College Playoff

[methomps]

The whole argument has been that the lower bowls would be used as the early playoff games.

No. I and others have advocated that early playoff games be played at the home site of the higher seed. Lower bowls go on completely outside the playoff system, just like they currently go on completely outside of the BCS!!1111!

 

[buckiprof]

Playoffs that utilize lower seed going to higher seed for first round game (earlt ot mid-December) made sense the first time I heard it mentioned, in the 1990's, from John Cooper. One of the more intelligent things to come out of his mouth. I would love to see Florida, LSU, or USC come into Big Ten country in early to mid-December for a game.

Thump - I think lower tiered bowls, like Alamo Bowl or Holiday Bowl, would be fine mainly because these bowls usually don't get teams that would be in the playoffs to begin with. Think back a couple of years ago when OSU was in the Alamo Bowl. I don't know it for a fact, but I bet they were shitting themselves with joy getting OSU to be in their bowl game.

 

[Thump]

No. I and others have advocated that early playoff games be played at the home site of the higher seed. Lower bowls go on completely outside the playoff system, just like they currently go on completely outside of the BCS!!1111!

This sounds good.

I've always heard people trying to incorporate the lower bowls into the playoff and had no idea how that would work.

 

[HailToMichigan]

Coaches put up a huge hissy-fit when the NCAA altered the rules a bit, the end result of which was roughly 5-10 more plays per game. And they really hated the 13-game regular season that we had a few years back. They complained that their players were now more likely to get hurt. Won't they kick and scream when you start adding games to the schedule via a playoff? Especially anything higher than one involving four teams that adds three games?

 

[ScarletBlood31]

Coaches put up a huge hissy-fit when the NCAA altered the rules a bit, the end result of which was roughly 5-10 more plays per game. And they really hated the 13-game regular season that we had a few years back. They complained that their players were now more likely to get hurt. Won't they kick and scream when you start adding games to the schedule via a playoff? Especially anything higher than one involving four teams that adds three games?

I think its different though. If it were a playoff situation, injuries wouldn't be as huge a deal as they would be in the middle of the season. If a player gets hurt during a playoff game, it's definitely a bad thing for them to have to rehab from it, but it wouldn't have a long-lasting effect on the team's season that year.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

The whole argument has been that the lower bowls would be used as the early playoff games.

Exactly what I've been saying since day one. The lower-tier bowls, i.e. the Thump Anal Lube Bowl, would rather have a #1 vs #16 or even a #8 vs #9 first-round playoff matchup instead of a couple unranked 7-5 or 6-6 teams.

 

[OCBucksFan]

Coaches put up a huge hissy-fit when the NCAA altered the rules a bit, the end result of which was roughly 5-10 more plays per game. And they really hated the 13-game regular season that we had a few years back. They complained that their players were now more likely to get hurt. Won't they kick and scream when you start adding games to the schedule via a playoff? Especially anything higher than one involving four teams that adds three games?

More than anything I see a bunch of kicking and screaming over #16 (WAC champion) Upsetting #1 on some amazing play at the end, and don't say it couldn't happen. The thing is, the way the BCS currently is, there's no real chance for those smaller schools from Non-BCS conferences to ever get a shot at the title game. No one wants to imagine SDSU National Champions.

I am against a playoff system, I love that every game matters so much, even if it's a game against a small in-state school, but I do realize there needs to be some tweaking to the BCS system. As it stands, you have your heavy hitters, about 15 teams, that are running at it every year.

I also hate the fact that when a team wins the Big10, and they don't play for the NC, they have to come to the west coast which in a lot of cases is almost a home game for teams. where tsun and tOSU have to fly across the country, cal has a 45 minute flight, USC fans are in their backyard and UCLA is at home.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

None of the coaches at the I-AA, II, or III divisions whine or cry about any of the crap many of you bring up (extra games, travel, undeserving teams getting in, etc.)...that right there should tell you something.

 

[HailToMichigan]

None of the coaches at the I-AA, II, or III divisions whine or cry about any of the crap many of you bring up (extra games, travel, undeserving teams getting in, etc.)...that right there should tell you something.

That's because they play shorter regular season schedules in front of high-school sized crowds. No, I take that back. Probably most D-II and III schools wish they could have high-school sized crowds. So what do they care if they host fewer games? Every home game for D-IA mega-programs means multi-millions of dollars of revenue. Just one football game can fund the entire track team for a year, with money left over for swimming and wrestling. So shortening the regular season to accommodate a playoff is out of the question for every school president and AD out there.

The extra playoff games bring in absolutely oodles of money for the successful teams in the lower divisions. Money-wise, a playoff system would add very little to I-A, because teams already receive large payouts from the bowl games. The whole conference receives money, too. So if you play a playoff game at home stadiums to cancel out the complaint that people won't travel, you'll have to work out the money issue somehow. AD's would piss up a shitstorm if they had to bear the expense of hosting a game but share the revenue. And everyone else would squawk if the money wasn't shared, because they now lose bowl payout money.

I could go on and on like this. But D-IA football is BIG BUSINESS. And like I said, it pays for all those other sports, so it's not entirely a bad thing how much money is involved. The money situation in the lower divisions doesn't even come within a shadow of a whisper of coming close to the kind of money situation in D-IA. So saying "well it works in Division II so it can work in I-A" totally ignores the financial realities.

Besides, you say "the coaches don't whine about this and that." Um, you think teams aren't complaining about the road to the championship always going through Allendale, MI or Alliance, OH? You think they like the week-notice bus ride from Bloomsburg, PA to Maryville, MO? I'll bet they do their fair share of whining about stuff, much of it probably legitimate. But Bloomsburg and Northwestern Missouri State don't make SportsCenter for all of us to hear about it.

 

[methomps]

The extra playoff games bring in absolutely oodles of money for the successful teams in the lower divisions. Money-wise, a playoff system would add very little to I-A, because teams already receive large payouts from the bowl games. The whole conference receives money, too. So if you play a playoff game at home stadiums to cancel out the complaint that people won't travel, you'll have to work out the money issue somehow. AD's would piss up a shitstorm if they had to bear the expense of hosting a game but share the revenue. And everyone else would squawk if the money wasn't shared, because they now lose bowl payout money.

The money issue isn't that hard. Most of the BCS money comes from tv and is divided up by the BCS. I don't see why the same thing can't be done for a playoff. After paying the visiting team a stipend that covers travel costs and a little extra, home team gets to keep everything it makes hosting the game. Both teams get millions of dollars from the tv network. Where is the problem?11!!11

 

[ScarletBlood31]

There really isn't a reason why a playoff system wouldn't work. As for the arguement about having small schools upset the #1 team in the country, and taking them out of the NC picture, what's wrong with that? Isn't that what people crave every year during the college basketball season and march madness?

I would say that a 16 playoff is way too excessive, but an 8 team playoff could work. Hell, a 4 team playoff would be an improvement.

If they could set up a playoff like the NFL has for each of the conferences, with 6 teams making it and the top 2 teams having a bye week, I think that would be a pretty good way to go. Reward the top 2 with 1 less game, but give 6 schools a chance to win it.

 

[HailToMichigan]

The money issue isn't that hard. Most of the BCS money comes from tv and is divided up by the BCS. I don't see why the same thing can't be done for a playoff. After paying the visiting team a stipend that covers travel costs and a little extra, home team gets to keep everything it makes hosting the game. Both teams get millions of dollars from the tv network. Where is the problem?11!!11

The Fox BCS contract is for $20 million per year.....that's $4 million per conference. So....starting with advertising. Will each individual playoff game have a title sponsor as the bowls do? "Quarterfinal Game Presented By Chick-Fil-A" is not worth as much as the "Chick-Fil-A Bowl". That bowl alone pays $3.25 million to the ACC. The third-tier bowl - the Gator Bowl - pays the ACC $2.5 million. These are the bowls that would suffer the most under a playoff system and the conferences would lose that money. Simply put, the TV contract is a much smaller percentage of the payouts to the conferences than the bowl contracts are. Playoff games will not support the kind of advertising that bowls do. Bowls all have major events, all sponsored. Bowls place advertising all over the stadium - on the field, in the stands, on the scoreboard. Playoff games cannot do that. They will not suddenly plaster a giant FedEx logo at midfield of Ohio Stadium or the Big House.

There really isn't a reason why a playoff system wouldn't work.

A playoff system would "work" in that we'd eventually crown a national champion. There are literally dozens of hurdles, however. And me, I can't think of a single thing that a playoff would solve. The major argument I see is that it would get rid of all the controversy. Because nobody ever complains about being left out of the 65-team basketball field. Allow 6 teams in and people will make a stink about the 7th and 8th teams. And there are always more teams that can make a case for being 4th or 6th than can make a case for being 2nd.

 

[OCBucksFan]

There really isn't a reason why a playoff system wouldn't work. As for the arguement about having small schools upset the #1 team in the country, and taking them out of the NC picture, what's wrong with that? Isn't that what people crave every year during the college basketball season and march madness?

I didn't say it would be a problem, I just said it's one of the concerns that conferences seem to use as a defense. Look, ACC, Big East, Big Twelve, Big 10, SEC and Pac 10 all have reasons to like the system the way it is. It gives the big dance opportunity to them, leaving lesser conferences like the MAC, WAC, Conference USA, etc.. out of it.

I would say that a 16 playoff is way too excessive, but an 8 team playoff could work. Hell, a 4 team playoff would be an improvement.

If they could set up a playoff like the NFL has for each of the conferences, with 6 teams making it and the top 2 teams having a bye week, I think that would be a pretty good way to go. Reward the top 2 with 1 less game, but give 6 schools a chance to win it.

Personally, I disagree, I think the champs from all the conferences, there's 11 1-A conferences, and that leaves 5 at large bids for Notre Dame + 4 other opponents. 8 leaves the 6 BCS teams but leaves out 5 other conference champs, what's to make them less deserving? And besides, it's 1 extra game.

I like the tradition of the bowls, perhaps it's because I have grown used to them, the rose bowl was a tradition I grew up with, even when I was a young child and was more forced to watch it than anything else. I realize there is a need for a change, but 8 teams doesn't seem like enough.

The thing this could potentially hurt would be non-conference games, teams stick to their conference schedules, send their champs to the to the tourney and not worry about strength of schedule. You'll have your non-conference games during the playoffs. So if you take those 3-4 games off the schedule it doesn't make much of a difference from the way the system is now.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

That's because they play shorter regular season schedules in front of high-school sized crowds. No, I take that back. Probably most D-II and III schools wish they could have high-school sized crowds. So what do they care if they host fewer games? Every home game for D-IA mega-programs means multi-millions of dollars of revenue. Just one football game can fund the entire track team for a year, with money left over for swimming and wrestling. So shortening the regular season to accommodate a playoff is out of the question for every school president and AD out there.

You may want to do some research before posting. I-AA teams have played 11+ games for decades, so there is no "shortening the regular season to accommodate a playoff". Thus, I-A can continue with their current 12-game schedule with no problems. Next...

 

[HailToMichigan]

Gonna continue with my last point here. The major argument for a playoff usually revolves around "letting the teams decide it on the field" and avoiding controversies like 2003 with OU/USC/LSU and 2004 with USC/OU/Auburn.

What if we'd had a six-team playoff all this time, instead of the BCS? We have to use some kind of methodology to figure out who's going to play, so for simplicity's sake I'll use the BCS standings. Top six teams make the playoffs.

1998 -

1. Tennessee (12-0)
2. Florida State (11-1)
3. Kansas State (11-1)
4. Ohio State (10-1)
5. UCLA (10-1)
6. Texas A&M (11-2)

During this season, the computers placed Tennessee and FSU as the clear-cut #1 and #2 and it's tough to argue this. FSU had the hardest schedule (4th toughest in the nation) of all one-loss teams. Open up to six teams, though, and the controversy begins. Who gets the bye, OSU or UCLA? Very, very close in the rankings. The humans thought OSU was the better team, but UCLA had a much tougher SoS. The teams left out are one-loss Arizona, one-loss Wisconsin, two-loss Florida, and unbeaten Tulane. That's four teams that can make a case for getting that sixth spot, all of which have a stronger case than any non-FSU team for the 2nd spot. The human polls, for example, put A&M below all except Tulane.

1999 -

1. Florida State (11-0)
2. Virginia Tech (11-0)
3. Nebraska (11-1)
4. Alabama (10-2)
5. Tennessee (9-2)
6. Kansas State (10-1)

No argument here - FSU and VT were clearly the two best teams in the country. Why muddy the waters with flawed teams? Enter a playoff, and the Big Ten will scream bloody murder, with an argument the SEC would find familiar today - Michigan, Wisconsin, and MSU all chewed each other up and ended up with 2 losses each, so what makes those SEC teams in there special? Especially when Michigan ended up beating Alabama in the Orange Bowl.

2000 -

1. Oklahoma (12-0)
2. Florida State (11-1)
3. Miami (10-1)
4. Washington (10-1)
5. Virginia Tech (10-1)
6. Oregon State (10-1)

The one messy year that a playoff could have cleared up - however, it's only clean with 6 teams. Expand to eight and a whole mess of teams from 9 down have a case this year; make it only 4, and you snub two deserving teams.

2001 -

1. Miami (12-0)
2. Nebraska (11-1)
3. Colorado (10-2)
4. Oregon (10-1)
5. Florida (9-2)
6. Tennessee (10-2)

Again very little argument as to the top two teams, outside of Oregon. But a six-team playoff would have left out 10-2 Texas (which smoked Colorado), 10-1 Illinois, 9-2 Stanford (Oregon's loss), 10-1 Maryland, and 10-2 Oklahoma.

2002 -

1. Miami (12-0)
2. Ohio State (13-0)
3. Georgia (12-1)
4. USC (10-2)
5. Iowa (11-1)
6. Washington State (10-2)

BCS matches up the country's only undefeated teams. Playoff totally unnecessary. Four other teams had just 2 losses and all of them - Oklahoma, Kansas State, Notre Dame, Texas - can make excellent cases to be in ahead of WSU (or each other for that matter). In this case, the six-team playoff erupts in controversy in an otherwise controversy-free season.

2003 -

1. Oklahoma (12-1)
2. LSU (12-1)
3. USC (11-1)
4. Michigan (10-2)
5. Ohio State (10-2)
6. Texas (10-2)

Playoff enthusiasts love this season, claiming USC wuz robbed and thoroughly enjoying the split championship. But what would they have proposed? Invite these six teams and leave out 10-2 teams FSU, Tennessee, and Miami? Invite four and lop off even more 10-2 teams while allowing only one to crash the party? A playoff might have sorted out the top three (but which one gets screwed with the road game?) but would have made a mess of the rest of the pack.

2004 -

1. USC (12-0)
2. Oklahoma (12-0)
3. Auburn (12-0)
4. Texas (10-1)
5. California (10-1)
6. Utah (11-0)

The other favorite season of the playoff folks. 6-team playoff would have cleaned this up too - but like 2000, only a 6-team playoff would have done the trick. 4 teams would have left Utah out in the cold again, as well as Cal, and 8 teams would have brought in 2 2-loss teams and left out four others, as well as undefeated Boise State, which would be legitimately wondering why Utah and not them?

2005 -

1. USC (12-0)
2. Texas (12-0)
3. Penn State (10-1)
4. Ohio State (9-2)
5. Oregon (10-1)
6. Notre Dame (9-2)

USC. Texas. 'Nuff said. They ran the table, 1 and 2, all year. Any size playoff would either have been a complete waste of time, or ruined what was one of the greatest college football games ever played.

2006 -

1. Ohio State (12-0)
2. Florida (12-1)
3. Michigan (11-1)
4. LSU (10-2)
5. USC (10-2)
6. Louisville (11-1)

I think we all remember last year. The whole college football world was watching The Game; a playoff system would have rendered it completely, utterly, totally meaningless. All that would be left would be bragging rights, but The Game was built on one team taking home all the marbles and the other team having to wait til next year. If both teams were just going to go to the playoffs anyway, what exactly would have been the point? Besides, Boise State would not have been invited to the dance, either.


What I hope I've shown is that, on balance, a playoff solves nothing. So we have controversy regarding who should get to play in the title game because occasionally, one team has a legit beef about being snubbed? Nothing compared to having three or four teams, every single year, having a legit beef about being snubbed.