First BCS Rankings

Wrong. If that were the case, there would be no non-BCS bowls. And no NIT, not to mention those other ridiculous basketball tournaments.

 

You keep saying that, but you don't explain why. I see no reason why the shit tier bowls for all those 7-5 teams can't continue to exist alongside a playoff system. Care to give one?

 

Well, for one, the NCAA will legislate it out of existence if a playoff is implemented.

But, since you asked,

The bowl system loses its relevance once a playoff is implemented. And please spare me the "most of them are irrelevant now" bullshit answer. The games matter now because it's the highest level of achievement a program can reach. That would cease to be the case once a playoff system becomes a reality.

Going to a playoff system will mean ad dollars will be directed towards that system and not a bowl game in Birmingham, Boise or Albuquerque.

The top 15 bowls will become playoff sites, leaving about 23 very minor bowls on the outside looking in. A large number of those games are operated by ESPN to give it programming during "Bowl Week". Once "Bowl Week" becomes "Playoff Month" they won't have interest in funding those games due to the truckload of money they'll be paying the NCAA to televise playoff games.

That leaves about 10 or so games that are currently tied in to non-BCS conferences or the seventh or eighth place team in a BCS league. Good luck selling those match-ups to sponsors in a playoff world.

 

The party line from the jackasses in ugly coats -- don't shoot the messenger, this is what I was told when I interviewed some bowl people about a playoff -- is that all of the sponsors will want to put all of their money into the playoff and there won't be any sponsorship dollars left for the second tier horse shit bowls to continue to exist.

I don't buy it, but it is a reason.

 

Couple of issues ... first, if ESPN gets the NCAA I-A Tournament (not a shoe-in, especially given the NCAA's relationship with CBS), Fox, Versus & others will still want to have *something* to fill all of that programming void the week of the tournament.

Second, I'm not sure all of those cities will be "tournament sites" year-in and year-out. It would be great if the NCAA gave the higher seeds home-field advantage in Round 1, and then used 7 rotating sites for the quarters/semis/finals, but that's unlikely to happen. These games are used by local chambers of commerce to draw people & attention to the city, and there are still plenty of cities that want to have the annual visitors during New Year's week.

And, with the top 16 teams in the country in a tournament (OK, once you throw in the MAC & Sun Belt champs, the top 13-14), there are still some *really* good matchups in the "bowls" ... actually, better games than currently exist in the minor bowls. In this setup, no conference could realistically get more than two bids. So, Tennessee vs. Ohio State, for example, would draw pretty darned well and get some big viewership. There might not be as many bowls -- 10-15 -- but a lot of the games would still be pretty good matchups. And a lot of I-A schools are not going to agree to a playoff system without there being some consolation for mid-level teams to reward themselves for having a good year.

 

I think if you had 16 teams - you would have to have the first round at home sites with a very limited number of tickets available to traveling fans because it would be tough to get people to travel four weeks in a row.

 

That's all well and good but, again, the money won't be there to keep those games going.

And if a playoff system is implemented, one of the things that will almost certainly happen is to designate current bowl sites as tournament game hosts.

1. It appeases the top end bowl games and probably heads off a potential lawsuit.

2. It makes more sense to let cities that are used to hosting these games, and do a good job of it, to continue to do so. You really think the NCAA is going to turn its back on the Rose Bowl, JerryWorld or University of Phoenix Stadium?

I think it would be a given that Phoenix, Dallas and Pasadena would be in the regular semi-final/final rotation. After that you have New Orleans, Atlanta, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, San Diego, Jacksonville, San Antonio, Houston, Detroit, El Paso, Memphis.

All have either very good facilities or a history of hosting a well-run game. I could see them mixing in Indianapolis but that's about it.

 

No buying any of that. The NCAA didn't legislate the NIT out of existence when it created the basketball tournament, nor have they had any objection whatsoever to the recent proliferation a several new bullshit postseason basketball tounaments in addition to the NIT. You've no evidence and nothing beyond speculation to believe they'd demand elimination of the bowls here. To the contrary, they could do this in partnership with the bowls in a way that benefits everyone (except for the BCS folks who don't want to share the loot).

And the "bowls would lose relevance" argument is nonsense. Hell, it's hard to imagine how most of them could be any less "relevant" than they already are. If the top 15 bowls are used as the playoff venues (as you suggested) it would make those bowls MORE relevant, not less. What would you rather watch: an Outback Bowl that's nothing more than a glorified exhibition game between teams that finished 3rd in their conference or an Outback Bowl between two teams still battling for a national championship? The 2d way would be far more relevant and draw far higher viewer interest and ad revenue.

As for the other 23 bowls, they'd be the same thing they are already, nobody has any illusions as it is that the GMAC bowl between two 7-5 teams has any relevance, nothing changes in that respect at all. And ESPN (or someone else) will continue to show those bowls as long as there's viewer interest. If there's not any, then perhaps they shouldn't exist anyways.

 

How in the holy fuck is unbeaten TCU (8) ranked that far behind Boise (4) and Cincy (5)? Take a look at their respective schedules. Not to mention that TCU (which finished seventh in both polls at the end of last season) BEAT previously unbeaten Boise in their bowl game last year.

Absurd. (Yes, I went to TCU, but the point remains)

 

I posted this on SJ in Dec. 2007. I love bringing it up again because it brings up a debate that most don't think about when they are arguing for or against a college football playoff (For the record, I hate the BCS, too).

This article was written in the 1995 Information Please Sports Almanac by Tony Barnhart:

"The meeting room in Kansas City on June 2 was filled with people, who for the most part, had dedicated their lives to college athletics. The objective on this day was to come up with a plan to conquer the last remaining frontier of collegiate sport -a playoff format to determine the championship of Division I-A football.

There were problems, to be sure, about tackling this monster. But the financial payoff for college athletics, maybe an extra $60 million per year, kept the special NCAA committee going. They had to try and come up with a plan, any plan, that could at least be presented to the next NCAA convention in January.

Each person on the committee had his or her turn to speak. There was genuine excitement in the room that, despite the obstacles involved, a playoff could become a reality. Maybe it wouldn't happen this year, or the next, but it would happen.

Then it was Derrick Brooks' turn to speak. Brooks is an All-America linebacker at Florida State University and one of three student athletes picked for the committee. He is extremely intelligent, an Academic All-ACC selection. He folded his hands and spoke with great clarity:

"I would ask the committee that once these new revenues are generated, how will the student-athlete benefit?" he said. "What would be our share?"

The room grew strangely quiet.

"It was like somebody had sucked all the air out of the place," said a participant in the meeting. "Suddenly an issue had been raised that no one was prepared to deal with."

The record will show that the day after Brooks said his piece to the committee, the Southeastern Conference voted 12-0 against the concept of a Division I-A football playoff. The next day the special NCAA committee, chaired by UCLA chancellor Charles Young, said it could not come up with a plan and agreed to continue studying the issue.A few days later the NCAA Presidents Committee disbanded the committee. The issue of a playoff was dead for the foreseeable future."

 

So it's all Derrick Brooks' fault.

Man, fuck that guy. ;D