mcveyrl wrote:
First, we know that the FBS powers that be don't care what has worked in the past. If they did, they would've looked at our 16 team playoff and copied that a looooong time ago.
Agree.
Second, just because we have 20 teams doesn't mean it's good. None of the matchups were particularly compelling and if translated to FBS matchups would've been even less compelling...NDSU v. Robert Morris = Northern Illinois/WVU v. FIU...no thanks.
Agree but these bad FBS match-ups would outdraw these bad FCS match-ups, see my previous post.
Third, not even the FBS playoff proponents suggest this many teams. Most want eight to sixteen teams. Any proposal with more than that will get laughed out of the room.
Appaholic wrote:What if there was the following caveat. Only conferences with at least one team representative in the final top 25 / Coaches / etc (whatever poll or a combination of polls) is an AQ?
That's OK too. I just think you have to have some kind of caveat in there so a 6-6 FIU doesn't get in over a 10-2 Virginia Tech.
mcveyrl wrote:
First, we know that the FBS powers that be don't care what has worked in the past. If they did, they would've looked at our 16 team playoff and copied that a looooong time ago.
Agree.
Second, just because we have 20 teams doesn't mean it's good. None of the matchups were particularly compelling and if translated to FBS matchups would've been even less compelling...NDSU v. Robert Morris = Northern Illinois/WVU v. FIU...no thanks.
Agree but these bad FBS match-ups would outdraw these bad FCS match-ups, see my previous post.
Third, not even the FBS playoff proponents suggest this many teams. Most want eight to sixteen teams. Any proposal with more than that will get laughed out of the room.
Yup, which is why I think 16 is plenty.
But we can't have 16 with your proposal unless they change the auto to AL ration requirement, which the big schools would never allow if they let all the conference champs in.
And just because the bad FBS match-ups would outdraw the bad FCS match-ups doesn't mean that they're preferable to quality FBS match-ups. That's what you should compare them to, the reasonable alternative, when you're talking dollars.
SDHornet wrote:Agree but these bad FBS match-ups would outdraw these bad FCS match-ups, see my previous post.
I'm not sure what part of this is escaping you. I'm sure Alabama/Georgia State sold out too, but does that mean it's on par with Alabam/Auburn? Crappy matchups would get crappy ratings and ratings are what drives revenue. There is NO scenario where an Auburn/FIU creates MORE revenue than an Auburn/VT game.
SDHornet wrote:The point is the issue that not every team in FBS has a shot at a national championship. If we ignore that fundamental purpose, there is really no reason to change the current system. If we exclude anyone, it makes any changes moot. A playoff field selected by the BCS and run by the BCS only benefits those currently in the BCS. We already have a system that crowns a “champion” using this type of process.
Not true...
89Hen wrote:1 Auburn vs 24 West Virginia
8 Michigan State vs 9 Oklahoma
4 Stanford vs 13 Nebraska
5 Wisconsin vs 12 Missouri
2 Oregon vs 15 Virginia Tech
7 Arkansas vs 10 LSU
3 TCU vs 14 Oklahoma State
6 Ohio State vs 11 Boise State
Exactly who is left out of this proposed national championship tournament? Right now 14 of the above are, including two teams not in BCS conferences.
SDHornet wrote:Agree but these bad FBS match-ups would outdraw these bad FCS match-ups, see my previous post.
I'm not sure what part of this is escaping you. I'm sure Alabama/Georgia State sold out too, but does that mean it's on par with Alabam/Auburn? Crappy matchups would get crappy ratings and ratings are what drives revenue. There is NO scenario where an Auburn/FIU creates MORE revenue than an Auburn/VT game.
It’s all about $$$ here and it always has been and always will be, I don’t know how that is escaping you. Whether it’s FIU-Auburn or Auburn-Ohio State, the NCAA and to a lesser extent the schools will cash in regardless. My point has been each conference needs a bid into a playoff and in doing that, it legitimizes the need for a playoff.
I never said we need to keep the exact same rules that are used in FCS. If the same split is used then yes 20 teams would get in, OR they could just limit the number of at-large bids. Either way they would be including a member from each conference which is my gripe.
SDHornet wrote:The point is the issue that not every team in FBS has a shot at a national championship. If we ignore that fundamental purpose, there is really no reason to change the current system. If we exclude anyone, it makes any changes moot. A playoff field selected by the BCS and run by the BCS only benefits those currently in the BCS. We already have a system that crowns a “champion” using this type of process.
Not true...
89Hen wrote:1 Auburn vs 24 West Virginia
8 Michigan State vs 9 Oklahoma
4 Stanford vs 13 Nebraska
5 Wisconsin vs 12 Missouri
2 Oregon vs 15 Virginia Tech
7 Arkansas vs 10 LSU
3 TCU vs 14 Oklahoma State
6 Ohio State vs 11 Boise State
Exactly who is left out of this proposed national championship tournament? Right now 14 of the above are, including two teams not in BCS conferences.
Where are the Sun Belt, C-USA, and MAC champs? Yeah sure, everyone is represented there.
SDHornet wrote:The point is the issue that not every team in FBS has a shot at a national championship. If we ignore that fundamental purpose, there is really no reason to change the current system. If we exclude anyone, it makes any changes moot. A playoff field selected by the BCS and run by the BCS only benefits those currently in the BCS. We already have a system that crowns a “champion” using this type of process.
True, but a playoff with the majority of conf champs would be similar to FCS & a heluva lot better than current system. And I'd want the NCAA creating the brackets, not the Bowl Cartel Symposium....
SDHornet wrote:Also if not every conference has a shot, those left out will probably file some kind of a lawsuit. If that lawsuit fails, the schools in those conferences have no point in playing at the FBS level…and that is a whole different discussion.
That's why I would propose the ranked conf champs. All teams have an opportunity to crack the Top 25 by season's end. See Nevada BEFORE the Boise upset (#19).....
SDHornet wrote:Also comparing the media exposure an FBS playoff would get to what the FCS playoff currently gets is apples and oranges. The FBS schools have a larger share of media exposure so those “ho-hum” match-ups in the 1st round of an FBS playoff would at least be on ESPN and would be able to draw well over 10k-12k in attendance.
“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
SDHornet wrote:Whether it’s FIU-Auburn or Auburn-Ohio State, the NCAA and to a lesser extent the schools will cash in regardless.
NO, IT WON'T.
Sadly, there is already an NCAA tournament where the “little guys” battle head to head with the “big boys” which goes against your argument. How are the NCAA and the participating schools not cashing in on that?
Appaholic wrote:What if there was the following caveat. Only conferences with at least one team representative in the final top 25 / Coaches / etc (whatever poll or a combination of polls) is an AQ?
That's OK too. I just think you have to have some kind of caveat in there so a 6-6 FIU doesn't get in over a 10-2 Virginia Tech.
Agree. Only scenario where that could happen in my scenario would be for a conference mate to be ranked in the Top 25 at season's end. If that's the case, then a 6-6 FIU wouldn't be conf champ regardless...so really, with that caveat, is there any possible way a crappy small conference team gets in above a 10-2 big conf team? damm....where did I come up with this idea? It's actually logical.....
“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
Sadly, there is already an NCAA tournament where the “little guys” battle head to head with the “big boys” which goes against your argument. How are the NCAA and the participating schools not cashing in on that?
I'm sitting here muttering to myself about how confounding you are. You're comparing apples to oranges, but if you want to go down that road, do you think first round games, or sweet 16 games have better ratings?
SDHornet wrote:
Sadly, there is already an NCAA tournament where the “little guys” battle head to head with the “big boys” which goes against your argument. How are the NCAA and the participating schools not cashing in on that?
I'm sitting here muttering to myself about how confounding you are. You're comparing apples to oranges, but if you want to go down that road, do you think first round games, or sweet 16 games have better ratings?
Obviously the ratings will increase as the rounds progress no matter who is playing. And I think the hoops tournament is sold as one whole contract to CBS for TV rights…which the NCAA is handsomely rewarded for. I was thinking the FBS playoff would be billed in a similar fashion and the NCAA would rake in mountains of cash. Therefore the TV network would be buying the rights to both the bad games as well as the marquee match-ups. I can’t even imagine how much a FBS playoff TV contract would go for.
*Is the NCAA hoops Tourney contracted out in rounds?
SDHornet wrote:Obviously the ratings will increase as the rounds progress no matter who is playing. And I think the hoops tournament is sold as one whole contract to CBS for TV rights…which the NCAA is handsomely rewarded for. I was thinking the FBS playoff would be billed in a similar fashion and the NCAA would rake in mountains of cash. Therefore the TV network would be buying the rights to both the bad games as well as the marquee match-ups. I can’t even imagine how much a FBS playoff TV contract would go for.
*Is the NCAA hoops Tourney contracted out in rounds?
The contract would be worth less if teams like FIU and NIU are in the field compared to if VT and Oklahoma State were in the field.
SDHornet wrote:Obviously the ratings will increase as the rounds progress no matter who is playing. And I think the hoops tournament is sold as one whole contract to CBS for TV rights…which the NCAA is handsomely rewarded for. I was thinking the FBS playoff would be billed in a similar fashion and the NCAA would rake in mountains of cash. Therefore the TV network would be buying the rights to both the bad games as well as the marquee match-ups. I can’t even imagine how much a FBS playoff TV contract would go for.
*Is the NCAA hoops Tourney contracted out in rounds?
The contract would be worth less if teams like FIU and NIU are in the field compared to if VT and Oklahoma State were in the field.
Sorry but I think the value of seeing the top teams match-up against one another in the final rounds and championship game far outweigh the perceived lower value the Sun Belt, MAC and C-USA would do to the contract value of an FBS playoff.
SDHornet wrote:
I’m also an advocate for including conference champs in a playoff system. I’m glad we cleared that up.
I guess where we differ is you want all conference champs in the field, I only want ones from conferences that earn it.
And that is what the debate will always be about. If those conferences are excluded, they may as well drop to FCS or not play football as they will have little or nothing to gain from playing in a system where they don’t even have an input.
SDHornet wrote:Sorry but I think the value of seeing the top teams match-up against one another in the final rounds and championship game far outweigh the perceived lower value the Sun Belt, MAC and C-USA would do to the contract value of an FBS playoff.
I too think a playoff would rake in the dollars, but you keep dodging the two basic questions... do you think FIU or VT would bring in MORE money, and do you think FIU or VT is more deserving of a spot at the table?
