NCAA Football '11-'12

[Admiral Yi]

Is anyone watching this Todd Marinovich 30 for 30?  I knew a lot about how he was raised and what happened and all that, but it's still just so crazy seeing it like this, and my wife, even without knowing anything about it, was almost immediately (when Marv was talking about stretching his newborn son's hammys. what a fucking nutjob) asking about how fucked up Todd turned out to be, etc.

I watched it. Maybe it's partly because he didn't get a chance to make his own case, but the Trojans coach came across as a total douche.

[dps]

Kansas has hired Charlie Weis to be their HC.

I love Brian's reaction to this at MGoBlog:

I'm still waiting for Orson to email the Kansas AD asking "who are you and when did you think of this," thus exposing the brilliant hoax. Because that ain't real. Kansas did not just hire an old sociopath whose college tenure is spectacular failure at Notre Dame and leading the Florida offense into walrusball territory. They did not shell out three million a year for him. These are not things that happen without Batman villains intervening in the water supply.

At first I didn't know which made less sense--Kansas hiring Weis or UCLA hiring Jim Mora.  But after thinking it over, I think Weis' hiring makes less sense.  Mora showed that he couldn't be a successful coach in the NFL, but he hasn't proven himself a loser at the college level, so it might work out for the Bruins.  Plus, there is the possibility that they thought that they were hiring his dad.   OTOH, Kansas hiring Weis doesn't add up at all--if he can't win at Norte Dame, how can anyone possibly expect him to win at Kansas?

[sbr]

Mora to UCLA reminds me a bit of when Carroll went to USC.  Mora was not a terrible NFL coach, but just not great.  He is also very young and energetic, I think high school and college aged kids will relate to him very well. 

If UCLA decides they are committed enough to the football program to properly pay their coaches, specifically their assistants UCLA football could return to being a very good program.

[sbr]

No way the TV networks allow the top 2 teams to sit out the first weekend of a playoff.  That is a huge number of eyeballs and ad revenue left sitting on the table.

Probably.  There are no byes in any other sport's playoff, are there?  In the NFL, for instance, that would be a huge number of eyeballs and ad revenue left sitting on the table   

Yes the NFL has byes but I don't think the situations are very comparable.

The NFL has had byes in the first round f the playoffs since 1978; there were 5 teams and only the 4&5 seeds played the first week.  They went to the current 6 teams with the top 2 seeds getting a bye in 1990.  Back then the NFL wasn't nearly what it is now, it was popular but not much more so than the NBA or Major League Baseball.  Now that NFL is king the networks get what they get, and they will like it.

The current NCAA Div 1 bowl system is very profitable to schools, networks and the NCAA itself.  I assume any new system will need to be more profitable than the current one for everyone for a change to be made and I think that at least one TV network would have a voice in setting that system up.

[Eddie Teach]

Right now the championship team plays in one bowl game. Under a 6-team playoff scheme, they would play in two or three. Seems that's enough to get the tv networks on board.

[grumbler]

Yes the NFL has byes but I don't think the situations are very comparable.

The NFL has had byes in the first round f the playoffs since 1978; there were 5 teams and only the 4&5 seeds played the first week.  They went to the current 6 teams with the top 2 seeds getting a bye in 1990.  Back then the NFL wasn't nearly what it is now, it was popular but not much more so than the NBA or Major League Baseball.  Now that NFL is king the networks get what they get, and they will like it.

So, obviously, the NFL doesn't have first-round byes any more, because "No way the TV networks allow the top 2 teams to sit out the first weekend of a playoff.  That is a huge number of eyeballs and ad revenue left sitting on the table."  When did the NFL drop the first-round bye?

The situations are almost exactly comparable.

The current NCAA Div 1 bowl system is very profitable to schools, networks and the NCAA itself.  I assume any new system will need to be more profitable than the current one for everyone for a change to be made and I think that at least one TV network would have a voice in setting that system up.

A six-team playoff would have no impact on the bowl system, and would add two extremely valuable playoff games to the slate.

The championship game would need to be advertised a la the Super Bowl, though, because fans of the final teams couldn't be expected to fill stadiums at remote locations two weeks in a row, particularly when they couldn't predict accurately whether their team would make it to the final.  That may necessitate a two-week interval between the semi-final and final, in order to allow time to sell tickets.

Also, I would note that the current bowl system is only profitable at the upper stages.  Low-tier bowls actually cost the schools which attend them money (due to ticket guarantees, required lodging, transportation, and the like).

[grumbler]

Right now the championship team plays in one bowl game. Under a 6-team playoff scheme, they would play in two or three. Seems that's enough to get the tv networks on board.

Yes, but even more importantly, the team that wins that grind, even if they started as the sixth seed, would definitely have established credibility as the national champ.  That certainly isn't the case with the mythical national championship we have now.

[PDH]

Just so everyone is on the same page, the most important bowl game of the year is this saturday at noon (mountain time).  That's right, the NEW MEXICO BOWL,  between those perrenial powers Wyoming and Temple.  The winner gets all the nachos they want and likely an athletic departments several tens of thousands in debt.

In all fairness, it IS the first bowl game - everyone should be starved for football.

[dps]

Mora to UCLA reminds me a bit of when Carroll went to USC. 

I'm sure that UCLA is hoping that Mora will do for them what Carroll did for USC--minus the NCAA sanctions a few years down the road.

[stjaba]

Also, I would note that the current bowl system is only profitable at the upper stages.  Low-tier bowls actually cost the schools which attend them money (due to ticket guarantees, required lodging, transportation, and the like).

Even high-end bowls can cost teams money. Last year, I'm certain that UConn lost money(somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 million) when it played in the Fiesta Bowl. This year, apparently Virginia Tech has only sold about half of its allotted tickets to the Sugar Bowl. When Louisville played Wake Forest in the Orange Bowl a few years back I think one or both the teams lost money.

Examples like these are why the BCS bowls are going to drop automatic qualifiers whenever the next contract comes up.

[dps]

Also, I would note that the current bowl system is only profitable at the upper stages.  Low-tier bowls actually cost the schools which attend them money (due to ticket guarantees, required lodging, transportation, and the like).

Even high-end bowls can cost teams money. Last year, I'm certain that UConn lost money(somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 million) when it played in the Fiesta Bowl. This year, apparently Virginia Tech has only sold about half of its allotted tickets to the Sugar Bowl. When Louisville played Wake Forest in the Orange Bowl a few years back I think one or both the teams lost money.

Examples like these are why the BCS bowls are going to drop automatic qualifiers whenever the next contract comes up.

It's not a done deal that they're going to drop automatic qualifiers.

[grumbler]

Even high-end bowls can cost teams money. Last year, I'm certain that UConn lost money(somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 million) when it played in the Fiesta Bowl. This year, apparently Virginia Tech has only sold about half of its allotted tickets to the Sugar Bowl. When Louisville played Wake Forest in the Orange Bowl a few years back I think one or both the teams lost money.

Yes, teams need to sell lots of tickets for the schools to make serious money.  VaTech is promoting the idea that their supporters buy the tickets and donate them to VT so the school can give them to charities, the military, and the like.  The school knows that if it dumps them on the open market, Michigan fans will buy them up, and it doesn't want its own fan section to have more Michigan fans than VT fans.

Examples like these are why the BCS bowls are going to drop automatic qualifiers whenever the next contract comes up.

It is partially that, and partially the fact that there aren't six strong conferences any more, IMO.

[Valmy]

Examples like these are why the BCS bowls are going to drop automatic qualifiers whenever the next contract comes up.

Except V-Tech is not an automatic qualifier.  The Sugar Bowl chose to take them.

[grumbler]

Except V-Tech is not an automatic qualifier.  The Sugar Bowl chose to take them.

I think those are examples of teams loosing money in BCS games, not examples of AQ teams.  VT wouldn't be selling any more tickets if it had won the ACC and was playing in the Orange Bowl.

[Valmy]

Except V-Tech is not an automatic qualifier.  The Sugar Bowl chose to take them.

I think those are examples of teams loosing money in BCS games, not examples of AQ teams.  VT wouldn't be selling any more tickets if it had won the ACC and was playing in the Orange Bowl.

It sure seemed like he was citing Virginia Tech as a reason for why the Bowls are dropping AQs.  I thought the insinuation was that the Sugar Bowl was forced by the AQ rules to take a non-deserving team like the Fiesta Bowl had to take UConn last year.  But it rather shows that even when the Bowls can take anybody they want they still can screw it up just as bad.