Here are my thoughts on how we can reasonably get a college football playoff that also addresses all of the concerns against eliminating the bowls:

The Best of Both Worlds

Please feel free to let me know what you think. Thanks!

I'm not sure why the correct hyperlink refuses to come up. Here is the actual address:

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2006/07/28/the-best-of-both-worlds-a-modest-proposal-for-a-college-football-playoff-that-keeps-the-bowls/

If that doesn't work, it's the latest post on the front page of my blog:

Frank the Tank's Slant

Sorry for the confusion!

Bowls do not exist because of football, they exist because football FANS make the trip. Are the fans going to make three trips? Probably not. Does filling the bowl with locals satisfy the sponsors? HELL NO. Look at who the sponsors are for illumination, because they get a far more direct economic benefit from the bowl fans than Tostitos would sponsoring a tournament.

If it got to a playoff, BTW, the offered "appeasement" of continuing the Rose Bowl matchup won't work. You'd probably have both conferences demanding byes to the final... in the Rose Bowl. This is a tradition that you'll have to kill, not tweak.

Playoffs will have to happen without bowls. Stop going to bowls, stop watching bowls, stop patronizing their sponsors, and the entire scene will change rapidly.

Pounder,

I understand the sentiment about getting rid of the bowl system entirely in favor of an NCAA Tournament-style playoff and you make an interesting point about the sponsors. However, I still believe that the bowl system is still in place primarily because that is what's best financially for the BCS conferences today. We can pontificate all we want about how unfair the process is now, but the fact remains that there will never be any type of playoff system unless there is complete buy-in from the BCS conferences. A tournament can't be forced upon them because they form a majority of the Division 1-A schools and have a super-majority of the financial power when it comes to television rights and sponsorships.

Therefore, my proposal wasn't made as a start-from-scratch and perfect solution. Instead, it's meant to be a way for us to get to some sort of playoff system, which is what most people want, while giving the BCS conferences a compelling reason to do it. Whether this is done through the existing bowls or a separate playoff system really isn't the key. The main point is that every playoff proposal needs to appease the BCS conferences first and foremost. Otherwise, it's just going to be people throwing out ideas that have no chance of being implemented.

As for the fans, I would argue that they would much rather go to and watch 3 games that have national championship implications as opposed to one game that's just a consolation prize. Every other sport has at least that many rounds to win a championship. Considering that college football is the only sport, college or pro, that can sell out 100,000 seat stadiums routinely along with contingents of fans that will travel, I don't think a bowl/playoff hybrid would have any trouble selling tickets. The first 4 rounds of the NCAA Tournament routinely sell out at neutral locations, so I'm pretty confident that college football would be able to do the same.

Like I've said, I don't necessarily think that a bowl/playoff hybrid is a perfect solution, but I do believe it's a way to get the BCS teams into some sort of playoff, which is many times better than what's going on now. Saying that we ought to have a completely open tournament is nice in theory, yet it's something that we can't reasonably expect to ever be implemented. Any type of playoff, whether it's through the bowls or a separate tournament, has got to be something that the BCS conferences can look at and say unequivocally that they want it to happen in order for it to be a real possibility.

I would agree that fans would rather watch 3 games that mean something than a bowl game that doesn't. The PROBLEM is that they can't afford to travel to three neutral sites in numbers satisfactory to the bowl officials.

Bowls might have title sponsors that are "mainstream," but the vast majority of secondary sponsors for those games are heavily tilted to the travel industry. A full stadium of locals is worth nothing (or at best very little) to them.

Football and basketball = apples and oranges. Wisconsin (and a good chunk of other BCS schools) travels more people to bowl games than can fit in most arenas the first two weekends of March Madness. The number of people actually traveling for basketball is minimal.

Another thought- there's a reason the travel industry and schools are in bed in the first place. When it comes to "away fans" in America, college football is the absolute runaway best at cultivating travel. The industry makes it worth the schools' time to scratch their backs at a time of year that might otherwise be dead for the industry. To say that the schools drive this bus is "halfway" naive.

One last... look at the pro TV contracts. Look at the college TV contracts. There hasn't been a lot of growth in ANY of those lately... there's a reason the Big Ten is starting their own channel, and please note that other "localized" ventures like this "can" be spotty ventures- many have failed. Reason why: sponsors find TV to be a less reliable medium to get THEIR message across, because we channel surf like crazy, and because we multitask on the computer these days. Making television the basis of reformatting a competition has pitfalls.

IlliniBlueDemon/Frank the Tank,

Your proposal makes too much sense to ever be implemented by the BCS schools. ;) Really, I'm not kidding. It's obvious & it's been suggested before, but they avoid the obvious.

The academic issue makes absolutely no sense. Not only for the reasons you stated, but also because January is intersession unless a school is on a trimester system, which is rare. Intersession! There are no classes! Even if a playoff were to extend the season, it would have zero impact on academics. That is a smoke screen & it's an insult to our intelligence that they would even suggest it.

I give no credence to Pounder's objection about travel. Fans can still travel to the bowl of their choice. If they can only go to one bowl, well, that's status quo. These would be add-on games & would not be in competition with existing bowls, so what's the harm to bowl revenue or air lines? There are plenty of unaffiliated college football fans who would be happy to go to a college football Final Four &/or championship game.

The basketball tournament comparison has lots of merit because we're not comparing these games with how the tournament draws for the first few rounds, but how it draws for the Final Four! That's the true comparison. The Final Four is played in a football size stadium & sells out. Not only does it sell out, but tickets are distributed via a lottery system, which draws over half a million entrants. These are not primarily local fans; the vast majority of these fans travel. It's a huge boon to local tourism wherever the game is played. People get their tickets a year in advance, look forward to it for an entire year, & plan a vacation around it. The same thing would happen in football.

My only criticism of your article is that you should delete the gratuitous slap at Notre Dame. It's childish & detracts from the merits of your argument. Moreover it's not true & never was a factual statement even under the old rules. If you can't find the old rule, which never gave Notre Dame an automatic win for 9 wins, just refer to 2002 when Notre Dame won 9 games & did not go to a BCS bowl. Automatic? I don't think so. Regardless, the old rule has been changed & it's now even tougher for Notre Dame to get into a BCS bowl - other than the fact that there is a fifth bowl, so everyone has an extra bite at the apple.

It has never been anything but internet prattle that Notre Dame had some kind of "special treatment" or "special advantage." Bull. The BCS discriminated against Notre Dame, NOT in favor of them. They are the only BCS member who has never had a shot at an automatic bid - just the opposite of what you'll read on the internet. Who wants that kind of "special treatment"?

Bill

Sports Editorial
May 2, 2008 - Doug Nye - The State - Columbia, SC
College Football Playoff? What a Goofy Idea

http://www.thestate.com/sports/story/392838.html

A view on the "Plus One" idea from ACC country:

http://www.charlotte.com/colleges/

BCS blew chance to get it right

May 1, 2008 by Ken Tysiac
Charlotte Observer