College Playoff

[martinss01]

what happens to the other sports should tOSU be unable to sell out regular season games under a playoff?

 

[IronBuckI]

what happens to the other sports should tOSU be unable to sell out regular season games under a playoff?

Why would selling out be harder with a playoff? As long as tOSU is winning game, they'll be able to sell out games. A playoff doesn't change that.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Why would selling out be harder with a playoff? As long as tOSU is winning game, they'll be able to sell out games. A playoff doesn't change that.

I'm not sure how it might relate to Ohio State football, in fact, because the fan base is so large and so rabid. But.. when games are relatively meaningless, I can see where the value in attending them goes down. I mean, take a look at the Schott when the Bucks are playing Upper Nobody State...

With football, you've got less games, so more demand - which will help... but, then, at the same time.. if the Buckeyes clinch a PO berth, and they do what Pro teams do - sit the stars - then I can also see people saying "Eh, I'm not going to watch Ohio State's 2nd and 3rd team play"

 

[jwinslow]

Why would selling out be harder with a playoff? As long as tOSU is winning game, they'll be able to sell out games. A playoff doesn't change that.

Big Ten fans will always travel, which is a big reason why the system is set up to allow many of their opponents to drive.

ACC fans can't even make it to their CCG, they can't be counted upon to make playoff quarterfinals. Miami fans don't even fill their own stadium half the time.

I'm not sure USC fans and southern B12/SEC fans will fill up their half of the stadium for a game held up north in December.

 

[zincfinger]

In any playoff scenario, the importance of how you win would only matter during the regular season, and even then it would probably only be important to whatever teams are being considered for those last spots in. Once in the playoffs, it's simply a matter of win or go home. It matters not "how" you win.

As I said, "a playoff would probably diminish the importance of "how you win". Since "how you win" is already of modest importance at most, this is a fairly weak selling point to me.

...but I don't see how it would increase the importance of "when did you lose", unless you're talking about losing IN the playoffs themselves. Because ideally, the playoff spots would be determined by the entire season's performance, and not how "hot" a team is going into the post-season.

I would suggest setting aside the notion that playoff games are any different from regular season games, or, as I believe Oh8ch sarcastically put it, that playoff games are "magic". They're not, they're just games, like any other. So yes, I'm talking most directly about a series of end-of-season games that count more than the previous games do. But, you can't make the end-of-season games really, truly count without simultaneously making the early season games only sorta, kinda count. Because it's far easier to make a 4 team, or 8 team, or 16 team field than it is to make a 2 team field. And because of that, the more you expand that field, the more you diminish the importance of the outcome of the regular season games. To take a close-to-home example; OSU most likely will not be ranked in the top two at the end of the regular season this year. They most likely will be ranked in the top 16 at the end of the regular season this year. That's not particular to OSU, you could say the same of any upper-level program that is in decent position to make a run this year. With the current system, I'm forced, as an OSU fan, to be heavily invested in the outcome of every game. With a 16 team playoff, I don't really have to worry about it too much, because I can be pretty confident they're going to make that cutoff despite one or two off-performances. There's your "when did you lose" right there. In terms of importance, interest, entertainment, all of it, it takes from the front-end and loads it to the back-end. There's no net benefit to that. In my opinion, there's likely a net loss.

 

[TheRob8801]

Alright...I feel like I've posted this somewhere on these boards before, but I'm not sure where...I've searched and can't find it, so I'm gonna put it here since it's really where it belongs.

In order to institute a playoff, the regular season would have to undergo a few changes.

For one, in order to be eligible for a spot in the playoffs a team's conference must partake in a conference championship game. MEANING: Every conference which wishes to have an opportunity to play in the playoffs must form two divisions and play a conference championship game per the NCAA rules.

With this instituted, the second method of action would be to shorten the regular season to 10 games...with a minimum of 2 OOC games and you MUST play every team in your division....this would theoretically make conference play more important, as well as strengthen the conferences overall. To those that argue that a playoff would devalue the regular season, this would help bring importance to every game as well as condense ticket sales.

Third, by shortening the season 2-3 weeks it allows for a week or two of rest, then the conference championship games to be played around the time we currently do "rivalry week". This could be HUGE on the monetary side of things as people are already travelling around that time and as big as rivalry week games are in late November they aren't nearly the money hogs that conference championship games are. This would allow the playoffs to start in late December. Christmas bowls! More money grabbing opportunities.

That brings us to the playoff field. At the end of the season the top 14 teams as determined by the BCS polls land a spot in the playoffs. The only exception being any teams that win "auto-qualifying" conference championships (the Big 6 conferences). So if a #16 ranked team wins the ACC championship game they get a spot in the playoffs and knock out the lowest ranked team NOT to win an auto-qualifying conference championship.

Now, I feel like playing 6 "playoff bowls" is still the most efficient way to begin sorting through teams at the end of the season. In this scenario we use the 4 existing BCS bowl games in addition to the Capital One and Cotton Bowl games as the 5th and 6th BCS Playoff bowls. (In reality, the final 2 BCS bowls could be named anything, but the CapOne and Cotton Bowls always seem to be the highest profile bowls outside of the BCS so those are the bowls I chose to use in this hypothetical) The top 14 teams EXCLUDING BCS #1 and #2 in the country according to the BCS Poll are placed in each bowl in traditional bracket form. (8 v. 9), (7 v. 10), etc...The only exception being if the first round game is a rematch of a game already played in the season. The lower ranked team trades up a spot in the rankings [explained below].

Bowls rotate in order of their "rankings" each season.

EXAMPLE:
2009-2010 bowl order is as such Orange, Fiesta, Sugar, Rose, (Cotton, Capital One)
2010-2011 bowl order would be Fiesta, Sugar, Rose, Cotton, Capital One, Orange
2012-2013 bowl order would be Sugar, Rose, Cotton, Capital One, Orange, Fiesta
etc...

SO using the final BCS rankings (before the bowl games)

FIRST ROUND: (14 Teams)

#1 Alabama (receives first round bye)
#8 v # 9 Orange: Ohio State vs. Georgia Tech (Dec 26th)

#5 v #12 Fiesta: Florida vs. Virginia Tech (Dec 25th)
#4 v #13 Sugar: TCU vs. Penn State (Dec 25th)

#6 v #11 Rose: Boise State vs. LSU (Dec 25th)
#3 v #14 Cotton: Cincinnati vs. BYU (Dec 25th)

#7 v #10 Capital One: Oregon vs. Iowa (Dec 26th)
#2 Texas (receives first round bye)

For the sake of argument lets extrapolate to rounds 2 & 3...


SECOND ROUND: (8 Teams)

(#8 v #9)Orange Bowl winner v. (#1)Alabama
Ohio State vs. Alabama [@ Orange Bowl Jan 2nd]

(#4 v #13)Sugar Bowl winner v. (#5 v #12)Fiesta Bowl winner
TCU vs. Florida [@ Sugar Bowl Jan 1st]

(#3 v #14)Cotton Bowl winner v. (#6 v #11)Rose Bowl winner
Boise State vs Cincinnati [@ Cotton Bowl Jan 1st]

(#7 v #10)Capital One Bowl winner v. (#2) Texas
LSU at Texas [@ Capital One Bowl Jan 1st]


Alabama beats Ohio State
TCU beats Florida

Boise State beats Cincinnati
Texas beats LSU


FINAL FOUR:

Now we have the Final Four in the Rose Bowl at Pasadena...

Alabama vs TCU (Jan 9th 3:00PM)
Boise State vs Texas (Jan 9th 7:00PM)

Texas beats Boise State
Alabama beats TCU


NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP:

Texas vs. Alabama (Jan 16th)


I feel like this would address the issues that the NCAA might have with the loss of money in the bowls (the other bowls still exist, kinda like the NIT)...and might even present an opportunity to make even MORE money. I feel like the drop-off that might occur to the regular season could be addressed by the shorter season and 2&8 style schedule.

Of course this proposal is going to have flaws, so any criticism is welcome.

 

[zincfinger]

...in order to be eligible for a spot in the playoffs a team's conference must partake in a conference championship game. MEANING: Every conference which wishes to have an opportunity to play in the playoffs must form two divisions and play a conference championship game per the NCAA rules.

With this instituted, the second method of action would be to shorten the regular season to 10 games...with a minimum of 2 OOC games and you MUST play every team in your division....this would theoretically make conference play more important, as well as strengthen the conferences overall. To those that argue that a playoff would devalue the regular season, this would help bring importance to every game as well as condense ticket sales.

Do you believe conference play is currently more important in the ACC, BigXII, or SEC than it is in the BigTen? Do you believe ticket sales have been condensed in those conferences (I'm not sure what that means, truth be told)?

 

[TheRob8801]

...it takes from the front-end and loads it to the back-end. There's no net benefit to that. In my opinion, there's likely a net loss.

Of course there's always going to be an appeal to a regular season where "every game is a playoff game", and any game could be the difference between playing in the national championship game or not...but it doesn't seem any less appealing than a regular season where any game could be the difference between getting a first round bye in the playoffs and playing that hot team out of the SEC's non-championship winning division in Florida in the first round.

Just look at the NBA playoffs right now, or think about how beneficial it is for a team in the NCAA BBall tourney to pick up a 1-3 seed as opposed to those 4-6 seeds.

Do you think college basketball teams or their fans play through the season thinking, "oh, we don't have to win a ton of games because we're gonna win enough to make the field."? I don't think so...

There's a lot of appeal to "playing for position"...and when the games you play at the end of the season are black or white, win or go home, that would seemingly produce a bit more appeal than UF vs. Jacksonville State. (and those games STILL sell out, mind you)

 

[TheRob8801]

Do you believe conference play is currently more important in the ACC, BigXII, or SEC than it is in the BigTen?

Not at all...as a matter of fact, I think conference play in a "pool" type conference is more important than "divisional" ones. I've argued before that if every conference went to pool play and played a conference championship game between the top two teams at the end of the conference season it'd work out a whole lot better than the conference championships we have today. (see: Big XII)

But the benefit doesn't come from having divisions, it comes from a 2&8 style schedule, where you play every team in that division so that there are no variances to the SOS within the conference.

Do you believe ticket sales have been condensed in those conferences (I'm not sure what that means, truth be told)?

Condensed ticket sales refers to the concept of selling tickets for 10 games rather than 12 or 13. The same amount of fans buying tickets for fewer games means less risk of not selling out.

Of course this might in turn increase ticket prices to fill the margin, but I feel that would be only a minor issue.

 

[zincfinger]

Of course there's always going to be an appeal to a regular season where "every game is a playoff game", and any game could be the difference between playing in the national championship game or not...but it doesn't seem any less appealing than a regular season where any game could be the difference between getting a first round bye in the playoffs and playing that hot team out of the SEC's non-championship winning division in Florida in the first round.

Do you honestly believe that a game is just as compelling if it's outcome means the difference between a 1-seed and a 3-seed in the playoffs, as it is when it's outcome means playing or not playing for the national championship? Would '98 OSU/MSU have been as intense in your scenario? Or '02 OSU/PU, OSU/UI, or OSU/UM. Or '05 OSU/UT or OSU/PSU? Or a couple dozen other games one could mention?

 

[zincfinger]

Not at all...

So if the conferences that have already split into divisions and who hold conference championship games have not thereby made their conference games more significant, why would splitting into divisions and holding conference championship games off-set the loss of conference game importance that is inherent in a national playoff scenario?

 

[martinss01]

Why would selling out be harder with a playoff? As long as tOSU is winning game, they'll be able to sell out games. A playoff doesn't change that.

a playoff is a concern financially in two ways. jwins and bkb mentioned the first. the second is the decrease in the number of home games. the season will likely be shortened in order to allow for the playoffs. if we follow rob's model we are looking at a total of 10 games during the regular season. so thats a max of 6 home games. 8 in conference and 2 ooc. that in and of itself is a financial hit.

at the end of the day is a playoff system for college football worth loosing scholarships in other sports? is it worth the school not being able to pay for new facilities out of pocket? what im trying to say is when you start messing with tOSU's football schedule the possible consequences affect more than just the football team.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I'm not sure how it might relate to Ohio State football, in fact, because the fan base is so large and so rabid. But.. when games are relatively meaningless, I can see where the value in attending them goes down.

When was the last time we didn't have 100,000+ for a home game, regardless of who we played? We capacity for both YSU games, we had it for New Mexico State, even for Kent State years back. There is no such thing as a "meaningless" football game for Ohio State.

 

[TheRob8801]

Do you honestly believe that a game is just as compelling if it's outcome means the difference between a 1-seed and a 3-seed in the playoffs, as it is when it's outcome means playing or not playing for the national championship? Would '98 OSU/MSU have been as intense in your scenario? Or '02 OSU/PU, OSU/UI, or OSU/UM. Or '05 OSU/UT or OSU/PSU? Or a couple dozen other games one could mention?

No, I don't.

What I do believe is that there should never be a conference game that places a team in the national championship game when there are other conferences out there with equal or greater teams.

I'd gladly trade the intensity of regular season conference games like you've mentioned for a game between top dogs from the same or different conferences in the post-season. Think about it: If two top teams with opportunities to play for the national championship go at it and play a 2OT game and one team wins by 1pt, meaning one team loses all shot at the national championship game and the other team survives another week...wouldn't it make more sense for a game like that to be played in a planned, scheduled, "1 & Done" format, where there's no REAL debate to be had that the losing team should still be considered for the national championship?

Ohio State/Michigan '07 comes to mind...

...if that were a Final Four game, NOBODY would've had any legitimate argument that Michigan should've had a shot at Ohio State in a rematch for the National Championship...

 

[TheRob8801]

So if the conferences that have already split into divisions and who hold conference championship games have not thereby made their conference games more significant, why would splitting into divisions and holding conference championship games off-set the loss of conference game importance that is inherent in a national playoff scenario?

Again, a shorter season, with a maximum of 2 OOC games would add more weight to conference games than there currently is...

Why would conference game importance be lost in a national playoff scenario?