Bodog offers 50 Million to Auburn/USC Bowl Matchup

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Francodman
Why? So Auburn can get a beating like the one oklahoma did?

We want the beating you gave to Cal, Stanford, UCLA, etc. 😛

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Francodman
Why? So Auburn can get a beating like the one oklahoma did?

We want the beating you gave to Cal, Stanford, UCLA, etc. 😛

You know, its sad that eveyone seems so sure that USC would beat down Auburn..are they forgetting that OU let both OSU and T A&M score 35 pts. Auburn has a much better secondary and equal, if not better, dline and linebackers. It would be a much better matchup.

 

[aswedc]

So much football stupidity. Do half of you actually watch the game? If you did you'd know once you enter the top tier of teams there are no guarentees of anything.

Reading comprehension. Learn it, love it.

I never said I don't want a playoff. I'd love nothing more than an actual playoff. All I said is it's not in the financial best interest of the individial universities. If you want to tell me how it is in their best interest from a financial standpoint go right ahead.

Right, the bowl system is so great. A select few schools get all the benefits and publicity while everyone else gets screwed over. Many schools actually lose money going to bowl games. Explain to me how that is good financially for them, as well as all the schools that don't even get invited? At least a playoff system would allow smaller schools exposure when matched with more famous programs.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
And I don't see how it's all about the money, either, because adding a playoff would just make them more.

No they wouldn't. Stop for a minute and think about all the implications of going to a playoff system.

You evidently don't kow much about sports, huh?

How in the hell could colleges NOT make more money from adding a 2-3 more games?

Do schools lose money in the NCAA hoops tourney? I thought not.
Here's a simple way, with no harm to the bowls:
Take your top 16 teams. That way, you won't get too many bitching like you would if you only took the top 8.
Okay, start the playoffs in December:
Week 1: 8 games
Week 2: 4 games
You have 4 teams left after week 2. Now send all the deserving teams to their respective BCS bowl games, and the 4 contenders to their 2 designated BCS games. Your 2 winners play in a single championship game after the bowl season ends. All the rest still got to go to a bowl game, have the whole experience, and even the playoff losers got one more crack at winning a bowl game after they were out of contention for the title.

One change you could make is just have a Week 3 of playoffs, which would get you down to 2 teams for the title, then just have whatever BCS game has the championship game that year be the title game.

Either way, the two teams that play for the title only play 3 more games than they do already.
Basically, you'd have #1 play #16 at #1's home, and so forth for the playoffs.

Now what school wouldn't want to play 3 more games, potentially at home, with all the money that could be made?
I don't see what anyone is bitching about with adding a couple more games....half the playoff teams in my proposal only play one more game than normal. Nobody seems to have any trouble with their basketball teams traveling all over the country for the NCAA tourney, so why not football on a much smaller scale?

It makes absolutely no sense for them not to have a playoff.