BCS Playoffs?

[infrared41]

-i don't see how any fan of competitive sports could support a system like the bcs.

Well as an Ohio State fan I don't have any real problem with it. I'm sure LSU fans aren't entirely unhappy with it either.

[rams80]

Otherwise, go back to the pre-BCS way of deciding the national championship: Play the traditional bowl-game matchups and let the polls decide.

There's the best suggestion yet. It's a nice idea to try to produce an actual champion but no matter what we end up with, it's never going to make even simple majority of fans happy. If they can't get it right then don't bother. May as well go back the old way and make everyone equally unhappy.

Better yet, the Big Ten Champion avoids its usual smoking in a Big Bowl setting by reverting to playing only the Pac-10 Champion.

[infrared41]

Otherwise, go back to the pre-BCS way of deciding the national championship: Play the traditional bowl-game matchups and let the polls decide.

There's the best suggestion yet. It's a nice idea to try to produce an actual champion but no matter what we end up with, it's never going to make even simple majority of fans happy. If they can't get it right then don't bother. May as well go back the old way and make everyone equally unhappy.

Better yet, the Big Ten Champion avoids its usual smoking in a Big Bowl setting by reverting to playing only the Pac-10 Champion.

Are you kidding? I want no part of USC. Honest to God, I think we have a better chance of beating LSU than we do USC. I like how Ohio State matches up with LSU. I think you'll be surprised.

Oh and for the record...Since 2000 we have two Fiesta wins and a National Championship. That's a 3-1 record in BCS bowls. I think the guys with the lousy big bowl record of late play up the road in Ann Arbor. Hell, I don't really care. My team is playing in the title game. That's all that matters to me.

[Fred T. Jane]

Interesting thread, but the argument regarding ratings is flawed, as college basketball is still a regional-based sport (albeit shedding that status as we speak) compared to the well-entrenched nationwide reach of college football.

As a result you can't use poor early-round ratings for basketball as evidence of poor ratings for early-round football, as college football will get better ratings simply because more Americans are interested in an important college football game, even if it involves a non-BCS team than would be interested in an important college basketball game, even if it involved a mid-major.

If you disagree with the hypothesis, you had better beat a path to your nearest Sports Studies researcher, as well as this thread. The body of evidence is still compelling, though basketball's nationwide reach increases with every passing year.

[slightly shotgunned]

-i don't see how any fan of competitive sports could support a system like the bcs.

Well as an Ohio State fan I don't have any real problem with it. I'm sure LSU fans aren't entirely unhappy with it either.

which is funny that you don't mind it at all. anymore.

when it looked as though osu was going to fall out of title contention you were just beginning to see the system for what it was. now that osu is in, the system works. this is kind of why i never really took you seriously this year. that and you seemed to sidestep the arguments i made that you didn't have an answer for. and since i don't feel much like posting in two different threads anymore, here's this:

-of course i like :cursing:ing with you. isn't that part of the rivalry? but i am serious about everything i've said so far. even the things i've seen the other side of this year. oh, and yeah. i speak for all advocates of playoffs just like you speak for all tv and radio networks who would never let a playoff system include mid-major schools. also, i'm seeing fans from schools outside of my own that agree with me. haven't seen too much support outside of buckeye fans for you kid.

-oh yeah, and we NEVER hear these kinds of arguments from these same schools when we hear about who the bcs selected as title contenders. nobody is arguing that osu played a cupcake schedule and sneaked its way into the title game, that lsu lost twice to inferior teams and still got in, undefeated hawaii should be in a better bowl, mizzou got screwed, etc etc etc etc etc. you act like nobody is whining now. i'm not saying that a playoff system would eliminate the whiners, i'm not that naive. no system in the world would be capable of doing that. what i am saying is that you CAN. NOT. SELECT. A. CHAMPION. but yeah. lets just throw the bcs system onto every other sport in the country since it works so damn well. i'm sure people would get right on board with that idea .

-ultimate playoff...you mean like high school football? works pretty well for them doesn't it? oh wait, no it doesn't. they use a voting system too called the hsbcs and at the end of the season the teams go to exhi-bowl-tion games and the media votes on who the best two are and only they get to play for the state title. i almost forgot about that.

i've just had a revelation. the bcs is the only way to decide sporting events. all other systems are flawed compared to it. san antonio and boston are the only teams who deserve a shot at the title in the nba. new england and dallas in the title game at the end of the season. yankees and red sox for the world series. kansas and north carolina for men's basketball. uconn and tennessee for women's. matter of fact. why even play the season. why don't we just vote right now and just play one game a year. the bowls and the title game. i don't know what you'd call them in basketball, or baseball but think of the tradition. think of the pride of playing for tradition. think of the prestige that comes with tradition. think of the money that comes with the prestige that comes with tradition. thank you infrared41. thank you for clearing my perceptions for me. i'd be lost without you.

[infrared41]

Interesting thread, but the argument regarding ratings is flawed, as college basketball is still a regional-based sport (albeit shedding that status as we speak) compared to the well-entrenched nationwide reach of college football.

As a result you can't use poor early-round ratings for basketball as evidence of poor ratings for early-round football, as college football will get better ratings simply because more Americans are interested in an important college football game, even if it involves a non-BCS team than would be interested in an important college basketball game, even if it involved a mid-major.

If you disagree with the hypothesis, you had better beat a path to your nearest Sports Studies researcher, as well as this thread. The body of evidence is still compelling, though basketball's nationwide reach increases with every passing year.

Well said professor, but you forgot to mention one key element in your stunning analysis...money. Money makes the wheels turn there Frasier. Find a way to get the power schools to step out of the way for the mid-majors then convince TV to take a chance on CMU and Florida International over Texas and Florida and you're on to something. TV wants proven commodities. The BCS schools want the exposure and money. So in order to support your premise we have to eliminate the money, the network's default position and the so-called "big schools" from the equation. How do you propose we address that?

I think you need to beat a path to the nearest media person you know and ask them how this really works.

[BaltimoreFan]

i'm not saying that a playoff system would eliminate the whiners, i'm not that naive. no system in the world would be capable of doing that. what i am saying is that you CAN. NOT. SELECT. A. CHAMPION. but yeah. lets just throw the bcs system onto every other sport in the country since it works so damn well. i'm sure people would get right on board with that idea .

-ultimate playoff...you mean like high school football? works pretty well for them doesn't it? oh wait, no it doesn't. they use a voting system too called the hsbcs and at the end of the season the teams go to exhi-bowl-tion games and the media votes on who the best two are and only they get to play for the state title. i almost forgot about that.

i've just had a revelation. the bcs is the only way to decide sporting events. all other systems are flawed compared to it. san antonio and boston are the only teams who deserve a shot at the title in the nba. new england and dallas in the title game at the end of the season. yankees and red sox for the world series. kansas and north carolina for men's basketball. uconn and tennessee for women's. matter of fact. why even play the season. why don't we just vote right now and just play one game a year. the bowls and the title game. i don't know what you'd call them in basketball, or baseball but think of the tradition. think of the pride of playing for tradition. think of the prestige that comes with tradition. think of the money that comes with the prestige that comes with tradition. thank you infrared41. thank you for clearing my perceptions for me. i'd be lost without you.

I could be wrong, but I don't think infrared is an advocate of the BCS (although he is happy that it helped OSU this year). Infact I don't think anyone is really against a playoff. I'd love to see one, but I'm trying to be realistic and the truth is: IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Do you honestly think that the NCAA is completely oblivious to the talks year after year of how messed up the BCS is. Do you really think they are so stupid they can't implement a playoff system that is "so simple to create" (as so many fans point out)? I don't think so. I just happen to think that choosing a clear champion is not their main priorty. If it was we'd would have had a playoff shortly after the first big controversy.

So instead of arguing for a system that will never happen I think we should just try to make the current system work as well as possible:

1. Don't release polls until about October. The preseason polls carry way too much weight. Teams are overrated and it screws up the whole process.

2. Set stricter scheduling rules. Teams should have to play on the last week of the season. I don't think OSU should be allowed to sit on the last two weeks of the season. There stock rose dramatically without even stepping foot on the field. I don't think that should be allowed to happen.

3. Restore orginal bowl matchups (Rose Bowl is Pac10 vs Big10, etc.).

3a. Set rules that teams that do not make their conference championship game can be at-large teams in BCS bowls if their conference runner up is not selected. It's rediculous that Georgia and Kansas were rewarded for sitting out of the conference championship, while Tennessee and Missouri were punished for losing it.

4. After the BCS bowls select the best two team (out of the 4 winners) to play in the BCS Championship game a week later.

Still not as great as a playoff, but much more realistic and better than the current system.

[Fred T. Jane]

Well said professor, but you forgot to mention one key element in your stunning analysis...money. Money makes the wheels turn there Frasier. Find a way to get the power schools to step out of the way for the mid-majors then convince TV to take a chance on CMU and Florida International over Texas and Florida and you're on to something. TV wants proven commodities. The BCS schools want the exposure and money. So in order to support your premise we have to eliminate the money, the network's default position and the so-called "big schools" from the equation. How do you propose we address that?

I think you need to beat a path to the nearest media person you know and ask them how this really works.

Oh, so the guarantee of more people watching games doesn't equal more advertising dollars?

After all, if networks don't want smaller schools on TV because they aren't a guaranteed ratings draw, then explain Capital One Bowl Week? ESPN would not invest as heavily in them as they have (Their deal with the New Orleans Bowl, as insignificant as the the bowl game is, is still one where ESPN has to pay for the rights. No pre-2007 MLS/NHL deals going on there.) if they would not get a return on their investment.

But to get to the true crux of the matter, it is sheer lunacy that folks think that in a proposed playoff to decide the champion of a subdivision of the NCAA, yet agree to the concept of essentially permanently exclude schools outside of the six BCS conferences from said playoff. I'm quite sure the Mid-American Conference and Sun Belt would revel in the fact that they would be permanently locked into the Third Estate. I probably would too to be honest, as it would be entertaining to see heads roll...

[infrared41]

Oh, so the guarantee of more people watching games doesn't equal more advertising dollars?

After all, if networks don't want smaller schools on TV because they aren't a guaranteed ratings draw, then explain Capital One Bowl Week?

To question one: Believe it or not, no. And there is no guarantee. Media research is as flawed as it gets. If you know research then you already know why.

To question two: Compared to the rights fees for a BCS bowl game or the title game, Capital One Bowl Week is very cheap. ESPN gets a real sweetheart deal on all those games because the games need the exposure. It's simply a matter of supply and demand. ESPN needs the programming. The Bowls need the exposure. Capital One gets massive added value with the sponsorship. Everybody wins. You act as if all broadcast rights are equal and all ad rates are the same. A Playoff on network TV is going to cost a great deal more than Capital One Bowl Week.

It's all about the return on your investment. ESPN is a "narrowcast" not a broadcast. They target a very specific audience. They don't need huge numbers to keep their advertisers happy they just need to hit their demo. Broadcast networks are chasing a different, and much larger audience. Their ratings have to reach a certain level across the board. Sports ratings aren't entirely separated from regular ratings. In other words, ratings for college football games in primetime are part of the overall package a network has to present to advertisers. A game with bad ratings can literally cost them millions of dollars.

That's why despite your study, networks are still going to prefer the proven "brand name" over the possibility of a game matching a couple of ratings dogs. The NCAA knows that and they also know that any package that doesn't guarantee those brand names is going to bring far less money in rights fees than one that does. That's the difference between Bowl Week and Playoff rights fees.

No offense Fred but you're a little out of your element on this one. This is what I do for a living. I am not simply stating my opinions here. I am trying to illustrate the economic reality of one proposed playoff system. The playoff system that was proposed in this thread is unrealistic because the powers that be will not allow mid-majors to take 5 spots away from recognizable brand names. There is too much money involved and too much money could be lost in this version of a playoff. I can't make it any simpler than that. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I am simply pointing out the reality.

[infrared41]

-i don't see how any fan of competitive sports could support a system like the bcs.

Well as an Ohio State fan I don't have any real problem with it. I'm sure LSU fans aren't entirely unhappy with it either.

which is funny that you don't mind it at all. anymore.

First off, I was joking. Second, like last year, you're really beginning to bore me.

And Baltimore fan is right. I am not an advocate of the BCS. All I am doing in this thread is trying to point out how one version of a playoff system has some flaws that make it a tough sell. It has economic issues. Apparently that concept is more difficult to grasp than I thought it would be.

Finally, I am speaking from a position of experience in the TV industry. It's what I do for a living. I may not speak for the entire industry but I still think I am much closer to being an expert on it than you are.

EDIT: And I don't sidestep your issues, I probably just miss them. Frankly, I rarely read your entire post. Sorry.

[BaltimoreFan]

After all, if networks don't want smaller schools on TV because they aren't a guaranteed ratings draw, then explain Capital One Bowl Week? ESPN would not invest as heavily in them as they have (Their deal with the New Orleans Bowl, as insignificant as the the bowl game is, is still one where ESPN has to pay for the rights. No pre-2007 MLS/NHL deals going on there.) if they would not get a return on their investment.

You'd have a point if all TV contracts were equal. I don't have the numbers, but I bet that Fox pays signicantly more to broadcast the BCS games than ESPN pays to broadcast its Bowl Week. The New Orleans Bowl draws significantly less than the bigger bowl games, therefore it "costs" less to broadcasts. Networks won't pay more than they think the game will bring in, otherwise they'd go out of business.

In terms of a playoff, which do you think the average viewer would rather watch in the first round of a playoff, #1 LSU vs. Troy or #1 LSU vs. Tennessee? It's going to be the second option everytime (not everyone viewer is a fan, most want to watch something they think will be entertaining). TV networks know this, they are going to pay more for the bigger name teams. A tournament with mid-majors will bring a contract with less money than one with the bigger names.

EDIT: Infrared beat me to it.

[slightly shotgunned]

-i don't see how any fan of competitive sports could support a system like the bcs.

Well as an Ohio State fan I don't have any real problem with it. I'm sure LSU fans aren't entirely unhappy with it either.

which is funny that you don't mind it at all. anymore.

First off, I was joking. Second, like last year, you're really beginning to bore me.

And Baltimore fan is right. I am not an advocate of the BCS. All I am doing in this thread is trying to point out how one version of a playoff system has some flaws that make it a tough sell. It has economic issues. Apparently that concept is more difficult to grasp than I thought it would be.

Finally, I am speaking from a position of experience in the TV industry. It's what I do for a living. I may not speak for the entire industry but I still think I am much closer to being an expert on it than you are.

EDIT: And I don't sidestep your issues, I probably just miss them. Frankly, I rarely read your entire post. Sorry.

you're not an advocate of the bcs, but you are against a playoff. which is it, cuz like the article said, you can't be on both sides. its not a difficult concept, its just a basic problem with real basic solutions and you keep thumping them like you can somehow make them more complicated by repeating them. you're the only expert here on anything. convenient that you "miss" the issues that undermine most of the points you make. and don't apologize, i've heard enough bs from you today already. i don't need any more.

[infrared41]

you're not an advocate of the bcs, but you are against a playoff. which is it, cuz like the article said, you can't be on both sides. its not a difficult concept, its just a basic problem with real basic solutions and you keep thumping them like you can somehow make them more complicated by repeating them. you're the only expert here on anything. convenient that you "miss" the issues that undermine most of the points you make. and don't apologize, i've heard enough bs from you today already. i don't need any more.

Taking this a little personally aren't you? Relax junior. You need to find better things to worry about than what I think of a playoff. And I'll say this one more time, my intent in this particular thread has been to address one aspect of one proposed playoff. You have yet to "undermine" a single point I have made on that particular topic. You keep trying to argue the pros and cons of a playoff while I am addressing a single issue in one proposed system. If there's any bull- going on here it's coming from you. If you can show me where I am wrong on how network TV, conferences, and colleges, will approach this particular playoff proposal then do it. Until then let me put this in terms even a Michigan fan can understand. Go yourself.

I don't really care what you have or have not had enough of. You are under no obligation to respond to anything I say. Yet you chase me all over this board for reasons I don't care to even try to understand. My guess is someone needs better things to worry about. If you don't like what I have to say then simply ignore it. It's not hard to do.

[slightly shotgunned]

you're not an advocate of the bcs, but you are against a playoff. which is it, cuz like the article said, you can't be on both sides. its not a difficult concept, its just a basic problem with real basic solutions and you keep thumping them like you can somehow make them more complicated by repeating them. you're the only expert here on anything. convenient that you "miss" the issues that undermine most of the points you make. and don't apologize, i've heard enough bs from you today already. i don't need any more.

Taking this a little personally aren't you? Relax junior. You need to find better things to worry about than what I think of a playoff. And I'll say this one more time, my intent in this particular thread has been to address one aspect of one proposed playoff. You have yet to "undermine" a single point I have made on that particular topic. You keep trying to argue the pros and cons of a playoff while I am addressing a single issue in one proposed system. If there's any bull- going on here it's coming from you. If you can show me where I am wrong on how network TV, conferences, and colleges, will approach this particular playoff proposal then do it. Until then let me put this in terms even a Michigan fan can understand. Go yourself.

I don't really care what you have or have not had enough of. You are under no obligation to respond to anything I say. Yet you chase me all over this board for reasons I don't care to even try to understand. My guess is someone needs better things to worry about. If you don't like what I have to say then simply ignore it. It's not hard to do.

and i took this personally.

[infrared41]

you're not an advocate of the bcs, but you are against a playoff. which is it, cuz like the article said, you can't be on both sides. its not a difficult concept, its just a basic problem with real basic solutions and you keep thumping them like you can somehow make them more complicated by repeating them. you're the only expert here on anything. convenient that you "miss" the issues that undermine most of the points you make. and don't apologize, i've heard enough bs from you today already. i don't need any more.

Taking this a little personally aren't you? Relax junior. You need to find better things to worry about than what I think of a playoff. And I'll say this one more time, my intent in this particular thread has been to address one aspect of one proposed playoff. You have yet to "undermine" a single point I have made on that particular topic. You keep trying to argue the pros and cons of a playoff while I am addressing a single issue in one proposed system. If there's any bull- going on here it's coming from you. If you can show me where I am wrong on how network TV, conferences, and colleges, will approach this particular playoff proposal then do it. Until then let me put this in terms even a Michigan fan can understand. Go yourself.

I don't really care what you have or have not had enough of. You are under no obligation to respond to anything I say. Yet you chase me all over this board for reasons I don't care to even try to understand. My guess is someone needs better things to worry about. If you don't like what I have to say then simply ignore it. It's not hard to do.

and i took this personally.

What can I say? You got on my nerves. If I say black you're going to say white etc. You have 190 posts here and I'd bet that 150 of them are replies to my posts. I'd say it's been personal for you from day one. Some might call it obsession.

[slightly shotgunned]

What can I say? You got on my nerves. If I say black you're going to say white etc. You have 190 posts here and I'd bet that 150 of them are replies to my posts. I'd say it's been personal for you from day one. Some might call it obsession.

i can't help but laugh at that. if you take my stance on the bcs as a personal attack against you, then my bad. there are things that we may eventually agree on, but this is not one of those issues. i invite you to take a deep breath and try to relax a little. you'd be wrong in saying i take anything you say personally, but you'd be right about the majority of my posts being in response to you. lets just not forget who came to who first.

[infrared41]

What can I say? You got on my nerves. If I say black you're going to say white etc. You have 190 posts here and I'd bet that 150 of them are replies to my posts. I'd say it's been personal for you from day one. Some might call it obsession.

i can't help but laugh at that. if you take my stance on the bcs as a personal attack against you, then my bad. there are things that we may eventually agree on, but this is not one of those issues. i invite you to take a deep breath and try to relax a little. you'd be wrong in saying i take anything you say personally, but you'd be right about the majority of my posts being in response to you. lets just not forget who came to who first.

Fair enough.

[smzimbabwe]

you're not an advocate of the bcs, but you are against a playoff. which is it, cuz like the article said, you can't be on both sides.

Sorry to jump in on this, but I do not like the BCS and I am against a playoff, despite what this article says, you can actually have this opinion. I'd rather go back to the old pre-BCS days with the traditional bowl games...

[TBGKon]

Below is my plan that I just put together. I know there may be some flaws, but it's a start:

My plan for a new College Football Playoff

- I call my new plan the National Championship Series (NCS)

- Top 12 in BCS rankings make the NCS Playoffs, with top 4 getting bye weeks the first round.

- Sports Information Director…err…Coaches’ Poll is removed from new NCS rankings consideration.

Based on this years rankings, these are the teams in:

1 Ohio St (Big Ten champ)

2 LSU (SEC champ)

3 VA Tech (ACC champ)

4 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ)

5 Georgia (SEC at large)

6 Mizzou (Big 12 at-large)

7 USC (Pac 10 champ)

8 Kansas (Big 12 at large)

9 West VA (Big East champ)

10 Hawaii (WAC at large)

11 AZ State (Pac 10 at large)

12 Florida (SEC at large)

- If a NCS conference champion is ranked less than #12, they will take the place of the lowest ranked at-large team

Preliminary Round games are as follows:

12 Florida @ 5 Georgia (Athens, GA)

11 AZ State @ 6 Mizzou (Columbia, MO)

10 Hawaii @ 7 USC (Los Angeles, CA)

9 West VA @ 8 Kansas (Lawrence, KS)

- Winners of those rounds would then be slotted to play the Top 4 teams, with the lowest remaining seed playing the #1 teams and so on down the line. Let’s say all top seeds win the Preliminary Round games, the Quarterfinals are as follows:

8 Kansas @ 1 Ohio State (Columbus, OH)

7 USC @ 2 LSU (Baton Rouge, LA)

6 Mizzou @ 3 VA Tech (Blacksburg, VA)

5 Georgia @ 4 Oklahoma (Norman, OK)

- Winners of these rounds would then continue on to the NCS Semifinals, located in 2 of the 4 current major bowl games. Based on order of this years BCS Bowls and top seeds winning, semifinals are as follows:

4 Oklahoma v. 1 Ohio St (Miami, FL in Orange Bowl)

3 VA Tech v. 2 LSU (Glendale, AZ in Fiesta Bowl)

- The other 2 sites would then pit the losers from the Quarterfinal round based on seeding.

8 Kansas @ 5 Georgia (Pasadena, CA in Rose Bowl)

7 USC v. 6 Mizzou (New Orleáns, LA in Sugar Bowl)

The NCS Championship Game would then become an event that is bid upon like the Final Four site or the Super Bowl. Locations/venues must have a certain amount of seats to be considered. They can be, but do not have to be bowl sites. The only thing is that the site cannot be a host of any semifinals even that year. For example, Glendale and Miami are not available for this season. Venue selection would follow similar (but not exact) specifics as Super Bowl selection:

• Average high temperature of at least 50 degrees... with the exception of Domed Stadiums Several high-occupancy, high-end hotel for Staff, participating teams and media

• Convention or entertainment space comprising of at least 600,000 sq. ft. (either indoor or outdoor) for fan events.

• Stadium seating capacity of at least 65,000

• Separate practice facilities for each team

• Proper ground space for a minimum of 10 photo trailers and 40 television trucks.

• 50,000 sq. ft. for Radio Row—the designated media area where various media types can work and broadcast

[BaltimoreFan]

you're not an advocate of the bcs, but you are against a playoff. which is it, cuz like the article said, you can't be on both sides. its not a difficult concept, its just a basic problem with real basic solutions and you keep thumping them like you can somehow make them more complicated by repeating them. you're the only expert here on anything. convenient that you "miss" the issues that undermine most of the points you make. and don't apologize, i've heard enough bs from you today already. i don't need any more.

If anyone is missing the point, its you. Your looking at it strictly from a fans point of view. Unfortunately the people who run the NCAA look at it from a business point of view. The fans main priorty is to get a system that will clearly declare a champion. The people who run the NCAA's main priorty is making money.

You say that that the NCAA Football postseason has "real basic solution". Well if that is the case, why hasn't the NCAA changed it? Do you honestly think they are a bunch of idiots that are completly oblivious to the constant talks of the problems with the BCS and/or can't comprehend how to come to a "real basic solution"? If it was so easy they'd do it. Heck it probably would have happened years ago. But there is one think standing in the way, MONEY.

Which solution do you think the people running the NCAA would choose?:

1. Keep the current system and maximize profits.

2. Change to a playoff system, and make a less money.