College Playoff

[mross34]

Then why did Boise State beat them on a neutral field in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl?

Because they played a better game. Doesn't unequivocally mean they were the better team.

 

[methomps]

$$$$$$$

Look at it like this.. the Big 10 gets 5-8 teams in bowl games a year..

With a playoff - the Big 10 gets 2-3 teams (16 team playoff)..

Just because you move to a playoff to determine a NC doesn't mean you have to scrap the rest of the bowl system.

 

[jwinslow]

Just because you move to a playoff to determine a NC doesn't mean you have to scrap the rest of the bowl system.

anything more than 4, maybe 6, and the rest of the bowls become a lot more irrelevant imo.

 

[billmac91]

anything more than 4, maybe 6, and the rest of the bowls become a lot more irrelevant imo.

This makes ZERO sense to me. The BCS bowls don't diminish Bowl Games. The title game doesn't diminsih bowl games. Why would fans of Akron, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Cincinnati, etc., be any less inclined to go to their teams bowl game b/c of a playoff?

Fans going to the Meinke Car Care Bowl aren't expecting their team to win the National Title.

Fans just want a December/Januray vacation and they'll go support their team for a game.

I can see an argument for the BCS bowls going away, and being replaced with playoff games. I'd say the advertising dollars would be just as high and the stadiums would sell just as well.

The naming rights on a College football playoff would be through the roof as well.

The television rights to one network for the college playoff would probably double vs. just rights to the BCS games as well.

 

[methomps]

anything more than 4, maybe 6, and the rest of the bowls become a lot more irrelevant imo.

Then they currently are? Few people care about the pre-Jan bowls and yet they keep adding more.

 

[OHSportsFan]

I'm sticking with my 6 team system (if I HAD to go with a playoff system).

Use the five BCS Bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, +the BCS NCG)

1 and 2 get byes.

Still leaves all the other bowls in tact.

 

[Oh8ch]

Then why did Boise State beat them on a neutral field in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl?

Same reason Illinois was not the Big Ten Champions last season.

Shit happens.

 

[martinss01]

In 2006, an 10-1 Wisconsin team didn't even sniff the title game after battling through a strong Big 10. In 2005, a 10-1 Penn State had the same story. In 2004, an undefeated Auburn squad couldn't get higher than 3rd in the BCS rankings until after the title game because everyone severely underrated the SEC until 2006. That same year a 10-1 Texas squad didn't enter title talk once because of a loss less than halfway through the season. In 2003, 1 loss USC didn't make the title game even though it was ranked in the top slot in both polls.

all records are pre bowl.

1993:
nc - Florida State (11-1)
beat - Nebraska (11-0)

1994:
nc - Nebraska (12-0)
beat - Miami (10-1)

1996:
nc - Florida (11-1)
beat - Florida State (11-0)

1998:
nc - (12-0)
beat - Florida State (11-1)

2000:
nc - Oklahoma (12-0)
beat - Florida State (11-1)

2001:
nc - Miami (11-0)
beat - Nebraska (11-1)

2003:
nc - LSU (12-1)
beat - Oklahoma (12-1)

2006:
nc - Florida (12-1)
beat - Ohio State (12-0)

2007:
nc - LSU (11-2)
beat - (11-1)

i don't know about you, but i see a whole lot of 1 loss teams there... having 1 loss doesn't end your season. it does however take you out of the drivers seat. the minute you loose you have to count on others to do the same. sometimes it works out in your favor. sometimes it doesn't.

Texas beats Oklahoma, Texas Tech beats Texas, and Oklahoma beats Texas Tech (if that happens this Saturday). Now, how do you determine which team is better? This stuff happens all the time in college football (which is one of the great things about it).

florida and usc . the current system isn't completely fair to all comers. but then, neither would a playoff. if you look through history there really are only 1 or 2 teams in the last 10 years that have a legit beef. the rest are bitching because someone with the exact same resume got picked over them.

the deal is this. if you loose you also forfiet all right to bitch. texas, okie, florida, usc... you get what you get. if your really lucky sure, you might get the nod. but if you don't... you got noone to blame but yourselves.

The fairest (not the "perfect", the "fairest") way is to rack-and-stack the top 16 teams in the country based on their performance throughout the season and then let them decide the champion on the field.

sure, thats fair to everyone not ranked #17 and up. oh and how many rematches are we going to see in this 16 team bracket?

On the money side, if a Big10 team got a chance to play in 2 or 3 extra games, pretty sure that = more money.

sure, for that specific team yes. but what about this year? there is a very strong chance that both tOSU and penn state will make a bcs bowl. in your proposal penn state gets all the money. what happens if penn state looses in the first round? im guessing round 2 money doesn't go to penn state...

amen bmac.You mean like my last post, where I asked whether LSU deserved to be in a playoff? They're ranked 18th and will likely make the top-16 after attrition. LSU is not a title-worthy team.

just like last year. its hard to say a 2 loss team is worthy of a nc. but then... you never know till you line em up. look at georgia last year. they didn't even make their conf champ game. but by the end of the year im not sure there was a better team in college football.

As a fan, I think I would favor a playoff... I wouldn't mind seeing more CFB, but not sure if it would diminish the regular season games or not. I don't watch the NFL anymore and only pay attention to the playoffs and the Superbowl.

ummm.... im thinking yes, yes it would diminish the regular season for you... so... yes.

Then why did Boise State beat them on a neutral field in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl?

and why did stanford beat usc at home? anything can happen once the whistle blows.

 

[HailToMichigan]

This makes ZERO sense to me. The BCS bowls don't diminish Bowl Games. The title game doesn't diminsih bowl games. Why would fans of Akron, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Cincinnati, etc., be any less inclined to go to their teams bowl game b/c of a playoff?

I can see an argument for the BCS bowls going away, and being replaced with playoff games. I'd say the advertising dollars would be just as high and the stadiums would sell just as well.

First of all, you would honestly trash the Rose Bowl?

You're missing the point on the diminishing of bowl games. The Rose Bowl wouldn't disappear, but it would forever be relegated to the third-best of the Big Ten and Pac-10. And it would trickle down. The Citrus would get the fourth best. And so on.

Sure, you could say "oh, well, we'll just incorporate the bowls into a playoff." If the bowls agree. Remember, they're separate, non-profit entities. They might agree and they might not. And either way it wouldn't work. There's a reason that all but the championship games in I-AA, II, and III are played on home fields. Fans won't travel twice. Like you said: they want a vacation in December or January. A vacation.

 

[jwinslow]

Sure, you could say "oh, well, we'll just incorporate the bowls into a playoff." If the bowls agree. Remember, they're separate, non-profit entities. They might agree and they might not.

They won't.

And either way it wouldn't work. There's a reason that all but the championship games in I-AA, II, and III are played on home fields. Fans won't travel twice. Like you said: they want a vacation in December or January. A vacation.

well said.

 

[Sportsbuck28]

Because they played a better game. Doesn't unequivocally mean they were the better team.

I thought that the whole point of a playoff was to settle it on the field?

 

[billmac91]

First of all, you would honestly trash the Rose Bowl?

You're missing the point on the diminishing of bowl games. The Rose Bowl wouldn't disappear, but it would forever be relegated to the third-best of the Big Ten and Pac-10. And it would trickle down. The Citrus would get the fourth best. And so on.

Sure, you could say "oh, well, we'll just incorporate the bowls into a playoff." If the bowls agree. Remember, they're separate, non-profit entities. They might agree and they might not. And either way it wouldn't work. There's a reason that all but the championship games in I-AA, II, and III are played on home fields. Fans won't travel twice. Like you said: they want a vacation in December or January. A vacation.

Correct. I wouldn't have much of a problem trashing the current BCS Bowls for a playoff. In regards to this year, if Oregon State wins the Pac 10 and Michigan State beats PSU, I'd be very disappointed in playing Oregon State. I'd rather go to the Outback bowl and play an SEC team. I'm a younger guy, so truthfully, the history doesn't grab me like someone who grew up with the Big 10 - Pac 10 tie-in.

There would be no impact at all on lower tier bowls. If the current BCS Bowls agree to become part of the playoff, fantastic. Money-wise, losing the BCS Bowls in a trade for a playoffs, will make as much if not more money for the Universities/Presidents/etc. Again, the naming rights alone on a Playoff system would be astronomic. Add in TV rights, especially come renewal time, and you're making more than the current system. I can see less money being made at the host cities (Pasadena, NO, Miami, Tempe, etc.) due to fans not traveling twice. In overall dollars, a playoff makes more. And if you really want to reward the top rated teams as an incentive, let them host the first round. That removes the doubt regarding fans traveling.

Mike Tirico did bring up a good point today in regards to ESPN getting television rights to all of the BCS games. ESPN/ABC had rights to the Rose Bowl, while Fox had rights to the rest. Fox and ESPN would not sit together at a table to discuss any playoff format. ESPN can at least bring all of the parties together now that they have rights to all of the BCS games.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Fuck that noise. If we're going to have a playoff, I don't want all the games being played in the west and south. There is nothing "neutral" about any of the sites being home to other conferences. And if they aren't neutral, play them in the fuckin' weather.

 

[HailToMichigan]

Correct. I wouldn't have much of a problem trashing the current BCS Bowls for a playoff. In regards to this year, if Oregon State wins the Pac 10 and Michigan State beats PSU, I'd be very disappointed in playing Oregon State. I'd rather go to the Outback bowl and play an SEC team. I'm a younger guy, so truthfully, the history doesn't grab me like someone who grew up with the Big 10 - Pac 10 tie-in.

There would be no impact at all on lower tier bowls. If the current BCS Bowls agree to become part of the playoff, fantastic. Money-wise, losing the BCS Bowls in a trade for a playoffs, will make as much if not more money for the Universities/Presidents/etc. Again, the naming rights alone on a Playoff system would be astronomic. Add in TV rights, especially come renewal time, and you're making more than the current system. I can see less money being made at the playoff games to the hosting cities economy (Pasadena, NO, Miami, Tempe, etc.) In overall dollars, a playoff makes more. And if you really want to reward the top rated teams as an incentive, let them host the first round.

Mike Tirico did bring up a good point today in regards to ESPN getting television rights to all of the BCS games. ESPN/ABC had rights to the Rose Bowl, while Fox had rights to the rest. Fox and ESPN would not sit together at a table to discuss any playoff format. ESPN can at least bring all of the parties together now that they have rights to all of the BCS games.

Would the naming rights to a playoff really be worth more than five separate naming rights? I imagine you can squeeze more out of five companies than one. And why would TV pay more for a playoff than for the BCS? I don't think there's any basis for an assumption like that.

And again: forget about "hosting cities" - they'd be foolish to play them anywhere but at home fields until the championship.

 

[billmac91]

Would the naming rights to a playoff really be worth more than five separate naming rights? I imagine you can squeeze more out of five companies than one. And why would TV pay more for a playoff than for the BCS? I don't think there's any basis for an assumption like that.

And again: forget about "hosting cities" - they'd be foolish to play them anywhere but at home fields until the championship.

Yes, a playoff would be worth SIGNIFICANTLY more than 5 seperate games. CBS will be paying approximately $545 million a year through 2016 to the NCAA for rights to the basketball tournament. The obvious rebuttal is that is way more games. Keep in mind it is basketball, the #2 sport in the country, and many of the games are at non-peak times.

I think a network would be willing to pay close to 300 million for rights to the entire college football depending on the amount of games and format. ESPN paid 125 million for rights to the 5 BCS games beginning 2010 through 2014, but don't have rights to the 2014 championship game...yet. That has to be worth at least 25-50 million more.

Package the games as a playoff that determines the ultimate champion, and the price goes way up.

Regarding naming rights and ad dollars, I'm having trouble finding sponsors ad dollars. Common sense says the price to advertise becomes more expensive in a playoff format. The ratings will be higher in playoff meaning higher asking prices.