(10-28-2013 09:36 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I completely disagree with the OP. In his scenario 2 years ago Alabama would have been left out of the playoffs. Just imagine the outrage when a team like Bama is left out and a UCLA with 4 losses beats an undefeated Oregon in the CCG and gets in the Playoffs over Oregon and Bama.

You didn't quite read me right. My point wasn't that each and every CCG champ would be in. That's impossible. My point was that the committee must show PREFERENCE to champs if possible.

In 2011, #1 LSU, #3 OkSt, and #4 Oregon all would have gotten their selections through their conference championship game wins.

The Big Ten champ Wisconsin would have come in around #8 after its win...and the ACC champ Clemson was barely in the top 20. No bid for them. #2 Alabama gets the final bid. 'Bama vs. Oregon in one CFP semi. LSU vs. OkSt in the other. Easy.

(10-28-2013 01:21 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:43 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 09:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think it ever will. TV will NEVER allow a situation like 2 years ago where Alabama was #2 and for them to not be included in the playoff. NEVER.

And that's why there will always be controversy, no matter how many teams are used to determine a champion.

Using this fictional scenario, assume only top four undefeated:

1. West Virginia
2. Texas A&M
3. Texas
4. USC
5. Michigan
6. LSU
7. Miami
8. Notre Dame
9. Georgia
10. Florida State
19. Oregon State
24. Iowa

Texas beats West Virginia in the Big XII championship game, Georgia upsets A&M in the SEC title game and FSU tops Miami in the ACC championship. USC and Michigan lose their championship games to Oregon State and Iowa. This would leave only Texas undefeated and the P5 conference champs would be Texas, Georgia, FSU, Iowa and Oregon State. In a conference champs only scenario, which team gets left out? If non-conference champs are allowed and the committee feels former No.1 West Virginia is still deserving a a spot in the four-team playoff, then why not former No. 2 Texas A&M? Would former No. 6 LSU have a gripe, since they certainly would now be ranked in the top 4 with Michigan and USC losing? You know that Notre Dame would be claiming the rights to a spot since five teams ranked above them lost. Would LSU or Texas A&M be selected instead of SEC Champ Georgia?

Every year they have a four-team playoff, there will be teams complaining that they got the shaft. Then they will expand the playoffs to eight teams and there will still be teams complaining that they should have been included. Until there is a 16-team playoff, they can't be certain to include all teams that could be deemed "playoff worthy" by everyone. And even then there will be complaints, though fewer. Then they will have watered down the value of the regular season to such a degree that they will be in danger of killing the golden goose. The money required to fund such a system will be astronomical and, on an individual school basis, the funds required to compete at the highest level will be huge.

Your last part is laughable.

FCS has managed to have a great playoff system, AND a meaningful regular season.


There are no LOGICAL or LEGITIMATE arguments against a 20-team, all inclusive playoff other than "We don't want too"

FCS loses money on football. And sometimes their playoff games draw even less than the regular season.

There is no logical or legitimate argument for a 20 team playoff other than, "We just want too." Having all the champs in has some logic and legitimacy. Having all them and 10 wildcards, that's just because you like tournaments or the money it creates. It makes the champ a little less legitimate.

(10-28-2013 01:21 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:43 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 09:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think it ever will. TV will NEVER allow a situation like 2 years ago where Alabama was #2 and for them to not be included in the playoff. NEVER.

And that's why there will always be controversy, no matter how many teams are used to determine a champion.

Using this fictional scenario, assume only top four undefeated:

1. West Virginia
2. Texas A&M
3. Texas
4. USC
5. Michigan
6. LSU
7. Miami
8. Notre Dame
9. Georgia
10. Florida State
19. Oregon State
24. Iowa

Texas beats West Virginia in the Big XII championship game, Georgia upsets A&M in the SEC title game and FSU tops Miami in the ACC championship. USC and Michigan lose their championship games to Oregon State and Iowa. This would leave only Texas undefeated and the P5 conference champs would be Texas, Georgia, FSU, Iowa and Oregon State. In a conference champs only scenario, which team gets left out? If non-conference champs are allowed and the committee feels former No.1 West Virginia is still deserving a a spot in the four-team playoff, then why not former No. 2 Texas A&M? Would former No. 6 LSU have a gripe, since they certainly would now be ranked in the top 4 with Michigan and USC losing? You know that Notre Dame would be claiming the rights to a spot since five teams ranked above them lost. Would LSU or Texas A&M be selected instead of SEC Champ Georgia?

Every year they have a four-team playoff, there will be teams complaining that they got the shaft. Then they will expand the playoffs to eight teams and there will still be teams complaining that they should have been included. Until there is a 16-team playoff, they can't be certain to include all teams that could be deemed "playoff worthy" by everyone. And even then there will be complaints, though fewer. Then they will have watered down the value of the regular season to such a degree that they will be in danger of killing the golden goose. The money required to fund such a system will be astronomical and, on an individual school basis, the funds required to compete at the highest level will be huge.

Your last part is laughable.

FCS has managed to have a great playoff system, AND a meaningful regular season.


There are no LOGICAL or LEGITIMATE arguments against a 20-team, all inclusive playoff other than "We don't want too"

You're wrong, you know...

Every extra game puts kids at risk for concussion injuries, which all medical studies have shown to be detrimental to the future for these kids. And your solution to the problem is - let's have more games to decide who's champion...

I can see expanding the playoff to 8 teams, if all schools lose an OOC game from their schedules. But IMO these kids risk their future health enough for our benefit, without us demanding that they put themselves in further danger...

(10-28-2013 01:26 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 09:36 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I completely disagree with the OP. In his scenario 2 years ago Alabama would have been left out of the playoffs. Just imagine the outrage when a team like Bama is left out and a UCLA with 4 losses beats an undefeated Oregon in the CCG and gets in the Playoffs over Oregon and Bama.

You didn't quite read me right. My point wasn't that each and every CCG champ would be in. That's impossible. My point was that the committee must show PREFERENCE to champs if possible.

In 2011, #1 LSU, #3 OkSt, and #4 Oregon all would have gotten their selections through their conference championship game wins.

The Big Ten champ Wisconsin would have come in around #8 after its win...and the ACC champ Clemson was barely in the top 20. No bid for them. #2 Alabama gets the final bid. 'Bama vs. Oregon in one CFP semi. LSU vs. OkSt in the other. Easy.

think you have the semi matchups wrong for '11.
LSU vs Oregon in one, Alabama vs Oklahoma St in the other. Oklahoma St ahead of Oregon, so the lower team LSU gets.

(10-28-2013 01:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:21 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:43 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 09:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think it ever will. TV will NEVER allow a situation like 2 years ago where Alabama was #2 and for them to not be included in the playoff. NEVER.

And that's why there will always be controversy, no matter how many teams are used to determine a champion.

Using this fictional scenario, assume only top four undefeated:

1. West Virginia
2. Texas A&M
3. Texas
4. USC
5. Michigan
6. LSU
7. Miami
8. Notre Dame
9. Georgia
10. Florida State
19. Oregon State
24. Iowa

Texas beats West Virginia in the Big XII championship game, Georgia upsets A&M in the SEC title game and FSU tops Miami in the ACC championship. USC and Michigan lose their championship games to Oregon State and Iowa. This would leave only Texas undefeated and the P5 conference champs would be Texas, Georgia, FSU, Iowa and Oregon State. In a conference champs only scenario, which team gets left out? If non-conference champs are allowed and the committee feels former No.1 West Virginia is still deserving a a spot in the four-team playoff, then why not former No. 2 Texas A&M? Would former No. 6 LSU have a gripe, since they certainly would now be ranked in the top 4 with Michigan and USC losing? You know that Notre Dame would be claiming the rights to a spot since five teams ranked above them lost. Would LSU or Texas A&M be selected instead of SEC Champ Georgia?

Every year they have a four-team playoff, there will be teams complaining that they got the shaft. Then they will expand the playoffs to eight teams and there will still be teams complaining that they should have been included. Until there is a 16-team playoff, they can't be certain to include all teams that could be deemed "playoff worthy" by everyone. And even then there will be complaints, though fewer. Then they will have watered down the value of the regular season to such a degree that they will be in danger of killing the golden goose. The money required to fund such a system will be astronomical and, on an individual school basis, the funds required to compete at the highest level will be huge.

Your last part is laughable.

FCS has managed to have a great playoff system, AND a meaningful regular season.


There are no LOGICAL or LEGITIMATE arguments against a 20-team, all inclusive playoff other than "We don't want too"

FCS loses money on football. And sometimes their playoff games draw even less than the regular season.

There is no logical or legitimate argument for a 20 team playoff other than, "We just want too." Having all the champs in has some logic and legitimacy. Having all them and 10 wildcards, that's just because you like tournaments or the money it creates. It makes the champ a little less legitimate.

FBS playoffs would make far more money than the Bowls.
FCS attendance is down mainly due to first round on Thanksgiving weekend.
Every other sport allows for all champs to be in. How would it make the champion less legit?

(10-28-2013 01:40 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:21 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:43 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 09:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think it ever will. TV will NEVER allow a situation like 2 years ago where Alabama was #2 and for them to not be included in the playoff. NEVER.

And that's why there will always be controversy, no matter how many teams are used to determine a champion.

Using this fictional scenario, assume only top four undefeated:

1. West Virginia
2. Texas A&M
3. Texas
4. USC
5. Michigan
6. LSU
7. Miami
8. Notre Dame
9. Georgia
10. Florida State
19. Oregon State
24. Iowa

Texas beats West Virginia in the Big XII championship game, Georgia upsets A&M in the SEC title game and FSU tops Miami in the ACC championship. USC and Michigan lose their championship games to Oregon State and Iowa. This would leave only Texas undefeated and the P5 conference champs would be Texas, Georgia, FSU, Iowa and Oregon State. In a conference champs only scenario, which team gets left out? If non-conference champs are allowed and the committee feels former No.1 West Virginia is still deserving a a spot in the four-team playoff, then why not former No. 2 Texas A&M? Would former No. 6 LSU have a gripe, since they certainly would now be ranked in the top 4 with Michigan and USC losing? You know that Notre Dame would be claiming the rights to a spot since five teams ranked above them lost. Would LSU or Texas A&M be selected instead of SEC Champ Georgia?

Every year they have a four-team playoff, there will be teams complaining that they got the shaft. Then they will expand the playoffs to eight teams and there will still be teams complaining that they should have been included. Until there is a 16-team playoff, they can't be certain to include all teams that could be deemed "playoff worthy" by everyone. And even then there will be complaints, though fewer. Then they will have watered down the value of the regular season to such a degree that they will be in danger of killing the golden goose. The money required to fund such a system will be astronomical and, on an individual school basis, the funds required to compete at the highest level will be huge.

Your last part is laughable.

FCS has managed to have a great playoff system, AND a meaningful regular season.


There are no LOGICAL or LEGITIMATE arguments against a 20-team, all inclusive playoff other than "We don't want too"

You're wrong, you know...

Every extra game puts kids at risk for concussion injuries, which all medical studies have shown to be detrimental to the future for these kids. And your solution to the problem is - let's have more games to decide who's champion...

I can see expanding the playoff to 8 teams, if all schools lose an OOC game from their schedules. But IMO these kids risk their future health enough for our benefit, without us demanding that they put themselves in further danger...

Then why play at all? BAN FOOTBALL!!!!

Cancel the 12th game. Cancel Bowl games. Limit them to 10 games like the Ivy League does, no post season.

2010 is another easy example, if you give CCG winners preference.

(Final BCS rankings)
#1 Auburn.
#2 Oregon.
#5 Wisconsin or #6 Ohio State (however Big Ten champ would be decided...that was pre-Nebraska and pre-CCG)

The ACC champ (#13 VaTech) and Big 12 champ (#7 OU) would be skipped over by #3 TCU (at large). #4 Stanford also misses out as non-CCG winner.

(10-28-2013 10:43 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Every year they have a four-team playoff, there will be teams complaining that they got the shaft. Then they will expand the playoffs to eight teams and there will still be teams complaining that they should have been included. Until there is a 16-team playoff, they can't be certain to include all teams that could be deemed "playoff worthy" by everyone. And even then there will be complaints, though fewer. Then they will have watered down the value of the regular season to such a degree that they will be in danger of killing the golden goose. The money required to fund such a system will be astronomical and, on an individual school basis, the funds required to compete at the highest level will be huge.

Complaints aren't what got us a 4-team playoff. Instead, money finally tipped the scales for the P5 conferences.

What you're missing in my OP is that the conferences can BASICALLY have the quarterfinals all to themselves. No, it might not be an auto-bid every year...but the TV networks will pay each and every conference almost like it's a quarterfinal game, even in years that it's not.

An 8-team playoff will only come to fruition if the money for each conference is guaranteed to be astronomically more when they split the pie. Otherwise, they'd much rather have a bit less money and a bit more control over their own income.

(10-28-2013 01:45 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:40 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:21 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:43 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 09:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think it ever will. TV will NEVER allow a situation like 2 years ago where Alabama was #2 and for them to not be included in the playoff. NEVER.

And that's why there will always be controversy, no matter how many teams are used to determine a champion.

Using this fictional scenario, assume only top four undefeated:

1. West Virginia
2. Texas A&M
3. Texas
4. USC
5. Michigan
6. LSU
7. Miami
8. Notre Dame
9. Georgia
10. Florida State
19. Oregon State
24. Iowa

Texas beats West Virginia in the Big XII championship game, Georgia upsets A&M in the SEC title game and FSU tops Miami in the ACC championship. USC and Michigan lose their championship games to Oregon State and Iowa. This would leave only Texas undefeated and the P5 conference champs would be Texas, Georgia, FSU, Iowa and Oregon State. In a conference champs only scenario, which team gets left out? If non-conference champs are allowed and the committee feels former No.1 West Virginia is still deserving a a spot in the four-team playoff, then why not former No. 2 Texas A&M? Would former No. 6 LSU have a gripe, since they certainly would now be ranked in the top 4 with Michigan and USC losing? You know that Notre Dame would be claiming the rights to a spot since five teams ranked above them lost. Would LSU or Texas A&M be selected instead of SEC Champ Georgia?

Every year they have a four-team playoff, there will be teams complaining that they got the shaft. Then they will expand the playoffs to eight teams and there will still be teams complaining that they should have been included. Until there is a 16-team playoff, they can't be certain to include all teams that could be deemed "playoff worthy" by everyone. And even then there will be complaints, though fewer. Then they will have watered down the value of the regular season to such a degree that they will be in danger of killing the golden goose. The money required to fund such a system will be astronomical and, on an individual school basis, the funds required to compete at the highest level will be huge.

Your last part is laughable.

FCS has managed to have a great playoff system, AND a meaningful regular season.


There are no LOGICAL or LEGITIMATE arguments against a 20-team, all inclusive playoff other than "We don't want too"

You're wrong, you know...

Every extra game puts kids at risk for concussion injuries, which all medical studies have shown to be detrimental to the future for these kids. And your solution to the problem is - let's have more games to decide who's champion...

I can see expanding the playoff to 8 teams, if all schools lose an OOC game from their schedules. But IMO these kids risk their future health enough for our benefit, without us demanding that they put themselves in further danger...

Then why play at all? BAN FOOTBALL!!!!

Cancel the 12th game. Cancel Bowl games. Limit them to 10 games like the Ivy League does, no post season.

You go from one extreme to the other? That's real intelligent...

Yeah it's got to be 8 teams with 5 autobids with the P5 conferences. A G5 would probably get in if ranked in the top 12 or whatever. That will be the playoff.

Then you have a 6 bowl rotation. The Rose would be a Pac 12 vs Big 10 winner. Fiesta would be At-Large vs Big 12. Orange would be ACC vs At Large. Sugar would be SEC vs At Large. Then the Cotton/Peach and some other sights can serve as the Final four. I think the games would be played in sights close together, like a Saturday/Thursday, and you could get a discount package for both games if your team gets through.

(10-28-2013 02:00 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:43 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Every year they have a four-team playoff, there will be teams complaining that they got the shaft. Then they will expand the playoffs to eight teams and there will still be teams complaining that they should have been included. Until there is a 16-team playoff, they can't be certain to include all teams that could be deemed "playoff worthy" by everyone. And even then there will be complaints, though fewer. Then they will have watered down the value of the regular season to such a degree that they will be in danger of killing the golden goose. The money required to fund such a system will be astronomical and, on an individual school basis, the funds required to compete at the highest level will be huge.

Complaints aren't what got us a 4-team playoff. Instead, money finally tipped the scales for the P5 conferences.

What you're missing in my OP is that the conferences can BASICALLY have the quarterfinals all to themselves. No, it might not be an auto-bid every year...but the TV networks will pay each and every conference almost like it's a quarterfinal game, even in years that it's not.

An 8-team playoff will only come to fruition if the money for each conference is guaranteed to be astronomically more when they split the pie. Otherwise, they'd much rather have a bit less money and a bit more control over their own income.

atyclb, I didn't miss what you were saying in the OP. I know money is the motivation for expanded playoffs, whether we are talking about 16 teams, eight, four or even two teams. Money is at the root. But you can't ignore that people complaining about the method of determining a Division I national champion started the conversation about potential playoff scenarios. My point was in response to stever20's contention that a #2 Alabama would never get left out of a playoff. He's probably right, but I contend that no matter how many teams you feel is necessary to have a "legitimate" playoff, there will be those who will be left out who feel their claim to a spot is no less legitimate.

My preference -- no playoff at all. Conclude the regular season, let the bowls pick their teams and at the end, argue about who you think is the best team. Last time I checked, there isn't a law requiring a collegiate sport to designate a national champion. If your soul needs one, let the committee (poll voters) pick one and let the arguing begin. We had it that way most of my life and I'm fine with that.

(10-28-2013 01:26 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 09:36 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I completely disagree with the OP. In his scenario 2 years ago Alabama would have been left out of the playoffs. Just imagine the outrage when a team like Bama is left out and a UCLA with 4 losses beats an undefeated Oregon in the CCG and gets in the Playoffs over Oregon and Bama.

You didn't quite read me right. My point wasn't that each and every CCG champ would be in. That's impossible. My point was that the committee must show PREFERENCE to champs if possible.

In 2011, #1 LSU, #3 OkSt, and #4 Oregon all would have gotten their selections through their conference championship game wins.

The Big Ten champ Wisconsin would have come in around #8 after its win...and the ACC champ Clemson was barely in the top 20. No bid for them. #2 Alabama gets the final bid. 'Bama vs. Oregon in one CFP semi. LSU vs. OkSt in the other. Easy.

Fair enough. It seemed to me like you were implying a team had to win a CCG. Also, I am sure you know the Big12 has no CCG and will not likely have one for quite a while.

(10-28-2013 02:05 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:45 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:40 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:21 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:43 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  And that's why there will always be controversy, no matter how many teams are used to determine a champion.

Using this fictional scenario, assume only top four undefeated:

1. West Virginia
2. Texas A&M
3. Texas
4. USC
5. Michigan
6. LSU
7. Miami
8. Notre Dame
9. Georgia
10. Florida State
19. Oregon State
24. Iowa

Texas beats West Virginia in the Big XII championship game, Georgia upsets A&M in the SEC title game and FSU tops Miami in the ACC championship. USC and Michigan lose their championship games to Oregon State and Iowa. This would leave only Texas undefeated and the P5 conference champs would be Texas, Georgia, FSU, Iowa and Oregon State. In a conference champs only scenario, which team gets left out? If non-conference champs are allowed and the committee feels former No.1 West Virginia is still deserving a a spot in the four-team playoff, then why not former No. 2 Texas A&M? Would former No. 6 LSU have a gripe, since they certainly would now be ranked in the top 4 with Michigan and USC losing? You know that Notre Dame would be claiming the rights to a spot since five teams ranked above them lost. Would LSU or Texas A&M be selected instead of SEC Champ Georgia?

Every year they have a four-team playoff, there will be teams complaining that they got the shaft. Then they will expand the playoffs to eight teams and there will still be teams complaining that they should have been included. Until there is a 16-team playoff, they can't be certain to include all teams that could be deemed "playoff worthy" by everyone. And even then there will be complaints, though fewer. Then they will have watered down the value of the regular season to such a degree that they will be in danger of killing the golden goose. The money required to fund such a system will be astronomical and, on an individual school basis, the funds required to compete at the highest level will be huge.

Your last part is laughable.

FCS has managed to have a great playoff system, AND a meaningful regular season.


There are no LOGICAL or LEGITIMATE arguments against a 20-team, all inclusive playoff other than "We don't want too"

You're wrong, you know...

Every extra game puts kids at risk for concussion injuries, which all medical studies have shown to be detrimental to the future for these kids. And your solution to the problem is - let's have more games to decide who's champion...

I can see expanding the playoff to 8 teams, if all schools lose an OOC game from their schedules. But IMO these kids risk their future health enough for our benefit, without us demanding that they put themselves in further danger...

Then why play at all? BAN FOOTBALL!!!!

Cancel the 12th game. Cancel Bowl games. Limit them to 10 games like the Ivy League does, no post season.

You go from one extreme to the other? That's real intelligent...

You are the one that brought up concussion issues with a couple extra games. So if 15 games is an issue, why is 14 not? or 13? or 12?

I would be fine with starting out the season with conference play, and letting that determine who you play OOC, either in the playoff or to determine conference hierarchy. But I seriously doubt that will happen...

(10-28-2013 12:25 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 11:50 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  The Big Ten championship game should have this advantage, but I wonder if the weather has something to do with it.

I don't think it matters much when it comes to Indy. Everything is "walkable" here. Hotels, convention center, stadium, entertainment... Not much outside walking is required.

The weather for last year's game was rather toasty for December. Some fans were eating outside on decks, yet attendance was way down from the previous year. Of, course, that kind of weather can't be dialed up every year.

Wisconsin potentially making its third trip in a row to the Rose Bowl combined with "average" Nebraska and Wisconsin rankings had much more to do with it. And no doubt if given a choice between the CCG or the Rose Bowl, many fans are going to hold out for sunny SoCal.

Sorry by weather, I meant inclement weather affected the travel just to get to Indianapolis from some of the even colder weather places.

(10-28-2013 03:16 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:26 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 09:36 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I completely disagree with the OP. In his scenario 2 years ago Alabama would have been left out of the playoffs. Just imagine the outrage when a team like Bama is left out and a UCLA with 4 losses beats an undefeated Oregon in the CCG and gets in the Playoffs over Oregon and Bama.

You didn't quite read me right. My point wasn't that each and every CCG champ would be in. That's impossible. My point was that the committee must show PREFERENCE to champs if possible.

In 2011, #1 LSU, #3 OkSt, and #4 Oregon all would have gotten their selections through their conference championship game wins.

The Big Ten champ Wisconsin would have come in around #8 after its win...and the ACC champ Clemson was barely in the top 20. No bid for them. #2 Alabama gets the final bid. 'Bama vs. Oregon in one CFP semi. LSU vs. OkSt in the other. Easy.

Fair enough. It seemed to me like you were implying a team had to win a CCG. Also, I am sure you know the Big12 has no CCG and will not likely have one for quite a while.

Their "champ" might be dinged a bit for strength of schedule (w/o the CCG) but they will still be given top billing. Their "champ" will also be subject to conference rules as well...just like OU got the bid in 2008 over UT and TT.

(10-28-2013 06:32 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The selection committee is simply the poll system with another name. The committee is so large that it's inevitable. One poll is coaches, one is reporters, and this one is Condoleezza Rice, Archie Manning, and some ADs.

Thus, it will be driven by the same factors as the current polls. And we all know what those are.

Agreed. Same as it ever was. This is the old system streamlined and dressed up a bit.

(10-28-2013 10:39 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:29 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I still think that the notion that fans are going to travel to three consecutive neutral site games is patently absurd and the height of arrogance. It will not work. Within five years, almost all conference championship games (the SEC will likely be the outlier) will be played on the campus of the highest rated team within that conference.

Just think about it for a second. Let's say that the system was in place this year and you are a fan of Florida State.

The Seminoles have legitimate national championship aspirations - especially in a four team playoff scenario. Tell me, who in their right mind is going to pay all of that money to go to Charlotte knowing that if they win that game (and the Noles will be heavily favored to do so), they are headed to New Orleans for their next game? And if they win that game, they would play in Dallas for the national championship.

That makes no sense. People will simply save their money and roll the dice on Dallas.

Duh!

How many people have that kind of money and are that passionate about their team? Remember, we are talking about ENORMOUS stadia here, not 20K seat arenas (most of which do not sell out and are primarily filled by locals - completely different model than football).

I honestly don't understand the mentality of the BCS power brokers? They are trying to split the baby here to some degree and marry the old bowl system with a more modern, potentially more lucrative, playoff system and that is definitely not going to work.

Most people don't have unlimited resources and/or unlimited free time and they are not going to travel to three consecutive road games. This system is doomed to fail.

I agree with you with respect to the average fan. However, these conference championship games and ultimately bowls aren't made for the average fan in mind. They are events catered to (1) TV, (2) corporate sponsors and (3) the tourism industry. Conferences aren't worried about selling these tickets to the average fans. The main dollars that, say, the ACC is getting from its championship game are the boost in TV revenue from ESPN, the sale of premium tickets and suites to conference sponsors and Charlotte-based banks, law firms, accounting firms and other businesses that buy up tickets for clients, and the upfront guaranteed payment that the City of Charlotte, the Panthers and other local interests kick in for the right to hold the game. It's the same calculation for the bowls. This is about securing all of those businesses in Dallas, LA, Phoenix or wherever else the playoff games are going to be played to pay for the premium seats that are truly high revenue. That simply isn't possible at the college level even in the most revenue rich on-campus stadium locales like Alabama or Ohio State.

So, there might be a certain point where even this is too much and, as a result, you'll see a reversion to on-campus sites. However, I wouldn't bank on that happening anytime soon at all. The big dollars are in the corporate suites and premium seat sales, which are what are in abundance in top tier NFL stadiums. The sale of one corporate suite can compensate for literally hundreds of "regular" tickets. That's why every fight over new stadiums at the pro level for the past 25 years has been 100% about having enough of those premium seats - this is why Oklahoma City has an NBA team while Seattle doesn't and Jacksonville has an NFL team while Los Angeles doesn't. The regular fans are mostly TV props for these games at this point - they aren't where the major revenue comes from.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing that these games might be played in antiseptic atmospheres that might as well be enclosed TV studios, but there are a heck of a lot of financial considerations beyond the typical traveling fan that are heavily in play here.

So college football has been converted to resemble studio wrestling? Wonderful.

We can CG the fans in the stands. People watching on TV can be conned into thinking there really is a full stadium full of fans.

(10-29-2013 07:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  We can CG the fans in the stands. People watching on TV can be conned into thinking there really is a full stadium full of fans.

If anyone can figure out how to do that on live TV, you will probably see that.

(10-29-2013 12:42 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 07:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  We can CG the fans in the stands. People watching on TV can be conned into thinking there really is a full stadium full of fans.

If anyone can figure out how to do that on live TV, you will probably see that.

It wouldn't be all that difficult to do, even on a live broadcast. They're doing amazing things with CGI these days...