[BostonCard]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ll-playoff

Our former Provost speaks on the college football playoff and advocates the status quo.  Interesting that resistance to expanding it cites March madness, and specifically its effect on the regular season.  Also interesting that the Big5 each having a guaranteed spot was viewed as a negative by the committee.

BC

[BostonCard]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ll-playoff

Our former Provost speaks on the college football playoff and advocates the status quo.  Interesting that resistance to expanding it cites March madness, and specifically its effect on the regular season.  Also interesting that the Big5 each having a guaranteed spot was viewed as a negative by the committee.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

The coaches want eitght I'm willing to bet.  As they accumulate more power and influence, it will be interesting to see how this evolves. 

The committee won't be nearly as relevant if the five power conference winners got in and they picked maybe three at large teams, so I'm sure there is a self-serving element in there as well. 

Adding one more game to the schedule to have eight teams doesn't seem like it would have a big impact when you consider most of these games are played during holiday break. The comparison to March Madness isn't so great, IMO.  Only the past their time bowls are negatively impacted by more teams in a playoff.  And, if you think about it, you stop many more kids playing more games by having more teams in a playoff of say eight teams, and letting the bowl games fade away into the dust bin of history.  In a playoff of eight, you get eight teams playing one more game, four teams playing two more games, and two teams playing three more games.  So in total, 14 team games.  Compare that to the bowl system where you have a possible 70 team games being played.  If you want to reduce the number of students playing more games, an 8-team playoff and ending the bowl system is the best way to do that, isn't it?

[OutsiderFan]

The coaches want eitght I'm willing to bet.  As they accumulate more power and influence, it will be interesting to see how this evolves. 

The committee won't be nearly as relevant if the five power conference winners got in and they picked maybe three at large teams, so I'm sure there is a self-serving element in there as well. 

Adding one more game to the schedule to have eight teams doesn't seem like it would have a big impact when you consider most of these games are played during holiday break. The comparison to March Madness isn't so great, IMO.  Only the past their time bowls are negatively impacted by more teams in a playoff.  And, if you think about it, you stop many more kids playing more games by having more teams in a playoff of say eight teams, and letting the bowl games fade away into the dust bin of history.  In a playoff of eight, you get eight teams playing one more game, four teams playing two more games, and two teams playing three more games.  So in total, 14 team games.  Compare that to the bowl system where you have a possible 70 team games being played.  If you want to reduce the number of students playing more games, an 8-team playoff and ending the bowl system is the best way to do that, isn't it?

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I think eight is the sweet spot.  I don't buy the argument that expanding to eight would water anything down, because it would still be ultra competitive.  Four is still better than two however, so I'm happy with the status quo.

However, can we (we as in the powers that be, of which I am not a part - so I should say they) all stop pretending like academics has any role in this?  If the dollars and cents add up (which I suspect they will), they will expand.  Period.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I think eight is the sweet spot.  I don't buy the argument that expanding to eight would water anything down, because it would still be ultra competitive.  Four is still better than two however, so I'm happy with the status quo.

However, can we (we as in the powers that be, of which I am not a part - so I should say they) all stop pretending like academics has any role in this?  If the dollars and cents add up (which I suspect they will), they will expand.  Period.

[BostonCard]

I think eight is the sweet spot.  I don't buy the argument that expanding to eight would water anything down, because it would still be ultra competitive.  Four is still better than two however, so I'm happy with the status quo.

However, can we (we as in the powers that be, of which I am not a part - so I should say they) all stop pretending like academics has any role in this?  If the dollars and cents add up (which I suspect they will), they will expand.  Period.

I think that's the problem.  College football has to stop doing things because the dollars and cents add up, or they give truth to the accusation that college athletics has become an illegal cartel of minor league teams that exploits and underpays its athletes. It has to start making decisions that adversely affect the bottom line explicitly for student welfare and academic reasons.  I really do believe that 15 game seasons are too long; as much as I love more college football I think that it has already gone far.  I recognize I'm in the minority here, but I don't feel that the college football playoff makes my college football watching experience better, and I certainly don't think that doing so when there is a chance that it affects academics in a negative way is worth it.

CFB needs to stop worrying about its format, its leagues, its schedule, and all those things, and work diligently towards improving the welfare of its athletes.  That means expanding the rights of players (for transfers and such), increasing the responsibility of schools to educate their athletes effectively, and pushing back against demands for more games or practices.  CFB is going to be vulnerable to accusations that it just pays lip service to the student part of student-athletes until it actually devotes as much time to that aspect as to the athletics aspect.  Otherwise, it risks killing the golden goose.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think eight is the sweet spot.  I don't buy the argument that expanding to eight would water anything down, because it would still be ultra competitive.  Four is still better than two however, so I'm happy with the status quo.

However, can we (we as in the powers that be, of which I am not a part - so I should say they) all stop pretending like academics has any role in this?  If the dollars and cents add up (which I suspect they will), they will expand.  Period.

I think that's the problem.  College football has to stop doing things because the dollars and cents add up, or they give truth to the accusation that college athletics has become an illegal cartel of minor league teams that exploits and underpays its athletes. It has to start making decisions that adversely affect the bottom line explicitly for student welfare and academic reasons.  I really do believe that 15 game seasons are too long; as much as I love more college football I think that it has already gone far.  I recognize I'm in the minority here, but I don't feel that the college football playoff makes my college football watching experience better, and I certainly don't think that doing so when there is a chance that it affects academics in a negative way is worth it.

CFB needs to stop worrying about its format, its leagues, its schedule, and all those things, and work diligently towards improving the welfare of its athletes.  That means expanding the rights of players (for transfers and such), increasing the responsibility of schools to educate their athletes effectively, and pushing back against demands for more games or practices.  CFB is going to be vulnerable to accusations that it just pays lip service to the student part of student-athletes until it actually devotes as much time to that aspect as to the athletics aspect.  Otherwise, it risks killing the golden goose.

BC