NCAA's 12th game is all about money

[Caveman Catfan]

The NCAA says that despite all evidence to the contrary, it is not a hypocritical body of governance interested only in money.

So the NCAA stands on its high moral ground and says it could never, ever approve anything so dreadfully abhorrent as a playoff system for Division I-A college football.

Too many games. Not fair to the student-athlete. Too many missed classes. The NCAA says a lot of things.

Says here do not judge the NCAA by its words, judge it by its actions.

Thanks to the NCAA, this year begins college football's arranged marriage with the 12-game season.

Back in the dark ages, it used to be a 10-game college season. Then the number grew to 11. A couple of years back, citing a quirk in the calendar, the boys up in Indy approved a 12th game for Division I-A teams, saying that because the moon and the stars so rarely align in such a fashion, the move was only temporary.

No one believed it, and rightfully so. No sooner had the institutions of higher learning deposited the extra gate receipts than the NCAA approved the idea of a permanent extra contest, citing the need to help increase revenue for schools that can't seem to balance their bank book.

-more-

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/sports/15049482.htm

[Lost Highway]

My favorite sport is college football so I welcome the 12thgame and I am glad they are making it permanent.

[kyjohn]

Thank goodness for the 12th game,more great football to see.Getting to the subject of too many games for athletes and the NCAAs concern,apparently they have'nt bothered to look at baseball that runs from February through June.Talk about hypocricy.

[fatcat]

The 12th game was made necessary by all the title 9 lawsuits which required universities to provide roughly as many scholarships for women as for men. Universities had to pick up a bunch on non-revenue women's sports to make up the scholarship difference. That was a major drag on athletic budgets.

[Coldstream]

Very well aware that college fb is a money-making machine for all universities but I love to see not only another game but let's get a playoff season and everybody wins. The fans get a playoff and thus a true champion (who debates the NC in other sports?) and the universities get more money. Its the people who own the bowl sites that don't like the idea and they are the congress-lobbiest equivalent of persuading ADs and university presidents to not go that route.

[Los Gatos]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Another thing, I believe the rule requiring one to win a majority of their games to be bowl eligible is still in effect. Thus winning six games may not be enough. (Think there is an waiver for a school to meet a conference tie-in commitment.) This might cause problems with some of the lesser bowls finding a bowl eligible team.

[RV]

Coldstream wrote: Very well aware that college fb is a money-making machine for all universities but I love to see not only another game but let's get a playoff season and everybody wins. The fans get a playoff and thus a true champion (who debates the NC in other sports?) and the universities get more money. Its the people who own the bowl sites that don't like the idea and they are the congress-lobbiest equivalent of persuading ADs and university presidents to not go that route.


Now that they've gone to 5 BCS games it would be easy to have an eight team playoff and keep the Bowls. You do it by adding four play-in games two weeks after the last Conference Championship game. This means 8 teams would play a 13th game during the Christmas break. Wouldtake placemid-December and would/could kickoff the Bowl season. You have to remove the human polls from the BCS to make it more objective and less subjective and here's how it would lay out.

You take the Conference Champs (SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12) along with the top 3 rated teams that are not those conference champs. These 8 teams play in 4 play-in games in mid December. The 4 losers go on to two of the BCS games and finish their season there. Thefour winners of the play-in games go to two more BCS games and the2 winners of these games play in a real BCS National Championship game one week later. :thumbup

[Lost Highway]

RV wrote: Coldstream wrote: Very well aware that college fb is a money-making machine for all universities but I love to see not only another game but let's get a playoff season and everybody wins. The fans get a playoff and thus a true champion (who debates the NC in other sports?) and the universities get more money. Its the people who own the bowl sites that don't like the idea and they are the congress-lobbiest equivalent of persuading ADs and university presidents to not go that route.


Now that they've gone to 5 BCS games it would be easy to have an eight team playoff and keep the Bowls. You do it by adding four play-in games two weeks after the last Conference Championship game. This means 8 teams would play a 13th game during the Christmas break. Wouldtake placemid-December and would/could kickoff the Bowl season. You have to remove the human polls from the BCS to make it more objective and less subjective and here's how it would lay out.

You take the Conference Champs (SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12) along with the top 3 rated teams that are not those conference champs. These 8 teams play in 4 play-in games in mid December. The 4 losers go on to two of the BCS games and finish their season there. The two winners of the play-in games go to two more BCS games and the2 winners of these games play in a real BCS National Championship game one week later. :thumbup

:thumbup:thumbup:thumbup Let's do it.

[Coldstream]

RV wrote: Coldstream wrote: Very well aware that college fb is a money-making machine for all universities but I love to see not only another game but let's get a playoff season and everybody wins. The fans get a playoff and thus a true champion (who debates the NC in other sports?) and the universities get more money. Its the people who own the bowl sites that don't like the idea and they are the congress-lobbiest equivalent of persuading ADs and university presidents to not go that route.


Now that they've gone to 5 BCS games it would be easy to have an eight team playoff and keep the Bowls. You do it by adding four play-in games two weeks after the last Conference Championship game. This means 8 teams would play a 13th game during the Christmas break. Wouldtake placemid-December and would/could kickoff the Bowl season. You have to remove the human polls from the BCS to make it more objective and less subjective and here's how it would lay out.

You take the Conference Champs (SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12) along with the top 3 rated teams that are not those conference champs. These 8 teams play in 4 play-in games in mid December. The 4 losers go on to two of the BCS games and finish their season there. The two winners of the play-in games go to two more BCS games and the2 winners of these games play in a real BCS National Championship game one week later. :thumbup

I have a similar idea to yours but mine is to have the top 8 teams from the BCS standings make the 8-team playoff (7 playoff bowl games) with bowl sites getting a rotating turn at the different stages of the playoffs OR have the 1st round at the highest seed's turf then go to the bowl sites (3 playoff bowl games). The latter format is what I like. The rest (the NIT teams) get invited to the lesser bowls.

[The Old School JPS]

fatcat wrote: The 12th game was made necessary by all the title 9 lawsuits which required universities to provide roughly as many scholarships for women as for men. Universities had to pick up a bunch on non-revenue women's sports to make up the scholarship difference. That was a major drag on athletic budgets.
Joe Paterno wrote an article in 1997 saying that Title IX would bring about a college football playoff, because the schools would need the extra money it generated to fund all the money-losing women's programs. It hasn't happened yet but I would not be surprised if Paterno were eventually proven correct.