Pelini strongly opposes playoff of any sort

[zoogs]

Yep. That's the only thing stopping me from enthusiastically extolling the +1 system, which I believe is great.

And how long before we get from that to this:?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2012-05-10/fcs-playoffs-on-verge-of-further-expansion/54881670/1

 

[HuskerMoon]

Just goes to show you. Even Bo is wrong sometimes

I have to disagree with the plus one idea though.

I think the fairest way to have a playoff is a 64 team playoff.I know, I know, it will be harder for the networks and sponsers to make as much money and they'll have to work harder to do so. Forgive me for not giving a damn.

So the players might have to play a few more games. Find one college football player who's going to b!^@h about that.

So the "Magestic specialness blah dee dah boohoo of college footballs bowl legacy will be lala whoopdiedoo lost forever." Kay. Not if you treat every playoff game like a bowl. What's more? You actually have to prove on the field that you are the best. Instead of Jackasses in the media deciding for everyone.

Now I'm under no illusion this will ever happen. Money rules the world. Players and fans come last. Have fun with your plus one.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

Reason 2 for the bowls is that they are sort of family vacation plan during the holiday. Mr and Mrs Subway Alumni (or whatever Huskers call Nebraskans that didn't attend NU) can find out what bowl they're in in late November and plan around it. Now in a playoff you'd have to plan on a trip to Lincoln or some other school in December and then wait to find out that you might be in some other neutral site. It throws a monkey wrench into the entire thing.,

I advocated a +1 ever since the BCS made the insane decision to have two bowls in one week in one place. Every year I draw up how much better it would have been under the old 5 bowls, it's somewhere in the archives here. So if that gains traction it will be great until the day that an important school wins its bowl and finishes #3. (Texas, Ohio State at 3 would bring an instant 4 team playoff).

 

[Enhance]

How long do you think it will take from going to a +1 format or a four-team playoff before we reach 16 teams? I'd guess less than ten years, once the money starts flowing.

I think it will be at least a decade and maybe longer. Whatever system is put in place at first will only apply to a few teams. A larger playoff will inevitably occur, but as to when, that's tough to predict.

 

[knapplc]

How long do you think it will take from going to a +1 format or a four-team playoff before we reach 16 teams? I'd guess less than ten years, once the money starts flowing.

I think it will be at least a decade and maybe longer. Whatever system is put in place at first will only apply to a few teams. A larger playoff will inevitably occur, but as to when, that's tough to predict.

That's why I think the change comes sooner rather than later. Those playoff games are going to make big money. Once the school presidents get a taste of that - or don't, if they don't make it - they'll want more.

 

[Enhance]

How long do you think it will take from going to a +1 format or a four-team playoff before we reach 16 teams? I'd guess less than ten years, once the money starts flowing.

I think it will be at least a decade and maybe longer. Whatever system is put in place at first will only apply to a few teams. A larger playoff will inevitably occur, but as to when, that's tough to predict.

That's why I think the change comes sooner rather than later. Those playoff games are going to make big money. Once the school presidents get a taste of that - or don't, if they don't make it - they'll want more.

I just read an article on ESPN saying $400 million to $500 million annually; however, the projected model wouldn't be in place until 2014 at the earliest. I then doubt anything will happen for at least a few years while the new system is playing out. The current BCS system has been in place since 1998, after all.

Granted, this will be worth a lot of money, but I still don't see us jumping from a +1 or four seeded tournament to a full-fledged 16-team playoff any sooner than the early 2020's. Not saying impossible, of course, just finding it unlikely.

 

[Big Red 40]

Sure, the money will be better the more teams you add to the playoffs, that's why the basketball tourney keeps adding teams.(Do they really think the 96th best team is worthy of a shot at the championship? ugh) Problem is the more you dilute the pool and include mediocre teams, the less chance you have of the best team emerge as the champ.(More chances for Cinderella to get hot, or get lucky and slay the giant) Why don't we just have a 119 team playoff and forget the regular season all together? No incentive to play a tough schedule , no incentive to win your division, or to really try to win all your games. The only incentive would be to finish in the top 16,32,64 or whatever, and keep all your players healthy for the playoffs.Yes i know money rules the world, and John Q public is easily whipped into a frenzy by throwing words like "inevitable", "we have to", "total failure" etc, but im not ready to follow the lemmings off the cliff on this one .I applaud Bo for saying what he thinks, tho many have decided hes "Wrong".( not necessarily true) Leave things alone, and IF there is a dispute at the end of the year play another game or 2 to sort it out. Problem solved.

 

[knapplc]

Sure, the money will be better the more teams you add to the playoffs, that's why the basketball tourney keeps adding teams.(Do they really think the 96th best team is worthy of a shot at the championship? ugh) Problem is the more you dilute the pool and include mediocre teams, the less chance you have of the best team emerge as the champ.(More chances for Cinderella to get hot, or get lucky and slay the giant) Why don't we just have a 119 team playoff and forget the regular season all together? No incentive to play a tough schedule , no incentive to win your division, or to really try to win all your games. The only incentive would be to finish in the top 16,32,64 or whatever, and keep all your players healthy for the playoffs.Yes i know money rules the world, and John Q public is easily whipped into a frenzy by throwing words like "inevitable", "we have to", "total failure" etc, but im not ready to follow the lemmings off the cliff on this one .I applaud Bo for saying what he thinks, tho many have decided hes "Wrong".( not necessarily true) Leave things alone, and IF there is a dispute at the end of the year play another game or 2 to sort it out. Problem solved.

 

[Nebraska Alum]

I just fear that it is inevitable that people will want to keep adding teams and watering down the impact of the regular season. What fan of 9-3 schools wouldn't want to be able to get a shot in at a national trophy?

Exactly, what makes college football great right now is that the regular season games matter so much. If they start adding tons of playoff games, the regular season games will become as boring as the NFL. I'm glad that Pelini and Perlman are speaking out against playoffs altogether.

 

[bshirt]

I just fear that it is inevitable that people will want to keep adding teams and watering down the impact of the regular season. What fan of 9-3 schools wouldn't want to be able to get a shot in at a national trophy?

Exactly, what makes college football great right now is that the regular season games matter so much. If they start adding tons of playoff games, the regular season games will become as boring as the NFL. I'm glad that Pelini and Perlman are speaking out against playoffs altogether.

True, but with programs like Boise St or a Big Least team that take full advantage of a pitiful easy schedule leaves us with no option but to make changes. Or in other words, yes.....the regular season is a great thing about cfb but "how" they achieve a zero or one loss season is glaringly different for different teams.

 

[knapplc]

I just fear that it is inevitable that people will want to keep adding teams and watering down the impact of the regular season. What fan of 9-3 schools wouldn't want to be able to get a shot in at a national trophy?

Exactly, what makes college football great right now is that the regular season games matter so much. If they start adding tons of playoff games, the regular season games will become as boring as the NFL. I'm glad that Pelini and Perlman are speaking out against playoffs altogether.

Lots of things make college football great. The sheer joy of playing many of the athletes have, the fans and all of their traditions, the aged stadiums, the rivalries, etc. All of these things will not go away with a playoff. Playoffs will not ruin college football. They will change a few things about college football, but changing what is a biased and corrupt system in an attempt to improve it is not a bad thing.

This may not be the perfect step, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Hunter94]

I just fear that it is inevitable that people will want to keep adding teams and watering down the impact of the regular season. What fan of 9-3 schools wouldn't want to be able to get a shot in at a national trophy?

Exactly, what makes college football great right now is that the regular season games matter so much. If they start adding tons of playoff games, the regular season games will become as boring as the NFL. I'm glad that Pelini and Perlman are speaking out against playoffs altogether.

Lots of things make college football great. The sheer joy of playing many of the athletes have, the fans and all of their traditions, the aged stadiums, the rivalries, etc. All of these things will not go away with a playoff. Playoffs will not ruin college football. They will change a few things about college football, but changing what is a biased and corrupt system in an attempt to improve it is not a bad thing.

This may not be the perfect step, but it's a step in the right direction.

2 things i see changing and not necessarily for the good.........add enough playoff games and the factor of depth and injuries will have a huge effect on the last one standing. also how do you keep fan attendance up for both bowl games and playoff games? the season is stretched to the 2nd week in January now, it is just plain silly to keep adding games. what about school, practices, etc....how much longer, how many more games, how much more hype do we add to a non professional sport to satisfy how many fans? in an attempt to make it better, i think we make it worse........controversy will double.

i guess if they make some of the bowl games into actual playoff games, it would help......depends on the structure.

 

[knapplc]

This year the FCS championship game was played on 1/7/12, two days before the BCS wrapped up their champion. So the concept of adding length to the football season is a non-issue.

Depth and injuries are a factor no matter what we do. Attendance at these playoffs will be fine, especially for the teams that typically have good attendance. For those that don't... where's the difference? How many bowl games are played in front of nearly empty stadiums? If attendance is a concern, let's axe half the bowl games and make them much more of an event than they are today.

Why is school/schoolwork only a concern in discussions of playoffs vs. bowls? Why is it OK for basketball teams to play the schedules they play, but when we talk about football teams playing a tournament, that's a concern? Volleyball holds their tournament right around Finals every year and nobody makes a peep about school there. They are able to work around athletics for these classes. It's not that hard.

I see all of these issues as different. Not better or worse, just different.

 

[Enhance]

2 things i see changing and not necessarily for the good.........add enough playoff games and the factor of depth and injuries will have a huge effect on the last one standing. also how do you keep fan attendance up for both bowl games and playoff games? the season is stretched to the 2nd week in January now, it is just plain silly to keep adding games. what about school, practices, etc....how much longer, how many more games, how much more hype do we add to a non professional sport to satisfy how many fans? in an attempt to make it better, i think we make it worse........controversy will double.

i guess if they make some of the bowl games into actual playoff games, it would help......depends on the structure.

Knapp had a good response to this, but there's also something else to consider. As it stands, the last game of the regular season is played in late November and championship games are played the first week in December. Then, bowl games don't start until mid-to-late December often leaving several weeks between a team's last game and their bowl game. I've always found this time period laughably long. The longest time off anybody gets in the regular season is one week, but at the end of the season, we give teams like the BCS National Championship contenders over a month. I strongly believe this has a negative effect on the games we see in early January because you're facing an entirely different team who's had a month off in comparison to one who's been grinding out a season for 14 weeks.

With a playoff, we can bump bowl games and playoff games up, allowing the season to still finish around the same time and have less layoff between games.

The current system we have is ridiculously biased and unfair. Most college football fans want a playoff. This isn't to say, of course, a playoff will fix all issues and make everybody happy, but it's significantly more fair to at least settle some aspect of the National Championship on the field rather than in a board room or a computer's hard drive.

 

[Hunter94]

2 things i see changing and not necessarily for the good.........add enough playoff games and the factor of depth and injuries will have a huge effect on the last one standing. also how do you keep fan attendance up for both bowl games and playoff games? the season is stretched to the 2nd week in January now, it is just plain silly to keep adding games. what about school, practices, etc....how much longer, how many more games, how much more hype do we add to a non professional sport to satisfy how many fans? in an attempt to make it better, i think we make it worse........controversy will double.

i guess if they make some of the bowl games into actual playoff games, it would help......depends on the structure.

Knapp had a good response to this, but there's also something else to consider. As it stands, the last game of the regular season is played in late November and championship games are played the first week in December. Then, bowl games don't start until mid-to-late December often leaving several weeks between a team's last game and their bowl game. I've always found this time period laughably long. The longest time off anybody gets in the regular season is one week, but at the end of the season, we give teams like the BCS National Championship contenders over a month. I strongly believe this has a negative effect on the games we see in early January because you're facing an entirely different team who's had a month off in comparison to one who's been grinding out a season for 14 weeks.

With a playoff, we can bump bowl games and playoff games up, allowing the season to still finish around the same time and have less layoff between games.

The current system we have is ridiculously biased and unfair. Most college football fans want a playoff. This isn't to say, of course, a playoff will fix all issues and make everybody happy, but it's significantly more fair to at least settle some aspect of the National Championship on the field rather than in a board room or a computer's hard drive.

there is no doubt, that 2-4 week period after the last regular season game or CC gives a team time to heal up and time to install some new wrinkles for their final opponent.....again, if there is no break the team with the best depth at key positions will likely have the advantage.