http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4805271

(I tried to find the old Playoff thread by Yama Hama, but couldnt)

What a surprise, right? Bill Hancock has been doing the rounds for a while, but just officially took over duties today.

He said that a playoff would:
* lead to more injuries
* conflict with final exams
* kill the bowl system
* diminish the importance of the regular season.

Another one of his points was that "the fact that other lower levels of college football use playoffs to decide their champions doesn't mean it would work in the Football Bowl Subdivision."

He also said that there has been no discussion of a 5th BCS bowl and no changes are planned for the next 4 years

Were there more injuries in DII and DIII? Nope so Number one is an outright fabrication.

Did DII and III conflict with finals? NOPE another outright fabrication

Kill the bowl system? only if they allow it to they are in control of it.

The regular season argument is illusion. Does everyone think the DII and II regular season is diminished when they are fighting for playoff spots, NOPE yet another fabrication.
The guy is an idiot.

Of course he is going to defend it, if the BCS is done then he loses his job

One of the arguments I typically make against the "regular season is more important in D1 football!" is that the post-season is the least important in all of sports. What other postseason has coaches leaving their jobs right before their "big game" The Rays didn't have to worry about Joe Maddon leaving for the Yankees before the ALCS, nor would they ever have to worry about something like that happening.

There are a few threads on here that have probably accounted for all significant points from both sides. I know why they say the things they do and I don't really blame them for trying to look legit and I agree with all the playoff proponents that some of those things just sound stupid.

* - Didn't adding a 12th game lead to more injuries? Or an 11th before that? Or bowl games in general?
* - Nobody says the season with or without a playoff has to begin and end on a certain date, besides, well the same guys who could ensure that a playoff doesn't interfere with finals. I wonder, though, if any other sports have conflicts with finals, in the fall, spring, or winter.
* - KILL THE BOWL SYSTEM - this is the real reason and this is legit, though this can be translated as "risk a shitload of money"; I buy this one, but not because the bowl system is sacred for its history/tradition/whatever
* - I also actually agree that the regular season would be affected to a point. Singular losses would not have as much of an impact and so the sense of urgency to win some games, especially early games, may be somewhat lost. But toward the end of the season, you'd have more games that take on added importance (LSU-Ole Miss is an example from this past season - it was a good game that meant very little in the grand scheme of things; had it been for a potential playoff spot, there would have been a great deal more national interest).

jordo - Obviously the current post-season is the least important with regards to crowning a champion, but ratings and attendance show its not meaningless. Having more teams involved in a tournament doesn't inherently make it a better system, more interesting, or more successful.

That's pretty much what we've come to expect from the BCS. It's hard to argue when they hide behind what would otherwise be noble reasoning.

More injuries is a crock and not a reason anyone would cite as logical considering the addition of regular season games over the past years. But using this as a cloak to hide behind is borderline pathetic. The conflict with final exams too is ludicrous. The idea that universities would be unwilling to make arrangements for high profile athletes in a national title appearance damn near rings of hypocricy. But again, they're hiding behind the student athlete.

Killing the bowl system? Hasn't it already been killed? OK well to a slight degree, losing your top program to the MNC game only affects two of the bowl tie ins, and has little to do with the coin generated. I'm actually surprised that this was allowed to happen in the first place. They've changed how the bowls are presented over the last ten years already, the reason they cite this as a reason is they won't be able to wrestle control away from the good 'ole boys that run the damn things, period.

As far as taking away from the importance of the regular season, it's a fact I believe. But that doesn't mean that universities haven't begun to realize how to play the "BCS Game". Boise/other non AQ aside, tell me where the incentive is to schedule an early season snot knocker? They may not have diminished the importance of the regular season but they sure have influenced the competition and scheduling. Makes one wonder why teams like OSU schedule the USC's, Miami's and Oklahoma's when they have everything to lose and really not much to gain. The end result is the big boys mostly scheduling sisters of the poor and no real competion during the regular season. I think that blows for most.

I also find it ironic that he doesn't address the problem of pre-season rankings, not surprising, but ironic. It's onee of the main issues when considering the the line up at seasons end. It's BS.

It boils down to $$$ at the end of the day, but they'll not profer up that as a reason for not making any changes, and as a private entity not sanctioned by the NCAA they don't have to. Like I said in an earlier thread, arguing this thing is akin to mental masturbation.

I agree. If nothing else changes, I want to see pre-season rankings gone

enigmaax wrote: jordo - Obviously the current post-season is the least important with regards to crowning a champion, but ratings and attendance show its not meaningless. Having more teams involved in a tournament doesn't inherently make it a better system, more interesting, or more successful.

You're right to some extent but I have two points. First, yes the Rose Bowl and other BCS bowls had nice ratings, but many of the other bowls that are being doggedly protected do squat ratings wise. Many have thousands of empty seats.

Second, do you honestly think that a playoff wouldn't get considerable attendance/ratings? Because that's what I gather from this post.

jordo212000 wrote: Second, do you honestly think that a playoff wouldn't get considerable attendance/ratings? Because that's what I gather from this post.

Yes, a playoff likely would do good ratings and attendance. I guess my point is just that many argue the system is "broken" and in need of fixing. That pretty much stems from the want for more teams to be included in the playoff/tournament to determine a champion.

At present, the BCS crowns a champion, so it isn't lacking that. People are just asking for more teams to be involved between the end of the regular season and the championship game itself. If attendance and ratings are great for the bowls, then why change that to a playoff that may or may not do just as well in those categories. There isn't a lot of room for improvement on those fronts, so it isn't a matter of a playoff just "doing well".

So from the BCS side, there is a champion and ratings/attendance are great. What is broken?

A bunch of old geezers in suits that never had an idea of their own and will never change till they all die out and the next gen takes over. How predictable

ccrunner609 wrote: The BCS has already diminished the regular season, nobody plays anyone OOC. Losses are not equal to others. Its about when you lose and not who you lose to.

Somewhat true, but not entirely. Three out of the last four seasons, a team in the championship game jumped ahead of someone else who hadn't lost since the previous poll. Whether the decisions were correct or not, that demonstrates that the total bodies of work were evaluated late in the season.

ccrunner609 wrote:BCS games tie into the conference winners, that in itself diminishes the regular season. Many teams with 3 and 4 losses get a BCS game becasue they win their championship.

Changing this is the one thing the BCS could do to get some of the government heat off them. That would at least present a front that everyone has an equal chance.

Not sure the BCS has too much of an impact on OOC match-ups though. There's generally only about 7 or 8 schools who are going to contend for a national title regularly enough that they don't have to play any OOC games to get respect if they take care of business. Two of those teams (USC and OSU) still go out of their way to schedule at least one good OOC game a year. And then Texas, Oklahoma, and the SEC all have that marquee game built into the regular season. For anyone else who hopes to crack that upper echelon, they HAVE to schedule big to have a remote chance of playing for a title. I don't know if a playoff would change that either way.

enigmaax wrote: So from the BCS side, there is a champion and ratings/attendance are great. What is broken?

I would say that the main issue is that we aren't sure whether a "true" champion is being crowned or not. Before the BCS Bowls were played you had Cincy, Texas, Alabama, Boise, and TCU all undefeated. You could find people anywhere who could make an argument for any of those teams playing in the championship. However, once the bowls started up, we quickly began to find out who was deserving (Boise) and who was pretending (Cincy, TCU). ====My point? Things need settled on the field, not on ESPN===

Now we are going to have Alabama (or Texas) and Boise undefeated after tonight's game. Could Boise beat tonight's winner? Maybe, but we don't know. And we don't know because Boise won't get the chance. Boise didn't get a chance because they have a smaller fan base, less tradition and started further back in the preseason rankings

There are very few times that a plus one game would be warranted, this year it would be approppriate.

enigmaax wrote:

Not sure the BCS has too much of an impact on OOC match-ups though. There's generally only about 7 or 8 schools who are going to contend for a national title regularly enough that they don't have to play any OOC games to get respect if they take care of business. Two of those teams (USC and OSU) still go out of their way to schedule at least one good OOC game a year. And then Texas, Oklahoma, and the SEC all have that marquee game built into the regular season. For anyone else who hopes to crack that upper echelon, they HAVE to schedule big to have a remote chance of playing for a title. I don't know if a playoff would change that either way.

I'm not sure the ten year time frame is sufficient enough to judge the impact on scheduling. I think were the BCS something that was inflexible there would be no doubt as to its effect. A playoff that included 16 teams would also have less of an impact as one that only had eight. In the long run though, I doubt we would see as many big OOC games particularly in light of the move towards "super conferences".

jordo212000 wrote: I would say that the main issue is that we aren't sure whether a "true" champion is being crowned or not. Before the BCS Bowls were played you had Cincy, Texas, Alabama, Boise, and TCU all undefeated. You could find people anywhere who could make an argument for any of those teams playing in the championship. However, once the bowls started up, we quickly began to find out who was deserving (Boise) and who was pretending (Cincy, TCU). ====My point? Things need settled on the field, not on ESPN===

Now we are going to have Alabama (or Texas) and Boise undefeated after tonight's game. Could Boise beat tonight's winner? Maybe, but we don't know. And we don't know because Boise won't get the chance. Boise didn't get a chance because they have a smaller fan base, less tradition and started further back in the preseason rankings

"True" champion is your opinion. They have a championship formula and a championship game. I get that you think all those undefeated teams deserve more, but the bottom line difference is that you want more teams involved at a certain stage, not something different than what is ultimately produced. And the "champion" is pretty widely recognized by the participants (even those who don't make it).

BTW, TCU wasn't necessarily pretending. Boise won the game, but it wasn't like TCU didn't belong on the field with them.

jordo212000 wrote: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4805271

(I tried to find the old Playoff thread by Yama Hama, but couldnt)

What a surprise, right? Bill Hancock has been doing the rounds for a while, but just officially took over duties today.

He said that a playoff would:
* lead to more injuries
* conflict with final exams
* kill the bowl system
* diminish the importance of the regular season.

Another one of his points was that "the fact that other lower levels of college football use playoffs to decide their champions doesn't mean it would work in the Football Bowl Subdivision."

He also said that there has been no discussion of a 5th BCS bowl and no changes are planned for the next 4 years

What a load of BS from Bill Hancock. I am seriously thinking about writing a response letter to SI as a result of that little article they ran on him in the past issue.

The first two points don't even need to be addressed they are so ridiculous... Kill the bowl system? I don't get this argument, of course it would kill the bowl system, isn't that the point?

The bowl system clearly doesn't do anything to name a champion... What I don't get is why killing the bowls is such a bad thing. Obviously the lesser bowls wouldn't be affected...if you want to watch who can outsuck who in an epic showdown between two 6-6 teams in the whocares.com bowl, you could still have those kind of bowl games, and honestly, would the ratings of those bowl games even be that affected by a playoff system? I am a huge college football fan, yet I rarely tune in to any bowl games prior to New Year's day unless there is a particularly compelling matchup (i.e. Wisky vs. Miami). I guarantee that the first round of a playoff would pull in just as many ratings as the current bcs matchups. Think about the quality of the matchups we would see, it would be the equivalent of the matchups that we see in the BCS bowls now. Imagine Boise playing Florida in the first round or Bama playing Oregon or something like that...as a college football fan, you wouldn't tune in for that?

And jordo, you are spot on about "important regular season, least important post season" thing.

I just wish these guys would stop playing us for saps and just admit that the only reason the BCS is around is for money...not because its better for college football than a playoff system, but just because of money. I could stomach that reason because at least it is honest and not hiding behind a bunch of baloney. Bill Hancock and Gordon Gee (for the thing in the dispatch recently) both make me mad, I feel like they are just talking down to college football fans.

I don't mind the bowls and current system. But when they make such piss poor excuses like injury and exams it just pisses me off.

Tell it how it is. Bowls generate more money than a playoff would.

trep14 wrote: Bill Hancock and Gordon Gee (for the thing in the dispatch recently) both make me mad, I feel like they are just talking down to college football fans.

One of the quotes from E Gordon Gee. "I can assure you there is no support among the college presidents in this country for a BCS playoff system," Gee said. "Furthermore, if anything there is a move back to (further embracing) the bowl system. So I would have to say that (the thought of an extended playoff) is losing support among college presidents."

Here is the part where I get the biggest laugh (he gets asked how he would feel if Ohio St went undefeated and didn't make it): "I know how Ohio State fans would respond to it; they would be outraged," Gee said. "And I know how I would respond; I'd be very unhappy.

thedynasty1998 wrote: I don't mind the bowls and current system. But when they make such piss poor excuses like injury and exams it just pisses me off.

Tell it how it is. Bowls generate more money than a playoff would.

I used to feel that same way. But they can't. If they did, the whole NCAA would be in a world of shit because of the "non-profit" thing. While they may ultimately win that, it'd bring on a lot of problems that aren't worth it just for the sake of appeasing a few dumbass fans, like us, who are going to spend our money on them no matter what.

jordo212000 wrote:

trep14 wrote: Bill Hancock and Gordon Gee (for the thing in the dispatch recently) both make me mad, I feel like they are just talking down to college football fans.

One of the quotes from E Gordon Gee. "I can assure you there is no support among the college presidents in this country for a BCS playoff system," Gee said. "Furthermore, if anything there is a move back to (further embracing) the bowl system. So I would have to say that (the thought of an extended playoff) is losing support among college presidents."

Here is the part where I get the biggest laugh (he gets asked how he would feel if Ohio St went undefeated and didn't make it): "I know how Ohio State fans would respond to it; they would be outraged," Gee said. "And I know how I would respond; I'd be very unhappy.

Yeah he's full of it. He is so out of touch with the college football fanbase, its not even funny. I just hate when a few individuals like this dinosaur who probably thinks that they still wear leather helmets and the forward pass hasn't been invented yet act like they know what is best for the collective good of college football when it is clear that their heads are on cloud 9. I just want one of them to be honest and say that it is because of money, not because of the well-being of the "student athletes" or the "bowl experience".

well, there's your answer, we're stuck with this fucked up system for a while