Why are people so into playoffs?

If you have a playoff, the only way it is going to fly ultimately is for every conference champion to get in. That's 11 right there and once this option occurs, more conferences with change to D1. So say 16 conferences within the decade.

Now, the weakest conference playing the Top "BCS" Team is a huge advantage for the Top BCS Team. So huge, that it is blatantly unfair. As you add more games, the fairness factor improves.

Accordingly I think the NCAA will go to a playoff system not unlike the current one. That is you'll have at large teams. To make a long story short, the playoff will be 16 and within a decade, 32 teams.
 
midatlantech said:
If you have a playoff, the only way it is going to fly ultimately is for every conference champion to get in. That's 11 right there and once this option occurs, more conferences with change to D1. So say 16 conferences within the decade.

Now, the weakest conference playing the Top "BCS" Team is a huge advantage for the Top BCS Team. So huge, that it is blatantly unfair. As you add more games, the fairness factor improves.

Accordingly I think the NCAA will go to a playoff system not unlike the current one. That is you'll have at large teams. To make a long story short, the playoff will be 16 and within a decade, 32 teams.
Click to expand...

No chance. This isn't basketball. If you let in 11 conference champs the whole thing goes to crap. Based on last season, you'd be inviting such stellar matchups as Auburn v. Florida International, Wisconsin v. Northern Illinois, TCU v. UCF, and Oklahoma v. Uconn. Nobody wants to see that garbage, not to mention what happens if you invite 5 more mediocre conferences.


Plus more conferences aren't just going to happen to jump to "D1" because there's a playoff. Fielding an FBS football team is incredibly expensive, and there is a conscientious decision involved with those schools that don't field an FBS team.

Plus there's the whole thing of a 16 team playoff taking an entire month. Meaning if you start it immediately after finals it will still go into mid-January. I don't think the NFL would be too happy about that, either.

All of the weaker conferences are already de facto excluded from playing for the championship, it isn't going to make one lick of difference if they are left out of a four or eight team tournament.

It needs to be something like (if an 8 team playoff):

1) Any undefeated team.
2) Any independent if ranked in the top 8
3) Conference champions ranked in the top 15 (open slots filled by rank)
4) If still spots available, the top ranked remaining teams, regardless of conference.

Or if a 4 team playoff:

1) Any undefeated team
2) Any independent if ranked in top 4
3) Conference champions ranked in top 10 (open slots filled by rank)
4) If still spots available, the top ranked remaining teams, regardless of conference.
 
You don't need 11.

All the major conferences have a playoff. The minor ones can, too, between themselves to get to 8 teams.

As i wrote above:

1) SEC East v. SEC West
2) ACC Atlantic v. ACC Coastal
3) B10 Whatever v. B10 Whichever
4) P10 Whatever v. P10 Whichever

5) BE Champ v. B12 Champ
6) MAC Champ v. Sunbelt Champ
7) MWC Champ v. WAC Champ
8) CUSA Champ v. Top Indy
 
" Nobody wants to see that garbage, not to mention what happens if you invite 5 more mediocre conferences."

Bullshit. I love all college football games.
 
bellyseries said:
" Nobody wants to see that garbage, not to mention what happens if you invite 5 more mediocre conferences."

Bullshit. I love all college football games.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, the NCAA can count on one person to watch their games. I'm sure Doritos would pay a fortune for that advertising time.

You can't credibly argue that it would be worth showing FIU v. Auburn as opposed to Auburn v. Oklahoma or Ohio State (8 team playoff) or even v. VT, Ok St., or Nevada.

That is, however, what you are arguing. The problem is that argument is completely blown to shit by the NCAA bowl ratings which conclusively prove that people (besides yourself) don't get a rat's ass about mediocre college football games.

Case in point, every bowl game but SEVEN last year drew a rating under 5. Twelve of them drew ratings under 2. Another nine drew a rating over 2, but under 3.

Compare that to games like the Rose Bowl, which involved TCU who is not a big draw. That game had a rating of 11.26. The Florida-Penn St. Outback Bowl that didn't even involve ranked teams put up a rating of 7.

Fans simple aren't interested in watching the champions from crap conferences play, unless those teams happen to be undefeated. The NCAA isn't going to dilute one of its biggest brands to bring you FIU in the first round of the football playoff - they'd much rather leave it open for the Notre Dame's and runners-up in major conferences.
 
Legal Jacket said:
I stand corrected, the NCAA can count on one person to watch their games. I'm sure Doritos would pay a fortune for that advertising time.

You can't credibly argue that it would be worth showing FIU v. Auburn as opposed to Auburn v. Oklahoma or Ohio State (8 team playoff) or even v. VT, Ok St., or Nevada.

That is, however, what you are arguing. The problem is that argument is completely blown to shit by the NCAA bowl ratings which conclusively prove that people (besides yourself) don't get a rat's ass about mediocre college football games.

Case in point, every bowl game but SEVEN last year drew a rating under 5. Twelve of them drew ratings under 2. Another nine drew a rating over 2, but under 3.

Compare that to games like the Rose Bowl, which involved TCU who is not a big draw. That game had a rating of 11.26. The Florida-Penn St. Outback Bowl that didn't even involve ranked teams put up a rating of 7.

Fans simple aren't interested in watching the champions from crap conferences play, unless those teams happen to be undefeated. The NCAA isn't going to dilute one of its biggest brands to bring you FIU in the first round of the football playoff - they'd much rather leave it open for the Notre Dame's and runners-up in major conferences.
Click to expand...
Why not construct a playoff out of simply the top 8 as determined by the current BCS poll? (or top 10 with two "play-in" games.)
 
Legal Jacket said:
I stand corrected, the NCAA can count on one person to watch their games. I'm sure Doritos would pay a fortune for that advertising time.

You can't credibly argue that it would be worth showing FIU v. Auburn as opposed to Auburn v. Oklahoma or Ohio State (8 team playoff) or even v. VT, Ok St., or Nevada.

That is, however, what you are arguing. The problem is that argument is completely blown to shit by the NCAA bowl ratings which conclusively prove that people (besides yourself) don't get a rat's ass about mediocre college football games.

Case in point, every bowl game but SEVEN last year drew a rating under 5. Twelve of them drew ratings under 2. Another nine drew a rating over 2, but under 3.

Compare that to games like the Rose Bowl, which involved TCU who is not a big draw. That game had a rating of 11.26. The Florida-Penn St. Outback Bowl that didn't even involve ranked teams put up a rating of 7.

Fans simple aren't interested in watching the champions from crap conferences play, unless those teams happen to be undefeated. The NCAA isn't going to dilute one of its biggest brands to bring you FIU in the first round of the football playoff - they'd much rather leave it open for the Notre Dame's and runners-up in major conferences.
Click to expand...


But Legal, I think you're missing the point. Everything you say is correct, but TV ratings are not what's going to drive us to playoffs. It's going to be a legal action or the NCAA winning an internal political battle.

If you stop at 8, then the following year, Western Michigan will go undefeated and cause a stir. In fact, if you include "undefeated teams", weaker conferences will stop playing Alabama and go for a big payday.

It's a natural occurence. Look at NCAA basketball. After the tv sports explosion caused, there was a lot of money to be had and before you knew it, we had 300 Division 1 basketball teams vying for it. (And by the way, lots of folks watch Duke play South Carolina State every year in that tourney (1 v 16).

The same could happen in football. App State is feeling their oats right now. They could pursuade their conference to join D1 and certainly would be credible in my opinion.

The point is that a free market will end up choosing how many players. Secondly, the NCAA will try to "open it up fairly" and invite all champions. A Playoff might start with 8 teams, but it will certainly expand to 16 very quickly (and maybe 32).


Also, 16 team playoffs, if started 12/7 or so, would end the same time it does today. 32 would go a week deeper (or the same based on where holidays fall.)
 
dressedcheeseside said:
Why not construct a playoff out of simply the top 8 as determined by the current BCS poll? (or top 10 with two "play-in" games.)
Click to expand...

I think the goal is a balance between fairness and the best teams. I'd rather see a two loss conference champion (e.g. us from 2009) who is ranked 9-11 than, for example, a third two loss SEC team who is ranked no. 8.
 
dressedcheeseside said:
Why not construct a playoff out of simply the top 8 as determined by the current BCS poll? (or top 10 with two "play-in" games.)
Click to expand...

A playoff will not happen unless there are automatic bids given to the major conference champions. There has to be guaranteed money there for them to accept it.
 
The model for the playoffs already exists. FCS doesn't seem to have much problem running one, I don't see why FBS can't copy that plan.
 
The dumbest excuse against a playoff i've ever heard is that the regular season is the playoff. You don't think the regular season matters with a playoff, you need to follow the FCS for a year to see just how important it is. The regular season means everything.
 
midatlantech said:
But Legal, I think you're missing the point. Everything you say is correct, but TV ratings are not what's going to drive us to playoffs. It's going to be a legal action or the NCAA winning an internal political battle.

If you stop at 8, then the following year, Western Michigan will go undefeated and cause a stir. In fact, if you include "undefeated teams", weaker conferences will stop playing Alabama and go for a big payday.

It's a natural occurence. Look at NCAA basketball. After the tv sports explosion caused, there was a lot of money to be had and before you knew it, we had 300 Division 1 basketball teams vying for it. (And by the way, lots of folks watch Duke play South Carolina State every year in that tourney (1 v 16).

The same could happen in football. App State is feeling their oats right now. They could pursuade their conference to join D1 and certainly would be credible in my opinion.

The point is that a free market will end up choosing how many players. Secondly, the NCAA will try to "open it up fairly" and invite all champions. A Playoff might start with 8 teams, but it will certainly expand to 16 very quickly (and maybe 32).


Also, 16 team playoffs, if started 12/7 or so, would end the same time it does today. 32 would go a week deeper (or the same based on where holidays fall.)
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but respectfully disagree. First, I think any comparison to basketball is simply unworkable. The sheer cost to fund a program, and the sheer difference between income a BCS school gets and the #150 football school would get if it joined the FBS is staggering, much moreso than in basketball (where the arenas are much smaller, coaches make less, fewer players on scholarship, facilities cost less to build and maintain, there is much less revenue, there isn't the equivalent of a bowl payout, other sources of money such as TV contracts aren't as lucrative, etc.).

Second, the ratings are NOT that high for No. 1 seed v. No. 16. But that's beside the point. The reason the round of 64 is logistically feasible is because there is another game two days later. It's significantly easier in basketball than in football to play multiple games in multiple days - that's why the NBA plays 82 games while the NFL just plays 16. It's also why an NBA playoff round spans 4-7 games while the NFL just has single game rounds, even for its championship. Adding games in a basketball tournament is a simple result of booking the arena and hotel rooms for an extra couple of days. You see teams in conference tournaments play up to four games in four days. When was the last time you saw a football team do that? Or even two games in two days (i.e. round of 64 and round of 32).

The biggest obstacle to a large football tournament is LOGISTICS, especially combined with tradition. The regular season and conference championships end the first week in December and is immediately followed by exams. The first round of the playoff can't happen during exams, so you'd start the playoffs right before Xmas (the only way around it would be to make the conference championships inclusive of the first round and force other teams not in those championships to play each other round 1). The NFL plays Saturday games throughout January so their playoff games don't overlap. Unless you are in the South, NFL > NCAA.

That's why a 16 or 32 team playoff will likely never happen. The only chance for a 16 would be first round beginning of December. You could make it 6 conference championships (12 teams) + 4 at large (or change that up). Problem would be, like a few years ago, when the conference championship game is undefeated #1 v. #2. That can't be the first round of the playoffs.
 
Legal Jacket said:
I think the goal is a balance between fairness and the best teams. I'd rather see a two loss conference champion (e.g. us from 2009) who is ranked 9-11 than, for example, a third two loss SEC team who is ranked no. 8.
Click to expand...

How about the 6 BCS conference champions + 4 at large teams to be voted on by a select panel. These four teams are not bound by national poll rankings, but by the discretion of the "panel of experts" to be fair. The four "lottery" winners play a one game play-in to make the 8 team playoff.
 
Legal Jacket said:
I understand what you are saying, but respectfully disagree. First, I think any comparison to basketball is simply unworkable. The sheer cost to fund a program, and the sheer difference between income a BCS school gets and the #150 football school would get if it joined the FBS is staggering, much moreso than in basketball (where the arenas are much smaller, coaches make less, fewer players on scholarship, facilities cost less to build and maintain, there is much less revenue, there isn't the equivalent of a bowl payout, other sources of money such as TV contracts aren't as lucrative, etc.).

Second, the ratings are NOT that high for No. 1 seed v. No. 16. But that's beside the point. The reason the round of 64 is logistically feasible is because there is another game two days later. It's significantly easier in basketball than in football to play multiple games in multiple days - that's why the NBA plays 82 games while the NFL just plays 16. It's also why an NBA playoff round spans 4-7 games while the NFL just has single game rounds, even for its championship. Adding games in a basketball tournament is a simple result of booking the arena and hotel rooms for an extra couple of days. You see teams in conference tournaments play up to four games in four days. When was the last time you saw a football team do that? Or even two games in two days (i.e. round of 64 and round of 32).

The biggest obstacle to a large football tournament is LOGISTICS, especially combined with tradition. The regular season and conference championships end the first week in December and is immediately followed by exams. The first round of the playoff can't happen during exams, so you'd start the playoffs right before Xmas (the only way around it would be to make the conference championships inclusive of the first round and force other teams not in those championships to play each other round 1). The NFL plays Saturday games throughout January so their playoff games don't overlap. Unless you are in the South, NFL > NCAA.

That's why a 16 or 32 team playoff will likely never happen. The only chance for a 16 would be first round beginning of December. You could make it 6 conference championships (12 teams) + 4 at large (or change that up). Problem would be, like a few years ago, when the conference championship game is undefeated #1 v. #2. That can't be the first round of the playoffs.
Click to expand...


The NCAA doesn't give a hoot about academics or the NFL (academics finishes as different times all over the country). Div 1AA has 20 teams in their playoffs, why wouldn't Div 1A have as many? Div1AA finishes around January 7th, as Div 1A could (which is how it is today).

As to logistics, Div 1AA uses home field advantage until the quarterfinals I believe. Div 1A could do the same. As it stands, the SEC doesn't arguably know who is in their championship until the week before and they sell enough tickets without a problem.

Have the quarterfinals go to regional bowl games just like the NCAA effectively does today in other sports. Here's the quarterfinals:

Peach Bowl
Gator Bowl
Cotton Bowl
Holiday Bowl

Semifinals:
Orange
Sugar
Fiesta
Rose

Finals:
Wherever

I personally believe that every bowl game would be a huge sellout. I know that if my team was in the final eight, I'd be there.

Also, you could add more cities for the Round of 16:
Charlotte
Detroit
DC
Tampa
Indianapolis
Houston
Las Vegas
San Fran

Imagine this:
Charlotte (Georgia Tech v Alabama)
Detroit (OSU v Western Michigan)
DC (VPI v Pittsburgh)
Tampa (Florida v Central Florida)
Indianapolis (Iowa v Boise State)
Houston (Texas v TCU)
Las Vegas (Hawaii v Utah)
San Fran (Oregon v San Diego State)

I don't think logistics plays into it all personally. I think it's more about politics and the NCAA's lack of power of the football programs. But when it changes, I think we'll see something very similar to Div 1AA.
 
dressedcheeseside said:
How about the 6 BCS conference champions + 4 at large teams to be voted on by a select panel. These four teams are not bound by national poll rankings, but by the discretion of the "panel of experts" to be fair. The four "lottery" winners play a one game play-in to make the 8 team playoff.
Click to expand...


When the dam breaks I really think you'll see 16+ teams very quickly: Conference Champions and 5 at Large according to the "BCS" (limited to two teams per conference). This will be much bigger money than basketball. I just don't see a group of AD's picking these teams.
 
midatlantech said:
When the dam breaks I really think you'll see 16+ teams very quickly: Conference Champions and 5 at Large according to the "BCS" (limited to two teams per conference). This will be much bigger money than basketball. I just don't see a group of AD's picking these teams.
Click to expand...

In a 16 team playoff, the final two teams will play 16 total games if they play in a conference championship game. (12 reg season games + CCG + 4 playoff games including NC game) Are you in favor of cutting back the regular season? The teams that don't make the playoffs won't be so hot for that idea.
 
dressedcheeseside said:
How about the 6 BCS conference champions + 4 at large teams to be voted on by a select panel. These four teams are not bound by national poll rankings, but by the discretion of the "panel of experts" to be fair. The four "lottery" winners play a one game play-in to make the 8 team playoff.
Click to expand...

This doesn't get around the current antitrust lawsuit issues. If the big 6 are guaranteed entry, then you can bet the smaller conferences are going to complain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top