College Playoff

[martinss01]

im sure this has already been mentioned but theres a bigger picture than just whats good for the players and college football.

bowl games are played in the same locations in the same cities every year. those games generate stupid amounts of money to those cities. anything that significantly boosts a cities funds become extremely political very quickly. regardless of whether or not they have any real authority, if you think for half a second that a states elected officials are going to sit on their hands as a significant revenue generator is taken away your a nutjob. if at any point in the future the college football world seriously considers a playoff system i guarandamntee you that decision will be made very political very quickly.

 

[IronBuckI]

I don't think the importance of homefield can allow a team that is fighting for a top 4, 6, or 8 spot to allow their players to rest. If it's all about the money for the bowl games, then how much more money can you charge for first round playoff tickets at your home field? Do you really think that coaches are going to rest players with homefield on the line? Do you think that they'll be allowed to by University Presidents or even the fans? Even if 2006 UM made the playoffs, they would have been on the road in just about all of the formats that methomps is proposing. How much were bowl tickets? Now multiply that by the capacity of Michigan Stadium, or The 'Shoe, and how much do we stand to lose by resting our players?

 

[Jaxbuck]

I don't think the importance of homefield can allow a team that is fighting for a top 4, 6, or 8 spot to allow their players to rest. If it's all about the money for the bowl games, then how much more money can you charge for first round playoff tickets at your home field? Do you really think that coaches are going to rest players with homefield on the line? Do you think that they'll be allowed to by University Presidents or even the fans? Even if 2006 UM made the playoffs, they would have been on the road in just about all of the formats that methomps is proposing. How much were bowl tickets? Now multiply that by the capacity of Michigan Stadium, or The 'Shoe, and how much do we stand to lose by resting our players?

University presidents are not going to tell a coach who plays and who doesn't.

If a player is borderline healthy and that extra week of rest might give you your superstar at 80% instead of out all together PLUS that coach believes the next game is not as critical as a playoff game...I'll bet any amount of money you want to that coach will rest that star player.

I'm not saying don't have a playoff because of this or that it doesn't happen to a lesser degree already. I'm just saying it will become more and more prevelant in a playoff format depending on the particulars of the format. Playoff proponents need to be ready to see the day players sit out The Game to get ready for the playoffs.

 

[methomps]

Do you honestly think the Pac-10 comissioner would vote "yes" to a playoff system that doesn't GAURANTEE a spot for their conference champ? Do you think the Big Ten comish would allow it? Or any other big conference?

I'll agree with most of this.

I hate to use the NFL since we've already pointed out the differences, but here's another example. Most die hard Saints fans I know paid little if any attention to the Bears down the stretch last season, even though a Bears loss meant the difference between playing at home in a Dome vs. outdoors on the shores of Lake Michigan in the cold and snow. If I had to guess, this type of thinking would trickle down to the college level as well.

I think college presidents will agree to a system that guarantees their conference champs at least a BCS-level bowl bid, which is what the BCS is now and what a playoff can be.

I don't think the Saints were in any real position to catch the Bears for HFA. By contrast, the Packers and Cowboys were both pretty interested in getting HFA. Plus, I think HFA plays a bigger role in CFB where you have younger players going into more hostile settings. NFL players already travel to 8 away games a year, and NFL stadiums seat fewer people.

Given the capricious nature of the voters I can see that but if you are using say the current BCS formula to seed the playoffs the top 3 teams or so are pretty much assured a single loss won't knock them out of the top 8. If its a 16 team deal forget it, you know you are in by the final week or two.

Also how badly do human pollsters knock down a team that lost if they are obviously resting players? The current voter bias we see isn't going to magically go away. Some teams might very well get a pass for a late season loss for "resting" because the pollsters just "know" they are that good and the loss means nothing.

We can discuss the minutia to death, and I kind of enjoy it, but to me the bottom line stays the same. The regular season will be changed from our traditional understanding of it if/when a playoff starts. Its just a matter of how much.

I don't think it is very common that teams would be put into position to have an expendable game in a 6-team playoff system where the top 2 teams get byes and the next two teams get homefield. One loss could easily knock you out (look at Mizzou and West Virginia this year). Would a coach give up a 1st round bye to rest his players? I doubt it.

im sure this has already been mentioned but theres a bigger picture than just whats good for the players and college football.

bowl games are played in the same locations in the same cities every year. those games generate stupid amounts of money to those cities. anything that significantly boosts a cities funds become extremely political very quickly. regardless of whether or not they have any real authority, if you think for half a second that a states elected officials are going to sit on their hands as a significant revenue generator is taken away your a nutjob. if at any point in the future the college football world seriously considers a playoff system i guarandamntee you that decision will be made very political very quickly.

You can have a playoff and still maintain the bowl system. No city has to lose a bowl game.

 

[Nutriaitch]

I think college presidents will agree to a system that guarantees their conference champs at least a BCS-level bowl bid, which is what the BCS is now and what a playoff can be.

That could work.

I don't think the Saints were in any real position to catch the Bears for HFA.

They finished 1 game out of HFA.

 

[IronBuckI]

University presidents are not going to tell a coach who plays and who doesn't.

If a player is borderline healthy and that extra week of rest might give you your superstar at 80% instead of out all together PLUS that coach believes the next game is not as critical as a playoff game...I'll bet any amount of money you want to that coach will rest that star player.

I'm not saying don't have a playoff because of this or that it doesn't happen to a lesser degree already. I'm just saying it will become more and more prevelant in a playoff format depending on the particulars of the format. Playoff proponents need to be ready to see the day players sit out The Game to get ready for the playoffs.

The University Presidents portion wasn't really the point of my post . So I guess that I shouldn't have put it in there. So I really don't see the fear of The Game being meaningless if a playoff system were installed.

The point that I was trying to make is that HFA or a first round bye would likely be more important than sitting players before the playoffs, and likely wouldn't result in sitting players for The Game.

Another thing is. I don't believe that moving The Game to the middle of the season would diminish it's importance at all. Traditionally major rivalries have been played the last week of the season, but the importance of The Game is not based on the date it's played, but from the tradition and excellence(cliche, I know) of both schools. Some of the best rivalries today are played in the middle of the season, and it doesn't diminish OU-Texas or Georgia-Florida. The Game hasn't been played in October since 1933, but it has been done. Michigan playing at Hawaii the week after The Game in 1998 didn't hurt the rivalry either

 

[HailToMichigan]

I think college presidents will agree to a system that guarantees their conference champs at least a BCS-level bowl bid, which is what the BCS is now and what a playoff can be.

I don't think the Saints were in any real position to catch the Bears for HFA. By contrast, the Packers and Cowboys were both pretty interested in getting HFA. Plus, I think HFA plays a bigger role in CFB where you have younger players going into more hostile settings. NFL players already travel to 8 away games a year, and NFL stadiums seat fewer people.




I don't think it is very common that teams would be put into position to have an expendable game in a 6-team playoff system where the top 2 teams get byes and the next two teams get homefield. One loss could easily knock you out (look at Mizzou and West Virginia this year). Would a coach give up a 1st round bye to rest his players? I doubt it.





You can have a playoff and still maintain the bowl system. No city has to lose a bowl game.

I don't see how home-field advantage can be debated at the same time you talk about maintaining the bowl system. If you have a 6-team playoff with home fields involved, then six other teams make a bowl game. Enjoy Troy vs. Ohio. That's assuming that each year you still have 6 more teams that are eligible. Expand the playoffs (which will happen) and you start killing off the lesser bowls. Many people would not miss them, but the cities involved would.

Anyway, the idea of a 6 team playoff is a flawed one and it's one that I hate most of all. 6 BCS conferences, 6 team playoff. As mentioned before, the commissioners will never agree to a system like that where the conference champion isn't guaranteed representation. This removes all incentive to play any worthwhile out of conference games whatsoever. Among the tiebreakers in some of the conferences is overall record, so if you guys like those games against Texas and USC and whatnot, you can forget about them and have them replaced with Kent State, Temple, and Middle Tennessee. Every year. Why schedule USC when you might meet them in a playoff? No need to show them your schemes. At least a 4 or 8 team playoff puts a tiny sliver of a little bit of emphasis back on those non--conference games. 6? Forget it.

 

[CookyPuss]

Anyway, the idea of a 6 team playoff is a flawed one and it's one that I hate most of all. 6 BCS conferences, 6 team playoff. As mentioned before, the commissioners will never agree to a system like that where the conference champion isn't guaranteed representation. This removes all incentive to play any worthwhile out of conference games whatsoever. Among the tiebreakers in some of the conferences is overall record, so if you guys like those games against Texas and USC and whatnot, you can forget about them and have them replaced with Kent State, Temple, and Middle Tennessee. Every year. Why schedule USC when you might meet them in a playoff? No need to show them your schemes. At least a 4 or 8 team playoff puts a tiny sliver of a little bit of emphasis back on those non--conference games. 6? Forget it.

Don't forget, you also have to have a Notre Ame rule.

 

[methomps]

That could work.


They finished 1 game out of HFA.

The Bears finished 13-3. The Saints were 10-6. Are you perhaps thinking of Saints-Eagles?

I don't see how home-field advantage can be debated at the same time you talk about maintaining the bowl system. If you have a 6-team playoff with home fields involved, then six other teams make a bowl game. Enjoy Troy vs. Ohio. That's assuming that each year you still have 6 more teams that are eligible. Expand the playoffs (which will happen) and you start killing off the lesser bowls. Many people would not miss them, but the cities involved would.

A 6-team playoff with homefield for the first round still requires 3 bowls. Six teams, three bowls. No trickle-down.

Anyway, the idea of a 6 team playoff is a flawed one and it's one that I hate most of all. 6 BCS conferences, 6 team playoff. As mentioned before, the commissioners will never agree to a system like that where the conference champion isn't guaranteed representation. This removes all incentive to play any worthwhile out of conference games whatsoever. Among the tiebreakers in some of the conferences is overall record, so if you guys like those games against Texas and USC and whatnot, you can forget about them and have them replaced with Kent State, Temple, and Middle Tennessee. Every year. Why schedule USC when you might meet them in a playoff? No need to show them your schemes. At least a 4 or 8 team playoff puts a tiny sliver of a little bit of emphasis back on those non--conference games. 6? Forget it.

If the Cotton Bowl moves to Jerry's playhouse, you add them as a BCS bowl (not an insane proposition since they are currently trying to do just that). That means you now have 2 BCS-level bowls that are not a part of the playoff each year. You guarantee spots to any BCS conference champ that doesn't qualify for the playoff. You add non-BCS qualifications to appease Congress and you're off. Every BCS conference champ gets at least a BCS bowl, which is exactly what they get now.

 

[Nutriaitch]

The Bears finished 13-3. The Saints were 10-6. Are you perhaps thinking of Saints-Eagles?

Maybe it was the Eagles I was thinking of. Trying to remember.

 

[Nutriaitch]

A 6-team playoff with homefield for the first round still requires 3 bowls. Six teams, three bowls. No trickle-down.

But that means you're removing 6-teams from the pool that these bowls select from. So unless there are 6 teams eligible that get left out with the current system, then anywhere from 1 to 3 bowls can no longer happen. Those cities lose that financial impact.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I'm really puzzled as to why you Buckeye fans think the USC game will make or break the season. IMO, it can only make it - not break it. Heaven forbid, but if you guys roll through the Big Ten undefeated and have a lone loss to USC on your record, that will be good enough unless there are two undefeated teams.

No, that would mean we'll just have to put up with a continued barrage of media/fan bullshit saying how the Big Ten sucks and our losing at USC while running the Big Ten schedule proves it...

 

[methomps]

But that means you're removing 6-teams from the pool that these bowls select from. So unless there are 6 teams eligible that get left out with the current system, then anywhere from 1 to 3 bowls can no longer happen. Those cities lose that financial impact.

You're removing 6 teams, but you're also removing 3 bowls to host the semifinals and finals of the playoffs. Its a wash.

 

[CookyPuss]

No, that would mean we'll just have to put up with a continued barrage of media/fan bullshit saying how the Big Ten sucks and our losing at USC while running the Big Ten schedule proves it...

And being in line behind any other 11-1 team in a BCS conference due to said perception of Big 10 inferiority.

 

[OSUBasketballJunkie]

Dispatch

Rob Oller commentary: Retro playoff plan would put the fun back in Jan. 1

Friday, January 11, 2008 2:59 AM
By Rob Oller


THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

"They'll have to wrench a playoff system out of my cold, dead hands." -- Gordon Gee.
The Ohio State president is safe. I have no interest in sprinkling rat poison over his food just to loosen his grip on -- and silence his gripes against -- a college football playoff system.
Too many other brick walls exist for a playoff format to arrive anytime soon, whether Gee is alive or, er, retired.
True, University of Georgia president Michael Adams, chairman of the NCAA executive committee, is proposing an eight-team playoff, but it's a safe bet he would have kept his thoughts to himself had the Bulldogs not been left out of the national championship game.

Continued....