Playoffs - the Solution
We all prefer an undisputed national champion and most people agree that today's system is flawed. However, the Bowl system has its merits beyond crowning a National Champion, particularly that it adds another exciting game for fans of teams that are not candidates to win it all - such as Michigan most years (fact, don't hate me for it, let's just hope that changes).
The solution to the playoff question is so obvious no one can see it: Play more.
I know that football is and has always been a fall sport. I know that you will read my SN and hate on me for not recognizing American tradition. However, beyond "it's always been that way," please explain to me why football cannot be played for more than 4-5 months every year. Explain why most other sports in the world manage to have seasons that extend for at least 2/3rds of the year, but football can only be played for 1/3rd. Explain why our football hunger has to be starved during the beautiful spring when conditions are perfect for our favorite sport. Explain why stadiums that cost 100s of millions of dollars to build have to be left barren for such a large part of the year.
My dream setup would be a season with a fall schedule, a bowl season, a spring schedule and a playoff. We could play 8-9 games in the fall, teams with a winning record could get selected for Bowl games, those not selected would either get an extra spring game or not. The spring season could go from late February until the beginning of April where teams play 5-6 games, and an 8 or 16 team playoff could be played in late April with the final played in May.
Or it could be done differently, this is just one outline of how more of the year could be utilised. My point is that by playing more, we could get more football, the players would have more time between games to recover from injuries and the athletic departments would get more revenues. Everyone's a winner. Football is a year round sport for these athletes anyways, so the argument that they need to focus on their achademics is a moot point.
I know that football is the toughest sport in the world and demanding on the body, I have played it for 8 years in the US (HS) and abroad and I've been a fan for over 20 years. I am foreign, but I'm not ignorant. I don't buy the "football is so special our season has to be short"-argument. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you're playing that card, please show valid research to back it up.
The only argument I see against this is tradition, which is a very powerful and valid argument. However, I'm a dreamer and I would love to be looking forward to two more months of Denard now. Wouldn't you?
February 16th, 2011 at 6:27 AM ^
February 16th, 2011 at 6:44 AM ^
So your argument is the NFL would already be doing it if it was possible? The NFL is considering going to 18 games in 20 weeks of a regular season and cutting down on preseason games.
I agree with you that the physical nature of the game is very demanding on the players. In a prolonged season, you can implement more bye weeks and give the players MORE time to shake off their injuries. If you get a 6 week injury in today's setup, your season is pretty much over, and as a result a lot of players end up playing through injuries that would normally require rest or surgery. In a longer season you could sit for a few weeks to recover, miss fewer games and be more fit for the rest of the season.
If we can agree that it's the games that are the most demanding for the players and not practices. Then at least consider that a 14-16 game schedule spread from September to May with a period from late November to mid-to late February with only the bowl game to consider would be less demanding than 12 games in 4 months + a bowl game.
Football is top priority to these players during spring as well. Achademics is a valid point, but if the players are writing off the fall and doing all their classwork in the spring and summer semesters, then this may be another argument for prolonging the season and removing 2-4 games off the fall schedule.
February 16th, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^
You should have used Rugby as an example. Rugby is a much more demanding sport than football. They play fall, spring, and summer tournaments.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:19 PM ^
February 16th, 2011 at 6:29 AM ^
Hell, fuck it. Lets play once a week for 52 weeks. Best record wins NC. We will carry 10 QBs on the roster and 20 RBs.
February 16th, 2011 at 6:53 AM ^
Forgive me if I'm being slow here, but your argument is either (1) that the prolonged schedule is ridiculous because it would cause far too many injuries or (2) that proposing something so out of left field is ridiculous and should only be met with ridicule.
Or both.
Point (2) I can agree with a bit, it's both unrealistic and far fetched. Many good ideas and tons of bad ideas are. This is probably a good idea in theory and a bad idea in practice - mostly because of tradition, which is a powerful force.
February 16th, 2011 at 7:53 AM ^
How is this worse than what we currently have? He suggested 13-15 games. Right now, teams are playing between 12 and 14 in the regular schedule. If anything, his solution gives players more time to heal because you are going to have way more bye weeks.
February 16th, 2011 at 6:48 AM ^
these kids are way overpaid as it is now. I say make these underworked primadonas earn that high salary.
February 16th, 2011 at 7:10 AM ^
I'm not going to answer every single post here, but as the most obvious counterpoints (achademics, physically demanding, unrealistic due to tradition, etc) points are made in the beginning, it's worth answering a few of them to hopefully get some kind of discussion of whether the idea actually has some merit.
Your point is valid. We're asking these kids to work really hard now, could we really expect them to work even harder?
My counterpoint would be: would they have to?
The way they work now, they work out throughout the entire year. The year long cycle starts in late July/early August with two practices a day. A few come in overweight and out of shape and have a hard time catching up, but most have worked hard over the summer and throughout spring. The season starts and they practice Monday-Friday throughout the season, with a game on Saturday and a team meeting on Sunday. Monday and Friday practices are slightly easier than the other days.
Then in late November (early December for some schools) the season is over and they have worked extremely hard for four months, with a couple of days off during the bye week. They also have to complete a course load during this semester or else they become achademically ineligible (hello, Tate).
December starts off a bit easier, they have finals etc, then there's 15 Bowl game practices and the Bowl game itself.
After the Bowl game they are free to do whatever they want until spring football starts. This is a 4-5 week period that ends in a scrimmage that was ignored until recently at Michigan. The players work hard, but their work is ignored by most except the most dedicated fans.
In a longer schedule, the spring period would not be much more than 2-3 weeks longer, the main difference would be that they were playing meaningful games as well (which is a huge difference and one I'm sure players would enjoy). The fall schedule would be more humane with less games packed into an intense period.
Ok, I've hit the tl;dr threshold a while ago with this reply, but the point is while your reservations are valid, they're not a given and a more evenly distributed work load may be preferrable for players and coaches alike.
February 16th, 2011 at 9:06 AM ^
I'm sure teams would take advantage of a schedule like this and use the extra time to prepare through film, study, ect to get the edge on the next opponent - I know I would. So saying they would have the same amount of time off would be wishful thinking in my opinion.
These kids already sacrifice a great deal of their personal and academic time to play a game.
+1 for a well thought out plan and thinking out of the box but I don't see it working. I'm also too old and fear change.
February 16th, 2011 at 7:12 AM ^
It was a well thought out post. However, there is no way that it could ever happen. If a football player was subjected to this long of a season, thier careers would be very short. If your going to have a playoff anyway, just have it at the end of the "regular" season. The "Bowl" games could be kind of like what the NIT is to the NCAA tournament is in basketball.
February 16th, 2011 at 7:24 AM ^
Is this a proven fact or an assumed fact?
More games would be bad in itself, but trading say 2-4 more games for a lot more time to heal between games surely would be a good, no?
February 16th, 2011 at 7:39 AM ^
about a playoff system. I actually prefer the old system. I like it when we go to a bowl game on New Years Day. It gives us all something to look forward to. Most bowl games are in a warm "touristy" city anyway (except for Motor City Bowl and Pinstripe Bowl).
D1 Football is the only sport (college or pro) that does not have some sort of playoff. So by default, it is unique and in my opinion should remain. I think it is the best sytem. I agree March madness is fun to watch and throw a few bucks in an office pool, however it cannot compete with the bowl system.
I dont really care about a National Champion. Bowl games are for the players, which are student-athletes, by the way. It is best that all games are played when these students are not in class. I know that I am in the minority on this one but so be it.
I am not in favor of putting the NC game in late january. I can see having the NC no later than 08JAN, with BCS games between 01JAN and 08JAN.
Why are there meaningless bowl games after 01JAN? That is more of a negative on the system. All bowl games should "lead up" to the NC.
Is the current system perfect? No. But a playoff system would be a disaster.
February 16th, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^
I'm actually in agreement. I know it isn't popular, but I like having to check the rankings every week, seeing how one conference game affected the national standings.
OP- I think you did a good job thinking this through, and you have defended your point well when met with (maybe) not so serious replies, but I think the truth is that nothing radical will happen when the NCAA is involved.
The logistics of implementing something like this would be astounding and would need to get through either all of the schools or all of the FBS schools. Even with just the FBS, there's no way to go without a majority of 61. If I got those 120 school presidents in a room, I doubt we could get a majority on oversigning, let alone fundamentally altering their cash cow.
Without getting political, it's the same as any democratic body, if there isn't a huge wave of support, the vested interests (the BCS and the bowls) will win a lot of the time. They have millions of dollars on the line and would likely fight harder against this than people would fight for it.
Sorry for the long reply.
February 16th, 2011 at 7:54 AM ^
Just when I thought I had seen it all. You don't have to post every thought that pops into your head, you know. At least I know I won't read anything dumber than this today.
February 16th, 2011 at 7:57 AM ^
I'll admit it's not likely to happen, but how is this a dumb post? He's not really suggesting that many more games and spreading them out over twice the length of the season would help the players by allowing them to heal between games.
February 16th, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^
It's a dumb post because a) it's a waste of time to even discuss because it's obviously never going to happen in a million years for a million different reasons and b) even if there were a .000001% chance of this ever happening, it's a dumb idea.
February 16th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
If it's a waste of time then don't read it. But you took the extra step and wasted even more time to post and say it was a waste of time. That makes sense. Oh, and by the way, Brian usually posts his proposal once a year in the offseason. I suppose that's a waste of time too.
As for (b), it's dumb because it's dumb?
It's the offseason, which means the return of this stuff. So, if you don't like it, I suggest you stay away from the boards.
February 16th, 2011 at 1:10 PM ^
Yep. It's dumb because it's dumb.
February 16th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^
Yep. It's dumb because it's dumb. And yeah, if Brian ever proposes a football season split into four phases that includes playing in the fucking spring, then that's dumb, too.
February 16th, 2011 at 8:08 AM ^
February 16th, 2011 at 8:38 AM ^
I'm sure teams would take advantage of a schedule like this and use the extra time to prepare through film, study, ect to get the edge on the next opponent - I know I would. So saying they would have the same amount of time off would be wishful thinking in my opinion.
These kids already sacrifice a great deal of their personal and academic time to play a game.
Edit - this reply was meant for OP.
February 16th, 2011 at 8:45 AM ^
D-1AA, D2 and D3 athletes but they're not complaining about playoff, aren't they?
February 16th, 2011 at 10:49 AM ^
D2 and D3 play 8-10 game seasons. If you think for a minute the decision-makers will agree to drop as many as four games from the schedule (and the associated revenue) so as to match what D2 and D3 do with their playoff, I got about a thousand square miles of swampland to sell you. You can't be that naive, though.
February 16th, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^
We all prefer an undisputed national champion
Do we? I don't think you can make that assumption. I'm sure I can find a lot of people who think that the point of playing the season was never, and doesn't need to be, to crown a national champion. You're right: tradition is a powerful argument. If playing for a national championship could outweigh tradition, the most logical path for Michigan would be to join the Sun Belt conference so as to have the easiest possible path to an undefeated season and then join the whiners who moan that "they did everything they could" to earn a shot at the title. But perhaps the tradition of playing our usual opponents is more important, yes? So it is with the rest of football.
However, beyond "it's always been that way," please explain to me why football cannot be played for more than 4-5 months every year. Explain why most other sports in the world manage to have seasons that extend for at least 2/3rds of the year, but football can only be played for 1/3rd.
Have you read anything about the long-term injuries football creates? NFL rosters are decimated by the time playoffs roll around because of injuries. Players who play football for a living end up with head injuries that leave them demented, back injuries that leave them unable to walk, and assorted limb injuries that cause chronic pain, all of which are for life. And you want to double the amount of time that young players are playing the game for a stretch of four years? How many players end up with injuries that cause them to miss the season? Every team has that problem. What good it to play a whole bunch more games that would just cause a revolving door of injuries rather than giving players time to recuperate?
February 16th, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^
be good for the fan, I will give you that. It is just reinventing the wheel when only a slight repair is necessary. My opinion is that the only way it should not be is the way it currently is. There are so many options right now and none of them are being exercised. 1) Eight game playoff, all other bowls remain, the four "first round" games are played at the four current BCS sites with a Final Four to follow. 2) Eliminate two pre-conference meaningless games and have a more expansive playoff. 3) Roll it back to 4 BCS games and then add a plus one = Auburn v. TCU = nobody gets robbed (and the TCU scenario is pretty much a given right now, one teams get snubbed. 4) MOVE THE G#%DAMN NC GAME to January 3rd !!! 5) MOVE THE G#%DAMN NC Game to sometime before 9:30 EST!!!
Any of these slight modifications would do wonders to improve the set up. Guess how many of these will get done. 0.
February 16th, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^
There won't ever be a return to the old bowl system so that is out. Reason is that the ratings for all but the Rose Bowl and the BCS championship game have dwindled nationally since the institution of the BCS. In fact neither of those marquee games beat the average NFL playoff game in ratings. Games like the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl or Fiesta Bowl are footnotes now and get baseball game of the week ratings.
Try as it might, the current system can't fool the public that recognizes that these games aren't really meaningful on any national scale. For further evidence, see also the half empty Orange Bowl host stadium in Miami this year.
This all mens that the TV rights fees aren't likely to increase appreciably for any of the bowls including the so-called championship game. With athletic department costs rising and more schools icing non-revenue sports (see Cal recently) there won't be any reversion to the old system. The old system wasn't attractive enough TV wise. Casual fans nationally wanted more games that really counted. So the big conferences cobbled together the BCS (originally the Bowl Alliance) in the mid-90s to try to keep the bowls viable, keep their stranglehold on the pie of tv money, but still make a product the networks would pay large money to televise.
The ultimate problem with the current system is that it fools no one about what it really is. It doesn't do a good enough of job of creating meaninful postseason games that would get the big ratings befitting the greatness of college football. Instead it takes a month or more off during the heat of the season, repackages the old bowls with a fancy new title of "BCS" (destoys the traditional contracts in the process) and then asks the public to accept it as important.
10 years ago maybe, but not now. People have too many options and are too astute towards real quality. The trend in college football will be towards more event, meaningful games that will draw the mega ratings. Without that, the red ink will drown almost everyone but the largest of programs. The economics will drive some sort of expansion of what we have now towards having more teams involved. The reason we don't have a playoff like every other division 1 sport is simply due to big conferences wanting maintain dominance over the system. There is no good reason for not having one except for monopolistic greed.
I like the way you thought outside the box on your proposal. Everyone should check out Dan Wetzel's "Death the BCS". You'll come away with a deep understanding of how the economics of a playoff are ultimately too fat to and dollar superior to the current system to stop it from happening.
Can't wait for that.
February 16th, 2011 at 1:46 PM ^
It'll never happen, but I say go back to the pre-Bowl Coalition days when New Year's Day was arguably the most important sporting day on the calendar. I couldn't give a rat's ass about undisputed champions.
February 16th, 2011 at 2:43 PM ^
I thought I would never see the day when someone agreed with me on this issue. Hell it was "fun" arguing about who is the "real" NC back in 1997. I really dont care about a NC, I do care about the Big Ten Championship. I guess Im not a freak after all.
February 16th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^
Just an old fellow's humble thought: college football was really, truly better without the BCS. It has overcommercialized college football, taken a lot of the excitement away from the bowls, and made conference championships less meaningful.
It's not easy to win the B1G, as has been amply demonstrated for several years. It should mean something to win the conference championship. As far as I'm concerned, sending a B1G team to the Rose Bowl was a great thing, that seems a lot less important now in light of the "Big Game" being the MNC.
The idea of a playoff is even worse.