College Playoff

[Ttown]

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)

The Mid majors don't really have a say. How many of those teams could have actually won the NC? I say zero, and thats why more of them aren't invited. The payoff is good but the quality suffers.

 

[Buck88]

If you had a playoff, both OSU and scUM would have had spots locked up going into The Game on 11/18. If your ok with the idea of one or both teams resting starters or feeling The Game was important but the playoffs are bigger so whatever happens happens...then you are a playoff proponent.

If you are not ok with the diminishment of The game or any regular season game then you are not a proponent of a playoff system.

Excellent points.

A homefield advantage/first round bye/seeding system ala the NFL would help some but there would still be a diminishment. Regular season conference championships would mean about as much as they do in Bball for starters.

I disagree a bit here. If the playoffs were limited to the 6 BCS conference champs and 2 at-large teams conference titles would be very important. With Notre Dame in the mix and the potential non-BCS upstart (Boise State) BCS schools would have to go all out for the conference crown. Relying on an at-large bid would be very risky.

 

[Saw31]

The Mid majors don't really have a say. How many of those teams could have actually won the NC? I say zero, and thats why more of them aren't invited. The payoff is good but the quality suffers.

They most certainly have a say. All 100+ D1A schools and conferences have a say. They are all member institutions. Your claim is flat out wrong...

 

[Ttown]

They most certainly have a say. All 100+ D1A teams and conferences have a say. They are all member institutions. Your claim is flat out wrong...

OK they have a say , it just doesn't mean anything. The big schools still control it.
Or should I say that they can have their say at bargaining time but when it comes down to it they have no deciding vote.
The big schools are not about to give up millions of dollars to create more competition for their money.

 

[23Skidoo]

The Mid majors don't really have a say. How many of those teams could have actually won the NC? I say zero, and thats why more of them aren't invited. The payoff is good but the quality suffers.

But that's just it... the midmajors DO have a say. Their presidents have to agree to any playoff deal. If the BCS conferences were to cut their own deal, completely separate of the midmajors, congress would likely get involved -- again. And lawsuits would probably spring up as well. And the BCS conferences have it pretty good right now as well -- I don't think they'd risk all of that for a playoff.
I wasn't trying to say the midmajors would have a shot, just pointing out that even in a 16-team playoff, they're likely to be left out in the cold. And thus not only would they never agree to it, but they'd fight it all the way.

 

[Saw31]

OK they have a say , it just doesn't mean anything. The big schools still control it.
Or should I say that they can have their say at bargaining time but when it comes down to it they have no deciding vote.

This isn't the UN. There isn't a Security Council of big schools vetoing the little ones. As I've repeatedly stated, the US Congress was going to break up the BCS monopoloy just a few years ago before the expansion. That's what precipitated the expansion in the first place. What so many of these playoff proposals do is put it right back to that monopoly situation. Those ideas will never be implemented, period...

 

[HailToMichigan]

OK they have a say , it just doesn't mean anything. The big schools still control it.
Or should I say that they can have their say at bargaining time but when it comes down to it they have no deciding vote.
The big schools are not about to give up millions of dollars to create more competition for their money.

Doesn't mean anything? The title game was added for one reason only: To allow for two more teams to earn BCS spots and therefore, open up a bigger chance for mid-majors to make it. The BCS also has been tweaking its rules to allow mid-majors a better shot. It's why Boise State is a BCS team and West Virginia or Virginia Tech is not. Guaranteed, if the mid-majors hadn't fought for some kind of automatic qualifier for themselves, a big-time school that has more fans and garners more TV ratings would have been invited instead. You better believe the mid-majors have the ear of the big boys.

 

[Ttown]

when the Bcs left the ncaa the conferences who formed the BCS took control of football away from the ncaa as far as marketing goes. the non BCS schools were left out, so to speak. After much complaining and threats of suites and congressional action they expanded to allay the concerns of the mids and congress. They didn't give away their control of college football.
Yes they make concessions as they are forced to but if you believe for one instatnt that the BCS doesn't control everything. you need to think again. they will not allow a playoff, because of money.
P.S. The ncaa wasn't very happy when the conferences left to form the BCS

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I don't necessarily want a top 16. Assuming you're right Saw about the at least 10 teams in the playoff that is exactly how many I would have including play in games for teams 7 and 10 and teams 8-9. Then they would do a regular 8 team playoff. All of these games at the one of the 5 BCS bowls(then including the Cotton). This would satisfy your 10 team needs and then still keep the GMAC available of Northern Illinois to get their money. And in the end more money is available.

 

[23Skidoo]

when the Bcs left the ncaa the conferences who formed the BCS took control of football away from the ncaa as far as marketing goes. the non BCS schools were left out, so to speak. After much complaining and threats of suites and congressional action they expanded to allay the concerns of the mids and congress. They didn't give away their control of college football.
Yes they make concessions as they are forced to but if you believe for one instatnt that the BCS doesn't control everything. you need to think again. they will not allow a playoff, because of money.
P.S. The ncaa wasn't very happy when the conferences left to form the BCS

It seems like we're all on the same page and just getting hung up over technicalities.

 

[BB73]

It seems like we're all on the same page and just getting hung up over technicalities.

I would like to point out the possibility that there are many posters who don't favor a playoff, have seen numerous discussions about playoffs over the years, and simply choose not to post in any more threads on the topic.

 

[23Skidoo]

I would like to point out the possibility that there are many posters who don't favor a playoff, have seen numerous discussions about playoffs over the years, and simply choose not to post in any more threads on the topic.

I should have been more careful with my words. I was only speaking about myself, HailtoMI, Saw31, and Bucyrus.
Obviously there are some people who are just gleening information and reserve their opinion, and definitely many who are not here but do not agree.

 

[HailToMichigan]

Lemme throw the playoff proponents a bone. They're spinning their wheels. Right now, there isn't a single idea proposed by anyone so far that addresses the logistical concerns. Only arguments as to why the logistics don't matter, attempts to brush the money aside.

Here's a proposal put forth by SI that actually does take steps at addressing the money issue. I don't think it is perfect - it doesn't solve everything, but then again, nothing will. In the end, all playoffs ideas promise to fix certain problems but end up creating others.

You'd have an 8-team playoff. The teams would be the champions of the six BCS conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10, SEC), plus the two other most highly ranked teams. The opening round of four games would all be played at home stadiums, and it would take place during this down-time between bowl games. This year, you'd have Wake Forest at Ohio State, Oklahoma at Florida, Louisville at Michigan, and USC at LSU. The losers would each be slotted into BCS bowls (say, USC-Oklahoma in the Fiesta and Louisville-Wake in the Sugar). The winners would play in the two other BCS bowls (say, Michigan-Florida in the Orange and Ohio State-USC in the Rose). There would then be a title game for the two winners.

I could stomach this, because it doesn't totally destroy the regular season or the bowl tradition like most proposals. It'd still have hurt the Michigan-OSU game this year, though. And it mitigates, if not exactly solves, the money issues. There'd still be problems. Most notably, the mid-majors would kick, howl, and scream about being locked out of the BCS. Boise State deserves their Fiesta spot - under this, they'd be, where, right back in Boise playing Miami? And it doesn't resolve the issue of teams' fans having to travel to multiple destinations, which only the diehards with too much money and no family or job commitments would do.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Lemme throw the playoff proponents a bone. They're spinning their wheels. Right now, there isn't a single idea proposed by anyone so far that addresses the logistical concerns. Only arguments as to why the logistics don't matter, attempts to brush the money aside.

I guess you decide to skip my posts. There are no "logistical" concerns, if you use the word in its true definition (getting players and equipment to/from games), whatsoever. If the little I-AA, II, and III teams can do it, biggies like Ohio State, Michigan, USC, etc., can easily do it.

 

[methomps]

Lemme throw the playoff proponents a bone. They're spinning their wheels. Right now, there isn't a single idea proposed by anyone so far that addresses the logistical concerns. Only arguments as to why the logistics don't matter, attempts to brush the money aside.

Here's a proposal put forth by SI that actually does take steps at addressing the money issue. I don't think it is perfect - it doesn't solve everything, but then again, nothing will. In the end, all playoffs ideas promise to fix certain problems but end up creating others.

You'd have an 8-team playoff. The teams would be the champions of the six BCS conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10, SEC), plus the two other most highly ranked teams. The opening round of four games would all be played at home stadiums, and it would take place during this down-time between bowl games. This year, you'd have Wake Forest at Ohio State, Oklahoma at Florida, Louisville at Michigan, and USC at LSU. The losers would each be slotted into BCS bowls (say, USC-Oklahoma in the Fiesta and Louisville-Wake in the Sugar). The winners would play in the two other BCS bowls (say, Michigan-Florida in the Orange and Ohio State-USC in the Rose). There would then be a title game for the two winners.

If you would read through this and the other thread, there have been several proposals that do exactly this: play the first (at least) round at home sites).

I could stomach this, because it doesn't totally destroy the regular season or the bowl tradition like most proposals. It'd still have hurt the Michigan-OSU game this year, though. And it mitigates, if not exactly solves, the money issues. There'd still be problems. Most notably, the mid-majors would kick, howl, and scream about being locked out of the BCS. Boise State deserves their Fiesta spot - under this, they'd be, where, right back in Boise playing Miami? And it doesn't resolve the issue of teams' fans having to travel to multiple destinations, which only the diehards with too much money and no family or job commitments would do.

As for the mid-majors, there have been several proposals on this and the other thread that leave at least one BCS bowl unused by the playoff system.

As for traveling, the ticket crunch this year for OSU shows that you don't need fans to travel to multiple games to fill the stadiums. There were 1000 student tickets for 6000 student applicants (and reportedly that number was low because of poor advertising). I'm sure the there were also donors and season-ticket holders who didn't get tickets. There are enough people to fill the allotment for 2 or 3 games (especially if opening rounds are played at home sites).