anyone think this can work?

[irishtexan]

this guy brings up some decent points about an 8 team playoff for the national title. http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/3480182

 

[LuckoftheIrish86]

you know what....I actually kind of like the idea.

There would be more of a sense of completion.

I know some people will hate going into the Big Ten, I dont really mind though

 

[texankid]

I saw this earlier today, it's okay and all, I mean I've seen a million playoff scenarios. I like the idea of 16 teams instead of 8. The only huge problem I have with it besides only 8 teams is ND joining the Big 10. We shouldn't join a conference, ever.

 

[Rip Rap]

Particularly:

"Independents — The remaining teams would be the at-large programs with one (possibly two) getting an automatic spot in the playoffs."

So, who would 'round-out' the Big10 then?

 

[jiggafini19]

16 teams would make the most sense. Taking all of the conference champions (11) plus five at large teams would be as close to March Madness as college football could get. Seeding would be the only issue. That and the money they would lose from bowl games.

 

[guff]

The money they would lose from the bowl games is the big problem. The university president and conference commissioner don't care if a team gets hosed. There interest is money not true national champ. If they wanted a true title game a system could have been implemented years ago

 

[seIRISH]

The money they would lose from the bowl games is the big problem. The university president and conference commissioner don't care if a team gets hosed. There interest is money not true national champ. If they wanted a true title game a system could have been implemented years ago

the autoimatic bids is the problem.As we saw with the utah pitt game.I have never liked the playoffs because I think it makes the season a little less important.I love the fact you have to go undefeated or maybe one loss to win it all.I dont want it to turn into the pro's.The bcs just has to lay heavy on streghth of schedule and maybe have indepedent rankings.They should not rank anyone until the third or fourth week of the season.I know the bcs dosen't come out till much later but they still rely on average rankings in the polls.At least then you have a good shot of getting a top twenty five.If you don't get in then you should have played a tougher schedule which really helps us.Or they could do a plus one.

 

[texankid]

"If you don't get in then you should have played a tougher schedule"

They just lessened the importance of the SOS.

 

[seIRISH]

"If you don't get in then you should have played a tougher schedule"

They just lessened the importance of the SOS.

the only reason they did it is because usc did not get in the championship game because we lost to cuse.they need to make it a major part of the bcs.

 

[jiggafini19]

the autoimatic bids is the problem.As we saw with the utah pitt game.I have never liked the playoffs because I think it makes the season a little less important.I love the fact you have to go undefeated or maybe one loss to win it all.I dont want it to turn into the pro's.The bcs just has to lay heavy on streghth of schedule and maybe have indepedent rankings.They should not rank anyone until the third or fourth week of the season.I know the bcs dosen't come out till much later but they still rely on average rankings in the polls.At least then you have a good shot of getting a top twenty five.If you don't get in then you should have played a tougher schedule which really helps us.Or they could do a plus one.

You bring up good points, but to go 6-5 and get rewarded with a bowl game? How important can the regular season be when all you need to do is have one more victory than losses? The casual fan cares nothing about two 6-5 teams playing in late December. I barely care about any of the games other than who is playing in January. What is the purpose, other than money, of these bowl games? Most schools end up losing money by playing in them. With March Madness being what it is, why not have a football version in December? They'll still get their fat checks in the end.

 

[seIRISH]

You bring up good points, but to go 6-5 and get rewarded with a bowl game? How important can the regular season be when all you need to do is have one more victory than losses? The casual fan cares nothing about two 6-5 teams playing in late December. I barely care about any of the games other than who is playing in January. What is the purpose, other than money, of these bowl games? Most schools end up losing money by playing in them. With March Madness being what it is, why not have a football version in December? They'll still get their fat checks in the end.

The more it gets tweaked the more interest I lose.the worst is when they moved the games from Jan.1.The differance in b-ball is they play a lot more games so the margin for error should be greater.The draw of college football is the margin is 11-0 or 10-1 end of story.I doubt schools are losing money otherwise they would not play in them.They get their money no matter how the games do.The people that put the bowls on are the ones that lose money.If they lose enough maybe we won't have twenty-six bowls.Ten might do just fine.

 

[BigIrish]

The more it gets tweaked the more interest I lose.the worst is when they moved the games from Jan.1.The differance in b-ball is they play a lot more games so the margin for error should be greater.The draw of college football is the margin is 11-0 or 10-1 end of story.I doubt schools are losing money otherwise they would not play in them.They get their money no matter how the games do.The people that put the bowls on are the ones that lose money.If they lose enough maybe we won't have twenty-six bowls.Ten might do just fine.

eh? i think you've got it reversed there. doubt the schools are losing money? there is literally a mountain of evidence out there that shows that only the elite of the elite actually make money on football. an example - a few years back, the university of michigan posted a $3 million loss on it's football program. in terms of the actual money made from bowls - keep in mind that if you're in a conference, you've got to split it with the other teams in the conference. for most, the $$ from a bowl game pays for them to make the trip, etc., and little more.

the people that put the bowls on are the ones that make the most money. that's exactly the reason that there are 26 bowls. everyone wants in on the action.

 

[seIRISH]

eh? i think you've got it reversed there. doubt the schools are losing money? there is literally a mountain of evidence out there that shows that only the elite of the elite actually make money on football. an example - a few years back, the university of michigan posted a $3 million loss on it's football program. in terms of the actual money made from bowls - keep in mind that if you're in a conference, you've got to split it with the other teams in the conference. for most, the $$ from a bowl game pays for them to make the trip, etc., and little more.

the people that put the bowls on are the ones that make the most money. that's exactly the reason that there are 26 bowls. everyone wants in on the action.

So why except the bowl invite.

 

[BigIrish]

So why except the bowl invite.

why accept the invite? well, for some schools, a large enough bowl game will help defray the costs of operation throughout the season (help, not cover entirely). for most schools, it's about getting exposure. there's a widely held belief that strong sports programs with good media exposure will generate an overall positive effect on the rest of the university. this is how they justify losing money on their football program - they argue that strong football (and sports in general) programs generate greater media coverage, leading to more interest in the school, which leads to increased attendance from higher caliber students, more donations from wealthy alumni, etc. fundamentally, the belief is that there is a generally positive ripple effect throughout the rest of the institution when their teams are on top.

although it's a little off-topic, it's worth noting that usa today published a comprehensive study a couple years ago that purported to prove the "positive ripple effect" theory false, and questioned the money and resources that colleges were spending on athletics.

 

[jiggafini19]

Not only exposure, but extra practice time for freshman, redshirts and everyone else returning the following fall.

And it is a proven fact that those rediculous Tire Bowls and .Com bowls in December barely make a school break even, if at all.

Watching two 6-5 college football teams play? Not interested.