THIS makes me nauseous.

[itgoeslike]

That's why they're not using the polls for the playoffs - it'll be done via committee instead.

Honestly for ratings sake I bet the Big Ten and Pac champions are in it every year whether they deserve it or not and the committee will look to ensure it by weighting different factors during the years. Making it a pure Southern affair kills the point of going the playoff route to being with.

Yes, that's how the four team playoffs will work. I was commenting on the suggestion of using the four bowl games as the qualifiers for the four team playoff. I do think the playoffs should be seeded. If the playoffs ever grow to 16, then I think the top 5-8 conference champions get a bid and the balance are at-large. With regard to your comment about ratings, I don't disagree that two SEC champions playing for a national championship year after year will hurt ratings long term, especially when you consider the fan base size of the Big Ten and PAC.

 

[itgoeslike]

The bowl issue is real problem for the "Group of 5" and is a precursor to the isolation planned in the coming decade. Above them, the Power 4 + ACC will have their own set of exclusive bowls and BCS playoffs. Below them Division II, III, etc. have their own playoff systems. The G5 will be clamoring for an opportunity to get their bowl eligible teams in post season play. What the G5 needs to do is come together and develop a bowl tourney (much like the NIT) by creating their own bowl properties or utilizing existing bowls, which ever makes the most sense financially. The moratorium on new bowls has expired, so unless it's in the group's favor they should pass over some existing bowls. When an existing bowl can't fill their card with two G5 teams or provide a partner for a P5 team, you'll see these bowls have a higher appreciation for the G5 conferences. Teams like UCONN (at least for now), UCF, USF, Boise State, Cincinnati, Northern Illinois, Nevada, Houston, SD State could vie for a championship. A win could help position the winning program for a higher preseason ranking, certainly much better than a third tier bowl victory. If the concept ever took off, they could even open it up to P5 teams. Just like the NIT did, maybe there is a slight chance that the tourney lays the ground work for inclusion in a broader playoff format down the road.

As mentioned in the article, there are only so many bowl eligible teams to play in all the bowls so they have a small amount of leverage. Whether they choose to use it is another story. Doing nothing will put them in a tough spot.

 

[metsfan2323]

The night UL was confirmed as the ACC's choice was the night our athletic program took a mortal wound.

Loser

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Loser

What did he say that was untrue?

If we're stuck in the AAC instead of the ACC our football program will have been relegated to second tier status.

 

[RS9999X]

The Big 4 want to advance both Division Champs and phase out Conference Championship games and replace them with playoff Bowls.
.
I expect we will see the Big 4 runner-ups each hosting a November Bowl against the ACC 1 & 2 and against two at-large teams. A 4 bowl preliminary.

 

[TRest]

Loser

You're a Mets fans so right back at you. And prove me wrong.

 

[UPitt]

The Big 4 want to advance both Division Champs and phase out Conference Championship games and replace them with playoff Bowls.
.
I expect we will see the Big 4 runner-ups each hosting a November Bowl against the ACC 1 & 2 and against two at-large teams. A 4 bowl preliminary.

Interesting, but not going to happen. As long as UNC and FSU are in the ACC and ND is independent, the ACC and ND will be treated as an equal even if the product on the field is not. If UNC and FSU find new conference homes, then the ACC will be relegated to the "group of 5" and the ACC will not receive any special considerations.

You did touch on a very interesting idea using bowl games though. Under the current structure, conferences own the rights to conference championship games. In theory, this should make more money than playing the conference championship at a bowl game, because the conference owns the full rights for championship games. But with recent attendance issues at conference championship games, I wonder if a conference would consider hosting the conference championship game at a host bowl sight.

 

[alsacs]

I'd be very surprised if an 8-team playoff (which I agree is more likely than not going to happen no matter what the powers that be say) isn't incorporated into the bowls:

Rose: Big Ten vs. Pac-12
Sugar: SEC vs. at-large
Orange: ACC vs. at-large
Cotton: Big 12 vs. at-large

Winners of those 4 bowls move on in the playoffs. The power conferences keep control of the system and revenue, the prestigious bowls that feature power conferences are maintained, and the power conference championship games become de facto playoff games (which in turn drives more revenue toward them) . It's not an accident that every single thing that I just said was geared toward what the power conferences want: I think that they'll eventually go to 8, but it will be on their terms where they're able to capture almost all of the financial upside. Fans might say that they're weary of the bowls, but they're still a mechanism for the power conferences to control the overall system and continue to provide better rated programming for ESPN than 95% of non-NFL events (the latter of which explains more than anything why they continue to exist despite being perceived as "meaningless").

In your proposal if they guarantee the big 5 conference an automatic bid then with these large 14 team conferences with a 12 game schedule they will likely go 10 game conference schedules since each conference will have a guaranteed playoff spot and will want their best team to come from their conference and play conference games. I don't see this scenario happening unless the big 5 conferences agreed to give one of the 3 at-large spots to a non-power 5 conference team for fairness. The best scenario IMO would be a 16 team playoff a la FCS and give all 11 D-1 conferences(AAC, ACC, B1G, Big XII, CUSA, MAC, MWC, Pac-12, SEC, Sun Belt, WAC) an automatic bid and 5 at-large teams. Play first round on-campuses, play quarter-finals at 2 sites with double-headers at each BCS sites(Orange, Rose, Fiesta, Sugar), semi-final doubleheader(at one of the two sites not used in the quarter-final), then the Championship game at the 4th site.

By having double-headers it would get 4 fanbases to one site and would fill the stadium up regardless of the four teams there and would create a march madness type atmosphere. Michigan, Ohio State fans at the Rose Bowl site with Ohio State playing Oregon and Michigan playing Alabama it would be tremendous theater. If they wanted to do a two single headers on back to back days that would work as well one game on Friday, the other game on Saturday like that a la the Pac-12 Championship game on Friday, and the B1G game on Saturday.

 

[itgoeslike]

Interesting, but not going to happen. As long as UNC and FSU are in the ACC and ND is independent, the ACC and ND will be treated as an equal even if the product on the field is not. If UNC and FSU find new conference homes, then the ACC will be relegated to the "group of 5" and the ACC will not receive any special considerations.

You did touch on a very interesting idea using bowl games though. Under the current structure, conferences own the rights to conference championship games. In theory, this should make more money than playing the conference championship at a bowl game, because the conference owns the full rights for championship games. But with recent attendance issues at conference championship games, I wonder if a conference would consider hosting the conference championship game at a host bowl sight.

The ACC and ND are already not treated as equal partners. While the ACC will receive and equal share of 71.5% of the playoff revenue (27% to the group of 5, 1% to ND, and .5% to Ind.) they stand to make less than the P4 when it comes contract "BCS" bowls. The P4 schools will split $160M for the Rose and Sugar Bowls. The ACC will collect $27.5M for a half share of the Orange Bowl. The Big Ten or SEC will pick up the other half share of the Orange in most years. So at least for the contract bowls the Big 1o or SEC could make up to $67.5M while the max payout for the ACC is at $27.5M. Things might change, but for now, the the P4 conferences stand to make a bit more.

 

[specialisthusky]

In your proposal if they guarantee the big 5 conference an automatic bid then with these large 14 team conferences with a 12 game schedule they will likely go 10 game conference schedules since each conference will have a guaranteed playoff spot and will want their best team to come from their conference and play conference games. I don't see this scenario happening unless the big 5 conferences agreed to give one of the 3 at-large spots to a non-power 5 conference team for fairness. The best scenario IMO would be a 16 team playoff a la FCS and give all 11 D-1 conferences(AAC, ACC, B1G, Big XII, CUSA, MAC, MWC, Pac-12, SEC, Sun Belt, WAC) an automatic bid and 5 at-large teams. Play first round on-campuses, play quarter-finals at 2 sites with double-headers at each BCS sites(Orange, Rose, Fiesta, Sugar), semi-final doubleheader(at one of the two sites not used in the quarter-final), then the Championship game at the 4th site.

By having double-headers it would get 4 fanbases to one site and would fill the stadium up regardless of the four teams there and would create a march madness type atmosphere. Michigan, Ohio State fans at the Rose Bowl site with Ohio State playing Oregon and Michigan playing Alabama it would be tremendous theater. If they wanted to do a two single headers on back to back days that would work as well one game on Friday, the other game on Saturday like that a la the Pac-12 Championship game on Friday, and the B1G game on Saturday.

"I went to the UConn board this morning and they actually had a thread about weak the ACC GOR is and how UConn/UVA to the B1G makes sense and because FSU's AD was forced to retire they are looking to bail. I now officially declare that board WVU level of anti-ACC agenda that I will no longer visit. " June 6, 2013

That sure didn't last long.

 

[alsacs]

"I went to the UConn board this morning and they actually had a thread about weak the ACC GOR is and how UConn/UVA to the B1G makes sense and because FSU's AD was forced to retire they are looking to bail. I now officially declare that board WVU level of anti-ACC agenda that I will no longer visit. " June 6, 2013

That sure didn't last long.

I am glad that I bother you that much you feel the need to bring this up. My post was of something that interested me and had nothing to do with conference realignment it had to do with expansion of the college playoffs. If you don't like my posts I suggest you ignore me. I stand by what I have said I have been fair and if you don't like me ignore me, the fact is I honestly can't see any need to bring this up except to start a flame war. Congrats you won one.

 

[UPitt]

The ACC and ND are already not treated as equal partners. While the ACC will receive and equal share of 71.5% of the playoff revenue (27% to the group of 5, 1% to ND, and .5% to Ind.) they stand to make less than the P4 when it comes contract "BCS" bowls. The P4 schools will split $160M for the Rose and Sugar Bowls. The ACC will collect $27.5M for a half share of the Orange Bowl. The Big Ten or SEC will pick up the other half share of the Orange in most years. So at least for the contract bowls the Big 1o or SEC could make up to $67.5M while the max payout for the ACC is at $27.5M. Things might change, but for now, the the P4 conferences stand to make a bit more.

The discussion was about access to the championship playoffs. The ACC and ND will continue to have equal access as long as UNC and FSU remain in the ACC, and ND remains independent. Money was not equal before the BCS system, during the BCS system, and will remain unequal after the playoff is in place. Unequality with regards to money and SOS can have an impact on placement of teams in the playoff system because less funded schools with a weaker schedule are at a disadvantage to those of the B1G and SEC. But these financial disadvantages currently exist in todays system as well.

The scenario presented was that the P4 conference winners would receive a bye while the ACC winner would be required to play a first round game every year. This would be a competetive disadvantage for the ACC with respect to access. My point is that the other 4 conferences will not put the ACC at a rules and selection disadvantage with respect to accessing the playoffs as long as UNC and FSU remain in the ACC.

 

[itgoeslike]

The discussion was about access to the championship playoffs. The ACC and ND will continue to have equal access as long as UNC and FSU remain in the ACC, and ND remains independent. Money was not equal before the BCS system, during the BCS system, and will remain unequal after the playoff is in place. Unequality with regards to money and SOS can have an impact on placement of teams in the playoff system because less funded schools with a weaker schedule are at a disadvantage to those of the B1G and SEC. But these financial disadvantages currently exist in todays system as well.

The scenario presented was that the P4 conference winners would receive a bye while the ACC winner would be required to play a first round game every year. This would be a competetive disadvantage for the ACC with respect to access. My point is that the other 4 conferences will not put the ACC at a rules and selection disadvantage with respect to accessing the playoffs as long as UNC and FSU remain in the ACC.

Actually in the current BCS system (last year thereof) each conference picks up an equal share of BCS bowl payouts, including the Big East/AAC. In terms of access to the playoffs any team ranked in the top four will have an opportunity to play for the championship. Yes, we agree the deck is stacked against the Group of Five schools for a number of reasons including SOS. But in terms of "access" it extends somewhat to the ACC. One of the reasons FSU considered leaving the ACC is because they know that a 1 loss team in the ACC will most likely not make it to the playoffs, whereas a 1-loss SEC, B1G 12, and PAC (and possibly Big 10) champion probably will.

 

[uconnfan68]

The bowls are going to become irrelevant in 3 years when they go t an 8 team playoff. No one is going to want to watch irrelevant bowl when that happens.

Hope you're right about this.

 

[Husky25]

Hope you're right about this.

People watch irrelevent bowls now. I don't see why it would change merely because the number of playoff games increases from 1 to 3 to 7 (when 8 team are in the playoff).

 

[freescooter]

I agree that a future expansion will probably piggy back on the bowl system but I'd be surprised if those are the pairings - Pac-12 & Big Ten would be at too much of a disadvantage systematically and would make the playoffs less often the other bowls.

I actually don't think so. I mean I can accept the premise of an 8, and even eventually a 16 team playoff, but I think the bowls will not be part of it. Nobody is traveling from say Columbus to LA then from Columbus to say Miami, then say from Columbus to Dallas to watch Ohio State make it to the Championship game. it is just too expensive and it doesn't work except for someone who is both a huge fan and extremely wealthy. That is a relatively small demographic. And as the ACC and Big 12 Championship games demonstrated, the local fan just doesn't attend these things when his or her team isn't involved. College football is like baseball in that sense. Red Sox fans will go to see the Red Sox but if Pittsburgh played San Francisco in Fenway, the crowd would be minimal. If it is a made for tv event, which it pretty much will be, maybe attendance doesn't matter, but still I have to think it does matter to the host cities and the bowls themselves. I suspect that a much more likely scenario, probably even in the 4 team playoff eventually will be early rounds on campus even if the "gate" is somehow controlled by the BCS. The other problem with using the existing bowls is that certain leagues/teams will have significant advantages. The Big 10 has for decades complained about the benefits the PAC has in the Rose Bowl, particularly when the host is USC or UCLA. Imagine if you're a 2 or 3 seed having to travel to New Orleans to play #6 or 7 LSU or your 4 seed and B-12 Champ K-state having to play #8 Texas A&M in the "neutral " Cotton Bowl or ACC Champ Pitt getting at large Florida in the Orange. there are just too many potential problems with the existing bowls. the days about worrying that lousy weather will effect the outcome of a game are long gone. If you are going to a playoff it just makes sense to skip the neutral site stuff and go to home games for the top seeds. For what its worth, I actually think the 4 team playoff will find that to be a necessity within a year or two because I doubt fans will travel 2 weeks in a row and if they need to travel, they'd prefer to take the chance that their team will get to the title game.

 

[woomba]

Home games for top seeds can be problematic due to weather, stadium, and logistical concerns.

For example, in a hypothetical world where a small stadium team like Wake Forest (or UConn) makes the playoffs as the higher seed NO ONE will want to have the game played at home because of the small capacity + lack of additional fixtures (perm. lightning, luxury seating, etc.). This is ignoring the challenges the school would have in operating a stadium during New Years Holiday (and don't forget that most students won't even be around because most of them will have gone home).

I remember this idea being kicked around last year for the playoff semi-finals and it was quickly taken off the table because of those reasons (officially, anyway. They probably also wanted to keep the bowl structure so that the P5 keeps the bulk of the money)

 

[Husky25]

I actually don't think so. I mean I can accept the premise of an 8, and even eventually a 16 team playoff, but I think the bowls will not be part of it. Nobody is traveling from say Columbus to LA then from Columbus to say Miami, then say from Columbus to Dallas to watch Ohio State make it to the Championship game. it is just too expensive and it doesn't work except for someone who is both a huge fan and extremely wealthy. That is a relatively small demographic. And as the ACC and Big 12 Championship games demonstrated, the local fan just doesn't attend these things when his or her team isn't involved. College football is like baseball in that sense. Red Sox fans will go to see the Red Sox but if Pittsburgh played San Francisco in Fenway, the crowd would be minimal. If it is a made for tv event, which it pretty much will be, maybe attendance doesn't matter, but still I have to think it does matter to the host cities and the bowls themselves. I suspect that a much more likely scenario, probably even in the 4 team playoff eventually will be early rounds on campus even if the "gate" is somehow controlled by the BCS. The other problem with using the existing bowls is that certain leagues/teams will have significant advantages. The Big 10 has for decades complained about the benefits the PAC has in the Rose Bowl, particularly when the host is USC or UCLA. Imagine if you're a 2 or 3 seed having to travel to New Orleans to play #6 or 7 LSU or your 4 seed and B-12 Champ K-state having to play #8 Texas A&M in the "neutral " Cotton Bowl or ACC Champ Pitt getting at large Florida in the Orange. there are just too many potential problems with the existing bowls. the days about worrying that lousy weather will effect the outcome of a game are long gone. If you are going to a playoff it just makes sense to skip the neutral site stuff and go to home games for the top seeds. For what its worth, I actually think the 4 team playoff will find that to be a necessity within a year or two because I doubt fans will travel 2 weeks in a row and if they need to travel, they'd prefer to take the chance that their team will get to the title game.

You're right. The NCAA Basketball Tournement is terribly set up. No one travels to those games.

 

[upstater]

People watch irrelevent bowls now. I don't see why it would change merely because the number of playoff games increases from 1 to 3 to 7 (when 8 team are in the playoff).

Simple answer. Year after year, fewer people are watching irrelevant bowls or even care to watch them. In the 1980s, the NIT was still a big deal. Heck, there used to be a consolation game!

As years go by, and the focus turns to the 7 playoff games, the other 23 bowls will lose even more fans until they become bigger money sieves than they already are.

 

[Marty Jackson]

In your proposal if they guarantee the big 5 conference an automatic bid then with these large 14 team conferences with a 12 game schedule they will likely go 10 game conference schedules since each conference will have a guaranteed playoff spot and will want their best team to come from their conference and play conference games. I don't see this scenario happening unless the big 5 conferences agreed to give one of the 3 at-large spots to a non-power 5 conference team for fairness. The best scenario IMO would be a 16 team playoff a la FCS and give all 11 D-1 conferences(AAC, ACC, B1G, Big XII, CUSA, MAC, MWC, Pac-12, SEC, Sun Belt, WAC) an automatic bid and 5 at-large teams. Play first round on-campuses, play quarter-finals at 2 sites with double-headers at each BCS sites(Orange, Rose, Fiesta, Sugar), semi-final doubleheader(at one of the two sites not used in the quarter-final), then the Championship game at the 4th site.

By having double-headers it would get 4 fanbases to one site and would fill the stadium up regardless of the four teams there and would create a march madness type atmosphere. Michigan, Ohio State fans at the Rose Bowl site with Ohio State playing Oregon and Michigan playing Alabama it would be tremendous theater. If they wanted to do a two single headers on back to back days that would work as well one game on Friday, the other game on Saturday like that a la the Pac-12 Championship game on Friday, and the B1G game on Saturday.

only reason this won't happen is because it puts the SEC, Big, and Pac on same footing as Sun Belt, AAC, and WAC.
no way these power conferences give a perceived lessor conference that equal access.

 

[UPitt]

Actually in the current BCS system (last year thereof) each conference picks up an equal share of BCS bowl payouts, including the Big East/AAC. In terms of access to the playoffs any team ranked in the top four will have an opportunity to play for the championship. Yes, we agree the deck is stacked against the Group of Five schools for a number of reasons including SOS. But in terms of "access" it extends somewhat to the ACC. One of the reasons FSU considered leaving the ACC is because they know that a 1 loss team in the ACC will most likely not make it to the playoffs, whereas a 1-loss SEC, B1G 12, and PAC (and possibly Big 10) champion probably will.

The BCS payout is equal under the current system. Under the new playoff system the payout to the Big 5 is still going to be equal. You said the new system will pay the big 4 more than the ACC. Some conferences make more money from TV rights, non-playoff bowls, NCAA credits, etc. than other conferences. This exists today and will continue after the new system is in place. The majority of BCS money is split evenly between 6 conferences today. Under the new system the majority of BCS money is split evenly between the Big 5 conferences. The only difference in terms of money between the old system and the new system is that the BCS money was split evenly between 6 conferences and the Playoff money will be split evenly between 5 conferences now. The remaining money earned by conferences will not change under the new system. Either way, money is not related to the original question.

The suggestion was made that the P4 would make a playoff including 12 teams. The winners of the P4 would each get a bye and the four runners up would get automatic bids to the first round games. The ACC winner and runner up would both play first round games. Two at large bids would also make the first round games. Under this scenario, the ACC is clearly at a disadvantage. I stated that as long as UNC, FSU, and ND are not in the P4, that no playoff system will use wirtten rules and seedings to penalize the ACC. This comment is not related to your quote that the ACC will struggle to get in the new 4 team playoff. I was answering a question about a future idea for a playoff that includes 12 teams.

 

[frankthetank]

Simple answer. Year after year, fewer people are watching irrelevant bowls or even care to watch them. In the 1980s, the NIT was still a big deal. Heck, there used to be a consolation game!

As years go by, and the focus turns to the 7 playoff games, the other 23 bowls will lose even more fans until they become bigger money sieves than they already are.

This is true, but once again, compared to virtually any other programming besides the NFL, the bowls still provide good TV ratings. It takes a monster regular season college basketball matchup (i.e. Duke vs. UNC when both are in the top 10) to approach the ratings of a mediocre bowl matchup. That's why I think the bowl system is still very durable: the TV viewership alone (regardless of ticket sales) is more than enough to justify it. For as much as people complain about the bowls being boring, they provide nearly 3 weeks of programming that draws more viewers on average than events like the Stanley Cup Playoffs and even early round MLB and NBA playoff games. They're not going away on that basis since the bowls (outside of the CFP bowls) are relatively inexpensive in terms of TV rights compared to those properties.

The bowls are also a mechanism for the power conferences to maintain direct control over postseason revenue, as well, which is more important than making the most money for the system overall (which is largely irrelevant to the power conferences compared to how such money is split).

 

[uconnfan68]

This is true, but once again, compared to virtually any other programming besides the NFL, the bowls still provide good TV ratings. It takes a monster regular season college basketball matchup (i.e. Duke vs. UNC when both are in the top 10) to approach the ratings of a mediocre bowl matchup. That's why I think the bowl system is still very durable: the TV viewership alone (regardless of ticket sales) is more than enough to justify it. For as much as people complain about the bowls being boring, they provide nearly 3 weeks of programming that draws more viewers on average than events like the Stanley Cup Playoffs and even early round MLB and NBA playoff games. They're not going away on that basis since the bowls (outside of the CFP bowls) are relatively inexpensive in terms of TV rights compared to those properties.

The bowls are also a mechanism for the power conferences to maintain direct control over postseason revenue, as well, which is more important than making the most money for the system overall (which is largely irrelevant to the power conferences compared to how such money is split).

Never underestimate sports betting on tv ratings.

 

[UPitt]

You're right. The NCAA Basketball Tournement is terribly set up. No one travels to those games.

It would make for a really long day to host 4 college football games in one stadium in a day.

 

[Husky25]

It would make for a really long day to host 4 college football games in one stadium in a day.

That's not what I was meant. If a team makes the Final Four, they are in three different cities over the span of three weekends. You can make the argument that it is easier to sell out a smaller arena (for the first few rounds, at least), but the power football teams travel relatively well and most bowls are in the south, the heart of college football fandom, and in locales where fans would have to travel by plane regardless...

Besides, the National Championship Football Game will be like the final 4. Each team will get their allottment, but a large number of tickets will go to large area business, sponsors, and celebrities on the hosting television station (A la the World Series. "...And Denzel Washington is here. Incidently and unrelated, I heard Denzel has a new movie coming out, produced by 20 Century Fox. What a coincidence that he have box seats behind the Dugout AND have a new movie!!")

Incidently, I believe that if a playoff gets up to 8 (or more) teams, the first rounds should be home games for the higher seeded team. That doesn't mean the bowls are going away. The boost the local economy regardless of how many tickets the participating schools sell or eat.

 

[IthacaMatt]

In your proposal if they guarantee the big 5 conference an automatic bid then with these large 14 team conferences with a 12 game schedule they will likely go 10 game conference schedules since each conference will have a guaranteed playoff spot and will want their best team to come from their conference and play conference games. I don't see this scenario happening unless the big 5 conferences agreed to give one of the 3 at-large spots to a non-power 5 conference team for fairness. The best scenario IMO would be a 16 team playoff a la FCS and give all 11 D-1 conferences(AAC, ACC, B1G, Big XII, CUSA, MAC, MWC, Pac-12, SEC, Sun Belt, WAC) an automatic bid and 5 at-large teams. Play first round on-campuses, play quarter-finals at 2 sites with double-headers at each BCS sites(Orange, Rose, Fiesta, Sugar), semi-final doubleheader(at one of the two sites not used in the quarter-final), then the Championship game at the 4th site.

By having double-headers it would get 4 fanbases to one site and would fill the stadium up regardless of the four teams there and would create a march madness type atmosphere. Michigan, Ohio State fans at the Rose Bowl site with Ohio State playing Oregon and Michigan playing Alabama it would be tremendous theater. If they wanted to do a two single headers on back to back days that would work as well one game on Friday, the other game on Saturday like that a la the Pac-12 Championship game on Friday, and the B1G game on Saturday.

I like the double-header idea, which sounds pretty original, but I think that going to 16 teams is too many unless they eliminate the conference championship games.

 

[UPitt]

That's not what I was meant. If a team makes the Final Four, they are in three different cities over the span of three weekends. You can make the argument that it is easier to sell out a smaller arena (for the first few rounds, at least), but the power football teams travel relatively well and most bowls are in the south, the heart of college football fandom, and in locales where fans would have to travel by plane regardless...

Besides, the National Championship Football Game will be like the final 4. Each team will get their allottment, but a large number of tickets will go to large area business, sponsors, and celebrities on the hosting television station (A la the World Series. "...And Denzel Washington is here. Incidently and unrelated, I heard Denzel has a new movie coming out, produced by 20 Century Fox. What a coincidence that he have box seats behind the Dugout AND have a new movie!!")

Incidently, I believe that if a playoff gets up to 8 (or more) teams, the first rounds should be home games for the higher seeded team. That doesn't mean the bowls are going away. The boost the local economy regardless of how many tickets the participating schools sell or eat.

I was joking about 4 games in a day. I do think the structure of the NCAA tourney promotes fans to travel for the games because it is a weekend event as opposed to a day event. Also, as you touched on the small arenas make it easier to sell tickets and indoor arenas allows these events to take place in NYC, Chicago, Boston, LA (not northern but outdoors in winter), and other northern cities.

But this is football. If the playoffs include the best 8 (or even 16) teams, the the tickets will sell even at neutral sites. Maybe the NCAA will need to charge a lesser amount for the first round games as they do in BB, or play the games at home sites as you suggested. But the real money will be made on TV, and the NCAA just nees to ensure the seats are not empty.

 

[alsacs]

only reason this won't happen is because it puts the SEC, Big, and Pac on same footing as Sun Belt, AAC, and WAC.
no way these power conferences give a perceived lessor conference that equal access.

I understand what your saying, but those 5 at-large spots would come from Pac-12, SEC, B1G, ND for the most part anyway. Giving the smaller conference teams a slot shuts down any anti-trust challenges if college football wanted to expand its playoff system.

Also to other points made, any site without weather problems Georgia Dome, Super Dome, JerryWorld, Rose Bowl could host double-headers easily. Have a 1pm game and then 8pm game. Obviously you couldn't have 4 games at one site like the NCAA tournament. Also, the size of your football field would have no bearing on the playoffs. If your 12-0 and earn the 8 seed you get whomever the committee deemed your opponent would be. Thus, if Northern Illinois was deemed a top 8 seed last year which is doubtful, but possible they would host their first round game. The TV generated from being able to broadcast these games would be sufficient that stadium capacity wouldn't matter. They could disburse the revenue in credits a la the basketball tournament and thus giving each conference atleast 1 credit to divide which would be better than the current system, and the top conferences would earn their additional credits by how their teams performed.

Here is how I would have done it under what I suggested based on last year season.
3rd week in December
1. Notre Dame(at-large) vs. 16. Wisconsin(B1G) (following the LAX model of reducing travel)
2. Alabama(SEC) vs. 15. Arkansas State(Sun Belt)
3. Florida(at-large) vs. 14. Northern Illinois(MAC)
4. Oregon(at-large) vs. 13. Utah State(WAC)
5. Georgia(at-large) vs. 12. Louisville(AAC)
6. Stanford(Pac-12) vs. 11. Boise State(MWC)
7. Texas A&M(at-large) vs. 10. Tulsa(CUSA)
8. Kansas State(Big XII) vs. 9. Florida State(ACC)
Remember in lacrosse geography matters I would flip Tulsa and Louisville if A&M-Tulsa and Georgia-Louisville didn't make better geographic sense.

New Year's week
The quarterfinals
Rose Bowl(Pasadena)- hosts ND-Wisconsin winner vs. K State-FSU winner, Oregon-Utah State winner vs. Georgia-Louisville winner
Orange Bowl(Miami)- Alabama-Arkansas State winner vs. A&M-Tulsa winner, Florida-NIU winner vs. Stanford-Boise winner

2nd week in January
Sugar Bowl(New Orleans)- doubleheader featuring 4 winners

4th week in January week between NFL Conference Championships and Superbowl
Chick-Fil-A Bowl(Atlanta)- National Championship game

 

[frankthetank]

I understand what your saying, but those 5 at-large spots would come from Pac-12, SEC, B1G, ND for the most part anyway. Giving the smaller conference teams a slot shuts down any anti-trust challenges if college football wanted to expand its playoff system.

Also, any site without weather problems Georgia Dome, Super Dome, JerryWorld, Rose Bowl could host double-headers easily. Have a 1pm game and then 8pm game. Obviously you couldn't have 4 games at one site like the NCAA tournament. Also, the size of your football field would have no bearing on the playoffs. If your 12-0 and earn the 8 seed you get whomever the committee deemed your opponent would be. Thus, if Northern Illinois was deemed a top 8 seed last year which is doubtful, but possible they would host their first round game. The TV generated from being able to broadcast these games would be sufficient that stadium capacity wouldn't matter. They could disburse the revenue in credits a la the basketball tournament and thus giving all the conferences atleast 1 credit to divide would be better than the current system, and the top conferences would earn their additional credits by how their teams performed.

Here is how I would have done it under what I suggested based on last year season.
3rd week in December
1. Notre Dame(at-large) vs. 16. Wisconsin(B1G) (following the LAX model of reducing travel)
2. Alabama(SEC) vs. 15. Arkansas State(Sun Belt)
3. Florida(at-large) vs. 14. Northern Illinois(MAC)
4. Oregon(at-large) vs. 13. Utah State(WAC)
5. Georgia(at-large) vs. 12. Louisville(AAC)
6. Stanford(Pac-12) vs. 11. Boise State(MWC)
7. Texas A&M(at-large) vs. 10. Tulsa(CUSA)
8. Kansas State(Big XII) vs. 9. Florida State(ACC)
Remember in lacrosse geography matters I would flip Tulsa and Louisville if A&M-Tulsa and Georgia-Louisville didn't make better geographic sense.

New Year's week
The quarterfinals
Rose Bowl(Pasadena)- hosts ND-Wisconsin winner vs. K State-FSU winner, Oregon-Utah State winner vs. Georgia-Louisville winner
Orange Bowl(Miami)- Alabama-Arkansas State winner vs. A&M-Tulsa winner, Florida-NIU winner vs. Stanford-Boise winner

2nd week in January
Sugar Bowl(New Orleans)- doubleheader featuring 4 winners

4th week in January week between NFL Conference Championships and Superbowl
Chick-Fil-A Bowl(Atlanta)- National Championship game

It's plausible that the power conferences would be willing to provide one spot to the non-power conferences in an 8-team playoff (similar to what it's granting to them in terms of the new CFP bowl system). You will see the power conferences split off from the NCAA before you'll ever see an NCAA Tournament-style autobid for every conference for football, though. Saying that the power conference "should" get more at-large bids has never, ever, ever been a persuasive argument for them to open up access. Limiting access in and of itself is what the power conferences need (whether it's fair or not) and for various reasons, they've always been confident that they could withstand any antitrust challenge. Look at how many times the BCS was threatened by vote-seeking state AGs over the past 15 years, yet NOT A SINGLE LAWSUIT was ever filed. (Whether you'll get sympathetic politicians squawking is a different matter, although the loudest ones from Utah have been largely placated with how the Utes are now part of the power structure.)

 

[frankthetank]

Never underestimate sports betting on tv ratings.

There's an impact there, but even accounting for that, bowl games are still pretty good programming. Fans are bothered by bowls in terms of comparing them to what they wish the system could be (a full-scale playoff) and obsess upon how they come up short, yet ESPN sees bowls as better than 99% of whatever else could be put in those timeslots in December. The latter is what ultimately matters.