Alternates to the current BCS

[GreveHaller]

More games = more money

It will happen.

IMO there is no way to strike a balance between giving everybody a fair shot at the title, and maximizing the importance of regular season game.

If there was an 8-team playoff this last season, Kansas State and Boise State would have had the same shot at the title as LSU and Oklahoma State; can you honestly say they would deserve that shot?

more games does not equal more money if less people attend.

All everyone says is it will make more money. And if it doesnt then what. This is a business not a Sims game. You cannot reset it.

Not one person has a plan if it doesnt work. All that's said is it will. If you dont plan for the worst then you will fail. That's why internet couch junkies arent in the sports business

 

[ukvols]

more games does not equal more money if less people attend.

All everyone says is it will make more money. And if it doesnt then what. This is a business not a Sims game. You cannot reset it.

Not one person has a plan if it doesnt work. All that's said is it will. If you dont plan for the worst then you will fail. That's why internet couch junkies arent in the sports business

Yeah, I'm sure people would rather attend a non-title BCS bowl than a national semifinal.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong.

We've had this argument before. I bet we're about to get a link to an old article about FCS playoff attendance.

 

[ukvols]

And, there is a plan if it doesn't work. LOL. They'll just switch back to the crap that is the current system.

 

[ukvols]

More games = more money

It will happen.

IMO there is no way to strike a balance between giving everybody a fair shot at the title, and maximizing the importance of regular season game.

If there was an 8-team playoff this last season, Kansas State and Boise State would have had the same shot at the title as LSU and Oklahoma State; can you honestly say they would deserve that shot?

A lot of people are hung up on the notion that only the top 2-3 teams deserve a shot. An 8-team playoff would likely guarantee the inclusion of the SEC Champion, even if it's a 3-loss team who pulled a big upset in the Final. I like that. No other sport, at any level, on the planet limits its postseason to two teams. I respectfully disagree that maximization of the regular season requires limiting the postseason to the two teams that a majority perceive to be the best. More teams means more regular season games that impact the national championship, which means a much greater utilization of the regular season than the current awful system.

 

[ukvols]

Great suggestion in the other thread. Eliminate the postseason altogether to ensure that the best team wins it every year. Had they simply crowned LSU last December, no one would have had a legitimate complaint of being left out, and the BCS would have gotten it right.

It makes sense, because right now, the debate is always over who should be #2. The #1 team is always clear. Just scrap the title game and crown the top team.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

more games does not equal more money if less people attend.

All everyone says is it will make more money. And if it doesnt then what. This is a business not a Sims game. You cannot reset it.

Not one person has a plan if it doesnt work. All that's said is it will. If you dont plan for the worst then you will fail. That's why internet couch junkies arent in the sports business

Which is pure conjecture on your part that more people won't attend.

 

[UTRavens]

Attendance isn't the issue here - ratings are what bring in the dough. And playoff games will unquestionably draw higher ratings.

 

[bleedorange0037]

Great suggestion in the other thread. Eliminate the postseason altogether to ensure that the best team wins it every year. Had they simply crowned LSU last December, no one would have had a legitimate complaint of being left out, and the BCS would have gotten it right.

It makes sense, because right now, the debate is always over who should be #2. The #1 team is always clear. Just scrap the title game and crown the top team.

I'd be fine with this. My main objection to a playoff is that it will marginalize the regular season and we'll end up with college being very much like the NFL where 95% of the regular season games don't really matter. College football has a regular season that is unmatched in all of sports because teams are put in a must-win or near must-win situation on a weekly basis, and I'm pretty certain that the introduction of a playoff will be the end of that.

 

[GreveHaller]

I'd be fine with this. My main objection to a playoff is that it will marginalize the regular season and we'll end up with college being very much like the NFL where 95% of the regular season games don't really matter. College football has a regular season that is unmatched in all of sports because teams are put in a must-win or near must-win situation on a weekly basis, and I'm pretty certain that the introduction of a playoff will be the end of that.

Just wait until its the end of the season and teams start sitting players to save them from injury. UT v Ky, Ala v Aub, Fla v FSU, Ga v GaT. With the next game(s) being more important and those games meaningless they will lose all their luster. Happens every single year in the NFL. All you have to do is go back and look at the games in Week 17 and the starting/active rosters and see the Mannings and key players benched. Sad.

 

[GreveHaller]

Which is pure conjecture on your part that more people won't attend.

FACT: people will not attend.

To better understand the effects of a playoff on economic impact, the 2007 Big 12 Football Championship is a good case in point. When San Antonio hosted this game in December 2007 it featured #1 Missouri vs. #9 Oklahoma. The game was the highest profile football game in the city’s history and yet it did not sellout (nor crack the Top 15 attendance mark)[/U] and an economic impact study showed $30.5 million in direct benefit. It’s an impressive number but $12.1 million less than the Alamo Bowl three weeks later, which featured two unranked teams.

Since the Big 12 Championship was essentially a playoff game to see which team would get to the BCS, it delivered less impact for the community for three main reasons:
1) fans had difficulty finding affordable travel arrangements with only a week’s notice of their team qualifying for the game,
2) fans told us they were saving their money for their bowl game as they couldn’t afford to travel twice and
3) this game (like a playoff game) was a 1-2 day trip which delivers less impact than the 3-4 night average stay for our bowl game.

Painting A Clearer Bowl Picture | Rick Hill | a mySA.com blog

If you need more proof pull the attendance for the FCS playoff games. Even with the games being held in at a home stadium, the attendance for the games was less than the average attendance for the season.

These things are what concern the conference commissioners not the guesses of internet couch potatos.

 

[ukvols]

Teams will not rest players when a loss would mean missing the playoffs, or not hosting the first round, or simply getting a more difficult opponent. It won't be like the NFL, where a team's exact playoff position can be known with 1-2 games left.

And, I disagree with the 95% that was thrown out at random in regards to the NFL. The Giants barely got in, which means all of their games mattered.

 

[ukvols]

I am looking forward to the entirety of the college football season becoming much more exciting, meaningful, and fulfilling because of the playoffs.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

FACT: people will not attend.

To better understand the effects of a playoff on economic impact, the 2007 Big 12 Football Championship is a good case in point. When San Antonio hosted this game in December 2007 it featured #1 Missouri vs. #9 Oklahoma. The game was the highest profile football game in the city’s history and yet it did not sellout (nor crack the Top 15 attendance mark)[/U] and an economic impact study showed $30.5 million in direct benefit. It’s an impressive number but $12.1 million less than the Alamo Bowl three weeks later, which featured two unranked teams.

Since the Big 12 Championship was essentially a playoff game to see which team would get to the BCS, it delivered less impact for the community for three main reasons:
1) fans had difficulty finding affordable travel arrangements with only a week’s notice of their team qualifying for the game,
2) fans told us they were saving their money for their bowl game as they couldn’t afford to travel twice and
3) this game (like a playoff game) was a 1-2 day trip which delivers less impact than the 3-4 night average stay for our bowl game.

Painting A Clearer Bowl Picture | Rick Hill | a mySA.com blog

If you need more proof pull the attendance for the FCS playoff games. Even with the games being held in at a home stadium, the attendance for the games was less than the average attendance for the season.

These things are what concern the conference commissioners not the guesses of internet couch potatos.

You're seriously using FCS playoff attendance to bolster your point? Do I even need to point out the stupidity in that?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Teams will not rest players when a loss would mean missing the playoffs, or not hosting the first round, or simply getting a more difficult opponent. It won't be like the NFL, where a team's exact playoff position can be known with 1-2 games left.

And, I disagree with the 95% that was thrown out at random in regards to the NFL. The Giants barely got in, which means all of their games mattered.

These guy can't seem to grasp the concept that 4 teams out of 120 means the regular season is going to matter big time, and even if it goes to 8 it will still matter.

 

[GatorBill]

a 4 team "Rock, Paper, Scissors" tourney would be better than what we currently have.

 

[UTRavens]

FACT: people will not attend.

To better understand the effects of a playoff on economic impact, the 2007 Big 12 Football Championship is a good case in point. When San Antonio hosted this game in December 2007 it featured #1 Missouri vs. #9 Oklahoma. The game was the highest profile football game in the city’s history and yet it did not sellout (nor crack the Top 15 attendance mark)[/U] and an economic impact study showed $30.5 million in direct benefit. It’s an impressive number but $12.1 million less than the Alamo Bowl three weeks later, which featured two unranked teams.

Since the Big 12 Championship was essentially a playoff game to see which team would get to the BCS, it delivered less impact for the community for three main reasons:
1) fans had difficulty finding affordable travel arrangements with only a week’s notice of their team qualifying for the game,
2) fans told us they were saving their money for their bowl game as they couldn’t afford to travel twice and
3) this game (like a playoff game) was a 1-2 day trip which delivers less impact than the 3-4 night average stay for our bowl game.

Painting A Clearer Bowl Picture | Rick Hill | a mySA.com blog

If you need more proof pull the attendance for the FCS playoff games. Even with the games being held in at a home stadium, the attendance for the games was less than the average attendance for the season.

These things are what concern the conference commissioners not the guesses of internet couch potatos.

IT'S NOT ABOUT ATTENDANCE

What do you think will draw higher TV ratings - bowl games or playoff games?

 

[UTRavens]

I'd be fine with this. My main objection to a playoff is that it will marginalize the regular season and we'll end up with college being very much like the NFL where 95% of the regular season games don't really matter. College football has a regular season that is unmatched in all of sports because teams are put in a must-win or near must-win situation on a weekly basis, and I'm pretty certain that the introduction of a playoff will be the end of that.

You act like this is some kind of epidemic when it's really not. It only happens one week out of the year and even then it's usually only one or two teams.

Take this past season. Nobody in the AFC rested their starters because the Pats had to win for a #1 seed, the Ravens had to win for a first round bye and the Steelers had to win in case the Ravens lost. The wild card spots were still undecided and the AFC West.

The NFC had the Packers resting Aaron Rodgers. That's it. Even though they had nothing to play for, they still started just about everyone and gave us a great Week 17 game. It only happens occasionally, and while it may irritate you no one else seems to be bothered by it. The regular season doesn't need to be sacred. Important, but not sacred.

And do you really think college teams will rest their starters for rivalry games? Have you lost your mind? Let's even ignore the fact that they're rivalry games for a second. You're talking about the week before conference championship games and a four team playoff. Basically, in order for your "nightmare" scenario to happen, a team would have to know for a fact that they would make a 4 team playoff with 2 losses...2 weeks in advance. That will never, ever happen. Oh, and they're resting their starters for...a game that's a over a month later?

 

[UTRavens]

Just wait until its the end of the season and teams start sitting players to save them from injury. UT v Ky, Ala v Aub, Fla v FSU, Ga v GaT. With the next game(s) being more important and those games meaningless they will lose all their luster. Happens every single year in the NFL. All you have to do is go back and look at the games in Week 17 and the starting/active rosters and see the Mannings and key players benched. Sad.

Oh yeah, like those games aren't already meaningless. Right.

 

[bleedorange0037]

You act like this is some kind of epidemic when it's really not. It only happens one week out of the year and even then it's usually only one or two teams.

Take this past season. Nobody in the AFC rested their starters because the Pats had to win for a #1 seed, the Ravens had to win for a first round bye and the Steelers had to win in case the Ravens lost. The wild card spots were still undecided and the AFC West.

The NFC had the Packers resting Aaron Rodgers. That's it. Even though they had nothing to play for, they still started just about everyone and gave us a great Week 17 game. It only happens occasionally, and while it may irritate you no one else seems to be bothered by it. The regular season doesn't need to be sacred. Important, but not sacred.

And do you really think college teams will rest their starters for rivalry games? Have you lost your mind? Let's even ignore the fact that they're rivalry games for a second. You're talking about the week before conference championship games and a four team playoff. Basically, in order for your "nightmare" scenario to happen, a team would have to know for a fact that they would make a 4 team playoff with 2 losses...2 weeks in advance. That will never, ever happen. Oh, and they're resting their starters for...a game that's a over a month later?

It will 5 or 10 years from now when we're talking about 8 or 16 teams rather than 4. Are you seriously naive enough to think they'll stop at 4 once they see how much money this thing makes? Money is literally all that matters. If you can't see that then you haven't been paying attention to the conference realignments the past two years. Its money, not competitive balance, geography, longstanding rivalries or even common sense that steers this ship.

 

[bleedorange0037]

Oh yeah, like those games aren't already meaningless. Right.

In what universe are the Iron Bowl, UF/FSU and UGA/GT meaningless games? Have you ever even watched college football?

 

[UTRavens]

It will 5 or 10 years from now when we're talking about 8 or 16 teams rather than 4. Are you seriously naive enough to think they'll stop at 4 once they see how much money this thing makes? Money is literally all that matters. If you can't see that then you haven't been paying attention to the conference realignments the past two years. Its money, not competitive balance, geography, longstanding rivalries or even common sense that steers this ship.

I can definitely see it expanding to 8 teams in the future, maybe even 16. I'm not anal enough about finding the "best" team to be opposed to that. The problem here is that you don't even want a 4 team playoff. You think a 2 team format is superior when the #3 and #4 teams almost always have the exact same record as the #2 team.

As for your other question, they're almost always meaningless because almost every single year they have no bearing on the national championship game. If you're going to call those games meaningful, you can't turn around and say that games at the end of the year will be meaningless because a playoff will exist.

 

[bleedorange0037]

I can definitely see it expanding to 8 teams in the future, maybe even 16. I'm not anal enough about finding the "best" team to be opposed to that. The problem here is that you don't even want a 4 team playoff. You think a 2 team format is superior when the #3 and #4 teams almost always have the exact same record as the #2 team.

As for your other question, they're almost always meaningless because almost every single year they have no bearing on the national championship game. If you're going to call those games meaningful, you can't turn around and say that games at the end of the year will be meaningless because a playoff will exist.

I not talking about games at the end of the year being diminished. A playoff will bring about the end of must-win September and October games though because teams will know that even with one loss they will be fine. What do you think made the UT/UF rivalry so heated in the 90's? It was the fact that both teams knew that they were essentially playing an elimination game on the third week of the season.

That's what makes college football so special. It's the only sport where you truly have to earn a championship from the first week to the final week. IMO we have enough sports that just give it to the end of the season's "flavor-of-the-month" as opposed to college football where being champion means you were the best team over the long haul as opposed to being the best team for just a couple of weeks.

 

[UTRavens]

I not talking about games at the end of the year being diminished. A playoff will bring about the end of must-win September and October games though because teams will know that even with one loss they will be fine. What do you think made the UT/UF rivalry so heated in the 90's? It was the fact that both teams knew that they were essentially playing an elimination game on the third week of the season.

That's what makes college football so special. It's the only sport where you truly have to earn a championship from the first week to the final week. IMO we have enough sports that just give it to the end of the season's "flavor-of-the-month" as opposed to college football where being champion means you were the best team over the long haul as opposed to being the best team for just a couple of weeks.

That would be a nice sentiment if every team actually had a chance at the national championship. Ask Auburn, Cincinnati, Boise State and TCU how that concept worked out for the,. And worse yet, unless you're advocating for a flexible system, why should some one loss teams make it and other one loss teams be snubbed? If you want to have a system like college football with little to no margin for error, your postseason CANNOT be chosen subjectively. If a one loss team is ranked in the top two, then every one loss team needs to be included.

 

[ukvols]

It will 5 or 10 years from now when we're talking about 8 or 16 teams rather than 4. Are you seriously naive enough to think they'll stop at 4 once they see how much money this thing makes? Money is literally all that matters. If you can't see that then you haven't been paying attention to the conference realignments the past two years. Its money, not competitive balance, geography, longstanding rivalries or even common sense that steers this ship.

You think it will one day go to 8 or 16 teams? :fireworks:

I hope you're right.

 

[ukvols]

I not talking about games at the end of the year being diminished. A playoff will bring about the end of must-win September and October games though because teams will know that even with one loss they will be fine. What do you think made the UT/UF rivalry so heated in the 90's? It was the fact that both teams knew that they were essentially playing an elimination game on the third week of the season.

That's what makes college football so special. It's the only sport where you truly have to earn a championship from the first week to the final week. IMO we have enough sports that just give it to the end of the season's "flavor-of-the-month" as opposed to college football where being champion means you were the best team over the long haul as opposed to being the best team for just a couple of weeks.

I have the opposite opinion.

I think it's asinine for 1 September loss to cause the rest of a team's regular season to be meaningless.

The regular season would be more meaningful and sacred for more teams if a single loss wasn't fatal.

If they go to, say, 32 teams, then yeah, the regular season would be borderline meaningless for a lot of teams. But, we're not even close to 32.

I prefer for a lot to be at stake for a lot of teams, all season, rather than the pool be sharply cut before we even reach the halfway point.