BCS talks update from NYTimes

[Carl Spackler]

A "rant:"

1. A four team playoff is total BS; and more restrictive than the BCS. I thought ridding college FB of the AQ was about inclusion.

2. Any use of the present polls is BS. The "Writer's Poll" gives too much say to fat, gravy-stained "experts" in the East Beaver Breath, Alabama's of the world. The coaches can't see enough games to make their choices relevant to reality and are likely to vote parochially.

Anything other than conference champions seeded by a combination of computer polls is worthless. I realize a lot of people don't like computer polls. Too bad. Computers aren't predisposed to favor a team or conference, don't know or care about a school's football history or listen to TV's talking heads. Most importantly, computers base important criteria like SOS on constantly (weekly) refreshed data. Computers are the only medium ever to provide an unbiased (and fair) evaluation of the BE.

The guys in Florida want to guarantee a final four that includes a one team each from the SEC, PAC12 and BIG10, one or two from a group consisting of ND, TX, OK and, maybe, one school from a combo of everybody else. If anything, a four-team system is worse than the BCS.

Keep ranting. Fans are the ones that are going to put pressure on these fat nobles to start doing the right things, or face losing their heads.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I actually don't really favor a playoff system. Don't think it is anyones's interest do go that route. And I do think that it will have the result ultimately of making the rgular season pretty meaningless. football is a very different beast from basketball and what works there won't necessarily work with college football. And the reason a playoff system works at other levels is 2-fold. fist nobody really cares who the D-2 or D-1aa champ is, and second money isn't involved. tha tis very different from D1A football. Hell, at the lower levels some conferences don't even participate. That's how much they don't care. And unlike the NFL, there are 120 or so teams in the college game, playing in mostly regional conferences. And a "true national champion" isn't that important. For 150 years the game has gone without one. It has only been in the past 20 years, the BCS era, that the concept has become a priority, and in part that has been more a media driven demand than one that fans really cared about. Until pretty recently, the past 20 years, what Ohio State fans cared most about was beating Michigan. Notre Dame fans wnated to beat Southern California and Alabama cared most about knocking off those guys from Auburn and LSU.. the rest was interesting and fun but not critical...in fact Bear Bryant for most of his career used to make his pre-bowl game practices much more light-hearted than his regular season ones. Bowls were a reward and it wasn't much of a reward if you had ot bust your butt. they can go to a playoff system. But I suspect it won't be all that successful after the novelty wears off. Just like the BCS...college football is a game that really doesn't lend itself to the NFL approach.

THe invitation bowl system for football programs that finish with winning seasons doesn't need to be scrapped. There is a lot of positive to the bowl system. The problem, is that the college football post season has become corrupt beyond belief. And you are wrong about the determining a national champion thing. It's been a major problem for college football for its entire existence, and the problem of determining a campion is the entire single reason the BCS exists today. The major obstacle to a playoff traditionally has been academics and administrators, but really it's all been about money, and who gets it and who doesn't - all along.

 

[mattp]

I'm 33 and don't care one whit about the Rose Bowl. This desire to keep it "relevant" is bizarre to me. No one is stopping them from having a bowl, but don't let it impact the 4 team playoff concept being considered.

i care about keeping the Rose Bowl relevant about as much as i care about keeping Commodore or Ma Bell relevant. the Rose Bowl was the creme de la creme of a terrible, antiquated, nonsensical postseason system. if they want to stay relevant in an improved environment let them do it the old fashioned way, by competing and evolving. if they can't they can go the way of the British Empire for all i care.

 

[John Greene]

I actually don't really favor a playoff system. Don't think it is anyones's interest do go that route. And I do think that it will have the result ultimately of making the rgular season pretty meaningless. football is a very different beast from basketball and what works there won't necessarily work with college football. And the reason a playoff system works at other levels is 2-fold. fist nobody really cares who the D-2 or D-1aa champ is, and second money isn't involved. tha tis very different from D1A football. Hell, at the lower levels some conferences don't even participate. That's how much they don't care. And unlike the NFL, there are 120 or so teams in the college game, playing in mostly regional conferences. And a "true national champion" isn't that important. For 150 years the game has gone without one. It has only been in the past 20 years, the BCS era, that the concept has become a priority, and in part that has been more a media driven demand than one that fans really cared about. Until pretty recently, the past 20 years, what Ohio State fans cared most about was beating Michigan. Notre Dame fans wnated to beat Southern California and Alabama cared most about knocking off those guys from Auburn and LSU.. the rest was interesting and fun but not critical...in fact Bear Bryant for most of his career used to make his pre-bowl game practices much more light-hearted than his regular season ones. Bowls were a reward and it wasn't much of a reward if you had ot bust your butt. they can go to a playoff system. But I suspect it won't be all that successful after the novelty wears off. Just like the BCS...college football is a game that really doesn't lend itself to the NFL approach.

The retired coach mentioned in my earlier post worked for Bryant early in his career. Bryant would have non pad workouts and run throughs before Christmas, send the team home for the holiday, and bring them tohether for three days of work before the bowl game. Only one of the three would be in pads.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The retired coach mentioned in my earlier post worked for Bryant early in his career. Bryant would have non pad workouts and run throughs before Christmas, send the team home for the holiday, and bring them tohether for three days of work before the bowl game. Only one of the three would be in pads.

That's all you need to know, to understand that the college football postseason, at the highest level of competition, has been about one thing, and one thing only - from Princeton-Rutgers to April 26, 2012 - money. It has never been about competition. The college football post season. You think Bryant didn't realize that?

In the absence of a true playoff, it continues to be about money, and with lack of oversight or any sort of governing structure whatsoever of the post season, except for broadcasting dollars, it will continue to get more and more corrupt and self serving and divisive to the sport.

and these bastards down there, are talking about how they're "protecting" the regular season. What they're doing is making the regular season more and more meaningless - outside of the pride of winning your own league, and beating your rivals....except wait - the post season is destroying rivalry all over the country........, while they all line their pockets with money from the post season.

There's a reason why the Ivy league decided to get out of post season intercollegiate football. It's because it's meaningless beyond money, and the Ivy's don't need money.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Gotta go before I start thinking about the position the big east should have taken, back in 2002, to make major changes to the college football post season and start working toward a true playoff. Three fingers in the glass today.

 

[CTMike]

Playoffs in NO WAY diminish a regular season where most conferences members would have to go undefeated just to participate.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Playoffs in NO WAY diminish a regular season where most conferences members would have to go undefeated just to participate.

Hey mike - that's not what the commissioner's are saying. Here's the official statement as to why they scrapped the 8 or 16 team playoff model involving conference champs/at larges.



Having carefully reviewed calendars and schedules, we believe that either an 8-team or a 16-team playoff would diminish the regular season and harm the bowls. College football's regular season is too important to diminish and we do not believe it's in the best interest of student-athletes, fans, or alumni to harm the regular season.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo.../commissioners-notre-dame-issue-bcs-statement

 

[mattp]

Playoffs in NO WAY diminish a regular season where most conferences members would have to go undefeated just to participate.

that's the part i don't understand. how can you make the argument that it would diminish the regular season when:
A. if you have to win your division or be ranked in the top 8 then every game is incredibly important b/c any loss could cost a spot and
B. obviously LSU/Bama part 1 last year was meaningless in the end, so what is this greater meaning they're trying to protect?

if anything the regular season is diminished now b/c if you don't start ranked you basically can't compete for the championship. the only record that matters at this point is the SEC record

 

[Carl Spackler]

B/c it's BS Matt. Don't try to understand it. They're lying. They're protecting the revenue streams that they have going around the college football post season among a handful of conference commissioners.

It irks me to know end that this has happened, because it is the money streams around the college football post season that are tearing up rivalries all over the country. A&M in the SEC. West Virginia v. Pitt. UConn v. Syracuse. Kansas v. MIssouri. Just to name a few rivalries torn up. There are many more. And these guys have the gall to get up and say that they're trying to protect the regular season by rejecting the only ways a true playoff would come into existence.

And as far as the bowls go, the only thing that a 16 team playoff system would do to "HARM" the bowls, is to shine a spotlight on the corruption. Half the bowls would indeed go under and fail, while the others would actually have to focus on inviting teams based on competition and gate counts and television revenue, rather than relying on the guarnteed ticket sales model.

I can draw you up a 16 team (15 games) playoff bracket for a championship right now, with early round games at campus sites and semis and finals at neutral sites in about 30 seconds. (one of the learned things over the past 20 years, for me is brackets!!) There are about 30 bowl games right now, with half of them folding, and half surving along side a playoff bracket, you'd still have 30 post season college games.

Make no mistake, this is about conference commissioners, and you can count them on one hand, keeping the money, and keeping it locked up. Those few are opposed to the college football post season being a tournament. They want the post season to continue to be they're private cash cow.

 

[John Greene]

B/c it's BS Matt. Don't try to understand it. They're lying. They're protecting the revenue streams that they have going around the college football post season among a handful of conference commissioners.

It irks me to know end that this has happened, because it is the money streams around the college football post season that are tearing up rivalries all over the country. A&M in the SEC. West Virginia v. Pitt. UConn v. Syracuse. Kansas v. MIssouri. Just to name a few rivalries torn up. There are many more. And these guys have the gall to get up and say that they're trying to protect the regular season by rejecting the only ways a true playoff would come into existence.

And as far as the bowls go, the only thing that a 16 team playoff system would do to "HARM" the bowls, is to shine a spotlight on the corruption. Half the bowls would indeed go under and fail, while the others would actually have to focus on inviting teams based on competition and gate counts and television revenue, rather than relying on the guarnteed ticket sales model.

I can draw you up a 16 team (15 games) playoff bracket for a championship right now, with early round games at campus sites and semis and finals at neutral sites in about 30 seconds. (one of the learned things over the past 20 years, for me is brackets!!) There are about 30 bowl games right now, with half of them folding, and half surving along side a playoff bracket, you'd still have 30 post season college games.

Make no mistake, this is about conference commissioners, and you can count them on one hand, keeping the money, and keeping it locked up. Those few are opposed to the college football post season being a tournament. They want the post season to continue to be they're private cash cow.

Not to throw cold water on a good rant but it seems to me that all of the examples you cite have other causes. A&M was tired of being TX little brother in the Big12. Both WV & Pitt came to the conclusion that they wanted a more stable conference than the BE. The same with Syracuse. For that matter we would do the same if given the chance. Don't know about KN & MO. What the SEC etc. want to protect is the value of their regular season home games. The revenue streams from the regular season for most of the top conferences are much greater than any post season money that comes to them. Even if they get 2 teams into the current BCS the SEC for example gets what $34 million. After a provision for expenses for the teams that play the rest is divided into equal parts for each team and the SEC office. Each team and the conference gets a little over $2 million. Believe me Bama, GA, LSU, FL, Auburn, etc. get a lot more than that out of tickets, parking, concessions, required seat donations, etc. Until someone can prove to them that all of that will still be there in a radically changed system they will not go for it.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Agree with Carl 100%.

The current system is a farce and needs to be 8 or 16 teams and include all conference champions and an at large pool of teams.

It's just mind numbing how the current system has been able to stay in place for so long.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Not to throw cold water on a good rant but it seems to me that all of the examples you cite have other causes. A&M was tired of being TX little brother in the Big12. Both WV & Pitt came to the conclusion that they wanted a more stable conference than the BE. The same with Syracuse. For that matter we would do the same if given the chance. Don't know about KN & MO. What the SEC etc. want to protect is the value of their regular season home games. The revenue streams from the regular season for most of the top conferences are much greater than any post season money that comes to them. Even if they get 2 teams into the current BCS the SEC for example gets what $34 million. After a provision for expenses for the teams that play the rest is divided into equal parts for each team and the SEC office. Each team and the conference gets a little over $2 million. Believe me Bama, GA, LSU, FL, Auburn, etc. get a lot more than that out of tickets, parking, concessions, required seat donations, etc. Until someone can prove to them that all of that will still be there in a radically changed system they will not go for it.

That's where it becomes mind numbing, because the value of regular season only increases with a true playoff. The only way a playoff can DE-value a regular season game, is if the entire bowl system goes away.

The reason that you get meaningless late season NFL games, is because there's no alternate to the playoffs.

But in college football, you can keep 10-12 invitation bowl games for the good teams every year, that fail to win their conference title and/or get an at-large (wildcard?) bid.

There weren't always 34 post season bowl games, in fact there weren't more than 10-12 of them every year until the BCS was created.

 

[John Greene]

Agree with Carl 100%.

The current system is a farce and needs to be 8 or 16 teams and include all conference champions and an at large pool of teams.

It's just mind numbing how the current system has been able to stay in place for so long.

I repeat, until it can be proven that a significant change in the system will not impact home game revenue streams it is not going to happen. Mike Slive and his counterparts will not take the chance. For heaven sakes I know for a fact that Bama gets almost $800,000 per game for parking. Slive is not going to do anything that could remotely reduce the attraction of an SEC teams home schedule. The key word is prove not speculate,and no one has yet been able to do that.

 

[UConnSportsGuy]

I repeat, until it can be proven that a significant change in the system will not impact home game revenue streams it is not going to happen. Mike Slive and his counterparts will not take the chance. For heaven sakes I know for a fact that Bama gets almost $800,000 per game for parking. Slive is not going to do anything that could remotely reduce the attraction of an SEC teams home schedule. The key word is prove not speculate,and no one has yet been able to do that.

And how exactly is someone going to prove that without actually doing it?

There is no way that the attendence will decline if a 16 team playoff is instituted. If anything, the excitement and following would grow...not decrease. But again, no one can actually prove that until it happens.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I repeat, until it can be proven that a significant change in the system will not impact home game revenue streams it is not going to happen. Mike Slive and his counterparts will not take the chance. For heaven sakes I know for a fact that Bama gets almost $800,000 per game for parking. Slive is not going to do anything that could remotely reduce the attraction of an SEC teams home schedule. The key word is prove not speculate,and no one has yet been able to do that.

How in the hell would a playoff possibly reduce the attraction of an SEC regular season home schedule?

 

[Dann]

a 16 team playoff would be great. but the minute thats happens, every d1aa league will upgrade and want a bid. thats another reason why they won't do it. thats where u have to get creative.

bcs 16 team playoff with 10 auto bids to the 10 leagues in d1a.
each league must have 16 to 20 fball playing schools in it. each will have 2 divisions that will play a conf ship game for the bid. now each league has its auto bid. then the 6 open slots are wild card bids to the next highest ranked team in a poll thats not a bcs poll. its got to be something fair(no coaches voting type thing). maybe have a ncaa board room type thing select the 6 like bball does. rpi sos etc mean something...

do the 16 team playoff bracket with home games going to high seed until a championship game thats a planned thing at a N site. that rewards school and fanbases. it also doesn't kill winning schools on travel. back 2 back N site games would get old quick travel/$$ wise with fans.
have 15 other bowl games and spread them. 2 in cali, 2 in texas, 2 in fl, canada, phili, dc, nyc, lv etc....that can be a selection thing also from the bowls and ncaa together, no auto bids for those so the lesser conf's have to earn it.

that alows 160-180 team in d1a under that. everyone is on a somewhat level field.

if more teams move up a new conf can be made or they will slowly join league that have 16 who get bigger to 18 or 20.

why not?

 

[John Greene]

And how exactly is someone going to prove that without actually doing it?

There is no way that the attendence will decline if a 16 team playoff is instituted. If anything, the excitement and following would grow...not decrease. But again, no one can actually prove that until it happens.

Which is the reason it will not happen. You believe the regular season will not be hurt, they are not sure. They know what they have. What they have is very good for them. Why would they change it? From their point of view "if it ain't broke don't fix it". It may be broken for the BE, MAC, MW, CUSA etc. But not for the SEC. Feel free to rant about how "unfair" it all is but until it can be shown that home game revenue streams will not be lessened, Slive and company will not go along.

 

[Dann]

bcs football with a 16 playoff with home games up to the ship game at a N site would be huge for fans. look at other postseasons. nfl mlb types where fans get more home games that mean something. easy sellouts. that will also raise season tix at many schools as ppl will want to get to postseason tix quicker than the single game buyer types. maybe make a rule built in tho that in order to host your stadium must be 50k or bigger or something and u must save 8k seats for other team or w/e. if teams can't meet that stadium requirment, then the closest stadium of size will be the site.

 

[John Greene]

How in the hell would a playoff possibly reduce the attraction of an SEC regular season home schedule?

With 4 or 6 teams at most in a post season playoff it is very unlikely that a two loss team will get in, even a 1 loss team may have a tough time getting in. This makes every conference game a potential elimination game. The more teams you qualify for the "post season" the less important you make the in conference upset. Sticking it to your rivals is almost as important as winning to SEC fans. If someone could somehow have given Bama their second loss it would have kept them out of the BCS championship game. If there is a 16 team playoff Bama probably still goes as an at large.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

With 4 or 6 teams at most in a post season playoff it is very unlikely that a two loss team will get in, even a 1 loss team may have a tough time getting in. This makes every conference game a potential elimination game. The more teams you qualify for the "post season" the less important you make the in conference upset. Sticking it to your rivals is almost as important as winning to SEC fans. If someone could somehow have given Bama their second loss it would have kept them out of the BCS championship game. If there is a 16 team playoff Bama probably still goes as an at large.

Or the counter point - if more teams have a shot to qualify, those late season games between 1 loss teams, become even more intense because they would be fighting for at large bids.

The whole idea that the regular season becomes meaningless is just so unfounded.

Is the NFL not the most popular sport in America? Does their regular season not mean anything? 12 out of 32 teams make the playoffs in the NFL. We're talking about 8 or 16 out of 125 or so. I just fail to see how regular season losses significance across the board when the playoff you still can't lose more than 2 games and it opens up the field to the whole country.

 

[John Greene]

Or the counter point - if more teams have a shot to qualify, those late season games between 1 loss teams, become even more intense because they would be fighting for at large bids.

The whole idea that the regular season becomes meaningless is just so unfounded.

Is the NFL not the most popular sport in America? Does their regular season not mean anything? 12 out of 32 teams make the playoffs in the NFL. We're talking about 8 or 16 out of 125 or so. I just fail to see how regular season losses significance across the board when the playoff you still can't lose more than 2 games and it opens up the field to the whole country.

Look, I am not saying that a different system will not work I am just trying to explain why the Mike Slives of the world are reluctant to make a change. Also a lot of SEC fans alsowant to minimize the probability of a team in a large field getting hot. They look at BB and see mid majors making a run or Uconn having a mediocre season, followed by a great tournament run to the NC, followed by a mediocre season. With a very small number of teams they have more control and believe it or not they like it that way. In BB not being in a "power conference" doesn't keep you out of the hunt. In FB it pretty much has kept you out. The SEC etc, are the in's and like it that way.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Look, I am not saying that a different system will not work I am just trying to explain why the Mike Slives of the world are reluctant to make a change. Also a lot of SEC fans alsowant to minimize the probability of a team in a large field getting hot. They look at BB and see mid majors making a run or Uconn having a mediocre season, followed by a great tournament run to the NC, followed by a mediocre season. With a very small number of teams they have more control and believe it or not they like it that way. In BB not being in a "power conference" doesn't keep you out of the hunt. In FB it pretty much has kept you out. The SEC etc, are the in's and like it that way.

I get the whole consolidation of power angle and letting others into the title hunt. That makes sense. It's an awful system, but I 'get it'.

I still don't see the logic of a playoff undermining the regular season.