re: The BCS has been undeniably kind to LSU

In all honesty, the only two bowl games that I would be very sad to lose are the Rose and the Sugar. Therefore, I would propose to alternate the championship game between those two so there is no East or West coast advantage. The off years they can host a semifinal game along with either Miami or Phoenix depending on geography. Atlanta, San Diego, Orlando, and Dallas can join them for the opening round. Rest of the bowls can stay as irrelevant as they are now. I also agree an 8 team playoff with only conference winners in the mix will preserve the regular season because if you can't win your conference, you don't have a leg to stand on, no matter how good you are by the end of the season.

Also with at least two games to get by against top competition before you hit up the championship game, very few 3-4 loss conference winners will make it to the big game, let alone win it, and if they do, so be it. They at least earned it. One could also add that an AQ conference whose winner hasn't finished in the top 10 in 2-3 consecutive years could lose their status and be relegated. Right now there are 6 AQs, but two more can either be added or the final two slots can determined by the highest ranking non AQ conference winners.

As to the money problems, a playoff would almost definitely generate more money just from advertising alone. So that could easily make up for conferences not getting two teams in the BCS. Not to mention, if one staged the lesser bowls as appetizers to the playoff games each week, then they too would have higher ratings, I bet.

As for the complaints about fans not being able to travel to each game, there are almost always more fans willing to buy tickets than there are tickets for interesting bowl games. The biggest problem has always been that the official ticket blocks that schools usually get stuck with are the suckiest tickets for the most part, so experienced fans who are not the big boosters have long since started buying their bowl game tickets from any source but the university. If games actually gave decent blocks to the schools and prorate the prices based on the level of the playoff game, you will always have enough fans willing to sell out those seats. A lot of fans will chose the sure thing first round playoff game, especially if the seats are cheaper. Some will gamble on the later rounds, and some of the high rollers or really invested fans will buy for the whole shebang. However, even with the smaller schools having a harder time selling out their seats, you better believe that people living in those areas would be more than happy to go to a meaningful game and the games would still be a sell-out, especially since all those locales are in easily accessible, high population areas with more than one reason to vacation there.

I really just don't see much of a downside to this proposal.

quote:

---

As to the money problems, a playoff would almost definitely generate more money just from advertising alone. So that could easily make up for conferences not getting two teams in the BCS. Not to mention, if one staged the lesser bowls as appetizers to the playoff games each week, then they too would have higher ratings, I bet.

---

It may or may not generate more money. 25+ bowls is a big hurdle for 7 games in 8 team playoff scenario to overcome. In addition devaluing the regular season means less money there too. But even if it does earn more money, it most certainly means less money for the BCS conferences. A playoff will most certainly require the money to funnel thru the NCAA to all D1 schools.

Keep in mind that it isn't the brilliant insights that my posts provide that prevent a playoff. It's just that the powers that be (and these are some really smart people) don't believe that it's in their interests to do so. Of course they may be wrong, but it's a risky decision with real world consequences. If they thought it was a slam dunk, a playoff would happen tomorrow.

quote:

---

It may or may not generate more money. 25+ bowls is a big hurdle for 7 games in 8 team playoff scenario to overcome. In addition devaluing the regular season means less money there too. But even if it does earn more money, it most certainly means less money for the BCS conferences. A playoff will most certainly require the money to funnel thru the NCAA to all D1 schools.

---

The other bowl games are still there, irrelevant as ever, in the 8 team playoff. However, being an appetizer to a meaningful game probably ups their TV ratings since tailgating parties all over with be tuned in while they drink.

Exactly how is the regular season any more devalued if you are required to win your conference to get into an 8 team playoff? The only thing that is changed is that that very good second conference team who couldn't beat the other conference team is relegated to irrelevance, which appears to be happening with the BCS games anyway. I cannot remember the last time I sat through an entire BCS game that didn't involve UGA. Hell, I haven't even starting watching pretty much every single one of them that wasn't on New Year's Day. And I am a pretty big CFB fan. After New Year's Day, though, the season is over for me. A championship game will hold my attention until it becomes a blow out, but that is about it. I would love to see the numbers, but ABC didn't renew its BCS contract because it was losing money. I will be very interested to see if ESPN feels like they got a good deal as things stand, or they just are hoping to be the network when a playoff comes through. With the massive regular season contracts already in place, the conferences can afford to take less from the post-season, but I doubt they would with a playoff.

Either system benefits lsu. Why? Because they are a top program. With a playoff in 06 or 10 we could have ran the table. The only team that i saw in the bowl games that would have beat us was stanford. It is possible we could have squeeked out wins against an arkansas or an auburn if we met them again.

quote:

---

I don't think a playoff system is any better.

I don't want to do anything that might diminish the regular season in any way.

---

I wholeheartedly agree. I don't want any playoff of any sort. I don't even think a +1 is necessary.

When, during the BCS era, has a team that was OBVIOUSLY the best left out?

In the NFL they have a playoff system... does the best team every year always win? Ask the 18-1 Patsies that question.

The playoffs will render the regular season slightly above irrelevant. I don't even watch the NFL during the regular season since it's meaningless... other than for fantasy football. Teams can get to the playoffs that lose half their games. How the hell is that any better?

Regular season big games won't be nearly as meaningful with a playoff.

I pray they don't mess with the current system at all. Changing to a playoff format will only be going from one imperfect system to another. So if you aren't fixing anything, why change just for the sake of change.

You'll still have teams bitching when they are on the bubble for the playoffs and get left out of the playoffs.

quote:

---

So if you are considered the "best" team but lose in the playoffs, then aren't you, by definition, not the best anymore? I get what you are saying, just think we should have a better way to decide.

---

First off, let me say that I am okay with having a playoff as long as there aren't more than 4-6 teams.

Basketball is an example of why playoffs do not crown the best team. Basketball is a sport where upsets happen alot. It takes many games to determine which teams are the best. This is why people, including myself, put greater emphasis on the regular season. Duke wasn't the best team last year. They just won 6 games in a row.

quote:

---

With a playoff in 06 or 10 we could have ran the table. The only team that i saw in the bowl games that would have beat us was stanford. It is possible we could have squeeked out wins against an arkansas or an auburn if we met them again.

---

That is true. They could also have zero NC's

quote:

---

You'll still have teams bitching when they are on the bubble for the playoffs and get left out of the playoffs.

---

That gets to the fundamental problem; ranking teams is subjective. There is no one universally accepted way to do it and people have different criteria for what they consider good.

What happens if there are several undefeated teams that qualify for the playoffs? They pick the rankings for the playoffs out of a hat?

There is always going to be controversy. The current system at least places the emphasis on the regular season and makes games that you might not care about mean something (e.g. WVU vs. Pittsburgh).

quote:

---

The Browns beat the Patriots last season.

---

In the playoffs? [Sea beat the Saints in the playoffs]

quote:

---

Were they deserving of a playoff birth?

---

if the Browns got it under the current rules, then, yes, they absolutely deserved to be there.

quote:

---

They proved they were deserving when they ran rough-shod over the Saints.

---

Most of the time LSUtangerine has his head up his arse. But he's completely right here. The NFLs system allowed that scenario to happen.

But this validates my point. The seahawks ended up beating the saints. Were the seahawks the better team that season> NO... but they were the better team that day. So the NFL playoffs pretty much renders the regular season irrelevant. IMO