KSUFans Archives
Sports => Snyder's Electronic Cyber Space World => Topic started by: cireksu on November 28, 2006, 09:52:09 AM
-
Not me.
-
There's absolutely 100% NO WAY that it wouldn't work. I hear all of the anti playoff arguements and I just laugh at how stupid they are.
-
Playoffs, good. End thread.
-
They would work. Easily.
-
No. I wanna hear why it wouldn't work and then tell you why you're wrong. I'm good at that. :D :D
-
How the hell would it not work? Would the brackets just end up being too difficult to figure out and the entire post-season cancelled as a result? I guess I'd have to admit that a cancelled post-season would have to qualify as "not working."
-
OT: But I love the idea of "feed-in-consolations"
-
Ok.....Nobody is biting so I'll just come out and say it.....
The #1 reason people don't want a playoff is because it would "decrease the meaning of the regular season". I hate to burst your bubble but until recently people were talking about an Ohio State vs. Michigan rematch in the BCS Championship Game. Um.....Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't that mean that the first regular season matchup on November 18 that Ohio State won 42-39 would then become meaningless?
#2. Are the bowls so important that we can't sacrafice the Papajohns.com Bowl or the New Mexico Bowl, or the Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl, or the Meineke Car Care Bowl, or the MPC Computers, or the International Bowl or the GMAC Bowl?
Wow.....I can hardly wait for those. :poundon:
-
They work in high school. They work in D-III, D-II, D-IAA, so they can work in D-IA. End of story. Schools just don't want to give up the money that the bowl system provides them.
-
They work in high school. They work in D-III, D-II, D-IAA, so they can work in D-IA. End of story. Schools just don't want to give up the money that the bowl system provides them.
I think the NFL has a playoff as well.
-
Yeah, but who really watches the NFL anyways? :nahnah:
-
Ok.....Nobody is biting so I'll just come out and say it.....
The #1 reason people don't want a playoff is because it would "decrease the meaning of the regular season". I hate to burst your bubble but until recently people were talking about an Ohio State vs. Michigan rematch in the BCS Championship Game. Um.....Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't that mean that the first regular season matchup on November 18 that Ohio State won 42-39 would then become meaningless?
#2. Are the bowls so important that we can't sacrafice the Papajohns.com Bowl or the New Mexico Bowl, or the Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl, or the Meineke Car Care Bowl, or the MPC Computers, or the International Bowl or the GMAC Bowl?
Wow.....I can hardly wait for those. :poundon:
The "decrease the meaning of the regular season" argument is one of the most ridiculous and idiotic statements I've ever heard. The regular season doesn't decrease in importance as long as there are no automatic bid-ins to the final 8, 10 or 12 BCS slots. If you make everybody work to get one of those slots then every game still counts. End of story.
-
You also can't argue that it takes the athletes out of the classroom too much; if it were true, then there wouldn't be the huge double standard for Basketball athletes and FB athletes. The world might come to an end.
-
http://blogs.cjonline.com/index.php?entry=1229
Need more proof that there are way too many bowl games and that teams are being rewarded for mediocrity?
Well, if 32 bowls and 64 teams getting a shot at playing in the postseason weren’t enough, consider that more than 60 percent of the squads in Division I will finish with the necessary six wins to qualify for a bowl.
And we’re not talking about a slew of 10-win teams. Fifteen of the 119 D-I schools are 6-6 through last weekend’s games, and three more are 6-5 and could finish the season 6-6.
For those of you looking for something slightly above average, 12 teams wrapped up the regular season with a 7-5 mark and another — San Jose State — sits at 7-4.
All told, 73 Division I teams will round out the year with at least six wins. Of that total, 17 have 10 or more wins.
Hey, doesn’t Division I-AA use a 16-team playoff format? Hmmm.
-
Yes. There are too many bowl games rewarding mediocrity. How does this help with the bowls > playoffs argument?
-
exactly.
-
Bowls make waaay more money for confrences, and the ncaa to ever let them go.
You want to see teams like OSU, MIch, ND and the like win the NC every year? go ahead and make a playoff system.
In a playoff system there will always be the crying of the teams that don't make it in.
YOu can't keep any of the bowls in a playoff system because fans cannot afford to travel 2-3 times to watch their team play.
Teams with large stadiums will always have homefield advantage for all the extra money.
We'll never see a playoff in D1 college football.
-
1. Bowls make lots of $$$. Playoff games would make even more. Think of march madness, but on a much, much larger scale.
2. Why would they? Top 16 teams make it -they are not always in the Top 16.
3. There is crying from teams who don't get BCS games now. There is crying when teams don't make it in to the title game.
4. Yes they can. Even if the can't (they can), ticket sales aren't much of a factor in the big bowls simply due to the advertising revenue.
5. Neutral sites for all games.
6. :jerkoff:
-
Most of the bowls could survive alongside a playoff. Money isn't what's stopping a playoff, prior to the BCS fiasco a consortium offered the NCAA in excess of $1B for broadcast rights for a D-IA football playoff. No way in hell the bowls match that sort of revenue potential.
-
(http://www.trippintees.com/images/benjaminsM.jpg)
The issue is this: I don't think there is any way a playoff can generate nearly as much money as the overpopulated bowl system.
A playoff would be wonderful for results on the field, but I don't think a playoff with one or two teams involved from your confernce, plus a watered down bowl system (which would be the result if a playoff was added) would generate even close to the nearly $28 million Big 12 schools will get from bowls this year. The bowl system is now so entrenched is going to be difficult to do away with it and maintain the revenue stream currently available (especially for BCS conferences) by going to a playoff system. Throw out any other arguments, this is the only real one for why college football doesn't want a playoff system.
-
"1. Bowls make lots of $$$. Playoff games would make even more. Think of march madness, but on a much, much larger scale"
Can't do it, would take months to play out, march madness takes a month of teams playing 2 times a week.
"3. There is crying from teams who don't get BCS games now. There is crying when teams don't make it in to the title game."
That's the biggest complaint with the system we have isn't it? That it doesn't give teams a fair chance?
"4. Yes they can. Even if the can't (they can), ticket sales aren't much of a factor in the big bowls simply due to the advertising revenue."
I call BS, there is no way a school could take 40,000 or so fans on 3 different trips in consecutive weeks to watch their teams in the playoffs if you play at neutral sites.
"5. Neutral sites for all games"
see above.
-
you can keep the bowls with a playoff but you will have the NIT except even more worthless.
-
Months to play out? 16 team playoff? Are you effin kidding me?
-
I call BS, there is no way a school could take 40,000 or so fans on 3 different trips in consecutive weeks to watch their teams in the playoffs if you play at neutral sites.
Just about any SEC or Big 10 school would.
-
Can't do it, would take months to play out, march madness takes a month of teams playing 2 times a week.
Dead wrong. It would take exactly a month to play a 16 team playoff. You could start a week after the stragglers finish up in late November and still have time to take two weeks off before the first playoff game *and* to finish by by New Year's Day.
-
I'm not seeing $28 million (more if the Big 12 gets 2 BCS teams) for the Big 12 from a playoff system. I'm sure the Big 12 and every major conference has studied it, and if they saw more money from another system they'd be clamoring for it. I'm sure those with the most on the line have looked into it much more extensively and you simply don't see a large outcry for a playoff from anyone besides fans and some coaches. That says something to me.
-
"1. Bowls make lots of $$$. Playoff games would make even more. Think of march madness, but on a much, much larger scale"
Can't do it, would take months to play out, march madness takes a month of teams playing 2 times a week.
"3. There is crying from teams who don't get BCS games now. There is crying when teams don't make it in to the title game."
That's the biggest complaint with the system we have isn't it? That it doesn't give teams a fair chance?
"4. Yes they can. Even if the can't (they can), ticket sales aren't much of a factor in the big bowls simply due to the advertising revenue."
I call BS, there is no way a school could take 40,000 or so fans on 3 different trips in consecutive weeks to watch their teams in the playoffs if you play at neutral sites.
"5. Neutral sites for all games"
see above.
A 16 team playoff would take one month to play which could be the entire month of December. Schools are out for a chunk of December anyway
8 teams per conference make the NBA playoffs, the division winners plus the wildcard make the MLB playoffs, 8 teams per conference make the Stanley Cup playoffs and the division winners plus two wildcards make the NFL playoffs.....No more no less. Those are the rules. Period. Teams #9, #5, #9 and #7 are just left out and that's the way it is.
-
Or you could play it in January and have the Championship Game on the Saturday before the Super Bowl.
-
you can keep the bowls with a playoff but you will have the NIT except even more worthless.
As it is there are too many bowl games so losing a few really wouldn't be much of an issue. But there are ways to ramp up attendance at the early-round playoff games. E.g., play the remaining bowls and early-round playoffs at the same sites a couple of days apart, *lots* of college football fans would come for one and see the other while they were in town. Heck you could even sell the playoff tickets only as a package with the bowl tickets. Starving college students wouldn't like it but everyone else would pony up albeit after a bit of grumbling. Or, if keeping attendance up at the playoff sites is the issue, play the playoffs at the higher seeded team's home field for the first couple of rounds then once you're down to the final four play two consecutive weekends at the championship location.
-
Maybe I dont know all of the answers but what I do know is that Division I-AA, II and III (and their fans and "students"/athletes) make it work so.....We can make it work.
-
It would take longer than a month because they would wait 2 weeks after the last reg, season games to begin, then wait 2 weeks to play the championship.
about a month and a half for 16 teams.
".....No more no less. Those are the rules. Period. Teams #9, #5, #9 and #7 are just left out and that's the way it is.
"
Well the rules of the BCS clearly state that Number 1 and number 2 play each other period, but that doesn't fly with a lot of people especially KSU fans.
-
"Or, if keeping attendance up at the playoff sites is the issue, play the playoffs at the higher seeded team's home field for the first couple of rounds then once you're down to the final four play two consecutive weekends at the championship location. "
That is the best argument that can be made for a playoff. I still think that it is out of the question because of the ammount of money that is lost by chancing that a small team makes it with no seats to sell.
I'd have to see it happen regularly to believe that 40,000+ fans from 2 different schools would travel consecutive weekends to watch their team in a playoff.
-
Well the rules of the BCS clearly state that Number 1 and number 2 play each other period, but that doesn't fly with a lot of people especially KSU fans.
The problem is that it's usually pretty obvious who is #1 but how do you determine who is #2?
-
Who determines is the last out of a playoff?
-
Who determines is the last out of a playoff?
Who determines the last out of the NFL playoffs, the NBA playoffs, the Stanley Cup playoffs and the MLB Playoffs?
-
^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah but in the nfl, nba, etc. There are 30 teams and you play about half of them during the season.
NCAA football has 120 or so teams and you play about 1/10 of them.
Who decides who is deserving to make it into the playoff? I think you would see the same complaining.
-
They could still use the BCS rankings to make up the tournament, maybe the top 10 or 16. They could still have bowl games for the teams that don't make the tourny.
-
The logisitics of a playoff system is not the problem. That would work fine.
The issue is the $170 million that the BCS conferences are counting on in revenue from the bowls. The Big 12 this year sits at around $28 million in revenues. I don't see the same revenue stream coming in from a playoff.
FYI, the NCAA tournament brought the conference around $24.5 million last year. Most of that money comes from the TV deal with CBS televising 63 games. It would be interesting to see the projections of what kind of money 15 games from a 16 team playoff would generate compared to that, plus the $$ differentials in attendance, etc between football and basketball.
-
Yeah but in the nfl, nba, etc. There are 30 teams and you play about half of them during the season. NCAA football has 120 or so teams and you play about 1/10 of them. Who decides who is deserving to make it into the playoff? I think you would see the same complaining.
Put together a committee like they do in basketball. Use Strength of Schedule the same way they use R.P.I. in hoops.
-
The logisitics of a playoff system is not the problem. That would work fine.
The issue is the $170 million that the BCS conferences are counting on in revenue from the bowls. The Big 12 this year sits at around $28 million in revenues. I don't see the same revenue stream coming in from a playoff.
FYI, the NCAA tournament brought the conference around $24.5 million last year. Most of that money comes from the TV deal with CBS televising 63 games. It would be interesting to see the projections of what kind of money 15 games from a 16 team playoff would generate compared to that, plus the $$ differentials in attendance, etc between football and basketball.
I think a "Final Four" weekend + a National championship weekend could easily compete with the 5 BCS games financially. Throw in a quadruple-header and it probably isn't even close.
-
Again, I think the discussion of logistics is missing the point. The NCAA didn't have trouble figuring out logistics when they expanded the NCAA tournament field, and we all know why the field was expanded. Yeah, it gave more teams a chance and all that, but it also made the NCAA a lot more money.
They would change the current football system in a heartbeat if it would do the same. Its not like they ever had any problem adding all these bowl games. Again, more bowls makes more money, though I think they'd acknowledge (hopefully) that we're probably at the bowl saturation point. The fact that we reached a bowl saturation point probably makes switching to a playoff format even more difficult.
I agree with Rusty, the only playoff system I see happening is a 4 team deal. That would be the next progression of the BCS, but I don't think the NCAA will ever push for more than that, if they even ever agree to do that. That would probably allow for maintaining the current bowl structure and $$$ while adding more revenue through the BCS. Anything more than 4 probably is too risky for the bowl structure IMO.
-
If you're worried about all worthy teams (a 9th team if it's an 8 team playoff or a 17th team if it's a 16 team playoff) getting in.....There obviously is no perfect answer. Teams get left out of the NCAA Tournament every year that probably should be in it and this would be no different. Look at it this way. If there were an 8 team playoff:
In 1998 K-State and Tulane would have been in it instead of Syracuse and Wisconsin. In 1999 Marshall, Michigan State and K-State would have been in it instead of Stanford, Alabama and Tennessee. In 2000 Virginia Tech, Nebraska and K-State would have been in it insted of Purdue, Notre Dame and Florida. In 2001 Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee and Louisville would have been in it instead of LSU, Illinois, Colorado and Maryland. In 2002 K-State, Texas and Boise State would have been in instead of Florida State, Iowa and Washington State. In 2003.....Well I'll leave that one out since that's the year we made it. :ksu: In 2004 Cal, Boise State and Louisville would have been in it instead of Michigan, Pittsburgh and Virginia Tech and.....In 2005 LSU, tcu and Virginia Tech would have been in it instead of West Virginia, Georgia and Notre Dame.
Alot of those teams would have fared better then the ones that made it.
-
So what's wrong with adding 1 more game between the winner of the (#1 vs. #2) vs. winner of (#3 vs. #4). Best of both worlds as I see it. Still have the BCS formula, still have all of the meaningless games that bring in $$; and have no controversery over the clear winner. Surley an undefeated team would be in the Top 4 of the BCS rankings... Would the Rutgers be in the top 4 if they had been undefeated?
-
Every major sport in College and in the Professional ranks has a playoff system. But yet, for some reason, people don't think it can work at the D-1 football level. That's crap. I also hate those that say during the last few weeks of the regular season "this is your playoff system". That's bogus also. Those schedules were set at least one year, if not longer, in advance. All those 1-loss teams deserve a shot. SC will get it because of some computer. Let them decide it on the field, using a 16-20 team playoff. Let the top 4 get first round byes (that will make the regular season worth something). There are many playoff scenarios, all of which are better than our current bowl system.
I just don't see any logical reason NOT to have a playoff.
-
Most people would probably be happy with that this year, most years it won't work so well, but you'd still have Louisville, Wisconsin and Rutgers left out with one loss.
Which would you prefer.....An 8 team playoff or a 16 team playoff?
Matchups:
Ohio State vs. Boise State or Tennessee
USC vs. Wisconsin or West Virginia
Michigan vs. Louisville or Virginia Tech
Florida vs. LSU or Rutgers
Go even further and you could have.....
LSU vs. Oklahoma
Louisville vs. Auburn
Wisconsin vs. Notre Dame
Boise State vs. Arkansas
-
That is the best argument that can be made for a playoff. I still think that it is out of the question because of the ammount of money that is lost by chancing that a small team makes it with no seats to sell.
Your primary problem is that you have absolutely no idea where the money would really come from in a playoff system. Ticket sales are pretty much irrelevant when there are folks on the sideline offering to write a billion (yes "billion") plus dollar check for the broadcast rights. Ticket sales would just be icing on the cake.
-
Economic impact on cities that hold bowl games >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than Economic impact of Playoff games.
-
So the NCAA is a charitible organization that licenses their teams to play in bowl games at various locations around the country in order to lower the tax burden on on local taxpayers? That makes no sense at all but it's what you're arguing.
Fact is that the bowls *ONLY* exist today because of the good ol' boy network inside the NCAA that harbors nostalgic feelings for the bygone days of college football. No rational organization would skip the payday a playoff would provide so that a handful of cities can skim more tax revenue from visitors.
-
I assumed that the cities had to pay the NCAA for the rights to host a bowl game. I don't know that though.
-
Joe Schad was on "Cold Pizza" and said that there may be a little bit of hope for the playoff crowd. The Commish of the SEC is open to a playoff system. Why is that significant? Because he's the one currently in charge of the BCS. Also.....I think it has to be significant because the SEC is where all of the big boys are, isn't it?
-
During "Cold Pizza" this morning they did a playoff during the "1st and 10" segments with Skip and the new guy (I don't know his name but he's awful so as far as I'm concerned he doesn't deserve a name) that went as follows.....
They went with the Top 8 in the BCS. The matchups were as follows:
#1 Ohio State vs. #8 Boise State
#2 Florida vs. #7 Wisconsin
#3 Michigan vs. #6 Louisville
#4 LSU vs. #5 USC
One had Louisville over Michigan with an Ohio State vs. Louisville final and Ohio State winning. The other had LSU over Ohio State leading to an LSU vs. Michigan final with Michigan winning it all. Maybe we should have had a rematch in the BCS Championship Game after all.