DOJ asks NCAA why playoff system doesn't exist

[BeLikeWisconsin]

This would most likely rule out most of the losers with only the previously undefeated even getting a shot at it.

You can't say that for sure. What if the Boise States and TCUs and Utahs have a down year and you're looking to fill your 16 playoff spots. You'd be taking the conference championship game loser from probably 2+ conferences. Seems to me that this makes the game meaningless. Why go all out, show your best stuff, etc. when you might be playing the team again in 2 weeks? I'm against anything that takes away from the integrity of the regular season as we know it.

As for "simply trying to extend the season", the bowl system doesn't already do this? I mean, we hear about 40 day layoffs already! Do they lay around eating bonbons and studying? Not even close, they practice, film study, and in-season workout the whole time.

I meant extend the season with more and more games. I'm aware that a ton of practicing goes into the bowl game.

I also find it amusing that this is a worry, when every other sport in the NCAA, and the lower levels of football itself manage to pull this off....

Yeah, and look at the regular season of those sports and tell me "who cares?". Does anyone care about the regular season of lower levels of football (outside of those schools themselves)? No. People only watch the D-II and D-III playoffs. Does anyone really care about the regular season of college baseball?????????? Nope. How about the regular season of college basketball? Not really. People watch because there's nothing else on, making it the de-facto primary sport at that time. But no one gets too worked up over a win or loss because we all know the only important thing is getting into the "tourney"!!!! For crying out loud, they even mention it explicitly. Some team will lose to a really good team and the announcers will talk about how it's still great because it adds to the "tourney resume". YEESH. I don't want college football to go this route.

So yes, all the other sports pull it off, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE REGULAR SEASON.

 

[Dave H]

I disagree...the college basketball regular season still means something. The Tourny doesn't diminish how important conference games are in any way. The rivalries are still heated, the games are watched and attended...what more is the regular season about?

Plus, how is the bowl system any different. Now all that matters is becoming bowl eligible. It doesnt matter what 6 or 7 games you win as long as you win them. Some coaches make careeers out of just being in lower tier bowl games. (and some of them have rabid fanboy posters on message boards like this one ) The regular season is a joke...cake walk non-con games and try to win a couple BT games so you get the coveted extra practice time and a meaningless bowl trophy. And the NT only matters if you are undefeated...losing a game takes you out of the running most of the time, especially if it is to a "inferior" team.

 

[BisonGopher]

For what it's worth, maybe not much, the NFL has a highly followed regular season and a very successful playoff postseason.

While I'm not against a playoff, I want to make sure that the conferences are getting at least their same share of the money as they do now.

If anything, I suspect a playoff would generate more money - and so the conferences should expect an even bigger payday for agreeing to have their teams participate.

 

[BeLikeWisconsin]

I disagree...the college basketball regular season still means something. The Tourny doesn't diminish how important conference games are in any way. The rivalries are still heated, the games are watched and attended...what more is the regular season about?

You're right in "what more is the regular season about" because the tourney is what gets the focus, so the only thing the regular season can offer is rivalries and something to watch during the winter. What if there was no tourney as we know it? What if they just picked the top 4 teams and let them play it out? It would make the regular season a h-e-c-k of a lot more interesting, that's for sure.

See, in college football, you don't need rivalries during the regular season in order to have extremely interesting games to watch. All you need is one good team playing in a game that it could potentially lose. It happens all the time. That Boise State game against Nevada last year was AWESOME. However, if there was a playoff then we'd all know that Boise State would be making the playoff win or lose at Nevada, hence that dramatic finish wouldn't have meant nearly as much.

Plus, how is the bowl system any different. Now all that matters is becoming bowl eligible.

It's way different! Winning a few more games and going to a January bowl is MUCH, MUCH better than being a perennial Sun Bowl participant.

It doesnt matter what 6 or 7 games you win as long as you win them.

Not if you want the National Championship, which is what this whole idea was started from, right?

Some coaches make careeers out of just being in lower tier bowl games. (and some of them have rabid fanboy posters on message boards like this one )

LOL

The regular season is a joke...cake walk non-con games and try to win a couple BT games...

If you're strictly speaking about being a mid-tier Big 10 team coached by Mason, then yes, you are correct. But is it a joke for Alabama or any other SEC school that has to take beating after beating, week after week, to try and stay undefeated? Not at all. Maybe you guys want a playoff because you truly don't appreciate what the college football regular season is all about.

And the NT only matters if you are undefeated...losing a game takes you out of the running most of the time, especially if it is to a "inferior" team.

Exactly my point! It takes you out of the running. Throw in a playoff and that is no longer the case. See where I'm coming from?

 

[RedPoo]

I'd just like to weigh in, as I do whenever this comes up, that I hate the idea of a playoff. If the government decides to step in and force an end to the BCS system, I sincerely hope they go back to the bowl free-for-all system. F- 'em.
What I love about college football:
1) Every regular-season game is of utmost importance. Every other sport's regular season is weak in comparison, and though the NFL still manages to be compelling in the regular season, there are still plenty of high profile games that mean nothing, and plenty of times when I've watched my favorite team lose and thought, 'oh well. We'll still make the playoffs.'
2) It's unique from every other major sport in that a team that wasn't among the best in the regular season does not have a chance to win the championship, and the team that DOES win the championship ALWAYS has a strong argument that it was one of the very best teams all year.
3) Most fans have a specific, tangible relationship with their favorite team (are alumni of the institution, are citizens of the state that administers the school, etc)
A playoff would kill two of those things.


Anyway, that was a bit off topic. I have a specific question...there's been a lot of noise about teams actually losing money on their bowl appearances. So, does anyone know the actual losses some of these non-bcs schools (like boise) actually suffer because of the system? Could Northern Illinois, say, afford to play in the national championship game?

 

[BeLikeWisconsin]

For what it's worth, maybe not much, the NFL has a highly followed regular season and a very successful playoff postseason.

Are you talking about that NFL regular season that allows for a team to lose it's first couple games and still go on to it's championship? The same one that lets a team lose 4 of it's first 5 games and still make the playoffs? (2004 packers did the latter). The same regular season that ends with the best teams resting their best players and not really showing up, so as to prepare for the playoffs? Is that the regular season you are referring to?

If so, I'm not interested in seeing anything like that in the college game.

 

[re3886]

Look, you can be against playoffs, that's fine but...

You can't say that for sure. What if the Boise States and TCUs and Utahs have a down year and you're looking to fill your 16 playoff spots. You'd be taking the conference championship game loser from probably 2+ conferences. Seems to me that this makes the game meaningless. Why go all out, show your best stuff, etc. when you might be playing the team again in 2 weeks? I'm against anything that takes away from the integrity of the regular season as we know it.



I meant extend the season with more and more games. I'm aware that a ton of practicing goes into the bowl game.



Yeah, and look at the regular season of those sports and tell me "who cares?". Does anyone care about the regular season of lower levels of football (outside of those schools themselves)? No. People only watch the D-II and D-III playoffs. Does anyone really care about the regular season of college baseball?????????? Nope. How about the regular season of college basketball? Not really. People watch because there's nothing else on, making it the de-facto primary sport at that time. But no one gets too worked up over a win or loss because we all know the only important thing is getting into the "tourney"!!!! For crying out loud, they even mention it explicitly. Some team will lose to a really good team and the announcers will talk about how it's still great because it adds to the "tourney resume". YEESH. I don't want college football to go this route.

So yes, all the other sports pull it off, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE REGULAR SEASON.

So, your argument is that everybody is going to tank the regular season's games, because SO many 0-12 teams are ranked in the top 16? You also think the argument that the highest seed possible is no incentive to win the championship?
Are D-I basketball games played in front universally empty stadia? Friday and Saturday nights, D-I men's hockey arenas echo when pucks hit their boards? no, because the moment is the appeal, not the possible future.


More games? how do you figure that? 16 teams=15 games to the title. Last year there were 35 Bowl games, in the math I learned, 15< 35.

 

[RedPoo]

...Are D-I basketball games played in front universally empty stadia? Friday and Saturday nights, D-I men's hockey arenas echo when pucks hit their boards? no, because the moment is the appeal, not the possible future.

No, but they are played without me and many other people caring 1/10th as much as I do about a regular season football game, and they are played in front of fewer people, and they mean MUCH less in the scheme of a season. And we have that system in EVERY OTHER MAJOR SPORT. Why can't we keep one little game where things are done differently?

 

[re3886]

Sure, why not?

No, but they are played without me and many other people caring 1/10th as much as I do about a regular season football game, and they are played in front of fewer people, and they mean MUCH less in the scheme of a season. And we have that system in EVERY OTHER MAJOR SPORT. Why can't we keep one little game where things are done differently?

Almost every year there is complaining about who got left out, the fact the the SEC champion is almost every year in the championship game...What's not to love? Why fix the second to most broken thing in athletics? It is only second to pro boxing in honesty and integrity. That's great company! I change my mind let's screw everybody not in the BCS. Destroy the small ones, all power to The Helmet schools!

 

[GopherinFlorida]

I agree. My point was that how they respond to a ruling that the BCS is illegal is up to them. The govt can't force them to create a playoff.

Wrong...the gov't can force a playoff...again see Microsoft, Mabell etc. Any action will include a recomendation to the court for a solution...the idea that they can do whatever they want if thier current system is deemed illegal is not correct.

Taft Hartley absolutely requires that a solution is included with any finding...it isn't optional. That's why MaBell was broken up, why Microsoft had to change its business practices according to the directives of the courts...not an option.

If this thing goes to the courts...and the NCAA is found to have violated the law...they will have imposed resolutions that ensures conformity to the law.

 

[BeLikeWisconsin]

So, your argument is that everybody is going to tank the regular season's games, because SO many 0-12 teams are ranked in the top 16? You also think the argument that the highest seed possible is no incentive to win the championship?

More games? how do you figure that? 16 teams=15 games to the title. Last year there were 35 Bowl games, in the math I learned, 15< 35.

Where do you get this 0-12 stuff from????? What I was implying was if Boise State, TCU, etc (the teams from the non-AQs) all have 2+ losses then you're going to have to fill your 16 team playoff with a couple of teams that have no business being there.

And while there may be some motivation to get the highest seed, there could equally be motivation not to. Again, if #1 and #2, or #1 and #3, or #2 and #3 etc were playing each other at the end of the season (last game before playoff) would you REALLY want to show all your "stuff"? No, you wouldn't. You'd realize that it would be better to take a loss, save your gameplan, rest your players, etc. and then try and beat that same team in the playoffs. See my point???????????

Your "more games" logic is also flawed. Right now the 30+ bowl games are distributed among 60+ teams, meaning each team gets only one extra game. With a 16 team playoff, two teams will now have 4 extra games, 4 teams will have 3 extra games, etc. Again, see the difference???