Because I think it's a necessary argument to have

[IndySooner]

Here's an interesting article on the potential for a playoff system. The mastermind behind the BCS now says that it's time for a playoff, and explains how it's possible. He also says something I've been saying a lot, that the biggest mistake was putting the presidents in charge because they don't have the information they need to make the right decisions.

Cue the resident playoff bashers in 3....2....1....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/01/AR2011010100149_2.html

[SoonerLB]

BRAVO! It's beyond time to determine a champion on the field instead of a computer. Time for common sense to prevail!
Screw the bowls, they will take what is given to them and be happy with it or do without. I know I'm about fed up with meaningless bowl games that basically mean nothing and exist only for the purpose of generating $$ for who knows who or what.
And on a humorous level, wouldn't it be funny to watch the college presidents and bowl committee members be held to the same standards players and coaches are? I can almost picture them squirming, LOL! ;)

[Aldebaran]

Fact: People who clamor for a playoff hate America.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Don't want a playoff but whatever...I don't think there is a new argument out there either way

[SpankyNek]

Fact: People who clamor for a playoff hate America.

Remember when people said this about letting women and minorities vote?

[EatLeadCommie]

4 or 8 team playoff is fine. 16 is too damn many.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Remember when people said this about letting women and minorities vote?

I don't know how old the poster is, but I would guess no, aldebaran doesn't remember.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I think a +1 would be great...thats about all I would like

[RedstickSooner]

I'll never understand why anyone would think that one of this nation's top-3 most successful sports would *ever* be interested in making a massive, fundamental change to how it operates.

College football attendance is booming, and for schools, home game attendance and interest trumps *everything* -- even national titles. You can't compare a 10 million payout for a post-season game with the effect on school donations & alumni support which comes from those alumni fighting to be on campus for as many home games as they can possibly manage.

When you're OU, a game in Miami doesn't get former students thinking nostalgically about their time at the university, or opening their pocketbooks to donate to the latest campus improvement drive.

And that's just one aspect. On top of all that, *all* the projections about what a playoff would do to revenue for college football are guesses. Educated guesses, sure, but we don't have any real figures to work from. Because we've never switched big time college football from a bowl system to a pure playoff system. So nobody *really* knows how the numbers will actually play out over the course of the entire season. Obviously, a playoff maximizes post-season revenue. But until we switch, we have no idea what a playoff would do to regular-season revenue.

...and when, as I've mentioned, you're talking about a sport at the apex of popularity, which rakes in billions, what makes you pro-playoff folks continuously think that the folks running that sport have *any* incentive to change the system? Changing the system when it's this successful would be the very height of gross negligence. It'd be like having a left-handed pitcher in the major league who was one of the 3 best pitchers in all of baseball, and hearing "experts" constantly crow that they were absolutely, 100% certain that doing anything other than switching him to a righty was retarded and an affront to baseball. If he's already pitching as well as anyone in the game, why would his manager ever countenance the idea of trying to make him change?

[IndySooner]

I'll never understand why anyone would think that one of this nation's top-3 most successful sports would *ever* be interested in making a massive, fundamental change to how it operates.

College football attendance is booming, and for schools, home game attendance and interest trumps *everything* -- even national titles. You can't compare a 10 million payout for a post-season game with the effect on school donations & alumni support which comes from those alumni fighting to be on campus for as many home games as they can possibly manage.

When you're OU, a game in Miami doesn't get former students thinking nostalgically about their time at the university, or opening their pocketbooks to donate to the latest campus improvement drive.

And that's just one aspect. On top of all that, *all* the projections about what a playoff would do to revenue for college football are guesses. Educated guesses, sure, but we don't have any real figures to work from. Because we've never switched big time college football from a bowl system to a pure playoff system. So nobody *really* knows how the numbers will actually play out over the course of the entire season. Obviously, a playoff maximizes post-season revenue. But until we switch, we have no idea what a playoff would do to regular-season revenue.

...and when, as I've mentioned, you're talking about a sport at the apex of popularity, which rakes in billions, what makes you pro-playoff folks continuously think that the folks running that sport have *any* incentive to change the system? Changing the system when it's this successful would be the very height of gross negligence. It'd be like having a left-handed pitcher in the major league who was one of the 3 best pitchers in all of baseball, and hearing "experts" constantly crow that they were absolutely, 100% certain that doing anything other than switching him to a righty was retarded and an affront to baseball. If he's already pitching as well as anyone in the game, why would his manager ever countenance the idea of trying to make him change?

The postseason is IRRELEVANT. And if you want a reason for change, Virginia Tech and UConn are LOSING money this year going to BCS bowl games. They system is broken. College football is not at it's apex, it's past its apex. TV ratings are down this year. Bowl game attendance is WAY down.

As for the donors, etc., and the effect on them, how would an extra home game or two help them enjoy the season?

I'm more and more convinced that a playoff is coming. TCU beating Wisconsin certainly didn't hurt the cause.

[delhalew]

That is about the kind of plan I would favor. It wouldn't hurt my feelers.

[Aldebaran]

Remember when people said this about letting women and minorities vote?


Is that an argument for a playoff?

[bigfatjerk]

TV ratings are down because the games are being shown on ESPN. I have a feeling that this won't last past the contract that they agreed to for these bowls. It'll be back to being on one of the basic networks like Fox or ABC pretty soon.

To me why not fix the bowl system to make the post season we have right now much more important. The Bowl System is starting to destroy the regular season in college football to where it means almost nothing if you are a major conference team. 75% of the Big 12 was in a bowl this year. That's flat out stupid.

Cut the number of bowl games to around 20. Only have the top BCS game in January. Fix the current system before even thinking about a playoff.

[IndySooner]

Regular season ratings are down, too. The "best regular season in sports" is losing popularity. Too many games mean nothing.

[SpankyNek]

I'll never understand why anyone would think that one of this nation's top-3 most successful sports would *ever* be interested in making a massive, fundamental change to how it operates.
We do not wish to see a fundamental change in operations...merely a change to the exhibition games that are the postseason.




College football attendance is booming, and for schools, home game attendance and interest trumps *everything* -- even national titles. You can't compare a 10 million payout for a post-season game with the effect on school donations & alumni support which comes from those alumni fighting to be on campus for as many home games as they can possibly manage.

When you're OU, a game in Miami doesn't get former students thinking nostalgically about their time at the university, or opening their pocketbooks to donate to the latest campus improvement drive.

If you somehow don't believe that a little game in Miami in January 2001 boosted revenues, you are mistaken.




And that's just one aspect. On top of all that, *all* the projections about what a playoff would do to revenue for college football are guesses. Educated guesses, sure, but we don't have any real figures to work from. Because we've never switched big time college football from a bowl system to a pure playoff system. So nobody *really* knows how the numbers will actually play out over the course of the entire season. Obviously, a playoff maximizes post-season revenue. But until we switch, we have no idea what a playoff would do to regular-season revenue.

This is how the world of modern college football operates, every conference that will re-align (Probably all of them in the next few years) have already, or will, use projections to determine payouts to their members for signing on the dotted line.



...and when, as I've mentioned, you're talking about a sport at the apex of popularity, which rakes in billions, what makes you pro-playoff folks continuously think that the folks running that sport have *any* incentive to change the system? Changing the system when it's this successful would be the very height of gross negligence. It'd be like having a left-handed pitcher in the major league who was one of the 3 best pitchers in all of baseball, and hearing "experts" constantly crow that they were absolutely, 100% certain that doing anything other than switching him to a righty was retarded and an affront to baseball. If he's already pitching as well as anyone in the game, why would his manager ever countenance the idea of trying to make him change?Because twice as many Billions is always preferable.

And to switch to the baseball analogy, where were you when someone told Lance Berkman he should be a switch hitter?

[Aldebaran]

The fact that we don't have a playoff, demonstrates the anticompetition underpinnings of our capitalist construct and it therefor perfectly mirrors what is best about America. Playoffs will spread the wealth around. And socialism is bad.

[rekamrettuB]

TV ratings are down because the games are being shown on ESPN. I have a feeling that this won't last past the contract that they agreed to for these bowls. It'll be back to being on one of the basic networks like Fox or ABC pretty soon.

To me why not fix the bowl system to make the post season we have right now much more important. The Bowl System is starting to destroy the regular season in college football to where it means almost nothing if you are a major conference team. 75% of the Big 12 was in a bowl this year. That's flat out stupid.

Cut the number of bowl games to around 20. Only have the top BCS game in January. Fix the current system before even thinking about a playoff.

Good luck getting it done but this is what I really, really want to see before a playoff. 70 teams out of 124 (?) made bowl games this year. Of course our rivals down south would like that to be increased to about 90 out of 124. :D

I would like a small playoff of 4, no more than 8, but it would undoubtedly go the way of March Madness which is now at 68 teams.

[1890MilesToNorman]

I'm pro playoff, have been for a long time.

[RedstickSooner]

And to switch to the baseball analogy, where were you when someone told Lance Berkman he should be a switch hitter?

Probably watching football, or football re-runs, or football discussions somewhere :D

If home game attendance and TV ratings begins to drop every year, then I could see a playoff being adopted. Otherwise, I just don't see the incentive. Unless some network or cabal of networks comes forward and guarantees double the TV revenue teams are currently collectively earning, why would they switch?

And, if teams are willing to put together traveling entourages so massive that they can lose money on a BCS bowl payout, doesn't that sorta speak to some other motivating factor -- some other financial or other incentive great enough to make that sensible to the teams involved?

There are, what, 112 Division 1-A teams? 110? Somewhere in there? If we have a playoff, the season becomes meaningless pretty early for any team that doesn't make the cut and knows it's not gonna make the cut. So, we either have some ridiculously large field of entrants like basketball, or we make playing football seem awfully pointless for 2/3 of the teams most years.

Under the current system, any podunk crap school can ruin the entire season of a title contender. All you have to do is queue up all the tapes of all the east popcorn states of the world (or maybe I should use the Pokes instead of East Popcorn State) charging the field and tearing down the goalposts in the midst of a 3-8 season because they just beat us, or USC, or Ohio State, or Alabama, or some other title contender.

Put in a playoff, and you get rid of the schadenfreude of football, yo. Won't someone please think of the schadenfreude? ;)

[bigfatjerk]

The fact that we don't have a playoff, demonstrates the anticompetition underpinnings of our capitalist construct and it therefor perfectly mirrors what is best about America. Playoffs will spread the wealth around. And socialism is bad.
Are you kidding me? Right now it's the NCAA is very socialist. You can't even sell stuff as a student without getting in trouble.

[IndySooner]

120 teams. The regular season would be MORE important. You would either have to win your conference or be one of the best five teams that didn't.

Right now, 60 teams start the year knowing they have ZERO chance at winning a championship. In a playoff, everyone would have a legitimate chance.

[Aldebaran]

Are you kidding me? Right now it's the NCAA is very socialist. You can't even sell stuff as a student without getting in trouble.

And the BCS is anti-socialist. Which is why is must be protected.

Mangino said it best, really.

$$$ signs.

[MeMyself&Me]

I think a +1 would be great...thats about all I would like

That's how I feel about it but I mean a +1 in the truest sense, ie not a 4 team playoff like some people think. New Years day used to be a lot of fun before the BCS. Part of the reason it's not anymore is the big games are spread out over several days and part of the reason is that instead of having several games impacting the national title picture on that day, we have just one several days later.

Put the bowl system back to the way it was pre-BSC BUT having one game a week later vs #1 and #2 from after the bowls would give us the #1 and #2 matchup and return the fun that the bowls gave New Years day. Not that that would ever happen but it would be better than a playoff.

One thing I'd like to see happen is to insist that bowls could only have ONE auto-tie in and the other slot for all bowls (the Rose can have an exception) be at large. Also, to make it work right, it would be need to be stressed that any team can reject a bowl invite for another bowl for any reason (location, payout, matchup, etc). I think this would increase amount of good matchups in bowls and would make for a very interesting bowl selection day. Also, I think the instability of not having auto-tie ins for both slots might make some of the lesser bowls less viable which would result in fewer bowls which I know is a big deal to a lot of you.

[MeMyself&Me]

Right now, 60 teams start the year knowing they have ZERO chance at winning a championship.

This isn't exactly true.

[bigfatjerk]

And the BCS is anti-socialist. Which is why is must be protected.

Mangino said it best, really.

$$$ signs.
If you really understood what capitalism really was then the players would be paid too. What we have is a controlled form of capitalism where only the top guys get paid. It's a myth to call it capitalism, it's what people understand as capitalism today but it's not any true form of capitalism.

[IndySooner]

I could live with a plus-one. In most seasons, it would be enough to determine a legitimate champion.

That said, I still like the excitement of a full 16-team tournament. I think I've figured out why.

Sports have always built up to the end, for me. It starts a bit slow, by mid-season everyone's ready for the build up to the end, then there's the crescendo of the end of the season. I can only remember one season like this at OU since the start of the BCS. 2008.

In 2000, the season peaked in October, then we skated through November and December just to get our shot. In 2003 and 2004, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion by mid-October that we were good to go. Every game was important, but there wasn't the big build up to the end.

2008 had the feel that a season should, in my opinion. We slipped up at Texas, then every game was more important than the next in order to give ourselves a shot at a title. I think a playoff would help build that sort of an atmosphere every single year for multiple teams.

Right now, college football is becoming monotonous to me. The same teams go to the same bowl games and then we pair two teams who may or may not be the best in the country for a fictional championship game. I think a playoff would create a huge build up from October on, building us up to what would be the best post-season in sports.

Can you imaging "Selection Sunday" for college football? Can you imagine the bracket frenzy, the craziness on college campuses that would host the first couple or few rounds. The corporate BS that the bowl system has become would be replaced by what makes college sports great, the pomp and circumstance of students, alumni and fans filling COLLEGE stadiums for some great football.

College football isn't completely broken, but a tweak or two could make it competitive with any other sporting event out there, including the Super Bowl.

[IndySooner]

This isn't exactly true.

Please explain how anyone in the Sun Belt, WAC, MWC, Conf. USA or MAC has a shot at a title.

If it was going to happen, it was going to happen this year. It's not going to happen.

[FirstandGoal]

That's how I feel about it but I mean a +1 in the truest sense, ie not a 4 team playoff like some people think. New Years day used to be a lot of fun before the BCS. Part of the reason it's not anymore is the big games are spread out over several days and part of the reason is that instead of having several games impacting the national title picture on that day, we have just one several days later.

Put the bowl system back to the way it was pre-BSC BUT having one game a week later vs #1 and #2 from after the bowls would give us the #1 and #2 matchup and return the fun that the bowls gave New Years day. Not that that would ever happen but it would be better than a playoff.

One thing I'd like to see happen is to insist that bowls could only have ONE auto-tie in and the other slot for all bowls (the Rose can have an exception) be at large. Also, to make it work right, it would be need to be stressed that any team can reject a bowl invite for another bowl for any reason (location, payout, matchup, etc). I think this would increase amount of good matchups in bowls and would make for a very interesting bowl selection day. Also, I think the instability of not having auto-tie ins for both slots might make some of the lesser bowls less viable which would result in fewer bowls which I know is a big deal to a lot of you.

I like this train of thought. Maybe I'm a bit old school, but I miss the days of the old bowl match ups when any team had the possibility of meeting any other team on the field of play. Anybody who was a fan of watching "the face" vid this season knows what I'm talking about.
Play all of the old bowls the way they used to be played and screw trying to be all PC in the match ups. If 3/4 of one conference goes and 0 from another, then screw that conference, they need to get better. None of the AQ vs. non-AQ stuff. None of this " #3 team from bigboyconference plays #4 team from whogivesacrapconference unless the top 10 is already aligned with mars and venus under saturn's influence, then we gotta change the whole thing around to this other weird formula....blah, blah, blah..."

Seriously, how many of you guys have to go look up all the weird conference tie-ins every year just to remember if the Holiday Bowl is better than the Alamo, or the Cotton? I forget from year to year the "rankings" of a lot of these things and IMO, the Cotton this year has a much better matchup than the Fiesta did. If the bowls just got to pick who they wanted to play each other rather than some formula they have to follow it would make it a lot more fun and the season would be a lot more interesting IMO because where you ended up would not be set in stone.

Then at the end of it all when the pollsters have had their say, let the top 4 teams duke it out. Remember the good ole days when bowl season ended Jan 1st? How regular bowls be played the week of Christmas? I love the idea of #1 playing #4, #2 playing #3 on New Year's day, then a week later winner of each game plays for all the marbles. Yes it would lead to 2 teams having 2 extra games but how cool would it be to have the first 15-0 perfect football season? :cool:

[Okie35]

120 teams. The regular season would be MORE important. You would either have to win your conference or be one of the best five teams that didn't.

Right now, 60 teams start the year knowing they have ZERO chance at winning a championship. In a playoff, everyone would have a legitimate chance.

I want a playoff because some teams get snubbed in the BCS or some of the matchups are weak. All I know is if someone on OU got hurt like a key player, I'd be so pissed if we won 1 or 2 playoff games and got bounced because of key players hurt. Knowing we didn't have our best team on the field, would really be terrible. A plus one would be much better and I think they will do that before any playoff is made.

[Sooners78]

8 teams is the perfect number. No more, no less. Regular season is still very relevant and exciting.

[Okie35]

Please explain how anyone in the Sun Belt, WAC, MWC, Conf. USA or MAC has a shot at a title.

If it was going to happen, it was going to happen this year. It's not going to happen.

Never and they'd never have a chance in a playoff either. This isn't basketball when you can have athletes that have around the same skill set. The bigger conferences has the bigger and stronger athletes and depth. Those teams would lose in the first or 2nd game, unless they played each other.

[LiveLaughLove]

The fact that we don't have a playoff, demonstrates the anticompetition underpinnings of our capitalist construct and it therefor perfectly mirrors what is best about America. Playoffs will spread the wealth around. And socialism is bad.

Wow, just freaking wow to this.

I want to say so much more, but will refrain from 99% of it.

Heres the 1%. From this post, in your world day must be night.

[rekamrettuB]

120 teams. The regular season would be MORE important. You would either have to win your conference or be one of the best five teams that didn't.


See this is what I don't like about the conference champs in the playoffs. Look at this year:

VaTech
OU
TCU
UConn
Oregon
Wiscy
Auburn
Boise St

Got no problem with them. Then you add the other conference champs:

UCF
FIU (or Troy)
Miami (OH)

At Larges, per BCS:

Stanford
Ohio State
Arkansas
Mich St
LSU

Now does UCF, FIU, or Miami (OH) deserve to be in a playoff w/ the other 13 over Mizzu, OK State, Alabama,? And then, what's to stop an Ok State from moving to MAC and get an invite every year?

[IndySooner]

Never and they'd never have a chance in a playoff either. This isn't basketball when you can have athletes that have around the same skill set. The bigger conferences has the bigger and stronger athletes and depth. Those teams would lose in the first or 2nd game, unless they played each other.

They at least get to play for the chance, though. That's the point.

[MeMyself&Me]

Please explain how anyone in the Sun Belt, WAC, MWC, Conf. USA or MAC has a shot at a title.

If it was going to happen, it was going to happen this year. It's not going to happen.

There are numerous non-AQ teams that had tougher schedules than Oregon this year. They just weren't good enough to win all their games against that "tough" schedule. If any one of them had, they'd be higher than Oregon in the computers and it would just be a matter of convincing voters. If you don't think voters would give them a chance, then get rid of the voters but, in any case, these other teams aren't automatically locked out.


I like this train of thought. Maybe I'm a bit old school, but I miss the days of the old bowl match ups when any team had the possibility of meeting any other team on the field of play. Anybody who was a fan of watching "the face" vid this season knows what I'm talking about.
Play all of the old bowls the way they used to be played and screw trying to be all PC in the match ups. If 3/4 of one conference goes and 0 from another, then screw that conference, they need to get better. None of the AQ vs. non-AQ stuff. None of this " #3 team from bigboyconference plays #4 team from whogivesacrapconference unless the top 10 is already aligned with mars and venus under saturn's influence, then we gotta change the whole thing around to this other weird formula....blah, blah, blah..."

Seriously, how many of you guys have to go look up all the weird conference tie-ins every year just to remember if the Holiday Bowl is better than the Alamo, or the Cotton? I forget from year to year the "rankings" of a lot of these things and IMO, the Cotton this year has a much better matchup than the Fiesta did. If the bowls just got to pick who they wanted to play each other rather than some formula they have to follow it would make it a lot more fun and the season would be a lot more interesting IMO because where you ended up would not be set in stone.

Then at the end of it all when the pollsters have had their say, let the top 4 teams duke it out. Remember the good ole days when bowl season ended Jan 1st? How regular bowls be played the week of Christmas? I love the idea of #1 playing #4, #2 playing #3 on New Year's day, then a week later winner of each game plays for all the marbles. Yes it would lead to 2 teams having 2 extra games but how cool would it be to have the first 15-0 perfect football season? :cool:

I guess you didn't like that train of thought that much. I was talking about how a plus one might work, not a playoff/tourney.


8 teams is the perfect number. No more, no less. Regular season is still very relevant and exciting.

I don't think 8 teams would make the people that make the decisions happy. Anything that involves 6 or more teams is going to have Auto Qualifiers for the big 6 conferences so that leaves two at large spots. I don't think the big conferences will want to give up even one of those only 2 at large spots to a non-AQ team and I don't think the non-AQ conferences are going to be happy about not having more inclusion than even 2 possible spots.

I can see a 4 team or a 16 team tourney happening, but I see issues with the 8 and 12 team versions I hear.

[JRAM]

It is not now nor will it ever be time for a playoff! The kids go through enough as it is and the bowls add much more flavor to college football than a limited playoff would. If you think that having 16 or less teams play at the end of the year replacing 70 teams would be better , you are up to your freaking brains in ****. One winner versus 35 winners. Bowl trips for fans., etc. etc. A playoff just doesn't do it .

[FirstandGoal]

+1 or maybe +2 at the most.

I mostly like the old school bowl system where there aren't all the ridiculous and rigid bowl tie-ins.
Hell, even if it means going back to a split title I think that some days it would be better than what we have.

[Cornfed]

Remember when people said this about letting women and minorities vote?

So are you saying that people that like the bowl system are sexist and racists? ;)

[LiveLaughLove]

It is not now nor will it ever be time for a playoff! The kids go through enough as it is and the bowls add much more flavor to college football than a limited playoff would. If you think that having 16 or less teams play at the end of the year replacing 70 teams would be better , you are up to your freaking brains in ****. One winner versus 35 winners. Bowl trips for fans., etc. etc. A playoff just doesn't do it .

No reason the bowls would cease to exist. That's a strawman argument. It doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be an either or thing.

Bball still has the NIT. Football can still have bowls.

[Aldebaran]

Hundreds of people watch the NIT.

[IndySooner]

Hundreds of people watch the NIT.

Hundreds of people watch the bowls right now.

[SpankyNek]

So are you saying that people that like the bowl system are sexist and racists? ;)

Just the ones that claim sole proprietorship of non-hatred for America.

[LiveLaughLove]

Hundreds of people watch the bowls right now.

Exactly. If it's a reward for the players who cares how many people watch it.

The amount of bowls keeps increasing so I guess the bowl's don't care either.

[jkjsooner]

One winner versus 35 winners. Bowl trips for fans., etc. etc.

We can give them all participation trophies and call them champions if you like.

I mean, seriously, these are adults playing these games. This isn't four year old girls soccer where you don't keep score.

[Leroy Lizard]

So... how is this thread going to differ from the past 1,000 threads on this subject?

[Leroy Lizard]

Are you kidding me? Right now it's the NCAA is very socialist. You can't even sell stuff as a student without getting in trouble.

That's capitalist. They are controlling the fairness to help promote interest in the product, much like the NFL draft.


I mean, seriously, these are adults playing these games. This isn't four year old girls soccer where you don't keep score.

Horrible analogy, dude.

[SpankyNek]

So... how is this thread going to differ from the past 1,000 threads on this subject?

Until now it was void of LeroyLizard comments.

[Leroy Lizard]

Until now it was void of LeroyLizard comments.

Well, boo ****ing hoo.

[SpankyNek]

That's capitalist. They are controlling the fairness to help promote interest in the product, much like the NFL draft.


If you really believe this, why are they not concerned with fairness of competition between the Sunbelt and Big 10.

It has way more to do with holding on to money than it does "fairness"...I wouldn't have suspected this level of naivete from you.

[Leroy Lizard]

If you really believe this, why are they not concerned with fairness of competition between the Sunbelt and Big 10.

They are. But since high school kids need the freedom to attend whichever university they wish, the NCAA's hands are tied. It isn't like pro football, where you can tell a player which teams he can or cannot attend.


It has way more to do with holding on to money...

That's socialist?

[SpankyNek]

That's socialist?

I don't believe it is Socialism (Although it could be argued that it should be since the competition is largely between Governmental entities).

Again if you read my post, I never said it was socialist. I just said that it was not based upon "fairness."

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't believe it is Socialism (Although it could be argued that it should be since the competition is largely between Governmental entities).

Again if you read my post, I never said it was socialist. I just said that it was not based upon "fairness."

The NCAA is most certainly interested in fairness, which is partly why we have scholarship limitations.

Relying on the bogey-man argument isn't very thoughtful.

[ouwasp]

8 teams is the perfect number. No more, no less. Regular season is still very relevant and exciting.

sounds about right to me...

[Leroy Lizard]

sounds about right to me...

FCS used to be an 8-team playoff.

[texaspokieokie]

argument is necessary because it hasn't been on here in almost a week.

i bet if this thread gets up to 400 posts, there will be nothing original.

[IndySooner]

Until now it was void of LeroyLizard comments.

Still was for me until you quoted him!

[Jboozer]

Every team will play cupcakes out of conference. Players may get rested against week opponents at the end of tue season. Seriously what makes college football great is that it isn't te NFL. Why does everyone want it to be. Unfairness is part of life. Now instead of the TCUs at #3 botching we will hear from the number 9,10,11s complaining about how they got left out. I don't see any difference in a playoff unless it's expansive enough to include practically everyone(like bball), and that's not happening.

[MeMyself&Me]

Still was for me until you quoted him!

Someone should make a sticky out of the thread that shows how to solve that issue.

[SoonerBread]

Tens of people watch the bowls right now.

FIFY

[Okie35]

They at least get to play for the chance, though. That's the point.

But they'd never ever make it and ppl would wonder why are they're there and complain about it. I just want it to be a system where no one is whining about it. I mean right now ppl are complaining and if one does happen and there's more complaining then its still no progress in my eyes.

[SpankyNek]

Every team will play cupcakes out of conference. Players may get rested against week opponents at the end of tue season. Seriously what makes college football great is that it isn't te NFL. Why does everyone want it to be. Unfairness is part of life. Now instead of the TCUs at #3 botching we will hear from the number 9,10,11s complaining about how they got left out. I don't see any difference in a playoff unless it's expansive enough to include practically everyone(like bball), and that's not happening.

Super Conferences are coming, and there will be little if any non-conference play in 10 years or so (save the postseason in whatever form)

[SpankyNek]

The NCAA is most certainly interested in fairness, which is partly why we have scholarship limitations.

Relying on the bogey-man argument isn't very thoughtful.

Here's a bogey-man for ya....

If it were concerned with "fairness" it would be more socialist than it is now.

The current situation is as unfair as an ubercorporate society, with regulations far more concerned with dollars than being sure that Western Kentucky gets as much funding as texass. (Sounds unfair).

There is no salary cap(socialist) in NCAA football, for example.

[IndySooner]

Every team will play cupcakes out of conference. Players may get rested against week opponents at the end of tue season. Seriously what makes college football great is that it isn't te NFL. Why does everyone want it to be. Unfairness is part of life. Now instead of the TCUs at #3 botching we will hear from the number 9,10,11s complaining about how they got left out. I don't see any difference in a playoff unless it's expansive enough to include practically everyone(like bball), and that's not happening.

A playoff would encourage playing good competition in the pre-conference.

[MeMyself&Me]

A playoff would encourage playing good competition in the pre-conference.

Depends on the selection criteria which you can't foresee. In fact, if you change the selection criteria in the current system, you could encourage better competition in the non-con without at playoff.

[CowboyMRW]

Why in the support of a playoff. I think it's a dumb idea and CFB needs to be left alone.

[Leroy Lizard]

Here's a bogey-man for ya....

If it were concerned with "fairness" it would be more socialist than it is now.

The current situation is as unfair as an ubercorporate society, with regulations far more concerned with dollars than being sure that Western Kentucky gets as much funding as texass. (Sounds unfair).

There is no salary cap(socialist) in NCAA football, for example.

Salary caps are not socialist. Salary caps are put in place to lower overall costs for the owners, not spread the wealth between the owners and workers (the players).

You can sorta' tell that salary caps are not socialist once you realize that the owners of the big businesses (the teams) want them and unions oppose them.

Part of the bogey-man argument is to use labels on opposing ideas (e.g., "socialist").

[SpankyNek]

Salary caps are not socialist. Salary caps are put in place to lower overall costs for the owners, not spread the wealth between the owners and workers (the players).

You can sorta' tell that salary caps are not socialist once you realize that the owners of the big businesses (the teams) want them and unions oppose them.

Part of the bogey-man argument is to use labels on opposing ideas (e.g., "socialist").

Actually, the players have little to do with it, as even the strongest of player's unions have either been incapable or disinterested in preventing their implementation.

The Dallas Cowboys and New York Yankees are far less interested in a Salary Cap than the Kansas City Chiefs and the Kansas City Royals.

Again, my supposition that it is currently not socialist would seem to indicate that others may have fallen prey to using the bogey-man fallacy, but I did no such thing.

The idea that "revenue sharing" is somehow a capitalist concept is a stretch at best.

[PLaw]

Here is how you do it:

119 FBS schools - divide into nine, twelve team conferences plus one, eleven team conference. Each conference is split into two divisions.

Thanksgiving weekend is conference championships.

Take the ten conference champions and add six at large teams.

Round 1 (Thanksgiving plus 2) - Location at the higher seeded team's home field.

Need to add two more BCS bowls to the rotation (Cotton and ???).

Round 2 (Jan 1) - Location at four of the BCS bowls .

Round 3 (Jan 8) - Location two new BCS bowls

Championship - New site in a 4 stadium rotation home in each region of the country (Midwest / Norheast; Southeast; Southwest; and Far West)


Major bowls get their love and we find have champion that wins it on the field in 15 games.

BOOMER

[ouwasp]

Why in the support of a playoff. I think it's a dumb idea and CFB needs to be left alone.

Every other sport has one. Or maybe the other sports should be dumbed down too...

From a Sooner fans perspective, I believe OU would be in the hunt most yrs if it were an 8 team playoff. Instead of having to jockey for two spots and having so many things out of the Sooners' control, the Sooners could expect to make a field of 8 if they just take care of their own business.

[Leroy Lizard]

Actually, the players have little to do with it, as even the strongest of player's unions have either been incapable or disinterested in preventing their implementation.

The Dallas Cowboys and New York Yankees are far less interested in a Salary Cap than the Kansas City Chiefs and the Kansas City Royals.

Again, my supposition that it is currently not socialist would seem to indicate that others may have fallen prey to using the bogey-man fallacy, but I did no such thing.

The idea that "revenue sharing" is somehow a capitalist concept is a stretch at best.

First of all, if a certain program germinates among business owners, you can pretty much bet the program is not socialist. Business owners are not typically interested in spreading their wealth to the workers.

Salary caps and revenue sharing programs are not the same thing.

I don't see why the term "socialist" was brought into the discussion in the first place. Who cares which economic model the NCAA follows? Are we talking about AIG and IBM here, or TCU and FSU?

[Leroy Lizard]

Every other sport has one.

No they don't. That's a myth.

EDIT: I see you wrote "every OTHER sport." That's 50%. I can go along with that.

[Leroy Lizard]

Here is how you do it:

119 FBS schools - divide into nine, twelve team conferences plus one, eleven team conference. Each conference is split into two divisions.

Thanksgiving weekend is conference championships.

Take the ten conference champions and add six at large teams.

Round 1 (Thanksgiving plus 2) - Location at the higher seeded team's home field.

Need to add two more BCS bowls to the rotation (Cotton and ???).

Round 2 (Jan 1) - Location at four of the BCS bowls .

Round 3 (Jan 8) - Location two new BCS bowls

Championship - New site in a 4 stadium rotation home in each region of the country (Midwest / Norheast; Southeast; Southwest; and Far West)


Major bowls get their love and we find have champion that wins it on the field in 15 games.

BOOMER

This system has now been proposed about 1,435 times in here, and shot down about 1,434 times. Do you want us to make it 1,435 times?

[ouwasp]

No they don't. That's a myth.

EDIT: I see you wrote "every OTHER sport." That's 50%. I can go along with that.

whatever...would it be fair to say "all other high-profile sports have a playoff?"

[Leroy Lizard]

whatever...would it be fair to say "all other high-profile sports have a playoff?"

Fair? Not sure. Correct? No.

[ouwasp]

Well, it just seems right that a sport which incites so much passion should have a playoff of some sort after the regular season. The antiquated bowl system be darned...

[King Barry's Back]

I'll never understand why anyone would think that one of this nation's top-3 most successful sports would *ever* be interested in making a massive, fundamental change to how it operates.

College football attendance is booming, and for schools, home game attendance and interest trumps *everything* -- even national titles. You can't compare a 10 million payout for a post-season game with the effect on school donations & alumni support which comes from those alumni fighting to be on campus for as many home games as they can possibly manage.

When you're OU, a game in Miami doesn't get former students thinking nostalgically about their time at the university, or opening their pocketbooks to donate to the latest campus improvement drive.

And that's just one aspect. On top of all that, *all* the projections about what a playoff would do to revenue for college football are guesses. Educated guesses, sure, but we don't have any real figures to work from. Because we've never switched big time college football from a bowl system to a pure playoff system. So nobody *really* knows how the numbers will actually play out over the course of the entire season. Obviously, a playoff maximizes post-season revenue. But until we switch, we have no idea what a playoff would do to regular-season revenue.

...and when, as I've mentioned, you're talking about a sport at the apex of popularity, which rakes in billions, what makes you pro-playoff folks continuously think that the folks running that sport have *any* incentive to change the system? Changing the system when it's this successful would be the very height of gross negligence. It'd be like having a left-handed pitcher in the major league who was one of the 3 best pitchers in all of baseball, and hearing "experts" constantly crow that they were absolutely, 100% certain that doing anything other than switching him to a righty was retarded and an affront to baseball. If he's already pitching as well as anyone in the game, why would his manager ever countenance the idea of trying to make him change?

Brilliant post! But logic is never going to rule the day on a message board. :rolleyes:

The fact is that I've been a serious college football fan for going on 40 years, and I've been hearing that the instigation of a playoff system is "inevitable" for about the past 39 years.

Would a playoff be alot of fun? Yeah, sure, it probably would be, especially for the schools invited to participate. Would it "decide" a national champ? Maybe. What if, say, this year UCONN put it togehter and ran the table to a championsip? Would that settle the issue? I guess, but they still lost four games and shared their conference with two other teams. So it's certainly not decisive.

Would Nevada have been invited? If Boise WOULD have been invited, then it's hard to say that Nevada shouldn't be now. And if Nevada gets in, who gets left out? Stanford? They looked pretty good this year to me. You leave out a one-loss Stanford so Nevada and UCONN can go, and what have you done?

While many, many, many of the most vocal playoff proponents seem fired by moral outrage that it does not currently exist, I don't share that view. There's no greater moral issue at all. Other than entertainment, I just do not see much of an argument for why a playoff should exist.

If I personally could choose, I would probably choose to create the playoff. But if I was lining the pockets of my institution with the current system, and figured my school would make the playoff about once a decade or so, I'd probably choose to leave things alone.

[SpankyNek]

Bowl proponents are akin to those that nearly killed boxing....all in the name of tradition. At least the BCS gives us a #1 vs #2...now if we could get to a consensus as to how those 2 should be selected.

[soonergirlNeugene]

http://media.skateboard.com.au/forum/images/persistent-fail.jpg

[Leroy Lizard]

You could have made that forecast after the first post.

[soonergirlNeugene]

I'll admit, my timing has been off XD

[jkjsooner]

Horrible analogy, dude.

As long as you and others continue to talk about how 35 teams can end the season with a win I'll comment how you're sounding like you're rooting for children.

Even in high school it's perfectly fine for all but one team to end the season with a loss (in sports in Oklahoma where everyone makes the playoffs).

And if you must have it, nobody has given me a single reason why the smaller bowls couldn't coexist with a playoff. It's not like the relevance of a game between Florida International and Toledo would be considerably impacted by a playoff. So if you want you're precious 35 teams to end their postseason with a win then you can have it.

[Leroy Lizard]

As long as you and others continue to talk about how 35 teams can end the season with a win I'll comment how you're sounding like you're rooting for children.

The poster was mistaken; there are only about 17 winners. But moving on...

If you look at one of the minor bowls, you will notice that the winner of the game is truly excited. So are the fans in attendance.

So you are wrong. If playing in a bowl is tantamount to earning a participation prize, the excitement would not be there. No one would attend.

When the poster made the statement that the bowl system was great because there were more winners, he wasn't saying that the win was just handed out. Teams still have to earn them.

FBS is not like the NFL, which regulates the strengths of teams through drafts and salary caps. The NFC West is weak this year, but it will slowly turn around at some point because the system is in place for its teams to gain talent at the expense of other teams. FBS, on the other hand, contains numerous teams that have a decided disadvantage that will likely only worsen with a playoff system.

So for a team like Toledo which has essentially zero chance of winning a national title in a 16-team playoff, the bowl system gives the team a realistic goal and an opportunity to finish on a winning note. Who are we to discount their happiness?


Even in high school it's perfectly fine for all but one team to end the season with a loss (in sports in Oklahoma where everyone makes the playoffs).

Certainly the world won't come to an end, but there is no joy in losing your last game. Jack Mildren said losing the state title was the most bitter disappointment in his athletic career. In FBS, there are huge numbers of schools that will be relegated to experiencing that feeling every year. With a 16-team playoff, playing for a team like Akron would be a futile endeavor to anyone with a competitive spirit.

I realize that YOU don't think the Motor City Bowl means much, so you just naturally assume that the fans and players from the participating schools must be bored with it as well. But you are wrong.


And if you must have it, nobody has given me a single reason why the smaller bowls couldn't coexist with a playoff. It's not like the relevance of a game between Florida International and Toledo would be considerably impacted by a playoff. So if you want you're precious 35 teams to end their postseason with a win then you can have it.

Well, I am going to give you a reason, and two weeks from now you will state that no one has ever given you a reason. I am under no illusions that anything that follows will stick. But here goes anyway.

A bowl system can survive a four-team playoff. I don't doubt that. But as the playoff encompasses more and more teams, it begins to gobble up more and more attention. At some point (and I think a 16-team playoff is the turning point), the playoff will become such a center of attention that the bowls will lose any prestige they have left. At that point, the bigger schools will start to refuse participating in the bowls. Once that happens, the bowls will die from lack of interest.

We have already seen this happen in basketball. The only thing that has saved the NIT is that basketball is so cheap to promote. Bowl games are not. If the NIT was as expensive to promote as a bowl game, there would be no NIT.

You playoff proponents are always fond of pointing out the other sports that have a playoff. Well, show me other sports that have bowl games on top of a playoff to demonstrate its viability. FCS used to with its Heritage Bowl, but that game died. (Hmmm...)

[bigfatjerk]

Bowl proponents are akin to those that nearly killed boxing....all in the name of tradition. At least the BCS gives us a #1 vs #2...now if we could get to a consensus as to how those 2 should be selected.
Boxing basically is dead.

[texaspokieokie]

Leroy;
i don't know why you spend so much time trying to convince folks about
a playoff. i don't see anybody changing their minds.

some seem to think OU would receive a better deal in a play off. OU gets treated fairly under the present system. like going to champ game after losing b-12 champ game by 35-7.

i agree, don't need play-off.

[SpankyNek]

FBS is not like the NFL, which regulates the strengths of teams through drafts and salary caps. The NFC West is weak this year, but it will slowly turn around at some point because the system is in place for its teams to gain talent at the expense of other teams. FBS, on the other hand, contains numerous teams that have a decided disadvantage that will likely only worsen with a playoff system. The limitation of FBS schools to 85 scholarships (Grayshirting notwithstanding), the sanctions put upon schools that cheat by reducing these numbers, as well as reductions for poor academic performance are all examples of the NCAA regulating the strength of teams.

The BCS goes a step further in this process by making numerous tweaks through the years, all of which have been designed to assist the disadvantaged.



So for a team like Toledo which has essentially zero chance of winning a national title in a 16-team playoff, the bowl system gives the team a realistic goal and an opportunity to finish on a winning note. Who are we to discount their happiness?

Actually in a 16 team tourney, they have a greater, albeit still small, chance of winning a national title. They probably would have a better chanco of finishing on a "winning note" if the bowls were eliminated altogether...is that a sound argument for eliminating bowl games?



I realize that YOU don't think the Motor City Bowl means much, so you just naturally assume that the fans and players from the participating schools must be bored with it as well. But you are wrong.

Well, the Motor City Bowl means so much to YOU that you have overlooked the fact that it has been operating as the Little Ceasars Pizza Bowl since 2009.

Also interesting that you used Toledo in your previous argument as they faced the ultimate in bitterness...travelling to Detroit Michigan to miss Christmas and end the season by losing to FIU in this bowl. In a 16 team playoff (Not my suggestion, but the one you presented) there would be only 15 of these "losing" situations...guess how many there were in the current postseason?


You playoff proponents are always fond of pointing out the other sports that have a playoff. Well, show me other sports that have bowl games on top of a playoff to demonstrate its viability. FCS used to with its Heritage Bowl, but that game died. (Hmmm...)

I present to you soccer. (The most popular sport in the world).
Every four years they have a tournament (Every two if you count the Olympics) to determine thee best team.

Ever seen how many folks line up to purchase tickets to "meaningless" exhibitions known as "Friendlies?"

[OklahomaTuba]

Hell no to a playoff. I prefer having computers & faulty math determining everything for us.

[jkjsooner]

The poster was mistaken; there are only about 17 winners. But moving on...

Say what? There are 35 bowl games. Unless my math is way off that means 35 winners.

And, fine, you state that a 16 team playoff would harm the minor. I disagree but I'll also point out that I've always been in favor of a 4 or 8 team playoff (with no automatic bids). In that scenario I can't see how this would impact bowls.

[49r]

The time between the end of the regular season and the championship is now longer for FBS teams than it is for the NFL...

http://twitter.com/sportswatch


Since Oregon and Auburn last played, Patriots are 5-0 and have scored 184 points. Also, many people have been born and died.
January 3, 2011 3:29:48 PM CST via web


Battle of Iwo Jima: 36 days. Waiting for Oregon and Auburn: 37 days.
about 20 hours ago via web


Oregon football team has arrived in Arizona! They flew, but they could have walked if they averaged 33 miles over 37 days between games.
January 4, 2011 6:18:10 AM CST via web


William Henry Harrison's term as U.S. President: 31 days. Wait for Oregon and Auburn to take field: 37 days.
January 4, 2011 9:13:31 AM CST via web


By kickoff Jan. 10, radio signals from the most recent Oregon and Auburn games will have traveled about 600 billion miles into space.
about 22 hours ago via web


Woke up for 32nd day w/out a BCS champ since matchup was set. Feels like a movie. Hmm. BTW, average gestation period of groundhogs: 32 days.
about 5 hours ago via web


Giants' 2007 regular-season finale to winning SB in Glendale, four wins later: 36 days. Oregon and Auburn wait to play in Glendale: 37 days.
about 3 hours ago via web


Sherman's March to the Sea in 1864: 36 days. Wait for Oregon and Auburn: 37 days. OK, I'm done now. Enjoy the game, America!
about 2 hours ago via web

Anyone who uses the argument about how a playoff takes time away from the classroom for these kids deserves a punch in the throat. I find it extremely unlikely that any of Oregon's or Auburn's kids have used this 37 day layoff to catch up on their studies, anyone else would be delusional to believe so...and they are just two of the 70-odd teams involved in the FBS postseason.

[texaspokieokie]

and these FB players have had it as rough as the guys on iwo jima ???

i bet they didn't practice every day, so they could study some.

[49r]

and these FB players have had it as rough as the guys on iwo jima ???

i bet they didn't practice every day, so they could study some.

Comparisons to battles of war aside, 37 days is a LONG time to be dragging this whole ordeal out. It's rhetoric anyway, nobody in their right mind would say that college football is even remotely comparable to war. Whatever the reason for stretching the bowl season out to ridiculous extents such as this, it's not for the players' benefit you can be assured.

And, they didn't practice or study any more or less than they would have had there been a playoff. Of this you can also be quite assured.

[texaspokieokie]

i think 37 days is too long for the fans.

i'm glad i don't care much,who wins.

all games should be done by jan one.

jmho

[IndySooner]

Sugar Bowl TV ratings 8.4.

EVERY NFL playoff game will be in the 20 range.

3rd lowest Sugar Bowl since BCS.

The NFL does NOT have a superior product to college football. They market it better and they actually crown a champion on the field.

[stoopified]

I'm in.I say put it to avote by current college football seasn ticket holders.

[soonervegas]

I am now in favor of an 8-16 team playoff, but I still think minor bowls need to be slotted better. I want to watch some 17 vs. 18 and 19 vs. 20matchups and not Nebraska vs. Washington.

[Leroy Lizard]

The limitation of FBS schools to 85 scholarships (Grayshirting notwithstanding), the sanctions put upon schools that cheat by reducing these numbers, as well as reductions for poor academic performance are all examples of the NCAA regulating the strength of teams.

The BCS goes a step further in this process by making numerous tweaks through the years, all of which have been designed to assist the disadvantaged.

Which backs my earlier point that the NCAA does what it can to even the playing field. But unlike the NFL, its ability is hampered by the fact that it cannot prevent a player from choosing to play for OU if he really wants to (and if OU wants him badly enough). At no point can the NCAA tell Texas "You have too many 5-star recruits. You will need to give some of them to the other teams." A draft effectively accomplishes that task.



Actually in a 16 team tourney, they have a greater, albeit still small, chance of winning a national title. They probably would have a better chanco of finishing on a "winning note" if the bowls were eliminated altogether...is that a sound argument for eliminating bowl games?

At this point you are not thinking things through. A bowl game is a finale -- a festive event that is heavily planned and anticipated. You cannot compare that to simply the last game of the season.

You are trying too hard to find holes in my argument and not hard enough to understand the situation. Think about this a little more and try to relate to the human element.


Well, the Motor City Bowl means so much to YOU that you have overlooked the fact that it has been operating as the Little Ceasars Pizza Bowl since 2009.

My team is not participating. Remember, this argument about the meaning of bowl games is about the players on the team and, to a lesser extent, the fans of that team -- not fans in general. As long as the players on the team want to win and feel great when they do, who are we to claim they are wrong?


Also interesting that you used Toledo in your previous argument as they faced the ultimate in bitterness...travelling to Detroit Michigan to miss Christmas and end the season by losing to FIU in this bowl. In a 16 team playoff (Not my suggestion, but the one you presented) there would be only 15 of these "losing" situations...guess how many there were in the current postseason?

If there are winners, there are losers. In other words, at no point did I claim that a bowl system guarantees a team a victory. They still have to earn it. And they still feel the sting of a loss if they don't. The big difference is that they can look forward to the next year for another chance. With a playoff system, these teams have no realistic chance at all, no matter how many times they try.

And this will only worsen. Playoff systems tend to have one real bad thing about them that everyone appears to overlook -- teams that habitually go to the playoffs (the haves) get oodles of extra playing time and big-game experience. The seniors on a team that finishes deep in the playoffs for four years running could have played ten extra games, giving its athletes almost an extra season of experience. Over time, this gives them a decided advantage over the have-nots. And this gives the haves a massive recruiting advantage -- what athlete doesn't want those extra opportunities to be on tv and show pros his potential?

To mitigate this advantage, the minor schools are going to need a lot of assurances that their players will be given similar opportunities. You're not going to like what they demand.


I present to you soccer. (The most popular sport in the world).
Every four years they have a tournament (Every two if you count the Olympics) to determine thee best team.

Ever seen how many folks line up to purchase tickets to "meaningless" exhibitions known as "Friendlies?"

I know nothing about soccer or the appeal of "friendlies." Perhaps you can explain.

[Leroy Lizard]

Say what? There are 35 bowl games. Unless my math is way off that means 35 winners.

You got me. It doesn't change much in the argument, though.


And, fine, you state that a 16 team playoff would harm the minor. I disagree but I'll also point out that I've always been in favor of a 4 or 8 team playoff (with no automatic bids). In that scenario I can't see how this would impact bowls.

What happens once the eight-team playoff turns into a 16-team playoff, like it did in FCS? (And just about all other playoffs.)

Think ahead. Plan for the future. Anticipate problems.

[Leroy Lizard]

The time between the end of the regular season and the championship is now longer for FBS teams than it is for the NFL...

Anyone who uses the argument about how a playoff takes time away from the classroom for these kids deserves a punch in the throat. I find it extremely unlikely that any of Oregon's or Auburn's kids have used this 37 day layoff to catch up on their studies, anyone else would be delusional to believe so...and they are just two of the 70-odd teams involved in the FBS postseason.

Auburn played its last game on Dec. 4 and won't play its next game until Jan 10. That's 36 days between games, with plenty of time to go home for the holidays. How can you possibly compare that to a playoff where they will be playing four consecutive games during that time?

Sure, the season as a whole is longer, but not for the individual teams and the players on that team.

I mean, criminy! How can you not anticipate the obvious response?

[49r]

Auburn played its last game on Dec. 4 and won't play its next game until Jan 10. That's 36 days between games, with plenty of time to go home for the holidays. How can you possibly compare that to a playoff where they will be playing four consecutive games during that time?

Sure, the season as a whole is longer, but not for the individual teams and the players on that team.

I mean, criminy! How can you not anticipate the obvious response?

I'm pretty sure they didn't spend much time "going home for the holidays", or "studying". Oregon had a week less of down time in the last month. Don't give me your platitudes, you know they are just simply not reality.


Saturday, Dec. 18, 2010

Auburn football: Tigers return to practice after 14 days of rest, awards and even some drama
By ANDY BITTER - [email protected]

AUBURN, Ala. -- In the 14 days since Auburn last stepped on a football field, its star players and coaches have jetted across the country for various awards shows, its quarterback won the Heisman Trophy and its offensive coordinator nearly left for a head coaching job at another SEC school.

The focus returns to football this evening when the Tigers resume practice.
No. 1 Auburn (13-0) will have the first of nine on-campus practices before it travels to Glendale, Ariz., a week before the BCS national championship game against No. 2 Oregon on Jan. 10.

The Tigers have four practices before a holiday break from Dec. 23-27. They resume with five more practices before flying to Glendale on Jan. 3, when they will finalize preparations.

Auburn’s schedule starts a week after Oregon, which resumed practice last Saturday, even though running back LaMichael James and coach Chip Kelly were in New York for the Heisman Trophy presentation.

“We have a good plan,” Auburn oach Gene Chizik said last week. “We have a good plan on how we’re going to get everybody back into the fold and progress into practice and get back to normalcy.”

Auburn’s two-week break following a 56-17 SEC title game victory against South Carolina included some drama. Quarterback Cam Newton and defensive tackle Nick Fairley spent substantial time on the awards show circuit.

Newton went on a mini-publicity tour of New York in the days after winning the Heisman a week ago, making appearances on “NFL Today,” “Good Morning America” and “The Late Show with David Letterman.”


Read more: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2010/12/18/1390559/auburn-football-tigers-return.html#ixzz1ABdO3cMs

[SpankyNek]

Which backs my earlier point that the NCAA does what it can to even the playing field. But unlike the NFL, its ability is hampered by the fact that it cannot prevent a player from choosing to play for OU if he really wants to (and if OU wants him badly enough). At no point can the NCAA tell Texas "You have too many 5-star recruits. You will need to give some of them to the other teams." A draft effectively accomplishes that task.

Eli Manning and John Elway have disproven this.




At this point you are not thinking things through. A bowl game is a finale -- a festive event that is heavily planned and anticipated. You cannot compare that to simply the last game of the season.

You are trying too hard to find holes in my argument and not hard enough to understand the situation. Think about this a little more and try to relate to the human element.

My team is not participating. Remember, this argument about the meaning of bowl games is about the players on the team and, to a lesser extent, the fans of that team -- not fans in general. As long as the players on the team want to win and feel great when they do, who are we to claim they are wrong?
As I am not a player, and I am guessing you aren't either, I am not sure we can cogently speak on what it means to them.

As a fan of a OU, I am of the persuasion that I would rather attend a title game win or lose than some other "finale." I believe that you have made it clear that you sit on the other side of this belief. Therefore, I find it a bit irresponsible to claim what a fanbase of Toledo, for example, would feel in any given situation. If winning were the only thing, would toledo even want to be in the FBS...I mean they could kick every Div. III team's a$$.



If there are winners, there are losers. In other words, at no point did I claim that a bowl system guarantees a team a victory. They still have to earn it. And they still feel the sting of a loss if they don't. The big difference is that they can look forward to the next year for another chance. With a playoff system, these teams have no realistic chance at all, no matter how many times they try.

You have provided no proof that their chances to win a title would decrease by implementing a tournament. That is because it is impossible to do. Whether the system implemented would provide an automatic berth for conference champions or take the top 8 (or whatever) ranked teams, the odds of participating in championship play is increased exponentially. Whether that makes them any more likely to win it is dependent on many variables.



And this will only worsen. Playoff systems tend to have one real bad thing about them that everyone appears to overlook -- teams that habitually go to the playoffs (the haves) get oodles of extra playing time and big-game experience. The seniors on a team that finishes deep in the playoffs for four years running could have played ten extra games, giving its athletes almost an extra season of experience. Over time, this gives them a decided advantage over the have-nots. And this gives the haves a massive recruiting advantage -- what athlete doesn't want those extra opportunities to be on tv and show pros his potential?


The assumption that this dichotomy does not already exist is laughable.



To mitigate this advantage, the minor schools are going to need a lot of assurances that their players will be given similar opportunities. You're not going to like what they demand.

Maybe the MAC could use your help in contract negotiations....They deserve a contract like the SEC got from ESPN, right?



I know nothing about soccer or the appeal of "friendlies." Perhaps you can explain.
I will only state that exhibition matches between the US and Mexico that have nothing to do with crowning a champion are watched by more people in North America than any Non-title college football game could dream to achieve.

Despite the fact that there is a Tournament in place to determine the champion.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm pretty sure they didn't spend much time "going home for the holidays", or "studying".

We provide the players as much opportunity to go home for the holidays and study for final exams as reasonably possible. You are simply saying that SOME students might not take advantage of those opportunities. So what?

In the article you quoted, the Auburn players were given 14 days off after final exams were over. (Fourteen days isn't bad at all.) A 16-team playoff would likely not give them any time off at all, judging by most of the playoff schemes that have been offered here.

[49r]

We provide the players as much opportunity to go home for the holidays and study for final exams as reasonably possible. You are simply saying that SOME students might not take advantage of those opportunities. So what?

In the article you quoted, the Auburn players were given 14 days off after final exams were over. (Fourteen days isn't bad at all.) A 16-team playoff would likely not give them any time off at all, judging by most of the playoff schemes that have been offered here.

Read the article again, Einstein. The 14 days was between the 4th and the 18th. The days off were during finals, not after. They got 4 days to "go home for the holidays".

And I'd imagine the Patriots have had about equal numbers of days off in that same time span.

[Leroy Lizard]

Eli Manning and John Elway have disproven this.

How so?


As I am not a player, and I am guessing you aren't either, I am not sure we can cogently speak on what it means to them.

Then quit calling the games "meaningless." We don't know what the games truly mean to the players and fans, but judging by the exaltation they exhibit after winning, we can guess they mean a lot.


As a fan of a OU, I am of the persuasion that I would rather attend a title game win or lose than some other "finale."

Yeah, to the point where we cannot even mention one title game in which we lost. As an OU fan, you should be well aware of the stigma and pain of losing a title game. Hell, the humiliation was so severe that we felt OU absolutely had to beat UConn to get the stink off.

So don't bull**** me. Because that is what it is -- bull****.


I believe that you have made it clear that you sit on the other side of this belief. Therefore, I find it a bit irresponsible to claim what a fanbase of Toledo, for example, would feel in any given situation. If winning were the only thing, would toledo even want to be in the FBS...I mean they could kick every Div. III team's a$$.

We don't have a playoff; we have a bowl system. The bowl system provides Toledo an excellent chance of finishing out on a winning note. There is no need to drop to Div. III.

Sure, they could "win" if they scheduled the local junior college to a scrimmage. But a bowl game is legit because the opponent is evenly matched. It isn't JUST winning.

This shallow reasoning is hardly persuasive.


You have provided no proof that their chances to win a title would decrease by implementing a tournament. That is because it is impossible to do.

Right. When it is not possible to prove something (which can only be done in mathematics), you have to rely on reasoning, planning, and vision. You have to think ahead and consider all the possibilities. You have to bring human nature into the equation.

You're not doing those things. You simply want a playoff and continually ignore any barriers to success that a playoff could impose.


The assumption that this dichotomy does not already exist is laughable.

And this is the shallow reasoning that I'm talking about.

Yes, there is an uneven playing field. I have admitted to this many times in here. Do you really think I was unaware of this issue?

Playoff proponents rely on a fundamental fallacy that you just used: The existence of a problem is an excuse to exacerbate the problem.

We should solve problems, not make them worse. If a dichotomy exists in college football, let's do things to make things better, not use the dichotomy as a convenient excuse to throw caution to the wind.


I will only state that exhibition matches between the US and Mexico that have nothing to do with crowning a champion are watched by more people in North America than any Non-title college football game could dream to achieve.

Despite the fact that there is a Tournament in place to determine the champion.

But the population pool is much larger also. It isn't the total numbers that are important, but the audience share.

We can never prove how much interest there would be in a bowl game if a 16-team playoff is implemented. (Soccer is not going to provide any help in answering that question.) But I doubt that an exhibition game between NFL teams that didn't make it into the playoffs would garner much excitement. The NIT serves as a good example of what would happen to a minor bowl once a 16-team playoff is implemented. Perhaps someone has the Nielsen rating comparisons between the NCAA tournament and the NIT we can use in our analysis.

[Leroy Lizard]

Read the article again, Einstein. The 14 days was between the 4th and the 18th. The days off were during finals, not after. They got 4 days to "go home for the holidays".

I stand corrected. But the playoff schemes I have seen wouldn't give them any time off at all. They would need to stay on campus.

Also keep in mind that there is a huge difference between practicing and playing.

And when you talk about "dragging out the ordeal," I think you are talking from a fan's perspective.

EDIT: Final exams for Auburn finished on Dec. 10, not Dec. 14. That's eight days, not four.

[Sooner_Bob]

So for a team like Toledo which has essentially zero chance of winning a national title in a 16-team playoff, the bowl system gives the team a realistic goal and an opportunity to finish on a winning note. Who are we to discount their happiness?




And having a playoff in major college football would change this how?

[LakeRat]

So how is half the teams going from 12 games a year to 11 not going to negatively impact them financially?

For instance Texass this year played a typical 12 games. (I assume 6 home six away.)

If they don't make the playoff they would have either 6, 5 or 5, 6. Either way someone would be out money.

Also, what if you are in the playoff and half to travel to that playoff game, will you be compensated by the home team?

So the money is really jacked up by this method and distorted to the top colleges and doesn't makes its way to the smaller schools.

2nd, How would you have decided a Big 10 champ this year without a conference championship game?

Great we make the playoffs but we can't decide who is the conference champion? Also, if you have 19 one loss teams, michigan state doesn't get in the playoff.

We have a great system with the best regular season of any sport. LEAVE IT ALONE!!!

[SpankyNek]

How so?
Both refused to go where they were drafted to, and strongarmed those teams to put the player where they wanted to go.




Then quit calling the games "meaningless." We don't know what the games truly mean to the players and fans, but judging by the exaltation they exhibit after winning, we can guess they mean a lot.
By this definition no game is meaningless, tournament or not.



Yeah, to the point where we cannot even mention one title game in which we lost. As an OU fan, you should be well aware of the stigma and pain of losing a title game. Hell, the humiliation was so severe that we felt OU absolutely had to beat UConn to get the stink off.

So don't bull**** me. Because that is what it is -- bull****.
Who's this "we", kimosabe?
Don't project your feelings on to me. Just because you or Berry F'ing Tramel say we should feel a certain way doesn't make it so. That team was incredible to watch.




We don't have a playoff; we have a bowl system. The bowl system provides Toledo an excellent chance of finishing out on a winning note. There is no need to drop to Div. III.

Sure, they could "win" if they scheduled the local junior college to a scrimmage. But a bowl game is legit because the opponent is evenly matched. It isn't JUST winning.

This shallow reasoning is hardly persuasive.
I have a feeling that any reasoning on this subject, regardless of fathom, would be responded to in an equally snide manner by you.

Care to expound in more "depth" on the theorem that the bowls are evenly matched?




Right. When it is not possible to prove something (which can only be done in mathematics), you have to rely on reasoning, planning, and vision. You have to think ahead and consider all the possibilities. You have to bring human nature into the equation.

You're not doing those things. You simply want a playoff and continually ignore any barriers to success that a playoff could impose.
Here is the math.
(Made simple for non-majors)

Currently, Toledo has a 1:60 chance of playing in the title game (This assumes that they have an equal shot as the rest of the FBS, but provides your argument with the benefit of the doubt).

If a tournament that takes the top 8 ranked teams were implemented, those odds go to 2:30.

If a tournament were implemented that takes only conference champs their odds go to 1:13.




Yes, there is an uneven playing field. I have admitted to this many times in here. Do you really think I was unaware of this issue?

Playoff proponents rely on a fundamental fallacy that you just used: The existence of a problem is an excuse to exacerbate the problem.

We should solve problems, not make them worse. If a dichotomy exists in college football, let's do things to make things better, not use the dichotomy as a convenient excuse to throw caution to the wind.
It is your supposition that the dichotomy would become more cavernous, not mine. I believe that allowing schools like Toledo more access would give them greater opportunity to compete, not the other way around. Every playoff argument I have seen comes with forecasts of larger money for schools like Toledo...how can that seen as a problem?




But the population pool is much larger also. It isn't the total numbers that are important, but the audience share.
How does the population of North America change dependent upon what is on TV? This statement confused me.


We can never prove how much interest there would be in a bowl game if a 16-team playoff is implemented. (Soccer is not going to provide any help in answering that question.) But I doubt that an exhibition game between NFL teams that didn't make it into the playoffs would garner much excitement.
You mean that game would somehow become "meaningless?"

Hmm....



The NIT serves as a good example of what would happen to a minor bowl once a 16-team playoff is implemented. Perhaps someone has the Nielsen rating comparisons between the NCAA tournament and the NIT we can use in our analysis.
Maybe you should compare Nielsen ratings from the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl and the NIT.

[Leroy Lizard]

And having a playoff in major college football would change this how?

:confused:

[IndySooner]

So how is half the teams going from 12 games a year to 11 not going to negatively impact them financially?

For instance Texass this year played a typical 12 games. (I assume 6 home six away.)

If they don't make the playoff they would have either 6, 5 or 5, 6. Either way someone would be out money.

The playoff will generate SO MUCH MORE money than the current system that the money lost for one extra game will be chump change. Assuming conferences split the money the way they do now, there will be no loss of revenue, but rather, quite a substantial gain in revenue.

Also, what if you are in the playoff and half to travel to that playoff game, will you be compensated by the home team?

A $25 million share of revenue per team per game would more than cover any of that.

So the money is really jacked up by this method and distorted to the top colleges and doesn't makes its way to the smaller schools.

2nd, How would you have decided a Big 10 champ this year without a conference championship game?

That's their issue. This year all three would have made it and had they won any games, the conference would have been VERY happy with the payout.

Great we make the playoffs but we can't decide who is the conference champion? Also, if you have 19 one loss teams, michigan state doesn't get in the playoff.

We have a great system with the best regular season of any sport. LEAVE IT ALONE!!!

Great regular season is a myth. So few games truly count. Plus, the post-season is a joke.

:pop:

[IndySooner]

Maybe you should compare Nielsen ratings from the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl and the NIT.

Here's an example:

NIT: 1.2
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/128893

Little Ceasars: 2.6
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20091229/FREE/912299993/tv-ratings-of-little-caesars-pizza-bowl-up-from-last-year#

Bowl ratings SLIGHTLY higher than the NIT.

[Leroy Lizard]

Both refused to go where they were drafted to, and strongarmed those teams to put the player where they wanted to go.

It happens on a rare instance (the Boz, for example), but that isn't a system. The NFL draft is, in fact, an effective means of mediating the talent across the teams in the league. Citing two or three exceptions to the rule isn't going to affect the logical conclusion.


By this definition no game is meaningless, tournament or not.

No game is meaningless as long as there is a reward for winning. Besides, I never claimed tournament games would be meaningless.


Who's this "we", kimosabe?
Don't project your feelings on to me. Just because you or Berry F'ing Tramel say we should feel a certain way doesn't make it so. That team was incredible to watch.

The issue here is the feeling that is left with the fans once the final game is played. I can assure you that the feeling since that time is largely negative, and there are only about a billion posts in here that would affirm my statement. Hell, we don't use the acronym TGOWWDNS because we're proud of our involvement in the game.


I have a feeling that any reasoning on this subject, regardless of fathom, would be responded to in an equally snide manner by you.

I wasn't being snide; I was telling you the truth. The notion that Toledo should consider dropping to Div III just so they can win games is ridiculous. The pride in winning comes from accomplishment, not just the final score. In other words, the concept of winning is not nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be. That is why I called it shallow reasoning.


Care to expound in more "depth" on the theorem that the bowls are evenly matched?

You are pitting your team against another that was good enough to gain a spot in the bowl game. UConn was certainly an underdog, but it was able to play at OU's level for much of the night. This is a far cry from playing a Div III team


Here is the math.
(Made simple for non-majors)

.
.
.

It is your supposition that the dichotomy would become more cavernous, not mine. I believe that allowing schools like Toledo more access would give them greater opportunity to compete, not the other way around. Every playoff argument I have seen comes with forecasts of larger money for schools like Toledo...how can that seen as a problem?

You are working on a false premise. The argument here is which system gives a team like Toledo a better chance on ending the season on a high note (winning a high-stakes finale game), not which system gives Toledo a better chance of winning the national title (which is slim and none in both schemes).

Essentially, right now the bowl system gives Toledo about a 1:4 chance at the beginning of the season to end the season as a bowl champ. No playoff is going to beat that unless it allows the entire Cheyenne Nation to participate.


How does the population of North America change dependent upon what is on TV? This statement confused me.

Football appeals to a more limited subset of North American than soccer.

Besides, I have not seen any Nielsen ratings posted here so how can I even comment?


Maybe you should compare Nielsen ratings from the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl and the NIT.

Good point. The NIT attracts the fan base of 64 teams; the bowl game only 2. Even if the NIT's and bowl game's Nielsen ratings were even, that would spell death to a bowl game.

This is why they have multiple teams play at one venue. Take two teams from the NIT and have them play at their own venue on a separate date, which is essentially what happens in a bowl game. Would it even be televised regionally? I doubt it.

Again, football is expensive to promote. Any significant drop in viewership will wipe them out. The NIT gets away with it by hosting numerous teams in a few locations and having multiple games played on the same court and same day. You cannot do that in football. No way, no how.

[Leroy Lizard]

Here's an example:

NIT: 1.2
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/128893

Little Ceasars: 2.6
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20091229/FREE/912299993/tv-ratings-of-little-caesars-pizza-bowl-up-from-last-year#

Bowl ratings SLIGHTLY higher than the NIT.

That is about what I expected.

[Leroy Lizard]

:pop:

Do your figures reflect a 16-team playoff or an 8-team playoff? Just curious.

[IndySooner]

Do your figures reflect a 16-team playoff or an 8-team playoff? Just curious.

16-team playoff. People throwing around an 8-team playoff aren't getting the point. There's not going to be a playoff that doesn't include all of the conference champions. It won't get agreed to.

Gary Patterson said today on the Dan Patrick Show that the reason he doesn't support a playoff is that he hasn't seen a proposal that includes all of the conference champions (which shows you how much attention the coaches, AD's and presidents have REALLY paid attention lately, and also gives Mark Cuban a chance to work his magic) but would support one that gives every conference champion a place in the tournament.

[IndySooner]

Do your figures reflect a 16-team playoff or an 8-team playoff? Just curious.

The figures come straight from the last chapter of "Death to the BCS".

[MeMyself&Me]

If they want to make more money, I'd rather them extend the regular season by one game than go to a post season tournament.

[IndySooner]

If they want to make more money, I'd rather them extend the regular season by one game than go to a post season tournament.

It wouldn't generate a FRACTION of the revenue.

Personally, I think it's fiscally irresponsible for these tax infused institutions to turn down a system that would generate hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Leroy Lizard]

Here is a factoid I find interesting.

Six of the last seven FCS national title games featured either Montana or Appalachian State.

Over the last seven years, however, no team at the FBS level has appeared in more than two national championship games, with a repeat not appearing until you go back five years.

Think about the implications of that if we were to implement a similar playoff in FBS.
This worries me a lot about a playoff system.

EDIT: Holy ****! This problem appears at the other levels too. At the Division II level, Grand Valley State or North Dakota State have appeared in all but two of the last 13 national championship games. At the Division III level, Whitewater and Mount Union have also appeared in all but two of the last 13 national championship games.

[SpankyNek]

You are working on a false premise. The argument here is which system gives a team like Toledo a better chance on ending the season on a high note (winning a high-stakes finale game), not which system gives Toledo a better chance of winning the national title (which is slim and none in both schemes).

Essentially, right now the bowl system gives Toledo about a 1:4 chance at the beginning of the season to end the season as a bowl champ. No playoff is going to beat that unless it allows the entire Cheyenne Nation to participate.


I am not working on a false premise. There is absolute mathematical proof that a tournament would increase Toledo's chances at a National Title. You are working on a premise that the Beef O' Brady Bowl is in danger of not being able to match up a couple of also-rans if a post-season tournament were implemented, a supposition I refuse to accept.


Good point. The NIT attracts the fan base of 64 teams; the bowl game only 2. Even if the NIT's and bowl game's Nielsen ratings were even, that would spell death to a bowl game.

The beginning round Nielsen ratings for the NIT games (On Cable) were slightly ahead of the ratings for the NCAA play in game.




This is why they have multiple teams play at one venue. Take two teams from the NIT and have them play at their own venue on a separate date, which is essentially what happens in a bowl game. Would it even be televised regionally? I doubt it.

The NIT does not go to a multi venue until the final 4 at MSG in New York.

[SpankyNek]

Here is a factoid I find interesting.

Six of the last seven FCS national title games featured either Montana or Appalachian State.

Over the last seven years, however, no team at the FBS level has appeared in more than two national championship games.

Think about the implications of that if we were to implement a similar playoff in FBS.
This worries me a lot about a playoff system.

This goes directly to the NCAA's refusal to delineate a proper divisional setup.

Ap State and Montana would routinely beat the living pi$$ out of about 1/3 of the FBS.

[49r]

This goes directly to the NCAA's refusal to delineate a proper divisional setup.

Ap State and Montana would routinely beat the living pi$$ out of about 1/3 of the FBS.

It's baffling to me why the NCAA doesn't institute a system of promotion/relegation, at least in the Division I football ranks...

[MeMyself&Me]

Garsh, if the regular season is such a money loser, then why even do that? Just bracket everyone up starting in September.

[SpankyNek]

Garsh, if the regular season is such a money loser, then why even do that? Just bracket everyone up starting in September.

This is going to happen.

The super conference era is closer than many of us care to accept.

[Leroy Lizard]

This goes directly to the NCAA's refusal to delineate a proper divisional setup.

Ap State and Montana would routinely beat the living pi$$ out of about 1/3 of the FBS.

Maybe. But maybe one reason why these teams would beat the **** out of so many FBS teams is that routine play in a playoff has given them additional experience that other teams don't possess.

Would a similar thing happen in FBS? My feeling is, yes. Over time, a few select teams will begin to dominate the playoffs as their players gain the extra big-game experience.

And if it happens, we have screwed up college football for an eternity.

[Leroy Lizard]

I am not working on a false premise. There is absolute mathematical proof that a tournament would increase Toledo's chances at a National Title.

Sure, from 1:1,400 to 1:1,200. Of what practical value is that when they have a system in place now that gives them roughly a 1:4 chance of becoming bowl champions?

[SpankyNek]

Sure, from 1:1,400 to 1:1,200. Of what practical value is that when they have a system in place now that gives them roughly a 1:4 chance of becoming bowl champions?

I guess we could start with maintaining the Emerald Nuts Bowl regardless of tournament implementation.

[Sooner_Bob]

:confused:

If in your opinion, Toledo has zero chance of winning the title in a playoff, how would their goals, dreams, aspirations, satisfaction of winning the "word to your mutha" bowl change if there really was a playoff?

[MeMyself&Me]

No need for conferences at all we start the brackets in September...

[IndySooner]

Here is a factoid I find interesting.

Six of the last seven FCS national title games featured either Montana or Appalachian State.

Over the last seven years, however, no team at the FBS level has appeared in more than two national championship games, with a repeat not appearing until you go back five years.

Think about the implications of that if we were to implement a similar playoff in FBS.
This worries me a lot about a playoff system.

EDIT: Holy ****! This problem appears at the other levels too. At the Division II level, Grand Valley State or North Dakota State have appeared in all but two of the last 13 national championship games. At the Division III level, Whitewater and Mount Union have also appeared in all but two of the last 13 national championship games.

The programs at the IA level are so much more equal it's unreal.

[IndySooner]

Garsh, if the regular season is such a money loser, then why even do that? Just bracket everyone up starting in September.

Obviously not the point. We don't want to get rid of the regular season. We just want a playoff, which in turn, will generate tens of millions of dollars MORE for EVERY university every year.

Pretty simple, really.

[Scott D]

This thread is once again pure comedy gold.

[SpankyNek]

Maybe. But maybe one reason why these teams would beat the **** out of so many FBS teams is that routine play in a playoff has given them additional experience that other teams don't possess.

Would a similar thing happen in FBS? My feeling is, yes. Over time, a few select teams will begin to dominate the playoffs as their players gain the extra big-game experience.

And if it happens, we have screwed up college football for an eternity.

I don't believe that Montana (Who has played in less games over the past 5 years than Richmond, for example) has garnered any advantage from that experience. If anything, it gives them a greater chance at injury (Haven't I heard you argue against the wear and tear angle...which side of the balance does the extra game(s) fall?)

[Sooner_Bob]

Here is a factoid I find interesting.

Six of the last seven FCS national title games featured either Montana or Appalachian State.

Over the last seven years, however, no team at the FBS level has appeared in more than two national championship games, with a repeat not appearing until you go back five years.

Think about the implications of that if we were to implement a similar playoff in FBS.
This worries me a lot about a playoff system.

EDIT: Holy ****! This problem appears at the other levels too. At the Division II level, Grand Valley State or North Dakota State have appeared in all but two of the last 13 national championship games. At the Division III level, Whitewater and Mount Union have also appeared in all but two of the last 13 national championship games.


To me that proves the point that the best teams made the championship games.

[Sooner_Bob]

This thread is once again pure comedy gold.

What would sf.com be without an endless thread about a playoff?;)

[Scott D]

Personally I'm waiting for the "omg the NCAA should steal it from the BCS to make it a playoff" argument.

[Sooner_Bob]

Personally I'm waiting for the "omg the NCAA should steal it from the BCS to make it a playoff" argument.

:eek: Shouldn't they?























:D

[Scott D]

I expect next week IndySooner will start a pro-playoff thread that will feature a 32 team field.

[MeMyself&Me]

I've been on your side of the fact that a playoff would make more money than bowls but I'm having a hard time seeing how one week of tournament play (with 8 games assuming first round of a 16 team bracket) would make more money than every football team having an extra game (60 more games).

[Sooner_Bob]

I expect next week IndySooner will start a pro-playoff thread that will feature a 32 team field.

"The field is larger than that in August/September!"

[MeMyself&Me]

Man, my greasemonkey plugin stopped working... now it's starting to stink in here. :(

[Scott D]

I've been on your side of the fact that a playoff would make more money than bowls but I'm having a hard time seeing how one week of tournament play (with 8 games assuming first round of a 16 team bracket) would make more money than every football team having an extra game (60 more games).

it does because its what I want to have happen more than anything in the whole wide world

:D

[IndySooner]

I expect next week IndySooner will start a pro-playoff thread that will feature a 32 team field.

Not sure where you came from.

Nope. 16-team playoff designed exactly the way Death to the BCS has it.

[Scott D]

anything more than 4 makes me laugh heartily

[IndySooner]

I've been on your side of the fact that a playoff would make more money than bowls but I'm having a hard time seeing how one week of tournament play (with 8 games assuming first round of a 16 team bracket) would make more money than every football team having an extra game (60 more games).

The TV contract for the playoff would be massive. That would be the difference.

By the way, I'm not an advocate of eliminating a week. I think you can make a playoff work with the current schedule.

[IndySooner]

anything more than 4 makes me laugh heartily

Thanks for your input.

[Scott D]

Oh I haven't even begin to crack the tip of the iceberg here.

[IndySooner]

Thank God! I'm on pins and needles. One can only hope you bring as much information to the table as some of the others in this thread.

[Scott D]

I want you to first explain why 16 teams is the right number. And then expound that further by telling me why you want to reward the 9-3 and 8-4 teams of the world over the 10-2 and 11-1 teams that don't win their conferences. Then, how can you definitively prove that this idea of 16 won't become an argument that ends up in an expansion to at least 24 if not 32 with the potential for even more expansions further on down the road.

Also from information earlier in this thread. Was that rating on the NIT just on the championship game for the NIT or the entire tournament? Are you sure it was the postseason NIT and not the "preseason" NIT?

Furthermore, a playoff will discourage tougher non-conference scheduling provided conferences don't just expand to accomodate a 12 game conference schedule as to avoid the potential for any trip ups that will affect their status at the end of the season.

What I see out of most playoff arguments are the same thing I'm seeing with the NFL argument this season on the basis of "omg! a team with a losing record won their division and is hosting a playoff game." Changing the rules because of an anomaly is typical overreaction from a PC mentality that has us giving the 10th place team in a 10 team little league "participation" trophies as big as the 1st place trophies the team that finishes in first gets.

[SpankyNek]

I want you to first explain why 16 teams is the right number. And then expound that further by telling me why you want to reward the 9-3 and 8-4 teams of the world over the 10-2 and 11-1 teams that don't win their conferences. Then, how can you definitively prove that this idea of 16 won't become an argument that ends up in an expansion to at least 24 if not 32 with the potential for even more expansions further on down the road.

Also from information earlier in this thread. Was that rating on the NIT just on the championship game for the NIT or the entire tournament? Are you sure it was the postseason NIT and not the "preseason" NIT?

Furthermore, a playoff will discourage tougher non-conference scheduling provided conferences don't just expand to accomodate a 12 game conference schedule as to avoid the potential for any trip ups that will affect their status at the end of the season.

What I see out of most playoff arguments are the same thing I'm seeing with the NFL argument this season on the basis of "omg! a team with a losing record won their division and is hosting a playoff game." Changing the rules because of an anomaly is typical overreaction from a PC mentality that has us giving the 10th place team in a 10 team little league "participation" trophies as big as the 1st place trophies the team that finishes in first gets.

He provided a link...it was for a first round game.

The NIT title game was rated higher than the bowl.

The Big East conference Final in Basketball got about 4 times the viewers as the LCP Bowl.

[IndySooner]

I want you to first explain why 16 teams is the right number. And then expound that further by telling me why you want to reward the 9-3 and 8-4 teams of the world over the 10-2 and 11-1 teams that don't win their conferences. Then, how can you definitively prove that this idea of 16 won't become an argument that ends up in an expansion to at least 24 if not 32 with the potential for even more expansions further on down the road.

16 is the right number because it allows: 1) all conference champions and 2) all top-10 teams. It's the best of both worlds, and frankly, the only acceptable number for a true tournament. An eight team tournament (which I would be okay with) wouldn't be accepted because it wouldn't guarantee inclusion to the TCU's and Boise State's of the world. I think 9-3 and 8-4 conference champions deserve a shot over 10-2 (11-1 major conference teams won't get left out in almost any situation) major conference teams is because until everyone plays an equal schedule, we don't know who's playing in the toughest conferences. I also, again, think it's almost the only way anything will get passed. As for expansion, I can't "prove" that it won't happen. It could. I don't think the calendar allows for it, though.

Also from information earlier in this thread. Was that rating on the NIT just on the championship game for the NIT or the entire tournament? Are you sure it was the postseason NIT and not the "preseason" NIT?

It was from an opening round Kentucky game in 2009, I believe. I provided the link. Go ahead and check my memory. It was the post-season NIT.

Furthermore, a playoff will discourage tougher non-conference scheduling provided conferences don't just expand to accomodate a 12 game conference schedule as to avoid the potential for any trip ups that will affect their status at the end of the season.
Please read "Death to the BCS". He disproves this many times in the book. The system needs to be set up to where it rewards a tough schedule and eliminates games against IAA teams.

What I see out of most playoff arguments are the same thing I'm seeing with the NFL argument this season on the basis of "omg! a team with a losing record won their division and is hosting a playoff game." Changing the rules because of an anomaly is typical overreaction from a PC mentality that has us giving the 10th place team in a 10 team little league "participation" trophies as big as the 1st place trophies the team that finishes in first gets.

Not sure where you're going with this. Only twice during the run of the BCS has there been no argument over who should be in the championship game (meaning only two undefeated teams, etc.) This is no anomaly. Tulane, Utah, Boise, TCU and others have finished the season with no losses and been handed their participation trophy without a shot at a title. That's no anomaly. I'm not convinced that TCU isn't better than BOTH Oregon and Auburn this year.
:)

[Scott D]

He provided a link...it was for a first round game.

The NIT title game was rated higher than the bowl.

The Big East conference Final in Basketball got about 4 times the viewers as the LCP Bowl.

1/3 of the Big East doesn't participate in football especially two teams in their largest market, but those schools do participate in basketball so that argument is an absolute fallacy. Basketball is to the Big East what Football is to the SEC.

However using the NIT game he did quote which was as follows

NIT: 1.2

Little Ceasars: 2.6


In the world of Nielsen unlike what he said having double the rating (we'll consider that bowl game to be comparable to an opening round NIT game) is not just a marginal difference it's a huge difference.

The problem I have with the Bowls is that they've spread them out more in order for everyone to try and get their own "special" coverage for their bowl. We still have some dead periods that are too long after the end of the season, and we don't need bowls stretching beyond jan. 10th at the latest (even then I think it's too long.

Ideally in a current system the non title BCS bowls would be over by Jan 2nd, and the Title game no later than the 9th. The rest of the bowls would fill the time from two Saturdays after the end of "Championship Week" until January 1st.

Regardless, we'll say that this year the playoff would seem to accommodate 16 teams, and then next year the argument can be made that only 8 teams can really be considered of deserving of a shot at a playoff...then the next year it's 10 then the next year it's 4 then the next year it's 2. Do we attempt to adjust this playoff to accommodate who is "worthy"?

[MeMyself&Me]

The TV contract for the playoff would be massive. That would be the difference.

60 games versus 8 games bigger? Those 52 other games would mean that regular season tv contracts would involve more money. And then there's 52 more games that have other means of revenue as well besides tv contracts. I don't know the numbers but it sure seems like a big leap to me.

[IndySooner]

1/3 of the Big East doesn't participate in football especially two teams in their largest market, but those schools do participate in basketball so that argument is an absolute fallacy. Basketball is to the Big East what Football is to the SEC.

However using the NIT game he did quote which was as follows

NIT: 1.2

Little Ceasars: 2.6


In the world of Nielsen unlike what he said having double the rating (we'll consider that bowl game to be comparable to an opening round NIT game) is not just a marginal difference it's a huge difference.

The problem I have with the Bowls is that they've spread them out more in order for everyone to try and get their own "special" coverage for their bowl. We still have some dead periods that are too long after the end of the season, and we don't need bowls stretching beyond jan. 10th at the latest (even then I think it's too long.

Ideally in a current system the non title BCS bowls would be over by Jan 2nd, and the Title game no later than the 9th. The rest of the bowls would fill the time from two Saturdays after the end of "Championship Week" until January 1st.

Regardless, we'll say that this year the playoff would seem to accommodate 16 teams, and then next year the argument can be made that only 8 teams can really be considered of deserving of a shot at a playoff...then the next year it's 10 then the next year it's 4 then the next year it's 2. Do we attempt to adjust this playoff to accommodate who is "worthy"?

Worthiness is incumbent in the system. 11 conference champs. 5 at-large. In the past 50 years, that would have included conference champions and teams ranked NO LOWER than 12th or 13th. I've gone back and done the research on that.

[SpankyNek]

1/3 of the Big East doesn't participate in football especially two teams in their largest market, but those schools do participate in basketball so that argument is an absolute fallacy. Basketball is to the Big East what Football is to the SEC.

However using the NIT game he did quote which was as follows

NIT: 1.2

Little Ceasars: 2.6


In the world of Nielsen unlike what he said having double the rating (we'll consider that bowl game to be comparable to an opening round NIT game) is not just a marginal difference it's a huge difference.

The problem I have with the Bowls is that they've spread them out more in order for everyone to try and get their own "special" coverage for their bowl. We still have some dead periods that are too long after the end of the season, and we don't need bowls stretching beyond jan. 10th at the latest (even then I think it's too long.

Ideally in a current system the non title BCS bowls would be over by Jan 2nd, and the Title game no later than the 9th. The rest of the bowls would fill the time from two Saturdays after the end of "Championship Week" until January 1st.

Regardless, we'll say that this year the playoff would seem to accommodate 16 teams, and then next year the argument can be made that only 8 teams can really be considered of deserving of a shot at a playoff...then the next year it's 10 then the next year it's 4 then the next year it's 2. Do we attempt to adjust this playoff to accommodate who is "worthy"?

We would probably just have to settle for the "unworthy" getting their butts kicked.

[IndySooner]

60 games versus 8 games bigger? Those 52 other games would mean that regular season tv contracts would involve more money. And then there's 52 more games that have other means of revenue as well besides tv contracts. I don't know the numbers but it sure seems like a big leap to me.

Not my research, nor my expertise, so I can't give you the details behind the "why".

[Scott D]

I don't need to read Death to the BCS because I don't care about the BCS. I also don't care about a playoff, it just amazes me how many people think it's the answer to everything. There are fallacies to both arguments, but advocates of both systems are blind to that.

16 teams once again is based on the concept that there isn't going to be further expansion and contraction of conferences. As we saw this past summer, expansion and contraction is always a tangible threat. How does this 16 team idea of the author's work if by the power of expansion we end up with 9 conferences?

As to potentially expanding the playoff? If you went back to 1975 and told the people in charge of the NCAA basketball tournament that in 2010 there would be over 66 teams in the tournament, they would have been grabbing the nearest rotary dial phone to call the men in white coats to come with a straightjacket for you.

[MeMyself&Me]

The only champion a tournament provides is a tournament champion... not a 'true' champion. That's simply a cache phrase that really means nothing.

[SpankyNek]

1/3 of the Big East doesn't participate in football especially two teams in their largest market, but those schools do participate in basketball so that argument is an absolute fallacy. Basketball is to the Big East what Football is to the SEC.



What does that have to do with anything?

I guess more people would have watched the LCP Bowl if it had been Oregon vs. Auburn....what does that prove?

[IndySooner]

I don't need to read Death to the BCS because I don't care about the BCS. I also don't care about a playoff, it just amazes me how many people think it's the answer to everything. There are fallacies to both arguments, but advocates of both systems are blind to that.

Don't disagree. I think both systems will have flaws. I just think the 16-team tournament is eons better.

16 teams once again is based on the concept that there isn't going to be further expansion and contraction of conferences. As we saw this past summer, expansion and contraction is always a tangible threat. How does this 16 team idea of the author's work if by the power of expansion we end up with 9 conferences?

Then we have 7 at-large teams.

As to potentially expanding the playoff? If you went back to 1975 and told the people in charge of the NCAA basketball tournament that in 2010 there would be over 66 teams in the tournament, they would have been grabbing the nearest rotary dial phone to call the men in white coats to come with a straightjacket for you.

Not doubting that if it made business sense, they would try to expand. I'm just not sure how the calendar would accommodate it.

:(

[MeMyself&Me]

Not my research, nor my expertise, so I can't give you the details behind the "why".

:(


I fear this is the kind of attitude that will lead to a post season tournament that we'll all be disappointed in.

[IndySooner]

I don't need to read Death to the BCS because I don't care about the BCS. I also don't care about a playoff, it just amazes me how many people think it's the answer to everything. There are fallacies to both arguments, but advocates of both systems are blind to that.
.

If you're a college football fan, you really DO need to read it. My opinion was similar to his already, but some of the facts and information presented was AMAZING. No matter what side you're on, it's a must read for a college football fan.

[IndySooner]

:(


I fear this is the kind of attitude that will lead to a post season tournament that we'll all be disappointed in.

HUH? I'm quoting stats from a HIGHLY RESEARCHED book. I haven't done the research, so I can't tell you the background behind it. What's the issue with that?

[MeMyself&Me]

Saying 8 is more than 52 is such a reach to me that it needs to be backed up, particularly when you put it they way you put it.

[Scott D]

Ok, so 9 champs and 7 at large...then expansion hits again and we're up to 12 conferences so you are ok with 12 and 4 then we contract to 6 and you're ok with 6 and 10 at large?

At this stage with the amount of instability in FBS and the potential fluidity with which teams may yet move are grounds enough to not rush into any playoff scenario without their being a perception as to how that system is going to fit what can be a potentially constantly changing landscape.

[IndySooner]

Saying 8 is more than 52 is such a reach to me that it needs to be backed up, particularly when you put it they way you put it.

I'm telling you that the BCS generates approximately $150 million per year. I am going to assume that the BCS generates more money than one week of regular season football.

Then you estimate that the playoff will generate, conservatively, over $500 million, and I don't see how losing a week will be cost-prohibitive.

Those numbers come from the book, from the TV execs., conference commissioners, AD's and others that were interviewed. They have much more expertise on the subject than I do, so I'm relying on their information.

[IndySooner]

Ok, so 9 champs and 7 at large...then expansion hits again and we're up to 12 conferences so you are ok with 12 and 4 then we contract to 6 and you're ok with 6 and 10 at large?

At this stage with the amount of instability in FBS and the potential fluidity with which teams may yet move are grounds enough to not rush into any playoff scenario without their being a perception as to how that system is going to fit what can be a potentially constantly changing landscape.

As long as there are not more than 16 conferences, I'm good with whatever.

Personally, I think we're headed to four 16-team conferences with a 4-team playoff of the champions. That might happen before any playoff could even get off the ground.

[Scott D]

I would agree that is far more viable.

But I will also freely admit that in my ideas to improve FBS, a playoff is pretty low on the list.

[IndySooner]

I would agree that is far more viable.

But I will also freely admit that in my ideas to improve FBS, a playoff is pretty low on the list.

I hate having a month off between bowls, then meaningless games that I'm supposed to get excited about. I like the idea of playing the bowl games at the beginning of the year. Playoff at the end. That would be cool, people would be excited about the bowls after a long layoff. People would travel. You could have EVERYONE go to a bowl. Good stuff.

I know that's not viable.

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't believe that Montana (Who has played in less games over the past 5 years than Richmond, for example) has garnered any advantage from that experience. If anything, it gives them a greater chance at injury (Haven't I heard you argue against the wear and tear angle...which side of the balance does the extra game(s) fall?)

The payoff of playing more games is well worth it, especially since most injuries heal over the off-season. Career-ending injuries are relatively rare.

[IndySooner]

The payoff of playing more games is well worth it, especially since most injuries heal over the off-season. Career-ending injuries are relatively rare.

I see what you did there..........;)

[I Am Right]

Argue, fight, conjoule, spit, or cuss, throw hyperbole, never happen.

[Leroy Lizard]

Maybe we can just coalesce all the playoff threads into one and put a sticky on it.

[SpankyNek]

Argue, fight, conjoule, spit, or cuss, throw hyperbole, never happen.

It will happen.

Resistance is futile.

If "bracket creep" is inevitable, the Pandora's Box was opened with the 2 team playoff we installed with the BCS.

[Leroy Lizard]

It will happen.

Resistance is futile.

If "bracket creep" is inevitable, the Pandora's Box was opened with the 2 team playoff we installed with the BCS.

Then why even argue it at all?

Everything is nice and peaceful in here, and then some yokel stumbles on yet another stupid playoff idea, which turns out to mirror one of the myriad pie-in-the-sky systems that have been bandied around here ad nauseum.

"Hey guys, I found this real neat-o playoff system that has (get this) 16 teams, with 12 made up conference champions and others taken from the BCS. Yuck, yuck, yuck."

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o8vd6YjZSiM/SN0EeZJOYEI/AAAAAAAABcE/MGrTprp6_iU/s400/yokels.jpg

[MeMyself&Me]

I'm telling you that the BCS generates approximately $150 million per year. I am going to assume that the BCS generates more money than one week of regular season football.

Assume?

Then you estimate that the playoff will generate, conservatively, over $500 million, and I don't see how losing a week will be cost-prohibitive.

I never said anything about losing a week of regular season. I said I'd rather extend the regular season to make more money if money is an issue. You said an extra week of regular season wouldn't be a FRACTION of what a post season tournament would make. I think you even had it in caps like that for emphasis. Also, I was comparing one week to one week. You're comparing four weeks to one week. For what it's worth, I'd rather extend the regular season by 4 weeks than have a post season tournament, ie, I just don't want one and I think there are plenty of people in power that don't either and if it came down to it would rather have a longer season for everyone that a post season that gave just a handful of schools an extended time of exposure.

Those numbers come from the book, from the TV execs., conference commissioners, AD's and others that were interviewed. They have much more expertise on the subject than I do, so I'm relying on their information.

I'm guessing they didn't ask the 'really smart people' about extending the regular season. That book was written with an agenda. Sorta like some of those Michael Moore movies.


.

[SpankyNek]

Then why even argue it at all?
It would appear that you may possibly need to answer this.


Everything is nice and peaceful in here, and then some yokel stumbles on yet another stupid playoff idea, which turns out to mirror one of the myriad pie-in-the-sky systems that have been bandied around here ad nauseum.
It could retain its peacefulness in here if you could refrain from using disparaging nomenclature, i.e. "yokel" when referring to other posters.



"Hey guys, I found this real neat-o playoff system that has (get this) 16 teams, with 12 made up conference champions and others taken from the BCS. Yuck, yuck, yuck."

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o8vd6YjZSiM/SN0EeZJOYEI/AAAAAAAABcE/MGrTprp6_iU/s400/yokels.jpg

And here we have it folks, the omniscient, omnipotent Leroy Lizard thinks anyone that believes a playoff is a good thing is a stereotypical hillbilly.

While doing so he states that conference champions are simply "made up."

I personally think the trophies we have collected for winning the Big XII (Even if in a "playoff" CCG) have meaning.

If you simply disagree with a playoff, Leroy, then why do you perpetuate the argument?

[IndySooner]

Curious what the people that are so concerned about the players think of this:

http://www.ncpanow.org/releases_advisories?id=0013

[Leroy Lizard]

Curious what the people that are so concerned about the players think of this:

http://www.ncpanow.org/releases_advisories?id=0013

I am concerned about the players' welfare, not simply their opinions. Students all want A's. I don't give them all A's. It isn't about what they want, but what is best.


It could retain its peacefulness in here if you could refrain from using disparaging nomenclature, i.e. "yokel" when referring to other posters...

Oh, give me a break! You think that all the playoff proponents come in here with nothing but kind comments about their opponents?

[IndySooner]

I am concerned about the players' welfare, not simply their opinions. Students all want A's. I don't give them all A's. It isn't about what they want, but what is best.


I get it. The presidents and AD's know what's best for the players. The adults that play college football. Got it.

To equate giving students A's to this is ridiculous and you know it.

Universities make BILLIONS of dollars off of these guys. They should have a say.

[Leroy Lizard]

I get it. The presidents and AD's know what's best for the players.

It's like almost all college campus rules. We don't let the students draft the rules; the faculty and administration do it.

In a business, the employees don't write the rules either. Why is that?

There are some exceptions, but they are limited. The college football rules aren't voted in by players. Never have been.

[IndySooner]

It's like almost all college campus rules. We don't let the students draft the rules; the faculty and administration do it.

In a business, the employees don't write the rules either. Why is that?

There are some exceptions, but they are limited. The college football rules aren't voted in by players. Never have been.

90% of the fans want it.
80+% of the players want it.
Over 50% of the coaches want it. (can't remember the exact number)

But, 240 presidents and AD's can't even allow it to be considered, so we should all just appreciate what we have.

It's a joke.

[Leroy Lizard]

90% of the fans want it.

They don't draft the rules.


80+% of the players want it.

They don't draft the rules.


Over 50% of the coaches want it. (can't remember the exact number)

They don't draft the rules. (And I think your 50% figure is dated. Not sure if it is higher or lower, though. I don't really care.)


But, 240 presidents and AD's can't even allow it to be considered, so we should all just appreciate what we have.

They draft the rules.

There is a reason we don't let players, fans, or coaches draft the rules.

Why do you think that is?

Think about it.

[IndySooner]

They draft the rules.

There is a reason we don't let players, fans, or coaches draft the rules.

Why do you think that is?

Think about it.

I think I told you what I think about it. It's a joke.

The college presidents are the LEAST educated about this subject. They need to take a step back and let people control the sport who know what they are doing. Whether that includes a playoff or not, whatever, but there are TONS of rules in place that are out of touch and it's because the college presidents have $$$$$$$$$ in their ears lobbying them.

[IndySooner]

(And I think your 50% figure is dated. Not sure if it is higher or lower, though. I don't really care.)



Pretty sure it was right at 65% this year, but I can't find the article.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think I told you what I think about it. It's a joke.

The college presidents are the LEAST educated about this subject. They need to take a step back and let people control the sport who know what they are doing. Whether that includes a playoff or not, whatever, but there are TONS of rules in place that are out of touch and it's because the college presidents have $$$$$$$$$ in their ears lobbying them.

If you think college presidents are corrupting the process, you cannot imagine what would happen if coaches ran the NCAA. Do you want Les Miles determining the rules for proper treatment of athletes?

Right now the NCAA comprises college presidents and athletic directors. I'm all for giving all the power to the college presidents, but that will likely never happen. As it stands, I can accept the status quo.

And college presidents are very much up to snuff on issues related to collegiate athletics. Don't kid yourself. They certainly understand the issues affecting athletes better than the average fan.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

good thing indysooner could make 2 threads about the same subject like this, because one thing not done enough in the offseason is talking about playoffs

[Curly Bill]

good thing indysooner could make 2 threads about the same subject like this, because one thing not done enough in the offseason is talking about playoffs

But, but, but...all we need to make the world one of sunshine and daffodils is to have D-1 playoffs. Really, it's the only thing standing in the way of a perfect world. :rolleyes: :D

[stoops the eternal pimp]

yeah, because college football as it is sucks

[Curly Bill]

It really does, if only it was like all other sports and had a playoff, it might be like...popular or something.

[Leroy Lizard]

It's unfortunate no one will watch the BCS national championship game. They haven't yet recovered from the excitement of the FCS playoffs.

[bigfatjerk]

It's unfortunate no one will watch the BCS national championship game. They haven't yet recovered from the excitement of the FCS playoffs.
Actually the ratings have been down for bowl games this year because they are on ESPN.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/01/07/college-bowl-ratings-mostly-down-after-move-to-cable-but-espns-bottom-line-will-cheer-anyway/77789

[rekamrettuB]

90% of the fans want it.
80+% of the players want it.
Over 50% of the coaches want it. (can't remember the exact number)

But, 240 presidents and AD's can't even allow it to be considered, so we should all just appreciate what we have.

It's a joke.

Where do these stats come from? Especially the 90% of fans? I'm just curious because I like college football more than any other sport. I pay attention to the regular season games that I otherwise wouldn't w/ most playoff scenarios that I see that are even remotely possible.

[Leroy Lizard]

Where do these stats come from? Especially the 90% of fans? I'm just curious because I like college football more than any other sport. I pay attention to the regular season games that I otherwise wouldn't w/ most playoff scenarios that I see that are even remotely possible.

alt.sex.out.of.the.***

[MeMyself&Me]

Curious what the people that are so concerned about the players think of this:

http://www.ncpanow.org/releases_advisories?id=0013

LOL. That article was full of your favorite catch phrases that mean nothing and only stir the pot for those on that side of the argument. I also find it interesting that the article completely skipped this detail from the poll itself:


3. On a scale of 1-10, how supportive would you be of a playoff system that DID NOT incorporate Bowl games (1=not supportive at all, 5=neutral, 10 = extremely supportive)?

Average Rating: 3.59

Bowls are not going to be IN the playoff format.

[IndySooner]

Where do these stats come from? Especially the 90% of fans? I'm just curious because I like college football more than any other sport. I pay attention to the regular season games that I otherwise wouldn't w/ most playoff scenarios that I see that are even remotely possible.

The 90% figure came from a poll from the most reputable polling company (Gallup) in the world.

The 82% of players came from the college football players association.

The coaches polls are skewed because they are always slanted, but when given a 16-team playoff with specifics, the coaches were something like 65% in favor.

[rekamrettuB]

The 90% figure came from a poll from the most reputable polling company (Gallup) in the world.

The 82% of players came from the college football players association.

The coaches polls are skewed because they are always slanted, but when given a 16-team playoff with specifics, the coaches were something like 65% in favor.

I'm surprised it's 90%. This is just my theory but if the NCAA football changed to let's say a 32 team playoff (I know, nobody wants that but it will go that way eventually) that 90% of the fans would rather it go back to the old way.

Playoffs are exciting, there's no denying that and they are much better than bowl games, but college football's regular season would suffer for it. Just look at any other sport that has playoffs and I don't think you will find the regular season following outside of that particular team's fans like you see in college football. If there were an automatic slot for conference champions, and I see no other way a playoffs would be passed otherwise, there would be less people interested in other team's games such as OU fans watching say Auburn or Oregon games this year. I would treat them the same as I do any NFL game not involving Atlanta. My typical weekend is get up early on Saturday and do some chores, sit down and start watching football by 2:30, usually earlier, no matter when OU is playing. Sunday, sleep in a bit (usually hungover from OU game) and do chores outside of the 3.5 hours the Falcons are playing. Casually look at scores on phone. When an upset is brewing it's not real exciting. If one is brewing in college football there's that excitement of chaos. That excitement that enjoy so much every Saturday in the fall will be gone w/ a playoff in my opinion.

If they can somehow get a 4 to 8 team playoff w/ no conference tie ins and guarantee it will never, never, ever expand then I'm all for it.

[IndySooner]

I'm surprised it's 90%. This is just my theory but if the NCAA football changed to let's say a 32 team playoff (I know, nobody wants that but it will go that way eventually) that 90% of the fans would rather it go back to the old way.

Playoffs are exciting, there's no denying that and they are much better than bowl games, but college football's regular season would suffer for it. Just look at any other sport that has playoffs and I don't think you will find the regular season following outside of that particular team's fans like you see in college football. If there were an automatic slot for conference champions, and I see no other way a playoffs would be passed otherwise, there would be less people interested in other team's games such as OU fans watching say Auburn or Oregon games this year. I would treat them the same as I do any NFL game not involving Atlanta. My typical weekend is get up early on Saturday and do some chores, sit down and start watching football by 2:30, usually earlier, no matter when OU is playing. Sunday, sleep in a bit (usually hungover from OU game) and do chores outside of the 3.5 hours the Falcons are playing. Casually look at scores on phone. When an upset is brewing it's not real exciting. If one is brewing in college football there's that excitement of chaos. That excitement that enjoy so much every Saturday in the fall will be gone w/ a playoff in my opinion.

If they can somehow get a 4 to 8 team playoff w/ no conference tie ins and guarantee it will never, never, ever expand then I'm all for it.

I agree that a 32-team tournament would water down the regular season. A 16-team tournament using ONLY conference champions and 5 at-large teams, awarding top seeds with home field, etc., would not, in my opinion, water down the season one iota. 16 teams is less than 10% of the field, the lowest percentage of any of the sports you are referencing.

[texaspokieokie]

I think I told you what I think about it. It's a joke.

The college presidents are the LEAST educated about this subject. They need to take a step back and let people control the sport who know what they are doing. Whether that includes a playoff or not, whatever, but there are TONS of rules in place that are out of touch and it's because the college presidents have $$$$$$$$$ in their ears lobbying them.

i don't think the presidents are the LEAST educated about this subject. who determined that ???

[IndySooner]

i don't think the presidents are the LEAST educated about this subject. who determined that ???

The presidents rely on proposals that are put on their desks. The conference commissioners have stifled the discussion with the presidents. They have NEVER considered a proposal for a 16-team playoff. The conference commissioners haven't allowed them to.

If they haven't been passed a proposal, most of them haven't even thought about it. You see references to this all over the place.

Just the other day, in fact, I saw a president quoted saying, "I have never seen a proposal for a 16-team playoff."

Funny thing is, coaches are the same way. Gary Patterson said essentially the same thing on the Dan Patrick Show the other day, saying, "If someone presented a proposal that included EVERY conference champion, I'd be for it."

So, in other words, there are people that are "against" a playoff because they haven't even seen the proposals that people have in place. I promise you that if the system that "Death to the BCS" proposes gets in front of decision makers, it will grow legs. That's what Mark Cuban is working on right now.

[rekamrettuB]

I agree that a 32-team tournament would water down the regular season. A 16-team tournament using ONLY conference champions and 5 at-large teams, awarding top seeds with home field, etc., would not, in my opinion, water down the season one iota. 16 teams is less than 10% of the field, the lowest percentage of any of the sports you are referencing.

Can't really disagree but I'm sure the basketball tourney had these same conversations each time they expanded. That's what scares me about it...the expansion possibilities Some schools, probably OU, would continue to schedule tough OOC teams and others would go nothing but high priced scrimmages knowing that if you win your conference you are in so why risk injury while you can develop depth against inferior teams.

[IndySooner]

Can't really disagree but I'm sure the basketball tourney had these same conversations each time they expanded. That's what scares me about it...the expansion possibilities Some schools, probably OU, would continue to schedule tough OOC teams and others would go nothing but high priced scrimmages knowing that if you win your conference you are in so why risk injury while you can develop depth against inferior teams.

It can't expand beyond 16 teams, in my opinion. First of all, I don't think it's possible logistically. You can squeeze a 16 team tourney in, even with the current schedule. A 32-team tourney can't be squeezed in without drastically changing the current schedule.

If they were to push for expansion beyond 16 teams, I would be dead set against us. I also, however, feel as if there's no way a 4, 8 or 12 team tournament will fly. I don't think it accommodates the necessary people. Therefore, I think a 16-team tournament is the only way to go.

[rekamrettuB]

Funny thing is, coaches are the same way. Gary Patterson said essentially the same thing on the Dan Patrick Show the other day, saying, "If someone presented a proposal that included EVERY conference champion, I'd be for it."


Well of course Gary Patterson wants every conference champ in it. I don't. Would it be fair this year that Miami (OH) was in the tourney over some pretty good teams including LSU, Mizzu, Ok State, Alabama? That's why I hate the conference champs inclusion as the conferences are set up currently. What's to stop someone like an Ok State to move to the conference Boise just left or Miami (OH) is in? It would be irresponsible if they didn't seek that move.

[Scott D]

the TCU athletic director doesn't agree with a playoff.

[IndySooner]

the TCU athletic director doesn't agree with a playoff.

How was the question asked? Patterson didn't either until given a solution that included everyone.

[Scott D]

His response was even with all being included.


In that regard, Del Conte acknowledges that access to the national title game is an issue, but he doesn't throw his support toward a playoff system. In fact, he questioned the fairness of any process used to narrow a playoff field to up to 16 teams for a college football postseason tournament.

"How do you determine that in a playoff system when you take your numbers down to only 16? I don't worry about all that stuff because I can't," Del Conte said. "What I'm saying is right now is it's an imperfect system, but it's a system I embrace because our student-athletes, our fan base -- the Purple Nation -- we're Rose Bowl champions."

[boomermagic]

As a HUGE Sooner fan and a fan of college football {Don't much care about the nfl } I'd love to see a playoff system come to the front that would work well..

[IndySooner]

That was "coach speak" if I've ever seen it.

[Okie35]

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/news/story?id=6011262

I think everyone would be fine w/ a system that worked. No matter what everyone here or wherever has came up w/ isn't a solution. I'm sure the big wigs have thought of it and there would still be whining.

[IndySooner]

FYI, the latest from Mark Cuban is that he's backing off the post-season tournament, looking at a way to encourage inter-conference matchups during the regular season.

Something smells. I don't know who has everyone's tongues, but Cuban doesn't give up for no reason. Someone obviously let him know just exactly why it won't fly, which no one tells the general public, which means to me that it smells.

[Caboose]

As a HUGE Sooner fan and a fan of college football {Don't much care about the nfl } I'd love to see a playoff system come to the front that would work well..

I am sure everyone would. Unfortunately no playoff proposal has been made yet that would actually work.

[Scott D]

FYI, the latest from Mark Cuban is that he's backing off the post-season tournament, looking at a way to encourage inter-conference matchups during the regular season.

Something smells. I don't know who has everyone's tongues, but Cuban doesn't give up for no reason. Someone obviously let him know just exactly why it won't fly, which no one tells the general public, which means to me that it smells.

someone probably threatened to look at his tax records.

[85sooners]

:D

[Leroy Lizard]

How was the question asked? Patterson didn't either until given a solution that included everyone.

Just about anyone can be bought. But as soon as you offer a detailed solution, you lose half of your support. (I think this is what happened to Cuban.) Even a vehemently anti-playoff coach can be persuaded if you make it look like the playoff will benefit his team to the detriment of others.

This is why it is so easy to be pro-playoff, because the principle of a playoff sounds great. Why? Because everyone will have in their own imagination a playoff that benefits themselves. As soon as details are mentioned, however, it gets ugly.

The notion that we should adopt a playoff first, then worry about the details later is fanciful and absurd.

[MeMyself&Me]

Something smells. I don't know who has everyone's tongues, but Cuban doesn't give up for no reason. Someone obviously let him know just exactly why it won't fly, which no one tells the general public, which means to me that it smells.

LMFAO

You think he himself wouldn't just pass it on to the public if it were just a big conspiracy?

[Leroy Lizard]

LMFAO

You think he himself wouldn't just pass it on to the public if it were just a big conspiracy?

More likely that a bunch of schools called him and told him why they didn't want a playoff. One of those might have been Indiana University, his alma mater, which has little to gain from a playoff system and a lot to lose if the bowl system is harmed.

Other than that, dunno.

[Jacie]

Speaking of playoffs, Division 1-AA football expanded their playoff from 16 to 20 teams this season . . .

[IndySooner]

Speaking of playoffs, Division 1-AA football expanded their playoff from 16 to 20 teams this season . . .

Yep. Because it doesn't work.

[soonercastor]

People complain about UConn being in a bowl game, but have no problem with them being in the play-offs? 8-4 team in the play-offs?
And if we don't want to "vote" how are you choosing the teams? Selection committee? F*** the play-offs the BCS is fine. And btw even with the play-off we wouldn't be crowning the "best team."

[Jacie]

Yep. Because it doesn't work.

Of course it doesn't work, why else would they expand it?

Makes perfect sense to, well, not me, but surely there is someone out there who thinks your logic is . . . logical.

[Leroy Lizard]

Of course it doesn't work, why else would they expand it?

Makes perfect sense to, well, not me, but surely there is someone out there who thinks your logic is . . . logical.

As I said, the larger the playoff, the more complaints you generate... until you invite so many damn teams that there aren't any fans left to complain. This is why it is such a farce to talk about four-team and eight-team playoffs.

BTW, with 20 teams in the playoffs you might as well expand to 32. Same number of rounds. Look for that to happen within a few years.

[texaspokieokie]

still don't see why this was a "necessary argument to have".

i'm in favor of a one team play-off.

[JRAM]

Give it up. Playoffs aren't feasible on the college football level. Too much money at stake and more teams come out on top at the end of the year the way it is. Alumni like a reward at the conclusion of the season. With a playoff only a few teams would participate. Currently there are 75 teams that have a game at the bowls . With a playoff, the only ones that have any satisfaction are the winning team and betters that are brain-dead. College presidents will never let it happen. At least I hope that they don't. Here is to keeping the game the way that it is with a MNC game at the conclusion of the football season.

[Sooner_Bob]

Give it up. Playoffs aren't feasible on the college football level. Too much money at stake and more teams come out on top at the end of the year the way it is. Alumni like a reward at the conclusion of the season. With a playoff only a few teams would participate. Currently there are 75 teams that have a game at the bowls . With a playoff, the only ones that have any satisfaction are the winning team and betters that are brain-dead. College presidents will never let it happen. At least I hope that they don't. Here is to keeping the game the way that it is with a MNC game at the conclusion of the football season.

You honestly believe that those teams without a legitimate shot at a NC would be disappointed with going to a bowl game?

[Leroy Lizard]

You honestly believe that those teams without a legitimate shot at a NC would be disappointed with going to a bowl game?

This assumes that the bowl games would be unaffected by a large-scale playoff. There is no such guarantee, and frankly I doubt they would survive. I don't think the smaller schools want to take that chance, because once they disappear you ain't getting them back.

We have the opportunity right now to ruin college football forever, in exchange for "settling the issue on the field." For many schools, the risk isn't worth it.

[IndySooner]

This assumes that the bowl games would be unaffected by a large-scale playoff. There is no such guarantee, and frankly I doubt they would survive. I don't think the smaller schools want to take that chance, because once they disappear you ain't getting them back.

We have the opportunity right now to ruin college football forever, in exchange for "settling the issue on the field." For many schools, the risk isn't worth it.

So, if the playoff system were able to fund those bowl games and keep them viable, thus allowing the 70 teams to still get their "reward", you would be okay with a playoff? Just asking, because that's exactly what Wetzel has planned out in his book.

[Sooner_Bob]

This assumes that the bowl games would be unaffected by a large-scale playoff. There is no such guarantee, and frankly I doubt they would survive. I don't think the smaller schools want to take that chance, because once they disappear you ain't getting them back.

We have the opportunity right now to ruin college football forever, in exchange for "settling the issue on the field." For many schools, the risk isn't worth it.

I think a combination of "playoffs" and bowls is about the only viable solution out there. I'd be shocked if something was decided and didn't include the majority of the current bowls.


So, if the playoff system were able to fund those bowl games and keep them viable, thus allowing the 70 teams to still get their "reward", you would be okay with a playoff? Just asking, because that's exactly what Wetzel has planned out in his book.

IMO I think that would be the only way it would work . . .

[Leroy Lizard]

So, if the playoff system were able to fund those bowl games and keep them viable, thus allowing the 70 teams to still get their "reward", you would be okay with a playoff? Just asking, because that's exactly what Wetzel has planned out in his book.

How long will this commitment last? Ten years?

The playoff system "whatever that is" will yank the money at the first opportunity, IMO. How much commitment is there from the NCAA to promote the NIT?

Besides, there is no guarantee that Cuban's system will be the one chosen if we decide to adopt a playoff. That is one fallacy that constantly appears among playoff proponents: That the system we end up with will mirror their own ideals.

BTW, even if the commitment is long-term, I still wouldn't be in favor of a playoff. My distaste for a playoff system is based on myriad factors, not just small bowl survival.

[Leroyt]

Watching the bowls this year, I really only thought Jan. 1 was a decent day long football experience, and even it was not great. I want three saturdays consecutively of games that are meaningful because the winners advance or become champion. Does anyone that loves the system actually watch the beef o'brady bowl (maybe so, it was up 21% in viewership - still racking up less than 2% of total sets)? Just sayin', in the world we live in, if you don't buy a ticket or watch on tv, it doesn't matter how much you claim to love it. It's really the only hope for the death of the bcs: that viewers continue to avert their eyes (and wallets).

[Leroy Lizard]

Watching the bowls this year, I really only thought Jan. 1 was a decent day long football experience, and even it was not great. I want three saturdays consecutively of games that are meaningful because the winners advance or become champion. Does anyone that loves the system actually watch the beef o'brady bowl (maybe so, it was up 21% in viewership - still racking up less than 2% of total sets)? Just sayin', in the world we live in, if you don't buy a ticket or watch on tv, it doesn't matter how much you claim to love it. It's really the only hope for the death of the bcs: that viewers continue to avert their eyes (and wallets).

In which case we will revert to the old bowl system with its conference ties, which would be fine with me.

[bigfatjerk]

In which case we will revert to the old bowl system with its conference ties, which would be fine with me.

Why not just have it where 1 plays 2, 3 plays 4 and so on in the Bowls?

[Leroy Lizard]

Why not just have it where 1 plays 2, 3 plays 4 and so on in the Bowls?

Because I think in most years Ohio State would rather play USC than TCU in the Rose Bowl. OU always had exciting matchups in the Orange Bowl before the BCS came around. I think the major powers would love to revert to the old system.

Think about it: Was there a problem with viewership for the Orange Bowl pre-BCS?

[bigfatjerk]

Because I think in most years Ohio State would rather play USC than TCU in the Rose Bowl. OU always had exciting matchups in the Orange Bowl before the BCS came around. I think the major powers would love to revert to the old system.

Think about it: Was there a problem with viewership for the Orange Bowl pre-BCS?

All games were down in viewership this year because the games were on ESPN. I doubt the major bowls stay on ESPN. They'll all be back on ABC pretty soon. The NC games ratings were way down this year because it was on ESPN.


I also think the ratings are helped if the games are closer together. Like having the 5 BCS games all done within 5 days instead of over 10 days.

[texaspokieokie]

let's summarize:

what all has been decided on this thread, pertaining to play-offs ??

anyone ???

[MeMyself&Me]

let's summarize:

what all has been decided on this thread, pertaining to play-offs ??

anyone ???

That, while some people want a playoff/tournament, not everyone wants one.

I think that's about it.

[texaspokieokie]

that's about what i got.

[rekamrettuB]

still don't see why this was a "necessary argument to have".

i'm in favor of a one team play-off.

I'm having a tough time figuring out how that playoff bracket would look. Something like this?



____________________________






:)

[bigfatjerk]

let's summarize:

what all has been decided on this thread, pertaining to play-offs ??

anyone ???

If arguments on a message board decided everything this world would be in trouble.

[texaspokieokie]

[QUOTE=rekamrettuB;3121444]I'm having a tough time figuring out how that playoff bracket would look. Something like this?





yep, that's how it would look. pool tournament that would include a double elim. round robin.
anything IndySooner happy !!!
!!!!!!!

[IndySooner]

[QUOTE=rekamrettuB;3121444]I'm having a tough time figuring out how that playoff bracket would look. Something like this?





yep, that's how it would look. pool tournament that would include a double elim. round robin.
anything IndySooner happy !!!
!!!!!!!

Man, I wish I could make sense of your gibberish so I could respond.

[texaspokieokie]

you did respond.