"Fixing" college football -- let's see your solution

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know US College Football super well. but I agree the current system is mediocre. My understanding is that too much money is associated to the bowls to ditch them. So maybe do both ?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a myth. There is a lot of money associated with bowls, sure. But there's even MORE money that would be associated with a playoff. [/QUOTE]

No, and we already have a Nat'l Championship game, even if you don't like it. There'd be no extra revenue, and a high likelihood of less.

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. More games = more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

With a 16-team playoff, there's 15 games. Less money.

[/ QUOTE ]

playoff + other post season.

Also, "more money" means more for teams that produce, but less for those who currently skate into BCS games on reputation. The Major conferences have to love the BCS, because they have guaranteed spots in teh big money games, and the at-large spots go overwhelmingly to BCS schools (post season money does not go 100% to the team in the bowl, a LARGE portion of it goes to the conference and is divided). In a playoff, the conferences are not guaranteed any of the big money at the top of the heap. They'll get most of it over time, sure, but not as much as with a BCS system.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, here's an outside the box suggestion:
If you go undefeated in conf, you must play all of the teams in the conf before advancing to either Conf Championship or Bowl game. If you're in the Big10 and can't play Wisky and Iowa, go back and play them first before advancing. If you're BC, go play Miami before advancing to Conf Title game. That will eliminate virtually *all* seasons with >2 undefeated teams.

Then, proceed as normal. More games -- all important games, virtual 'playoff' games in conf, and more data to choose the top 2 teams. More revenue. Everyone wins!

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought more games was bad. Now they're not? How are the fans going to travel for those extra games?!?! In a typical twelve team conference, this would mean 3 extra games!

And this idea is pretty dumb anyway. If there is a conference championship, it's IMPOSSIBLE for more than one school to emerge from that conference undefeated.

DUCY?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Miami is #5 and PSU is #4 so Miami has to go play at night in Dec at PSU? Whaaaat?
How is that fair? Assume they are both undefeated or 11-1, isn't one team getting royally hosed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said it has to be perfectly "fair" (whatever that means)? If home field is such a HUGE advantage as you say it is, then this would mittigate a lot of the "playoffs diminish the importance of the regular season" argument, wouldn't it?

With all of the BS results the BCS has produced, you want to whine about fairness??? plz.

[ QUOTE ]
NCAAB has 4 teams filling up 18k seat arenas. You only need 4500 people from each school.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because all the fans for team A are going to go watch teams B and C play, and teams B and D in the final.

[ QUOTE ]
Now switch to 2 teams and a 100k stadium for football - works for 1 Nat'l title game, doesn't work for the others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure nobody watches the NFL playoffs, either. It just can't work!!!

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, no one involved in the Conferences thinks a new playoff system will bring in more money. They do a bangup job of maximizing revenue with the BCS, no doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

It WON'T! That's part of the point. The BCS cartel keeps the money in the top conferences. It's a gatekeeper designed to keep the little guys out.

[ QUOTE ]
No one's shown or demonstrated more $$ otherwise, so you can't kill the golden goose without a guaranteed replacement. Many, many, many schools the successful football program pays for some/most of the rest of the Ath Dept - Miami, ND, PSU, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? They're *entitled* to their current level of income?

[ QUOTE ]
What if I said make NFL best of 3 to make it more fair? 2 home 1 away for the better team. More games! Fairer method!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, I thought you were saying playoffs would be UNfair. Now they're more fair, but "unworkable". Which is it?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
MT2R wins this thread so far because he acknowledges that the bowls aren't going anywhere. They are way too profitable/entrenched.

Three rounds of neutral site games, however, is not good. But two rounds means only 3 total games, which would shut out one of the major bowls and would therefore never happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bowls exist at the pleasure of the NCAA. At any time, the NCAA could easily say "screw you guys, no NCAA teams will play in outside bowl games" and end it. Part of the reason bowls exist is that they solve a logisitcal problem. Part of the reason is the tradition. And yes, they make a lot of money, but not because of some magical formula that makes bowl games profitable that wouldn't make other post-season arrangements profitable.

As for "shutting out" one of the major bowls in a four-team playoff, *three* of the four get "shut out" each year as it is now, and they seem fine with that.

[ QUOTE ]
So, how about preserving the big 4 by making them the FIRST round games in an 8 team playoff on Jan. 1 (preserves the ability of fans to travel, restores Jan. 1, keeps their importance/revenue), then play the last two rounds on campuses based upon seeding?

[/ QUOTE ]

What? Making bowl games first-round playoff games while having the end of the playoffs outside the bowl system *reduces* their importance, big time. You want to talk about stuff that will "never happen" that's way ahead of anything else that has been floated here. The only way bowl committees would agree to this is if the only alternative given to them was a total NCAA ban on outside bowl games.

[Black Aces 518]

My solution is a 6 team playoff, giving byes to the top 2 teams. This keeps the importance of finishing with a top record. In a standard 8 team neutral playoff, if USC is 11-0 the last week, they are in win or lose. Here, they would still likely be playing for a bye.

The six teams should be determined by a selection committee, and the metrics they use should include human and computer polls, including ones that include margin of victory (with a 21 or 28 point cap).

The first round 3v6 and 4v5 games can be bowl sites or campus depending on economic concerns. The semis should be at bowl games aligned with the higher seed. National title game at predetermined neutral site.

This would only rarely result in more than one additional game for a team than the current system. Only where a 1 or 2 seed is upset does that occur.

The rest of the bowl games would occur as normal. I am completely baffled that people think someone will care less about a Memphis v Cincinnati bowl game if there is a playoff on top. It is just as relevant now as it would be then. Fans of the teams involved, and hardcore college fans would care, no one else would. Just like now.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CBB has a 3-week playoff, are we going to start playing Cal v Okla at 10pm Fri nite and then Okla v LSU on Sunday noon?
And then do it the next week 2x, and the week after that?? It's like people have never heard of scheduling or operations mgmt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, because obviously all the games would have to be in the same location. :|

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you agree teams would play Fri nite and again Sunday afternoon, multiple times? You think that's workable?

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, here's an outside the box suggestion:
If you go undefeated in conf, you must play all of the teams in the conf before advancing ...

[/ QUOTE ]


And this idea is pretty dumb anyway. If there is a conference championship, it's IMPOSSIBLE for more than one school to emerge from that conference undefeated.

[/ QUOTE ]

What part of "You must play all teams in conf b4 advancing if you're undefeated" didn't you understand?

I don't think the system should be changed. My suggestion is for all those who think there is a magic bullet that can solve everything _ I don't think there is.

[NajdorfDefense]

So, Pollsters and the Secret Committee can invite Texas /[ND] and screw Cal and Utah like in previous years. I don't see the improvement. Everyone complains about use of Pollsters and computers as is. Letting pollsters give undefeated USC a bye over another undefeated team leads to same hand-wringing.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that basketball teams play MORE games helps my point. Fans go to MORE home games, and those who travel travel to MORE places.


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't see the difference btw the 4500 Duke fans who can get CBB tickets going to Charlotte or Raleigh for a weekend to see 6 1st/2nd rd playoff games, versus 50k of their fans going to Anaheim or Tempe for 1 game?

You think those are very similar? They ain't. Needing to attract 750 fans/game is a LOT easier than 50,000 fans per game. DUCY?

The Nat'l Title game isn't changing in either method, so of course the same people will go. No extra revenue there.

[Black Aces 518]

[ QUOTE ]
So, Pollsters and the Secret Committee can invite Texas /[ND] and screw Cal and Utah like in previous years. I don't see the improvement. Everyone complains about use of Pollsters and computers as is. Letting pollsters give undefeated USC a bye over another undefeated team leads to same hand-wringing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Cal has never gotten screwed out of anything. Regardless, I would also be happy with a rule stating that if you finish the season undefeated, and played only I-A competition, you are invited automatically. Maybe a requirement that at least one game is against BCS conf teams if you are in another conf, and at least 6 games against BCS conf teams if you are indy.

And the reason it is different is because teams like USC 2003, Auburn 2004, Utah 2004, Boise 2006 can settle issues on the field.

And pollsters are generally douchebags, but the good computer systems are strong. They only get bad because the stupid BCS takes out SOS and MOV components as a knee-jerk reaction to a previous unfavorable result.

For example USC 2003. The reason there was an uproar that they were left out is the idiot pollsters. They were #1 in the polls, why? B/c of objective judgment of their abilities? no. b/c they lost before LSU and OU. WOOOO. LSU and OU both had better losses than USC, and better wins than USC. But USC lost 2 weeks before LSU, so it's a giant travesty.