do people AGAINST a playoff system listen to themselves?

[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 s 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 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 bas izes 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 s 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 bas izes 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/handbook...l_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/handbook...l_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 ins ution, provided geographic proximity is maintained.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbook...l_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/handbook...l_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/handbook...l_handbook.pdf

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



http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbook...l_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 s 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???

[Slinkyman]

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