The Official NO PLAYOFF Thread

• ytownfootball

  

  Yeah, it meant so much to Cincy that their head coach is recruiting for Notre Dame instead of preparing the Bearcats for their bowl game . . .

  What their former head coach did doesn't have anything to do with how UC feels about their inclusion in a BCS game.
• jhay78

  

  I'm sure UC is jacked to play in that game, but their coach leaving shows you how meaningless that game really is in the big picture.
• ytownfootball

  

  I think it's more a testament to where UC stands as a "football" school more so than what the game actually means. I understand your point though.
• enigmaax

  ytownfootball wrote: I think it's more a testament to where UC stands as a "football" school more so than what the game actually means. I understand your point though.

  Exactly. The guy would've bolted for Notre Dame with or without a playoff for many reasons. A playoff *may* have delayed the move, but it was inevitable.
  
  A playoff would also likely make this a dead period, or at least ensure some kind of change in the recruiting schedule, which I imagine had more to do with the timing of the move than anything else.
• enigmaax

  For those whose ideas include having a playoff AND bowls, I'm interested to see how your schedule would work out for that. When would you play the playoffs and when would you have bowl games? I know the big bowls have adjusted their dates for the BCS, but how likely are they to move those games to occur three weeks earlier? And when you talk about making games meaningless, whe is really going to care about bowl games played AFTER the title has been decided? But again, I'm interested in the logistics for those who say it is a simple formula.
• ytownfootball

  

  enigmaax wrote: For those whose ideas include having a playoff AND bowls, I'm interested to see how your schedule would work out for that. When would you play the playoffs and when would you have bowl games? I know the big bowls have adjusted their dates for the BCS, but how likely are they to move those games to occur three weeks earlier? And when you talk about making games meaningless, whe is really going to care about bowl games played AFTER the title has been decided? But again, I'm interested in the logistics for those who say it is a simple formula.

  And just to add, include a financial breakdown of how much coin is to made by these bowls, more/less?
  
  It's the biggest hurdle to a play-off. They don't give a shit whether we're "happy" as fans if we feel we have a "true" national title winner.
• sherm03

  

  I didn't read this whole thread...so maybe someone has asked/answered this already.
  
  For those in favor of a playoff...are you also in favor of a playoff for the conference championships? If playoffs are the only fair way to determine a national champion, then it would follow that playoffs are the only "fair" way to determine a conference champion. How is it fair that Ohio State gets to be named the Big 10 Champ and get a pass into your playoff system...and they might not even have to play the second best team in the conference in a given year.
• Red_Skin_Pride

  

  enigmaax wrote: For those whose ideas include having a playoff AND bowls, I'm interested to see how your schedule would work out for that. When would you play the playoffs and when would you have bowl games? I know the big bowls have adjusted their dates for the BCS, but how likely are they to move those games to occur three weeks earlier? And when you talk about making games meaningless, whe is really going to care about bowl games played AFTER the title has been decided? But again, I'm interested in the logistics for those who say it is a simple formula.

  Assuming a 16 team playoff:
  
  Well, you could keep the other bowls pretty much where they are. You'd play the first round games around the time of the early bowls (smaller, or traditionally "lower tier" bowls with early round playoff games), second round games the following weekend, then the two semi-final games on the same weekend as the cap-1, outback, and gator bowls with the NC game the following week or weekend by itself. So using that model applied to this season:
  
  First round games yesterday (12/19)
  Second round games (12/26)
  Semi-finals (1/1)
  National title game (1/7 or 1/8, depending on what date they decided to do it on. Beings that both teams would play the semi-final game on the same day, 1/1, then it really shouldn't matter as both would be equally rested).
  
  You leave the "big" non-bcs games their day on January 1st, as that is a big day traditionally for college football anyways. You play the 8 and 4 games of the first and second round on saturdays (12/19 and 12/26), and schedule non-playoff bowl games on the rest of the 6 days of the week around them, so you always have football to watch, and teams get their time on TV and what not, but saturdays would be reserved for the playoff teams (excepting new years day, as I said above. Those would be teams who were just shy of making the playoff, so they would get put into the best of the non-bcs bowls, and should get to play on the traditional New Year's day game as they would all likely be top 25 teams).
  
  The schedule really wouldn't change much as as far as when the bowls start and end. Youd still go from about a week before christmas to about January 7-8th as they do now. Because of the great tradition of games like the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Sugar bowl (the fiesta is newer, but I guess them too lol) you could also use the 4 BCS game sites now, for teams to play in in the second round. It would just be about a week earlier than it is with the BCS system. The two semifinal games would be played at a neutral site (yes, all 4 teams in one place), and the NC game could still remain in Arizona if that's what was decided upon.
• ytownfootball

  

  That's 15 "bowl" games....15
  
  There's how many now?
  
  Where's the money coming from?
  
  What are you going to tell the hosters of the "rest"... "Sorry...GTFO" ???
• enigmaax

  red skin - So not only are you moving the big name bowls out of their traditional roles and drawing power, but you are giving the prime New Year spots to "just shy of the playoff" bowls? I also still can't buy that you are going to get the major corporate sponsors to dish out the same dollars for a second round game, when you are still going to have two weeks left in the season. There's no way to establish identity in that system and there's a reason why sponsors pay must more handsomely for bowl games than they do for regular season games or even conference championships.
  
  And again, tell what kind of money you expect to make and compare it to the current system.
• jordo212000

  

  Let me start off by saying that a playoff system would be just as lucrative IMO. And no I cannot prove it, just as you can't prove the current system would be more lucrative.
  
  However... the money argument shouldn't even be a factor here. It is college football. The NCAA's core purpose is "... to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."
  
  Nowhere does that say "maximize profits."
• ytownfootball

  

  Nowhere does that say "maximize profits."

  Please don't be so naive. It's the Big 10, SEC, Big East, ACC, Big12 and the Pac 10's responsibility to maximize revenue, that's a better than 50% representation of FBS.
  
  The BCS is sponsoring the title game, not the NCAA.
  
  Their sponsorship is directly dependent upon advertising which is all about maximizing profit. Period.
• enigmaax

  jordo212000 wrote: Let me start off by saying that a playoff system would be just as lucrative IMO. And no I cannot prove it, just as you can't prove the current system would be more lucrative.
  
  However... the money argument shouldn't even be a factor here. It is college football. The NCAA's core purpose is "... to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."
  
  Nowhere does that say "maximize profits."

  You can't prove it, but you have to if you are going to convince the right people that a playoff is the route to go. Hence, there will not be a playoff.
  
  I agree, actually to a very large extent, about the NCAA and its stated core purpose. The thing you guys keep overlooking is the opportunity that all of that money made off college football provides for non-football athletes. Most schools can have volleyball, cross country, etc. because football brings in the dough. Your argument about "fairness" is so narrow in scope, selfish, and hypocritical. I'll bet you won't find many FBS football players who end up looking back saying, "Man, my sport sucked because we didn't have a playoff." Some guys will wish they had a shot (like Boise, etc.) but you aren't going to find many who are down on the experience as a whole strictly due to the system. But if you stop bringing in the money to support the other sports, you ARE going to have tens of thousands of athletes who won't have the opportunity to even play "their" sport at the highest collegiate level because their sport isn't going to exist at that level. Then you can take satisfaction that one set of 100 players is happy with their football championship instead of a different set of 100 players. Which little guy do you want to look out for?
  
  Big difference between what you want to see as a fan of college football and the decisions that have to be made by people responsible for ALL sports at their respective schools.
  
  So back to your first line - keep saying you can't prove that a playoff would bring more money. But you'll be bitching for eternity if you can't support your argument with facts surrounding the REAL issue.
• jordo212000

  

  enigmaax wrote:
  1. You can't prove it, but you have to if you are going to convince the right people that a playoff is the route to go. Hence, there will not be a playoff.
  
  I agree, actually to a very large extent, about the NCAA and its stated core purpose. The thing you guys keep overlooking is the opportunity that all of that money made off college football provides for non-football athletes. Most schools can have volleyball, cross country, etc. because football brings in the dough. 2. Your argument about "fairness" is so narrow in scope, selfish, and hypocritical. I'll bet you won't find many FBS football players who end up looking back saying, "Man, my sport sucked because we didn't have a playoff." Some guys will wish they had a shot (like Boise, etc.) but you aren't going to find many who are down on the experience as a whole strictly due to the system. 3. But if you stop bringing in the money to support the other sports, you ARE going to have tens of thousands of athletes who won't have the opportunity to even play "their" sport at the highest collegiate level because their sport isn't going to exist at that level. Then you can take satisfaction that one set of 100 players is happy with their football championship instead of a different set of 100 players. Which little guy do you want to look out for?
  
  Big difference between what you want to see as a fan of college football and the decisions that have to be made by people responsible for ALL sports at their respective schools.
  
  So back to your first line - keep saying you can't prove that a playoff would bring more money. But you'll be bitching for eternity if you can't support your argument with facts surrounding the REAL issue.

  1. The true crime of all of this. You have to convince a select group of people who are making a killing to change a system that caters to this select group of people.
  
  2. It's okay to have a different opinion than me, but how on earth is supporting a playoff that settles a championship on the field selfish? Wouldn't the better definition of selfish be, clinging to a system that favors the power conferences and rejecting any change because the new system might not make them as much money?
  
  3. Serious reach here. Maybe not as much money would be made, but to think that the NCAA and BCS schools will be out on the corner bumming for money if a playoff is instituted is just silly IMO.
• enigmaax

  jord - It is selfish because your main point is that YOU want to see a playoff in college football, the sport that YOU watch. You've stated that you don't have a financial solution (you're guessing, at best) and apparently don't believe or don't care that there would be tens of thousands of lives affected by people who ARE NOT college football fans. No, they wouldn't have to bum money for a playoff. But they wouldn't make the same or more money and that puts many, many other sports and athletes at risk.
  
  College football will thrive as is or with a playoff. But it is a different story for other sports who depend on football money.
• Red_Skin_Pride

  

  ytownfootball wrote: That's 15 "bowl" games....15
  
  There's how many now?
  
  Where's the money coming from?
  
  What are you going to tell the hosters of the "rest"... "Sorry...GTFO" ???

  So happy that after 11 pages, we've established you can count. I never said anything about telling the "rest" as you call them, to GTFO. If you would read my post, I replied to enigmaxx's post of those who support keeping the other bowls as well as some type of playoff system.
  
  You have 32 bowls right now; you would have 42 with a playoff. How hard do you think it would be to get someone like R+L Carriers to sponsor a first round playoff game? If they can sponsor the bowl game I'm watching right now, how would that be any different than sponsoring a first round playoff game? The way that the names of bowl games change constantly (especially the smaller bowls)...oh look, first commerical break and an R+L carriers commercial...anyway, with the way sponsors change all the time, and recently new bowl games have sprang up, you're telling me it would be too hard to find 10 sponsors that could get the game on TV and get 3 hours of free advertising out of it?? Right.
• jordo212000

  

  enigmaax wrote: jord - It is selfish because your main point is that YOU want to see a playoff in college football, the sport that YOU watch. You've stated that you don't have a financial solution (you're guessing, at best) and apparently don't believe or don't care that there would be tens of thousands of lives affected by people who ARE NOT college football fans. No, they wouldn't have to bum money for a playoff. But they wouldn't make the same or more money and that puts many, many other sports and athletes at risk.
  
  College football will thrive as is or with a playoff. But it is a different story for other sports who depend on football money.

  I don't remember saying I wanted a playoff because "I want one." I said I want one because the current system is subjective and caters to a select few. There is no way anybody knows who the best team out of Texas, TCU, Boise, and Cincy is. (That's even excluding Alabama). Pre-season rankings and the BCS member status got Alabama and Texas in to that game.
  
  College football has to do what is best for college football players and that means they must come up with a system that is fair to all teams and players involved. If you want to talk dollars and cents, then GTFO here with that women's archery sob story. It isn't college football's fault that nobody cares to support those non-revenue sports.
• enigmaax

  red skin - Three reasons why you can't charge as much for that advertising: 1) the sponsor doesn't get the week long exposure to fans that makes the big money, 2) sponsors would also incur additional travel costs associated with the sponsorship if they were to sponsor more than one week because they'd have to set up their events in multiple cities that aren't determined until a week before the next game, and 3) the exclusive title of the bowl game and unique marketing opportunity is worth far more than sponsoring a game that has three or seven or fifteen others just like it.
• jordo212000

  

  enigmaax wrote: red skin - Three reasons why you can't charge as much for that advertising: 1) the sponsor doesn't get the week long exposure to fans that makes the big money, 2) sponsors would also incur additional travel costs associated with the sponsorship if they were to sponsor more than one week because they'd have to set up their events in multiple cities that aren't determined until a week before the next game, and 3) the exclusive title of the bowl game and unique marketing opportunity is worth far more than sponsoring a game that has three or seven or fifteen others just like it.

  people are really beating the doors down to support the New Orleans Bowl, let me tell you. If you don't want me to tell you, ask 58 fans at the game tonight
• enigmaax

  jordo212000 wrote: College football has to do what is best for college football players and that means they must come up with a system that is fair to all teams and players involved. If you want to talk dollars and cents, then GTFO here with that women's archery sob story. It isn't college football's fault that nobody cares to support those non-revenue sports.

  You are completely wrong. College football is not its own entity, it is an extension of a university. And to borrow your last couple sentences:
  
  If you want to talk fairness, then GTFO here with that Boise State sob story. It isn't the BCS' fault that they aren't good enough to be in an AQ conference.
• enigmaax

  jordo212000 wrote: people are really beating the doors down to support the New Orleans Bowl, let me tell you. If you don't want me to tell you, ask 58 fans at the game tonight

  Why don't you tell me what percentage of the overall take is contributed by the New Orleans Bowl. The financial focus is on the BCS bowls and bowls just below that like the Cotton, Capital One, etc. You can't throw away that money.
• Red_Skin_Pride

  

  enigmaax wrote: jord - It is selfish because your main point is that YOU want to see a playoff in college football, the sport that YOU watch. You've stated that you don't have a financial solution (you're guessing, at best) and apparently don't believe or don't care that there would be tens of thousands of lives affected by people who ARE NOT college football fans. No, they wouldn't have to bum money for a playoff. But they wouldn't make the same or more money and that puts many, many other sports and athletes at risk.
  
  College football will thrive as is or with a playoff. But it is a different story for other sports who depend on football money.

  To think that 15 playoff games, featuring the top teams in the nation would lose money vs. 5 BCS games is completely ridiculous. You're bringing in 16 fan-bases in the first round as opposed to 10 for BCS games, and assuming that the current powers stay in power, their huge and very wealthy fan-bases would buy tickets and travel. Do you honestly think if Texas played OSU in the semi-finals to a trip to the NC game, that people wouldn't show up, or that a company would not sponsor that?? OSU fans (and any other football fan-base) would snatch up tickets to the next game so fast you wouldn't believe it.
• jordo212000

  

  enigmaax wrote:
  If you want to talk fairness, then GTFO here with that Boise State sob story. It isn't the BCS' fault that they aren't good enough to be in an AQ conference.

  yup Boise isn't "good enough" haha That just made my night.
• enigmaax

  jordo212000 wrote:

  enigmaax wrote:
  If you want to talk fairness, then GTFO here with that Boise State sob story. It isn't the BCS' fault that they aren't good enough to be in an AQ conference.

  yup Boise isn't "good enough" haha That just made my night.

  Then why are they still in a crappy little conference?
  
  EDIT - I'll just tell you that it has to do with that 33,500 capacity. Good enough in your terms is to wins games against crappy competition mostly and pull a couple upsets in five years. Good enough in college football and BCS terms is BRING IN CASH. Sorry, 8.X ratings in the biggest game of your entire history doesn't do that.
• ytownfootball

  

  jordo212000 wrote:

  enigmaax wrote: red skin - Three reasons why you can't charge as much for that advertising: 1) the sponsor doesn't get the week long exposure to fans that makes the big money, 2) sponsors would also incur additional travel costs associated with the sponsorship if they were to sponsor more than one week because they'd have to set up their events in multiple cities that aren't determined until a week before the next game, and 3) the exclusive title of the bowl game and unique marketing opportunity is worth far more than sponsoring a game that has three or seven or fifteen others just like it.

  people are really beating the doors down to support the New Orleans Bowl, let me tell you. If you don't want me to tell you, ask 58 fans at the game tonight

  
  
  Which is exactly why by adding ten games to the already pompous 32 game set that you'll not be finding a lot of sponsors, fans for more games. There is simply only so much interest to spread around.
  
  The only argument that has any possibility of flying is less games with higher payouts, and even that would be a stretch.