BCS vs Playoff

Charlotte 49er Football 🏈
41

Example #4 32 team playoff, all conference champs included (seems only fair with so many spots available that I won’t consider NOT including ALL confernce champs).

[U]East Regional:[/U]

#1(1) [COLOR=Red]Ohio St.[/COLOR] (Big 10) vs #8(32) [COLOR=red]Troy[/COLOR] (SBC)
#4(16) [COLOR=red]Rutgers[/COLOR] (at large) vs #6(24) [COLOR=Sienna]Boston College[/COLOR] (at large)

#2(8) [COLOR=Blue]Boise St.[/COLOR] (WAC) vs #7(25) [COLOR=DeepSkyBlue]UCLA[/COLOR] (at large)
#3(9) [COLOR=DarkOrange]Auburn[/COLOR] (at large) vs #5(17) [COLOR=SandyBrown]Tennessee[/COLOR] (at large)

[U]West Regional:[/U]

#1(4) [COLOR=Purple]LSU[/COLOR] (at large) vs #8(29) [COLOR=Navy]Penn St.[/COLOR] (at large)*
#4(13) [COLOR=Blue]West Virginia[/COLOR] (at large) vs #6(21) [COLOR=DarkRed]Texas A&M[/COLOR] (at large)

#2(5) [COLOR=DarkRed]USC[/COLOR] (Pac 10) vs #7(28) [COLOR=DarkOrange]Clemson[/COLOR] (at large)*
#3(12) [COLOR=Red]Arkansas[/COLOR] (at large) vs #5(20)[COLOR=Navy] BYU[/COLOR] (MWC)

[U]South Regional:[/U]

#1(2) [COLOR=navy]Florida[/COLOR] (SEC) vs #8(31) [COLOR=DarkRed]Central Michigan[/COLOR] (MAC)
#4(15) [COLOR=Sienna]Virginia Tech[/COLOR] (at large) vs #6(23) [COLOR=Red]Nebraska[/COLOR] (at large)

#2(7) [COLOR=Red]Wisconsin[/COLOR] (at large) vs #7(26) [COLOR=DimGray]Georgia Tech[/COLOR] (at large)*
#3(10) [COLOR=DarkRed]Oklahoma[/COLOR] (Big 12) vs #5(18) [COLOR=Navy]California[/COLOR] (at large)

[U]Midwest Regional:[/U]

#1(3) [COLOR=Navy]Michigan[/COLOR] (at large) vs #8(30) [COLOR=Gray]So. Miss.[/COLOR] (CUSA)
#4(14) [COLOR=gray]Wake Forest[/COLOR] (ACC) vs #6(22) [COLOR=Sienna]Oregon St.[/COLOR] (at large)

#2(6) [COLOR=Red]Louisville [/COLOR](Big East) vs #7(27) [COLOR=SeaGreen]Hawai’i [/COLOR](at large)*
#3(11) [COLOR=DarkGreen]Notre Dame[/COLOR] (at large) vs #5(19) [COLOR=DarkOrange]Texas[/COLOR] (at large)

First 3 teams not included: (NR)[COLOR=Red]Maryland[/COLOR], (NR)[COLOR=DarkRed]Washington St. [/COLOR],(NR)[COLOR=DarkGreen]Oregon[/COLOR]*

Results: BCS teams = 26, non-BCS teams = 6

Conclusion: Extremely inclusive, 5 week long playoff, 1st round scheduling nightmare (especially for TV).

(*) Extrapilated from pervious weeks BCS polls.

42

[QUOTE=49RFootballNow;248885]
…1st round scheduling nightmare (especially for TV).
[/QUOTE]

No more of a TV scheduling nightmare than the first two days of the NCAA Basketball tournament.

There are 16 games the first weekend. There are two ways to do it. Each game would begin at 12, 3:30, 7, or 10 (Eastern time) on whatever network had the rights. Depending on who had the home games, there may be 5 games at a couple of the time slots and 3 games at the other two. We would of course be in the ACC/SEC viewing area, so we would get a game involving one of those teams on our local station. The rest would be put on a pay-per-view package which would also include the 2nd round games not in your viewing area. Beginning with the third round, all games would be aired on national TV from then on.

The second way would be to stagger the first and second round games on all of the college football networks that carry regular season games. Again, 16 games for Round 1, so you could use the following time slots: 12, 1, 1:30, 2, 2:30, for the first set of games. The next set would run at 3, 3:30, 4, 4:30, and 5. The next set would run at 6:30, 7, 7:30, 8. The last set would be at 9, 9:30, 10, and 10:30. CBS, ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU, and the Fox Sports Channels/FOX would be the carriers. The times would basically be when your typical TV lineup of games would ordinarily start on a regular-season Saturday. Sure they overlap, but this way everyone could see the games and you would theoretically get to watch the end of every game with no conflicts from other games ending at the same time. I’m sure NBC would be clamoring to show a game if Notre Dumb was involved, but I would hope the NCAA would tell them to stick it. For the 2nd round games, you only have eight, so you could spread them out a little more.

43

[QUOTE=X-49er;248920]No more of a TV scheduling nightmare than the first two days of the NCAA Basketball tournament.

There are 16 games the first weekend. There are two ways to do it. Each game would begin at 12, 3:30, 7, or 10 (Eastern time) on whatever network had the rights. Depending on who had the home games, there may be 5 games at a couple of the time slots and 3 games at the other two. We would of course be in the ACC/SEC viewing area, so we would get a game involving one of those teams on our local station. The rest would be put on a pay-per-view package which would also include the 2nd round games not in your viewing area. Beginning with the third round, all games would be aired on national TV from then on.

The second way would be to stagger the first and second round games on all of the college football networks that carry regular season games. Again, 16 games for Round 1, so you could use the following time slots: 12, 1, 1:30, 2, 2:30, for the first set of games. The next set would run at 3, 3:30, 4, 4:30, and 5. The next set would run at 6:30, 7, 7:30, 8. The last set would be at 9, 9:30, 10, and 10:30. CBS, ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU, and the Fox Sports Channels/FOX would be the carriers. The times would basically be when your typical TV lineup of games would ordinarily start on a regular-season Saturday. Sure they overlap, but this way everyone could see the games and you would theoretically get to watch the end of every game with no conflicts from other games ending at the same time. I’m sure NBC would be clamoring to show a game if Notre Dumb was involved, but I would hope the NCAA would tell them to stick it. For the 2nd round games, you only have eight, so you could spread them out a little more.[/QUOTE]

Overlap is bad from the perspective of the networks and the conferences. They love the BCS and other bowls because it allows ALL the post season games to be viewed by a national audience, the bowls usually don’t overlap.

Your layout has 4 games playing at one time and a 5th if the 1st one goes into OT. Sponsors will pay less money for advertising because they know they’re reaching smaller regional audiences only. Networks will make less money as a result. Plus the involved schools and conferences want national games to advertise their product too. If you can find some fair way to play all 16 1st round games with minimal overlap then the networks and U Presidents might be interested in a 32 team playoff, but not otherwise.

This is why you might want to investigate the 24 team playoff. It has only half the 1st round games and still allows a large number of teams access to the postseason. I think it is less fair then a 16 or 32, with 1st round bye games, but it seems to be the only real compromise between your position and mine.

44

[QUOTE=49RFootballNow;248929]Overlap is bad from the perspective of the networks and the conferences. They love the BCS and other bowls because it allows ALL the post season games to be viewed by a national audience, the bowls usually don’t overlap. [/QUOTE]

You are right to some degree. Networks do love the BCS because of no overlap, but the networks also love March Madness’ first weekend with a ton of overlap. Overlap in the first round could actually generate MORE revenue and interest because more networks will be involved and then after the first weekend the overlap will go down until you get to the final 8 with no overlap and a full national audience, just like the BCS.

I can recall back in the day during the first weekend march madness games being carried on 3 or 4 different stations and being able to just flip from one to another… it rocked. I think that would work easily with football.

45

[QUOTE=WBNiner;248944]You are right to some degree. Networks do love the BCS because of no overlap, but the networks also love March Madness’ first weekend with a ton of overlap. Overlap in the first round could actually generate MORE revenue and interest because more networks will be involved and then after the first weekend the overlap will go down until you get to the final 8 with no overlap and a full national audience, just like the BCS.

I can recall back in the day during the first weekend march madness games being carried on 3 or 4 different stations and being able to just flip from one to another… it rocked. I think that would work easily with football.[/QUOTE]

This might work in a world without ESPN, but until the mothership loses an anti-trust court case for hoarding the rights to broadcast games with their contract partners, well I doubt having multiple games on at one time will be likely. ESPN does it for basketball regular season and CBS does if for March Madness. I can’t even imagine how they would screw a December Delirium up.

Even if all the games were broadcast nationally, you still want your game to be the only one on. Nielson ratings sell commercials.

46

They’d have PPV for overlapped games like Direct Ticket, March Madness Direct, & ESPN Game Plan.

47

[QUOTE=stonecoldken;248953]They’d have PPV for overlapped games like Direct Ticket, March Madness Direct, & ESPN Game Plan.[/QUOTE]

I love college football, I love any football; but unless my team was playing in the PPV game, I would watch the free one on the next channel. PPV works best when you can attract the largest # of people to watch a sigular event, like a major boxing match or wrestling event. If it worked well for team sports we’d all be screwed, but it doesn’t, so advertising is the primary focus of revenue generation and thus reaching the maximum audience is the paramount concern of networks.

Mostly dedicated fans in out-of-market markets get these PPV channels and I for one do not look forward to the day when I have to pay an additional fee on top of my cable bill to see my team play. Tickets should never be cheaper then TV.

48

[QUOTE=49RFootballNow;248929] If you can find some fair way to play all 16 1st round games with minimal overlap then the networks and U Presidents might be interested in a 32 team playoff, but not otherwise. [/QUOTE]

The only way that could happen is to play some of the games on Thursday, Friday, and possibly Sunday. Sunday is likely out because of the NFL. I don’t know that the University presidents will want a Thursday game because that means the visiting team is traveling on Tuesday, and close to exams. High school football playoffs may rule out any Friday games. Saturday is probably the only option until after exams are over.

[QUOTE=49RFootballNow;248929]
This is why you might want to investigate the 24 team playoff. It has only half the 1st round games and still allows a large number of teams access to the postseason. I think it is less fair then a 16 or 32, with 1st round bye games, but it seems to be the only real compromise between your position and mine. [/QUOTE]

The byes are a huge advantage, and I don’t like them. If they can’t make a 32-team tourney work, then stick with 16.

I still think the 32-team format can work. The NCAA Basketball Tournament starts on a day when most everyone is working, and the two first-round days produce some of the most exciting moments in sports with people from all walks of life watching. The overlap for the game times is even shorter for basketball than the times I listed for football, meaning you might not get to see the ends of all the games for the basketball tourney. You always have four games going at one time for the first round of the basketball tourney, and sometimes 6. The sponsors still do not shy away from it. As big as March Madness is, a football playoff would be bigger. You can also look at it this way: 16 games on the first weekend will make more money than 8 games no matter how much sponsors do not like the overlap. 32-team Tourney all the way!!!

49

[QUOTE=49RFootballNow;248326]#1 in playoff set-up I agree, #1 in revenue and attendence has to go to FBall though.

I like the DI-AA set-up. 16 teams, conference champs and best ranked at larges. Seeding on BCS type rankings, not a freaking committee.

The one thing I would miss from the bowl system is the fact that it really does turn the regular season games into a playoff atmosphere. Every game really does count.[/QUOTE]

While the regular season is more exciting because of no playoffs, the existing biases come into play.

Boise State goes undefeated, yet can’t be considered for the championship in the current system because they play “nobody”.

A great example of this is Texas this season. Their schedule is a friggin joke, yet if they go undefeated they will probably play for the national title. The same people who will put Texas in the National Championship would shun Rutgers if they go undefeated this season. Just compare the two schedules and tell me why Texas would be worthy, but Rutgers wouldn’t be? Both schedules are pretty weak by the way, but this is part of the reason why I want a playoff even if it takes away from the regular season a little bit.

2006/07 Team Rankings in parenthesis from teamrankings.com

Texas (24) 2007 Schedule
vs. Arkansas State (96)
vs. TCU (35)
@ Central Florida (98)
vs. Kansas State (59)
vs. Oklahoma (19)
@ Iowa State (90)
@ Baylor (81)
vs. Nebraska (33)
@ Oklahoma State (45)
vs. Texas Tech (44)
Opponent Avg. Rank = 50

Rutgers (14) 2007 Schedule
vs. Buffalo (115)
vs. Navy (47)
vs. Norfolk State (1AA - 120 for ranking purposes)
vs. Maryland (39)
vs. Cincinnati (31)
@ Syracuse (69)
vs. South Florida (32)
vs. West Virginia (12)
@ Connecticut (67)
@ Army (105)
vs. Pittsburgh (53)
@ Louisville (5)
Opponent Avg. Rank = 57

I understand schedules are created some years in advance, but Texas has no excuse to have such a weak schedule. While I am not happy with the Rutgers schedule, when these games were decided they were finishing the season with 3 wins, Texas can never say the same.

50

[QUOTE=Charlotte2002;249054]While the regular season is more exciting because of no playoffs, the existing biases come into play.

Boise State goes undefeated, yet can’t be considered for the championship in the current system because they play “nobody”.

A great example of this is Texas this season. Their schedule is a friggin joke, yet if they go undefeated they will probably play for the national title. The same people who will put Texas in the National Championship would shun Rutgers if they go undefeated this season. Just compare the two schedules and tell me why Texas would be worthy, but Rutgers wouldn’t be? Both schedules are pretty weak by the way, but this is part of the reason why I want a playoff even if it takes away from the regular season a little bit.

2006/07 Team Rankings in parenthesis from teamrankings.com

Texas (24) 2007 Schedule
vs. Arkansas State (96)
vs. TCU (35)
@ Central Florida (98)
vs. Kansas State (59)
vs. Oklahoma (19)
@ Iowa State (90)
@ Baylor (81)
vs. Nebraska (33)
@ Oklahoma State (45)
vs. Texas Tech (44)
Opponent Avg. Rank = 50

Rutgers (14) 2007 Schedule
vs. Buffalo (115)
vs. Navy (47)
vs. Norfolk State (1AA - 120 for ranking purposes)
vs. Maryland (39)
vs. Cincinnati (31)
@ Syracuse (69)
vs. South Florida (32)
vs. West Virginia (12)
@ Connecticut (67)
@ Army (105)
vs. Pittsburgh (53)
@ Louisville (5)
Opponent Avg. Rank = 57

I understand schedules are created some years in advance, but Texas has no excuse to have such a weak schedule. While I am not happy with the Rutgers schedule, when these games were decided they were finishing the season with 3 wins, Texas can never say the same.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with you that Texas’s schedule is weak, you have to look at why it is so weak.

We have to throw out the conference slate, so here we have the out of conference.

[U][B]Texas[/B][/U]
vs. Arkansas St(96)
vs. TCU(35)
@ UCF(98)
vs. Rice(72) (Wasn’t on your list and also didn’t see A&M.(40))

[U][B]Rutgers[/B][/U]
vs. Buffalo(115)
vs. Navy(47)
vs. Norfolk St.(120) DI-AA
vs. Maryland(39)
@ Army(105)

One of Texas’s creampuffs is UCF and its on the road. They are helping UCF get a big home opener sell out at their new stadium, so they’re really doing UCF a favor. TCU is a quality OOC opponent and Rice was bowl qualified last season.

Rutgers on the other hand is playing a DI-AA, and a team (Buffalo) who should be DI-AA. Their only road OOC is Army. Navy and Maryland are quality OOC’s both of which they get at home.

If Rutgers goes undefeated then they should be close to the top 2 atleast. Texas would have a better chance if they lost only 1 game then Rutgers would, but as good as the Big East has been these last two years their champion is getting more attention then many thought.

Texas benefits from historic performance just like Chapel Hill and Duke do in basketball. Right or wrong, its expected that they will play well in a bowl game and attract more ticket buyers then Rutgers.

51

[QUOTE=49RFootballNow;249473]While I agree with you that Texas’s schedule is weak, you have to look at why it is so weak.

We have to throw out the conference slate, so here we have the out of conference.

[U][B]Texas[/B][/U]
vs. Arkansas St(96)
vs. TCU(35)
@ UCF(98)
vs. Rice(72) (Wasn’t on your list and also didn’t see A&M.(40))

[U][B]Rutgers[/B][/U]
vs. Buffalo(115)
vs. Navy(47)
vs. Norfolk St.(120) DI-AA
vs. Maryland(39)
@ Army(105)

One of Texas’s creampuffs is UCF and its on the road. They are helping UCF get a big home opener sell out at their new stadium, so they’re really doing UCF a favor. TCU is a quality OOC opponent and Rice was bowl qualified last season.

Rutgers on the other hand is playing a DI-AA, and a team (Buffalo) who should be DI-AA. Their only road OOC is Army. Navy and Maryland are quality OOC’s both of which they get at home.

If Rutgers goes undefeated then they should be close to the top 2 atleast. Texas would have a better chance if they lost only 1 game then Rutgers would, but as good as the Big East has been these last two years their champion is getting more attention then many thought.

Texas benefits from historic performance just like Chapel Hill and Duke do in basketball. Right or wrong, its expected that they will play well in a bowl game and attract more ticket buyers then Rutgers.[/QUOTE]

Good response, I don’t know how I missed those two games.

The main problem I have though, people have the perception that the Big 12 is light years better than the Big East, which is not the case. Tell met he SEC or the PAC-10 overall are better, I won’t argue with you, but the Big East is on a similar level to the ACC, a tad below the Big 10 and above the Big 12 as a whole.

52

[QUOTE=Charlotte2002;249475]Good response, I don’t know how I missed those two games.

The main problem I have though, people have the perception that the Big 12 is light years better than the Big East, which is not the case. Tell met he SEC or the PAC-10 overall are better, I won’t argue with you, but the Big East is on a similar level to the ACC, a tad below the Big 10 and above the Big 12 as a whole.[/QUOTE]

Well up until this year the Big 12 South atleast was ahead of the Big East. Last year was an awesome year for the BE and I really think that the impact of Lville and even USF were very underestimated. Add Rutgers coming out of left field too, and you have in my opinion the 4th best BCS conference.

[B][U]My opinion for last year only:[/U][/B]
#1 SEC
#2 Big 10
#3 Pac 10
#4 Big East
#5 Big 12
#6 ACC

The ACC had a horrible year and that is no disrespect to Wake Forest.