Spence wrote:Pros and Cons of a playoff series vs. BCS
Pros:
1. Would bring CFB into conformity with other major sports.
2. Would end split championships.
3. Lets more then two teams have a shot at a championship.
4. More money would be paid out. Less teams playing post season would mean less costs for the schools.
Cons:
1. Would gut, if not destroy, the bowl system, which allows 56 teams -- almost half the teams in D-1 -- to declare their season a success by reaching the post season. Half of those being able to finish with a win in post season.
2. While playoffs would bring in more money on the surface they would diminish alumni contributions that are usually gotten during bowl weeks.
3. Could diminish interest in the regular season. College footballs regular season is the most meaningful and drama filled in sports. (what impact does Duke's loss this weekend have on the ba-ball playoffs?)
4. The college game would become more commercialized and professionalized.
5. Traditions would suffer.
6. A 16-team, four round playoff would be during many final exams and extend the season into the second semester. Players would be harder -pressed to be students.
Anyone care to add something?
Remember amateur athletics is more about the quest for winning then it is about winning.
Yeah, I would like to add 'something' but suffice to say I think you are wrong about it, if you are implying a ten-team BCS 'playoff' would necessarily 'ruin' college football, I believe that's not a fair analysis, in any respect.
Do you actually read my posts?
My proposal (again) is as follows:
Utilize 6 EXISTING bowls, for BCS purposes.
I would prefer the following bowls be represented: Holiday, Liberty, Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange.
Those are existing bowls, Spence, or in other words 6/9 games would be 'traditional' pairings. I don't even care how the bowls themselves decide to pair the teams together, that's their perrogative.
Now, apply this to last year's BCS and look at what happens.
Eleven teams were BCS 'eligible' or at least were in the 'mix'.
My 'resolution' to pair Utah and Boise St. together honors the BCS 'tradition' of selecting teams from major conferences.
And it also addresses 'access' for teams traditionally not part of the BCS.
You may not like my proposal, that's your right, but attack it on legitimate basis, not television ratings.
For that matter, let the bowls themselves decide if its a good idea or not.
Your game (Ohio St. vs. Notre Dame) got a higher TV rating, but not so much higher as you implied. I checked your numbers, they weren't entirely reliable, despite your position to the contrary.
My 'source' was part of a report done by the NCAA and included numbers associated with the bowls attendance, and televison ratings.
You present numbers that likely were localized to Ohio, valid numbers, but not national, or if they were they were either 'peak' or 'valley' figures. But there's no way to know for sure, you don't mention your source. But you can believe what you want, I don't know that I care.
Then, you accuse me of calling a 75% capacity stadium a 'sell-out' (I never did), I simply stated that in the Mountain West Conference 36,000 fans in a 46,000 stadium isn't too bad, all things considered, and it's not..
To compare them to a high school team is pretty low, even for you, but think what you want, TCU beats a majority of the teams they play and have a better home winning % than Ohio State does. Attribuite that to the caliber of teams they are playing, but don't call me a liar, I'm not.
One final thing, I did do a statistical analyis of my proposal, and what I found was fairly enlightening at least to me. I was close to being correct in my preliminary 'estimate' that the odds favored the BCS teams by a 2/3 margin, but I didn't have the statistics to back it up.
Statistically, the probability two 'Big 6' teams meet in the title game is of the order of 5/8, or somewhere around 63%.
The other interesting thing, at least in my opinion, is how equally well the other two possibities were addressed, 3/16 probability for each.
In other words it's 3/16 probability two 'at large' teams advance to the BCS 'title' game, and 3/16 probability one 'Big 6' and one 'at large' team meet. That's something of the order of 18%, which is less than the 25% I had presumed to be accurate. Like I said, I had to 'recalculate' my numbers.
A ten team bracket would be a lot better than a 16-team one, in a lot of respects. For one thing, I believe a 16 team bracked requires 15 games, too many for my taste. For another, in my proposal, 5/10 will likely play in EXACTLY one game. Maybe that's obvious, but only 5/10 will likely have to play any additional games. Of those, only 3 are likely to have to play 3 games. And only one is likely to have to play 4, although as many as two can, and would 18% of the time.
It's my opinion that adding two 'semi-final' and one BCS 'championship' at the end of the BCS would make it better. For all intents and purposes, the only thing lacking are the two semi-final games, sandwiched between the 'existing' BCS and the 'added' title game.
That means, only two games separate this year's BCS from what I propose, two 'regional' games if you prefer.
That's not a lot to ask for by most people's standards.
But I can't make you 'like' my proposal. I simply let you watch the games play themselves out and make up your own mind.
But, it's interesting to me, how well it would work.
Perfectly? No. Any proposal has pro's and con's.
Better than what's in place? Almost certainly.
Better than a 16-team playoff, definitely.
Better than a 64-team playoff, only if you are a traditionalist, which I am.
If you don't like it that's your right, but the numbers tell a different story.
