A few arguments against a CFB playoff

[Chip R]

It'd be good? How? So non-behemoth fans can be happy or 40K/50K fans get denied entrance b/c there are not enough seats? The MAC schools, the Bearcats and others choose to play at Columbus. The biggest reason is money. OSU and their fans bring the money to the table and the other schools benefit greatly from that. The tears will be shed from those who miss out on their big payday every 3 to 5 years. Don't blame the Ohio States, the USCs, the Floridas. Don't blame the NCAA. It is all about money. The money for the behemoths and the schools who choose to play at the behemoths. And money trumps all... playoffs, opinions of smaller school fans, etc.

You get your neutral sites every year. It is called the Bowl Games. But just for the sake of argument... lets say OSU played UC at a neutral site for a regular season clash. This site is called Paul Brown Stadium (if that is really neutral?). We have 65,000 seats vs. 105,000 seats. So we have a difference of 40,000. Lets say the average ticket price is $50/ticket. Now we have an initial revenue difference of $2,000,000. Now lets go further into it. Concessions, parking fees, merchandise, etc. Who gets most of this revenue? Seems like a lot will go to Hamilton County and not the two schools.

The NCAA is too smart for that. I understand that non-behemoth fans don't like it, but rest assured that the leaders/educators of their fav non-behemoth schools love it. They hope that the behemoths will invite them to visit the behemoth stadium. They choose to call the behemoth AD and persuade that AD to schedule them... and cry all the way to the bank when the game is over. Supply and demand. If they refuse to come, then the behemoth will be forced to go elsewhere to play. The demand is always there and will always be there to collect that behemoth money.

Econ 101. Behemoths and non-behemoths both offer it to their students. The S&D and money make for easy Econ 101 stuff in this argument.

If you're going to do that, why not have tOSU play all home games except when they play Michigan and Penn St. since both those stadiums hold over 100K? Instead of playing at Kinnick Stadium which holds just over 70K, why not have Iowa play in Columbus every year they are scheduled to play?

[RedFanAlways1966]

If you're going to do that, why not have tOSU play all home games except when they play Michigan and Penn St. since both those stadiums hold over 100K? Instead of playing at Kinnick Stadium which holds just over 70K, why not have Iowa play in Columbus every year they are scheduled to play?

Good point. Conference play. Not the basis of Caveat's argument with the OOC games. Technically the Big-10 will make more money doing it this way, but all conferences follow the normal every other year at your/my place. That is understandable. The NCAA is smart enough to maximize the revenue for OOC games, but also smart enough not to mess with conference-play standards (Bud Selig needs educated by the NCAA on certain aspects).

The OOC games are all about making money (for both schools). If not for the money, then an Ohio University would surely play an OOC game at home against a Central State or Otterbein. Instead they agree to head 70 miles north on SR-33. Sure the players and coaches think they can win, but the AD and college adminstrators are thinking about how to spend the money.

[Marc D]

If you're going to do that, why not have tOSU play all home games except when they play Michigan and Penn St. since both those stadiums hold over 100K? Instead of playing at Kinnick Stadium which holds just over 70K, why not have Iowa play in Columbus every year they are scheduled to play?

Conference play has been home a home and home format for over 100 years. I would imagine that back in the day this was part of the appeal of joining a conference. 4 (or whatever the amount) guaranteed paydays every year.

Thats part of the business math of the whole deal.
12 game schedule-4 guaranteed home games in conference=8 games left

8 games - 4 guaranteed road games in confernce play= 4 ooc games to play with

4 ooc games-1 premier opponent that requires a home and home=3 games that MUST be played at home to pay the bills. This means you have to find teams to play that do not require a return game or can be bought out of one. It has zero to do with big schools being "scared" to go play small schools at their place.

Its been this way since the late 40's. I'm not quite sure where all the moral outrage comes from. Is CFB supposed to be the one sport in America that ignores economics?

[remdog]

Didn't Bowling Green and Ohio State play in Cleveland a few years ago? Maybe my memory is just on the fritz but, if they did, how did that draw and how were the revenues divided?

Rem

[RedFanAlways1966]

Didn't Bowling Green and Ohio State play in Cleveland a few years ago? Maybe my memory is just on the fritz but, if they did, how did that draw and how were the revenues divided?

Rem

I once attended a game at Cleveland Municipal Stadium (the old one). It was a Northwestern home game against "visiting" Ohio State. October 19, 1991, the Northwestern Wildcats played a "home" game against the Buckeyes. While Northwestern received the home team's share of the gate receipts, the crowd was mostly Ohio State fans.

[bucksfan2]

Didn't Bowling Green and Ohio State play in Cleveland a few years ago? Maybe my memory is just on the fritz but, if they did, how did that draw and how were the revenues divided?

Rem

I believe next season OSU is playing Toledo or some Ohio school in Cleveland. Its more so a home game but also a recruiting tool in the Cleveland area.

[Chip R]

Good point. Conference play. Not the basis of Caveat's argument with the OOC games. Technically the Big-10 will make more money doing it this way, but all conferences follow the normal every other year at your/my place. That is understandable. The NCAA is smart enough to maximize the revenue for OOC games, but also smart enough not to mess with conference-play standards (Bud Selig needs educated by the NCAA on certain aspects).

Its been this way since the late 40's. I'm not quite sure where all the moral outrage comes from. Is CFB supposed to be the one sport in America that ignores economics?

I understand that and I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. RFA said it was all about the money and tOSU would rather play someone in the Horseshoe where they can draw 100K than at PBS which only holds 60-70K. I'm just taking the argument to it's logical extention. If it's all about making money, why not just let tOSU, Michigan and Penn St. play all their games at those 3 stadiums? Give the visitors a nice payday and be off with them. Let's go further than that. If having tOSU in a BCS game every year draws more people to watch than any other Big 10 school, just fix the games. If PSU is playing tOSU and their QB throws a TD, have the ref throw a flag for holding. As long as the goal (more money) is met, who cares how they go about it? Now tOSU is good enough that they can go to a BCS bowl every year but some years they may need a helpful hand.

But it's not all about the money is it? That's why they play home and home in conference. If tOSU is worried about not making money playing UC at PBS, hike ticket prices up until they can make up the difference. Joe Bucksfan in Middletown who bleeds scarlet and gray can't ever make up to Columbus for a game but he can watch them play at PBS. He'll have to pay through the nose to do it but he's not going to worry about that if he can get a ticket to see them play down the road. Playing in Cincinnati has other advantages. It gets the local fan base energized, it gives them more of a presence in the SW Ohio NKY recruiting area. It'd also be pretty much a home game for them because you know that at least half the stadium would be for the Buckeyes.

[Danny Serafini]

Didn't Bowling Green and Ohio State play in Cleveland a few years ago? Maybe my memory is just on the fritz but, if they did, how did that draw and how were the revenues divided?

Rem

I'm pretty sure that happened. Toledo is doing the same thing next year. Toledo will be the home team, but was happy to move their home game to Cleveland because they'll sell a lot more tickets and make a lot more money.

[improbus]

Well....I would be concerned about the overwhelming home field advantage in these in-state games at OSU if their fans actually cheered at those games. I've been to OSU vs. OU twice and OSU vs. Akron and found that Crew Stadium is louder. So, don't overestimate the home field factor. OSU fans tend to only care when the opponent is decent.

[Jack Burton]

Hard to argue against a playoff this year, teams like Texas, USC, Bama, Penn St., Utah, Texas Tech all have legitimate gripes.

Your 2008 NCAA College Football Championship.
(slap a bowl name on each game and rotate each year)

(1) Oklahoma
(8) Penn St.

(5) Alabama
(4) USC

(3) Texas
(6) Utah

(7) Texas Tech
(2) Florida

[bucksfan2]

Hard to argue against a playoff this year, teams like Texas, USC, Bama, Penn St., Utah, Texas Tech all have legitimate gripes.

Your 2008 NCAA College Football Championship.
(slap a bowl name on each game and rotate each year)

(1) Oklahoma
(8) Penn St.

(5) Alabama
(4) USC

(3) Texas
(6) Utah

(7) Texas Tech
(2) Florida

The big question is where do you stop. An 8 team playoff is still going to have its fair share of criticism. For example as an OSU fan I would be upset that Utah playing in a far inferior conference got a bid and OSU didn't. If I were a Boise St fan I would have a gripe because I went undefeated and didn't get a bid but Utah did.

The one big problem with the BCS is in most years one team has a gripe about being left out. This year it was Texas, two years ago it was Michigan, a few years ago it was Auburn. I think each year the system tries to correct its wrongs. I think with a playoff you have a group of top tier teams. Then when you get past your 5 top teams you bring in a bunch of second tier teams who all have a similar resume.

[RichRed]

And the 66th best team in basketball complains because they got left out of the tournament. No matter how many teams you include in a playoff, someone will be unhappy. However, I hardly think that's a good argument against a playoff.

[bucksfan2]

And the 66th best team in basketball complains because they got left out of the tournament. No matter how many teams you include in a playoff, someone will be unhappy. However, I hardly think that's a good argument against a playoff.

The 66th best team and the 9th best team are very very different. If you compare it to the NCAA tournament you are talking about leaving out a 3 seed.

I think a problem with the proposed 8 team playoff that in a given year a BCS conference champ will be left out. This year both the Big East and ACC will be left out and the BCS commissioners won't go for that.

I guess the think I look at for a BCS playoff would be where is the drop off. Where do the top teams start to distance themselves from the rest of college football. Every year we see teams climb into the teens then find their way outside the polls by the time the season is over. A 16 team playoff I could live with. Teams 17, 18, and 19 really won't have much of a beef because you are entering the 3 loss range.

[improbus]

You have to keep the integrity of the conferences, otherwise why even have them? The ACC won't always be average and the same goes for the Big Ten and Big East. Look at the NFL, does any team from the AFC or NFC West's deserve a playoff spot over the Cowboys or Jets?
So, if you have and eight team playoff with the six conference champions and two at large teams, who do you leave out? Your choices would include Alabama, Utah, Texas Tech, and Texas? Two teams that had a great season is inherently out of the mix.
If you set up a postseason tournament, here is one other thing that will happen:
-Teams will load up on cupcake out of conference games. Games like OSU vs. USC won't ever happen again. What is the incentive to play them if all you need to do is make the playoffs.

[Roy Tucker]

Let me first say by no means am I a Jim Delany fan. And, I'd like to see a college Div 1 playoff system.

But given that the first thing that the BCS wants to do is preserve the bowl system, what he says in this column makes sense.

I think if any college playoff is going to happen, the NCAA needs to do it because the BCS won't. And I don't see that happening soon.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colum...lany-bcs_N.htm

Want BCS support? Ask Big Ten's Delany

By Mike Lopresti, Gannett News Service
DETROIT — The commissioner of the Big Ten wanted to make one thing clear from the start.

"I am not the face of the BCS," Jim Delany said, sounding something like an innocent plea from traffic court.

But the Big Ten is one of the pillars of the system, and Delany one of its most articulate proponents. He is a reminder that the BCS is not a private and tone deaf business consortium, but an agreement among leagues to produce a national championship game to go with the bowls.

Now that we're near the end of another stormy BCS hurricane season, it seemed a good time to toss the man a few basic questions. If not the face of the BCS, for a moment he can be the voice.

"Everybody wants him to succeed. He's probably got unprecedented support, so it's very hard to be disagreeable with him on a subject. Having said that, the majority of the presidents and faculty and athletic directors and coaches in the Big Ten believe in the Rose Bowl and believe in the bowl system."

Surprised by the heated debate each November?

"We never conceived it would come to what it became as quickly as it did. All of a sudden you're a BCS president, a BCS commissioner. It was unbelievable. All it was, was a bunch of people saying, 'Hey, we like the bowl system. Let's see if we can come up with a 1 vs. 2 game, because only nine times in the previous 45 years did we have a 1-2 game.'

"We never imagined this amount of interest and controversy around it."

How do you answer the charge the BCS is only doing this for the money?

"Six or so years ago, there was a presentation ... that a billion or two billion dollars would be available in a playoff. So if we were interested in money, there is no doubt more money would be available in a playoff than there is in the bowl system, because of the way it is sold."

So why keep it?

"There is nothing more powerful than the regular season in college football. All the games that were local are now regional. The regional games are now national. The level of interest of young people 12-17 was measured recently. I think NASCAR and the NFL gained 1%. College football gained 9%.

"I understand the paradigm of the American sports fan is to play it out. I know we're swimming upstream on it. But we've grown the fan base, we've grown the regular season and we've maintained the postseason."

The regular season is that important?

"Every other sport has devalued the regular season. You look at college basketball, and I would say there's probably one must-see game during the regular season. Duke-North Carolina. What else? We don't have that in college football. We have a lot of must-see games. CBS is covering it. NBC is covering it. ABC is covering it. ESPN is covering it. Fox is covering it. All regular-season games.

"I don't want to see the regular season turned into a seeding process.

"The price (of a playoff) I think for a lot of us, is too high. The price of that buzz is the possibility of undermining 13 weeks of buzz."

How about a playoff that also includes the bowls?

"There is no four-team playoff that won't become an eight-team playoff. No eight-team playoff that won't become 12. The political structure of college football is, if you have a playoff, be honest about it. Go to 16. There is no system that can also accommodate a bowl season. The bowl season is dead. Dead."

At the end of the day, what would you most want people to understand about the BCS?

"That it is making an effort to do three things — preserve the bowl system, create a winner on the field based on a season's work, and maintain college football as the most important regular season in all of sport."

How's it doing?

"It's been incredibly successful. Controversial, and successful."

***

Contact Mike Lopresti at mlopresti@gns.gannett.com