• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Mark Cuban vs. the BCS

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The Boston Dangler said:
schools will never go for it. they make too much money, too easily to drop these bullshit bowls, revenue sharing schemes and blowouts-for-cash.
Click to expand...

most schools individually lose money in the bowls.

there are only ~10 bowls that actually make financial sense to go to. combine that with the fact that most schools are losing money on athletics, and it's a wonder that the system even exists anyway.

i really need to get Death to the BCS.
 
rcpratt said:
The biggest difference is that you can't play two football games in one weekend. That's all that really needs to be said.

Anything more than 16 is ridiculous. 32 teams would be 5 extra weeks of football. There's no way. I mean, there's a way, but it seems excessive to me.
Click to expand...

Yea this is my line of thinking. Hell if they complain about 3 extra weeks being too long I'd be OK with a 4 team playoff with the top 4 poll teams. It's usually down to the 4 anyway
 
I'd like to see this happen too but could see it taking longer than 4 years to implement (although I'd hope it would take sooner!)
 
GagHalfrunt said:
The bigger aspect is the number of conferences. D2 has about 16 conferences and they take 16 teams into the playoffs. D3 has more like 30 conferences, they take 32 into the playoffs. The BCS has 6 "major" conferences and about 4 that don't get automatic bids. Take the 6 major conference champs and they get 6 automatic bids into the playoffs, the 4 smaller conferences do a play-in game for the remaining 2 spots and bingo, you've got a playoff system of nothing but conference champs.
Click to expand...


True, but FCS doesn't have 12 team conferences either. Most are 9 team conferences. Same with Div II, though there are a couple 12 team conferences.

Number of teams - FBS 120, FCS 123, Division II - 152. FCS has a 20 team playoff system and Division II has a 24 team playoff. Both end before the last bowl games are played. There is no reason FBS can't do a 16 team playoff.
 
rcpratt said:
The biggest difference is that you can't play two football games in one weekend. That's all that really needs to be said.

Anything more than 16 is ridiculous. 32 teams would be 5 extra weeks of football. There's no way. I mean, there's a way, but it seems excessive to me.
Click to expand...

5 weeks would put the Championship game in the first week of January. Guess when the BCS Championship game is? Yep, the first week of January.

If you're really concerned with the number of games, pull back the regular season to 10 or 11 weeks, like it used to be.
 
preslove said:
Yes, because injury filled Football and Basketball are the same 🙄 They're two completely fucking different games.
Click to expand...

No shit sherlock, but your excuse is nothing but a wussy out. Did they consider injuries when the expanded from 10 games to 11 and then 11 to 12, the 12 to a 13th for some conferences? Hell no. And it should not be part of the equation.

My second statement was in response to your second statement about the season meaning something (another BS excuse). If you're going to use that argument then the BBall tourney should only take conference champions from each conference - making it roughly a 20 team tourney.
 
Regardless of the number of teams, I think we can all agree that college football would be more compelling during bowl season if we had an actual playoff to determine who was the best team and it would put to bed these silly arguments about which conference is better and which team is better based on strength of schedule blah blah blah.

Some teams would surely still miss out, but this system, even if it is imperfect, is worlds better than what is in place now.
 
ElFenix said:
most schools individually lose money in the bowls.

there are only ~10 bowls that actually make financial sense to go to. combine that with the fact that most schools are losing money on athletics, and it's a wonder that the system even exists anyway.

i really need to get Death to the BCS.
Click to expand...

While most athletics programs lose money, most FOOTBALL programs make money. The bigger schools make money from tickets/boosters/tv/conference revenue sharing. The smaller teams make a little bit of money from tickets and alums, but also schedule a few get-the-shit-beat-out-of-us non-conference games with the bigger name football schools. Those big name schools usually pay low to mid six figures to each of their cupcake opponents.

Most athletics programs lose money because of non-revenue sports, like swimming, track and field, gymnastics, volleyball etc.. Football (and some basketball programs) usually just subsidizes all these other sports. This leads to the fucked up situation of football players playing for free to pay for the scholarships of rich kid lacrosse players.
 
In major college football it always comes down to $$ so Cuban is heading in the right direction. However I don't want him anywhere near my cherished sport. If I read it right it sounds like he wasts to go outside the current bowls? Eff that.

Eventually (within 4-5 years) we'll end up in a playoff system. Enjoy the bowls and pray to whatever dark unforgiving gods you worship that Cuban gets interested in a Premier League team.
 
CPA said:
If you're really concerned with the number of games, pull back the regular season to 10 or 11 weeks, like it used to be.
Click to expand...

That's a problem because then most schools are losing 2 games a year and the money earned in those games. As only one team goes to the playoffs only they get all those extra games. The non-champs give up regular season games and don't get them back. That's why the playoffs have to be smaller, not larger. You're never going to get all those schools to give up all those extra games, so it's got to be done adding as few games as possible.
 
CPA said:
No shit sherlock, but your excuse is nothing but a wussy out. Did they consider injuries when the expanded from 10 games to 11 and then 11 to 12, the 12 to a 13th for some conferences? Hell no. And it should not be part of the equation.

My second statement was in response to your second statement about the season meaning something (another BS excuse). If you're going to use that argument then the BBall tourney should only take conference champions from each conference - making it roughly a 20 team tourney.
Click to expand...

Except that you can play MANY MANY MANY more basketball games in a week than football games. THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPORTS, so taking my statements about football and extending them to basketball is completely idiotic. Your analogy is fucking stupid.

And, yes the length of the season is extremely important. Needlessly adding games is bad. There is a big difference between 13 and 15 games. Oh, and reducing home games of teams? LOL! Yeah, like big time schools are going to let that revenue go.

Face it, you're argument stinks.
 
Last edited:
preslove said:
While most athletics programs lose money, most FOOTBALL programs make money.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. The VAST majority of football programs lose money. Even though it's the biggest income sport it's by fay the biggest in terms of spending. Only the really really successful teams with giant stadiums and TV deals make money, the rest lose a bundle.
 
ElFenix said:
most schools individually lose money in the bowls.

there are only ~10 bowls that actually make financial sense to go to. combine that with the fact that most schools are losing money on athletics, and it's a wonder that the system even exists anyway.

i really need to get Death to the BCS.
Click to expand...

UConn is going to the Fiesta, one of the high paying bowls, and it looks like they'll lose money, maybe a lot.

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/12/15/news/doc4d0803ecabb12514827842.txt?viewmode=fullstory
 
CPA said:
5 weeks would put the Championship game in the first week of January. Guess when the BCS Championship game is? Yep, the first week of January.

If you're really concerned with the number of games, pull back the regular season to 10 or 11 weeks, like it used to be.
Click to expand...
I'm more worried about the number of games being played than the calender. And I also think it's irresponsible to have a game the weekend before finals week, despite the fact that I realize 95% of these kids cheat/don't care/get free grades.

I think the regular season should be pulled back if we do a playoff no matter how many teams there are.
 
CPA said:
5 weeks would put the Championship game in the first week of January. Guess when the BCS Championship game is? Yep, the first week of January.

If you're really concerned with the number of games, pull back the regular season to 10 or 11 weeks, like it used to be.
Click to expand...

This, very much so. 12-team conferences play 4 non-conference games. 10-team conferences play 3 non-conference games. Virtually every team in the country plays 1 game against a 1-AA team. Throw out the 1-AA game and you have enough games for a 4-team playoff. Throw out 1 unnecessary non-conference game and you have an 8-team playoff.

2 non-conference games, 9 conference games (or 8 + a championship game), 3 round playoff (single elimination w/a consolation bracket).

The top 8 teams in the country play 14 games, about what they play now. Teams outside the top 8 are guaranteed 11 regular season games, only 1 fewer than now. Allow non-playoff teams to play in one "showcase game" after the season and teams w/a winning record (no .500 teams) play in an additional bowl game.
 
Last edited:
preslove said:
Except that you can play MANY MANY MANY more basketball games in a week than football games. THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPORTS, so taking my statements about football and extending them to basketball is completely idiotic. Your analogy is fucking stupid.

And, yes the length of the season is extremely important. Needlessly adding games is bad. There is a big difference between 13 and 15 games. Oh, and reducing home games of teams? LOL! Yeah, like big time schools are going to let that revenue go.

Face it, you're argument stinks.
Click to expand...


lol, I haven't had this heated of an argument ever on ATOT. I LOVE College Football.

BTW, I still believe my argument holds and your's is nothing but a bunch of bought-in nonsense. And there's a difference between 11 and 13, but you aren't complaining about that.
 
preslove said:
While most athletics programs lose money, most FOOTBALL programs make money. The bigger schools make money from tickets/boosters/tv/conference revenue sharing. The smaller teams make a little bit of money from tickets and alums, but also schedule a few get-the-shit-beat-out-of-us non-conference games with the bigger name football schools. Those big name schools usually pay low to mid six figures to each of their cupcake opponents.

Most athletics programs lose money because of non-revenue sports, like swimming, track and field, gymnastics, volleyball etc.. Football (and some basketball programs) usually just subsidizes all these other sports. This leads to the fucked up situation of football players playing for free to pay for the scholarships of rich kid lacrosse players.
Click to expand...

right, but many football programs lose money on the bowls. nothing you posted in those two paragraphs contradicts anything i said in my post.
 
JS80 said:
12 or 16 team? Waaaaay too many.
Click to expand...

I think 16 is the absolute maximum. Especially when you consider that the top 10 is generally filled with undefeated and 1-2 loss teams. Most of those teams are quite good, and the way huge games in the regular season are lost on one play...it "seems" fair.

It also goes back to the origins of the NCAA BBall tournament (which, before the late 60s and UCLA, was still generally considered second fiddle to the NIT championship).

Kudos to Cuban for trying to push this. Unfortunately, he will likely fail. 🙁
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top