The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Please, I'd love to hear from you.  I see a guy or 2 on Around the Horn, but I can't tell if they're just trying to make a name for themselves.

I've yet to meet a regualr sports fan that likes the current setup over a traditional playoff.  Go!

Does a playoff remove other bowls? If so I am adamantly against it.

I'm not a college football fan so I don't care about all of the bowls. Maybe you could call each step in the playoffs a bowl game until you get to the BCS championship.

I would imagine the colleges and NCAA are against it because it could add 2-3 games to the season for the championship teams.  I always assumed they wanted football to be over by the beginning of Spring semester.  And the December break is for final exams, not for playoff preparation.

Although you find it as nothing more than entertaining, you have to remember these kids are college students too, and some of them want an education as well.

The major conferences are against it because it takes money out of their pockets and redistributes it to teams that, you know, actually deserve to play in a meaningful postseason that year.

And when the major conferences are against it, that's all that matters.

I get why certain moneymakers are against it.  That's never been the question.  But, I think the fans are getting tired of it.  I really do.  I couldn't even bring mysef to watch the championship game.  It was like pulling teeth, because it all feels like it doesn't really matter.

I love playoffs.  There is drama there that doesn't exist in the bowls that draws me in.  I can't be alone in that.

I don't want to see #6 play #8.  I just don't care, and unless you are specifically a fan of those schools, I bet most don't.  But if #6 vs #8 could advance for a shot at a title, you bet your ass I'd be interested.

I know that this is all about money, but at some point, as interest dwindles, the scales have to tip to the point where there's more money, because there will be more fan interest.

Dave, based on that position can we assume you don't watch regular season college football games unless you are a fan of one of the schools? If that is the case can we also assume you really are not a fan of the game itself and only really care about teams of specific interest?

I don't think that is a fair assument of the situation. 

I don't watch much regular season college basketball, but I enjoy the tournment.  I don't like the way teams are selected and not selected for bowl games.  That makes them as interesting as the pro-bowl.  Because they are all really pretty meaningless. 

If a bowl game is meaningless to you guys, why isn't a regular season matchup just as meaningless is my point of the question. I can't see how a person can call themselves a fan of the sport if they need incentives to watch the sport. It sounds like you are more of a fan of a tournament than of the sport itself.

Generally, this is true.  I will occasionally watch a regular season game of two teams with which I'm not invested if there is a compelling storyline, rivarly, or what have you.


No, I don't think you can assume that.

Like Hoodie says, I watch very little NCAA basketball, but enjoy the tournament.  I don't watch a ton of NBA regular season games outside of the HEAT, but I'll watch the playoffs.  I don't watch and MLB, but I'll watch playoffs on occassion.  Playoffs add drama.  That's what I'm about, when teams I don't specifically care about are playing.

So here is the rub. You are not what I would consider a college football fan then. You are a fan of tournaments and playoffs. Why should the NCAA look at a system that isolates college football fans (who watch many regular season and bowl games) for a system that elevates fans that only watch playoffs or tournaments?

Note, I am not against instituting a playoff but if it takes away many of the games I watch in the month of December I wouldn't be very happy with it.

For the same reason they do it in college basketball, and in every other level of college football but Division IA.  It's a superior system.

Does the existence of the playoffs cheapen the NFL regular season?  Is the NFL pandering to casual fans by having a postseason tournament?

How would it "take away" games?

Because there are a lot of people like me.  Those who really love college football will watch regardless.  People who are like me will have an increase in interet when the stakes are raised.


On a side note, I reject that you aren't a fan of the sport if you don't want to watch meaningless games from that sport.  I like basketball, but I don't have an interest in watching most regular season games that don't have championship implications.  I'm definitely a football fan, and the same applies to that.

That is my question. Would it take away games? It is widely recognized that any playoff format would only include a limited number of teams. Would they then be doing away with the remaining bowl games. If so, I'm not in favor of it.

They could keep the bowls if they wanted, but I don't care if they do.  Also, stop pushing them back further and further so that they're happening a full month after the season is over.

Frankly, I don't think the league gives a crap whether or not you are interested.  I didn't watch because the Panthers played the same night against the Canucks.  I found that far more interesting, personally, so I spent my sports attention on that game.

You are not a fan of the game then either. You are a fan of a couple of teams and a bowl title. A true fan would want to know who is the true champion without any doubts. A playoff would accomplish this.
Also if you were a fan, you would be informed that the most common playoff concept brought up would include the major bowls as part of the equation with the remaining top two teams advancing to a championship.
The current bowl system is a joke. It is based on fan draw as opposed to the best teams or match-ups. I see you conveniently leave out the fact that the bowl games are full of 6-6 or 7-5 teams to fill up the ridiculous amount of bowls there are.

I don't see any reason why it would.  You could still continue to have 20+ meaningless bowls every year, and they would be totally unaffected by the playoffs.

This year, there are 35 bowls.  The championship would still be the championship, you would have the Sugar/Orange/Rose/Fiesta Bowls rotate hosting the semi-finals, and take the two leftovers from that group and add two more (maybe Gator and Cotton) as the quarterfinals; top 8 should be plenty.

That still leaves you with over 25 pointless bowls to watch each year.  The tradition is preserved.

It's your opinion and you can have it but it feels a bit more personal than fact based. How do you think I am a fan of a few teams and a bowl title when I say I watch a lot of college football and enjoy it? Yep I certainly know that one plan involves the major bowls in a playoff. That does not address the other bowl games that I have said I like to watch. Why would I conveniently leave out that the bowl schedule involves many 6-6 or 7-5 teams, I enjoy watching those games. I don't want them gone. I think that makes me a pretty good fan of college football.

The primary argument against a playoff system is TRADITION.

The same argument used against ending segregation, to oppose women from voting, instituting instant replay, and the opposition to same sex marrigage.   

I think the NCAA actually likes the debates every year over this topic.  It helps keep college football in the news, and probably generates more revenue across the board.  I think if you had a mini playoff system many of the other bowls would lose sponsors and money.

I disagree.  I think that tradition might be the primary justification, but I think the real reason is money.  It makes too much money for the non-elite schools.

Suppose you have a playoff and your all-everything QB or receiver gets hurt in the first round.Or a controversial call causes a huge upset in the first or second round.....you are right back to where we are today------argueing over who is really number 1.The system as flawed as it is right now 9 times out of 10 works.
Plus,if I'm a kid who is unuestionably headed to the next level,why would I want to risk a career ending injury for the sake of winning a title?

So are we argueing about who was the best team in 2008 because Brady got injured?  Or if the Colts should have made the playoffs?

Nobody argues who is the #1 NFL team or #1 NCCA basketball team. 

I think we should do a +1 and get rid of HALF of the bowls. Sorry, but 35 Bowl games is ridiculous. The Rose Bowl was the only major college bowl game in 1930. By 1940, there were five. By 1950, eight. By 1970, 11. By 1980, 15. 1990, 19. 2000, 25. Where does it end? This is the college football equivalent of a "participation trophy" in little league and it's out of hand. Add 2-4 more weeks of "playoff" games, and- I know this may be a shocker to many of you- at some point it will start effecting students' classes. A very select few of these kids are playing to hope to get to the NFL- most are there to get an education. They can't do that of they are gone the entire month of January. -EK

You wouldn't be interested in the games that replaced them?  Sounds like the best of both worlds, keep the NCAA college football fan while adding those people who just like to watch NCAA tournament games like March Madness.

Of the 70 teams that currently participate in the college football "postseason":

66 of them will play exactly the same number of games they play today.
2 of them will play exactly one extra game.
2 of them will play two extra games.

The argument from academic integrity rings quite hollow when these teams aren't even declining invites to meaningless bowl games as it is.  If teams were really that concerned about their student athletes, there wouldn't be 68 teams in exhibition bowls this year.

Disagree.  Bowl games are 1 game being played when school is not in session anyway.  How do you intend to play a tournament in the course of 2 weeks between final exams and Christmas?  Oh, F Christmas, right because these kids are professionals and have a job to do.  Oh, wait, right, they're not.

There is no way you can add a tournament and NOT affect academics.  Please give your proposal.

Did you seriously just delete my post? Anyway- I said to begin with that there are too many bowl games as it is. Don't cherry pick my quote. Put the whole thing in there if you're going to argue with me. Cut half of those games out, make it the way it used to be- Bowl games all day Jan 1, when winter break is still on, and not have them traveling all over January because more games are added. -EK

I don't even have admin rights in this forum.  Your message is two posts above mine.  Slow down with the accusation hurling.

I presume this entire line of objection is because you (wrongly) believed that I deleted your post.

I quote the part of a post that I'm responding to.  Your original post is automatically linked in the very first line of a quote.

If they contract the bowl games into only a playoff they never would add enough playoff teams to equate to the same number of games. That is my point. I do not want the number of games contracted. it definitely wouldn't be the best of both worlds in that scenario.

The use of meaningless is out of hand. Maybe you don't care but that doesn't make them meaningless, unless you take the position that this is just a game played for entertainment which makes them all meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Well, it went somewhere. Sorry I accused you. Either way, though, my original point still stands- I believe that there's too many bowl games as it is, thus, my argument about academic integrity doesn't ring hollow- it makes perfect sense. -EK

The first bowl of the 2011-2012 bowl season was the New Mexico Bowl on December 17.
The last bowl of the 2011-2012 bowl season was the BCS National Championship on January 9.
You can't figure out how to schedule one extra game for 4 teams over 4 weeks?

You do realize that there were 13 bowl games on 12/24, 12/26, 12/31, and 1/2, right?

You also realize that somehow, Division I-AA (and every other level of collegiate sports) somehow magically makes time for a playoff, right?  Do they simply not care about their students' academic standing at non-Division I-A schools?

How do the smaller schools do it? They seem to have no problems with it. D3 starts their playoffs the last week of November and are done before Christmas. Their academic calendar is LESS disrupted than the BCS schools. -EK

I call them "meaningless" in the same sense and to the extent that I call NFL preseason games "meaningless."

It was moved to the trashcan by a global mod because that moderator (not me) felt it was an attack.

Keep the threads on target and not personal people, please.  All of you.  Thanks.

I have to agree with this statement.  A perfect example was the Gator Bowl.  Florida and Ohio State, two 6-6 teams, had NO BUSINESS being in a premier New Years Day bowl game.    Bowl games are supposed to be rewards for successful seasons.  A 6-6 record with two wins against Division 1-AA schools is not success.

Well they are actually part of the team's record, where NFL preseason games are not counted toward the record at all.

In terms of sports, that's the way the word meaningless is used.

...just like the NFL games are meaningless when both teams are out of the playoffs and have locked up their draft spots.

But, I'm still not hearing anyone stand up against a playoff.  Don't play contrarian.  Is anyone AGAINST a playoff?  You can't really be conditionally against it, because we don't know how those conditions will evolve.  Do you feel that a playoff is required to fix the system or do you prefer the current system?

That's not what is being proposed. The existing bowl games would all happen as they do today, the only thing that would change is that certain bowls would be decided by the rankings of the teams involved much like the National Championship game is decided today.  One bowl game would be #1 against #4 and another bowl game would be #2 against #3. Winners of those 2 games then play one more game to determine the National Championship. That's the "And 1" system.  That's a "playoff" system while maintaining the existing bowl games. Some are suggesting that could later be expanded to a "and 2" system where the top 8 teams enter bowl games and the winners of those games play and then the winners of those games play.

There are may proposals out there. Just because this is one of them doesn't make it the only one. Everyone has a suggestion. One thing seems apparent though, after the current contract ends, there will be a change in college football.

^^It's the most likely scenario. I don't think anyone really believes you're going to just get rid of the current bowl system and replace it with a playoff system in one fell swoop. It's going to have to be a gradual thing, like the above system where people are gradually weened off the bowl system and into a playoff system.

Would you be against and "And 1" system? If so, why? It would actually increase the number college games played by 1, not reduce it.

I don't want to give the impression I am against a playoff. My only stance is I don't want the number of games played contracted.

Dave, WHY can't you be conditionally against it? You never know what conditions are ahead if change is proposed, but people can still have an opinion one way or the other. If it is because of the parameters you have set up for the thread, then I get that, and I am against it. I don't think it would absolutely necessarily "fix" anything, and the adding of so many bowl games already over the years is what I'm against; adding more games for a playoff compounds that problem. -EK

The playoff system would not ADD any new bowl games.  It would convert existing bowl games into a postseason.

Your argument about the excessive proliferation of bowl games is irrelevant to the discussion.  If you want to argue that there are too many bowl games, fine, but unless your point is that there should be less than 7 total bowls, reducing the number of bowls has nothing to do with a playoff system.

You don't know that. There is no one scenario right now is what I keep trying to say. One scenario has them not adding games. One has them playing the bowls and then taking a playoff. There are many options and no one answer. That is why you cannot say you cannot be against the idea conditionally. You have to be against it (or for it) conditionally because there is no set option that has been selected.

I challenge you to cite any example of someone proposing the creation of new games for the playoff system.

Literally every example I have seen has proposed the conversion of existing bowls into a tournament bracket.

The entire concept of "+1" or "+3" means adding (thus the plus) games. How does that work with your argument Spider? According to collegefootball.procon. there's almost no way to accommodate a playoff system without adding at least three weeks to the current season because after the first game of a playoff (anything beyond +1, which would still add two weeks because the proposal is to have the extra game played with a "bye week" format between games) travel issues would cause massive upheaval for athletes and students. There's nearly no way to set up a playoff without extending the season- at least no way that will actually be accepted by the NCAA. -EK

I'm not going to sit and look up every possible option. All you need to know is that there are several (I have heard anything from 100 to a handful) and none of them have been decided on much less discussed in depth as every person involved has said in every article that this is in the conceptual stage still. Here is one link mentioning that.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/feed/2011-10/lsualabama/story/even-with-playoff-coming-sec-still-big-winner-lsu-alabama-national-title-game

This link shows multiple examples of adding games (anywhere from 1-3)

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2012-01-08/bcs-future-discussions-begin/52459902/1

That is all I'm going to do because you can see in each story that the entire thing is premature and that is my point. There have been no serious discussions about what format there will be, only that there will be a new one.

Well, of course you CAN be conditionally against it, but that doesn't help with the situation, or move towards a resolution.

They are either going to make a move towards a playoff system to determine the championship or they are not.  From there, the fate of the bowls ....who knows what will happen.

The question I'm asking is "Are you in favor of moving the championship to a playoff system or not?"

OKtwang- I swear I'm not being purposefully dense, but are you asking if there's a way to do it without changing anything else at all about the season, just convert Bowls to playoff rounds, am I for or against it? I still can't fathom trying to approach it in this manner. It won't happen in a vacuum- there's always a butterfly effect, especially with something this big. But if it could be done- no added time needed for travel or interruptions to students' schedules, then yes I'm OK with it. I don't really think it's necessary, but I'm not opposed to it. -EK

Given that the BCS National Championship already exists as a game, a +1 system would be net of zero.

Similarly, a +3 would technically result in three extra games, but two of those games would replace existing (meaningless) bowl games; net of zero.

The bowl season is already FOUR WEEKS LONG.  These teams play one game every week for the majority of the season, with plenty of travel included.  And now you're saying that a playoff system won't work because they need two weeks between each game?

The system obviously won't work if you're inventing ways to sabotage it.  If the NCAA really wants to know how to make a playoff system work, all they need to do is ask themselves what they do for Division I-AA and every other level of college football.

No. You're wrong. The "+" options are not proposing to substitute. That's why they are "+". They are proposing to add games. What part of that do you not get? -EK

EKnight, my whole point is that the decision to keep or rid the league of bowls will come later, independant of the playoff system.

What I would imagine would happen is this: The playoff "bowls" would be immensely popular.  The interest in the other bowls would dwindle.  Money would ultimately dictate which bowls would still exist and which wouldn't.  But whatever happens there would be determined years and years later, only after we saw what effect the playoffs had on the "meaningless" bowls.

Ok Dave I get what you're going after. That makes sense -EK

Are you even thinking at all?

Tell me, in a "+1 system", which you claim means they must add one game, what happens to the game currently known as the BCS National Championship Game?  Do they just have two other random teams in that game instead, and then have the national championship in some other game?

A +1 system will not add a game because there is already a designated national championship game (added in 2007) that serves no other purpose.  Under the original BCS system, a +1 would have added a game, but under the system that exists now, that game already exists.   So in a "+1" system, either you have four teams in two existing bowls and the winners play in the already-existing BCS National Championship Game* (net games added: zero) or you create two new BCS Semifinal Games and have the winner of those play in the already-existing BCS National Championship Game (net games added: two).

There is no possible solution in which a "+1" system would result in one extra game from the status quo unless you kept the current "BCS National Championship Game" and had two non-contenders play in it.

*You could technically eliminate the BCS National Championship Game and "replace" it with, say, an NCAA National Championship Game, but the end result is still zero net games added.

No. You need to take a step back from your personal vendetta against me and rethink this. First off, other people have already pointed out to you that there are several possibilities where extra games must be played under your scenario, but as always, you are taking issue with me, SOOOOOOOOO....

This is from USA Today's article on the very topic:
"One longstanding proposal is to expand the two-team, one-game national championship format to a four-team playoff, dubbed a plus-one. Semifinalists could be seeded into two BCS games, the winners meeting for the title."

This are not saying the number of games does not change. It is saying the bowls- including what we have seen as the BCS Title Bowl, will exist among teams ranked 1-4, and after those games are completed, ANOTHER game will be added to yield a national champion.

And from SI.com:
"One possibility is the four-team playoff, or the so-called plus-one approach, that would create two national semifinals and a championship game played one week later."

THAT championship game is the extra game. Get it now? 

 And from CNN.com, regarding the postential growth:
"A playoff system would have how many games, and who's to say it wouldn't keep expanding before expanding some more? While several athletics directors want a "plus one" approach featuring a championship game after the 35 bowl games, others want two semifinal games and then a championship game."

You seem to misunderstand what the "plus-one" concept is. Currently, #1 plays #2 in the BCS Title Bowl, and #3 plays #4. Under plus-one, these match-ups would still occur, only the "BCS Title Bowl" would be called something else (like it was previously- the Rose Bowl, if that's where it was played, or the Fiesta Bowl, or where ever it was designated to play). The winners of these games would then play eachother in an additional game, slated 2-3 weeks later, effectively extending the 13 week season to 15 or 16 weeks.

So is every major media report on this mistaken then about adding the game for a plus one? And what about a plus...more than one? You're flat wrong on this Dan. -EK

THERE IS ALREADY A CHAMPIONSHIP GAME AFTER THE BOWL GAMES.  How can it be an "extra game added" when it ALREADY EXISTS?

You are the only one that cares about the net number of games added.  The quotes you have cited say NOTHING about net games.  The plus one quote from SI.com creates TWO (not one!) new games, and neither one of them is the championship game.  They are the semifinal games.

There is no plausible "plus one" scenario in which there is exactly one net game added.

Furthermore, didn't you just say that "+1" means "one more game"?  If so, why are you now citing articles with +1 scenarios that "add" three games?  Make up your mind.

Reread my edit. In EVERY plus one system the plus one is added. None of the bowl games would be done away with. They would ALL be played, and another game would be added. Why do you think it's called plus one? The quotes I put specifically DO say something about net games. One of them said, and I even bolded it, "a "plus one" approach featuring a championship game after the 35 bowl games."  That's a net of 36+1=37.

You seem to misunderstand what the "plus-one" concept is. Currently, #1 plays #2 in the BCS Title Bowl, and #3 plays #4. Under plus-one, these match-ups would still occur, only the "BCS Title Bowl" would be called something else (like it was previously- the Rose Bowl, if that's where it was played, or the Fiesta Bowl, or where ever it was designated to play). The winners of these games would then play eachother in an additional game, slated 2-3 weeks later, effectively extending the 13 week season to 15 or 16 weeks.  It's not an issue of me making up my mind about +1 or +3; these are two separate issue that are BOTH being discussed. My point was that if a +1 adds 2-3 weeks to the season, a +3 will add even more. -EK

35 + 1 = 37?  Interesting math.

In any case, the 35 bowl games in 2011-12 INCLUDES the BCS National Championship Game.  So unless you plan on playing a "BCS National Championship Game" featuring #6 vs. #9 (with no chance to advance), that game will necessarily be "eliminated" and "replaced" with the new +1 championship game.  Net games added: zero.

False.  The only guaranteed matchup in the BCS is #1 vs. #2, in the National Championship Game.  Every other game is dependent on who wins which conference and where they finished in the BCS standings.

This year, #3 HAPPENED to play #4.  Last year, it was #3 vs #5 and #4 vs #13.  The year before that, it was #3 vs. #5 and #4 vs. #6.  Before that, it was #3 vs #10 and #4 vs. #6.

It would be helpful if you understood how the BCS works today.

Prior to 2007, one of the four BCS bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) was designated as the BCS National Championship Game.  After that, the system was changed so that all four of those bowls play their normal bowl games, and then (on a rotating basis) one of those sites hosts an EXTRA game approximately one week later.  This game is dubbed the BCS National Championship Game.  As an example, this year the Sugar Bowl was held on January 3rd at the Superdome, and the National Championship Game was held there 6 days later.  Last year, the Fiesta Bowl was on January 1st at University of Phoenix Stadium, and the National Championship Game was held there 9 days later.

So no, the BCS Championship Game couldn't be reverted to the "Orange Bowl" because that would mean that there would be TWO Orange Bowls that year.

You completely don't understand the concept of what plus one means. This debate is pointless. Someone else who can explain it in a way Spider gets it please chime in. I'm done. -EK

When you are talking about the championship game "going back to what it was called previously," you clearly don't understand how the BCS is currently structured.

So you probably won't be able to explain your idea in a way that I will get it.  You're basing your theories on a broken interpretation of the current system.

I could live without a playoff system if and only if there were like 8 bowls instead of 30.  Since we know the NCAA isn't going to let us get rid of the Sal's Birdland Chicken Gizzard Bowl that pits a team halfway down the MAC against the team that lost in a semi-final in the Big East, then I want a playoff.

Seriously BigDaddy? I love the Gizzard bowl!!! That's what the spirit of football was meant to be! In fact we shouldn't even keep score!  :)

Now evidently they're considering it.  NBC Sports was talking about it before the playoff game.  They keep the 4 major bowls still use the plus one format and have I think it's an 8 team playoff but it might have been 4.