Frank, I'll disagree.

If a college playoff was established, conferences would become smaller. Would they move to 6 teams? 8 teams? 9 teams? I don't know. I do know they would not be 12 teams.

If I am currently in a power conference, I'll want an one in six chance of making the tournament. This assumes that only champions are taken.

What many dismiss is that a tournament may not be better for those outside the power conferences.

Would 8-4 C-USA champion ECU make the tournament? How about Boise State? How about MAC champion Buffalo?
Who would represent the Big XII (south, assuming it is a conference)? Texas? Oklahoma? Texas Tech?

(01-09-2009 12:55 PM)chess Wrote:  Frank, I'll disagree.

If a college playoff was established, conferences would become smaller. Would they move to 6 teams? 8 teams? 9 teams? I don't know. I do know they would not be 12 teams.

If I am currently in a power conference, I'll want an one in six chance of making the tournament. This assumes that only champions are taken.

What many dismiss is that a tournament may not be better for those outside the power conferences.

Would 8-4 C-USA champion ECU make the tournament? How about Boise State? How about MAC champion Buffalo?
Who would represent the Big XII (south, assuming it is a conference)? Texas? Oklahoma? Texas Tech?

NCAA rules state that conferences must be 8 teams minimum.

(01-09-2009 01:25 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-09-2009 12:55 PM)chess Wrote:  Frank, I'll disagree.

If a college playoff was established, conferences would become smaller. Would they move to 6 teams? 8 teams? 9 teams? I don't know. I do know they would not be 12 teams.

If I am currently in a power conference, I'll want an one in six chance of making the tournament. This assumes that only champions are taken.

What many dismiss is that a tournament may not be better for those outside the power conferences.

Would 8-4 C-USA champion ECU make the tournament? How about Boise State? How about MAC champion Buffalo?
Who would represent the Big XII (south, assuming it is a conference)? Texas? Oklahoma? Texas Tech?

NCAA rules state that conferences must be 8 teams minimum.

Agreed. A national playoff system would see the emergence of smaller (9 team) conferences than bigger (12 team) conferences. That's if conferences could be represented by only one team, which the power conferences would not agree to.

(01-09-2009 01:33 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  

(01-09-2009 01:25 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-09-2009 12:55 PM)chess Wrote:  Frank, I'll disagree.

If a college playoff was established, conferences would become smaller. Would they move to 6 teams? 8 teams? 9 teams? I don't know. I do know they would not be 12 teams.

If I am currently in a power conference, I'll want an one in six chance of making the tournament. This assumes that only champions are taken.

What many dismiss is that a tournament may not be better for those outside the power conferences.

Would 8-4 C-USA champion ECU make the tournament? How about Boise State? How about MAC champion Buffalo?
Who would represent the Big XII (south, assuming it is a conference)? Texas? Oklahoma? Texas Tech?

NCAA rules state that conferences must be 8 teams minimum.

Agreed. A national playoff system would see the emergence of smaller (9 team) conferences than bigger (12 team) conferences. That's if conferences could be represented by only one team, which the power conferences would not agree to.

A playoff wouldn't do it alone. It would have to require auto-berths to be awarded fairly and immediately.
Nor is it the only way to discourage 12-team conferences. You can do that by banning conference championship games.

I agree with Frank. While colleges want to be the top dog, they are obsessed about who their peer institutions or athletic programs are. That, and not their ability to make the playoffs, is what determines their reputation, and a result their ability to schedule and recruit.

(01-09-2009 02:09 PM)rferry Wrote:  

(01-09-2009 01:33 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  

(01-09-2009 01:25 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-09-2009 12:55 PM)chess Wrote:  Frank, I'll disagree.

If a college playoff was established, conferences would become smaller. Would they move to 6 teams? 8 teams? 9 teams? I don't know. I do know they would not be 12 teams.

If I am currently in a power conference, I'll want an one in six chance of making the tournament. This assumes that only champions are taken.

What many dismiss is that a tournament may not be better for those outside the power conferences.

Would 8-4 C-USA champion ECU make the tournament? How about Boise State? How about MAC champion Buffalo?
Who would represent the Big XII (south, assuming it is a conference)? Texas? Oklahoma? Texas Tech?

NCAA rules state that conferences must be 8 teams minimum.

Agreed. A national playoff system would see the emergence of smaller (9 team) conferences than bigger (12 team) conferences. That's if conferences could be represented by only one team, which the power conferences would not agree to.

A playoff wouldn't do it alone. It would have to require auto-berths to be awarded fairly and immediately.
Nor is it the only way to discourage 12-team conferences. You can do that by banning conference championship games.

I agree with Frank. While colleges want to be the top dog, they are obsessed about who their peer institutions or athletic programs are. That, and not their ability to make the playoffs, is what determines their reputation, and a result their ability to schedule and recruit.

I always thought conference affiliations were about money, rather than peer status. I doubt if Stanford and Arizona State; Duke and Florida State; Rice and East Carolina; or Pitt (or Georgetown) and South Florida have all that much in common, other than making money.

IMO if a playoff system came with an automatic bid for each conference champion, then the whole purpose behind conference expansions would be defeated. So I would think that conferences would either shed teams (the ACC probably would probably do it to regain their round robin basketball format); or teams would probably leave conferences on their own, to join weaker conferences.

(01-09-2009 03:39 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(01-09-2009 02:09 PM)rferry Wrote:  

(01-09-2009 01:33 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  

(01-09-2009 01:25 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-09-2009 12:55 PM)chess Wrote:  Frank, I'll disagree.

If a college playoff was established, conferences would become smaller. Would they move to 6 teams? 8 teams? 9 teams? I don't know. I do know they would not be 12 teams.

If I am currently in a power conference, I'll want an one in six chance of making the tournament. This assumes that only champions are taken.

What many dismiss is that a tournament may not be better for those outside the power conferences.

Would 8-4 C-USA champion ECU make the tournament? How about Boise State? How about MAC champion Buffalo?
Who would represent the Big XII (south, assuming it is a conference)? Texas? Oklahoma? Texas Tech?

NCAA rules state that conferences must be 8 teams minimum.

Agreed. A national playoff system would see the emergence of smaller (9 team) conferences than bigger (12 team) conferences. That's if conferences could be represented by only one team, which the power conferences would not agree to.

A playoff wouldn't do it alone. It would have to require auto-berths to be awarded fairly and immediately.
Nor is it the only way to discourage 12-team conferences. You can do that by banning conference championship games.

I agree with Frank. While colleges want to be the top dog, they are obsessed about who their peer institutions or athletic programs are. That, and not their ability to make the playoffs, is what determines their reputation, and a result their ability to schedule and recruit.

I always thought conference affiliations were about money, rather than peer status. I doubt if Stanford and Arizona State; Duke and Florida State; Rice and East Carolina; or Pitt (or Georgetown) and South Florida have all that much in common, other than making money.

IMO if a playoff system came with an automatic bid for each conference champion, then the whole purpose behind conference expansions would be defeated. So I would think that conferences would either shed teams (the ACC probably would probably do it to regain their round robin basketball format); or teams would probably leave conferences on their own, to join weaker conferences.

Peer status and money go hand-in-hand. There might be some conferences that just truly care about the money part, but that doesn't really apply to the largest BCS conferences. The Big Ten wants certain types of schools with certain types of athletic programs and academic profiles. They aren't going to throw away their conference reputation cultivated over a century in response to a football playoff. The Pac-10 has zero desire to take anyone from the MWC. The Big East basketball side wants urban Catholic institutions. Maybe the non-BCS conferences are willing to do more for money alone (because they don't have that money), but there are institutional considerations for the conferences that currently have BCS status.

Colleges are very old school - their school presidents are clubby and they want to be able to show that they are "elite" (n the form of being members of a prestigious conference. Michigan and Ohio State want nothing to do with MAC schools while USC and UCLA want nothing to do with Fresno State (both in terms of sports AND academics).

(01-09-2009 03:39 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  IMO if a playoff system came with an automatic bid for each conference champion, then the whole purpose behind conference expansions would be defeated. So I would think that conferences would either shed teams (the ACC probably would probably do it to regain their round robin basketball format); or teams would probably leave conferences on their own, to join weaker conferences.

The purpose behind conference expansions will always exist. Colleges will want to unite with the institutions they view as peers (in academic, cultural, athletic, geographic, and financial/marketable terms).
I think what you mean is there will be a counter-acting force toward smaller conferences, that is conferences in which a team has 1/8th the chance at the playoffs and 1/8th the revenue of that 1 auto berth.
Now will that outweigh 1/12th the revenue of multiple berths, TV, sponsors, etc. or the other motives of conference movement? That's the question. For the CUSA, sure, the SEC or Big Ten? No way.

The first round of the playoff should include the conference championships. The downfall is that, if you take this year for example, you would have had the number one and two seeds playing in the first round for the SEC championship.

We want a playoff, and the only way that happens is if it works within the system established.

(01-07-2009 10:44 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  All BCS conferences are formed because of Academic profile, and distance. If there were no BCS/non-BCS labels, and everyone had access to a NCAA championship through a playoff then how would that change conference make up?

Would teams change conferences to play closer to region, specifically for non-revenue sports?

I doubt it. Colleges in traditional BCS conferences will likely remain where they are so that they can continue to capitalize on the Media exposure, TV Rights Contracts, and Bowl Affiliations.

There may be some movement in the Non-BCS conferences to reduce travel expenses, but I doubt that would be major either.

animus, Many midlevel BCS teams are probably as good or better than conference champions from non-bcs conferences. What you are not considering is the effect a more balanced playing field would have on the non-bcs conferences. The recruiting advantage that many BCS schools now use when recruiting would be gone. For example. ECU would be able to go head/head for recruits against VaTech, UVA, UNC, NC State, etc. I'm sure ECU would win it's fair share of more talented recruits and therefore would have the depth and talent to beat those midlevel and even upper level BCS teams on a regular basis. Heck, look at what joining the Big East did for Louisville, Cincy, and VaTech back in the day. Those school were able to tell recruits that they would have a shot at playing for a National Championship.

(01-10-2009 02:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  The first round of the playoff should include the conference championships. The downfall is that, if you take this year for example, you would have had the number one and two seeds playing in the first round for the SEC championship.

We want a playoff, and the only way that happens is if it works within the system established.

That's encouraging. I think that a 4-Top Seed Bye, with Seeds 5-12 playing in Wildcard Games to determine the final slots in each of the 4 BCS Bowl Games could work.

The other option would be to seed 16 teams and have every one play for entrance into the four BCS Bowl Games (i.e., 8 teams).

Those two options would work within the current system ... given that semi-final locations are bidded & determined by a committee.

The most important things, in my opinion, are:
(1) All of the conference champions get included
(2) Current Bowl System is not contaminated by the playoff.