OT: Mack Brown on SC talking about bowls...
So Texas Head Coach Mack Brown was on Sports Center this morning. They talked about conference realignment and Vince Young, and then they got to everyone's favortie subject: BCS vs. Playoffs!
As you would all guess, Mack Brown is in favor of a playoff. No surprise there.
But then the interviewer asked Brown about how he [Brown] would structure the playoff. Brown said that he would have an eight team playoff, but he would want to keep the bowl sysyem in tact because it is a nice reward for the players.
That got me to thinking. Would it be possible to have a playoff while keeping the bowls sort of intact? I mean, there wouldn't be 34 bowls if there was a playoff, but could there still be some? Or would advertisers focus all of their funding solely a playoff? Would anyone except HARD hardcore college football fans (such as myself) even bother to watch the bowls if they were eliminated? (How many people even watch the lesser bowls to begin with?!)
So I wanted to throw that question out there. Can bowls and playoffs coexist? I want to end by stating that I am not asking should there be bowls/BCS or should there be a playoff. I am not asking if you like the bowls. I was just wondering if Mack Brown's idea is feasible.
it is possible that bowls and playoffs can peacefully coexist. They are not programmed that way
I just don't understand. Why can't you have an 8 game playoff and still keep the other bowls alive for the teams outside of the Top-8? Sure, it might get pretty confusing with keeping traditional conference bowl games (Rose Bowl, for example), but in general it seems to make sense. Perhaps I'm not thinking about it correctly.
I think that most of the bowls would still be viable. I'm guessing first of all that the major bowls (Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, etc.) would be incorporated into the 8 team playoff because I doubt the people on the Rose Bowl commission would like to pick the 3rd place big ten and pac ten teams every year (assuming the big ten and pac ten have two top-8 teams most years which -- when Michigan is Michigan -- is virtually every year).
For the lesser bowls, I see no reason why they shouldn't remain as they are. The Alamo Bowl never has any even slight impact on the current national champion or any of the rankings of the top-8 schools. So why should a new format for determining the champion and ultimate rankings of the schools in the top-8 affect bowls like the Alamo bowl? It's a decent bowl, nice for the schools involved, but it is not currently nationally relevent. Let the fans enjoy the lesser bowls as they always have and rework the BCS bowls into a playoff format.
I don't think the bowls work in a playoff due to all the other things that the big bowls have. The Rose parade would not do to well as the Quarterfinal #2 Parade. So many of the big bowls have long standing events that go on in the community where they play that simply making them a game in a championship run, would totally kill those events. I think that a championship game would have to be totally outside of the bowls and that is the reason it may never happen, places like Pasadena and Miami, make a ton of money on the events of the bowl game, I don't think they really want a championship playoff format.
Why does any of that matter? If they play a game on or near New Year's Day all the parade and other crap will just continue as normal. Why can I say this with so much certainty?? Because it has already happened. I don't think the Rose Bowl shut down because it was Nebraska vs Miami or Texas vs USC and not Big Ten/ Pac Ten.
This has already been decided by popular opinion during the bazillion bowl vs bcs debate......incorporate the big bowls into the playoff, little bowls continue on(I have no idea how it works financially when no one attends the game, but whatever). Done.
If we where to move to a new system of choosing a nation champion, why would the Big Ten and Big East agree to having the game at a site where they would never have home field advantage while quite often have to play defacto road games in the playoffs. That makes little to no sense. While I am sure you will argue that it is the way we do it now (having bowl/NC games all in the south and west), but then you are not taking the full purpose of the bowl games into account. Bowl games are put on by the cities they are in and are a major source of revenue for those areas. If you change that system you have to figure what is best for all the schools involved and continually playing in certain areas of the country really only benefits the schools in those regions. If you are an AD of a Big Ten school you should be fired if you agreed to a that system.
As far as having the bowls played in addition to the playoff, I believe that would fail. Consider at how much luster has come off the Rose Bowl since the BCS championship has started. Just imagine how much less meaningful it would be if it didn't even contain a single team with a chance to finish in the top 8. Bowls would become the NIT of football and we all know how popular the NIT is. I am not ready to throw away 100 years plus of tradition for a system that doesn't ensure the best team wins every year. If you don't agree with that, I would ask I you consider if the N.Y. Giants where beter that the Patriots when they won the super bowl that year, or when Carmello lead the Cuse to the title. Does anyone want to argue that they where the best team that year? Although I agree that a playoff system is a better way to pick a champion I don't think that it is enough of an improvement to destroy so much tradition, history and the uniqueness that the bowl system provides.
I think that they could coexist, unless the tournament has too many teams (like >32). The bowl games are still a legitimate goal for players, coaches, and fans of teams that have absolutely no shot at a MNC, like non-BCS teams, and mediocre BCS teams. The NIT and other CBB tournaments have lived on even with the monstrous NCAA Tournament. The bowl games would be diminshed obviously, but I think that they could still exist. I would watch every bowl game regardless if there is a playoff or not, and I'm sure most hardcore fans would do the same.
EDIT: There needs to be a four-team playoff IMO, add any more and we'll have undeserving teams playing for the title. How good can 7 and 8 be anyways? 10-2 teams had their shot and lost.
The 1 thing that I like about the current bowl system is it lets 32 (or however many damn bowls there are now) teams end their year with a win. If all there was was the playoffs, we wouldn't have dominated florida and carried Lloyd off with a win.
That said, if 8 teams make the playoffs, why would what everyone else does have to change? Let the top 8 play in the big bowls like they do now, just make it a playoff. And let everyone else have the chance to end their year with a nice vacation and bowl victory
...they would coexist. It's just not possible that the establishment of an "FBS" playoff would also include the elimination of bowls that don't host a playoff game. Such a proposal could never get approval by the member institutions of the NCAA or the BCS conferences. Ergo, the bowl system will stay essentially intact no matter what.
0 Days without an NCAA Playoff Thread.
Do yourself a favor. Don't turn around.
The BSC national championship game, sugar, rose bowl, orange, fiesta, cotton, and capital one bowls are eliminated as bowls and instead are the 1st round games for a 16 team play-off. Any team outside of the top 16 shouldn't have a chance at the national championship anyways. The 2nd round sites are at suagar, rose, fiesta, and orange bowl sites. The 3rd round at rose and orange bowl. And the national championship is held in a revolving site every year. This way you get a playoff and the "BIG bowls" still remain intact. All other qualifing bowl teams play in their respective games
Why would a Big Ten team agree to always play far from home while others have a chance to play very close to home giving them an advantage. Lets say Michigan gets in and plays USC in the Rose Bowl. Just for arguments sake let's say M wins. Then they go to play LSU at the Sugur Bowl. Again, lets say they win. Next is Florida at the Orange. And by a miraculas feat they win their third straight road game against 3 top 16 teams. Here comes Texas in the Cotton Bowl for the championship. I know that this senario is improbable but it shows why this system cannot be allowed and is ridiculous for any Big Ten or Big East team to allow. How about Va Tech or Pitt. Do you really think that allowing a system that punishes teams by their geographical location is a better system. Do you ever want M to win another NC. I am not saying it is out of the realm of possibility, but how much more difficult would it be for them to win it than a team that is located by one of these bowl sites. Does Florida, Texas, and USC need a bigger advantage than they already have by not only being in the richest tallent pools but be allowed to play their playoff games close to home.
than basketball with the NCAA and NIT tourneys. The tourney would get the contenders and the bowls would get the left overs.
Hear is a question for all of you who keep saying " they do it with the NCAA and the NIT tourneys.". How many of you watch the NIT. My guess would be very few. Here's a question, Who won the NIT the last few years, and please don't look it up. Above that the only thing that makes the NIT solvent is that they play the first few rounds on campuses. Even then, most schools don't even sell out their arenas for those games. I am not saying that nobody watches the NIT but nobody watches the NIT let alone goes to the games. In addition, who even watches the play in game? no one does because they don't matter, and neither will the bowls and they will die a slow painful death.
8-team play-off with the first round at the higher seed's home turf in early December. The semis and final game rotate amongst the Rose, Sugar and Fiesta (sorry Orange) with the semis on New Years Day and the Championship 1-2 weeks later.
The 20-25 strongest remaining traditional bowls get played (with some probably dying off) in the 2 weeks between 12/17 and NYE.
Top 8 teams begin their playoff early in December or late November, playing each week:
1 vs 8 plays at home stadium of #1
2 vs 7 plays at home stadium of #2, etc...
Keep in mind, there is no bracket here because of the following...
Final Four then plays, using the same format as above with the highest remaining seeded team playing the lowest, and the two middle teams playing each other.
Final two teams square if the national title game. All of the losers in the tournament are then shuffled off to the BCS bowl games with precedence given conference affiliations and then to teams who went the furthest in the tournament getting the more plum bowl spots.
Basically, you play the preliminary rounds before the final BCS bowl matchups are made (all of the lower tier bowls can pick as per normal) and voila! You preserve the bowl system AND get a playoff system in one.
In terms of stat and record hounds, none of the statistics from the preliminary playoff rounds count towards school or NCAA records. Only statistics compiled in the national title game and actual matchups count towards season stats.
The College Presidents wouldn't allow a system that requires a minimum of 2 additional games. So Let's say that a team from the sec plays their 12 games then goes on to win their conference championship game. Then they are expected to play 3 more game to win the title. That is 16 games! Don't you remember the fight that surrounded the 12 game? and now you expect those same Presidents who stood against adding an additional payday to their Athletic depts. fund will add more games that they won't see the gates for? Also what happens if as an example Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, and Alabama make it to the final four. Florida beats Texas while Oklahoma beats Alabama. Lets say Texas goes on to win their bowl game. Oklahoma beats to Florida in the "national title game" but during the season was beaten by Texas. So now you have a 1 loss Texas team who beat Oklahoma not be the national champion. How is that any better than what we have now. You still end up with a mythical national title unless you can somehow argue that the 1 loss oklahoma team who has the same record as a Texas team who beat them deserves a national tile.
The Bowl system is important to the fabric of college football. The second best team in the MWC still has something to play for. There is still that prize to be had. I think it is essential to the make of of college football.
Now what to do with the big bowls. Why not play first round games at those sites, then allow those bowls to still exist with the losers of the first round games. In a playoff, the first round could start before the weekend before the actual bowl season. After the first round games are played, the bowl bids are given out (so the first round losers can play in their respective bowl games) and then you can have either the #1 or #2 Big Ten team against the #1 or #2 Pac 10 team in the Rose Bowl still. These bowl games and city at least keep some of what they had. The second round can be played the week before (or after I guess) the Jan. 1 bowl games, and the championship can be the next week.
This may not be the best way to go about it, I'm thinking on the fly. Either way, I think it is essential to have the Bowl System for college football even if we go to a playoff. Like it or not, tradition is one of the most important parts of college football, and the bowls have been a great tradition to have, and throwing it completely away would hurt the sport.
Reading the headline, I thought originally that this was going to be about USC (the Southern Cal version). Given that there are already two BCS-conference schools called "SC," let's not get into the habit of calling a TV show by the same abbrevation. (You could just say "Mack Brown on ESPN...")
I don't think it's too misleading of a headline. I can see why you had some confusion, but I usually would the USC for the two schools. Either way, maybe Mack Brown on ESPN is a little better, but that's pretty nit-picky. This is still a more informative title than many out there.
I think people are used to watching bowl games around the holidays. A lot of these bowl games take place on weekdays - the playoff games would more then likely be on saturdays. As it stands now, there's only one bowl game that really matters - the BCS title game but yet we still have a bunch of bowl games.
I don't think even think ratings for a lot of the bowl games would suffer if there was a playoff.