Reforming postseason college football

[Jacie]

Regular season . . . completed.

Conference champions . . . crowned.

Bowl matchups . . . decided.

And still no playoff.

As has happened before, an undefeated team will not have an opportunity to prove it on the field and play for #1. And no matter how many trophies BCS suits hand out, there still won't be an NCAA Division 1 champion in football.

To all of the entities that have a stake in keeping the current system of meaningless bowl games in place, congratulations, you survived another year.

No matter how many fans, coaches, players or even college presidents and athletic directors may want one, there will be no push for a playoff at the collegiate game's highest level . . . at least, not all at once.

How to get a playoff in place? Instead of going for sweeping reform, the aforementioned college presidents and AD's need to take little steps, pushing back here and there against the bowls, forcing them to change first one thing, then another. Forget reform, think . . . evolution.

So, what would be a first step to evolving from the bowl system to a playoff?

How about the presidents and AD's take back some of the power from the bowls in much the same way they did when they broke the NCAA monopoly on the television issue?

They would have to vote on it and be of one mind on this but I think something that is doable would be all schools invited to play in a bowl game should accept only under the condition that the bowl pays all of the teams' expenses associated with travel to and from the host city, lodging, and meals. Forget those (often) lousy goody bags the players receive and make the bowls fork over some serious cash in addition to the guaranteed payout. It is not unusual for schools in lesser bowl games to spend more on getting the team there than they are paid for doing so. The teams are the draw to a game, they determine the ticket sales and how many people are going to watch it on television, not the suits. Taking this one step would cause some bowls to go under, something that happens every year (as well as new ones popping up because yet another marketing genius thinks they had an original thought). What doesn't kill them will make them stronger . . . well, maybe not but at least it would no longer be the university athletic departments that are getting completely screwed.

With fewer bowl games being played, fewer teams having a postseason at all (and those all important three weeks of extra practice time) there will be more pressure on college presidents and AD's to get tough and take a stand on the playoff issue.

This is just one idea but the concept of making a single change, something, anything, that starts tilting the power back to the colleges and away from the multi-headed monster that the bowl system has become, is the way to get on a track towards a playoff.

[tcrb]

The only problem with your concept is that the Presidents and AD's like the current system and dont want to see any changes.

[OklahomaTuba]

How to get a playoff in place? Instead of going for sweeping reform, the aforementioned college presidents and AD's need to take little steps, pushing back here and there against the bowls, forcing them to change first one thing, then another.To be clear, we do have a play-off. A two-team playoff. It should simply be expanded in its current form IMO.

I got a chance to ask David Boren about a real playoff once when he was in Tulsa for a function, he just looked at me, quit smiling for a moment and simply said "it will never happen".

Obviously money isn't the issue. It's control. And the only way to change it is either through legal/government means or a fan revolt of some sort.

And i'm not for either.

[soonerP_A_C]

To be clear, we do have a play-off. A two-team playoff. It should simply be expanded in its current form IMO.

I got a chance to ask David Boren about a real playoff once when he was in Tulsa for a function, he just looked at me, quit smiling for a moment and simply said "it will never happen".

Obviously money isn't the issue. It's control. And the only way to change it is either through legal/government means or a fan revolt of some sort.

And i'm not for either.


Agreed. And the entire fan base would have to lose interest, quit watching and revenue would have to DECREASE before the powers that be even consider the idea. But every year their revenue increases, so, yeah "it'll never happen:....

[agoo758]

I don't support a playoff, I'd rather not go down the slippery slope where 68 teams or whatever are playing for a national title.......like say basketball.

[85sooners]

:cool:

[MeMyself&Me]

I'm not sure that reform of any kind is necessary. College football seems to be doing just fine the way it is.

[Leroy Lizard]

How to get a playoff in place? Instead of going for sweeping reform, the aforementioned college presidents and AD's need to take little steps, pushing back here and there against the bowls, forcing them to change first one thing, then another. Forget reform, think . . . evolution.

First, you have to convince ADs and college presidents that a playoff is needed. Playoff proponents struggle with this part, always falling back on what THEY want, rather than what the ADs and college presidents want.

First rule of persuasion: Cast the argument in the best interests of the audience.

For example, nowhere in the following do you state why it would be in the best interest of the school administrators or NCAA to carry your steps out. Pay the players? Why would the NCAA go for such a thing? (Actually, I think your idea is ludicrous. If anything, the NCAA should start clamping down on the gifts given to athletes.)

As for forcing the bowls to pay the expenses of the participating teams, they already do. It's called a contract where the bowl gives a fistful of money to the participating schools. If the schools don't think the money is worth it, they can decline.

[Scott D]

I don't support a playoff, I'd rather not go down the slippery slope where 92 teams spend over a month in december/january playing for a national title.......like say basketball.

updated for where the hoops tourney will be in the near future thereby ruining what little enjoyment college basketball had.

[Dwight]

Playoffs are not needed. The BCS needs just a few minor tweaks for the system to be near perfect. no sarcasm.

[Leroy Lizard]

For one, I propose a new rule:

"Under no circumstances will BCS rules be modified on account of whiny Texas bitching."

[olevetonahill]

And leroid knows how to argue, He thinks he wins(much like LAS) but in reality hes just a loser :P

[btb916]

The BCS has been kind to Oklahoma. I say we keep it.

[olevetonahill]

Regular season . . . completed.

Conference champions . . . crowned.

Bowl matchups . . . decided.

And still no playoff.

As has happened before, an undefeated team will not have an opportunity to prove it on the field and play for #1. And no matter how many trophies BCS suits hand out, there still won't be an NCAA Division 1 champion in football.

To all of the entities that have a stake in keeping the current system of meaningless bowl games in place, congratulations, you survived another year.

No matter how many fans, coaches, players or even college presidents and athletic directors may want one, there will be no push for a playoff at the collegiate game's highest level . . . at least, not all at once.

How to get a playoff in place? Instead of going for sweeping reform, the aforementioned college presidents and AD's need to take little steps, pushing back here and there against the bowls, forcing them to change first one thing, then another. Forget reform, think . . . evolution.

So, what would be a first step to evolving from the bowl system to a playoff?

How about the presidents and AD's take back some of the power from the bowls in much the same way they did when they broke the NCAA monopoly on the television issue?

They would have to vote on it and be of one mind on this but I think something that is doable would be all schools invited to play in a bowl game should accept only under the condition that the bowl pays all of the teams' expenses associated with travel to and from the host city, lodging, and meals. Forget those (often) lousy goody bags the players receive and make the bowls fork over some serious cash in addition to the guaranteed payout. It is not unusual for schools in lesser bowl games to spend more on getting the team there than they are paid for doing so. The teams are the draw to a game, they determine the ticket sales and how many people are going to watch it on television, not the suits. Taking this one step would cause some bowls to go under, something that happens every year (as well as new ones popping up because yet another marketing genius thinks they had an original thought). What doesn't kill them will make them stronger . . . well, maybe not but at least it would no longer be the university athletic departments that are getting completely screwed.

With fewer bowl games being played, fewer teams having a postseason at all (and those all important three weeks of extra practice time) there will be more pressure on college presidents and AD's to get tough and take a stand on the playoff issue.

This is just one idea but the concept of making a single change, something, anything, that starts tilting the power back to the colleges and away from the multi-headed monster that the bowl system has become, is the way to get on a track towards a playoff.

And we have Round 982 of :rolleyes:
http://jamayer.org/xs/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

[Soonerfan88]

With fewer bowl games being played, fewer teams having a postseason at all (and those all important three weeks of extra practice time) there will be more pressure on college presidents and AD's to get tough and take a stand on the playoff issue.

So you think eliminating bowls and denying some teams extra bowl practice time is going to make them want to go to a playoff that will deny even more teams that extra practice time. FAIL!!!!!

[bigfatjerk]

Less bowl games would make a much better season period. More bowl games basically makes the regular season mean less IMO. Last year OU was 7-5 and went to a Bowl game. That's flat out stupid IMO. And I'm an OU fan. 7-5 teams shouldn't be rewarded. Just like an 8-4 UConn team probably shouldn't be rewarded either.

[cccasooner2]

I'm not sure that reform of any kind is necessary. College football seems to be doing just fine the way it is.

Reform school maybe?

[I Am Right]

Never going to happen, well, maybe never happen, well could happen!

[Leroy Lizard]

Less bowl games would make a much better season period. More bowl games basically makes the regular season mean less IMO.

For some teams, but not for others. For example, if we only had 10 bowl games, the regular season becomes more meaningless to programs like Rice, because they would have little chance of playing in one. So any loss at all pretty much eliminates them from postseason play.

What is the ideal number of bowls? Fewer than we have now, but not much fewer. I would like to see the number of bowls reduced to the point where a team with a non-winning record will likely not receive an invite.

[bigfatjerk]

For some teams, but not for others. For example, if we only had 10 bowl games, the regular season becomes more meaningless to programs like Rice, because they would have little chance of playing in one. So any loss at all pretty much eliminates them from postseason play.

What is the ideal number of bowls? Fewer than we have now, but not much fewer. I would like to see the number of bowls reduced to the point where a team with a non-winning record will likely not receive an invite.

10 is probably too few. 15-20 would be perfect. And that's how many we had till about 20 years ago.

[Leroy Lizard]

10 is probably too few. 15-20 would be perfect. And that's how many we had till about 20 years ago.

Are you talking from the perspective of a fan of a powerhouse football team or mid-major?

[bigfatjerk]

I think 20 would be enough to fit all conference champs which is 11(or is it 12) and 28 or 29 at large teams. And it would take away the 6-6 and most 7-5 teams.

[I Am Right]

I'm not sure that reform of any kind is necessary. College football seems to be doing just fine the way it is.

Agree

[bigfatjerk]

Are you talking from the perspective of a fan of a powerhouse football team or mid-major?
Mid majors are probably always going to be hurt some but that's because their conference is usually weaker. Just like the Big East would be hurt this year or the ACC in past years.

[Okla-homey]

I'm all-in for play-off.

16 team play-off. Give the top four ranked teams a bye in the first round.

It would still all be over by mid-January.

Easy-peasy.

And beleive me, such a scheme would not make the "Pinstripe Bowl," to be played in the Bronx, NY, between Syracuse and KSU, any less relevant. Because diminishing that bowl's relevance would be impossible.

[cccasooner2]

.........And beleive me, such a scheme would not make the "Pinstripe Bowl," to be played in the Bronx, NY, between Syracuse and KSU, any less relevant. Because diminishing that bowl's relevance would be impossible.

LOL, agree.

[Okla-homey]

LOL, agree.

For starters, 70 teams are bowling. 50 are staying home. Those numbers are bass-ackwards. 6-6 for bowl eligibility is just stupid.

[FtwTxSooner]

There are a bunch of organizations (bowls) wanting to pay big money for two .500 teams to play a football game in their city. I don't see how any university president or athletic director would be willing to turn that down, or want the number of opportunities reduced.

[MeMyself&Me]

Yah know, for those that think there's too many bowls...

Just don't watch the bottom half of them. Or whatever number you think appropriate.

Problem fixed!

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm all-in for play-off.

16 team play-off. Give the top four ranked teams a bye in the first round.

It would still all be over by mid-January.

That's too late. We don't want players trying to prepare for a national championship game while trying to complete their first week of school.

Sure, if there was really a compelling reason we really needed to do this. But since college football is already super popular and economically sound, where is this compelling reason?


Easy-peasy.

And beleive me....

Why should we believe you? I certainly don't. I think the Pinstripe Bowl (and most other low-level bowls) are toast once a 16-team playoff begins. Can't prove it, but if I'm right we will never recover what we lost.

[Leroy Lizard]

Mid majors are probably always going to be hurt some but that's because their conference is usually weaker. Just like the Big East would be hurt this year or the ACC in past years.

So we just dismiss their concerns completely? This is a very convenient attitude to have if you just happen to be a fan of a powerhouse.

[Leroy Lizard]

Yah know, for those that think there's too many bowls...

Just don't watch the bottom half of them. Or whatever number you think appropriate.

Problem fixed!

It's amazing how this simple solution gets by people. "Waaaaah, there are too many bowls. Waaah, the Pinstripe Bowl is meaningless!! Oh, when does it come on?"

[slh1234]

It's amazing how this simple solution gets by people. "Waaaaah, there are too many bowls. Waaah, the Pinstripe Bowl is meaningless!! Oh, when does it come on?"

Darn it! It's not about my choice! It's about how everything should be just like I want it to be! You shouldn't have any choice I don't want you to have! Why can't you guys see that? :D

[Leroy Lizard]

Darn it! It's not about my choice! It's about how everything should be just like Lery Lizard wants it to be! You shouldn't have any choice Leroy Lizard doesn't want you to have! Why can't you guys see that? :D

FIFY

[slh1234]

FIFY

And it was so simple! How did I miss that?

[MichiganSooner]

Tweak the BCS just a tiny bit. End the season Thanksgiving weekend; conference champ games included. Take out a bye week or start end of August. Make it work.
First weekend of December, BCS #8 at BCS #1; winner to Rose Bowl & loser to Sugar. BCS#5 at #4; winner to Rose; loser to Sugar. BCS #7 at #2; winner to Orange and loser to Fiesta. BCS #6 at BCS #3; winner to Orange and loser to Fiesta. The rich fans spend a week in Pasadena, Miami, New Orleans, or Phoenix. The average fan goes out for the game.
Next week after these bowls, the winners of Rose and Orange play for national title.

Every other team that qualifies for a bowl goes to a bowl.

The bowl season is intact!! More money has got to be made! The regular season is still the most exciting regular season on earth as all teams are fighting to get into the top 8. As far as winners going to Rose and Orange that is all for example purposes only. As far as higher seeded teams hosting early in Dec, 4 neutral site fields could certainly be found for Saturday games.

[MeMyself&Me]

So you want to shorten the best regular season on the planet?

[Iam4OUru]

Playoffs are not needed. The BCS needs just a few minor tweaks for the system to be near perfect. no sarcasm.

Except for a couple of screw-ups this year, I'm satisfied with the current system. Lord knows it's been good to OU. ;) I would much rather have the previous system.......no system where all the major bowls actually meant something.

[silverwheels]

As far as determining a national champion goes, the BCS is crap. The poll and bowl system in general is crap. But an expanded playoff with the current landscape of college football would have its own problems. I would only like to see a playoff if we could somehow trim down Div. 1-A and equal out the conferences in number and strength and have an objective postseason system. Would never happen, though.

At this point, I would almost rather see no national championship get handed out than continue on with the BCS and the bowls, but I don't have a say in the matter.

[trwxxa]

As for forcing the bowls to pay the expenses of the participating teams, they already do. It's called a contract where the bowl gives a fistful of money to the participating schools. If the schools don't think the money is worth it, they can decline.

I wonder how many schools have this option. Can a school decline the bowl if the conference is tied-in. It seems that the conference leadership has to have the stones to not tie in to the marginal bowls. Makes you wonder if the conferences are getting some financial benefit from the bowl that is likely not being shared with the schools.

Not only does the payout have to cover the teams expenses, but only has to cover the ticket allotment given to each school. If you're in a
750K bowl and have to commit to 10,000 tickets at $50 per ticket, you better figure out how to sell them all.

[MichiganSooner]

So you want to shorten the best regular season on the planet?

Shorten the duration by one week. Same number of games played.

[FtwTxSooner]

I wonder how many schools have this option. Can a school decline the bowl if the conference is tied-in. It seems that the conference leadership has to have the stones to not tie in to the marginal bowls. Makes you wonder if the conferences are getting some financial benefit from the bowl that is likely not being shared with the schools.

Not only does the payout have to cover the teams expenses, but only has to cover the ticket allotment given to each school. If you're in a
750K bowl and have to commit to 10,000 tickets at $50 per ticket, you better figure out how to sell them all.

In the Big 12, both the expenses, and ticket commitment is picked up by the conference, not the school.

[pappy]

Regular season . . . completed.

Conference champions . . . crowned.

Bowl matchups . . . decided.

And still no playoff.

As has happened before, an undefeated team will not have an opportunity to prove it on the field and play for #1. And no matter how many trophies BCS suits hand out, there still won't be an NCAA Division 1 champion in football.

To all of the entities that have a stake in keeping the current system of meaningless bowl games in place, congratulations, you survived another year.

No matter how many fans, coaches, players or even college presidents and athletic directors may want one, there will be no push for a playoff at the collegiate game's highest level . . . at least, not all at once.

How to get a playoff in place? Instead of going for sweeping reform, the aforementioned college presidents and AD's need to take little steps, pushing back here and there against the bowls, forcing them to change first one thing, then another. Forget reform, think . . . evolution.

So, what would be a first step to evolving from the bowl system to a playoff?

How about the presidents and AD's take back some of the power from the bowls in much the same way they did when they broke the NCAA monopoly on the television issue?

They would have to vote on it and be of one mind on this but I think something that is doable would be all schools invited to play in a bowl game should accept only under the condition that the bowl pays all of the teams' expenses associated with travel to and from the host city, lodging, and meals. Forget those (often) lousy goody bags the players receive and make the bowls fork over some serious cash in addition to the guaranteed payout. It is not unusual for schools in lesser bowl games to spend more on getting the team there than they are paid for doing so. The teams are the draw to a game, they determine the ticket sales and how many people are going to watch it on television, not the suits. Taking this one step would cause some bowls to go under, something that happens every year (as well as new ones popping up because yet another marketing genius thinks they had an original thought). What doesn't kill them will make them stronger . . . well, maybe not but at least it would no longer be the university athletic departments that are getting completely screwed.

With fewer bowl games being played, fewer teams having a postseason at all (and those all important three weeks of extra practice time) there will be more pressure on college presidents and AD's to get tough and take a stand on the playoff issue.

This is just one idea but the concept of making a single change, something, anything, that starts tilting the power back to the colleges and away from the multi-headed monster that the bowl system has become, is the way to get on a track towards a playoff.

I'm all for a playoff, but this year their will only be 1 undefeated team at the end of the year and therefore the only deserving team to be crowned national champion...yes I'm saying Wisconsin beats TCU.

[Okie35]

The BCS has been kind to Oklahoma. I say we keep it.

This but it'll suck to have a year we're undefeated and snubbed by teams that have conference championships now.

[Leroy Lizard]

Tweak the BCS just a tiny bit. End the season Thanksgiving weekend; conference champ games included. Take out a bye week or start end of August. Make it work.

News Flash: Make It Work is not a plan. It's a total garbage statement.


First weekend of December, BCS #8 at BCS #1; winner to Rose Bowl & loser to Sugar. BCS#5 at #4; winner to Rose; loser to Sugar. BCS #7 at #2; winner to Orange and loser to Fiesta. BCS #6 at BCS #3; winner to Orange and loser to Fiesta.

This will only make the fans that much angrier, as everyone already complains about the BCS rankings and you now have placed even greater importance on them.

I noticed you dropped off the dates for the final two rounds. When are these games going to be played?

[Leroy Lizard]

I wonder how many schools have this option. Can a school decline the bowl if the conference is tied-in. It seems that the conference leadership has to have the stones to not tie in to the marginal bowls.

They probably tie in because they think the money is worth it. Who is the NCAA to tell them otherwise? The NCAA has no business getting involved in financial deals between the bowls and teams.

[WA. Sooner]

NO Playoff! I would do a plus one but can live with out it. Put the BCS back to how it was in the early 2000. Like the bonus points for beating a top 16 team, strength of schedule went into it, and dodn't let teams or media wine and change it because usc didn't make it and lsu did. Usc had poor schedule.
BCS is only looking out for Number 1 and Number 2 to meet. Break the rest of the bowl ties and let them choose whoever they want from 3 on down

[yermom]

i agree with the BCS formula thing. whenever they made it mostly a percentage of available points from the human polls, we went backward

with the small number of schools that would actually be involved in the playoff version of the post season, why would mid-major schools be up for that? there are plenty of schools out there like Baylor that would then have even less of a chance of going somewhere

too many people get something out of the bowls to just stop having some of them. the schools, the players, the fans, the host city, etc...

just imagine all the extra cash they get for printing bowl shirts

[Leroy Lizard]

too many people get something out of the bowls to just stop having some of them. the schools, the players, the fans, the host city, etc...

This is the part that everyone (except yermom) is missing. The bowls are festive events for the participants. It's more than just the game or the trophy. Bowls like the Pinstripe Bowl offer even the worst teams at least some hope of future success.

[silverwheels]

Well yeah, that's why the bowls were formed, as a vacation at the end if the year. They could still serve that purpose for teams who didn't make it into an expanded playoff.

[Leroy Lizard]

Well yeah, that's why the bowls were formed, as a vacation at the end if the year. They could still serve that purpose for teams who didn't make it into an expanded playoff.

Sure, if they survive.

[Scott D]

In the Big 12, both the expenses, and ticket commitment is picked up by the conference, not the school.

Which is covered by 1 team making a BCS Bowl, and still leaves enough to be distributed to the entire conference.