AJC > Sports > Blog > Archives > 2008 > April > 30 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USSlive makes opening argument for a playoff
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Hollywood, Fla.—Mike Slive is, by his own admission, a “recovering attorney.” In a former life he knew what it was like to argue a case before a group of people who needed to be persuaded.
The SEC Commissioner will again be in that role this morning and for part of the afternoon as he outlines his version of a “Plus-One” model to determine the BCS national championship. What Slive will share with his fellow commissioners is a very detailed plan of what is essentially a four-team playoff that would go into effect for the 2010 regular season. And when I met with Slive yesterday, he politely declined to give any further details until after his presentation today. He has promised to talk after all this is over.
Based on what we’ve heard the past two days, Slive’s jury has already made its decision. For a number of reasons the timing for this kind of change in college football’s post-season is just isn’t right. ACC commissioner John Swofford probably won’t come right out and say it this afternoon, but this issue will be essentially dead for four more years.
The desire by the Rose Bowl, Big Ten and Pac-10 to stick with the status quo is a big obstacle to change, no doubt about it. But there are other issues in play. Despite the yearly angst that seems to come with the BCS and the lousy bowl matchups it produced last season, all of the leading indicators for college football are very, very good. The NCAA reports that last season more people went to college football games than ever before. And this is at a time when television is saturated with games.
The bottom line is the bottom line. College football has decided that it can live with the angst-ridden fans because, for now, all the numbers are good.
Still, the powers that be in college football understand that the post-season will eventually have to change. But history has shown us that the BCS usually doesn’t move until there is some kind of crisis that forces a move.
When Southern Cal was ranked No. 1 in the human polls and was left out of big game in 2003, the formula was changed. It now gives a two-thirds weight to the human polls.
When the five smaller Division I-A conferences threatened to take the BCS to court if they didn’t get better access to the system, the fifth game was created. Now the Boise States of the world get in by finishing in the top 12 of the final standings.
What will be the crisis that moves the BCS forward again? It will probably be a serious financial need on the part of the schools or declining television ratings for the bowls. That seems to get everybody’s attention, including the presidents.
Slive is a very smart man. He knows that he has a tough case to prove this morning with a group of people who are pretty happy with the status quo.
But here is what you need to know. Today Slive is not making his closing argument on the subject of a four-team playoff. It will actually be his opening argument that college football needs to keep an open mind about this subject and, with a little cooperation, the system can be improved.
The next four years will be spent building a consensus for this position, a consensus that does not currently exist.
Slive will tell you that some of the toughest cases are usually won on appeal. The movement for a four-team playoff doesn’t end today at the BCS meetings. It is actually just beginning.
Services »
Comments
By Jim
April 30, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this
Wow, I didn’t know Mike Slive could talk.
By Atlanta Gator
April 30, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
Gentlemen of the Blog——Am I alone in my personal opinion, but even when it is my alma mater’s football team playing in the West Toadsuck International Harvester Spare Tire Weedeater Bowl, I can barely bring myself to raise my remote to dial in ESPN17 to watch, let alone attend the game in person. Moreover, when it’s not my team playing, I will find something better to do with those precious three hours of my life rather than watch the ACC #6 team play the Big 10 #7 team.
So, how do y’all feel about it? Is the bowl system an example of a saturated market struggling to create demand for a declining product? Are the conference commissioners missing the boat? Opinions, anyone?
By MikeJones
April 30, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
Shouldn’t the Big Ten be bumped down to DII by now????? What do they offer college football beyond horrible bowl match ups and ill advised stubbornness???
By Roswell Ed
April 30, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Tony thank you for devoting a week to a topic
that will never have anythng to do with Tech!
Maybe next week you can write about bowl games
west of the Mississippi to make it up to them.
Nothing sez holiday fun more than a trip to San Jose.
By Father of 5
April 30, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
If the Rose Bowl conferences want to take their ball and go home, let them! Even if we start with a baby playoff (“Plus 1”), at least its a move toward sanity. Won’t be very long before USC or OSU decide they want to play a meaningful game instead of their private exhibition.
As for which polls are best, they’re all fatally flawed. That’s the nature of polls. That’s one reason I don’t watch ice skating — no way to tell who wins except to vote. College football has self-inflicted the same ridiculously flawed structure, and there is no reason for it today — in the 21st century. We have airplanes now. We have TV channels that cover every game.
When will the timing be better? With the Irish this vulnerable, and last year’s bowl matchups so pathetic, and a very good undefeated team shut out of any chance the year before, looks like a good time to renegotiate now.
By DWG
April 30, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
I disagree with you ATL Gator. I enjoy watching my team no matter what bowl game they’re in. And I’d rather watch ANY college football game over hockey or NBA - which is usually the alternative that time of year.
By Steeledawg
April 30, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
Atlanta Gator- I hear you on the bowls, but I think that fans need to remember that the bowls are a reward for the players. It is a chance for them to play in a different city and be given the royal treatment. For many of the seniors it will be the last football game they ever get to play in.
I have noticed that my excitment level for what bowl my alma mater is invited to usually depends on my expectations are going into the season. For example, in 2004 the Dawgs had high expectations with Pollack and Green as seniors, the team did not perform as well as I expected, and was disappointed with the Outback, a New Years Day bowl. However in 2006 with a freshman QB, and lots of new players I was excited about a trip to the Chick-fil-a bowl, percieved by many to be a second or third tier bowl.
By gatorhead1013
April 30, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
Can anyone explain why the terms “plus-one” and “4-team playoff” seem to be used interchangeably? Not just by Tony, but by others as well.
Wouldn’t a “plus-one” match the top two after the bowls? And wouldn’t a “four-team playoff” be an actual playoff between 1-4 incorporated into the current bowls?
By Miles
April 30, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
Mike Slive…pure genius!
By shane #1
April 30, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
Atlanta Gator, How many bowls are there now, twentyfive? Oversaturated? How about flooded like La in 1928! We have 6-6 teams going to bowl games now, just to be filler for a sports network. What is worse is that many schools lose money on Their bowl trip, money that is badly needed to build Their programs. I would like to see the bowls limited to the top twenty bcs teams, and another bowl for the “mid-majors”. Eleven bowls should be enough and the games should be worth watching. I don’t expect this to happen too much demand from tv, and tv pays the bills. I would like to see a playoff, but it’s not going to happen unless the Pac 10, Big 10, and Notre Dame go along. ESPN and the rest are not cutting themselves out of those markets.
By PTC DAWG
April 30, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
I agree, the bowls are getting tiresome, especially the lower tier bowls.
That being said, nice to see the Commissioners are basically thumbing their noses at the fans. Not a good PR move to me.
Who cares what the Big 10 does? Why should we care if they don’t want to play? I’ll bet Pete Carroll and USC would care. Their hands should be called.
Why did the Commissioners care what the Mountain West or other small conference teams did? All they did was dilute the Major Bowls by including them. If those little guys wanted to see who was the best of the worst, we should have let them have their own little Championship. They have no business being on the field with the SEC in a bowl game.
I agree with others who have stated, voting on a champion, or even who plays in a championship game is NO WAY TO DO IT.
I’ve stated my case for 6 Champions and the next two best at large teams in a playoff, apparently, that’s too complicated for the Commissioners to understand.
By GW
April 30, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
There’s gonna’ always be a vote, poll or opinion involved in picking 2,4,8 or 16 playoff teams. Unlike basketball and baseball where everybody with a winning record is included, football will have controversy. Even with the Big 10 and PAC 10 holding out the Sugar Bowl could have left Hawaii out. That scenario needs to be avoided even if the BCS lives forever.
By GatorBud
April 30, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this
PTC DAWG took the words out of my mouth. The powers that be need to remember who their customers are….the fans. I am all for tradition, however, as time goes on, change is inevitable. The bowls were a great thing back in the 60’s, 70’s and maybe 80’s. However, in today’s world where the average coach is making 1M a year and pro sports is a multi billion dollar industry, the college game needs to change as well.
I am all for a plus one or some kind of system that let’s the winners be determined on the field. I am not sure why D1 doesn’t break up into 2 groups, the big six plus 2 other conferences and the rest. Let’s face it, no one outside the big six will ever win the MNC, so why not give the other conferences thier own little MNC. Let the new big 8 conference winners duke it out. They can be seeded based on rankings. NO controversy…..you win your conference, your in, you lose, your out. Then the other 5 or 6 conferences make up D1 group 2 (or whatever) and let them have a MNC of thier own.
By Beaufort_Dawg
April 30, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
Tony,
Would the deep south refusing to watch the Rose bowl make a serious enough dent in their ratings to make a difference?
By Richard
April 30, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this
Whether or not anyone actually agrees with this, the NCAA does not recognize the FBS champion since they don’t sponsor a postseason tournament. The only way we are going to see an NCAA tourney happen is if they make one that is similar to the tourneys in the other sports. It would have to be 16 teams (11 conference champions) and 5 at-larges.
Now there’s no doubt that this is a great thing if you’re a fan (and don’t pretend that it would diminish the regular season…thats just being ignorant), but if you were a current BCS conference commishioner or a BCS university president, why in the world would you ever want to take your current 200 million dollar pot and let 6 more teams take a share of it?
That’s why a playoff is never happening. No intelligent businessman would ever take less profit to appease the consumer when the consumer has no choice but to buy it as is.
By Voice of Reason
April 30, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
Nothing sez I’m a big fat redneck UGA fan like postings from Roswell (Special) Ed
By Wil Walton
April 30, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
Right on point Richard. Here is what I posted on a previous, similar topic: Here’s a question: Aren’t parity and opinion the reason that everyone is so passionate about college football? If everything was cut and dry with a playoff system, I think the reverence for the sport would diminish, even if only a little. Isn’t it great to argue about who’s better than who? Isn’t it fun to listen to the pundits debate over #1? Isn’t it pure enjoyment to take jabs at your rival? Just take a look at any one of these blogs. Are we sure that we would be happier with a playoff system? Or would we find something else to complain about? Personally, I love college football, from top to bottom. Yeah, it’s not perfect, but it gives me something to talk about and even something to b*tch about. A playoff system would be nice, but it might make this amateur sport a lot more like the pros than it already has become. But for the sake of (political) correctness, in order to absolutely and unequivocally crown a champion, there has to be wholesale changes: ALL conferences would be stripped. New conferences would have to be formed with equality between each as the main objective. Geographic alignment would probably be the way to go. This could seriously hurt some traditional rivalries. And after the regular season, the champions duke it out in a playoff. This would basically make the regular season a de-facto part of the playoff. I don’t honestly think that anyone would go for that proposal: commissioners, presidents, ADs, coaches, or even FANS. So, where’s the middle ground, and will it appease the majority?
By AltamahaDawg
April 30, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this
nothing says, “I can’t read” like calling a well known Auburn fan ED a UGA fan.
By AltamahaDawg
April 30, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this
AG, the only thing about the Weedeater bowl is that its usually teams that are pretty glad to be in it. Saturation strategies are not designed to recapture the cash cows.
By RedandBlack
April 30, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this
That was a great idea to not watch the rose bowl. We should not only boycott the rose bowl, but also all the pac-10 and big-10 games as well.
The college game is for the college players, the college they represent, and the fans that support them. If the presidents do not realize this or do not want to, then they need a realty check.
By old gold engineer
April 30, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this
Tony, I believe the angst created by the lack of a playoff is exactly what makes college football so appealing to so many. Wil Walton’s 1:18 post makes this point as well. Unfortunately, a playoff system could destroy the year-round college football mania many of us enjoy. Let’s keep arguing but keep a playoff out of the picture for the foreseeable future.
By Shaun S Ali
April 30, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this
“The bottom line is the bottom line. College football has decided that it can live with the angst-ridden fans because, for now, all the numbers are good.”
This is an outrage, its bullsht, and just a terrible reason to maintain the status quo. The numbers will always be good. Are they waiting for fans to stop tuning in or attending? This will never happen because college fb fans are a loyal and passionate bunch. We tune in/attend week in and week out DESPITE all the BCS bullsht, not BECAUSE of it. The BCS needs to wake up every morning and thank their lucky stars for the passion, excitement, and joy that college football brings. If this were croquet then people would just tune out of the farce and they would be out of luck and out of business.
The argument is inherently flawed because “good numbers” is an absolute thing. You could designate a f-ing monkey to pick the national champion out of a hat, and loyal fans would still tune in to watch their team take to the field, and they would still produce “good numbers”. However, the numbers would not be as good, and fans would probably take to the streets and riot. A little research will show that a plus 1/playoff system will produce even better numbers than the current ones.
By waiting for the numbers to drop, however, they are holding the game hostage. Business strategy-wise its a reactive approach, bad management, and bad PR. To hell with business strategy though. Its an approach that holds no consideration for the stated mission of NCAA football: “To improve, promote and protect college football for those who play, coach, support and dream of playing the game.” The commissioners of NCAA football are arrogant, mean-spirited, and worst of all just downright irresponsible stewards of this beautiful game.
By Shaun S Ali
April 30, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this
old gold engineer and will walton: While denying the game a playoff certainly does leave a lot of room for recreational speculation, I think people can can still have passionate discussions with a playoff system, along with the added benefit of a little resolution at the end. I think the fans and media will still passionately discuss the sport, and I imagine we’ll start to see a lot more “bad day” arguments, but at least the discussions will focus on what did happen, rather than what could happen or why it doesn’t happen (as is the case now). I think under a playoff system the nature of the discussions will be far more enjoyable, as fans/media will focus more on the game rather than the governing system. I hate that most of my college football discussions inevitably gravitate to BCS governance (probably my own fault). I love college hoops, pro-football/basketball as well and spend far less time talking about playoff structure. Rather I get to focus on the game. Finally I don’t think the lack of such a system is what contributes to the games popularity. OSU and Michigan play each other every year (to name the biggest rivalry) and this contributes positively to the intensity and flavor of the tradition. I think what contributes mostly to college football’s popularity is its regional appeal, personal school pride, and non-paycheck mentality as the college kids are not paid (yet).
By old gold engineer
April 30, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this
Shaun S Ali, you make some excellent arguments, but I’m sticking with my preference for the current system. The playoff approach sounds too much like the NFL for which I care very little or not at all. I agree that the status quo is often maddening, but I would argue that is part of college football’s appeal. After all, we can keep up our discussion on the merits of a playoff system, and next thing you know, it will be time for the season opening kickoff.
By ACC is fine with me
April 30, 2008 5:52 PM | Link to this
uga rednek and Aubarn rednek is the same thing. Rednek. Both are Ag schools! LOL!
By Hoopie1
April 30, 2008 6:28 PM | Link to this
I agree that we should boycott the Rose Bowl and be real loud about it….money talks.
By FLA DAWG
April 30, 2008 6:52 PM | Link to this
I’ll make a gentleman’s bet that a playoff of some kind will be in place long before 2013. It may take the government to step in, litigation from private parties, the SEC and perhaps others pulling out of the BCS or simply fan boycott - but it will happen.
By War Eagle
April 30, 2008 9:52 PM | Link to this
College football will not have Playoff System until all those “old foggies on Rose Bowl committee” and Big Ten make their move, which will be FOREVER.
By SOL
April 30, 2008 10:20 PM | Link to this
http://sportsobsessedlawyer.blogspot.com/
By Atlanta Gator
April 30, 2008 10:59 PM | Link to this
shane#1——In answer to your questions above, the NCAA just approved thirty-four (34) bowls for the 2008-2009 post-season, having approved two new bowls … .
“NCAA committee approves 34 football bowl games
“INDIANAPOLIS (AP)—The NCAA has approved applications for 34 football bowl games for 2008, including 32 existing bowls and two new games in Washington, D.C., and St. Petersburg, Fla.
“The NCAA Postseason Football Licensing Subcommittee on Wednesday also turned down a request for a proposed Rocky Mountain Bowl in Salt Lake City.
“The new bowl games for next season will be the Congressional Bowl in the nation’s capital and the St. Petersburg Bowl.
“Licenses were renewed for the Allstate Sugar, AT&T Cotton, AutoZone Liberty, BCS National Championship, Bell Helicopter Armed Forces, Brut Sun, Capital One, Champs Sports, Chick-fil-A, Emerald, Fed Ex Orange, Gaylord Hotels Music City, GMAC, Roady’s Humanitarian, Insight, International, Konica Minolta Gator, Meineke Car Care, Motor City, New Mexico, Outback, Pacific Life Holiday, Papajohns.com, PetroSun Independence, Pioneer Las Vegas, R+L Carriers New Orleans, Rose, San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia, Sheraton Hawaii, Texas, Tostitos Fiesta and Valero Alamo bowls.
“The subcommittee, meeting in Weston, Fla., also reported about 1.6 million fans attended last season’s bowl games, and about $222 million in revenue from those games was distributed to the participating teams and conferences.”
That means over half of all Division I-A teams will get invited to bowls this season. That’s ridiculous. Three-quarters of these bowls don’t fill their stadiums now. This is the “healthy” system of which the commissioners spoke so highly. Sheesh.
By FLA DAWG
May 1, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this
Whomver in this blog came up with the idea of picking one bowl game and boycotting it really struck on a great idea. However, we need to send a signal earlier in the season. What is the first big game for So. Cal this season?