|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 1, 2008 9:13:04 GMT -6
I know from a coaches point of view, we would all prefer the tournament because that would give our team "a chance" to win it every year, but what do you guys think you would do if you were in charge of it? sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3375352sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=3375723Okay... There is a lot of "anger" out there in the general population about going to a playoff and just dropping the current BCS system. I don't think it's as easy as many make it out to sound... The way college scheduling has been set up for almost forever, you play up to 11 games during the season. (We will move on to the Conference Championships in a second). This allows teams to schedule up to 3 or 4 non-league opponents during the regular season. Let's say for example that you want an 8-team tournament at the end of the year...Currently there are 11 conferences in D1 football plus the independants, so 12 possible "pools" to pull teams for the playoffs from... This means that you would have to automatically eliminate 4 conference champs from even entering the tournament. Not to mention the fact that the conferences do not select champions the same way... Either all conferences would have to expand to 12 teams and have a conference championship, or the conferences that do would have to shrink their conferences and not have a championship game. The big 10 would either have to get rid of a team, or else pick up a team and divide them into 2 divisions (If Michigan & Ohio State end up in opposite divisions, then they would only play every other year! Same with many other rivalries with many other teams) Also, with an 8 team tournament, the 2 teams that make it to the championship game would play an extra 3 games in the season... This brings up a forseable problem: Now you will have 2 teams that play up to 15 games during the season, while 112 teams play 11 or 12, with 4 that play 12 or 13, and 2 that play 13 or 14. That is a lot of wear and tear on the players, many of whom are looking to make it to the NFL, and an injury can cost them millions of dollars. Now you are going to have some players who will take games off, to try and protect themselves from getting injured so they can get to the next level... A solution to this would be that you would eliminate the non-conference games, and only play your conference games. Now you run into problems with the fact that 112 teams would only play their 8 or 9 conference games and that would be it... no postseason or anything like that. ANYONE WHO DOESN'T WIN THIER CONFERENCE COULDN'T MAKE THE PLAYOFFS... so this year you would have had these teams as possible tournament teams: ACC - Virginia Tech (11-2) lost their bowl Big 12 - Oklahoma (11-2) lost their bowl Big East - West Virginia (10-2) won their bowl Big 10 - Ohio State (11-1) lost their bowl Conference USA - UCF (10-3) lost their bowl to Mississippi State Independants - Navy (8-4) lost to Utah in their bowl Mid American - Central Michigan (8-5) lost their bowl to Purdue Mountain West - BYU (10-2) won their bowl Pac 10 - USC (10-2) won their bowl SEC - LSU (11-2) won their bowl Sun Belt - Florida Atlantic (7-5) won their bowl WAC - Hawaii (12-0) lost their bowl Now you pick which 8 would make it... going off of the AP poll from last year before the bowls, here are your seeds: 1) Ohio State 2) LSU 3) VaTech 4) Oklahoma 5) USC 6) West Virginia 7) Hawaii 8) BYU Looking at these seeds, you would have OSU-BYU, LSU-Hawaii, VaTech-WV, Oklahoma-USC Are these games going to be any more interesting than the top 4 bowl games were this year? I wouldn't think so... And whether you think it is right or not, college sports are ALL ABOUT MAKING MONEY ON TV! That's why the other sports have tournaments, because they can sell the tournament in those other sports, but they still make MILLIONS more selling a week 6 game between Oklahoma & Texas that basically eliminates one of the two from having ANY shot at being a national champ. Unless rare circumstances present themselves...(like the #2 & #3 team losing on the last week of the season) Many of the people who are "whining" about a new system wouldn't even come close to making it in the new system, and would miss out on all the money they could gain from the BCS or from the other bowls. |
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on May 1, 2008 9:20:23 GMT -6
I was all about a playoff system when BCS first reared its face.
I think that a playoff system would not allow all of the teams to showcase themselves on National TV like having these 20+ bowl games do allow. Take Boise State for instance- in the past they were rarely seen nationally, typically only seen regionally. Then they started winning bowls and ultimately 1 of the greatest bowl game performances ever, now their recruiting base is much wider and the program is stepping up.
I can't really see how a playoff system could be made to work AND allow the smaller conferences to hit the limelight
Now I'm about the BCS- with some small tweaks.
|
|
|
|
Post by cmow5 on May 1, 2008 9:44:16 GMT -6
I think I am one of the few that is actually happy with the current system, but I would like to see plus 1. Theres no better time of the year then Bowl Week. I love it. There will always be an argument of why didn't that team get in and that team did. So, stick with the current system and then do +1 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3 and the winner's meet.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachweav88 on May 1, 2008 9:59:43 GMT -6
Every other division in college football plays a playoff. I know in the NAIA, each conference champ makes it, plus 5 or 6 (not exactly sure how many) at large bids for a total of 16 teams. I know we played 11 regular season games. So if we would have made it to the championship game, we would have played 15 games. That's same number of games a high school state championship team in Ohio plays. Having conference champs make it keeps the regular season meaningful (if you want a guaranteed spot in the playoffs, then you have to win your conference.) Also, the smaller schools at least get a shot at the title. As much hype as the NCAA basketball tournament gets, I think a college football playoff would be exciting as well.
You could still have bowl games, but not with any of the playoff teams in them. It's not like some of those bowl games aren't meaningless anyway. the insight.com Bowl???
Just a thought
|
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 1, 2008 10:21:15 GMT -6
Every other division in college football plays a playoff. I know in the NAIA, each conference champ makes it, plus 5 or 6 (not exactly sure how many) at large bids for a total of 16 teams. I know we played 11 regular season games. So if we would have made it to the championship game, we would have played 15 games. That's same number of games a high school state championship team in Ohio plays. Having conference champs make it keeps the regular season meaningful (if you want a guaranteed spot in the playoffs, then you have to win your conference.) Also, the smaller schools at least get a shot at the title. As much hype as the NCAA basketball tournament gets, I think a college football playoff would be exciting as well. You could still have bowl games, but not with any of the playoff teams in them. It's not like some of those bowl games aren't meaningless anyway. the insight.com Bowl??? Just a thought But the 2 teams that play in the insight.com bowl are on TV... Maybe for the first time all season long, and they might get 1-2 recruits that they wouldn't have had they not played the insight.com bowl And even with a playoff, do you honestly think that any seed above a 12 even thinks that they have a shot at making the final 4 in basketball? I played in the semifinals of the NAIA tournament in 2001... Our school FIGHTS (pays some big $) to get the playoff games at our home stadium! That is the only way for a school to make any money, because then the school gets to keep the gate, as well as any concessions sold. It is also the only way for the NAIA to make money... they can't do a bowl system because nobody would watch the games on TV, and so they use the tournament to raise as much money as possible. Even the "almighty" 64-team NCAA Men's basketball tournament is looking at expanding/changing (already expanded to the play-in game) because they want to make more money... but they are already maxed out because you can only make the same amount of money each year... the teams NEVER change... Next year, I would bet that Kansas, North Carolina, Memphis, and 40 other teams that were in the tournament this year, will be again next year... while the 13, 14, 15, 16 seed teams change every year, it's just a contest to see who gets beat by the serious contenders which don't change. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 1, 2008 10:21:22 GMT -6
Seriously ... do we need to discuss the reason behind why there isn't a playoff?
When they figure out how to divide the money so that none of the BCS conferences LOSE money from what they are getting now, it will happen. Otherwise, all the "scenarios" and "formats" are meaningless... because it's not about that. It's about the distribution of money. Not the total amount of money, but the distribution. No ACC school or Big 12 schools is going to give up a % of their current intake just so the "fans" can have a playoff. Coaches may talk this way, but the presidents and administration and conference officials WILL NOT allow their school or conference to reduce it's post-season money so that other schools can be brought into the mix.
When they find a way to distribute the money (not 'fairly', mind you but such that the BCS guys aren't getting less) then a playoff may likely follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 1, 2008 10:26:13 GMT -6
Seriously ... do we need to discuss the reason behind why there isn't a playoff? When they figure out how to divide the money so that none of the BCS conferences LOSE money from what they are getting now, it will happen. Otherwise, all the "scenarios" and "formats" are meaningless... because it's not about that. It's about the distribution of money. Not the total amount of money, but the distribution. No ACC school or Big 12 schools is going to give up a % of their current intake just so the "fans" can have a playoff. Coaches may talk this way, but the presidents and administration and conference officials WILL NOT allow their school or conference to reduce it's post-season money so that other schools can be brought into the mix. When they find a way to distribute the money (not 'fairly', mind you but such that the BCS guys aren't getting less) then a playoff may likely follow. That's what I was trying to figure out when I looked at it... All of the people who just want them to change the system, don't take into consideration the financial mess that would insue. Until the amount of money put in/pulled out by the smaller schools matches the bigger ones, it will never be fair! |
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on May 1, 2008 11:48:38 GMT -6
There are many fine scenarios out there. 8 team playoff sounds good, 16 too, but I think you'd need to cut back the regular season back to 11 games. One I've proposed is an 10 team with a "play in" to the round of 8 for the #7 and #8 seed. Pac 10, Big 12, Big 10, ACC, Big East, and SEC winners get automatic bids. They are seeded based on their poll ranking #1-#6, regardless of if there is a higher ranked team that didn't win their conference. So WVU would be the #6 seed even though the play in teams were ranked higher. The reward for winning your conference. That leaves 4 teams to fill 2 slots in the round of 8. After the 6 conference winning seeds are removed from the polls, the 4 highest ranked teams left get to play in for #7 and #8. The play in bids could be anybody, including conference runner's up, or like UGA last year, the #3 SEC, if they're ranked high enough (they were in the top 5 if I recall correctly). And would leave the rest of the bowl system in place as it is for teams not involved in the playoffs. Of course this would basically force ND to join a conference or risk playing from a 7 or 8 seed and an extra game any year they were ranked high enough. Then there's the whiny Rose Bowl people.
Here's the bottom line...it don't take a rocket scientist to devise a workable system that doesn't drag out in to late Jan. This all could take place in Dec and early Jan and do away with these 4-6 week layoffs. You know TV ratings would be through the roof, and attendance great whether you played early rounds at the higher seeds home, or at neutral sites. The fact is that the BCS is generating SOOOOOOOO much money now, even these money hungry fat cats are not motivated enough to change it, even though more games would equal more money. They're just making too much now.
So by my formula, with 10 teams this past season
#1 OSU
#2 LSU
#3 VT
#4 OU
#5 USC
#6 WVU
#7 Winner of UGA vs MO
#8 Winner of Kansas vs Hawaii
Then 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, etc. This would have gotten all the conference winners, and the remainder of the top 10 this year. The play in losers could still go to a bowl game too. A gripe I've heard of such is that this could have resulted in UGA v. LSU for the NC if the seedings were different.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 1, 2008 12:10:30 GMT -6
I think there are other issues at play, that nearly EVERYONE forgets to mention when they discuss this topic.
The first common error by proponents of a playoff system is stating "They can still have "the bowls", the quarter finals, semi finals and finals can be held at the bowl sites" Those that say this, generally have NO concept of the "bowl" and what it entails. NEWSFLASH...the bowl experience is MUCH more than a 3 hour football game for MANY MANY people. Civic Events, parties, accompanying local youth sporting events.. the list is long. That will not happen if the event in question is a quarterfinal or semifinal game. Those become "fly in, play game, fly out" endeavors. Completely different than the current structure.
An offshoot of this is the different environment for the teams fans. Many fans (especially SEC fans) scrimp and save all year and take their vacation to travel with the team to the bowl game. Very improbably that these fans are still able to do this if they have 4 rounds of traveling playoffs....AND...once again, not much of a vacation. Now the fans fly in, go out one night, watch game, fly out. Living in New Orleans, this is VERY MUCH unfavorable for the bowl sites / bowl sponsors.
Lastly...it is a dangerous genie to let out of the bottle. Right now, college football is thriving nearly year round. It rivals the NFL in many pockets of the country from September-Late November.. College basketball has become COMPLETELY irrelevant until the last week of February, and lets face it... much of the "bracketology" the media pushes exists simply to keep some interest in the game. Do we want/need the same for college football?
While we as fans can say speculate that "more money will be made" and "tv ratings will be high"... these are as stated, speculation AND more importantly they are speculation regarding the playoff only without regard to how that change could affect other aspects of college football.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 1, 2008 12:24:38 GMT -6
I think the only thing the FBS "needs" is to require every conference a championship game.
Keep the current bowls - like coachd5085 said, they are bigger and more valuable than "just games".
Is it really necessary to crown ONE, singular champion.......and if so, how many times does that champion have to prove it?
If every conference has a championship, well, it kind of sorts out the whole "best team" rankings. You get the best SEC, BXII, Big 10, WAC, ACC, SUN BELT, etc teams period.
Just as long as the BCS maintains decent matchups, as a fan, I'm happy....everyone wins something, everyone has bragging rights of winning something, there is an equal event for every school (and conference).
Just like GOVERNMENT, the less politicians the better.
Likewise, the less SPORTS WRITERS and influence from the BOO-YAH network, the better.
No rankings (please!) until week 8 of the regular season.
|
|
|
|
Post by bulldogoption on May 1, 2008 13:08:56 GMT -6
The sports seasons seem to keep getting longer and longer and longer and longer. I have a feeling that a playoff would make the season go even longer still. Most other sports can fit their playoffs in a shorter time period. They can play back to back games. Money, money, money. That's why there are more non conference games now (also why there are 5 preseason NFL games now). As long as idiots like us keep paying for tickets and ESPN and NFL/Big Ten Network its only going to get worse. I liked the old system. BCS is ok. The loudest voice I seem to hear for a playoff system is from the media. Not coaches, not players. ESPN is ridiculous anymore. I actually saw them discussing the 2009 draft ONE DAY after the 2008 draft was over.  ......YGBFKM |
|
kr7263
Sophomore Member
Posts: 228
|
Post by kr7263 on May 1, 2008 13:10:02 GMT -6
don't forget about revenue from mega-money boosters / fund raisers during bowl season & corporate sponsorship. Would Uncle Scrooge part with $500,000 for a new computer lab if Duck U lost in the play-in game? With a playoff - Now you have to win 2 or 4 games in Dec/Jan to satisfy him.
|
|
|
|
Post by DLine06 on May 1, 2008 15:01:13 GMT -6
In Texas, to win the state title you play 16 games for the Division 2 and 15 for Division 1 (these were the days when I was in high school).
5A, to win the title, you play 16 games regardless. 4A I think will start using this policy as well (to me it watersdown the playoffs even further).
NFL, there's 16 regular season games, 4 playoff games (including super bowl) and your 4 preseason games.
On the college level, how do you fit in trying to add games to the season when the final exams start up? Then add to it when it's the D-1 level?
I'd say have #2 play #3 and winner plays #1.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 1, 2008 15:50:09 GMT -6
I think there are other issues at play, that nearly EVERYONE forgets to mention when they discuss this topic. The first common error by proponents of a playoff system is stating "They can still have "the bowls", the quarter finals, semi finals and finals can be held at the bowl sites" Those that say this, generally have NO concept of the "bowl" and what it entails. NEWSFLASH...the bowl experience is MUCH more than a 3 hour football game for MANY MANY people. Civic Events, parties, accompanying local youth sporting events.. the list is long. That will not happen if the event in question is a quarterfinal or semifinal game. Those become "fly in, play game, fly out" endeavors. Completely different than the current structure. An offshoot of this is the different environment for the teams fans. Many fans (especially SEC fans) scrimp and save all year and take their vacation to travel with the team to the bowl game. Very improbably that these fans are still able to do this if they have 4 rounds of traveling playoffs....AND...once again, not much of a vacation. Now the fans fly in, go out one night, watch game, fly out. Living in New Orleans, this is VERY MUCH unfavorable for the bowl sites / bowl sponsors. Lastly...it is a dangerous genie to let out of the bottle. Right now, college football is thriving nearly year round. It rivals the NFL in many pockets of the country from September-Late November.. College basketball has become COMPLETELY irrelevant until the last week of February, and lets face it... much of the "bracketology" the media pushes exists simply to keep some interest in the game. Do we want/need the same for college football? While we as fans can say speculate that "more money will be made" and "tv ratings will be high"... these are as stated, speculation AND more importantly they are speculation regarding the playoff only without regard to how that change could affect other aspects of college football. I used to be a playoff guy but now I agree with you. Speaking of the money, don't forget that the bowl money goes directly to the conferences to be dispersed to the schools. In a playoff the money would go to the NCAA to be dispersed. Why would any AD want that? Why would any NCAA wrestling coach want that either since that football bowl check may be the difference between whether or not the school has a wrestling program next year? My son was a video guy at a James Madison as a freshmen then transferred to Virginia Tech where he was a manager for four seasons. During his time at Tech he got to spend a week each in New Orleans, Jacksonville (not so great), Atlanta, and Miami. In the bowl goody bags he got watches, a gas grill, and a $350 home theater system. The year after he left JMU won the 1AA national championship. They got a weekend in Chattanooga. What do you think the players like better? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2008 16:32:49 GMT -6
I thought I was in the minority for favoring the BCS system over a playoff, but after reading these posts, maybe it's not a minority opinion? I think the BCS gets the 1 vs. 2 matchup right more often than not.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 1, 2008 16:43:23 GMT -6
Well, I don't particularly like the BCS system, in as much as it basically TELLS fans/viewers which game is important, and what game to watch "because nothing better is on"
Hey, play the games, I will watch the games, and leave the hype and speculation to Vegas.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 1, 2008 16:53:41 GMT -6
Well, I don't particularly like the BCS system, in as much as it basically TELLS fans/viewers which game is important, and what game to watch "because nothing better is on" Hey, play the games, I will watch the games, and leave the hype and speculation to Vegas. I hate the fact that the game's played on a week night. I have to wake up early and can't stay up that late. I'm old. Watching a game that ends at midnight isn't happening. |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 1, 2008 17:09:00 GMT -6
Took me 20 minutes, but I figured this out finally |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 1, 2008 23:21:51 GMT -6
I think there are other issues at play, that nearly EVERYONE forgets to mention when they discuss this topic. The first common error by proponents of a playoff system is stating "They can still have "the bowls", the quarter finals, semi finals and finals can be held at the bowl sites" Those that say this, generally have NO concept of the "bowl" and what it entails. NEWSFLASH...the bowl experience is MUCH more than a 3 hour football game for MANY MANY people. Civic Events, parties, accompanying local youth sporting events.. the list is long. That will not happen if the event in question is a quarterfinal or semifinal game. Those become "fly in, play game, fly out" endeavors. Completely different than the current structure. An offshoot of this is the different environment for the teams fans. Many fans (especially SEC fans) scrimp and save all year and take their vacation to travel with the team to the bowl game. Very improbably that these fans are still able to do this if they have 4 rounds of traveling playoffs....AND...once again, not much of a vacation. Now the fans fly in, go out one night, watch game, fly out. Living in New Orleans, this is VERY MUCH unfavorable for the bowl sites / bowl sponsors. Lastly...it is a dangerous genie to let out of the bottle. Right now, college football is thriving nearly year round. It rivals the NFL in many pockets of the country from September-Late November.. College basketball has become COMPLETELY irrelevant until the last week of February, and lets face it... much of the "bracketology" the media pushes exists simply to keep some interest in the game. Do we want/need the same for college football? While we as fans can say speculate that "more money will be made" and "tv ratings will be high"... these are as stated, speculation AND more importantly they are speculation regarding the playoff only without regard to how that change could affect other aspects of college football. I used to be a playoff guy but now I agree with you. Speaking of the money, don't forget that the bowl money goes directly to the conferences to be dispersed to the schools. In a playoff the money would go to the NCAA to be dispersed. Why would any AD want that? Why would any NCAA wrestling coach want that either since that football bowl check may be the difference between whether or not the school has a wrestling program next year? My son was a video guy at a James Madison as a freshmen then transferred to Virginia Tech where he was a manager for four seasons. During his time at Tech he got to spend a week each in New Orleans, Jacksonville (not so great), Atlanta, and Miami. In the bowl goody bags he got watches, a gas grill, and a $350 home theater system. The year after he left JMU won the 1AA national championship. They got a weekend in Chattanooga. What do you think the players like better? Excellent points, further showing that the "bowls" are merely a 3 hour game for those sitting on the sofa, BUT are week long events for the cities and participants involved. I have always wondered where those who talk about "all the money that a playoff will make" got their Phd's in economics. How much "more" money will be made...if any. It is nearly impossible to do a study that will show what would happen to those who aren't in the "Elite 8" or "Sweet 16" football tournaments. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on May 2, 2008 12:58:25 GMT -6
I say the BCS is less legitimate than the old way. There's been too many times where it clearly didn't work, most notably 2004 when my undefeated Auburn Tigers were on the outside looking in. At least in the old bowl system we weren't forced to watch a game called #1 vs #2 when it was highly debatable as to that being the case.
I think the "economic forumla is simple. More games played equals more money! As for those not in the "tournement", you still have the plethora of "also ran" bowls. I don't think you need a Phd, to figure out more money would be made if more games. especially since they're meaningful games with high quality opponents. I mean I couldn't give a hoot-n-hell who wins OSU vs Mich, but I still watch it!
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 2, 2008 14:49:26 GMT -6
I say the BCS is less legitimate than the old way. There's been too many times where it clearly didn't work, most notably 2004 when my undefeated Auburn Tigers were on the outside looking in. At least in the old bowl system we weren't forced to watch a game called #1 vs #2 when it was highly debatable as to that being the case. I think the "economic forumla is simple. More games played equals more money! As for those not in the "tournement", you still have the plethora of "also ran" bowls. I don't think you need a Phd, to figure out more money would be made if more games. especially since they're meaningful games with high quality opponents. I mean I couldn't give a hoot-n-hell who wins OSU vs Mich, but I still watch it! Not necessarily. In a 16 team playoff there will be 8 games played in the opening round and they'll have to be played on the same day. That dilutes the TV money because it dilutes the "bang for the buck" for advertisers. Where will you play the games? Can you fill a 70,000 seat stadium at short notice especially in the second round? Also, don't discount the fact that the NCAA will be in control of the money rather than the conferences. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 4, 2008 8:50:39 GMT -6
I say the BCS is less legitimate than the old way. There's been too many times where it clearly didn't work, most notably 2004 when my undefeated Auburn Tigers were on the outside looking in. At least in the old bowl system we weren't forced to watch a game called #1 vs #2 when it was highly debatable as to that being the case. I think the "economic forumla is simple. More games played equals more money! As for those not in the "tournement", you still have the plethora of "also ran" bowls. I don't think you need a Phd, to figure out more money would be made if more games. especially since they're meaningful games with high quality opponents. I mean I couldn't give a hoot-n-hell who wins OSU vs Mich, but I still watch it! Not necessarily. In a 16 team playoff there will be 8 games played in the opening round and they'll have to be played on the same day. That dilutes the TV money because it dilutes the "bang for the buck" for advertisers. Where will you play the games? Can you fill a 70,000 seat stadium at short notice especially in the second round? Also, don't discount the fact that the NCAA will be in control of the money rather than the conferences. Phantom--this is an example of something we used to call "thinking THROUGH the solution" in the business world. Most people don't do it. Most say " Hey, these games gain some drama (elimination games do that) and therefore they will create ungodly amounts of revenue. They don't think about the scheduling conflicts (do 4 simultaneous games, AM/PM split like the NFL create ungodly revenue streams?) They don't think about the diversion of revenue--from the conferences/schools into the NCAA. They don't think about travel..3 weekends in 3 neutral sites with little notice..as opposed to one week at a predetermined site with around 3-4 weeks notice. They don't think that by creating an elimination tournament at the end of the year (ooh..yay, drama)..you ELIMINATE THE DRAMA of potential "elimination" games in season (TEX OU, MICH OSU, LSU AU etc. ) I think a big part of the debate/argument whatever....is WHAT are you trying to accomplish. Are you trying to determine the BEST team of the season, or are you trying to crown a champion. These are not synonymous, as evidenced by this past NFL season. Patriots CLEARLY the best team. But, if you keep adding hurdles week to week to week...at some point even the BEST will fall. |
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on May 5, 2008 11:45:37 GMT -6
until the Big 10 and Pac-10 get a conference championship game, the playoffs won't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenbear76 on May 5, 2008 13:49:36 GMT -6
Why does the pac-10 need a championship game? Every team plays each other in the pac-10. The team with the most wins ..is the pac-10 champion.
|
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 5, 2008 14:46:11 GMT -6
Why does the pac-10 need a championship game? Every team plays each other in the pac-10. The team with the most wins ..is the pac-10 champion. Because then the team from the Pac-10 would have a huge advantage against other schools who play in a championship conference... When Georgia beat LSU in the SEC Championship a couple years back, it bumped them out of the NC picture... They may have to face Florida 2x or Georgia 2x this year! Beating a good team once is hard enough, but 2x makes it a lot harder... As many have said... ALL conference champs would need to be decided the same way in order for a tournament to work. Just like in basketball. ALL conference tournament teams are automatically in. |
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on May 7, 2008 7:32:57 GMT -6
Not necessarily. In a 16 team playoff there will be 8 games played in the opening round and they'll have to be played on the same day. That dilutes the TV money because it dilutes the "bang for the buck" for advertisers. Where will you play the games? Can you fill a 70,000 seat stadium at short notice especially in the second round? Also, don't discount the fact that the NCAA will be in control of the money rather than the conferences. Phantom--this is an example of something we used to call "thinking THROUGH the solution" in the business world. Most people don't do it. Most say " Hey, these games gain some drama (elimination games do that) and therefore they will create ungodly amounts of revenue. They don't think about the scheduling conflicts (do 4 simultaneous games, AM/PM split like the NFL create ungodly revenue streams?) They don't think about the diversion of revenue--from the conferences/schools into the NCAA. They don't think about travel..3 weekends in 3 neutral sites with little notice..as opposed to one week at a predetermined site with around 3-4 weeks notice. They don't think that by creating an elimination tournament at the end of the year (ooh..yay, drama)..you ELIMINATE THE DRAMA of potential "elimination" games in season (TEX OU, MICH OSU, LSU AU etc. ) I think a big part of the debate/argument whatever....is WHAT are you trying to accomplish. Are you trying to determine the BEST team of the season, or are you trying to crown a champion. These are not synonymous, as evidenced by this past NFL season. Patriots CLEARLY the best team. But, if you keep adding hurdles week to week to week...at some point even the BEST will fall. In business, we also call this "pointing out the problems without solutions" 1. What if the games were two weeks apart? Not so short notice anymore. 2. 8 team play off, 4 games spread over three days? Thur night, Fri night, Sat afternoon, Sat night. Plenty of bang for your buck 3. 8 teams...still makes each game pretty darn important. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 7, 2008 7:56:24 GMT -6
Wing74
Valid points regarding the scheduling. Of course, now you have some teams with different prep times for the following week... so a short week..plus a travel day... Yes it may happen during the regular season sometimes, but that doesn't mean that it is desirable.
And two weeks, still not the easiest travel arrangements for the fans..
I can understand why people want a playoff. It is better for "THEM". Heck, I won't lie, I would probably enjoy it more, and there would be more drama for me sitting at home in my recliner eating pizza and chips and such watching an elimination game rather than a bowl game. HOWEVER, having been on both sides, and living in a major bowl city... I don't think this is something that should be done "for the fans"
Also, what about the other
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 7, 2008 10:44:34 GMT -6
quit coming up with "scheduling" scenarios or playoff "formats" ... it's NOT ABOUT THAT ... someone come up with how the money will be distributed that is not significantly less going in the pockets of the BCS conferences... THIS IS THE PROBLEM so, for all of you with the "answers" ... what are some ways to: a) continue to generate the same amount of money or continue to increase it --- how can we handle all the games being televised (and thus ensure a tv commercial spot for sponsor)... how can a title sponsor (like a bowl sponsor) still get as much "bang for their buck" when they no longer have that bowl? b) for those that want to have a playoff and still have the "lesser bowls" .. how do you convince fed ex that they don't get to be a title sponsor anymore because you are going to a playoff but chic-fil-a still gets to put on a bowl? how does sponsorship/advertising equate in the system you propose? ... i.e. i pay same amount in ad fees AND still get the top return on investment (like being a title sponsor) c) is money "earned" any differently (by the schools) ... i.e. you get so much per game? so much per appearance? how does the money from the "lesser" bowls figure into it (for those with that system). is it financially better to participate in a bowl or get beat in first round of playoffs? will fewer teams from each conference no longer get the "bigger" bowls (and, thus, paydays) due to the playoff system (and playoff with lesser bowls system)? the list can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on ...  |
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on May 7, 2008 10:45:58 GMT -6
Wing74 Valid points regarding the scheduling. Of course, now you have some teams with different prep times for the following week... so a short week..plus a travel day... Yes it may happen during the regular season sometimes, but that doesn't mean that it is desirable. And two weeks, still not the easiest travel arrangements for the fans.. I can understand why people want a playoff. It is better for "THEM". Heck, I won't lie, I would probably enjoy it more, and there would be more drama for me sitting at home in my recliner eating pizza and chips and such watching an elimination game rather than a bowl game. HOWEVER, having been on both sides, and living in a major bowl city... I don't think this is something that should be done "for the fans" Also, what about the other Gosh, I don't know, but it seems that a playoff system works very well in every other sport on the face of the planet! Teams and fans in the NCAA B-ball tourney seem to love their playoff. Oh, and then the whole Div 1AA, Div 2, Div 3...even all the other colleges levels have a playoff, so the whole "school work will suffer" BS don't fly with me. ANYBODY saying it can't work and wont be profitable is being intellectually dishonest. There are sports and TV gurus who, if they chose to, could make the college FB playoffs every bit or almost as big, profitable, and workable as the NFLs. There's just too much money being made now for anyone to be motivated to make the change. Shorten the regular season to 11 games, EVERY conference plays a championship game, and then that void in DEC where a bunch of 6-6 teams are playing their bowls can be augmented with some really good, and meaningful games. Screw the Rose Bowl too! The rest of the CFB is tired of being held hostage by the Pac 10 and the Rose Bowl. And don't fool yourself in to thinking that doesn't play a major part in not having a playoff system. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 7, 2008 10:51:57 GMT -6
for you fans ... ask yourself, really ...
does boise state REALLY want a playoff system? the recruiting benefits of going to a bowl are incredible, almost priceless. pull of a great year and the buzz about you being "snubbed" for the championship is the best thing that can happen to your recruiting efforts. now, if you had a playoff system and one year the make it 2 rounds deep but most years they get bounced early then where will the effect be on recruiting? take gonzaga in basketball ... have a few good years sprinkled here there, very solid program. but, never gonna win a national championship. what if, though, basketball had a bowl system? could they see increased benefits in recruiting because the always go to a bowl, usually win the peach bowl, and occassionally get thrown into the mix about being in a bcs bowl.
quit thinking like john q. fan and think about EVERYTHING involved in this. there are so many factors in play that it is nearly impossible to dissect each one and then develop the best plan in the world ... but, feel free to keep telling people how the conference champs can play in this round and blah, blah, blah
|
|
