NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:15 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:41 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
4 teams would be a good first step. Let the BCs decide the top 4 teams. Sure there would be 1 loss teams complaining, but at least you'd get the undefeated teams AND 1-3 of the top 1 loss teams.

BUT...

I think the Bowl system has become so bastardized over the past 8 or so years, that a full scale 12-16 team playoff is the way to go. There are so many AWFUL bowls right now...I'm just waiting for the UrinalCake.com Bowl to start up. HALF of all 1-A teams goto bowls as it is. The ROSE bowl, the grandaddy of 'em all, had Washington St. vs Oklahoma. Why? Becasue the Orange bowl got first dibs and took USC and Iowa.

The Rose bowl was one of the last bowls to maintain some of it's history...when it wasn't the championship game. But GREED led to the BCS allowing IOWA to go. A Washington St vs Iowa Rose Bowl would have showed the fans and the teams that history means something as to why there isn't a playoff system. And an Oklahoma vs USC Orange Bowl would have been a solid matchup.

Despite a great 1 vs 2 matchup, it's time for a playoff. The BCS has imploded.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:20 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:56 pm
Posts: 290
KingCal,

Great post. I'm happy that some of the lackluster match-ups benefitted the ACC, but overall this current system, apart from the relatively succesful 1 and 2 match-ups (this year a total success), stinks. The Rose Bowl/Orange Bowl match-ups were ridiculous. Iowa has lots of Florida players and they probably suffered from an extended vacation where many of them were allowed to visit family and friends, but the real match-ups should have been Oklahoma/USC to keep some of the history in the Orange, and Washington St./Iowa to give some real meaning to the Rose Bowl. I don't think any of the schools (at least not their fans) would have been disappointed by that arrangement. What we got instead were two snoozer blow outs with absolutely no historical appeal. Under the BCS history is out the window.

There are also too many bowl tie-ins. I love what the tie-ins are doing for the ACC, but this system is bogus. Like the SEC, we probably have two teams in bowls every year (at least) that don't belong there. Because of these conference tie-ins, teams like Oregon, Tennessee, and Notre Dame had match-ups with teams they couldn't care less about. That's no excuse for not showing up, and I'm very pleased with the outcome, but unless you are an ACC fan or a hater of those schools, the bowls were awful. The same was probably true for Nebraska against Ole Miss. The vast majority of these bowls are "who cares?" match-ups with absolutely nothing at stake, and intriguing squads like USF are left out entirely.

I think the 12-16 team playoff system is a much better (admittedly not feasible, yet) solution to this problem. You'll have at least 15 games that mean everything to both teams, instead of one truly important title game and one or two compelling match-ups in the other bowls. And the fans of every team participating in the playoffs will tune in in droves because they'll all feel like they have a shot. That's much better than having 1/3 of the Vols fans tune in to root against their team for playing so poorly, then turn off their tv's by halftime.

There are some great ideas for a 4 team playoff system on this board. That's much more likely to happen sometime soon. Hopefully the NCAA, school presidents, etc., will see just how much those games mean, and how little the piddly consolation bowls mean. The discrepancy should be glaringly obvious by then. I think we might stay stuck if we are only trying for a 1 vs. 2 match up. But once a 4 team playoff is in place, I think everyone will wise up and we'll be on our way to a large playoff system.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:16 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 12:31 pm
Posts: 57
At 9-2 in their second year in I-A, USF receives a conditional invite to a bowl in Hawai'i. They end up staying home. Oddly enough, the same thing happened to UCF. In our third year in I-A, we go 9-2(Daunte Culpepper at the helm) and also receive a conditional invite to a bowl in Hawai'i. We too stayed home. Eerie simularity and a common lesson learned. It sucks to be an Indy if you're not Notre Dame or Navy.

Being a fan of a non-BCS team, I'm biased to a post-season system that would involve all of the I-A schools. It's strange to think we busted our tails through Division III, II, and I-AA to get to the top level only to find we lost the most fundamental opportunity in the game... a chance to play for the national title. Playing football as a non-BCS I-A school is like being in Purgatory. No opportunity...you just exist. A strange existance to say the least, and very different from the lower divisions.:-/


Last edited by essency on Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:28 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:56 pm
Posts: 290
Pressure from the non-BCS folks would be nice. It would be nice if UCF, USF, and an MWC and/or WAC team would put together an impressive season with a win over at least one ranked BCS opponent. Colorado State and Air Force came close but faded late. Boise blew it against Arkansas.

If the structure of the BCS is changed to be more inclusive then the landscape in college football might be favorable for heading towards a playoff system. Money will always be the deciding factor, but if the NCAA becomes uncomfortable with the exclusion of certain conferences, they might be more inclined to intervene and shake things up. It'd be nice to have the current structure changed before the Big 10 makes its decision about expanding and/or ND is forced to make a decision about joining the Big East in football. If the wealth is more evenly spread by then, everyone will probably be looking for the same goal--particiapation in a conference for a share of title championship and playoff proceeds and a shot at participating in a college playoff, if and when it comes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:49 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 12:31 pm
Posts: 57
If the NCAA ever intervenes, they're gonna have to walk a very fine line to avoid lawsuits.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:11 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2694
Location: Phoenix Arizona
KingCal, you make two very good points. To fix the minor bowls, the BCS rankings currently have 15 and could include the top 16. Until a formal playoff is established with 16 teams, the BCS could add four more bowls. Lets say Capital, Gator, Cotton, and Holiday.
The major bowls would no longer have the conference tie ins that is hurting the non BCS bowls.

This years final 15 BCS teams rankings were
Miami
Ohio State
Georgia
Soutern Cal
Iowa
Washington State
Oklahoma
Kansas State
Texas
Notre Dame
Michigan
Colorado
Penn State
Florida State
West Virginia

not sure but think that North Carolina State would have been 16 if the BCS included 16 teams in the rankings.

The BCS could take the top two for the BCS championship bowl and let 3 play 16, 4 play 15 etc. This one step would improve the big bowl matchups and eliminate the tiresome SEC/Big 10 matchups that hog up the New Years day matchups every year.

Another plan would be to have 1 play 4 and 2 play 3 and the winner play a week or two after New Years. The other 12 could be match up like the first example with 5 playing 16 and 6 playing 15 etc.

Or the BCS could take the 16 teams and have committee to deside the matchup i.e basketball.

This could be the foundation that eventually gets a full blown 16 team playoff by taking steps to get there.

After the top 16 teams in the BCS rankings, let the other minor bowls picked the teams thay like after the like the Nit in basketball.

The problem that hurst the minor bowls more is conference tie ins. The Music City bowl is a great example of how conference tie ins hurt the bowl. After dropping the Big East for the over inflatted Big 10, the attendance and TV rating dropped to the lowest in the bowl history. The Music City bowl would fare bettter if a pool of teams were available to choice from. They may have been able to match Tennessee/Maryland over a Arkansas/Minnesota and obtain better attendance and TV ratings.





Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:59 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:56 pm
Posts: 290
Lash,

What do you think about more regional bowls forming? I'm not sure how successful the Seattle and San Fran bowls were. I'm sure they'd be more succesful if they worked on MWC, WAC, and Pac 10 tie-ins. Like you said, the current conference tie-ins are brutal. If the match-up is at least of regional interest and within easy traveling distance, attendance will be high. Hopefully something willbe learned form the Continental Tire bowl. Some greater flexibility should be allowed for C-USA, SEC, ACC, Big 12 and BE match-ups. If TCU were matched up with Texas A&M anywhere near Texas, attendance would be high. If Va Tech were matched up against a team anywhere between Pennsylvania and South Carolina, attendance would be high. The Carolinas and the DC area are ideally suited for match-ups between mid-atlantic and north-eastern teams. The tie-ins need to be based on regional appeal, not just conference clout, and new bowl sites should be explored. Even if the interest is one sided, local tv ratings and attendance would still improve. BYU fans would be thrilled to play USC and would show up in droves, and Va Tech fans would pile in for a shot at Tennessee.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:52 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 136
the continental tire bowl is a good example of regional placement of a bowl that works. it's shared territory between the acc and big east, making travel accessible. although i don't know how a bc-georgia tech matchup would fare, by and large that formula seems to work.

but i agree with you that some of the tie-ins are ill-conceived. seattle and san francisco will not last if they maintain the acc and big east affiliations. they are not warm-weather destinations, and it's hard to convince a fan from the big east or acc to pack up for seattle in december to watch a game against new mexico or byu. with 4 teams in the pacific northwest, the pac ten seems a logical choice for the seattle bowl. that change should be made immediately.

the biggest problem is it is difficult to get excited about a matchup between two teams that finished middle-of-the-pack or lower in their conferences, especially when the opponent is from a mid-major. by the time san francisco gets to pick, all the teams worth watching are already gone. if the economy remains sluggish for a couple mroe years, i would expect to see a couple of bowl games go away by 2006.

and the houston bowl was supposed to be the one that provided your texas a&m (or texas tech)-tcu matchup. hasn't worked out yet, but at least it draws from the same region.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2003 11:42 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2694
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Accnole2, part of the minor bowl problem is with travel, however, most is due to importance of the game.
If the BCS expanded with four more bowls and included 16 teams for placement, it would not matter where the 8 games were played. This would help with another problem and that is conference tie ins. The current arrangment create the same predicatable conference match ups every year.

After the BCS bowls, most of the minor bowls including New Years day bowls have a different level of importance. Regional bowls have to be better due to a chance of a match up between two rival teams. This is another factor that help to make the new Contential bowl a hit. The Big East could establish a regional bowl in Syracuse (they have dome), Meadowlands, or Washington DC or all three.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:53 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 136
i think the second-tier bowls should, at least, switch their alignments every few years. the citrus, gator and holiday bowls may be ok, because you don't often get repeats there. but starting with the #3 bowls, rotate one of the conference affiliations every 2-3 years.

every warm-weather major conference can "host" 3 bowls after the #2 pick: sec gets outback, independence and music city. the big xii can host the cotton, alamo and sun. the pac ten can host the insight, silicon valley and seattle; and the acc can host the peach, tangerine and continental. the two cold-weather conferences, big ten and big east, can rotate affiliation among them, and at-large teams or mid-major conferences can fill in the remaining slots.

the mid-majors can each host a couple: usa gets the liberty and houston bowls; mountain west gets the vegas and san francisco bowls; wac gets the humanitarian and hawaii bowls; mac gets the motor city and sun belt gets the new orleans. the gmac bowl can go away for all i care.

this is all in the idea of keeping spots available to create a matchup that fans will travel to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:33 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 3:28 am
Posts: 101
Location: SC
One of the things that affects attendance to some bowls is the God awful timing. Clemson is a school that is famous for the fan following to not only bowl games, but road regular season games as well. We didn't travel nowhere near as well to this year's Tangerine Bowl than we usually would because the Bowl was held in the late afternoon on December 23rd. The timing of the bowl made it where people would have to be travelling home on Christmas Eve. I'm as big a college football fan that there is...but Christmas Eve and Christmas Day are for the family...not football. If the Tangerine would have been held on the Saturday or Sunday before Christmas I feel sure we would have turned the stadium orange. This is one of the reasons I felt we should have took the Continental Tire Bowl and let UVA have the Tangerine. The payout was the same, but the 28th would have made for a bigger Clemson turnout.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2003 9:05 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 136
catdaddy, i feel your pain, but with 28 bowls played in 15 days, and the reticence of networks to schedule lesser bowl games against the nfl, i don't see a way out of it. i guess the tangerine bowl folks were hoping that christmas in orlando would be appealing. you make decisions like that when you spend too much time indoors.

there are too many bowls, there are too many bowls, there are too many bowls. oh yeah, and there are too many bowls.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2003 3:29 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:56 pm
Posts: 290
sbro,

So what are you trying to say? ;)

As long as the bowl backers and the BCS conferences share an interest in the current arrangement, it won't matter that a boel here or there dies out or that the fans are bored by some or most of the match-ups. All the major decision makers with clout are getting something out of the deal. Some of the coaches are wising up, but the majority are still happy with the increased odds of making a little money with at least a lower-tier bowl bid and a chance to play in the post-season, evaluate talent, and maybe recruit a little.

You guys had some terrific ideas about increasing regional interest by restructuring the current bowl alliances. But does anyone have any idea about what feasible changes can be made that will clearly illustrate the money to be made in a playoff system? My only guess is that a new BCS might be tweaked to allow for a 4 team playoff, requiring only one extra game, rotating between 3 or 4 of the major bowls. That's problematic since I doubt any of the big 4 would allow themselves to be left out. Perhaps if the Rose went back to it's old match-up system of Big 10 Pac 10 champs, it could work . . . but that get's pretty confusing. Maybe the Rose would be outside the playoff system when both champs were not in the BCS top 4, but could host a semi-final playoff game if either champ, or especially if both champs, were in the top 4 of the ranking system. This way the Rose would either be guaranteed their old very successful match-up outside the playoff system, or an opening round game if the champ of one of their affiliated conferences was succesful. The other bowls would rotate the title game, so everyone would benefit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2003 3:45 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:56 pm
Posts: 290
KingCal,

Sorry for repeating you're 4 team idea.

There's an interesting article on potential post season changes next year on the Orlando Sentinel website.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/orl-sptbowls11011103jan11,0,6288117.story?coll=tf%2Dmain%2Dsports

I got the impression that some of the bowls may be increasingly interested in hosting conference title game winners. Maybe that'll help push realignment and set the stage for an easy move to a playoff, but that still seems to be a long way off.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:10 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 136
interesting article. i had no idea the sun bowl was in dire straits -- it's been around for decades.

i hadn't considered the lead time aspect -- when you give a school 2 weeks to sell 15,000 tickets, you're asking for trouble. part of the problem is the season ends the first week in december, and bowls start less than 2 weeks later.

i like the idea of putting more pressure on the bowls to generate revenue, and to put them on the hook to pay out enough to cover travel costs. i ran into a usa today article from 3 years ago, in which it was stated that 12 teams actually lost money by going to a bowl -- 12 out of 44 (there were only 22 bowls in 1999). three teams lost over a quarter million. that's just irresponsible.

it costs most teams about 1.2 million to travel and sell tickets for all but the biggies. of course, boise state and hawaii don't have that problem, but texas tech sure did. increase the minimum payout to that figure (or higher) and you will see a number of bowls drop out.

and maybe you drop dual conference tie-ins and say the sun bowl will be playde between texas/a&m/baylor/texas tech and a team to be picked no later than thanksgiving. you can do the same for most bowls -- insight picks either arizona or arizona state, unless one of them fails to qualify. if they're 7-5 or 10-2, it doesn't matter -- that's their bowl. really, who can predict the outcomes of these games (and further, who cares)? nebraska was supposed to destroy ole miss.

in the end, it doesn't matter what happens with lesser bowls. half the teams are 7-5 or worse. do what you have to do to survive.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group