College Playoff

[sandgk]

Sponsors of the lower- and mid-tier bowl games would much rather have a first-round or quarter-final round playoff game featuring nationally-ranked powers than one between some 7-4 and 6-5 teams.

And that my friends is exactly why play-offs are more likely than not to occur. Added cash AND cache to some of the currently lower-tier bowls.

Which is then followed by a boosting of the value of the upper-tier bowls.

Money.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

And that my friends is exactly why play-offs are more likely than not to occur. Added cash AND cache to some of the currently lower-tier bowls.

Which is then followed by a boosting of the value of the upper-tier bowls.

Money.

You're kidding, right? Tell me that you aren't serious when you imply that the amount of money going to a first-round game has any effect whatsoever on the amount that goes to the title game. That would be like saying that sponsors won't sponsor any games during the regular season except for the last games so they can boost the value of game like Ohio State/Michigan, USC/UCLA, etc. Now how stupid is that?

 

[Oh8ch]

To keep this discussion on track I think we need to make a distinction between a four team playoff and anything larger. After all, we already have a playoff - it just involves two teams.

I agree with Mili that we will go to a playoff system - probably in 5 years or less. And I think it will be four teams.

A four team playoff does minimal disruption to the existing bowls (use two each year for semis and play the championship game the following week as we are doing this year). Four teams does little to reduce the meaningfulness of the regular season and does not create travel problems or introduce the need to play on 'home fields'.

It is when you go beyond four teams that all these other issues become significant.

I also believe the current BCS ranking system (or a tweaked version) should be used to determine the four teams - regardless of conference ranking. (I still hate rematches, but they wont be all that often under this approach.)

Yes, you will still have disputes as the #5 team makes its case that they are better than the #4 team. But I challenge anyone to name a year where the 5th ranked team at the end of the regular season had any legitimate argument that they were #1.

If you can play a 12 game season and at the end of it can't grab four teams with reasonable certainty that one of those four is the best then your quest to identify the "best" under any other process is really quite hopeless. The larger your field the LESS likely the best team emerges at the end. Second grade math tells you that.

 

[sandgk]

If the market value of the early round games increases the pay-out from those bowls to the entrant teams, I would argue it entirely conceivable that the later rounds, and title game (most likely tied to the traditional bowls) would also see a hike in their value. The pay-out for those games today is much larger than the comparable pay-outs when the respective bowls were not tied to the BCS, in any dollars, real or constant. I do not see their value diminishing in a play-off system. Hype for a Semi-Final Game would be higher than for a Quarter-Final, Hype for the Final, huge. That generates or sustains interest level, which boosts their value to sponsors.

As for the parallel you offer of the degree of sponsorpship of regular season games, who is now sponsoring OSU/Michigan? Answer nobody, besides which it is not a bowl game. In fact, the Red River Shootout is the only example I can think of immediately that has a sponsorship contract tied to the same.

 

[Ttown]

And that my friends is exactly why play-offs are more likely than not to occur. Added cash AND cache to some of the currently lower-tier bowls.

Which is then followed by a boosting of the value of the upper-tier bowls.

Money.

Money. The haves don't want to share with the have nots. MONEY
Playoffs would be a fiasco of whining ,moaning and complaining about being left out, that what is happening today about the BCS would seem like nothing.
A ten team playoff , every one loss and/or two loss team that didn't get in would make Meyer seem like a mute. Same goes for 12 , 16 or whatever deep playoff.
The deeper you go into the ncaa roster the more complaintants.
And THAT is why there will never be a playoff. Because it wouldn't solve problems, Just create new ones.

 

[sandgk]

You could have made the exact same argument (it'll create new problems) before the BCS was created. In fact such arguments were made - yet here we are with the BCS.

New problems don't stop a change, especially if the proposed change is sold as a means to eliminate a "glaring deficiency" in the current system. (Which I would argue a play-off system does not do, whether it is 16 teams, 32 teams, 8 or only 4. Because you are arriving at your pool of candidates through polling - no change. Because if its 4 what about #5, 8 what about #9, etc. And, because it tips on its head the qualification to a few by virtue of season-long accomplishment in the current system, opening the door to the team playing the best football in the month or so of the play-offs themselves.)

What will be interesting is to see how long before the end of the current BCS agreement will it be before the College Presidents consider such a proposal.

 

[Ttown]

You could have made the exact same argument (it'll create new problems) before the BCS was created. In fact such arguments were made - yet here we are with the BCS.

New problems don't stop a change, especially if the proposed change is sold as a means to eliminate a "glaring deficiency" in the current system. (Which I would argue a play-off system does not do, whether it is 16 teams, 32 teams, 8 or only 4. Because you are arriving at your pool of candidates through polling - no change. Because if its 4 what about #5, 8 what about #9, etc. And, because it tips on its head the qualification to a few by virtue of season-long accomplishment in the current system, opening the door to the team playing the best football in the month or so of the play-offs themselves.)

What will be interesting is to see how long before the end of the current BCS agreement will it be before the College Presidents consider such a proposal.

Exactly. You said it better than I did.
I don't foresee a change for a long time.

 

[23Skidoo]

...
especially if the proposed change is sold as a means to eliminate a "glaring deficiency" in the current system.
...
Which I would argue a play-off system does not do
...
Because you are arriving at your pool of candidates through polling - no change.

I've been trying to get at that for awhile, and rather unsuccesfully.
I couldn't have put it any better.

 

[HailToMichigan]

I don't think it's inevitable that a playoff happens. I also don't think it's a guarantee that it doesn't. Right now, though, the mid-majors have a pretty nice deal in place with the BCS that guarantees a deserving mid-major team gets a share of the big bucks. I think any playoff would first have to go through tremendous opposition from the WAC, MWC, etc., if not an out-and-out lawsuit. Because how do you ensure they'll still have a shot at the big slice of pie?

 

[Saw31]

Assuming I still have over 1,000,000 vCash a few years down the road, I'll put that much on I-A football going to a playoff system, and probably a lot sooner than many think. The media is now in the "full advocate" mode, and you know what that means. Until this year or last year, you couldn't catch a I-AA playoff game on ESPN or CBS other than the title game...now ESPN and ESPN2 are broadcasting games from each round. I've seen both of YSU's games so far and will see their semi-final round game today. Broadcast support will be huge in the move towards a playoff system.

Well bookmark this thread. I will take that bet every time.

Every Bowl game is already being broadcast. The Bowl system already has that support. Media people wanting a playoff is meaningless. They do not run the programs and are not accountable to those programs' bottom lines.

The major bowls being "loosely affiliated" is what will hurt them in trying to keep the status quo. All it takes is for one of them to seriously consider ponying up to a playoff, and the others will be in the cold. Hell, it wasn't decade back that everyone said that the major Jan 1 bowl games (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, etc.) would never be played on a day other than Jan 1 because of tradition. Well, money talks and tradition walks. Hell, only two of those games (Rose and Fiesta) will be played on Jan 1 this year (Orange is Jan 2 and Sugar is Jan 3). And the title game is no longer being played in an established major bowl game.

I have not once argued that tradition is what keeps us from having a playoff. Personally, I want to keep the tradition, but I know it's not "tradition" that supports the Bowl system. Regardess, you make my point for me. If the money issues were not a problem, we would have had a playoff years ago. We do not have a playoff precisely because of the money. The Bowls don't make this decision, the participating schools do. So claiming that a renegade Bowl would be the catalyst for a playoff is just plain false. The participating schools include the Idaho Techs of the world and they will not benefit at all from a playoff and will therefore block any playoff that doesn't allow them to share in the revenue. This is just plain fact. What is your interpretation of nearly every president across the country being opposed to a playoff? It has nothing to do with tradition and it certainly isn't for "love of controversy". The reason they oppose a playoff is because it involves financial risks they are not willing to take. It is that simple.

The playoff systems in the other divisions are indeed are part of the discussion, because they are the living proof that playoffs work. All the bogus arguments about "logistics" (fans can't make it to all the games, it infringes on class time, we don't have the money) are just that--bogus. It will take time for the power-that-be to line up the rounds with existing bowl games, but it will happen. Sponsors of the lower- and mid-tier bowl games would much rather have a first-round or quarter-final round playoff game featuring nationally-ranked powers than one between some 7-4 and 6-5 teams.

The playoffs will happen...

No, they are living proof that none of those schools could attract enough fans (money) to be in a Bowl.

Let me enlighten those who think this is not about money. And since I can't seem to convince anyone that D1AA is not a part of this conversation, I will quote directly from the NCAA D1AA Playoff handbook...Note the priorities in selecting sites...Then explain to me how this Playoff system is relevant to a D1A playoff and this mythical search for "fairness" and a "true" champion...

Site Determination.

With regard to first-round, quarterfinal and semifinal sites, in addition to the criteria listed in Bylaw 31.1.3, the NCAA Division I-AA Football Committee shall consider the following additional criteria when selecting playoff sites:​

a. Prospective host institutions must submit the following minimum financial guarantees, which shall be 75 percent of the estimated net receipts as submitted on the proposed budget:​

First round?$30,000​

Quarterfinal?$40,000​

Semifinal?$50,000​

b. If the minimum financial guarantees are met, the committee will award the playoff sites to the top four seeded teams.​

c. When determining host institutions for playoff games when both teams are unseeded, criteria shall apply as follows: (1) quality of facility, (2) revenue potential plus estimated net receipts, (3) attendance history and potential, (4) team?s performance (i.e., conference place finish, head-to-head results and number of Division I opponents), and (5) student-athlete well-being (e.g., travel, missed class time).​

d. If a quarterfinal or semifinal playoff site is not available due to the fact the institutions involved did not submit a proposed budget, the committee will contact the institutions and offer the opportunity to submit a bid at the current round?s minimum financial guarantee level. If seeded teams are not involved, the committee will determine the host institutions by applying the championship site-selection criteria in Bylaw 31.1.3.2.1.

e. If no institution is willing to submit a proposed budget at the current level, the previous round?s minimum financial guarantee will be offered. If seeded teams are not involved, the committee will determine the host institutions by applying the championship siteselection criteria in Bylaw 31.1.3.2.1.​

f. The committee will consider previous crowd-control measures and crowd behavior of the prospective host institution.​

Pairings

[Reference: Championship Structure (page 9) in this handbook and Bylaw 31.1.3 in the NCAA Manual.]
​

All pairings will be made by the Division I-AA football committee. The following principles are applied when pairing teams:​

1. The teams awarded the top four seeds are placed in the appropriate positions in the bracket (Nos. 1 and 4 in the upper half, and Nos. 2 and 3 in the lower half), and will be paired with teams that are in closest geographic proximity;​

2. The remaining teams will be paired according to geographic proximity and placed in the bracket according to geographic proximity of the four pairings previously placed in the bracket.​

3. Teams from the same conference will not be paired for first-round games;​

4. Once the first-round pairings have been determined, there will be no adjustments to the bracket.​

So, we run a D1A playoff the way D1AA does it. That's the contention right? So then we have an Eastern, Southern, Midwestern and Western champion. Pairings are based on geographical proximity in D1AA after all. The site hosts must provide financial guarentees up front, else the game will be played at a different facility. Something none of these D1A institutions have to do now. They have a sellable product that D1AA does not. Half the teams are picked on an "at-large" basis i;e voters. I thought we were to remove "subjectivity" from the process...​

As you can see, quite clearly, this is not a search for a "true" anything except "true" money. These decisions are all governed by the finances. Everything from site determination to pairings are determined thusly. The Bowl system produces more financial benefits for all the member institutions than does a playoff system. D1AA has to chase money in a different way than does D1A, but it still is a money chase. So where is the "purity of competition" in this playoff paradise? It does not exist...​

 

[sandgk]

If the play-off were constructed as a best of 16 then those same MAC and WAC teams get as fair a shot as any of playing in those preliminary rounds. That means they have a chance of progressing.
If they do not progress, and their take is lower than from the later bigger games then so be it.
Besides, the large game pay-outs are only part of the monies distributed, changing the formula for sharing the wealth would undercut any arguments by MAC and WAC mid-majors of preferential treatment.
One factor that now crosses my mind however, is this. If it is a play-off wouldn't the NCAA be the organization adjudicating the distribution of funds? That might lead to some unexpected outcomes compared to the current BCS agreement.

 

[Ttown]

Money.
fwiw. The Big ten and Pac ten conferences own the Rose bowl.

 

[Saw31]

If the play-off were constructed as a best of 16 then those same MAC and WAC teams get as fair a shot as any of playing in those preliminary rounds. That means they have a chance of progressing.
If they do not progress, and their take is lower than from the later bigger games then so be it.
Besides, the large game pay-outs are only part of the monies distributed, changing the formula for sharing the wealth would undercut any arguments by MAC and WAC mid-majors of preferential treatment.
One factor that now crosses my mind however, is this. If it is a play-off wouldn't the NCAA be the organization adjudicating the distribution of funds? That might lead to some unexpected outcomes compared to the current BCS agreement.

And again, why would any smaller conference give up the guarenteed money they have now? They are not going to sit by while the process makes it more difficult for them to get into the big money games. They just aren't...

 

[BB73]

Yes, you will still have disputes as the #5 team makes its case that they are better than the #4 team. But I challenge anyone to name a year where the 5th ranked team at the end of the regular season had any legitimate argument that they were #1.

Just FYI for the discussion. These teams didn't deserve chances at the NC, but did indeed win them after finishing #5 in the AP poll at the end of the regular season.

1974 USC: #5 in final regular season AP, won UPI NC since Oklahoma was on probation.
1977 ND: #5 in final regular season AP, won NC with win over #1 Texas
1983 Miami: #5 in final regular season AP, won NC with win over #1 Nebraska

The BCS has prevented teams like these from having a shot at the NC due to the old predetermined bowl matchups. It's rarely mentioned, but that's one real benefit of the BCS.

 

[23Skidoo]

If the play-off were constructed as a best of 16 then those same MAC and WAC teams get as fair a shot as any of playing in those preliminary rounds. That means they have a chance of progressing.
If they do not progress, and their take is lower than from the later bigger games then so be it.
Besides, the large game pay-outs are only part of the monies distributed, changing the formula for sharing the wealth would undercut any arguments by MAC and WAC mid-majors of preferential treatment.
One factor that now crosses my mind however, is this. If it is a play-off wouldn't the NCAA be the organization adjudicating the distribution of funds? That might lead to some unexpected outcomes compared to the current BCS agreement.

Since 2003, there have been a total of 5 midmajor teams in the final top-16.
(2006 BSU, 2005 TCU, 2004 Utah/BSU/UL)
I don't think the midmajors would ever agree to those kind of odds. Unless you were going to use conference champs? (You didn't specify, so I'm kind of at a loss)