Bowl Games

[Spence]

Actually, after reading about how many of the bowls struggle to make money, a 'playoff' of 64 teams might not be the worst arrangement. It could be organized immediately following the season, and would require 6 weeks to complete, approximately the same amount of time the bowls do.
And, again compared to last year's model, 64 vs. 56 teams are allowed to compete, and there were teams 'on the bubble' not selected.
But, I'm a traditionalist. I would still much prefer a competitive BCS to an 'all out' playoff.
I am inclined to think a playoff would be more profitable, but you are correct it would likely negatively impact the regular season.
All the more reason, in my opinion, for a BCS, competitively arranged.
It solves both problems, fairly.

The bowls only require a couple of weeks. There is just a gap in time between them. Most of that time is because that is around the time of finals for most schools.

I 64 game playoff would be hugely expensive. It costs alot more to to a football game then it does a b-ball games. It would also be next to impossible to get fans to shell out the money for an extra six games. Ohio State gets $58.00 a game for regular season games. can you imagine what play-off games would be? Also the travel involved would be prohibitive. Basketball teams travel less then 25 people. Football would require travel for over 100 people.

Even if they do decide on a playoff system at some point, it wouldn't consist of more then 8 or 10 teams. 64 teams just isn't doable for football.

[mountainman]

I get your point, Spence, but the 100 for a football team is actually twice that (players, coaches, trainers, equipment guys, etc) and don't forget the band and cheerleaders.... that adds another 500 or so. Your point of the expense of moving a football program and all that goes with it is well taken.

[Spence]

I get your point, Spence, but the 100 for a football team is actually twice that (players, coaches, trainers, equipment guys, etc) and don't forget the band and cheerleaders.... that adds another 500 or so. Your point of the expense of moving a football program and all that goes with it is well taken.

I don't know how many are part of the travel squad. As far as the players go, though, they don't travel the whole group. Usually no redshirt players travel and no non scholarship players would go, unless they were playing. I was trying to hit it on the low side and still make the point. But yes, it involves a lot more people then it would take to travel with basketball. Even if they cut it to the bone, the smaller schools couldn't come up with the cash it would take to make a run. Most of the larger schools would have trouble doing it also.

[colorado_loves_football]

The bowls only require a couple of weeks. There is just a gap in time between them. Most of that time is because that is around the time of finals for most schools.

I 64 game playoff would be hugely expensive. It costs alot more to to a football game then it does a b-ball games. It would also be next to impossible to get fans to shell out the money for an extra six games. Ohio State gets $58.00 a game for regular season games. can you imagine what play-off games would be? Also the travel involved would be prohibitive. Basketball teams travel less then 25 people. Football would require travel for over 100 people.

Even if they do decide on a playoff system at some point, it wouldn't consist of more then 8 or 10 teams. 64 teams just isn't doable for football.

That's true in some respect, but the reality is that the bowls, in general, require more time than you are admitting.
The New Orleans Bowl, traditionally is played, Mid-December.
I have heard, that they will likely be playing later on, so let's just say December 20. The BCS championship will be played one week following the Jan. 1 bowl games. Conservatively, we are talking 3 weeks, but it's getting closer to 4, beginning to end.

But, we'll apply the 3-week argument, for convenience sake. In the course of those 3 weeks, 28 bowls are played, pairing 56 teams together.

A 64-team playoff would require 63 games, beginning-to-end, more than twice the number the bowls presently require.

However, there are advantages to playing the games 'consecutively'.
Each week, 1/2 of the previous week's teams are gone. By the time 8 teams are left, 4/6 weeks required are gone. The remaining two weeks are 'gravy', similar to if the BCS were to adopt a 'competitive' format.

And of the 63 games, 56 would have already been played. Most of the games happen in the first 3 weeks! Exactly twice as many games, played within the same timeframe.

So, the key difference between a 'playoff' and the bowl structure, other than traditon would appear to be scheduling, costs associated with it. And you still have to play the last 7 games.

All things being equal I'd say both (playoff & competitive BCS) are a better arrangement than the present model. But, I do agree that a playoff could take some luster off the regular season. I'm not sure a BCS 'playoff' would.

Someone should do a comprehensive analysis of it (64-team playoff).
maybe the bowls could be 'saved' within it's structure, somehow. If nothing else, I think it keeps the heart of the bowl structure alive.
Fewer teams admitted, sullys the bowls. More teams makes it too inclusive. 64 teams, maybe is the best way to go about it, playoff wise.

[Spence]

So, the key difference between a 'playoff' and the bowl structure, other than traditon would appear to be scheduling, costs associated with it. And you still have to play the last 7 games.

All things being equal I'd say both (playoff & competitive BCS) are a better arrangement than the present model. But, I do agree that a playoff could take some luster off the regular season. I'm not sure a BCS 'playoff' would.

The difference is that teams are only away from campus for 1 week prior to the bowls. They would have to travel six times in six weeks to make a run in a playoff. Not a good idea.

[Jason G]

My perspective on the number of bowls may be a little different than most. Two years ago Akron was the only bowl-eligible school in the nation that did not go to a bowl game despite finishing with an identical record, both conference and overall, to Marshall who did get an invite. This happened despite the fact that the Zips won the head-to-head meeting between the two.
That year I believe there were 28 bowls and 58 bowl-eligible teams but because of the South Carolina-Clemson brawl the pool of teams the bowls were choosing from only numbered 57.

Based on the numbers alone I would say that the number of bowls is fine. If you add more than one more bowl you are opening the possibilty of having teams with losing records make the postseason.

The only thing I'd like to see change with the bowl structure is WHO goes not how many teams go. In most years I agree that the mix between BCS schools and non-BCS schools is pretty good but this is not always the case. I hate to see schools that are 8-3 in leagues like the MAC have to stay home while there are 9 or 10 schools with 6-5 (in a wide variety of conferences) records playing in bowls.

The biggest thing that needs changed with the bowls are the tie-ins in my opinion. A few more of the lower tier bowls should have one conference tied in and have the other spot as an at-large. Also, if a bowl has a tie-in of Big Ten #5 vs. SEC #5 then they should have to take the 5th place (6th if two conf teams in the BCS) team from these leagues not get the 5th "pick" of teams. I hate it when a school like Northwestern, Ole Miss, or Iowa State, despite having a better season, plays in a lesser bowl game than a bigger name school in their conference.

One more point, I wouldn't mind a bowl in Toronto if it would attract fans. It could be a great experience for the players and programs involved if done correctly. Bowls, especially the lesser-known ones, are about more than the games themselves. They are celebratory events for the schools as well as the regions that host them.

[mountainman]

Good points for consideration and debate, gentlemen.

I'm sure your positions will get wallowed around and around around here.

[bama_girl]

i voted more games = more football,
they can have as many as they want to but they should always keep the old favorites (the ones named after fruit and baking goods) as the big deals, nobody takes the smaller ones seriously but they are fun to watch.

[ktffan]

Even if they do decide on a playoff system at some point, it wouldn't consist of more then 8 or 10 teams. 64 teams just isn't doable for football.

Did you mean 8 or 16? If they have 10, it'll require another week anyways so you might as well have 16.

[mountainman]

The Big Ten and Pac-10, if memory serves me correctly, stated during the last flare-up when Congress held a sub-committees hearing on the BCS that they would not support or be a part of a playoff in D-1A football. They would instead withdraw from consideration and resume their post season game with the Rose Bowl.

The Big XII has said they are not in favor of a playoff, The Big East has said they are not in favor of a playoff. Not sure about the SEC and ACC and don't recall seeing anything either way except the new SEC commissioner, who currently heads the BCS oversight committee says he sees no change.

There is simply no momentum, at this time, for a playoff in D-1A football among the college and university presidents ....... and they are the ones that call the shots.

[ktffan]

Playoffs won't happen. However, there's no reason not to discuss them.

[colorado_loves_football]

Even if they do decide on a playoff system at some point, it wouldn't consist of more then 8 or 10 teams. 64 teams just isn't doable for football.

Did you mean 8 or 16? If they have 10, it'll require another week anyways so you might as well have 16.

We are applying the ten-team model because it works within the BCS, as presently organized.

Other advantages to that arrangement, is that should conferences decide to 'reunite' (WAC & MWC) that would also allow for a ten-team format, by representation.

Nevertheless, I dont' see how 64-teams is over-represenatation. I can think of several 'good' teams that weren't selected to a bowl. Someone mentioned C. Michigan, but unless I'm mistaken W. Michigan wasn't invited, either. And, in the Sun-Belt, two teams (Louisiana Tech & Louisiana-Monroe) were both denied an invitation. Now we are at 60.

There aren't 4 more teams legitimately qualified for a bowl bid? Well, I can think of two, off the top of my head, Louisana Tech (7-4) and New Mexico (6-5). We've likely run the 'gamut' of teams, not selected, that 'earned' a bid, but that puts us at 62. If we can't find two teams, then just give USC & Texas a 'bye'.

There would be 6 weeks necessary to 'complete' it, beginning to end, but 56/64 would be 'gone' by January 1. The 'elite' 8 would then be allowed to play in a 'BCS-style' arrangement, followed by two semi-finals, and a championship game. It would definitely be the 'best' arrangement, from a competitive standpoint. 6 weeks isn't exceptionally long.

The present format (29 bowls) will require close to a month to do. The additional 2 weeks would require a 'preliminary' round of 32 games, and a 'semi-final' round of two games. The remaining games, approximates the present format (29 games). They could even be held in traditional bowl venues, to maintain a 'traditionalist' format. The preliminary games could be held in 'neutral' sites, similar to how champioinship games are arranged.

Can you see now why I prefer that the BCS adopt a 'playoff'?

[mountainman]

Could not agree more, ktffan ....... discussion, debate, and argument is what this all about.

There's a bunch of that going on around here.

[Eric]

Guys, what are we talking about here? A 64 team playoff would require 6 weeks to do. So if you start in the 20s of December, you'll end up in February. That is too long for football!

You seriously think that UL Lafayette "earned" a bid to a bowl game? You're saying the Ragin' Cajuns were snubbed this year?

It would take 6 weeks; that's too long. If you're going to do a playoff, you'd have to take 16 teams at most. The thing with bowl games is it's one and done. There aren't any more games to be played after that one takes place for that specific team. The reason I don't have a problem with 56 teams getting in is that it doesn't take 6 weeks to play. I think what you're asking for is a little unrealistic, CLF.

[ktffan]

You seriously think that UL Lafayette "earned" a bid to a bowl game? You're saying the Ragin' Cajuns were snubbed this year?

Without looking I bet I can guess who said this.