro-playoff people who have no idea how unequal the setup of college footbal is by nature that a playoff would be just as, if not more, "unfair" than the BCS.

[Cebby]

What's the point?

There's nothing they have to say that hasn't been said a million and a half times.

However, I take one specific point to likely be very incorrect in "It unearths athletic directors reaping five-figure bonuses for sending their teams to bowl games that end up costing their schools money."

This is vastly flawed for two reasons.

1. The only way a bowl will cost a school money over the long term is if it is a very infrequent occasion (think Buffalo or Temple), and in those occasions I would have to think that the student excitement and pride taken in that bowl game would be a disproportionately good externality than the few thousand extra dollars.

2. If a bowl is a regular occurrence for a program than it is producing a far greater externality than the money otherwise would in publicity for the school. Football success brings increased applications to the school, merchandise revenue, and ultimately and most importantly academic rankings.

Obviously the Ivy League, University of Chicago, and MIT schools don't need this publicity, but there's a reason everyone in the country has heard of Florida St, Auburn, Purdue, Virginia Tech, and Texas A&M. The University of Maryland didn't become a legitimately hard to get into (for a state school) until applications tripled the year after the school went to the Orange Bowl and won the National Championship in basketball.

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

What's the point? There's nothing they have to say that hasn't been said a million and a half times. However, I take one specific point to likely be very incorrect in "It unearths athletic directors reaping five-figure bonuses for sending their teams to bowl games that end up costing their schools money." This is vastly flawed for two reasons. 1. The only way a bowl will cost a school money over the long term is if it is a very infrequent occasion (think Buffalo or Temple), and in those occasions I would have to think that the student excitement and pride taken in that bowl game would be a disproportionately good externality than the few thousand extra dollars. 2. If a bowl is a regular occurrence for a program than it is producing a far greater externality than the money otherwise would in publicity for the school. Football success brings increased applications to the school, merchandise revenue, and ultimately and most importantly academic rankings. Obviously the Ivy League, University of Chicago, and MIT schools don't need this publicity, but there's a reason everyone in the country has heard of Florida St, Auburn, Purdue, Virginia Tech, and Texas A&M. The University of Maryland didn't become a legitimately hard to get into (for a state school) until applications tripled the year after the school went to the Orange Bowl and won the National Championship in basketball.

To add to this point, less than 10% schools that play NCAA division 1 athletics make money from their athletic departments every year anyway, and the ones that do, make money because of the success of their football and, to a lesser degree, basketball programs. Like Cebby said, teams that go to bowl games infrequently lose money, but they would lose money traveling for a playoff game as well so it's a moot point. The schools that go to bowl games 4 out of 5 years make much more money for their respective school in increase in applications, and therefore students and tuition fees, than the money they lose for traveling their team for a bowl game.

[fsquid]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

What's the point? There's nothing they have to say that hasn't been said a million and a half times. However, I take one specific point to likely be very incorrect in "It unearths athletic directors reaping five-figure bonuses for sending their teams to bowl games that end up costing their schools money." This is vastly flawed for two reasons. 1. The only way a bowl will cost a school money over the long term is if it is a very infrequent occasion (think Buffalo or Temple), and in those occasions I would have to think that the student excitement and pride taken in that bowl game would be a disproportionately good externality than the few thousand extra dollars. 2. If a bowl is a regular occurrence for a program than it is producing a far greater externality than the money otherwise would in publicity for the school. Football success brings increased applications to the school, merchandise revenue, and ultimately and most importantly academic rankings. Obviously the Ivy League, University of Chicago, and MIT schools don't need this publicity, but there's a reason everyone in the country has heard of Florida St, Auburn, Purdue, Virginia Tech, and Texas A&M. The University of Maryland didn't become a legitimately hard to get into (for a state school) until applications tripled the year after the school went to the Orange Bowl and won the National Championship in basketball.

If you say so:

Quote:

After two years of examining tax documents and university contracts, Wetzel and company were also able to detail how the bowl system as a whole is a financial disaster, with only 14 of the 35 games legitimately generating profits for the teams involved. The book especially targets the huge blocks of tickets schools are forced to buy from the bowls, then resell to their fans, often forcing athletic departments to eat hundreds of thousands of dollars in empty seats. Conferences hide the losses by pooling the payouts to all their bowl teams, then redistributing the wealth in equal shares. The book explains how that process whittled Florida's $17.5 million check for playing in the 2009 BCS championship game down to a profit of $47,000. Meanwhile, the bowl games themselves are thriving thanks to their tax-exempt status, phony payouts, receipt of direct government handouts, lack of charitable contributions and huge cash reserves. The system has allowed bowls to spend lavishly, with some bowl directors making high six-figure salaries — more than most athletic directors or school presidents. The book's underlying argument is that colleges, which collect $220 million off the bowl system, stand to make $750 million in revenue with a 16-team playoff. Even better, that money would actually go back into athletic department budgets — not bowl game coffers — while still allowing teams outside the playoffs to participate in bowls.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by fsquid

If you say so:

Again, that article is making all kinds of stupid arguments.

Quote:

The book especially targets the huge blocks of tickets schools are forced to buy from the bowls, then resell to their fans, often forcing athletic departments to eat hundreds of thousands of dollars in empty seats.

And what is "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to a university especially when it's converted to publicity? Without bowl games nobody would know what the **** a Bowling Green or Marshall was.

Quote:

The book explains how that process whittled Florida's $17.5 million check for playing in the 2009 BCS championship game down to a profit of $47,000.

Assuming that's true (which I highly doubt), it's still getting paid $47,000 for the best advertising campaign a college can receive.

Quote:

The book's underlying argument is that colleges, which collect $220 million off the bowl system, stand to make $750 million in revenue with a 16-team playoff.

And this is where the argument just goes off the deep end.

College football as a whole stands to make more money. The SEC, Big 10, etc very well may not. Those two teams get a disproportionately huge percentage of $220 million as opposed to a relatively evenly split of $750 million.

Furthermore, it's a book clearly arguing for one specific side. I would bet my bottom dollar they didn't try to be unbiased in any way. Their $750 million figure could easily be "estimates place the value of a playoff between $450 million and $750 million."

[fsquid]

people knew what Marshall was before they were even D1-A

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by fsquid

people knew what Marshall was before they were even D1-A

Big college football fans did. Everyone else not so much.