| College Football The place to talk about college football teams other than Ohio State |
12-09-2006, 06:22 PM
|
 |
Woody is my hero
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 13,715
Points: 1,480,346.09
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 1,480,346.09
|
|
|
There are many ways to run a playoff, and many ways have been proposed.
There are more than enough fans to buy the tickets for some of the top programs. Some not ie. Miami.
The problem is that, As Bucyrus says, The BCS ( Big Schools) is not going to do it.
Any one can propose and plead all they want to. It isn't going to happen in the near future.
|
12-09-2006, 06:29 PM
|
 |
Watson, Crick & A Twist
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,418
Points: 1,457,905.63
Bank: 0.28
Total Points: 1,457,905.91
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 23Skidoo
Since 2003, there have been a total of 5 midmajor teams in the final top-16.
(2006 BSU, 2005 TCU, 2004 Utah/BSU/UL)
I don't think the midmajors would ever agree to those kind of odds. Unless you were going to use conference champs? (You didn't specify, so I'm kind of at a loss)
|
They already have agreed to those odds. Nothing in the present system guarantees a possibility to appear in the BCS unless at 14 or higher, nothing guarantees them the right to be in the championship game unless 2 or higher. The hypothetical example gets them a chance to further their season with multiple games - multiple dips into a hypothetical kitty, all while garnering a lower required ranking than is presently demanded.
As for the need to be a conference champion, so-so idea. One thing a play-off should never do is deny a highly ranked second or third place team in a premier conference, at least in my opinion. (Though I respect the position of conference champion to qualify, I think that limits the field to too great a degree).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Saw31
And again, why would any smaller conference give up the guarenteed money they have now? They are not going to sit by while the process makes it more difficult for them to get into the big money games. They just aren't...
|
You also must have skipped past this part - on the money issues.
Quote:
|
Besides, the large game pay-outs are only part of the monies distributed, changing the formula for sharing the wealth would undercut any arguments by MAC and WAC mid-majors of preferential treatment.
|
To be clear, I assume that a play-off based system would demand a re-writing of the money guarantees more favorable to the poorer conferences than that which is presently written.
To echo others' statements, there is no logistical, nor financial argument that would prevent construction of a play-off system.
(Though, I personally don't like the idea).
__________________
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it is not half so bad as a lot of ignorance." - Terry Pratchett
|
12-09-2006, 06:57 PM
|
 |
It's so Japaneasy
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,320
Points: 100.75
Bank: 1.02
Total Points: 101.77
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandgk
They already have agreed to those odds. Nothing in the present system guarantees a possibility to appear in the BCS unless at 14 or higher, nothing guarantees them the right to be in the championship game unless 2 or higher. The hypothetical example gets them a chance to further their season with multiple games - multiple dips into a hypothetical kitty, all while garnering a lower required ranking than is presently demanded.
|
The difference is that, in the current system, they have a monopoly on CFB for most of December. Who would ever watch the GMAC or other bowls while playoffs are going on that same week? Many, most, or all of those bowls would probably starve for money and be discontinued. |
12-09-2006, 07:37 PM
|
 |
vMilosevic
Moderator
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,420
Points: 850,198.87
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 850,198.87
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 23Skidoo
The difference is that, in the current system, they have a monopoly on CFB for most of December. Who would ever watch the GMAC or other bowls while playoffs are going on that same week? Many, most, or all of those bowls would probably starve for money and be discontinued.
|
Reading this thread...
...able to ignore most of it...
But this is just too far...
If Iowa is in the Alamo Bowl in the time-slot immediately preceding a play-off game, I'm watching them both. And I'm not an Iowa fan.
__________________
 If you screw up, do it with someone else's money
|
12-09-2006, 07:54 PM
|
|
It's so Japaneasy
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,320
Points: 100.75
Bank: 1.02
Total Points: 101.77
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyBigBucks
Reading this thread...
...able to ignore most of it...
But this is just too far...
If Iowa is in the Alamo Bowl in the time-slot immediately preceding a play-off game, I'm watching them both. And I'm not an Iowa fan.
|
Kinda lost me then. What's with the qualifier of Iowa in the Alamo followed by the qualifier that you're not an Iowa fan? Something's not adding up.
Regardless, the Alamo bowl is a BCS one -- and I'm referring to midmajors in bowls. Would you watch the New Orleans bowl (Troy - Rice)? Or the Poinsettia (TCU - NIU)? What about the New Mexico (New Mexico - SJSU)? I think I can safely say that none of those bowls are very exciting to the large majority of CFB fans. But they're on tv because they're the only games being played, and a few of us will watch them because -- they're the only games being played. |
12-10-2006, 01:01 AM
|
|
vMilosevic
Moderator
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,420
Points: 850,198.87
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 850,198.87
|
|
|
...and they will be the only games being played even if they are one time-slot removed from a play-off game.
My point was that ESPN has found that college football gets positive ratings whenever they put it on. There would be plenty of timeslots for lower level Bowls. They wouldn't have to clear out entire weeks.
Truthfully, I should have just continued to ignore this thread. Carry on.
__________________
If you screw up, do it with someone else's money
|
12-10-2006, 01:54 AM
|
|
| |
