Forget the NCAA Tournament!

[paul253]

We all know the NCAA tournament is boring and there is never any excitement. The BCS (basketball championship series) is the way to go! Who wants to see a bunch of teams competing against each other to see who is best when a computer can tell us which two teams deserve to be in the championship game? Here is my BCS lineup which is surely just as exciting as some stupid tournament!

 

Championship game: Ohio St (1) vs Kansas (2)

Sugar Basketball game: Kentucky vs Pittsburgh

Rose Basketball game: Arizona vs San Diego St

Orange Basketball game: Duke vs UConn

Fiesta Basketball game: North Carolina vs Texas

 

And some more exciting matchups:

BYU vs St Johns

Wisconsin vs Florida

Texas AM vs West Virginia

Purdue vs Vanderbilt

etc etc etc blah blah blah

 

You get the point. I hope everyone picked up on my sarcasm in this thread. The NCAA tournament is the greatest thing in all of sports. The BCS is the stupidest thing in all of sports. It's ironic how for the two most popular college sports, one can end the very best way and the other can end the stupidest way possible.

[PlayerHader]

Apples to oranges.

[pitchleague]

I think it should be the HCS (Hoops Championship Series). Then, you've got the Sugar Hoop Game, the Orange Hoop Game, the Fiesta Hoop Game, and the Grand Daddy of 'em All, the Rose Hoop Game, played every year at UCLA.

[RockCoCougars]

It's all driven by money my friend.... the major problem is that it's driven by old money. The older bowl influences/tradition/power brokers of the NCAAF system are resistant to change. I'm not sure why. Obviously, the bowls don't want to lose their destination's tourism money, but my guess is that would be trumped several times by an increase in TV money, and the sites could remain the same. You would think that the powers that be would see this and find a solution- heck, even the Masters have made things more 'TV fan' friendly in recent years.

[paul253]

It's all driven by money my friend.

Very much agreed. I just don't understand how these college presidents think a football tournament is not going to make as much money as these bowl games. I think the football tournament would eventually be bigger than the basketball tournament. The main problem that I see is that the big schools/power conferences have a monopoly on the system as it stands and have no reason to switch. After all, why would the SEC want to take the chance that TCU beats Auburn and claims the championship?

[InsomniacInkRoss]

The 2009 Fiesta bowl thinks BYU should be playing SD State in the "Separate but Equal" Hoop Game

[GAME05]

Kansas doesn't ever play a hard enough schedule, so they should never be considered for a HCS Bowl game. At least one team in the HCS Championship Game should automatically be given to an ACC team.

 

i certainly agree that the BCS is idiotic, but the only problem with tournaments is that they keep getting bigger. in four years, the NCAA basketball tournament is going to have 100 teams. it's already a ridiculous size. we've already got pre-tournaments to determine who gets into the next tournament, where the day before a few teams play in a tournament to face a #1 seed.

[LouisEly]

I just don't understand how these college presidents think a football tournament is not going to make as much money as these bowl games.

 

The bowl games are much more profitable than you think. First, there's travel costs; it's one thing to fly 20 people around carrying basketball uniforms and shoes, flying 100 people with football equipment (plus a band and band equipment) is a lot greater cost. It's not just revenue, it's revenue minus costs. The non-D-1 schools do it, but they also aren't spending $1.5M on football scholarships (plus $2M on coaches salaries). Most football programs are in the red already; that's why teams love to play UW in non-conference games - they get more money playing at UW than they get from a home game. Second is fan traveling; most fans have the resources to only go to one event. So think about that - if Wisconsin was one of the teams in the tournament, would you have gone to the Rose Bowl or would you have waited to see if they beat TCU and made it to the 2nd round or championship game? It's a lot harder to fill 75,000 seat stadiums than 18,000 seat arenas, and I've been to NCAA tournament games and the arenas have been half full even though four teams are there. The stands aren't full at the non-D-1 tournament games - there's hardly anyone there. You'd have football games with half-full stadiums at best, and that does not look good on TV and has a significant impact on revenue. Think about that - the Rose Bowl was pretty much full, so you have 90,000 fans paying $150/ticket, or $13.5M in ticket revenue from just one game. The NCAA tourney games I went to I paid $25 for two tickets - not $25 each, $25 for two tickets. Add to that parking, concessions, and souvenirs for 90,000 people and you are talking about well over $20M in revenue from one event. That's not including the TV revenue for that game. Now add in the BCS Championship game, the Fiesta Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Orange Bowl... that's a lot of on-site revenue that a tournament doesn't generate. Plus the economic impact of 50,000 fans traveling to a city and spending money on hotels, restaurants, tourism, etc - that's a tremendous amount of revenue generated for local businesses. That will not happen with a tourney because fans won't go to every game, and if their team loses early in the tourney they won't go to any game at all. I don't think that the TV revenue from a tournament will be much greater than what they already get for the BCS games, and they'd lose a lot of on-site revenue.

 

I think the biggest issue though is how would you divide up the TV money? You can't have a field as broad as the basketball tourney, so if you limit it to 8 teams where does the money go? With the basketball tourney every conference is represented, so each conference gets at least 1/68th of the TV revenue. With a football tourney you won't have every conference represented because if you do the field would be so big it would take way too long. And would you really watch Oregon play Northern Illinois or UCF in the first round? Should the mid-major conferences get a cut even if they aren't represented? If you have more than one team in the tourney, as it is common for the SEC and Big 10 to have two BCS teams, would that conference get 1/4th of the money if they had two teams in? You'd have a situation where the power conferences could get a tremendous amount of money and some conferences potentially zero. With the current bowl system each team and conference gets a cut of the TV revenue from that specific event.

 

Frankly I think the BCS does a better job of determining the national champion than a tournament. You could be the best team, but if you run into a team that can't miss (like OSU shooting 94% from 3 - you can't even do that in practice), if a star player gets hurt (like Brian Butch did), or if you have one bad officiating call in an early round game (like the Big East tournament this year) the best team may not even make it to the championship game. With the tourney it's about who the best (and luckiest) team is over 3 weeks; with the BCS they are more likely to match up the best teams over the course of a season.

[paul253]

At least one team in the HCS Championship Game should automatically be given to an ACC team.

 

I think the ACC is a weak conference. At least weaker than the Big East and even the Big 10 lately.

First, there's travel costs; it's one thing to fly 20 people around

carrying basketball uniforms and shoes, flying 100 people with football

equipment (plus a band and band equipment) is a lot greater cost. It's

not just revenue, it's revenue minus costs.

 

Right, but they make due with one game because of tv revenue and ticket sales along with other sponsorships. They'll be more games to add more revenue to help offset any costs.

The non-D-1 schools do it, but they also aren't spending $1.5M on

football scholarships (plus $2M on coaches salaries). Most football

programs are in the red already; that's why teams love to play UW in

non-conference games

 

The non-D1 schools also don't have anywhere close to the amount of fans D1 schools do. They also don't make the same off of merchandise sales. D1 schools have a lot more sources of income than non D1 schools. Also, teams in the red can still schedule those games to make money. Nothing will change with that. And if they happen to make the tournament, I'm sure they'll come out ahead.

 

So think about that - if Wisconsin was one of the teams in the

tournament, would you have gone to the Rose Bowl or would you have

waited to see if they beat TCU and made it to the 2nd round or

championship game?

 

That is a good point. But I think the lost ticket sales from students and alum will at least partially be made up by locals buying more tickets. I think a lot of the people who go to the basketball tournament games are locals and people would be more willing to go to a tournament game than a bowl game. Beside, if you look at some of the non-marquee bowl games, those stadiums are embarrassingly empty too. It's not like all the bowl games draw 90,000 fans. The Beef O Brady bowl drew 20,000 fans. The Humanitarian Bowl 25,000 and the New Orleans Bowl a shade under 30,000. That's not good for college football (even Big East football average 40,000 fans).

 

if a star player gets hurt (like Brian Butch did), or if you have one

bad officiating call in an early round game (like the Big East

tournament this year) the best team may not even make it to the

championship game.

 

The thing is, how do you determine who the "best team" is every year? How can you convince TCU fans that Oregon and Auburn were both better than them, especially after TCU beat Wisconsin?

 

My ideal tournament would include 16 teams and 4 rounds, but I'd be ok with a 12 team tournament with the top four seeds getting a bye.