Are you ready for a playoff? 2014

[Pelado]

If a 16-team playoff is hosted in home stadiums, it will ruin the Bowls by taking all the best teams. Not sure if the TV revenue of a 15-game playoff plus a few bowls that survive will exceed the current 35 bowl games including the championship game. That's where I see the economics breaking down in a 16-team playoff from the current plan of a 4-team playoff plus the bowls.

A 16-team playoff played primarily in home stadiums is projected to make a lot more money than the current system. Do you have a copy of Death to the BCS?

[calicoug]

Yeah, I do know LSU and Alabama play in the SEC West. I never said winning a conference should be a requirement only a consideration (along with SOS and head-to-head play, etc.) That's why I think Oregon should have been invited over Stanford despite Stanford having a higher BCS ranking. It's also why I think Alabama gets invited over Stanford, Boise St. and others.
It will be difficult for a 16-team playoff to be played in the existing bowls. Fans won't be able to travel to three different cities one week apart. If a 16-team playoff is hosted in home stadiums, it will ruin the Bowls by taking all the best teams. Not sure if the TV revenue of a 15-game playoff plus a few bowls that survive will exceed the current 35 bowl games including the championship game. That's where I see the economics breaking down in a 16-team playoff from the current plan of a 4-team playoff plus the bowls.

I understand the arguments for a larger playoff from BYU and Boise St. fans. They are justifiably concerned that an undefeated or one-loss team won't make the four-team cut. But I think other college football fans have long understood that every week is a playoff and once a team loses, it no longer controls its destiny. They've also understood that SOS is important and will likely lead to better OOC games.

I guess I would say, I don't care if the bowls survive or not. There are already far too many and they appear increasingly meaningless to me as is. A playoff is only going to further marginalize the bowls (even with just 4 teams). Given that the bowls (except for 1) were already guaranteed to have zero implications on the national title, it was only a matter of time before fans began to lose interest in them anyways. They are a nice tirp for teams and fans and a good way to get some pre-season hype for the following year. That's about it.

That said, there's no reason they have to disappear in a 16 team playoff. The BCS already takes 10 teams and they were going to expand to 12 teams anyways. Just incorporate those 12 teams plus 4 more and you have more or less the same situation for the bowls as you have under the current system. 16 teams would be a huge event- the biggest sporting event in the world other than perhaps the World Cup, I think. The higher seed could host the first round. The next round you could host in 2 cities (2 games played per day in the same stadium with fans who buy tickets getting into both games to help with sellouts). Those games could be in existing BCS bowls (rotating depending on bids). After that, you host at other BCS games with the highest bidding BCS bowl getting the title game and then the final four below that.

I'd still give auto bids to the conference champions with remaining bids going to at large selections picked by a selection committee. It would even be fun to have something where only 3 conferences get an auto-bid for their champs and those conferences would be determined by overall strength of the conference for that year (weighted on SOS and overall averaged computer ranking of teams in conference), kind of like soccer's structure for playing in the top league. That would encourage good non-conference scheduling making the regular season more fun to watch- especially September.

I can dream.

Bowls would still exist- and would be equally as meaningless as they are now. Is there some reason the Vegas Bowl is devalued with the advent of a 16 team playoff? It's already almost pointless. If you ask anyone but die hard fans of the teams who participate, I suspect less than 2% of college fans could tell you who won the Vegas bowl last year.

Pop quiz: name one participant from any of the following bowls from last year (honestly- see how many you can guess without looking it up): Holliday, Sun, Famous Idaho Potato, Gildan New Mexico, Beef O'Brady, Poinsettia, Little Caesars, Military, Champs, Alamo, New Era Pinstripe, Music City, Insight, Meineke, Liberty...

[Paperback Writer]

I guess I would say, I don't care if the bowls survive or not. There are already far too many and they appear increasingly meaningless to me as is. A playoff is only going to further marginalize the bowls (even with just 4 teams). Given that the bowls (except for 1) were already guaranteed to have zero implications on the national title, it was only a matter of time before fans began to lose interest in them anyways. They are a nice tirp for teams and fans and a good way to get some pre-season hype for the following year. That's about it.

That said, there's no reason they have to disappear in a 16 team playoff. The BCS already takes 10 teams and they were going to expand to 12 teams anyways. Just incorporate those 12 teams plus 4 more and you have more or less the same situation for the bowls as you have under the current system. 16 teams would be a huge event- the biggest sporting event in the world other than perhaps the World Cup, I think. The higher seed could host the first round. The next round you could host in 2 cities (2 games played per day in the same stadium with fans who buy tickets getting into both games to help with sellouts). Those games could be in existing BCS bowls (rotating depending on bids). After that, you host at other BCS games with the highest bidding BCS bowl getting the title game and then the final four below that.

I'd still give auto bids to the conference champions with remaining bids going to at large selections picked by a selection committee. It would even be fun to have something where only 3 conferences get an auto-bid for their champs and those conferences would be determined by overall strength of the conference for that year (weighted on SOS and overall averaged computer ranking of teams in conference), kind of like soccer's structure for playing in the top league. That would encourage good non-conference scheduling making the regular season more fun to watch- especially September.

I can dream.

Bowls would still exist- and would be equally as meaningless as they are now. Is there some reason the Vegas Bowl is devalued with the advent of a 16 team playoff? It's already almost pointless. If you ask anyone but die hard fans of the teams who participate, I suspect less than 2% of college fans could tell you who won the Vegas bowl last year.

Pop quiz: name one participant from any of the following bowls from last year (honestly- see how many you can guess without looking it up): Holliday, Sun, Famous Idaho Potato, Gildan New Mexico, Beef O'Brady, Poinsettia, Little Caesars, Military, Champs, Alamo, New Era Pinstripe, Music City, Insight, Meineke, Liberty...

You raise some interesting ideas. I still think a 16-team playoff is too many teams and would make the regular season much less relevant. But I can see an 8-team playoff working with the first round being hosted in home stadiums. The winners could then advance to the semis that are played in the rotating bowl games (as currently proposed). The losers could then play in a bowl games along with other "bowl worthy" teams. There could also be a stipulation that one has to win a conference to host the first round or some such.

I agree that many bowls are meaningless except for the fans and players involved and even that is a stretch at times. But pulling the best 16-teams out of the bowl picture will cripple many of the bowls and eliminate some of the bowls. Last year there were 35 bowl games - 70 teams! Take about a quarter of those teams out (because of the 16-team playoff) and fans are left with teams with losing records going to bowl games.

I'm still thinking about playoffs scenarios. I liked the 4-team proposal. I'm thinking I like the 8-team one better. Those CCG could be even more meaningful because upsetting the conference favorite could mean your team makes the playoff. And even if a team is favored to win and pretty much guaranteed a playoff spot, hosting a playoff game would be a big deal and great advantage.

[Cougarmandias]

You are correct that there is a chance for corruption with a committee because it will be able to factor in ratings and profitability but even a ranking system based on SOS will have flaws. There are other factors like head-to-head matchups and winning conference championships that need to be takin into consideration. Those are all things that will be taken into account by a selection committee. It could be a recipe for corruption but a preset formula like the BCS has used is a recipe for incompetence not being able to exclude the little guy who meets objective criteria.

FIFY

"Incompetence" is a red herring with a play-off. If your ranking criteria is reasonable, you are getting the top teams in anyway.

[Cougarmandias]

You raise some interesting ideas. I still think a 16-team playoff is too many teams and would make the regular season much less relevant. But I can see an 8-team playoff working with the first round being hosted in home stadiums. The winners could then advance to the semis that are played in the rotating bowl games (as currently proposed). The losers could then play in a bowl games along with other "bowl worthy" teams. There could also be a stipulation that one has to win a conference to host the first round or some such.

I agree that many bowls are meaningless except for the fans and players involved and even that is a stretch at times. But pulling the best 16-teams out of the bowl picture will cripple many of the bowls and eliminate some of the bowls. Last year there were 35 bowl games - 70 teams! Take about a quarter of those teams out (because of the 16-team playoff) and fans are left with teams with losing records going to bowl games.

I'm still thinking about playoffs scenarios. I liked the 4-team proposal. I'm thinking I like the 8-team one better. Those CCG could be even more meaningful because upsetting the conference favorite could mean your team makes the playoff. And even if a team is favored to win and pretty much guaranteed a playoff spot, hosting a playoff game would be a big deal and great advantage.

What I like about the 8-team or even 16-team proposals is that it allows you to have conference champ autobids. Like you point out, this makes regular season conference play and the conference championship game more meaningful, not less.

[Paperback Writer]

FIFY part II
It could be a recipe for corruption but a preset formula like the BCS has used is a recipe for incompetence not being able to exclude the little guy who meet objective criteria doesn't play anyone of consequence.

"Incompetence" is a red herring with a play-off. If your ranking criteria is reasonable, you are getting the top teams in anyway.

Ranking criteria that was "reasonable" brought us BCS outcomes like FSU over Miami in 2000 and Nebraska over Oregon in 2001. Also, some like to apply "objective criteria" to "little guys" who play and beat a schedule of teams of little significance. But agree, if a team has a decent SOS, "top teams" will not be excluded.