BCS blather

[Brutus]

What am I missing? Wouldn't a properly marketed and sponsored 16 or so team playoff be a bigger cash cow than the current bowl system? You could leave some bowls behind for the teams that don't make the playoff field.

The entire bowl system combined on about $350 million in net revenue last season to FBS schools. An "NFL style" playoff would net roughly $900 million or more, according to testimony given by Jim Delaney in a congressional hearing a few years back (he actually said four times more than what the BCS currently makes which was about $175 million).

The main reason we don't have a playoff system is because athletics administrators, university presidents and conference commissioners are on the payroll and VIP list of bowl executives. They're basically being bribed to keep the bowls active. That's really about it.

A more minor issue is that if a playoff were to come into existence (which it appears it now will), they want to avoid giving an automatic bid to the smaller conferences, but to give automatic bids to specific conferences while leaving the others out would trigger possible antitrust action. It's not necessarily that they want to avoid giving money to those conferences, as they already do with the BCS, but they enjoy sucking on the power teet and would like to put distance between the haves and have nots.

Personally I think an 8-team playoff is the sweet spot. Not big enough that it diminishes the regular season too much, but just big enough to be entertaining and incorporate enough of college football. However, they'll go to this 'plus-one' model in a seeded variety (a 4-team playoff, in other words) just because it continues to incorporate bowls.

[Caveat Emperor]

What am I missing? Wouldn't a properly marketed and sponsored 16 or so team playoff be a bigger cash cow than the current bowl system? You could leave some bowls behind for the teams that don't make the playoff field.

What, you want the "CEO" of the Fiesta Bowl, John Junker, to get a real job?

[Roy Tucker]

I'd like to see the NCAA just set up their own tournament.

Kind of like back in the '40's when they decided to hold their own post-season basketball tournament into the teeth of the bigger NIT. The NIT was bigger and more prestigious and the NCAA was more of an also-ran. But as the years went on, the NCAA got bigger and bigger and became the juggernaut it is now. And the NIT shrank into nothing.

If gonzo money is going to get made off post-season football, I'd rather the bowls get killed off and the money mostly go back into the schools (as it is for basketball) rather than to the bowl fat-cats who really bring nothing to the table.

But I doubt that will happen. Most likely, a 4 and eventually 8 team post-season tournament will happen that will get incorporated into the existing major BCS bowls. I doubt the NCAA will forget their bowl friends and will make sure they are taken care of. One thing I've learned is that the Big Guys always look out for each other.

[dougdirt]

If other divisions of football can have a playoffs, so can the big boys. This is all about money and the people who have it right now having enough control over the schools to not allow it to happen.

[RedsBaron]

If other divisions of football can have a playoffs, so can the big boys. This is all about money and the people who have it right now having enough control over the schools to not allow it to happen.

Yep. I totally agree.
Back in the late 1980s through 1996 Marshall University was in the then division AA of college football, which staged a 16 team playoff every season. it was terrific.

[Sea Ray]

The thing is you don't have to scrap the entire Bowl system for a playoff. You can still have 90% of the bowls as is. UC can still go to the Liberty Bowl. In fact you can set up a system where as a tradition, you call the qtr or semi final games the Sugar/Orange/Fiesta/Rose Bowls. There are a number of ways to do it and it wouldn't screw the Bowls

[HotCorner]

The thing is you don't have to scrap the entire Bowl system for a playoff. You can still have 90% of the bowls as is. UC can still go to the Liberty Bowl. In fact you can set up a system where as a tradition, you call the qtr or semi final games the Sugar/Orange/Fiesta/Rose Bowls. There are a number of ways to do it and it wouldn't screw the Bowls

Say like this?

I say use the 4 BCS bowls (Rose, Orange, Fiesta, Sugar), the Cotton Bowl (playing at Jerry Jones' playhouse) and the Chic-fil-a Bowl (Atlanta) for the hosting sites of an 8-team playoff. Each bowl would host a semifinal every four years and that respective site would host the national championship every 6 years.

For example, Year 1

Round 1:

Cotton (Dallas)
Chic-fil-a (Atlanta)
Rose (Pasadena)
Sugar (New Orleans)

Round 2

Fiesta (Tempe)
Orange (Miami)

Round 3

Site from Round 1 (NO, Atlanta, Pasadena, Dallas)

Year 2

Round 1:

Cotton (Dallas)
Fiesta (Tempe)
Orange (Miami)
Sugar (New Orleans)

Round 2

Chic-fil-a (Atlanta)
Rose (Pasadena)

Round 3

Site from Round 1 (NO, Miami, Tempe, Dallas)

Year 3

Round 1:

Fiesta (Tempe)
Orange (Miami)
Chic-fil-a (Atlanta)
Rose (Pasadena)

Round 2

Sugar (New Orleans)
Cotton (Dallas)

Round 3

Site from Round 1 (Atlanta, Miami, Tempe, Pasadena)

etc ...

This would rotate every year with sites swapping between rounds 1 and 2. The ratings for all of these games would dramatically higher. I would also believe ticket sales would be higher because it's no longer a glorified scrimmage. So while fan bases of these team my not travel for all games fans of college football who live near these sites would probably make up the difference.

After I posted this I read that the Rose Bowl would not want a part of this type of system. I'm sure a "lesser" bowl would love to replace the Rose Bowl in playoff style format if the Rose really wanted to keep it's B10/P12 tradition.

[Sea Ray]

Say like this?



After I posted this I read that the Rose Bowl would not want a part of this type of system. I'm sure a "lesser" bowl would love to replace the Rose Bowl in playoff style format if the Rose really wanted to keep it's B10/P12 tradition.

Yep! Then let all the other Bowls go about their business as usual It's not that tough, is it?

[Roy Tucker]

I think the problem with getting the current bowls involved in this is that they currently make an obscene amount of money off of them. And they don't want to give that up.

Putting on games like this is not rocket science. Universities and the NFL have nice facilities and I'm sure could host these games for much much cheaper than what the current bowls do.

My point about all this is to use Occam's Razor. If the bowls are the sticking point (and by all indications they are), then just cut them out. What is so special about them? I'm sure there are many southern universities or NFL stadia that would host these NCAA playoff games for a fraction of the cost and the NCAA would rake in money hand over fist.

[MWM]

What Roy said.

Plus, in a true playoff there needs to be home games.

[rdiersin]

What Roy said.

Plus, in a true playoff there needs to be home games.

I really agree with this. For a 16 team playoff there are 8 regional games where the top seeds are at home, 4 super-regionals (I hate that term, but that's what they use in baseball) that I figure would be similar regions to basketball, and then the semifinals and championship. The super-regional, semifinal, and championship games would be neutral fields. You could do something similar for a 8 team playoff where the regional games are at the top seeds homes. I just think, even if there aren't home games, there need to be regional games. LSU playing in New Orleans and USC in the Rose Bowl are not really neutral sites, even if the fans are evenly split.

[KronoRed]

I hate the idea of a 16 team playoff, look at the top 16 before the bowls, I cannot seriously see why some of those teams deserve a shot at the big title.

[Chip R]

If you really want to get rid of the bowls, go to a 64 team playoff just like the basketball tournament used to be. That way mediocre teams that would normally go to the Pinstripe Bowl would be able to participate in the playoffs and potentially have a shot at the real national championship.

[Newport Red]

If you really want to get rid of the bowls, go to a 64 team playoff just like the basketball tournament used to be. That way mediocre teams that would normally go to the Pinstripe Bowl would be able to participate in the playoffs and potentially have a shot at the real national championship.

The final 2 teams would be pushing 20 games played.

[Chip R]

The final 2 teams would be pushing 20 games played.

If a team plays 11 games and wins its conference championship game, then it's 17 games. Only one more than they play in the NFL. I'm not crazy about a 64 team football tournament but that will definitely compensate teams who go to the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl and would feel left out by playoffs. It might be a bit too much but high school teams play 4-6 playoff games to win a championship. FBS players can't do that? Right now there are 34 bowl games plus the BCS Championship game. In a 64 team playoff 4 teams that would normally go to bowl games are left out. Are there going to be a lot of people sympathetic if UCLA, Iowa State, Utah State and Nevada get left out of the playoffs? ESPN should be all over this. Instead of showing some lame bowl game on Wednesday evening between Who Cares U and I Don't Know State, you have Ohio State or Alabama or Florida State in a do or die game. Just like in the basketball tournament there will be some upsets. I'm no expert but I have to believe that a playoff game is going to have a lot more people watching than some minor bowl game.