THIS makes me nauseous.

[Husky25]

Frank. I am intrigued by your idea but curious about the logistics. These bowl games would be played around January 1. Where and when would the semi-final be played? Where and when would the final be played? As you know, one of the arguments, advanced by some, against the playoff system was the idea of not extending the season into the second semester. Do you still see this as an obstacle for implementation of an eight team bowl based playoff system?

While I don't agree that the winners of these particular bowls should move onto a Semi Final round like Frank has it, I agree with, and have been advocating, his premise of an expanded playoff of at least 8 and maybe upwards of 12-16 teams eventually. Logistically for 8 teams, you'd only be adding 1 week to the schedule if you insist on playing these bowls on or around January 1. I personally think there is too much time between Championship week and the Bowl season as it is, which leads to rust and inconsistent 1st quarter play in most bowls.

It would not be a terrible idea to follow the FCS and start the playoff the second weekend of December. The Semis are played on the 3rd weekend. The affected "Student" Athletes are able to take their Finals beginning after the 3rd weekend. Bye on the 4th and Championship game during the first week of January.

Tell me who would be against that?

 

[gioff23]

Let's make a bowl and then complain what bowl we are in. We got woodies over Motor City, Meineke and PapaJohns for goodness sakes.

I think the playoffs will make things very interesting. Envision a playoff system last year and watching the SEC#3 get passed over for an ACC patsy or the B10 joke that made it to the BCS. Or that Oregon got bumped for SEC#3. Or watch the ACC react (and others) when ND gets selected for the playoffs while playing 1/2 a schedule. Folks seem intent on a playoff, but when LSU gets blocked by a 9-3 Va Tech, you'll see how many power conferences there are.

The fact of the matter is that the playoffs are going to make things interesting - there remains 1 power conference, 3 wannabees and a very weak 5th leg.

 

[frankthetank]

Frank. I am intrigued by your idea but curious about the logistics. These bowl games would be played around January 1. Where and when would the semi-final be played? Where and when would the final be played? As you know, one of the arguments, advanced by some, against the playoff system was the idea of not extending the season into the second semester. Do you still see this as an obstacle for implementation of an eight team bowl based playoff system?

If I were running things, I'd have the semifinals played on the closest Monday and Tuesday that's at least one week after New Year's Day and then the national championship on the Sunday that's one week before the Super Bowl (which is the NFL's postseason bye week). Out of all of open money whoring that college leaders have engaged in with respect to football, I've always found the objection to having football in the second semester (even though it's perfectly fine to have basketball practice start in October and not end until the first week of April) to be one of the most disingenuous arguments that I've heard in the playoff discussions. When push comes to shove, I'd expect any playoff expansion to push further into January instead of conflicting with final exams (and not to mention lower TV dollars due to lower ratings around Christmas) in December (even though we as fans may hate that long layoff between the end of the regular season and bowl games).

 

[itgoeslike]

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").

The four-team playoffs, as well as what Frank proposed, is really BCS 2.0 (which of course is the intention). Even though the format now includes 5 conferences instead of 6, the net result is a loss of 1 team. The BCS conferences added two new teams, Utah and TCU, and passed over three, UCONN, Cincinnati, and USF. The Power 4 conferences will keep a little extra, because the ACC will not receive an equal share from the BCS Bowls/Playoff, no matter how hard ESPN tries to suppress that knowledge. Additionally, they have to split that money with a growing number of members. It could be argued that the Big 12, at least for now, will be the big winner with only 10 teams to split the pot.

The main reason the above format is still suspect is that the ACC and Big Ten Champions may not be ranked in the top 8, yet will still have the luxury of playing for the title over higher ranked teams. This year no ACC team finished the polls in the top 8 and with Ohio State banned, the next Big Ten team wasn't even ranked in the top 20. Granted BB and D2 allows conference champions to have an earned place (which I like), but there is a much larger pool. Another problem is the issue of seedings. If the Big Ten and PAC have a down year they will have an easier shot than an SEC champion that will have to play an at-large team to get to the "final four".

I do agree with Frank that there is a great "desire" to keep the Bowl games in the mix along with maintaining the Rose Bowl match ups. Unfortunately, that will ultimately provide us with a cluster of rules and exceptions that are void of the things that make other NCAA championships real and earned.

 

[woomba]

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.

 

[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.