BCS source: Playoff 'gets done' as part of new contract

**Die4Cy** · 01-12-2012, 05:55 PM

Playoffs reward the "Haves" due to limited slots and the larger the playoff field the more it would render the season meaningless.

In the NFL teams rest players once they are assured of the playoffs. The same would happen in CFB. How is that good for the sport? Would ISU's win over OSU have been as exciting if it was against OSU's 2nd team? Of course not.

At least the NFL compensates teams who fail to make the playoffs by rewarding them with higher draft position and the opportunity to improve. In CFB, you would see what the 1-AA playoffs have become: the same handful of teams play every year because they are the only schools all the good 1-AA level kids want to play for.

I could support a 4 team "title game" playoff with teams seeded by BCS computers only. Four teams with the highest BCS scores AND a conference championship, seeded by BCS computer rating--keeps the conference season the first part of any national championship run.

**CYKOFAN** · 01-12-2012, 05:59 PM

Cycsk-Then you must think that the basketball season is played merely to qualify for the NCAA tournament, and of course that's a big part of it, but I'd say conference games and tournaments are all still very important for teams to not only get to the big dance but improve their seeding in the big dance. There's also a lot of pride in being the conference champ. The regular season would be even more intense in football when only 8 teams get to the play-offs and one or two losses could knock you out. As it is now one loss often means no chance at a nc, and for some teams, no losses still keeps you out. Some teams have early season injuries or inexperience and an early season loss or two ends their chances for a nc before the season is even half over. And again there's a reason the powers that be are talking more seriously about a play-off (I hope) which I'm sure is prompted by this year's worst tv ratings for a bcs nc game ever.

**CYKOFAN** · 01-12-2012, 06:10 PM

Hmmm. I really don't see a team playing subs the last game or two because they are already in an 8 team play-off. It not only could risk their getting in, but hurt their seeding. I don't think that's been a problem in college basketball at all. Using our win over Oky State doesn't fit because their loss to us could also have cost them a conference title if they hadn't beat up on Oklahoma two weeks later.

**CyJack13** · 01-12-2012, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by ahaselhu

My vote for the best system would be 8 teams. Conference champions from the current AQ conferences, and two at-larges from the non-AQ conferences. But most of the current AQ conferences (especially the Big 10 and SEC) would never agree to a system that restricts them to only one team a year.

Nor should they. When was the last time the SEC's second best team wasn't better than the best ACC or Big East team. I really don't get why people get hung on including all the conference champs. Isn't the goal of a playoff to find out who is the best team in the country? Why in the world you put an 8-4 West Virginia or 10-3 Clemson in over an 11-1 Alabama or 12-1 Florida?

There should be no automatic bids, top six teams make the playoffs, top two get byes and you must win your conference to get one of the top two seeds.

**Clonehomer** · 01-12-2012, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by CyJack13

Nor should they. When was the last time the SEC's second best team wasn't better than the best ACC or Big East team. I really don't get why people get hung on including all the conference champs. Isn't the goal of a playoff to find out who is the best team in the country? Why in the world you put an 8-4 West Virginia or 10-3 Clemson in over an 11-1 Alabama or 12-1 Florida?

There should be no automatic bids, top six teams make the playoffs, top two get byes and you must win your conference to get one of the top two seeds.

Wouldn't the best team in the country at least win their conference? If this is all about finding the best team, then why would the second best team in the conference be in the consideration?

**CyJack13** · 01-12-2012, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Clonehomer

Wouldn't the best team in the country at least win their conference? If this is all about finding the best team, then why would the second best team in the conference be in the consideration?

Because all conference games aren't played on neutral sites. If you lose one game by three points on the road, does that mean you wouldn't beat that team on a neutral site?

**Clonehomer** · 01-12-2012, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by CyJack13

Because all conference games aren't played on neutral sites. If you lose one game by three points on the road, does that mean you wouldn't beat that team on a neutral site?

That's fine, but what about the team that won? Is it fair that they have to beat them again in a playoff? If you want the regular season to matter, you can't give mulligans to teams that lose those games you want to matter.

Also, what I'm concerned about is that this is going to just accelerate the conference expansion because they want to get as many playoff bids as possible. Right now that two team max is one of the biggest restrictions to a conference going to 16. That's why Delaney is pushing so hard to remove that limit.

**mcblogerson** · 01-12-2012, 08:59 PM

I'm going to boil this down to the basics.
If you're for a playoff, you're smart.
If you're for the bowl system, you're dumb.
Thank you.

**Cycsk** · 01-12-2012, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by CYKOFAN

Cycsk-Then you must think that the basketball season is played merely to qualify for the NCAA tournament, and of course that's a big part of it, but I'd say conference games and tournaments are all still very important for teams to not only get to the big dance but improve their seeding in the big dance. There's also a lot of pride in being the conference champ. The regular season would be even more intense in football when only 8 teams get to the play-offs and one or two losses could knock you out. As it is now one loss often means no chance at a nc, and for some teams, no losses still keeps you out. Some teams have early season injuries or inexperience and an early season loss or two ends their chances for a nc before the season is even half over. And again there's a reason the powers that be are talking more seriously about a play-off (I hope) which I'm sure is prompted by this year's worst tv ratings for a bcs nc game ever.

But just imagine how important the regular season rivalry games and conference tournament games would be if there was no March Madness in basketball.

It may not be a better way to determine the national champion, but I've said many times that I don't really care about it because it serves only a few and will be controversial no matter how it is determined. I care about the entire sport and ISU in particular.

March Madness is firmly entrenched in basketball, but the playoffs aren't in football, so I desparately hope that we can have as little playoff influence as possible in football where we have such a great season and bowl system.

**CyJack13** · 01-12-2012, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Cycsk

But just imagine how important the regular season rivalry games and conference tournament games would be if there was no March Madness in basketball.

It may not be a better way to determine the national champion, but I've said many times that I don't really care about it because it serves only a few and will be controversial no matter how it is determined. I care about the entire sport and ISU in particular.

March Madness is firmly entrenched in basketball, but the playoffs aren't in football, so I desparately hope that we can have as little playoff influence as possible in football where we have such a great season and bowl system.

The NCAA basketball tournament used to be only for conference champions. Then you ran into situations like the 1974 ACC tournament. No. 1 NC State vs No 4. Maryland. A 30-1 NC St barely won in OT but that game was the main reason the NCAA tournament expanded. If you only allow conference title winners in, the first time you get a 12-0 Florida vs 12-0 Alabama or 12-0 Ohio St vs 12-0 Nebraska in a conference title game, there will be a huge outcry and that will change.

Once you start having playoffs, they will keep expanding, there will be more money to be made and there will be coaches pushing for more teams and it will happen. It will lead to a slow death for the bowls. Just like it did for the NIT. People that thing the bowls will remain the same are just being naive. You're either growing or you're dying and once we have playoffs, bowl games will be dying.

**Cycsk** · 01-12-2012, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by CyJack13

The NCAA basketball tournament used to be only for conference champions. Then you ran into situations like the 1974 ACC tournament. No. 1 NC State vs No 4. Maryland. A 30-1 NC St barely won in OT but that game was the main reason the NCAA tournament expanded. If you only allow conference title winners in, the first time you get a 12-0 Florida vs 12-0 Alabama or 12-0 Ohio St vs 12-0 Nebraska in a conference title game, there will be a huge outcry and that will change.

Once you start having playoffs, they will keep expanding, there will be more money to be made and there will be coaches pushing for more teams and it will happen. It will lead to a slow death for the bowls. Just like it did for the NIT. People that thing the bowls will remain the same are just being naive. You're either growing or you're dying and once we have playoffs, bowl games will be dying.

So much is being driven right now by the money from TV contracts. However, broadcast (and cable) TV itself is dying. I even worry about whether ESPN as a network will survive the shift toward on-demand versions of live and recorded games. Will they go bankrupt before ever paying all the obligations of the new Big 12 contract? TV money is a huge influence in pushing for a national championship, but will they even still be there when they get the playoffs they seem to want.

**cigaretteman** · 01-13-2012, 08:36 AM

NCAA President Mark Emmert would support a four-team playoff in college football -- as long as the field doesn't grow.
After giving his annual state of the association speech Thursday in Indianapolis, Emmert acknowledged he would back a small playoff if that's what Bowl Championship Series officials decide to adopt.
"The notion of having a Final Four approach is probably a sound one," Emmert said when asked what he heard coming out of New Orleans this week. "Moving toward a 16-team playoff is highly problematic because I think that's too much to ask a young man's body to do. It's too many games, it intrudes into the school year and, of course, it would probably necessitate a complete end to the bowl system that so many people like now."

Read more: NCAA president Mark Emmert supports 4-team football playoff - NCAA Football - SI.com