The Slippery Slope

[kemajic]

Interesting discussion among the BCS powerlords considering change.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... -rose-bowl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Most particularly is the universal desire to avoid the slippery slope that inevitably has resulted from NCAA "miniplayoffs." Both the FCS football playoffs and the NCAA Bball playoffs are viewed as growing to excessively inclusive forums.

"It's a mini-playoff which concerns people, because that can be a slippery slope if you look at the history of the NCAA and its playoffs. They start with one number and they very quickly grow to larger numbers, and that bothers people.

"I think there could be more support for it if there were a way to assure some people that it would be contained as a plus-one."

Count Delany and Swarbrick among those who fear that slippery slope.

"That's what happened in I-AA (football). It's what happened in the (NCAA) basketball tournament. It's what would inevitably happen here," Delany said. "I don't necessarily think the slippery slope is theoretical."

In the case of FCS, it was origianlly four, then eight, then 12, then 16, now 20, with discussion to grow to 24. It's five rounds when three would do. I am unaware of a team that has won the FCS NC that did not finish the season in the top 12. Autobids for weak conferences frequently bring in teams that are totally overmatched - both in FCS and in NCAA Bball. In FCS, the playoffs are often poorly attended and consume, not produce revenue. While that would not be the case in the BCS, I can see what the BCS powerlords are concerned about. The FCS history is a good model of where it is likely to go - who wants to see a five round 24 team BCS playoff? Not me.

[SuperHornet]

Complete drivel. They're just scared someone's gonna pull the upset, thereby making a "mockery" of their illegal monopoly.



(When I say "drivel," that's intended for those who espouse this elitist view, not for kemajic for posting it.)

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I actually think they have a point.

I think the FCS playoffs should be 16 teams. Period. it's a perfect number. Four rounds... easy peasy.

The risk is - you start with a plus one... and where does it end... that's valid.

I think the FBS should do a 16 team playoff... each conference gets one AQ (and NO NEW CONFERENCES) and 5 (I think) at-large teams - I also think they should lock themselves in to that... no play-ins... no expanding it... just stop... there is no way any more than 16 teams should be in the playoffs... (I also think the top 8 BCS making a playoff would be legit)

[FargoBison]

I actually like a 20 or 24 team playoff because the top teams deserve byes....they deserve some kind of advantage for having a great season and in football nothing is bigger than a bye week.

For the FBS I think a six team playoff would be perfect. Have the first round on campus sites and the final two at neutral sites.

[kemajic]

FCS could have stopped at 12 and be held up as the model of how to do it. Instead it continues to slide down the slope. Five teams from one conference when only one makes it to the quarterfinals is not a model to be followed.

[AZGrizFan]

I actually like a 20 or 24 team playoff because the top teams deserve byes....they deserve some kind of advantage for having a great season and in football nothing is bigger than a bye week.

For the FBS I think a six team playoff would be perfect. Have the first round on campus sites and the final two at neutral sites.

They could go back to EVERYONE having a bye week with 16 teams and the NC game now in January.

[kemajic]

I actually like a 20 or 24 team playoff because the top teams deserve byes....they deserve some kind of advantage for having a great season and in football nothing is bigger than a bye week.

That's why I always liked 12. Four seeds get a bye while the other 8 play-in the first week, quarters, semis, NC.

[FargoBison]

I actually like a 20 or 24 team playoff because the top teams deserve byes....they deserve some kind of advantage for having a great season and in football nothing is bigger than a bye week.

For the FBS I think a six team playoff would be perfect. Have the first round on campus sites and the final two at neutral sites.

They could go back to EVERYONE having a bye week with 16 teams and the NC game now in January.

Why not just have 18...the OVC-MEAC and Big South-NEC can have a play-in to see who makes the playoffs while everyone else gets byes.

[Mvemjsunpx]

When the NCAA starts adding teams just for the sake of adding them (nothing but at-large bids increasing), I'm not a fan. That's not at all what FCS is doing, though. FCS had to expand because not every conference who wanted an auto-bid was getting one. Prior to the expansion, FCS had the lowest % of teams in the postseason of any football division (it may still, I'm not sure), so it's not like we're anywhere near "everybody's a winner" territory.

To call FCS football's expansion a "slippery slope" is ridiculous. You could make that argument for the NCAA basketball tournament, but not here because the TV money-making potential isn't there. An expansion beyond 24 playoff teams is unlikely because there just aren't enough conferences in FCS for that to happen and there isn't enough revenue created for there to be a demand for more bids that are just at-larges just for the sake of having more games. The losing money argument brought up in the article actually undermines their point, it doesn't help it.

Also, to say the current expansion has created more overmatched teams is a bit off given the results. There have only been four games this year that were not close, and two of those were cases where virtually no-one would argue the loser shouldn't have been in the playoffs (the other two involved teams that would have got auto-bids before the expansion, anyway).

[kemajic]

When the NCAA starts adding teams just for the sake of adding them (nothing but at-large bids increasing), I'm not a fan. That's not at all what FCS is doing, though. FCS had to expand because not every conference who wanted an auto-bid was getting one. Prior to the expansion, FCS had the lowest % of teams in the postseason of any football division (it may still, I'm not sure), so it's not like we're anywhere near "everybody's a winner" territory.

To call FCS football's expansion a "slippery slope" is ridiculous. You could make that argument for the NCAA basketball tournament, but not here because the TV money-making potential isn't there. An expansion beyond 24 playoff teams is unlikely because there just aren't enough conferences in FCS for that to happen and there isn't enough revenue created for there to be a demand for more bids that are just at-larges just for the sake of having more games. The losing money argument brought up in the article actually undermines their point, it doesn't help it.

Also, to say the current expansion has created more overmatched teams is a bit off given the results. There have only been four games this year that were not close, and two of those were cases where virtually no-one would argue the loser shouldn't have been in the playoffs (the other two involved teams that would have got auto-bids before the expansion, anyway).

The purpose of the playoffs should be to identify the National Champion, not to spread the playoff experience around to teams that have no chance or to five teams from one self-proclaimed power conference. The season is extended unnecessarily, which is not the objective of small college football. Auto-bids from non-competitive conferences are not a virtue. I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of an FCS NC that was not one of the top 12 rated teams at the end of season.

[Mvemjsunpx]

The purpose of the playoffs should be to identify the National Champion, not to spread the playoff experience around to teams that have no chance or to five teams from one self-proclaimed power conference. The season is extended unnecessarily, which is not the objective of small college football. Auto-bids from non-competitive conferences are not a virtue. I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of an FCS NC that was not one of the top 12 rated teams at the end of season.

The purpose of the playoffs is to fairly identify a national champion and create a postseason event that is fun & generates fan interest. The primary appeal of the NCAA basketball tournament isn't the Final-4 or the championship game, it's the first two rounds where upstart mid-major champions play with the "big boys" and occasionally pull off notable upsets. Do any of those teams have a realistic shot at winning a national title? Of course not—but that isn't the main point, either. From a fan interest perspective, the possibility of success is more valuable than the actual success itself. To deny auto-bids to the weaker conferences creates an environment that seems unfair to some & needlessly alienates a chunk of fans that would otherwise being buying tickets, going to games, and watching ESPN. A 12-team playoff just seems like a power-conference circle jerk.

If those smaller championship teams aren't good enough to win a title, than they won't. They'll lose a game and the team that beat them will continue as if they hadn't played that game in the first place. I fail to see the downside in allowing the "lesser" conference champions the chance to prove they belong/don't belong. At least that way, there's empirical proof..

As for your question as to whether any champion wasn't in the top-12, I have no idea where to find archived top-25 polls so I can't prove that one way or the other.

[LeadBolt]

I actually think they have a point.

I think the FCS playoffs should be 16 teams. Period. it's a perfect number. Four rounds... easy peasy.

The risk is - you start with a plus one... and where does it end... that's valid.

I think the FBS should do a 16 team playoff... each conference gets one AQ (and NO NEW CONFERENCES) and 5 (I think) at-large teams - I also think they should lock themselves in to that... no play-ins... no expanding it... just stop... there is no way any more than 16 teams should be in the playoffs... (I also think the top 8 BCS making a playoff would be legit)

I agree with TTBF, 16 teams is the ideal number for a football playoff. There will always be bubble teams that think they should get in and may deserve to be in, as long as anyone is excluded, but imo 17 is where the slope begins to get slippery.

[kalm]

The purpose of the playoffs should be to identify the National Champion, not to spread the playoff experience around to teams that have no chance or to five teams from one self-proclaimed power conference. The season is extended unnecessarily, which is not the objective of small college football. Auto-bids from non-competitive conferences are not a virtue. I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of an FCS NC that was not one of the top 12 rated teams at the end of season.

The purpose of the playoffs is to fairly identify a national champion and create a postseason event that is fun & generates fan interest. The primary appeal of the NCAA basketball tournament isn't the Final-4 or the championship game, it's the first two rounds where upstart mid-major champions play with the "big boys" and occasionally pull off notable upsets. Do any of those teams have a realistic shot at winning a national title? Of course not—but that isn't the main point, either. From a fan interest perspective, the possibility of success is more valuable than the actual success itself. To deny auto-bids to the weaker conferences creates an environment that seems unfair to some & needlessly alienates a chunk of fans that would otherwise being buying tickets, going to games, and watching ESPN. A 12-team playoff just seems like a power-conference circle jerk.

If those smaller championship teams aren't good enough to win a title, than they won't. They'll lose a game and the team that beat them will continue as if they hadn't played that game in the first place. I fail to see the downside in allowing the "lesser" conference champions the chance to prove they belong/don't belong. At least that way, there's empirical proof..

As for your question as to whether any champion wasn't in the top-12, I have no idea where to find archived top-25 polls so I can't prove that one way or the other.

Agree. March madness doesn't appear to be suffering and the large field holds the interest of fans from a majority of the teams who may have no shot at winning it all but who's metric for success is making the field or making a certain round. The same could be said for our division.

More football is better. And if it's my team that has the increased potential for post season games due to an expanded field it's even more better. Before expansion a 7-4 EWU team would have been on the outside of the bubble but this year would have been a likely participant. Not only that, but with the type of schools in the play in round, we would have had a good shot at hosting a first round match up and moving on.

It also increases the amount of unique encounters of schools from different regions and inter- power conference match -ups many of us wish could occurr more in OOC schedules.

There is no slippery slope here. Just short sighted elitism.

[TribeFanInNC]

It's five rounds when three would do. I am unaware of a team that has won the FCS NC that did not finish the season in the top 12.

So, you would like the playoffs limited to 8 teams because the champion never came from outside the top 12?

[goyotes]

My preference for BCS would be an 8 team playoff. Pac12, Big12, SEC, ACC & BIG each get to place their league champion and no one else in the playoffs. 3 at large teams from independents and remaining conferences.

This plan would keep and likely add to the importance of regular season games. (If you can't win your conference do you deserve to be national champion?) It would make the conference championship games even more exciting (as they basically become the first round of the playoffs). As an added bonus it would also stop or at least slow down the senseless conference movement of teams of the past couple of years

[SouthDakotaGrizzly]

The important question is how many times has the FCS championship game featured two teams from the top 4? If memory serves, it's only featured a 1 vs. 2 matchup twice (Montana vs. Villanova in 09 and Montana vs. Marshall in 96, I believe). I'm not bored enough right now to go back and look, but I would venture to guess that there are several examples of a team from outside the top 4 making a run to the championship, or at least to the final four, which suggests that a 4 team playoff is too small. Is 20 too many? Probably. 12 or 16 would be better. Is it a slippery slope? No. It's reality that is scaring the crap out of the BCS powers who see a lot of money potentially going away.

[AZGrizFan]

They could go back to EVERYONE having a bye week with 16 teams and the NC game now in January.

Why not just have 18...the OVC-MEAC and Big South-NEC can have a play-in to see who makes the playoffs while everyone else gets byes.

That's not a bad idea either.

[Pwns]

It's really a repackaging of the same old lame-ass argument the BCS apologists give...."but, but, but even if you have a playoff there will still be controversy!" Yeah, but the controversy is usually over who should be the last teams in, and usually they are longshots to win the tournaments, anyways.

Almost every major NCAA sport has gigantic tournaments. I don't see what's so bleeping bad about them.

[SouthDakotaGrizzly]

It's really a repackaging of the same old lame-ass argument the BCS apologists give...."but, but, but even if you have a playoff there will still be controversy!" Yeah, but the controversy is usually over who should be the last teams in, and usually they are longshots to win the tournaments, anyways.

Almost every major NCAA sport has gigantic tournaments. I don't see what's so bleeping bad about them.

And there's the irony. On one hand, the NCAA has no FBS tournament and some are scared of a potential 4 team format expanding to more, but on the other hand the NCAA D-1 basketball tournament continues to expand beyond 64 teams. Now, obviously logistics as to how many games can be played in a certain time period come into play when you're talking about the two sports, but it's hard to argue that any team who wins the basketball championship didn't truly earn it. Can you imagine if they took the top two ranked basketball teams and squared them off in a winner take all game?

[AZGrizFan]

It's really a repackaging of the same old lame-ass argument the BCS apologists give...."but, but, but even if you have a playoff there will still be controversy!" Yeah, but the controversy is usually over who should be the last teams in, and usually they are longshots to win the tournaments, anyways.

Almost every major NCAA sport has gigantic tournaments. I don't see what's so bleeping bad about them.

And there's the irony. On one hand, the NCAA has no FBS tournament and some are scared of a potential 4 team format expanding to more, but on the other hand the NCAA D-1 basketball tournament continues to expand beyond 64 teams. Now, obviously logistics as to how many games can be played in a certain time period come into play when you're talking about the two sports, but it's hard to argue that any team who wins the basketball championship didn't truly earn it. Can you imagine if they took the top two ranked basketball teams and squared them off in a winner take all game?

Was watching a show on one of the Fox Sports channels yesterday and they were taking viewers questions. One viewer emailed "why doesn't the FBS go to a playoff format, and if they did, what would it look like?" The panelist who answered the question said this: "Any move to a playoff format in the FBS should follow the FCS model of 20 teams. It's a TRIED AND TRUE FORMULA that is proven to work."

I wouldn't exactly call 2 years of 20 teams a "tried and true" formula, but it certainly works.