Wetzel’s playoff plan: Money talks

A pretty good read on a college football playoff. Are playoffs inevitable, or are we going to be reading stuff like this each year until we eventually stop playing football altogether because of all the concussions and death?

3 months ago PSUmob 23 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

To start

His fool-proof playoff plan has Alabama playing 8-4 Troy in the first round.

In conclusion, his fool-proof playoff plan has Alabama playing 8-4 Troy in the first round.

I say let's rock the Orange Bowl, because nobody will remember in five years anyway.

by jesse. on Dec 9, 2009 3:53 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

How is that different

than UNC playing Radford to start last year’s tourney? Or pitt playing E. Tennessee?

by PSUmob on Dec 9, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

Really, if you only care about the NC, you may not even need 8 teams (does anyone think OSU could take ‘Bama??). But the author addresses this point within his article; the little guy needs to at least have the illusion of a chance. Plus, it’s a boon to the #1 team as they get a bunch of revenue.

by coachKofPA on Dec 9, 2009 9:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

His fool-proof plan also has

OSU playing Georgia Tech in the first round
Penn State playing Florida in the first round
LSU playing TCU in the first round
Iowa playing Oregon in the first round
Virginia Tech playing Boise St in the first round

all of those games I would watch.

So just in the first round there are 5 compelling matchups, and 3 less interesting ones (that I’d still probably watch, but are more or less BYE weeks for those higher seeded teams, while giving the mid-major champions a chance at a Cinderella dance.

The second round would then most likely have 4 very interesting games, the semi-finals would have 2, and the championship game would have 1.

That gives me 12 games that I’d seriously want to watch, opposed to now where there are maybe 6 or 7 games of interest to me.

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 10, 2009 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not a big playoff guy but

I WOULD like to see the matchups that the playoffs provide us (IE PSU at Florida).

I mean here’s the deal: On one hand you can say the NCAAF regular season already is a playoff, and it’s the best regular season of any sport out there. Conversely you have teams like us that schedule NOBODY and are lucky to get 2 quality games in conference. That’s 10 games out of 12 that are just ho-hum. And we’re not alone there.

The thing is, the way things are right now there are absolutely no incentives to schedule big-time OOC games, because you’d rather fill your stadium and pay some small-time school to come in and be the sacrificial offering. Then you give yourself the best chance at being undefeated and competing for a NC, because as we all know in most years just 1 loss and you’re disqualified.

So here’s the question: Would you rather see the regular season mean less than it does now with the hopes of getting a chance to see games every season like Texas at Florida, like Florida at USC, like PSU at Florida (maybe all in one season!), or would you rather cross your fingers and hope theres a good matchup or two at the end with the BCS? I just don’t know.

"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.

by millzners on Dec 9, 2009 4:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My philosophy has been pretty simple

1] 90% of the BCS’s problems can be easily solved.
2] Bowl Games are good, and should be preserved.

Over and over again I lament the loss of New Years Day as the traditional college football day. I say pretend the bowls are the 13th week of the season. Let every league or team make the bowl deals that they feel best suit them. Play all the games on New Years Day.

Then pick the top two teams and let them play on the second Saturday after New Years Day. It’s a playoff, but it’s not.

I say let's rock the Orange Bowl, because nobody will remember in five years anyway.

by jesse. on Dec 9, 2009 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with your love of the bowls, for me there’s just a certain amount of tradition that makes college football special. And often times a bowl game, even the Alamo bowl, can mean more to a team than we as fans can understand — it gives teams dignity and something to play for when the playoff system otherwise wouldn’t. Watching Northwestern fight for their lives and almost upset that Mizzou team last year was thrilling, yet utterly meaningless to the national title picture. I don’t want to lose that. Not everything has to be about the damned NC.

So keep the bowls, all of them…

So then what do you do? Can you have all the bowls and then add in this 16 team playoff? Can you make the final 2 rounds be the traditional BCS games in their traditional locations to preserve tradition? I still love the homefield advantage, I’d love to see Florida, or Texas come into Happy Valley in January.

For me, I want both, and I have no idea how to accomplish that w/out compromising everything.

"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.

by millzners on Dec 9, 2009 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree with your premise

I don’t think the regular season games HAVE to mean anything less. My feeling is that the college b-ball regular season, for instance, is viewed as less meaningful because there are so many more games. When you only have 12 games, there’s a lot more excitement, inherently.

Meanwhile, if you actually play the playoff games at the higher seed’s home field, that’s a HUGE incentive for teams to value every regular season game. Also, since the home team gets the bump in revenue, the university sees an increase in revenue as well.

If the lower-tier bowls are that much of an incentive, keep ‘em for teams #17 and below. If you really think jNW will play their hearts out against Mizzou in that bowl game, it shouldn’t matter that it’s not a “playoff” bowl game or not (for that game, jNW didn’t have a shot at the NC with either system, so this should be irrelevant). Perhaps the lower-tier bowls could be played the week before the playoffs, so the also-rans can have their limelight.

Then again, I’m not nostalgic for the bowls. I don’t personally know anyone who is. So, from that standpoint, I am biased.

All I know is, I wouldn’t want to be a TCU fan right now. I think PSU fans especially can relate to the pain of going undefeated and still being passed over for NC consideration, especially if traditional powers will not schedule you in OOC play. How are the TCU’s of the world to gain credibility, if not for beating a traditional power in a non-NC bowl game, after which it’s already too late?

by coachKofPA on Dec 9, 2009 9:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

TCU

For the record, we deserately tried to schedule them this year over Akron back in the spring and they said no. Funny how something like that comes back around to be a big deal a few months later. The whole top 10 would be dramatically different right now if that game had taken place, and I’m not convinced we would have won the game (quite the opposite actually)…

But other than that I agree with you more or less, I’m not convinced a playoff would devalue the regular season — I guess the bigger argument is this: Would a playoff make scheduling good OOC teams completely pointless? The flip side of that being that it’s almost completely pointless now and people still do it.

"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.

by millzners on Dec 10, 2009 9:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Eh, Boise St beat Oregon

we all see where that got them

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 10, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

also this

This would also placate complaints from northern teams who are seemingly always playing bowl games near the campus of their opponent. The Big Ten’s been getting slaughtered of late in bowl games. Well, let’s see Florida or LSU slide around in the snow of Happy Valley some time.

"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.

by millzners on Dec 9, 2009 4:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

So....

Let’s say we host a playoff game (or 2 or 3), does all of that money go to us or does it get shared evenly throughout the big ten? I don’t see him addressing that.

by speedomike on Dec 9, 2009 9:09 PM EST via mobile reply actions 0 recs

does this possibly answer your question?

Hosting games would be a boon to the schools. Instead of sharing up to 40 percent of game revenue (and all travel costs) with third-party bowl committees – run by an executive director making up to $800,000 a year – college and universities could keep all money in-house.

it’s not clear if he means “schools” as in the actual host school, or “schools” in general, meaning some sort of profit sharing thing. i could be looking into it way more than necessary though.

We decide when you hear the snap count...

by thedrizzle on Dec 10, 2009 8:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure the conference contracts would change to reflect this

and have the teams split the $ in the conference.

I just wonder about home field advantage when you get stadiums like Ryan Field in Evanston. What if it was a round where it was Northwestern (higher seed) vs Penn State. I’d imagine in a situation like that, though, that arrangements would be made with Soldier Field if possible.

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 10, 2009 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When will someone explain to me how a system that allows teams who have proven

incapable of winning their conference is “settling it on the field.” So they play through their conference season, can’t win enough games to be conference champions, and then could get hot enough, with maybe some luck thrown in, to win games in a playoff and be “national champions.” If you believe that, then you have been sold that idea by professional sports, and you bought it willingly.

I’m sort of with Jesse.. Why can’t we keep the BCS games with 6 conference tie ins, add the top 2 non-bcs conference champions, play those 4 games on new years day, and then play the top 2 teams after that 1 week later? That is no less “settling it on the field” than allowing teams who have already proven themselves unworthy to participate in a post season.

by PSUinBOSSton on Dec 10, 2009 12:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

i think that idea would be a much easier sell

unless we ever got to a point where we had 3 non-big6 conference undefeateds.

just curious, if this became the system, would you think it would be necessary for every conference to have a “championship” game of their own?

We decide when you hear the snap count...

by thedrizzle on Dec 10, 2009 8:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well,

I agree that it would be nice if there were some uniformity amond determining the conference champions. But the conferences need to be able to maintain some autonomy. I believe that if it were conference champions only eligible (effectively), then you would find the conferences falling in line with the 2 division 6 team per conference championship model. Not that it’s necessarily the best way, I haven’t given it a lot of thought, but it is probably the easiest uniform plan. Honestly, 12 team conferences and playing every team in your conference may be the best way to “settle it on the field” (mentioned only since that’s the biggest OMGWENEEDAPLAYOFF argument.

by PSUinBOSSton on Dec 10, 2009 9:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's been my argument as well

What really bothers me with BCS commentary is the general acceptance that it is the worst thing ever. First off, it is certainly an improvement to the situation just prior to the creation of the BCS where every conference had bowl contracts and you could almost never have a #1 vs #2 in a bowl game unless one of them was Notre Dame. Second, I will argue all day long that the BCS system is much better at crowning a true champion when compared to the NCAA tournament. The article linked lost all credibility to me when it cited the tournament as a model for how it should be done. The tournament is completely a made for TV event. What’s worse is that they pretty much have the public duped that it is some sort of crowning achievment in sport.

by cpm126 on Dec 10, 2009 8:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

while the NCAA basketball tournament may not be perfect at crowning a champion

how can you say the BCS is any better? In all but what, 2 years out of 12 there has been some significant controversy as to who should be in the title game. And then you have the strength of schedule argument. Say TCU and Boise St were the only undefeated teams this year, and that Alabama had a last second loss to LSU, but beat Florida in the SEC championship game. Are you honestly going to say that the game between TCU and Boise St is definitively a matchup between the 2 best teams? While the BCS makes it much more likely that there’ll be a matchup of the #1 & #2 teams, it isn’t always what happens, and depends on what criteria you use to rank those #1 and #2 teams.

And yes, in the NCAA basketball tournament there are usually upsets, and the “best” team doesn’t always win, but at least all the top teams are in control of their destiny and can settle it on the field. Sure, people can point to the 2007 NFL season and the Giants winning the Super Bowl. The “best” team (the Patriots) didn’t win it…but an argument can be made that they weren’t the best team, since they didn’t win when it really, truly mattered.

It also I suppose depends on your definition of “champion”. Is it the team that had the best record in the regular season? Is it the team that played the best in the regular season? Is it the team that successfully made it to, and navigated through a tournament? Is it a compilation of both?

I always look at hockey with this. They have the Presidents Cup for the team that had the best regular season (effectively what old MNC champions were, and essentially what the BCS champion is, except they also have to win their one “playoff” game), and the Stanley Cup for whoever wins the postseason. What do people care more about?

We could implement a similar system for college playoffs, where a team can win the “regular season crown” and it would go to the #1 seed, but ultimately what people will care about more, and get more excited about (and spend more $ on) will be the National Championship trophy to whoever wins the tournament.

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 10, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

In my dream scenario

the 120 FBS teams are realigned into 12 relatively even strengthed(as possible) 10 team conferences. Each conference plays a full round robin + 3 ooc games. The 12 conference champs are then seeded via a formula( a revised BCS perhaps). Top 4 get a 1st round bye. Then an 8 team playoff ensues from there (these 4 games are the 4 current BCS games perhaps). All other teams not in playoffs play in their bowls like they do now.

Obviously much more detail is needed but i won’t type all that here.

Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.

"Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth."

by Roland86 on Dec 10, 2009 2:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

In my 'Shamless Plug'

FanPost – I linked 2 articles; one is a slam on the BCS the other is a play-off that includes some bowls AND strengthens the others.

The BCS is WHY teams only schedule cream-puffs and really why shouldn’t they if a team like Penn State goes unbeaten it doesn’t matter how many cream-puffs they play (I know that’s a touchy subject based on the past) they have enough brand recognition to get a spot in the NC in most years.

The system is a joke and should be fixed. Check out my solution, I think you’ll like it.

GEAUX TIGERS!!!

by SouthernMan on Dec 10, 2009 8:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

The problem is not the system to end the season

The problem is the setup of college football in general. Everything stems from this idea that one will better determine who is the “best” team that year, but both systems have serious flaws. The BCS does not have a legit system for resolving multiple undefeated teams at the end of the season. A playoff system allows lesser teams the opportunity to make a run at being crowned the National Champions.

The playoff system you (and Wetzel, who admittedly I cannot stand) present starts with a good basis – ensuring all the conference champions in. Every other sport uses this, so (from my standpoint) any suggested playoff system that doesn’t use this is incomplete. The only issue I have with most playoff systems is that they have an arbitrary selection process for their “At Large” picks. Why are teams like BYU and Houston left out in favor of LSU and VTech? Other sports don’t care if you had a “harder schedule” – they just care if you win. That’s not to say that LSU or VT aren’t perhaps “more deserving”, but the selection process is still somewhat arbitrary. Until someone can present a playoff system where at large bids (if included in their playoffs) are picked by a reasonable system supported by some sort of logic, I just can’t justify a playoff yet.

The BCS is WHY teams only schedule cream-puffs…

Not really true – teams do it for the money. And in the case of the playoffs, I don’t see an argument why it would change. The easy way into the playoffs is through the conference – who cares what the OOC schedule is as long as you win the conference. After that, if you’re in a BCS conference and have a good record, you’ll likely get in as an at large. I still see no reason for teams to start going out and scheduling top teams. As such, money reigns supreme, so they’ll continue to schedule the cupcakes. Neither system – BCS or a playoff – resolves that issue.

Want to change everything? Want to see an end to scheduling cupcakes and making the bowl games and/or a playoff work? Start slashing the FBS. 120 teams is insane and no system will work in finding a “true” champion. Cut the FBS to 80 teams, and then we can start to talk. Until then, I’m just going to sit back and enjoy the games.

"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

by IcersGuy on Dec 10, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One flaw I see in this system

is that there would still be issue in how the teams are seeded. The difference between the 8th and 9th seeded teams (or heck, even the 5th and 9th seeded teams) is usually not that large, but could lead to a HUGE difference in revenue.

One possible solution to this would be that all the revenue made would go into a giant pool, which would then pay out to the teams based on how far they advanced through the system (ie how many games they played).

The teams would then still have the “home field advantage” with fan support, but would make the $ much more even. Heck, in this system (at least how I understood the proposal), the teams ranked 13-16 would make virtually no money (and probably nowhere near enough to even cover their travel costs). How would that be preferable to a bowl game?

by The JuggerNitt on Dec 10, 2009 2:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs