College Playoff

[MililaniBuckeye]

Originally Posted by HailToMichigan

Agreed - that it's not totally a function of proximity. I just said proximity had more to do with it. Of course Texas A&M would have been a bigger draw to the Texas Bowl than TCU, but take a look at last year's Texas Bowl. 10,000 fewer people for #12 Rutgers vs. Kansas State. Hometown teams, bigger crowd.

Same for the Motor City Bowl. Record number this year. Last year was also a record crowd at 54,113 - and again, CMU played in the game. Typically the Motor City Bowl brings in about 44,000 for teams like Cincinnati, Bowling Green, and Toledo - schools whose fanbases are close but not literally in Detroit like CMU's is.

On the flip side, the Gator Bowl attracted 7,000 more people last year for Georgia Tech vs. West Virginia. Same caliber teams, only they were closer to Jacksonville.

Still wrong. Read the rest of my post. I showed how big programs fill stadiums regardless of distance. Granted, distance is indeed somewhat a factor, but the stats clearly show that the bigger and better the teams, the more fans will show up, no matter where the bowl is held.

[Nutriaitch]

Originally Posted by MililaniBuckeye

the bigger and better the teams, the more fans will show up, no matter where the bowl is held.

I'll agree with this one. If Monday's game was being played in Africa, I think we'd still sell it out. The only thing I'd question (like has been said in this thread already), would we be able to do it multiple times like a playoff would require?

[MililaniBuckeye]

Originally Posted by Nutriaitch

I'll agree with this one. If Monday's game was being played in Africa, I think we'd still sell it out. The only thing I'd question (like has been said in this thread already), would we be able to do it multiple times like a playoff would require?

I think we would, at least with programs like ours. And, I think many other bigger programs (Michigan, USC, Notre Dame--if they ever get rid of Jabba the Weis, Oregon, Florida, etc.) would travel huge to each game in a playoff.

If the 16-team system played the first and quarterfinal rounds at the higher seed's home field, those would be all but guaranteed sellouts. The semi-final and title games--even at neutral sites--would also be locks for sellouts due to the magnitude of those games, and likely the teams playing therein.

[billmac91]

Originally Posted by DaddyBigBucks

I can't believe I'm about to defend the ACC, but...


In their defense, I don't think they foresaw the imminent, overwhelming suckitude of both FSU and Miami when the chose the conference championship game site.

I think most would be surprised at how non-fanatical most fanbases are in the ACC.

Doak was rarely packed while I attended FSU, and our bowl game attendance was always pretty poor. We got outnumbered in the Gator Bowl, held in Jacksonville (an 1.5 hours from Tally), by West Virginia fans. FSU fans claim to be the best in the country, like many other fanbases, but there just isn't any comparison to big time SEC/Big 10/Big 12 schools.

Obviously, Miami is about as bad a fan base as you can have for a major program. The 2002 Fiesta Bowl was 90% OSU fans.

The only "real" fanbase in the ACC is Clemson. Clemson is comparable to an SEC/Big 10 school when it comes to support.

So yes, Charlotte would be a better location, but I think ACC Big-wigs mistake their conference for something it is not. You can sell out an SEC Championship game and a Big 12 Championship game, but I doubt you'd ever do that for the ACC.

[HailToMichigan]

Originally Posted by billmac91

I think most would be surprised at how non-fanatical most fanbases are in the ACC.

Doak was rarely packed while I attended FSU, and our bowl game attendance was always pretty poor. We got outnumbered in the Gator Bowl, held in Jacksonville (an 1.5 hours from Tally), by West Virginia fans. FSU fans claim to be the best in the country, like many other fanbases, but there just isn't any comparison to big time SEC/Big 10/Big 12 schools.

Obviously, Miami is about as bad a fan base as you can have for a major program. The 2002 Fiesta Bowl was 90% OSU fans.

The only "real" fanbase in the ACC is Clemson. Clemson is comparable to an SEC/Big 10 school when it comes to support.

So yes, Charlotte would be a better location, but I think ACC Big-wigs mistake their conference for something it is not. You can sell out an SEC Championship game and a Big 12 Championship game, but I doubt you'd ever do that for the ACC.

Now you've done it. I gotta stick up for my own school now

Scott Stadium holds 61,500 officially - in reality, anything above 60,000 is essentially a sellout, as the stands themselves only hold about 56 or 57,000 (everyone else crams themselves onto the grass hill.) Lowest-attended game this year was 57,681, and all but two games hit the 60,000 mark. Not to mention, all fans except students have to travel to the game, because Charlottesville is not a big place.

All the North Carolina schools are not really football schools - their mantra is "just you wait til basketball season." So you're right when it comes to them (and that's 1/3 of the ACC). Miami inexplicably timed its descent into suckitude to coincide with joining the ACC, I just don't get them.

But aside from Clemson, I think you'd find that Maryland, UVA, GT, and VT are extremely tough places to win a football game. Also I don't think UNC/Duke/etc. (the football dregs of the conference) are any different from, say, Iowa State/Baylor/every year at Kansas but this one.

Sorry. Waayyyy off topic. Not my fault, it's billmac's, he made me do it.

By the way, billmac - in the case of FSU, I don't know if this is really the case, but the impression a lot of people have of FSU is that these days they expect nothing less than the best bowls, so they won't travel to the other ones. I don't know how true that is, but it's at least plausible given how psycho FSU boosters have been over things like Jeff Bowden at OC.

[billmac91]

Originally Posted by HailToMichigan

Now you've done it. I gotta stick up for my own school now

Scott Stadium holds 61,500 officially - in reality, anything above 60,000 is essentially a sellout, as the stands themselves only hold about 56 or 57,000 (everyone else crams themselves onto the grass hill.) Lowest-attended game this year was 57,681, and all but two games hit the 60,000 mark. Not to mention, all fans except students have to travel to the game, because Charlottesville is not a big place.

All the North Carolina schools are not really football schools - their mantra is "just you wait til basketball season." So you're right when it comes to them (and that's 1/3 of the ACC). Miami inexplicably timed its descent into suckitude to coincide with joining the ACC, I just don't get them.

But aside from Clemson, I think you'd find that Maryland, UVA, GT, and VT are extremely tough places to win a football game. Also I don't think UNC/Duke/etc. (the football dregs of the conference) are any different from, say, Iowa State/Baylor/every year at Kansas but this one.

Sorry. Waayyyy off topic. Not my fault, it's billmac's, he made me do it.

By the way, billmac - in the case of FSU, I don't know if this is really the case, but the impression a lot of people have of FSU is that these days they expect nothing less than the best bowls, so they won't travel to the other ones. I don't know how true that is, but it's at least plausible given how psycho FSU boosters have been over things like Jeff Bowden at OC.

I've never been to Scott so I can't speak to their tailgaiting, tradition, and fan support per se. I do know from the other ACC venues I've been to while attending FSU, they rarely stacked up to or even came close to a SEC/Big 10 atmosphere.

ACC sites I've been to include: N.C. State, North Carolina, Miami, and B.C.. I visited Clemson as a college choice and was very impressed with the school spirit I saw. I just think when you compare the ACC to other conferences passion, it doesn't match up. Even visiting ACC message boards on scout/rivals is like visiting a ghost town.

I've also been to Ben Hill and tailgated at a Bama game plus took part in the world's largest cocktail party(UGA/UF in Jacksonville). The SEC definately knows how to get down.

In regards to FSU fans/boosters I just don't buy it. Penn St. was another bowl game we got completely outnumbered in and the game was in Florida and it was a BCS game. It's just shocking how little passion there is IMO. I don't want it to sound like theres no support at all, but when comparing it to OSU, Michigan, 'Bama, LSU, etc., theres just very little comparison. If I bring this coversation up with someone from FSU, they think I'm crazy, but I'd suggest they've never experienced a "big-time" atmosphere before.

I don't think it's coincidental the ACC will be moving their ACC Championship venue because the lack of attendance has been embarrassing.

But in regards to a college playoff, my contention has always been to give the higher seeded team a home game to the fans don't have to travel for the first game.

Otherwise filling seats would most likely become an issue until the championship game.

[Lockup]

Originally Posted by Best Buckeye

Will there be an option "not in my life time" and can we collect when we win?

No but we should be able to will it to someone.
Give them a nice head start.

[Lockup]

Originally Posted by Nutriaitch

I've only skimmed this thread, so sorry if this has already been touched upon.

4 would be no better than we have now. OSU, LSU, Va Tech., OU, UGA, USC, are all the teams "claiming they deserved a shot. 2 of them get left out.

that is true for this. This year has been pretty wacky though. It could be true in any year though as was stated before unless you run a 119 team playoff which nobosy wants ythere will always be teams that have a claim.

4 to me is a nice number. A bit of a compromise if you will. Gives you a small playoff at least and can serve to not take away from the regular season to much.

[sandgk]

First - an opinion piece from Terry Bowden on Yahoo about his preference for a playoff.

Two slugs from the article -
BCS Still a Bust: Slug One - The other BCS games play a poor second fiddle to the BCS Championship game.

We have been through all the bowls and we are now ready for the national championship game. However, something just doesn't seem right. Something doesn't add up. Everything we have seen so far was supposed to lead up to a final showdown. We were supposed to be taken on an exhilarating ride of excitement and emotion that built up into a magnificent college football finale.
But that didn't happen. We saw some good games and we saw some bad games. We even saw a few great ones. What we didn't see was anything that in any way led up to the national championship game. Everything that happened before has nothing to do with what is going to happen now.

Bowden goes on to whimsically recall the magic that would occur when #2 played #5 in one bowl, #1 vs. #6 in another etc. Never mind that such a magical alignment very rarely took place. Never mind that the mythical NC that resulted from these match-ups lead to debate, not resolution.

Slug Two - The solution is a playoff

Nothing that happens prior to Jan. 7 has any impact whatsoever on what happens on Jan. 7. It was a lot better back when, for example, No. 1 played No. 6 in the Orange Bowl and No. 2 played No. 5 in the Sugar Bowl and No. 3 played No. 4 in the Rose Bowl and the national champion could come from any one of those matchups. At least there was some drama to the consequences. Am I the only one, or are the Jan. 1 (2 and 3) games a lot less interesting to watch now than they used to be? If you agree, then tell me if that is progress.
Yes, I know this is a masked argument for a playoff system but the entire postseason is such a disappointment. And, it is not disappointing because of what it is, but because of what it isn't. It isn't a system that brings out the best of the existing bowl structure and it isn't a system that brings out the best in the championship game. Most importantly, it isn't a system that ties these two very important factors together into one coordinated postseason plan.
That would be a playoff.
So, I am going to say this one more time – for this year at least – and then I am going to enjoy the BCS championship game.
We need an eight-team playoff.

Second - my personal take on matters as they are, and as I'd like to see them.

As They Are
If I have one major gripe with the present arrangement is it is about the timing and broadcasts, then with the match-ups.

The present has several January 1st bowls - only two of which this year were part of the BCS quartet, the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl. The others strung themselves out into what is, for most people, the work week. The Championship game itself is one week after the New Year's holiday weekend. There is only one convincing argument for why this is done.

Money.

Some claim this was done to help boost ratings, if so, I argue that it is counter productive. It certainly doesn't help the average college football fan - in fact it sets up scenarios which favor domestic discontent in households that feel they have had a full plate of games over the holidays. (Full disclosure - I am not affected by such issues, College Football is a preferred staple TV diet, but I recognize that tension happens in many households around the nation).

Further to the above, it doesn't help that the BCS sold the broadcast rights for most of these games (exception The Rose Bowl) to FOX - who has in successive years demonstrated their ability to completely louse up a golden opportunity.

What about the match-ups?
This was discussed in the thread concerning the OU / VT / UGA / Hawaii match-ups. But it is worth addressing here, at least to respond to the secondary premise in Bowden's article - diminished match-ups in the BCS Bowl Games are less exciting than the (rarely seen) magical alignment of old.

It is true that the match-ups in the BCS Bowl Games were less compelling than those we have seen on occasion in the past, whether in BCS or in Bowl Games before Bowl Alliance / BCS. It does not follow that the first solution is to implement a playoff. There are other options.

First option that the BCS should look at is to allow greater latitude to the participating Bowls, so that compelling matchups (#3 vs #5, #4 vs #8) can be constructed. Secondly, I believe the BCS should stop writing so many what-if scenario rules concerning the admission of non-BCS teams into a BCS Bowl game. (Yes, this is also about Hawaii - whose bowl placement, whether BCS or other would have been better handled by the Bowls if they were not hamstrung by the rules taking other teams out of contention). Notably, my preference here would not demand that the Rose Bowl think first of taking a Big 10 #2, when the Big 10 number 1 is headed to the BCS Championship game. Instead, afford the Rose Bowl the freedom to take a Missouri should they so wish.

Implementing those relatively minor changes would limit the likelihood of the less compelling match-ups we saw this year.

How I'd Like to See Things

Tweaking the Current System
Part of how I'd like to see the BCS adjusted is presented above. But, that is merely about tweaking the current system.

On that topic though, without doubt, if the BCS continues in it's present or adjusted (plus-one) form I definitely do not want to see FOX ever have the games again. They are thoroughly inept. They have no feel for how to punctuate games, nor do I think they care about their many, lengthy, interruptions. No, not as long as they sell Ad Space. It is, as I said earlier, all about the money. FOX should, for the betterment of the sport and to help college football fans retain their sanity, be excluded from bidding the next time around. Better yet, the BCS should tear up the present contract and put it out for re-bid.

Bold But Traditional
A traditional but bold approach would be to revert to the old bowl structure and ditch the BCS as failed but interesting experiment. Never, ever going to happen now that the College Presidents have seen the serious moolah that is out there for the asking. But, there were those once in a blue moon cascade of games where everything still hung in the balance for a top-notch Orange Bowl contest to overcome a great showing by another team in the Rose Bowl.

If There Must Be a Playoff
My least favorite option is a playoff. I like the mythical nature of a national championship. The fact that there remains some debate about the worthiness of a BCS National Championship game winner as the best team at the end of the season does not diminish anything in my view. It certainly does not argue eloquently for a playoff.

But, what about having a playoff - doesn't that answer all the earlier criticisms of validity, compelling games, certainty, fan involvement and viewership? Well, no, it doesn't. Still, if we are to have a playoff, how should it be constructed?

Should we use the Polls to determine the participants? Not directly in my view, I'd prefer to see the conference winners taken first - then look to the Polls for the rest of Field.

Should we use the present Bowl structure? No, I'd favor using home-field advantage - even if it is only limited to the early rounds. This eliminates at least 50% of the logistical burden when the pool of playing teams is at it's largest.

How would I propose seeding home-field advantage? - Well, that is where the BCS and other Poll mechanisms could be brought into play.

How many teams in the playoff? No fewer than 8 - no more than 16.

When would the first rounds be played? If it were done this season, beginning December 8th. You could be down to 4 remaining teams well before Christmas break.

How would the last four play-out? Well, this is the first time I would bring the BCS Bowls explicitly back in as destinations. The Semi-Final and Finals would be 3 of the current BCS bowl games.

There are 5 BCS bowls, what about the other 2? These get first choice on the teams dropping out of the QF and SF games. Oh, yes, this diminishes the value of those Bowl games, but hell, we want a play-off, right?

Other Bowl games receive the leavings from the play-off, or make their own arrangements.

What I Really Want

Just to be clear on this - FOX out of the business of broadcasting college football.

The old Bowl system dates and deadlines - and -

No playoff, thanks very much.

[Lockup]

Some nice thoughts there. Just out of curiosity even though I know you don't like the playoff idea. Are you against a 4 team playoff or plus 1 as some like to say.

I would say they use 2 of the 4 BCS bowls in rotation very year to pit 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 and the winners get each other the next week.

what do you see as the bad things with this setup?

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by Lockup

Some nice thoughts there. Just out of curiosity even though I know you don't like the playoff idea. Are you against a 4 team playoff or plus 1 as some like to say.

I would say they use 2 of the 4 BCS bowls in rotation very year to pit 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 and the winners get each other the next week.

what do you see as the bad things with this setup?

One of the things I see against the +1 or BCS play-in to playoff format is that it still starts from too small a pool to satisfy the concerns of those who decry the present arrangement in which #1 vs. #2 is set by BCS.

The other issue I see is that the truncated playoff sets up a lot of difficult logistics in vacation destinations - right at or around the turn of the year.

Unless that is the play-in to playoff takes place ahead of the Christmas season. Something I doubt the BCS Bowls would be happy to see. Which is why I would like to see the BCS Bowls influence severely diminished in any playoff plan.

Bottom line, there is no need to feed to current beast, by constraining the field of initial playoff teams, once you say a playoff is the answer. Instead, meet the needs of the fans of the teams with the winning records.

[Lockup]

Originally Posted by sandgk

One of the things I see against the +1 or BCS play-in to playoff format is that it still starts from too small a pool to satisfy the concerns of those who decry the present arrangement in which #1 vs. #2 is set by BCS.

The other issue I see is that the truncated playoff sets up a lot of difficult logistics in vacation destinations - right at or around the turn of the year.

Unless that is the play-in to playoff takes place ahead of the Christmas season. Something I doubt the BCS Bowls would be happy to see. Which is why I would like to see the BCS Bowls influence severely diminished in any playoff plan.

Bottom line, there is no need to feed to current beast, by constraining the field of initial playoff teams, once you say a playoff is the answer. Instead, meet the needs of the fans of the teams with the winning records.

That is a good point about traveling fans I had forgotten about that. I think we may see the + 1 before anything else though since change is so slow in CFB.

I do like the idea of home playoff games though. That would be really cool.

[CookyPuss]

Originally Posted by sandgk

One of the things I see against the +1 or BCS play-in to playoff format is that it still starts from too small a pool to satisfy the concerns of those who decry the present arrangement in which #1 vs. #2 is set by BCS.

The other issue I see is that the truncated playoff sets up a lot of difficult logistics in vacation destinations - right at or around the turn of the year.

Unless that is the play-in to playoff takes place ahead of the Christmas season. Something I doubt the BCS Bowls would be happy to see. Which is why I would like to see the BCS Bowls influence severely diminished in any playoff plan.

Bottom line, there is no need to feed to current beast, by constraining the field of initial playoff teams, once you say a playoff is the answer. Instead, meet the needs of the fans of the teams with the winning records.

I have to agree that a 4 team or +1 scenario will be a bigger cluster[censored] than the current B(C)S mess we have. It would almost certainly demolish the current conference tie-ins with the bowls. It's possible the #1 team could be seeded against another team from their own conference and possibly one that they already beat that year (think OSU-TSUN last year or LSU-UG this year). If they go to a pure plus one to keep the conference tie-ins, than you will likely have some very uneven match-ups. The ratings of the non-playoff BCS bowls would likely fall into the crapper. The current system has done a fairly reasonable job of sorting #1 and 2 from the pack, but I can't imagine it trying to distinguish #4 from #5. Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

[HailToMichigan]

Originally Posted by Lockup

Some nice thoughts there. Just out of curiosity even though I know you don't like the playoff idea. Are you against a 4 team playoff or plus 1 as some like to say.

I would say they use 2 of the 4 BCS bowls in rotation very year to pit 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 and the winners get each other the next week.

what do you see as the bad things with this setup?

I'm not the one the question was directed at, but I don't want a playoff either so I'm weighing in anyway. Lucky you

Anyway, you still have the problem of fans having to travel to multiple venues. Mili has a point - the largest schools, the ones that are likely to play, could probably pull it off. Hawaii could not. Kansas would probably not. USC probably could.

However, I see a bad slippery slope going both ways. The NCAA is relentlessly chasing money, obviously. Now suppose I'm dead-on right about the multiple venues. Suppose the bowls have embarrassingly poor turnouts for the semifinals. I guarantee you, once we go to 4 teams, we're never going back to 2, so they will solve the problem by moving the semifinals to home stadiums. And once you do that....well, why not chase the money even further? Guaranteed, 4 is not enough to stop the bitching about deserving teams being left out, so they will expand to 6. Then 8. Now we have a full-blown playoff. Not what I want to see.

Or, suppose I'm wrong about the multiple venues. Suppose the semifinal bowls and the title game are jam-packed. The natural next step, then, is to move the semifinals outside the bowls completely, thus irretrievably diluting the bowl system.

So my own answer is, on its face I would not mind a 4 team "playoff" using BCS bowls as semifinals, but since I'm pretty confident they wouldn't stop there, I don't want to see it.

Another problem with 4 teams: I don't think it would satisfy playoff proponents at all, because they'd still feel like too many teams were snubbed.

Personally, I think if you want to solve the problems that people think will be solved by a playoff, and still keep the bowl structure intact for the traditionalists, the best solution is a competition committee like the one that selects the field of 65. Screw the polls. Convene a committee each year consisting of 2 ADs each from the BCS conferences and 1 each from the non-BCS conferences and let 'em argue it out. Nobody ever has a problem with the field of 65 and that's because its not selected via a popularity contest.

[Lockup]

Originally Posted by HailToMichigan

Personally, I think if you want to solve the problems that people think will be solved by a playoff, and still keep the bowl structure intact for the traditionalists, the best solution is a competition committee like the one that selects the field of 65. Screw the polls. Convene a committee each year consisting of 2 ADs each from the BCS conferences and 1 each from the non-BCS conferences and let 'em argue it out. Nobody ever has a problem with the field of 65 and that's because its not selected via a popularity contest.

You have a good arguement till you hit the bolded part. Are you kidding? every year there is some team that felt they got snubbed even with 65.

The competition commitee is not a bad idea though but understand no matter how many teams we had in a playoff somebody is not going to like it.

I just think it is better for the #17, #9 or #5 team to bitch then the current #3 or #4.