do people AGAINST a playoff system listen to themselves?

[K-State Spur]

just watched Herbstreit on sportscenter and he made two points that [to me] seemed to conflict.

1) An undefeated South Florida does not deserve to play for the MNC over a 1 loss OU or LSU

2) College football doesn't need a playoff because the whole regular season is a playoff.

Really? The whole regular season is a playoff? You mean, except for games played at Boulder or Lexington?

I could buy the regular season as a playoff argument if only undefeated teams were eligible for the BCS championship game. However, at least half the time we are forced to arbitrarily decide which losses matter and which losses do not.

[MajorMike]

The BEast gets zero cred from media pundits. Even tho they have had teams on the verge of playing in the title game for a few years (L'ville, WVa, Rutgers, USF) people continue to look over them for the big name programs.

I don't know about LSU, but uo lost to a CU team that will be lucky to get a bowl bid. No way they should get the nod over USF, if they go all the way.

These guys in media just want big names in because its more exciting for them. A USF/BC mnc game is a ratings nightmare.

[NoMoneyDown]

I saw that interview (ESPN, Good Call), too, and thought the same thing - he's joking. If anything, his contradiction adds more fodder to those wanting a playoff system. People like him continuously believe that there are only a handful of the same schools each year that are "eligible" for the NC, but almost every year we witness one or more "upsets" during the RS that, at the end of the year, don't seem as surprising. Additionally, OU lost to an unranked team and USF has not lost a single game (either to a ranked or unranked team), therefore, OU is more deserving?

[Thunder Dan]

I don't want a playoff. My reason is basically that no matter what teams are going to feel like they got ripped off. If you take 8 teams, there will be that 9th team that has a strong case to get into the playoff crying, and ESPN will devote hours to talking about it; and if people say "well they were the 9th best team so it's not like they had a chance" then they are actually going against the whole reasoning for a playoff in that statement. The playoff would only serve justice for mid majors, because most losses at major schools come in conference games, which if you think about it, would make it impossible to grant invites to the tourny. See look: in the SEC, Florida, LSU, and Auburn could all beat eachother and finish with one loss, so who gets the invite? You might say "well the winner of the SEC championship game" then I will say what if a team goes undefeated the whole season and loses in thier championship game to a team with a loss(or several), who is more deserving of a invite? Should Kansas St. of got an invite in 2003 over Oklahoma? A true tourny would have the winners of each conference, but there is still the grey area to argue about.

I say if you want to play in the BCS Championship game, just win all your games...it's that simple

[K-State Spur]

The 9th (or 13th or 17th depending on the preferred format) has a much much weaker case though than the 3rd. At least at that point, every team could be looking at something different that they could have done to have had a chance for the title. Right now, a team can do literally EVERYTHING right, and still be on the outside looking in. It happened to Auburn in '04, it happened to Boise last year, and there's a decent chance that it could happen to South Florida this year.

"Should Kansas St. get an invite in 2003 over OU?"

Well, of the two, KSU is the only team that won its conference.

Should Indianapolis have played in the 2006 Super Bowl instead of Pittsburgh because they had a better regular season???

"I say if you want to play in the BCS Championship game, just win all your games...it's that simple"

Tell that to Auburn & Boise State.

The fact that nobody, and I mean nobody, advocates for the NFL to come up with a mathematically formula based on human opinions and computer rankings to match 2 regular seasons in the Super Bowl should be evidence enough which system is vastly superior.

[Thunder Dan]

The 9th (or 13th or 17th depending on the preferred format) has a much much weaker case though than the 3rd. At least at that point, every team could be looking at something different that they could have done to have had a chance for the title. Right now, a team can do literally EVERYTHING right, and still be on the outside looking in. It happened to Auburn in '04, it happened to Boise last year, and there's a decent chance that it could happen to South Florida this year.

"Should Kansas St. get an invite in 2003 over OU?"

Well, of the two, KSU is the only team that won its conference.

Should Indianapolis have played in the 2006 Super Bowl instead of Pittsburgh because they had a better regular season???

"I say if you want to play in the BCS Championship game, just win all your games...it's that simple"

Tell that to Auburn & Boise State.

I know about Auburn, but the playoff doesn't solve anything. I think the BCS will get it right more often than it gets it wrong. I mean Boise St. won all of it's games, and it did beat Oklahoma, but it's not like Oklahoma was even considered for the championship game. In terms of Oklahoma's standards, last year was a down year anyway. So yes I see your point, but the playoff is every Saturday for 3 months in the fall.

A more logical cry for a change would be to change the rankings. There is no reason that there should even be rankings untill October. I mean this is the real reason Auburn was snubbed, because if they were ranked higher in the preseaon, they play in the Sugar Bowl that year. This is a logical change because it actually could happen. A playoff isn't going to happen anytime soon, but this could change everything for the better.

[Thunder Dan]

also another thing I thought could be done is that top 25 teams would have to leave an open date in September to play another top 25 team. Let me explain:

Say the final standings for 2007 look like this (I'm just making this up)
1. LSU
2. Ohio St.
3. South Florida
4. Texas
5. Oklahoma

Now here is South Florida's schedule next year (made up)

8/31 FIU
9/6 Ball State
9/13 open date in which a team within proximity of where SF finished would play. In this case either LSU, Ohio St., Texas..... you get the point

a couple things

-the games could be scheduled as early as January when the final standings come out from the year before, so it's not last minute.

-teams normally have bye weeks anyway around this time so it's not really throwing anything off

-most teams in the top 25 the year before, end up there the next year.

-It will leave a chance to get screwed up if you have a team like Kentucky or South Florida this year. Teams out of nowhere....but nothing is perfect.

-this would force teams to play quality oppenents and since it would be set up by the NCAA, there would be no crying about teams scheduling cupcakes (like tOSU this year)

[K-State Spur]

So, you're saying that we should have participants in NCAA football (i.e. Boise State) that are simply ineligible for the national title game?

And even if Auburn had gotten in, there still would have been an undefeated team - from a BCS conference no less - that wouldn't have had the opportunity for a title.

I don't know that the system gets it right more often than it gets it wrong. Yes, it was easy in 2005 to see that Texas & USC were 1/2. But in 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4 years, there are very very LEGITIMATE arguments that can be made for somebody else than the two teams given the shot.

Yes, you can say the #9 or #17 would argue if they were left out of a playoff. But it is significantly better that a second or third tier team get left out of the system vs. a team that may have already proven itself to be #1, but was kept out because of a math formula.

[Thunder Dan]

So, you're saying that we should have participants in NCAA football (i.e. Boise State) that are simply ineligible for the national title game?

And even if Auburn had gotten in, there still would have been an undefeated team - from a BCS conference no less - that wouldn't have had the opportunity for a title.

I don't know that the system gets it right more often than it gets it wrong. Yes, it was easy in 2005 to see that Texas & USC were 1/2. But in 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4 years, there are very very LEGITIMATE arguments that can be made for somebody else than the two teams given the shot.

Yes, you can say the #9 or #17 would argue if they were left out of a playoff. But it is significantly better that a second or third tier team get left out of the system vs. a team that may have already proven itself to be #1, but was kept out because of a math formula.

In my second post I gave somewhat of a solution. Boise St. finished in the top 25 in 2005 (i think) so last year they would have had to play a quality oppenent during their schedule to prove they are worthy of a ranking. The problem with college football is that the schools don't play the same teams like they do in the pros. We had no idead Boise St. was worthy until they beat Oklahoma, which was too late beacuse it was in a bowl game. If they played Oklahoma in September, then it's a whole different story. I mean we have to see these mid majors win against quality teams to believe they are good

[Spurminator]

Why not have every conference do a conference Championship and let the conference champs duke it out for the Nat'l Championship?

[K-State Spur]

In my second post I gave somewhat of a solution. Boise St. finished in the top 25 in 2005 (i think) so last year they would have had to play a quality oppenent during their schedule to prove they are worthy of a ranking. The problem with college football is that the schools don't play the same teams like they do in the pros. We had no idead Boise St. was worthy until they beat Oklahoma, which was too late beacuse it was in a bowl game. If they played Oklahoma in September, then it's a whole different story. I mean we have to see these mid majors win against quality teams to believe they are good

Theoretically, Boise could have beaten TWO powers to their non-conference slate and they still wouldn't have made the title game. (As it was, they did beat [DESTROY] an Oregon State team that beat USC and won 10 games last year).

And why should previous year ranking have any bearing on national champion THIS year?

[NoMoneyDown]

I don't want a playoff. My reason is basically that no matter what teams are going to feel like they got ripped off. If you take 8 teams, there will be that 9th team that has a strong case to get into the playoff crying

Yet, Div 1-AA, II, and III have playoffs and I hear no one complaining (too loudly) about it.

[Holmes_Fans]

The AP voters vote completely on HISTORY. USF could be pound for pound the best team in the country, but since OU and LSU have won national championships before they get bonus points.

[Dirk Nowitzki]

just watched Herbstreit on sportscenter and he made two points that [to me] seemed to conflict.

1) An undefeated South Florida does not deserve to play for the MNC over a 1 loss OU or LSU

2) College football doesn't need a playoff because the whole regular season is a playoff.

Really? The whole regular season is a playoff? You mean, except for games played at Boulder or Lexington?

I could buy the regular season as a playoff argument if only undefeated teams were eligible for the BCS championship game. However, at least half the time we are forced to arbitrarily decide which losses matter and which losses do not.



:clap :clap :clap That is why I am rooting for Southern Florida or some small school to go so it will enforce this. I would love to see how Southern Florida would do in the SEC (toughest conference in the ncaa today).

[FromWayDowntown]

Why not have every conference do a conference Championship and let the conference champs duke it out for the Nat'l Championship?

At one point, IIRC, the NCAA tournament only invited the teams designated champions by their conferences, whether after the regular season or via a conference tournament. In 1974, Maryland was #4 in the country in basketball, but lost the ACC conference tournament final (to #1 NC State) and didn't make the NCAA tournament because only conference champions were permitted.

[Holt's Cat]

It's not like South Florida isn't in the Big East and hasn't beaten #5 (at the time) WVU and beat SEC powerhouse and defensive stalwart Auburn on the road so far this season. Granted, the Big East perhaps is not what it once was but it's not exactly the WAC and we saw what happened last January when a WAC team made it to a BCS bowl.

Herbstreit is just yanking your chain so you'll post about him on the internets.

[rr2418]

Why not have every conference do a conference Championship and let the conference champs duke it out for the Nat'l Championship?


Because your idea makes sense and is too simple for the NCAA to understand! :lol

[rr2418]

I know about Auburn, but the playoff doesn't solve anything. I think the BCS will get it right more often than it gets it wrong.

Why should there be a system in place that's only going to get it right sometimes or most of the times? Even 4 out of 5 years would be wrong. A playoff would decide the NC on the field. If a playoff would produce Boston College v. South Florida, so be it. The Ohio St.'s and USC's of the world should've won their games plain and simple.

[FromWayDowntown]

Because your idea makes sense and is too simple for the NCAA to understand! :lol

I think that idea will never work because the big conferences would want the opportunity to have more than 1 team in such a tourament (at the expense of teams from smaller conferences). The smaller conferences would accept the playoff format only if they were assured of having a representative in such a tournament.

Unfortunately, football isn't like basketball -- I'm not sure that a 6 round, 64 team tournament would ever be feasible; not unless every team agreed to scale back its schedule to 10 or 11 games (and I'm sure that schools that wouldn't make the playoff would have very little interest in giving up the revenue created by an extra home game or two). Even a 24 team playoff would require an additional 5 weeks of play.

[cecil collins]

Why not have every conference do a conference Championship and let the conference champs duke it out for the Nat'l Championship?
Many conferences don't deserve a spot in a playoff.

I think a top 6 would work best. Give the top 2 seeds a bye week, and play the winners of the 3-6 matchups. Only one extra game for the top 2 teams in the country, and a couple extra for the 3-6, but I don't think they'd complain about a chance to win a championship.

I can't see a playoff coming anytime soon. As of now, the power conferences and teams have to much control, and money dependent on that control.

[FromWayDowntown]

Many conferences don't deserve a spot in a playoff.

And that's why you'll never have a playoff. As long as there are those in the NCAA who believe that the WAC, the Mountain West, and other smaller conferences don't deserve a shot at the championship, those conferences will continue to fight against the playoff idea -- there's too much money at stake for those schools to be left out and there are years in which those conferences produce teams that can beat the champions of some of the bigger conferences (Boise last year, for instance).

Saying categorically that the smaller conferences never deserve a spot in a playoff is the surest way to ensure IMO that there won't be a playoff.

[K-State Spur]

Why don't smaller conferences deserve to be in a playoff? They're D1-A participants, aren't they? Why should 25% of the teams in that division be automatically ineligible for the national title before the season even starts. It's the only sport in the world where that's the case.

[NoMoneyDown]

One of the biggest reasons against the PO system is that it would costs schools too much money to participate. As it is, many schools actually LOSE money by going to bowl games as the payout doesn't even begin to cover their expense (e.g., lodging and meals for the players, staff, band) - not to mention a lot of the fan base would also be required to shell out a lot of money, especially if their team advanced to the NC.

One way to relieve this financial impact would be to have tiered regional PO's. Teams eligible for the PO's would match-up not by rank, but by proximity. True, it could very well mean the #1 and #2 teams play each other in the first round, but they would eventually have to play anyway. The only downside would be if somehow one of the lower-ranked teams made it to the NC while a true #1/#2 also did and we ended up with a lopsided NC, but even then I think the chances of that happening would be rare. Incidentally, though, it would STILL be a plausible system as the more powerful team would have earned their stripes by beating tough foes along the way.

As the rounds progress, the "regions" would become larger, of course, but the financial impact would be reduced a lot, by both schools and their fans. Here is an example using the current BCS Top-16 (hopefully, my geography is correct):

Round #1
#7 Kentucky vs. #1 Ohio State
#15 Florida vs. #2 South Florida
#9 West Virginia vs. #3 Boston College
#5 Oklahoma vs. #4 LSU
#11 Virginia Tech vs. #6 South Carolina
#12 California vs. #8 Arizona State
#14 USC vs. #10 Oregon
#16 Missouri vs. #13 Kansas

Perhaps even have the two teams meet geographically midway???

Perhaps have the schools not send a lot of personnel/staff/band in the early rounds????

[lebomb]

I totally agree with K-State Spur

I have NOT heard one good argument as to why there should not be a NCAA D1 college football tourney.........Not a single one.

The shit is a no brainer period.........you CANNOT decide a national champion on votes in any single sport period. You have to be a complete dumbass to think otherwise.

[lebomb]

Also, You could still use the bowls for each round of the playoffs, and still keep the bowls for the teams that didnt qualify. Afterall, any bowl besides the NC bowl (NOW) doesnt mean shit anyhow.

[K-State Spur]

One of the biggest reasons against the PO system is that it would costs schools too much money to participate. As it is, many schools actually LOSE money by going to bowl games as the payout doesn't even begin to cover their expense (e.g., lodging and meals for the players, staff, band) - not to mention a lot of the fan base would also be required to shell out a lot of money, especially if their team advanced to the NC.

One way to relieve this financial impact would be to have tiered regional PO's. Teams eligible for the PO's would match-up not by rank, but by proximity. True, it could very well mean the #1 and #2 teams play each other in the first round, but they would eventually have to play anyway. The only downside would be if somehow one of the lower-ranked teams made it to the NC while a true #1/#2 also did and we ended up with a lopsided NC, but even then I think the chances of that happening would be rare. Incidentally, though, it would STILL be a plausible system as the more powerful team would have earned their stripes by beating tough foes along the way.

As the rounds progress, the "regions" would become larger, of course, but the financial impact would be reduced a lot, by both schools and their fans. Here is an example using the current BCS Top-16 (hopefully, my geography is correct):

Round #1
#7 Kentucky vs. #1 Ohio State
#15 Florida vs. #2 South Florida
#9 West Virginia vs. #3 Boston College
#5 Oklahoma vs. #4 LSU
#11 Virginia Tech vs. #6 South Carolina
#12 California vs. #8 Arizona State
#14 USC vs. #10 Oregon
#16 Missouri vs. #13 Kansas

Perhaps even have the two teams meet geographically midway???

Perhaps have the schools not send a lot of personnel/staff/band in the early rounds????

No reason to do that. The reasons schools lose money on bowl games is a) the neutral site is often too far for fans of EITHER school to purchase tickets and b) the schools spend a large amount of money impressing and pampering VIPs.

However, if you played the first few rounds on the higher seed's home field, you'd almost be guaranteed a full house (is there anybody on that list that wouldn't sellout a playoff game? maybe KU...).

Split the gate and factor in the MONSTER television contract that would be involved and everybody would make a nice little profit.

If it were that expensive to travel for playoff games, D1AA, D2, and D3 wouldn't do it.

[K-State Spur]

Also, You could still use the bowls for each round of the playoffs, and still keep the bowls for the teams that didnt qualify. Afterall, any bowl besides the NC bowl (NOW) doesnt mean shit anyhow.

Now, that would be difficult. Using a bowl game for each round would mean that you are asking the fans to potentially travel to 4 different cities in 4 different weeks. Only the wealthiest of boosters can afford that.

It would have to be like the NFL/other college divisions. Early round games on a home field, then a championship (or Final Four) on a neutral (bowl) site.

[lebomb]

Now, that would be difficult. Using a bowl game for each round would mean that you are asking the fans to potentially travel to 4 different cities in 4 different weeks. Only the wealthiest of boosters can afford that.

It would have to be like the NFL/other college divisions. Early round games on a home field, then a championship (or Final Four) on a neutral (bowl) site.


There is really a number of ways to do it.......but, you can still involve the bowls......for those who believe they are necessary.

[samikeyp]

You could use the top tier bowls for the playoff games and the lesser bowls for those schools who don't qualify for the playoffs but still have a good season.

[samikeyp]

I also disagree with the losing money reason. The last NCAA Basketball Tourney contract with CBS was $1B. A football playoff would be even more.

[NoMoneyDown]

I also disagree with the losing money reason. The last NCAA Basketball Tourney contract with CBS was $1B. A football playoff would be even more.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, only that as things are now SOME schools end up losing money. BTW, moving a BB team is a WHOLE LOT less costly than moving a FB team when you factor in everything.

[FromWayDowntown]

If it were that expensive to travel for playoff games, D1AA, D2, and D3 wouldn't do it.

Speaking at least for D3, the travel issue is a significant one and frequently bastardizes the tournament draw. The NCAA has a rule with respect to the D3 football playoffs -- which are hosted on campus sites until the National Championship game -- that opponents in the early rounds should be no more than 500 miles apart (or something akin to that) for as long as possible in the draw. In some instances, that doesn't make a difference; but sometimes you end up with a scenario like the one mentioned above, where you get two fairly highly-seeded teams playing against each other a round or two before they should actually meet. In a sense, it hurts the playoff system, because D3 frequently ends up with National Quarterfinals that aren't even close.

I don't follow D2 or I-AA closely enough to know whether the same rule applies with the same consequences there.

I would agree that the increased revenue of a football playoff system might offset the travel losses to a sufficient degree to make the travel feasible, but it's worth noting that moving a football team to play a single game is very much a different issue than moving a basketball team, a baseball team, a hockey team, or virtually any other team.

[FromWayDowntown]

You could use the top tier bowls for the playoff games and the lesser bowls for those schools who don't qualify for the playoffs but still have a good season.

I agree with K-State Spur on thinking that the bowl system as an overlay is a relatively bad idea, mostly because it would require two teams to travel to virtually every game and it would make travel to the game prohibitively expensive for many boosters and fans. I think you'd almost have to have host schools in the early rounds of a playoff system. That takes the bowls out of the picture -- or makes them a shell of what they've been -- and those guys aren't going to go down without a fight.

[K-State Spur]

Speaking at least for D3, the travel issue is a significant one and frequently bastardizes the tournament draw. The NCAA has a rule with respect to the D3 football playoffs -- which are hosted on campus sites until the National Championship game -- that opponents in the early rounds should be no more than 500 miles apart (or something akin to that) for as long as possible in the draw. In some instances, that doesn't make a difference; but sometimes you end up with a scenario like the one mentioned above, where you get two fairly highly-seeded teams playing against each other a round or two before they should actually meet. In a sense, it hurts the playoff system, because D3 frequently ends up with National Quarterfinals that aren't even close.


Good points. Nonetheless in D1A, we have teams that will go across country just to play an early season (and often meaningless) non-conference game, so clearly it can be made feasible.

[lebomb]

Nonetheless in D1A, we have teams that will go across country just to play an early season (and often meaningless) non-conference game, so clearly it can be made feasible.

Took the words out of my mouth.......I was gonna post the same response.

[FromWayDowntown]

Good points. Nonetheless in D1A, we have teams that will go across country just to play an early season (and often meaningless) non-conference game, so clearly it can be made feasible.

The same thing happens in D3 in the regular season.

The issue is that schools budget to make such trips during the regular season. The NCAA would be footing the bill, presumably, for the bulk of the travel for the schools in a playoff system.

I think there are (and should be) legitimate concerns about appropriating a disproportionate amount of available NCAA funds to cover the travel expenses of teams participating in a D-1A football playoff. Using funds that way takes available NCAA money away from minor sports that need the organization's funding far more than major sports like football.

Thus, I think to accommodate those concerns, the NCAA would either have to have a major sponsor underwrite all travel expenses for its playoff or would have to adhere to the strict geographical limitations imposed on all other levels.

I went to find out how pairings are done in other levels. DI-AA has a geographical proximity requirement for the initial draw:



All pairings will be made by the Division I-AA football committee. The following principles are applied when pairing teams:

1. The teams awarded the top four seeds are placed in the appropriate positions in the bracket (Nos. 1 and 4 in the upper half, and Nos. 2 and 3 in the lower half), and will be paired with teams that are in closest geographic proximity;

2. The remaining teams will be paired according to geographic proximity and placed in the bracket according to geographic proximity of the four pairings previously placed in the bracket.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2006/2006_d1_football_handbook.pdf

On the DII level, the teams are kept in strict geographical regions and play through the region to reach the national semifinal level:


All teams will be eligible for the Division II championship in the region in which they are located geographically. There will be six teams selected per region to make up the field of 24 teams. The teams selected within each region will play each other in the first, second and quarterfinal rounds, with the regional winners playing in the semifinals.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2007/2007_d2_football_handbook.pdf

For the record, here's the language applicable to DIII pairings:


Once automatic qualifiers are identified and the Pools B and C teams are selected, the following guidelines should be followed:

• Once selected, teams will be grouped in clusters according to natural geographic proximity. Teams will then be paired according to geographic proximity. A team may be moved to numerically balance the bracket, if geographic proximity is maintained. Teams should be paired and eligible sites should be selected according to geographic proximity (within 500 miles).

• Teams may be seeded on a regional basis using the regional selection criteria. However, geographic proximity takes precedence over seeding.• Teams from the same conference do not have to play one another in the first round, as long as geographic proximity is maintained.

• The highest-seeded team that meets all selection criteria will be selected as the host institution, provided geographic proximity is maintained.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2007/2007_d3_football_handbook.pdf

[lebomb]

USAToday has a poll going for D1 Football playoffs or not.......

88% Yes
12% No

With over 2,000 votes so far.

[FromWayDowntown]

USAToday has a poll going for D1 Football playoffs or not.......

88% Yes
12% No

With over 2,000 votes so far.

There's no doubt that there's popular support for the idea.

The question is whether implementing the idea is feasible -- what structure, which teams, how many rounds, how regionalized are all questions that have to be answered.

[K-State Spur]

The same thing happens in D3 in the regular season.

The issue is that schools budget to make such trips during the regular season. The NCAA would be footing the bill, presumably, for the bulk of the travel for the schools in a playoff system.

I think there are (and should be) legitimate concerns about appropriating a disproportionate amount of available NCAA funds to cover the travel expenses of teams participating in a D-1A football playoff. Using funds that way takes available NCAA money away from minor sports that need the organization's funding far more than major sports like football.

Thus, I think to accommodate those concerns, the NCAA would either have to have a major sponsor underwrite all travel expenses for its playoff or would have to adhere to the strict geographical limitations imposed on all other levels.

I went to find out how pairings are done in other levels. DI-AA has a geographical proximity requirement for the initial draw:



http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2006/2006_d1_football_handbook.pdf

On the DII level, the teams are kept in strict geographical regions and play through the region to reach the national semifinal level:



http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2007/2007_d2_football_handbook.pdf

For the record, here's the language applicable to DIII pairings:



http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2007/2007_d3_football_handbook.pdf


You raise good points. But ultimately, when it comes to expenses, the other divisions are apples and oranges vs. the D1A because it can generate so much more revenue. The TV contract for the 15 games associated with a 16 team playoff would be a flat out MONSTER - likely well over a billion dollars.

Let us not forget that the majority of these games would be played between the wealthier BCS schools as well. And any smaller school that would happen to advance would gladly pay the travel expenses associated in return for the added national exposure.

No reason that the NCAA would have to subsidize these schools. If you forced a split of the gate, that would likely take care of the expenses for the road team. Then, if you offer the participants a fair percentage of the TV money as well, everybody is making out like bandits.

[samikeyp]

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, only that as things are now SOME schools end up losing money. BTW, moving a BB team is a WHOLE LOT less costly than moving a FB team when you factor in everything.

Very true but the amount of money given out would be more for a FB playoff.

[samikeyp]

I agree with K-State Spur on thinking that the bowl system as an overlay is a relatively bad idea, mostly because it would require two teams to travel to virtually every game and it would make travel to the game prohibitively expensive for many boosters and fans. I think you'd almost have to have host schools in the early rounds of a playoff system. That takes the bowls out of the picture -- or makes them a shell of what they've been -- and those guys aren't going to go down without a fight.

Ok then have the playoff seperate from the bowls. You still could use the bowls for teams who didn't make the playoff. You would have to kill off some of the lesser bowls but I think that needs to be done anyway.

[NoMoneyDown]

Ok then have the playoff seperate from the bowls. You still could use the bowls for teams who didn't make the playoff. You would have to kill off some of the lesser bowls but I think that needs to be done anyway.

You mean no more "State Farm Insurance Bowl Before The Big Bowls" Bowl???

:dizzy :cry

[Slinkyman]

no more gaylord hotels music city bowl? what about the tradition that is the GHMC bowl? doesn't anyone care about that???