|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 10:36:46 GMT -6
i'm not on either side of this ... playoff or current ... all i was trying to say is that the issue is so complex, so many different factors and people involved ... and none of us really knows the inner workings of it ... that to quickly slap together a proposal and say "this is all you gotta' do" is ludicrous. it really is complex because, while you can't satisfy everyone, you do need to try to satisfy the greater majority. there are no doubt issues and concerns that exist we haven't even uncovered. i, for one, want no part of being on any committee that would have to try to piece something like this together ... lol. other formats may very well work, not disputing that ... but, getting it set up in as favorable a fashion for the greater majority of people involved (schools, conferences, sponsors, tv, ncaa, fans, host cities, etc.) may be such a big burden that it could take a mammoth amount of planning to even approach a proposal that could be approved.
all i have are questions - no answers -- because, seems like once you answer one, 5 more popup as a result. there is going to be a domino affect and finding out which dominoes to keep, which ones to pull, which ones to let fall, etc. is extremely complicated and complex. so much so that a group of coaches here aren't going to be able to solve it ... just continue to talk in cirlces because 1) we don't know all the ins-outs and 2) it is just that complex
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on May 8, 2008 10:45:26 GMT -6
cq, I'll agree...there'll never be a cod-lock, fool proof way to make everyone happy. I can tell you this though. USC 2003, and Auburn 2004, and maybe 2 or 3 last season can make a legit argument that they had a team that could win the NC game. UGA for example. If we had a playoff, I don't think anyone would entertain too much whining from the #3 Big 10 team with 3 losses that didn't make it, or the Pac 10 #3 or whatever. I believe if you get the top 10 teams, and certainly if you got the top 16 teams involved, you can claim to have crowned a legit NC at the end. One scenario I think that does scare some folks, including the networks, is the possibility of an all SEC, all Big 10 final. In your scenario, that could happen, as it could in my 10 team format unless you seed to non conference champs to avoid it. I do like the way your example of 16 teams included 4 SEC teams. That's about right.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 8, 2008 10:55:26 GMT -6
I just used the BCS rankings from before the bowl games... didn't specifically pick teams
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on May 8, 2008 11:01:16 GMT -6
But fans ALWAYS say that... just like with the NCAA Basketball Tournament! But how many people actually watch the GAMES during the first two rounds? Nobody... because even the networks don't let you watch an entire game. The first and second round games (many) are extremely boring and nobody watches. Of course we all tune in every so often to see how our Office Pool is going, but do we actually funnel money into the first two rounds? First, I appreciate the constructive cristicism. Good discussions are what messageboards should be about. Now I think the you have a couple of major flaws comparing a the football and basketball tournaments and I will attempt to detail them below. #1. The ability to watch 32 games in 4 days isn't realistic. Trying to watch 8 football games in 4 days (the most a tournament would have) is much more manageable. I would aruge that many people not only do this, but would enjoy it too. You could have 1 game on Thursday, 1 game on Friday, 4 games on Saturday and 2 games on Sunday.(I know conflict with the NFL, but only 2 games and I think it is doable because Bowl games are played on Sundays, if not move them to Monday night). I don't find it impossible to watch all 8 games in a 4-5 day span at all. #2. I would argue that football is much more popular than basketball right now. #3. Basketball games often include several first round teams that a majority of the country has never heard of or cannot identify with. Not true in football playoff. Per the example below, I think people can identify with all 16 of those teams. There are no Monmoths, or Dayton's in that bunch. #4. Their are often 30+ basketball games per team in the regular season and thus basketball becomes a commodity. Just look at a team losing 7 games is a great team. So wins/losses matter less in Basketball because their is huge room for error. In football you only get 11 chances to see your team and often times you have a whole week without the opportunity. Each game matters more and it isn't often that a football fan will miss a chance to watch a football game because they are more of a unique event. Based on those points, I think you are comparing apples to oranges in terms of viewership of first round games. How many people would watch these first round games in a 16 team tournament from last year?: 1v16 = Ohio State vs. Tennessee 2v15 = LSU vs. Clemson 3v14 = VaTech vs. Boston College (already saw that bore-fest) 4v13 = Oklahoma vs. Illinois (oklahoma didn't handle the spread well in their bowl) 5v12 = Georgia vs. Florida (already saw that one too) 6v11 = Missouri vs. Arizona State 7v10 = USC vs. Hawaii (your joking right?) 8v9 = Kansas vs. West Virginia (I'll admit this would have been a good one) NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, NOT EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY! Your opinion on games are a matter of perspective I guess. Here is a different perspective on the same games. 1v16 = Ohio State vs. Tennessee (we know Ohio State has struggled with SEC "speed", but is it just against the top teams or is the LSC really as deep as they claim to be. If so, Tennessee should have a chance to win this game. A 16 hanging with a 1 is an interesting game). 2v15 = LSU vs. Clemson (LSU looks like the real deal, but they struggled against also rans Kentucky and Arkansas. Clemson has a history of inconsistent play, but has a dynamic player in Spiller and has been a giant killer in the past. A likely LSU win, but I would watch this game and enjoyed it). 3v14 = VaTech vs. Boston College (Agreed, I think a couple of overrated boring teams, but a conference matchup that would come down to the wire.) 4v13 = Oklahoma vs. Illinois (First your comment was about Oklahoma in the bowl, and we wouldn't have seen them exposed yet, so it has no bearing on this game. It is a good Midwest matchup between a Illinois team with a dynamic offense and an Oklahoma team which just shut down spread based Missouri in the Big 12 title game. Not to mention Big 10/Big 12 bragging rights. Again a must see game.) 5v12 = Georgia vs. Florida (This is a close regional game which I assume has rivalry type aspects, at least geographically, and a rematch where the tables may be turned. I am not sure why this would be one that SEC fans would love to watch again. ) 6v11 = Missouri vs. Arizona State (Two explosive offensives and two good, but beatable defenses. Points scored all over the place. I think this one is a good show. Besides the Pac-10 has been fighting to prove their legitimacy outside of USC and to do against a top 10 team would be a big deal, IMO). 7v10 = USC vs. Hawaii (I can't say much for this. I wanted to see if Hawaii was for real, but they would get pasted by USC, no questions asked. Even before I saw Georgia dismantle them, I would have known USC would crush them.) 8v9 = Kansas vs. West Virginia (Good game like you said. Again lots of scoring and pretty evenly matched teams). All but one of those games has interesting storylines and are watchable. I think your assumptions that they wouldn't be watched are reach.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on May 8, 2008 11:09:00 GMT -6
i'm not on either side of this ... playoff or current ... all i was trying to say is that the issue is so complex, so many different factors and people involved ... and none of us really knows the inner workings of it ... that to quickly slap together a proposal and say "this is all you gotta' do" is ludicrous. it really is complex because, while you can't satisfy everyone, you do need to try to satisfy the greater majority. there are no doubt issues and concerns that exist we haven't even uncovered. i, for one, want no part of being on any committee that would have to try to piece something like this together ... lol. other formats may very well work, not disputing that ... but, getting it set up in as favorable a fashion for the greater majority of people involved (schools, conferences, sponsors, tv, ncaa, fans, host cities, etc.) may be such a big burden that it could take a mammoth amount of planning to even approach a proposal that could be approved. all i have are questions - no answers -- because, seems like once you answer one, 5 more popup as a result. there is going to be a domino affect and finding out which dominoes to keep, which ones to pull, which ones to let fall, etc. is extremely complicated and complex. so much so that a group of coaches here aren't going to be able to solve it ... just continue to talk in cirlces because 1) we don't know all the ins-outs and 2) it is just that complex Coach, You obviously are the man on this site, but I respectfully disagree. It seems you are discouraging the discussion because we don't find the solution. It is your site, but I find many interesting and valuable things from the discussion alone. Of course we as a group cannot effect change, but we can bring up points and perspective that others may have never considered.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 8, 2008 11:20:22 GMT -6
But fans ALWAYS say that... just like with the NCAA Basketball Tournament! But how many people actually watch the GAMES during the first two rounds? Nobody... because even the networks don't let you watch an entire game. The first and second round games (many) are extremely boring and nobody watches. Of course we all tune in every so often to see how our Office Pool is going, but do we actually funnel money into the first two rounds? First, I appreciate the constructive cristicism. Good discussions are what messageboards should be about. Now I think the you have a couple of major flaws comparing a the football and basketball tournaments and I will attempt to detail them below. #1. The ability to watch 32 games in 4 days isn't realistic. Trying to watch 8 football games in 4 days (the most a tournament would have) is much more manageable. I would aruge that many people not only do this, but would enjoy it too. You could have 1 game on Thursday, 1 game on Friday, 4 games on Saturday and 2 games on Sunday.(I know conflict with the NFL, but only 2 games and I think it is doable because Bowl games are played on Sundays, if not move them to Monday night). I don't find it impossible to watch all 8 games in a 4-5 day span at all. #2. I would argue that football is much more popular than basketball right now. #3. Basketball games often include several first round teams that a majority of the country has never heard of or cannot identify with. Not true in football playoff. Per the example below, I think people can identify with all 16 of those teams. There are no Monmoths, or Dayton's in that bunch. #4. Their are often 30+ basketball games per team in the regular season and thus basketball becomes a commodity. Just look at a team losing 7 games is a great team. So wins/losses matter less in Basketball because their is huge room for error. In football you only get 11 chances to see your team and often times you have a whole week without the opportunity. Each game matters more and it isn't often that a football fan will miss a chance to watch a football game because they are more of a unique event. Based on those points, I think you are comparing apples to oranges in terms of viewership of first round games. How many people would watch these first round games in a 16 team tournament from last year?: 1v16 = Ohio State vs. Tennessee 2v15 = LSU vs. Clemson 3v14 = VaTech vs. Boston College (already saw that bore-fest) 4v13 = Oklahoma vs. Illinois (oklahoma didn't handle the spread well in their bowl) 5v12 = Georgia vs. Florida (already saw that one too) 6v11 = Missouri vs. Arizona State 7v10 = USC vs. Hawaii (your joking right?) 8v9 = Kansas vs. West Virginia (I'll admit this would have been a good one) NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, NOT EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY! Your opinion on games are a matter of perspective I guess. Here is a different perspective on the same games. 1v16 = Ohio State vs. Tennessee (we know Ohio State has struggled with SEC "speed", but is it just against the top teams or is the LSC really as deep as they claim to be. If so, Tennessee should have a chance to win this game. A 16 hanging with a 1 is an interesting game). 2v15 = LSU vs. Clemson (LSU looks like the real deal, but they struggled against also rans Kentucky and Arkansas. Clemson has a history of inconsistent play, but has a dynamic player in Spiller and has been a giant killer in the past. A likely LSU win, but I would watch this game and enjoyed it). 3v14 = VaTech vs. Boston College (Agreed, I think a couple of overrated boring teams, but a conference matchup that would come down to the wire.) 4v13 = Oklahoma vs. Illinois (First your comment was about Oklahoma in the bowl, and we wouldn't have seen them exposed yet, so it has no bearing on this game. It is a good Midwest matchup between a Illinois team with a dynamic offense and an Oklahoma team which just shut down spread based Missouri in the Big 12 title game. Not to mention Big 10/Big 12 bragging rights. Again a must see game.) 5v12 = Georgia vs. Florida (This is a close regional game which I assume has rivalry type aspects, at least geographically, and a rematch where the tables may be turned. I am not sure why this would be one that SEC fans would love to watch again. ) 6v11 = Missouri vs. Arizona State (Two explosive offensives and two good, but beatable defenses. Points scored all over the place. I think this one is a good show. Besides the Pac-10 has been fighting to prove their legitimacy outside of USC and to do against a top 10 team would be a big deal, IMO). 7v10 = USC vs. Hawaii (I can't say much for this. I wanted to see if Hawaii was for real, but they would get pasted by USC, no questions asked. Even before I saw Georgia dismantle them, I would have known USC would crush them.) 8v9 = Kansas vs. West Virginia (Good game like you said. Again lots of scoring and pretty evenly matched teams). All but one of those games has interesting storylines and are watchable. I think your assumptions that they wouldn't be watched are reach. I agree with you... EVEN if we agree on a tournament, we would still have an infinite amount of discussion of who deserves to be where, and who would matchup with who... I don't KNOW that the results of those games would be what I stated above, but it's always fun to pick on the Ohio State guys that I had to listen to for 40+ days leading up to the NC Game this year, tell me how bad their mighty Buckeyes were going to dismantle my "overrated" LSU Tigers! OSU probably beats Tennessee, but I like poking the fire a little bit! And being a former QB in HS & College, I tend to "over-rate" the teams with good QB's because they can win a game almost alone in some cases...
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on May 8, 2008 12:43:01 GMT -6
And you just hit the nail on the head buddy! In the D-1 football playoffs, unlike the NCAA B-ball tourney, the #1s and #2s would have to fear their first round opponent a great deal of the time. That makes for high drama, and TV ratings.
|
|
|
Post by justryn2 on May 8, 2008 15:45:43 GMT -6
I just don't see how you get the same number of RELEVANT games in the same amount of time with a playoff. Under the current system you dozens of relevant games in less than two weeks. No, the end result is not a national champion that earned that title on the field. But, there's no national high school football champion either. Every NCAA conference has a playoff system to determine the conference champion. Then, the bowl system and BCS rankings give one school bragging rights as a national champion and four or five other schools reason to think they were mistreated. How can you improve on system like that?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 8, 2008 19:46:30 GMT -6
coach5085, I figured someone would call me down about not being a coach at some point. If you post here, you'll notice I never argue X's and Os, but do involve myself in matter of "people" and things of general interests. Please tell me "coach boy" how you being a coach makes you qualified to comment more intelligently on the economic or social impact of bowls vs. a playoff system that's never been tried? I normally hate people that "due" this...because so long as I can get the point of your post it shouldn't really matter, but you "due" teach kids as part of your job, if nothing else the game of football, and you've started the little pokes and cheap shots. (No I'm not mad, just playing along) It's: all due respect. Now, I've also learned that anytime that phrase is used, whatever follows it will be intended with much disrespect. It's not the same analogy, as many people understand more about economics, than they do football. Are you a D-1 coach now or have you ever been? D-1 player ever? What's your experience base that "qualifies" you to know that the bowls are better for the D-1 game than a playoff that has never been tried? What bowl have you ever played or coached in that you think was a better experience than the playoff appearance at the D-1 level you played or coached in? What's your education and experience in sports marketing and TV that tells you that the money just isn't there and that it would be too troublesome for fans to enjoy? Other's have said it is the money that drives this, now to argue with me, you say that's not it. So, what is the REAL reason that D-1 CFB is the ONLY sport in existence that doesn't play for all the marbles in a playoff, and allows the media and computers to pre-determine midseason who the #1 and #2 are, and so long as those two win out, it matters not what 117 others do in their season, and anyway the 3rd undefeated team will like the "bowl experience" much better anyway? (ie Auburn 2004) Is it because the Sugar Bowl helped Katrina relief a couple of years back? What makes it right that some arbitrary computer system determines who will play for the NC among 3 teams from BCS conferences all with 1 loss? (LSU/OU/USC 2003). What's right about a system that factors in so heavily WHEN you lose, more over how many you lose, or who you lose to? The bottom line is that's the people that drive college football. TV revenue makes it what it is! That's exactly why bowls like the Poulan Weedeater Bowl that draws a small crowd of people on site exists. Look, I'm among the 87,000 in the stadium at Auburn every saturday they play at home. But hundreds of thousands are watching on TV when it's Auburn vs LSU/UGA/TN/Bama. Sorry, that gripe was one typical of an emotional gripe from a coach complaining about what stupid fans say. In this case, your gripe is against the very fan base that make college football what it is today! Many of the true blue fans trek to their favorite school or Alma mater each saturday. But many can't afford to or wont take an entire day out for one game. Many, THE MAJORITY, watch games all day long on saturday from their sofa or recliner. They're the ones "Game Day" with all it's big money sponsors are there for. Game day isn't about the crowd that gathers to get on TV, its about the ones watching TV. They're there to make money. Auburn-- First to all here, I want to make sure that I am clear in saying that I was only picking slightly because he is a "fan" and not a coach. Auburn, THERE IS A HUGE difference, in perspective as well as an understanding ..A TRUE understanding of the matters involved. HOWEVER, pointing that point out was not meant to be mean or insulting. 2nd--touche' on the grammar check. I think that most know the proper usage, however they type the wrong word due to haste. OK, that said-- AUBURN..YES.. to your questions. D1AA coaching experience. Close friends/ have worked with coaches with Superbowl rings, BCS championship rings, Sugar Bowl Rings, and Rosebowl Rings. Was recruited out of education/coaching to the corporate world and worked with/under the current President of the Sugar Bowl Committee. Have coached Sons of previous Sugar Bowl Committee Members. I have lived in a BCS Series city for 33 years. I studied under Chancellor Ryan of the University of New Orleans , who has published numerous reports regarding economic impact of Superbowls, Sugar bowls, BCS games, NCAA final fours, Mardis Gras, NBA All-Star games and publicly funded stadiums. I have a Masters Degree with an emphasis in Sports Management. Am I an expert? HARDLY. Do I have more insight and perspective than the average Fan sitting in his/her recliner watching with a beer in one hand and remote in other? Yes. You keep assuming a few things. One is that a playoff system would significantly increase ratings. I do not know if this is the case... It isn't something like the superbowl. I have never seen data showing that a playoff would draw in a significant number of NEW viewers. I do not think, nor have I seen data showing that it would become a mainstream/pop culture event. Long story short, the population that currently watches the bowls would be the same population watching a playoff system. Would that populations interest increase? Extremely likely. I have even said that I know I would be more interested in the individual games if it were an elimination playoff system. But....(and here is the point) I already watch the bowls. So do you. So does Huey and Brophy and DCOHIO. So does Erin and Vanessa. And guess what. All the women in the school I taught at last year (after leaving the corporate world AGAIN...) had BCS parties last year. Why? The Bayou Bengals were in the game. The year before..SAME parties..SAME people, watching but the parties were not for the OSU/FLA game, but rather for the the Sugar Bowl (again with LSU). Those ladies did not watch the OSU/FLA game. Did not talk to me about the excitement of the Boise/Oklahoma game. None of them talked to me last year about how Georgia dismantled Hawaii. Didn't watch those games. So don't confuse HEIGHTENED INTEREST with an increased number of interested parties. They are not synonymous. Second Point: Building on the first point, you keep thinking that this Heightened interest will increase ratings. As I explained above, there is really no data, nor logical reason to think this will happen to any significant degree. HOWEVER, even if it DID increase ratings significantly, how does this benefit the schools? This benefits the NETWORKS. They would have to negotiate a TV contract such that monetary distribution would remain the same (As Huey has done a great job pointing out). That means it would have to be great enough to cover the losses from bowl sponsors (as Huey again covers), increased travel, the NCAA cut, and any other issues that the playoff system might bring up. Next Point: You keep saying that we don't "KNOW" if the playoff experience would be better than the bowl experience. Phantom gave "first" hand (his son's) account that it was clearly better. It has been said here several times, the bowl is a week long event, the kids are treated very well, they go to multiple civic/social events..they are exposed to different cities etc. The playoff experience would simply be an extension of the season. Fly in for a walkthrough on Friday. Meeting friday night. Pregame meal on sat. Get on bus, arrive at stadium, tape, meet , specials, team strech, kick off, ..win/lose, shower, press conference, load bus, depart for night flight or back to hotel for next day flight. Regular schedule...just like they have done for the previous 11-12 weeks. Bottom line, there IS NO playoff experience. As was said originally, a BOWL is not just a football game to those involved. It IS just a football game to those watching on TV. So again, not knocking the fact that you are a fan, simply pointing out that you have a limited perspective. Final Point: As far as your last little point about about fans etc... College football is what it has always been to 95% of the people. 11 vs 11, blocking/ tackling, running, catching. Now, the fans have changed the salary structure for many coaches, as well as facilities (and expectations...) but coaches really don't care about that..AS LONG AS THEY ARE ON EQUAL FOOTING. The reason FLA needs 6 grass practice fields and 3 indoor field turf ones, is because GA has them. The reason LSU needs a 20,000 sq foot weight room, is because BAMA has one... Coaches don't really care much about what they have...it is what they have in relation to others that counts. Arms race.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 8, 2008 22:42:48 GMT -6
put it to the networks and find out. I would bet my bullocks on it that the money thrown out their to televise these games would make what is currently being made by the bcs look miniscule. Somebody at some point is going to sue the NCAA for unfair practices. Not a matter of if but of when. I am not in favor of it. When it does happen the bcs will have to change at the very least its formula. All I have proposed is a way that every D1 at least in theory has a chance to compete for the prize. IMO we would lose 3 confrences w/ in three years. 3 more wild cards for the good ole boy network. OK, let me just stop you here before you keep muddling the issue coach. THE NCAA has precious little to do with the BCS or the bowl system. There is NO NCAA Div 1 football champ. Look it up. The NCAA is not some governing power behind the football bowls. It is the conferences and schools. You keep talking about some "prize" on the field..and the courts. The US judicial system will not overstep its bounds on this issue. Their job is not to figure out a "system" for NCAA post season football. You are also guilty of the same error that auburn is making. You keep chanting "more money more money" without ever seeming to understand what those on here have told stated several times. WHOSE money. That is NCAA money... not school money.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 8, 2008 23:11:01 GMT -6
. What's right about a system that factors in so heavily WHEN you lose, more over how many you lose, or who you lose to? This is an interesting point, and one I have CONSTANTLY been perplexed by. However, I have always been perplexed as I apply it to PLAYOFF systems. What you just described is 100% applicable to the PLAYOFF system. It is in fact the EXACT DEFINITION of a playoff system. A playoff system is ALL ABOUT when you lose, as compared to how many you lose or who you lose to. Right? Team A .700 winning percentage. Losing record at home, including a head to head loss against Team B. only a +23 point differential between points scored and points allowed, .500 record in their division .583 conference record Team B .947 winning percentage. Undefeated at home. A +315 point differential. Undefeated in their division and Conference. Beat Team A on the road, but split on neutral site. That neutral site victory by Team A was later in the year so Team A would be higher ranked?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 8, 2008 23:47:35 GMT -6
Their are enough idea out their that this could get done. AGAIN! I would bet that if put b4 the neteworks, the networks would pay double if not triple what they are paying now. Why would you make this bet? Remember, who are the people who are interested in a college football playoff? College football fans, who presumably ALREADY ARE WATCHING the bowls. So while YOUR interest may be increased, and My interest is increased, and auburn's interest increased, and brophy's ...we were watching the bowls anyway. Why do you think the networks would pay double or triple to air playoff games to the same audience? Why do you think non football fans would watch IN DROVES if the games were elimination playoff games rather than what they are now?
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on May 9, 2008 6:21:20 GMT -6
Their are enough idea out their that this could get done. AGAIN! I would bet that if put b4 the neteworks, the networks would pay double if not triple what they are paying now. Why would you make this bet? Remember, who are the people who are interested in a college football playoff? College football fans, who presumably ALREADY ARE WATCHING the bowls. So while YOUR interest may be increased, and My interest is increased, and auburn's interest increased, and brophy's ...we were watching the bowls anyway. Why do you think the networks would pay double or triple to air playoff games to the same audience? Why do you think non football fans would watch IN DROVES if the games were elimination playoff games rather than what they are now? My grandma watches the Superbowl...she might watch a College Superbowl too
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 9, 2008 6:49:29 GMT -6
Why would you make this bet? Remember, who are the people who are interested in a college football playoff? College football fans, who presumably ALREADY ARE WATCHING the bowls. So while YOUR interest may be increased, and My interest is increased, and auburn's interest increased, and brophy's ...we were watching the bowls anyway. Why do you think the networks would pay double or triple to air playoff games to the same audience? Why do you think non football fans would watch IN DROVES if the games were elimination playoff games rather than what they are now? My grandma watches the Superbowl...she might watch a College Superbowl too There's already a college version of the Super Bowl. It's called the BCS Champonship Game. If your grandma doesn't watch that why would she start just because there are 14 games before that?
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on May 9, 2008 8:36:04 GMT -6
I just don't see how you get the same number of RELEVANT games in the same amount of time with a playoff. Under the current system you dozens of relevant games in less than two weeks. No, the end result is not a national champion that earned that title on the field. But, there's no national high school football champion either. Every NCAA conference has a playoff system to determine the conference champion. Then, the bowl system and BCS rankings give one school bragging rights as a national champion and four or five other schools reason to think they were mistreated. How can you improve on system like that? I am not sure what level you coach at, but let’s assume it is high school. I imagine that almost all high school teams play in a conference. Why do you worry about state championships? You already have a conference champion in the regular season. So open question to all high school coaches. Would it be fine with you if instead of having your state’s playoff system, the media in your state selected two teams at their discrection to play for the title? That is what happens in the NCAA and I am shocked that high school coaches would be in favor of it. Bring home to your level and then tell me you would like it that way. I am not sure how many people with a straight face can say that.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on May 9, 2008 8:40:50 GMT -6
Their are enough idea out their that this could get done. AGAIN! I would bet that if put b4 the neteworks, the networks would pay double if not triple what they are paying now. Why would you make this bet? Remember, who are the people who are interested in a college football playoff? College football fans, who presumably ALREADY ARE WATCHING the bowls. So while YOUR interest may be increased, and My interest is increased, and auburn's interest increased, and brophy's ...we were watching the bowls anyway. Why do you think the networks would pay double or triple to air playoff games to the same audience? Why do you think non football fans would watch IN DROVES if the games were elimination playoff games rather than what they are now? Drama. People watch the NBA (I think, I don’t know), but I bet the NBA playoffs get more attention then the regular season. Same with the NFL playoffs. I love football, but I didn’t see all the bowl games. I could care less about the Sugar Bowl (for instance) and often times I am watching games and there are 2 or 3 on at the same time. Then I only pay attention to the interesting/close game. There is a certain draw to a win or go home situation. Why do you think reality TV is so popular?
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 9, 2008 8:51:18 GMT -6
So open question to all high school coaches. Would it be fine with you if instead of having your state’s playoff system, the media in your state selected two teams at their discrection to play for the title? That is what happens in the NCAA and I am shocked that high school coaches would be in favor of it. Bring home to your level and then tell me you would like it that way. I am not sure how many people with a straight face can say that. It's not that I am in favor of the current system, against a playoff, or for a playoff. All I'm trying to point out (as is coachd) is that coming up with a system now is a lot more complicated than what many across the country think. I think what people are saying here (who are not 'gung-ho' in saying "this is all you gotta' do") is that the formula has so many variables to consider that a plan can not easily be drawn up. If it is ever possible to develop a playoff system that keeps the distribution of money the same (similar to what all parties are getting now) then it very well could be passed. If that system can still generate the same amount of revenue for the sponsors/advertisers, for the individual schools, for the conferences (and don't discount the host cities, they have 'lobbyists', too) without drastically increasing the amount of expenses for those parties then we may very well be on our way to a playoff system. Now, I never really thought about if the high school system went to that ... aka a "bowl season" like D1. But, if the money were such like a bowl and the experience was such like a bowl, then it is concievable that many high schools may say, "hey, we like this 'cus we get more money" ... especially those that really aren't gonna win the whole thing anyway ... I dunno. But, bringing up points regarding the difficulty in a playoff or questioning the simplicity of a plan on this thread doesn't constitute one being in favor or against a particular plan. Merely trying to educate myself by exploring all the factors involved and the possibilities each obstacle presents.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 9, 2008 9:09:14 GMT -6
Neilsen Ratings for various sporting events in bold:
2007 NBA FINALS = 6.2 NBA PLAYOFFS - DENVER/LA LAKERS SUN ABC 5,115 3.5 All other Playoff Series < 2.5
NCAA MEN’S B-BALL - KANSAS v. MEMPHIS CBS 19,501 12.1 NCAA BASKETBALL CHAMP [Kansas v. UNC] 4/5 CBS 14,435 8.8 NCAA BASKETBALL CHAMP [UCLA v. Memphis] 4/5 CBS 11,770 7.2 All other games in NCAA tournament <5.5
ROSE BOWL-01/01 ABC 19,003 11.1 CAPITAL ONE BOWL-01/01 ABC 14,780 9.1 TOSTITOS FIESTA BOWL-01/02 FOX 12,164 7.7 FEDEX ORANGE BOWL-01/03 FOX 11,958 7.4 ALLSTATE SUGAR BOWL-01/01 FOX 11,702 7.0 BCS NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP RATING = 14.4
SUPER BOWL = 43.3
I could do a lot more research, but The Super Bowl isn't even a "sporting event" anymore as far as ratings and $$$ are concerned. American Idol doesn't even get 1/2 of that rating, and it's killing everything else...
Does anyone think that going to a playoff will increase ratings (ratings = revenue) enough to have a big impact on the $ that schools will make? It's already easily the #2 money making entity next to the NFL in the world...
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 9, 2008 9:13:59 GMT -6
sorry... American Idol gets about 1/2 of that... but now they are up in the 30's
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on May 9, 2008 9:21:21 GMT -6
You keep assuming a few things. One is that a playoff system would significantly increase ratings. I do not know if this is the case... It isn't something like the superbowl. I have never seen data showing that a playoff would draw in a significant number of NEW viewers. I do not think, nor have I seen data showing that it would become a mainstream/pop culture event. Long story short, the population that currently watches the bowls would be the same population watching a playoff system. Would that populations interest increase? Extremely likely. I have even said that I know I would be more interested in the individual games if it were an elimination playoff system. But....(and here is the point) I already watch the bowls. So do you. So does Huey and Brophy and DCOHIO. So does Erin and Vanessa. And guess what. All the women in the school I taught at last year (after leaving the corporate world AGAIN...) had BCS parties last year. Why? The Bayou Bengals were in the game. The year before..SAME parties..SAME people, watching but the parties were not for the OSU/FLA game, but rather for the the Sugar Bowl (again with LSU). Those ladies did not watch the OSU/FLA game. Did not talk to me about the excitement of the Boise/Oklahoma game. None of them talked to me last year about how Georgia dismantled Hawaii. Didn't watch those games. So don't confuse HEIGHTENED INTEREST with an increased number of interested parties. They are not synonymous. First of all, and I am not being sarcastic, I like the thought you have put into your post, even though we have different perspectives. I have 3 different perspectives on your first point. #1. I think in a playoff situation the casual football fan (likes to watch, but is not obsessed like people on this board ma be) would take more interest in the games. They may not take an interest in the bowl when nothing really but a win is on the line. Basically, do you think attendance for let’s say the high school playoff games outnumbers the regular season? #2 The women you reference in the post above. Would they watch the next week if their Bengals were to advance? Do you think their interest would heighten week to week, because I sure do. I bet the parties get bigger and bigger (thus increasing ratings) as the team advances. I have played and coached in college playoff situations and the interest always grows as the teams advance. #3 Your point on physical data is misleading. How can they collect data without ever having a playoff. There is no way to project ratings of an event that has never taken place before. Second Point: Building on the first point, you keep thinking that this Heightened interest will increase ratings. As I explained above, there is really no data, nor logical reason to think this will happen to any significant degree. HOWEVER, even if it DID increase ratings significantly, how does this benefit the schools? This benefits the NETWORKS. They would have to negotiate a TV contract such that monetary distribution would remain the same (As Huey has done a great job pointing out). That means it would have to be great enough to cover the losses from bowl sponsors (as Huey again covers), increased travel, the NCAA cut, and any other issues that the playoff system might bring up. Do you honestly believe corporations wouldn’t sponsor the playoffs? Why wouldn’t the bowl sponsors try and sponsor the playoffs. Local corporations can sponsor the playoff sites. There are huge opportunities for sponsorship. Not to mention in a 16 team playoff you still have more games than the bowls with more opportunities for sponsorship. You can break sponsorship up in so many ways. You could have multiple sponsors per game. Also, any team not in the playoffs will still be playing in Bowl games and they would still be sponsored. Is it really your contention that corporations would NOT want to be a part of college football playoff? I would be very surprised if that were the case. Next Point: You keep saying that we don't "KNOW" if the playoff experience would be better than the bowl experience. Phantom gave "first" hand (his son's) account that it was clearly better. It has been said here several times, the bowl is a week long event, the kids are treated very well, they go to multiple civic/social events..they are exposed to different cities etc. The playoff experience would simply be an extension of the season. Fly in for a walkthrough on Friday. Meeting friday night. Pregame meal on sat. Get on bus, arrive at stadium, tape, meet , specials, team strech, kick off, ..win/lose, shower, press conference, load bus, depart for night flight or back to hotel for next day flight. Regular schedule...just like they have done for the previous 11-12 weeks. Bottom line, there IS NO playoff experience. As was said originally, a BOWL is not just a football game to those involved. It IS just a football game to those watching on TV. So again, not knocking the fact that you are a fan, simply pointing out that you have a limited perspective. I know this intended for Auburn, but I can offer a little perspective. I played Division II football, which I am sure someone will discount as “not the same” and I had the opportunity to win a National Championship through a playoff system. I completely disagree with your “THERE IS NO PLAYOFF EXPERIENCE” line. My teammates and I had a fantastic experience. There is nothing like the feeling of having all of your dreams within your reach and under your control in a well-defined setting. It is simple, win and you are one step closer to the pinnacle of your existence as a college football player (to win a title) and lose you go home. It just doesn’t get any better than that. I won a Division II National Championship and to some (mostly arrogant D1 fans) that means nothing because of the level I played at, but I wouldn’t trade that experience to be the Sugar Bowl champion. I can say that at the level I played, I was on the best team and we proved it on the field beyond a doubt. The Sugar Bowl champion won a game. I would take knowing I was a part of a team that went all the way over being treated well. I would bet any amount of money that Phantom’s son would trade his experience for a chance at a National title. All football players I know would. Being 1 of 16 teams give you that chance (maybe slight, but a chance).
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on May 9, 2008 9:34:40 GMT -6
It's not that I am in favor of the current system, against a playoff, or for a playoff. All I'm trying to point out (as is coachd) is that coming up with a system now is a lot more complicated than what many across the country think. I think what people are saying here (who are not 'gung-ho' in saying "this is all you gotta' do") is that the formula has so many variables to consider that a plan can not easily be drawn up. If it is ever possible to develop a playoff system that keeps the distribution of money the same (similar to what all parties are getting now) then it very well could be passed. If that system can still generate the same amount of revenue for the sponsors/advertisers, for the individual schools, for the conferences (and don't discount the host cities, they have 'lobbyists', too) without drastically increasing the amount of expenses for those parties then we may very well be on our way to a playoff system. Now, I never really thought about if the high school system went to that ... aka a "bowl season" like D1. But, if the money were such like a bowl and the experience was such like a bowl, then it is concievable that many high schools may say, "hey, we like this 'cus we get more money" ... especially those that really aren't gonna win the whole thing anyway ... I dunno. But, bringing up points regarding the difficulty in a playoff or questioning the simplicity of a plan on this thread doesn't constitute one being in favor or against a particular plan. Merely trying to educate myself by exploring all the factors involved and the possibilities each obstacle presents. Coach, I am not informed enough to know how the money breaks down. Therefore I am not qualified to speak about the money aspect. I just can’t believe there is any evidence supporting there would be LESS money for a playoff then the current bowl system. I am also not sure why the current money breakdown couldn’t be applied. There is still a difference between BCS game money and Non-BCS game money. Same as there would be for playoff/non-playoff. My point is money issue aside, what is ideal? Now you can say we can’t talk about it, but since no one is going to come to us for the answer anyway, this entire discussion is theoretical. So theoretically if you can remove money from the situation, the question is what would you prefer seeing? As someone who has been through the playoff process at the college level 3 times and high school level 4 times, I think that format is the only way to go. I have spent my life being a competitor and laying everything on the line for the chance to be the champion. I think anyone that is a true competitor wants to win a title. That is why we keep scores because we want to know who is better and that ultimately leads to who is the best? The system we currently have only promotes argument and not a chance to prove it. Ask any football coach or player what they would give for a chance to win the title and my guess is they would all take it. I consider myself lucky to have had the chance.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 9, 2008 9:57:14 GMT -6
Not to mention in a 16 team playoff you still have more games than the bowls with more opportunities for sponsorship. You can break sponsorship up in so many ways. You could have multiple sponsors per game. Also, any team not in the playoffs will still be playing in Bowl games and they would still be sponsored. I like the idea, in theory ... no doubt. Tries to get the best of both worlds. Currently there will be 32 games. In a 16 team playoff format there will be 15 playoff games ... so there would then need to be 17 more bowl games. Which ones? Which sponsor to you tell, "hey, give us the same amount of money but you now have to split time with this sponsor"? From a sponsor exposure standpoint -- how does TV and exposure during the game relate to what it is now? I'm not naive enough to think that Myles Brand and some of the conference commissioners haven't at least floated some of these ideas with various sponsors, cities, bowls, etc. I'm sure the data they received from some of these small meetings play a part in them delaying any type of plan. Why? Because fans don't really drive the market ... it is driven by sponsors puring money into the bowls/games and their willingness to achieve great return on their investment. If an insignificant amount of viewers would be added - then paying MORE money for their ads to be seen makes little financial sense for them. Will ratings go up on ALL games simply because at the end there is a true championship? Maybe, maybe not ... they have surely done some type of analysis on this using various data (while not for college football, at least models that may be similar). Will the increase in ratings for the "playoff" games decrease the ratings for the other bowl games? Who is to say, again, they probably look at some type of model for this. But, overall ... ratings for ALL games will be considered. If the cotton bowl never gets to host the championship game, what do they care if THOSE ratings go from 14 to 18? Especially if their ratings may now drop. Even if they stay the same would they care to pony up more money? Actually, this whole thing is making my head hurt. I try not to solve problems in which I only have questions and no answers ... so i'll leave it alone
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 10, 2008 9:29:14 GMT -6
First of all, and I am not being sarcastic, I like the thought you have put into your post, even though we have different perspectives. I have 3 different perspectives on your first point. #1. I think in a playoff situation the casual football fan (likes to watch, but is not obsessed like people on this board ma be) would take more interest in the games. They may not take an interest in the bowl when nothing really but a win is on the line. Basically, do you think attendance for let’s say the high school playoff games outnumbers the regular season? I would (and already have in this thread) agreed with you on this point. The difference is in the effect of the projected increase. Last things first here, bigger parties would not increase ratings. In fact depending on how they are measured, it could lead to DEcreased ratings, if a party was considered a household. Remember, those watching the parties would be watching at their own homes if they had no party. Numerous studies, models, and surveys have predicted behavior of events yet to take place. Nobody said they WOULDN'T. What I, and others are saying is that it would not be AS VALUABLE to them, and therefore their offering price will go down. They are not the only show in town..they are one of ______ quarter final or semi-final games. They are now sponsoring a 3 hour game, not a week long event list. Multiple sponsors? NOW I am sharing the limelight...ok, that is even LESS attractive to the company. Next Point: You keep saying that we don't "KNOW" if the playoff experience would be better than the bowl experience. Phantom gave "first" hand (his son's) account that it was clearly better. It has been said here several times, the bowl is a week long event, the kids are treated very well, they go to multiple civic/social events..they are exposed to different cities etc. The playoff experience would simply be an extension of the season. Fly in for a walkthrough on Friday. Meeting friday night. Pregame meal on sat. Get on bus, arrive at stadium, tape, meet , specials, team strech, kick off, ..win/lose, shower, press conference, load bus, depart for night flight or back to hotel for next day flight. Regular schedule...just like they have done for the previous 11-12 weeks. Bottom line, there IS NO playoff experience. As was said originally, a BOWL is not just a football game to those involved. It IS just a football game to those watching on TV. So again, not knocking the fact that you are a fan, simply pointing out that you have a limited perspective. Congrats on an outstanding achievement. I think you can immediately discount anyone who says "oh, because it was division II, it counts less" because they are obviously a moron. With that said, you had the exact same experience during your playoff run as you had every other week of the season correct? You ENJOYED it more, and the feelings were a bit different (because of the heightened interest--(self induced). But the actual experience was the same right? Same practices, same travel in, play game, travel out (or host) experience right? This does bring me to an interesting point. Why does an "weekly elimination sequence" provide some type of validity? I have always wondered this. In the current system, and any playoff system, there are preset rules. Both systems rely on winning "certain games" to be labeled "champion" As I stated in an earlier post: Team A .700 winning percentage. Losing record at home, including a head to head loss against Team B. only a +23 point differential between points scored and points allowed, .500 record in their division .583 conference record Team B .947 winning percentage. Undefeated at home. A +315 point differential. Undefeated in their division and undefeated in Conference. Beat Team A on the road, but split on neutral site. So, based on the winning percentages, point differentials, a split head to head record (with team A losing at home, but winning at a neutral site)...which team is the "Champ"? The team that wins the arbitrarily denoted "championship" game. Right ? Whether that game was out of the blue, or at the end of a series of pretty brackets, it is still arbitrary.
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on May 11, 2008 8:19:19 GMT -6
Coach5085,
You're certainly closer to it than I. I'll give you that. Here's the thing, it's all "in theory" from either side's point of view. We won't know until it's tried. You keep saying we know the bowl experience is better for the players. Well, no we don't know that. You speculate that, but nobody can know that. You've got your theories and I've got mine. Money drives the bus. Fans spend the money. Fans want a playoff. Seems from the poll here that a large majority of coaches want it in some form even if it's just a plus 1.
Coach Huey,
I have no doubt that at some time, and some place NCAA people, Conference officials, and TV people have alread formulated a workable plan, or maybe 2 or 3. And TV people are very good at projection of revenue. It's my honest opinion that it would make more money, but at this time it's not enough to motivate anyone to make wholesale change. Someday it will be here though, and I think I'd wager a lot of money on that.
|
|
|
Post by cmow5 on May 11, 2008 9:31:45 GMT -6
Someday it will be here though, and I think I'd wager a lot of money on that. I dont think we will ever see a playoff. I know for the 30 years I have been watching college football it has been a subject brought up every year with no results besides the current system. My dad says they have talked about it since he was a kid and no results. I dont know why I just dont think it will happen. I thought about something as I was reading the post. Lets say they do go to a playoff. Would that make the "regular" season games less attractive to sponsors? If so then there will be less money by sponsors through out the whole season and that means the playoffs would have to compensate for 10-12 weeks of less revenue. Right? Just me thinking, I could be totally wrong. Either way I will watch every game I can. As of now I watch every bowl game and tape most of them and that wont change with a playoff.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 11, 2008 10:26:00 GMT -6
Coach5085, You're certainly closer to it than I. I'll give you that. Here's the thing, it's all "in theory" from either side's point of view. We won't know until it's tried. You keep saying we know the bowl experience is better for the players. Well, no we don't know that. You speculate that, but nobody can know that. You've got your theories and I've got mine. Money drives the bus. Fans spend the money. Fans want a playoff. Seems from the poll here that a large majority of coaches want it in some form even if it's just a plus 1. I would say it isn't theory though. The "playoff experience" is the exact same one that they experience week in/ week out. I have been "apart" of both (actively participating in the playoff...more passively participating in bowl week festivities). That is my point regarding this part of the argument. That individuals do not really understand the system, and think that a 3 hour playoff game played in the Colosseum is the same as the Rosebowl. This is only true to the person in the recliner. Here is something I have never understood from people who feel the same way you do. They first say "I am sure people who actually know what is going on have looked into this, and have made the decisions we currently have" THEN they say "...BUT IN MY OPINION..........." and then go ahead and espouse on things that you are not really knowledgeable about. I guess it is just the "curse" of being involved with sports. Coaching and officiating are the two jobs in the world that EVERYONE seems to think they can do as well if not better than the people that actually do them. I suppose this is the trickle down effect from that reality. Not knocking anyone when I say this...it is just an interesting phenomenon. Not saying the opinions aren't valid, just uninformed. Yes, you are right, most people, fans, and even coaches here (who are by the vast majority high school coaches, with some JC and DIII, II AND I coaches sprinkled in) want a playoff. So for the most part, those voting here are just "fans" with regards to the D1 bowl situation. And I have always said that to fans in recliners--INCLUDING MYSELF, a playoff would be more interesting. That doesn't make it best for those involved though....again I draw the analogy of those who don't own property voting in a high property tax increase.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 11, 2008 10:35:10 GMT -6
Someday it will be here though, and I think I'd wager a lot of money on that. I dont think we will ever see a playoff. I know for the 30 years I have been watching college football it has been a subject brought up every year with no results besides the current system. My dad says they have talked about it since he was a kid and no results. I dont know why I just dont think it will happen. I thought about something as I was reading the post. Lets say they do go to a playoff. Would that make the "regular" season games less attractive to sponsors? If so then there will be less money by sponsors through out the whole season and that means the playoffs would have to compensate for 10-12 weeks of less revenue. Right? Just me thinking, I could be totally wrong. Either way I will watch every game I can. As of now I watch every bowl game and tape most of them and that wont change with a playoff. Regarding this topic, I actually think auburn is correct. I can't put a chronological time line on it, BUT I can tell you it will happen when the NEED for drama and hype (which is constantly growing in our society. Simply watch TV, NEWS, MOVIES from today and then 10 years ago, then 20 years ago..etc. ) influences the audiences so much that the ratings DO indeed dip to a level where the BCS bowl games have the same level of interest to those NOT involved as the lesser bowl games. Thats when they will reinvent the wheel.
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on May 11, 2008 12:47:03 GMT -6
I'm gonna check with some of my buds that played in the SEC and see how they felt about their bowl experiences, and if they'd have traded it for a chance to be in "the playoffs". One of them played on the '83 Auburn team that went to the Sugar Bowl 10-1 ranked #3, both teams in front lost, Auburn beat Mich, but only 9-3, and Miami leapforgged them from the #5 slot for the Mythical National Championship. I have a sneaky feeling what he'll tell me.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 11, 2008 13:02:28 GMT -6
auburn--just make sure you realize that the answers are not only given in 20/20 hindsight, but will be given from the perspective that they would have WON the title.
Also, I don't put much credence in people thinking back 25 years and remembering how they "felt" when it comes to this. They had their Sugar Bowl Experience (by the way, they are MUCH enhanced these days, due to increased regulation ...the bowl "booty" is quite nice, as is the week long festival atmosophere). When asked the question, they will answer it thinking that they would have won..and they will answer it imagining all the fleeting glory that comes in the moments after winning.
Finally, remember that is just ONE part of the discussion. Money and its distribution, host cities, RECRUITING, ....
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 11, 2008 14:03:34 GMT -6
auburn--just make sure you realize that the answers are not only given in 20/20 hindsight, but will be given from the perspective that they would have WON the title. Also, I don't put much credence in people thinking back 25 years and remembering how they "felt" when it comes to this. They had their Sugar Bowl Experience (by the way, they are MUCH enhanced these days, due to increased regulation ...the bowl "booty" is quite nice, as is the week long festival atmosophere). When asked the question, they will answer it thinking that they would have won..and they will answer it imagining all the fleeting glory that comes in the moments after winning. Finally, remember that is just ONE part of the discussion. Money and its distribution, host cities, RECRUITING, .... If VT had played better in the last couple of minutes agaisnt BC, my son would have had the chance to spend a week in Tempe, get stuff, AND be involved in a championship game. Best of both worlds. I've been fortunate enough to have coached three state championship teams. Until the 1970s the state championship was decided by a poll (a fact that they don't mention in Remember The Titans). If we were elected champions instead of winning on the field, I think I'd still have been excited.
|
|