No playoff in college football = little interest

[The Michigan Man]

Without Michigan to focus on in a bowl game, my complete attention is on the rest of the bowl games. And IMO, this totally sucks.

Florida and Oklahoma get handpicked to play. What about Texas? What about USC? What about Penn St? What about Texas Tech? I think it is complete bullsh*t that these teams will be playing in meaningless "showcase" bowls, which are nothing more than glorified field trips for alum.

Give us a playoff system now. 8 teams, the top 8 as determined by the BCS:

1 Oklahoma Sooners
2 Florida Gators
3 Texas Longhorns
4 Alabama Crimson Tide
5 USC Trojans
6 Utah Utes
7 Texas Tech Red Raiders
8 Penn State Nittany Lions

Round 1: Dec 27
Capital One - Penn St vs. Oklahoma
Gator - Texas Tech vs. Florida
Rose - Utah vs. Texas
Orange -USC vs. Alabama

Round 2: Jan 3
Sugar
#1 Winner vs. #4 Winner

Fiesta
#2 Winner vs. #3 Winner

Round 3: Jan 10 (on a Saturday, when football should be played, not a weeknight!)
BCS National Championship Game

How unbelievable would that be? All of the bowl venues would get their money, TV viewership would be through the roof, alum could still travel, and the rest of the 27 bowls would be unaffected. Everybody wins. Why the hell not???

[Bossgobbler23]

Well MM, when have you known logic to factor into the BCS. Its about $$$ ESPN contracts not what the players want, schools want, not what you, I and the President elect of the United States want.

[The Michigan Man]

Well MM, when have you known logic to factor into the BCS. Its about $$$ ESPN contracts not what the players want, schools want, not what you, I and the President elect of the United States want.

I just don't buy the $$ arguments against a playoff.

Compare the matchups above to the current bowl participants. Every one of the playoff bowl games is better, more meaningful, and would generate a lot more interest. The participating teams would get more TV revenue $$, as every game is "must see" and the TV numbers would increase dramatically.

There are no losers here...

[rickyleach]

like everything else ,its all about politics and the bcs puts together matchups that will draw the most money , it isnt about who is the most deserving, it is a joke even the way they shuffle the polls around thru/out the season is a joke, it is almost like they are to calculated as to how far certain teams fall in the polls , kind of like saying we cant move this team to low or he wont be able to make it back in the top 10, how about at the bigginning of each season they just pick who should play who and what bowl, and screw teams like boyzzeee,

[LAMfan]

I just don't buy the $$ arguments against a playoff.

Compare the matchups above to the current bowl participants. Every one of the playoff bowl games is better, more meaningful, and would generate a lot more interest. The participating teams would get more TV revenue $$, as every game is "must see" and the TV numbers would increase dramatically.

There are no losers here...

I think the compromise would be to let the bowls (Rose mainly, perhaps Orange is ACC vs. B12) keep conference ties. This would only throw off seeding, but how accurate is that anyway? As discussed elswhere, I'd make being conference winner the most meaningful determinant, probably leaving out TT and adding, groan, V Tech. I think this keeps things more in line with the current system, but gives clearly deserving teams like Texas and USC a shot. I also don't think we need three teams from any conference. Before the bowls, we won't know if all the love of B12 offenses is showing that they have really weak defenses, or are truly the class conference of the year.

I think the B12 needs to fix its championship game so we don't get this years dilemma. Make the game worth something. it could have gone a long way to clarifying the conference situation, though obviously not perfectly.

[joeismyname]

Without Michigan to focus on in a bowl game, my complete attention is on the rest of the bowl games. And IMO, this totally sucks.

Florida and Oklahoma get handpicked to play. What about Texas? What about USC? What about Penn St? What about Texas Tech? I think it is complete bullsh*t that these teams will be playing in meaningless "showcase" bowls, which are nothing more than glorified field trips for alum.

Give us a playoff system now. 8 teams, the top 8 as determined by the BCS:

1 Oklahoma Sooners
2 Florida Gators
3 Texas Longhorns
4 Alabama Crimson Tide
5 USC Trojans
6 Utah Utes
7 Texas Tech Red Raiders
8 Penn State Nittany Lions

Round 1: Dec 27
Capital One - Penn St vs. Oklahoma
Gator - Texas Tech vs. Florida
Rose - Utah vs. Texas
Orange -USC vs. Alabama

Round 2: Jan 3
Sugar
#1 Winner vs. #4 Winner

Fiesta
#2 Winner vs. #3 Winner

Round 3: Jan 10 (on a Saturday, when football should be played, not a weeknight!)
BCS National Championship Game

How unbelievable would that be? All of the bowl venues would get their money, TV viewership would be through the roof, alum could still travel, and the rest of the 27 bowls would be unaffected. Everybody wins. Why the hell not???

This eight team idea has probably been thrown around by players and coaches for years now, and this marvelous plan has finally made it's way to the fans. It's only a matter of time before the media takes our side on the whole thing, then maybe those big money makers will fold and join in the playoff frenzy.....plus if Barack Obama is on our side, it could help. We all know how much the media loves to make him look like a saint....just give it some time MM. Justice will eventually be served in the world of college football.

[tpilews]

TIt's only a matter of time before the media takes our side on the whole thing,

I haven't heard any media against a playoff. Quite the opposite in fact, most forms (tv, radio, paper) always talk about how great a playoff would be. The conference presidents/ businesses are the only morons not buying into the playoff.

[MgoMatt]

Without Michigan to focus on in a bowl game, my complete attention is on the rest of the bowl games. And IMO, this totally sucks.

Florida and Oklahoma get handpicked to play. What about Texas? What about USC? What about Penn St? What about Texas Tech? I think it is complete bullsh*t that these teams will be playing in meaningless "showcase" bowls, which are nothing more than glorified field trips for alum.

Give us a playoff system now. 8 teams, the top 8 as determined by the BCS:

1 Oklahoma Sooners
2 Florida Gators
3 Texas Longhorns
4 Alabama Crimson Tide
5 USC Trojans
6 Utah Utes
7 Texas Tech Red Raiders
8 Penn State Nittany Lions

Round 1: Dec 27
Capital One - Penn St vs. Oklahoma
Gator - Texas Tech vs. Florida
Rose - Utah vs. Texas
Orange -USC vs. Alabama

Round 2: Jan 3
Sugar
#1 Winner vs. #4 Winner

Fiesta
#2 Winner vs. #3 Winner

Round 3: Jan 10 (on a Saturday, when football should be played, not a weeknight!)
BCS National Championship Game

How unbelievable would that be? All of the bowl venues would get their money, TV viewership would be through the roof, alum could still travel, and the rest of the 27 bowls would be unaffected. Everybody wins. Why the hell not???

WRONG!


Seriously? No Big Ten / Pac 10 Rose Bowl? And you want the Rose Bowl to be played any time other than New Years Day? That's just f*cking tradition a little too far.

Here's the right way to do it.

Dec 6th (scrap conference champ games, and force others to finish by Nov 29)
#1 vs #8
#2 vs #7
#3 vs #6
#4 vs #5

Then Dec 13th
#1/8 vs #4/5
#2/7 vs #3/6

Then, pick bowls on Dec 14th. Winners go to BCS nat. champ game. Other bowl procede per usual. The 6 playoff teams that lost still get to go to big name bowls (aka, Rose/Sugar/Fiesta/etc). Everybody's happy. Fans have to wait 1 more week to find out what bowl their team is going to, but it'd be worth it.

[amazinblue]

WRONG!


Seriously? No Big Ten / Pac 10 Rose Bowl? And you want the Rose Bowl to be played any time other than New Years Day? That's just f*cking tradition a little too far.

Here's the right way to do it.

Dec 6th (scrap conference champ games, and force others to finish by Nov 29)
#1 vs #8
#2 vs #7
#3 vs #6
#4 vs #5

Then Dec 13th
#1/8 vs #4/5
#2/7 vs #3/6

Then, pick bowls on Dec 14th. Winners go to BCS nat. champ game. Other bowl procede per usual. The 6 playoff teams that lost still get to go to big name bowls (aka, Rose/Sugar/Fiesta/etc). Everybody's happy. Fans have to wait 1 more week to find out what bowl their team is going to, but it'd be worth it.

Matt,

I just don't know how it can be done without the major bowls as the national quarterfinals. Who would watch the major bowls with interest - the way you have it set up? The fans of those teams, yes - but, if the teams playing have no chance for the MNC - or in the case of a real playoff, the real NC - then I don't think a lot of people are going to tune in. The fans of the teams, yes - but not a lot of other people. After all, it's December - people are busy getting ready for the holidays - shopping and all.

IMO, the whole playoff has to include the four majors as national quarterfinals - with traditional alignments - and THEN you have national semi's and the final. And, remember - you're going to have to have tens of thousands of people travel long distances for these games... You've got to have a crowd too...

[MgoMatt]

Matt,

I just don't know how it can be done without the major bowls as the national quarterfinals. Who would watch the major bowls with interest - the way you have it set up? The fans of those teams, yes - but, if the teams playing have no chance for the MNC - or in the case of a real playoff, the real NC - then I don't think a lot of people are going to tune in. The fans of the teams, yes - but not a lot of other people. After all, it's December - people are busy getting ready for the holidays - shopping and all.

IMO, the whole playoff has to include the four majors as national quarterfinals - with traditional alignments - and THEN you have national semi's and the final. And, remember - you're going to have to have tens of thousands of people travel long distances for these games... You've got to have a crowd too...

Are you crazy? In my system, only 1 bowl would have MNC implications... just like... the current system! My system IS the current system, with a 2 week playoff in early december to determine who gets to go the national championship game. I don't see how bowl attendace and popularity would be any less under that system. It's essentially the same thing.

The timing for the 2 week playoff would be fine for football viewing. It would be last Saturday and this upcoming Saturday.

[tpilews]

WRONG!


Seriously? No Big Ten / Pac 10 Rose Bowl? And you want the Rose Bowl to be played any time other than New Years Day? That's just f*cking tradition a little too far.

Here's the right way to do it.

Dec 6th (scrap conference champ games, and force others to finish by Nov 29)
#1 vs #8
#2 vs #7
#3 vs #6
#4 vs #5

Then Dec 13th
#1/8 vs #4/5
#2/7 vs #3/6

Then, pick bowls on Dec 14th. Winners go to BCS nat. champ game. Other bowl procede per usual. The 6 playoff teams that lost still get to go to big name bowls (aka, Rose/Sugar/Fiesta/etc). Everybody's happy. Fans have to wait 1 more week to find out what bowl their team is going to, but it'd be worth it.

Not a fan of that at all. I'm in favor of a true playoff. You lose, you go home.

As a fan of college football, I'm tired of computers picking who are the teams to make a bowl/playoff. I've been pretty outspoken about my dream playoff scenario. 16 teams. 11 conference champions, 5 at large. This keeps the importance of league play and teams don't have to schedule gimme games just to get wins. We can finally see some quality matchups in non-conference games, week-in and week-out. If you lose a couple ooc games to some top teams, you still have a chance to win it all by winning your conference, or getting an at-large bid. This is the playoff that makes the most sense to me and keeps nearly everyone happy.

[amazinblue]

Are you crazy? In my system, only 1 bowl would have MNC implications... just like... the current system! My system IS the current system, with a 2 week playoff in early december to determine who gets to go the national championship game. I don't see how bowl attendace and popularity would be any less under that system. It's essentially the same thing.

The timing for the 2 week playoff would be fine for football viewing. It would be last Saturday and this upcoming Saturday.

Matt,

Are you going to watch the Virginia Tech vs. Cincy Orange Bowl? Personally, I might catch some of it - if it happens to be on, but I'm not going to go out of my way to watch it. In your proposed system, I wouldn't watch it either. However, if it's an Orange Bowl where the winner goes to the national semi - it's a good chance that I would watch it.

I believe the problem with your approach is that you've got six of the top eight teams playing early in December for the "chance" for the NC. For sure, fans would go to the quarters / semis - and finals if a team made it. But, if your team lost in the quarters, are you going to head out to Pasadena, or down to Miami to watch them play in "another" bowl game? Personally, I'm not going to go into my wallet a second time unless there's a big prize - like the NC in the Rose Bowl (or another venue).

Part of what makes college football so interesting - is the conversation that goes with it. Just look at this season - you're going to have two teams saying "we should have had a shot at the NC" - those teams - the Rose Bowl winner - and Texas (assuming they beat OSU) - of course, if Utah beats Bama, they'd have a case too.

So, I don't want it to be a beauty pageant - which it is today - I would want to see it settled on the field. But, your approach - well, IMO, it takes any luster, potential controversy, and intrigue out of the other bowl games - and the only game people will tune into in January is the NC game... I mean, do you watch the Rose Bowl parade and Rose Bowl for the pageantry, or because the game means something...

This year, people will watch the Fiesta and Rose Bowls because they can say afterwards - USC and / or Texas should have been in that game instead of (insert the team name here).... And, if Utah rolls over Bama, they'd have a case too. In your system, the other "non NC" bowls don't create conversation or interest... And, as TPI's said above - win or go home...

[MgoMatt]

Matt,

Are you going to watch the Virginia Tech vs. Cincy Orange Bowl? Personally, I might catch some of it - if it happens to be on, but I'm not going to go out of my way to watch it. In your proposed system, I wouldn't watch it either. However, if it's an Orange Bowl where the winner goes to the national semi - it's a good chance that I would watch it.

I believe the problem with your approach is that you've got six of the top eight teams playing early in December for the "chance" for the NC. For sure, fans would go to the quarters / semis - and finals if a team made it. But, if your team lost in the quarters, are you going to head out to Pasadena, or down to Miami to watch them play in "another" bowl game? Personally, I'm not going to go into my wallet a second time unless there's a big prize - like the NC in the Rose Bowl (or another venue).

Part of what makes college football so interesting - is the conversation that goes with it. Just look at this season - you're going to have two teams saying "we should have had a shot at the NC" - those teams - the Rose Bowl winner - and Texas (assuming they beat OSU) - of course, if Utah beats Bama, they'd have a case too.

So, I don't want it to be a beauty pageant - which it is today - I would want to see it settled on the field. But, your approach - well, IMO, it takes any luster, potential controversy, and intrigue out of the other bowl games - and the only game people will tune into in January is the NC game... I mean, do you watch the Rose Bowl parade and Rose Bowl for the pageantry, or because the game means something...

I might be the odd one out, but I watch every bowl game I can. Especially the ones with a Big 10 participant and/or opponent of ours that year.

Also... I'm confused by your response. You like the controversy... yet you want to eliminate it by turning a MNC into a NC?

[amazinblue]

I might be the odd one out, but I watch every bowl game I can. Especially the ones with a Big 10 participant and/or opponent of ours that year.

Also... I'm confused by your response. You like the controversy... yet you want to eliminate it by turning a MNC into a NC?

Matt,

What I want is for every major bowl game to mean something. It's a great reward for teams and for the fans. And, it's settling it on the field. I don't "want" the controversy - I want the interest in the game - and, you know what - sponsors, ESPN, the media - THEY want interest in the game as well. And, those bowl committees, they want fans in the seats, and people coming out and spending money.

I think, in your approach, in mid-December, the only game that the casual fan is interested in is the NC - and, sure - they'll watch the others, BUT, they may not (like you) make sure they watch every game.

Using the four majors to start things, in my approach, you've got everyone watching all the games, at a great time of year, to see who advances.

I believe starting the "playoff" with the four majors on or near January 1st, builds on tradition, and the intensity increases until the NC game - sort of like a crescendo in music. And, you're not competing with the other bowl or NFL games out there in December either.

[MgoMatt]

I don't see competition with the NFL in early December as a problem, since its still the regular season and college overlaps with them anyways.

I can see your point about bowl significance.

The other problem with playoffs... It's just that with bowl season, its the time when you put away your differences with your conference and root for your enemies. The time to prove to everyone that your league is the best. With playoffs, it's a lot more individual. There wouldn't be the sense of coming together with the whole Big Ten and trying to represent well.

[tpilews]

The other problem with playoffs... It's just that with bowl season, its the time when you put away your differences with your conference and root for your enemies. The time to prove to everyone that your league is the best. With playoffs, it's a lot more individual. There wouldn't be the sense of coming together with the whole Big Ten and trying to represent well.

I don't see why there would be any less conference following than in the current system. Even if your team is in it, I still think I'd root for the conference, unless it tuos of course.

[gator]

I too, don't see the point of going to a bowl game after being eliminated from the big dance. I also disagree with dismissing the conference championships. I think they are the best thing to happen to CFB in a long time. There are about 120 teams in CFB and there is no way everyone can play everyone. Hell, most teams don't even play all the teams in their conference (Cough...Big10). I think more 12 team conferences need to be formed so there are more outright champs. Assuming that the tie-breakers in place aren't complete BS (Cough...Big12), conference championships can provide an undisputed champ without all the teams having to play each other. When was the last time you heard the SEC gripping about who was their true champion? I'm just curious, doesn't it ever bother Big10 fans to have co-champions, especially when those teams didn't even play each other.

This playoff thing absolutely cannot go to 16 teams. It takes too damn long, i.e. too many away games for broke a$$ fans. As a student, I can't afford that, and most people I know with jobs can't afford that. If you do 16 teams, it has to be with home team venues, and it still might have to be done in the first round of an 8 team playoff system. Further, university Prez's will biatch about exams and the toll on the players. Us fans have to have a unified voice for an eight game playoff.

I submit that an 8 team playoff is a the way to go. With only 8 spots, however, I must insist on a premium for those spots. Conference champions must be ranked in the Top15 and undefeated non-BCS teams have to be in the Top10 or Top12 to get an autobid. From there you just fill the damn thing up with the highest ranked teams that didn't get an autobid. After that, I don't give a damn what you do. I don't care what you do with the rest of the bowl games, and I don't care what bowl games you use to implement it. You will still get the best regular season in sports with 120 teams fighting for 8 spots. It keeps more teams alive (but not too many) for a longer time than the current system. IMO, fans will be more crazed than they currently are. It also forces the national champion to play at least 3 of the best teams in the country each and every year. That's lightyears ahead of where we are now. Bottom line, you maintain a great regular season, you get an undisputed NC, and every team (such as the Utah's and Boise's of the world) has a fighting chance. Tell me what's wrong with that, if you can!!!

[tpilews]

I too, don't see the point of going to a bowl game after being eliminated from the big dance. I also disagree with dismissing the conference championships. I think they are the best thing to happen to CFB in a long time. There are about 120 teams in CFB and there is no way everyone can play everyone. Hell, most teams don't even play all the teams in their conference (Cough...Big10). I think more 12 team conferences need to be formed so there are more outright champs. Assuming that the tie-breakers in place aren't complete BS (Cough...Big12), conference championships can provide an undisputed champ without all the teams having to play each other. When was the last time you heard the SEC gripping about who was their true champion? I'm just curious, doesn't it ever bother Big10 fans to have co-champions, especially when those teams didn't even play each other.

This playoff thing absolutely cannot go to 16 teams. It takes too damn long, i.e. too many away games for broke a$$ fans. As a student, I can't afford that, and most people I know with jobs can't afford that. If you do 16 teams, it has to be with home team venues, and it still might have to be done in the first round of an 8 team playoff system. Further, university Prez's will biatch about exams and the toll on the players. Us fans have to have a unified voice for an eight game playoff.

I submit that an 8 team playoff is a the way to go. With only 8 spots, however, I must insist on a premium for those spots. Conference champions must be ranked in the Top15 and undefeated non-BCS teams have to be in the Top10 or Top12 to get an autobid. From there you just fill the damn thing up with the highest ranked teams that didn't get an autobid. After that, I don't give a damn what you do. I don't care what you do with the rest of the bowl games, and I don't care what bowl games you use to implement it. You will still get the best regular season in sports with 120 teams fighting for 8 spots. It keeps more teams alive (but not too many) for a longer time than the current system. IMO, fans will be more crazed than they currently are. It also forces the national champion to play at least 3 of the best teams in the country each and every year. That's lightyears ahead of where we are now. Bottom line, you maintain a great regular season, you get an undisputed NC, and every team (such as the Utah's and Boise's of the world) has a fighting chance. Tell me what's wrong with that, if you can!!!


I agreed with just about everything you said, Gator, except I'd like to see a 16 team tourney. I don't think turning a 3 round tourney into a 4 round tourney makes it "so damn long". One extra week. As far as fans getting to the games, home games for the higher seed the first two rounds. That should take care of that.

What else is there? Oh, the utah's and boise's. When you don't include all conferences, you create a separation between levels of play between the conferences. You need to reward those teams that win there conference with a trip to the playoff. Does anyone really think Buffalo would beat Florida in Gainsville? No, of course not, but it keeps it interesting and keeps all of college football on a even playing field.

As far as final exams and not having time for them. Look at college baseball. They play what, 62 games? Then regional, super regional, another round, then college world series. If you've ever watched the college world series, you always hear about teams who took exams the night before their first game, or a few days before. These guys do it no problem. Why would football be any different? Are they dumber? (sarcasm on). If your team is so fortunate to be one of the remaining eight teams during finals week, I'm sure the school can work out something with the professors.

[LAMfan]

I too, don't see the point of going to a bowl game after being eliminated from the big dance. I also disagree with dismissing the conference championships. I think they are the best thing to happen to CFB in a long time. There are about 120 teams in CFB and there is no way everyone can play everyone. Hell, most teams don't even play all the teams in their conference (Cough...Big10). I think more 12 team conferences need to be formed so there are more outright champs. Assuming that the tie-breakers in place aren't complete BS (Cough...Big12), conference championships can provide an undisputed champ without all the teams having to play each other. When was the last time you heard the SEC gripping about who was their true champion? I'm just curious, doesn't it ever bother Big10 fans to have co-champions, especially when those teams didn't even play each other.

This playoff thing absolutely cannot go to 16 teams. It takes too damn long, i.e. too many away games for broke a$$ fans. As a student, I can't afford that, and most people I know with jobs can't afford that. If you do 16 teams, it has to be with home team venues, and it still might have to be done in the first round of an 8 team playoff system. Further, university Prez's will biatch about exams and the toll on the players. Us fans have to have a unified voice for an eight game playoff.

I submit that an 8 team playoff is a the way to go. With only 8 spots, however, I must insist on a premium for those spots. Conference champions must be ranked in the Top15 and undefeated non-BCS teams have to be in the Top10 or Top12 to get an autobid. From there you just fill the damn thing up with the highest ranked teams that didn't get an autobid. After that, I don't give a damn what you do. I don't care what you do with the rest of the bowl games, and I don't care what bowl games you use to implement it. You will still get the best regular season in sports with 120 teams fighting for 8 spots. It keeps more teams alive (but not too many) for a longer time than the current system. IMO, fans will be more crazed than they currently are. It also forces the national champion to play at least 3 of the best teams in the country each and every year. That's lightyears ahead of where we are now. Bottom line, you maintain a great regular season, you get an undisputed NC, and every team (such as the Utah's and Boise's of the world) has a fighting chance. Tell me what's wrong with that, if you can!!!

I agree with your thoughts. Make the regular season and conference championship matter. I would probably keep all 6 BCS conference winners in, if nothing but to help keep down conferences relevant. If not, I worry about a playoff system stacking the deck for big time programs and recruiting. The other benefit, is that with only two at large picks, the remaining teams will have strong arguments for a real NC chance. Going down to 16, the teams that would qualify over the years include big time programs that have fallen with 3-4 losses, and small schools having great years with 2-3 losses. These teams are not really competitors for the NC, and adding as much as a fourth team from one conference (B12 this year) would only make the regular season and conference championship about nothing but seeding. Not for me, as one of the reasons I love CFB is the life and death feeling of every Saturday.

[LAMfan]

One other thought about taking the top 8 without a major selection being conference champ.

About 6-7 years ago, we went into the game ranked number 5, tOSU ranked number two, as I recall. In a great game that defines the quality and significance of the rivalry, we beat them. Players danced at mid-field, roses in teeth, great moment (too few of late).

We come out of the game, ranked 4 with OSU #5. So after that game, we have a do-over? See ya next week?

[tpilews]

I agree with your thoughts. Make the regular season and conference championship matter. I would probably keep all 6 BCS conference winners in, if nothing but to help keep down conferences relevant. If not, I worry about a playoff system stacking the deck for big time programs and recruiting. The other benefit, is that with only two at large picks, the remaining teams will have strong arguments for a real NC chance. Going down to 16, the teams that would qualify over the years include big time programs that have fallen with 3-4 losses, and small schools having great years with 2-3 losses. These teams are not really competitors for the NC, and adding as much as a fourth team from one conference (B12 this year) would only make the regular season and conference championship about nothing but seeding. Not for me, as one of the reasons I love CFB is the life and death feeling of every Saturday.

Go out and read the Wetzel Plan. That is what I think is the best playoff system and has an answer for every dispute. He just published a new 2008 playoff article. (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-playoff120208&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)

Here what it looks like:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c373/tpilews/1228702278.jpg

Looks pretty intriguing to me. As far as small schools with 3-4 losses. It's a possibility because Ball St. blew it in their conference championship. Hence, "the life and death feeling of every Saturday". If they had beat Buffalo, the little guy has a chance in a playoff and doesn't get snubbed by the BS, oops, BCS.

[tpilews]

Going down to 16, the teams that would qualify over the years include big time programs that have fallen with 3-4 losses

I would argue that that is what is so great about a playoff. Imagine UM schedule USC, Texas, and Notre Dame for three of their four non-conference games. UM could potentially lose three games, by very slim margins, win their conference and still have a shot at the title. In the bcs system, they're gone, no chance. Even though UM had lost three games against great competition, they were still one of the best teams in college football, and get a chance to prove that at the end of the season.

College football has turned into this complete mess of beating inferior competition. And the big ten has been a conference that has taken advantage of that. Look at tuos in 2006, 2007. They played mediocre, at best, teams, walked through the big ten into the mnc game, and got blown out by better competition. Had psu beat iowa this year, the same thing would have happened to them.

[nc wolverine]

Go out and read the Wetzel Plan. That is what I think is the best playoff system and has an answer for every dispute. He just published a new 2008 playoff article. (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-playoff120208&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)

Here what it looks like:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c373/tpilews/1228702278.jpg

Looks pretty intriguing to me. As far as small schools with 3-4 losses. It's a possibility because Ball St. blew it in their conference championship. Hence, "the life and death feeling of every Saturday". If they had beat Buffalo, the little guy has a chance in a playoff and doesn't get snubbed by the BS, oops, BCS.


does anyone see an upset in there? primarily in the first round?

[tpilews]

does anyone see an upset in there? primarily in the first round?

boise, or tuos??? There may not be an upset in there right now, but in the future, after there's been a playoff for 5-10 years, I'm sure we'll see some. Once the field in more level.

[nc wolverine]

boise, or tuos??? There may not be an upset in there right now, but in the future, after there's been a playoff for 5-10 years, I'm sure we'll see some. Once the field in more level.

not sure how much of an upset but tcu over utah........ and something is sticking out on that alabama game

[Mich97c]

does anyone see an upset in there? primarily in the first round?

I'll take the 5-12 upset.

[tpilews]

not sure how much of an upset but tcu over utah........ and something is sticking out on that alabama game

The most intriguing part about the playoff is the home game for the higher seed. This obviously becomes a factor in the better matchups of the second round.

[BlueSpread]

A playoff would make more money from the event(s) overall, I'd estimate. But I also think with a playoff less money, at least as a percentage, would go the schools and conferences. Clearly, with more money being made and less of it, at least percentage wise, going to the schools and conferences they want nothing to do with it. The Big 10 seems to be one of the most vociferous opponents of such a scheme, it's the only reason I could surmise they'd be against it.

[pryorthrowslikeagirl]

do you do the game at the higher seeds home field or like the basketball and do it at predetermined neutral fields? (that are prob all in the south or domes)

[1OSUNUT]

Never going to happen. The best we can hope for is a plus one game. I would be happy with that. I also think that the bowls should start sooner. The layoff for some teams is way to long.

[The Michigan Man]

WRONG!


Seriously? No Big Ten / Pac 10 Rose Bowl? And you want the Rose Bowl to be played any time other than New Years Day? That's just f*cking tradition a little too far.

Here's the right way to do it.

Dec 6th (scrap conference champ games, and force others to finish by Nov 29)
#1 vs #8
#2 vs #7
#3 vs #6
#4 vs #5

Then Dec 13th
#1/8 vs #4/5
#2/7 vs #3/6

Then, pick bowls on Dec 14th. Winners go to BCS nat. champ game. Other bowl procede per usual. The 6 playoff teams that lost still get to go to big name bowls (aka, Rose/Sugar/Fiesta/etc). Everybody's happy. Fans have to wait 1 more week to find out what bowl their team is going to, but it'd be worth it.

I never said my time table was etched in stone. The Rose Bowl can be played on Jan 1st, don't have a coronary.

Honestly, the Rose Bowl tradition of Big 10 vs Pac 10 no longer intrigues anybody, and lately, has turned into a "USC has a home game and kicks the sh*t out of the Big 10 team." USC vs. Michigan sucked. USC vs. Illinois sucked. USC vs PSU is going to suck. I'm about great competition on the playing field, not adherence to a tradition that has lost its luster.

In addition, I'm all for letting the conference champions in instead of taking the BCS top 8. At this point, I'm dying for some sort of resolution to the CFB season PLAYED OUT ON THE FIELD, not with AP, not with the coaches, and most certainly not with computers. I've had it with this nonsense!

[LAMfan]

I would argue that that is what is so great about a playoff. Imagine UM schedule USC, Texas, and Notre Dame for three of their four non-conference games. UM could potentially lose three games, by very slim margins, win their conference and still have a shot at the title. In the bcs system, they're gone, no chance. Even though UM had lost three games against great competition, they were still one of the best teams in college football, and get a chance to prove that at the end of the season.

College football has turned into this complete mess of beating inferior competition. And the big ten has been a conference that has taken advantage of that. Look at tuos in 2006, 2007. They played mediocre, at best, teams, walked through the big ten into the mnc game, and got blown out by better competition. Had psu beat iowa this year, the same thing would have happened to them.

I agree with your outcome, but would get there by the automatic bid for winning the conference, or being an at large bid (tough with three losses). I'd love to see more big ooc games. These are being left of to raise the possibility of a BCS NC invitation, but as you point out, often build a paper tiger.

[tpilews]

I agree with your outcome, but would get there by the automatic bid for winning the conference, or being an at large bid (tough with three losses). I'd love to see more big ooc games. These are being left of to raise the possibility of a BCS NC invitation, but as you point out, often build a paper tiger.

That's the great thing about the playoff. College football fans will be spoiled with amazing matchups every weekend. Despite one or two losses out-of-conference, you can still win the title. Even with two, three, four losses, a team could still be considered a top ten team, depending on their competition.

[tpilews]

do you do the game at the higher seeds home field or like the basketball and do it at predetermined neutral fields? (that are prob all in the south or domes)

Best way to do it would be home field advantage for the first two rounds to the higher seed. The semifinal and final can be played on "neutral" turf. I honestly think it should be rotated around the country; from outdoor games in warm weather, to indoor games up north.


But I also think with a playoff less money, at least as a percentage, would go the schools and conferences.

I don't know what conferences/teams make for going to a bowl game, but say UM is ranked pretty high and gets to host two playoff games. Their profit, just from ticket sales of those two games, conservatively estimating, would be $11.2 million. Now, add concessions, parking, local restaurants, merchandise, etc... and your talking about a whole lot of money being brought into AA for two games. I'd argue the host team is making a boat load more than a bowl game. Certainly, there could be some profit sharing with the visiting team/conference.

[gator]

I agreed with just about everything you said, Gator, except I'd like to see a 16 team tourney. I don't think turning a 3 round tourney into a 4 round tourney makes it "so damn long". One extra week. As far as fans getting to the games, home games for the higher seed the first two rounds. That should take care of that.

What else is there? Oh, the utah's and boise's. When you don't include all conferences, you create a separation between levels of play between the conferences. You need to reward those teams that win there conference with a trip to the playoff. Does anyone really think Buffalo would beat Florida in Gainsville? No, of course not, but it keeps it interesting and keeps all of college football on a even playing field.

As far as final exams and not having time for them. Look at college baseball. They play what, 62 games? Then regional, super regional, another round, then college world series. If you've ever watched the college world series, you always hear about teams who took exams the night before their first game, or a few days before. These guys do it no problem. Why would football be any different? Are they dumber? (sarcasm on). If your team is so fortunate to be one of the remaining eight teams during finals week, I'm sure the school can work out something with the professors.

Thanks for the response, good thoughts. I have some additional comments to ease your mind. I personally don't have anything against 16 teams, I'm just thinking in terms of actually getting a playoff. The whole exam thing is a sham, IMO. It's just that I hear the University presidents b!tching up a storm about it to keep the current BS system. I'm really looking for the playoff system with the fewest objections, so they can't keep denying it to us....see where I'm coming from? A three round playoff isn't that strenuous (especially compared to tournaments in other sports), and could possibly be structured around exams without going deep into January (i.e. NFL playoffs).

Secondly, I don't know if we're just not understanding each other, but I agree that small teams need to be included. Your response sounded as though I'm opposed to this, but I may just not be reading it right. I think you open it up to any non-BCS conference winner ranked in say the Top10 or 12. This makes those conferences up their level of play or the true contenders from those conferences at least play some of the big boys to get that ranking.

I also like the premium on winning your conference, but still think you have to be ranked in the Top15. This comes from the simple fact that historically the NC team has rarely come from outside the Top5 after entering bowl season. Personally, I see Texas and Texas Tech as more deserving than Cinncinnati or Virginia Tech this year.

Overall, I see it as making one of two concessions: 1)You pull for the 8 team playoff because it's more likely to get implemented, but have to put restrictions on which conference champs get an autobid (i.e. ranking or number of losses), or 2) You allow all of the conference champs to get in by rooting for the 16 teams system, but you probably never see any playoff system come to fruition.

Finally, we're all probably barking up the wrong tree. Instead of arguing about the playoff format, maybe we should define our talking points about how a playoff could be more profitable than the BCS. I know we're not all about the money, but let's face it, that is the #1 obstacle to us getting a playoff. If we could figure out a way to convince university presidents that this is true, they couldn't convert fast enough. Heck, university presidents would probably come out saying something like, "I really don't understand what's so important about these guys taking exams anyway; they're football players, not doctors.":)

[tpilews]

Thanks for the response, good thoughts. I have some additional comments to ease your mind. I personally don't have anything against 16 teams, I'm just thinking in terms of actually getting a playoff. The whole exam thing is a sham, IMO. It's just that I hear the University presidents b!tching up a storm about it to keep the current BS system. I'm really looking for the playoff system with the fewest objections, so they can't keep denying it to us....see where I'm coming from? A three round playoff isn't that strenuous (especially compared to tournaments in other sports), and could possibly be structured around exams without going deep into January (i.e. NFL playoffs).

Secondly, I don't know if we're just not understanding each other, but I agree that small teams need to be included. Your response sounded as though I'm opposed to this, but I may just not be reading it right. I think you open it up to any non-BCS conference winner ranked in say the Top10 or 12. This makes those conferences up their level of play or the true contenders from those conferences at least play some of the big boys to get that ranking.

I also like the premium on winning your conference, but still think you have to be ranked in the Top15. This comes from the simple fact that historically the NC team has rarely come from outside the Top5 after entering bowl season. Personally, I see Texas and Texas Tech as more deserving than Cinncinnati or Virginia Tech this year.

Overall, I see it as making one of two concessions: 1)You pull for the 8 team playoff because it's more likely to get implemented, but have to put restrictions on which conference champs get an autobid (i.e. ranking or number of losses), or 2) You allow all of the conference champs to get in by rooting for the 16 teams system, but you probably never see any playoff system come to fruition.

Finally, we're all probably barking up the wrong tree. Instead of arguing about the playoff format, maybe we should define our talking points about how a playoff could be more profitable than the BCS. I know we're not all about the money, but let's face it, that is the #1 obstacle to us getting a playoff. If we could figure out a way to convince university presidents that this is true, they couldn't convert fast enough. Heck, university presidents would probably come out saying something like, "I really don't understand what's so important about these guys taking exams anyway; they're football players, not doctors.":)

Haha, I like that last sentence. Yeah, we are both here trying to get something great for the sport. I honestly would be thrilled as hell if ANY form of an eight team playoff came about. I think you are right, part of the problem is that there are 27+ different playoff possibilities that everyone is screaming about. If we had one, unified voice about this, we actually might get heard.

It'd be really tough to come up with any numbers without being close to a program or conference. For the home games, teams can obviously expect revenues above what any regular season game brings in. Aside from that general statement, in order to get the specifics, it would take a bit of digging around. After this week I have a little bit of more free time, I'll see what I can dig up.

I think this is my favorite part of the article that Dan wrote:

The old system was like non-alcoholic beer. The BCS is like near beer – that low-alcohol stuff that gets sold in some locales. Given no other choice people prefer near beer over the non-alcohol stuff. That’s not a compliment to near beer. It’s like saying the BCS has a nice personality.

A playoff is the real thing, real beer in all its varieties. If you think college football is popular now, imagine if it did away with the nonsense. You don’t even have to drink beer to know real beer outsells the other two about a million to one. (You do have to acknowledge the similar addictive elements of alcohol and college football though.)

So forget these clowns patting each other on the back for creating a system better than the worst system ever.

We’re demanding real beer here and like grown-ups will lay out the best postseason system while discrediting the foolish obstructionist counter-arguments. Don’t credit me with the following genius – it’s essentially the exact same playoff system the NCAA uses for all other divisions of football.

I think that last line is the kicker. It'd be easy to point out all the positive aspects of the playoff system in d1-aa, and so on..... His whole plan for a 16-team tournament has been battle tested for the past 30 years. From its inception, there have been tweaks to the system (adding teams, home games....), and it has evolved into what it is now.

[ButlerWolverine]

Color me stupid, but the very reason I hate the NFL is that most of the season doesn't matter....granted, I'm a Cleveland fan so that doesn't help.

I like college football because it's just good, plain old football. Frankly, I could care less if they even named a national champ..as long as we have great football every Saturday in the fall. UM's schedule has frankly started to bore me (ok..this year doesn't count)...I'd much rather see teams scheduling some powerhouse teams from out of conference and losing by a few points, than whooping the tar out of some mid major team and then calling themselves awesome.

I think the perfect scenario would involve a mix of both the BCS as it is now, and a quasi playoff. Take 4 Bowl games, and turn it into an 8 team playoff (#'s 1-8 in the final BCS standings). Play the final 4 on New Year's day (probalby the Rose and Fiesta Bowl)....slide those two games into prime time spots...everyone else gets a noon start..and then of course, the BCS title game. If a Big 10 team doesn't finish in the top 8, tough crap...you just lost the Rose Bowl. The way USC is playing, if we don't finish in the top 8, it's hardly going to matter anyhow.

No system is perfect...but I think an all out playoff WOULD in fact take away from the best sporting event in the country.

[LAMfan]

Color me stupid, but the very reason I hate the NFL is that most of the season doesn't matter....granted, I'm a Cleveland fan so that doesn't help.

I like college football because it's just good, plain old football. Frankly, I could care less if they even named a national champ..as long as we have great football every Saturday in the fall. UM's schedule has frankly started to bore me (ok..this year doesn't count)...I'd much rather see teams scheduling some powerhouse teams from out of conference and losing by a few points, than whooping the tar out of some mid major team and then calling themselves awesome.

I think the perfect scenario would involve a mix of both the BCS as it is now, and a quasi playoff. Take 4 Bowl games, and turn it into an 8 team playoff (#'s 1-8 in the final BCS standings). Play the final 4 on New Year's day (probalby the Rose and Fiesta Bowl)....slide those two games into prime time spots...everyone else gets a noon start..and then of course, the BCS title game. If a Big 10 team doesn't finish in the top 8, tough crap...you just lost the Rose Bowl. The way USC is playing, if we don't finish in the top 8, it's hardly going to matter anyhow.

No system is perfect...but I think an all out playoff WOULD in fact take away from the best sporting event in the country.

I share your thoughts. I don't much care for the regular season of any other sport, especially college basketball. I think advocates of a playoff detail the benefits over the current post season, but fail to acknowledge the degradation of the importance of every Saturday. I think if we get to a playoff, it has to be using the traditional bowls and going from there. I wonder what the plus-one discussion of last year would have been like if it was proposed just as a plus-1 as opposed to how it was proposed as a seeded set of games prior to the NC game. This twist undid the traditional bowl ties.

[tpilews]

I share your thoughts. I don't much care for the regular season of any other sport, especially college basketball. I think advocates of a playoff detail the benefits over the current post season, but fail to acknowledge the degradation of the importance of every Saturday. I think if we get to a playoff, it has to be using the traditional bowls and going from there. I wonder what the plus-one discussion of last year would have been like if it was proposed just as a plus-1 as opposed to how it was proposed as a seeded set of games prior to the NC game. This twist undid the traditional bowl ties.

The thing that I hate about the current system is that each game is so important everyone schedules William & Mary (literally). There needs to be some leeway. Teams will be more likely to schedule tough competition if they still have a chance at a national championship.

I've made this argument three or four times in this thread alone, but you guys still write
"but fail to acknowledge the degradation of the importance of every Saturday.".

[LAMfan]

The thing that I hate about the current system is that each game is so important everyone schedules William & Mary (literally). There needs to be some leeway. Teams will be more likely to schedule tough competition if they still have a chance at a national championship.

I've made this argument three or four times in this thread alone, but you guys still write .

I agree that scheduling has gone to the La Tech (and from out here in LA, they point to the directional Michigan schools). This is the result of the current system and does degrade the match-up quality. But, we still do have M vs ND, OSU vs. Texas or USC. And a playoff would further degrade conference match-up, especially a game like M vs OSU. A 16 team playoff is not the only solution. Rules demanding at least 1 or 2 inter-BCS-conference play would get there.

It is the truth, whether you write 4 more times or not. It is true in every other sport. AND, as I have written here several times, harumph, the great victory by M over Osu that dropped them from 2 to 5, and rose us from 5 to 4, would have been about seeding? I can understand that some will prefer this option, but it is not for me. Win your conference or go home (here that Oklahoma?).

[tpilews]

I agree that scheduling has gone to the La Tech (and from out here in LA, they point to the directional Michigan schools). This is the result of the current system and does degrade the match-up quality. But, we still do have M vs ND, OSU vs. Texas or USC. And a playoff would further degrade conference match-up, especially a game like M vs OSU. A 16 team playoff is not the only solution. Rules demanding at least 1 or 2 inter-BCS-conference play would get there.

It is the truth, whether you write 4 more times or not. It is true in every other sport. AND, as I have written here several times, harumph, the great victory by M over Osu that dropped them from 2 to 5, and rose us from 5 to 4, would have been about seeding? I can understand that some will prefer this option, but it is not for me. Win your conference or go home (here that Oklahoma?).

I think, recently, there have been a couple of matchups per year that are exciting to watch. The only reason teams schedule those games are because the fans demand it.

I don't think there should be a rule demanding inter-bcs play. I look at it this way. You have a playoff, and because of the way the playoff is, a team doesn't have to be worried about losing a game or two, so they schedule some great matchups. Let's say UM schedules a home and home with USC and Texas. Well, you've got all of college football talking about these great matchups. It makes the program more important in the eyes of recruits because they are on espn, primetime. UM signs better classes. The rest of the country realizes the benefit of scheduling tough games, and now everyone is playing great games.

Maybe it's a dream world for me. Maybe it won't ever happen. But, I hope it does.

[LAMfan]

I think, recently, there have been a couple of matchups per year that are exciting to watch. The only reason teams schedule those games are because the fans demand it.

I don't think there should be a rule demanding inter-bcs play. I look at it this way. You have a playoff, and because of the way the playoff is, a team doesn't have to be worried about losing a game or two, so they schedule some great matchups. Let's say UM schedules a home and home with USC and Texas. Well, you've got all of college football talking about these great matchups. It makes the program more important in the eyes of recruits because they are on espn, primetime. UM signs better classes. The rest of the country realizes the benefit of scheduling tough games, and now everyone is playing great games.

Maybe it's a dream world for me. Maybe it won't ever happen. But, I hope it does.

Here is an idea, I know it will never fly, but...

In English soccer, poor teams get relegated out of the premier league. We could do the same with weak conferences, namely, bump them out of BCS selection and open the door to additional non-BCS or top ranked teams that fell short of the conference championship. return to the premier league demands you play, and beat top ranked schools. Let's start by relegating ND to the FBS.