Alternates to the current BCS

#76
#76
The only scenarios I can see that could result in a team even considering resting players for its final regular season game, would be if a team had already clinched a spot in its conference's title game and knew that its playoff spot was riding solely on winning that game, or if a team had already clinched its conference championship. But, losing the last game would likely affect their seed, and depending on the format, whether they can host a game. Also, as has been said, the final game is a rivalry game for most teams. I just can't see Bama tanking the Iron Bowl, because they're already in the SEC CG.

Perhaps, if a team's last game is not a rivalry, and they've already clinched their conference title, and they are going to be travelling for their first playoff game no matter what, and they don't care about their seed, they'll rest players. But, that's probably between 0 and 1 teams a year.
 
#77
#77
GreveHaller said:
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) 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.
Click to expand...

Care to place a wager on the attendance at FBS' first "Final Four" ?
 
#78
#78
ukvols said:
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.
Click to expand...

But isn't it just as stupid for September games to not matter at all because teams that rack up 2 or 3 early losses (under a 16 team format) will have the exact same shot at the end of the season as a team who goes through the regular season undefeated? That's what I'm talking about the regular season be marginalized. Under a playoff system, you enter the season knowing you probably don't have to show up EVERY week, just don't lose more than 2 games and you should be fine. Under the BCS, you have to approach each game as a must win. Sometimes the breaks may fall your way such that that doesn't turn out to be the case, and you can play your way back into a title shot as other contenders falter along the way, but other times that won't happen.
 
#79
#79
bleedorange0037 said:
But isn't it just as stupid for September games to not matter at all because teams that rack up 2 or 3 early losses (under a 16 team format) will have the exact same shot at the end of the season as a team who goes through the regular season undefeated? That's what I'm talking about the regular season be marginalized. Under a playoff system, you enter the season knowing you probably don't have to show up EVERY week, just don't lose more than 2 games and you should be fine. Under the BCS, you have to approach each game as a must win. Sometimes the breaks may fall your way such that that doesn't turn out to be the case, and you can play your way back into a title shot as other contenders falter along the way, but other times that won't happen.
Click to expand...

What you're saying would be true if one considers the top seed in a 16-team field to be no more valuable than the 8, 12, or 16 seed.

And, not everyone would be able to get away with 2 or 3 losses and still get in. But, the teams that do would have a tougher road to the Final than a team that goes undefeated.

Also, a team will not want to lose early and thus have an early hole to dig themselves out of.

Once the bracket comes out, we probably will be able to point at someone's early loss and say that it ended up not mattering. But, that's exactly what we just did with Alabama.

I agree that a 16-team playoff would kill off the excitement of watching USC's hopes get smashed in October because of a loss at Oregon State. But, I disagree that said loss would necessarily be meaningless, especially if it results in a first-round game at Wisconsin in December, instead of a home game against TCU.
 
#80
#80
bleedorange0037 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've just started to follow soccer more closely in the last year, and England's top league determines the champion by whoever has the best record at the end of the season. Everybody plays everybody else, and whoever has the most points at the end of that wins. IMO best structure in all of sports.

I don't like the baseball playoffs; 162 games should be sufficient enough to determine two teams to play in the world series. Same goes for basketball. NFL has too many teams in the playoff as well; the wild cards frequently go to teams who have stunk for long stretches of the season, and on a number of occasions, that team has gone on to win it all. It makes the regular season worthless and meaningless if mediocre teams are rewarded with a shot at the title.

The problem with DI-FBS is the sheer number of teams in the division; it is completely possible that any given year, you could see five teams go undefeated during the regular season. Other years, like this last one, see teams ranked fourth in the polls who really don't have any legitimate claim to compete for the championship.

Not to mention this last year's BCS mythical national shampionship game that somehow rendered LSU's win in Tuscaloosa completely meaningless.
 
#81
#81
milohimself said:
I've just started to follow soccer more closely in the last year, and England's top league determines the champion by whoever has the best record at the end of the season. Everybody plays everybody else, and whoever has the most points at the end of that wins. IMO best structure in all of sports.

I don't like the baseball playoffs; 162 games should be sufficient enough to determine two teams to play in the world series. Same goes for basketball. NFL has too many teams in the playoff as well; the wild cards frequently go to teams who have stunk for long stretches of the season, and on a number of occasions, that team has gone on to win it all. It makes the regular season worthless and meaningless if mediocre teams are rewarded with a shot at the title.

The problem with DI-FBS is the sheer number of teams in the division; it is completely possible that any given year, you could see five teams go undefeated during the regular season. Other years, like this last one, see teams ranked fourth in the polls who really don't have any legitimate claim to compete for the championship.

Not to mention this last year's BCS mythical national shampionship game that somehow rendered LSU's win in Tuscaloosa completely meaningless.
Click to expand...

Agree 110% with both of these points. No system anywhere in the world is more fair for determining a league champion than the one employed by most soccer leagues around the world. The other thing that most countries have is a Domestic Cup, or playoff which runs concurrently with the league season. Two separate titles are awarded to the winner of each competition, but from my understanding, winning the League is FAR more prestigious than winning the cup. It's the exact opposite mentality in America, where a "regular season championship" is mocked (especially in basketball), but in reality it would seem proving yourself over a 3 or 4 month span should be far more of an accomplishment than proving yourself in a weeklong tournament.
 
#82
#82
Which is why, as long as DI-FBS is going to be 120+ teams, that I would rather see things go back to the old way, when conference championships had much more prestige than they do under the BCS or would under a playoff.
 
#83
#83
It isn't just about the best way to determine a champion. It's also about selling tickets and driving up TV ratings.

In the MLB example, think about how early a huge % of all teams would be eliminated, if they went straight to the World Series after the season. MLB doesn't want the majority of their teams to be playing in empty stadiums in mid-August. They want the exact opposite - they want as many teams as possible to have playoff hopes for as long as possible. They do have an undefined cap on how many teams they can invite, because it's clear they want to finish by the end of October.

I have the opposite viewpoint of you guys, in that you're looking solely for the best way to crown a champion. In most years, that's not going to be a single game between 1 and 2. My sarcastic suggestion of not having a postseason would usually accomplish that, because there's usually a clear #1, but when you figure that said undefeated #1 team wouldn't have played anyone in most of the other top conferences, it's still subjective to say they're the best team, based on 13 games.

I don't want to get crazy and invite 64 teams out of 120, but I welcome the idea of exponentially increasing the number of games that "matter" nationwide, down the stretch, by including more teams.
 
#84
#84
I would rather nuke the entire bowl system and never have another Rose Bowl than go back to the old system.
 
#85
#85
ukvols said:
Wow. I thought most KY fans liked Bama football for two reasons: A) their fan bases can relate in terms of crazy passion for their top sports, and B) they're both an arch rival of Tennessee.

I thought UK fans, in general, if they're going to pull for another SEC football team, chose Bama.
Click to expand...

Really? I don't know any UK fans that like Bama. Personally, I dislike them just as much as anyone. Bama is a typical bandwagon fanbase just like UF is outside the respective states.
 
#86
#86
ukvols said:
It isn't just about the best way to determine a champion. It's also about selling tickets and driving up TV ratings.

In the MLB example, think about how early a huge % of all teams would be eliminated, if they went straight to the World Series after the season. MLB doesn't want the majority of their teams to be playing in empty stadiums in mid-August. They want the exact opposite - they want as many teams as possible to have playoff hopes for as long as possible. They do have an undefined cap on how many teams they can invite, because it's clear they want to finish by the end of October.

I have the opposite viewpoint of you guys, in that you're looking solely for the best way to crown a champion. In most years, that's not going to be a single game between 1 and 2. My sarcastic suggestion of not having a postseason would usually accomplish that, because there's usually a clear #1, but when you figure that said undefeated #1 team wouldn't have played anyone in most of the other top conferences, it's still subjective to say they're the best team, based on 13 games.

I don't want to get crazy and invite 64 teams out of 120, but I welcome the idea of exponentially increasing the number of games that "matter" nationwide, down the stretch, by including more teams.
Click to expand...

The only problem with this is while you might make a few more games between top 10-15 teams a little more relevant, in a 16 team scenario, games where actual top 5 teams face off will just be glorified scrimmages with the result having no bearing on the results at the end of the season. IMO those should be the biggest most important games of the year.

I know last season it worked out so the biggest regular season game didn't knock a team from contention, but that was kind of a crazy anomaly. Most years, Alabama wouldn't have been able to get back into the top 2, but everyone ahead of them this year lost, and they found themselves as the best option once the season had been played.

I do however agree with milo that I'd honestly rather see a return to the old bowl system as opposed to the BCS or a playoff. LSU earned a NC last year, but due to a flawed system they were put in a position where they basically had to win the NC twice. In a perfect world, the championship should have just been given to LSU at the conclusion of the SECCG.
 
#87
#87
bleedorange0037 said:
The only problem with this is while you might make a few more games between top 10-15 teams a little more relevant, in a 16 team scenario, games where actual top 5 teams face off will just be glorified scrimmages with the result having no bearing on the results at the end of the season. IMO those should be the biggest most important games of the year.

I know last season it worked out so the biggest regular season game didn't knock a team from contention, but that was kind of a crazy anomaly. Most years, Alabama wouldn't have been able to get back into the top 2, but everyone ahead of them this year lost, and they found themselves as the best option once the season had been played.

I do however agree with milo that I'd honestly rather see a return to the old bowl system as opposed to the BCS or a playoff. LSU earned a NC last year, but due to a flawed system they were put in a position where they basically had to win the NC twice. In a perfect world, the championship should have just been given to LSU at the conclusion of the SECCG.
Click to expand...

I just don't agree with the bolded part. That's only true if you view each playoff position as the same. With a 4-team playoff, losing a Top 5 game could mean missing the playoffs. In a 16-team playoff, it would affect a team's seed and possibly their ability to host a game. But, if you view the 1-seed as no more valuable of a position than the 16-seed, then, yes, the result of the Top 5 game won't matter. But, I would much rather host the 16th team than travel to play an undefeated team in their house. Even the 4-seed would be worth a lot more than the 5-seed if the second round is on campus - it's the difference in who plays the game at home. If they give auto bids to some or all of the non-BCS leagues, in a 16-team format, than the top seeds would also carry the value of opening against, say, Southern Miss, than a team ranked 12th in the nation.
 
#88
#88
ukvols said:
I just don't agree with the bolded part. That's only true if you view each playoff position as the same. With a 4-team playoff, losing a Top 5 game could mean missing the playoffs. In a 16-team playoff, it would affect a team's seed and possibly their ability to host a game. But, if you view the 1-seed as no more valuable of a position than the 16-seed, then, yes, the result of the Top 5 game won't matter. But, I would much rather host the 16th team than travel to play an undefeated team in their house. Even the 4-seed would be worth a lot more than the 5-seed if the second round is on campus - it's the difference in who plays the game at home. If they give auto bids to some or all of the non-BCS leagues, in a 16-team format, than the top seeds would also carry the value of opening against, say, Southern Miss, than a team ranked 12th in the nation.
Click to expand...

I doubt we'll see the games played on campus. From everything I've read they'll either be at the bowl sites or at predetermined neutral sites like the NCAA basketball tourney. If you're not playing for home games, there's no real difference between the 4-12 seeds. Obviously the highest seeds would draw the easiest routes, but once you get past those first 2 or 3 teams, most of the other teams would all be pretty equally mediocre.
 
#89
#89
bleedorange0037 said:
I doubt we'll see the games played on campus. From everything I've read they'll either be at the bowl sites or at predetermined neutral sites like the NCAA basketball tourney. If you're not playing for home games, there's no real difference between the 4-12 seeds. Obviously the highest seeds would draw the easiest routes, but once you get past those first 2 or 3 teams, most of the other teams would all be pretty equally mediocre.
Click to expand...

The 4-team playoff will be played on neutral sites, but we don't know what they'd do if/when they expand beyond 4 teams. If the entire 16-team event is played at neutral sites, then I'd agree that the difference among 4-12 would be small. I'm taking the optimistic approach that they'd play on campus until the semis.

But, I don't think 4-12 would be "equally mediocre." Our difference of opinion there flows from our opposite viewpoints of you wanting the best team to always win, and me wanting the most interesting and exciting way to crown a champion.
 
Last edited:
#90
#90
In cfb, unlike other sports, the gap between 5 and 12 or 16 is relatively small. Yes, more games would "matter" down the stretch, but why should some team that finishes 9-3 even deserve a shot to be national champions?

With this many teams, there's no good way to determine a champion. As far as I'm concerned, lsu and bama were split champions last year.
 
#91
#91
I don't disagree regarding LSU and Bama.

And, I think the reason you and others have trouble with 9-3 teams entering playoffs is that 1 vs 2 and the junk system before it is all we know. We're trained to think that 2 losses is fatal, with one exception in my lifetime. I'd like to see 8 or even 16 teams go at it in a playoff, and if that means 9-3, bring it on.
 
#92
#92
ukvols said:
I don't disagree regarding LSU and Bama.

And, I think the reason you and others have trouble with 9-3 teams entering playoffs is that 1 vs 2 and the junk system before it is all we know. We're trained to think that 2 losses is fatal, with one exception in my lifetime. I'd like to see 8 or even 16 teams go at it in a playoff, and if that means 9-3, bring it on.
Click to expand...

But IMO it's wrong to give teams with 3 or even 2 losses an equal stake at winning as NC as a team who went through the regular season undefeated. 3 losses essentially means that you sucked for 1/4 of the season. Why should a team who plays that poorly that often be given an equal shot as a team who showed up every week?

Also, the current system, or the old one for that matter is necessarily junk, it just forces teams to bring their A game for the whole season as opposed to just coasting for 3 months and the playing well at the end of the year like the past 2 Super Bowl champs have done.
 
Last edited:
#93
#93
That's why most playoff supporters I have talked to or read online think 8 teams is the optimal number. There probably wouldn't be any 9-3s if only 8 get in, unless it's an automatically qualifying BCS league champion. If it's 8 teams, then winning a conference would mean something (a playoff bid), and the few at-large teams would have strong W-L records. I would like 16 for the entertainment value, but from the get-go, I have preferred 8 teams. Play one round on campus the week after the conference title games, break for final exams and Christmas, and then come back and play two more rounds. They could even let the four first-round losers get picked up by "bowl" games. I'm putting "bowl" in quotes, because that whole system needs a serious makeover, due to who's getting rich, and who's paying (and playing). I don't understand why "NCAA" is such a bad word when it comes to who stages postseason events.
 
#94
#94
If they do ever go to 16, I think they'd have to let the top teams host the first two rounds, to give a benefit to whoever does go undefeated.
 
#95
#95
4 is good ,BUT i don't want the 4 to be 4 confrence champions, i want it to be the 4 teams ranked highest so if it is 4 sec teams then 4 teams from the sec duke it out. not that hat would happen that is ,but you get my point.
 
#96
#96
Agreed. The field would have to expand beyond 4 for all of the top league champs to get auto bids. 8 teams. The champions of the 5 non-Big East BCS leagues. The highest-ranked league champ from one of the other conferences. 2 at-larges. ND would have to finish high enough to grab an at-large bid.

With 4 teams, just take the Top 4, but I presume they'll limit each league to a 2-bid maximum, unless the SEC is successful in getting that overturned.
 
#97
#97
Like the ACC champs the last few years have been any better?

There is no 'optimal number' of teams for a playoff. Even 4. Some years we have five undefeated teams, other years the fourth ranked team in the country has no business being in a play-in for the title.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top