Maybe a college football playoff ISN'T such a good idea...for D 1-A

[Young Drachma]

So, I was just looking around at some D3 footballl stuff. It occured to me that out of the over 200 teams in D3 (and there is one conference that doesn't even play postseason football at all... so they don't count) that only 28 get a chance to play in the playoffs. (And that's an expanded number for heavens sake)

I look at D1-A and realize that yeah, there is obviously a lot of money at stake even in the crappy bowl games and thus, people are more interested in watching a 6-4 team from a major conference play a 7-2 team for the MAC or something.

But when almost half the teams in D1-A get to play for something it just seems to me that's better. Why the empahsis on having the play for the title? Let's face it, in any given year there can be upsets, but those fluke upsets aren't necessarily what makes the "champion," does it?

So, why not let all those teams that work hard, lose one game get a chance to play for something. Let alone those two and three loss teams...I mean, are they chopped liver?

In D3, that's what happens ever year and it's kinda stupid, because it's really an inexact science that says "this conference is better, this one sucks." Part of it has something to do with scheduling and past performance. But I'm not sure it ought to matter.

So, when I look at the D1-A model and see that teams are rewarded for having a good year, while in D3 (because of the sheer number of teams..more than any other division) teams simply get to stay home and say "maybe next year guys.." Not that it doesn't happen everywhere and not that it's even about the "thrill of playing for something," because that's not what it's about.

I'm just talking about playoff football and that more teams should experience it at that level specifically, but across the board. If that means an expanded system, if it means a regional playoff system that cuts down on travel and weeds out teams (like the NCAA tournament for basketball and other sports) than maybe that's a better idea.

I dunno...just my .02

D3 Football

[Senator]

My brother plays for an NAIA football team. Only 20 make it to the playoffs. A couple of years ago a team in his conference was not included even with a 9-1 record.

[mckerney]

I don't see how this is really a solid arguement against a playoff in D 1A Football. Currently only 2 teams get a shot at the title, even less than the 28 in D3. And there's no reason that teams that didn't make an 8 team or so playoff couldn't play in bowl games.

I haven't read too many plans that would even involve a full playoff like they have in the lower levels, just giving more than two teams a shot at the title at the end of the season, making sure the fluke upsets that you mentioned (Like Cal beating USC) aren't what decide a championship.

[Young Drachma]

Ok, its not. I wrote it wrong. It's a rant about the screwed-up nature of the D3 football playoffs that really don't matter to anyone.

So..my bad.

[mckerney]

Ah. In that case, Mount Union will win the championship anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

[sterlingice]

I've been in favor of keeping the smaller bowls so teams like Texas Tech, for instance, have something to shoot for when they have no chance at being in the national title picture. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also have the playoffs. As it is now, did people really care about the Tangerine Bowl last year except those of us at KU or NC State or really degenerate gamblers?

SI

[scooper]

On this topic, I'd like to brag that my alma mater is undefeated, ranked #16 in the nation and headed for a playoff berth. This is a pretty big deal for a program that's played less than 15 years of football with mostly losing seasons.

Of course, they're in Ohio and will run into Mt. Union very early.

[panerd]

I am guessing a lot of people were sitting around complaining when the NCAA basketball tournament started giving out at-large bids and then again when it expanded to 64 teams. Is there any question this is the most fun and interesting playoff system in college or pro sports? I say make it the top 16 in college football and the rest go home. As a Mizzou fan I don't mind not making a bowl this year if my team goes 6-5 and I would watch the #16 vs #1 or #8 vs #9 with a lot more interest than turning in for the last 5 minutes to see if the team is covering the spread. Of course this is just my $0.02

[JeeberD]

Bah, Sam Houston State would whup all of y'alls D1-AA teams...

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

almost half the teams in D1-A get to play for something

If this were true, I might agree with you. And it used to be, but the BCS system has rendered only one game truly meaningful, three others marginally interesting, and 20 more bowls which are completely useless. Sure, die-hard fans of each school follow their team in the bowls, but essentially they are playing for nothing. The playoff would be better, since there would be 15 games with everything at stake. Far more interesting scenario, plus the added bonus of having the championship decided on the field at the end of the season, not on paper at the beginning.

[Huckleberry]

sterlingice nailed it. Why would the bowls have to go away just because a playoff was added. The bowl-eligible teams not in the playoff could still play the bowl games. It's not like they would mean any less than they do now.

I've been in favor of a playoff system that utilizes the BCS bowls. Either 8 teams in a playoff all at neutral sites or 16 teams with the first round at the higher seeded team's home field. How it could work if the season stopped right now (going with the 16 team version):

Automatic bids go to all conference champions. Next 5 highest rated in the BCS qualify as at-large teams. Starting with second round, games are at bowl game sites. Highest rated teams left select bowl location for their game in order. Bowls to be used for my scenario are:

Orange Bowl - Title game
Rose Bowl - Semifinal
Fiesta Bowl - Semifinal
Sugar Bowl - Quarterfinal (b/c had Title game last year)
Citrus Bowl - Quarterfinal
Cotton Bowl - Quarterfinal
Holiday Bowl - Quarterfinal

Note I picked those last two simply to give some to each area of the nation.

* - Conference Champ. ** - At-large.

Seeds:

1) Southern Cal*
2) Oklahoma*
3) Auburn*
4) California**
5) Wisconsin*
6) Texas**
7) Utah*
8) Georgia**
9) Michigan**
10) Boise St.*
11) Virginia*
12) Florida St.**
13) West Virginia*
14) Louisville*
15) Northern Illinois*
16) North Texas*

First Round (12/16-12/18):

16) North Texas at 1) Southern Cal
15) Northern Illinois at 2) Oklahoma
14) Louisville at 3) Auburn
13) West Virginia at 4) California
12) Florida St. at 5) Wisconsin
11) Virginia at 6) Texas
10) Boise St. at 7) Utah
9) Michigan at 8) Georgia

Second Round (12/24-12/25):

1) Southern Cal vs. 8) Georgia at the Holiday Bowl
2) Oklahoma vs. 7) Utah at the Cotton Bowl
3) Auburn vs. 6) Texas at the Sugar Bowl
4) California vs. 5) Wisconsin at the Citrus Bowl

Semifinals (1/1):

1) Southern Cal vs. 4) California at the Rose Bowl
2) Oklahoma vs. 3) Auburn at the Fiesta Bowl

Championship (1/8)

1) Southern Cal vs. 2) Oklahoma at the Orange Bowl

[MrBug708]

Terrible logic, the schools would lose a lot of money not selling their alotted tickets if they had to play up to 4 games

[Huckleberry]

It's not even close to reasonable to assume the title game won't be sold out. Therefore, there are only two extra games to worry about (first round games are at home).

I'm not really worried about those not selling out either. Besides, the normal penalties for not selling your allotment could be rewritten in the new contracts. There are numerous holes in every plan, your post just didn't do a very good job of pointing them out.

[MrBug708]

I wasn't trying to create a super long post. I'm for the BCS. With the Top 16, you can have valid issues if the AP poll has one team 16 and the other team 17 and vice versa in the Coaches Poll

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

It's not even close to reasonable to assume the title game won't be sold out. Therefore, there are only two extra games to worry about (first round games are at home).

I'm not really worried about those not selling out either. Besides, the normal penalties for not selling your allotment could be rewritten in the new contracts. There are numerous holes in every plan, your post just didn't do a very good job of pointing them out.

It's interesting that the NCAA hoops tournament has had to go to a pod system to fill 20,000 seat arenas where 8 teams are playing on the weekend. I think it is optimistic to assume 80,000 seat stadiums will be filled for three consecutive weeks--though I agree the title game would definitely be sold out. The others might be sell-outs for the first couple of years, but interest would inevitably fade.

You are asking fans to travel for three consecutive weekends (and four if you are a visiting team in the first round) around the holidays.

I'm also not sure how great the financial impact would be for colleges. In the end I could see it being a net loser, because teams like Wake Forest or Kansas or other middle tier big conference teams really wouldn't have a thing to play for all season. Thus any excitement and additional contributions (which are the lifelines for athletic departments) could suffer with absolutely no excitement all season. As it stands now, the bowls give just about every team something to play for. The top tier are playing for the BCS and the BCS title game. The little guys are playing for a trip at the end of the season and an injection of life into the football program.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Terrible logic, the schools would lose a lot of money not selling their alotted tickets if they had to play up to 4 games

For any bowls other than the big 4, the bowls need to give tickets as part of their "payout".

One thing that people seem to be forgetting here (and is actually the real reason there is not a movement towards a playoff) is that currently, bowl money is distributed directly to the schools/conferences - the NCAA never touches it. For a playoff tournament, the games, and money, would likely be the property of the NCAA. The bigtime football schools are resistant to this idea because they see the NCAA hoops tourney money where such a small portion of the money is given to the schools who truly generate it. This tournament being an NCAA event however, does negate the above argument - the NCAA takes the risk/reward by selling tickets to its own events. The schools involved are not responsible for selling tickets to get money from them.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'm also not sure how great the financial impact would be for colleges. In the end I could see it being a net loser, because teams like Wake Forest or Kansas or other middle tier big conference teams really wouldn't have a thing to play for all season. Thus any excitement and additional contributions (which are the lifelines for athletic departments) could suffer with absolutely no excitement all season. As it stands now, the bowls give just about every team something to play for. The top tier are playing for the BCS and the BCS title game. The little guys are playing for a trip at the end of the season and an injection of life into the football program.

Being a fan of a middle tier school (Mizzou) I am not sure why we ae being used as an argument against a post-season tournament. Do you think we really get excited about the independence bowl? What about schools that have no chnace of ever even making a bowl? Should be undo the bowl system because of this? I don't think not being able to attend the post-season tournament takes all excitement out of college football. (Attend the Mizzou-Kansas game in two weeks if you don't beleive me)

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I wasn't trying to create a super long post. I'm for the BCS. With the Top 16, you can have valid issues if the AP poll has one team 16 and the other team 17 and vice versa in the Coaches Poll

Gawd, this is the most annoying answer trumped out every time we have this discussion. It juts doesn't make sense.

Essentially, Bug, what you're saying is you want there to be controversy between the #2 and #3 teams, instead of the #16 and #17?

Why is one plan rejected because of the "controversy" at such a distant low end of the scale, but it's okay to have a system which pits off the secodn and third best teams (yeah, that's even less controversial )?

CR