[washingtonismoney]

[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.

[washingtonismoney]

[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.