a pretty decent playoff scenario

by longhornJ on Jan 5, 2007 10:51 AM CST Comment 11 comments

I'm not a huge fan of Dan Wetzel, writer for Yahoo Sports. He's pretty typical of most East Coast/West Coast centric sports writers who think that between USC and Ohio St./Michigan/Notre Dame there is a vast wasteland that deserves little consideration outside of an occasional bone to Oklahoma, but he's got a pretty good format here outlined that might be worthy of discussion.

Comments, additions, subtractions?

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=dw-plan010507&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Poll

how long until we get a playoff system in NCAA football?

2008, Boise St. and Wake/Louisville have cinched it!

3 votes

2010, NCAA wants to honor existing bowl contracts and 'study' options

16 votes

2020, really blowing off the whole idea and want to tweak a Jacked Up system a few dozen more times...

5 votes

Never will happen, special interests have paid off big conferences too well.

14 votes

38 votes | Poll has closed

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

my opinion

on a playoff has been stated before in excruciating detail so I won't rehash all of it here. But a few thoughts on Wetzel's plan: I think anything over a 4-team playoff is borderline excessive, and anything over 8-teams is batshit crazy. Football isn't basketball, where you can let a bunch of teams with no chance of winning into the tournament for the purpose of "excitement." If you've got a team like Troy who will never beat Ohio State, why are you forcing them to play and risk injury when no one will watch? No one watches #1 vs. #16 games in the basketball tourney unless it's close - and OSU v. Troy will never be close.

And Wetzel does make one important point that many people don't understand: a playoff will generate MORE money for the schools and the NCAA than the BCS/Bowl system. I hate when people claim that school presidents only follow the money and that there won't be a playoff until they think about something other than money. That's ridiculous and wrong. They may only be paying lip service to academics in their explanations, but there's some reason other than money driving their decision.

by billyzane on Jan 5, 2007 11:26 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Money still a main factor

The problem with people saying that "there won't a playoff system because the school presidents only follow the money" is they don't specify which presidents. Beleive me, presidents from non-BCS conference schools would be more than happy to get rid of the current BCS system and some have any tried (I think it was Tulane's president) to file an antitrust suit against the BCS. Don't know if that suit ever got off the ground, but I know we didn't get a 5th BCS game and new rules which help non-BCS conference schools get a bid for nothing.

The NCAA, as a whole, may very well be able to make more money with a playoff system, but the presidents of the BCS schools aren't interested in what's best for the NCAA as a whole. They're interested in maintaining their monopoly and keeping the money that's coming in now.

The BCS system basically ensures that the six big conferences divy up the bowl loot. Yeah, you'll get the occasional Boise State in the mix, but for the most part all the money goes to the BCS conferences. Of the 17 million OU got from teh Fiesta Bowl, they only keep 15% of it, the rest goes to all the other Big XII schools.

That being said, I'm sure there are more barriers than just money standing in the way of a playoff, but it's the still a very big factor.

by 54b on Jan 5, 2007 3:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

One other thing

It's not just the BCS bowl money either...think of all the tie-ins the BCS conferences have to the top tier bowls like the Cotton, Capital One, Chick-fil-A, etc.

If someone has the time, they could add up the prize money from the 26 bowls. Put the money going to the BCS confernce schools in one pile and the money for the non-BCS school in the other.

I bet the BCS schools get about 80% of it, maybe more because the BCS bowl are far and away the most lucrative.

by 54b on Jan 5, 2007 6:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

good points BZ...

but don't we regularly watch 1's play teams in the teeens and twenties in football quite eagerly?

my own personal modification to the argument about the number of games would be to get rid of one non-conf, and obviously the Conf Championships...that's only a net gain of two games for most teams right? with the additional end date for a season some players hurt early on might actually get back into the season before it ended as well...

by longhornJ on Jan 5, 2007 11:31 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

on the contrary

I think Wetzel is right on the mark, and anything less than 16 teams with all conference champions getting in is batshit crazy, and just perpetuates the BS we have to put up with now. As far as the basketball analogy goes, the first two weekends are by far the most fun. I almost never watch the final four weekend (except the one time Texas made it that far), and I have virtually no interest in this year's Ohio State/Florida game. On the other hand, the first two weekends of a 16 team playoff (per Wetzel's recommendation) would be a gas. But that's just me, and who cares about me. Everyone has different preferences about what they would ideally want to watch. The real reason we need what he's proposing, is that at the season's start, every team would have a legitimate (albeit sometimes miniscule) shot at winning the championship -- and that's the way sports should be. Every conference race would be meaningful, or would become that way over time (the "year-long playoff" that it seems to be vogue to care about now). Teams could schedule tough non-conference opponents and still get in. Recruiting advantages between conferences would start to even out (take that OU). Finally, the NCAA could actually sell this idea to all D-1A schools.

by rom on Jan 5, 2007 11:48 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

If we let every conference in

Then we should create something like a super 1A, removing Sun Belt and Mid-American and maybe forceing conference USA, WAC and Mountian West to think about who is really Super 1A worthy and reduce to two conferences. Otherwise it will be too many unworthy teams in the tourney.

by Wells on Jan 5, 2007 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No doubt

If Dan's 16-team playoff went into effect and every conference got an auto bid, the first thing Baylor, Kansas, Mizzou, etc. would do is ditch the Big XII and go join the Sun Belt to increase their chances at the post season.

by 54b on Jan 5, 2007 3:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That is true

Maybe it would create a balancing act within the conferences. Although I dont see many basketball powerhouses leaving the major conferences.

by Wells on Jan 5, 2007 3:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep, because of the recruiting factor

The school (especially if they were big in basketball) would have to weigh whether or not they'd get hurt in recruiting if they left the major conference. But with most schools, the football program pays for the rest of the sports programs.

And if going to a weaker conference all but ensured you'd make the playoffs where huge bucks could be made, they might make the jump.

by 54b on Jan 5, 2007 4:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This is true

and if the confernece disparity lessened by these teams moving to the smaller conferences, the TV and recuriting might even out.

by Wells on Jan 5, 2007 5:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Blame the Big 10

... and commissioner Jim Delaney.

'The madmen and mad women crying out for the death of the BCS may recognize Delany's name but probably wouldn't recognize his face. They likely have no idea he rose from humble beginnings, took over as commissioner of the Big Ten in 1989 and brokered deals that extended his influence far beyond the Midwest. Chances are they have no clue Delany, 58, has emerged as a man widely considered the most powerful figure in college sports and the biggest obstacle to a Division I-A football playoff.

BCS haters may decide Delany is public enemy No. 1. But inside the corridors of college athletics, he is respected, envied and, in some cases, feared.

Delany, according to one colleague, can exhibit "Doberman-like aggressiveness." With a bite to match his bark, he has further enriched the wealthiest conferences and cemented the BCS system that has drawn the ire from two of the most powerful men in his own conference - Penn State football coach Joe Paterno and Michigan football coach Lloyd Carr.

But as he has done with the public outcry, Delany has largely ignored the coaches' call for a playoff. He readily admits a playoff could be good for Division I-A football at large, but quickly adds, "I don't work for college football at large." '

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=jo-delany010507&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Starting in January 2007, just another Limey Longhorn

by patienthornsfan on Jan 5, 2007 12:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs