July 21, 201412 yr Author I can't remember the last time I disagreed with you on something, so I guess we were due, but it matters THAT much to you? So if a few years ago a 3rd team, left out of the BCS National Championship game, may have beaten the two teams in the Championship, that is really a huge problem? In the grand scheme of things, I just can't get my feathers ruffled about not having a "true National Champion" in college football. So you'd rather have 16 teams in a playoff then the current bowl structure where 60+ teams of young men get to go to a bowl game with their families and build memories for life? All in the name of the "true National Champion"? I don't get the uproar, I'll 100% watch either way, but I'm okay with the current structure. I guess I'm in the minority. Play the 16 team playoff then use teams 17 to whatever for the benefit of everyone involved. But whatever you do, don't allow the "Bowl Games" to get in the way any longer.
July 21, 201412 yr I can't remember the last time I disagreed with you on something, so I guess we were due, but it matters THAT much to you? So if a few years ago a 3rd team, left out of the BCS National Championship game, may have beaten the two teams in the Championship, that is really a huge problem? In the grand scheme of things, I just can't get my feathers ruffled about not having a "true National Champion" in college football. So you'd rather have 16 teams in a playoff then the current bowl structure where 60+ teams of young men get to go to a bowl game with their families and build memories for life? All in the name of the "true National Champion"? I don't get the uproar, I'll 100% watch either way, but I'm okay with the current structure. I guess I'm in the minority. I should have clarified. I'm a fan of the +1. Not 16 teams. It seems like a lot of years there are three teams with legit chances at a title and one of those is always left out. I can handle the fifth best team argument. At that point, you didn't get it done. To me, there is a big difference between third and fifth. (Or even fourth and fifth, most years)
July 21, 201412 yr But whatever you do, don't allow the "Bowl Games" to get in the way any longer. Easy to say, impossible to do. In my opinion. You need a solution that does both, and that will require a lot of neutral games, a lot of travel, and a lot of expense (to both the fans and the NCAA [i know, they are made of money, so who cares]).
July 21, 201412 yr I'm a fan of the +1. Me too, I think that solves nearly all of the issues (although it still creates that extra week of neutral game travel, but that is a lot better than the alternative).
July 21, 201412 yr Me too, I think that solves nearly all of the issues (although it still creates that extra week of neutral game travel, but that is a lot better than the alternative). Plus, you keep the bowl system intact, which the NCAA and Presidents like.
July 21, 201412 yr Attendance at the game is nice but it's the TV ratings and the ad's that make the $$$ (See the Superbowl).
July 21, 201412 yr Author Easy to say, impossible to do. In my opinion. You need a solution that does both, and that will require a lot of neutral games, a lot of travel, and a lot of expense (to both the fans and the NCAA [i know, they are made of money, so who cares]). We agree because it is not a perfect world. Again, the controversies at the end will eventually take care of this issue.
July 21, 201412 yr Attendance at the game is nice but it's the TV ratings and the ad's that make the $$$ (See the Superbowl). Thank you. However, please know that the NCAA obsesses over empty seats and the perception that creates for their products more than you can ever imagine. I'm well versed in how TV deals work with the NCAA, but a game of that magnitude half empty is a very real concern for them. For the record, it is the TV contract with the network that makes the NCAA the money, the selling of the features and the spots is how the network then makes their money back (and then some, hopefully). The ratings, as with the attendance (and eyeball perception), are factors in network renewals down the line.
July 21, 201412 yr ... A little dated, but a great article (with quotes) about what a big issue attendance of bowls is. This will only get worse if the playoff system changes the structure some. Stewart Mandel: As bowl attendance dips, college football leaders mull changes - College Football - SI.com
July 21, 201412 yr I think a 4 team playoff is sufficient. Very few years when the best team isn't in the top 4. Of course, it depends on how that top 4 is determined, doesn't it?
July 24, 201412 yr Author ... A little dated, but a great article (with quotes) about what a big issue attendance of bowls is. This will only get worse if the playoff system changes the structure some. Stewart Mandel: As bowl attendance dips, college football leaders mull changes - College Football - SI.com I read the article. Sounds like a bunch of fat cats all figuring out how to make more money off the existing bowl games. In my opinion, all the bowl games are a part of the problem and they can tinker all they want but the majority of the games will die a slow death. Reading the article makes me want the 16 playoff even more.
July 24, 201412 yr I read the article. Sounds like a bunch of fat cats all figuring out how to make more money off the existing bowl games. In my opinion, all the bowl games are a part of the problem and they can tinker all they want but the majority of the games will die a slow death. Reading the article makes me want the 16 playoff even more. I look forward to the day when they kill off the bowls completely. Most schools lose money on them and most of them are really pointless. Occasionally you'll get a fun matchup that makes it worth watching, but even then the result just doesn't matter.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.