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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, because injury filled Football and Basketball are the same They're two completely fucking different games.
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.
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.
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.
While most athletics programs lose money, most FOOTBALL programs make money.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
I've seen it said that 50-60% of Div I football programs make money.
http://californiawatch.org/dailyrep...e-college-athletic-programs-losing-money-4121
That takes Football AND basketball together into account. basketball I can see being cheap (low equipment needs, less players, etc...). But football has more coaches, gear, fields, etc...
Colleges don;t put football teams up to make money. If they did then that is one badly run college.
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.
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.
12 or 16 team? Waaaaay too many.
Some schools make assloads on football.
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/20...y-grows-on-football-program-instead-of-trees/
A lot of people might not like him, but you can't fault him for being passionate about sports and being engaged in what happens to both his team and teams in general.
Good idea, I hope it comes to fruition.