The CardBoard
Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! (/thread-3309.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - OutsiderFan - 05-15-2012

The Rose Bowl is an artifact of a no longer relevant past.  Evolution means creative destruction.  Whatever it takes to crown the best college football team champion is what should be done.  The 4-team playoff is silly.  It needs to be at least an 8-team deal or maybe 16. 

If other divisions in college football can expand already existing playoffs to what is it, 24 teams now, the highest division should be able to have a playoff featuring more than four teams.

The bowl system is disgusting.  It takes economic advantage of the schools that play in them, and the local bowl partnerships are ripe with kickback contracts for hotels and the like.  I couldn't be more ready for the bowls to go away and allow the schools to host their post-season games, until maybe the finals. 

If the Rose Bowl wants to bid on hosting the Championship Game every year, they are more than welcome to be the Omaha of College Football.

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - CowboyIndian - 05-15-2012

(05-15-2012, 03:52 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Whatever it takes to crown the best college football team champion is what should be done. 

I agree with a lot of what you offer...but not this. Why do we need to crown anyone? I really don't understand this compulsion to have just one team standing at the end. All that tells us is who is the best team in the last couple of weeks...or more likely, whose injuries have healed in time for the post-season.

I love college football and I especially love what makes it unique, which means the bowls and arguing for 8 months about who's really the best. Vive la difference!

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - terry - 05-15-2012

Why is the goal to crown the best college football team? Does "crowning a champion" bring the greatest benefit to all of the students, student-athletes, and universities who participate in football? Or is it possible that, on balance, the bowl system brings more collective benefits to the students, student-athletes, and universities?

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - fullmetal - 05-15-2012

Rankings fuel a market for fans to claim supremacy through affiliation/loyalty...it drives the sports market.  There's that green monster again...

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - oman - 05-16-2012

(05-15-2012, 06:56 PM)terry link Wrote:Why is the goal to crown the best college football team?

Because we are a society that values the exceptional and the best at certain times, such as at the end of a sports season.

Quote:Does "crowning a champion" bring the greatest benefit to all of the students, student-athletes, and universities who participate in football?

To me, personally, the best system would be a college system similar to the EPL.  You have five or so divisions and relegation and promotion. 

I look at Stanford and I think that I would have enjoyed the last two seasons just as much if Stanford had played in a playoff rather than in the two big bowl games.  I am not sure beating the hell out of VaTech was all that beneficial to be honest.

Quote:Or is it possible that, on balance, the bowl system brings more collective benefits to the students, student-athletes, and universities?

Anything is possible.  I think the bowl system benefits the bowls.


And everyone loves the Rose Bowl.
[Image: vince-young.jpg]

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - OutsiderFan - 05-16-2012

Wait a minute.  To all of those who question the need to crown a college football champion...

I seem to remember many a Stanford fan beating their chest about winning so many NCAA championships.  If there is no champion crowned in D1A football, why should there be one crowned in women's water polo or women's soccer, or men's gymnastics or basketball?  Wouldn't it be better to argue over who the best team is?

And why stop there?  Why even bother with a scoreboard during games?  Why not have everyone just play for the exercise?  This may sound a bit silly, but the reality is the single most critical factor in determining interest in sports is uncertainty of outcome, in the context of that certainty being settled on the field of play.  In other words, keeping score and crowning the champion is what drives interest in sports.

It isn't possible to make a winning argument that a college football playoff will yield less interest and in turn less revenue, than any other structure.  Suggesting otherwise is to deny the laws of sports sociology, and in direct contradiction to all available facts. There simply is no way leaving the champion up for debate is going to create the most revenue for colleges and universities, and that is their imperative almost universally.

One can argue there shouldn't be a playoff to crown a champion, for reasons other than what will create the most interest and revenue.  However, given the economic realities of 2012, it's tough to argue the luxury exists to exempt college football from market forces. 

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - Renaissance Man - 05-16-2012

I absolutely agree.  The people who think that the unending debate over colege football supremacy is a good thing are the same people who think that umpires missing calls that change the outcome of a baseball game is a desirable part of baseball tradition.  Maybe the NFL could end the season on an arbitrary date, and then schedule a Super Bowl between teams with the most vocal fan base--we could watch New York and Dallas every year!

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - oman - 05-16-2012

(05-16-2012, 10:47 AM)garvin link Wrote:Unless you're planning to include 32 or 64 teams, there is no equitable way to create a college-football playoff.

Equity almost never involves a precise and objectively fair determination.  A four or eight team or 32 or 64 group of teams picked in a subjectively fair way would all be "equitable".  It may not be perfect and it may not be the best.

I am not sure if anyone is trying to do other than get a system that allows for the top teams to play some sort of tournament format.  Because in general, people find a "finals" type format to be the best indicator of who is currrently playing the best.

As a Stanford fan, you would not have enjoyed an eight team playoff over the last two years?

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - fullmetal - 05-16-2012

Hey, it's a game.  That's all.

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - oman - 05-16-2012

(05-16-2012, 10:34 AM)Renaissance Man link Wrote:I absolutely agree.  The people who think that the unending debate over colege football supremacy is a good thing are the same people who think that umpires missing calls that change the outcome of a baseball game is a desirable part of baseball tradition. 

I don't.

But I don't really care all that much about baseball. 

I do think a tradition like the Rose Bowl (Big10 v. Pac10) is swell, but if it gets in the way of what benefits college football, my priority is with college football as a whole.

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - OutsiderFan - 05-16-2012

(05-16-2012, 10:47 AM)garvin link Wrote:Unless you're planning to include 32 or 64 teams, there is no equitable way to create a college-football playoff.

Don't know about 32, but absolutely more than four teams.  I'd be OK with 8, and would be satisfied with 16.  Would there ever have been a year where there would have been a hue and cry because the #17 team didn't get a shot at the crystal football?  Highly doubtful. 

Usually there really aren't more than 5-6 teams that could legitimately be considered a possible champion.  The rest would be there to pull off some kind of equitable format that allows more teams to have a shot, and so there can be geometrically symmetrical brackets.  You want to have enough teams to have that potential for the storybook upset.  That really creates greater interest.  A four team structure absolutely fails to deliver this dynamic. 

The fact they are only considering four teams and want to find a way to keep the bowls involved, is a clear indication of how much power the bowls hold over college football.  The iron grip they have on the game has to be broken.



Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - washingtonismoney - 05-16-2012

(05-16-2012, 12:06 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=garvin link=topic=5919.msg43658#msg43658 date=1337190441]
Unless you're planning to include 32 or 64 teams, there is no equitable way to create a college-football playoff.

Don't know about 32, but absolutely more than four teams.  I'd be OK with 8, and would be satisfied with 16.  Would there ever have been a year where there would have been a hue and cry because the #17 team didn't get a shot at the crystal football?  Highly doubtful. 

Usually there really aren't more than 5-6 teams that could legitimately be considered a possible champion.  The rest would be there to pull off some kind of equitable format that allows more teams to have a shot, and so there can be geometrically symmetrical brackets.  You want to have enough teams to have that potential for the storybook upset.  That really creates greater interest.  A four team structure absolutely fails to deliver this dynamic. 

The fact they are only considering four teams and want to find a way to keep the bowls involved, is a clear indication of how much power the bowls hold over college football.  The iron grip they have on the game has to be broken.
[/quote]

A few points:

1) The issue I have with playoff size--I'm a playoff supporter in general--is that eventually they'll dilute the tournament for money. You can see it with March Madness, when they expanded from 64 to a highly-unwieldy 68. Personally I'm rarely particularly interested in seeing anything past team #32, so I would want contraction to 32 if I had my druthers.

2) Their supporting bowls isn't because the bowls have power over them, I don't think. My guess is the play is this: if you do on-campus playoff games, the political pressure to let students in at discounted prices and bands, etc., plus the lack of luxury suites, lessens opportunities for money-grubbing. At an NFL stadium or the Rose Bowl, they can charge brobdingnagian prices and get away with it. The tradition of bowls serves as a convenient excuse in this instance. That's really too bad from a sporting and branding perspective, I think. In terms of branding for TV: you can tell the difference almost palpably in person or on the tube between an on-campus game and one in a (generally sterile) NFL stadium. It detracts from the experience. But then again I'm sure they've got an army of accountants and consultants on this thing.

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - OutsiderFan - 05-16-2012

(05-16-2012, 12:16 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:2) Their supporting bowls isn't because the bowls have power over them, I don't think. My guess is the play is this: if you do on-campus playoff games, the political pressure to let students in at discounted prices and bands, etc., plus the lack of luxury suites, lessens opportunities for money-grubbing. At an NFL stadium or the Rose Bowl, they can charge of extremely large proportions prices and get away with it. The tradition of bowls serves as a convenient excuse in this instance. That's really too bad from a sporting and branding perspective, I think. In terms of branding for TV: you can tell the difference almost palpably in person or on the tube between an on-campus game and one in a (generally sterile) NFL stadium. It detracts from the experience. But then again I'm sure they've got an army of accountants and consultants on this thing.

Fair point on the stadiums.  The thing to keep in mind is that it is all about games on TV or any other screens.  The students won't get in for cheap because the games would be sanctioned by the NCAA, like the Pac-12 Championship ticket prices were way higher than the typical regular season games.  I don't think the minor bowls have much clout, but they all belong to the College Football Bowl Association, and that is a strong lobby.  If they didn't know how much they had to lose (and how much the NCAA members could gain) as a result of the bowls going away, there would be no need for all the lobbying and gamesmanship going on with the college football post season.  The bowls would never tell the NCAA out of the goodness of their hearts how much more money it could make by doing away with them.






Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - jacketree - 05-16-2012

(05-15-2012, 03:52 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Whatever it takes to crown the best college football team champion is what should be done.

Just one change and I completely agree with you.  Forget crowning the "best" (subjective anyway), just crown. I'm sure if most college athletes in any sport are asked whether they would prefer a season ending championship tournament or a single-game exhibition (even one where they get to visit Disneyland), they would affirm the former. At least I'd hope so.  My own son begins his 3rd CCS championship on Thursday and they all love it, and hope to play the four games it takes.

I also agree that a four-team playoff is silly.  But fear not, four or eight super-conferences are the future and it will be easy to take conference playoff champions through a two or three game tournament to determine a national champion on the field.  Frankly basketball could go the same route. Imagine how important conference tournaments would be if they determined who plays for the NCAA title. Still just as mad and just as March.

You can have the Rose Bowl.  My ultimate memory of the Grandaddy will be of an awful game from an awful seat after spending an awful night listening to gunfire. I was even pulled over on the way down. Driving while middle-aged seemed to be the charge.  (I mean really, CHP in San Martin has nothing better to do than spring on unsuspecting forest green minivans?)



Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - Farm93 - 05-16-2012

I believe 4 is a step in a process to 8 or 16.

4 as a number stinks given the current balance of power.  A slot is definitely going to the SEC champ.  0 loss, 2 loss or 4 loss SEC champ, it won't matter they will have one of the 4 slots.  This means the rest of D1 football is fighting over 3 slots.  My guess is that it will be possible for the SEC to get two slots, but hopefully that won't happen too often.

The Pac-12, Big 12 and BigTen likely are willing to run with 4 because they can imagine a world where they each get one of the three other slots.  However, the MWC, the Big East and the ACC probably also would imagine that their teams will slide into one of the three slots.  So, after a few years lawsuits would begin to bubble up.  Still 4 seems more likely to help the Pac-12 than the 2 of today, so 4 is probably better for the Pac-12 over the next decade.  I guess I need to see how the system discourages runner-ups from participating in the final 4.

4 definitely kills the Rose Bowl of the 1950s-90s because the BigTen or Pac12 champ should be in that Final Four every year.  Not too much of a problem for me.  The 1999 Rose Bowl was not THAT much better than either BCS game, and I am confident Stanford in the Final Four would be more exciting than that 1999 Rose Bowl experience.

8 slots creates a different small problem because even I can concede that the second and third best SEC teams are likely better than the Big East, MWC, MEAC or WAC champ.  So would the SEC always get 2 bids or even 3 bids, or would quality non-AQ conferences get automatic bids?

Down at 16 fairness problems seem to get solved.  There would be room for 2 or 3 nonAQ schools and room for multiple teams from AQ conferences.  Those in the mid teens likely will fight over the last few spots, but honestly none of the teams in that range could rightfully claim that the system is unfair as all of them would have at least a few bad games in their season.

So 16 feels great, but the problem with 16 is that the AQ conference championship games would likely become meaningless.  And most conferences with money have learned to like their conference love fest.

The FCS is the guide for how the playoffs could be structured.  The higher seed hosts the games, and the Championship game is at a neutral site.

No perfect solution seems to be in play, but saving the bowl games is not something I would trouble myself over.  The Rose Bowl has a decent argument, but saving the Rose Bowl saves the likes of the San Diego County Credit Union Bowl too.  The real problem is that all of the extra games are put on the backs, and heads, of student athletes that get so little out of the deal and risk so much.  Most other sports are not so bad for the athlete's health, so the extra contests do not burden the organizers with such a profound ethical dilemma.

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - terry - 05-16-2012

There seem to be four major arguments in favor of a playoff system. I don't think any of those arguments are persuasive.

First, there's the argument that "other sports have a playoff."

This argument uncritically assumes that major college football is just like every other sport. But it's not. Major college football is different from any other sport because major college football has a great, unique tradition: the bowl system. The bowl system is a well-established, longstanding, successful, post-season structure. No other sport has anything like the bowls. Yes, "other sports have a playoff," but they didn't have a strong, viable, established alternative, as college football does.

In fact, I think the "other sports have a playoff" argument cuts the other way. That's a good reason for college football NOT to have a playoff. College football should not try to be just like college basketball, or college water polo, or any other sport. College football certainly should not try to be like the NFL. College football's bowl system is a unique tradition. Dumping a great tradition so that college football can be like other sports would be like tearing down a beautiful old historic building and putting up a Walmart just because the other towns have Walmarts. College football should cherish and cultivate the traditions that make it unique, instead of dumping them so the college game can resemble every other sport.

The bowl system is part of the fabric and tradition of college football, part of the "brand." There's value in knowing and celebrating what you are and what makes you unique, rather than just assuming you should imitate others. Did Steve Jobs say "Apple should dump its approach and focus on Windows-compatible products" just because everyone else was doing it?

The relevant question isn't "why should college football be different." College football has been tremendously successful while following its own path. Rather, the relevant question is "why should college football change its unique, successful, post-season tradition for the sake of being like all the other sports?"

A second argument in favor of a playoff is that it would make more money than the bowl system.

OutsiderFan asserts that the goal of college football -- the "imperative" in his words -- is to bring in revenue. No, no, no. The goal of college sports most certainly is NOT to bring in revenue. If revenue were the goal of college sports, almost all colleges would have just two sports teams, football and men's basketball. The other sports don't make money. But colleges participate in other sports anyway. Obviously, revenue is not the goal of college sports programs. Bringing in revenue to fund the athletic program is a good thing. But it shouldn't be the most important thing.

We're talking about colleges. Their goal is education, not profit. Shouldn't we think about college football in the context of the university's educational goals? Shouldn't we adopt the structure that is most consistent with those goals?

It seems to me that the goal of college sports is to provide an activity that has educational value for the student-athletes, that enhances the experience of the student body as a whole, and that enhances the life of the broader university community. Most sports have post-season tournaments that contribute to these goals. College football has a bowl system that contributes to these goals. Before scrapping the bowl system in favor of a playoff, we should ask whether the goals of college sports are better served by the bowls or by a playoff.

I think the educational goals of the university are better served better by the bowl system than by a playoff.  A bowl provides a travel opportunity with plenty of advance notice and usually to a nice destination, and it allows students to earn a reward for their efforts. A bowl provides a valuable unifying experience for the student-athletes, students, and alumni at a number of schools, who can rally around a single game. A playoff probably will bring more of the worst aspects of college football -- more lost class time, more pressure to win at any cost, more incentive to cheat, probably more risk of injury. A playoff would reduce the opportunity for the students and alumni to have a unifying shared experience, as some people would attend earlier round games, while others would pass on the early games and hope to attend later round games if the team advances. I have trouble thinking of educational benefits to the students and the university community that require a playoff rather than a bowl.

A third argument in favor of a playoff is that a playoff supposedly is a better way of determining a champion.

In my view, a playoff wouldn't be any more likely than the current system to identify the "best team." All we would know was which team won the playoff -- which may or may not be the best team in the nation. Playoff systems in other sports often result in a champion that clearly is not the "best team." Rather, playoff systems reward the team that gets hot at the right time. The current BCS system, in which the top two teams are matched, probably is better than a playoff system as a method of identifying the best team, because it restricts the possible champion to the top two teams. In an 8-team or 16-team playoff, you inevitably will get champions who clearly weren't one of the top two or three or four teams, but merely happened to get hot at the right time. (OutsiderFan argues that the possibility of having an inferior team win the championship is an advantage of a playoff. I think that's just silly.)

Those who advocate a playoff tend to fall back on the idea that the team that wins a playoff is by definition the "best team" because it won the playoff. But that's a circular argument.

A fourth argument in favor of a playoff is that a playoff system is needed to end controversy, such as controversy about which teams are selected for the BCS championship game, or controversy when there's a split championship.

But there always will be controversy over the selection process, regardless of whether teams are being selected for the BCS championship or for a playoff field. The posts in this thread show some of the issues that will arise in trying to select a field. A playoff wouldn't end the controversy.

More generally, I don't think controversy over a national champion in football is a bad thing. I think it can be good for the game. The controversy may even increase interest in college football.

The premise of a playoff system is that we need a system in which we can guarantee season-ending losses for all the best teams except one, so that only one team is left standing. But it seems to me that there are advantages to having half of the top teams end their seasons with a win. That can be a good thing for the student-athletes, the student body, and the alumni. Think of Stanford's Orange Bowl win a year ago. That was a very satisfying conclusion. Four other teams also ended their seasons with BCS wins. Would the collective experience of those teams and those universities have been better if they had kept playing until all but one of them finished their seasons with a loss? I don't think so.

College football has thrived without a playoff system for years. The bowl system has a lot of virtues. Being the Orange Bowl champion is terrific thing in itself. It's unique to college football, and I think it's a good thing. I don't see why it would be an improvement to have a system in which being the Orange Bowl champion just means you get to keep playing until you lose.

I'd hate to throw away something as unique and successful as the bowl system in the dubious interest of crowning a champion through a system that doesn't provide a superior result and doesn't serve the goals of the university as well.

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - Farm93 - 05-16-2012

Terry,

OK time to leave the 1940s.  The goal of EVERY D1 FBS AD is to make money in football, and make a boat load of it.  At a simple level the money in football is needed to fund all of those money draining Title IX sports that are mandated by law.  (Not a Stanford view of women's sports, but a very common view)

Of course, in many states the football team needs to do well because a strong football team allegedly increases donations to the university, increases applications and even improves the perception of politicians in office.  Money improves the product, so more money is better.

The Pac-"12" exists because of money.  The BigTen exists because of money.  The 4 time zone Big East exists because of money.

But forget all of that football history, this playoff system will be implemented because it will make money.  If it was a money loser, like say the NCAA Fencing Championships, then college football would not have a playoff.  As it stands it is very clear that the Final Four format will generate BILLIONS for the NCAA.  The top, and only, reason a playoff system will be implemented at the FBS level will be money.  The fans and viewers might like those other reasons you cited, but without the big money the playoff concept is killed instantly.

Money, money, money....is why it will happen.

It is only because the student-athletes will get nothing that everyone pretends there are other reasons, but there is only one.  Money.  One NCAA problem is that eventually somebody will die playing in the playoffs and then the NCAA will have to fess up and admit that a "student"-athlete gave his life so that the system could make a few more billion dollars.

The system will discover that 8 teams will make more money than 4 teams.  Then the system will embrace 16 teams.  Once the bowls become insignificant in the equation the remaining counter arguments will be some notion of athlete safety and/or fear of athlete unionization/legal representation.

But all the while...money will drive the expansion.

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - Farm93 - 05-16-2012

(05-16-2012, 03:29 PM)garvin link Wrote:Another problem with a playoff is that to make it at all inclusive expands the season by an inordinate amount. A 16-team playoff would be a 33 percent increase in the length of the season for teams who go all the way. (That's on top of a 20 percent increase, from 10 games to 12, over the last 30 years or so.)

And a lot of those games -- if the format being talked about here, playing on the home field of the higher seed -- will take place in miserable conditions for players and spectators alike. Nebraska or Penn State or Michigan or Ohio State or Syracuse or Boise State or the University of South Bend in late December? With the kids gone from campus? The whole point of the bowls was to play the games in pleasant winter visiting spots. Admittedly a few of the bowl games push the envelope. But a playoff system tears it open.

Garvin the FCS plays home games in Montana and North Dakota OUTDOORS in December now.  Weather is not going to be a problem.  Those fine people in Michigan and Nebraska will DEFINITELY attend a playoff game at the Big House.  Definitely, definitely, definitely.  My guess is that tickets would run $1000 per seat easily.  Michigan ticket revenue alone would be $100 million.  The students would leave their parents in a heartbeat.  Why, in most states the parents would try to buy the kids tickets and tell them to watch the younger kids.

Ever notice that the Packers play their playoff games in January outdoors.  It will not be an issue.  If anything it will bring the sport back to its true roots and away from the current post-season regional bias towards warm states.

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - CowboyIndian - 05-16-2012

Farm93....You're telling us why it "will" happen, which is not the argument. We question why it "should" happen.

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - oman - 05-16-2012

Farm93 -- not sure why you feel compelled to speak for those who want some kind of playoff.  The only one of your four reasons I would want one is your third.

I think the argument that a playoff  will only find the hottest team is true for any playoff.  So okay, I want to know the hottest team.  I want to know if OK State or Stanford can beat LSU or Alabama.  Why the heck don't we just eliminate the knockout stages of the World Cup and do it every two years?  Because people want to see a champion.

I think four teams is a no brainer.  I think whatever controversy caused by not letting the 5th and 6th teams in will be completely swallowed by the drama of the four team playoff.  I think eight teams is too much within the current system we have. 

I think your approach is a thoughtful one and maybe it makes a lot of sense from the Stanford perspective. 

No matter how problematic you find a playoff system, the bowl system seems far less predictable and satisfying to most football fans.  And probably ADs.