MU ****The official NEW new conference realignment thread.**** - Page 673

**Saul Good** · 01-31-2012, 02:52 PM

the second thread has been pronounced dead.

Bambi · 11-12-2013, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Don't we want the more talented team winning most of the time?

Well if we always knew who was going to win what would be the fun in watching the games?

Yes, sometimes here and there a "Cinderella" will make a run in the NCAA Tournament but most of the time in the Final Four you've got the same powerhouses just like in football. Like I said earlier, I like both for their own reasons and have never viewed it as a comparison between which was better/more entertaining.

There are all kinds of ways to determine champions. In the EPL they don't even have playoffs. They just say whoever has the best record at the end of the season is the champion. I'm sure if that's how you grew up watching sports then that's how you would prefer it.

I though like playoff element in sports. The NCAA to me plays just like the NFL. One chance and it's over. I think that's the best. My own personal taste.

DJ's left nut · 11-12-2013, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Don't we want the more talented team winning most of the time?

That's what I'm saying.

Why the hell would we want to encourage upsets? More critically, why would we want to encourage silly outcomes.

An 'upset' as we define it is generally nothing more than a higher ranking team losing to a lower ranking one. Well hell, all those really are are indictments on the rankings more often than not.

I want a true outcome - that's all. I'm not the least bit interested in adjusting the rules to make it easier for inferior squads to have a hot half, get a fluke bounce and then hold on for dear life.

Prison Bitch · 11-12-2013, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Don't we want the more talented team winning most of the time?

See, this is what I don't get: Mizzou fans wanting the big powers to win constantly. I don't have any clue why you'd favor such a system. I can see why Alabama or Auburn or LSU would. But why you? Serious question.

Bambi · 11-12-2013, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

See, this is what I don't get: Mizzou fans wanting the big powers to win constantly. I don't have any clue why you'd favor such a system. I can see why Alabama or Auburn or LSU would. But why you? Serious question.

The last two posts by Pitt Gorilla and DJ's Left Nut are mind blowing.

DJ's left nut · 11-12-2013, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

See, this is what I don't get: Mizzou fans wanting the big powers to win constantly. I don't have any clue why you'd favor such a system. I can see why Alabama or Auburn or LSU would. But why you? Serious question.

That's not the case.

Some seasons the 'big powers' simply aren't as good. Many of Mizzou's 'upsets' this year weren't upsets at all. Mizzou is simply a more talented football team in 2013.

You act as though national powers will be more talented simply by name every single season, but it's not the case. Great programs will have off years. Average to good programs will have great years.

To my eyes, Mizzou is the 2nd most talented team in the SEC this season. You could argue anywhere from 2nd to 5th, but this is a damn good football team that would beat A&M, LSU and Auburn on a neutral field more often than not this season.

And if those teams play, I don't want a 5 point FG that they can have some guy go out there and bomb away for 1/2 the game deciding the outcome. I want a set of true results.

You're talking about program-building to some degree whereas I'm talking about actual gameplay. The NCAA (football) has done a lot to encourage more equity in program building but they have refused to do anything to encourage fluke results on the field. Good. They shouldn't. Try your best to level the playing field so that all teams are on relatively even keel when getting players/coaches and then let them go prove who the most talented team is.

That doesn't happen often enough in college basketball. There are too many silly outcomes.

**dirk digler** · 11-12-2013, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bambi

College Basketball earns more advertising dollars than college football. It always has and probably always will.

It's quite fulfilling for the teams that take advantage of such a huge cash flow.

If your team makes it to the Final 4 in basketball they generate $9.5 million for their conference.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmi...h-9-5-million/

If your team wins a major BCS bowl game they make upwards of $22 million and when the college football playoffs happen the 5 major conference will get $250 million /yr ($50 million per conference)

Prison Bitch · 11-12-2013, 01:33 PM

I think however that a conference's 2nd BCS team gets a significantly lower payout right? At any rate this is a function of the control conferences have of football money vs the NCAA taking the whole $800M in tourney revenue. You have to think Slive and Delaney are chomping at the bit to take that someday as well.

**dirk digler** · 11-12-2013, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

I think however that a conference's 2nd BCS team gets a significantly lower payout right? At any rate this is a function of the control conferences have of football money vs the NCAA taking the whole $800M in tourney revenue. You have to think Slive and Delaney are chomping at the bit to take that someday as well.

It is probably the main reason why college football hasn't gone to a full playoff system like the bb tournment, so they can keep all the money to themselves.

And to answer your question you are correct.

Quote:

For BCS games, payouts equaling as much as $18 million per team go into an escrow account where they are combined with BCS television revenues. The six major conferences receive $25 million each, plus $6.2 million for each additional team that receives an at-large bid.

Pitt Gorilla · 11-12-2013, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bambi

The last two posts by Pitt Gorilla and DJ's Left Nut are mind blowing.

That may say more about your ability to comprehend than anything. You appear to be implying that you DON'T want the better team to win most of the time (which I, clearly, do). So, you would rather the worse team win most of the time, make it a flip of the coin, or have the better team win slightly more than not. I'm trying to figure out what that would look like. Tons of penalties/fouls, insane turnovers, crazy luck, overall poor play would likely be the norm. I guess I don't just don't find that compelling.

**dirk digler** · 11-12-2013, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

College basketball, OTOH, is just the minor league version of the NBA. It's like watching a far shittier version of pro-basketball where guys miss open looks, are slow on their rotations and come March, just stand behind a short 3-point line chucking 3 balls hoping to knock off superior opponents in a crap-shoot of a tournament.

If I feel like watching basketball - I'm gonna watch the NBA. It's simply a far superior product. If I feel like watching football...well then it just depends on the mood. Both are equally outstanding in their own ways.

I have been saying that for a long time. College BB is a horrible product and even Rick Pitino said as much 2-3 weeks ago. Part of that though is the NBA's fault for their age restriction, they should either remove it or do like the NFL does. Hopefully the no hand checking rule will improve the game though I have heard there has been a ton of foul calls in these early games.

Bambi · 11-12-2013, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I have been saying that for a long time. College BB is a horrible product and even Rick Pitino said as much 2-3 weeks ago. Part of that though is the NBA's fault for their age restriction, they should either remove it or do like the NFL does.

Just imagine how much money it would generate if it was actually good!

**dirk digler** · 11-12-2013, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bambi

Just imagine how much money it would generate if it was actually good!

It makes money because of the tournament and the upset factor. That is where I disagree with Pitt and DJ, that is the best part. I like watching a Davidson with Steph Curry make it to the Sweet 16

Pitt Gorilla · 11-12-2013, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

It makes money because of the tournament and the upset factor. That is where I disagree with Pitt and DJ, that is the best part. I like watching a Davidson with Steph Curry make it to the Sweet 16

I'm not sure you are disagreeing with me. Couldn't Louisville be considered the best team?

**dirk digler** · 11-12-2013, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I'm not sure you are disagreeing with me. Couldn't Louisville be considered the best team?

Yes. But I admittedly love huge upsets. Who wouldn't love to see Chattanooga beat Alabama in 2 weeks? Obviously Bama fans wouldn't but that would be awesome.

Prison Bitch · 11-12-2013, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I'm not sure you are disagreeing with me. Couldn't Louisville be considered the best team?

You would've loved the John Wooden era.

01-31-2012, 02:52 PM
Saul Good Quit your bullshit Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bored of winning Casino cash: $10052799	**The official NEW new conference realignment thread.** the second thread has been pronounced dead.
Posts: 41,870

11-12-2013, 01:33 PM	#10087
Prison Bitch Rabbi Goldmann Join Date: Nov 2012 Casino cash: $5450159	I think however that a conference's 2nd BCS team gets a significantly lower payout right? At any rate this is a function of the control conferences have of football money vs the NCAA taking the whole $800M in tourney revenue. You have to think Slive and Delaney are chomping at the bit to take that someday as well.
Posts: 87,025