Postseason Constraint #5: Reduce the logistical issues of the teams and fans
by utesfan100 on Jan 9, 2010 7:59 PM EST
in BCS Examination
8 comments
[Editor's note: This is part of a series examining the real world constraints on any proposed post season design. For the previous entries is is best to start at the introduction of the series. This constraint has been added since this series started and will be moved to #4 in the introduction. The title will be fixed once the series is complete.]
Every tried to book a plane flight and hotel over the holidays on a moments notice? Imagine having to do this for two or three weeks straight. That is rough for the fans.
Now multiply this by the size of a football team, band, cheerleaders and coaching staff and add in all the equipment for each of these groups as they cross the country from game to game. Mix in some finals and needing to prepare for a weekly contest with one of the top teams in the nation and the logistical issues become daunting. This is what the athletic directors at the top schools would be looking at each December in most playoff designs.
One more round of games would not be too big of a stretch. One way of mitigating against this constraint is by making additional rounds home games for the favored teams. Adding additional weeks between games helps significantly as well.
How well do the prominent designs fair in the light of this constraint?
Old Bowl System
With only a single game, the old bowl system is as minimal as any design one could have, other than having no postseason.
BCS
The BCS inherits its logistical friendly status from the old bowl system it still largely embodies.
A Tier Based Plus-One
This design potentially adds a second bowl game but allows two to three weeks between each round. This allows a fair amount of time to address the logistical issues involved for fans and teams alike.
A Flexible Championship System
The final two rounds would be a challenge in this design. It would help significantly if the championship game could be moved further into January.
MWC Proposal
This design fails to address this issue in any meaningful way, leading to a design that would be a logistical nightmare for the teams. Conflicts with finals is mitigated by holding the games in January
Enhanced Bowl Season
This design features two weeks between games allowing ample time to travel, study and prepare between games. Making each site a neutral site increases the overall travel costs per team.
The Wetzel Plan
The Wetzel plan offers four straight weeks of games that performs even worse than the MWC proposal in this constraint.
0 recs |
8 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Nitpick
The Wetzel plan dispenses with the bowls and plays its games (except possibly for the championship) at the home stadiums of the higher seed. The expectation would be a far smaller travelling fan contingent, unless the seeds aligned just right (say you ended up with Ohio State on the road in Cinci or Texas at TCU or something like that).
I will conceed that saying it is worse than the MWC Proposal is a stretch
Home games help a lot, especially for the fans. For the teams, especially the lower seeds, four potential weeks of back to back trips in December is very problematic.
As an aside, in any postseason with favored home team brackets I would suggest requiring that 17,500 tickets (the amount guaranteed by the BCS bowls) be available to the away team’s ticket office, but not attach the penalties for returning them that the bowls employ.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
I don't think so...
You have the NCAA foot the bill for the team and coaching staff traveling (which they do for the basketball tournament), and put in an off week before the title game.
17,500 tickets, though? That’s almost half the seating capacity at some schools, and more than a third at most schools in FBS. Of the final top 8 in the BCS rankings (all conference champs or in the next 5, so in the playoffs with a home game in the Wetzel plan), Cinci’s home field seats about 35,000, TCU’s about 45,000, and Oregon’s about 55,000. Bama, Texas, Florida, and Ohio State could presumably offer 17,000 tickets to opposing fans, but the others could not. I guess Cinci could concievably move its game to Paul Brown and TCU could concievably move its game to Cowboys Stadium or the Cotton Bowl (no longer home of the Cotton Bowl), but that’s not an option in many cases.
Isn't the NCAA running a tournament a conflict of interest?
They were formed to protect the student athletes. Tournaments in major sports are huge money makers that some might consider a conflict of interest for the NCAA to be involved in.
The NCAA should establish the number of rounds, timing of the games and other rules that bound tournaments but should not run them.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
They run the playoffs in every other sport
I don’t see how it would be any worse than what they do in basketball, lower division football, or anything else.
Last year ...
The MWC proposed a BCS alternative that involved an NCAA like selection committee in February.
In March the NCAA Basketball selection committee selected Wisconsin and Arizona over SDSU despite SDSU being higher ranked in the RPI and having a better record. SDSU was the highest ranked team left out by almost every ranking system, and was usually ahead of several teams selected as an at-large in most rankings.
New Mexico had a claim to be included also, though nowhere near as solid. This left two teams from the MWC left out of the tournament who could have easily been selected.
In March the BCS officials met and stated that the only part of the MWC proposal they liked was the idea of a selection committee.
If a conspiracy exists, the BCS is just a facade for much deeper issues within the NCAA itself.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
With the amount of $$ that a playoff TV contract would generate (think billions), the assigning of $50-100k (or more) per team to cover travel expenses would be a drop in the bucket.
Remember, if you do have playoffs at the higher seeds for the first 2 rounds, that is only 12 teams that are traveling.
If you decide to also include the semifinals at the higher seeds (instead of using the BCS bowls in my plan) that is only 2 more teams for a total of 14 teams traveling. With a stipend from the TV contract for each traveling team, I don’t see the impact as much.
In the FCS playoffs, I would assume that the teams traveling only take the team, trainers and coaches, but leave the cheerleaders, etc home. But even in that case, you are talking about schools that have infinitely smaller budgets than Texas, OSU, etal, and they still are able to travel 3 weeks straight. I honestly don’t see this as an issue.
Budget estimates
The BCS pays out $140 million per year, about to go up to near $200 million. The total annual revenue for FBS football is $2.3 billion. I don’t see a playoff generating more than double the current BCS revenue. Maybe $500 million.
Teams are reporting losses for participating in bowls with a payout of $1 million, partly due to conference sharing agreement. The fact that this is the current market value for a one and done visiting team suggests that a better estimate for bowl traveling expenses would be $750,000.
Coaching bonuses and added costs could add an aditional $2 million in costs.
$11 million in added travel costs for a generous estimate of $300 million additional revenue is not a deal breaker, but not as negligable as you make it out to be.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
