For all you playoff fans

[Buffnik]

Something you've got to factor into the ratings of a playoff is that you'd be locked into playing the games on Saturday to keep it fair (no teams with short or long weeks leading into the next round). Also because of class schedule. As it currently stands, a lot of the big bowl games are able to be played in prime time on a weekday night since they are scheduled so far in advance and occur during winter break with no concerns about a follow-up game. No way a playoff game on a saturday morning outdraws a bowl game between ranked teams on a tuesday night.

 

[Darth Snow]

Something you've got to factor into the ratings of a playoff is that you'd be locked into playing the games on Saturday to keep it fair (no teams with short or long weeks leading into the next round). Also because of class schedule. As it currently stands, a lot of the big bowl games are able to be played in prime time on a weekday night since they are scheduled so far in advance and occur during winter break with no concerns about a follow-up game. No way a playoff game on a saturday morning outdraws a bowl game between ranked teams on a tuesday night.

Class schedule? That sure doesn't bother teams goign to big12/sec/acc championship games or the NCAA tourney. This is big money we are talking about here, let's not worry about class schedule. It sure doesn't matter in march Madness, which involves far more schools...

 

[MtnBuff]

Like Miami in 01 (who beat kNU to be a "champion")? Or the year that undefeated auburn never played in the championship game? Etc.

Hey but Kansas was easily the best team in basketball in 1988 the tourney proved it, doesn't matter if they lost 11 games prior to the tourney, or Villanova in 85' or NC State in 83' who lost 10 games. Pathetic joke to say those teams were the best teams those seasons.

There is no perfect system because if you are the next team in line left out you will always scream that you deserved your shot. This happens if you have two teams like now if we went to a plus one the fifth team would complain, go to eight the ninth team would gripe, etc.

Overall college football has the most exciting complete season and the best chance of selecting the champion that had the best year, not just tourney. Would a plus one make it better, arguably maybe, when you start talking about eight teams then you are looking at two loss teams and your credibility goes away.

 

[Darth Snow]

Hey but Kansas was easily the best team in basketball in 1988 the tourney proved it, doesn't matter if they lost 11 games prior to the tourney, or Villanova in 85' or NC State in 83' who lost 10 games. Pathetic joke to say those teams were the best teams those seasons.

There is no perfect system because if you are the next team in line left out you will always scream that you deserved your shot. This happens if you have two teams like now if we went to a plus one the fifth team would complain, go to eight the ninth team would gripe, etc.

Overall college football has the most exciting complete season and the best chance of selecting the champion that had the best year, not just tourney. Would a plus one make it better, arguably maybe, when you start talking about eight teams then you are looking at two loss teams and your credibility goes away.

What credibility? I just gave you evidence that the credibility of the current system is ****. 8 teams would be at least as credible.

 

[DesertDawg526]

I like an 8 team playoff format. It works whether there is 4 superconferences or the existing conferences. Take the 4 future superconference champions or the current BCS conference champions and the other slots are reserved for the next of the top 8 teams under the current BCS formula.

The Championship game rotates and the quarters and semis are rotated also (take the existing major bowls such as Rose, Cotton, Orange etc. and make these the final bowls). You could even have two Rose Bowl games per year if the final one determined the chamionship. I guarantee both games would be sold out, twice the profit for those local communities.

The thing is, there are arguments both ways, but I still can't discredit letting the play on the field determine a winner and not having it turn into a beauty contest.

If a team is truly the best then they can simply win. Despite cold weather, despite poor officiating, despite struggling with focus, or anything else for that matter. Championship teams deal with and overcome adversity, and if you want the title of champion you have to be able to go out and earn it.

 

[Buffnik]

Class schedule? That sure doesn't bother teams goign to big12/sec/acc championship games or the NCAA tourney. This is big money we are talking about here, let's not worry about class schedule. It sure doesn't matter in march Madness, which involves far more schools...

So tell me how you'd play weeknight games for a college football playoff in order to drive ratings?

 

[Darth Snow]

So tell me how you'd play weeknight games for a college football playoff in order to drive ratings?

Nik... weeknight games aren't exactly a revolutionary idea to college football. How do you play weeknight games all season? I mean, it sure doesn't hurt boise's kids from graduating... Or our bball players even though they do it every week or so... Or the current crappy bowls that play on random nights...

This argument holds no water.

 

[buff4bcs1985]

Nik... weeknight games aren't exactly a revolutionary idea to college football. How do you play weeknight games all season? I mean, it sure doesn't hurt boise's kids from graduating... Or our bball players even though they do it every week or so... Or the current crappy bowls that play on random nights...

This argument holds no water.

why not start the playoff January 1st with 8 teams... i dont think that would devalue the bowl games at all... most of them are done by the first anyways

 

[Buffnik]

I used to love the idea of an 8-team playoff to determine the champion. I just don't think the money or the logistics work. As a fan, I have also realized just how much I'd be giving up if we went to a playoff system.

The value of these 7 games would not be significantly more than the top 7 current bowl games as far as the contract to televise them. But even if they did make a lot more money, we're talking about 8 teams in the post-season instead of 70. Currently, we have a "Bowl Season". If we went to a playoff, we'd have the "NCAA Playoffs" and then some bowls. Not all the bowls would survive and those that did wouldn't be as relevant as they currently are. Throw in all the sponsorships and community tie-ins surrounding bowl games, and this is a ton of money on table here.

Further, we currently get to watch about 10 games on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. Then we still get 3 BCS bowl games and a handful of other bowls in prime time on the weekdays that follow, including the championship. I ****ing love this week every year, including getting to pick and choose among about 15-20 games over the course of the two weeks leading up to this. That's pretty sweet.

If we had a playoff, it would start next weekend. We might have had the following:

#8 Arkansas vs. #1 Auburn
#5 Wisconsin vs. #4 Stanford
#7 Oklahoma vs. #2 Oregon
#6 Ohio State vs. #3 TCU

Or maybe we lose Ohio State and Arkansas to get the ACC and Big East champs in there so Auburn would play Connecticut and Oregon getting Virginia Tech. Either way, an 11-1 Michigan State team got left out for its road loss at Iowa, but we've got some 2-loss (or more) teams in there as well as the Wisconsin team that MSU beat. We've also got TCU, a team whose signature wins were Oregon State (5-7 Pac-10 team), Baylor (7-5 Big 12 team), and Utah (10-2 Mountain West with signature wins over 7-5 Pitt and 5-7 Iowa State). The controversy would be fun to talk about, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that a playoff would eliminate the controversy.

Regardless, that would be a pretty awesome day of football (or 2 days of double-headers).

Then, assuming things held to form, we'd have the following going on the Christmas week:

#1 Auburn vs. #4 Stanford
#2 Oregon vs. #3 TCU

Finally, we'd get the championship game for New Year's.

That's 7 great games that I'd be all over.

But I already get at least 7 great games that I'm all over. Maybe they're not quite as interesting as they'd be if they were playoff games. But that's easily made up for by the other 25+ games I get. Some of these "meaningless" bowl games would qualify as games of the week if they were regular season. You lose that if they're on the same week as a playoff game.

I'm not sure why people are so interested in messing with a great thing.

 

[Buffnik]

Nik... weeknight games aren't exactly a revolutionary idea to college football. How do you play weeknight games all season? I mean, it sure doesn't hurt boise's kids from graduating... Or our bball players even though they do it every week or so... Or the current crappy bowls that play on random nights...

This argument holds no water.

Yes it does. That's why the NFL doesn't do it for its playoffs. You can't give a competitive advantage to the team in the next round that has the longer time to prepare.

 

[CUBUFF80]

College football has tremendous ratings througout the season. Why is this? Because in terms of a championship every game matters. College basketball on the other hand is an excercise in tedium until at least mid-February. Nobody cares, among the top teams individual losses don't matter.

Yes the NCAA tourney is fun and gets great ratings. It is also very easy looking at the champions over the past years (since they have gone to 64 in fact) and say it does a pathetic job of determining who the best team was that year. It only determines who got hot and got the favorable bracket draws for that particular tournament.

College football is a great sport, intrigue every week, interesting from start to finish. I don't see any way that a playoff makes it better and a lot of ways it makes it worse.
I can also say without question that football does a better job (not perfect but better) of crowning the best team for that year than basketball does, or in fact the pro sports and others with playoffs.

How true, Cameron Indoor sits empty all season long :rolling_eyes:

 

[Darth Snow]

The value of these 7 games would not be significantly more than the top 7 current bowl games as far as the contract to televise them. But even if they did make a lot more money, we're talking about 8 teams in the post-season instead of 70. Currently, we have a "Bowl Season". If we went to a playoff, we'd have the "NCAA Playoffs" and then some bowls. Not all the bowls would survive and those that did wouldn't be as relevant as they currently are. Throw in all the sponsorships and community tie-ins surrounding bowl games, and this is a ton of money on table here..

Where in the hell are you getting this assumption that playoffs will end all other bowls from? Replace "NCAA Playoff" with "BCS Bowls" and you have exactly what we have now...

And as to the playoff "competitive advantage" thing, I get that point now. NFL doesn't really have a problem having teams play on saturday AND sunday during the wild card phase, and top seeded teams STILL get a bye. Depending on the 16 team playoff structure, little would be different than what the NFL does with great success.

And lets look at the "big bowl" schedule so we can compare ratings potential. All times ET.

Rose Bowl: 5 pm Saturday Jan 1st
Fiesta bowl: 8:30 PM saturday Jan 1st.
Orange Bowl: 8:30 PM Monday
Sugar: 8:30 PM Tuesday.
BCS mNC game: 8:30 PM Monday.

Now, the MnC is not part of the discussion, it doesn't realy matter. Here is where you have to make a decision. Only TWO games of the big bowls are on a week night. And they are in primetime. However, they mean NOTHING to the national championship discussion.

This is all a scheduling problem, and you are putting up a smoke screen by saying it is insurmountable. It is not. If you have 3 weeks or 4 to put a system together, there is nothing impossible about putting two games on on any given night. Just keep the opposing brackets playing on the same night, and then maybe have an extra week off to ensure there is no discernable benefit to either bracket.
Bracket 1 and 2 play Saturday/Sunday respectively. Or hell, Tuesday/Wed, it doesn't matter beyond TV preference.

And I can't believe you guys refuse to acknowledge the biggest problem with your preferred system: It doesn't give us a real champion. unless everything is perfect, which happens once every 3 years or so. In a limited playoff, we get a REAL NC, not a MYTHICAL NC which we get now. No credibility in the current system!

In sum: The problems you raise (especially $$ wise) are either smoke screens or easily solvable problems. And the weakening of the importance of the regular season is also a very questionable theory that doesn't seem to be backed up by logical thinking.

Here is a question to put to the TV execs: What would make more money, 5 BCS games with national title implications, or just one? If you think it is the latter, I want what you are smoking.

 

[4DemBuffs]

bowls or playoffs. i dont care. just make sure the regular season still matters.

 

[Buffnik]

Where in the hell are you getting this assumption that playoffs will end all other bowls from? Replace "NCAA Playoff" with "BCS Bowls" and you have exactly what we have now...

No you don't. We have a bowl season. They're all bowls, with some being more significant or nationally interesting than others. They're playing for 35 championships, with one game putting the national championship on the line.

When you create two classifications, you don't raise one up while keeping the other at the same level. One is leesened.

But forget all that if you want to disagree.

Just explain how the Rose Bowl is still as significant if it doesn't have the Pac-12 or Big 10 champ. In fact, doesn't even have a team ranked in the top 8. How does it even survive?

 

[Buffnik]

btw,

No one ever addressed the first thing I brought up regarding the NCAA and its members choosing the bowl system.

Snow, you thought I was being condescending. I was being serious.

If you think that they have made the wrong decision, there has to be a reason why they are making this wrong decision.

Are they not motivated by money?

Is there some other factor that is more important to them?

Are they not smart people and don't understand the issues?

Isn't it the side that thinks they know these peoples' business better than they do that is being arrogant and, therefore, condescending?

 

[CUBUFF80]

Ok I give, the non-playoff contingent has swayed me, I can't wait for some of these titanic matchups:
Southern Miss vs. Louisville!!
Fla Int'l vs. Toledo!!
ECU vs. Maryland!!!!
Army vs. SMU!!!!!!
NU vs. UW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Darth Snow]

No you don't. We have a bowl season. They're all bowls, with some being more significant or nationally interesting than others. They're playing for 35 championships, with one game putting the national championship on the line.

This distinction is nonsense. Of course these teams would continue to be champions of the other bowls. There are "division champs" and "afc champs" etc in all sorts of playoffs. You don't think schools would be ecstatic to put those banners up there? And the lesser bowls would still have trophies... I (and you) sure wouldn't mind putting up "National Championship semi-finalists, 2014" along with "Cotton bowl champions, 2014" up there...

and of course, Middle Tennessee would continue to be the champion of the GODADDY bowl if they won... I'm sure they are very proud of that momentous achievement.

When you create two classifications, you don't raise one up while keeping the other at the same level. One is leesened.

But forget all that if you want to disagree.

I don't want to disagree with you nik because I don't have to. This "classification" that you abhor so much already exists. There are huge distinctions between (1) The NC bowl and the rest of the bcs bowls; and (2) the BCS bowls and the rest of the bowls. How can you ignore that? The division of the bowl games has always existed. The Rose bowl has always been more important than the Sun bowl. ANd the teams in those games know it. There are different levels in the bowl season. Yet, somehow, it is still... THE BOWL SEASON!!!

Just explain how the Rose Bowl is still as significant if it doesn't have the Pac-12 or Big 10 champ. In fact, doesn't even have a team ranked in the top 8. How does it even survive?

Again, I don't have to disagree with you. Ahem. Wisconsin is in the Rose Bowl this year. They are the big 10 champs. Who are they playing again? Cause I'm pretty sure it isn't the Pac 10 champs. Is it even a pac10 team? I highly doubt the Rose bowl will cease to exist t if Wisco doesn't play the pac 10 champ this year.., Actually, I really hope that doesn't happen considering I hope CU plays in it soon :smile2:. Out of all of your arguments, this is by far the weakest. TCU is playing mother ****ing wisconsin in the mother ****ing rose bowl.

added point: Schools often lose money on the ****ty bowls. Must keep those right?

 

[CarolinaBuff]

Like Miami in 01 (who beat kNU to be a "champion")? Or the year that undefeated auburn never played in the championship game? Etc.

bowls or playoffs. i dont care. just make sure the regular season still matters.

Which is why a 4-team playoff is the best of both worlds. That way you don't end up with a situation like an undefeated Auburn in the early 2000's or Penn State in the early 90's getting left out, but at the same time if you have a late-season game between say #2 and #3, it still holds complete meaning - the winner goes to the 4-game playoff, the loser is out. Even with an 8-team playoff the loser of a game like that would still get in.

We would have a playoff and still preserve the complete integrity of the regular season at the same time.

 

[Darth Snow]

Which is why a 4-team playoff is the best of both worlds. That way you don't end up with a situation like an undefeated Auburn in the early 2000's or Penn State in the early 90's getting left out, but at the same time if you have a late-season game between say #2 and #3, it still holds complete meaning - the winner goes to the 4-game playoff, the loser is out. Even with an 8-team playoff the loser of a game like that would still get in.

We would have a playoff and still preserve the complete integrity of the regular season at the same time.

would be ok with it. Once its a playoff, all we are arguing is the details.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

Like Miami in 01 (who beat kNU to be a "champion")? Or the year that undefeated auburn never played in the championship game? Etc.

would be ok with it. Once its a playoff, all we are arguing is the details.

I'm in the minority of those who prefer the current system, but I'm perfectly fine with a 4-team playoff. But if you go to 8 or 16 you start to diminish the regular season. I love March Madness but let's be honest, the only question for the teams currently in the top 10 or so is what seed are they going to get and where are they going to be sent for the sub-regionals and regionals. When the only drama in college basketball is bubble teams playing for a tourney spot, you know your regular season has been severely compromised.

 

[4DemBuffs]

Which is why a 4-team playoff is the best of both worlds. That way you don't end up with a situation like an undefeated Auburn in the early 2000's or Penn State in the early 90's getting left out, but at the same time if you have a late-season game between say #2 and #3, it still holds complete meaning - the winner goes to the 4-game playoff, the loser is out. Even with an 8-team playoff the loser of a game like that would still get in.

We would have a playoff and still preserve the complete integrity of the regular season at the same time.

troo. however as the OP said, once you open the barn door....

a 4 team playoff brings in this much?!!! just think what an 8 team playoff would do?!!!!

that is the part i dont want. (8 would be fine with me) the 16 team playoff? the regular season will mean nothing.

i look at it like this. the gambling industry wants to legalize gambling in a state. say colorado. we all know what they want in the end. no limits and all games. to get there, they are good with 5$ max bets with BJ and slots only. knowing its only a matter of time until the money will talk and the betting limit will go up and the number of games will increase. all they have to do is get the nose under the tent.

it may very well start off with 4 or 8 teams. but just like the D II has now, it will expand in the long run. i absolutly believe that and it will come to the point where the regular season does not matter.

if there were a way to set in stone for all generations to come, that no matter what, there will never be more than 8 teams in the CFPO, im okay with that.

i just have my doubts. plus, i kinda like all the chaos that comes with this system every now and then.

 

[Buffnik]

This distinction is nonsense. Of course these teams would continue to be champions of the other bowls. There are "division champs" and "afc champs" etc in all sorts of playoffs. You don't think schools would be ecstatic to put those banners up there? And the lesser bowls would still have trophies... I (and you) sure wouldn't mind putting up "National Championship semi-finalists, 2014" along with "Cotton bowl champions, 2014" up there...

I don't want to disagree with you nik because I don't have to. This "classification" that you abhor so much already exists. There are huge distinctions between (1) The NC bowl and the rest of the bcs bowls; and (2) the BCS bowls and the rest of the bowls. How can you ignore that? The division of the bowl games has always existed. The Rose bowl has always been more important than the Sun bowl. ANd the teams in those games know it. There are different levels in the bowl season. Yet, somehow, it is still... THE BOWL SEASON!!!



Again, I don't have to disagree with you. Ahem. Wisconsin is in the Rose Bowl this year. They are the big 10 champs. Who are they playing again? Cause I'm pretty sure it isn't the Pac 10 champs. Is it even a pac10 team? I highly doubt the Rose bowl will exist as we know it if Wisco doesn't play the pac 10 champ this year... Out of all of your arguments, this is by far the weakest. TCU is playing mother ****ing wisconsin in the mother ****ing rose bowl.

The BCS system already made the big bowls less significant, as you rightly pointed out. The Cotton Bowl used to be a much bigger deal. The Rose Bowl has lost some luster. Makes no sense that it isn't Wisconsin vs Stanford this year.

But your playoff suggestion pushes that down another couple notches. There is then a domino effect as the relevance of each of the other bowls is further pushed down.

And I disagree that the distinction already exists. This could be somewhat dependent on what you grew up with, though.

The Bowl Coalition started in 1992. The Bowl Alliance in 1995. The BCS Bowl Championship Series in 1998. Growing up, when we form our strongest memories and attachments, the bowl games were capitalistic free for alls except for conference tie-ins. The Rose always had the Big 10 and Pac-10 champs playing. The Orange always had the Big 8 champ. The Cotton always had the SWC champ. The Sugar always had the SEC champ. The Fiesta wasn't even a major bowl (WAC champs, iirc). Except for the automatic tie-ins of some conference champions, the bowls pretty much invited whatever teams would attract the biggest tv ratings and bring the most fans.

I think back to these days and I remember my dad and I stacking a pyramid of 3 tvs in our family room on New Year's day, trying to get the antennas to work, and arguing over which one should have the sound on. I remember how we used to alternate picking winners for each bowl game before bowl season started, each game worth a dollar (just to add interest). I remember staying up really late after the games were finished or getting up early the next day to try to find out as soon as possible what team would be voted #1 (and all the talk that led up to that). More than Thanksgiving or even Christmas, Bowl Season will always be the most powerful holiday memories I have with my dad. Even my mom and sister, really, as they used watch the Rose Bowl parade with us before the games started coming on.

Maybe if you didn't grow up with all of that, then you see it as a bunch of exhibition games and then an imperfect way of determining a champion. Maybe the bowls themselves are not that important because they don't have an identity any more. Maybe this is the first example I'm seeing in my life of the times passing me bye and me pining for the "good old days".

I don't know if we can stop "progress" in this case, but we have already lost a lot and we're going to lose a ton more when the Rose Bowl is no more significant than the Alamo Bowl is today and the Alamo Bowl is similarly reduced in stature. We get a playoff and we determine a champion with a very fun tournament. But we lose too much. If we're moving this direction, I'd actually rather cut the crap, stop changing things in these baby steps that have only made things worse at every step, and go all in with a 32-team playoff over 5 weeks.

 

[MtnBuff]

Nik brings up a great question that nobody wants to address. If the current system is so bad wouldn't you think that a bunch of educated individuals who are used to making decisions involving millions of dollars would be racing to replace it. They don't because it works and it works well. Not perfect but none of the playoff suggestions are any better or even as good.

CarolinaBuff has hit it on the head. I could gladly give up listening to the constant chatter about which team that barely went .500 in its conference deserves to go in place of the team that "only" lost six games but played a pathetic schedule. In the mean time 3/4 of the season is meaningless in the end.

 

[CUBUFF80]

Nik brings up a great question that nobody wants to address. If the current system is so bad wouldn't you think that a bunch of educated individuals who are used to making decisions involving millions of dollars would be racing to replace it. They don't because it works and it works well. Not perfect but none of the playoff suggestions are any better or even as good.

CarolinaBuff has hit it on the head. I could gladly give up listening to the constant chatter about which team that barely went .500 in its conference deserves to go in place of the team that "only" lost six games but played a pathetic schedule. In the mean time 3/4 of the season is meaningless in the end.

Huh? Sorry you lost me, are you saying the season is worthless anyway?

 

[BuffLuke80]

I like the College Superbowl idea, play it on the Sunday before the pro Superbowl. How you set it up, I have no ****ing clue lol. It would be tha **** tho.

 

[Nor Cal Buff]

Ok I give, the non-playoff contingent has swayed me, I can't wait for some of these titanic matchups:
Southern Miss vs. Louisville!!
Fla Int'l vs. Toledo!!
ECU vs. Maryland!!!!
Army vs. SMU!!!!!!
NU vs. UW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Strawman much?

 

[buffsyko]

The BOWL GAMES SUCK. There's 500 bowls, it's all BS.

Get a playoff, college football is a joke. Pretty soon, everyone will get a bowl game no matter how many wins you have. It's 2010, everyone has grasped the concept. Wake the **** up!

 

[CUBUFF80]

Strawman much?

I know facts are sometimes tough to deal with when they deflate an argument, but most of these bowls are meaningless anyway.

 

[Buffnik]

I guess we define "meaningless" based on whether we are personally interested?

Because that extra month of practice, recruiting pitch, fun trip for players/family/fans, charitable causes the bowls support, revenue for the host city and the jobs attached to it, revenue for the networks, profitable advertising for sponsors, revenue and advertising for the schools, and the enjoyment of the people who do watch all say that the games are not "meaningless".

 

[Nor Cal Buff]

I know facts are sometimes tough to deal with when they deflate an argument, but most of these bowls are meaningless anyway.

They don't deflate an argument when they're basically irrelevant to the argument at hand. That's called a strawman.