2 thoughts on “Twitter: RT @Andy_Staples Very …”

  1. Jazz

    As is so often (disappointingly) the case, the author confuses “logistics” with “finance”, thinking that addressing the former necessarily solves the latter. Though that is sometimes true, it isn’t always, and it certainly isn’t in the case of the NCAA playoff.

    As has been argued repeatedly, big time schools have no chance of matching the all-in revenue stream from the current BCS structure in any playoff system, including the elegant one proposed by Good. For the simplest illustration of why this is true, when Kelly comes in to Notre Dame, whips the lads into shape and wins 10 games next fall, thus earning a Fiesta Bowl berth, something on the order of 40,000 passionate Domers will descend on Phoenix to shell out several thousand dollars each for the BCS experience. It simply beggars belief that Notre Dame would be able to match that net level of alumni enthusiasm in an uncertain, multi-week playoff format.

    I’ve no doubt that all of the games in the proposed postseason would sell out – its just that, from Notre Dame’s perspective, the wrong people will be in the seats for however many games the Irish play. This is a huge roadblock that no fans are addressing, because, if this guy’s audience is any indication, few even comprehend it.

  2. David K.

    The first comment nails one of the major logistical problems of a 16 team playoff, getting the fans to travel to that many extra games, right around the holidays, in potentially far flung locations.

    Any attempt to get a playoff system implemented is goign to have to be practical. 16 teams isn’t practical.

    1) Fans are asked to travel to more games
    2) More teams will end the season with a loss
    3) Top teams are taken from high profile bowl games.

    Getting the Rose, Sugar, etc. to buy in to the BCS system was a tough enough sell when they were faced with the possibility of losing their conference champion, but at worst you only lost two out of the big 6, and you could easily replace them with the presumeably strong conference runner up. With a 16 team playoff you are likely to drop down to the third, or as illustrated in this example for the Sugar Bowl/SEC tie in FOURTH place team.

    If you are going to push for a playoff, it has to be an eight team playoff if you expect the conferences and bowls to buy in. I’m still not a HUGE fan of playoffs, but here’s why it works better (and how it would be chosen).

    First, the field consists of the top 8 ranked conference champions, regardless of conference affiliation. If thats too much of stretch, we go with the Pac-10, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC champions, and then the next top 3. Either way, 8 conference champions. If you didn’t win your conference you have no buisness competing for the national title.

    Why does this work?

    First, you remove one week, and one round of travel from the whole playoff process.

    Second, you keep top notch conference runners up available for games like the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl.

    Third, with 8 more teams available for bowl games you don’t have to kill as many lower tier bowls, which while some people think they are a waste, they do make money for the cities and schools involved.

    Incidentally this year the top 8 conference champs would be:

    1 Alabama (SEC*)
    2 Texas (Big-12*)
    3 Cincinatti (Big East)
    4 TCU (Mountain West)
    6 Boise State (WAC)
    7 Oregon (Pac-10*)
    8 Ohio State (Big Ten*)
    9 Georgia Tech (ACC*)

    Of the top 10 teams, Florida and Iowa get left out.

    The remaining conference champs that don’t get in?

    Troy (9-3 Sun Belt) Unranked
    Central Michigan (11-2 MAC) #25 AP/Unranked BCS
    East Carolina (9-4 Conf-USA) Unranked

    I suppose we need to account for Notre Dame/Army/Navy. Top 8 and they are in. So either one of the three at large conferences gets left out (lowest ranked) or the lost ranked conference champion, depending on how many conferences of the Big 6/5 are given auto bids.

Comments are closed.