If it were that simple, other sports would play their playoffs at neutral sites. Not gonna happen. For this reason: Suppose LSU is in the playoffs, and must play at the Cap One, then Fiesta, then Rose. The bulk of your traveling fan base is now forced to decide which game to attend. Most people want NC tickets, but can't afford those PLUS playoff game tickets, so they will hold out until LSU gets deeper in the playoffs. Meaning early round games will suffer. Either that, or the early round games will do well, but then the fan base cannot afford to go to NC game, so that game will suffer. Multiply that times 2 (for the other team) times every "playoff" game. Which is why the NFL has the higher seed host the playoff games. Tickets WILL sell, because the home team WILL buy them. One game is easier to sellout than 3.
Sorry you have not furnished proof of your theory yet, these bowls are played every year just with different faces. Some fans will gamble on the NC, some will take the more available tickets in the first, second leg. Your assumption grossly discounts the fans of the sport versus the team. If I had the means/oppurtunity to attend a BCS bowl in NO with Mizzou and WV, I'd be there. How many college games have you attended where LSU was not on the field? Quite a few I bet. Same principle, If there is a surplus of tickets from the two playing fan bases, third parties will pick up the slack. The NFL also doesn't allow third parties to schedule/control their playoffs. So maybe we should do away with off-site bowl games until the last rung? It would certainly bring more money into LSU. In summation your argument is that some fans will be disappointed because they will not get to see all the bowls they wish to see as opposed to what you have now, one (none). But getting to pick out of three is somehow not as good as one. Last time I checked, most businesses operate on the principle of variety, those that don't are called monopolies. You must be the guy that hates the fact that McDonalds sells more than just the Big Mac :huh:
The bowls are played every year, and the fans travel with their team to that ONE bowl game their team plays. You would be there, and the city of New Orleans/The Sugar Bowl makes less money. I'm not arguing this from the fans standpoint, I'm arguing this from the Bowls. Sugar Bowl officials are dreading LSU vs. Hawaii this year. Why? Because Hawaii will not bring a large crowd with them, and the locals won't spend the money (on other things besides tickets) that out of towners would. You'd bet wrong. I have been to exactly 1 college game not involving LSU. When I was a kid playing little league football, My team had the opportunity to play at halftime of a Tulane/USL game. That was the only non LSU game I ever attended. So you agree with me then. My arguement is that the Bowls/cities would make less money than now BECAUSE the fans are not able to travel in full force to each round. ummm What?!!?:huh:
OK Nootch, Your killing me with the multi-quotes. I am arguing that the quasi-playoff would make the sport better. You are arguing that the city economies would suffer and you are right, they would for a time but would likely find a way to adapt or go the way of the do-do. That's the free-market or natural selection, you take your pick. I agree that unlike the NFL, The NCAA Div I BCS schools are perfectly fine with sharing a ton of money they are wholely responsible for raising. I just want a better sport, teaming city economies be damned. The next debate is which taste better opples or aranges and who is the bigger tête dure. :thumb:
Apologies for the multi-quotes. I personally, don't really care for a playoff system, but understand why people want them. The financial reasons I gave are some of the reasons it won't happen anytime soon. Too many people lose the money their getting fat off of. I never had an arange, but I do like apples.:hihi:
No apologies necessary, just kinda start feeling like that guy in Scanners when I look at all those tags. :grin:
