Someone want to explain to me ...

[L Buff]

When college football gets to an 8-team tournament it will be better too

Agreed. And play the first round (#1 v. #8, #2 v. #7 etc.) at the higher seed's home field. That way we might actually get some of those pussy southern warm weather teams to have to play in actual FOOTBALL weather!

 

[SECOBuffsFan]

Agreed. And play the first round (#1 v. #8, #2 v. #7 etc.) at the higher seed's home field. That way we might actually get some of those pussy southern warm weather teams to have to play in actual FOOTBALL weather!

I am all for home games, but don't see the NCAA having the gonads to tell the corporate bowls no thanks

 

[L Buff]

I am all for home games, but don't see the NCAA having the gonads to tell the corporate bowls no thanks

The second round (and the championship game) could still be played within the same bowl framework that it will next year.

I just believe that the four highest seeded teams deserve to play at their own venues in front of (largely) their own fans. Not to mention the whole possible weather thingy.

Plus ... if the first round is played at bowl games, you're asking the fans of the potential CG teams to travel to three separate games. That will have a negative effect on attendance for the first two IMO.

 

[cubuffs85]

The system is still better for college basketball.

Well if anything in college basketball, there's too many teams in the Tourney. Yes, I know there's more D-I teams(versus FBS). But the tournament isn't necessarily reflective of the season. In cfb, you have to do great in the regular season to make the playoffs.

 

[cubuffs85]

When college football gets to an 8-team tournament it will be better too

Don't worry then they'll want a 10 team playoff when #9 gets left out. How many total games are you thinking they are going to play. As it is with conference championship games, you have 13 (14 if you play at Hawaii). Then add two more games that's 15(possibly 16). You OK with a 17 (18) game season? Because they are almost certainly not doing away with conference championship games.

 

[cubuffs85]

I am all for home games, but don't see the NCAA having the gonads to tell the corporate bowls no thanks

Very unlikely. They've already rejected that idea once.

 

[L Buff]

Very unlikely. They've already rejected that idea once.

I may be mistaken ... but isn't the NCAA a non-player in the system next year (as they have been with the BCS and before that the Bowl Alliance)? They have nothing to say about it IIRC ... besides sanctioning the games as they do now.

It's the university presidents that control this, and I can see them advocating home games in the first round IF the field is expanded to 8 teams (which it should be). Anyone who believes that the #5 and #6 teams next year that get shut out won't be screaming about it is living in a fools' paradise. IMO the #9 and #10 teams will have a much weaker case.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

I am all for home games, but don't see the NCAA having the gonads to tell the corporate bowls no thanks

The bowls don't have to go away. They are just for the teams that were not selected. Sort of like the NIT.

 

[cubuffs85]

I may be mistaken ... but isn't the NCAA a non-player in the system next year (as they have been with the BCS and before that the Bowl Alliance)? They have nothing to say about it IIRC ... besides sanctioning the games as they do now.

It's the university presidents that control this, and I can see them advocating home games in the first round IF the field is expanded to 8 teams (which it should be). Anyone who believes that the #5 and #6 teams next year that get shut out won't be screaming about it is living in a fools' paradise. IMO the #9 and #10 teams will have a much weaker case.

Ok not the NCAA but the BCS committee(now the CFB Playoff). They said specifically that some venues/towns couldn't it. Imagine Pullman or Boise hosting a College Football Playoff game in the hypothetical situation they were ranked that high.

The more teams you have the less case the teams that left out had. However, this changes year-to-year. For example, no one is saying that Alabama or Michigan State should be playing next week.

 

[cubuffs85]

The second round (and the championship game) could still be played within the same bowl framework that it will next year.

I just believe that the four highest seeded teams deserve to play at their own venues in front of (largely) their own fans. Not to mention the whole possible weather thingy.

Plus ... if the first round is played at bowl games, you're asking the fans of the potential CG teams to travel to three separate games. That will have a negative effect on attendance for the first two IMO.

That's actually an argument against a further playoff system, you are asking fans to travel potentially twice, now you're asking them to travel three times. FSU fans stayed away from the ACCCG, because they wanted to save up for Passadena. It will be interesting to see what people do next year (the people who aren't super rich that is) -- do they buy tickets to the first round game or do they take their chances and save up for the second game? The idea of them playing these games at home sites is a pipe dream.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Ok not the NCAA but the BCS committee(now the CFB Playoff). They said specifically that some venues/towns couldn't it. Imagine Pullman or Boise hosting a College Football Playoff game in the hypothetical situation they were ranked that high.

The more teams you have the less case the teams that left out had. However, this changes year-to-year. For example, no one is saying that Alabama or Michigan State should be playing next week.

Sorry, but your not going to get a bowl sized crowd showing up on a weeks notice in Boise or Pullman. People can't get work off. Or find affordable air fair that fast. Besides, under LBuffs plan, the home team season ticket holders would get the same tickets they do all season. The away team probably less since this would be played in non neutral sites.

Boise has enough hotels to handle a crowd showing up for that game.

And this is sort of the argument against such a plan; there is not enough time to maximize revenue while adding hefty travel costs for some schools as they advance each week.

 

[cubuffs85]

Sorry, but your not going to get a bowl sized crowd showing up on a weeks notice in Boise or Pullman. People can't get work off. Or find affordable air fair that fast. Besides, under LBuffs plan, the home team season ticket holders would get the same tickets they do all season. The away team probably less since this would be played in non neutral sites.

Boise has enough hotels to handle a crowd showing up for that game.

And this is sort of the argument against such a plan; there is not enough time to maximize revenue while adding hefty travel costs for some schools as they advance each week.

This is all a moot point, they aren't putting these games at home sites but part of the reasoning was it be unfair to some clubs that couldn't host. That's the BCS/CFB Playoff Committee argument. Wazzu obviously would have to be able to accommodate the P12 Champ if they ever get good enought o host.

 

[L Buff]

Ok not the NCAA but the BCS committee(now the CFB Playoff). They said specifically that some venues/towns couldn't it. Imagine Pullman or Boise hosting a College Football Playoff game in the hypothetical situation they were ranked that high.

The more teams you have the less case the teams that left out had. However, this changes year-to-year. For example, no one is saying that Alabama or Michigan State should be playing next week.

I respectfully disagree. I think there are plenty of folks who think 'Bama is a better team than FSU, due to a stronger SoS. They may be incorrect, but this year we'll have no way to know. Next year ... maybe.

And what, pray tell, would be the problem with Pullman or Boise hosting a first round game in a playoff of 8 teams (assuming of course Wazzu and BSU finish in the top 4)? Do you think it wouldn't sell out? That the home fans wouldn't fill the stadium?

The whole point of my initial post in this thread is that I think the warm weather teams (e.g., all SEC teams, most ACC teams, southern California and Arizona teams etc.) should just maybe have to travel north in December to play football in the weather that it was first played extensively and evolved by schools such as Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Michigan, Minnesota, etc. .. you know .. REAL football. Northern teams often travel to southern venues in September and play OOC games in horrifically hot conditions (95+ degrees with 90+% humidity). Why isn't turnabout fair play?

It seems to work just fine for the FCS, Div II, and Div III schools.

 

[cubuffs85]

I respectfully disagree. I think there are plenty of folks who think 'Bama is a better team than FSU, due to a stronger SoS. They may be incorrect, but this year we'll have no way to know. Next year ... maybe.

And what, pray tell, would be the problem with Pullman or Boise hosting a first round game in a playoff of 8 teams (assuming of course Wazzu and BSU finish in the top 4)? Do you think it wouldn't sell out? That the home fans wouldn't fill the stadium?

The whole point of my initial post in this thread is that I think the warm weather teams (e.g., all SEC teams, most ACC teams, southern California and Arizona teams etc.) should just maybe have to travel north in December to play football in the weather that it was first played extensively and evolved by schools such as Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Michigan, Minnesota, etc. .. you know .. REAL football. Northern teams often travel to southern venues in September and play OOC games in horrifically hot conditions (95+ degrees with 90+% humidity). Why isn't turnabout fair play?

It seems to work just fine for the FCS, Div II, Div III schools.

Better and deserving are two different things. How many people who voted didn't list FSU/Auburn? Not some pyschos who burn trees. The overwhelming consensus had them 1/2. There was little debate. You didn't hear Nick Saban saying "we deserve to be there."

The problem is the CFB Playoff Committee doesn't want them hosting a game. They want it to be 80k seat stadium, where weather isn't likely an issue. FCS games are more like a NFL playoff format, CFB is more like NCAA game format. Why not have NCAA men's games in the first weekend at home sites? The women do it after all.

 

[L Buff]

Sorry, but your not going to get a bowl sized crowd showing up on a weeks notice in Boise or Pullman. People can't get work off. Or find affordable air fair that fast. Besides, under LBuffs plan, the home team season ticket holders would get the same tickets they do all season. The away team probably less since this would be played in non neutral sites.Boise has enough hotels to handle a crowd showing up for that game.

And this is sort of the argument against such a plan; there is not enough time to maximize revenue while adding hefty travel costs for some schools as they advance each week.

What is so hard to understand about this? The FIRST round would be hosted by the four highest seeded teams. Their fans would NOT have to travel ... not any more than they do for regular season home games. And who cares about the visiting (lower seeded) teams' fans? They would get a similar allotment of tickets that visiting fans get during the regular season. That's called HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE ... which the higher seeded teams will have earned.

All this is predicated on the field being expanded to 8 teams. And I can virtually guarantee that when the committee comes out with its top 4 teams next year, there will be a cacophony of fans of the first two teams (at least) that get shut out advocating for an expanded field.

 

[L Buff]

The problem is the CFB Playoff Committee doesn't want them hosting a game. They want it to be 80k seat stadium, where weather isn't likely an issue.

And the BCS cabal didn't want a playoff .. it took the lobbying and advocacy of fans and the media who weren't beholden to the existing system to get them to enact change.

FCS games are more like a NFL playoff format, ...

Seems to work fine for them .. especially the NFL.

 

[SECOBuffsFan]

The travel concerns are minimal with home sites....its no different than Charleston Southern having a short amount of time to make travel plans when they filled in for CU at the last minute

 

[Walter White]

I like a playoff with eight teams. Four seems like too few and 16 seems like too many for logistical purposes, unless you cut the season down by a game or two for everyone, which would be fine with me. Cut out the worthless OOC games for everyone. That's two or three games right there.

 

[cubuffs85]

And the BCS cabal didn't want a playoff .. it took the lobbying and advocacy of fans and the media who weren't beholden to the existing system to get them to enact change.



Seems to work fine for them .. especially the NFL.

Yeah and that took many years, maybe 30 years down the line they'll do your idea.

 

[cubuffs85]

The travel concerns are minimal with home sites....its no different than Charleston Southern having a short amount of time to make travel plans when they filled in for CU at the last minute

That was an extreme case, we're talking about an FBS championship, this was an FCS team that got paid out as a result.

 

[tante]

Well if anything in college basketball, there's too many teams in the Tourney. Yes, I know there's more D-I teams(versus FBS). But the tournament isn't necessarily reflective of the season. In cfb, you have to do great in the regular season to make the playoffs.

Yes, it is not like you can play for a title if you don't win your division much less your conference. There is absolutely no politics involved.

 

[L Buff]

Yeah and that took many years, maybe 30 years down the line they'll do your idea.

Yeah .. and IIRC we were told in the past that we were stuck with the stinking pile of **** that was/is the BCS until 2017 due to contracts with the major sports networks (looking at YOU, ESPN). That changed quickly after deserving teams like LSU, USC, an Auburn were shut out of the MNC game. Instead we got Oklahoma and tOSU ... who more often than not got their asses kicked ... that changed things a little earlier than seemed possible (don't even want to go to the NU matter in 2001, when the BCS was in its infancy).

 

[cubuffs85]

Yeah .. and IIRC we were told in the past that we were stuck with the stinking pile of **** that was/is the BCS until 2017 due to contracts with the major sports networks (looking at YOU, ESPN). That changed quickly after deserving teams like LSU, USC, an Auburn were shut out of the MNC game. Instead we got Oklahoma and tOSU ... who more often than not got their asses kicked ... that changed things a little earlier than seemed possible (don't even want to go to the NU matter in 2001, when the BCS was in its infancy).

Pretty sure you are off on this one, FOX had a four year contract with the BCS after these events are you talking about hapened. Then ESPN took over. With the contract ending that created a gap.