But John Swofford, the commissioner of the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) and current Bowl Championship Series (BCS) coordinator, thanked the president-elect for his advice, but offered a different view of what most people think is the best system.
“I am glad he has a passion for college football like so many other Americans. For now, our constituencies – and I know he understands constituencies – have settled on the current BCS system, which the majority believe is the best system yet to determine a national champion while also maintaining the college football regular season as the best and most meaningful in sports,” Mr. Swofford said in a written statement.
Yeah, pretty much every fan I talk to prefers waiting for the computers to decide which two teams will play for the title rather than actually watching teams play in a playoff.
I’d love to see an 8 team playoff, but I think that 16 teams is better. 11 conference champs (a conference championship should mean something, even in the lowly “non-BCS” ones) and 5 at large teams, seeded according to their ranking. You could play some or all of the games at the traditional bowl stadiums, perhaps rotating the title game among the big 4 (Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose).
And as scoffed at as this may be, it would generate a lot of good will from a lot of people. There are virtually no fans who would oppose a playoff. It is a very rare totally winning issue for a President.
The problem is that an 8 team playoff only solves half the problem. It doesn’t solve the problem of the undefeated mid-major team that ends up being ranked #9.
It’s got to be a 16 team deal. Or at least 12 with four byes. 8 is just too slim for a 120 team field.
Comment by Eric Russell — November 18, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
A 12 team set up with byes for PAC-10, Big 12, SEC and Big 10 should be a good compromise.
Comment by Last Lemming — November 19, 2008 @ 8:45 am
At this point, I’d be happy with 4 teams.
I will say I’m glad to see a Conference Commissioner not play the “we can’t take the kids out of school for that long” card. His argument for keeping the regular season as important as it is, is a legitimate one.
Why don’t they do it like Pro Baseball, and have every game of the season count towards the championship race?
LOL! Ivan, if by “championship race” you mean “quest for the World Series” then the answer is that every game of the college football season DOES count toward the championship. This is why the argument that Tim defends is deeply flawed. Like Eric Russell says, everyone throughout the season will just be jockeying for the top 8, 12 or 16 positions rather than just the top two. Then you get all of the playoff games which ADD excitement to the game, not take it away from the season.
Seriously, do any of you actually know of a single fan that defends the non-playoff system?
Comment by Supergenius — November 19, 2008 @ 11:25 am
This is why the argument that Tim defends is deeply flawed.
It’s only legitimate because we would never see any big non-conference games like Ohio St. vs. USC anymore. Nor will any of the big boys take a chance at losing to “lesser” teams like Utah, Boise St., BYU, Ball St., etc. I realize this is already happening to a certain degree, but I think a playoff might jeopardize this.
If most of the spots are reserved for conference champions, then the advantage of facing cream puffs is somewhat removed. But I do think that Tim makes a good point.
Comment by Wm Morris — November 19, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
I’ll play devil’s advocate a little more.
Let’s take this weekend’s game of Texas Tech vs. Oklahoma. If we had a 16 team playoff or even an 8 team playoff, both teams would likely make it in regardless of this game’s outcome. The game all of a sudden becomes less exciting and perhaps wouldn’t even be played with a do-or-die mentality.
But with the current system, this game acts as a sort of de facto playoff game, the winner advances (for a chance to plat for the title) while the loser is likely eliminated.
It’s the same way with the upcoming SEC title game between Florida and Alabama. Winner will likely play for the title, while the loser gets a consolation prize. With a playoff where both of these teams would clearly qualify, would the coaches actually rest their starters to preserve them for the playoffs and treat this as an exhibition? It would be like the final couple of weeks of the NFL season. It’s an interesting question I think.
Tim, as you said, this happens in the NFL as well (i.e. two teams that likely will meet in the Superbowl having a game that doesn’t affect whether the teams go to the playoffs) Does that make the NFL playoff bad?
Further in a 8 game playoff such games almost certainly will affect your standing in the playoffs and thus who you play. Something that can be very important. (Look at say the NBA playoffs for examples) So I think the effect would be quite different from the NFL.
To your other point about a playoff limiting big teams playing smaller teams. I don’t know. They have to play some non-conference games. Who are they going to pick? So I don’t see it making as big a difference as you do.
I do think it will affect scheduling. But let’s be honest – scheduling right now is largely a joke. Further you’re still going to have those conference games…
I think it all depends on how you configure the playoff — if it focuses heavily on conference champions and you have a competitive conference, then games don’t become less exciting at all.
As it is, if Penn State had won out, we would have quite likely been stuck with a weak team from a weak conference playing for for the national title. In a playoff system, Penn State would make it in, but would hopefully be seeded appropriately (I say you use rankings, including some computer rankings to determine seeding).
The incentive to not schedule cream puffs, then, is to improve your rankings/rating and thus seeding. Those who win their conference AND play some good non-conference games get rewarded.
Comment by Wm Morris — November 19, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
Tim, as you said, this happens in the NFL as well (i.e. two teams that likely will meet in the Superbowl having a game that doesn’t affect whether the teams go to the playoffs) Does that make the NFL playoff bad?
There is still a little bit of excitement because there are probably 2 to 3 teams that still fight for playoff spots in the last week or so.
I don’t think teams would worry about seeding UNLESS there was some sort of home field advantage say for the first round of the playoffs. Seriously, here’s the top 8 in the BCS standings:
Alabama
Texas Tech
Texas
Florida
Oklahoma
USC
Utah
Penn St.
So the reward for the #1 seed in playing Penn St? That’s it? Not worth risking an injury to one of my starters.
To your other point about a playoff limiting big teams playing smaller teams. I don’t know. They have to play some non-conference games.
I think you misunderstood. They won’t play good small teams. Teams that have a legitimate shot of beating them. Instead, they’ll play Western Kentucky and Florida Atlantic and a D-2 team. But is anybody going to play Boise St.? Why would you? If you beat them, well, you should have beat them. But if you lose, your chances at getting into the tournament have been greatly jeopardized. Better to go with a guaranteed win. Remember, it’s easier to move down in the rankings via a loss, than it is to move up via a win.
Force every conference to expand to 12 teams and take on a championship game, with a total of 8 conferences. This levels the playing field a great deal. Seriously, you think Alabama is happy about having to play Florida in the SEC title game? You think the Big 12 South Champ really wants to risk losing to Mizzou when they have already proven themselves?
Have a 12 team playoff. 8 conference champs as automatic qualifiers plus four at-large bids. This could mean there are some nice incentives for regualar season play: Top four teams get a first round bye and the next four get to play at home.
LOL. Unfortunately what determines the conferences is a lot more than just football prowess.
Tim, I agree that big teams will schedule against weaker opponents, although that will affect their own rankings I think. But the point is that the good midtier teams will this way have a chance to play good non-conference games. Right now it’s a crap shoot whether they will. So I think overall you’ll get more good games this way. Yes the big non-conference matchups won’t be in regular play but you’ll get those games during the playoffs. So you’re not losing them – just moving them until the end of the year. But with more fairness about who gets to have them.
I agree that with non-conference games you’ll have more fluff. So say drop one non-conference game across the schedule so as to add room for playoff games.
I agree that big teams will schedule against weaker opponents, although that will affect their own rankings I think.
Possibly but not likely. Voters are always hesitant to move teams down in the rankings when they win, even if its against a lesser opponent. Meaning, if I have a pretty good idea I’ll be ranked in the top 10 in the preseason, I’m not going to take on any risks in the nonconference.
So you’re not losing them – just moving them until the end of the year.
See, this is the main argument against a playoff–it deemphasizes the regular season. It’s really the only downside.
My other idea for college football is a bit crazy, but the more I think about it, the more I like it.
Move the bowl games to the beginning of the year, much like College Basketball “preseason” tournaments. You hold the games over Labor Day weekend starting on Thursday with the major ones on Monday. You come up with a formula for matchups comprising of last year’s final poll and this year’s preseason poll plus some other factors. You could also host some of these games in Chicago, NY, Denver, and other large northern cities as well as the usual sites.
This would be a great way to kick off the season and at the same time force teams to play at least one top-tier team.
About your Texas Tech vs. Oklahoma in a world with a 16 team playoff scenario. Yes, it might take a little bit of luster off that game, but not all of it – and you would have 15 playoff games to offset this!
As far as scheduling down if there were a playoff. I don’t understand this logic. In the current system, a loss to a smaller good program like BYU/Utah/Boise is far more damaging to reaching your ultimate goal than it would be if you only had to make the top 16 instead of the top 2. You have a ton more wiggle room. A loss to Fresno St. wouldn’t end your season like it probably would now. So you would be MORE likely to schedule good games.
Meaning, if I have a pretty good idea I’ll be ranked in the top 10 in the preseason, I’m not going to take on any risks in the non-conference.
Teams won’t have this luxury. Most of the non-conference games are scheduled 5 years (or more) out.
I hate when defenders of the system say that it makes the regular season great because the regular season “is the playoffs.” Well, I’ve never heard of a team winning all of its playoff games, only to be declared the 15th best team in the league or so – as will happen with Ball St. You should keep playing until you lose.
Tim, re: 25, forcing conferences to go to 12 would be chaos. And because there would still be more than 8 conferences, how would you determine which get auto-quals?
The best system I have been able to think of is just like Mike D. mentions above. 16 team playoff. 11 conference champs plus five at-large. The first round is played at the home of the higher seeded team.
This solves all the problems:
-It offers everyone a chance, so you won’t have teams like Ball State complaining that they went undefeated and weren’t given a chance to prove themselves.
-It offers incentive to finish in the top 8, because you get to play at home. And it offers incentive to finish in the top few, because you get to play the champs from Sun Belt/C-USA/MAC.
-The focus on conference champions reduces the incentive to schedule fluff non-conference teams. Teams will be more at ease with scheduling difficult non-conference foes because a non-conference loss doesn’t eliminate their chances of getting into the championship and it doesn’t affect their chances of winning their conference at all. At the same time, non-conference games won’t be meaningless because they still factor into your seeding.
-Top teams that failed to earn their conference championship still have an opportunity to get in through one of the five at-large teams, which are determined by ranking.
Under this scenario, I really don’t think the TT-OU game is any less weighty.
And I would add, there would be no need to eliminate bowls for the teams not participating in the playoff. They would continue almost just the same as before.
Comment by Eric Russell — November 19, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Possibly but not likely. Voters are always hesitant to move teams down in the rankings when they win, even if its against a lesser opponent. Meaning, if I have a pretty good idea I’ll be ranked in the top 10 in the preseason, I’m not going to take on any risks in the nonconference
But of course that’s true now which is why it’s so hard to get good games.
What tends to determine games right now is whether a big game will draw big TV. But that’d be true with a playoff system as well.
Now that ESPN has signed with the BCS the chances of there being any changes have been reduced significantly. They had quite a bit of power to influence opinions (mostly of the fans), but now there’s no way you’re going to get a Mark May or Lee Corso suggesting the dire need of a playoff when it is in direct conflict with the interests of ESPN. And literally everyone (fans, players, coaches, sponsors, commissioners, etc.) is aware that the BCS system is inferior to a playoff. I wonder if there really is anything that Obama could do with his influence. Not legally or anything, but I wonder if he has any kind of leverage with these guys and would be willing to use it. I’ll tell you what, he could gain a lot of good-will in many of those red states (Texas!) if he did.
forcing conferences to go to 12 would be chaos. And because there would still be more than 8 conferences, how would you determine which get auto-quals?
Relegation, English-soccer style!
Yes, it might take a little bit of luster off that game, but not all of it – and you would have 15 playoff games to offset this!
Again, and just playing Devil’s advocate here, some would not want to condense 4 months of excitement down to only 3 weeks. Many people make March Madness as as a great argument for a football playoff, but, who cares about the college basketball regular season?
but now there’s no way you’re going to get a Mark May or Lee Corso suggesting the dire need of a playoff when it is in direct conflict with the interests of ESPN.
I don’t see this happening. They call out the NBA, Bud Selig, the NFL, etc. all the time.
There is one other complaint of a 16-team playoff, and that is asking ones fans to travel for 3 to 4 weeks in a row. Not sure how viable a complaint it is though.
Again, and just playing Devil’s advocate here, some would not want to condense 4 months of excitement down to only 3 weeks. Many people make March Madness as as a great argument for a football playoff, but, who cares about the college basketball regular season?
I don’t think it is fair to compare. College basketball teams play about 3x as many games. There are more at large spots for basketball, and sub .500 teams are able to make the tournament simply by getting hot for 4 games in their conference tournament instead of merit being placed on their regular season conference performance.
As long as college football keeps their playoff relatively small and keeps the regular season set up the same – those problems won’t apply.
Many people make March Madness as as a great argument for a football playoff, but, who cares about the college basketball regular season?
Isn’t that true of regular season NBA and NHL games? Yet those seem popular. The fact that there are so few football games probably makes their importance to be much greater. Especially if they determine conference championships. If anything the fact that becoming conference champ is so important then all the games become that much more important.
Yes, Greg, this is my annual, obligatory post about the screwed up BCS system. Don’t be a hater.
Comment by Rusty — November 18, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
Yeah, pretty much every fan I talk to prefers waiting for the computers to decide which two teams will play for the title rather than actually watching teams play in a playoff.
I’d love to see an 8 team playoff, but I think that 16 teams is better. 11 conference champs (a conference championship should mean something, even in the lowly “non-BCS” ones) and 5 at large teams, seeded according to their ranking. You could play some or all of the games at the traditional bowl stadiums, perhaps rotating the title game among the big 4 (Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose).
Comment by mike d. — November 18, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
That’s one way to unite Republicans and Democrats and heal the country.
I could handle an 8 team playoff.
Comment by Clark — November 18, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
This is an important issue? Seriously? What does Obama mean by “throw my weight around”? I voted for the guy, but c’mon…
Comment by BrianJ — November 18, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
It’s like a holiday tradition!
Comment by BTD Greg — November 18, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
His best idea by far.
And as scoffed at as this may be, it would generate a lot of good will from a lot of people. There are virtually no fans who would oppose a playoff. It is a very rare totally winning issue for a President.
Comment by John K. — November 18, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
The problem is that an 8 team playoff only solves half the problem. It doesn’t solve the problem of the undefeated mid-major team that ends up being ranked #9.
It’s got to be a 16 team deal. Or at least 12 with four byes. 8 is just too slim for a 120 team field.
Comment by Eric Russell — November 18, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
A 12 team set up with byes for PAC-10, Big 12, SEC and Big 10 should be a good compromise.
Comment by John K. — November 18, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
This is at least as important as deciding the Big Three Bailout Issue.
Comment by clark — November 18, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
No, his best idea so far is shutting down Club Gitmo. This is #2 though.
Comment by David J — November 19, 2008 @ 8:14 am
Gotta be 16 teams.
Comment by Last Lemming — November 19, 2008 @ 8:45 am
At this point, I’d be happy with 4 teams.
I will say I’m glad to see a Conference Commissioner not play the “we can’t take the kids out of school for that long” card. His argument for keeping the regular season as important as it is, is a legitimate one.
Comment by Tim J — November 19, 2008 @ 8:56 am
Wait, this is called Kulturblog.
What’s football doing in here?
Comment by D. Fletcher — November 19, 2008 @ 9:42 am
Why don’t they do it like Pro Baseball, and have every game of the season count towards the championship race? Is that not possible?
Comment by Ian Cook — November 19, 2008 @ 10:02 am
Why don’t they do it like Pro Baseball, and have every game of the season count towards the championship race?
LOL! Ivan, if by “championship race” you mean “quest for the World Series” then the answer is that every game of the college football season DOES count toward the championship. This is why the argument that Tim defends is deeply flawed. Like Eric Russell says, everyone throughout the season will just be jockeying for the top 8, 12 or 16 positions rather than just the top two. Then you get all of the playoff games which ADD excitement to the game, not take it away from the season.
Seriously, do any of you actually know of a single fan that defends the non-playoff system?
Comment by Rusty — November 19, 2008 @ 11:12 am
Er… Ian, not Ivan. Apologies Ivan.
Comment by Rusty — November 19, 2008 @ 11:13 am
Amen D. You Philistines.
Comment by Supergenius — November 19, 2008 @ 11:25 am
It’s only legitimate because we would never see any big non-conference games like Ohio St. vs. USC anymore. Nor will any of the big boys take a chance at losing to “lesser” teams like Utah, Boise St., BYU, Ball St., etc. I realize this is already happening to a certain degree, but I think a playoff might jeopardize this.
That being said, I’m totally for a playoff.
Comment by Tim J — November 19, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
If most of the spots are reserved for conference champions, then the advantage of facing cream puffs is somewhat removed. But I do think that Tim makes a good point.
Comment by Wm Morris — November 19, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
I’ll play devil’s advocate a little more.
Let’s take this weekend’s game of Texas Tech vs. Oklahoma. If we had a 16 team playoff or even an 8 team playoff, both teams would likely make it in regardless of this game’s outcome. The game all of a sudden becomes less exciting and perhaps wouldn’t even be played with a do-or-die mentality.
But with the current system, this game acts as a sort of de facto playoff game, the winner advances (for a chance to plat for the title) while the loser is likely eliminated.
It’s the same way with the upcoming SEC title game between Florida and Alabama. Winner will likely play for the title, while the loser gets a consolation prize. With a playoff where both of these teams would clearly qualify, would the coaches actually rest their starters to preserve them for the playoffs and treat this as an exhibition? It would be like the final couple of weeks of the NFL season. It’s an interesting question I think.
Comment by Tim J — November 19, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
Tim, as you said, this happens in the NFL as well (i.e. two teams that likely will meet in the Superbowl having a game that doesn’t affect whether the teams go to the playoffs) Does that make the NFL playoff bad?
Further in a 8 game playoff such games almost certainly will affect your standing in the playoffs and thus who you play. Something that can be very important. (Look at say the NBA playoffs for examples) So I think the effect would be quite different from the NFL.
To your other point about a playoff limiting big teams playing smaller teams. I don’t know. They have to play some non-conference games. Who are they going to pick? So I don’t see it making as big a difference as you do.
I do think it will affect scheduling. But let’s be honest – scheduling right now is largely a joke. Further you’re still going to have those conference games…
Comment by Clark — November 19, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
I think it all depends on how you configure the playoff — if it focuses heavily on conference champions and you have a competitive conference, then games don’t become less exciting at all.
As it is, if Penn State had won out, we would have quite likely been stuck with a weak team from a weak conference playing for for the national title. In a playoff system, Penn State would make it in, but would hopefully be seeded appropriately (I say you use rankings, including some computer rankings to determine seeding).
The incentive to not schedule cream puffs, then, is to improve your rankings/rating and thus seeding. Those who win their conference AND play some good non-conference games get rewarded.
Comment by Wm Morris — November 19, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
There is still a little bit of excitement because there are probably 2 to 3 teams that still fight for playoff spots in the last week or so.
I don’t think teams would worry about seeding UNLESS there was some sort of home field advantage say for the first round of the playoffs. Seriously, here’s the top 8 in the BCS standings:
Alabama
Texas Tech
Texas
Florida
Oklahoma
USC
Utah
Penn St.
So the reward for the #1 seed in playing Penn St? That’s it? Not worth risking an injury to one of my starters.
Comment by Tim J — November 19, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
I think you misunderstood. They won’t play good small teams. Teams that have a legitimate shot of beating them. Instead, they’ll play Western Kentucky and Florida Atlantic and a D-2 team. But is anybody going to play Boise St.? Why would you? If you beat them, well, you should have beat them. But if you lose, your chances at getting into the tournament have been greatly jeopardized. Better to go with a guaranteed win. Remember, it’s easier to move down in the rankings via a loss, than it is to move up via a win.
Comment by Tim J — November 19, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
I think what needs to happen in the following:
Force every conference to expand to 12 teams and take on a championship game, with a total of 8 conferences. This levels the playing field a great deal. Seriously, you think Alabama is happy about having to play Florida in the SEC title game? You think the Big 12 South Champ really wants to risk losing to Mizzou when they have already proven themselves?
Have a 12 team playoff. 8 conference champs as automatic qualifiers plus four at-large bids. This could mean there are some nice incentives for regualar season play: Top four teams get a first round bye and the next four get to play at home.
Comment by Tim J — November 19, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
Or just bring Boise St. and Fresno St. into the Mountain West and make the MWC another BCS conference.
Easy.
Comment by Rusty — November 19, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
LOL. Unfortunately what determines the conferences is a lot more than just football prowess.
Tim, I agree that big teams will schedule against weaker opponents, although that will affect their own rankings I think. But the point is that the good midtier teams will this way have a chance to play good non-conference games. Right now it’s a crap shoot whether they will. So I think overall you’ll get more good games this way. Yes the big non-conference matchups won’t be in regular play but you’ll get those games during the playoffs. So you’re not losing them – just moving them until the end of the year. But with more fairness about who gets to have them.
I agree that with non-conference games you’ll have more fluff. So say drop one non-conference game across the schedule so as to add room for playoff games.
Comment by Clark — November 19, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Possibly but not likely. Voters are always hesitant to move teams down in the rankings when they win, even if its against a lesser opponent. Meaning, if I have a pretty good idea I’ll be ranked in the top 10 in the preseason, I’m not going to take on any risks in the nonconference.
See, this is the main argument against a playoff–it deemphasizes the regular season. It’s really the only downside.
Comment by Tim J — November 19, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
My other idea for college football is a bit crazy, but the more I think about it, the more I like it.
Move the bowl games to the beginning of the year, much like College Basketball “preseason” tournaments. You hold the games over Labor Day weekend starting on Thursday with the major ones on Monday. You come up with a formula for matchups comprising of last year’s final poll and this year’s preseason poll plus some other factors. You could also host some of these games in Chicago, NY, Denver, and other large northern cities as well as the usual sites.
This would be a great way to kick off the season and at the same time force teams to play at least one top-tier team.
Comment by Tim J — November 19, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
Tim,
About your Texas Tech vs. Oklahoma in a world with a 16 team playoff scenario. Yes, it might take a little bit of luster off that game, but not all of it – and you would have 15 playoff games to offset this!
As far as scheduling down if there were a playoff. I don’t understand this logic. In the current system, a loss to a smaller good program like BYU/Utah/Boise is far more damaging to reaching your ultimate goal than it would be if you only had to make the top 16 instead of the top 2. You have a ton more wiggle room. A loss to Fresno St. wouldn’t end your season like it probably would now. So you would be MORE likely to schedule good games.
Teams won’t have this luxury. Most of the non-conference games are scheduled 5 years (or more) out.
I hate when defenders of the system say that it makes the regular season great because the regular season “is the playoffs.” Well, I’ve never heard of a team winning all of its playoff games, only to be declared the 15th best team in the league or so – as will happen with Ball St. You should keep playing until you lose.
Comment by John K. — November 19, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
Tim, re: 25, forcing conferences to go to 12 would be chaos. And because there would still be more than 8 conferences, how would you determine which get auto-quals?
The best system I have been able to think of is just like Mike D. mentions above. 16 team playoff. 11 conference champs plus five at-large. The first round is played at the home of the higher seeded team.
This solves all the problems:
-It offers everyone a chance, so you won’t have teams like Ball State complaining that they went undefeated and weren’t given a chance to prove themselves.
-It offers incentive to finish in the top 8, because you get to play at home. And it offers incentive to finish in the top few, because you get to play the champs from Sun Belt/C-USA/MAC.
-The focus on conference champions reduces the incentive to schedule fluff non-conference teams. Teams will be more at ease with scheduling difficult non-conference foes because a non-conference loss doesn’t eliminate their chances of getting into the championship and it doesn’t affect their chances of winning their conference at all. At the same time, non-conference games won’t be meaningless because they still factor into your seeding.
-Top teams that failed to earn their conference championship still have an opportunity to get in through one of the five at-large teams, which are determined by ranking.
Under this scenario, I really don’t think the TT-OU game is any less weighty.
And I would add, there would be no need to eliminate bowls for the teams not participating in the playoff. They would continue almost just the same as before.
Comment by Eric Russell — November 19, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
But of course that’s true now which is why it’s so hard to get good games.
What tends to determine games right now is whether a big game will draw big TV. But that’d be true with a playoff system as well.
Comment by Clark — November 19, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
Now that ESPN has signed with the BCS the chances of there being any changes have been reduced significantly. They had quite a bit of power to influence opinions (mostly of the fans), but now there’s no way you’re going to get a Mark May or Lee Corso suggesting the dire need of a playoff when it is in direct conflict with the interests of ESPN. And literally everyone (fans, players, coaches, sponsors, commissioners, etc.) is aware that the BCS system is inferior to a playoff. I wonder if there really is anything that Obama could do with his influence. Not legally or anything, but I wonder if he has any kind of leverage with these guys and would be willing to use it. I’ll tell you what, he could gain a lot of good-will in many of those red states (Texas!) if he did.
Comment by Rusty — November 19, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Relegation, English-soccer style!
Again, and just playing Devil’s advocate here, some would not want to condense 4 months of excitement down to only 3 weeks. Many people make March Madness as as a great argument for a football playoff, but, who cares about the college basketball regular season?
I don’t see this happening. They call out the NBA, Bud Selig, the NFL, etc. all the time.
There is one other complaint of a 16-team playoff, and that is asking ones fans to travel for 3 to 4 weeks in a row. Not sure how viable a complaint it is though.
Comment by Tim J — November 19, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
I don’t think it is fair to compare. College basketball teams play about 3x as many games. There are more at large spots for basketball, and sub .500 teams are able to make the tournament simply by getting hot for 4 games in their conference tournament instead of merit being placed on their regular season conference performance.
As long as college football keeps their playoff relatively small and keeps the regular season set up the same – those problems won’t apply.
Comment by John K. — November 19, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Isn’t that true of regular season NBA and NHL games? Yet those seem popular. The fact that there are so few football games probably makes their importance to be much greater. Especially if they determine conference championships. If anything the fact that becoming conference champ is so important then all the games become that much more important.
Comment by Clark — November 20, 2008 @ 12:04 am