THIS makes me nauseous.

[Husky25]

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.

That's not necessarily true, unless you get tickets for more than one session on different days.

The NCAA instituted a rule a few years back that the Final Four and regional championships may not be played in venues that do not sit at least 75k and 40K (or similar thresholds, I don't remember the exact numbers), respectively. That means that there are no more championship games at Rupp Arena, in New Mexico, or at the Thomas & Mack Center.

Here is how I would have done it under what I suggested based on last year season.
3rd week in December

The 3rd weekend in December is either the beginning or is smack dab in the middle of Finals week for most schools. If the NCAA wants to continue the ruse of calling the players Student-Athletes, a playoff of 8 would have to start, at the latest, 2 weeks after Thanksgiving. Any playoff involving over 8 teams would back that up by a week, forcing the start of the season to be pulled forward by a week or a bye week being eliminated.

I suggested a page or two back of following the FCS schedule. 2nd Weekend = round of 8, 3rd weekend = semi's, 4th weekend = Bye week. First week of January = Championship week. Done...

Again. Who's against this?

 

[Husky25]

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.

It's The Most Wonderful Week of the Year!!!

 

[alsacs]

That's not necessarily true, unless you get tickets for more than one session on different days.

The NCAA instituted a rule a few years back that the Final Four and regional championships may not be played in venues that do not sit at least 75k and 40K (or similar thresholds, I don't remember the exact numbers), respectively. That means that there are no more championship games at Rupp Arena, in New Mexico, or at the Thomas & Mack Center.


The 3rd weekend in December is either the beginning or is smack dab in the middle of Finals week for most schools. If the NCAA wants to continue the rouse of calling the players Student-Athletes, a playoff of 8 would have to start, at the latest, 2 weeks after Thanksgiving. Any playoff involving over 8 teams would back that up by a week, forcing the start of the season to be pulled forward by a week or a bye week being eliminated.

I suggested a page or two back of following the FCS schedule. 2nd Weekend = round of 8, 3rd weekend = semi's, 4th weekend = Bye week First week of January = Championship week. Done...

Yeah, your probably right push it up or back a week as I left wiggle room. The end game for a National Championship game would be the week between the NFL conference championships and Super Bowl.

 

[frankthetank]

That's not necessarily true, unless you get tickets for more than one session on different days.

The NCAA instituted a rule a few years back that the Final Four and regional championships may not be played in venues that do not sit at least 75k and 40K (or similar thresholds, I don't remember the exact numbers), respectively. That means that there are no more championship games at Rupp Arena, in New Mexico, or at the Thomas & Mack Center.


The 3rd weekend in December is either the beginning or is smack dab in the middle of Finals week for most schools. If the NCAA wants to continue the ruse of calling the players Student-Athletes, a playoff of 8 would have to start, at the latest, 2 weeks after Thanksgiving. Any playoff involving over 8 teams would back that up by a week, forcing the start of the season to be pulled forward by a week or a bye week being eliminated.

I suggested a page or two back of following the FCS schedule. 2nd Weekend = round of 8, 3rd weekend = semi's, 4th weekend = Bye week First week of January = Championship week. Done...

All of this is why, push comes to shove, a larger playoff would be more likely to extend further into January with New Year's as the starting point as opposed to being the end point.

Remember that the NCAA is largely irrelevant there. Any expansion of the playoff would be because the power conferences (and particularly the Big Ten and SEC) have agreed to do so, which means that it will be on their terms. To me, that means limited access for the non-power conferences and continued use of the bowls. Once again, the use of bowls enable the power conferences to control the system, which is why they aren't going away. They also want the playoff teams playing in the games around New Year's as opposed to blowing their wad with December playoff games and then taking them out of the bowl system altogether. It's not what the non-power conferences want to see, but that doesn't matter since they really have no say in this.

 

[alsacs]

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.)

I get what your saying, but the revenue would be larger in a 16 team playoff versus an 8 team playoff. Also, I agree the non-power 5 would likely get access in an 8 team situation and if the 5 power conference teams got automatic berths that leaves only 3 at-larges, where if you go with the 11 conferences all get 1 berth that leaves 5 at-large berths.
In an 8 team playoff based on last year assuming all 5 power conference teams got berths it would be IMO
Rose Bowl- 1. Notre Dame vs. 8. Wisconsin
Fiesta Bowl- 4. Stanford vs. 5. Florida
Orange Bowl- 3. Georgia vs. 6. Florida State
Sugar Bowl- 2. Alabama vs. 7. Oregon

I think once the drip of an 8 team playoff occurs after the "plus 1" we will see a push for 16 under giving 11 conference champions and those five extra at-large bids. Maybe its modified and you earn an automatic bid by reaching certain bench marks over a period of time to protect the top conferences.

 

[woomba]

You can't get to 16 without killing the importance of the regular season, so that will never happen.

 

[frankthetank]

I get what your saying, but the revenue would be larger in a 16 team playoff versus an 8 team playoff. Also, I agree the non-power 5 would likely get access in an 8 team situation and if the 5 power conference teams got automatic berths that leaves only 3 at-larges, where if you go with the 11 conferences all get 1 berth that leaves 5 at-large berths.
In an 8 team playoff based on last year assuming all 5 power conference teams got berths it would be IMO
Rose Bowl- 1. Notre Dame vs. 8. Wisconsin
Fiesta Bowl- 4. Stanford vs. 5. Florida
Orange Bowl- 3. Georgia vs. 6. Florida State
Sugar Bowl- 2. Alabama vs. 7. Oregon

I think once the drip of an 8 team playoff occurs after the "plus 1" we will see a push for 16 under giving 11 conference champions and those two extra at-large bids. Maybe its modified and you earn an automatic bid by reaching certain bench marks over a period of time to protect the top conferences.

The revenue would be larger for whom: the power conferences or the non-power conferences? That's what a lot of people are missing with the playoff situation. The power conferences don't really care about total revenue. What they care about is (a) how the playoff revenue is split and (b) protecting the value of their regular season TV revenue.

Let me tell you what horrifies every power conference university president, commissioner and athletic director more than virtually everything else: that regular season football TV revenue ends up getting swallowed up by the postseason in the way that the NCAA Tournament took virtually all of the regular season basketball TV revenue. You can argue all day that a 16-team playoff won't do that, but those power conference people won't believe you. They saw basketball TV revenue disappear before their very eyes and they blame the NCAA Tournament for it, which is why they have fought hell and high water against changes to the college football postseason for so long. I can't emphasize this enough: the power conferences HATE the NCAA Tournament revenue system (even though they still make the most money from it and get the most at-large bids). An 8-team playoff is somewhat viable since there's an argument that the power conferences end up owning their own de facto playoff games with their conference championship games (which they control 100% of the revenue of).

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself who is getting the larger benefit from a larger playoff: the Big Ten/SEC or the non-power conferences? If it's the latter (and most people would say that would be true for a 16-team playoff), then it's DOA. An 8-team playoff still plausibly helps the power conferences more than the non-power conferences, so that's why there's actually some talk about it out there among the people that matter.

 

[alsacs]

The revenue would be larger for whom: the power conferences or the non-power conferences? That's what a lot of people are missing with the playoff situation. The power conferences don't really care about total revenue. What they care about is (a) how the playoff revenue is split and (b) protecting the value of their regular season TV revenue.

Let me tell you what horrifies every power conference university president, commissioner and athletic director more than virtually everything else: that regular season football TV revenue ends up getting swallowed up by the postseason in the way that the NCAA Tournament took virtually all of the regular season basketball TV revenue. You can argue all day that a 16-team playoff won't do that, but those power conference people won't believe you. They saw basketball TV revenue disappear before their very eyes and they blame the NCAA Tournament for it, which is why they have fought hell and high water against changes to the college football postseason for so long. I can't emphasize this enough: the power conferences HATE the NCAA Tournament revenue system (even though they still make the most money from it and get the most at-large bids). An 8-team playoff is somewhat viable since there's an argument that the power conferences end up owning their own de facto playoff games with their conference championship games (which they control 100% of the revenue of).

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself who is getting the larger benefit from a larger playoff: the Big Ten/SEC or the non-power conferences? If it's the latter (and most people would say that would be true for a 16-team playoff), then it's DOA. An 8-team playoff still plausibly helps the power conferences more than the non-power conferences, so that's why there's actually some talk about it out there among the people that matter.

I have question that I am not sure you know the answer to yet. Besides the conferences individually making deals with the new playoff bowls in years they aren't hosting semi-final or championship games. Like Rose Bowl getting 80 million from ESPN and paying the B1G-Pac-12 conferences big bucks, Sugar Bowl getting 80 million from ESPN and paying SEC-Big XII conferences, Orange Bowl getting 55 million from ESPN and paying ACC-B1G/SEC/ND hybrid. Isn't the new playoff money basically being divided up by the power 5 teams now regardless of who makes the playoffs or is there a formula that rewards the conferences that win the NC or reach the title game? I ask because if the Big 5 right now are controlling that money and I believe they are couldn't they just expand this thing on their own give a tiny piece to the small conferences like they are now and just divide up that additional money they would get since the playoffs administrators would be selling 15 playoff games to TV versus 3 right now.

 

[woomba]

I have question that I am not sure you know the answer to yet. Besides the conferences individually making deals with the new playoff bowls in years they aren't hosting semi-final or championship games. Like Rose Bowl getting 80 million from ESPN and paying the B1G-Pac-12 conferences big bucks, Sugar Bowl getting 80 million from ESPN and paying SEC-Big XII conferences, Orange Bowl getting 55 million from ESPN and paying ACC-B1G/SEC/ND hybrid. Isn't the new playoff money basically being divided up by the power 5 teams now regardless of who makes the playoffs or is there a formula that rewards the conferences that win the NC or reach the title game? I ask because if the Big 5 right now are controlling that money and I believe they are couldn't they just expand this thing on their own give a tiny piece to the small conferences like they are now and just divide up that additional money they would get since the playoffs administrators would be selling 15 playoff games to TV versus 3 right now.

The answers to your questions are here

Basically all teams in the playoff get an additional $6M each. There is no additional payout for the championship game. The "host" bowl teams get $4M each. However there is no payout for "contract" bowls - all revenue is paid out to conferences.

One of the main things that I don't think has been resolved yet is how the G5 conferences are going to split their 27% share. The P5 conferences basically just set aside that amount and are letting the other conferences sort it out on their own.

 

[freescooter]

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

That is a mistake everyone makes in comparing the two. First off, you only need 2500 to travel to make it seem like a "huge" crowd. And you have 4, or in the early rounds 8, teams. With the excpetion of the Final four, the games are played in facilities where capacity is between 12 and 16,000 +-. Compare that with the seating at the Rose Bowl (92,000) or the Superdome (76000). You could fit 5 Verizon Centers into the Rose Bowl for heaven sakes. And you'll have 1 not 4 games. Further, the NCAA has made a pretty significant effort to place teams so that their early round games are not that far from home. Even though they were in the "West" region, UConn and Bucknell, And the Southeast Regional, Pitt and Old Dominion all played in Washington DC. and look at the crowds...they are usually fairly skimpy for most games in reality. The NCAA was reporting session attendance, not individual games and even that didn't exceed capacity at most sites. In fact, lack of attendance at the early round games is a problem the NCAA is trying to look at. As far as problematic weather, the days of worrying about that ended in about 1975. Only the Big really cares about that any more. For everyone else, playing in bad weather is just a part of the game. Northern teams regularly play at home into December and the NFL does it through January. I know I've sat through at least 2 UConn games where it has snowed.

A final note, look carefully at the attendance figures for the various conference Championships. Even the Big only drew around 40,000 last year. They reported 62000 (Lucas normal capacity) for the 1st year, but it was the first one. If they stay in the 40,000 range watch for them to take a page from the PAC and move it on campus. FWIW even on campus the PAC drew a measly 31500 last year in Palo Alto, and they didn't even sell out their first one at Oregon. The ACC was literally selling tickets for less than the parking fee at the stadium and requiring ACC basketball ticket buyers to also by football championship tix and still only got 62000, well under BoA Stadium's capacity. Based on what I saw on tv, that was tickets sold, not fannies in the seats. Only the SEC actually draws for those games (and I have to be a little skeptical of their attendance reports when they claim as much as 15,000 over capacity for some games.Even in the SEC, I doubt those numbers) But I think those games provide a lesson for what one can expect for the early round playoffs. they might do ok early but as time goes on attendance will lag and they won't make sense. And the farther a fan base has to travel the worse it will be.

 

[woomba]

The difference between CCGs and Bowls is that people have more than a week's notice that their team is going though.

I'm not sure you can really draw such a direct comparison when bowl season is during holiday season so more people are on the move anyway.

 

[UPitt]

I get what your saying, but the revenue would be larger in a 16 team playoff versus an 8 team playoff. Also, I agree the non-power 5 would likely get access in an 8 team situation and if the 5 power conference teams got automatic berths that leaves only 3 at-larges, where if you go with the 11 conferences all get 1 berth that leaves 5 at-large berths.
In an 8 team playoff based on last year assuming all 5 power conference teams got berths it would be IMO
Rose Bowl- 1. Notre Dame vs. 8. Wisconsin
Fiesta Bowl- 4. Stanford vs. 5. Florida
Orange Bowl- 3. Georgia vs. 6. Florida State
Sugar Bowl- 2. Alabama vs. 7. Oregon

I think once the drip of an 8 team playoff occurs after the "plus 1" we will see a push for 16 under giving 11 conference champions and those two extra at-large bids. Maybe its modified and you earn an automatic bid by reaching certain bench marks over a period of time to protect the top conferences.

I see a 4 or 8 team playoff as producing the best competition and as being most profitable for college football. A 16 team playoff has the following unintended consequences:

1. Too many weeks of football for the players. Including a CCG and a game in Hawaii, a team could play 18 games in a season. This would create a season longer than the NFL. By the end of the season, the level of play would begin to slip due to injuries, wear and tear, and exhaustion.
2. Injuries. The extra weeks of football produce more injuries and affect the overall product. More soreness from more games creates greater risk of injury. These injuries also produce a greater risk to the athletes. We can argue about paying players or is the free education enough, but that is not the point. Playing a few extra games each year increases the risk of major injury to players that seek a career in the NFL.
3. Less time for studies. Again, we can argue that athletes are not students, but for the athletes that do take class serious this would be a few more weeks of games.
4. Games against lesser opponents. A 16 team playoff would likely include auto bids from leagues outside the Big 5. This may create games that hold less value. You can argue that the game is a bonus for TV, but you can also argue that two lesser opponents in a bowl game create a better game for TV than a pair of first round blowouts.
5. Star players may sit out. Good teams may rest star players and thus create an exibition game in the first round. Also, some star players may refuse to play so many extra games for fear of injury.
6. Players leave college earlier. Players will leave earier for the draft to avoid wear and tear and injury.
7. Less Bowl Games. If 16 teams make the playoff, then less teams make the bowl games. Bowl games are an end of the season event that creates good TV and fans travel for the final game. Playoffs do not have this atmosphere.
8. The best teams will not always win. We love the NCAA BB Tourney because of the upsets and storylines. For BB, this creates buzz and more revenue. For football, we all want the two best teams in the country playing for the championship. You can argue that teams ranked 3 and 4 could be ranked 1 or 2 in many years. At 8, you clearly have include the best 2 to 4 teams. But at 16, you just have more teams. I think you get the best national championship game by selecting 2 or 4 teams for the playoffs. At 8 teams you will not always get the best 2 teams, and at 16 its even less likely.
9. The regular season is less important. College football conferences sell TV rights for games. The games are worth a high value because every game is valuable. At 16 teams, conferences may lose value in the TV contracts.
10. Less Bowl Games. Bowl games make lots of money. A 4 or 8 team playoff, with 6 extra bowls is more valuable than a 16 team playoff without the bowls.
11. The Power Conferences do not want to share the access. At 16, they will have to share the access.
12. No turning back. I think a slow process to 4 and then 8 will allow the leagues to evaluate if it is more profitable. If they went to 16 this year, there would be no turning back even if it was a money loser.

There are many other reasons for staying at 2, 4, or 8 and there are many reasons to argue for 16 teams in a playoff. I am sure that many people on this board can argue for 16 teams, as it is a favorite idea for fans. But going to 16 may not be the most profitable and may do more harm than good.

 

[Husky25]

That is a mistake everyone makes in comparing the two. First off, you only need 2500 to travel to make it seem like a "huge" crowd. And you have 4, or in the early rounds 8, teams. With the excpetion of the Final four, the games are played in facilities where capacity is between 12 and 16,000 +-. Compare that with the seating at the Rose Bowl (92,000) or the Superdome (76000). You could fit 5 Verizon Centers into the Rose Bowl for heaven sakes. And you'll have 1 not 4 games. Further, the NCAA has made a pretty significant effort to place teams so that their early round games are not that far from home. Even though they were in the "West" region, UConn and Bucknell, And the Southeast Regional, Pitt and Old Dominion all played in Washington DC. and look at the crowds...they are usually fairly skimpy for most games in reality. The NCAA was reporting session attendance, not individual games and even that didn't exceed capacity at most sites. In fact, lack of attendance at the early round games is a problem the NCAA is trying to look at. As far as problematic weather, the days of worrying about that ended in about 1975. Only the Big really cares about that any more. For everyone else, playing in bad weather is just a part of the game. Northern teams regularly play at home into December and the NFL does it through January. I know I've sat through at least 2 UConn games where it has snowed.

A final note, look carefully at the attendance figures for the various conference Championships. Even the Big only drew around 40,000 last year. They reported 62000 (Lucas normal capacity) for the 1st year, but it was the first one. If they stay in the 40,000 range watch for them to take a page from the PAC and move it on campus. FWIW even on campus the PAC drew a measly 31500 last year in Palo Alto, and they didn't even sell out their first one at Oregon. The ACC was literally selling tickets for less than the parking fee at the stadium and requiring ACC basketball ticket buyers to also by football championship tix and still only got 62000, well under BoA Stadium's capacity. Based on what I saw on tv, that was tickets sold, not fannies in the seats. Only the SEC actually draws for those games (and I have to be a little skeptical of their attendance reports when they claim as much as 15,000 over capacity for some games.Even in the SEC, I doubt those numbers) But I think those games provide a lesson for what one can expect for the early round playoffs. they might do ok early but as time goes on attendance will lag and they won't make sense. And the farther a fan base has to travel the worse it will be.

1) With only 4 to 8 teams, this is the defacto Final 4.
2) A session to the NCAA BB Tourament covers two games, not four.
3) You'll have the opportunity of tailgating to take the place of the second basketball game.

As for your final point...I think its an apples/oranges comparison to between the conference championships and the National Championship tournament. Take the Big East BB tournament at MSG for instance. Rarely were the first sessions on Tuesday well attended, even if tickets were sold. As I said later, I agree that if the tourament were 8 teams or greater, the first round(s) should be played at or near the higher seeded team.

 

[Husky25]

I see a 4 or 8 team playoff as producing the best competition and as being most profitable for college football. A 16 team playoff has the following unintended consequences:

1. Too many weeks of football for the players. Including a CCG and a game in Hawaii, a team could play 18 games in a season. This would create a season longer than the NFL. By the end of the season, the level of play would begin to slip due to injuries, wear and tear, and exhaustion.
2. Injuries. The extra weeks of football produce more injuries and affect the overall product. More soreness from more games creates greater risk of injury. These injuries also produce a greater risk to the athletes. We can argue about paying players or is the free education enough, but that is not the point. Playing a few extra games each year increases the risk of major injury to players that seek a career in the NFL.
3. Less time for studies. Again, we can argue that athletes are not students, but for the athletes that do take class serious this would be a few more weeks of games.
4. Games against lesser opponents. A 16 team playoff would likely include auto bids from leagues outside the Big 5. This may create games that hold less value. You can argue that the game is a bonus for TV, but you can also argue that two lesser opponents in a bowl game create a better game for TV than a pair of first round blowouts.
5. Star players may sit out. Good teams may rest star players and thus create an exibition game in the first round. Also, some star players may refuse to play so many extra games for fear of injury.
6. Players leave college earlier. Players will leave earier for the draft to avoid wear and tear and injury.
7. Less Bowl Games. If 16 teams make the playoff, then less teams make the bowl games. Bowl games are an end of the season event that creates good TV and fans travel for the final game. Playoffs do not have this atmosphere.
8. The best teams will not always win. We love the NCAA BB Tourney because of the upsets and storylines. For BB, this creates buzz and more revenue. For football, we all want the two best teams in the country playing for the championship. You can argue that teams ranked 3 and 4 could be ranked 1 or 2 in many years. At 8, you clearly have include the best 2 to 4 teams. But at 16, you just have more teams. I think you get the best national championship game by selecting 2 or 4 teams for the playoffs. At 8 teams you will not always get the best 2 teams, and at 16 its even less likely.
9. The regular season is less important. College football conferences sell TV rights for games. The games are worth a high value because every game is valuable. At 16 teams, conferences may lose value in the TV contracts.
10. Less Bowl Games. Bowl games make lots of money. A 4 or 8 team playoff, with 6 extra bowls is more valuable than a 16 team playoff without the bowls.
11. The Power Conferences do not want to share the access. At 16, they will have to share the access.
12. No turning back. I think a slow process to 4 and then 8 will allow the leagues to evaluate if it is more profitable. If they went to 16 this year, there would be no turning back even if it was a money loser.

There are many other reasons for staying at 2, 4, or 8 and there are many reasons to argue for 16 teams in a playoff. I am sure that many people on this board can argue for 16 teams, as it is a favorite idea for fans. But going to 16 may not be the most profitable and may do more harm than good.

1. No way regular season schedules stay at 12 if a 16 team playoff is instituted.
2.-5. Agreed, Though I would love to see David v. Golith games.
6. NFL Rule for player safety, a player is not eligible unless he is at least 3 years removed from High School Gradulation.
7. I don't see this as a problem. The Bowls were exhibitions anyway. The firsts ones (albeit in the early 1900s were not included in the season records).
8. That's the best part...

 

[freescooter]

1) With only 4 to 8 teams, this is the defacto Final 4.
2) A session to the NCAA BB Tourament covers two games, not four.
3) You'll have the opportunity of tailgating to take the place of the second basketball game.

As for your final point...I think its an apples/oranges comparison to between the conference championships and the National Championship tournament. Take the Big East BB tournament at MSG for instance. Rarely were the first sessions on Tuesday well attended, even if tickets were sold. As I said later, I agree that if the tourament were 8 teams or greater, the first round(s) should be played at or near the higher seeded team.

1. No it isn't. You could well have to travel 3000 miles to play in the championship game. If you're in the Final Four, you have to walk across the Street 2 days later. Huge difference.
2. Right but in the early rounds there are 8 teams and 8 sets of fans in town. Some, not all but some choose to attend the "other" regionals.
3. For a week?
4. As to the comparison, here's the point. You are asking fans to travel potentially to 3 destinations in 3-4 weeks. And 2 of them are possibly long trips, maybe even all three. So this isn't like traveling to Washington for the 1st 2 rounds of the NCAA. Let's take an Ohio State fan from Dayton since they don't all live in Columbus. So He has to get to Indianapolis, not a terrible trip about 2-2.5 hours (I did it once). I-70. Easy. Then the Rose Bowl. Over 2000 miles so he's probably flying. Add hotel, maybe a rental. So Ohio State wins and the next week its off to Miami for the Championship. That's only 1200 miles, so you could drive it, if you have a spare 17 hours. So more likely another flight and another hotel stay. But one kid needs braces and the other one needs his tuition payment...so you have to choose one. LA for a guarenteed game or take the risk of waiting for the big one in Miami? And what I think these types of "semi-final" games, and conference championship games are a good example, don't have that much attraction to the local fans. The fans of the school, sure. But what we've seen is that the general public stays away in droves. the did it in Tampa, they did it in Indianapolis, they did it in northern California. They did it in Charlotte. And they'll do it in LA, and Miami and New Orleans and Phoenix and Dallas unless there is a local connection when those games become mere semi-final or quarter final events.

 

[Husky25]

4. As to the comparison, here's the point. You are asking fans to travel potentially to 3 destinations in 3-4 weeks. And 2 of them are possibly long trips, maybe even all three. So this isn't like traveling to Washington for the 1st 2 rounds of the NCAA. Let's take an Ohio State fan from Dayton since they don't all live in Columbus. So He has to get to Indianapolis, not a terrible trip about 2-2.5 hours (I did it once). I-70. Easy. Then the Rose Bowl. Over 2000 miles so he's probably flying. Add hotel, maybe a rental. So Ohio State wins and the next week its off to Miami for the Championship. That's only 1200 miles, so you could drive it, if you have a spare 17 hours. So more likely another flight and another hotel stay. But one kid needs braces and the other one needs his tuition payment...so you have to choose one. LA for a guarenteed game or take the risk of waiting for the big one in Miami? And what I think these types of "semi-final" games, and conference championship games are a good example, don't have that much attraction to the local fans. The fans of the school, sure. But what we've seen is that the general public stays away in droves. the did it in Tampa, they did it in Indianapolis, they did it in northern California. They did it in Charlotte. And they'll do it in LA, and Miami and New Orleans and Phoenix and Dallas unless there is a local connection when those games become mere semi-final or quarter final events.

No, only two trips. I clearly have stated on two separate occasions that the first round of an 8 team play off should be played at the stadium of the higher seed. So yes, the Semis and the Championship game may be longer trips. So be it.

But you are projecting your own values on the fandom of these schools. Many teams that figure to be in the playoff are much closer to the destination bowl cities (Tallahasee, Jacksonville, Baton Rouge, Austin, Los Angeles. Tuscaloosa is a bit further away, but all those crazy fans have winnebagos and WILL take a two week drive cross country).

There are also variables in your scenerio depicting a worse case possibility for one particular fan. I'm not one to tell anyone how to spend their money. Choosing Johnny's arthodontal expense or Sally's tuition over entertainment is a personal decision. That's life. It's full of them. It doesn't make that person any less of a fan, at least in my view. Some people can afford it, some can't. It is what it is.

 

[B1GALUM]

No, only two trips. I clearly have stated on two separate occasions that the first round of an 8 team play off should be played at the stadium of the higher seed. So yes, the Semis and the Championship game may be longer trips. So be it.

But you are projecting your own values on the fandom of these schools. Many teams that figure to be in the playoff are much closer to the destination bowl cities (Tallahasee, Jacksonville, Baton Rouge, Austin, Los Angeles. Tuscaloosa is a bit further away, but all those crazy fans have winnebagos and WILL take a two week drive cross country).

There are also variables in your scenerio depicting a worse case possibility for one particular fan. I'm not one to tell anyone how to spend their money. Choosing Johnny's arthodontal expense or Sally's tuition over entertainment is a personal decision. That's life. It's full of them. It doesn't make that person any less of a fan, at least in my view. Some people can afford it, some can't. It is what it is.

Quite honestly, it really does not matter what the fans want or can afford. If the power conferences think a move to an 8 eight team playoff is in their (conference and respective universities) interest, financial or otherwise, it will get done. It was no longer about the fan, with respect to conference realignment and other changes, some time ago in my opinion.



"Make money money, make money, money ..."