enigmaax wrote:
You think seven games with eight different teams is going to generate more than seven games with 14 different teams? Or 15 games with 16 teams is worth more than 15 games with 30 teams? You are counting on a lot of repeat business there for a couple of things that aren't all that unique.

but what if the 12 teams that lose in the first 2 rounds go to a bowl after that?

NOL fan wrote:

enigmaax wrote:
You think seven games with eight different teams is going to generate more than seven games with 14 different teams? Or 15 games with 16 teams is worth more than 15 games with 30 teams? You are counting on a lot of repeat business there for a couple of things that aren't all that unique.

but what if the 12 teams that lose in the first 2 rounds go to a bowl after that?

That is just adding games for the sake of adding games. One is going to take away from another no matter how you cut it. As a fan, am I going to spend my money going to the first playoff game, try and hold out for a second playoff game, or wait for a likely bowl which would then be even more meaningless than the current bowls? Adding bowls after playoff losses just circles right back around to trying not to add too many games for too many teams.

No, I think people underestimate the financial side of messing with the system.

enigmaax wrote:
You aren't getting in unless you are.....Troy?

If you let all conference champions in, you still aren't getting the best teams and isn't that the point?

Uh, since there would be 5 at-large bids, you will get at least the top 5 teams according to the BCS. And that is if 0 conference champs are ranked in the top 5. As it is now, you MIGHT be getting the best 2. You might not be. Nobody will ever know if TCU could beat Texas. If you are worried about a 3-loss #12 ranked team complaining that Troy got in over them, isn't that a more acceptable scenario than an undefeated #3 getting left out?

There's a reason teams like that make 6-7 figures for traveling to the big boys places during the regular season (and in most cases to be completely blown out).

Financially, I'm not a believer that Troy fans are going to be all excited and make it a week long event to go to Columbus, Ohio in January for a game that they are expecting to lose by 40 points.

I'm pretty sure OSU fans would be excited enough about a home playoff game in December to make up for it. I doubt many Troy fans will be heading to their bowl game against Central Michigan as it is now.

The bowls make some effort to match up similar teams and that, along with location, is a major driving force behind the "fan money". The better that interest, the better the ad and sponsor dollars, etc.

Troy could always choose to turn down a playoff game and a chance to shock the world in a hugely rated nationally televised game and select to play in the who cares bowl against the MAC champs if they want. I really don't see that happening.

Look at the money the NCAA tournament brings in. Then think of how much more popular football is than basketball. "Fan money" is the LAST thing that should be brought up in an argument against a playoff system.

enigmaax wrote: You think seven games with eight different teams is going to generate more than seven games with 14 different teams? Or 15 games with 16 teams is worth more than 15 games with 30 teams? You are counting on a lot of repeat business there for a couple of things that aren't all that unique.

Do you think the Fedex 1st Round Game is worth the same $17 million that the Fedex Orange Bowl is?

Without a doubt if those teams are Florida, USC, OSU, Texas, Bama instead of Marshall, East Carolina, Rutgers, etc. It's still 7 games. And the teams involved in those 7 games will (usually) be bigger schools and bigger draws.

Do you honestly think that Alabama fans would not go to a 2nd round playoff game, buy concessions, etc. because they already saw their team play? Do you honestly think ratings wouldn't be higher for an Alabama - Ohio State 2nd round match up because they both played the previous week than it would be for the Auburn - Northwestern bowl game?

Mulva wrote:

enigmaax wrote: You think seven games with eight different teams is going to generate more than seven games with 14 different teams? Or 15 games with 16 teams is worth more than 15 games with 30 teams? You are counting on a lot of repeat business there for a couple of things that aren't all that unique.

Do you think the Fedex 1st Round Game is worth the same $17 million that the Fedex Orange Bowl is?

Without a doubt if those teams are Florida, USC, OSU, Texas, Bama instead of Marshall, East Carolina, Rutgers, etc. It's still 7 games. And the teams involved in those 7 games will (usually) be bigger schools and bigger draws.

Do you honestly think that Alabama fans would not go to a 2nd round playoff game, buy concessions, etc. because they already saw their team play? Do you honestly think ratings wouldn't be higher for an Alabama - Ohio State 2nd round match up because they both played the previous week than it would be for the Auburn - Northwestern bowl game?

They wouldn't do it for a week at a time three weeks in a row. There's a lot more to the ability to generate money from the bowl games than just the game site itself.

In addition, how much of the bowl-going fanbase has that much expendable income? Even with a home game in the first round, you are talking about potentially doubling costs like game tickets (not cheap) and airfare (not cheap). That doesn't even address the work considerations and the time off necessary to do these things. Bowl games are special singular events for fans. It is a whole other story when you're talking about doing it three or four times (especially without knowing too far in advance).

Mulva wrote: Look at the money the NCAA tournament brings in. Then think of how much more popular football is than basketball. "Fan money" is the LAST thing that should be brought up in an argument against a playoff system.

The NCAA tournament on a given weekend provides multiple games at a relatively low cost. Yes, football is more popular, but you don't know the saturation point. Basketball needs to sell less tickets to be successful. You assume that every football game is going to be sold out no matter what. As long as that always happens, great. But what if it doesn't?

Aside from that, I know that isn't the number one item on the list of finances. The more important thing is how are you going to bring about the same value that the bowls have (even though there are so many, they each have an individual identity and companies are willing to pay for that) when there are eight indistinguishable games? Major sponsors put on a lot more than the bowl game and capitalize on the fan interest all week long to make it worth their dollars. Is a company really going to throw $17 million dollars at a quarterfinal game where people are going to be in town that day and go home?

Leonardo wrote:

awesome...can you imagine the excitement there would be when ohio state rolls into tuscaloosa for a second round matchup? or tcu hosting lsu and florida in back to back weeks?

clearly this isn't the way to go :rolleyes:. much better to have bowling green and idaho playing in a worthless bowl at 430 in the afternoon in idaho on a wednesday...yep much better

If a playoff were to be implemented that would have ANY provision for conference champions, you have to have all of them.

But then, we all know that a playoff is nothing but a scheme that's being secretly orchestrated by the larger schools in order to keep the small schools down. The great ally of the small schools is exposure; a Bowling Green or a TCU or a Florida Atlantic is able to tell a recruit "watch our Thursday night game and watch our bowl game". By implementing a playoff system and directly eliminating one of those and reducing the other to nothing, no small schools would ever get a TV appearance until the conference championship games and then again so everyone can watch them lose by 70 to the #1 and #2 seeds in a playoff.

Frankly, take all of that "real national champion" talk and shove it.

I would have probably have given Penn State the at large berth over Va Tech. The Big 10's top 3 in all actuality would have a chance at the title, Va Tech wouldn't have a chance.

If home sites were used in the first round, some of the teams that would be hosting have very small stadiums by college standards.

dazedandconfused....I couldn't agree with you more. There are so many pointless bowl games out there that mean nothing and no one cares to watch. Proponents of the bowl system love to make excuses of how it works better and there's so many problems that the playoff doesn't account for. Tough cookies, no system is perfect. But what is more important at this stage of the game? Enigmaax has proposed several very good points of where the playoff system is lacking, but is this really the primary concern? What's more important, worrying about these minor nuances or finishing this 2009 season with 3 unbeaten teams? I think the latter is a greater concern. The system isn't fair, 90% or greater of fans can agree on that. Something needs fixed.

bulldog8 wrote: dazedandconfused....I couldn't agree with you more. There are so many pointless bowl games out there that mean nothing and no one cares to watch. Proponents of the bowl system love to make excuses of how it works better and there's so many problems that the playoff doesn't account for. Tough cookies, no system is perfect. But what is more important at this stage of the game? Enigmaax has proposed several very good points of where the playoff system is lacking, but is this really the primary concern? What's more important, worrying about these minor nuances or finishing this 2009 season with 3 unbeaten teams? I think the latter is a greater concern. The system isn't fair, 90% or greater of fans can agree on that. Something needs fixed.

The reason money is such a concern is because of the importance to whole athletic departments. At a lot of places, football enables the non-moneymaking sports to exist. In those cases, I ask you, what is the greater good - a playoff so one team can call itself a "true champion" or the opportunity for thousands of other athletes to compete at that level?

enigmaax....I understand where you are coming from, but this would only provide more incentive for each team to push for a conference championship. Don't you think a team would benefit more from an occasional appearnace in the field of 16 than say the Motor City Bowl? Take the MAC schools for example. Yes the Motor City Bowl probably provides a generous bit of income, but imagine the revenue that would be generated for Central Michigan this year if they appeared as an 11-16 seed in the playoff system. They would travel to play a perennial power and would receive a generous profit from playing that game. I understand that this provides a disadvantage for the middle of the road teams (say 7-5 or 8-4 teams), but how often does a team run the table in their conference year in and year out, especially the weaker conferences. Chances are, these teams would cycle each year and each team would get their shot in the spotlight to not only receive a generous profit, but also get their name across to recruits and help bolster their program. The bottom tier teams are affected very little because they don't get bowl invites anyways. Additionally, the system that Mr. Wetzel has proposed in the article accounts for additional bowls still being played aside from the 16 team playoff. I just don't see money being the major concern here. If the correct playoff system is implemented, the revenues are incalculable and would far exceed even what the BCS bowl system currently produces. I don't think this is the problem the big wigs are having.....I think it's more an issue of having the brains to get the system up and running and ironing out all the intricacies that would be associated with it. Either that or the BCS officials have their hands too deep in the sponsors pockets and are making enough money as it is that they are intransigent to the fact that even more money is available.

ccrunner609 wrote: ^^^^How do all those HS AD's do it then with no bowls?

One, the expenses aren't nearly the same for a single sport. Two, the number of sports and the collective expenses are not the same everywhere. These things typically aren't even close. Three, I know plenty of high school athletic departments that struggle and some that have cut back on various things, including sports. Those are two completely different worlds.