PDA

View Full Version : How to fix the college football/bcs mess


GlassHalfFull
01-07-2008, 09:49 PM
We were talking over the break about ways to solve the BCS mess. I totally understand that it is all about money. My solution is to have an eight team playoff that uses some of the major BCS Bowls as playoff games. The other bowl games could go on as normal. It wouldn't affect their importance at all as they aren't important now. With an 8 team playoff, you should be able to get any legitimate contenders and not cut out too many teams from going to bowl games.

Thoughts?

The Pencil Neck
01-07-2008, 09:54 PM
We were talking over the break about ways to solve the BCS mess. I totally understand that it is all about money. My solution is to have an eight team playoff that uses some of the major BCS Bowls as playoff games. The other bowl games could go on as normal. It wouldn't affect their importance at all as they aren't important now. With an 8 team playoff, you should be able to get any legitimate contenders and not cut out too many teams from going to bowl games.

Thoughts?

Sure.

They're just not going to do it. They made their minds up centuries ago that they won't and they ain't changing their minds.

Don't know why.

kastofsna
01-08-2008, 03:09 AM
it WOULD affect their importance, because the bowl games don't want to be known as a "stepping stone" to another game. the whole point of bowl games is to be a final destination for teams.

headsplint
01-08-2008, 10:00 AM
We were talking over the break about ways to solve the BCS mess. I totally understand that it is all about money. My solution is to have an eight team playoff that uses some of the major BCS Bowls as playoff games. The other bowl games could go on as normal. It wouldn't affect their importance at all as they aren't important now. With an 8 team playoff, you should be able to get any legitimate contenders and not cut out too many teams from going to bowl games.

Thoughts?

I hate the BCS, and the whole system it follows. It seems to me putting a playoff system in place would be blatantly obvious, which is exactly why they will not do it. I really just don't get it. High School Football has playoffs, the NFL has playoffs, and you could argue the fact that there are too many college teams for a playoff system, but look at NCAA Basketball and March Madness. It would make the most sense, but my guess is there is way too much money exchanging hands within all the bowl games.

It would be too weird to keep the current bowl game lineup and let the winners of respective bowl games advance to another bowl game. So an alternative playoff system would have to be developed eliminating the need for so many bowl games, which in turn would eliminate the amount of money the NCAA and the networks make off of tagging the games as Bowl Games. So basically it won't happen.

b0ng
01-08-2008, 10:07 AM
Sure.

They're just not going to do it. They made their minds up centuries ago that they won't and they ain't changing their minds.

Don't know why.

Money. Thats why.

HoustonFrog
01-08-2008, 10:29 AM
We were talking over the break about ways to solve the BCS mess. I totally understand that it is all about money. My solution is to have an eight team playoff that uses some of the major BCS Bowls as playoff games. The other bowl games could go on as normal. It wouldn't affect their importance at all as they aren't important now. With an 8 team playoff, you should be able to get any legitimate contenders and not cut out too many teams from going to bowl games.

Thoughts?

I've actually proposed this multiple times over the years....in fact not too long ago on here when the BCS was being argued a few weeks back. The way I see it you can still rotate the Championship game as either the Sugar, Rose, Fiesta or Orange. You then make, lets say, Cotton, Outback, Gator and Orange the quarters. The Sugar and Fiesta the semis and the Rose the Final game. With a rotation. The only problem is getting fan bases to travel to multiple destinations, etc but I'm sure it would happen. Either way, you can still keep sponsors and revenue and have it set up in a playoff format. We already have a sytem that has one game marked as the "Championship" game so having the others behind the top one isn't a big deal. Honestly, you are probably going to have more viewers to games like the Orange, Fiesta, etc because you know it means something vs having it as a "BCS game" which really means nothing if it isn't the title game.

GlassHalfFull
01-08-2008, 10:35 AM
I've actually proposed this multiple times over the years....in fact not too long ago on here when the BCS was being argued a few weeks back. The way I see it you can still rotate the Championship game as either the Sugar, Rose, Fiesta or Orange. You then make, lets say, Cotton, Outback, Gator and Orange the quarters. The Sugar and Fiesta the semis and the Rose the Final game. With a rotation. The only problem is getting fan bases to travel to multiple destinations, etc but I'm sure it would happen. Either way, you can still keep sponsors and revenue and have it set up in a playoff format. We already have a sytem that has one game marked as the "Championship" game so having the others behind the top one isn't a big deal. Honestly, you are probably going to have more viewers to games like the Orange, Fiesta, etc because you know it means something vs having it as a "BCS game" which really means nothing if it isn't the title game.


If they had gone with my scenario, here is how this year’s end of season could have looked.

Dec. 22nd.

Cotton Bowl – 1 vs. 8 Kansas vs. Ohio State
Capital One Bowl – 2 vs. 7 LSU vs. Missouri
Sugar Bowl – 3 vs. 6 Oklahoma vs. USC
Fiesta Bowl – 4 vs. 5 Georgia vs. VA Tech

Jan. 1st.

Rose Bowl – Cotton Bowl winner vs. Fiesta Bowl Winner
Orange Bowl – Capital One Bowl winner vs. Sugar Bowl winner

Jan. 7th

Championship Bowl – Rose Bowl winner vs. Orange Bowl winner

The college season ends on the same date. Some bowls have to give up their New Year’s Day slots and their historic allegiances. One thing I really like about this is that the teams playing in the final bowl games would not be so rusty. Having 3-5 weeks off before your big game can’t help your play much.

I would suspect that the 1-8 rankings would look different if this system was implemented. Hawaii might have make the top 8 this year, I don’t know.

Another option, is to have a 6 team playoff and give 1 & 2 a bye week the first week.

HOU-TEX
01-08-2008, 10:36 AM
IMO, I think it'll happen eventually. I heard this morning there's 2 more years on the contract, so nothing will happen until 2010.

I'd think they'd go with a 4 team playoff which would only add 1 game to the season. The fans would get what they want and there'd be more money from the additional game.:cool:

ATX
01-08-2008, 10:39 AM
This is about the money.......playoffs work just fine outside of Div 1 in college football.

HoustonFrog
01-08-2008, 10:40 AM
Exactly. That is similar to mine but you have the separate Championship game vs the rotation. I like the look. It really isn't hard to do....again, it is just a problem of some conferences and schools looking at how they might lose money. I just don't see it happening because I think the ad revenue and money for these games would be even higher than before. I think it would make up for whatever might be lost to adding conferences that weren't considered BCS before. As I put in another thread...Georgia President is already working on it

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3186232

The president of the University of Georgia is calling for an eight-team playoff system for college football's top division, saying the Bowl Championship Series -- which left Georgia out of its championship game -- has become a "beauty contest largely stage-managed by the networks."

In a public statement and a letter to NCAA president Myles Brand, Georgia president Michael F. Adams, who is also chairman of the NCAA executive committee, called for an eight-team playoff to decide the national championship, with the opening rounds to be played in the four major BCS bowl games. He proposed the change be made as soon as the contracts that govern the BCS expire.

Adams was scheduled to hold a news conference Tuesday afternoon to discuss the proposal.

"This year's experience with the BCS forces me to the conclusion that the current system has lost public confidence and simply does not work," Adams said in news release. "It is undercutting the sportsmanship and integrity of the game."

This is about the money.......playoffs work just fine outside of Div 1 in college football.

This is what bugs me...it works IN EVERY SPORT pro and collegiate wise except Div I football. There is no reason why it shouldn't. They will make more money. Look at March Madness. Its purely lazy is what it is.

ATX
01-08-2008, 10:45 AM
I'd rather see a 16 team playoff, but could live with an 8 team playoff.

GlassHalfFull
01-08-2008, 10:46 AM
IMO, I think it'll happen eventually. I heard this morning there's 2 more years on the contract, so nothing will happen until 2010.

I'd think they'd go with a 4 team playoff which would only add 1 game to the season. The fans would get what they want and there'd be more money from the additional game.:cool:

If they go with the 4 team playoff, I think they are compromising too much. It would have still left some teams this year with legitamite complaints about being overlooked. Kansas, Missouri, LSU, Ohio State, Hawaii and WVA all have 2 losses or less. That is why I like the 8, or at least 6, team playoffs better. A 4 team playoff is still just backing into the solution. Go ahead and put in a better fix to start with.

b0ng
01-08-2008, 11:05 AM
This is what bugs me...it works IN EVERY SPORT pro and collegiate wise except Div I football. There is no reason why it shouldn't. They will make more money. Look at March Madness. Its purely lazy is what it is.

Of course the people in favor of BCS bowls say that they don't want football to end up like basketball, where the season doesn't matter.

The fact is, that for every team that goes to a bowl the sponsors of that bowl cut every team in the entire conference a check for a huge sum of money. This is why you have a team like Baylor that just stays in the Big XII instead of moving to C-USA where it could be competitive. Cause they know that there will be probably 3 teams from their conference in a bowl, and in turn they will get money for their facilities because of this.

b0ng
01-08-2008, 11:11 AM
Of course the people in favor of BCS bowls say that they don't want football to end up like basketball, where the season doesn't matter.

The fact is, that for every team that goes to a bowl the sponsors of that bowl cut every team in the entire conference a check for a huge sum of money. This is why you have a team like Baylor that just stays in the Big XII instead of moving to C-USA where it could be competitive. Cause they know that there will be probably 3 teams from their conference in a bowl, and in turn they will get money for their facilities because of this.

Honestly, my answer to all of this would be a 16 team playoff thats done over the course of a month and played at all of the bowl sites (We will lose the Phil's Tire Shop bowl, and the Home Depot Plumbing Aisle bowl but it happens). It would be a lot less subjective then, and what you would have to worry about is people saying certain teams got snubbed because they didn't make the cut.

I think by 2015 we'll see yet a different system in place.

EDIT: At least I hope we'll see a different system.

HoustonFrog
01-08-2008, 11:12 AM
Of course the people in favor of BCS bowls say that they don't want football to end up like basketball, where the season doesn't matter.

The fact is, that for every team that goes to a bowl the sponsors of that bowl cut every team in the entire conference a check for a huge sum of money. This is why you have a team like Baylor that just stays in the Big XII instead of moving to C-USA where it could be competitive. Cause they know that there will be probably 3 teams from their conference in a bowl, and in turn they will get money for their facilities because of this.

Right and I think they will all still get their money because I believe there would be increased revenue from the attention and money that would come in through a playoff system, no matter the conferences involved. I had said above the quoted statement that I think they will make up that revenue. The ad/sponsor revenue alone for the Bowls involved would be off the charts.

I really am annoyed..not by you:) ...just the argument..regarding "every week is a playoff." People try to compare it to March Madness. Well heck, the regular season doesn't mean as much because they play 30 games. In football you'd still be fighting for position because you only play 10-12 games and a loss still could take you from a 1 loss team with momentum to a 2 loss team that doesn't belong or gets less consideration.

threetoedpete
01-08-2008, 03:07 PM
I thought we aready had this war. Easy all you got to do is convince 119 college presidents that they'll make more money your way than the old way. So have you noticed the crowds at these DII play offs that your modeling your scenario after ? Yes ? I doubt it will happen in my life time. Sugar bowl looked prety crowded the other night didn't it ?

ATX
01-08-2008, 03:10 PM
Honestly, my answer to all of this would be a 16 team playoff thats done over the course of a month and played at all of the bowl sites (We will lose the Phil's Tire Shop bowl, and the Home Depot Plumbing Aisle bowl but it happens). It would be a lot less subjective then, and what you would have to worry about is people saying certain teams got snubbed because they didn't make the cut.

I think by 2015 we'll see yet a different system in place.

EDIT: At least I hope we'll see a different system.

You could still have the lame bowls for the teams that don't make the playoffs.

ATX
01-08-2008, 03:11 PM
I thought we aready had this war. Easy all you got to do is convince 119 college presidents that they'll make more money your way than the old way. So have you noticed the crowds at these DII play offs that your modeling your scenario after ? Yes ? I doubt it will happen in my life time. Sugar bowl looked prety crowded the other night didn't it ?

DII schools usually don't have the following of the DI schools, I don't think thats a good example.

threetoedpete
01-08-2008, 03:20 PM
DII schools usually don't have the following of the DI schools, I don't think thats a good example.

Well it does if it's not a home or home game. If you do these variuos scenarios that keep popping up...you are killing the bowls. The millions upon millions of dollars worth of bowls on the assumption that the core base of the schools invloved will follow three four or eight games. Now I don't know for a fact how much it cost all of those crimsom and grey guys to sit in the super dome....but I bet it bought lot of boudan. I think these assumptions are flawed at the core.
And the college presidents would be crazy without gauranteed money to make the switch.

ATX
01-08-2008, 03:23 PM
Well it does if it's not a home or home game. If you do these variuos scenarios that keep popping up...you are killing the bowls. The millions upon millions of dollars worth of bowls on the assuption that the core base of the schools invloved will follow three four or eight games. Now I don't know for a fact how much it cost all of those crimsom and grey guys to sit in the super dome....but I bet it bought lot of boudan. I think these assunptiona are flawed at the core.
And the college presidents would be crazy without gauranteed money to make the switch.

I'd try and make it regional if it were me, like March Madness. Say you have 16 teams, maybe have the first round home games then with the 8 teams left start with the bowls. Just trying to throw out some ideas, but I doubt it happens anyway.

beerlover
01-08-2008, 03:27 PM
I'd try and make it regional if it were me, like March Madness. Say you have 16 teams, maybe have the first round home games then with the 8 teams left start with the bowls. Just trying to throw out some ideas, but I doubt it happens anyway.

Like your idea but would use all 32 bowl games in a playoff scenero. surely the best team would be included making each bowl, seeded by brackets in regions playoff for the chance to reach the sweet sixteen, elite eight, final four & BCS game.

ATX
01-08-2008, 03:29 PM
Like your idea but would use all 32 bowl games in a playoff scenero. surely the best team would be included making each bowl, seeded by brackets in regions playoff for the chance to reach the sweet sixteen, elite eight, final four & BCS game.

Yeah, you'd definitely have to make it regional because it would be hard to get supporters to go to a game in say Florida, then California the next week.

threetoedpete
01-08-2008, 03:36 PM
I'd try and make it regional if it were me, like March Madness. Say you have 16 teams, maybe have the first round home games then with the 8 teams left start with the bowls. Just trying to throw out some ideas, but I doubt it happens anyway.

What ever: Look it cost me four thousand dollars or so for twelve days in the Yellowstone country. that was four years ago. What you guys are proposing, is the students and alumni pony up 10K to 30K or so every football season so you can have true national chmpionship. And I'm posting when pigs fly. The first thing is replacing the bowl money. Where ya going to dig up twenty more major sponcers ? The second thing is...O.K reginal, what ever....your telling me that people are going to fly around the counrty to follow one team and go into debt 10K , 30K ? Nope. there is a reality here. Most people are not that much of football fans beleive or not. One big game they will poney up. Eight ? see you later alagator. What the college presidents know and obviously a whole lot don't is there is an attention span thing here. The season is long enough. Enless you are going to start choping rivaleries from the season...it ain't happening.

ATX
01-08-2008, 03:42 PM
What ever: Look it cost me four thousnd dollars or so for twelve days in the Yellowstone country. that was four years ago. What you guys are proposing, is the students and alumni pony up 10K to 30K or so every football season so you can have true national chmpionship. And I'm posting when pigs fly. The first thing is replacing the bowl money. Where ya going to dig up twenty more major sponcers ? The second thing is...O.K reginal, what ever....your telling me that people are going to fly around the counrty to follow one team and go into debt 10K , 30K ? Nope. there is a reality here. Most people are not that much of football fans beleive or not. One big game they will poney up. Eight ? see you later alagator. What the college presidents know and obviously a whole lot don't is there is an attention span thing here. The season is long enough. Enless you are going to start choping rivaleries from the season...it ain't happening.

You're right.....probably won't happen and the reason I hate college football. It's too much like figure skating......why even have a championship? Let's just let the computers and coaches pick the winner.

disaacks3
01-08-2008, 03:47 PM
I'd rather see a 16 team playoff, but could live with an 8 team playoff.
This is my "lean" as well, just because I don't like excluding good teams because the computer / pollster doesn't want them in the Top 10.

It helps the colleges start preparing their future NFL stars for longer seasons and it gets rid of these ridiculously long LAG times between games...especially for teams w/ no Conference Championship Game (which we could then abandon)

The Pencil Neck
01-08-2008, 04:20 PM
The first thing is replacing the bowl money. Where ya going to dig up twenty more major sponcers ?

First off, let me say that I agree with you that it's never going to happen.

BUT.

I don't think sponsorship is an issue. With all the useless trivial bowls that currently exist, you could restructure that and give those sponsors bowls that are a part of the playoff system. The sponsors would end up happier because they'd end up having better teams in their bowls. You'd have big name teams playing in multiple bowls for different sponsors.

So, instead of GMAC sponsoring some doofus bowl between Bowling Green and Memphis, they're sponsoring a first round game that pits a low ranked opponent against a high rank opponent and they get better viewership. Sponsors that have less to offer monetarily would sponsor first round games, sponsors with more money sponsor second round games, etc. A sponsor with a LOT of money might even sponsor more than one game.

Instead of having LSU play once, you have them play 2-4 games and instead of only one sponsor getting the draw of LSU, you have 2-4 sponsors getting them.

It seems to me like they could set this up so that everyone except the fans could end up with more money.

threetoedpete
01-08-2008, 04:23 PM
Well how long has it been since U of H played in a bowl infront of the home crowd ? And how many tickets did you sell. That there thing is the reason why the college preidents vote the way they do. They have a bird in the hand....untill the money is in the bank...it's all just talk. Believe anything believe that.

GlassHalfFull
01-08-2008, 04:30 PM
The traveling bit is why I would limit it to 8 teams (or even 6). The most any one team would play is 3 games. I don't see a problem with sponsorships, Pencil Neck answered that question well. I would still have the other bowl games, so almost the same amount of colleges would have a chance to go bowling. Basically, you would be cutting out 6 college teams from bowl games. I think we can all agree there were 6 teams in bowls this year that probably didn't really deserve bowl bids. Or maybe not, we probably can't all agree on anything.

threetoedpete
01-08-2008, 04:35 PM
The traveling bit is why I would limit it to 8 teams (or even 6). The most any one team would play is 3 games. I don't see a problem with sponsorships, Pencil Neck answered that question well. I would still have the other bowl games, so almost the same amount of colleges would have a chance to go bowling. Basically, you would be cutting out 6 college teams from bowl games. I think we can all agree there were 6 teams in bowls this year that probably didn't really deserve bowl bids. Or maybe not, we probably can't all agree on anything.

Like Hawi'i and Missouri this year ? Texas or Tennessee ?South Florida dn Central Floriad ? And just which bowl sponcers are you going to tell that their bowl is no longer revelant nor needed ?

GlassHalfFull
01-08-2008, 04:41 PM
Like Hawi'i and Missouri this year ? Texas or Tennessee ?South Florida dn Central Floriad ? And just which bowl sponcers are you going to tell that their bowl is no longer revelant nor needed ?

Well, right now none of the bowl games are particularly relevant. I posted earlier that I thought the top 8 would have been chosen differently if the BCS was looking at an 8 game playoff system. So more than likely Hawaii would have been in the top8.

Here is a list of the bowl games from this year. I'm not going to name 6 that could have been cut, but I think it wouldn't be too hard to do.

list (http://stats.chron.com/cfb/scoreboards.asp)

The Pencil Neck
01-08-2008, 04:59 PM
Well how long has it been since U of H played in a bowl infront of the home crowd ? And how many tickets did you sell. That there thing is the reason why the college preidents vote the way they do. They have a bird in the hand....untill the money is in the bank...it's all just talk. Believe anything believe that.

I don't understand your point.

If you're in a good bowl, you're probably not in front of the home fans. For most bowls, neither team is a "home" team or from the area.

HoustonFrog
01-08-2008, 05:05 PM
Like Hawi'i and Missouri this year ? Texas or Tennessee ?South Florida dn Central Floriad ? And just which bowl sponcers are you going to tell that their bowl is no longer revelant nor needed ?

Many sponsors have limited agreements anyways, as long as they get their money. The Texas Bowl has had like 3 different sponsors. They sign on for 2-3 years and then they can reup. Same with half of these small bowls like the one in Ft. Worth. I'm sure buy outs or whatever aren't going to matter. I was a proponent of the plan, as stated on page 1 and still keeping all the bowls. Your basically just making the later bowl games into a playoff format.