»
Topic: Believe new playoff ends Big XII move possiblity for now
Replies: 38   Last Post: Jun 27, 2012 11:43 AM by: deleted
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 38  

Believe new playoff ends Big XII move possiblity for now


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 6:53 AM
 

All the worry of the ACC being left out of the 4 team playoff should now be put to rest and therefore there is one less reason why moving to the Big XII is a MUST.

The playoff is wide open for any team that wins and more than likely also has to win their conference. The ACC can take care of business by simply winning as the tie-in with the Orange Bowl is still in place and the Orange Bowl is one of the 3 bowls guranteed to be in the playoff rotation (not sure what that means, but it sounds good for the ACC).

Anyway, I think we can finally put the Big XII talk to rest at least for a few years as most conferences are likely to let this playoff thing play out a little and see how the dust settles.

On another note, I noticed that Notre Dame's AD was the one making the presentation for all the conferences. Once again it appears Notre Dame has wrangled a sweet deal for remaining independent - meaning their move to the ACC is also unlikely anytime soon.

Let's all move on and drop the conference realignment talk - I think it's dead.


no that never was going to happen...***


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 7:13 AM
 




Re: Believe new playoff ends Big XII move possiblity for now

[3]
Posted: Jun 27, 2012 7:16 AM
 

With Strength Of Schedule being a factor in determining playoff participants, that marginalizes winning your conference. I love having a playoff. It's better than the BCS system in determining the best team. BUT the BCS system is/was better in requiring that you had to win your conference.

I am going to wait to see what TV deal the SEC gets before saying that we can put away thoughts of conference realignment. ACC schools will get $17 million annually from their new deal. Right now, SEC schools get $4 million more annually than ACC schools. Let's see what the gap is after the SEC renegotiates their own TV deal. And the fact that the SEC, Big 12, Big 10 and Pac 10 will have their own huge extravaganza and lucrative bowls between each other (Champs and Rose), that ticks me off and will put us at a further disadvantage monetarily and perception-wise. Also, the fact that playoff payouts will be based on historical success, is not good.

Because of all the above, I'm taking a wait and see approach.


Alabama says hello....

[1]
Posted: Jun 27, 2012 7:28 AM
 

Didn't win their confrerence. ####, didn't even win their division


Re: Alabama says hello....

[1]
Posted: Jun 27, 2012 7:32 AM
 

And it will be worse for conference champions under this playoff system. That's all I'm saying.


Ummmm, you said the BCS required a conference champ!?


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 7:38 AM
 

Missed that one by a mile!


Re: Ummmm, you said the BCS required a conference champ!?

[1]
Posted: Jun 27, 2012 7:49 AM
 

True. But the point stands. With SOS being a determining factor, the SEC is likely to get 50% of the available slots as opposed to 20% now.


That's a valid point, but the weighted conference champs

[1]
Posted: Jun 27, 2012 7:55 AM
 

and the transparency along with removing the biased polls should be the best chance for an equitable selection of 4. The SEC does usually produce 3 of the top 8 teams or so each year. It's hard to argue right now that LSU & ALa wouldn't be 2 of the 4 with their wealth of talent. But there are 2 more years to improve before this system is installed. Just win baby...


The thing that worries me is that in all my lifetime, the


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 8:02 AM
 

SEC has been considered the the Mercedes of football conferences. And that perception has only strengthend in the past 6 years. Changing that perception won't happen overnight. It may not happen in the rest of our lifetimes.


I understand, that hasn't been the case in my lifetime


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 8:15 AM
 

those teams have always been respected but they weren't as dominant in the 80s. Since the early 90s they have been more prominent. LSU's run started around 2000, they sucked during the 90s. There are really only 4 teams that have carried the banner, LSU, Fla, Ala and Auburn. With a splash of Tenn in late 90s.


Melamb


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 8:24 AM
 

I would include Georgia in that group. Though they haven't won a NC in that span they have consistently been a top team in the East outside of '09 and '10. Also, Tennessee made more than a splash as they were also dominant from about '94 to '05 and won a NC around '97 or so.


UGA has been a very good team, no doubt


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 8:38 AM
 

I guess the reason I left them out was the fact that Fla has beaten them 18 out of the last 22 years. But I agree they have been very good. UT won the first BCS in 98, you could throw them in there. looking at the SEC over the last 3 years, LSU, Ala, Ark and Auburn(1 year wonder) have been the teams. Fla, Tenn and UGa have been on the decline. Looks like Fla and UGA will be back this year, this might be the SECs strongest group top to bottom. One reason that I believe the coots are in for a rude awakening! I don't think Dooley will get it done at UT though!


Even in your lifetime, the debate has been: who is better:


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 9:53 AM
 

the SEC or the Big 10? Today, no one puts the Big 10 at same level with the SEC.


Well I stated from the 80s but I'm much older than that,


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 10:13 AM
 

What I recall from the hazy, gray mind that I have is ND, PAC 8/PAC 10, SEC and SWC were players. In the 80s Clemson, Miami, Penn St, FSU were major players and less was attention was given to conference affiliation. The Big 10 got a lot of ink due to the press in the big cities, but they always seemed to fade the same way they still do. So, not so much!


I remember all the way back to the 60s. And living near the


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 10:58 AM
 

Georgia border, it has always been SEC this, SEC that blah.


I know what you mean, but my memory of the late


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 11:21 AM
 

60s to the 80s, it was more about the coaches than the conferences. JawJa has always had a unique group of fans however, and they probably had to justify the #### whoopings kinda like the coots have done over the years. Bear, Parsegian (sp), Dooley, JoePa, Bo, Woody and others. I still feel like conference affiliation has be exploited by ESecPN for the past 10-15 years. As I recall the ACC was suppose to dominate CFB after adding Mia and VT.


I don't think it ends it b/c there's the money issue.

[6]
Posted: Jun 27, 2012 7:26 AM
 

If you want answers, follow the money.

Allowing conferences and teams to negotiate their own TV contracts might help some conferences and some teams, it will hurt college football.

The product is college football. The product is NOT the SEC nor the B1G, nor the Pac 12 nor Big 12.

Allowing certain teams and conferences to benefit financially more than other teams/conferences hurts the overall competitiveness of college football and in the end, the product, college football suffers.

In a few years, when teams start taking in the money, recruits will go to schools like Texas or Bama and it'll be like staying at the Waldorf Astoria. Then they'll come to Clemson or NC State and it;ll be like staying at a Hampton Inn. Kids notice this and the recruiting advantages will be huge for the schools with money.

This 4 team playoff addresses none of this.


Re: I don't think it ends it b/c there's the money issue.


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 7:36 AM
 

i 1000% agree Clayton....most of the people on here are that against a move to the BIG XII or any other conference think it is totally about this playoff,,,its not!!..its about keeping up monetarily with SC, and Bama, and UGA...


When they allowed NCAA Tourney basketball payouts to be


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 7:36 AM
 

determined by on the court success, it opened the door for them to do the same thing with college football. You can't allow it to be done in one sport but, not the other.


When the SEC gets its new TV deal, it may be so lucrative,


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 7:38 AM
 

I fear TNet will melt down.


Clayton

[1]
Posted: Jun 27, 2012 8:18 AM
 

If you really think about what you are saying, your comTments sound very socialistic. Bama spends huge money on its football program because it cares about football passionately and it deserves to be paid back from the market monetarily for its effort. You seem to be saying that there should be a pot of college football money and it should be distributed equally.

Do you really think Duke should get the same payout for the football program as Bama? That is like saying someone who is a slacker at their job should be paid the same as someone who is working their tail off.

Go read your post again and see if I am misunderstanding you, but your idea of fairness in college football sounds like a democrat complaining about rich people.


what he means is that this issue isn't close to being dead


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 8:24 AM
 

at all...in fact not that the system is set it sets the wheels in motion for things to start changing. This system did NOTHING at all to address the challenges Clemson is facing in a revenue short fall to SC and GA. Nothing. The TV contract is the elephant in the room. It will continue to be.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Re: what he means is that this issue isn't close to being dead


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 8:35 AM
 

> at all...in fact not that the system is set it sets
> the wheels in motion for things to start changing.
> This system did NOTHING at all to address the
> e challenges Clemson is facing in a revenue short
> fall to SC and GA. Nothing. The TV contract is the
> elephant in the room. It will continue to be.

No, what Clayton said was essentially "it's not fair" that conferences get to negotiate their own contracts and some benefit more than others - that is what sounds socialistic to me. In my opinion, if you try and treat everyone the same, then you only end up hurting everyone as there is no incentive to excel.

I'm sure Duke would be more than happy to take the additional money from football that Bama generated because companies paid big bucks to advertise during a Bama game. No way a Duke game generates the same advertising dollars - how is that fair to Bama. Do you really think Duke is going to take the additional revenue and spend it on improving their football program?

BTW, I still think expansion is dead for the time being. Schools will not make such drastic moves when there is so much uncertainty about the future. How this playoff will effect bowls, revenue and TV contracts is all unknown. The ACC is not dead yet.


Do you think the NFL is the most successful of all sporst in

[1]
Posted: Jun 27, 2012 8:41 AM
 

the US, Sludge? B/c they have things like revenue sharing. There's an NFL TV contract, not individual team or conference or division contracts.

Leave the political hyperbole and name-calling out of this.

And as I stated many times, the product is NOT Duke and its NOT Bama or any other team. The product is Division 1 college football. If the games aren't competitive, they aren't entertaining and in the end, no one will care about it and the money that is here now, won't be in the future.

Step away from your Faux News view of the world. It's not as bad as they paint it to be.

CBS


Sludge, I got my MBA from Clemson and most of my

[1]
Posted: Jun 27, 2012 8:34 AM
 

projects/reports/etc... were on the business of baseball and more focused on why Baseball is different from other sports with regards to revenue sharing, contract limits, draft order, etc...

I got much of my stance on this subject from Bobby McCormack, an Econ professor at Clemson.

Here's the basics of the argument.

With football, basketball, and hockey, the product is the league, not each individual team. In baseball, the product is each individual team. In the big 3 sports other than baseball, without these "socialist" rules in place, the richest teams will get the best players and they will ALWAYS win. That is not the case in baseball and that is why baseball has been reluctant to institute such rules.

I have facts and studies and history on my side in this argument. You have your ill-informed beliefs, based on your understanding the cold war issues that pitted the US against Russia and that's about it.

No one is forcing any teams to stay in the NCAA. They can leave if they want. If you can't understand how fair and competitive games between member teams is critical to the success of the league, then you'll always have short-sighted views with tired-#### arguments like calling someone a socialist.

Cheers,
CBS


Re: Sludge, I got my MBA from Clemson and most of my


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 9:27 AM
 

Clayton - I don't know if your Econ professor was trying to apply the NFL model to college football, but I certainly understand how the NFL model is better than the MLB model for creating competition. I knew your stance was based on how the NFL operates when I initially read your post. I also understand that the NFL system allows all teams to be competitive because the payouts from TV are shared. This is good for the NFL as a whole and likewise good for all the franchises.

So, let's apply your argument for an NFL structure to college football.

The NFL is a closed club that has a centralized governing authority and rules are in place to make sure no one team has a competitive advantage over another (salary caps) - this sounds somewhat socialtistic to me, but this is necessary and works well for the NFL. Anyway, being a closed club means new members would only be allowed in after approval by the other members. Obviously, the existing members would not want to add a new member if that meant the current members would take a cut in current pay because of the additional member. The new member must add value that creates more revenue for each existing member. Correct? Otherwise, why not have an NFL team in every city?

So now let's install this same system into the NCAA. First we would need a much stronger centralized governing authority to make sure no one has a competitive advantage - that means a bigger, more powerful NCAA. Then we have to put all the TV money into one big pot and share it equally because all the Division 1 football programs are part of the "product". How many Division 1 college football programs are there? Quite a few. How many get primetime football games on TV? A small percentage.

I think you're right, no school is forced to be a member of the NCAA. So install your fairness system into college football and let Wyoming, Fresno State and Cincinatti get the same TV revenue as the Bama's and Southen Cal's and see how long the SEC, PAC 10 and Big 10 remain members of the NCAA. They will bolt to form a new league with their own governing body outside the NCAA. Then where do you think the TV money will go?

I don't think I am ill-informed. I'm just being logical.


Sludge, you keep using the term, "socialism" in a negative

[1]
Posted: Jun 27, 2012 9:39 AM
 

way and you're letting "political" emotions in to your equation so it's hard to take you any more seriously thatn I take Rush Limbaugh.

What you're seeing happening right now is exactly what you're stating would happen under my "proposed plan" (for lack of better term). The Bamas, Texas's, tOSU's etc... are seperating themselves without having to form a new league.

If college football is to remain as it is, and competitive, you can't have teams/conferences inking their own deals.


Clayton, the Supreme Court already ruled on this in 1984.

[1]
Posted: Jun 27, 2012 10:03 AM
 

Schools and conferences can make their own deals. Sludge is right. The conferences can bolt and do their own thing.

I don't think this is detrimental to college football. Heck, the schools don't share money from the NCAA basketball tournament equally. That has turned out fine.


I know they ruled on it as I've said it will ruin college


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 10:19 AM
 

football as we know it and you can already see it starting to happen.

And the reason its troubling to me, and many other Clemson fans, is that Clemson is riding the fence between being a "have" and a "have not."

Staying in the ACC will make us a "have not." Our plight will be similar to that of Boise State the past few years.


Unequal revenue-sharing has not hurt basketball.***

[1]
Posted: Jun 27, 2012 10:59 AM
 




I never mentioned equal vs unequal revenue sharing.


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 11:43 AM
 

I certainly think that you should be rewarded for winning and winning bowl games and conferences more than the teams that don't.

The problem is that the extra money we're talking about here is TV money from regular season games and some conferences teams will earn millions more than other teams yearly and the cumulative effect will be devatsating to teams from conferences such as the ACC, the Big East and MWC.


Re: Sludge, you keep using the term, "socialism" in a negative


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 10:19 AM
 

OK, forget I said socialism. Probably added that for emphasis anyway.

Your argument falls apart when you start with the premise that college football is the "product" as if the Mountain West added just as much value as the SEC. If college football was a company that you were buying, the first thing you would do is trim its product line because there are certainly some segments that do not add value to the overall product.

College football is not the "product". The product is SEC football and Big 10 football, etc. The SEC is essentially a revenue sharing organization, much like the NFL, and Vandy gets just as much money as Bama from the conference. The SEC is its own "product" if you will.

The NFL, as you said, is its own product. The USFL was also a product. Both played professional football. One product was better than the other. Was it fair that the NFL survived and the USFL didn't? The USFL would likely still be around if the NFL were forced to share its revenue with the USFL.

When you use the term "college football" that is a broad term. Is it fair that the SEC (a separate product) should have to share its revenue with the Mountain West (a separate product)? If you say yes, it would be required for membership in the NCAA, then we are right back to my point that you will see the money conferences bolt and form their own league.

Yes, the money conferences are separating themselves from the non-money conferences but these money conferences are competitive amongst themselves. Why should we expect all 120 or so college football programs to be competitive with each other - or put another way all equally sucky?


Sludge, if the productS are the SEC, the Big 12, the Pac 12,


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 10:23 AM
 

the ACC, and all these conferences, than the ACC product is woefully behind 4 other products.

If we can become another product that makes more money, than we should move to a new product b/c our product sucks and will NOT give us more money in our pockets.

If you think an ACC team winning the NC and BCS games will cause ESPN to renegotiate our contract so that they have to give us more, than you're delusional.

Being in the ACC hurts Clemson and any Clemson fan fighting to stay is fighting against the success of Clemson.


Re: Sludge, if the productS are the SEC, the Big 12, the Pac 12,


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 10:53 AM
 

CBS - I guess you see my point about college football not being the product, so with regard to your recent post -

I won't argue that the ACC has a great product, it doesn't. But if the Big 12 is such a great product then why have 4 teams left in the last 2 years. The Big 12 is really just UT and OU. The ACC can be on par with the Big 12 if the football schools were better on a consistent basis.

The point of my original post is that the playoff system will not be "exclusionary" as some feared, it is actually more inclusive than the BCS system. Additionally, this is a drastic change in D-1 college football and the uncertainty of how this will affect tv contracts, etc. means schools are likely to stay where they are until the future is more certain. I think the ACC is in a better position now than it was prior to the playoff announcement.


Sludge, I disagree with your point. I don't "see it."


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 11:37 AM
 

The product is the league from which all "contenders" reside. Think Boise State. They're part of D1 or the FBS yet they don't have a chance to win the "league".

Right now, the product is the FBS. The problem, as I've stated and as has been pointed out numerous times, is the fact that there are teams in the FBS that have no shot at winning the league. That's the problems with what's going on... the divide between those that CAN win the league and those that CAN'T win the league, prior to any games being played, is growing and rather than the FBS splitting into different leagues, there will always be an issue... i.e., having teams in the league with ZERO chance of competing for the league championship.

Oh, and there's NO uncertainty with regards to the ACCs TV contract. We're stuck with it as long as we're in the ACC.


Re: Clayton


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 8:41 AM
 

..."Do you really think Duke should get the same payout for the football program as Bama? That is like saying someone who is a slacker at their job should be paid the same as someone who is working their tail off."

This is the thing that drives me crazy with the 9 game schedule, CU, FSU and VT will lose revenue by losing a home game every other year and yet they will still share with Dook, Wake and the rest.


Re: I don't think it ends it b/c there's the money issue.


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 8:27 AM
 

Like anything, the devil is in the details. How will this
new found fortune be split? That will ultimately tell the
tale and nothing much will happen util that is agreed upon.


Uhhh...no !!!!***

[2]
Posted: Jun 27, 2012 8:02 AM
 



2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together.


Re: Believe new playoff ends Big XII move possiblity for now


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 8:26 AM
 

Does this mean that FIRE swofford will never happen.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg


Replies: 38  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: Two for sale lower south sec:H row:II seats 13,15(about 18 yard line) about 10 steps below the porta...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
1846 people have read this post