NCAA Football Playoff

[quote]tedro wrote:

Are you sure you meant to address that to me?[/quote]

Uh-Oh. Should have called out Tgunslinger. Sorry.

RJ and Tedro,

The point of my post was to get you all to consider the real-world aspect of college football.

First off, conferences are independent entities. Both of you suggest making some pretty major changes to the way conferences operate, but you need to keep in mind that the NCAA realistically can’t make conferences do anything. This is not like the NFL, where the league can shift divisions and conferences at will.

RJ, you suggest dissolving conferences and starting from scratch. Do you think the conferences are going to sign off on this? Do you think Big XII commish Don Beebe is going to write himself out of a job? This is, again real-world, about as likely to happen as the U.S. redrawing state borders.

Tedro, your’s is a lot more doable than RJ’s, but you start off by scratching conference title games. I read in the newspaper this week that the Big XII Title game generates annual revenues of $1 M for each school. You start the discussion by asking all twelve schools to give up an annual $1M paycheck. And that’s just the Big XII.

Taking a guaranteed $1M check out of the hands of 36 schools on the promise (but not guarantee) of something more isn’t a good way to start negotiations. Follow that with a schedule where they can only play one team of their choice?

Remember, the schools and conferences themselves really don’t care about crowning a ‘true’ champ, so why exactly would they handcuff themselves like this?

As RJ noted, money talks and BS walks. Well, look at who’s getting the money and you’ll see that schools are happy, conferences are happy, TV networks are happy, the NCAA is happy, Bowls are happy. The fans themselves are not unhappy to the point that they stop buying tickets, watching games on TV, and buying hats and T-shirts and that’s really all that counts.

If you guys seriously considered my posts, you’ll see that hammering in a playoff system would end up economically hurting someone. From a business standpoint, college football is running smoothly and everybody’s happy. Why needlessly piss someone off?

Until there is an economic need for schools, conferences, the NCAA, TV networks, and Bowls to make the compromises and sacrifices necessary for a bona fide playoff, it just ain’t gonna happen.

Right now, that need is not there.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:

Tedro, your’s is a lot more doable than RJ’s, but you start off by scratching conference title games. I read in the newspaper this week that the Big XII Title game generates annual revenues of $1 M for each school. You start the discussion by asking all twelve schools to give up an annual $1M paycheck. And that’s just the Big XII.
[/quote]

The playoffs will add 10 nationally televised games to the end of the season. These 10 games are sure to generate more revenue than conference title games. I’m sure the conferences can determine a fair way to distribute the money.

First of all, it is only the 12 team conferences that only choose one team. Continuing to use the Big 12 as an example, are we really missing out on much? How many teams in the big 12 played more than one quality non-conference opponent? If this is truly a problem, some of the larger conferences could play all but one of their conference foes, rotating every 11 years. This would give more freedom of schedule. The downside is that tie breakers would not be as straight forward.

You don’t think Boise State cared last year that they didn’t get a shot? What about Auburn and Utah in 2004? or LSU in 2003? The only person I think that doesn’t care is Big 10 commish Jim Delany.

Schools clearly aren’t happy and most conferences aren’t happy. My system would create more meaningful games, leading to more revenue for the NCAA, tv networks, conferences, and schools. The bowls would remain intact so there are no hurt feelings there. Schools would finally get to play for an undisputed national championship, and fans would embrace the game even more.

[quote]
Until there is an economic need for schools, conferences, the NCAA, TV networks, and Bowls to make the compromises and sacrifices necessary for a bona fide playoff, it just ain’t gonna happen.

Right now, that need is not there.[/quote]

Of course there is not an economic need for a playoff, college football is hugely popular. Just because there isn’t a need doesn’t mean the game can’t be more profitable under a different format, so I’m not really sure what point you were trying to make here.

A playoff will happen eventually, it is inevitable and just too logical. I think the AP poll dropping out a couple years ago was a major first step. I would say there is a decent chance we could have a playoff for the 2010 season, after the current BCS contract expires. I think it is almost certain to happen within 10 years.

[quote]tedro wrote:
The playoffs will add 10 nationally televised games to the end of the season. These 10 games are sure to generate more revenue than conference title games. I’m sure the conferences can determine a fair way to distribute the money.

First of all, it is only the 12 team conferences that only choose one team. Continuing to use the Big 12 as an example, are we really missing out on much? How many teams in the big 12 played more than one quality non-conference opponent? If this is truly a problem, some of the larger conferences could play all but one of their conference foes, rotating every 11 years. This would give more freedom of schedule. The downside is that tie breakers would not be as straight forward.[/quote]

We’re getting into nitty-gritty details here. Details like these could be negotiated in either direction if necessary.

I only brought them up to point out a snag right at the very beginning of your playoff model. Getting rid of conference title games and reducing their scheduling options would be viewed as a concession from the schools’ point of view. You’d better have something good (and rather concrete) to offer them in return.

[quote] tGunslinger wrote:
Remember, the schools and conferences themselves really don’t care about crowning a ‘true’ champ, so why exactly would they handcuff themselves like this?

tedro wrote:
You don’t think Boise State cared last year that they didn’t get a shot? What about Auburn and Utah in 2004? or LSU in 2003? The only person I think that doesn’t care is Big 10 commish Jim Delany.[/quote]

Again, it’s all about $$$$. No, I don’t think the school administrations themselves particularly care about the championship process as long as they stay in the black financially (which most currently are).

Heck, even the fans get over it. I doubt 2004 is really bothering most Auburn fans at this point, and I suspect 2006 is and will forever be remembered as the greatest season in Boise State history, rather than a painful what-if.

In any event, the fans are not unhappy to the point that they stop spending money and supporting their programs.

Also, you might add the Pac-10, the Big XII, the ACC, and the Big East to Jim Delany’s camp. In fact, the SEC is the only conference that, to my knowledge, has done anything other than turn their nose up at playoffs, and their reaction was lukewarm at best. A very small handful of coaches and administrators have made token playoff pleas, most notably Florida this time last year, but they are in the extreme minority.

I suppose it also goes without saying that the major bowls aren’t too thrilled to get the ball rolling on playoffs.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
As RJ noted, money talks and BS walks. Well, look at who’s getting the money and you’ll see that schools are happy, conferences are happy, TV networks are happy, the NCAA is happy, Bowls are happy. The fans themselves are not unhappy to the point that they stop buying tickets, watching games on TV, and buying hats and T-shirts and that’s really all that counts.

If you guys seriously considered my posts, you’ll see that hammering in a playoff system would end up economically hurting someone. From a business standpoint, college football is running smoothly and everybody’s happy. Why needlessly piss someone off?

tedro wrote:
Schools clearly aren’t happy and most conferences aren’t happy. My system would create more meaningful games, leading to more revenue for the NCAA, tv networks, conferences, and schools. The bowls would remain intact so there are no hurt feelings there. Schools would finally get to play for an undisputed national championship, and fans would embrace the game even more.[/quote]

First, schools ARE happy, or else they wouldn’t nearly unanimously poo-poo playoffs. School presidents have long been anti-playoff nearly ten-to-one.

Second, if there was a playoff model that would significantly increase profits for everybody involved without serious risk or cost, we would’ve had a playoff system in place ten years ago. The reason we don’t is that just about any model conceivable would leave someone out in the cold – probably either the bowls or the conferences, judging from most proposed playoff systems I’ve seen.

Everybody’s getting paid under the model we have now.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Until there is an economic need for schools, conferences, the NCAA, TV networks, and Bowls to make the compromises and sacrifices necessary for a bona fide playoff, it just ain’t gonna happen.

Right now, that need is not there.

tedro wrote:
Of course there is not an economic need for a playoff, college football is hugely popular. Just because there isn’t a need doesn’t mean the game can’t be more profitable under a different format, so I’m not really sure what point you were trying to make here.[/quote]

See my response immediately above. If the powers-that-be could snap their fingers and improve profits across the board, they would’ve done so long ago. They’re not stupid. The fact that they have barely budged towards playoffs tells you that there’s a catch in there somewhere.

[quote]tedro wrote:
A playoff will happen eventually, it is inevitable and just too logical. I think the AP poll dropping out a couple years ago was a major first step. I would say there is a decent chance we could have a playoff for the 2010 season, after the current BCS contract expires. I think it is almost certain to happen within 10 years.[/quote]

I’d take that bet, for whatever it’s worth. In 2005 when the BCS came up for TV negotiations, FOX scooped them up in a hurry. Until either the fans or the TV networks stop pouring money into the system, you’re going to continue to get pretty much what you have right now.

Again, my main point is that it is not easy at all to change from what we have right now to playoffs while ensuring that everybody still gets theirs.

Because guys, if it were that easy and/or that profitable, it’d have already happened a while back.

It is happening…

Final Four

Eight Teams

If we have another year like this one in the next two years, 2010 will have a playoff. It may start out with just four teams, but at least we will have a start.

A four team, plus-1 system has been kicked around for years, and is the only “playoff” system that has any legs at all. It certainly didn’t hurt its chances when 2007 produced the first bona fide illegitimate champion of the BCS era.

Seeing how much traction the plus-1 gets, and whether the Cotton Bowl can slide back into the BCS once Jerry World is finished in Dallas, are the really interesting topics for the 2008 BCS meetings.

The UGA prez is merely the annual “I-think-my-school-got-screwed-so-I’m-going-to- scream-about-a-playoff” school official. Those never amount to anything.

I think the big thing about the plus-1 system is that they are actually considering seeding the teams and creating a four team playoff. The actual plus-1 would never happen because it is impossible to decide when they should play the extra game and who should be in it. It is also not fair if the top two teams played in the National Championship, only to have to play in a plus-1 game the next week.

This four-team playoff could definitely gain some traction, especially with so many of the Major Conference commissioners looking like they may be on board. It would definitely open up the door for a bigger playoff.

I say let them start with the four team playoff and just leave the Big 10 and Pac 10 out. They can go play in their traditional Rose Bowl again, it’s not like either conference is worthy of a National Championship.

As for your comment on Georgia, you may be right, but there is definitely a trend going on, and you cannot say they don’t have a valid point. I am sure Auburn and Florida are still right behind them.

[quote]tedro wrote:

I say let them start with the four team playoff and just leave the Big 10 and Pac 10 out. They can go play in their traditional Rose Bowl again, it’s not like either conference is worthy of a National Championship.[/quote]

I wouldn’t hope too hard for a four-team playoff in 2010. I’m still doubtful that there will be a noticeably different system in place by then.

They tried leaving out the Big Ten and Pac-10 once before with the Bowl Alliance in the 90’s and it did work. But this isn’t 1992, and trying it again might further fracture the sport rather than bring it together for a playoff. It’d be a gamble that I personally wouldn’t be comfortable taking at this point in time if I was in charge.

If Nate Dogg is reading this, he should be intimately aware that the Big Ten and Pac-10 turning their noses up at the Bowl Alliance is the only reason that UF won the 1996 Title.

Yes I can, in UGA’s case. They did not even win their division, let alone conference, AND they lost twice. Sorry UGA, you got everything you deserved and not a nickel less.

And if I’m LSU, I accept the crystal ball and then keep my mouth shut, knowing that I certainly didn’t deserve it this season.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
tedro wrote:

I say let them start with the four team playoff and just leave the Big 10 and Pac 10 out. They can go play in their traditional Rose Bowl again, it’s not like either conference is worthy of a National Championship.

I wouldn’t hope too hard for a four-team playoff in 2010. I’m still doubtful that there will be a noticeably different system in place by then.

They tried leaving out the Big Ten and Pac-10 once before with the Bowl Alliance in the 90’s and it did work. But this isn’t 1992, and trying it again might further fracture the sport rather than bring it together for a playoff. It’d be a gamble that I personally wouldn’t be comfortable taking at this point in time if I was in charge.

If Nate Dogg is reading this, he should be intimately aware that the Big Ten and Pac-10 turning their noses up at the Bowl Alliance is the only reason that UF won the 1996 Title.

As for your comment on Georgia, you may be right, but there is definitely a trend going on, and you cannot say they don’t have a valid point. I am sure Auburn and Florida are still right behind them.

Yes I can, in UGA’s case. They did not even win their division, let alone conference, AND they lost twice. Sorry UGA, you got everything you deserved and not a nickel less.

And if I’m LSU, I accept the crystal ball and then keep my mouth shut, knowing that I certainly didn’t deserve it this season.[/quote]

  1. I think this year is proof that the Big-10 has lost whatever clout they think they might have had in the 90’s.

  2. The Pac-10 is a weak conference, and if a playoff were implemented, would never win a national championship.

  3. Plus-1 playoff sucks. There needs to be a playoff system just like they use in the lower divisions. It’s not rocket science.

  4. Name a team that actually deserved a national championship this year. LSU played and won the game they were put in. Ohio State choked yet again.

I don’t like the +1. As tedro mentioned: It is also not fair if the top two teams played in the National Championship, only to have to play in a plus-1 game the next week.

If #1 beats #2 bad enough, and #3 beats their opponent bad enough to slide into number 2, that is unfair for #1 to play again for the national championship.

Playoff system with 4 teams to start with is good. Anymore than that and it’s too many games. You would be looking at 16 games in some cases, which is the equivalent of an NFL season, and these are amateur athletes, not professionals.

But, as we all know:

  1. We are beating a dead horse by rehashing this subject over and over

  2. None of us (yet) have any power to actually implement such a system

I must be quite mistaken…I thought the +1 system was just another name for a 4 team playoff. The +1 system tmoney is describing sounds horrible.

I think a good case could be made for a 4 team playoff. We typically end up with 3 to 4 good teams that have absolutely zero crossover in their schedule for us to be able to compare them. A Big 10, a Big 12, a Pac 10, and a SEC team could all have great records and nothing in common schedule-wise. Right now, we have a 2 team playoff system. Going to 4 would be a huge step. Highly unlikely though. A real playoff system is a pipe dream, but I can’t imagine anything bigger in the American sports world - a perfect cross between the NCAA basketball tourney and the Super Bowl.

[quote]Jared111 wrote:
I must be quite mistaken…I thought the +1 system was just another name for a 4 team playoff. The +1 system tmoney is describing sounds horrible.

I think a good case could be made for a 4 team playoff. We typically end up with 3 to 4 good teams that have absolutely zero crossover in their schedule for us to be able to compare them. A Big 10, a Big 12, a Pac 10, and a SEC team could all have great records and nothing in common schedule-wise. Right now, we have a 2 team playoff system. Going to 4 would be a huge step. Highly unlikely though. A real playoff system is a pipe dream, but I can’t imagine anything bigger in the American sports world - a perfect cross between the NCAA basketball tourney and the Super Bowl. [/quote]

That is indeed what a plus-1 system is, and is exactly why it won’t work. A four team playoffs with teams seeded 1-4 would be a good start to a fair post-season.

[quote]tedro wrote:
Jared111 wrote:
I must be quite mistaken…I thought the +1 system was just another name for a 4 team playoff. The +1 system tmoney is describing sounds horrible.

I think a good case could be made for a 4 team playoff. We typically end up with 3 to 4 good teams that have absolutely zero crossover in their schedule for us to be able to compare them. A Big 10, a Big 12, a Pac 10, and a SEC team could all have great records and nothing in common schedule-wise. Right now, we have a 2 team playoff system. Going to 4 would be a huge step. Highly unlikely though. A real playoff system is a pipe dream, but I can’t imagine anything bigger in the American sports world - a perfect cross between the NCAA basketball tourney and the Super Bowl.

That is indeed what a plus-1 system is, and is exactly why it won’t work. A four team playoffs with teams seeded 1-4 would be a good start to a fair post-season.[/quote]

The two versions of the four team playoff were

1.) Do not seed the teams at all, and remove the national title game as well, and then have a title game after all the bowls are played. There national title in this scenario is between two teams selected after bowls are played, and teams are not seeded.

2.) Seed teams 1-4, and then have three games to determine the champ. All other bowls are left as-is. The title game is between the winners of 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3.

I was not aware of any system being considered where #1 played #2, and then the winner had to play yet another game.

[quote]tedro wrote:

  1. I think this year is proof that the Big-10 has lost whatever clout they think they might have had in the 90’s. [/quote]

All things are cyclical in CFB, and the Big Ten will be back. In the late '90’s, the Big Ten was dynamite and the SEC was pretty weak. Now it’s vice versa.

Again, things are cyclical and the Pac-10 won’t be USC and the nine dwarfs forever. 2000 saw Washington and Oregon State both go 11-1, 2001 Oregon went 11-1.

I’ve already made my arguments why a large playoff system won’t happen, so I’ll leave this alone. Stewart Mandel at cnnsi.com/football/college has had solid commentary on playoffs during the last few weeks in his blog and mailbag, if you’re curious.

Also see my previous regarding plus-1 systems. I believe you’re thinking about a plus-1 system that is not being considered.

[quote]4. Name a team that actually deserved a national championship this year. LSU played and won the game they were put in. Ohio State choked yet again.
[/quote]

That’s just it. There are no national title caliber teams this year, and the fact that LSU fell over backwards into the championship after choking twice does not change that fact. It could’ve easily, and justly, been one of about a half-dozen other teams that won the crystal football.

Accept the trophy, but don’t run your mouth, LSU. You know as well as I do that you don’t deserve it.

I did say in my first post in this thread that if seasons like 2007 become the norm then I would fully support a small playoff system because it was completely impossible to pick two teams out of the mess this season. But thus far, 2007 is still an anomaly.

With all due respect - I think your reasoning against a full on playoff are weak at best.

Unless there is a real playoff system - there will never be a real champion. All the other collegiate sports have playoffs. Arguing against a playoff in D-1 football smacks of elitism.

I think that the plus one is a stupid, half-assed solution. a 4 team playoff out of over 100 schools? Until you remove as much subjectivity as possible from the playoff system, it will always be a popularity contest.

Leave that for the girls.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
With all due respect - I think your reasoning against a full on playoff are weak at best.

Unless there is a real playoff system - there will never be a real champion. All the other collegiate sports have playoffs. Arguing against a playoff in D-1 football smacks of elitism.

I think that the plus one is a stupid, half-assed solution. a 4 team playoff out of over 100 schools? Until you remove as much subjectivity as possible from the playoff system, it will always be a popularity contest.

Leave that for the girls. [/quote]

I’ve been arguing why a full-blown playoff won’t happen, not whether or not it should happen.

And if my arguments, which I’ve based from an economic perspective, are weak, then explain to me why there isn’t a playoff system.

If a playoff system is such a slam-dunk economically, then why isn’t there one in place? A wise man once told me that money talks and bullshit walks.

As for my opinions on whether there should be a playoff system, I’m cautious only because of the possible effects it would have on the regular season. I like the high pressure regular season, and am afraid that larger playoff systems would greatly reduce it’s importance. Beyond that point, I could care less rather there’s a playoff system or not.

I like the sport well enough as it is, warts and all.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:

And if my arguments, which I’ve based from an economic perspective, are weak, then explain to me why there isn’t a playoff system.[/quote]

Because of the Pac-10 and the Big-10. They want the attention, and a playoff system would upset that, and cost them money.

Because a playoff won’t work without the Big-10 and the pac-10. They would lose money in a playoff system, while the rest of college football would become richer.

[quote]As for my opinions on whether there should be a playoff system, I’m cautious only because of the possible effects it would have on the regular season. I like the high pressure regular season, and am afraid that larger playoff systems would greatly reduce it’s importance. Beyond that point, I could care less rather there’s a playoff system or not.

I like the sport well enough as it is, warts and all.[/quote]

That’s bullshit. A playoff doesn’t do anything to cheapen the regular season. If anything, a playoff makes the regular season mean something besides wasting 11 Saturdays year.

I think it’s funny that you think a playoff system is not profitable. You might want to tell that to college basketball. No one on the “Playoffs are bad idea” team can logically explain why D-1 football is the only collegiate sport without a playoff system.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
There are only two power conferences left in college football: The SEC and the Big 12.

If a school can get through either conference undefeated, they should be in the title game under current BCS rules.

The PAC-10 has proven it’s level of suck this year, as it does every year. And the Big-10 would not even be a BCS conference without the current hyping of it by the talking heads.

We need a play off. I don’t care if it is a 16 team, or a 32 team - but something needs to be done to get the crowning of a champion out of the hands of the fucking sportswriters.

If it is good enough for every other sport in ever other division, why not use a play off in D-1 football? I’ll tell you why: The Big-10, Notre Dame, and the pantie-waisted sportswriters. [/quote]

I agree, the big ten leadership is never in favor of a playoff, along with Notre Dame. This cost PSU a title in 1994. I seriously think their love affair with the OSU Michigan game and Rose Bowl hinders their post season chances.

The only two teams from the league with great bowl records are Wisconsin and PSU. I think Wisconsin is 9-4 or 9-3 in the last 15 years, while PSU is 9-2 since the 93 season.

PSU was always an independent and it helps in their bowl prep, sicne the coach is still there from those days. the big ten has this Rose bowl boner and don’t understand that everyone else thinks that’s more important. when I lived for a few eyars in Iowa, they actually thought the Rose Bowl was a bigger deal than an MNC. Them and ND are stuck way in the past.

ND never wanted a playoff because then they wouldn’t get the same preferred treatment that they now demand.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:

And if my arguments, which I’ve based from an economic perspective, are weak, then explain to me why there isn’t a playoff system.

Because of the Pac-10 and the Big-10. They want the attention, and a playoff system would upset that, and cost them money.

If a playoff system is such a slam-dunk economically, then why isn’t there one in place? A wise man once told me that money talks and bullshit walks.

Because a playoff won’t work without the Big-10 and the pac-10. They would lose money in a playoff system, while the rest of college football would become richer.

As for my opinions on whether there should be a playoff system, I’m cautious only because of the possible effects it would have on the regular season. I like the high pressure regular season, and am afraid that larger playoff systems would greatly reduce it’s importance. Beyond that point, I could care less rather there’s a playoff system or not.

I like the sport well enough as it is, warts and all.

That’s bullshit. A playoff doesn’t do anything to cheapen the regular season. If anything, a playoff makes the regular season mean something besides wasting 11 Saturdays year.

I think it’s funny that you think a playoff system is not profitable. You might want to tell that to college basketball. No one on the “Playoffs are bad idea” team can logically explain why D-1 football is the only collegiate sport without a playoff system.

[/quote]

The argument against the playoff is the dumbest argument I’ve ever seen. Any reason why not can be countered with a ugh, 1AA and everyone esle doesn it, including high school kids, Duh!

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
rainjack wrote:
With all due respect - I think your reasoning against a full on playoff are weak at best.

Unless there is a real playoff system - there will never be a real champion. All the other collegiate sports have playoffs. Arguing against a playoff in D-1 football smacks of elitism.

I think that the plus one is a stupid, half-assed solution. a 4 team playoff out of over 100 schools? Until you remove as much subjectivity as possible from the playoff system, it will always be a popularity contest.

Leave that for the girls.

I’ve been arguing why a full-blown playoff won’t happen, not whether or not it should happen.

And if my arguments, which I’ve based from an economic perspective, are weak, then explain to me why there isn’t a playoff system.

If a playoff system is such a slam-dunk economically, then why isn’t there one in place? A wise man once told me that money talks and bullshit walks.

As for my opinions on whether there should be a playoff system, I’m cautious only because of the possible effects it would have on the regular season. I like the high pressure regular season, and am afraid that larger playoff systems would greatly reduce it’s importance. Beyond that point, I could care less rather there’s a playoff system or not.

I like the sport well enough as it is, warts and all.[/quote]

You are right about the money argument, but you’re missing something. who will make the new money compared to the old money? that’s why some are opposed. They’re making money now.