Wouldn't This Be Nice

[StealthEagle84]

NCAA Playoff System

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Sounds great to me! How can I make this happen?

[TheColonyEagle]

That's very interesting.

I wonder if that playoff scenario were to become real:

Would we still want out of the Sunbelt?

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

That's very interesting.

I wonder if that playoff scenario were to become real:

Would we still want out of the Sunbelt?

Good question...I would think yes and that CUSA would still be our target.

Overall, I bet this scenario would create shifts in the current non-BCS conferences to make more regional sense. Probably between the WAC and MWC and the Sunbelt and CUSA.

[KingDL1]

Good question...I would think yes and that CUSA would still be our target.

Overall, I bet this scenario would create shifts in the current non-BCS conferences to make more regional sense. Probably between the WAC and MWC and the Sunbelt and CUSA.

I like the scenario though I think this would hurry the shifts in conferences, I would think the big 12 would shift around quite a bit. If I was tech I would want to move conferences. You might see power houses moving to have a better shot. It might even out the conferences more power wise and the money wise.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

I believe that this is the right concept except for the home field advantage. It isn't done in basketball and it shouldn't be done in football. If #1 can't beat #16 on a neutral field they were clearly overrated.

I would use the more major bowls for the playoff sites. There could still be bowl games w/good matches among runnersup and other strong teams which would still give some of the lesser bowls the same or better revenue.

[stebo]

I agree with Gray Eagle - The way it is laid out - would suck. Let's say that we have a fantastic year like Troy did - our reward would be a bodybag game in Alabama, or in Death Valley, or in the Swamp. Geography would not be taken into consideration whatsoever for the Belt team, they could pretty much ship us off anywhere that they wanted and we would have to be happy about it. So our reward for such a great season would be the priviledge of playing a body bag game in the home stadiums of LSU, UT, Alabama? Heck, we can do that during the school year. Plus - those are not tourist destinations for all of the festivities leading up to the bowl. I like the way the brackets are set up - but it would really need to be done with the current bowl games to offer any type of reward to the fans or players. Maybe that is selfish but we are in the Belt and I don't know if you saw (sarcasm) but we would be #16 - probably every year. Maybe we sneak up to #15 if we are really lucky - that would reward us with playing the #2 team in the nation... at home... no thank you. We do that during the school year already and everyone complains about it while screaming about the AD.

Edited December 8, 2009 by stebo

[eulessismore]

I believe that this is the right concept except for the home field advantage. It isn't done in basketball and it shouldn't be done in football. If #1 can't beat #16 on a neutral field they were clearly overrated.

I would use the more major bowls for the playoff sites. There could still be bowl games w/good matches among runnersup and other strong teams which would still give some of the lesser bowls the same or better revenue.

Sort of like the basketball NCAA vs NIT tourneys?

[Lurker]

This system is very similar to what D-III football does except they use 32 teams and have 19 conferences. While there are always some teams that are on the fringe and get left out of the field, it is considered an excellent formula that has the top teams playing for the championship. The seedings are based on a formula (which is public knowledge unlike the BCS math) and is understood by all the schools.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Lurker

[chomp]

The problem that I see with the neutral site idea is two-fold. First, if you site the games in neutral locations, are fans going to travel (on short notice) to each bowl location as their team progresses through the bracket? It is one thing to fill up 20,000 person arena for basketball at a neutral location. It is quite another to fill an 80,000 person stadium, particularly if fans just traveled a long distance the week before to another neutral site. Second, with a 12-team format and neutral sites, it devalues the conference championships in the Big 12 and SEC. With neutral sites, I could see Alabama and Florida deciding to rest their starters in the SEC Championship if they felt assured of getting in the playoff even if they lost. The carrot of home field advantage during the tournament would prevent that.

In the end, I don't think that it matters. As much as I would like to see a playoff, I don't think that it will happen. A playoff would force the auto-qualifying conferences to more evenly share revenue. Why would the SEC do that when it is already getting 2 cuts of the BCS pie during most years? If a playoff happens, my bet is that you would see the big schools splinter off into a superconference to keep the money for themselves. This makes college football worse off and really sticks it to schools like UNT. Also, it has been argued that with the massive pot of money that would be created by a playoff, it would really increase demands for players to be paid. Most athletic departments operate in the red in the first place and even those that run a profit heavily subsidize non-revenue sports with money from football. Paying players would really head things down a scary road for most schools.

[cwb]

The problem that I see with the neutral site idea is two-fold. First, if you site the games in neutral locations, are fans going to travel (on short notice) to each bowl location as their team progresses through the bracket? It is one thing to fill up 20,000 person arena for basketball at a neutral location. It is quite another to fill an 80,000 person stadium, particularly if fans just traveled a long distance the week before to another neutral site. Second, with a 12-team format and neutral sites, it devalues the conference championships in the Big 12 and SEC. With neutral sites, I could see Alabama and Florida deciding to rest their starters in the SEC Championship if they felt assured of getting in the playoff even if they lost. The carrot of home field advantage during the tournament would prevent that.

In the end, I don't think that it matters. As much as I would like to see a playoff, I don't think that it will happen. A playoff would force the auto-qualifying conferences to more evenly share revenue. Why would the SEC do that when it is already getting 2 cuts of the BCS pie during most years? If a playoff happens, my bet is that you would see the big schools splinter off into a superconference to keep the money for themselves. This makes college football worse off and really sticks it to schools like UNT. Also, it has been argued that with the massive pot of money that would be created by a playoff, it would really increase demands for players to be paid. Most athletic departments operate in the red in the first place and even those that run a profit heavily subsidize non-revenue sports with money from football. Paying players would really head things down a scary road for most schools.

Chomp sums up nicely what I have been trying to say. Playoffs are not good for North Texas at this time.

[KRAM1]

Sounds great to me! How can I make this happen?

Pay for it!

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Pay for it!

How do I go about applying for a 1 bajillion dollar loan?

[KingDL1]

How do I go about applying for a 1 bajillion dollar loan?

Tell the government you need an economic recovery loan it will save jobs, should be no problem.

[KingDL1]

I agree with Gray Eagle - The way it is laid out - would suck. Let's say that we have a fantastic year like Troy did - our reward would be a bodybag game in Alabama, or in Death Valley, or in the Swamp. Geography would not be taken into consideration whatsoever for the Belt team, they could pretty much ship us off anywhere that they wanted and we would have to be happy about it. So our reward for such a great season would be the priviledge of playing a body bag game in the home stadiums of LSU, UT, Alabama? Heck, we can do that during the school year. Plus - those are not tourist destinations for all of the festivities leading up to the bowl. I like the way the brackets are set up - but it would really need to be done with the current bowl games to offer any type of reward to the fans or players. Maybe that is selfish but we are in the Belt and I don't know if you saw (sarcasm) but we would be #16 - probably every year. Maybe we sneak up to #15 if we are really lucky - that would reward us with playing the #2 team in the nation... at home... no thank you. We do that during the school year already and everyone complains about it while screaming about the AD.

I think you are missing his part that Troy would still go bowling if it lost to Alabama, and make money playing Alabama, which Troy should get half the proceeds in every playoff game they are in. If they win they can move forward. I see nothing wrong with his playoff plan as long as Bowls still exist.

Edited December 9, 2009 by KingDL1

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

Chomp sums up nicely what I have been trying to say. Playoffs are not good for North Texas at this time.

Of course it's not good for North Texas at this time because North Texas is about as far as it can get from the Top 16 but the concept is right for every non-AQ BCS team.

The neutral sites present some problems but each will work itself out over time. As popular as major college football is, the area where the playoff is held should provide a large amount of the attendance (as it does now).

As to forming an even more monopolistic cartel to get around a fair share of the pie that would really rile Congress and increase opposition as universities/states are squeezed out of the money distribution. No one voluntairly gives up revenue; it must be forced upon them. It's not as if they are going to be destitute from a dimished supply of money. Some make so much money now they can't spend it all while most go needing. However, this is not really about sharing the wealth but to keep a few from greed and squeezing out the little guy of his fair share.

Edited December 9, 2009 by GrayEagleOne

[cwb]

Of course it's not good for North Texas at this time because North Texas is about as far as it can get from the Top 16 but the concept is right for every non-AQ BCS team.

The neutral sites present some problems but each will work itself out over time. As popular as major college football is, the area where the playoff is held should provide a large amount of the attendance (as it does now).

As to forming an even more monopolistic cartel to get around a fair share of the pie that would really rile Congress and increase opposition as universities/states are squeezed out of the money distribution. No one voluntairly gives up revenue; it must be forced upon them. It's not as if they are going to be destitute from a dimished supply of money. Some make so much money now they can't spend it all while most go needing. However, this is not really about sharing the wealth but to keep a few from greed and squeezing out the little guy of his fair share.

OMG stop tickling me. Sorry, just can't get enough Tiger lately. Back to topic. Who in hell do we (Sunbelters, MACers, etc) think we are and why do we think we deserve money from the big schools. We have done very little outside of promising scrimmages for hire and suck their cash. Don't get me wrong, I want to be at the top level but, if you don't think the big boys would not splinter off in to super conference like Chomp said, I think you are wrong. Just like the public wants playoffs, the public does not care about Akron. This is not socialism and if once a year some congerssman form Utah raises a fuss, the bigs will get still their way.

My main hope is that can get this thing on track by having competitive teams and great attendance by the next reshuffle. I think this is happening, but is it going to happen in time?