I thought the Rose Bowl "got" the BCSMNC game every few years. And, in the interim, they'd get the Pac-Big 10 conference champ matchup when those teams are not in the BCSMNC game. Is it really that easy .... just tell the Rose Bowl that (in spite of the long history and existing contractual agreements) it's just over? No more deals? Who tells them that? And what about the Pac-10 and Big-10 conferences? Assuming they like the special Rose Bowl treatment .... who tells them that its just over? Obama?!! :wink:
History and tradition? We threw all that away when we went to this craptastic BCS system. The BCS National Title game is already separate enough from the existing BCS bowl games. For example, this year the Orange Bowl was played earlier between VTech and UC. Still, this is all neither here nor there. Yes, it is that easy...College football, for the first time in a long time, took a step off into the unknown with the BCS system.. The world didn't implode and the popularity of the game grew.. although that may well have to do with expanded media coverage of college football as opposed to the BCS system which seems to be filled with nearly annual controversy... something which it was supposed to eliminate. It is time for college football to take that next great step into the future and into a playoff.
Playing devil's advocate here in this post: Has anyone given thought to what a playoff might do to the "money machine" that is post season play? Right now, we make plans to go to a bowl game in a certain day. We are there for a week or less. The attendance at the bowls depends on how a certain team's fans travel and how far they have to travel. The fans spend money in that city and the city's economy is helped by that bowl. Now let's look at the playoff situation. How many fans are able to take multiple weeks off and travel to multiple cities to follow their teams through the playoffs? Even if as many as 50% of the fans that attend game one can make game two, and 50% of those that make game two can make game three, the revenue from the games has to be greatly affected. I don't claim to have the answers here. I am just opening this up dor REASONABLE discussion of a thought that has not been explored very much in this forum.
Reasonable concerns Tom....and I have agreed those are the considerations that need to made. The sport is wildly popular right now and the revenues are skyhigh. I have never agreed that fixing something not broke is a smart way to go.
Well Dave, it is broke. I'm just not absolutely certain that the playoff will work. Certainly it works in lower divisions that do not spend the $$$ that Div 1A does. It is obvious that a playoff, Tournament, our whatever you want to call it, will be more successful in crowning a champion but will it be successful in sustaining the $$$ to the networks and to the universities?
George, as asked above, how many fans will follow their teams for three weeks (4 with 16 teams)? I think that I posed some fairly large speed bumps in creating a Div 1A playoff. Not road blocks, but there are some hurdles that can be problems. It is not only the length of the season.
Tom, You are assuming that these road teams get more than 10k tickets for games on the road even when you have a year's notice. You will have teams playing at home, as you do in the other divisions. People won't be traveling across country, they will be traveling within their state. Can you name one SEC team that won't sell out their home stadium for a national semi-final or even 2nd round game in the playoffs? Bama fans, by and large, are from Alabama...Ditto that Tennessee...Georgia etc... I can't see attendance being an issue. As for the 'cash machine'... That is television.... TV would bid, and they'd pay dearly for the rights to broadcast those games. Could you imagine the $$ value of the Florida Gators roaming to happy Valley in December?!?!?!?! Mind boggling...
I still don't get it. Are you advocating that every game be a home game for one of the teams? So let's say that, God forbid, New Mexico and New Mexico State are the last two standing. Are we going to have the national championship in a stadium that holds 20,000? I know that television revenue brings in big $$$. Typical bowl cities are going to be losing the revenue of all the fans that travel to those cities. There will be $$$ lost and those cities will fight for those $$$.
Tom, It is done in the NFL and more important, it is done at every level of NCAA football. The only non-home site is the Championship game.
speaking of 'typical bowl cities'... Finebaum did a thing on the bowl game in Birmingham and they had someone on months before the season started. They talked about the modern economics of these 2nd tier bowl games. Basically, if anyone shows up to these things it's just gravy. ESPN is buying up these bowl games as fast as they can and making their money entirely on the advertising sponsorship side without much of a care about the attendance of the game. You are right though, some cities will fight it... because these cities and the bowl games have controlled Division 1 football for so long. Until we brought this subject up recently, I didn't realize how little people realize just how bad the bowls exploit this system. But I am not saying you junk the bowls. You can still have plenty of bowl games. You are just taking 16 teams out of the bowl picture.
I don't think you can take 16 teams out of the bowl picture and get anything passed. What I do think is feasible is use the existing bowl system to play most of the games for most of the games. Even though Corey dismissed the thought that I put forth I still believe that you can take the same date where you now play the conference championships to narrow the field down to 8 then play those 8 on New Years day to narrow to 4 then play two more weeks. The difference in the time frame from the system we have now would be one week longer. The semi final would be the same week as now and the final one week later. What I think will never work is just imposing a system. The only thing that will work is a compromise that all parties can agree with if not like completely.
I like your idea Bill except we need something that will fly with all parties and the fewer the teams the better the chance it flies. How about top 4 teams play on New Years Day....Leaving a plus one game that many people have proposed already. That game could be played two weeks later without much difficulty in one of the rotating bowl sites if necessary because the BCS already does that. Minimal changes....but inclusion of two more teams. This year those two would have been USC and Texas and Utah bitches like crazy but most of the time #5 doesn't have such a strong case after the bowls as they did and because of Utah I think unbeatens might just get in to that top 4 in future BCS rankings.
MCG, if you did have a system where the top four teams would emerge after the New Year day bowl game, which by the way was true in what I put forth, I believe there would be a different set of match ups and that Utah would have been included so could have advanced. Think about it, if you are going to take the top four games from the bowl games then stepping that back the logical games preceding that is top 8 match ups on New Years day. Which I think has a much better chance of succeeding and could be done within the existing bowl system.
But I am saying that the top 4 play on New years day....and then two weeks later play for the NC. I like two weeks before the big game and if 4 teams play after New Years that would be difficult to fit in.
MCG, and I still say the match ups on New Years day would be different. We likely would not have been playing Oklahoma since there would be no reason for a 1 - 2 on the first go round. So both Oklahoma and us would have been matched differently and I think Utah could have been included in what would be an elimination round.
the single biggest problem is that you are thinking with the mindset that you 'owe' the bowls anything anymore. They have been paid in spades for anything they've ever done. You may remember, I was against the idea of a playoff for a long time and there was no Rose Bowl traditionalist greater than I... Somewhat recently, I've spoken to some people who work in Indianapolis who shared their thoughts on the matter. After giving it some consideration, I now agree with them entirely. (They are the original source for the 11 and 5 proposal). There is a low-level, yet somewhat fast growing sentiment among people who may or may not one day be the people who 'make the call' regarding these matters who are very much in favor of a playoff. They see the money that the NCAA member institutions and the NCAA itself are missing out on. I don't think it will change soon, but is the best way to go on this and the most fair to ALL division 1 member schools. I do recognize what Bill is saying about people not accepting or being open to 'radical change'... I just don't see the change as that radical. If you were to go back in time and talk to yourself in say....1988.... how crazy would you have thought your future self to be listening to them describe the status of college football in 2008. Tradition is truly long dead in college football... at least in terms of post-season football. You can't force conferences into conference championship games. All you can do is ask them to determine their champions and go from there. After that, you let the teams in the system determine the NC...not have the system determine the NC to the teams.