It looks like the Bowls will be a part of the college football play-off

Submitted by 93Grad on May 15th, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I love the Rose Bowl, but I am sorry, there is zero reason the bowls should be part of the play-off system.  The B1G's slavish loyalty to the Rose Bowl is based on some antiquated notion that no longer exits.  There is no reason that the bowls can't continue on as they have while having a completely separate play-off run by the NCAA. 

http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2012/05/college_football_playof…

Comments

BlueVball8

May 15th, 2012 at 2:41 PM ^

I think that they should continue to exist but we should just take the top 4 or 8 teams into the playoffs. I do think the payout system though needs to be eliminated though. The NCAA should own the bowls though.

ats

May 15th, 2012 at 10:13 PM ^

And how do you determine those top 4 or 8 teams?  Polls and computer models don't have anything but subjective criteria to determine rankings given the number of games played and the matrix of those games.

If you are going to have a 4 or 8 team playoff, about the only realistic way to do it is the same way the NFL does, which is effectively conference champions.  In order to actually nulify the subjectivity of the polls, a playoff in CFB would have to expand to somewhere between 16 and 32 teams which isn't going to happen.

About the best solution anyone could hope for would be a 6 teams playoff, top 4 conference champions and 2 at large aka wild cards.  top 2 conference champions get a first round bye, 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5.  Winner of 3v6 vs #2 and 4v5 vs #1.

HopeInHoke

May 15th, 2012 at 2:46 PM ^

The fairest way is a seeded tournament.  It seems like having bowl tie-ins just make it more likely that the parings wont be as fair as they should be. 

I like the Rose Bowl- but I dislike anything that takes away from a fair way to crown a champion- and fighting to keep the Rose Bowl I think will just perpetuate issues of unfairness in crowning a champion.

FrankMurphy

May 15th, 2012 at 2:55 PM ^

I don't think the NCAA will become involved in the national championship picture in FBS, no matter how this shakes out. It's unclear on what basis the NCAA could swoop in and "take over" the national championship from the polls and the BCS, since the current structure predates the NCAA and evolved independently of it. I would prefer that the national championship be awarded by the NCAA like it is in basketball, but I don't see how it would happen. The influence of the BCS, the bowls, the polls, and all of the various trophy organizations is too well-entrenched. 

wolverine1987

May 15th, 2012 at 3:51 PM ^

Say a 6 game regular season followed by the top 24/32 teams in a playoff would likely be considered excellent by some here, based on past posts. I would hate it because the regular season would be devalued and diminished, but some wouldn't agree or mind.

MGoSoftball

May 15th, 2012 at 8:01 PM ^

It is not fair to the Colonial League that they cannot get 4 and 5 star talent.  They deserve the opportunity to prove themselves.  I agree with letting all the D1 schools in a playoff.

As a matter of fact, we should limit the number of 5 star recruits ber conference.  Let the conference divy them up as they see fit.  This way everything will be fair.

No one will be left out or cheated.

wolverine1987

May 15th, 2012 at 9:01 PM ^

to 120 teams. And the simple fact, not an opinion nor a conspiracy, is the the Colonial League nor several others have absolutely zero chance, nor shouyld they, of beating any playoff team in the major conferences. That isn't an arbitrary judgement, it is the truth. And since it is not possible to be "fair" (though I dispute that it isn't fair) then choices must be made. And in fact, it is is their "fault" that they can't recruit 4 and 5 star talent--they can't recruit it because they are not credible, and talent freely decides to have nothing to do with them. Which again is why they don't belong in the same discussion as the top level.

MGoSoftball

May 15th, 2012 at 11:17 PM ^

question is WHY are they not credible?  Its the MAN that is holding them down again.  We must solve this terrible plague on society which is we must have a fair playoff to crown a "true" national champion.

The Colonial League teams will never get to championship caliber unless we fix the problem.  The problem is that they do not get good recruits.  So we must spread out the good recruits among all the conferences.  Then let the schools bid on each recruit.  This way everything will be fair.

Fair is fair.  We cannot have any repeats of teams getting cheated out of their reightful place in the NCAA discussion.  So if all the recruits are spread around fairly, then all 120 teams get in.  Hell we could drop the regular season altogether and start with a playoff.  Hell we could be done by Christmas.

I love it.  Great plan.  Who is with me?

Picktown GoBlue

May 15th, 2012 at 10:41 PM ^

although it might have been mid-football season when I compiled these numbers:

Football:

  • Div I-AA (FBS): 127 members, 20 in playoffs, 10 AQ's (even)
  • Div II: 146 members, 24 in playoffs, 0 AQ's (ignore conf champions entirely, all at-large)
  • Div III: 213 members, 32 in playoffs, 23 AQ's (more AQ's)

Men's Basketball:

  • Div I: 346 members, 68 in playoffs, 31 AQ's (more at large)
  • Div II: 285 members, 64 in playoffs, 22 AQ's (more at large)
  • Div III: 411 members, 61 in playoffs, 42 AQ's (more AQ's)

So I think the message is that the NCAA has no pattern to playoff rules for # of AQ's vs at-large bids (from this sample at least), unless there is some written or unwritten rule that I haven't found yet in googling for it.

 

Tater

May 15th, 2012 at 7:34 PM ^

If the NCAA wanted to get the job done, they could change the "requirements" in one meeting.  and be finished in time for a nice lunch.  The NCAA could very easily say "we get the top eight teams, and the bowls can have the rest," but they refuse to do it.  

The question is, "why?"  I learned long ago that whenever a decision like this "doesn't make sense," there is always money involved.  To me, the only reasonable answer is that the bowls are still paying decision-makers a lot of money under the table.  

Consequently, the bowls will continue to exert "influence," which is business swahili for "payola," and the players, coaches, and fans will continue to lose.

NateVolk

May 15th, 2012 at 8:21 PM ^

Perfect 10 there.  

We should all be watching closely to see if the shady bowl practices of prepaid tickets, prepaid hotels, and sponsorship fees charged to the schools, will be coming to an end. In this day and age, public institutions eating huge losses to attend these games is no longer acceptable.Time for the ADs and school Presidents to grow some stones and demand a whole new arrangement if the bowls want to stay in the game.

Needs

May 15th, 2012 at 11:54 PM ^

Why would the major conferences give control over a football playoff to the NCAA when they don't currently cut it in on the money? The NCAA has, literally, nothing to do with this. I'm sure they'd love to control a football playoff, but they have no power to make it so.

If the bowls are paying anyone off, it's the conferences and the ADs.

True Blue in CO

May 15th, 2012 at 3:00 PM ^

the end is in sight for the bowls as we know it today. If you have a true playoff then the other consolation games mean even less. The only way to recreate more bowl games would be to split D1 football into 2 or 3 separate divisions.

justingoblue

May 15th, 2012 at 3:26 PM ^

Five conferences in a top division with a four team playoff and bowls, then a second division with the other six current FBS conferences and a playoff (since they seem to want it so badly).

The top division could also offer full-COA scholarships and some type of revenue sharing for at least video game rights, possibly more.

Leaders And Best

May 15th, 2012 at 3:12 PM ^

I don't see how you can expect Midwest fan bases to travel 2 weeks in a row (especially to the final after New Year's).  It is much easier for the SEC or Pac-12 because most likely one of the games will be in driving distance (Rose & Fiesta for Pac-12 and Sugar & Orange for SEC).  I hate this idea and am still waiting to hear why the B1G is so supportive of it.

If the Rose Bowl hosts a semi for the B1G, a lot of fans may just hold out and wait for the final.  I don't see how this is good for the Rose Bowl or maintains its significance.

MSHOT92

May 16th, 2012 at 4:52 PM ^

FANS attend the superbowl? about 5-10%??? the rest is corporate crap...who cares...it doesn't happen anyways, what's the issue? make playoff regionals home based to higher seed, progress to semi-finals/finals in a warm climate...those who want to see Jerry-ball in Dallas are going...those like me who see the advantage of staying home for 'free or reduced' food and beverage options will still enjoy the game on TV...I don't see the issue here. The current system SUCKS and is so SEC biased it's not even funny anymore. You MUST belong to one of 8 major conferences. The conference CHAMPION gets a seed, three rounds, CHAMPION crowned...Sorry ND you want to call your shot as an indipendent? good luck in the weed eater bowl vs montana state...sucks to be you. You are in..or out. Heck...you could even identify the top 6 powerhouse conferences and let the midlings play for the two at large opportunities..whatever...they face the 1/2 seeds in week one, then progress or die.

wolverine1987

May 15th, 2012 at 3:29 PM ^

They just don't learn. If 2 of the four major bowls are part of the 4 team playoff, then the other two major bowls instantly become the Gator Bowl that year--who wants to be there really, and how do you call it a major? That includes BTW, the Rose, despite it's uniqueness. If the Sugar and Orange are that year's playoff bowls, the Rose becomes a quaint old bowl that we all ignore unless we are in it--meanwhile we'd be in it but we'd also be thinking we got screwed by someone or we'd be in the playoff and the other two playoff bowls that year!

There is only one way to preserve the allure of the four major bowls (if that is what you want to do, and the B1G does): you either have the majors bowls play out, then choose your 4 teams for the playoff, or you make the playoff 8 teams, and the top 8 teams play in the four major bowls, with the 4 winners now in the semi-finals--a step BTW that would also be seen as both much more fair and really amp up the prestige of the 4 major bowls all in one stroke.

the Glove

May 15th, 2012 at 3:45 PM ^

Am I the only one that likes the idea of playing the semi-final games at the conference championship locations? Hypothetically: #1 SEC v #4 PAC12 at Atlanta and #2 Big 10 v #3 Big 12 at Indianapolis. This would give the top ranked teams a geographical advantage, also it would ease up on the distance traveled by fans. Thoughts?

cutter

May 15th, 2012 at 3:46 PM ^

I realize the Big Ten couldn't sell the idea of having the semi-final games at the stadiums of the higher ranked teams, but please don't defend it as if it's something that's good.  In a four-team playoff, we're talking playing just two games on campus sites that may or may not be in cold weather.  If the NFL can have playoff games in Chicago or Green Bay or Buffalo in January, then college football can manage to put together a couple of games in Ann Arbor or Columbus or Lincoln in late December.

An eight-team playoff that has five auto bids for the ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac 12 and SEC conference champions plus three at large teams is not going to dilute the regular season.  If a conference champion isn't in the top 12 of the ranking system, then it loses the autobid and another at large team replaces it.  

If anything, it's going to make those conference championship games more exciting, and to get into those games, your program has to win its division.  Couple that with homefield advantage for the higher seed and you'll have plenty of interest in the regular season.

In five years or so, we'll have an eight-team playoff and the guys now who said it couldn't be done for such and such a reason will be talking out of the other sides of their mouths.  They'll also realize that fans (including those from the Big Ten) are not going to travel to Pasadena for a semi-final game and then head to Miami for a possible national championship a week or two afterward.  Maybe the local alumni groups of the teams participating will be there along with the fat cats in the luxury boxes plus whatever college football fans that are in southern Florida who might be interested.  But the bread-and-butter fan doesn't have the time or the money to do both.  

 

StateStreetApostle

May 15th, 2012 at 3:50 PM ^

...and talk about how Mark Hollis makes even Gene Smith look smart (emphasis added):

"If you go to eight, go to 16 in football, if you don't get into that pool of 16, you've failed as a football season. I think it would delude our regular season."

...I am speechless.  I get irritated when people on here say "hone in" and other silliness, but this is ridiculous.  What does he mean?  "denude"?  perhaps, "devalue"?

At least we know he just tweets as he talks.

NOLA Wolverine

May 15th, 2012 at 4:15 PM ^

Makes mental note not to slur the word "dilute" 

I still don't get this argument though. Even if we're talking a 16 team playoff, who's coasting into that? Say it's purely a seed = rank system. Michigan State would have been the first guys left out this year, and to get to that ranking they had to get to the conference championship game and lose. Really this would make the regular season more entertaining. Last year's Michigan vs. Nebraska game would have went from "hey, a neat B1G matchup" to "somebody is winning a playoff spot today" on the national scale. Teams that have sucked in the past under the bowl system would just suck in the future under a playoff system instead of a bowl system. Not much is really changing for them. 

 

tbeindit

May 15th, 2012 at 4:48 PM ^

The problem is, how can you possibly justifying giving a #16 seed the same chance at winning the national championship as the #1 seed, when they've already played games that have separated them.  To me, anything beyond 4 teams is just ridiculous.  I really couldn't say that any team outside of that range deserves a chance at even removing a top 4 team (upset) in a playoff scenario.

Creating a playoff won't end the debate about the best team, it will just create a new debate about who gets selected, as it already has done.  I'm perfectly fine with taking a Alabama type championship once every 5 or 6 years if it means we get to continue the Rose Bowl tradition. Plus, to me, think about it.  Michigan would have been in a 16 team playoff.  How can you possibly argue we would be deserving of a national championship?  It just doesn't make sense

93Grad

May 15th, 2012 at 5:52 PM ^

either play the first rounds at the higher seeds home site so they no longer have an equal chance or you have a 12 team play-off with byes for the top 4 teams?  There are many ways to keep the regular season meaningful while have a real play-off.

WolvinLA2

May 15th, 2012 at 6:14 PM ^

Let's say you're the #16 team.  You probably went 10-2 (maybe 9-3 with a tough schedule).  You then beat the #1 team in the country, the #8/9 team in the country, then likely the #4/5 team in the country, and then likely the #2/3 team in the country.  You are now 14-2 (maybe 13-3 with a tough schedule) with at least a four game win streak over 4 top-10 teams.  You don't think that team deserves a national championship?

Last year, #16 in the BCS before the bowls was Georgia, at 10-3.  If Georgia would have finished the season by beating LSU, Kansas State, Oregon and then Alabama, don't you think they'd deserve the national championship?

bjk

May 15th, 2012 at 6:24 PM ^

can win 4 in a row against higher-rated competition, then they are completely legit national champions. And if #1 can't prove it on the field, then they aren't. I'd rather do it that way than seeing if Osborne or Meyer has better PR skills in a loaded interview with Gary Danielson. If UM beat Bama, LSU, OkSU and Stanford last year I would have no quibbles about "deserving."

And having an argument about who is the real #16 is no where near as glaring a deficiency as having the NCAA have to acknowledge three "National Champions" on their website for 1970 or two for 2003.

All the "Rose Bowl tradition" means for me is having the Big Ten champ end the season with a loss in a meaningless exhibition for twenty straight years. I get nauseous thinking about the words "Rose Bowl."

bluebyyou

May 15th, 2012 at 4:52 PM ^

I may be in the minority wanting a four team playoff.  The one negative, and from my perspective, the only real downer to the NCAA tournament in hoops is that it takes away from the conference tournament and even from winning the conference championships because, assuming you are one of the 65 participants, there is always tomorrow.

alanmfrench

May 15th, 2012 at 4:57 PM ^

by the time there is a decision made it will end being a top 5 playoff with no team getting a bye. that way everyone gets the playoff they want and the top brass can keep doing things that don't make sense!

alanmfrench

May 15th, 2012 at 4:58 PM ^

by the time there is a decision made it will end being a top 5 playoff with no team getting a bye. that way everyone gets the playoff they want and the top brass can keep doing things that don't make sense!

LSAClassOf2000

May 15th, 2012 at 6:46 PM ^

""There's a lot of historical value and there's a lot of future value to having the Rose Bowl connected with Michigan State, with Michigan, with the Big Ten Conference, and the home (game idea) takes that out."- Mark Hollis, quoted in the article

To make any playoff system credible, in my opinion, the bowl tie-ins - at least for the playoff  venues -  would need to go away or else the some of the same questions about who should have gone where will continue as they have in the current system.

Certainly, the Rose Bowl could host the highest ranked Big Ten team not in the playoff structure.There are ways it could be kept in the picture for the Big Ten and have at least some of its prestige remain. For that to happen, however, I think you would need to see the Rose Bowl excluded as a playoff venue in the new structure and instead be allowed to keep tie-ins as a non-playoff bowl, which I wouldn't bother me, but you can't have it both ways, which seems to be want some ADs want here.  

As many said in a thread just the other day,  however, it seems imfeasible to make it something separate and apart in the manner that they are suggesting. If they want the Rose Bowl in the list of venues, then it has to be happy hosting whichever two seeds they would host and go from there. 

 

Gordon

May 15th, 2012 at 9:10 PM ^

Have the current BCS bowl games, with all the usual tie-ins, as the first round.

Have the two western bowl winners (Rose/Fiesta) and the two eastern bowl winners (Sugar/Orange) play each other.

Those winners would then play for the national title.

The semifinal sites would flip from year to year, and the national championship site would rotate every four years.  Each season, one bowl site would host two additional games and one site would host one additional game.

Problem solved.

Rage

May 15th, 2012 at 9:52 PM ^

It wouldn't matter to me how they structure the "play-off" or even what they do with the Rose Bowl provided they let actual campuses host games.  As great as the Rose Bowl is, I'm tired of B1G teams having to travel to southern Cal to play USC.  Or to Florida to play Florida.  Where did LSU play the national championship game at?  It's been tough for me to watch USC beat down every B1G team they play in the Rose Bowl.  Can you imagine how exciting it would be to watch Michigan face USC in the Big House in December?  Or Oregon play in Wisco in Madison?  

It's upsetting to see how campus sites seem to take a backseat to basically everything and anything else.  The B1G finally has the opportunity to level the playing field a little more and perhaps increase the recent winning percentage of our league.  I'm certain it would be a tough battle with the SEC especially, but why are some leagues only allowed to take and not give?  From what I've read, it's really disappointing how this issue has been handled by our conference.  When will we have an opportunity to make this kind of change again?  I care much more about campus sites and fairness than the Rose Bowl.         

Picktown GoBlue

May 15th, 2012 at 10:52 PM ^

Legends are not leaving one with this wimpy resolution.  Put the playoffs in the higher ranking teams' stadiums, and leave the bowls for consolation prizes for those not in the playoffs.  *That* preserves the bowls for what they are - primarily advertisements for the sponsors and hometowns of the bowls.  And, if the B1G and Pac12 winners are not in the top 4 teams, then the Rose Bowl remains what it is, the meeting of the champions of those two conferences.

Needs

May 16th, 2012 at 8:43 AM ^

Thank God the conference commissioners and ADs have seen their way clear to protecting the vital ability of people like this to receive the funds to which they're so entitled.

uminks

May 16th, 2012 at 4:41 PM ^

Move all the BCS bowl games to JAN 1, and move all the other bowl games before JAN 1. Then just playoff the winners of the BCS bowl games for the next two weeks. Most Universities don't start classes until late January, so it should not be a work load problem for those lucky schools that advance in the playoffs. Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta and out of these 8 teams the odds are high that we would get a legit number 1, instead of a mythical number 1 !