AJC > Sports > Blog > Archives > 2008 > April > 29 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USWould a playoff hurt the regular season?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Hollywood, Fla.-One of the things conference commissioners get paid to do is drill beneath the surface of ideas to find out what the real short-term and long-term impact will be. Many times what looks like a good idea on the surface is filled with unintended consequences that don’t become apparent until much later.
Such an idea is a four-team playoff for college football, which will be discussed by the BCS commissioners here on Wednesday morning.
On the surface a four-team playoff looks like a no-brainer: Pick four teams instead of the current two. Let 1 play 4 and 2 play 3 in the semifinals. A week or so later you have a national championship game. Use the current bowl structure and the current calendar. Nobody gets hurt. Everybody makes money. The fans get something new.
So what’s the problem?
Based on private conversations I’ve had with some commissioners, here is the one big problem that concerns them. If you could guarantee that a four-team playoff would never grow into eight or 16 teams, then you could probably get a consensus among the commissioners to go for it. The Big Ten and Pac-10 wouldn’t like it, but you could probably get them on board.
But you can’t make that guarantee. The playoff would grow. Remember that the NCAA men’s basketball tournament began with eight teams. Now it’s 65.
And if the playoff grows, then it becomes the focal point of college football and the regular season, which is the best of any sport, runs the risk of being diminished.
One commissioner pointed out to me that college basketball has basically become a three-week sport. It’s all about the NCAA Tournament. They see interest in the regular season literally dying on the vine. He pointed out that there is really only one marquee regular season game that is national Must-See TV game: Duke-North Carolina.
Football, however, is full of “premium” regular-season games that draw huge audiences: Ohio State-Michigan, Alabama-Auburn, Georgia-Florida, Texas-Oklahoma.
Basketball and football are just so different. When Gardner-Webb beats Kentucky in basketball in November, it is an interesting story. When Appalachian State beats Michigan in football in September, we know that it probably cost the Wolverines a chance for the national championship. In college football EVERY regular season game matters. The commissioners do not want to lose that drama because, frankly, it is worth a lot of money.
And there is not going to be a multi-level playoff in college football without cutting back on the regular season. The presidents won’t allow it. People say we can just do away with the 12th regular season game. Tell that to the athletics directors who need the money just to break even on their budgets.
Conference championship games certainly aren’t going away. The SEC championship game not only provides a $1 million to each of the league’s 12 schools, it is a great celebration at the end of the regular season.
Yes, there is a lot of money to be made in the post-season but no one wants to put the regular season at risk. A lot more schools are invested in the regular season than in the post-season.
Here is what the powers that be in college football won’t tell you. Listening to the wants and needs of the fans—many of whom want a playoff—is important. But at the end of the day fans are not the only constituency in college football who must be heard and who must be taken into consideration. Fans will complain about the lack of a playoff, which they have been doing for a long time. But they are still going to fill the stadiums and they are still going to watch. The 2007 season proved that.
That’s why there will be no change in the BCS format in the short-term.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
Comments
By Sorry...But this is the truth
April 29, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this
The college presidents have it right. When a team is eliminated from playoff contention,the casual fans will stop caring. Coaches (like Bobby Bowden) will start playing games with starting lineups late in the season,making a ticket worth less. The game will be diluted. ESPN will stop covering good games to show gaes that impact the playoffs.We already have pro football for the casual fan. Leave college football alone.
By B.Scott
April 29, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this
For the Big 10 and Pac 10 it’s really very simple: Get on board or stay home. College football NEEDS a play-off in the worst way. It needs to be settled on the field.
By Roswell Ed
April 29, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this
Why does everyone always worry about the
conference that can’t count and sux
and
the Pac 1?
Let them have their Rose Bowl and let’s move on without them.
Believe me it won’t take them until the next contract to jump on board!!
Did y’all see where AU got a commitment from a guy who averaged 17 yds a touch last year?
Of course it’s in a private school league but that’s still impressive.
Kid runs a 4.4.
WDE!
By scott
April 29, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
Same old argument. Funny thing is that it works for Div 2 football. Truth is that it comes down to money.
Quote: Basketball and football are just so different. When Gardner-Webb beats Kentucky in basketball in November, it is an interesting story.
The reason it is just “an interesting story” is mainly due to the fact that there are 3 times as many games in basketball than in football in a regular season. Therefore allowing Kentucky to make up for having an “off” game. In football… you just don’t get that luxury.
Here’s an idea… since the real reason D1 football is so popular and profitable is because of the fans let them decide.
By rerservoirDAWG
April 29, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this
If the concern is that the regular season would be hurt, here is your solution. Drop the ooc games against(in UGA’s case) Southern and Central Michigan. Then use a playoff to replace the lost funds from those games. Win Win.
By G
April 29, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
If only conference champions are guaranteed access to a tournament, then every week still matters. Let the game be decided on the field, not with coaches lobbying the media for votes. As long as the conference race matters, the season will matter … and if a tournament birth is on the line, it would matter more.
By CornDawg
April 29, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
But Tony, the NFL allows 12 of its 32 teams to make the playoffs and it is still the most popular professional sport, from preseason through the super bowl. You cannot tell me it was good for college football that the average fan was forced to watch West Virginia vs. Pitt at the end of the year to decide who played in the NC game?
By PTC DAWG
April 29, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
Would it hurt the season…ABSOLUTELY NOT..
Take the 6 BCS Champs and throw in the next 2 best at large teams, they can be determined with the same BCS Polls we use now. This would give all the incentive needed to have strong OOC games to qualify for one of the two at large spots for the teams that don’t win their conference. This plan would leave MANY more teams in the running longer than the popularity poll we run now.
What are we waiting on?
By Big Orange in 08!!
April 29, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
The only way that a playoff doesn’t hurt the regular season is if you give teams something to play for.
Have an 8 team playoff and give the top 4 seeds home field advantage against the other bottom 4. I think this would raise the level of play and keep the regular season relevant because nobody would want to have to go the Swamp, Sanford or Neyland or Death Valley for a first round game. Everyone would be fighting for those 4 top spots. The matchups would be outstanding at some of the great stadiums in football w/ great crowds to watch them. Example UGA hosting Mizzou last year in Athens.
Winners of the first round games advance to traditional BCS sites for the “Final 4” and then to another BCS site for the RNC Game.
Teams not invited to the 8 team playoff would play in their traditional bowl affiliated bowls.
I think this would work and would keep the regular season exciting and reward the teams that won.
By Dick Rod
April 29, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
Ok, you take the top 8 teams, and give the top 4 home field for the first round. How does that stop any of the whining when an SEC team is ranked 5-8 and loses on the road? How does that fix last year’s mess, where you have 3 (three) Big 12 teams in the top 8, and Hawaii on the outside looking in? You’re still going to the polls, letting the voters decide who’s in and who’s out. Do you take Hawaii and BYU as the top rated non-BCS conference winners? Do you let Georgia and Kansas in despite not playing their conference championship games? Forget making the regular season irrelevant, that makes the conference championship game irrelevant.
And will a playoff kill off meaningful OOC games, as the drive to get a share of the pie (and auto bid as conference champ) eliminates the need to worry about strength of schedule (as we know, the SEC champ will always be in the top four and be guaranteed home field in the first round).
Too many questions, not enough games to solve them.
By Richard
April 29, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
The idea that a playoff hurts the regular season is probobly the dumbest argument anyone has ever made. Who comes up with these ideas?
Take a look at undefeated Auburn, Utah, Boise State and Hawaii. Their regular seasons meant nothing BECAUSE there was no playoff.
This past year West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma and USC had regular seasons just as good as LSU and they were meaningless.
A few years back FSU and Miami had the same regular season records and Miami best FSU during the season. FSU was allowed to play for the title. I guess the regular season meant a lot then too.
The reality is that the regular season mean absolutely nothing without a playoff. The BCS does nothing but determine the schools’ accomplishments on the field by using people that have nothing to do with the teams in order to arbitrarily decide two teams to fight it out.
Hey WVU, USC, and OU, nice season but we’re giving LSU the benefit of the doubt because they were undefeated in regulation.
What a joke.
By Hoopie1
April 29, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
In 2007, the NY Giants were a wild card team that got hot at the end of the season, got lucky and beat the best team in Pro football. They are not the CHAMPS in my book.
Anything over 4 teams cheapens the regular season.
Playoffs are for sports weenies and liberal journalists that can’t handle perceived unfairness.
I’m sick of hearing the Basketball rooting for a Cinderella to win Basketball Tournament.
Play enough games and eventually a team will lose…ask the New England Patriots.
Sure..we need a couple of playoff games just to compare regional/conference differences, but unless each step of the tournament bracket is resolved with a best of 5, then too much “one day luck” plays into the picture.
By Halberstram
April 29, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this
I think that a playoff needs to be debated and considered until each conference equalizes the road to get to the BCS championship game. It is not fair for a SEC, Big 12 or ACC team to have to play a conference championship while the Big East or Big Ten conferences don’t. The PAC 10 has done the best thing they can do, which is have each conference member play the other 9 teams when there is a 12-game regular season.
I don’t know how to correct this issue, but the AD’s and President’s of the schools need to consider this issue. For the most part the SEC and Big 12 champs have gotten the benefit of the doubt (UF - 2007, Oklahoma 2003) when going up against teams without conference championship games (Michigan - 2007, Southern Cal - 2003), but I think there should be a way to correct this and make each road as close to the same for all teams.
Of course I feel the same way about punishments to football players when they break the rules, but it seems like that won’t be unified either. Suspensions should be the same school to school for common violations (i.e. DUI, possession etc.).
By virtueandvice
April 29, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
Yeah, I’m really gonna stop watching Georgia vs. Florida, Oklahoma vs. Texas, Michigan vs. Ohio State because there is a playoff in college football. What a bunch of idiots these guys are. The Big 10 and Pac 10 can shove it and have their Rose Bowl. Let’s get it on!
By seminolequick
April 29, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Coaches (like Bobby Bowden) will start playing games with starting lineups late in the season,making a ticket worth less.
I don’t get the (Bobby Bowden) reference in relation to this topic. We (seminoles)haven’t been good enough in eight years to even be in this discussion.
By Miles
April 29, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Mr. Barnhart, there is no better way to have made your point than as you have done in this article, i.e., contrasting the meaningless college basketball season with the college football season where “EVERY regular season game matters.” Moreover, you’re certainly correct by stating that “fans are not the only constituency in college football who must be heard and who must be taken into consideration.” In fact, democratizing the process, whereby commissioners allow fans decide how the postseason should operate would denigrate the game to the level of college basketball. The question of the postseason is a critically important one for the commissioners of college football. Although the postseason is not perfect as it exists, future decisions affecting college football’s postseason should always error on the side of caution. I suspect Mike Slive is precisely the person that will be cautious enough to make sure that college football does not fall down the slippery slope of playoff fervor.
By RPJ
April 29, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
Good points except for this….every regular game will still be HUGE because if you lose more than one game, it is very unlikely that you will make it to the top 4. The way it is now you have to be both good and lucky to make the National Chamopionship game.
By KR
April 29, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this
Auburn can be 11-0 and ‘BAMA 0-11 (or rhe reverse) and the game is still important to me.
Auburn and UGA can both be 1-10 going into the game and I’m going to watch.
I watch the Cocktail Party game every year hoping for a 0-0 tie, knowing full well it won’t happen.
The existence of a playoff isn’t going to affect the games I care about and choose to watch.
By Bob Sacamano
April 29, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this
How can the playoffs grow if you limit it to ONLY the Conference Champions?
You have the six conference champions meet with the “Champion” of the non-BCS conferences which have a four team playoff in December to decide who gets in and then leave another spot open for the Retarded Irish or the highest ranked BCS team left.
So you then have 8 teams. Those 8 teams are seeded 1 through 8 based on the BCS formula.
The top-4 teams get to play the first round at HOME.
Then, the semi-finals are played in a rotation of six bowl sites. Peach-fil-A, Cotton, Fiesta, Orange, Rose, and Sugar. Three bowls are paired up every other year.
So you would have the Sugar, the Cotton, and the Fiesta as the first partners, the second partners are the Rose, the Peach-fil-A, and the Orange. Then, within those pairings, you would rotate the ACTUAL Championship game.
So, for the sake of argument, in 2006, it would have looked like this:
First Round
OSU vs. Boise State (at OSU)
Florida vs. Notre Lame (at Florida)
Oklahoma vs. Wake Forest (at Oklahoma)
USC vs. Louisville (at USC)
Second Round
OSU vs. USC (at Fiesta Bowl)
Florida vs. Oklahoma (at Cotton Bowl)
ACTUAL Championship Game
Florida vs. USC (at Sugar Bowl)
In 2007, it would have looked like this:
First Round
OSU vs. Hawaii (at OSU)
LSU vs. VaTech (at LSU)
Oklahoma vs. Georgia (at Oklahoma)
USC vs. WVU (at USC)
Second Round
OSU vs. Georgia (at the Orange Bowl)
LSU vs. USC (at Peach-fil-A Bowl)
ACTUAL National Championship Game
USC vs. Georgia (at the Rose Bowl)
And then, those bowls would rotate the Actual National Championship Game, see? So in 2008, instead of the Sugar having the ANC, you’d have the Fiesta with the ANC.
Tony, how is this idea NOT better than the BCS?
How does this idea NOT make a ton of money for the conferences?
And don’t forget, Boise and Hawaii would have had to play two extra games to get into the playoffs in a four team playoff of the highest ranked conference champions from the WAC, Mtn. West, MAC, and C-USA.
How is that NOT better?
Please, seriously Tony… how is this not better?
There is no way that the format could or would expand, because it’s limited to the six BCS conference champions, the winner of the non-BCS mini-playoff, and then the Wild Card which is either Notre Lame or the highest ranked BCS team, ensuring that no team which was the best team playing at the end of the year got left out, like what happened to Georgia last year.
How is this NOT better?
By true
April 29, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this
Phillip Fulmer is the most under rated coach in collge football.He can scheme and get a team ready to play as good as the great Bear Bryant.He has defeated teams with far less talent, and he has won a ton of games on the road.He is a man of integrity.He doesn’t get his due.
By JB
April 29, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
The fact that college football is the ONLY sport on the planet that doesn’t have a playoff is just silly.
To think that a UGA v UF, OSU v MI, OU v TX or any other big game would be less important or not watched, if there was a playoff, is also silly.
TO say that this would mess with academics, is also beyond silly. How often do the basketball teams travel??? Is this trvel often not during the school week? What about March Madness? Spare me the academics bit.
To say that they couldn’t keep a playoff at 4 games, when they’ve kept it out for ever, is also silly!!!!
Bottom line, if not having playoffs is so great, lets ask all the other sports if they’d like to go to that system. My thought is they’d say it’s , SILLY!!!!
HBTD!!!
By JB
April 29, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this
“Forget making the regular season irrelevant, that makes the conference championship game irrelevant.”
Do what?!?! So, if LSU had lost to UT, in last years SEC CG, you are saying they still would have played in the NC game??? And just how does that work??? The CCG’s are THE game a team has to win to get in. Hello!
By Jonathan
April 29, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this
But what’s the real point of the regular season or even the bowls if we don’t have a real NCAA champion? Somehow, this is the only sport without that. Pretty important, methinks.
By Bob Sacamano
April 29, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this
Hey Tony and Everyone Else…
I like my idea so much that I just wrote a blog about it on my blog, called The Sports Blawger, on tsn.com.
I expanded the idea a little bit.
Y’all should head over and take a look, and maybe look around some more of my blog, which is actually the most popular college football related blog on tsn.com in page views.
Here’s the link:
The Sports Blawger
Thanks, y’all.
By Gator Nation
April 29, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this
Do the playoffs hurt the NFL regular season? NO!
If you make conference championships the ticket to the playoffs, then the regular season will always be significant!
By Father of 5
April 29, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this
“EVERY regular season game matters” is a frightfully naive statement coming from MCF. There are so many examples to choose from, but let’s go back to the great Spurrier’s one and only Mythical NC — he lost the last game of the regular season against FSU because he arrogantly refused to use a shotgun with his Heisman winning QB. He didn’t learn his lesson until his team backed into the title game. His season ending loss meant nothing because the voters still wanted him to have a shot for the title. College football is the greatest on the field but, off the field, the poll system makes it no better than ice skating. A playoff would change that.
By DawgNLville
April 29, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
I can be forced to watch the BCS bowls again…… I guess. Just stop subjecting me to FOX’s coverage. IT”S HORRIBLE!! Tell them to put some money into it and make it professionally done or give up their rights to the broadcasts. I’ve seen middle school broadcast journalism students who could do a better job. * And tell them to stop showing the BANDS during a halftime break! Are you kiddin’ me! The bands?!?*
UGH!!
DnL
By mcdawg
April 29, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
all this administrative BS is going to ruin college football as it has with most professional sports-when most of the discussion nowadays deals w/ what happens off the field or court i.e. who a pitcher is having an affair with it takes away from the games-unless we do away w/ the conferences then it will always be a subjective/selective process
By Bob Sacamano
April 29, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this
Showing the bands at halftime is the ONLY thing that FOX does right.
Some of us like the whole college experience.
Some of us actually WENT to college.
By Atlanta Gator
April 29, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this
Emphatically, NO, a four or eight-team Division I-A playoff will not hurt the regular college football season. Every BCS conference program will be keen to win its own conference championship, and the two at-large berths in an 8-team scenario would drive the contenders’ need for the best possible regular season records to even qualify for the at-large berths.
By reservoirDAWG
April 29, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this
In agree Bob, the band adds to the pagentry of college ball.
By DWG
April 29, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
Funny that the same folks that are so adamant about a bowl system that is nothing but glorified exhibition games are worried that a playoff will diminish the importance of the regular season. Every season only a handful of teams have anything to play for besides pride. How will this be hurt by going to a playoff system? It will change for the better. If more teams have a shot at the title, there’s more interest in how they perform in the regular season to get into the playoffs.
By amazing
April 29, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this
FOR THE UMTEENTH TIME, Notre Dame should be required to join a conference to participate in the BCS. Pac 1 and the big 2 I mean pac 10 and big ten go to a championship game. Then the BCS WILL WORK
By JS
April 29, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this
Playoff would kill the regular season. ALL WE NEED IS A PLUS ONE. One plays Four, and Two plays Three, then One more game.
By FLA DAWG
April 29, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this
And if the playoff system grows, college football runs the risk of being diminished. You want to run that by us again Tony?
On what do you base that - college basketball - no, gymnastics - no, baseball - no, etc.
This is not a “Think Out of the Box” situation Tony. A playoff system - even expanded is the norm.
By RxDawg
April 29, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
Hmmm, I have a someone radical idea. I don’t know if its feasible but here it is. Have a post season commitee to discuss what should be done at the end of each season. If there is a couple of top teams that are all worthy, then let them play. Example, USC vs LSU 2003 (or whatever year that was) USC vs AU 2004 (or whatever year that was). Anyways, you get my point. If there is 2 top teams then its easy. If theres more, LET THEM PLAY. This keeps the regular season exactly the same and lets it be fair at the end. Of course this is just to unstructured to ever happen but at least everyone on all sides would get what they want.
By DC
April 29, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this
I agree with Scott, look at how many games there are in CBB. It can’t help but be a little diluted when teams have that many chances to rebound from a lost. I say go with a seeded format so teams won’t take games off.
By WestVaJoel
April 29, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
Regular season would be diminished? How So? If you don’t concentrate on your regular season record you don’t get to the playoff! I don’t see the day when college football has 12 regular season games, and the potential national champion has a conference championship plus 4 more games (16 team playoff) for a possible total of 17 games.
But IF you did…college fans would eat it up. They fill up the stadiums each game. There’s no limit to our support of the sport we love.
By Cuz
April 29, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this
I hate to be the one to throw cold water on the excitement of more games but in theory these kids are students first and our objects of gridiron worship second. They need to be in class making grades and getting an education. So few will make it to the next level. But that degree will be with them for life.
By RxDawg
April 29, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this
I completely agree with Bob S’s post. I love our regular season and it’s importance as well. I don’t think that scenario would denigrate it at all.
Cuz-I completely agree with your post also. However, I don’t think a couple of extra football games would deny anyone a well valued education. It doesn’t do it in the fall does it?
By I can just see it....
April 29, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this
doggs assured of a “playoff” spot and rest king, reno and staff and Tech whips their butt…every year….love it!!! LOL!
viva la playoff!
By FL DAWG
April 29, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this
As a dawg fan I would have liked a playoff last year. However, part of the excitement and anticipation of college football are the polls and the conversations between fans. The bottom line is that no matter what system we have there will also be controversy over who should be in and who should not. The larger the playoff system the less you will hear controversy because not too many people will discuss wether E. Carolina or Utah should be in or out. If it is only a four team playoff, you can bet there will be plenty of discussion and outrage if OSU/Michigan/Auburn/UGA/UF/USC/Notre Dame are left out. If a playoff does occur, I would like to see eight teams. This way you could be fairly certain the best five are in the playoff. If not eight, you might as well leave it alone and play within the system as it is.
By dogs in playoff last year????
April 29, 2008 5:21 PM | Link to this
beat SC first….LOL!
By Archie
April 29, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this
The best point Tony made in the original article is that there’s no way to assure that a playoff wouldn’t expand to a ridiculous amount of teams. I’m not a fan of playoffs on general principle, but I think an 8 team playoff comprised strictly of conference champions would work great. However, what’s to stop that from expanding to 32 teams ten years down the road? Do we really need all those 7-4 teams in the “others receiving votes” category being included in the playoff? You know it’ll happen at some point if a playoff is instituted, and that’s what cheapens the regular season.
By Dawgspiel
April 29, 2008 6:17 PM | Link to this
Protecting the regular season is easy. To earn a bid you must be a conference champ (plus Notre Dame, sigh) and you do eight team using the current bowl system as sites. The conference champs of the present BCS conference earn an automatic bid. The remaining two spots are reserved for Notre Dame (sigh, catering to the blamed Irish) or the Boise State and/or the Boise State of the year. If Notre Dame and the other indies stink, and there is no Boise State, use the BCS ratings to choose two at large teams from the BCS conferences.
Play it off. Real champ. Less arguing.
By uga_dawg
April 29, 2008 6:43 PM | Link to this
Tony— You forget to mention one key point in your arguement concerning lessening the importance of the regular season in college football—the regular season will ALWAYS be important with or without a playoff because there are not as many regular season games as compared to basketball & baseball. A playoff will work in college football (a lot better than what we are stuck with now) and it will not decrease the importance of the regular season at all because you will still have only 12 chances to prove you belong in the playoff—not 35-40! What do you think?
By 3 Rivers jacket
April 29, 2008 6:52 PM | Link to this
Ask Bob Sacamano if my watch is ready. Anything more than a plus one is ridicualous. The BCS works well and the regualr season is important. Also without the Big ten and the Pac ten there would be no cred to any playoff. Like it or not goober lovers the Rose is big.
By quaildawg
April 29, 2008 7:12 PM | Link to this
I say we cut the number of regular season games by two, let sub .500 teams be eligible for entry into the playoffs, and have the post season run for two months!!! Oh (except for the first item) I forgot the NBA has the patent on that formula!!! Not broke, don’t need fixin, move on to next item on the agenda. The debate over all the who could have done what is what keeps these blogs full and gets you through crap like NBA, WNBA, Soccer, etc. until August 1 and when players report for pre-season workouts.
By Bravesfan79
April 29, 2008 7:59 PM | Link to this
College Football is the only sport i know were the whole focus of the season for 99% of the teams is to make some rinky dink .com bowl
Yes the Bowl system is so awsome, i cant wait to watch more matchups of 5-5 teams!! lol..
I mean how do College Football players get motivated if their team isnt ranked in the top 10 to start the year??
Coach to team: “ok i know were playing a meaningless season,in a sport with no real champ. Who needs or cares about a chance to raise up that National Trophy!??, we just want some t-shirts that say we beat a .500 Murry State team 55-0 in the screwufans.com bowl! Then we can go back to campus and act all big and bad because we beat a .500 team infront of 800 people.
I dunno whats dumber…some of the cats that PLAY college football (were talking 600 SAT scores here) or the old farts that run the show!!
By DAWGFANINBAMA
April 29, 2008 9:18 PM | Link to this
Tony,
I would be against anything that diminished the regular season, but I don’t think that would be a danger with the four-team playoff for the very reasons you cited in your column. I don’t buy the idea that things would eventually go to an 8 or 16 team playoff because that would mean cutting back the regular season significantly and that just isn’t economically feasible. So that, in a nutshell, is why the commissioners would never have to worry about a playoff beyond four teams. They could control that, just like they can control this. But in that instance they would have a much better argument - economics - than they have now. The idea that adding this would ultimately mean an large playoff is just a stall tactic being used by commissioners whose conference teams are benefitting the most from the current arrangement, and it’s no big secret who that is
By bill_in_atl
April 29, 2008 9:28 PM | Link to this
Tony, you have to know that you’re argument is idiotic. Many have already stated as much and does so quite well, but I can’t resist piling on.
Don’t you realize that at least 90% of all the teams playing know from DAY ONE that they have no shot at playing in the BCS title game? Why does anyone bother going to all these games then? OK, some fans like Gamecocks for example may BELIEVE they have a shot before the year starts, but why do they still fill the stadium when they have 3, 4 or 5 losses already? Playing in such MEANINGLESS games?
I thought you were a professional writer from the SOUTH no less who covered college football for God’s sake. I cannot comprehend the fact that someone with your credentials needs to be educated about what college football is.
I’m embarrassed for you at this point.
By Hoopie1
April 29, 2008 9:42 PM | Link to this
The Pro playoffs do hurt the regular season. The pros go through the motins durng reg season and dial it up during the playoffs. i don’t watch the pros regularly and notice the difference immediately when I do watch.
By marty614
April 29, 2008 9:43 PM | Link to this
Guys, Being a GA Grad, I understand the frustation with last year. But come on, it is simple. If GA beats Either SC or Tenn, they have a shot with LSU, and maybe the NC. They lost and they did not deserve a shot.
As far as the regular season meaning nothing, think about this. If there is a playoff system, you can forget about great out of conference games. All you will see are teams playing their conference games and a bunch of cupcake games.
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
By bellefay
April 29, 2008 9:58 PM | Link to this
So Kramer brought us the BCS with serious apprehension from the Big 10 and Pac 10.
They now accept it as the best way to crown CFB’s MNC.
The Big 10 and Pac 10 now are anti-playoff despite there being serious interest from the SEC and other conferences.
Reading the article in the Sunday AJC about the probable playoff games if we had a playoff during the BCS era, i’m honestly sad that we have missed out on that many possible great, great, football games over years. Lord knows arguing over what team would have beat who and letting regionally biased sports writers and networks with vested interest in certain conferences decide what teams will play in our “MNC” game is far better then watching great football teams play other great football teams at the end of the season.
By dawgy
April 29, 2008 10:08 PM | Link to this
The real question: If a playoff system is implemented, will it prevent Tech’s impending 2-10 season?
By Festus
April 29, 2008 11:43 PM | Link to this
I thinks thait them thare doagies need a remaitch with thait thare Waste Virginny skoool. Them thare doagies aints got no respecs losin to thait itty bitty staite skool a few yers baick. Needs to whups Vandee too.
By AltamahaDawg
April 30, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
WHO exactly would be the entity that would almost certainly escalate the 4 team playoff to more teams? (the NCAA doesnt run this deal) Wouldn’t that have to be determined by those same folks who vote on it now?
By BJohnDawg
April 30, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
Simple solution: 8 team- 6 slots to conference champs SEC,pac10,acc,big12,big10,big east.Two at large spots to the two teams…a pick um from the other conferences, notre dame or if really deserving a runnerup BCS conference major.And if the div II and I-a schools can do it, the majors can damn well do it.
Have the playoffs in bowl games. Rotate the top games with the the top bowls.
Teams that dont make the playoffs, play in the other bowls, just like they do now.
If they do it right it adds one week to the college season.
Will some still b***. Yes. But it will be much more just then the crap BCS system now.
By handawg
April 30, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this
The Big 10 and Pac 10 should not decide this for the rest of us who love a true champion. LSUcked at the end of last year.
By lawmax
May 1, 2008 1:29 AM | Link to this
We talk about playoffs.So the undeafted teams Hawaii,Tulane, etc. should have a shot at the N.C.Give me a break. An unknown team beats a ranked team,it is O.K. because they were not soppose to lose they just had a bad day.
By Crimson Bob
May 3, 2008 10:51 PM | Link to this
I realize the Commissioners are supposed to be the ones in the know, but I can’t believe that they would compare Div I football attendance to Div I basketball. Weekend football games are more than just sporting events … they are also social events. I know many fans who go to games just for the tailgating experience alone. As some here have already stated, the fact that most football games occur on Saturdays provides an opportunity for fans to plan and travel over the weekend, and students to take a day off from studying … not so for weekday basketball games. The fact that so many more football games are now broadcast on TV hasn’t seemed to diminish attendance.
Yeah, the 64 team basketball format is ridiculous, but I don’t believe that football would ever expand beyond an 8 team playoff for a number of practical reasons that have nothing to do reducing regular season attendance. The Commissioners are only concerned about money, so as Leonard Post-Toasties used to say, let em “take a smart pill,” cut back on the 64 game basketball format and triple (or more) their money with a bona fide football playoff.
By Crimson Bob
May 3, 2008 10:53 PM | Link to this
I realize the Commissioners are supposed to be the ones in the know, but I can’t believe that they would compare Div I football attendance to Div I basketball. Weekend football games are more than just sporting events … they are also social events. I know many fans who go to games just for the tailgating experience alone. As some here have already stated, the fact that most football games occur on Saturdays provides an opportunity for fans to plan and travel over the weekend, and students to take a day off from studying … not so for weekday basketball games. The fact that so many more football games are now broadcast on TV hasn’t seemed to diminish attendance.
Yeah, the 64 team basketball format is ridiculous, but I don’t believe that football would ever expand beyond an 8 team playoff for a number of practical reasons that have nothing to do reducing regular season attendance. The Commissioners are only concerned about money, so as Leonard Post-Toasties used to say, let em “take a smart pill,” cut back on the 64 game basketball format and triple (or more) their money with a bona fide football playoff.