Home > Terence Moore > Archives > 2008 > November > 19 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USNo such thing as workable playoff system
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
See what I’ve been trying to tell you forever? When it comes to the big boys of college football, there is no such thing as a workable playoff system with a limited amount of games and with only a slight chance for controversy.
Well, unless you believe Bobby Bowden really is Santa Claus.
For every President-elect Barack Obama, who has mentioned twice in recent days about his preference for an eight-game playoff system, you have a slew of those such as Texas Tech coach Mike Leach, who said he wants something such as a 64-team playoff system.
Why stop there? Why not include all 119 Division I-A teams?
Don’t think somebody doesn’t have those thoughts, especially since college basketball coaches such as Syracuse’s Jim Boeheim wants March Madness to grow from 65 teams to nearly everybody for a mad scramble to the end.
Obama got this latest round of playoff-talk silliness rolling in recent interviews with ESPN and 60 Minutes. Then you had Leach taking a break from running his No. 2 ranked team in the Bowl Championship Series to give his counter.
It’s all knee jerk. For one, the BCS is spending another year moving toward an exciting finish. Plus, you already have an unofficial playoff system in the works, with SEC and Big 12 heavyweights battling each other every week for a possible trip to the championship game.
For another, those who want a playoff system are ignoring the exponentially higher toll - both mentally and physically - that such a system would have on student-athletes operating at the highest level of college football. And, if you throw in an always expanding playoff system, which would happen (see above), you would have even more of a significant toll.
No offense to our pending chief executive, but he needs to stick to the economy and foreign policy.
Comments
By marty614
November 19, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Could not agree more. This has been one of the best seasons in College Football. The games mean so much every week and a playoff would take away the importance of the games.
By Huh?
November 19, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
“For one, the BCS is spending another year moving toward an exciting finish.”
Huh? Sure, its “exciting” when an equally deserving team gets the BCS shaft every year, but that’s about where the excitement of the BCS ends. The BCS bowl pairings are usually a mismatch and an absolute joke, including the mythical title game. I can’t think of anything more anti-climatic and non-exciting than the BCS.
By Evan
November 19, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
Terrance - A playoff system of some kind in college football will happen at some point and it will be glorious. For every argument against having a playoff there is a legitimate counter-argument. The most ridiculous argument I see, which at least you didn’t use, is preserving the integrity of the regular season. That’s just crazy - a playoff doesn’t change what teams play for during the regular season and college football is too huge for the regular season to be impacted - fans eat these games up. I’m fine now with something like a plus one with 4 top teams playing after the bowl games. I think that is reasonable.
Oh…and I know you state that the BCS is heading toward and exciting finish, but keep in mind that it’s a loss or two away from plenty of controversy.
By Evan
November 19, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
Mary614 - You just brought up the worst argument against having a playoff - plain and simple. Now please explain to me how college football teams will still not be playing for something during the regular season. There will still be conference championships, rivalry games, bowl games and a spot in playoffs. You still have to perform in the regular season to get to the prize. That is just the most ludicrous argument I’ve seen against a playoff.
By bb
November 19, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this
Bull! 20 years ago, we were told that 12 games (11 regular + a bowl) was as many as the student-athletes could play without it taking a significant toll.
Lo and behold, 20 years later we regularly have teams playing 14 games (12 regular + conference championship + a bowl). It’s all about the money.
If the number of games is the problem, let’s drop back to 10 regular season games (or 11 for conferences that don’t play a championship game) add an 8-team playoff and you’re looking at, what, 14 games (where have I seen number that before).
Don’t be dense, it has nothing to do with the ‘toll’ it would take on the student-athletes and everything to do with the money that the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Orange Bowl, the Fiesta Bowl and the 200 other bowls, give or take a few, pour into the NCAA member schools pockets every year.
By ff
November 19, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
What about the “Division II” schools? Do we have any evidence that they experience this mental and physical toll from their playoff system? Call it what it is, there’s no playoff system because the bowl system pays alot of money to Divsion I colleges. Don’t sugar coat it and say that it’s for the benefit of the athlete-students. How much did you get paid for this “opinion”, Terence? Another pathetic article
By BarakOclinton
November 19, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
As soon as the school presidents and the TV pundits discover how much more $$$ can be made, they’ll be all over it like Hillary on socialized medicine!
By Mort Merkel
November 19, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
The “championship subdivisions,” have a playoff and finish by Christmas. What’s the problem?
By economically...
November 19, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this
…your 119 team playoff makes huge sense!
Take UGA as an example - with 92,500 fans paying $40 per game for the current 6 - 7 game home season = $240 to $280 per season ticket (in the current 12 game regular season). Reduce the “regular” season to 9 games total, with 5 - 6 home games at $48 per ticket (an increase in the season ticket price of $8 for a 6 game season - 6 x 48 = $288 - vs the current 7 x 40 = $280 home game season, or a break even price - 5 x 48 = $240 for a 5 game home season vs a 6 x 40 = $240 for the current 6 game home season - heck, SC and Clemson now charge $55 for their game, and ACC schools charge $48 for their games against each other!), thus generating more income than before, while reducing the overall outlay for the season. Yes, I realize the fans are getting less for their money than before, but since when has the BCS or the big school athletics departments cared about the fans anyway!
The big money teams still make out like bandits, while the smaller programs never broke even anyway, thus ending their seasons with less expenditures overall when they only play 10 games (after losing in the first round of the playoffs).
Now, for the playoffs, you start with the top ranked team drawing a bye week. After the inital playoff week (game 10 for everyone except the #1 team) you are down to 58 teams for the 11th week; then down to 30 teams for week 12 (29 winners plus the highest ranked team that loses in an upset during week 11), 16 teams for week 13 (again, the highest ranked team to lose in an upset still gets to move on), 8 teams for week 14, 4 teams for week 15, and the championship game for week 16. This 16 week season is what the subdivision teams already play, as well as D2, D3, and NAIA.
Everybody is happy except the college presidents - but with all the extra money from TV, I’ll bet they get happy more quickly, thus leaving the Rose Bowl fat cats as the only sad people in the end.
By Stan
November 19, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this
Toll on the student-athletes?!?!?!?!
Where was that thinking when the NCAA sold the TV rights for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday games?
Those are school days if I’m not mistaken.
Also… isn’t the time a playoff would take place from mid December to early January mostly covered by the break between semesters/quarters?
Add up all the other comments here and you have managed to make one of the weakest arguments ever.
By The Man
November 19, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
In order for a playoff system to finally come to fruition the SEC, and possibly, the Big 12 would have to get passed over for the National Championship game. With the right combinations of wins and losses, you could end up seeing USC and Penn St in the NC game. The reason I say Penn St is because the media wants Joe Pa to win the NC once more before he kicks the bucket. If, and only if, a matchup without an SEC or Big 12 or both occurs, then those conferences, which are clearly superior to any other in the land, stand up and raise immortal he11.
There is a reason that teams now play 12 games. Makes it harder to extend the season. The NCAA was smart in going that route since, for some insane reason, it doesn’t want a playoff. Count in the Conference Championships and you’ve got 13 for some teams.
As has been stated ad nauseum by gazillions, Div IAA has a playoff system that doesn’t seem detrimental to it’s players. Don’t see what insufferable inconveniences would be caused by Div I adopting a playoff scenario.
Of course, one of the compelling reasons for Div I to initiate a playoff system that doesn’t come out much is the sponsorship money. With a playoff scenario, I would assume that those monies would have to be shared. That being said, with an 8 team format (or even 16) there would be plenty of payola to go around. You could use the typical bowls as venues leading into the NC game which could rotate between the Sugar/Orange/Fiesta/Rose bowls. The revenues from those games would dwarf what’s being made now. Think the Super Bowl is big? Nothing, and I mean nothing, stirs up more passion than college football does. The TV revenue alone for the NC game would be astronomical
So, yes, Terence, there are quite compelling reasons for a NC playoff series.
By **Frederick (Bailey) Douglass**
November 19, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
Terence,
This makes no sense. Your premise is flawed for all of the reasons listed above.
Are you getting paid by the Cotton Bowl to write this mess? To me, its all about CONTROL. The old guard college bowl people folks want to control not only the money (like the NFL), but ALSO who plays where and when to decide the champion. Is this sport or a sitcom? College Football is starting to feel like WWF…
Obama, this year’s darkhorse in the presidential election, WOULD be in agreement about giving underdogs a chance to get in the tournament to get HOT. He did! Thats the beauty about the 65…the beauty about the olympics…the beauty about life itself: Give the underdog a chance…and see where he ends up!
Sadly, you go along with the status quo for two nickels and six dimes. Sad…very sad.
You better watch out for my man Orlando. I don’t think he would agree…
FBD
By uga_b
November 19, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this
Of the 80-plus college sports only one doesn’t have the “toll” of deciding a real champion on the field. What an asinine argument.
If the goal is to not toll players who are paid handsomely in scholarships maybe we can stop testing them and cut practice back to 2 hours a week. How about we cut the quarters to 5 minutes?
Maybe there is no “workable”—whatever that means— playoff system that is inclusive, but give me an imperfect playoff system any day. Stop evaluating football like ice skating!