GP1 Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...osterman/070103Since it is no longer football season for us, I thought this topic and article might interest some. It sparks a good debate. The author used to write for the Akron Beacon Journal. I agree with everything he wrote and I believe a college football playoff would be a disaster for college football....Especially small schools like us and many others in conferences like the MAC, WAC, Conference USA, etc. As a fan, I love watching bowl games between Christmas and New Years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgm405 Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Always a good debate. Here is my biggest argument FOR a playoff system. And Boise State provides the best example. They went undefeated this season in Division 1-A football...and have absolutely no chance of winning the title. In fact, probably 50-60 teams in Division 1-A college football enter the season with the realistic notion that no matter what they do, even if they go undefeated, they won't sniff the National Title. Is there any other sport that does that? What is the point of a team even being in Division 1-A if they have absolutely and literally no shot at the National Title? Do you guys realize that if Akron went undefeated, even with this year's schedule - that they'd have a shot? Here is my simple solution - an eight team playoff. You keep the bowl games - they just become part of the system. And here is why it works...- It only adds two games to a team's schedule, while eliminating the idiotic month-long layoff between the end of the regular season and bowl games. - Seven bowl games, not just one, will have far greater importance than just playing for pride. - More money...that's what is important to them after all, isn't it? - Most years, few teams outside the top 8 are really good enough to be considered National Champ.Is it foolproof? Heck no. No playoff or tournament system is. But it will decide the national champion on the field, give more teams a realistic chance to win it all. Just think how exciting this would be:1 - Ohio State8 - Boise State4 - LSU5 - USC3 - Michigan6 - Louisville2 - Florida7 - WisconsinLook at the first round matchups, as well as potential matchups later in the tournament. How can anyone argue that that isn't better than what we currently have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted January 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 - More money...that's what is important to them after all, isn't it? All good points.To address the point above, universities have people who crunch numbers just like every other business out there. If there was more money to be made in a playoff system than a bowl system, there would have been a playoff years ago. Athletic directors know their job is to make money and if a playoff would make them more money, they would jump at it in a second.Bowl sites simply couldn't be used to have a playoff because most people could only afford to go to one game a year. It's not like basketball where you only have to fill fifteen to twenty thousand seats. The games would be played in 60-70,000 seat stadiums and I don't think they would come close to filling them.Lastly, the point about only 50-60 teams having a shot. In reality, it is less than 15 out of about 120. Look at all other levels of college football. It's the same teams year in and year out that make the playoffs and go deep into the playoffs. Mt. Union, Wisconsin Whitewater, Grand Valley State, Northern Missouri, UMASS, Montana, App. State, etc. Having a playoff system has basically destroyed any interesting regular season competition at these levels of football. Unless someone really enjoys college basketball, the 64 team system has basically destroyed interest in the regular season. I'm not even certain why conferences like the Big East, Big Ten, SEC, etc. even have post season tournaments. All of them are going to get 5 or 6 teams in the field of 65 anyhow. Just give the conference championship to the team with the best record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zips Win! Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 As a fan, I love watching bowl games between Christmas and New Years.Good for you! I think I sat down to watch 30 minutes of bowl action thus far, luckily it was the end of the Boise State game. This topic comes up all the time. And no one will ever agree on the best set-up. 1. Of course there should be a playoff--a 6,8 or 10 team field set-up like the NFL with upper seeds having bye's and home games. Final game played like the Super Bowl.2. As for money, even I could find sponsors who would pay big bucks to sponsor a playoff, so I do not buy the money angle. The problem is there are too many idiot presidents who can't agree on how to share those funds......other than all agreeing to screw the mid-majors, but they sure like playing many of them for guaranteed wins...3. People always talk about a playoff. The first thing that needs done is for the NCAA to have some legitimate power in scheduling and make good teams play one another. If you haven't played at least a top 20 schedule, you have no business playing for the championship.Unless someone really enjoys college basketball, the 64 team system has basically destroyed interest in the regular season. I'm not even certain why conferences like the Big East, Big Ten, SEC, etc. even have post season tournaments. All of them are going to get 5 or 6 teams in the field of 65 anyhow. Just give the conference championship to the team with the best record. Not sure why you think interest in the regular season has been destroyed. You watch because you enjoy it. Conferences have post-season tournaments becasuse they make more money AND it's another bs way for big schools to get even more teams in the field of 65. It allows bad big-time programs to get hot in their post-season tournament and get a bid they otherwise wouldn't get. (of course, the NCAA would not tell you this.) If a really bad mid-major does this, they just knock out another mid-major from the tournament. Again, the NCAA needs to have a say in scheduling of games. Post-season tournaments are great, however there should be a stipulation that you must be .500 or better in conference play during the regular season, to even make your conference tournament.I never quite understood why most like a playoff format in all sports, yet we can't come up with one in Div. 1A football.All I know is that if the NFL did not have a playoff system and they used the college system, the Team of the Decade in the 90's would reside in California and not in Texas. Thank goodness this is not the case and it was settled on the field..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgm405 Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 - More money...that's what is important to them after all, isn't it? All good points.To address the point above, universities have people who crunch numbers just like every other business out there. If there was more money to be made in a playoff system than a bowl system, there would have been a playoff years ago. Athletic directors know their job is to make money and if a playoff would make them more money, they would jump at it in a second.Bowl sites simply couldn't be used to have a playoff because most people could only afford to go to one game a year. It's not like basketball where you only have to fill fifteen to twenty thousand seats. The games would be played in 60-70,000 seat stadiums and I don't think they would come close to filling them.Lastly, the point about only 50-60 teams having a shot. In reality, it is less than 15 out of about 120. Look at all other levels of college football. It's the same teams year in and year out that make the playoffs and go deep into the playoffs. Mt. Union, Wisconsin Whitewater, Grand Valley State, Northern Missouri, UMASS, Montana, App. State, etc. Having a playoff system has basically destroyed any interesting regular season competition at these levels of football. Unless someone really enjoys college basketball, the 64 team system has basically destroyed interest in the regular season. I'm not even certain why conferences like the Big East, Big Ten, SEC, etc. even have post season tournaments. All of them are going to get 5 or 6 teams in the field of 65 anyhow. Just give the conference championship to the team with the best record. Interesting points. I'm not sure I agree that they wouldn't make more money on this idea...how could they not? The marketing possibilities are endless. I also don't buy that bowl sites couldn't be used. I don't think you understood my idea. Each bowl would still exist - 7 of them would just be as part of the playoff system. So a first round game might be the Sugar Bowl. Furthermore, I think it's silly to think games like OSU vs USC, Florida vs. Michigan, etc wouldn't sell out. Do you realize how many people try to get tickets for the big bowl games and are turned away? They'd sell out - all of them...especially with more on the line. I don't think it would destroy the regular season at all. Unlike basketball, you would still have to have a near-perfect season to get into the championship mix. Take that and add even half of the excitement that March Madness produces, and College Football takes a huuuuuge leap forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennesseeZippy Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 Bowl sites simply couldn't be used to have a playoff because most people could only afford to go to one game a year. It's not like basketball where you only have to fill fifteen to twenty thousand seats. The games would be played in 60-70,000 seat stadiums and I don't think they would come close to filling them.You hit the nail on the head with that point. That's the issue with going to a playoff system that many people fail to recognize. Your alumni even at the big schools will not travel to 3-4 locations with a playoff systems because it's not financially feasible. The 1-AA system cannot work with the big boys because of this. For example, say the University of Tennessee makes it to a 8 team playoff. They would have to play a first round game in Orlando, a semi-final game in New Orleans, and a national championship game in Arizona. Even some of the most loyal fans wouldn't travel to all three locations due to the extreme cost involved with this. Air fares would be outrageous due to short notice of whether or not your team would advance in the playoffs, hotel rates would be jacked up sky high and ticket prices would be outrageous. These factors don't come into play with a 1-AA playoff system because all games are held on-campus. So, why not hold games for a 1-A playoff on campus? Because the home-field advantage would be determined by a flawed and biased selection process, and this would give too much of an advantage to higher rated teams. I know that it's a popular train of thought that there should be some sort of playoff system for Division 1-A. I just haven't found a proposal out there that legitimately addresses the financial and seeding issues that would be involved in such a scenario. And yes, if a playoff system is adopted, I think that you would lose the ability of smaller schools in lesser conferences to go to bowls, and this would only hurt student-athletes in the long-run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.