Playoff System....

[Warthog]

I don't see the logic in what you suggest either.

This IS NOT BASKETBALL, print that out, post it on the monitor, so we don't confuse it with what we are talking about which is football.

To even have "that moment" of driving a court, you'd have to be in the title game, which my team won't ever see.

Neither of those "moments" happened in the title game but any fan of college basketball knows of exactly which "moments" I am referring.

People keep fixating on the tournament, and keep putting value on meaningless games. The only game that counts for anything is the final one, which is about what we have now with the BCS.

Forgive me for misunderstanding, but what is the point of a bowl game? It is to make money for the local economy. So the results of the game are actually meaningless. So how is that different from a meaningless playoff game that you refer to?

And what real motivation comes out of dropping a tournament game? Oh, lets work harder, so we can get wiped out in the second round no the first.

Obviously you have never competed in a team sport or you would never make such a statement. Yes, winning a game IS what motivates a player. It is the chance to go further, achieve more, reach for the gold that motivates players to work harder each year. There is much more motivation in trying to win a playoff game than there is in winning a meaningless bowl game.

To have some oversized tournament, how many more weeks are we going to drag the season out? Are we going to drop to a ten game season to keep the schedule tight? I don't see where bowl games survive in such a setup. I don't see where a 12 game season survives in a 16 team setup. Are the entire alumni, development, presidential, and athletic staffs supposed to close shop and live out of hotel rooms for one month out of the year, during the holidays? Are the fans supposed to shell $4,000 for two people to get bussed around, assuming their team is actually in a game, which, oops, they aren't.

How do I-AA teams manage to have a playoff when I would venture to say their athletic budgets are slightly smaller than BCS schools? Becasue for some reason it is about crowning a champion on that level, not about seeing how much money everyone can make.

People in the MAC trying to argue for a tournament is insane given what we have, are working to get, etc. I'd rather fight to get a BCS bowl bid than worry about a bid to a tournament, which to have we would screw three or four other possible MAC bowl teams out of. As well as how we ourselves would get screwed out of post-season play 9 years out of 10 with a tournament bid.

Never said the bowl system would have to go away. Any team not in the playoffs is free to participate in GMAC, Motor City, Independence, Fort Worth, MPC Computers, Blue bonnet, Peach, Continental Tire, etc, bowl. Those games would still played and MAC teams would still get a chance at an extra game.

[NWLB]

I recall the UCLA game you are talking about, and even if it is not the title game, I still don't want a football tournament. There isn't enough similarity between the two that allows me to think anything comparable could or would exist in what you advocate.

The "purpose" of a bowl game means nothing in and of itself. Why an area sponsors the game doesn't matter. We all know they represent promotional events, and that the sponsors have their own motivations. In the end, those don't matter. What matters is that my team gets in a game. The game itself is the meaningful part. The tournament you want has games, but far fewer of them, with far fewer chances for my team to play in them. Plus far less ability for the average fan, which I am of many sports, to follow my team. A tournament would erase much of the fun and events that surround a traditional bowl game. That renders the tournament game even less meaningful. Bowls are events, tournament games are chores. Win a Bowl game and you are a Champion, lose a tournament game and you are just another wash-out.

To fall back on the position that a person has to have had to played sports to understand anything about them is absurd. We don't require presidents to have fought in a war to function as the commander-in-chief. You at once say winning a game IS motivation, yet a Bowl, which last I checked, IS a game, is meaningless? Did it mean nothing to BGSU to play in a game last year? In 1992, in 1991? Are the Falcons depressed and sad because they are ONLY playing in the GMAC bowl?

Winning a tournament game obviously is motivation, not that it will happen for the one single MAC team that gets to play in it. Playing in such a game obviously has meaning in the same context a Bowl game has. If you ask the four other MAC teams we have in Bowls this year, if they would rather stay home so another team can lose, or have a chance to play one last time, they aren't going to tell you to send one team to a tournament.

You mention a burning fire that drives athletes to want that tournament game, because they all want to feel they can in fact win the whole thing. Don't confuse having a well coached attitude with being realistic.

Plus do not forget that this isn't strictly about the players. The whole picture must be looked at. That picture includes the fans, the community, and the program. A tournament would in fact do more to push the MAC into the background than it would ever do to help it continue to improve and gain national respect. The fans should have a reward for their support. The University should enjoy a reward for its team's success. Can you argue they would get that with a tournament game? Maybe, but is it better than the existing Bowl games? No. Because a tournament includes fewer team, with less reward, pomp and celebration.

It makes the regular season pointless if you are not going to win the entire conference, which mirrors the pointless nature of even being in the tournament-since your not going to win it either. So the entire year is effectively centered around getting to the tournament. Since this is football, not basketball, you don't have an NIT, you don't have at-large bids. The meaning of a conference title becomes nothing more than a glorified tournament bid race, and for what? One team, one game and out? You might like it if you are a fan of an Ohio State or Florida, but most people aren't.

You mention the 1AA tournament, that makes my point. They don't have bowl games in case you hadn't noticed. They had those taken away to form the tournament. I might be wrong, but I believe there is some measure of compensation from the NCAA for being in the tournament. The last I checked, most of D 1AA doesn't get into the post season either. The last I checked, it is a smaller division, with far fewer fans, smaller teams, budgets, and in every manner a smaller little world.

You couldn't keep a 1A bowl running with what 1AA draws for most of their TOURNAMENT games. How much meaning does losing in the first round have for that bunch of schools? Plus you can't even compare the nature of tournament teams in 1AA to how things stand in 1A. Having a 1A tournament change how competitive BGSU is with a USC. 1AA being a lesser form of the game, has more equality among the rotation of teams that play and win their tournament. There is even less interest and competition in D2 and D3. Finally, I see having a tournament, and that burning desire for athletes to compete and "win it all" has really done a lot to steal talent away from the lower half of 1A. :S

I love college football. I almost wish it could last all year long. I'm not sure it should. If you haven't said the Bowls would go away, others have in the times it has been debated here. I don't see the Bowls surviving with a tournament, and I don't see getting rid of them for a tournament being worth the risk. A large 16 team tournament can't be done without killing the Bowls. A smaller tournament negates the point of having a tournament, because you bring back all of the same issues the BCS is hammered with. At best, you can make a decent fight for a Plus-one setup.

If you want a true capstone, let the NCAA pick two teams after the bowls. Have the NCAA sell the TV rights, to pay for the travel and expenses. No bowl payout. No hype. Just one single game. Not eight. Not four. Just one.

[hammb]

I think we know where we all stand on this issue now. Warthog & Myself on one side. Nathan on another. Schaden somewhere in between perhaps?

For the most part, we're wasting our typing fingers because we will not be swayed. And besides that, nobody else is even reading it.

[NWLB]

And I was just going to get into how the Bible says football tournaments are the work of the devil.......

[Schadenfreude]

I think we know where we all stand on this issue now. Warthog & Myself on one side. Nathan on another. Schaden somewhere in between perhaps?

I'm pleased to see the BCS is improving access to its games for the five less-wealthy leagues. But I'd still like to nuke it.

I think the BCS has placed far too much attention on this notion of a national championship. This is a step in the wrong direction.

That's my position.

However, if we must have a playoff system, then I want the NCAA to run it, include 16 teams, and automatic bids to all I-A leagues.