Why can't there be a D1A Playoff?

[ConnHuskBask]

http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/football/fcs

I was looking at the FCS Bracket tonight, and I think I finally boiled over about the BCS and the shame that is the postseason bowls. Every fan wants a playoff and you could go on all day listing why it would be great, but what is the reason why the BCS is able to exists with the whole Bowl format?

My understanding is the BCS makes money to support the BCS, and in turn the BCS conferences. Since the BCS is not controlled by the NCAA, they are able to maintain this position of power, correct?

During the whole realignment process, all we've been told is that Basketball doesn't matter, but look at March Madness and the interest and money/contract that generates. I know that is run by the NCAA and distributed throughout the whole NCAA, but if there was a D1A football playoff, wouldn't the chance for the payout be even higher? I mean, as far as all the conference talk goes, football is the only thing that matters - so why wouldn't football's playoff dwarf basketballs?

What am I missing here? I realize it isn't that simple (I think?) but how is this flawed system allowed to continually exist?

 

[VAHuskyFan]

It is in the major football schools' interest to create an unbalanced system that closes the door to anyone not in their club. The money imbalance this creates is kind of the point - it protects the position of the sport's bluebloods from the non-BCS teams.

Sure, an upstart team can build up a decent program, but what happens if/when the coach is lured away to the SEC by a $3M contact? The school is left trying to convince kids to come play for a not-so-famous coach in a 35,000 stadium for a team that doesn't have an AQ bid. Game over. Meanwhile, the SEC team that had a few rough seasons gets to capitalize on the successes of that same coach, and now they're signing up kids to come play for him in a 65,000 stadium for a team that has an AQ bid and a lot more national TV exposure. From the perspective of the major football schools, this is a feature not a bug.

The real danger of a playoff system is that it runs the risk of spreading money around too evenly and creating more balance.

 

[freescooter]

he answer to your question is that yes, there could be a 1A playoff system. It would mean that about 100 teams would end their season in November. It likely would mean that the season is reduced from 12 to 11 games, which is fine with me but probably not with the ADs around the nation. It would likely mean that every conference champ would get a bid then 4-6 other at-large bids would be split among the SEC, and Big 10 based on something very much like the BCS system. And most likely, every round but the final would be played on campus. Don't make the basketball equivelancy error. In football you: can't play 2 games a day apart; can't play multiple games at a single site; can't expect large cowds to follow the team to a neutral site (eg the Orange Bowl) one week and another (the Sugar Bowl) a week later. As the conference championship games have demonstrated, fans tend to "hold their powder" until the bigger game. With 15,000 seat arenas, you don't need 15-20000 fans to follow a basketball team. A couple of thousand is fine. But to fill a 65-100,000 seat football stadium you need lots of fans. the only way to draw them is to play at the home of one team.

 

[Bootsthemonkey]

If it were done I'd absolutely agree the games not be at a neutral site. perhaps the Championship game, yes. But other than that, seed the teams and the higher seed hosts the game. You'll ensure a packed house.

 

[Palatine]

This is not an either or choice. You could have bowls and a playoff.

An 8-team playoff would take three weeks to crown a champion. Say the end of December and the begining of January with the Championship game around January 7th. It was on January 10th in 2011.

The bowls could still take place in early December. They would be finished by Christmas.

In a sense it's basically what exists now. Except the play off is only one game.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Absolutely. A playoff system can run in conjunction with an invitation bowl system, even a contract bowl system with conferences. Football programs could very well be free to choose in which system they would like to play when it comes to money, location and all that.

Only catch is that if you decline to play in the playoffs, you don't get to win a national title. It's pretty simple actually, and would make everybody money by having either home or neutral site games.

I would run a straight up system based on seeding the 11 current d-1A conference champions. Top 5 seeds get the first weekend off. 6 through 11 play 3 games on frst weekend of december, and the 3 winners make up an 8 team bracket that has 3 rounds to determine national champion on the following 3 weekends. Championship game on new years day.

The most games any team could possibly play in a season would be 17. 12 regular season, conference championship game, 4 playoff games. THat would be rare, and similar to our basketball run through the March adn April last year. Rare. Only two teams in teh country could have the possibility of that many games. Only 8 teams in the country would play more than 14 games, and with conference championships and bowl games, many teams are already playing 14 game seasons. So the too many games things doesn't fly for me. You wnat a national championship? Play the games. Enough of this media nonsense and BCS computers.

Any conference champion that would choose to say, play in an invitation bowl, say the Rose Bowl, instead? fine go play in the bowl game you want, next in line in that conference gets seeded to play for the national champoinship.

The 7-5, 6-6 teams? Go to your invitation/contract bowl game. Fixing the corruption around bowl games is easy to fix too, just get rid of the guaranteed ticket sales, b/c bowls would actually be responsible again for actually generating money on their own rather than relying on the participants to foot the bill of the game.

Half of the nonsense bowls would go away, which would make earning apost season spot so much more meaningful.

Watch any program (Notre Dame) that is not conference affiliated, and has any desire to actually win a national championship - join a conference.

 

[Carl Spackler]

It is in the major football schools' interest to create an unbalanced system that closes the door to anyone not in their club. The money imbalance this creates is kind of the point - it protects the position of the sport's bluebloods from the non-BCS teams.

Sure, an upstart team can build up a decent program, but what happens if/when the coach is lured away to the SEC by a $3M contact? The school is left trying to convince kids to come play for a not-so-famous coach in a 35,000 stadium for a team that doesn't have an AQ bid. Game over. Meanwhile, the SEC team that had a few rough seasons gets to capitalize on the successes of that same coach, and now they're signing up kids to come play for him in a 65,000 stadium for a team that has an AQ bid and a lot more national TV exposure. From the perspective of the major football schools, this is a feature not a bug.

The real danger of a playoff system is that it runs the risk of spreading money around too evenly and creating more balance.

I can sum it all up in one word. Recruiting. It's not money, the flow of money would just divert in a different direction around the college football postseason.

RECRUITING.

Many, many football fans growing up with our program in the past 12-15 years around these parts have not been very much in tune with recruiting for football programs, but their eyes are getting opened to it, quickly.

I see less and less basketball/football analogies and hear less and less, which is good, especailly around recruiting. Basketball is so very much different than football. We are playing with what 12 scholarship athletes this year?

A football team needs to recruit not 1 impact player to make a huge difference. A football team needs 50 impact players.....AND you need 50 impact players lined up behind them ready to play when the one in front of them goes down, and they always do go down in football. It's the nature of the game, and a life lesson you don't get in other sports, where an injury is catastrophic. Injuries are part of the game.

You need to recruit 100(ball park) top quality players all able to play at any moment, to be a top notch program.

The programs that have been part of the club for a long long time, don't want to see the recruiting playing field level. That's it. They'll fight it to the death.

Because a playoff system, means that any player in the entire country can join any division 1-A program, and that program has the opportunity to play for a national champoinship every year, if they're good enough.

 

[SubbaBub]

This is not an either or choice. You could have bowls and a playoff.

An 8-team playoff would take three weeks to crown a champion. Say the end of December and the begining of January with the Championship game around January 7th. It was on January 10th in 2011.

The bowls could still take place in early December. They would be finished by Christmas.

In a sense it's basically what exists now. Except the play off is only one game.

I posted something similar in a couple of threads. This works if round 1 is before finals at campus sites to address the academic calendar. You would also need to allow the four losing teams to go bowl games, out of pure fairness.

If you host a final four and BCS in one geographic area, then no teams fans need to travel more than once.



Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[Palatine]

Getting invited to the playoffs would put you out of the bowl picture as the bowl would precede the playoffs. However, it would be a much better payday, win or lose.

For example, this year the bowls would run from December 3rd through December 21st. That is plenty of time to schedule about 40 bowls with triple headers on the week ends.

The playoff would take two weeks, three weekend. Round one, four games on the 24th. Round two, two games on the 31st. And the NC game on January 7th.

Round one could be the Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Cotton Bowls. With the second round and NC game at home stadiums decided by seeding (as this would draw large crowds.).

It's as easy as pie.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Getting invited to the playoffs would put you out of the bowl picture as the bowl would precede the playoffs. However, it would be a much better payday, win or lose.

For example, this year the bowls would run from December 3rd through December 21st. That is plenty of time to schedule about 40 bowls with triple headers on the week ends.

The playoff would take two weeks, three weekend. Round one, four games on the 24th. Round two, two games on the 31st. And the NC game on January 7th.

Round one could be the Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Cotton Bowls. With the second round and NC game at home stadiums decided by seeding (as this would draw large crowds.).

It's as easy as pie.

How are you getting your eight teams though? I like my four week plan, with 11 conference champions, seeded 1-11, and the top 5 seeds getting a first round bye.

If you select teams for a playoff system in any other way than by conference champions, ALL d-1A conferences, than there's no point in changing anything, there's no point in having a playoff for the national championship, b/c it's just a bastardization of the inequality in the sport that already exists.

I mentioned this somewhere else. Money, i don't think is an issue at all. It's the recruiting advantages that the quote/unquote big boys have had for countless years that are at stake by creating a playoff system that trully gives every football program the same road to the national title.

Those football conferences, and their leadership and membership programs know full well that they are going to have a much harder time recruiting the best players to their programs with the creation of a playoff system.

 

[freescooter]

This is not an either or choice. You could have bowls and a playoff.

An 8-team playoff would take three weeks to crown a champion. Say the end of December and the begining of January with the Championship game around January 7th. It was on January 10th in 2011.

The bowls could still take place in early December. They would be finished by Christmas.

In a sense it's basically what exists now. Except the play off is only one game.

Except it won't be 8 teams. It will be a minimum of 16 and grow to 32 within 5 years. The NFL started at 4 and is now 16. 1AA started at 8 now 20ish. hoops has increased to 68 and is still thinking 92. Even baseball is adding more.
Here's the scenario...the SEC Commissioner goes on ESPN and whines that the #5 teams in the SEC is way better than the conference champ of the MAC so they deserve more slots. The talking heads start saying that it really isn't fair that the 8 place team in the SEC gets left out while the MAC gets a bid and to protect its bid the MAC and the Sunbelt and probably the Big East and ACC all join forces and increase the number of at-large (read bids to losers) bids.

 

[freescooter]

One additional point is that I think there will be a national championship tournament within 10 years. I don't think it will be for the betterment of the sport, just as I don't think the BCS obsession with finding the #2 team(since that is its main function) in the country has been good for the sport.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Except it won't be 8 teams. It will be a minimum of 16 and grow to 32 within 5 years. The NFL started at 4 and is now 16. 1AA started at 8 now 20ish. hoops has increased to 68 and is still thinking 92. Even baseball is adding more.
Here's the scenario...the SEC Commissioner goes on ESPN and whines that the #5 teams in the SEC is way better than the conference champ of the MAC so they deserve more slots. The talking heads start saying that it really isn't fair that the 8 place team in the SEC gets left out while the MAC gets a bid and to protect its bid the MAC and the Sunbelt and probably the Big East and ACC all join forces and increase the number of at-large (read bids to losers) bids.

I disagree.

RECRUITING. That's the name of the game people. It would take less than one 4 year recruiting cycle for the champion of the MAC to be able to walk in to the #5 SEC team's stadiuim and be able to smack people around. And the seeding of conference champions would be done by committee, so that the strongest teams do get the advantages anyway.

Trust me on this one, money is the big thing that everybody can see and put to as to the difference between the BCS-AQ conferences and non-BCS -AQconferences, but the the thing that it's all about, the advantages are in recruiting. Losing the ability to walk into any high school athletes living room and get a major, major recruiting advantage by simply the colors of your jacket and the name on the front, would be gone very quickly with a true playoff system.

If Johnny B. Goode in east nowhere ohio, can look at a powerhouse program being built by some coach at Toledo, and understand that he can make the playoffs and go to a championship game there just the same that he can when Urban Meyer comes knocking at the door from Ohio State? The SEC wants no part of that, nor does the big 10, or the rest, not sure where the big east would stand on a playoff system for all d-1a conference champions, but I'd guess they'd favor it.

Silly season wouldn't cease to exist too. Coaching would stabilize, and the good coaches would rise to the cream of the crop wherever they are. REcruiting.

The NFL is going to kill itself if they either keep putting more games in the season, and they don't lift the 53 man roster limit. Football is not a sport that can be played all year round, and bodies need healing time, significant healing time. Thursday night games made for TV are already killing the sport.

College football won't let that happen, because there are too many people involved that actually do care about the players as people at the college level, rather than just commodities, enough people care at least to balance out the people that care about the money only.

 

[Jarhead_1775]

If it were done I'd absolutely agree the games not be at a neutral site. perhaps the Championship game, yes. But other than that, seed the teams and the higher seed hosts the game. You'll ensure a packed house.

Until LSU and Bama are the number one and two seeds. In a say, 16 team playoff, that gives the top 2 seeds 3 extra massive game day revenue and TV contract money generating paydays. Haves and have nots?

 

[freescooter]

I disagree.

College football won't let that happen, because there are too many people involved that actually do care about the players as people at the college level, rather than just commodities, enough people care at least to balance out the people that care about the money only.

Carl,
Except that college football already is letting the same stuff happen. Mid-week games were a college phenomonon that the NFL copied. And look at the 1AA playoffs. Originally I think 8 teams, all from the full scholarship leagues so more or less all had a real shot of winning. Then they went to 12 then 16 and now 20 with champs of leagues like the NEC who have no more chance of winning there than they do in the NCAA basketball tournament. It is the nature of these things that once one is created there is always a "good" reason to add another round or a few more teams. If it isn't a maneuver by the weaker leagues to secure bids for their champs its a maneuver by the power conferences to get additonal "at-large" bids. And its never becuase they want more cash. It is always for the good of the student athletes.(sarcasm off).

 

[Palatine]

I think that the top 8 teams would be picked the same way they were in 1AA, by a polls. You will get arguments from bubble teams but that happens with the much larger NCAA BB tourney. You will always get arguments about bubble teams if you expand to a million teams.

 

[freescooter]

I agree, but I also think that within 5 years they'll expand to 16 and within a couple of years they'll go to 20-24. If nothing else, they'll say "why does 1A only have an 8 team tournament when the lower levels have 20 teams?" Put another way, when has any tournament in any sport not expanded? (Note the NIT shrunk when the NCAA took it over, but it had expanded several times from its original 6 teams and is still 32 teams.)

 

[kingdobbs]

If the playoff would be sponsored by the NCAA, there are two field-size guidelines that the NCAA has:

1) No more than half the field should be comprised of automatic bids (this is why the hoops tournament went to 65 a few years ago, when the MWC calved off the WAC; it would have given 33 automatic bids and 31 at-larges.)
2) No more than 20% of the total membership should be granted a tournament bid, barring cases where the tournament is profitable (very few of them are, but men's basketball, men's ice hockey, men's lacrosse and I think baseball all are able to have more than 20%).

Based on this, the ideal tournament size is 24 (although given football's likelihood of turning a profit, 32 takes up exactly the same number of weekends). 11 automatic bids, 13 at-larges. 8 teams are seeded, receive first-round byes, and are guaranteed a home game. The rounds of 24 and 16 are played at home sites, while the rounds of 8, 4, and the championship are played at pre-bid sites.

Using this year's BCS numbers (the NCAA would use its own semi-proprietary formula, i.e. the RPI, but the results would be similar), only three league champions did not make the top 24; of that group, Nebraska, Penn State and Texas would be the ones knocked out in favor of automatic bids, and Houston would be the 'last team in' at #19 (league champions WVU and S. Mississippi are at #23 and #21 respectively, but their position is untouchable).

First round (December 3th)/Second Round (December 10th):
NR Arkansas State at #9 South Carolina; winner plays at 8th-seeded Kansas State
NR Louisiana Tech at #10 Wisconsin; winner plays at 7th-seeded Boise State
NR Northern Illinois at #11 Virginia Tech; winner plays at 6th-seeded Arkansas
#23 West Virginia at #12 Baylor; winner plays at 5th-seeded Oregon
#21 Southern Mississippi at #13 Michigan; winner plays at 3rd-seeded Oklahoma State*
#19 Houston at #14 Oklahoma; winner plays at 4th-seeded Stanford*
#18 TCU at #15 Clemson; winner plays at 1st-seeded LSU**
#17 Michigan State at #16 Georgia; winner plays at 2nd-seeded Alabama**

Assuming highest ranked teams proceed through all rounds, the December 17th quarterfinals:
LSU is bracketed to play Kansas State, and Stanford is bracketed for Oregon***. The winner of these two will meet in the first semifinal December 31.

Arkansas is bracketed for Oklahoma State, and Alabama is bracketed for Boise State. The winner of these two will meet in the other semifinal December 31.

The championship game would be January 7.

*Games swapped since bracketing strictly could produce a second-round conference rematch between OSU and Oklahoma.
**Games swapped to avoid SEC Championship rematch between Georgia and LSU; Alabama and Georgia did not play each other during the season, so their 'conference matchup' is acceptable.
***Although Stanford and Oregon did play each other during the season, beyond the first two rounds the NCAA usually doesn't care if conference rematches are produced. These two will not be switched.