College football playoffs?

**Red_Lizard2** · 01-07-09, 01:23 PM

really, last i checked the all the pac-10 teams won their bowl games.....

and i think it should be 6 automatic bids (Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Big XII, Big East, Big Ten) and 10 at-large bids based on a ranking system that actually takes SOS in to factor, and isn't based on STYLE POINTS, who gives a fuck if you beat Western Kentucky by 80 points? oh thats right the AP, my bad. Can you honestly say the AP polls should be used for a playoff system hahahahaha, they are so full of crap its amazing.

Plus if you have bids for winning the conference, it may spur some of the larger teams to play interesting OOC games because they wouldn't have to worry that if Utah beats them, they will not be able to play for the championship. In a pure AP rankings system we'd have the same as now with teams like Florida playing the Army's and Western Kentucky's of the world.

**SJA** · 01-07-09, 04:34 PM

The PAC-10 and Big-10 are the two biggest opponents to any playoff system. They know they are a lock to get their teams into a BCS bowl ($chaching$) because of imbalance in their conferences pushing an elite team or two way up the rankings. They are very much the Big East and ACC of the 80s and 90s with FSU and Miami cruising to the end of the year on a relatively easy schedule. At least in the PAC-10 they play all the teams in the conference every year, the Big-10 doesnt even force that. Yes, Pac-10 went 5-0 in their bowl games, it still doesnt change the fact that they arent a respected conference nationally and drug USC down. Why do you think USC and OSU play big OOC games? Because they care about what the fans think? Its to boost their anemic in conference schedules. No matter the bowl record, having the two worst teams in Div 1 in your own conference (wash, wash st) is going to hurt you in the computers every year.

They also wont let go of their precious rose bowl and let teams like USC play an Alabama, or Texas, or other top conference team in a bowl game to help people see how good they really are and help them at the end of the year. I would have loved to see USC/Texas, or USC/Utah, and OSU/Bama. Those are quality games that fans want to see, but your conferences dont care. Change is going to start or stop with those two, and dont hold your breath.

Civil, I do think a playoff would pull a lot of money out of the bowl system. No fanbase is going to travel to 2-3 playoff games, no matter whats at stake. In this economy its an even worse idea. Texas and OSU didnt sell out their alloted tickets to the Fiesta, and that was a quality game. Think about the Orange bowl, they were selling tickets for $1 (no joke) for the upper deck and couldnt sell it out. Bowls used to mean something, there werent that many and fanbases werent spoiled. Now 6 wins and youre in, and unless its the National Championship most fans will stay home to watch it. Unless Obama subsidizes the playoff with federal money, he wont force anything. Yes, they are public institutions (for the most part) that he can threaten with federal education funding, but the TV networks and sponsors that host the bowls arent, and that is something he cant strong-arm and ultimately who is driving this bus.

**CivilWars** · 01-07-09, 10:49 PM

1. The bowls have lost interest because there are over 30 of them now.
2. The system I would propose the early round playoff games would be either at the better team's home stadium, or at best neutral site, not in a bowl.
3. The only way it would pull any money out of a bowl is due to the shortened time between the end of the season now, playoffs in the future, and the bowl game. As it stands now you have a few weeks to a month between your last game and your bowl game. If you add in a few weeks for playoffs you cut that to 1-2 weeks unless you move the major bowls back a week or two. It could be more difficult to sell out a Big 12/Pac 10 3rd place game in 2 weeks.
4. My main concern is having a legit national champion. Is the current system the best way to accomplish that? In my opinion it is not. If it were then every sport in every major league would do it this way, but none do except D1 football. If ticket sales drop a little to create a true national champion then I support it.
5. The bowls, the NCAA, and the schools make money on the bowls from the sponsors. The sponsors mainly pay for TV coverage, and some for in stadium coverage. Why do you think we saw more Gatorade shots that Colt McCoy shots in the Fiesta Bowl. Do you really think any fewer people would have watched the Fiesta Bowl on TV this year if it were say the 3rd place game instead of just another BCS bowl that really means nothing? I doubt it myself.

Civil for BCS commish 2010!! Spread the word.

**SJA** · 01-08-09, 10:45 AM

1. Agreed, but adding a playoff would further devalue the bowls.
2. That solves part of the problem, but who is in charge of playoff game, the home team or some BCS type entity? The reason I ask is home games get alloted a small percentage of a stadium for the visiting team when the school is in charge. Do you split it 50/50 and have the entity pay both schools? What happens when its USC playing at Florida second round and USC travels about 10k fans to a 90k+ stadium? What happens when Vandy or some other small school hosts a game and only has 40k seats total? I know sponsorship is a big part of the bowls (and potential playoffs) but they get back quite a bit in ticket sales. And a half empty stadium isnt good for any sponsor.
3. Im less worried about the effect on an individual bowl versus the bowl system. It will gut the bowl system, make no bones about it. Fans are already jaded by anything other than the BCS, having a playoff that doesnt include the bowls will make them even more irrelevant. As it stands now, a typical fan cant go to a bowl (unless its in their backyard) for less than $1-3k. Travel costs, hotel, tickets, per diem, etc. And as shitty as I think having 30+ bowls is, its better for the teams. They get extra practices, they get money for their programs, their players get some swag and a reward for busting their ass. You start killing bowls, it will hurt the teams.
4. I dont disagree, I would love to have a playoff. I just dont see a simple solution, you cant just say "add x number of games" and call it a day. You have to find a way to satisfy everyone money wise, and thats difficult. And even then legit is shaky. Top 8 get in, what if theres an undefeated utah sitting at 9? How many teams will cry foul that they werent the home team?
5. Tickets for major bowls go from $200 to over $2000. The sponsors are making money off their TV time, but dont discredit the take at the gates. Its also a huge revenue for the host city (hotels, restaurants, etc). When people dont show up to the games, it will have a big impact on the system, whether its bowls or a playoff. I do think less people would watch a third place game on TV, the reason they got as big a share as they did is because people wanted to see if Texas had an argument for splitting the national championship. If they are in the third place game, they dont have an argument, and then they only have their fanbases for the most part. You think they get anyone watching a Utah/Boise third place game? Penn State/Virginia Tech?

**CivilWars** · 01-08-09, 11:10 AM

No change is simple, but is the current system simple? When I rule the BCS it would be a 16 team playoff, adds 3 games at most, and teams are already practicing those weeks anyway, so only thing you add is a Saturday game. You still keep the 30whatever bowls there are, and any teams not in the top 16 can be picked to play in any of them but 8 mid/major bowls. If you are already watching/attending the Mieneke Car Care Bowl because your school is in it the playoffs will have no impact on that. If you could care less about the bowl the playoffs won't change that either.

Round 1 would be 1v16, 2v15, etc at the higher seeds home field. Win and you move on, lose and you start prepping for one of the mid 4 bowl games. The mid 4 have a rotating system to determine who gets to pick a team first, second, third, fourth, then second pick goes in reverse order. Round 2 would be highest remaing versus lowest remaining, etc. Win and you move on, lose and you get selected for the 5th/7th place bowl so to speak. Final four same scenario.

As for ticket allocation for playoffs I say the home team covers, or at least helps cover if there is not enough revenue, the traveling team's travel expenses, and keeps the rest. This is an extra game, and if they are this far they are going to make about an extra million from a bowl payout anyway, so they should not have much of a gripe there. Playoff games probably will not generate much more profit for the schools, but they will still get their bowl payout. As for tickets you set aside a certain % for the road team, but any they don't sell by say Thursday revert to the home team to finish selling.

The biggest issue I see is packing out a championship game in 1 week after the final four, so you make sure you have a week off for the 2 teams in the championship game, and fill that 2 weeks with the mid/major bowls, and you will still have as much interest as you do now, and each team in those bowls gets 2 weeks to sell their share of tickets, and plan their trips.

It is not a finalized plan, but did not want to type 30 pages.

**Red_Lizard2** · 01-08-09, 03:46 PM

i like how you proclaim U-Dub and Wazzu to be the worst schools in D-1, seemingly forgetting about schools like Army, Western Kentucky, New Mexico State, Idaho, Wyoming etc.

**SJA** · 01-08-09, 04:56 PM

Army won 3 games, all DIV 1 opponents.
Western Kentucky won 2 games, both were DIV 2.
New Mexico State won 3 games, two DIV 1, one DIV 2
Idaho won 2 games, one DIV 1, one DIV 2
Wyoming won 4 games, three DIV 1, one DIV 2

Washington won 0 games
Washingston State won 2 games, one DIV 1, one DIV 2.

The DIV 1 team was Washington (16-13), and they got trucked by schools like Stanford (58-0), Arizona St (31-0), Baylor (45-17). I wont even post the scores against ranked or bowl teams.

You can probably find some statistics that show they arent the worst teams, but they are definitely in the discussion.