OT: Ohio State getting smoked in BCS title game (again)

[Grand Champ]

Yes yes yes. And by the way, the conference playoff is a joke too. Big 12 North and South, SEC East and West: please. It's absurd. (The Big 10 has 11 schools and IT doesn't need a friggin' playoff. Neither does the Pac 10.) That adds a week onto the season, yet have we heard any complaints from the hypocritical college officials who've said that a national playoff would add too much time onto the season? Of course not. Eliminate those silly playoffs and you gain a week, PLUS as Doug has mentioned the national playoff system would make a TON of revenue that should more than compensate for the lost revenue of a conference playoff (which would be basically meaningless were it not for the BCS system).

Exactly... Can you freaking imagine how awesome a tournament of the top 16 football teams would be??? Too bad greed overwhelms the NCAA and wouldn't want to piss off its bowl sponsors. Money is the main reason this will never ever happen. ANd it is sad.

[dougthonus]

This is the thing, if it's about money the people in charge are morons.

A playoff system would generate WAY, WAY more money then what they currently do. The ratings would be through the roof for most oft he games whereas now, people generally don't care about most bowl games.

There are about 30 bowl games, a 16 team tournament and a 16 team NIT tournament would make up 30 games as well. Even the NIT would be way more interesting than most of the bowl games now.

Or you could do something really cool and have a 24 team tournament, 8 teams are in automatically in the main bracket and you have 16 teams play 'play in' games. This gives you 23 most watch games, stilll makes the season incredibly meaningful, because you'll be desperate to get into the top 8 which would mean no more than 1-2 losses.

There are just so many ways to make it work, and any of them would generate WAY more money than what they are doing now.

Hell even doing an 8 team tournament and making the 5 BCS bowls (+ elevate 2 more) to be the names of the games in the tournament and leave the rest of the bowl system alone and you'd generate a ton more money, a ton more interest, and you wouldn't have to really alter the bowl system much.

Or if you want ot stick to the magic 5 BCS bowls, do a 6 team tournament (teams ranked 1 & 2 are in with a bye, and teams 3-6 play play in games) and use the bowl names the same.

I mean the end result is that if they went playoffs, it would absolutely rain money on everyone. Anyone who thinks the NCAA, the conferences, or the schools would lose money is nuts. Sponsership deals might need to be changed, but the money would be through the roof.

[Shill]

I'd only be in favor of a playoff if they came up with an equitable system, meaning Louisiana Lafayette has just as much of a chance to win the championship as SC.

The only way this happens is if EVERY team joins a conference (this means you, Notre Dame), and EVERY conference plays a conference championship game. In 2002, OSU* and Iowa were co-Big 11 champs. They didn't play each other that year. That is ridiculous. A conference championship is the only way to ensure a sole champion from a big conference like the Big 11.

Under my scenario, there would be about 11 conference. Each conference champ gets an automatic bid to the playoffs, and the BCS would be used to seed the teams. Also, the BCS would determine 5 at-large teams.

That's a 16-team playoff where everybody has a chance to win it all if they run the table. No more whining from mid-major conferences.


This will NEVER happen, though. Notre Dame loses its TV money from NBC if they are affiliated with a conference. Plus, the NCAA is too caught up in tradition. The PAC 10 and Big 11 refuse to have a conference championship game.

Not gonna happen. The best anyone can hope for is a +1 model. I'm not a big fan of that, but it's a little bit better than the current system.

[dougthonus]

Under my scenario, there would be about 11 conference. Each conference champ gets an automatic bid to the playoffs, and the BCS would be used to seed the teams. Also, the BCS would determine 5 at-large teams.

Allowing conferences automatic bids isn't a good idea. It basically penalizes you for being in a good conference. It just adds randomness to the draw rather than rewarding the best teams.

That's a 16-team playoff where everybody has a chance to win it all if they run the table. No more whining from mid-major conferences.

In a 16 team playoff with 100% at large bids an undefeated team in a mid-major conference would almost certainly make the top 16 anyway. There's no reason to guarantee births to crappy conferences to make that happen.

[kyrv]

Doug I agree with you on the money. I understand they want to be loyal to the bowls, but bowls could still be used in the playofs of course, and there could be still meaningless bowls like there are now, for non-playoff teams.

If someone was an objective observer, what would they think? Follow the money...kickbacks? I don't know. Something is up though. A tournament would make money hand over fist and all of the bowls could still exist.

Something does not smell right.

[Shill]

Allowing conferences automatic bids isn't a good idea. It basically penalizes you for being in a good conference. It just adds randomness to the draw rather than rewarding the best teams.

In a 16 team playoff with 100% at large bids an undefeated team in a mid-major conference would almost certainly make the top 16 anyway. There's no reason to guarantee births to crappy conferences to make that happen.

There's no guarantee that an undefeated mid-major would get into the top 16. If conference champs fro mid-majors don't get an automatic bid (like they do in the basketball tourney), then there should be a specific BCS byline that says a BCS spot is reserved for any mid-major that goes undefeated.

Besides, I don't have a problem with 4 or 5 lower-rated teams getting in. They would be fodder for the top teams; sort of a reward for being one of the dominant teams during the regular season (one of the arguments against a playoff is teams wouldn't try as hard if they knew they had already clinched a playoff spot, and teams would have no incentive to play a challenging non-conference schedule).

[dougthonus]

There's no guarantee that an undefeated mid-major would get into the top 16. If conference champs fro mid-majors don't get an automatic bid (like they do in the basketball tourney), then there should be a specific BCS byline that says a BCS spot is reserved for any mid-major that goes undefeated.

I would have no problem with an undefeated mid major team getting an automatic bid. However, while you say there's no guarantee a mid major would make it in a 16 team bracket, there's a guarantee now. A Mid major has 0% chance of ever playing for the national title right now.

Besides, I don't have a problem with 4 or 5 lower-rated teams getting in. They would be fodder for the top teams; sort of a reward for being one of the dominant teams during the regular season

Why? Why would you want lesser teams to get in just to be fodder? That makes so little sense.

(one of the arguments against a playoff is teams wouldn't try as hard if they knew they had already clinched a playoff spot, and teams would have no incentive to play a challenging non-conference schedule).

First of all, that theory is flat out wrong, because you'd kill yourself in the seeding. If you were #1 and got to play #16 would you really want to lose and drop to #7 and play #10? No way in hell. If you were #8 and lost you could possibly fall out of the top 16.

Secondly, you could also trivially solve that like I said by doing a 24 team system 8 teams in automatically and 8 play in games for the other half of the bracket.

Thirdly, when it comes to the title now, how many games are meaningless? Let's see every single bowl game, and every game by a team with 3 losses, and 98% of the games by teams with 2 losses, and 100% of the games of teams who aren't in major conferences. I mean the total number of meaningful games would rise dramatically with a playoff system.

I don't think anyone really cares about fairness though, I think there is someone in a position of power who is going to get screwed financially if things go to a playoff, or someone is paying a guy in power a crapload of money under the table to stop it. The total money involved would go through the roof, so there has to be one person in power somewhere who's got something special to be holding it up.

[Grand Champ]

This is the thing, if it's about money the people in charge are morons.

A playoff system would generate WAY, WAY more money then what they currently do. The ratings would be through the roof for most oft he games whereas now, people generally don't care about most bowl games.

There are about 30 bowl games, a 16 team tournament and a 16 team NIT tournament would make up 30 games as well. Even the NIT would be way more interesting than most of the bowl games now.

Or you could do something really cool and have a 24 team tournament, 8 teams are in automatically in the main bracket and you have 16 teams play 'play in' games. This gives you 23 most watch games, stilll makes the season incredibly meaningful, because you'll be desperate to get into the top 8 which would mean no more than 1-2 losses.

There are just so many ways to make it work, and any of them would generate WAY more money than what they are doing now.

Hell even doing an 8 team tournament and making the 5 BCS bowls (+ elevate 2 more) to be the names of the games in the tournament and leave the rest of the bowl system alone and you'd generate a ton more money, a ton more interest, and you wouldn't have to really alter the bowl system much.

Or if you want ot stick to the magic 5 BCS bowls, do a 6 team tournament (teams ranked 1 & 2 are in with a bye, and teams 3-6 play play in games) and use the bowl names the same.

I mean the end result is that if they went playoffs, it would absolutely rain money on everyone. Anyone who thinks the NCAA, the conferences, or the schools would lose money is nuts. Sponsership deals might need to be changed, but the money would be through the roof.

A Large problem however is,,,

What station gets the broadcast rights? Those are already in place for many years.

Who sponsors what games? Those are also already in place for many years.

Nike/Addidas/Reebok wouldn't be able to align as to what schools they get to sponsor because all those contracts are already in place.

There would need to be at least 2 weeks between the end of the season and the start of the bowl/playoff games due to fans wanting to buy tickets, make travel arrangements, etc.

How does revenue sharing work still? Why does a team that plays say 3 more games, why does it need to share the revenue from those games with the rest of the conference like they do with bowl money now.

You would have to eliminate alot of the conference championship games that have contracts and sponsorship agreements in place for many years to come.

So basically they would have to weigh alot of variables and break every contract imagineable (which wouldn't be cheap) in order to get some sort of playoff system in place.

I wish it would happen, but it is just too complicated that it won't.

[Shill]

Why? Why would you want lesser teams to get in just to be fodder? That makes so little sense.



First of all, that theory is flat out wrong, because you'd kill yourself in the seeding. If you were #1 and got to play #16 would you really want to lose and drop to #7 and play #10? No way in hell. If you were #8 and lost you could possibly fall out of the top 16.

Secondly, you could also trivially solve that like I said by doing a 24 team system 8 teams in automatically and 8 play in games for the other half of the bracket.

Thirdly, when it comes to the title now, how many games are meaningless? Let's see every single bowl game, and every game by a team with 3 losses, and 98% of the games by teams with 2 losses, and 100% of the games of teams who aren't in major conferences. I mean the total number of meaningful games would rise dramatically with a playoff system.

I don't think anyone really cares about fairness though, I think there is someone in a position of power who is going to get screwed financially if things go to a playoff, or someone is paying a guy in power a crapload of money under the table to stop it. The total money involved would go through the roof, so there has to be one person in power somewhere who's got something special to be holding it up.

The bit concerning the lesser teams is about equity. Just like in the NCAA tourney, no 16 seed has ever beaten a 1. But those teams are allowed in nonetheless.

There's more of an incentive to get a high seed knowing you get to play the Sun Belt champion as opposed to playing an at-large from a BCS conference that has a legitimate shot to beat you.

On your points about a playoff making the regular season games more interesting, we're in agreement. I'm just saying with automatic bid teams in there, the incentive is heightened.

If I'm the #1 team and I know I get to play North Texas if I stay #1, that gives me more incentive.

If I'm the #1 team and I have the choice of playing Illinois if I win, or at-large Hawaii if I lose, you might get some funny business going on. Teams in the 2nd tier are somewhat interchangeable. Teams in the 3rd tier or lower would be doormats like in the bball tourney. HOWEVER, it would be an egalitarian system just like the bball tourney, and who knows we might see a fun upset like when a #15 seed beats a #2.

[kyrv]

Yes I laugh, I still hear people saying they like it how it is now because "every game counts". No, over 90% of games do not count and have no bearing on the ultimate winner being crowned.

Only a few games involving a few schools 'count'.

I wish it would happen, but it is just too complicated that it won't.

They have a tournament for EVERY sport in collge at EVERY division level - except division 1A football.

If you have a group of people that can't figure it out because it is 'too complicated', get different people.

[dougthonus]

A Large problem however is,,,

What station gets the broadcast rights? Those are already in place for many years.

Who sponsors what games? Those are also already in place for many years.

You can leave all of this the same, just repackage the bowl games into a playoff system. Do you think that anyone would complain? Let's see, it would probably double viewership of everything but the national title game.

Nike/Addidas/Reebok wouldn't be able to align as to what schools they get to sponsor because all those contracts are already in place.

How does this matter at all? If they're aligned with schools they stay aligned with them. What does this have to do with a playoff system?

There would need to be at least 2 weeks between the end of the season and the start of the bowl/playoff games due to fans wanting to buy tickets, make travel arrangements, etc.

So? I proposed a 4 week system, if you take 2 weeks off the title game would finish on the same day it does now.

How does revenue sharing work still? Why does a team that plays say 3 more games, why does it need to share the revenue from those games with the rest of the conference like they do with bowl money now.

Why do they need to do it with the bowl games now? If the conferences agreed to do it already, then presumably they'd still agree to do it wouldn't they?

You would have to eliminate alot of the conference championship games that have contracts and sponsorship agreements in place for many years to come.

Why? I mean, we should eliminate them because they are (Please Use More Appropriate Word), but why would you need to?

So basically they would have to weigh alot of variables and break every contract imagineable (which wouldn't be cheap) in order to get some sort of playoff system in place.

No, basically, you have made up a bunch of obstacles that don't really exist. There's no reason they HAVE to eliminate conference championships. There's no reason they HAVE to eliminate bowls, and there's no reason they HAVE to change broadcast rights.

On top of this, you make it sound like all these sponsors would be crying about a playoff system that probably doubles their viewership. Their deals which they signed before would basically turn into massive bargains as the value of their deals goes through the roof due to the increased ratings.

I wish it would happen, but it is just too complicated that it won't.

It works for every one else in college sports including Division II football.

[Grand Champ]

Doug I appreciate your feedback, and I agree with everything you said.

These were points that were brought up by a friend of mine who actually played D1 ball recently for a major BCS school, and this is what he said are the reasons for not having a tournament.

[DJhitek]

They will never go to a playoff, which is very sad and predictable. Too many bowls and sponsors dish out money for teams to play in them. While I agree with Doug on the basic premise I think having a playoff and still having some traditional bowl games would satisfy everyone. I just don't see an end in sight to this BCS talk.