Playoff on its way

[UConnSportsGuy]

The biggest opponent of a college football playoff has always been the B1G and their commisioner Delaney. But it looks like they are changing their tune and are open to it now:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...yoff-with-home-games-20120206,0,4747499.story

Obviously, this is because they are getting their cake and eating it to. Their idea is to remove the top 4 teams from the BCS and play home games for the semis and a neutral site for the championship game. Of course they are in favor of this as it will then protect their Rose Bowl slot in the BCS, give them another home game, and ensure their involvement in the playoff. Everyone knows that the 4 team playoff would involve the B1G and SEC Champion every single season. Then the other spots will be split in different years between a 2nd SEC team, a 2nd B1G team, a PAC12 team, a B12 team, or Notre Dame. The Big East, ACC, and all other conferences will essentially be locked out of the 'Playoff'.

On one hand, I am grateful that we are that much closer to having a playoff in college football (and I believe it is just a start...4 teams now...will gradually expand to 6 and eventually at least 8 teams many years from now). But it is frustrating that the system is being crafted with the power conferences (B1G and SEC) basically running the show. Mixed emotions on this news.

 

[SubbaBub]

This was what I preferred, only with 8 teams instead of 4 and a neutral site final four. Hopefully we get there.

 

[Jimdish255]

4 teams is a joke. It will only benefit the super-conferences and that currently may not include us. There's plenty of time for quarterfinal games played at the higher seed and even the losers of the "first round" could be eligible for a later bowl appearance if it makes sense. We can have the 8 team playoff and still have plenty of other bowl games without this option. I fear people are so hungry for this they may take anything including an insufficient bait-and-switch.

 

[UConnSportsGuy]

I fear people are so hungry for this they may take anything including an insufficient bait-and-switch.

That is exactly what is about to happen. Unfortunately, more than 90% of the people don't realize it.

 

[metsfan2323]

I don't see any downside here for the Big East. An undefeated Big East team would have a much better shot of getting invited to the final four then we currently have getting invited to a final two title game. Use 2010 TCU as an example, they were shut out of the championship game but they would have been invited to a final four tournament.

Eventually they will go to a Final Eight and the Big East will be in a better position.

BTW the move to 7 wins for a bowl is also VERY good for the Big East, it is much easier to win 7 in the Big East than it is to win 7 in the SEC or Big 10.

 

[gars44]

Everyone eventually gets what they deserve in life. Simple as that. I know many here feel very much on the outside looking in, but everyone gets exactly what they deserve, including us.

 

[Jax Husky]

4 teams is a joke. It will only benefit the super-conferences and that currently may not include us. There's plenty of time for quarterfinal games played at the higher seed and even the losers of the "first round" could be eligible for a later bowl appearance if it makes sense. We can have the 8 team playoff and still have plenty of other bowl games without this option. I fear people are so hungry for this they may take anything including an insufficient bait-and-switch.

TCU, Boise St., and Cincinnati would have all made it at some point.

 

[Excalibur]

I don't see any downside here for the Big East. An undefeated Big East team would have a much better shot of getting invited to the final four then we currently have getting invited to a final two title game. Use 2010 TCU as an example, they were shut out of the championship game but they would have been invited to a final four tournament.

Eventually they will go to a Final Eight and the Big East will be in a better position.

BTW the move to 7 wins for a bowl is also VERY good for the Big East, it is much easier to win 7 in the Big East than it is to win 7 in the SEC or Big 10.

And every other major bowl game will never see a Big East team again, and is rejoicing in that development. This move is designed to be exclusionary.

 

[metsfan2323]

And every other major bowl game will never see a Big East team again, and is rejoicing in that development. This move is designed to be exclusionary.

The bowl games are meaningless, as in they have no meaning, other than making money for themselves. You can't even say that these "big bowls" provide a monetary payoff for the schools, as UCONN learned the hard way.

The playoff, even if it is just a final four will MAGNIFY the fact that the bowls are indeed meaningless. The playoff will also be a democratising force that helps level the playing field between the haves and have nots which is exactly why it has been shunned for so long. TCU would have made the playoff in 2010 out of the mocked and ridiculed MWC.

The only redeeming feature of a bowl is that they provide the teams and fans a vacation destination in December. The "minor bowls" can provide us that as much as the major bowls.

There are plenty of bowls on New Year's day that aren't named Rose, Fiesta, Orange or Sugar. One of them will host a Big East champion. Who defines what a "Major Bowl" is anyway? The Cotton bowl was once a so called major bowl. Back in the day a Major Bowl was pretty much any bowl played on new year's day. I welcome the return of that.

 

[uconnbill]

I would like +1 being played at the Super Bowl site....

 

[J187Money]

4 teams is a joke. It will only benefit the super-conferences and that currently may not include us. There's plenty of time for quarterfinal games played at the higher seed and even the losers of the "first round" could be eligible for a later bowl appearance if it makes sense. We can have the 8 team playoff and still have plenty of other bowl games without this option. I fear people are so hungry for this they may take anything including an insufficient bait-and-switch.

Might be true but I will complain about it when we go 13-0 and end up ranked 5th.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.237904,-73.077119

 

[SAMCRO]

It is a start, and it would undoubtedly be the first step to 8 teams.

2011 would have been interesting. We would have seen Bama v Okie Lite, along with Stanford, the P12 North runner up, getting selected over Oregon, the P12 champion.
2010 would have put TCU in it
2009 would have put TCU and Cinci in it.

I'm all for it, hoping that it eventually evolves to an 8 or 16 game playoff in 5-10 years. The bowl games will be just as relevant (or irrelevant, depending on your pov) as they currently are.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I believe Delaney's quote from a few months ago was something like, "I'd be all for a playoff as long as you guarantee me a trip to Pasadena every year."

What a guy. College football is becoming such a mess. I long for the days when the biggest problems in the sport were schools paying players out of slush funds.

 

[Jax Husky]

It is a start, and it would undoubtedly be the first step to 8 teams.

2011 would have been interesting. We would have seen Bama v Okie Lite, along with Stanford, the P12 North runner up, getting selected over Oregon, the P12 champion.
2010 would have put TCU in it
2009 would have put TCU and Cinci in it.

I'm all for it, hoping that it eventually evolves to an 8 or 16 game playoff in 5-10 years. The bowl games will be just as relevant (or irrelevant, depending on your pov) as they currently are.

Bama would have probably been out, and LSU in. Also, I would think that the 4 teams would be required to be Conference Champs. This year would have been:
#1 LSU vs #4Oregon
#3Oklahoma St vs. #Boise St.

If you didn't require Conf Champs, it would have been:
#1LSU vs. #4Stanford
#2Bama vs. #3Okie Lite

There would have been plenty of times when "non-marquee" teams would have made it under this scenario.

 

[Excalibur]

The bowl games are meaningless, as in they have no meaning, other than making money for themselves. You can't even say that these "big bowls" provide a monetary payoff for the schools, as UCONN learned the hard way.

The playoff, even if it is just a final four will MAGNIFY the fact that the bowls are indeed meaningless. The playoff will also be a democratising force that helps level the playing field between the haves and have nots which is exactly why it has been shunned for so long. TCU would have made the playoff in 2010 out of the mocked and ridiculed MWC.

The only redeeming feature of a bowl is that they provide the teams and fans a vacation destination in December. The "minor bowls" can provide us that as much as the major bowls.

There are plenty of bowls on New Year's day that aren't named Rose, Fiesta, Orange or Sugar. One of them will host a Big East champion. Who defines what a "Major Bowl" is anyway? The Cotton bowl was once a so called major bowl. Back in the day a Major Bowl was pretty much any bowl played on new year's day. I welcome the return of that.

The top bowls won't suffer a bit -- trust me, they matter and will continue to matter for the top programs and their fans. The only bowls that will be marginalized are the ones that we will have access to. The move to a four team playoff that will (very) occasionally let in a non SEC/B12/Pac12/B1G school will allow the most desirable bowl games to tie in exclusively with those conferences. Everything else becomes minor league.

Follow this rule: If Delaney supports it, it's exclusionary.

 

[UConnSportsGuy]

There would have been plenty of times when "non-marquee" teams would have made it under this scenario.

They will protect their own much more when the final four playoff spots are at stake. You are being naive if you think otherwise.

 

[metsfan2323]

The top bowls won't suffer a bit -- trust me, they matter and will continue to matter for the top programs and their fans.

I think the fans of the top programs, middle programs, and bottom programs are actually telling the powers that be that the bowls are meaningless and they want a playoff. The was pretty much the point that came across in the article.

 

[metsfan2323]

They will protect their own much more when the final four playoff spots are at stake. You are being naive if you think otherwise.

I think you are being paranoid. A highly ranked Big East team that is truly deserving of a spot in the final four would not be able to be excluded by politics.

 

[Jimdish255]

I guess I just prefer 8 to 4 because you can usually throw a blanket over a group larger than 4 when it come to rankings.

 

[Rondogg]

Wait, who said something about 7 wins minimum to get to a bowl? Would there even be enough teams to fill all of the scheduled bowls?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

This was completely predictable after the Orange, Fiesta and Sugar all had huge blocks of tickets dumped on the secondary market and sold at a deep discount to face. The only time the fans matter is when they vote with their checkbook, which is exactly what has been happening. NOW the BCS is paying attention.

Doors like this don't just get opened a crack and then closed again. The door is going to get kicked in. Keep in mind that there is no reason for the BCS to bid against itself by opening with an 8 team playoff. Throw out the 4 team proposal to the networks and watch what happens. The minute there is a playoff option available, it becomes by far the preferred product for the networks, driving up price and increasing the demand for more games, while at the same times, the bowls immediately become much less valuable as demand for that product craters. The increased win requirement is no coincidence. The 7 win requirement is going to eliminate about 6 bowls, which I think is a slow motion process of eliminating the entire business model.

 

[UConnSportsGuy]

Wait, who said something about 7 wins minimum to get to a bowl? Would there even be enough teams to fill all of the scheduled bowls?

It will go along with Bowl Contraction.

 

[UConnSportsGuy]

It is interesting that the win requirement for bowl games is going to 7 though. Because at the same time conferences are expanding (and increasing the number of conference games) and creating scheduling agreements between themselves (see B1G and Pac12). This is going to reduce the number of games that lower conferences get to play the 'Big Boys' and there will less of a chance for the non power conferences to 'prove themselves.' While this works in favor of the major power conferences (in terms of rankings and perception...see SEC in last 10 years), it also will increase their strengths of schedule and they will feed on their own...it will be much tougher to make a bowl with more wins required and more games against each other. It is an interesting contradiction for the power conferences.

 

[HartbeatHusky]

It is interesting that the win requirement for bowl games is going to 7 though. Because at the same time conferences are expanding (and increasing the number of conference games) and creating scheduling agreements between themselves (see B1G and Pac12). This is going to reduce the number of games that lower conferences get to play the 'Big Boys' and there will less of a chance for the non power conferences to 'prove themselves.' While this works in favor of the major power conferences (in terms of rankings and perception...see SEC in last 10 years), it also will increase their strengths of schedule and they will feed on their own...it will be much tougher to make a bowl with more wins required and more games against each other. It is an interesting contradiction for the power conferences.

I think the 7 win requirement could be a bit of an equalizer for the lesser conferences since the top conferences will no longer be able to send 6 win teams to any bowls, top tier or low tier. This will at the very least hold a seat at some of the tables for 7+ win teams from the non-big 4 conferences. Combine this with the fact that the top 4 teams will now be taken out of the bowl picture and it leads me to believe that this proposed new set up will not completely shut out the less prestigious conferences. The 7 win requirement would have kept both Iowa St. and Vandy out of bowl games this last season if I'm not mistaken.

 

[UConnSportsGuy]

The 7 win requirement would have kept both Iowa St. and Vandy out of bowl games this last season if I'm not mistaken.

Heck, you would have had a team play in the PAC12 Championship Game, but not be eligible to go to a bowl game (UCLA).