Expansion Thoughts

[scott715]

Does a rematch making for exciting tv? Unless the teams are evenly matched I don't think I would watch it.

[Mars]

Does a rematch making for exciting tv? Unless the teams are evenly matched I don't think I would watch it.

You tell me? The rematches we could have seen last year:

#3 Cincy(undefeated)-#17 Pitt (a 1-point win the first go-around)
#8 Ohio State-#10 Iowa (tOSU won by 3 points at home during the regular season)
#4 TCU(undefeated)-#14 BYU
#7 Oregon-#21 Stanford (the conference champ Ducks lost to the Cardinal the first time around)
Troy-Middle Tennessee State
#6 Boise State(undefeated)-Nevada (an 11-point win in Boise the first time)

So the 6 new championship games would have featured 3 undefeated teams, 6 top 10 teams, 4 top 25 match-ups, a revenge game for a regular season champ, and two more games that were decided by a field goal or less the first time. The Big East, Big Ten, and PAC-10 games would decide BCS Bowl participants, and the MWC and WAC games would decide whether the regular season champ goes to a BCS bowl game or not. I say that makes 5 of 6 games "must-watch" TV!

[Y12]

Why the Pac-10 would wait for next year to change the rule is beyond me. If that is really their first option, then why not go for it now.

1- They are looking to target the change with the end of their old TV contract, in time to negotiate a new one for more money.
2- They are very, very confident it will pass.
3- I think they will continue to play a round robin schedule, without divisions. Then the 1 and 2 get a rematch at the end of the season. Which yes, would hurt their rankings and computer numbers even further.

I understand the timing that the Pac-10 wants the new rule. Nothing is stopping them from making it effective a yearor two later, or making it optional, so that they could wait for the new TV contract to start holding the championship game.

Why go through all the motions and time, energy, and $$$$ to study expansion if you don't really want to do it?

[Y12]

Does a rematch making for exciting tv? Unless the teams are evenly matched I don't think I would watch it.

You tell me? The rematches we could have seen last year:

#3 Cincy(undefeated)-#17 Pitt (a 1-point win the first go-around)
#8 Ohio State-#10 Iowa (tOSU won by 3 points at home during the regular season)
#4 TCU(undefeated)-#14 BYU
#7 Oregon-#21 Stanford (the conference champ Ducks lost to the Cardinal the first time around)
Troy-Middle Tennessee State
#6 Boise State(undefeated)-Nevada (an 11-point win in Boise the first time)

So the 6 new championship games would have featured 3 undefeated teams, 6 top 10 teams, 4 top 25 match-ups, a revenge game for a regular season champ, and two more games that were decided by a field goal or less the first time. The Big East, Big Ten, and PAC-10 games would decide BCS Bowl participants, and the MWC and WAC games would decide whether the regular season champ goes to a BCS bowl game or not. I say that makes 5 of 6 games "must-watch" TV!

So are you one who supported the Big 12 sending Oklahoma to the Championship Game instead of Texas in 2008? Why play the game in the first place if it doesn't mean anything in the end? It makes me sick that people would vote for a round robin and championship game--putting more value in $$$$ than on field competition.

[blue42]

I think one thing being overlooked here is the fact the BCS wants to keep the money where it's already at, in the BCS.

This is the biggest reason for talk of expansion while in addition wanting to add a championship game for the pac and big 10 and the benefits would be.

The potential for more money coming in for the conference overall for the season. Someone mentioned why would the Pac 10 want to split the revenue from a championship game 12 ways instead of 10 ways. I don't know if the money numbers thrown out here are gross profits or net profits. Let's assume the 12-15 million number for a championship game is net profit divided equally among all conference teams. In a 10 team league, the calcualation is easy, each team gets 1.5 million. Split 12 ways each team gets 1.25 a mere reduction of only $250k, peanuts to the football budgets of most of these schools. So why would they take a smaller piece? This is what I believe the whole idea behind the expansion talk.

Take the bigger schools from the non AQ conferences and add them to the existing BCS conferences. This does two things, it takes the teams that have been taking BCS money away from the conferences and adds them to a BCS conference bringing that money back "home". This weakens the remaining non AQ conferences which means they won't have to invite a 7th conference into the fold leaving the BCS money in the BCS conferences. This also means it will be harder for a non AQ school to qualify for a BCS game because of SOS, again keeping the money in BCS conferences.

They will not only expand the conferences but also expand to 5 BCS bowl games with a plus one. This will give the six conferences 12 BCS payouts so that will mean at least 2 BCS bowl payouts each year for each conference. Take away one from the Big East because they usually don't deserve one game let alone 2 and one of the other conferences will have 3 BCS payouts. Going back to the pac 10, last year they only had one BCS payout, under this new scenario, they still get their one BCS payout, the additional $12-15 million from a conference championship game and an almost assured another $12-15 million BCS payout for a second BCS bow game. So you see taking a $250k hit with 12 member conference actually brings in around $1 million more.

Of course this is just my rambling, and I apologize if someone else talked about this same scenario in an earlier thread, I haven't been around much the last couple of months and haven't read every thread.