| FTBL Didn't want to steal bamarolls thread

rammerjammer

Thread Starter
Gump 4ever
Scholarship Club
about Spurriers jab at OSU, but it got me to thinking.

One thing that I think would help eliminate some of the BCS BS is this:

Most 10 team conferences (Pac-10) has no play off system. The Big 10 (11 teams) only needs to add one more to have 12 and a championship game.

Just like we played FSU this year and talks are about playing Clemson next year....why not make the BCS conferences play one game with another conference team every year. It would be a good way to help eliminate some of the talk about playing weak teams. Make ND join the Big 10 (at least in football because all other sports have playoffs) otherwise screw you. Get on board or get left behind. And say for the Pac-10 that has about all the folks they can get if you only have 10 teams then you have to play two out of conference opponents. The sec could take a conference like the SEC and line up each team with one of theirs. Then rotate all of them through. That is 12 years of working through a conference. Sure you will have some mismatches, but you will have some great match ups as well. Also one thing that might help the SEC is to drop one of theirs and only have 7 games within the conference and pick up two ooc games. Maybe play one ACC and one Big 12 game per year for 12 years. Think how cool it would be to see a follow up to last years BCS championship game if Florida and OSU played a regular season game this year.
 

BarnBurner

Verified Member
Sideline Club
I'm not trying to rain on your parade or make you sound stupid, but a playoff is much more likely than what you are proposing. While your idea certainly has merits it isn't going to ever happen due to several factors.


The main reason we don't have a playoff now is because of opposition from the college presidents (due to their over-emphasis on disrupting finals and extending into another semester) and the bowls (due to the fact that a playoff makes their existence questionable to say the least). That and the fact that certain conferences (Big 10) enjoy the BSC because it assures that their substandard teams can enjoy big pay days regardless of how badly they get beat New Years Day.

However, what you are proposing would be soundly defeated by perhaps the most important group in college football... the athletic directors. The AD's most important job is to ensure that his football program can make enough money to sustain itself (and every other sport on campus excluding men's basketball). Forcing this group to schedule games with another conference would upset these guys to no end because these proposed contests would certainly be home and away series. Any AD director from a BSC conference would much rather be given another home game to play "name your campus school" because of the millions of dollars at stake. Although TV networks would love forcing great non conference games, the vast majority of the money a college football team makes comes from ticket sales, not TV revenue.
 

Atlanta_Tider

Verified Member
Extra Point Club
BarnBurner said:
I'm not trying to rain on your parade or make you sound stupid, but a playoff is much more likely than what you are proposing. While your idea certainly has merits it isn't going to ever happen due to several factors.


The main reason we don't have a playoff now is because of opposition from the college presidents (due to their over-emphasis on disrupting finals and extending into another semester) and the bowls (due to the fact that a playoff makes their existence questionable to say the least). That and the fact that certain conferences (Big 10) enjoy the BSC because it assures that their substandard teams can enjoy big pay days regardless of how badly they get beat New Years Day.

However, what you are proposing would be soundly defeated by perhaps the most important group in college football... the athletic directors. The AD's most important job is to ensure that his football program can make enough money to sustain itself (and every other sport on campus excluding men's basketball). Forcing this group to schedule games with another conference would upset these guys to no end because these proposed contests would certainly be home and away series. Any AD director from a BSC conference would much rather be given another home game to play "name your campus school" because of the millions of dollars at stake. Although TV networks would love forcing great non conference games, the vast majority of the money a college football team makes comes from ticket sales, not TV revenue.
A playoff system is not likely to ever happen either....
 

BarnBurner

Verified Member
Sideline Club
My point was merely that a playoff is being held up by tradition and the 'morality' of university presidents. What rammerjammer proposed would be defeated even more soundly by something tangible: money (and football's legal requirement to support every other sport on campus).
 

reger60

Scholarship Club
Outlaw said:
Is money not one of the reasons a playoff system is refuted as well? Or am I completely off on that? :oops:

Cities that host bowl games dread a playoff system. They love the fact that fans of participating teams have 3-4 weeks to make travel plans. Hotels, restaurants and other attractions count on the early bookings. Many hotels ask that guests pre-pay for minumum stays. Those purchases are made in the December of the current calendar year, allowing hotels to reflect the revenue in the current year, even if the stay is actually in January of the next year.

The conferences support the host cities, because they can better book heavily discounted hotel rates, comped meals for large parties at restaurants. Not to mention, it's just easier to book a trip for 200 people in three weeks and nearly impossible to do it in one week.
 

BarnBurner

Verified Member
Sideline Club
Outlaw said:
Is money not one of the reasons a playoff system is refuted as well? Or am I completely off on that? :oops:

Actually money is one of the biggest reasons to have a playoff. A playoff would actually generate 3 to 4 times as much money as the BSC system does now. However, that increase of money is expected to come at the expense of bowl games and their host cities. For instance, if the Cotton Bowl served as a venue in the first round of a 16 team playoff, it would be expected that not as many fans would make the trip than if it was still one of the more respected New Years Day games. A 16 team playoff would also certainly be more inclusion to midmajor teams and the first round of it would see alot of relatively lackluster matches. No venue would be dying to host a Boise State vs. Hawaii game which might not even draw 30,000 fans.
 

Outlaw

Verified Member
Century Club
16 team playoff? How would that work? Just looking at it looks like way too many IMO. :?

I like the plus 1, MAYBE a 4-8 team, but 16 is a tad much. And I don't really even know if I like the playoff system to begin with. It would no doubt form some exciting games and such, but I think the idea of "every game counts" would be greatly diminished.

Case being, my buddy talked about how he would be upset and would lose all faith in college football if USC was in the championship game at the end of the season after losing to Stanford. Yet, he then went on to propose a playoff system to me which took all the major conference winners, two mid major winners, and then a few at large teams (I dont remember the exact format but you get the gist of it). I then asked him if that was in place this year, if Michigan won out (which I think is a very good possibility, FWIW) and wins their conference, they could possibly win the National Championship after losing to Appalachian State. He then said yes, if they beat Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Illinois then they would deserve to be.

I then proceeded to basically call him crazy for making the statement about USC followed by him saying Michigan would deserve to be in the playoffs after losing to a D1-AA school. It just wouldn't make every week count, IMHO. :oops:
 

rammerjammer

Thread Starter
Gump 4ever
Scholarship Club
Control and money and in particular control of the money is why we will never see a play off. I know that a snowball has better chance of making it through hell than the plan I proposed. But money would be made in a big way with some good OOC games. Look at FSU/UA this year.

I think we will see a plus one game in the future and that will probably be as close as we will ever get to a playoff.
 

BarnBurner

Verified Member
Sideline Club
rammerjammer said:
Control and money and in particular control of the money is why we will never see a play off. I know that a snowball has better chance of making it through hell than the plan I proposed. But money would be made in a big way with some good OOC games. Look at FSU/UA this year.

I think we will see a plus one game in the future and that will probably be as close as we will ever get to a playoff.

I think we will see an increase in non conference games held at a neutral site in the near future. There's just too much money at stake not too (you get paid millions and you don't have to worry about scheduling an away game).
 

BarnBurner

Verified Member
Sideline Club
Outlaw said:
16 team playoff? How would that work? Just looking at it looks like way too many IMO. :?

I like the plus 1, MAYBE a 4-8 team, but 16 is a tad much. And I don't really even know if I like the playoff system to begin with. It would no doubt form some exciting games and such, but I think the idea of "every game counts" would be greatly diminished.

Case being, my buddy talked about how he would be upset and would lose all faith in college football if USC was in the championship game at the end of the season after losing to Stanford. Yet, he then went on to propose a playoff system to me which took all the major conference winners, two mid major winners, and then a few at large teams (I dont remember the exact format but you get the gist of it). I then asked him if that was in place this year, if Michigan won out (which I think is a very good possibility, FWIW) and wins their conference, they could possibly win the National Championship after losing to Appalachian State. He then said yes, if they beat Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Illinois then they would deserve to be.

I then proceeded to basically call him crazy for making the statement about USC followed by him saying Michigan would deserve to be in the playoffs after losing to a D1-AA school. It just wouldn't make every week count, IMHO. :oops:

I wouldn't go as far as an 16 team playoff, 8 teams is much more realistic. I just said 16 teams because that's about the largest the field (and consquently, the most money generated) Included in those 8 teams are the champs from all the major conferences and two at-large berths. The arguement there would still be that it would take away from the regular season games, however, I think shortening the field to 8 teams would still keep the regular season very important. 1 loss could easily cost a conference championship and with only two at large spots there would be intense competition to get one. As a bonus, I think such a system would force Notre Dame to join a conference (especially if they would take away their special provision).
 
Top Bottom