kalm wrote:Make it an 11 game regular season or if you want to keep the conference championship games, make it a 10 game regular season. The playoffs begin on Thanksgiving weekend with 64 seeded teams in brackets including AQ's and at-larges. The games are played at the current bowl sites with the less prestiguous bowl game sites used first, culminating in a rotating championship site at one of the current BCS venues approximately the same time as the current BCS championship is played.
1)The bowls and their communities get to keep their gig, with the opportunity to increase revenue and interest by hosting a 1 vs 16 instead of the the 4th place teams from the WAC and MAC. 2)The same number of schools would be eligible for bowls. 3)There really wouldn't be much extra school missed considering round one would be over a holiday weekend, by round two your down to only 32 schools, and by round three it's christmas break. 4) TV revenue should increase due to the greater relevancy of every game and the prospect of occassional upsets.
December madness.
Preaching the choir.
64 teams is way too many. 16 might be too many. In order for the bowls to work fans of the participating teams have to show up. There is no way that most fans would be able to travel on 6 consecutive weeks to watch their team play.
I'd rather see an 8 team playoff, with no automatic bids. That way, you get the 8 best teams and crappy conferences get left out.
“It’s like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show.” - The Buffalo Beast commenting on Glenn Beck
kalm wrote:Make it an 11 game regular season or if you want to keep the conference championship games, make it a 10 game regular season. The playoffs begin on Thanksgiving weekend with 64 seeded teams in brackets including AQ's and at-larges. The games are played at the current bowl sites with the less prestiguous bowl game sites used first, culminating in a rotating championship site at one of the current BCS venues approximately the same time as the current BCS championship is played.
1)The bowls and their communities get to keep their gig, with the opportunity to increase revenue and interest by hosting a 1 vs 16 instead of the the 4th place teams from the WAC and MAC. 2)The same number of schools would be eligible for bowls. 3)There really wouldn't be much extra school missed considering round one would be over a holiday weekend, by round two your down to only 32 schools, and by round three it's christmas break. 4) TV revenue should increase due to the greater relevancy of every game and the prospect of occassional upsets.
December madness.
Preaching the choir.
64 teams is way too many. 16 might be too many. In order for the bowls to work fans of the participating teams have to show up. There is no way that most fans would be able to travel on 6 consecutive weeks to watch their team play.
I'd rather see an 8 team playoff, with no automatic bids. That way, you get the 8 best teams and crappy conferences get left out.
I guarantee you that Alabama versus Idaho in Boise the first round of the playoffs would outdraw Idaho versus Bowling Green this Wednesday, not to mention the ratings bounce and increased revenue from TV contracts. Yes, most bama fans wouldn't make it all six weeks, but that could be helped with regionalizatio and increases in local attendance.
64 teams is way too many. 16 might be too many. In order for the bowls to work fans of the participating teams have to show up. There is no way that most fans would be able to travel on 6 consecutive weeks to watch their team play.
I'd rather see an 8 team playoff, with no automatic bids. That way, you get the 8 best teams and crappy conferences get left out.
I guarantee you that Alabama versus Idaho in Boise the first round of the playoffs would outdraw Idaho versus Bowling Green this Wednesday, not to mention the ratings bounce and increased revenue from TV contracts. Yes, most bama fans wouldn't make it all six weeks, but that could be helped with regionalizatio and increases in local attendance.
If you're serious about 64 then get rid of the conference championship games, they'd be meaningless anyway since both schools would already be in the playoffs. In fact, some schools would probably rest key players for the playoffs.
I still think 64, even 32 is way to many. Do you really want 50 or so crappy teams in the playoffs?
In you scenario, why would Idaho have what is essentially a home game against Bama in round 1? The game would have to be played near Bama. Idaho fans will travel because they know it's their teams only game, Bama fans will travel because the game is close.
kalm wrote:
I guarantee you that Alabama versus Idaho in Boise the first round of the playoffs would outdraw Idaho versus Bowling Green this Wednesday, not to mention the ratings bounce and increased revenue from TV contracts. Yes, most bama fans wouldn't make it all six weeks, but that could be helped with regionalizatio and increases in local attendance.
If you're serious about 64 then get rid of the conference championship games, they'd be meaningless anyway since both schools would already be in the playoffs. In fact, some schools would probably rest key players for the playoffs.
I still think 64, even 32 is way to many. Do you really want 50 or so crappy teams in the playoffs?
In you scenario, why would Idaho have what is essentially a home game against Bama in round 1? The game would have to be played near Bama. Idaho fans will travel because they know it's their teams only game, Bama fans will travel because the game is close.
I agree with the conference championships, and like I said, regionalization would help. So you could either ship Idaho east or have them play the Pac 10 in the Emerald Bowl (these are just examples, I'm the big idea guy it would be the committee's job to sort out the details)
As for the 50 crappy teams, I would be way more intrigued by a 6-10 matchup with a team moving on than those same two teams in a meangingless bowl game. And of course by inviting 64 teams you keep the bowl people happy.
kemajic wrote:
How does the attendance compare to the FCS NC game? While 14,000 paid was reported in Chatty, my estimate of butts in the seats was more like 9000.
In FBS there will be 35 or so postseason teams that will end the season with a win. In FCS, there was one.
The bowl system is the grown-up version of the little-league banquet where all the kids get a trophy for participating....it's nice, but meaningless. Do you think the Marshall fans are as proud of the Little Caesar's Bowl banner hanging in the stadium or the NC banners? Will they even hang the Little Caesar's Bowl banner in the stadium? Or will it be exchanged for free Crazy Bread.....
My EXACT thought yesterday when I saw kem's post but I didn't want to take the time to argue the point with him. I didn't know kem was one of these progressive style "everybody should feel like a winner" types. Now I get where he's coming from I guess.
BlueHen86 wrote:
If you're serious about 64 then get rid of the conference championship games, they'd be meaningless anyway since both schools would already be in the playoffs. In fact, some schools would probably rest key players for the playoffs.
I still think 64, even 32 is way to many. Do you really want 50 or so crappy teams in the playoffs?
In you scenario, why would Idaho have what is essentially a home game against Bama in round 1? The game would have to be played near Bama. Idaho fans will travel because they know it's their teams only game, Bama fans will travel because the game is close.
I agree with the conference championships, and like I said, regionalization would help. So you could either ship Idaho east or have them play the Pac 10 in the Emerald Bowl (these are just examples, I'm the big idea guy it would be the committee's job to sort out the details)
As for the 50 crappy teams, I would be way more intrigued by a 6-10 matchup with a team moving on than those same two teams in a meangingless bowl game. And of course by inviting 64 teams you keep the bowl people happy.
There is another reason why 64 teams won't work - TV. You would have 32 games in round 1, no way could they all be televised. I doubt networks would bid too much on a contract for games that they couldn't show. Even if you got multiple networks, the games would have to be shown simultaneously, thereby decreasing the value of the contract. Also shortening the regular season by 2 games means less games for most schools - and fewer home dates for all schools, I think you would have a hard time getting most schools to agree to that.
As for the bowl people - you would need 63 bowls to handle a 64 team playoff, there aren't 63 bowls. There are about 38 or so, a 32 team playoff fits much more nicely.
There is no demand for a 64 team playoff (I'm still not sure if even you are serious ). 16 seems reasonable, even 32 is doable.
“It’s like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show.” - The Buffalo Beast commenting on Glenn Beck
kalm wrote:
I agree with the conference championships, and like I said, regionalization would help. So you could either ship Idaho east or have them play the Pac 10 in the Emerald Bowl (these are just examples, I'm the big idea guy it would be the committee's job to sort out the details)
As for the 50 crappy teams, I would be way more intrigued by a 6-10 matchup with a team moving on than those same two teams in a meangingless bowl game. And of course by inviting 64 teams you keep the bowl people happy.
There is another reason why 64 teams won't work - TV. You would have 32 games in round 1, no way could they all be televised. I doubt networks would bid too much on a contract for games that they couldn't show. Even if you got multiple networks, the games would have to be shown simultaneously, thereby decreasing the value of the contract. Also shortening the regular season by 2 games means less games for most schools - and fewer home dates for all schools, I think you would have a hard time getting most schools to agree to that.
As for the bowl people - you would need 63 bowls to handle a 64 team playoff, there aren't 63 bowls. There are about 38 or so, a 32 team playoff fits much more nicely.
There is no demand for a 64 team playoff (I'm still not sure if even you are serious ). 16 seems reasonable, even 32 is doable.
1. As long as there are corporate sponsors willing to fork over the $$$, there will be bowl games...
2. As long as ESPN and the other networks are willing to broadcast two 6-6 teams in a bowl game, there will be bowl games...
3. As long as there is more of # 1 and # 2, there will be more and more bowl games...we may have reached the point of diminishing returns...so maybe 35 or so bowl games is the right number
4. The BIG GUYS (BCS) will do everything they can in their power to prevent a real championship playoff type system, because to have one would mean they occasionally must let a little guy in...
And on a personal note, I fully agree with BlueHen86, just from the UMass side of the ball...
BlueHen86 wrote:If FBS adopted a playoff system, I'd want UD to move up and compete at the highest level - provided that they would have access to the playoff system.
Under the current system, I'd rather the Hens remain FCS.
I hate to say it though, but I think schools get more exposure in the bowl games than our schools do in the playoffs - even the crappy bowls.
“Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” Aristotle
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
BlueHen86 wrote:If FBS adopted a playoff system, I'd want UD to move up and compete at the highest level - provided that they would have access to the playoff system.
Under the current system, I'd rather the Hens remain FCS.
I hate to say it though, but I think schools get more exposure in the bowl games than our schools do in the playoffs - even the crappy bowls.
That's my position exactly. If there's a legitimate playoff with every conference represented, then let's go. As long as the collusion exists to exclude non BS schools, stay where we are. If you aren't in a BS conference, no matter who you play, no matter who you beat, no matter what you accomplish on the field, you will never be allowed to even play for a championship. That is an unacceptabe format for me.
"It's hard to kiss the lips at night that chew on your ass all day."
BlueHen86 wrote:If FBS adopted a playoff system, I'd want UD to move up and compete at the highest level - provided that they would have access to the playoff system.
Under the current system, I'd rather the Hens remain FCS.
I hate to say it though, but I think schools get more exposure in the bowl games than our schools do in the playoffs - even the crappy bowls.
That's my position exactly. If there's a legitimate playoff with every conference represented, then let's go. As long as the collusion exists to exclude non BS schools, stay where we are. If you aren't in a BS conference, no matter who you play, no matter who you beat, no matter what you accomplish on the field, you will never be allowed to even play for a championship. That is an unacceptabe format for me.
Same here. TCU or Boise might be the best team in the nation this year, and they'll never be recognized a such.
It's too bad that Urban Meyer is taking a leave of absence, it would have been interesting if Cincinnati had routed Florida, now if it happens, the Gators have an excuse.
BlueHen86 wrote:
There is another reason why 64 teams won't work - TV. You would have 32 games in round 1, no way could they all be televised. I doubt networks would bid too much on a contract for games that they couldn't show. Even if you got multiple networks, the games would have to be shown simultaneously, thereby decreasing the value of the contract. Also shortening the regular season by 2 games means less games for most schools - and fewer home dates for all schools, I think you would have a hard time getting most schools to agree to that.
As for the bowl people - you would need 63 bowls to handle a 64 team playoff, there aren't 63 bowls. There are about 38 or so, a 32 team playoff fits much more nicely.
There is no demand for a 64 team playoff (I'm still not sure if even you are serious ). 16 seems reasonable, even 32 is doable.
Oh you and your damn logic.
Having thought it through some more, I think a 24 team playoff might work. Every conference gets an autobid (I think that there are 11) and 13 at large teams. Give the top 8 seeds byes and play the first two rounds as close to campus of the higher seed as possible using the existing bowls.
MrTitleist wrote:Bowl games on ESPN = Lots of exposure. While the playoffs are great, these guys are also playing on the biggest stage.
Game. Set. Match. FBS! Btw as much as I love FCS football, if the BCS picks up ANY kind of playoffs system, FCS wont have anything to stand on.
Agree......IF they develop any kind of playoff...until then, the bowl system is a bad joke....great for school exposure, but no credibility as far as determining a National Champion...
“It’s like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show.” - The Buffalo Beast commenting on Glenn Beck
BlackFalkin wrote:
Game. Set. Match. FBS! Btw as much as I love FCS football, if the BCS picks up ANY kind of playoffs system, FCS wont have anything to stand on.
Agree......IF they develop any kind of playoff...until then, the bowl system is a bad joke....great for school exposure, but no credibility as far as determining a National Champion...
Same here. It would kind of take away our niche. They'd have to go through another name change as well.
Someone belittled Marshall about playing in a bowl game and went on to say they bet they wished they had a chance to play for a National Championship. They probably do if it were the BCS. I doubt they go around bragging about their NC in FCS.
No matter how much we like the playoffs, the rest of the world doesn't recognize the FCS as anything but an after thought. We got 4 or 6 minutes on the playoff selections, and even then they got it wrong. I saw about six different hour or more rundowns about the FBS bowls. That's just the way it is.
Appalachian State University
Boone, North Carolina Just below Virginia, just next to Tennessee, but
up above all universities.
I don't know about part of that statement. We're pretty proud of our back to back NAIA championships and have them along the stadium front of the home-side stands with the 2 SLC championship banners.
I would think they are still proud of those past accomplishments.
the BCS Championship is just that - BCS Champion...not NCAA Div I Champion.
It doesn't get much better than UCLA @ Temple in the Eagle Bank Bowl in Washington DC's RFK Stadium on a blustery, windy day. I'm sure the kids that normally play in Pasadena are just soaking in the atmosphere.
This bowl is perhaps a worse idea than the Detroit one. At least that one's inside.
93henfan wrote:It doesn't get much better than UCLA @ Temple in the Eagle Bank Bowl in Washington DC's RFK Stadium on a blustery, windy day. I'm sure the kids that normally play in Pasadena are just soaking in the atmosphere.
This bowl is perhaps a worse idea than the Detroit one. At least that one's inside.
As of yesterday morning Temple had sold 12,000 tickets. They expected to reach 15,000. Good for them.
I doubt if UCLA sold anywhere near that, not that I blame them.
CatMom wrote:I don't know about part of that statement. We're pretty proud of our back to back NAIA championships and have them along the stadium front of the home-side stands with the 2 SLC championship banners.
I would think they are still proud of those past accomplishments.
the BCS Championship is just that - BCS Champion...not NCAA Div I Champion.
Agree, any championship in your history is a symbol of pride for the school. A bowl win is as well but it ain't like a championship...at least to me it wouldn't be.
CatMom wrote:I don't know about part of that statement. We're pretty proud of our back to back NAIA championships and have them along the stadium front of the home-side stands with the 2 SLC championship banners.
I would think they are still proud of those past accomplishments.
the BCS Championship is just that - BCS Champion...not NCAA Div I Champion.
Agree, any championship in your history is a symbol of pride for the school. A bowl win is as well but it ain't like a championship...at least to me it wouldn't be.
My guess is that the people who were at Marshall when they were winning I-AA championships would prefer the championships.
The people at Marshall now would probably prefer bowl games.
When we played @ Marshall last year we tailgated with a bunch of folks from their message board, herdfans.com. At the tailgate, huge btw, there were several people proudly wearing DIAA national championship t-shirts. Since this debate is constantly on-going, I was compelled to ask, and got an answer I sure wasn't expecting. I asked them, pick one, national championship, or Detroit in December. They all said, national championship, but don't want to go back there. I thought that was interesting.
"It's hard to kiss the lips at night that chew on your ass all day."
). 16 seems reasonable, even 32 is doable.
