College Playoff

[IronBuckI]

Now, pretend you're a casual fan.

Why? We're obviously not dealing with "casual fans" when we sell out games against MAC level opponents.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Why? We're obviously not dealing with "casual fans" when we sell out games against MAC level opponents.

College football is not composed of only Ohio State fans, Iron. It's a college football issue not an Ohio State issue.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Well, I feel like if D-1 were to move to a playoff system, it couldn't be anything near what I-AA, II or III do simply because of the enormity of the sport...in both fanbase and pocketbook.

You can't be serious. "Enormity" of the sport? Please. The "enormity" of the Rose Bowl didn't stop 50,000 Buckeye fans from showing up. If a playoff system happens, fans will show up in droves and schools/conferences will see a windfall.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You can't be serious. "Enormity" of the sport? Please. The "enormity" of the Rose Bowl didn't stop 50,000 Buckeye fans from showing up. If a playoff system happens, fans will show up in droves and schools/conferences will see a windfall.

Not necessarily. I'm not sure how many folks can afford to go to California one week, and then Louisiana the next before traveling to Miami for the Championship...

For your Ohio State example, I might have a counter with the ACC Championship game which completely undermines your suggestion as well.

The real "enormity" problem is the number of competitors in D-I. If they cut the fat in half, I'd be much more willing to accept a playoff. That is to say, we all know New Mexico State isn't really competing for a BCS Championship.. let's cut the charade if we're going to implement a playoff.

 

[IronBuckI]

College football is not composed of only Ohio State fans, Iron. It's a college football issue not an Ohio State issue.

Actually, the question about home attendance dropping and affecting other tOSU sports was about tOSU specifically.

As far as all of college football goes. Isn't it more likely that the chance of making a playoff will keep the "casual fan" engaged longer than an early season loss that knocks your team out of the running for a national title?

Honestly, I don't think that a playoff is the answer. At least nothing that I've seen so far looks like a solution worth blowing everything up. I just don't agree that a playoff would adversely affect attendance. At least not among the big programs. And the big programs/conferences is what this is all about.

 

[IronBuckI]

The real "enormity" problem is the number of competitors in D-I. If they cut the fat in half, I'd be much more willing to accept a playoff. That is to say, we all know New Mexico State isn't really competing for a BCS Championship.. let's cut the charade if we're going to implement a playoff.

This is where I get hung up on every playoff scenario also. If we're going to try and make everyone feel like they have a chance, then no playoff scenario will give us anything better than what we've got. But almost all playoff scenarios can screw up what we have.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Actually, the question about home attendance dropping and affecting other tOSU sports was about tOSU specifically.

In that case, it's irrelevant to the thread topic. But, I get what you're talking about now.

In that case, I don't know if Ohio State will be effected, but I do believe there is risk involved (as I mentioned in earlier posts above). Again, it's difficult for us to imagine fans losing interest in Ohio State football. But.. that doesn't mean it can't happen. Football is a cash cow for Ohio State, and it supports the largest athletic program in the country in terms of sports offered. That's an awful lot of risk to take, I think, when what you're doing right now is working as well as it is.

As far as all of college football goes. Isn't it more likely that the chance of making a playoff will keep the "casual fan" engaged longer than an early season loss that knocks your team out of the running for a national title?

In my view you're mixing "casual fan" with "your team" (implying something more "rabid" in the fan) College football enjoys people who have personal connections to their schools... alumni... These people are unlikely to be effected by a loss, playoffs, BCS, or no (in terms of interest). When I said causal fans, I'm talking about the people who are like me with Basketball... Unless it's the NCAA tournament, I could give a shit. (Ohio State games aside (and even then, I'm willing to miss a basketball game... I refuse to miss a football game)). I don't tune in for Duke UNC... I don't care who Kansas is playing. etc. I can't remember the last time I watched a basketball game that wasn't the NCAA tourney or an Ohio State game... Literally have no idea when it might have been... I'm guessing Indiana - Illinois back in the mid 90s?? (While this doesn't address physically attending games, really, it does go towards TV advertising - when extrapolated over more people than just me)

Honestly, I don't think that a playoff is the answer. At least nothing that I've seen so far looks like a solution worth blowing everything up. I just don't agree that a playoff would adversely affect attendance. At least not among the big programs. And the big programs/conferences is what this is all about.

Fair enough.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Not necessarily. I'm not sure how many folks can afford to go to California one week, and then Louisiana the next before traveling to Miami for the Championship...

Uh, unless we're seeded in the bottom half of the bracket, some, if not all, of the games (except the title game itself) would be on our home field. And with our fanbase, I'd bet huge coin that even if all four of our playoff games (assuming we made to the title game) were on the road, we'd not only sell out our allotment of tickets, we'd have a shitload of fans. If fans of I-AA, II, and III schools can travel to their road playoff games, I'm fairly sure that fans of much larger school could, too.

For your Ohio State example, I might have a counter with the ACC Championship game which completely undermines your suggestion as well.

Explain how it does.

The real "enormity" problem is the number of competitors in D-I. If they cut the fat in half, I'd be much more willing to accept a playoff. That is to say, we all know New Mexico State isn't really competing for a BCS Championship.. let's cut the charade if we're going to implement a playoff.

What does New Mexico State have to do with it? You have "fat" in both divisions. Are you aware that I-A (FBS) and I-AA (FCS) have virtually the same amount of schools, and I-AA has had a highly successful playoff system for decades? There is absolutely zero reason why we can't implement the same system in I-A...in fact, it should be easier considering the fact the schools in I-A are much bigger (far more fans, much more money).

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Uh, unless we're seeded in the bottom half of the bracket, some, if not all, of the games (except the title game itself) would be on our home field. And with our fanbase, I'd bet huge coin that even if all four of our playoff games (assuming we made to the title game) were on the road, we'd not only sell out our allotment of tickets, we'd have a shitload of fans. If fans of I-AA, II, and III schools can travel to their road playoff games, I'm fairly sure that fans of much larger school could, too.

It seems you are making certain assumptions about the playoff format (and I am too) One where bowls are abandoned (I assume they remain). As for D-IAA etc.. I've watched some of those games, Mili, and it sure didn't look like a packed house to me. That's probably offset by the level of play, number of alumni, etc.. but.. it's not like those tourneys are attendance extravaganzas.

Explain how it does.

Are you serious? OK. Ummm... no one goes to the ACC Championship game.

What does New Mexico State have to do with it? You have "fat" in both divisions. Are you aware that I-A (FBS) and I-AA (FCS) have virtually the same amount of schools, and I-AA has had a highly successful playoff system for decades?

Success on what metric? Give me financials.

There is absolutely zero reason why we can't implement the same system in I-A...in fact, it should be easier considering the fact the schools in I-A are much bigger (far more fans, much more money).

I will give you that the rationales set forth by the Presidents has always been bullshit (ie, too much school time missed), but you're missing the mark here entirely... what goal do you hope to achieve by changing?

I mean.. if you're making a good living doing what you're doing, you don't "want" for anything.... do you decide "well, fuck it.. I think I'm going to switch jobs because I might do just as well as I'm doing now" Of course not.

The onus on changing the current system is on your side of the aisle, the onus is not on my side of the aisle to argue reasons why we should not change. That is to say, again - what does implementing a playoff do for college football that the BCS does not?

 

[IronBuckI]

In my view you're mixing "casual fan" with "your team" (implying something more "rabid" in the fan) College football enjoys people who have personal connections to their schools... alumni... These people are unlikely to be effected by a loss, playoffs, BCS, or no (in terms of interest). When I said causal fans, I'm talking about the people who are like me with Basketball... Unless it's the NCAA tournament, I could give a [censored]. (Ohio State games aside (and even then, I'm willing to miss a basketball game... I refuse to miss a football game)). I don't tune in for Duke UNC... I don't care who Kansas is playing. etc. I can't remember the last time I watched a basketball game that wasn't the NCAA tourney or an Ohio State game... Literally have no idea when it might have been... I'm guessing Indiana - Illinois back in the mid 90s?? (While this doesn't address physically attending games, really, it does go towards TV advertising - when extrapolated over more people than just me).

I didn't mention casual fans until you brought them up. Since filling the 'shoe doesn't usually involve needing the casual fan, I didn't feel the need to:

Now, pretend you're a casual fan.

And, incidentally, Ohio State hasn't ever gone in to a game and not had the starters on the field in the first half, and usually a series or two in the second that I can recall. In contrast, it's quite common for the NFL stars to sit out games 15 or 16 when they've clinched.

Since you're talking about TV (I think). The casual fan will not tune into a game full of 2nd or 3rd stringers unless it's the only thing on. If it is the only thing on, everyone will tune in and have an expert opinion on the state of the program and its future, by the end of the first quarter.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I didn't mention casual fans until you brought them up. Since filling the 'shoe doesn't usually involve needing the casual fan, I didn't feel the need to:

I get that, and I'm inclined to agree.... but, still, it seems quit a risk to take when we know the current system allows Ohio State to support the largest athletic department in the nation.

Since you're talking about TV (I think). The casual fan will not tune into a game full of 2nd or 3rd stringers unless it's the only thing on. If it is the only thing on, everyone will tune in and have an expert opinion on the state of the program and its future, by the end of the first quarter.

PUT IN MCMULLEN!! lol

 

[TheRob8801]

Wow, seems like we're talking apples and oranges right now...

...so I'm going to preface everything I say by stating that the only playoff system I'm referring to is what I proposed...so anything I say is coming from that perspective...

Gone are Ohio State USC, Ohio State Texas...

I hate to keep bringing up basketball, because it's not the model I'd like to use...but in this instance the question is relevant. Why do the top programs in college basketball schedule multiple, difficult OOC games every year?

I feel like it's more than just the fact that they don't have to win every game to make the tournament. It has a lot to do with making a statement for top ranking, for a challenge, for the fans, for a #1 seed in the tournament.

You may be right that in a playoff scenario we'd lose those games, but I highly doubt the AD's would do that unless EVERYONE did it...and then someone would NOT do it to get ahead of everyone else, then nobody would do it...(you get my point)

And... at 65 bucks a pop.. I'm willing to bet fans lose interest in going to those sorts of "games."

I can't honestly believe that there would be a difference between Ohio State/Bowling green in a non-playoff format and Ohio State/Bowling green in a playoff format in terms of fans who show up to the games.

If fans are going to show up to see that game, they're going to show up to see that game...

I don't think that any perceived detraction from a game's "meaning" is going to stop so many fans from attending games that it would be a significant difference. The SLIGHT difference in the meaning of these games would only deter fans that buy tickets to a game based upon how "important" it is. Even in the tougher years in the tougher conferences...this only turns out to be 3 maybe 4 games a season...and it's not like you're going to lose 10,000 ticket sales each game...I would venture to say more like 1,000-2,000 (if any)...

Point being, we disagree that fan's (all over college football) attendance would change...

Likewise, when the Bucks (or any team) clinch... well.. you get to a "who cares" sort of deal. That's hard to believe as Ohio State fans, because we've seen a clinched Big Ten before and the Michigan game still mattered to us. But.. Again... over time, I think interest diminishes... Maybe not against Michigan, as Ohio State fans... but... For a typical school...

Clinch...what? Exactly? In a field of 14...simply clinching a playoff spot means nothing...hell, in a field of 1000 simply clinching a playoff spot means nothing. Positioning in the rankings would be JUST as important in a playoff as it is now...the fighting and jostling for the #1 and #2 rankings would be JUST as important as they are now.

or those who are "out" altogether... why do fans bother going? They've got nothing to play for. If Michigan State is eliminated by week 8 (and they will be ) Why would a fan of Sparty pay the price of admission when it doesn't matter if they win or lose?

Once again, this seriously makes no sense to me...

What's the difference between fans going to see a 6-6 Michigan State team WITH a playoff and without? Once a team loses 3 or 4 games in the current system they pretty much know that they're not going to win the national championship...do people stop going to the games?

ABSOLUTELY NOT...

Fan's don't attend regular season games to see if they're going to go to the national championship...they attend regular season games to see if they're team is going to win THAT game...

Your logic here makes ZERO sense to me...

And all of this risk because why? That's the real question... exactly WHAT do you hope to gain by adding a playoff? It can't be a more "legitimate" champ, because the BCS has never produced an illegitimate one.. it can't be on some principle of "fair" because no one ever really means "invite the Sun Belt and MAC champs"... it can't be any reason I've ever seen posited by a playoff proponent.. except one... "I just like it more"

I feel like we've been over this once before, but I'll put it out there again...

Your definition of "fair" and "legitimate" are all well and good...but they are not universal. One could argue (and many have) that there HAVE been illegitimate BCS champs...I don't necessarily agree with any of those people...BUT! and here's the HUGE POINT here...the fact that there can even be rational TALK about whether or not the BCS has produced an illegitimate champion means that IF a system can be put in place that would reduce these talks to simply irrationality, then that's an improvement.

Nobody can PROVE whether or not a playoff would do this, because it'd take an actual trial run to figure it out. I don't think anyone in their right mind is trying to PROVE that change would be better...

...I feel like the jist of my argument at least is that I don't like a lot of things about the current state of affairs, and any change with a hint of making things more suited to what I would like to see is worth giving a shot.

No single conference game currently does place a team in the national championship game. A season's long body of work places a team in the national championship game. A single conference game can only knock a team out of national championship contention.

You're right...technically no single regular season game places a team directly in the national championship game...but let's talk about knocking a team out of title contention...at your admission, a single regular season game can knock a team out...

I also don't feel like any SINGLE REGULAR SEASON game should knock a team OUT of title contention. When determining who should play for the title and who shouldn't, it should be an entire body of work...

...so when two undefeated teams play each other in the final game of the regular season, one loses and goes to a meaningless bowl and one wins and goes to the title game against another undefeated or one loss team. Say that other team hadn't beat a team with a resume as good as the "game A" loser. If that second championship game team beats the first, then there's a legitimate question as to whether or not the third team out could've beaten that team.

It comes down to that "any given Saturday" thing that we talk about all the time...where "who beat who beat who" is a terrible argument for anything...

Of course there will still be debate in a playoff scenario about who "deserves" to be playing for a national championship. There will be situations where a team with a better record loses to a team with a worse record. There will be situations where a team that has already beaten their opponent in the regular season loses to the same opponent in the playoff.

So the exact same arguments that happen in the current system would happen in a playoff...I agree...but people also still argue that 9/11 was an inside job and JFK was killed by LBJ...and those arguments are still arguments...they're just not sound...

As oh8ch has said, playoff games are not "magic". The argument that a playoff eliminates debate and ensure legitimacy is purely one of self-serving definition. I.e. playoff games are different from all other games, in that their results are, by sheer virtue of arbitrary definition, more legitimate than those of all other games. Quite a few people don't see it that way.

I'm certainly not saying that a playoff would eliminate debate or ensure legitimacy...and if anyone claiming that has posted on these boards I do NOT put myself in the same boat.

A playoff system would put these kinds of debate in a purely black and white scenario, rather than the infinite shades of gray we're working in now. It's a whole lot easier to "respond" to these sorts of debate if you can ask the questions, "did you make it into the tournament?" and "did you win your game". If the answer to either of those questions is no, it should be understood that it's just tough tits...

No situation is going to make everyone absolutely satisfied, but I'm more concerned about the legitimacy of the argument. Texas had a somewhat legitimate argument for being in the title game two years ago (how great that argument is is up to debate) but it was still a relevant argument nonetheless...if a team loses a playoff game, their argument is irrelevant...they lost, go home.

This seems like weak tea for arguing why a playoff would enhance the importance of conference games. But since you ask me why it would weaken them, here it is. Currently, with the requirement that you be in the top-2, one conference loss is highly damaging, two conference losses is almost always disqualifying. If you have a playoff (and this is proportional to the size of the playoff), it will be common for teams with one or two conference losses to remain in national championship contention. This clearly diminishes the importance of conference games with respect to national championship eligibility, does it not?

In regards to playoff eligibility, absolutely...1 or 2 conference losses isn't a dire situation...but there have been teams in the national championship game (meaning ranked #1 or #2 in the entire country) with 1 AND 2 conference losses before, so I don't see why it would be an issue if teams with those kinds of losses partook in a playoff...

Last year there were only 3 teams in the final top 14 that had more than 1 conference loss. Iowa, Penn State, and Virginia Tech all had 2.

But, when I take MY emotion out of it, and I consider what's good for the game, on the merits alone, I can't see any reason to change.

Different viewpoints here...but that's redundant, when I look on the merits...I can't see plenty of reasons to change...

Again, it all comes down to the preliminary question -

"What do you hope to achieve by implementing a playoff - and is that goal something that we don't already have?"

The goal I would attempt to achieve would be ensuring that situations* like Auburn '03 and Texas '08 and don't ever occur.

*by situation, I'd roughly describe it as analogous with leaving Syracuse and Duke out of this year's NCAA tournament. While they weren't the top 2 favorite teams to win it, they definitely deserved to be in contention...and part of the field. Leaving Auburn and Texas out in the cold is similar...

You can't be serious. "Enormity" of the sport? Please. The "enormity" of the Rose Bowl didn't stop 50,000 Buckeye fans from showing up. If a playoff system happens, fans will show up in droves and schools/conferences will see a windfall.

I don't know what your point is here...

The enormity I was referring to is in terms of tradition, money and fanbase...but mostly tradition. There's too much money and tradition in the current bowl system to eliminate the bowls entirely...which is what you'd be doing if you implemented a 1-AA type playoff...

This is where I get hung up on every playoff scenario also. If we're going to try and make everyone feel like they have a chance, then no playoff scenario will give us anything better than what we've got. But almost all playoff scenarios can screw up what we have.

I don't think any playoff scenario that makes "everyone feel like they have a chance" is anywhere near a solution. It's a reality that more than 2 teams each year have a legitimate shot at winning a tournament of their peers.

I just don't agree that a playoff would adversely affect attendance. At least not among the big programs. And the big programs/conferences is what this is all about.

I don't agree that it would affect attendance period...BUT you make a very good point here that I agree with 100%, that the only programs that matter in terms of a playoff scenario are the "big" programs that would hardly be adversely affected at all if there was some sort of dissension.

Uh, unless we're seeded in the bottom half of the bracket, some, if not all, of the games (except the title game itself) would be on our home field. And with our fanbase, I'd bet huge coin that even if all four of our playoff games (assuming we made to the title game) were on the road, we'd not only sell out our allotment of tickets, we'd have a [censored]load of fans. If fans of I-AA, II, and III schools can travel to their road playoff games, I'm fairly sure that fans of much larger school could, too.

I think you can pretty much give up on this style of playoff system in the FBS. The NCAA is not getting rid of bowls...ever...too much money to be made.

What does New Mexico State have to do with it? You have "fat" in both divisions. Are you aware that I-A (FBS) and I-AA (FCS) have virtually the same amount of schools, and I-AA has had a highly successful playoff system for decades? There is absolutely zero reason why we can't implement the same system in I-A...in fact, it should be easier considering the fact the schools in I-A are much bigger (far more fans, much more money).

I'd also like to know what "highly successful" means and how it translates to D-1...



Maybe a more middle ground solution is to simply add 2 more teams to the BCS games at the end of the year...and put the top 4 teams in the "Final Four" at the national championship location. 1 plays 4 at 3...2 plays 3 at 7...then the winners play for the national championship the following week.

I'd be very happy with that...the regular season doesn't have to change, the NCAA gets 2 more cash cows in the system...and the national championship location gets 6 teams worth of revenue every 4 years.

Also, I don't think there has ever been a situation where there has been more than 4 teams that have seen themselves as legitimate championship contenders.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Since everyone seems to agree that Ohio State attendance wouldn't dip immediately; and since this thread can't suck enough...

OFFICIAL attendance for the NMSU game last year was 104 thousand and change (lowest for the season). But it was clear to me that there were significant patches of empty seats for that game. My brother was at the game and confirmed it.

It doesn't take much to push people from not-bothering-to-show-up to not-bothering-to-buy-the-ticket-in-the-first-place.

 

[TheRob8801]

It doesn't take much to push people from not-bothering-to-show-up to not-bothering-to-buy-the-ticket-in-the-first-place.

Duly noted...

...but do you think a difference in the perceived impact of these would be enough to push said people from A to B?

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Success on what metric? Give me financials.

Uh, based on the fact they've been doing it since at least the early 1980s, if not earlier. If they system had been too costly to the schools, they wouldn't still have the system. I base "success" on the fact that the schools have supported and have bought into they system all this time. Quit looking at this through lawyer's glasses where everything in the world has to be provable, quantifiable, and accountable. Do you rate your marriage based on how much money you make as a family?