Georgia President calls for CFB playoff

**jbing** · 01-08-2008, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

Does anyone really think "Insight.com bowl champion" Iowa State Cyclones when they think of our program? No, but if we won the Orange bowl you're more likely to refer to that. The lower bowls mean nothing a year or 2 after they're over, they're throw away bowls.

Basically, it's a nice payday for the university and that's IT.

**erikbj** · 01-08-2008, 08:22 PM

I like the "and 1" plan. Play all the bowl games on Jan 1 and a championship on Jan 8th. Top 4 teams play it out.

**twojman** · 01-08-2008, 11:15 PM

My thoughts for a playoff system would be with 16 teams and teams would only play an 11 game schedule. All conference champs would be in with some at-large bids. No more playing 1-AA schools for the Div 1 schools. At the risk of sounding like a nanny NCAA president, make some stipulations on schedules to make sure there are better balanced schedules. No more Kansas like schedules from this year.

There would still be some minor bowls. The top rated teams would have HOME games for the first two rounds. (this would take care of the travel issues for fans going to games) For these home games there would have to be some sort of revenue sharing with the visiting team, NCAA, home team and the home team conference. There would then be a final four similar to the basketball tourney. Games could be played at the major (BCS) bowl destinations. The BCS bowls that do not get used for the final four can be held for the highest rated teams not in the tourney.

I believe a system like this could work, would make a ton of money and be EXTREMELY popular!

Could you imagine if ISU was ranked 8th one season and had say #9 Oregon or Georgia coming to town???? How crazy would the town be????

**Cyclone62** · 01-09-2008, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by twojman

My thoughts for a playoff system would be with 16 teams and teams would only play an 11 game schedule. All conference champs would be in with some at-large bids. No more playing 1-AA schools for the Div 1 schools. At the risk of sounding like a nanny NCAA president, make some stipulations on schedules to make sure there are better balanced schedules. No more Kansas like schedules from this year.

There would still be some minor bowls. The top rated teams would have HOME games for the first two rounds. (this would take care of the travel issues for fans going to games) For these home games there would have to be some sort of revenue sharing with the visiting team, NCAA, home team and the home team conference. There would then be a final four similar to the basketball tourney. Games could be played at the major (BCS) bowl destinations. The BCS bowls that do not get used for the final four can be held for the highest rated teams not in the tourney.

I believe a system like this could work, would make a ton of money and be EXTREMELY popular!

Could you imagine if ISU was ranked 8th one season and had say #9 Oregon or Georgia coming to town???? How crazy would the town be????

And we decide the top 16 teams how? How do we keep the 17th from the revenue of an extra home game during the season because they "have a chance" at the playoffs? Or do we go back to only 11 games per season?

Also, if the first round games are a home field, why should the Conference games be at a neutral site if it's a 10-1 ISU against an 8-3 Texas?

**jdoggivjc** · 01-09-2008, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by jbing

Here's how you do it. You do it just like basketball. You take the top 8 based on either the AP poll or a combined AP/Coaches poll. Their ranks are their seeds in the tournament. Each round starts with one of the original 4 BCS bowls. The winners then travel to the site of the National Championship for the "final four" or the BCS National Semifinals. The winner of those games play for the title.

Everyone ranked 9 and lower can have the Cap one, Cotton and SmurfTurf bowls. Every year, the bowls rotate as to which seed plays in which bowl. One year 1 and 8 play the Rose, next year, it's the Sugar and so on.

I don't see how it's so hard.

Another idea - instead of "seeding," you can keep the traditional matchups in the bowls:

Rose Bowl: Big 10 v. Pac 10
Sugar Bowl: SEC v. ACC
Fiesta Bowl: Big XII v. Big East or at large
Orange Bowl: Big East or at large v. at large

That way, the Rose Bowl can quit their ******** about not having their "traditional" Big 10 v. Pac 10 matchup (although they didn't seemed too concerned initially after selling their soul when cash was flashed in front of their eyes, nor were they all that upset during the USC-Texas national championship game)...

**jdoggivjc** · 01-09-2008, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Iastfan112

I'm fine with the way it is, even if you go to a 8 team playoff taking this year into account you'd end up with a similar problem, instead of Georgia complaining they got screwed, you'd have West Virginia, Hawaii, Arizona St. and Florida complaining(based of the polls immediately preceding the bowl games).

Yeah, but in this case it'd be more like Syracuse being left out of the field of 65 this year - what did they do during the season to DESERVE to be in the NCAA tourney? As far as I'm concerned, schools have less legitimate gripes about not making a field of 8 than they do about not making a field of 2.

**wonkadog** · 01-09-2008, 09:47 AM

I don't see why anyone on either side of this issue has to tie the "minor" bowl games into the argument for/against a playoff. They have nothing to do with a potential tournament and could be left "as is." I guess the only thing you decide is if you let teams that are knocked out of the tournament into the "minor" bowl games. As for money, you obviously don't let just the teams that make the tournament get the majority of the income, you somehow split it up close to even (I'm not a good "money" person but I'm sure someone out there could draw up something).

**cmoneyr** · 01-09-2008, 10:42 AM

The one problem I could think of with keeping all the minor bowls would be trying to play them at the same time as the playoffs are going on. Who's going to watch the crappy bowls when they could watch the playoffs. So you would have to delay the playoffs which makes the season longer, and that's one argument I've heard against a playoff system. However, if you get rid of some of the minor bowls that have little meaning anyways you wouldn't have as much of a problem.

**Clonefan94** · 01-09-2008, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

The one problem I could think of with keeping all the minor bowls would be trying to play them at the same time as the playoffs are going on. Who's going to watch the crappy bowls when they could watch the playoffs. So you would have to delay the playoffs which makes the season longer, and that's one argument I've heard against a playoff system. However, if you get rid of some of the minor bowls that have little meaning anyways you wouldn't have as much of a problem.

It's not about people watching the bowls, if that were the case, they'd all be on in the evening on networks, not ESPN at 4 in the afternoon. It's about getting fans to travel to the destination.

And to answer your question earlier about who remembers teh Insight bowl years later? I do, a lot of fans here do. It was a great time. Getting to bowls, even crappy ones is an advantage we had over at least Baylor in our own conference. If you are going to bowls and other teams aren't, it's a selling point, plain and simple. I really see the elimination of the lesser bowls and narrowing the field down to 16, being the most detrimental thing you could do to 1A college football. You will literally put all the power in the top tier teams, even more than they have now. With nothing to play for after your second loss of the year, you might as well, fold the rest of D1A and reduce it to about 30 or 40 teams. That's truly all that will be able to compete.

Plus, I've had this argument with other people. In the end it's an advertising dollar. Why pop a couple commercials in here or there when you can have your own bowl game. You get a lot of free pup with your name on it. A lot more than you'd get as a minor sponsor in the playoff or championship game. The bowls aren't run by the NCAA. So, if you aren't invited to the playoff, what's stopping Tom's Catfish Nugget Emporium from offering you $2 mil to come play in their bowl game? What's stopping the Rose Bowl from offering $20 mil for USC and tOSU to play each other even though they were invited to the Championship playoff already. Honestly, money talks and right now there is a lot more of it in a bowl system than there is in a playoff. You just aren't going to get enough people to go to the Orange Bowl, then the Next bowl, then the Next to follow their team. Somewhere in there you have to make a choice on how and where you spend your money and your vacation time. Namely vacation. Money wouldn't be an issue with me if we ever got into the playoff. Time I'd be able to take to make the games, would be the issue. It just wouldn't happen. These towns don't want me showing up for the game and leaving. They want me to spend a couple of days and blow some cash in their town. That's not going to happen with a playoff. Then it would be about TV money. And where does that leave Shreveport. I think they count on that game as a boost for their economy. I doubt it goes away soon.

**wonkadog** · 01-09-2008, 11:09 AM

Keep the crappy bowls during each weekday/night and have the tournament games on the weekends. As the field gets narrowed down you'd have more and more room to put other bowl games on the weekends.

**wonkadog** · 01-09-2008, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Clonefan94

It's not about people watching the bowls, if that were the case, they'd all be on in the evening on networks, not ESPN at 4 in the afternoon. It's about getting fans to travel to the destination.

And to answer your question earlier about who remembers teh Insight bowl years later? I do, a lot of fans here do. It was a great time. Getting to bowls, even crappy ones is an advantage we had over at least Baylor in our own conference. If you are going to bowls and other teams aren't, it's a selling point, plain and simple. I really see the elimination of the lesser bowls and narrowing the field down to 16, being the most detrimental thing you could do to 1A college football.And where does that leave Shreveport. I think they count on that game as a boost for their economy. I doubt it goes away soon.

I don't think the majority of us in favor of a tournament also favor the elimination of the minor bowl games. They can both work together in somewhat perfect harmony.

**cmoneyr** · 01-09-2008, 11:33 AM

They don't necesarilly have to go hand in hand, I just happen to think half the bowl games are useless. They could have 100 bowl games, and Iowa State could go to one every year, does that make it an accomplishment?

**Clonefan94** · 01-09-2008, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

They don't necesarilly have to go hand in hand, I just happen to think half the bowl games are useless. They could have 100 bowl games, and Iowa State could go to one every year, does that make it an accomplishment?

They don't have 100. And going to a bowl game is better than not going. I have a friend who played for tOSU. He was on the NC team and played in a couple of BCS games as well as an outback bowl when they lost 3 games that year. Even he says that he wouldn't have traded his Outback Bowl experience to have found a "true" national champion that year. The lesser bowls mean quite a bit to the kids playing in them and the fans going to them. I agree, we should get to a point where you have to be better than 6-6. But, I also wouldn't complain if ISU is in a Bowl next year at 6-6. I would like to see them mean a little more, but, to say they are meaningless is merely your opinion and not what I believe most teams would say. On that note, I will agree to disagree with you. I think I've said all I can on the issue. As I said, I don't care what we do with a play-off as long it keeps most of the current bowl system intact. It is personal opinion, but, I don't like the NCAA BBall tournament because it gives us a definitive champion. I like it because it means I get to watch a lot basketball match-ups I wouldn't normally see. In the end, I don't really care who the champion is. As I said, it's all my opinion though.