• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

College Playoff

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
methomps;961541; said:
Why would the Cotton Bowl be played elsewhere? You don't have to name the individual playoff games after bowl games. You have the playoffs as a separate system from the bowls. Bowl-eligible teams that aren't selected for the playoffs still go to a bowl game.

If you host the semifinals and championship games at neutral sites (which I advocate), then you can do those at the BCS Bowl sites (Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar). The first round playoffs games are not bowl games.
Click to expand...


What about the other Bowl games like the Alamo and Holiday which are big revenue earners for their cities?

That's the entire reason cities host bowl games, to boost tourism and show off their cities.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp;961536; said:
That seems less likely than a playoff system coming up anytime soon. The SEC would be pissed. The Big Ten wouldn't want to be split up. Probably the Pac10. The conferences would likely try to stick together. After that, what's the point of the two divisions?

If a play-off were to happen, I think that they'd want to take the winners of the 11 conferences, and 5 at-large teams. Divisions aren't necessary. Interesting idea, though.
Click to expand...

I think we envisioned it more as the B10, B12, SEC, ACC, BEast, and Pac10 would comprise one (top) division and the lesser conferences another. There's definitely little chance this would happen, but we were just tossing around ideas.

An 8-team BCS-based system seemed the most plausible to us, with (at least) the first two rounds played at the home sites of the higher-ranked teams to avoid giving warm-weather teams an advantage.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;961503; said:
So, an over-bloated, archaic bowl system is a valid reason for not join the rest of the college sports world in incorporating a playoff system. Good justification. Now go clean your chalk board erasers...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's all about the .

The money that the "over-bloated, archaic bowl system" brings in is the real reason they will "not join the rest of the college sports world in incorporating a playoff system".
 
Upvote 0
Thump;961547; said:
What about the other Bowl games like the Alamo and Holiday which are big revenue earners for their cities?

That's the entire reason cities host bowl games, to boost tourism and show off their cities.
Click to expand...

Those bowl games can invite non-playoff teams that are bowl eligible.
 
Upvote 0
methomps;961572; said:
Is this you conceding the point and attempting to change the subject?
Click to expand...

No, the bowl games won't stand for it, that's the point.

They're the ones that have the power in the decision right now, after 2010, all bets are off but now it won't work.
 
Upvote 0
Thump;961547; said:
What about the other Bowl games like the Alamo and Holiday which are big revenue earners for their cities?

That's the entire reason cities host bowl games, to boost tourism and show off their cities.
Click to expand...

Waaaah.

They cancelled our shit-for-worth bowl game so now we don't have any money.

Waaaah.
 
Upvote 0
Thump;961574; said:
No, the bowl games won't stand for it, that's the point.

They're the ones that have the power in the decision right now, after 2010, all bets are off but now it won't work.
Click to expand...

What happens in 2010? The bowls don't have nearly the power that the conferences do.
 
Upvote 0
Thump;961582; said:
That's when the BCS contract is up.

The conferences have signed contracts with these bowl games and cities.
Click to expand...

And the BCS contract is an agreement between....the tv networks and the conferences (and the BCS bowls). Not the Cotton bowl or the Holiday bowl or any other lower-tier bowl. So how can you simultaneously claim that (1) the bowls have power to prevent a playoff and (2) things could change when an agreement that has nothing to do with the bowls ends? The BCS agreement shows you exactly where the power lies: with the networks and the conferences.

As for the contracts with the conferences and bowls, I don't see how a playoff violates any of those contracts. They already have provisions for teams being selected by the BCS, so why not by whatever replaces the BCS?
 
Upvote 0
methomps;961596; said:
As for the contracts with the conferences and bowls, I don't see how a playoff violates any of those contracts. They already have provisions for teams being selected by the BCS, so why not by whatever replaces the BCS?
Click to expand...

You're saying that the lower bowls would take what's left over and not want some part of being part of a play off?
 
Upvote 0
Thump;961657; said:
You're saying that the lower bowls would take what's left over and not want some part of being part of a play off?
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of what they want, but what they can do about it. I'm sure they'd love some part of the current BCS, but they take what is left over!!11!1!!!
 
Upvote 0
methomps;961665; said:
It's not a matter of what they want, but what they can do about it. I'm sure they'd love some part of the current BCS, but they take what is left over!!11!1!!!
Click to expand...

The whole argument has been that the lower bowls would be used as the early playoff games.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top