BCS Coordinator talks about changes..... [Archive]

View Full Version : BCS Coordinator talks about changes.....

SoonerKnight

11/29/2007, 06:20 AM

Forget about a playoff with this guy.............

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/7501032

NEW YORK (AP) - One wild and unpredictable college football season won't cause the Bowl Championship Series to change.

BCS coordinator and Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive was asked during a conference call with reporters Wednesday if the increased parity in college football this season would make some type of major college football playoff more likely in the future.
Slive said that his position hasn't changed since he took over as coordinator after the 2005 season: He's open to change, but an NFL-style playoff with eight or more teams won't happen anytime soon.

As he has said many times before, Slive said he was open to discussions about the BCS going to a plus-one format, which would match the top two teams in the country after the four major bowls are played.

"You know, we are looking at that as a potential option for some modification, but I don't see anything beyond that," Slive said. "And I'm not saying that (plus-one) can't happen, but I'm certainly open-minded and at least from my perspective looking very, very hard drilling down into that concept."

Currently, there are five BCS games and the matchups are set following the regular season, with the top two teams playing in the BCS championship game. Missouri (11-1) and West Virginia (10-1) each need one more victory Saturday to earn a spot in the national title game.

With Hawaii as the only unbeaten team left in major college football, the national title game is assured of having no undefeated team for just the second time. It also happened after the 2003 season, when Oklahoma and LSU played in the Sugar Bowl for the BCS national title and USC won The Associated Press national title by beating Michigan in the Rose Bowl.

If West Virginia and Missouri both lose Saturday, a two-loss team could play in the national title game for the first time.

"Rather than talking about a playoff I'd like to phrase it: Is one and two enough," Slive said. "And I have three concepts that I always say that for me personally are important:

"One is protect the regular season. It might be trite to say there's a playoff every weekend, but there is. Secondly, we value the Bowl system. It gives a lot of student athletes an opportunity to compete for additional championships. And thirdly, there's an academic component. I know there are cynics about that, but there's an academic component, and we are going to keep football as a one-semester sport."

GreenSooner

11/29/2007, 06:24 AM

Slive said that his position hasn't changed since he took over as coordinator after the 2005 season: He's open to change, but an NFL-style playoff with eight or more teams won't happen anytime soon.
Why is it an "NFL-style" playoff, rather than an NCAA-style playoff? I love how the BCS bozos all assume that everyone's too dumb to be aware that every other division in college football (including half of D-I) has a playoff system already.

Of course given the total BS of Slive's "personally important" "three concepts," asking for honesty or coherence from him is clearly expecting too much.

OklahomaTuba

11/29/2007, 09:20 AM

What an asshat. He spews these same dumbass arguments every bowl loving moron throws out there.

"One is protect the regular season. It might be trite to say there's a playoff every weekend, but there is. Secondly, we value the Bowl system. It gives a lot of student athletes an opportunity to compete for additional championships. And thirdly, there's an academic component. I know there are cynics about that, but there's an academic component, and we are going to keep football as a one-semester sport."

#1: A playoff doesn't damage the reg season. It would have the opposite effect by making the reg. season much more meaningful.

#2: Protect the bowls? You have got to be kidding me. Most of the bowls are nothing but corporate boondoggles played in front of half empty stadiums. The major BCS bowls would mean A HELL of a lot more if they actually meant something.

#3: And then there is the academic argument. Well, you sure don't mind moving the championship game back to mid Jan now, do you?? Oh, you don't seem to mind having other sports play over semesters, do you?? Oh, you don't seem to mind allowing MORE football games every year to be scheduled there by taking MORE time away from class, do you???

These people are as corrupt as they come. The whole BCS payola system is nothing but a scam, and it hurts College Football more than we could ever know. How anyone attempts to defend such a corrupt system is beyond comprehension.

TUSooner

11/29/2007, 10:12 AM

On the one hand, his 3 reasons for "no playoff" are full of holes. On the other hand, he's obviously drifting toward a 4-team playoff, which we will see soon. Then, maybe 8 teams.

The other bowls will still be relevant as rewards for non-championship teams, as have been. BTW, I LIKE having a zillion bowl games, otherwise we'd be stuck with nothing but basketball all December. :rolleyes:

sooner_born_1960

11/29/2007, 10:15 AM

If there were a playoff, the NCAA would run it, not the BCS.

Mac94

11/29/2007, 10:21 AM

"One is protect the regular season. It might be trite to say there's a playoff every weekend, but there is.

Great, then limit the teams in a playoff to conferecne champs. It put much more importance on the conference race, making more games meaningful in the regular season in the race to the Championship ... and as for non conferecne games, since less importance will be on OOC play, maybe some schools will grow a pair and schedule decent OOC games instead of division two bi-directional schools.

Secondly, we value the Bowl system. It gives a lot of student athletes an opportunity to compete for additional championships.

Great, keep the bowls. I'll watch my Ags play this year and that game will have zero, zip, zilch, meaning towards the MNC ... just as I'll watch alot of bowls. Those games can go on as always as their status won't change.

And thirdly, there's an academic component. I know there are cynics about that, but there's an academic component, and we are going to keep football as a one-semester sport."

Who said this has to go to February, thats silly. There is more than enough time right now to get this done before the Spring Semester begins. Heck, the MNC game is already being pushed into the 2nd week of January, so with all the free weekends in December and the first weekend in January, it could conclude at the same time as todays MNC game.

Partial Qualifier

11/29/2007, 10:24 AM

What an asshat. He spews these same dumbass arguments every bowl loving moron throws out there.

#1: A playoff doesn't damage the reg season. It would have the opposite effect by making the reg. season much more meaningful.

#2: Protect the bowls? You have got to be kidding me. Most of the bowls are nothing but corporate boondoggles played in front of half empty stadiums. The major BCS bowls would mean A HELL of a lot more if they actually meant something.

#3: And then there is the academic argument. Well, you sure don't mind moving the championship game back to mid Jan now, do you?? Oh, you don't seem to mind having other sports play over semesters, do you?? Oh, you don't seem to mind allowing MORE football games every year to be scheduled there by taking MORE time away from class, do you???

These people are as corrupt as they come. The whole BCS payola system is nothing but a scam, and it hurts College Football more than we could ever know. How anyone attempts to defend such a corrupt system is beyond comprehension.

^^ nailed it. And that "every game is a playoff game" mantra is the biggest bunch of baloney, ever. How can someone keep a straight face when they say that?

I don't think we'll ever see an 8-team playoff and I'm okay with that. Heck, I'd be HAPPY with a +1 solution for now and plans for a top 4 playoff.

hink4769

11/29/2007, 10:27 AM

#1: A playoff doesn't damage the reg season. It would have the opposite effect by making the reg. season much more meaningful. [/FONT]

I'm not sure how thats true. The regular season couldn't get much more meaningful than it is now. Look at basketball. People call Duke-UNC a great rivalry, but what does that game mean more than who gets a #1 or #2 seed? And in the end that doesn't mean very much. If you lose in the college football regular season, you're pretty much done. I agree the BCS is flawed, but I like it better than the basketball playoffs.

OklahomaTuba

11/29/2007, 10:37 AM

I'm not sure how thats true. The regular season couldn't get much more meaningful than it is now. Look at basketball. People call Duke-UNC a great rivalry, but what does that game mean more than who gets a #1 or #2 seed? And in the end that doesn't mean very much. If you lose in the college football regular season, you're pretty much done. I agree the BCS is flawed, but I like it better than the basketball playoffs.
Again, this argument is BS. The Duke-UNC game means a lot, regardless of the playoff system. Oh, and we're not talking about a 64 team playoff here. Just 4,5,8, or 16 at the most.

You cannot tell me that if OU played texass in the cotton bowl, that a playoff would make that game "less important".

Hate to let the cat outta the bag here, but that game means alot either way (recruiting, etc) not to mention taking control of the south division which would allow for a spot in the Big 12 championship game, which could then give way to a berth in the playoff.

Oh, and if we want to maintain our position in the big 12 south to keep the birth in the playoff, we gotta win the rest of our game, just like it is now.

So again, that argument is basically put to bed with a little common sense.

85sooners

11/29/2007, 11:36 AM

playoffs!!!!!!!!!!!

FaninAma

11/29/2007, 11:58 AM

Since the guy works for the BCS I am encouraged that the he had anything to say about positive changes. If you read between the lines it appears that there may be some serious negotiations going on behind closed doors.

I agree with an earlier poster that the only thing holding up a +1 system are the asshat commissioners of the PAC 10 and Big 10.

It is utterly amazing that these 2 conferences are so arrogant that they would gum up the works for the rest of D-1 college football.

BTW, I read a report that the Bg 10 television network did very poorly this year. At some point they and the PAC 10 will cave into the demands of TC revenue and the needed $$$$.

Either that or they can join the Ivy league.

SoonerKnight

11/29/2007, 07:49 PM

Leroy Lizard

11/29/2007, 08:58 PM

If I really felt that college football fans could ultimately be satisfied with a four-team playoff I could maybe support it. But they won't. They won't be satisfied with an eight-team playoff either.

Best buckeye

12/4/2007, 06:50 PM

Let's say:
All the fans want it
All the Players, Coaches and ADs want it
All the TV networks and providers (cable and satellite) want it
All the Bowls want it (??????) (accepting your premise)
All of this means jack-diddly-squat if the College Presidents don't want it. These guys are NOT motivated by money to nearly the extent that many people believe. They are motivated by self-congratulations and little else. The feeling of "keeping football/athletics in its place" gives them the opportunity to congratulate themselves for being intellectually and culturally superior to the masses. Fix that, and you'll get what the consumers want, whatever that is.
To clarify one point I don't know which of the above groups wants or doesn't want a playoff
Suppose that all entities want a playoff except the College Presidents. I feel that it goes deeper than just them but for the sake of arguement we can stick to them.
Besides what you said above about them I also think that it goes back to when the university trustees voted to keep us out of the Rose bowl. Do you remember that? At that time they felt that the university was letting the athletic dept have too much rein and wanted to bring them back. They voted that way in order to reassure that they were the ones in control. Of course we all hated that. Accordingly every president of every university wants to be in control of everything connected to the university and that is their job. So they probably all sat around at some presidents meeting and said "this is how we will exercise control over athletics " and to this day they have.
Now organizing a playoff means restructuring the universities set plans and organization and the amount of money to be made. No president is going to give up one red cent to form a playoff where they lose the revenue from home games.
What do you think?

MamaMia

12/4/2007, 07:17 PM

Anytime some 2 loss team who's last game was against an unranked opponent jumps 5 slots in one week over teams they have never played who won their games, we have a big problem that needs to be addressed.

University presidents are against a play-off system because they feel the student athletes would be playing too many games in the school year, however I have a play-off formula I think may work. :D

Its simple. We require every program to join a conference who want a chance at a national championship title. We include enough teams in each conference to make them each have 12 teams. The criteria would be based upon stadium attendance/fan base. We cut out all the non conference games in the beginning of the season and get right to the business of playing teams in your own conference. Every conference has a conference championship game. The conference winners play each other in the Sugar, Fiesta, Orange and Rose Bowls and however many other places we may need who want, bid and win the right to have a bowl game. Its my belief that the main reason we aren't doing just that right now is because of all the money Tostidos, Nokia, Fed X and the 10 companies who sponsor the Rose Bowl have thats flying in the pockets of the decision makers.

Well?

Ash

12/4/2007, 07:25 PM

I just know that I'll never forget the epic mid season playoff game pitting Kent State against Ohio State. Man that was awesome. I can't believe the anticipation and intensity surrounding that match up. I wouldn't trade that for anything.

And who doesn't remember where they were when Fresno State and New Mexico State battled in their epic playoff game just a couple days ago? Nothing beats the atmosphere of that game. Just ask the four or five people in the stands.

Ash

12/4/2007, 07:27 PM

Also, playing for a #1 or #2 seed in the NCAA tourney doesn't mean anything?

Whoever thinks this needs to do some homework.

mdklatt

12/4/2007, 07:29 PM

The guy who's in charge of the organization that only exists because we don't have a playoff is against a playoff? SHOCKING!

What's next, an oil company CEO who is against higher fuel efficiency standards? :eek:

Mark_of_Tulsa

12/5/2007, 12:16 AM

I think there should be a 4 team playoff. Surly we can get the legit best team in football out of the top 4 teams.
Make it where only teams that have a confrence championship and only the winner can make it to the final 4.
Rotate every year what 2 major bowls get to host the games in the final 4.

But I really think to be in the BCS you have to have a confrence championship. (which means ND needs to join at least the 21 century and join a confrence. )

Crucifax Autumn

12/5/2007, 12:24 AM

Notre Dame will never enter this century. They were stuck in the 1800s for years and this year they vaulted themselves back into the stone age.

toneful

12/5/2007, 12:29 AM

$$$$$$$$$

Crucifax Autumn

12/5/2007, 01:35 AM

So, let's pay this ******* a load of cash to change his tune! lmao

BoonesFarmSooner

12/5/2007, 10:00 AM

Ok.... So we have the SEC Commissioner acting as the BCS coordinator

and

the Miami Athletic Director who is the head of the NCAA Infractions Committee.

Does anyone else not have a problem with this???

fadada1

12/5/2007, 12:24 PM

notre dame can kiss my ***. the fact that nbc still puts them on the air is criminal. everyone always says that it's better because they don't have to share bowl revenues with anyone. well, what exactly are they getting this year??? i'm as pleased as anyone when they fail.

if nd would climb off their high horse... the pope... and join the big10, it would help a little. at least then we'd only have to convince the pac10 to do something similar. drop the big east, imo.

Frozen Sooner

12/5/2007, 01:03 PM

Greg Easterbrook seems to get it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071204&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos1

This year's BCS pairings are controversial, as usual. This year, it seems every single BCS choice has been denounced, which is quite an achievement. Once again, the core complaint is that the football-factory premier bowls might not produce a clear national champion and that they don't even necessarily include the best teams. Here is the key thing to consider about the BCS: the system is not designed to choose a final victor! The BCS is designed to maximize revenue and exposure for the major conferences. And the BCS does that very well, thank you.

It starts with the name. The organization is called the Bowl Championship Series, not the Football Championship Series. The winner of the Ohio State-LSU game will be the champion of the BCS, an artificial five-game theatrical event. Names matter, and based on its name, the BCS does not even pretend to be about choosing college football's best team. The BCS asserts that it is choosing the best possible set of five bowl games -- and usually achieves that goal.

Then think about the name the NCAA increasingly insists be used for Division I-A, the Football Bowl Subdivision. This name has been derided for Orwellian silliness; "Division I-A" is a perfectly fine label. But at least the name Football Bowl Subdivision is honest. It says, "At the football-factory level, we're not even attempting to determine a champion. What we're attempting to do is stage bowls that make money." Division I-AA is now officially the Football Championship Subdivision. At the Division I-AA level, there are playoffs and a champion is crowned; the new formal name reflects that. At the Division I-A level, the NCAA and BCS (technically separate, but in effect operating jointly) put it right on the table: selling bowls, not crowning a champion, is the goal.

TMQ Cheat Sheet
Gregg Easterbrook on ...

• Stats of the week
• Cheerleader of the week
• Monday night analysis
• Sweet/sour plays of the week
• In hell's sports bar ...
• End the force-out rule
• TMQ's Christmas list
• Stats we can live without
• Best block
• Major college news

Before we dive into BCS arcana, let's ask -- is it so bad that Division I-A is about bowls? Bowl games are a lot of fun and have pleasingly goofy traditions. The fact that sites and dates are determined years in advance makes it practical for people to schedule vacations around bowl trips. Some NFL playoff games don't sell out because the dates and sites are not determined until a week before kickoff, too little time for many potential spectators to make arrangements.

Suppose the top 16 bowls were abolished and replaced with a 16-team Division I-A postseason field building up to a true championship game around New Year's Day, with seedings done strictly by BCS ranking numbers. The first-round games would be this weekend. No. 16, Tennessee, would play No. 1, Ohio State, at -- where? No. 15, Clemson, would play No. 2, LSU, at -- where? The first-round games in such a postseason bracket might be letdowns -- especially in terms of crowds, if, say, LSU versus Clemson were played in Tempe, Ariz., to compensate organizers for the loss of the Insight Bowl. Stadium arrangements and hotel logistics aren't an issue for Division I-AA, where 20,000 people in attendance makes the gate a success. Sure, if a bracket-format Division I-A postseason were launched, we'd adjust. But there would be a lot of nostalgia for the bowls, with their years-in-advance scheduling that solves so many logistical problems.

The fact that the bowl format solves those logistical problems, which don't exist for any college sport other than big-deal football, might be why bowls evolved in the first place. Pundits constantly protest that all college sports except Division I-A football build up to a true championship. All college sports except Division I-A football have manageable logistics!

To keep the natural selection metaphor, bowls evolved to fill an environmental niche. They solve the late-season logistics problem. Since bowls are synthetic proceedings in which conference rules don't apply, you can stage as many as you want. Currently there are 32 Division I-A bowls, which means that annually 64 big-boy teams get to participate in a season-ending game that confers a title -- the Meineke Car Care Bowl 2007 champion! -- and is shrouded in hoopla. That means basically half of Division I-A advances to a season-ending hoopla event, with one-quarter of Division I-A seasons ending with a huge-hoopla victory. In the NFL, two-thirds of the teams do not advance to any postseason event and just one team ends its season with a huge victory. Thus the bowl system spreads the razzle-dazzle around to a large number of teams, and allows large numbers to say their seasons yielded a final triumph. That's the college spirit!

Along these lines, football-factory schools may not necessarily mind that no true champion is crowned. Under the BCS and the previous dueling-polls system, two or three colleges may assert a plausible claim to the crown. It's easy to imagine a scenario in which this season ends with four teams (the winners of the BCS, Orange, Rose and Fiesta bowls) all claiming to be the national champion. The more the merrier! With a playoff format, only one college team can end the year calling itself the best.

Still keeping with the natural-selection metaphor, remember that the BCS evolved to prevent destructive forms of competition. Before the BCS, which began in 1998, and the somewhat similar Bowl Alliance that existed a few years before, every bowl committee was in it for itself -- each trying to render all the others extinct, just like micro-organisms at the dawn of time. Bowl committees often jumped the gun by inviting teams in mid-November or even early November. If you think the BCS-generated matchups this year leave something to be desired, you've forgotten that before the Bowl Alliance and the BCS, college football fans hated bowl pairings. Many years, there was no bowl that paired two top-five teams, and lopsided walkover outcomes were the bowl norm. Are the best teams this season Ohio State and LSU? I don't have the foggiest notion. But certainly those are two elite teams and they're likely to play a monster game. Is Virginia Tech versus Kansas the second-best pairing? No one knows. But they are both fine teams and likely to play an exciting game. With the old system, Ohio State might be playing Arkansas and LSU might be playing Florida State. (I am picking disappointing pairings at random, which is pretty much how the old system worked.) The BCS system might not produce a clear champion -- it's not designed to! -- but its track record of producing attractive pairings is quite good. And attractive pairings maximize revenue and exposure.

Let's think about the money for a moment, then end by lamenting This Year's BCS Foul-Up: namely, Missouri finishing sixth yet getting shut out. The BCS system has proved highly attractive to the football-factory schools because it operates on a socialized premise, replicating the socialized revenue sharing that makes the NFL so strong financially. In the NFL, television revenue, the primary source of income, is simply divided 32 ways -- each year, the worst team receives exactly as much television money as the best team. In the BCS format, the bulk of the money is divided equally among conference teams, the worst team of the year receiving as much as the bowl-bound teams.

StoopTroup

12/5/2007, 01:08 PM

Let's just straighten the whole mess out and only let undefeated Teams play in the BCS Bowls.

OHOH....Hawaii just won the National Championship!

:D

Stoop Dawg

12/5/2007, 02:31 PM

Suppose the top 16 bowls were abolished and replaced with a 16-team Division I-A postseason field building up to a true championship game around New Year's Day, with seedings done strictly by BCS ranking numbers. The first-round games would be this weekend. No. 16, Tennessee, would play No. 1, Ohio State, at -- where? No. 15, Clemson, would play No. 2, LSU, at -- where? The first-round games in such a postseason bracket might be letdowns -- especially in terms of crowds, if, say, LSU versus Clemson were played in Tempe, Ariz., to compensate organizers for the loss of the Insight Bowl. Stadium arrangements and hotel logistics aren't an issue for Division I-AA, where 20,000 people in attendance makes the gate a success. Sure, if a bracket-format Division I-A postseason were launched, we'd adjust. But there would be a lot of nostalgia for the bowls, with their years-in-advance scheduling that solves so many logistical problems.

First off, you would only drop 8 bowl games if you had a 16 team playoff. Secondly, the few people lobbying for a 16 team playoff would put first-round games at the higher-seed's home field. Logisitics = solved.

But there would be a lot of nostalgia for the bowls, with their years-in-advance scheduling that solves so many logistical problems.

Years-in-advance scheduling? Where is OU playing for the next 3 years? I'd like to go ahead and schedule my trips. TIA.

There are bowls being played in a couple of weeks that just announced participants last week. That's not "years-in-advance", that's "weeks-in-advance". I'm not sure why this guy thinks that the current system gives everyone soooo much time to schedule trips.

The fact that the bowl format solves those logistical problems, which don't exist for any college sport other than big-deal football, might be why bowls evolved in the first place. Pundits constantly protest that all college sports except Division I-A football build up to a true championship. All college sports except Division I-A football have manageable logistics!

That must be why OKC lobbies so hard for NCAA regionals. Because no one shows up for them.

I obviously can't guarantee that neutral site playoff games would be a resounding success. And this guy can't guarantee that they wouldn't.

Ash

12/5/2007, 02:33 PM

Logistics would be a potential problem but in terms of fans getting to see a game.

80,000 people pay to see the Sooners at home, other big name teams draw even more. At any one bowl game, how many tickets are available to each fan base, 20,000 or less? How is it that some of all of those ticket payers can't make it to at least one of the playoff games unless they couldn't afford to travel in the first place which means they were priced out of a traditional bowl to begin with? It actually would open up the opportunity for MORE people to go if your team advances. Besides, with a plus one or even eight team system your talking about maybe one or maybe two more games to go see.

The actual locations would be more of a sticking point, IMO, than generating enough people to buy tickets.

As far as everyone always being disappointed no matter the system, yeah some people will always complain. But who wouldn't be pumped to have at least a plus one with match ups like OU vs. tOSU in the first round. LSU-Va Tech would be less interesting because LSU pwned them this year already but I bet those kinds of match-ups would actually generate more interest than bowls because more casual fans without rooting interests would be drawn to big time match ups like that where something was actually on the line.

Stoop Dawg

12/5/2007, 02:36 PM

If I really felt that college football fans could ultimately be satisfied with a four-team playoff I could maybe support it. But they won't. They won't be satisfied with an eight-team playoff either.

You should use your ability to read the future opinions of millions of people for something other than college football analysis. I imagine Microsoft would pay quite well to know how people are going to react to their next OS upgrade.

And I'd give you a raise to $10/hr if I thought it would satisify you. But it won't, so I'm gonna keep paying you $8/hr.

Frozen Sooner

12/5/2007, 02:37 PM

That must be why OKC lobbies so hard for NCAA regionals.

I was unaware that Oklahoma City had ever hosted a football NCAA regional.

Basketball's logistics are much more manageable than football. Smaller venues plus four teams playing three games instead of two playing one is a better value for the consumer and allows ticket sales to draw from four fan bases. The NCAA also makes sure that top seeds get to be in regional sites close to their home.

Frozen Sooner

12/5/2007, 02:39 PM

Stoop Dawg

12/5/2007, 02:45 PM

I was unaware that Oklahoma City had ever hosted a football NCAA regional.

:rolleyes:

Basketball's logistics are much more manageable than football. Smaller venues plus four teams playing three games instead of two playing one is a better value for the consumer and allows ticket sales to draw from four fan bases. The NCAA also makes sure that top seeds get to be in regional sites close to their home.

Football has fewer games, but they are more popular and well-attended. I'm not sure that you or I are qualified to say what is a "better value for the consumer". I was offered 2 tix to OU bball game tonight for free. I declined. I was offered 2 free tix to the Final Four last year. I declined. However, I'm going to pay over $2K to fly out to AZ and watch my Sooners play a football game.

Stoop Dawg

12/5/2007, 02:48 PM

Ash

12/5/2007, 02:51 PM

Which one do you go to?

Do you go to the first round game and spend your travel budget and miss the national championship?

Do you go to the national championship and run the risk that your team won't be there?

I don't think it's that tough of a question. I think people are smart enough to figure these things out on their own and I'm sure the reasoning would be different for everyone. There's not one reason that people decide to go or not go to bowls right now.

Also, there could be many things that could be done to make the logistics more manageable. Once again, I think people are smart enough to figure these things out. It's not like there's only one possible way to try and make it work.

Ash

12/5/2007, 04:11 PM

Take this year for example. although there are many other ways to do it, let's just say that the bowls were in place like they are with the champeenship where it is. And it's not a true playoff but a plus one, like was hinted at in the article.

We'd likely face tOSU for the right to go to the champ game which is in NOLA. LSU would face VA Tech who they destroyed earlier in the year. Granted, things are somewhat different now but LSU would be the favorite to win that one in most people's opinions.

Based on conversations and posts on this board, I'd bet there would be just as many (maybe more) people that would want to see OU tOSU, even though it's a first rounder, than if OU played LSU again in NOLA. But of course the demand for tix to the champeenship would be high because it's the champeenship and some of us either didn't learn our lesson the first time :D or didn't get to go.

Just another thought. There are ways to get it done. If it doesn't happen ever, oh well. But it's not impossible.

Frozen Sooner

12/5/2007, 05:25 PM

No, I don't think it's impossible to get it done, but I DO think that the logistics argument gets ignored quite a bit.

Personally, if they decide to go to a playoff, it's going to 1) have to come from the NCAA and 2) be separate from the bowls. Much like the NCAA basketball tournament and the NIT were separate events, the NCAA football tourney and the Bowls would be separate events-and the bowls would eventually devolve to second-tier status, much like the NIT did. Schools could choose to compete in one or the other, but not both.

If you do have a playoff, to me the only really feasible way of doing it is by playing the games on the home field of the higher-seeded teams with a predetermined national championship site, much like the Super Bowl.

While I think it would be tough to get, say, 40,000 OU fans out to Phoenix one week and Miami the next, I don't think it would be tough at all to get 80,000 OU fans to Norman for two consecutive weeks in December. The diehard fans of the other team could certainly make the trek to the host stadium just as they could follow the team from site to site if they wanted to.

I don't personally think it's a GREAT solution to have, say, Florida State having to travel to Lincoln for a playoff game in December, I don't think it's so horrible that it doesn't have any place in football. Plus, hey, there should be SOME advantage to having a better seed than the team you're playing, right?

How you do the seeding would be under a lot of scrutiny, of course. I guess you could just take some variation of the BCS forumula and use it for seeding the tournament.

HopeSpringsEternal

12/5/2007, 06:04 PM

This is the kind of thing that happens when you get a group of incompetent old men, incapable of creative thinking and horrified of change, together and put them in charge of something. Mediocrity accompanied by bureaucracy, meant to protect them from having to actually work or think. This is a fantastic set-up.

Stoop Dawg

12/5/2007, 07:21 PM

While I think it would be tough to get, say, 40,000 OU fans out to Phoenix one week and Miami the next

Out of curiosity, what makes you think that?

Frozen Sooner

12/5/2007, 07:39 PM

Out of curiosity, what makes you think that?

Well, speaking anecdotally only, of course, I can tell you that the Fiesta Bowl last year wasn't anywhere near capacity. I know that OU sold out their ticket allotment, but that stadium wasn't anywhere near close to full. People were even selling tickets to the national championship game for face the week of the game as I recall. Now take the people who DID come out to Phoenix for the game and make them turn around and travel to Miami on a week's notice? That's really a lot to expect, even from all of us millionaires who post here.

I've heard several people tell me on any bowl trip that it's usually easy to score tickets right outside the venue-which leads me to believe that fans of both teams aren't exactly snapping up tickets when it's just one game to begin with.

From the standpoint of getting a capacity crowd, there has to be a better chance it's going to happen when all the games are close to one team's home base.

TUSooner

12/5/2007, 07:54 PM

Forget the fans in the seats. The TV networks will provide all the money needed.

I'm not saying that's real good, just that the $$$ will come from TV, like the NFL's does

jrsooner

12/5/2007, 08:05 PM

Greg Easterbrook seems to get it.
This year's BCS pairings are controversial, as usual. This year, it seems every single BCS choice has been denounced, which is quite an achievement. Once again, the core complaint is that the football-factory premier bowls might not produce a clear national champion and that they don't even necessarily include the best teams.Personally, I hate the idea of a playoff system. Someone always will be left out.

What I have to laugh at is that both the AP and the Coach's poll have LSU and tosu as #1 and #2 teams and they are still complaining! The top two teams from both polls are playing each other, so what is their problem? Most likely trying to make another news story.

TUSooner

12/5/2007, 09:10 PM

Confession:
My only true gripe is that I rejoiced over 2 LSU losses, and they DIDN'T EVEN MATTER. :mad:
:D

Frozen Sooner

12/5/2007, 09:16 PM

TU-

You may forget the fans in the seats, and the networks may still provide cash to the bowls, but the host cities sure as heck care about them.

ANYHOW, grudgingly, I'm coming to accept the idea of a college football playoff. I've never really been behind one simply because I've never thought college football needed "fixing." I like the product they're selling me right now, and I'm loathe to tinker with success. That being said, though, I guess I would like to see some meaningful games being played this week, next week, the week after. The only way I can see it really happening, though, is if the NCAA sponsors a tournament and leaves the bowls completely out of it-I don't see any way in hell the bowl committees are going to go for it.

Don't like playing at the 'Shoe in late December? Win more games, bunky.

jrsooner

12/5/2007, 10:01 PM

A plus one would be great you could have #1and #3 play then #2 and #4 play then put the two that win in the Championship.Wimpy!!!! Let the top team play the bottom team? Wimpy...why give anyone an easy shot - make them all play each other. This way only 4 school fan bases need to participate for a month.

Let's just say... 4 weekends.
1st weekend: 1vs2, 3vs4
2nd weekend: 1vs3, 2vs4
3rd weekend: 1vs4, 2vs3
4th weekend: the top two teams from the round robin have to play each other.

Heck... why not just do it in 1 week in one location. Save the Alumni some money, and they just have to burn a vacation week.
Saturday: 1vs2
Sunday: 3vs4
Monday: 1vs3
Tuesday: 2vs4
Wednesday: 1vs4
Thursday: 2vs3
Friday: Media Day
Saturday: the top two teams from the round robin have to play each other.

After that hell week, we'd definately know which team was the best in playing, adjusting, and endurance. :)

Leroy Lizard

12/5/2007, 10:55 PM

Sounds like a reality show.

jkjsooner

12/6/2007, 12:10 AM

I'm not sure how thats true. The regular season couldn't get much more meaningful than it is now. Look at basketball. People call Duke-UNC a great rivalry, but what does that game mean more than who gets a #1 or #2 seed? And in the end that doesn't mean very much. If you lose in the college football regular season, you're pretty much done. I agree the BCS is flawed, but I like it better than the basketball playoffs.

90% of the teams are out of the national title race after a few games. That is if they were ever in it to begin with - see Auburn, Boise St., or Hawaii.

With a small playoff - say 8 teams - you would still have to win all but 1 or 2 games so that each game remains very important. Furthermore, more teams will be in the hunt for longer into the season. That would raise the stakes for a lot more teams and make more games meaningful toward the end of the season.

jkjsooner

12/6/2007, 12:18 AM

If I really felt that college football fans could ultimately be satisfied with a four-team playoff I could maybe support it. But they won't. They won't be satisfied with an eight-team playoff either.

We're not entirely satisfied with a 64/65 team basketball tourney either but it's sure as heck a lot better than trying to guess the top 2 teams.

As you add 4 or 8 teams the merit of the arguments really go down a lot.

I'd be less upset if OU had 2 or 3 losses and didn't make an eight team playoff than if they had 0 or 1 loss and didn't get selected to be one of the lucky two in the current system.

jkjsooner

12/6/2007, 12:23 AM

On the one hand, his 3 reasons for "no playoff" are full of holes. On the other hand, he's obviously drifting toward a 4-team playoff, which we will see soon.

Unfortunately, he's not even close to a 4 team playoff. He wants to play the bowls as they are today and then play a plus one game. That would mean LSU in the Sugar, OSU in the Rose, USC in the Rose, etc. We could easily only eliminate USC or OSU and we're still in a sticky situation. Not to mention the fact that someone could possibly lose the bowl game and still make the title game....

This is nowhere close to a four team playoff unless they pick the top 4 and match them up in two games in the first round.

jkjsooner

12/6/2007, 12:37 AM

The only way I can see it really happening, though, is if the NCAA sponsors a tournament and leaves the bowls completely out of it-I don't see any way in hell the bowl committees are going to go for it.

Why do we care what they think? Maybe we have some contractual obligation for a few years but after that the NCAA owes the bowls nothing.

KingDavid

12/6/2007, 12:50 AM

Confession:
My only true gripe is that I rejoiced over 2 LSU losses, and they DIDN'T EVEN MATTER. :mad:
:D

I feel that same hollow feeling myself. As if some precious memory has been stripped from my recollection. I long to feel the joy of their implosion again.

As long as we're in confession mode:

The strangest feeling for me this year was right after our loss to Tech. There I was feeling sorry for myself and the whole Sooner Nation, and then I had this strong sense of remorse about the feelings I had when Dennis Dixon went down & Oregon lost to Mike & Co.

Fortunately, I was able overcome my guilt by going to youtube and finding a few clips of the onside kick. This was more than adequate to bury those weary feelings under some fresh layers of spite, anger, and bitterness. Yep, that really did the trick.

Frozen Sooner

12/6/2007, 02:44 AM

Why do we care what they think? Maybe we have some contractual obligation for a few years but after that the NCAA owes the bowls nothing.

1. Because many people seem to think that the BCS is going to magically transform into a playoff-type system. The BCS exists to keep the bowls around-and the bowls aren't going to go for a playoff system for reasons stated above.

2. You're right-after a few years the NCAA owes the bowls nothing. Which is why they'd be able to say "OK, we're holding a tournament. You can either play in a bowl or be in the tournament." Let the market and the schools decide what they want.

Crucifax Autumn

12/6/2007, 03:05 AM

The plus one could be very realistic, though a plus 2 would be better. Plus one would at least allow for 2 of 4 winners to play head to head to determine #1 and 2 decisively and they could actually do a 3 and 4 game early the same day to determine #3 and 4 decisively. And this wouldn't require any more weeks than currently.

A plus 2 with a 4 team playoff after the BCS bowls would still add only one week to the current system while solidly determining a #1. Of course, we'd again have to include an early game on the championship game day with the losers of the first playoff games playing for #3 and 4.

Either way, the system could be set up to automatically determine 1-4 on the field after initially narrowing the field to 8 for the BCS bowls. The AP can kiss my *** and continue to not count, and the Harris and BCS formula could be used to rate #5 and lower, with a strict rule that the votes can only go for teams that didn't make the BCS and the top point team in that poll/formula would be #5.

This would keep the tradition going for bowls, cause the teams to have one last chance to jump as high as #5, make all 4 BCS bowls very important and popular, and crown a champion we can all agree on while not dissing teams that did well enough to win BCS bowls by guaranteeing that all 4 winners would be top 4 teams. I also go under the assumption that we'd have to go with only the top 8 BCS teams going to the BCS bowls, which would keep the regular season "every game is a playoff" theory true. 9-12 would bitch like crazy about how they should be #8, but screw 'em...lose less than 2-3 games!

Of course, we'd need more realistic computer rankings and some tweaks to the coach and Harris polls, but it would be a start.

jrsooner

12/6/2007, 09:02 AM