Playoffs? In FBS football? For real?

[sundropdrinker13]

Well, it seems it really is for real. From our friends at Backing the Pack:

http://www.backingthepack.com/2012/4...otball-in-2014

[Exterminator]

i'm all for it. i don't buy it hurting the bowls, either. in fact, if done right, it could enhance the bowl system.

[Oldtimer]

Although I love for the Pack to make Bowl Game appearances, there are so many bowl games now that they have lost their luster. I know the extra playing experience is important and fun for the players, the money is good, and the exposure can be benefitial. However, consistently appearing in minor bowl games could be a turn off to some of the top recruits. Just my opinion, what do the rest of the posters think? I also miss the good old days when the bowls had names like the Peach Bowl, etc. Something just doesn't seem right to have the Belk Bowl or the Boise Bowl. Corporate sponsorship has made the games nothing more than one long commercial. No insult intended, but I would rather have been known as the Orange Bowl MVP than the Tostitos MVP!

[sundropdrinker13]

I agree with you Oldtimer. When a 5-7 team makes a bowl game, it just shows how much is wrong, and not to mention all the 6-6 teams. I know State was in that boat a few years ago, but it just dilutes the overall product. Is this playoff scenario perfect? Not by a long stretch, but it's a start at least. I think it should be the top 12-16 teams, with the rest going to bowls.

[redfreda]

Then, it'll be the top 20 teams, then the top 32, then the top 48, then...

Water water everywhere. But, gotta keep it fair boys. Ya' just gotta keep it... fair.

[Howler]

16 team field with only 12 other bowls gives you the top third of D-1 schools earning a reward.

Means we wouldn't have made it last year and the experience and win were satisfying though that's how is should be, IMO.

H

[ppack3]

I've said, for some time now, that Death to the BCS brought to light way too much of the inner workings of that 'organization.' for the past two years there has been media and fan scrutiny along with anti-trust lawsuits, all aimed at either taking the BCS down or instituting a playoff system. It was only a short matter of time before the BCS either adapted or vanished altogether. I said, on these boards, last year this time, that the BCS would adapt to survive, and that they would only give enough to survive under the current model.

Where an eight team playoff is probably the best scenario with regards to the number of participating teams, major bowls and time schedule, the BCS would not go that far. The very least that they could give is to institute a four team 'event.'

they will also change the name of the faceless, shapeless entity known as the BCS, in order to throw people off the trail and continue pouring in the money to the same people. My next prediction, you ask? Actually, I doubt anyone cares. But, here it goes. This new organization will realize how much money is there for the taking, once the 'event' system is in play. Then, the major bowls will all want in, the conference commissioners will all want a guaranteed spot in an expanded field and, little by little, the field will grow from four to eight. And then, when all of the water has been wrung from that sponge, it'll go to sixteen.

But, make no mistake, the BCS (or whatever TaxID they use from now on) will adapt to survive and will pursue the easiest path to the most money. The conference commissioners are largely powerless without the BCS. With it, the hold every card in the deck. They, and the Notre Dame AD will do absolutely everything they can do in order to keep the power and to reserve the righ to dole out the money as they see fit.

I get as heated about this topic as RedFred gets about RW, UNC media bias, etc. what a racket, the BCS. The lower tier bowls don't make money, BTW. The BCS system keeps giving us 6-6 bowl games because they allocate those funds to line people pockets, claim them as charitable organizations and to prop up the notion of university 'visibility' and of the BCS itself.

It's as crooked as Washington, only it's not as transparent.

[redfreda]

^ Totally agree. It's money FIRST, all else is... irrelevant. Like we both said, and name it whatever you will, but that same old watered down effect is inevitable, and just a matter of time. The Regular Season, pffft, who needs that anyway??? You can play at under .500 and still reap the rewards. Too much $$$ involved for anything that's purely about the sport itself.

And our boy $wofford, the one who had not much to say regarding the NCAA's recent findings, is the BMOC.

[ppack3]

Swofford is one of the BCS 'Knights of the Round Table.' He is part of a very small brotherhood that controls most of the college football money, where/how it's distributed and which teams/conferences benefit most from the process. It would take something un-natural to happen to John Swofford for him to give up his seat at that table.

Granted, I actually like the idea of playoffs. I like the idea of an eight team playoff. The regular season is played (in the ACC for example) in order to determine the champion through the ACCCG. That team, in turn, should be invited to the eight team playoff, which consists of the champions from the six major conferences and two at-large bids/NotreDame (when applicable). The first round could be held the week after conference championship week, at the higher ranked teams' home field. The result would be a final four, played the next week, that could be played out among (what we know now as) the BCS Bowls. I would say to take the Rose Bowl and simply give them the runners up in the Big10 and the Pack 10, or first choice from those leagues. Then split the other bowls up to host either of the two final four games, and one of them to host the championship game two weeks after the Final Four.

For the eight teams in the playoff, they get another home gate and an extremely large game, and the right to take a trip to the Fiesta, Orange or Sugar Bowls (depending on the rotation). For example, if the Fiesta Bowl and the Sugar Bowl were in the Final Four round, then the Championship game would be played at the Orange Bowl.

All other Bowls would be held, as normal or necessary. I could do without the majority of the lower tier Bowls as it sits. Nobody watches them except for the fans of the teams that play in them. Sometimes, in the case of UNC, not even that many people watch.

Yet, with all of the sense that it makes, they are going to institute a plan that will shut out two of the major conferences and almost every other school that's not in one of the Big10, Big12, SEC or Pac10. The Big East and the ACC are left holding a very slim possibility that they would ever be ranked high enough to snatch a Final Four 'Event' slot. The rest have virtually no shot to ever participate.

The only difference is that we (the ACC) would get some cut of the money for keeping our mouths shut and going along with the plan.

The Conference USA situation will be interesting. Conference re-alignment could shake things up a bit. There are things that can effect change, as long as they are driven by money.

[Oldtimer]

So the BCS and the NCAA have alot in common.

[ppack3]

Sort of. The NCAA operates off of Licencing and money from fines levied against it's voluntary member institutions, along with revenue from the NCAA Basketball Tournament. That's it.

The BCS was formed outside of the NCAA, by (among others) the Conference Commissioners of the "Big Six," plus the AD from Notre Dame, and by the Bowl Chairmen from the Biggest Bowls in the country. They rule the biggest revenue sport in the country and hold influence over all of college sports, because of that same TV contract (again, among others) money.

So, one owns basketball and the rule book, the other owns football and the pocketbook.