BCS playoff/nat'l champ revision

[HuskerShark]

LINK

 

Pure stupidity and SEC bias going on in all of these discussions IMO. A couple of segments that made me shake my head:

 

"What happens if TCU finishes No. 2 in the country and hosts a semifinal game?" the source said. "TCU finished No. 3 two years ago. Are they really hosting No. 3 Ohio State in a 45,000-seat stadium? Where are people going to stay if Oregon hosts a semifinal game? In Portland?"

 

I would rather see TCU's stadium packed to the gills with 45000+ people screaming their faces off than for a game to be played in the Orange Bowl and be half full and dead because fans are waiting until the championship game to travel if their team makes it.

 

And also:

 

"As much as it would be great for the sport to see a game played in Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuscaloosa, Ala., or Lincoln, Neb., some of the logistical issues are just too severe. I think that idea has come home to roost as far as these guys are concerned."

 

 

They just don't get it. The only way it will be fair and work the way it needs to is if the semifinals are hosted at the site of the team with the higher seed. Don't give me logistics. There would be plenty of places in Lincoln and Omaha for fans of opposing teams to stay at. Same with Ann Arbor. Other teams play in Ann Arbor 5 or 6 times a year, and I have never heard of any problems with accommodations for opposing fans.

 

What does everybody else think?

[Buckeyeboy45]

I think they will take something that could be great and screw it up. The only way to do this is to have the semis on campus and the NC game at a neutral location. I think if they set it up the way they are discussing right now they will be extremely disappointed with the results. The costs associated with attending these games will be too much for the average joe and it will force them to pick and choose which games they will attend. As you stated it will leave plenty of half empty stadiums for all to see that this idea is a major fail. Honestly I don’t know why we would think they would take the fans into consideration. All that matters to them is $$$ and pleasing their corporate masters.

[husker_99]

LINK

 

Pure stupidity and SEC bias going on in all of these discussions IMO. A couple of segments that made me shake my head:

 

"What happens if TCU finishes No. 2 in the country and hosts a semifinal game?" the source said. "TCU finished No. 3 two years ago. Are they really hosting No. 3 Ohio State in a 45,000-seat stadium? Where are people going to stay if Oregon hosts a semifinal game? In Portland?"

 

I would rather see TCU's stadium packed to the gills with 45000+ people screaming their faces off than for a game to be played in the Orange Bowl and be half full and dead because fans are waiting until the championship game to travel if their team makes it.

 

And also:

 

"As much as it would be great for the sport to see a game played in Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuscaloosa, Ala., or Lincoln, Neb., some of the logistical issues are just too severe. I think that idea has come home to roost as far as these guys are concerned."

 

 

They just don't get it. The only way it will be fair and work the way it needs to is if the semifinals are hosted at the site of the team with the higher seed. Don't give me logistics. There would be plenty of places in Lincoln and Omaha for fans of opposing teams to stay at. Same with Ann Arbor. Other teams play in Ann Arbor 5 or 6 times a year, and I have never heard of any problems with accommodations for opposing fans.

 

What does everybody else think?

 

the sizes of some of the teams stadium are a problem and concern. It means less money and if fans are going to have to travel that means more money they have to spend if there team is doing the traveling. Just think of the hotel prices staying high if a good team keeps winning in the playoffs for a couple of weeks versus 1 bowl game.

[95huskers]

Other than a few schools, many schools do not travel as well. So I think the crowds would be very similar to regular season games. For instance, NU travels to anywhere and could bring upwards of 30,000 fans. Then other schools that do not travel as well might bring 5000-10000. I think for teams that generally travel well, money could become an issue. But a fan that goes to the first game of a playoff may not go to a second game and a fan that doesnt go to the first game may go to the second game. I dont think this would become a logistical nightmare.... we have UPS to figure out all the logistics. IMHO I don't think teams from the south would fair well in the north in December. So I think that can dramatically even up the playing field. "Ice Bowl" Lincoln Neb.!!!

[HuskerShark]

LINK

 

Pure stupidity and SEC bias going on in all of these discussions IMO. A couple of segments that made me shake my head:

 

"What happens if TCU finishes No. 2 in the country and hosts a semifinal game?" the source said. "TCU finished No. 3 two years ago. Are they really hosting No. 3 Ohio State in a 45,000-seat stadium? Where are people going to stay if Oregon hosts a semifinal game? In Portland?"

 

I would rather see TCU's stadium packed to the gills with 45000+ people screaming their faces off than for a game to be played in the Orange Bowl and be half full and dead because fans are waiting until the championship game to travel if their team makes it.

 

And also:

 

"As much as it would be great for the sport to see a game played in Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuscaloosa, Ala., or Lincoln, Neb., some of the logistical issues are just too severe. I think that idea has come home to roost as far as these guys are concerned."

 

 

They just don't get it. The only way it will be fair and work the way it needs to is if the semifinals are hosted at the site of the team with the higher seed. Don't give me logistics. There would be plenty of places in Lincoln and Omaha for fans of opposing teams to stay at. Same with Ann Arbor. Other teams play in Ann Arbor 5 or 6 times a year, and I have never heard of any problems with accommodations for opposing fans.

 

What does everybody else think?

 

the sizes of some of the teams stadium are a problem and concern. It means less money and if fans are going to have to travel that means more money they have to spend if there team is doing the traveling. Just think of the hotel prices staying high if a good team keeps winning in the playoffs for a couple of weeks versus 1 bowl game.

 

Like I said, you could have a stadium like at TCU that is completely packed with 45,000 fans and going crazy or a game at a neutral location that is half full.

 

Most fans only budget to travel to one game per season. Average Joe fans anyways. I just can't see the back-to-back neutral sites working well. It will be a big flop and will not be exciting.

 

Not to mention, these "neutral sites" will happen to be in the southeast portion of the country and I wonder what teams those sites would favor....

[LouisianaHuskerFan]

LINK

 

Pure stupidity and SEC bias going on in all of these discussions IMO. A couple of segments that made me shake my head:

 

"What happens if TCU finishes No. 2 in the country and hosts a semifinal game?" the source said. "TCU finished No. 3 two years ago. Are they really hosting No. 3 Ohio State in a 45,000-seat stadium? Where are people going to stay if Oregon hosts a semifinal game? In Portland?"

 

I would rather see TCU's stadium packed to the gills with 45000+ people screaming their faces off than for a game to be played in the Orange Bowl and be half full and dead because fans are waiting until the championship game to travel if their team makes it.

 

And also:

 

"As much as it would be great for the sport to see a game played in Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuscaloosa, Ala., or Lincoln, Neb., some of the logistical issues are just too severe. I think that idea has come home to roost as far as these guys are concerned."

 

 

They just don't get it. The only way it will be fair and work the way it needs to is if the semifinals are hosted at the site of the team with the higher seed. Don't give me logistics. There would be plenty of places in Lincoln and Omaha for fans of opposing teams to stay at. Same with Ann Arbor. Other teams play in Ann Arbor 5 or 6 times a year, and I have never heard of any problems with accommodations for opposing fans.

 

What does everybody else think?

 

the sizes of some of the teams stadium are a problem and concern. It means less money and if fans are going to have to travel that means more money they have to spend if there team is doing the traveling. Just think of the hotel prices staying high if a good team keeps winning in the playoffs for a couple of weeks versus 1 bowl game.

 

Like I said, you could have a stadium like at TCU that is completely packed with 45,000 fans and going crazy or a game at a neutral location that is half full.

 

Most fans only budget to travel to one game per season. Average Joe fans anyways. I just can't see the back-to-back neutral sites working well. It will be a big flop and will not be exciting.

 

Not to mention, these "neutral sites" will happen to be in the southeast portion of the country and I wonder what teams those sites would favor....

 

 

HuskerShark, you, my friend, are the voice of reason. I've had it with all these talks of having neutral site games and/or using existing bowl games as semifinal locations. Enough already. It's ruining college football, at least for me. The games need to be played at campus sites for the school with the better record/higher ranking. That would make the regular season worth every game. And who cares if a stadium where the game is being played only holds 45,000. That team deserves to play the game at their home stadium. Enough already with that crap. The bowl system stinks as is right now and I want a true playoff system.

[HuskerShark]

 

HuskerShark, you, my friend, are the voice of reason. I've had it with all these talks of having neutral site games and/or using existing bowl games as semifinal locations. Enough already. It's ruining college football, at least for me. The games need to be played at campus sites for the school with the better record/higher ranking. That would make the regular season worth every game. And who cares if a stadium where the game is being played only holds 45,000. That team deserves to play the game at their home stadium. Enough already with that crap. The bowl system stinks as is right now and I want a true playoff system.

 

Everyone, I have a very important announcement to make. And I need all of you to stop what you're doing and listen....

 

^^This guy gets it. +1

[LouisianaHuskerFan]

 

HuskerShark, you, my friend, are the voice of reason. I've had it with all these talks of having neutral site games and/or using existing bowl games as semifinal locations. Enough already. It's ruining college football, at least for me. The games need to be played at campus sites for the school with the better record/higher ranking. That would make the regular season worth every game. And who cares if a stadium where the game is being played only holds 45,000. That team deserves to play the game at their home stadium. Enough already with that crap. The bowl system stinks as is right now and I want a true playoff system.

 

Everyone, I have a very important announcement to make. And I need all of you to stop what you're doing and listen....

 

^^This guy gets it. +1

 

 

[VA Husker Fan]

I agree that the semis should be at the higher seeds home stadium. The only reason somewhat valid reason they may want otherwise is that they want to pre-sell the tickets, and people at the neutral site would buy tickets no matter who is playing, but you can't pre-sell if you don't know where the game is. But that's a lame reason. There will be at least 2, more likely 3 or 4 weeks after the teams are selected until the semis are played. That's plenty of time to sell out the campus stadium and plan for travel, etc. They talk about logistical problems, but I think they need to give specifics of why it would be worse than any other regular season sell-out.

 

And as far as fans not traveling to both the semis and finals, campus sites help with that as well. For the home team, most boosters will be reasonably close to the campus site such that it isn't a cost like a vacation. If the home team wins, that's one major trip to the finals. Visiting fans will likely be somewhat limited on tickets to the semis. There's no need to give the visitors half the tickets, that would take away a lot of the home field advantage. So, not that many visitors travel, and if they win, most are only making the one trip to the finals.

 

The finals will be a bit more problematic as you will only have a week to plan for it, but that's going to happen no matter where you hold the semis.

[HuskerShark]

I agree that the semis should be at the higher seeds home stadium. The only reason somewhat valid reason they may want otherwise is that they want to pre-sell the tickets, and people at the neutral site would buy tickets no matter who is playing, but you can't pre-sell if you don't know where the game is. But that's a lame reason. There will be at least 2, more likely 3 or 4 weeks after the teams are selected until the semis are played. That's plenty of time to sell out the campus stadium and plan for travel, etc. They talk about logistical problems, but I think they need to give specifics of why it would be worse than any other regular season sell-out.

 

And as far as fans not traveling to both the semis and finals, campus sites help with that as well. For the home team, most boosters will be reasonably close to the campus site such that it isn't a cost like a vacation. If the home team wins, that's one major trip to the finals. Visiting fans will likely be somewhat limited on tickets to the semis. There's no need to give the visitors half the tickets, that would take away a lot of the home field advantage. So, not that many visitors travel, and if they win, most are only making the one trip to the finals.

 

I agree with you that the bolded is a lame reason. Say you start the semifinals the week after Christmas. It's no different than fans buying tickets to the bowl games. It would probably be easier because I guarantee you that if Nebraska gets a home semifinal playoff game, the tickets will be sold out within hours.

 

The national championship game is a little different story. I think you have to have a 2 week layoff somehow in order to get the tickets sold and let people make travel plans. Maybe because of this reason it would be wise to play the first round in the week directly following the CCG's.

[HuskerFanChuck]

I honestly agree with all of you about the campus sites. My first thought was "Do you want a guaranteed full stadium at a campus site, or a partially full stadium at a neutral bowl/bid site?" Only reason I can see this coming into play is the thought of getting a 35K to 50K stadium, and the powers-that-be sitting back and thinking about the extra dollars they could have in a neutral site stadium. But what guarantee do you have that stadium will be full? What guarantee do you have that people will travel for a semi-final, when many are likely to wait and see if their team makes a final? I would think the guarantee would make a lot more sense than the what-if, potentially, maybe not scenario.

 

But mostly, I'm just glad that we're VERY likely to see a four-team playoff come out of all this, regardless of the aspect of the sites. At least it starts down the road, and gives the most likely players a shot at the title. And that's ultimately what I want to see. Is it everything I want? No... and nothing short of a sixteen-team playoff would be. But... it's a lot closer than we've been before, and a lot closer than I thought we'd ever be even on this go-round.

[VA Husker Fan]

They could always require a 60 or 70K minimum stadium capacity to host a game. TCU would have to move the game to the nearby Cowboys Stadium. Missouri would play at Arrowhead or in St Louis. If the smurf turf stadium is too small, Boise hosts the game in Seattle or Denver, which would probably be about the farthest move of any team with a reasonable shot. Remember, we are talking about a top 2 team hosting a game. These issues are fixable, if you don't have an agenda that makes you pretend there are no alternatives.

[husker_99]

LINK

 

Pure stupidity and SEC bias going on in all of these discussions IMO. A couple of segments that made me shake my head:

 

"What happens if TCU finishes No. 2 in the country and hosts a semifinal game?" the source said. "TCU finished No. 3 two years ago. Are they really hosting No. 3 Ohio State in a 45,000-seat stadium? Where are people going to stay if Oregon hosts a semifinal game? In Portland?"

 

I would rather see TCU's stadium packed to the gills with 45000+ people screaming their faces off than for a game to be played in the Orange Bowl and be half full and dead because fans are waiting until the championship game to travel if their team makes it.

 

And also:

 

"As much as it would be great for the sport to see a game played in Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuscaloosa, Ala., or Lincoln, Neb., some of the logistical issues are just too severe. I think that idea has come home to roost as far as these guys are concerned."

 

 

They just don't get it. The only way it will be fair and work the way it needs to is if the semifinals are hosted at the site of the team with the higher seed. Don't give me logistics. There would be plenty of places in Lincoln and Omaha for fans of opposing teams to stay at. Same with Ann Arbor. Other teams play in Ann Arbor 5 or 6 times a year, and I have never heard of any problems with accommodations for opposing fans.

 

What does everybody else think?

 

the sizes of some of the teams stadium are a problem and concern. It means less money and if fans are going to have to travel that means more money they have to spend if there team is doing the traveling. Just think of the hotel prices staying high if a good team keeps winning in the playoffs for a couple of weeks versus 1 bowl game.

 

Like I said, you could have a stadium like at TCU that is completely packed with 45,000 fans and going crazy or a game at a neutral location that is half full.

 

Most fans only budget to travel to one game per season. Average Joe fans anyways. I just can't see the back-to-back neutral sites working well. It will be a big flop and will not be exciting.

 

Not to mention, these "neutral sites" will happen to be in the southeast portion of the country and I wonder what teams those sites would favor....

 

Huskershark you should know by now money is the only thing that will change the BCS. They are going to maximize their profits. schools with smaller stadiums i bet you will have to play the game somewhere else and have equal seating for both teams. Plus they are biased against the SEC so any team non SEC is going to have to travel to the SEC to play a playoff game.

[HuskerShark]

 

Huskershark you should know by now money is the only thing that will change the BCS. They are going to maximize their profits. schools with smaller stadiums i bet you will have to play the game somewhere else and have equal seating for both teams. Plus they are biased against the SEC so any team non SEC is going to have to travel to the SEC to play a playoff game.

 

That's the thing about playing on-campus playoff games: It's not going to be equally represented by the fans. This is the way the playoff works, and to think that there is equal representation by both crowds is way off base.

 

People are talking about preserving the regular season and how big of a deal that is, which I agree with. So this is the best way to go about that. Teams will be super motivated to get a home semifinal game, and the regular season's importants remains intact.

[husker_99]

 

Huskershark you should know by now money is the only thing that will change the BCS. They are going to maximize their profits. schools with smaller stadiums i bet you will have to play the game somewhere else and have equal seating for both teams. Plus they are biased against the SEC so any team non SEC is going to have to travel to the SEC to play a playoff game.

 

That's the thing about playing on-campus playoff games: It's not going to be equally represented by the fans. This is the way the playoff works, and to think that there is equal representation by both crowds is way off base.

 

People are talking about preserving the regular season and how big of a deal that is, which I agree with. So this is the best way to go about that. Teams will be super motivated to get a home semifinal game, and the regular season's importants remains intact.

 

How do you think they pick bowl games to play at? they don't put them in small stadiums. Money will be the sole reason we move to playoff format. I know equal representation isn't how normal playoffs work but they will go to for more money. People who come from out of town are the ones who give the city extra business. This is a business after all.