BCS playoffs

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:36 pm

Wouldn't this be absolutely awesome!???

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/f ... l?bcnn=yes

But instead, we just deem a couple teams, somewhat at random, to be the two best teams, and we'll settle the whole question in one game, and just ignore the fact that about 6 other teams were just as deserving but excluded for no good reason.

And yes, I will continue to rant about until it changes ... which means I may well be bitching about it forever.

GrizinWashington · Post by **GrizinWashington** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:55 pm

As I've said before, I hope they never change their screwed up system. It just makes FSC football that much better.

Au Blue · Post by **Au Blue** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:21 pm

It would be great... but it won't happen as long as there's so much money tied up in the major bowl games. And as someone pointed out in another thread, it would be a logistical travel nightmare for teams that have 30,000 traveling fans, all trying to get across the country on a week's notice.

Ahhh... how nice it is to be in I-AA.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:01 pm

Au Blue wrote:It would be great... but it won't happen as long as there's so much money tied up in the major bowl games. And as someone pointed out in another thread, it would be a logistical travel nightmare for teams that have 30,000 traveling fans, all trying to get across the country on a week's notice.

Ahhh... how nice it is to be in I-AA.

Just have the higher team host (thus full stadiums with home field advantage), and have the championship game at a neutral site like the Super Bowl.

Old Skool Cat · Post by **Old Skool Cat** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:05 pm

This is just me, but if I were a head coach at a major football university and there was a season like this year's where there really is no clear cut favorite, I would personally want the decision made on the field. No matter who wins the game vs. Ohio State and LSU, questions will always linger about whether or not they deserved it. That would drive me crazy. If I was confident enough in my team, I would say bring on all comers and see if they can beat me.

ImagineSanta · Post by **ImagineSanta** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:47 pm

What is the problem with doing this? Even more brackets to fill out!!!! YEAH!

John K · Post by **John K** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:45 pm

Au Blue wrote:It would be great... but it won't happen as long as there's so much money tied up in the major bowl games. And as someone pointed out in another thread, it would be a logistical travel nightmare for teams that have 30,000 traveling fans, all trying to get across the country on a week's notice.

Ahhh... how nice it is to be in I-AA.

I think the only way a playoff would ever be accepted, is if it incorporated the bowls into the playoff structure. Each bowl could submit bids, with the highest bidder getting the NC game, the next 2 highest getting the semi-final games, etc. This would lend itself to a full 16-team playoff, since that would allow 15 bowl games to be included into the playoff system. I believe that the amount of money generated by this bidding process would be much greater than the revenue that is produced by the current system. The games would therefore be at pre-determined, neutral sites, on pre-determined dates, which would largely mitigate the travel issues that you point out. As far as the teams and fans trying to get to the game sites on short notice, somehow NFL teams and their fans figure out a way to do this, as do NCAA basketball teams and their fans.

People keep pointing to all of the reasons a playoff wouldn't work, but I don't believe that any of these obstacles are insurmountable. Someone needs to say "the current system is a joke, we need a playoff system, and we will figure out a way to make it happen". What surprises me is that no one with a vested interest in this seems to be outraged enough to really force the issue with the powers that be. If I was LSU in 2003, having gone undefeated in the toughest conference in the nation, yet being denied an opportunity even to play in the NC game, I would have been so infuriated, that I would have raised hell with the NCAA, but they didn't. If I was Boise State last year, I would have been outraged that I could go undefeated, beat a team from one of the BCS conferences in a bowl game, but still not be allowed an opportunity to compete for a NC. If I was Hawaii, or USC, or Kansas, or Missouri, or Georgia, or Oklahoma this year, I would be infuriated that my post-season game was really just a meaningless exhibition.

Compare MSU's post-season experience last year to Boise State's. We played a great game in the 1st round, and beat a quality opponent from a strong conference. That victory was very exciting in and of itself, but the best part of winning that game was that it meant we got to play another week and got the opportunity to test ourselves against the best team in the country. Without a playoff system, that win over Furman would have meant nothing more than finishing the season with an 8-4 record, instead of 7-5. Now, contrast that with BSU. Yes, it was a thrilling game and an exciting victory, but ultimately it really didn't mean anything. How much more exciting and significant would it have been if that win over Oklahoma meant that they got to play another week, with a shot at #1 Ohio State in the next round of the playoffs?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:34 pm

Another faux set of brackets, just for fun.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/ar ... 92.DTL&o=3

John K · Post by **John K** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:21 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Another faux set of brackets, just for fun.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/ar ... 92.DTL&o=3

Wouldn't that be fun? I can't even fathom why anyone involved with I-A football wouldn't look at that bracket and say "we have to figure out a way to make this happen". The excitement generated for college football during the month of December would be unlike anything we have ever seen, and the amount of money generated would be obscene, and would dwarf the revenue produced by the current system. It would be like March Madness and the Super Bowl all rolled into one. Especially since December is kind of a quiet month for sports, after MLB post-season is done, but before the NFL playoffs and the "meat" of the college BB and NBA seasons. Those are some very compelling matchups, even in the first round, but the quarterfinals would be amazing. Interest would build week by week, and I believe that eventually December would come to be known as the most exciting month in sports. I guarantee you that after the first year, all of anti-playoff people (aka....The Flat Earth Society) would be saying "why in the world didn't we do this before?".

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:26 pm

John K wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:Another faux set of brackets, just for fun.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/ar ... 92.DTL&o=3
Wouldn't that be fun? I can't even fathom why anyone involved with I-A football wouldn't look at that bracket and say "we have to figure out a way to make this happen". The excitement generated for college football during the month of December would be unlike anything we have ever seen, and the amount of money generated would be obscene, and would dwarf the revenue produced by the current system. It would be like March Madness and the Super Bowl all rolled into one. Especially since December is kind of a quiet month for sports, after MLB post-season is done, but before the NFL playoffs and the "meat" of the college BB and NBA seasons. Those are some very compelling matchups, even in the first round, but the quarterfinals would be amazing. Interest would build week by week, and I believe that eventually December would come to be known as the most exciting month in sports. I guarantee you that after the first year, all of anti-playoff people (aka....The Flat Earth Society) would be saying "why in the world didn't we do this before?".

Couldn't agree more. It would be something to behold.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:48 pm

One of the best articles I've ever read on this topic was a few years ago, during March Madness. A sportswriter somewhere wrote an article that argued (sarcastically, obviously) that the NCAA should abolish March Madness, and should instead set up a system where voters and a computer decide who the top 2 college basketball teams in the country are, and those two teams should just play for the national title...and other top/mediocre teams should play in a series of essentially meaningless games that have no impact on the national title scene.

John K · Post by **John K** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:12 pm

Grizlaw wrote:One of the best articles I've ever read on this topic was a few years ago, during March Madness. A sportswriter somewhere wrote an article that argued (sarcastically, obviously) that the NCAA should abolish March Madness, and should instead set up a system where voters and a computer decide who the top 2 college basketball teams in the country are, and those two teams should just play for the national title...and other top/mediocre teams should play in a series of essentially meaningless games that have no impact on the national title scene.

I don't know if any of you ever listen to Colin Cowherd on ESPN radio (an EWU alum, by the way), but I called in one day, when he was talking about the virtues of the current system. I sarcastically suggested that if the bowl system is so great, why don't we drop the NFL playoffs, and have some "expert" sportswriters and computers decide who should play in the Super Bowl every year. Then, any other team that was at least .500 could participate in a bunch of exhibition games, and oh yeah....cram all of these games into a period of just a few days, so that you couldn't possibly watch them all, even if you wanted to (which is highly doubtful). In other words, I made essentially all of the same arguments to Cowherd that you just mentioned. He of course made some sort of flip remark to me (for those of you who listen to his show, you know exactly what I mean) when I finally got on the line, indicating that he had given absolutely no thought whatsover to my comments. What he said to me was something like "why don't all men prefer blondes?". I said that I suppose it is because men like variety, to which he replied "you just proved my point", and that was all he said. I thought it was kind of a moronic response, but I suppose he meant that he liked that one major sport did things differently than all of the others, because sports fans like variety. Interestingly though, even he has come around to our way of thinking, and now advocates a playoff.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:26 pm

John K wrote:He of course made some sort of flip remark to me (for those of you who listen to his show, you know exactly what I mean) when I finally got on the line, indicating that he had given absolutely no thought whatsover to my comments. What he said to me was something like "why don't all men prefer blondes?". I said that I suppose it is because men like variety, to which he replied "you just proved my point", and that was all he said.

Nice. You should've asked him why Chewbacca was on Endor, and then (regardless of his answer) said "you just proved my point."