Which Would You Rather? Title Chase or Post-season Classic?

[TexasTerror]

Let's say that you were the athletic director and had a choice to participate in one of the following, which would you choose?

1) A revenue-generating game (that would benefit your entire conference financially, even if you did not play in the game each year) that would bring 30k fans into a neutral site

2) The NCAA postseason tournament as it is currently set up for football with an opportunity to win an NCAA championship

[mikebigg]

Show me the money...The more we generate from athletics, the more State funding dollars can be used for Academics.

[Rob Iola]

Meh, depends...

Schools with no commitment to deep playoff runs benefit from the Classics; schools that build their programs around true championships benefit from the playoffs, and Ivy League schools are above all this nonsense...

And actually, that's a very good argument for the bowl system/BCS at the FBS level - if you don't have the Florida/USC/Texas money for a championship program you can still have a post-season game...

[GannonFan]

Agree with Rob - to each their own. I don't have a problem whichever way people vote on it.

[TexasTerror]

Worth noting that many of the schools that participate in the bowl system walk away from those postseason opportunities without making a dime. They realize "soft money benefits" like our own schools do in the NCAA postseason, but after the conference gets their share and they have spent XXX dollars on the game from their perspective (including buying tickets that were not bought by their fans - stinks if you have to play in the Hawaii Bowl), you are in a sticky situation...

Athletics exists in many cases - not as a revenue generator - but as being a way to market your university.

[mikebigg]

We market ours and we don't go to the playoffs... I don't see your point!

[jmufan999]

TT, lots of respect for you... but i feel like asking this on AGS is like asking a group of kids at a fat camp if they'd prefer asparagus or apple pie. :)

i guess if you're a conference that doesn't participate in the playoffs, you don't exactly know what you're missing, so maybe you'd take the money.

[mikebigg]

TT, lots of respect for you... but i feel like asking this on AGS is like asking a group of kids at a fat camp if they'd prefer asparagus or apple pie. :)

i guess if you're a conference that doesn't participate in the playoffs, you don't exactly know what you're missing, so maybe you'd take the money.

Let me ask you since it was your school... Did the NCAA explain to you guys why they took a portion of the profits, a hosting fee AND the excess above the required bid?

Are you guys saying that the Presidents of these FCS schools can't have a committee of AD's to look at/handle seeding such that the NCAA is not needed to make this happen?

[TexasTerror]

Are you guys saying that the Presidents of these FCS schools can't have a committee of AD's to look at/handle seeding such that the NCAA is not needed to make this happen?

Like all the other NCAA tournament selection committees that exist, there is a group of representatives from the FCS landscape that sit on a selection committee to handle the hosting and direction of the playoffs. There is also a Championships Cabinet made up of again - individuals from FCS - that have plenty of say on how the NCAA handles the postseason 'tournament' for football.

[mikebigg]

Okay... I've voted. If you guys don't mind how it's being done then enjoy yourselves. Be sure to pick up your money off the pillow!

[jmufan999]

Let me ask you since it was your school... Did the NCAA explain to you guys why they took a portion of the profits, a hosting fee AND the excess above the required bid?

Are you guys saying that the Presidents of these FCS schools can't have a committee of AD's to look at/handle seeding such that the NCAA is not needed to make this happen?

i have absolutely no clue, to be totally honest. all i know is that the NCAA is incredibly greedy and i think the bid system is horribly flawed. but you lost me on the second part of your question.

when i answered the poll, i just wasn't interested in a neutral site game. i guess that would be just like the FBS bowls, which i find pointless. i want to win titles. that's just me. but again, maybe i'm missing something about your question.

[mikebigg]

i have absolutely no clue, to be totally honest. all i know is that the NCAA is incredibly greedy and i think the bid system is horribly flawed. but you lost me on the second part of your question.

when i answered the poll, i just wasn't interested in a neutral site game. i guess that would be just like the FBS bowls, which i find pointless. i want to win titles. that's just me. but again, maybe i'm missing something about your question.

I wasn't trying to belittle your opinion... in fact, I think having a playoff tourney is the way to go and helps our Division get much needed exposure (though it could be more). My concern is that the NCAA is TOO greedy in how it takes money in excess of the bid. I can understand the mininum bid provision...but for them to come back and get a portion of the profits and a hosting fee (even when JMU paid well in advance of the required bid) makes me not like this. The sad part of it all is that some excuse this as "needed to pay expenses". I'm of the opinion that those type comments are made to defend the playoffs from me as a person whose school is a non-participant. Sad really...because I am not Anti-FCS playoffs! I'm anti-ripoffs!

[401ks]

It's probably a good thing that Division I FCS allows this choice. Division I FBS teams cannot choose to play for the division championship, for example. And I certainly understand the revenue aspect of the Post-Season Classic choice. In today's economic environment, athletic departments have to scramble for dollars anywhere they can.

On a personal level, I've always felt that if a team/conference/league is a part of the Division I Football Championship Subdivision, they should participate in the "Championship" part. I've never had a warm spot in my heart for those that set themselves apart, or wish to keep others segregated from the rest.

But, this is America. Land of the Free-to-choose-the-money.

xpeacex

[Big Al]

I think the idea that the NCAA is somehow making bank at the expense of FCS playoff teams is, at best, an unproven assumption. The NCAA holds championships in literally dozens of sports and with the exception of a few sports, they are money-losing propositions to put on.

[mikebigg]

It's probably a good thing that Division I FCS allows this choice. Division I FBS teams cannot choose to play for the division championship, for example. And I certainly understand the revenue aspect of the Post-Season Classic choice. In today's economic environment, athletic departments have to scramble for dollars anywhere they can.

On a personal level, I've always felt that if a team/conference/league is a part of the Division I Football Championship Subdivision, they should participate in the "Championship" part. I've never had a warm spot in my heart for those that set themselves apart, or wish to keep others segregated from the rest.
But, this is America. Land of the Free-to-choose-the-money.

xpeacex

To keep it actual and factual, the NCAA didn't give our conference an autobid because some teams refused to move their regular season games up as per the NCAA mandate. Rather than sit by and await "possible" selection by the NCAA, we decided to expand and create two separate division and consequently a championship game.

In the meantime...no ill will towards those who participate in the FCS tourney. However, we didn't segregate ourselves...we instead reacted to being left out due to refusing to have our regular season schedule dictated to us. Remember...America the Land of the Free to Choose!

[AppAlum2003]

Well, not surprised at all by the 3 votes for "Neutral Site Worthless Game"...

[WestCoastAggie]

Agree with Rob - to each their own. I don't have a problem whichever way people vote on it.
I agree.

[McNeese75]

Whatever floats your boat!! McNeese has participated in the Grantland Rice Bowl and several times in the Independence Bowl. Those were fun games but never generated the fun and excitement a playoff run does. I would rather see the Cowboys in a DII playoff than an FBS bowl.

[kdinva]

It's probably a good thing that Division I FCS allows this choice. Division I FBS teams cannot choose to play for the division championship, for example. And I certainly understand the revenue aspect of the Post-Season Classic choice. In today's economic environment, athletic departments have to scramble for dollars anywhere they can.

On a personal level, I've always felt that if a team/conference/league is a part of the Division I Football Championship Subdivision, they should participate in the "Championship" part. I've never had a warm spot in my heart for those that set themselves apart, or wish to keep others segregated from the rest.

But, this is America. Land of the Free-to-choose-the-money.

xpeacex

Amen!! We have choices, and mine, if I were an 18-year old prospect again, would be to go to a school/conference that participated in the playoffs.

[kdinva]

In the meantime...no ill will towards those who participate in the FCS tourney. However, we didn't segregate ourselves...we instead reacted to being left out due to refusing to have our regular season schedule dictated to us. Remember...America the Land of the Free to Choose!

The MEAC (and everyone else) has no problem with finishing their season the 3rd Saturday in November......

[mikebigg]

The MEAC (and everyone else) has no problem with finishing their season the 3rd Saturday in November......

We choose not to...

[TexasTerror]

Amen!! We have choices, and mine, if I were an 18-year old prospect again, would be to go to a school/conference that participated in the playoffs.

I honestly believe that based on the direction of the SWAC in the last 10-15 years that there are many 17 and 18 year olds that feel the same way. You may be able to point to the athletic bottom line and how the SWAC has separated itself from most of Div I in its ability to fund athletics, but it is quite clear that the SWAC product is no where near where it was even in the mid-1990s.

[mikebigg]

Thanks for the concern... but tell me, how many SWAC games have you been too in the past 5 years?

[TexasTerror]

Thanks for the concern... but tell me, how many SWAC games have you been too in the past 5 years?

Luckily - due to your television contract(s), I have watched plenty. Have you watched the SWAC games?

I do not think you can disagree with the quality. In the comparison put forth and based on the Sagarin and GPI, it is hard not to disagree that the SWAC is falling more and moer off the back of the bus. The financial disparity - except at Southern according to SUjagTILiDIE (despite the department being bare bones per athletic director Greg LaFleur) - is making things even more difficult to keep up.

[mikebigg]

Luckily - due to your television contract(s), I have watched plenty. Have you watched the SWAC games?

I do not think you can disagree with the quality. In the comparison put forth and based on the Sagarin and GPI, it is hard not to disagree that the SWAC is falling more and moer off the back of the bus. The financial disparity - except at Southern according to SUjagTILiDIE (despite the department being bare bones per athletic director Greg LaFleur) - is making things even more difficult to keep up.

Actually, when it comes to College football that's all I watch... No interest in the BCS conferences so the most those games get from me are cursory looks as I'm doing something else. Usually on Saturdays when I'm not at a SWAC game, I'm listening to one via the internet. Therefore, I'm not able to actually make a comparison -especially as opposed to other FCS schools who are rarely on TV and who I really don't follow.

[Squealofthepig]

Agree this is a bit of a silly place for this poll, so let me stick up for those who choose the revenue-generating game.

First, almost all universities are somewhat strapped for cash; and second, many universities are also somewhat risk averse. Thus, taking a sure thing (which you can also brand, build consistent alumni interest in, etc) makes a lot of sense, especially compared to the investment they might need to make to be competitive in the tourney. And, even if they are able to make the playoffs, there are few programs that consistently stay home for a majority of the playoffs (over the last ten years, how many programs consistently host second and third round games?) So even if you feel you can be somewhat competitive, you may still be looking at a lot of cash to travel.

The counter-argument is, with success in the playoffs, you get more free marketing for your university and national attention... but then, unfortunately, those of us who will pay attention are probably already FCS fans at other schools.

[Wildcat80]

If its a warm weather site, on a good date, against a good opponent and we can actually net a good profit...I'm for the bowl game. Now very few FBS teams get all of those so I guess the tourney without any money is where we'll be. Hope we at least advance!

[JohnStOnge]

I think the idea that a post season "classic" generates revenue for the schools involved is a questionable premise.

[bonarae]

If only, if only, if only... xchinscratchx (well, if you're an Ivy fan, then these two words are obvious)