Playoff Suggestion

[Aavoxx]

One off the problems with having a playoff in division one football is where do you play the games. With baseball season kicking off and everyone chasing that trip to Omaha, a solution occurred to me.

Either someone with some cash would have to shell out some money to build a complex with multiple football venues in one city that could support this type of game, as the Chick-Fil-A Kickoff Classic has shown his that playing two games in one venue in the same day is unrealistic, or we could have the playoffs in cities that were close enough in proximity that fan travel wouldn't be an issue.

The problem with the first option of course is that would cost a lot of money. A LOT of money. Someone would have to invest in this project before they had a commitment from the NCAA, and they'd also have to build it an area that didn't already have an NFL team but in a city that could support multiple fan bases in town at the same time

While the first solution would be really cool and would solve the problem, the second solution is far more realistic. St. Louis and Kansas City are about four hours apart and both have NFL stadiums. The same can be said of Dallas and Houston. Can anyone think of cities that are closer together?

 

[Aavoxx]

Chicago and Indianapolis are three hours apart, however Chicago and Kansas City both have the disadvantage of being open air stadiums. Football in Chicago and Kansas City in January can be problematic, or at the very least really, really cold.

 

[StoVol]

Six team playoff.. Teams 1 and 2 have a bye .. That's five games .. Rotate yearly thru the five major bowls

 

[Aavoxx]

Six team playoff.. Teams 1 and 2 have a bye .. That's five games .. Rotate yearly thru the five major bowls

Fans aren't going to travel like that. It's just not realistic.

 

[StoVol]

Only two teams travel twice

 

[Aavoxx]

Only two teams travel twice

You think the fans are going to jump across the country like that tho?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

You think the fans are going to jump across the country like that tho?

Yep.

 

[GreveHaller]

Yep.

then you'd be wrong.

 

[ukvols]

then you'd be wrong.

You honestly think programs like Alabama, USC, LSU, Ohio State, and others who have played in the title game recently would have trouble getting fans to essentially buy tickets to two bowl games instead of just one?

 

[ukvols]

One off the problems with having a playoff in division one football is where do you play the games. With baseball season kicking off and everyone chasing that trip to Omaha, a solution occurred to me.

Either someone with some cash would have to shell out some money to build a complex with multiple football venues in one city that could support this type of game, as the Chick-Fil-A Kickoff Classic has shown his that playing two games in one venue in the same day is unrealistic, or we could have the playoffs in cities that were close enough in proximity that fan travel wouldn't be an issue.

The problem with the first option of course is that would cost a lot of money. A LOT of money. Someone would have to invest in this project before they had a commitment from the NCAA, and they'd also have to build it an area that didn't already have an NFL team but in a city that could support multiple fan bases in town at the same time

While the first solution would be really cool and would solve the problem, the second solution is far more realistic. St. Louis and Kansas City are about four hours apart and both have NFL stadiums. The same can be said of Dallas and Houston. Can anyone think of cities that are closer together?

I don't see what this accomplishes. The semifinals would still be at least a week before the title game. The teams would then be paying for a hotel all week instead of flying home and then flying to the next site a few days later. And, there would be no impact on the fans unless they take an entire week off of work just to wait in between games.

 

[ukvols]

I'd like to see an 8-team playoff with the first round held on campus at the higher seeds. Play the semifinals and title game at neutral sites after final exams, most likely NYD and the week after NYD. If they keep allowing the bowl committees to suck a bunch of cash by staging bowl games, then the four first-round losers could play in bowl games around NYD.

 

[ukvols]

Omaha has a nice baseball stadium, and the locals support the event, regardless of which teams are playing. I think that's why it's there every year. If they moved the tournament around to a new city every year, then I suppose there would be years when it wouldn't draw as well, depending on who made it and where it was.

 

[GreveHaller]

I'd like to see an 8-team playoff with the first round held on campus at the higher seeds. Play the semifinals and title game at neutral sites after final exams, most likely NYD and the week after NYD. If they keep allowing the bowl committees to suck a bunch of cash by staging bowl games, then the four first-round losers could play in bowl games around NYD.

you mean......like the FCS aka Div 1aa does without the bowls.

Do this - go look up the playoff attendance for the FCS games at the hosting school and compare it to the average attendance of that same hosting school. You'll be surprised on what you find out. These are quanatative numbers, not guesses that it "might" draw more.

After that pull the attendance of the MM at the hosting locations and divide it by the number of teams in that location. Be sure to look at the total available seating at those venues also. More quanatative data.

 

[ukvols]

you mean......like the FCS aka Div 1aa does without the bowls.

Do this - go look up the playoff attendance for the FCS games at the hosting school and compare it to the average attendance of that same hosting school. You'll be surprised on what you find out. These are quanatative numbers, not guesses that it "might" draw more.

After that pull the attendance of the MM at the hosting locations and divide it by the number of teams in that location. Be sure to look at the total available seating at those venues also. More quanatative data.

Actually, FCS stays on campus until the final. I suggested using neutral sites for the FBS semifinals. I don't know what "MM" stands for in your post. And, I don't see the relevance of attendance at FCS playoff games to this discussion. Logically, I would expect the hosting school to at least draw as well as it does during the regular season. The only game I recall watching much of from this past season's playoffs was at NDSU, and the place was rocking.

My point is that I don't think it would be difficult for the fans of two schools to fill the seats at a neutral site twice. Games like this would also likely draw well regardless of who was playing. If there were open seats, local fans would probably snatch them up. I can't see the semifinals and final of an 8-team national playoff ending up like the ACC Championship in terms of attendance.

 

[GreveHaller]

Actually, FCS stays on campus until the final. I suggested using neutral sites for the FBS semifinals. I don't know what "MM" stands for in your post. And, I don't see the relevance of attendance at FCS playoff games to this discussion. Logically, I would expect the hosting school to at least draw as well as it does during the regular season. The only game I recall watching much of from this past season's playoffs was at NDSU, and the place was rocking.

My point is that I don't think it would be difficult for the fans of two schools to fill the seats at a neutral site twice. Games like this would also likely draw well regardless of who was playing. If there were open seats, local fans would probably snatch them up. I can't see the semifinals and final of an 8-team national playoff ending up like the ACC Championship in terms of attendance.

You dont travel much, do you. Go to travelocity, expedia, etc.... and type in your city and traveling to LA then put in the date 1 month out and compare it to 5 days from now. Buying on the fly versus buying in the future is radically different. Same holds for hotel rooms. And this is asking them to do it at least twice. Do you have that much money and time off that you can afford to do that? I sure dont. I can go to one, like I do for bowl games, but I sure cant do it for multiple games over multiple weeks. If you cant do it yourself dont ask others to do it. At its not like there's a waiting line for bowl tickets either. If supply of tickets were greater than the demand it would demand another game but it doesnt. Making it a playoff game doesnt magically put butts into seats since there's more games to go to instead of just one. It actually hurts attendance.

As for local fans "probably" buying seats, dont count on it. If Boise St was playing Stanford in Nashville, I have no desire to see that game live no matter how good they do or who they have on their team. Does nothing for me. Neither would it be fans of either of those schools to travel from the west to Nashville only for one of them to have a game the next week possibly closer and cheaper to home. A big lose there.

Read this article about attendance. There's plenty more out there so this isnt just one bitter guy. The examples he has are the tip of the iceberg. All of FCS is this way.

The Unspoken Potential Problem with College Football Playoffs vs BCS: Attendance | CollegeSportsInfo.com

 

[ukvols]

You dont travel much, do you. Go to travelocity, expedia, etc.... and type in your city and traveling to LA then put in the date 1 month out and compare it to 5 days from now. Buying on the fly versus buying in the future is radically different. Same holds for hotel rooms. And this is asking them to do it at least twice. Do you have that much money and time off that you can afford to do that? I sure dont. I can go to one, like I do for bowl games, but I sure cant do it for multiple games over multiple weeks. If you cant do it yourself dont ask others to do it. At its not like there's a waiting line for bowl tickets either. If supply of tickets were greater than the demand it would demand another game but it doesnt. Making it a playoff game doesnt magically put butts into seats since there's more games to go to instead of just one. It actually hurts attendance.

As for local fans "probably" buying seats, dont count on it. If Boise St was playing Stanford in Nashville, I have no desire to see that game live no matter how good they do or who they have on their team. Does nothing for me. Neither would it be fans of either of those schools to travel from the west to Nashville only for one of them to have a game the next week possibly closer and cheaper to home. A big lose there.

Read this article about attendance. There's plenty more out there so this isnt just one bitter guy. The examples he has are the tip of the iceberg. All of FCS is this way.

The Unspoken Potential Problem with College Football Playoffs vs BCS: Attendance | CollegeSportsInfo.com

You sound like you're opposed to a college football playoff to the point of being very bitter about it. I'm particularly surprised at the hostility over the suggestion of two teams playing two neutral-site games.
I'm sure that not everyone would be able to afford travelling to the title game after attending the semifinals, and if it's a cross-country flight, that wouldn't help. But, should we do away with the NCAA Basketball Tournament? That involves playing at three different neutral sites. Only a small minority is going to have the time, money, and desire to make it to all of a team's tournament games, but that doesn't stop the games from being well-attended, including the games that are late in the tournament, with only four schools at the site, and the venue being large.

You then argued that there isn't a waiting line for bowl tickets. Well, my response to that is that only one "bowl" game currently impacts the national championship. The other games are practically exhibitions in terms of importance.

Your next argument that the game being a playoff would hurt attendance is absolutely ridiculous. That's so far from common sense, I'm wondering if you're arguing just for the sake of getting a response. Someone who can only afford to attend one postseason game will prefer attending a playoff game over a bowl game every time. I believe I speak for pretty much all football fans in the world with that statement.

Boise vs Stanford in Nashville may or may not sell out; I'll give you that. But, if you look at who the Top 4 teams have been over the past several years, I think you'll see match-ups that would be much more popular than that. There's never been a season in which Boise State and Stanford were both in the Top 4 and would have been seeded to play each other.

Most people who argue against a playoff and in favor of bowl games end up making some very silly arguments, and you're taking the cake. You seem to have a huge anti-playoff agenda, for some reason.

 

[ukvols]

From your 2010 column written by a blogger:

"It’s doubtful that the attendance drop would be as drastic in an FBS playoff as it is with even powerful FCS schools like Delaware and Appalachian St. At the top, schools like Texas, USC and Ohio St. would likely do fine based on the population of their communities. Schools that traditionally have attendance figures over 100,000 per game like Michigan, Tennessee, Penn St., etc would also likely do fine. But would there be a drop in attendance at all? Perhaps.
The assumption that all fans in favor of a playoff have is that a playoff system would be exactly on par with the NFL, where there is a huge demand for tickets to a showcase event. But what if an FBS playoffs were even a small step down from that and more similar to the FCS playoffs? If there were an average attendance drop in FCS regular season versus playoff games of 35%, is it a stretch to think that maybe the FBS attendance drop would be 5% or even 10%?"

I can't explain the alleged drop in FCS attendance other than perhaps colder weather and the fact that it's just the FCS.

"Perhaps" is the blogger's own response to the question of whether a tradition-rich FBS power would see any dip in attendance when the playoffs start.

Suppose the FBS schools did experience the randomly suggested 10% drop? So, at Tennessee, there would be 90,000 fans instead of 100,000. At a program that usually sells 70,000 tickets, they'd only sell 63,000. I don't see that as a strong argument against a playoff.

Again, you seem to have a very thick agenda against a playoff, and alleged FCS attendance figures is one of the weakest supporting arguments I have ever seen against an FBS playoff.

 

[GreveHaller]

You sound like you're opposed to a college football playoff to the point of being very bitter about it. I'm particularly surprised at the hostility over the suggestion of two teams playing two neutral-site games.
I'm sure that not everyone would be able to afford travelling to the title game after attending the semifinals, and if it's a cross-country flight, that wouldn't help. But, should we do away with the NCAA Basketball Tournament? That involves playing at three different neutral sites. Only a small minority is going to have the time, money, and desire to make it to all of a team's tournament games, but that doesn't stop the games from being well-attended, including the games that are late in the tournament, with only four schools at the site, and the venue being large.

You then argued that there isn't a waiting line for bowl tickets. Well, my response to that is that only one "bowl" game currently impacts the national championship. The other games are practically exhibitions in terms of importance.

Your next argument that the game being a playoff would hurt attendance is absolutely ridiculous. That's so far from common sense, I'm wondering if you're arguing just for the sake of getting a response. Someone who can only afford to attend one postseason game will prefer attending a playoff game over a bowl game every time. I believe I speak for pretty much all football fans in the world with that statement.

Boise vs Stanford in Nashville may or may not sell out; I'll give you that. But, if you look at who the Top 4 teams have been over the past several years, I think you'll see match-ups that would be much more popular than that. There's never been a season in which Boise State and Stanford were both in the Top 4 and would have been seeded to play each other.

Most people who argue against a playoff and in favor of bowl games end up making some very silly arguments, and you're taking the cake. You seem to have a huge anti-playoff agenda, for some reason.

Did you even bother to read the article??? Again, read it and see the examples.

Basketball?? you really want to try to use it as an example. Bad, bad example. It takes 8 teams traveling to a neutral location to barely crack 10,000 in an arena and they still dont sell out the games. And that's with fans seeing 6 games. It holds true for the next round too. You get a few more fans per team but no much. Football is 1 game with 2 teams. You're in, you're out. No ball game 2 days later. Go look at the attendance for the MM games then divide it by the number of teams there. Its pitiful. These are yet more quantatative number. Its why they have to put multiple teams in one location. That does not work for football.

The CFB post season is about more than "who's #1". Its about the one thing that is more important than anything else: money. Probablys and guesses dont cut it in a billion dollar industry. Anyone can make up their playoffs scenerio and guess it would work. A simple google search will blow up your machine with a birage of "no wait, this is my playoff......". Its all a bunch of 5 yr olds sitting around the campfire trying to decide where to go if they had a spaceship. Problem is that no one takes into consideration the impact it has on everyone's bottom line. That's the school's, the conference's, the effected bowls, and the hosting cities. We're talking multi million dollars not just a few people. The schools, the chancellors/presidents, and the conferences want to make sure their current stream of revenue will continue. Guesses dont cut it in business. Guesses cause you to go out of business. So far there has not been a plan presented where the switch would be seamless. That's how business, especially billion dollar businesses, work.

Do more research and look out of the box. Dont ask "why cant we have a playoff". Ask "why are the bowls still around" and gather all the facts. To understand things you have to know how things work. The bowls and the cfb postseason works and it works for a reason. Not saying that anything you find will change your mind but to defeat an enemy (in this case the current bowl system) you must know your enemy and understand your enemy.

 

[WesternNCVol]

One major issue I see with a playoff system aside from logistics is game played per year. How many is too many for the staff and player? They could play every week as far as I am concerned, but that is not realistic.

Teams play 12 games plus some get a conferance championship game and some get a bowl game on top of that. How many games will a play off get them to? Will non conf. games be deleted to make way for playoff?

Just something else to think about...

 

[ukvols]

Did you even bother to read the article??? Again, read it and see the examples.

Basketball?? you really want to try to use it as an example. Bad, bad example. It takes 8 teams traveling to a neutral location to barely crack 10,000 in an arena and they still dont sell out the games. And that's with fans seeing 6 games. It holds true for the next round too. You get a few more fans per team but no much. Football is 1 game with 2 teams. You're in, you're out. No ball game 2 days later. Go look at the attendance for the MM games then divide it by the number of teams there. Its pitiful. These are yet more quantatative number. Its why they have to put multiple teams in one location. That does not work for football.

The CFB post season is about more than "who's #1". Its about the one thing that is more important than anything else: money. Probablys and guesses dont cut it in a billion dollar industry. Anyone can make up their playoffs scenerio and guess it would work. A simple google search will blow up your machine with a birage of "no wait, this is my playoff......". Its all a bunch of 5 yr olds sitting around the campfire trying to decide where to go if they had a spaceship. Problem is that no one takes into consideration the impact it has on everyone's bottom line. That's the school's, the conference's, the effected bowls, and the hosting cities. We're talking multi million dollars not just a few people. The schools, the chancellors/presidents, and the conferences want to make sure their current stream of revenue will continue. Guesses dont cut it in business. Guesses cause you to go out of business. So far there has not been a plan presented where the switch would be seamless. That's how business, especially billion dollar businesses, work.

Do more research and look out of the box. Dont ask "why cant we have a playoff". Ask "why are the bowls still around" and gather all the facts. To understand things you have to know how things work. The bowls and the cfb postseason works and it works for a reason. Not saying that anything you find will change your mind but to defeat an enemy (in this case the current bowl system) you must know your enemy and understand your enemy.

Football is much more popular than basketball. If the blogger you like can say that "perhaps" the FBS would see an attendance decline during a playoff, then I can counter by saying that if a basketball playoff works, then a football tournament would work; it's a fact that football is America's preferred sport overall.

I don't give a damn, not one single damn, about the bowls' bottom lines.

Google Dan Wetzel and College Football Bowls if you want information on the money generated by the bowl system.

I'm not going to get into an extended debate with you over whether a college football playoff would add to or subtract from the total postseason financial pie. That would be like arguing with someone who thinks the world isn't round. I can't drag you around the planet to physically prove you're wrong.

Do you work for the BCS?

The bowls "work," LOL, because it's college football. People will watch postseason college football, even if it's served on a garbage pail lid.

I think I've argued over this with you on VN before. You probably linked the same 2010 blog then.

No one is "guessing" that a playoff would work. Arizona State's president just proposed an 8-team playoff this month. That's not a 5-year-old sitting by a campfire. That's the president of a BCS school.

 

[ukvols]

One major issue I see with a playoff system aside from logistics is game played per year. How many is too many for the staff and player? They could play every week as far as I am concerned, but that is not realistic.

Teams play 12 games plus some get a conferance championship game and some get a bowl game on top of that. How many games will a play off get them to? Will non conf. games be deleted to make way for playoff?

Just something else to think about...

That's a legit concern; it's a much better argument than suggesting that a playoff would suffer from bad attendance.

High school teams reaching a state final mostly play 15 games (10+5). FCS finalists are likely to play 15 (11+4), with the new possibility of a team playing 16 games, since they added 4 teams, meaning that 8 of the 20 playoff teams now need to win 5 playoff games. FBS teams in a league with a title game are at 14 right now (12+1+1). So, the Plus One model would add a 15th game. I don't think an 8-team playoff, which could create a 16th game for up to two schools, is out of the question. The NFL plays 16 regular season games every year.

In terms if the physical beating the players take every week, I think 16 total games is realistic. Anything larger than an 8-team playoff would likely require some form of reduction to the season, either an elimination of the conference title games or cutting the season back to 11 games - both options would cause a loss of revenue. So, I think 8 teams is as large as it will go (unless everyone one day agrees to playing 17 or more games).

 

[GreveHaller]

I don't give a damn, not one single damn, about the bowls' bottom lines.

And that, my friend, is why you and others have no clue what you're talking about. That says it all.

Again, you're the 5 year old sitting around with his buddies trying to decide where to go with a rocketship but not comprehending the limitations placed on it by technology and cost.

What you fail to realize is that the conferences and bowls are partners. This is very important: they are partners. . They feed each other. If you'd done the research like asked you'd know this.

Ironically, you dont give a damn about a bowls bottom line yet in you're simplistic playoff example you have them. What happens if there's no bowls? Your plan to save college football is gone. Could go down as one of the dumbest statement ever to be made about playoffs. You want bowls then you better be sure the bowls are there. Not giving a damn furthers the proof you have no knowledge of college football.

 

[ukvols]

And that, my friend, is why you and others have no clue what you're talking about. That says it all.

Again, you're the 5 year old sitting around with his buddies trying to decide where to go with a rocketship but not comprehending the limitations placed on it by technology and cost.

What you fail to realize is that the conferences and bowls are partners. This is very important: they are partners. . They feed each other. If you'd done the research like asked you'd know this.

Ironically, you dont give a damn about a bowls bottom line yet in you're simplistic playoff example you have them. What happens if there's no bowls? Your plan to save college football is gone. Could go down as one of the dumbest statement ever to be made about playoffs. You want bowls then you better be sure the bowls are there. Not giving a damn furthers the proof you have no knowledge of college football.

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
If you think college football NEEDS the bowls, you couldn't possibly be more incorrect.
The bolded part above sets a new standard for ignorance.
College football does not need a bunch of bowl committees getting rich for doing almost nothing to be able to stage a playoff.

I read your blogger's silly suggestion that fans of major college football would be less likely to attend a playoff game than a regular season game, based on FCS attendance. Now, I suggest you read some of Dan Wetzel with an open mind.

BCS conducts shallow probe as party rages on - College Football - Rivals.com

Support grows for football Final Four - College Football - Rivals.com

You're not the first person to prefer bowls to a playoff, but your reasoning couldn't be worse if you tried.

 

[StoVol]

And that, my friend, is why you and others have no clue what you're talking about. That says it all.

Again, you're the 5 year old sitting around with his buddies trying to decide where to go with a rocketship but not comprehending the limitations placed on it by technology and cost.

What you fail to realize is that the conferences and bowls are partners. This is very important: they are partners. . They feed each other. If you'd done the research like asked you'd know this.

Ironically, you dont give a damn about a bowls bottom line yet in you're simplistic playoff example you have them. What happens if there's no bowls? Your plan to save college football is gone. Could go down as one of the dumbest statement ever to be made about playoffs. You want bowls then you better be sure the bowls are there. Not giving a damn furthers the proof you have no knowledge of college football.

How does the fcs survive without bowls? Playoffs maybe?

 

[ukvols]

Where in my "simplistic" playoff example did I say anything about using bowl games?

Shockingly, it is possible to stage a college football game at a neutral site without making a bowl game out of it.

Nothing on here beats being accused of making a dumb statement while being misquoted.