Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Danzig
don't you think if it was a given that the money would be better in a playoff system that the ncaa and the schools would be using that kind of system?! if it's about the money, than obviously the move would be to what generates the most cash--which is exactly why there is no playoff system.
the basketball finals are mentioned as an example of a true championship format.
but the ncaa basketball tourny includes half the schools in 1-a. that's a huge reason for it's existence, and due to the nature of that sport, it's workable-unlike football. a football playoff would exclude a huge number of schools who currently get a bowl berth.
i'd love to see a playoff-but the 32 team nfl doesn't come close to the 120-odd FBS teams.
|
Your logic is flawed. Not only would the money be better it would be monumentally better because the NCAA would own the tv rights as opposed to the bowls. The reason that the system is the same is that the commissioners of the Pac 10 and Big 10 have been bought by the Rose bowl. Simple as that. They are taking money to keep the system as is. A playoff would bring a hundred times more money to the NCAA but it would not personally enrich the 2 criminals in charge.
The reason that the NCAA basketball tourney is such a boon to the NCAA is because BS gave them a billion dollar contract. And all conferences get a cut of the pie. As we have gone over many times there is no reason why a 16 team playoff can work while keeping some of the traditional venues like the Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl. Hell they can even keep the **** bowls as a NIT of sorts so that the crap schools can still have something to shoot for.
BTW-The basketball tourney does not include 1/2 of the teams. There are 300+ division 1 basketball teams and 65 spots.
01-02-2008, 11:17 PM
Hybrid Mode
