College Playoff

[Best Buckeye]

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.

 

[sandgk]

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).

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.

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).

 

[23Skidoo]

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.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

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.

 

[23Skidoo]

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.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

...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.

 

[TimSpencer's QB]

If we have a playoff system and tsun knows they are in after the loss but will still get a shot at the NC then our game on 11/18 is diminsihed. Simply no other way to look at it.

As long as were throwing around hypotheticals, let's say tsun had lost to Penn St and Wisconsin this year. Under the current system they are playing for nothing on 11/18. If there is a NC playoff system with 10 -16 teams then the skunkweasels would be playing hard to get in the playoff.

 

[23Skidoo]

...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.

You might have a point. I personally think the ratings would suffer, but we'd never know til that happens.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

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.

OK, Rainman, it's apparent you can't add anything that's not dropped on the floor.

It's obvious that DBB meant that even non-fans of teams in mid-tier bowls will still watch those bowls simply because they are football fans and that even with playoffs other bowl games won't suffer as much as you imply.

 

[TimSpencer's QB]

Most anti-playoff proponents here are citing money as the primary reason playoffs will not be implemented in D I-A. A playoff would actually bring in more money then the current bowl set-up, game for game. Much of this increase in money will come from broadcast rights.

Who watches bowl games currently? The hardcore CFB fans and fans of the schools involved a particular bowl. Playoffs will allow more games to be broadcast for the schools that have a larger fan base. Those games will attract more viewers from the fans of other schools involved in the playoffs. And playoffs always draw the casual viewer in greater numbers regardless the sport.

Money is actually one of the main reasons there will be I-A playoffs in the near future. These university presidents are fairly smart folks and I'm sure they'll work out a method for distribution that is acceptable to most.

D I-A playoffs will come about. I too would wager all my v-cash on that occurring. :)

 

[Buck88]

against scum? no. but my question to you is this. do you think tressel would do so for a game against say... purdue or illinois should we already have a spot in the playoffs locked up?

In an 8 team playoff involving the 6 BCS conference champs and 2 at large teams there is no possibility of OSU having a berth locked up early enough to do such a thing.

 

[Buck88]

Is it that the system uses "silly computers", or the coaches voting, or the harris poll? Or is it that you presume that any post-season not involving a playoff with bogus wildcard contenders is illegit, by default, simply because the NFL, MLB, NBA, and CBB all do it?
And how is the BCS so inferior to the CBB "selection commitee"?

The CBB "selection committee" will be as silly as the BCS the day they decide they can select the TWO teams worthy of playing for the championship, using computers and polls.

They narrow down the field and let the teams settle it on the court. What a novel concept.

 

[23Skidoo]

OK, Rainman, it's apparent you can't add anything that's not dropped on the floor.

It's obvious that DBB meant that even non-fans of teams in mid-tier bowls will still watch those bowls simply because they are football fans and that even with playoffs other bowl games won't suffer as much as you imply.

The point was that he qualified "If Iowa..." and then said "but I'm not a fan of Iowa." Well if he's not a fan of Iowa (which, consider this is BP, I had taken as a given), then why does he qualify Iowa being in the Alamo? (And yes, I know they're in the Alamo against Texas.) Some B10 preference is definitely implied.

Once again your fervor to go on the offensive for whatever personal obsession you have only makes you look the fool.

 

[23Skidoo]

The CBB "selection committee" will be as silly as the BCS the day they decide they can select the TWO teams worthy of playing for the championship, using computers and polls.

They narrow down the field and let the teams settle it on the court. What a novel concept.

We both know they didn't always pick a ton of teams. They used to pick 8. And I've already stated several times I'm fine with a 4-team playoff.
Furthermore, your ripping on "computers and polls" only goes to show that your real issue isn't how many teams they're selecting, but the process itself. So, again, what exactly in the BCS makes it an inferior system of selecting teams compared to a "selection committee" ?
And, for the millionth time, January 8th will be decided on a field.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

The point was that he qualified "If Iowa..." and then said "but I'm not a fan of Iowa." Well if he's not a fan of Iowa (which, consider this is BP, I had taken as a given), then why does he qualify Iowa being in the Alamo?

OK, 23Skidoofus, he not qualifying Iowa being in the Alamo Bowl but rather he's qualifying if the Alamo Bowl (and thus Iowa) is "immediately preceeding" a playoff game, he's watching them both games, despite the fact he's not an Iowa fan.