It's not even 9 AM. I'll make this quick:
It's not even 9 AM. I'll make this quick:
It'd be even quicker if the link was clickable.
He states that he is a fan of the BCS more than anything else in this article. BCS does not equal playoff system either! I just don't see the NCAA switching to a playoff system. WAY TOO much $$$ in the bowl system.
It's not an either/or. I think there will be a playoff system eventually, which will exist in addition to the bowls. I don't imagine there will be some announcement declaring, "Okay, we are instituting a playoff system..." Instead, there will be continued evolution of the current model until it resembles enough of a playoff that you can call it that.
Keep in mind that before 1993 or so there was nothing in place like there is now. First came the Bowl Alliance, then the BCS, now the "BCS +1." It's only a step or two away from a de facto 4- or 8-team playoff, especially when you factor in the effect of the conference championship games.
The NCAA and universities are losing millions and millions of dollars by letting a random organization (The BCS) run their most valuable product.
Think about it, why doesn't the MGOBLOG community launch the BCS 2.0 where we organize everything and host playoff games then take most of the profit. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Well, that's essentially what is happening. Move it to a playoff run by the NCAA and the money will flow in like it never has before.
NCAA and universities are losing millions and millions
Clearly, as evidenced by multiple bowls selling out and yielding huge ratings, year after year...
I somewhat agree with Carr, but would like to see how he would propose working out the details.
Take the winners of the Rose, Orange, etc, and either choose between them or put in two more games, and then send either the chosen teams or the winners of the two other games to the NC game. The ONLY problem with that is, it takes a little bit away from your season to say, "Yeah, we're rose bowl champions! But we lost in the NC game."
If they just switched to a 4 team playoff and kept all the bowls they would make most fans happy and probably make more money. Neither one of the 4 major bowls, Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange, feature the teams that are ranked #1 and #2. They play in the BCS Championship game. So really what is two more teams added to that mix. If a well matched up bowl game is on TV people will watch no matter what.
Because, very rarely would you see a team that most believe might be the best team in the country that is not ranked in the top four. GO BLUE!!
you're a Notre Dame fan.
is a balogna argument. 35 years ago, almost every team played 10 games and that was that. Now, teams play 13-14 games in a season! Cut the season down to 11 and have an 16 team playoff. All 11 conference champions and 5 wild cards. Small conference teams can't gripe anymore, and teams in difficult conferences will get their fair due. Since the focus will be on conference play, teams will be brave enough to schedule challenging nonconference games. I went to a IAA school for undergrad... there's just no way around it, playoffs are exciting and would make college football so much better. The Rose Bowl would be a casualty, and that's no small loss, but it'd be worth it.
My thoughts on the solution:
- Play bowl week and select as normal without the championship game.
- The winners of the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl play each other rotating between playing at the Fiesta and Orange Bowl.
- The winners of the Fiesta Bowl and Orange Bowl play each other rotating between playing at the Rose and Sugar Bowl.
- The winners of those two games play in the championship game which is held at one of the BCS bowls which hasn't already had 2 games played at it.
8 team playoff. Bowls still matter. Everyone who deserves a shot gets a shot. It only adds two more games to what we have now.
Downside: a team could potentially play 17 games in 1 season (12 + Hawaii + CCG + 3 game playoff)
I'd much rather see Florida or USC types have to travel to Big 10 country in November to play a post season away game.
That would work too. It would basically mean that the current Bowl schedule doesn't change other than the NCG getting moved back a week. It would probably be easier on at least half the players too.
Here's the problem: No one in college football cares about your "solution".
People who are in favor a college football playoff are really in favor of their own vision of a college football playoff. So when surveys are conducted, fans are always going to be "in favor" of a playoff system over the BCS because the playoff alternative isn't defined. Instead, everyone's imagining their own tidy little vision of a playoff system.
Most everyone who's for a playoff will change their vote once they see it's not their idea being adopted, and instead it's a crappy, watered down playoff still based on a political voting system (which is absolutely unavoidable with so many schools).
I agree with that, but the reason I posted it is because of this quote
"Whether you take two teams after the bowls, or maybe use the major bowls to have a playoff, something could work," Carr said. "But I am absolutely not in favor of a playoff system or anything that might endanger the bowls."
He seems to have the same idea or something similar to it. Plus, a system like this is much more likely to happen than a 16 team playoff because it works with the Bowl System instead of against it. It'll probably be something along the lines of the Big10 expansion, where they vote on the switch first, then vote on details later. And the traditionalists will be in favor of any system that keeps the history of the bowls relevant.
To be clear, I'm not shooting down your scenario as a bad one.
I'm only saying that when surveys/polls suggest that "98% of the fans want a playoff" (as the ESPN2 announcer said during the UM/BG game), it's incredibly misleading. Let's see what even non-traditionalist fans think when a specific playoff system is decided upon.
is an amazing competition. I see two choices...
1) forget about national championships in DI college football, play a season and preserve the bowl tradition. Vote on a national champion afterwards. Accept that national championships shouldn't be a focus.
2) Decide that crowning a real national champion is important and accept that the bowl system works against that. It hurts to let go of tradition, but if we want to see a real national championship, it just isn't compatible with the bowls.
Because you system has a bunch of empty stadiums and the bowls don't make money hosting a game with no tickets are sold. Because no one is going to fly to the Rose Bowl, then fly to Florida for a playoff game at the Orange, then fly to the Fiesta for a NC game. They just going to wait and all hope they're playing for it all. Playoffs need home games, or just 2 teams after the bowls. Because no one will travel across the country for playoff games, just championship games.
Thank you. This is the primary difference between the NCAA basketball tournament and what would be a football playoff. Basketball starts as 60+ teams in 4 cities, then the Final Four in one venue. This allows fans to plan accordingly. In short: everyone making the "but basketball has a playoff" argument needs to stop.
Like I said in a comment above, the 2nd round of playoffs could be at team stadiums for home-field advantage. Then, you only have people travelling twice instead of 3 times. The main point, though, is that the first 4 games are played in the bowls on Jan 1, which is something that he specifically mentions would be a requirement for any playoff system he votes for.
While I was typing mine. I was only commenting on the problem of the bowl game round robin schedule. You throw some home games in there, it could work. Frankly, I'd like to see the data on how many times you have 3 teams arguing about the Championship AFTER the bowls, because you could hold them, and go to the Plus 1 format, because I think that would probably add importance to the bowls, while mostly preserving them. The teams that are likely to feel like they're headed to the extra game may stay at home, but that would be less teams. And it could change outcomes, with a favored team playing in a very road like atmosphere because it's fans are holding out. But you go more than a couple of teams, and you really need to institute home games into it somewhere.
Are objective. What's missing today and what must be corrected is the ability to play your way to a National Championship (otherwise it isn't a real national championship). Having to be voted in is garbage. Win your conference and get a chance at the national title. This makes sense. As long as there's the potential to have teams out of the running for the national title before the season even begins, it's a farce. In a 16 team playoff, there's room for 11 conference champions, the 5 wild cards spots can be debated, but if you're 2nd in your conference, you don't have a lot to stand on when arguing for a shot at the national title.
All of the compromises... the +1 systems... they still leave room for exclusion of teams that have earned a right to play for the national title. There isn't a single other sport with a postseason in which a division 1 conference champion doesn't get a shot at the national title.
The BCS title game is nothing more than an exhibition between two very good teams a few weeks after the season. The fact that everyone belives it's an actual championship game is beyond me.
There will never, ever be a 16 team playoff. Ever.
see it happening any time soon. I think growth of the post season is inevitable and 16 teams is a likely outcome. It's what should happen from a competitive standpoint. And that's ultimately what college football is... a competition.
Currently the other divisions:
FCS: 16 teams (I went to Colgate and watched them make a run to the finals in 2003... it was an incredible experience that I wish Michigan fans could have)
II: 24 teams
III 32 teams
I wouldn't say ever.
With a 16-team playoff, you'd have to get rid of the bowls, entirely. Neutral sites would be abolished to keep attendance up (see M-Wolverine's post). College football isn't college basketball nor is it the NFL. It's unique.
There'd be home games for the first 2-3 rounds and a neutral site for the finals. I think that would be great. I'd love a post season home game against Oklahoma. Wanting to cling to a terrible competitive system because it's unique? I don't agree with that. Outside of the Rose Bowl, the rest of the bowls don't look like college football at all. They have huge concerts at half time with smoke and fireworks (much like the Super Bowl) and many are even played in NFL stadiums! Home games on college campuses are more college football than neutral games in NFL stadiums with fireworks and Ashlee Simpson.
I will concede that the Rose Bowl is a significant casualty of a switch.
Wanting to cling to a terrible competitive system because it's unique?
You have it backwards: college football isn't unique because of the BCS, the BCS is unique because of college football.
This is the nature of a sport with 100+ teams and no common pool of competition.
Certainly, any playoff system is likely to start small and not at 16 teams. Then as pressure for more revenue increase and pressure to be more inclusive grows, the system will get bigger and may eventually reach 16 teams. Get a 4 team playoff started and natural pressures and time will do the rest.
I agree you have to win your conference to be in a playoff. We have seen some teams lose their conf champ and get blown out in the BCS game. Just curious, you said 11 conf champ. What are the 11 conf?
Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, SEC, ACC, Big East, MAC, Mountain West, WAC, Sun Belt, and Conf USA. Think what this would mean... winning the Big 10 would give you a first round home matchup against Conf. USA champion or the Sun Belt champion... a gimmee. However, getting a wild card from the Big 10 might pit you against a major conference champion. The small conference teams can't complain about not getting a shot. The best teams get an advantage because they have an easier first round game. From a purely competitive standpoint, I don't think a lot of teams would complain about this.
I'm all for giving the little guys a shot, but unless they are 12-0 or have one very close loss to a top10 team, they don't deserve a shot at the championship. I'm fine with taking away the Big East's autobid and having the 3 most deserving teams from non-BCS conferences getting to play in one of the 4 major bowls (TCU, BSU, Utah, etc.) . A 16 team playoff is too unwieldy and would absolutely kill the bowl games. It just isn't going to happen.
I think they should just do a playoff with all the conference champions. No complaints about at large bids. Win your conference or shut up. Of course this will never happen because of financial reasons.
for independents (like ND). Every team must have an opportunity to win the National title. So maybe the 11 conference champs plus one wild card... top 4 seeds get a bye, sort of like NFL. I'd rather 16. Just think of all of the great matchups! I'll make a mock 16-team playoff at the close of this season so people can see what they're missing out on.
Champions of six major conferences plus two at large bids. During conference championship week, with six conference championship games, four teams could play for the two at-large berths. That would produce a de facto sixteen game playoff. They could play a quarterfinal round the week after confference championships, use two rotating bowls for semis, and play the title game exactly when they do now: Jaunary 8.
That would make the bowls exactly as they are now, other than two of the NYD bowls being pre-selected semis. The bowls win, the players win, the schools win, and the fans win. Most of all, the sport wins. If the bowls feel that semis would denigrate their bowls and wanted the bowls to play out exactly as they do now, the semis could be the second week of December, and the players, not having to play until Jaunary 7, could spend Christmas at home celebrating the end of finals.
No muss, no fuss, no bullshit. Which is exactly why it won't happen.
Carr has some interesting connections to the state, namely his close relationship with Bama coach Nick Saban[ . . . .]
Am I wrong in my previous assumption that Saban is the anti-Carr, or do I just suppose that friendships exist where you never touch subjects such as over-signing or medical-need scholarships? That sentence sort of took me by surprise.
I mean, he mentions coaching against Bama in a bowl game as one. Interconnections, coincidences. Because Lloyd is NOT a fan of Saban, going back to those MSU days. He was dirty then, too.
I like Carr leveraging his universal respect for the good of the game. +4 for great useage of a retirement.