Playoff system - learn me a few things
from my understanding one of the reasons is the contracts with the media. also each bowl game generates alot of money. Love the title tho 1+
When ESPN bought the rights to the BCS games, they said that if college football wanted to go to a playoff system, they could work with that and adapt.
The biggest issue is money. The conferences and their bowl tie-ins (BCS or otherwise) guarantee them incredible amounts of cash. If there was a playoff, the Big Ten or other BCS conference might not have 1 (or 2) teams in those games.
One of the biggest opponents of a playoff is (unfortunately) the Big Ten because it would mean that we lose our traditional game in Pasadena every year.
There's a couple more explanations, and they've been explored at length on this site. Kudos to whoever can dig it up.
Nail on the head. This is the one and only reason there is no playoff.
Looking at the Big Ten, if there were an 8 or 16 team playoff its not so much that losing the tradition of the Rose Bowl would suck, its losing the roughly $14-17 million for the conference that playing in the Rose Bowl guarantees them every year.
They've already sacrificed the tradition of the Rose Bowl by allowing for the chance that a Big Ten team won't play in it if they are already playing the national championship game.
Trust me, the only tradition these conferences like and care about is the tradition of getting guaranteed money every year. There will never be a playoff system until someone figures out a way to guarantee them the same amount of money AND come up with a viable playoff system.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:12 AM ^
I have an idea that has probably already been shot down but I was thinking about a "what if". What if you were to have an 8 team tournament. The winner of the B11 and the winner of the Pac 10 could play in the Rose Bowl. The winner of the SEC and the ACC could play in the Sugar Bowl, and the winer of the B12 could play the winner of the Big East in the Fiesta Bowl. There could be 2 at large teams that play in the Orange Bowl. The winners of those games owuld go on to play in some form of a rotating bowl system like they do now. With these 4 teams there would be 2 games to be played one week later and one game the week after that. That would be a total of 7 games and 3 weeks of bowl games. We currently have 2 weeks of bowls (big Bowls that is) and 5 games. I have a hard time thinking that the TV networks would not cover it and I also think it would not be hard to find sponsors.
As long as the conferences are making a ton of cash off the bowl games, their will be a lot of resistance to a play-off.
Do you mean resistance by fans, or resistance by the establishment?
As a fan I can tell you lots of reasons I don't want a playoff, the three major ones being:
- De-emphasized regular season
- Likely ruination of bowl system
- Extreme unlikelihood of getting a system actually designed from a competition standpoint
Financially speaking, the roadblock is that the conferences who control all the money will never agree to anything that reduces the amount of money flowing to them. There are, I think, 33 bowl games. All are sponsored. You will not get that many sponsors for a playoff. Some claim that the bowl system could remain in a lesser format, but be serious: the money isn't there for the NIT and it wouldn't be there for the bowls.
Further, because the conferences will never release their iron grip on the money, you would never see a playoff system without conference autobids. Do you seriously think the ACC or Big Ten or Big East would risk getting left out in the cold without autobids? And once you have those, you will have to have all eleven conferences involved, otherwise Orrin Hatch will actually have a legitimate antitrust case. That means a sixteen-team playoff from the very beginning, not this eight-team or six-team rainbow gumdrop fantasy that people think is viable. That's an earthshattering change to the landscape. Under the usual propositions, it deprives the bowls of the top sixteen teams, essentially lopping off the top eight (i.e. most lucrative) bowls. But you'd be wrong to think the remaining bowls would go on as they did before. Much of that sponsorship money exists because of the possibility of higher-ranked teams falling there. Take away that possibility, as well as the perception that the bowls are the top tier of competition (after all, FAU was a "bowl team" last year just like Alabama), and the lower-bowl sponsorship money dries up.
This is a +10000 from a fellow ant-playoff fan. Can you repost this as a diary please? I'd love to read more thoughts from you on the subject.
Would be happy to, but, give it a couple days. A diary (and I've done a couple on the subject before) needs to be given more time than I have at the moment.
If you assume that the playoff is 16 teams, then the regular season has less importance. However, a 4 or 6 (my preference) team playoff doesn't do that at all. Every year there are at least 3 teams that have an argument for inclusion into the NC game, so why not find out which one is actually the best?
You have to realize that we have a playoff right now anyway. It's a 2 team playoff, and the way to get in is determined off the field, not on it. How is that better?
And it wouldn't ruin the bowl system at all. With a 6 team format that's 5 games over 3 weeks. There's no way that you could say it isn't feasible. Let's look at the "larger" playoff:
1st round: last weekend before new years
3v6
4v5
2nd round: New Years
1vlower seeded winner
2vhigher seeded winner
two first round losers play (extra game, not necessary and not factored in to the 5 games in 3 weeks above)
Championship 1 week later, just like it is now.
You could even space it out by playing the first round losers Jan. 3 or mid week.
That still leaves 2 major bowl games with Top 10 teams for January.
Every year there are at least 3 teams that have an argument for inclusion into the NC game, so why not find out which one is actually the best?
Well, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech all sorted it out on the field last year and it did absolutely nothing to find out which is "the best." So what's magical about a playoff that would?
Anyway, leaving aside that, I think you sound exactly like the kind of pro-playoff advocate I described below. (That sentence sounds condescending but it's not meant that way.) You want a playoff because you have a rainbow gumdrop idea of how it ought to be. What if there were a 16-team playoff instead? Would you be happy with the result? If and when it goes 16, it's never going back down to 6. I think 16 teams is the bare minimum that's workable - remember, this will never be designed with the purity of competition as the foremost criterion.
How would a 16 team playoff look last year?
16. Troy at 1. Oklahoma
15. East Carolina at 2. Florida
14. Buffalo at 3. USC
13. Virginia Tech at 4. Penn State
12. Cincinnati at 5. Utah
11. Boise State at 6. Texas
10. Ohio State at 7. Alabama
9. TCU at 8. Texas Tech
The seeds are my guesses... but no matter how you slice it, there's not that much to get excited about.
The first round of anything always sucks. NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, March Madness, etc... But, its still fun to watch because there always seems to be that one team that pulls off an upset. Plus, you could have a mini-march madness bracket thing going and that would be awesome.
Either way, in all of the other playoff systems, the second round matchups are where it gets interesting. Just taking the high seed winning each game, you'd have:
1. Oklahoma v. 8. Texas Tech
2. Florida v. 7. Alabama
3. USC v 6. Texas
4. Penn State v 5. Utah
All of those games would be great to watch. I also think that's why most playoff proposals are shooting for 8 teams -- you'd just eliminate the boring first round.
The first round of March Madness sucks? I think that first weekend is the most fun of all, with games on all the time.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:48 PM ^
No, you're right, that first weekend doesn't suck, but its moreso because there are so many games on. And most of those games on the first Thursday/Friday are a forgone conclusion. Its usually only the 5-12/7-10 upset type games that wind up being the exciting ones.
Either way, March Madness ain't quite like the pro sports playoffs. In this example -- despite it being a college sport -- its probably not right to lump it in with the pro sports. An NCAA football playoff would resemble more of a pro sports style playoff than an NCAA basketball one. Although I think it would be just as exciting.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:52 PM ^
Plus, I still said in the original comment that it was fun to watch despite it being the first round. The general point was that the first round has the lowest quality games in it because of all of the 1-16, 2-15 type games. Once you get to the second round, you generally see an uptick in closer and more exciting games.
I would have watched 13-4, 12-5, 11-6, 10-7, and 9-8. 11-6 and 10-7 would have been a lot of fun to watch.
For one, last year's situation does present an issue. However, I think that it presents a larger issue in favor of the playoff.
Yes, the first go around on the field made things messy, but if there was a playoff the teams would have more games in which they could show their worth.
Your second point is a good one. I would take a 4, 6, or 8 team playoff in a heart beat. The 16 team playoff I'm not sure about. To be honest I don't see the merit in it because rarely are there more than 6 real contenders in a year. Usually that number is around 3-4.
I honestly don't think that a 16 team format would be used becuase it just isn't feasible, and there would be a lot of teams included that simply don't deserve it. Can anyone make a rational argument for Cincinatti, Georgia Tech, or BYU to have a chance at a NC? I don't think so.
Lastly, the travel concern is a good one, but the NFL deals with it, and fans find a way to follow their teams.
Not only is 16 feasible, it's what they did in I-AA for years and years and years, before expanding it yet again. Now it's 20. As mentioned by most pro-playoff-ers, if they can do it there they can probably figure out how to do it here.
As for travel, the NFL figures it out by using home stadiums instead of neutral sites, which is exactly what I think the NCAA would have to do. "Using the bowls" absolutely isn't feasible, IMO.
It's like I said though: competition reasons will be down the list of criteria for playoff designing. In the first place, another pro-playoff argument is that I-A football is the only non-meet sport that doesn't have a tournament, so I-A football should as well. Fine, I can see that point, but then why would the tournament be the only one without conference autobids? Whether or not every team in the tournament would have a legitimate chance at winning it has never been a concern for the NCAA before. Conference autobids will drive the size to 16, minimum, and I don't see any way of getting around having autobids.
Not just, 1-AA... every lower division uses or used a 16 team model. It's really the ideal size for pleasing everyone with the autobids while still allowing a number of BCS schools into the picture.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:15 AM ^
When I said that 16 teams wasn't feasible, I meant that it wouldn't be feasible without major reworkings to the bowl system. Sorry that wasn't clear.
I suppose the losers could just play in bowls in the following weeks...
I would actually prefer it if some of the games were played in home stadiums. That would cut down on over half of the travel, make for better game day environments, and provide more incentive to be highly ranked, thus the regular season maintains importance.
Your point is well taken that the system in all likelihood would not be as good as we would hope, but I believe that almost any type of playoff would be better for the sport and the fans.
This is the dumbest argument for not having a playoff system. The minute you lose a game, your regular season is already meaningless. I could argue right now that Michigan's regular season is meaningless in terms of bowl games and championship games. They aren't going to be ranked in the top 25 to start, so they have no chance of making it to a championship game. Even going undefeated wouldn't guarentee them a spot in the NC game.
You can make all the arguments you want that REGULAR SEASON TRADITION IS GLORIOUS, and hey, look at all all the 1 win teams that have gone to the national championship game, but in order to actually pull something like that off, you need to be highly (top 10) ranked at the time of the loss, lose early in the season, and hope that a lot of other teams lose a game too. The only way the regular season is meaningful now is if you go undefeated, and even then, there's still a chance its meaningless -- just ask all the teams that go undefeated but get shut out of the NC game nearly every year.
With a playoff system, the regular season would take on a different kind of importance. In most cases, it would have more importance because teams would be fighting to get into the playoff or fighting for position. Michigan-Ohio State would be just as important because in most seasons, we would be fighting to see who got the better playoff positioning or who would make it into the playoff -- either way bragging rights will still be there. To me, that's a hell of a lot better than cheering for a secondary goal of playing the game to see who's going to a meaningless Rose Bowl or lame-ass Alamo/Orange Bowl. Because really, if its not the national championship game, the bowl game doesn't mean shit. Its much closer to an exhibition game than anything approaching something meaningful. No one cares when the #8 team beats the #14 team in the Orange Bowl. Now if it was the #8 team vs the #14 team and winner gets to play another game, not that's something worth playing for and watching.
You made your own counterargument. The regular season is important because one loss will kick you put of the title picture. As to your last assertion, I'd say a lot of people care about watching these "meaningless exhibitions", the TV ratings bear this out.
Your point about us being automatically eliminated from the title picture because we're not in the preseason top 25 is laughable. How many times does South Florida need to make it up #2 before people realize that an undefeated team from a BCS conference will ALWAYS make the national title unless there are more deserving BCS teams ahead of them? How many undefeated teams are shut out of the title game every year, anyway? I'm sorry Boise State plays Utah State, Nevada and Louisiana Tech in conference and so nobody thinks they'd have a serious chance against Florida. The only time a legit undefeated BCS team was left out was Auburn.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:51 AM ^
See, I disagree. And I didn't make my own counterargument.
Yes, the regular season is important -- I didn't say that it wasn't. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. Obviously, you need to have a regular season and need to do well in it to have any sort of postseason aspirations. But to me, its a stupid kind of importance that currently doesn't do a good job of deciding who is the best team in college football. If my team loses just one game, its in all likelihood knocked out of the national championship picture, which renders the rest of the regular season semi-meaningless. All you have left is to play for pride and hope for some freaky luck -- and that just isn't a lot of fun.
Case in point: 2007 when we lost to App. State. Michigan had title hopes that year, but the entire season was a wash one game into it. If there was a playoff system, they could have shaken that one game off, got things back in order, and then made it into the round of 8 or 16 or whatever playoff teams. They could have even tried to make it into a playoff after the Oregon game. But that wasn't the case and the whole season after that was kind of pointless.
As for South Florida...they were underrated, and then extremely overrated. There was a reason they weren't in the top 25 to start. Yeah, they made it up to #2 in like week 7, but then they fell back to earth and lost 3 in a row plus their bowl game. They had no shot at winning the title. Correct if me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any team in recent history that has finished #1 or played in a title game without starting the season in the top 25. Under the system we have now, its a pretty major prereq to winning a title. So, unless you can name a team that pulled that off, I would say my assertion that Michigan has no chance at making it to a national championship game is pretty strong.
Next point...lately, there's been one undefeated team a year that gets shut out of the title game.
2004 Utah 11-0
2006 Boise State 12-0
2007 Hawaii 12-0
2008 Utah 12-0
And you can't argue that Boise St, etc are undeserving of a shot at a title game. They won every game they played, what more there are they supposed to do??? Yeah, they might lose the title game, but so what? There's no guarantee they are going to. That's why they play the games.
And as for your point that "lot of people care about watching these "meaningless exhibitions", the TV ratings bear this out." Its football. People will watch almost any football game. Its the highest rating sport in the US, so naturally, people are going to tune into a bowl game regardless of who is playing. Whether or not they care about it is a different matter. Personally, unless Michigan is playing, I could care less who wins the game. Watching Oklahoma-Texas is a good time and usually results in a good game, but I could care less who wins the game.
From your other posts, I can see you are obviously anti-playoff and this is one of those "the sky is blue", "no, its grey" situations. So, really whatever I say isn't going to change your mind. You're stuck in your views. You'll argue against my logic and hold on to the idea that this system we have now is wonderful, and as long as Michigan wins every game, then all will be well. So, you know, good luck with that. Hope it works out for you.
Seriously? You don't think that losing to Appalachian State should be a total disqualifier from the national championship picture?
I hate the "they did everything they could by winning every game argument." By that logic, what we should do is jump conferences to the Sun Belt, whoop the shit out of everyone there, and play four of the worst I-AA teams we can find. Then we can go undefeated most seasons and squeal like Boise State and Utah about having "done everything we could."
And there's a really good reason all the national champions have started out in the top 25: because those are, more or less, the best teams in football. I mean, it's not some kind of coincidence or conspiracy that you have to have a good team to get into the top 25 and you have to have a good team to win the title.
Lastly, why is the season worthless if we don't have a chance to play for the national title? Was there not still a Big Ten title to play for? Was there not still games against Notre Dame, MSU, OSU, and Minny for the Brown Jug? Why is the only purpose of the season to crown a national champion? It's not that long ago that a "national champion" was really more of a sideshow - when did it become not just the most important, but the only reason to play?
I like how you mock Brodie for being closed-minded, simply for daring to argue against you. Are you really that different? Prove to me you're more enlightened and have an open mind about this.
If there's ever a playoff system, you will only see it in a 4, 8, or 16 game flavor. Playoff games would generate so much money, that it would make no sense to have your top two teams in the country not playing. Having them play two lower seeds and creating two extra games would be a no brainer.
Take this season for example, if Florida finishes #1 under the (holy) leadership of (the almighty) Tim Tebow, under a bye system, the networks would lose out on all of those extra viewers that would watch Florida play anyone. They would never let that happen.
That's probably true. But if the NCAA does as I tell them to with a playoff, they'd have 16 teams but they'd get an extra round out of the deal by using the Big East system. Now that is a moneymaker.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:23 PM ^
"de-emphasized regular season"
Because I love seeing UM play Delaware St and every directional Michigan school. Wouldn't it be so much better if UM could play USC, Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma for their 4 OOC games? Being able to make a playoff, by winning your conference, while getting prime time exposure by playing those kinds of programs would take college football to a new level.
The bs (bcs) created the crappy OOC schedule that has become college football.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:54 PM ^
OK, Mr. Dreamland, in what playoff would we ever play those four teams all in a row?
And no, I actually don't think it would be cool. If you do that every year, where's the novelty?
August 6th, 2009 at 12:06 AM ^
That could happen pretty easily under any number of scenarios. Starting with the easiest: Mich is #1, beats #16 USC, then beats #8 Texas, then beats, #4 Florida, and then #2 Oklahoma. Boom. Magic. National Champs.
You see in a playoff, you play good teams. Like USC, Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. All in a row. And in a "dreamland" scenario, you'd have to beat a bunch of good teams to win a title. Kinda how playoffs work. Glad I could help spell that out for ya.
The novelty would be in the randomness of the teams and scenarios you'd have to face every season to win the title. You know, kinda like it is now, but more exciting and the end result would be a legit title.
But you know, if you think the current system where undefeated teams don't get a chance to play for a championship and random people that don't watch all of your games vote on how good they think your team is, is the best system, then by all means, be content with the status quo.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:48 AM ^
Way to miss the point, he said those teams would be our OOC schedule. As in, we play them and then 12 conference games.
In what scenario might USC get into the playoff and be seeded lower than the Sun Belt champion or MAC champion? That's very interesting. Maybe you're proposing that some conferences be left out of the picture? If so, Orrin Hatch is on line 1 for you, and he sounds pissed.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:17 AM ^
Really? How do I get negative for wanting UM to have a better non-conference schedule? There are thread dedicated to the very topic agreeing with me. My point, taken to an extreme, is that in a playoff, you can play great teams during the regular season and with one, or even two losses, you can still make a playoff. Now, instead of people pissing and moaning about playing Delaware St., you've got Gameday at the Big House when UM faces off with Florida. How could anyone now want that?
August 6th, 2009 at 11:27 AM ^
I'm not the one who did it, but I suspect it's because the idea of playing all those teams in the OOC is a fantasy. We're not playing Delaware State because it makes it easier to get into the BCS title game. We're playing Delaware State because they agreed to come play a game for cheap that we don't have to reciprocate. A playoff would not fix that problem. A playoff would not magically bring Florida and Lee Corso to Ann Arbor.
Besides, you torpedoed your own arguments. You scoff at the idea that a playoff would de-emphasize the regular season, then propose that a playoff would improve the OOC schedule because teams would play marquee games now that it doesn't matter if you lose them? USC and Ohio State is a big game partly because it serves as an eliminator for the NC. Why would anyone outside of the two fanbases care about the game if they were both going to the playoffs anyway and might have a rematch there?
August 6th, 2009 at 12:50 AM ^
That's incredibly stupid. If anything, you'd see worse schedules to create the smallest chance for injuries before the conference playoff push. And hell, I'd love to go 8-4 every year and then lose in the playoffs. Sounds like a lot of fun! WOOO MICHIGAN IS THE EARLY 90'S LIONS
I actually am, I usually end up with a lampshade on my head.
That's the best explanation I've heard as to why there won't be a change to the bowl system
Not sure bowl money is as big an issue as people think. Many argue that a playoff could generate more money than the bowls.
Other arguments include:
logistics (tens or hundreds of thousands of fans travelling every week, not knowing where until a week before they go. This is probably an order of magnitude more fans than travel for basketball)
academics (kind of a weak argument that the playoffs would interfere with exams)
tradition
preserving the greatest regular season in all of sports
The bowl money for something non-BCS bowl games like the Alamo Bowl or the Motor City Bowl isn't the issue stopping a playoff system. Its the $14-17 million per BCS bowl game appearance that is guaranteed to these conferences by the BCS system as it currently stands. By giving up that bowl system and leaving it all up to (god forbid) how well your conference teams do and finish in the polls, there's a chance that a conference could be shut out of the big postseason money pie.
And, the reason the Big Ten is so opposed to this, is that with 19 appearances in the BCS bowl games, they have more appearances than any other conference out there -- and therefore have made more than any other conference out there off the BCS system.
Meanwhile, with 12 wins, the SEC has won more BCS games than any other conference. You would assume they would be the biggest proponents of a playoff system as you would think they would have more second/third round games than any other conference, which in turn would lead to more money.
I don't see why playoffs need to affect the bowls. Just have the playoffs before the bowl games, and the losers of the playoffs still go to a bowl game. Eliminate bye-weeks, and hold (conference) Championship Saturday a week or two weeks prior.
Read "my" playoff system for more info on what I am talking about... http://mgoblog.com/diaries/making-playoff-scheme-thing-do
That's an idea I've had as well - the problem is, just because I have "my" playoff idea (which I happen to like and could support, if they went with it) does not make me pro-playoff. I suspect there are many, many people who are pro-playoff because they have what they see as a great idea for their implementation, but would be sadly disappointed with the (likely vastly different) system that the establishment settles on. Because I don't delude myself that "my" idea is the one that will take shape, I favor making improvements to the BCS instead of overturning the whole system.
+1 for being a realist
Yep, I've been saying this to people for years. There is no way we end up with anything but a 16 team playoff, there is too much out there to say that's the most likely solution... so while I'm fine with a plus one (essentially a four team playoff in the Orange and Sugar Bowls and then a national championship game), I know it will never happen so I can't consider myself pro-playoff.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:54 AM ^
I want to see (and have an imaginary self-important vote) on exactly WHAT kind of playoff is proposed before I can say I'm "pro-playoff.
The "any playoff is better than this" argument doesn't work for me.
There are a couple of good ways to make a playoff system successful; there are also a hundred ways to make it worse.
A lot of fans (especially those of a certain age) simply like the fact that the bowl system produces a lot of happy teams at the end of the season, whereas a playoff produces one. I favor a playoff but I can see some validity to that argument. It was cool, for instance, to see us win Lloyd's last game (which we probably wouldn't have done in a playoff).
They could use the bowl system to have an eight game playoff. As it is, they are playing the NC game a week later, anyway. If the four major bowls counted as quarterfinals, the semis could be played the following week, and the finals the next week.
Those who cite the lack of a playoff as being "for the good of the players" are wrong. With my easy system, players from two teams would lose an extra week of class at the beginning of the semester. I think their profs would be pretty understanding about it.
I still prefer a twelve or sixteen team playoff independent of the bowls, with the NC game being Jan 8, and the bowls getting the rest of the teams just as they do now, but even a "plus one" would be better than the crap they have now.
The biggest cash cow in the NCAA is the only sport that doesn't determine its champion on the field of competition, where it belongs.
What a joke. But it isn't funny.