NCAAF Playoffs

[Popeye_Card]

It's hardly BS that Hawaii won't get a chance to play in a NC game. If every team is one loss, how do you judge who's best? You look at how strong their opponents are. If Notre Dame or Navy played 12 Cupcakes and got a shot at the National Title you'd all be up in arms...yet your advocating the same thing for Hawaii?? If Hawaii wanted a real shot at a National Title they could try and schedule 3 teams tougher than (1 - 11) N. Colorado, (2-10) UNLV, (4-8) Washington. Sure they probably can't wont and shouldn't schedule 3 games at LSU, at Ohio State and at USC. But you can do better than those three.

You're misunderstanding me.

It's BS that in the current system, the young men who play the game on the field can do everything in their power to win every football game that they play, but they can have zero chance at winning the championship of their sport because of what conference they are in, or who their AD decided to schedule 5 years ago. That goes for Hawaii, Boise State, Utah, Notre Dame, Navy--whoever. College athletics is supposed to be about teaching students life lessons. I guess the message they're trying to convey with the bowl system is that life isn't fair--no matter how hard you work, someone from a more privileged background gets the spoils.

As has been stated on here, it's not lack of trying on Hawaii's part for their non-conference schedule. They offer huge bonuses to BCS schools to come play in Hawaii. They all decline. Michigan State actually paid them for backing out on a game this year. Hawaii in particular is a scheduling nightmare, because no coach wants their kids jet-lagged for days after a trip to Hawaii and back. Pac 10 might be an option, but even they don't seem to want to come.

--P--

[Popeye_Card]

There are SO many issues with a playoff system it's not even funny..

1) School -- as mentioned previously, these student athletes are just that....students first, athletes second....and adding more games is going to be a big problem.. Yeah, because they aren't practicing for 4 hours a day throughout December, getting ready for whatever bowl game they are in.
2) Deleting games -- if you're going to make the, "get rid of non-conf. games" argument to the first point, it's feasible, but you can't cut out conference games (especially when the Big 10 already doesn't play 2 teams in the conf. every year) and you have to have at least 1-2 non conf. games for in-state rivalries, etc. I left in 1-2 non-conference games for rivalry purposes. The Big Ten might finally have to break down and split into 5/6 team divisions with a championship game.
3) # of teams -- as also mentioned above...what playoff system do you go to? 8 team? 16? 32? CFB is ALWAYS going to have this issue, because there are ALWAYS going to be fringe teams...if you have 16, you have an argument on who the 17th best team is and why the 16th best team was better...so by having a playoff system everyone thinks its going to end the argument...on who should play where...it's not.. Like I said, use the BCS ranking system. It couldn't possibly generate more controversy than it does now when it basically choses the #1 and #2 teams, and then all of the "consolation bowls".
4) Logistics --- this, imo, is the biggest problem, and probably WHY there won't ever be a playoff...fan bases can usually afford to take a vacation to FL to see a bowl game....but travel to 3 playoff games? Or 4? You'll have to keep the tie-ins with the bowl locations, so you'll have to have at least 2 rounds of the playoffs be at neutral sites....I just find it hard to believe fans are going to travel one week to Pasadena to watch their team in the "Final Four" and then a week later travel to New Orleans to see the championship game Do fans have to attend every game? Usually for the big games, there's a waiting list for tickets. Is this a problem for the basketball tournament when teams play at up to 3 different locations? I realize that the stadiums are larger, but it's much more rare to make a 16 team tournament than a 64 team tournament.
5) Sponsorships -- as mentioned previously as well, the NCAA makes a crap ton of money from these sponsors sponsoring the Bowl Games, and I guess if they want to sponsor playoff rounds, that would work, but I doubt that they would do that.. You don't think the NCAA would still make money? They don't make money off of the basketball tournament?
6) Locations --- Bowl games are a boost to local economies, so how do you determine who gets what round of what playoffs? Obviously the champ. game location is going to see more revenue then what a Final Four location will be, or what the first round will be, so is it on a rotating basis? Is it always the same locale every year? Do cities bid on the national champ game? First round is in the home team's stadium. Last 3 rounds (8 games) go to the traditional big bowl sites (you'd have to promote 3 bowls). All of the other minor bowls are played as they still are now, choosing from the slew of teams that are not in the 16 team tournament.

I'm sure theres even more issues then what I jsut mentioned...but I've always considered it an absolute nightmare to try and make it a playoff system...I think the best thing they can do is keep the bowl system and go to a +1 system after all the bowls have been played... I obviously disagree.

BONUS: "Tradition" of bowl games. It went away when the Rose Bowl no longer features the Pac 10 and Big Ten champs every year, and if it's the championship game, is no longer played on New Year's Day.

--P--

[maddash]

A playoff system wouldn't necessarily eliminate other bowl games either. There are plenty of "traditional" teams with marginal records that still get invited to bowl games: Alabama has a record of 6-6 and still might get an invitation to a bowl game, simply because they're Alabama. Creating a playoff system doesn't mean you have to eliminate these peripheral bowl games that draw in a lot of sponsorship money... they're as meaningless with a playoff system as they are with current BCS system.

[Popeye_Card]

they're as meaningless with a playoff system as they are with current BCS system.

The current system makes 1 and only 1 game truly meaningful. A playoff system makes at least 8 games pretty meaningful (if you would assume the first round of 16 would be mostly blowouts against small-conference schools--though as the author stated, you have the chance for b-ball tourny-esque Cinderella upsets).

--P--

[GatewaySnayke]

they're as meaningless with a playoff system as they are with current BCS system.

The current system makes 1 and only 1 game truly meaningful. A playoff system makes at least 8 games pretty meaningful (if you would assume the first round of 16 would be mostly blowouts against small-conference schools--though as the author stated, you have the chance for b-ball tourny-esque Cinderella upsets).

--P--

I actually wouldn't want Cinderella's in a football tournament.

While the NC is the only game that appears to have meaning, I might be one of the few that enjoys the smaller bowls. I've spent my last seven or eight Christmas breaks laying around watching the Whatever Bowl. I think it's more fun to watch CMU play in a bowl than it is a regular season game on Sunday night.

There is no arguing though that the BCS increases the importance of regular season games. There's a reason Ohio State-Michigan was the most watched regular season game in 26 years last season. And it was because it was essentially the semifinal. Had they been playing for the #1 seed in a tournament, I don't think that would've been the case.

[mikechamp]

The BCS is all about one thing: money.

Fixed.

[Popeye_Card]

they're as meaningless with a playoff system as they are with current BCS system.

The current system makes 1 and only 1 game truly meaningful. A playoff system makes at least 8 games pretty meaningful (if you would assume the first round of 16 would be mostly blowouts against small-conference schools--though as the author stated, you have the chance for b-ball tourny-esque Cinderella upsets).

--P--

I actually wouldn't want Cinderella's in a football tournament.

While the NC is the only game that appears to have meaning, I might be one of the few that enjoys the smaller bowls. I've spent my last seven or eight Christmas breaks laying around watching the Whatever Bowl. I think it's more fun to watch CMU play in a bowl than it is a regular season game on Sunday night.

There is no arguing though that the BCS increases the importance of regular season games. There's a reason Ohio State-Michigan was the most watched regular season game in 26 years last season. And it was because it was essentially the semifinal. Had they been playing for the #1 seed in a tournament, I don't think that would've been the case.

The other bowls would still be there for you to watch.

I can't agree on the importance of the regular season. Do you really think that many people tuned in to see which team would get the inside track on the championship game, or do you think it was to watch the undefeated #1 and #2 teams in the country, who also happen to be possibly the biggest rivalry in college football? Did record audiences not also watch the Patriots vs. the Colts a few weeks ago? Wouldn't it be a bigger boost to TV audiences in the typical year, when Ohio State and Michigan are both top 15 teams, and fighting for the Big Ten title the last week of the season--only one team gets into the playoffs, while the other is probably banished to the Outback Bowl?

--P--

[GatewaySnayke]

I can't agree on the importance of the regular season. Do you really think that many people tuned in to see which team would get the inside track on the championship game, or do you think it was to watch the undefeated #1 and #2 teams in the country, who also happen to be possibly the biggest rivalry in college football?

Yeah, it was all of that. But the winner was going to play in the national championship game. That's why it was hyped the way it was. It's my opinion that there is no way it becomes the most watched regular season game in that many years if a spot in the championship game isn't on the line. No way.

Wouldn't it be a bigger boost to TV audiences in the typical year, when Ohio State and Michigan are both top 15 teams, and fighting for the Big Ten title the last week of the season--only one team gets into the playoffs, while the other is probably banished to the Outback Bowl?

No. Ohio State and Michigan are typically ranked in the Top 15-25 every year and nearly every year one of them is going to be the Big Ten champion and the other will go to a Jan. 1st bowl. Why weren't those games shattering ratings records?

[Popeye_Card]

I can't agree on the importance of the regular season. Do you really think that many people tuned in to see which team would get the inside track on the championship game, or do you think it was to watch the undefeated #1 and #2 teams in the country, who also happen to be possibly the biggest rivalry in college football?

Yeah, it was all of that. But the winner was going to play in the national championship game. That's why it was hyped the way it was. It's my opinion that there is no way it becomes the most watched regular season game in that many years if a spot in the championship game isn't on the line. No way.

Wouldn't it be a bigger boost to TV audiences in the typical year, when Ohio State and Michigan are both top 15 teams, and fighting for the Big Ten title the last week of the season--only one team gets into the playoffs, while the other is probably banished to the Outback Bowl?

No. Ohio State and Michigan are typically ranked in the Top 15-25 every year and nearly every year one of them is going to be the Big Ten champion and the other will go to a Jan. 1st bowl. Why weren't those games shattering ratings records?

But the loser of that game also had a very good shot at being in the championship game. Plus I imagine it's a peaks and valleys thing. Maybe peaks aren't as high as that game, but I'm sure more people would fill the valleys--watching matchups they ordinarily wouldn't watch, just to see who reaches the playoffs. Not to mention the huge ratings every playoff game would get.

Ohio State and Michigan always gets huge ratings. I don't have the data, but I'm guessing that even this year's matchup was a top-5 ratings game for '07, and it didn't have all that much riding on the game. Just because every game doesn't smash records doesn't make them compelling matchups that people want to watch. I watch OSU-Mich every year, even though I'm not a fan of either team.

--P--

[obucard]

Why stop at 16, why not 32? Or 64? Where do you stop?

Adding 3 games on to an 18 year old kids plate is not responsible. They should go back to 10 regular season games if you ask me.

That's a slippery slope argument.

If it's too many games, then pare down to 1-2 non-conference game, and 8-9 conference matchups. Then up to 3 games in the playoffs (only for two teams--other teams would have 1-2 extra games). A lot of teams with conference championships play 13 games already.

And it's not like we don't have schedule flexibility. After this weekend, the college season basically dies until late December.

--P--

The extra games are irrelevant. High school teams can play upwards of 15 games a season. Under that bracket, LSU or Mizzou could play 17 games. If you can handle 15 games at age 15, you can handle 17 games at age 18.