Why don't we have a playoff ?

[Joe]

it's the same way they determine BCS teams now. 6 conference champs and 4 at large. instead of 4 at large there would be 2. if they are any anti-trust issues with a playoff then there are the same issues with the current BCS.

The current antitrust issues were cleared by adding that 5th game, you're suggesting that we get rid of it.

LSU or BSU may have a complaint but now instead of teams 3-8 having a complaint it would be teams 9 and higher. not realistic for them to expect a shot at NC if they couldn't win their conference. same arguement team #66 has for basketball.

Yes but if you allow one team in that hasn't won their conference you cannot leave another one out without hearing them *****. For example if you worked this years, how could you tell Wiconsin (who is now 12-1; lone loss to Michigan with the 80th ranked schedule) or LSU (whose 2 losses are to Florida and #10 Auburn with a the 11th ranked schedule) that one is worthy and the other isn't.

I believe it was all the Uf fans that said UM didn't deserve a shot because they didn't win their conference.

Of course they are going to say that, it's a good argument as to why Michigan shouldn't have been in the title game and I cannot think of one other school that WOULDN'T have made that argument if it came down to them as a conference champ or another 1 loss team that wasn't a conference champ.

If there is a case where 2 Big 10 teams were tied with 12-0 records I think one would easily qualify for the at large while the other goes because of conference title.

Agreed here.

[Bull94]

it's the same way they determine BCS teams now. 6 conference champs and 4 at large. instead of 4 at large there would be 2. if they are any anti-trust issues with a playoff then there are the same issues with the current BCS.

The current antitrust issues were cleared by adding that 5th game, you're suggesting that we get rid of it.

LSU or BSU may have a complaint but now instead of teams 3-8 having a complaint it would be teams 9 and higher. not realistic for them to expect a shot at NC if they couldn't win their conference. same arguement team #66 has for basketball.

Yes but if you allow one team in that hasn't won their conference you cannot leave another one out without hearing them *****. For example if you worked this years, how could you tell Wiconsin (who is now 12-1; lone loss to Michigan with the 80th ranked schedule) or LSU (whose 2 losses are to Florida and #10 Auburn with a the 11th ranked schedule) that one is worthy and the other isn't.

I believe it was all the Uf fans that said UM didn't deserve a shot because they didn't win their conference.

Of course they are going to say that, it's a good argument as to why Michigan shouldn't have been in the title game and I cannot think of one other school that WOULDN'T have made that argument if it came down to them as a conference champ or another 1 loss team that wasn't a conference champ.

If there is a case where 2 Big 10 teams were tied with 12-0 records I think one would easily qualify for the at large while the other goes because of conference title.

Agreed here.

Somebody is always going to *****. There are teams that ***** about getting left out of the top 65 hoops teams. Many can make an arguement for being in before some small conference champ but the fact is if they want in without a doubt then they need to win their conference.

Can't get around that but instead of leaving an undefeated SEC Champ (Auburn) out of the NC picture you're leaving a 2 loss team that didn't even play in their conference championship game out. If Wisconsin or LSU wanted to assure themselves of a shot then they needed to win their conference. Plain and simple.

I'm not sure adding the 5th game did anything for the antitrust suit. Allowing non-BCS teams the ability to qualify for them did. So would allowing them to qualify for the playoffs if they were able by the same guidelines. BSU probably earned the right to make the playoffs this year by being undefeated and ranked in the top 12.

Unfortunately there is no perfect system. This way 8 teams have a legit shot at it. The BCS way screws teams 3-8.

[Joe]

I'm not sure adding the 5th game did anything for the antitrust suit. Allowing non-BCS teams the ability to qualify for them did. So would allowing them to qualify for the playoffs if they were able by the same guidelines. BSU probably earned the right to make the playoffs this year by being undefeated and ranked in the top 12.

The sole basis of the 5th game was to allow a non-auto (all conferences are BCS now) team into the picture without losing a at large spot for any of the big 6 conferences. These plans were announced on the heels of Congress and Tulane threating an antitrust investigation/suit.

With only 8 spots in the playoffs, again, your going to have a REALLY hard time explaining to Wisconsin or LSU that they aren't in the playoff (making 15M+) because Boise State, who either team would streamroll through their schedule, deserved a shot.

The BCS and any playoff is about money. Boise State is a great story, but the teams that get the ratings and draw the fans are the Wisconsins and LSUs of football. The difference between th 66th team complaining in Basketball and the 9th team complaining in football would be about 6-7 Million dollars. The NCAA basketball tournament makes at times less than 1/10th of what the BCS makes for teams. There will never be a NCAA sanctioned playoff in the "Bowl Division" as a result, money will ALWAYS be the factor blocking a major playoff.

Now as far as a plus one game. You may see it one day. In fact if Florida wasn't in the BCS Championship game you might see it as soon as 2009. That being said Florida's president Bernie Machen is still pushing for a playoff amongst presidents

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2007/01/04/a3c_uffoot_0104.html

Who knows maybe he can get this going.

[bulls96go]

it will come but someone will always cry about exclusion

[Kizarvexis]

I don't see the majority of bowls surviving anything more than a 4 team playoff. So, why not go for a 32 team playoff? All eleven conference champs and 21 at large teams. Then all those 2nd and 3rd teams from the BCS confernences can get in and make the BCS conferences lots of money. The fans get to see the big name matchups too.

Kizarvexis

[Bull94]

I'm not sure adding the 5th game did anything for the antitrust suit. Allowing non-BCS teams the ability to qualify for them did. So would allowing them to qualify for the playoffs if they were able by the same guidelines. BSU probably earned the right to make the playoffs this year by being undefeated and ranked in the top 12.

The sole basis of the 5th game was to allow a non-auto (all conferences are BCS now) team into the picture without losing a at large spot for any of the big 6 conferences. These plans were announced on the heels of Congress and Tulane threating an antitrust investigation/suit.

With only 8 spots in the playoffs, again, your going to have a REALLY hard time explaining to Wisconsin or LSU that they aren't in the playoff (making 15M+) because Boise State, who either team would streamroll through their schedule, deserved a shot.

The BCS and any playoff is about money. Boise State is a great story, but the teams that get the ratings and draw the fans are the Wisconsins and LSUs of football. The difference between th 66th team complaining in Basketball and the 9th team complaining in football would be about 6-7 Million dollars. The NCAA basketball tournament makes at times less than 1/10th of what the BCS makes for teams. There will never be a NCAA sanctioned playoff in the "Bowl Division" as a result, money will ALWAYS be the factor blocking a major playoff.

Now as far as a plus one game. You may see it one day. In fact if Florida wasn't in the BCS Championship game you might see it as soon as 2009. That being said Florida's president Bernie Machen is still pushing for a playoff amongst presidents

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2007/01/04/a3c_uffoot_0104.html

Who knows maybe he can get this going.

Wisconsin didn't even get  a BCS bowl let alone a shot at the NC game. They lost out on millions. LSU had 2 losses and they still played in a BCS game. How was it fair that Wisconsin was left out??

Shouldn't they have the same complaint now? Won't they have the same complaint when they get left out of the playoffs??They were left out of the BCS and LSU wasn't.

There is no guarantee a non-BCS team would get in every year. They would have to be ranked so high just as they do now to get into a BCS game.

When they do go to + one they are well on their way to going to an 8 team playoff. What happens when there are 4 bowl winners left who can say that they deserve to play for the title? Simple. They add another round.

Read the article ET posted. The guy who runs the Big 10 and therefore the BCS says himself that there are no real arguements over going with a playoff. He wants his conference to be the power conference and the Rose Bowl to be the power bowl. So far he has positioned them to do this. They did a study that says adding a +1 game adds 10's of millions to the bowl system. You think adding 2 more games is going to hurt that? It will only make the pot growbigger.

[Sitting_BULL]

You guys keep mentioning losing money by switching to playoffs?   :-?

Do you really think the NFL playoffs this week aren't going to make $$$$$ ?  Do you think March Madness doesn't make $$$$$$ ?

A playoff could potentially do better than bowls.  Why?  Because it would matter to all fans (not just fans of the 2 schools) who wins and moves on (more viewers = more Ad $$$$ )

[Guest]

You guys keep mentioning losing money by switching to playoffs?   :-?

Do you really think the NFL playoffs this week aren't going to make $$$$$ ?  Do you think March Madness doesn't make $$$$$$ ?

A playoff could potentially do better than bowls.  Why?  Because it would matter to all fans (not just fans of the 2 schools) who wins and moves on (more viewers = more Ad $$$$ )

Actually, other than the Super Bowl and the NCAA Championship game - the TV networks are actually losing money on their broadcasts -- that is why you get so many blurbs for their programs, where the networks recoup their losses.

[Joe]

Sitting it doesn't work that way. There have been several studies done (a big one by SportsBusiness Weekly). There are several conditions that would hurt the BCS as a whole with a playoff.

1) Where do they play the games? You can have an 8 team playoff, do you put the opening rounds at the campus? If you use the bowls see below...

2) Will fans travel? Yes college football fans are the most committed in sports, but currently it's costing my parents over 6 grand to go to the National Championship game in Phoenix. It would be tough to have fans pay to go to New Orleans one week then Phoenix the next, that costs a lot.

3) If you hold it on campus sites what happens to the games not hosting the national championship? You cannot regulate the Sugar Bowl to 2 teams outside the top 8, that will piss them off. Then you get games like the Cotton and Citrus pissed because they have an 8-5 Purdue v. 9-3 Tennessee.

4) THE ROSE BOWL - biggest factor out there, they will NOT allow their game to be hurt worse than it has. It's very apparent that they are content with the current agreement and in fact were the ones that pushed the double hosting of the BCS Championship rather than adding a 5th city (Orlando or Dallas) to the mix.

Too many questions and risks of an 8 team playoff out there to sway the current system which is raking in millions. IF they were to start losing money, then you might see some changes, for now it's not happening.

The plus one might happen in the next few years. However you will not see an 8 team playoff so long as the current system is pulling in the money it does.

[BullsFanInTX]

No playoffs, we want to keep the little guys (UCF's of the world) down.  Go with a Plus one after the BCS bowls.