"Playoffs? Playoffs?" --Jim Mora
I've heard some guy talking about shortening the regular season to accomodate an 8-team playoff in the future. I realize that can't happen very soon, but I am firmly opposed to the idea.
I don't like the concept of pulling money away from the university, the town, and the State, to support a playoff. Even if Bama is one of the Elite 8, I doubt many (if any) of those games would be played at home.
And what about smaller teams and towns? They would be the ones to suffer from this. They rely on the revenue generated by home games.
And seriously, isn't every national championship somewhat 'mythical'? When a 4-seed Arizona or 8-seed Louisville wins the NCAA b'ball tourney, are they definitely the best team, or did they just wind up in the right place at the right time? I had a blast watching Arizona knock off Kentucky, Kansas, and UNC years ago, but I'm not convinced they were the best team.
The NBA hoops format (best of 7) is the best way to determine the best team, but we could never do that in football -- the players would die. LIterally.
As it stands, the entire season is a playoff. If teams (USC, Penn State, UF) play themselves out by not focusing against good-not-great teams, so be it. If it happens to us in the future, so be it.
Bama is undefeated because they have done things the right way each week. We may lose to a superior opponent down the road, but it's unlikely we'll lose to an inferior opponent because we approach things the right way. That's how it should be.
The BCS poll/computer system could certainly be improved, but I don't think I could ever support a playoff system in college football...especially since we seem to already have one, of sorts. Hopefully, we'll play UF and one other school off before the season ends.
FanPosts are just that; posts created by the fans. They are in no way indicative of the opinions of SBN and the authors of Roll Bama Roll.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I would hate to see...
…the regular season cut. Worst idea ever. I have all sorts of ideas about what should be done, but that one would rank dead last. The last thing we need is LESS football.
I just don't see how it would ever work.
I, for one, would be all for a playoff, but the logistics just don’t add up for an 8+ team playoff. For one, you’d be taking away bowl bids from conferences who only have one or two bowl affiliations anyway. For instance, the Sun Belt only has ONE bowl affiliation. And as it was made obvious last year by an 8-4 Troy team not getting an at large bowl bid, if you don’t win the Sun Belt, you don’t go bowling. All that to say that you’d be taking those bowl games away from deserving teams. Now, I wish we could go back to the days of the four major bowls with a couple more sprinkled in here and there, but once you’ve created 32+ bowls games with automatic affiliations and money, you can’t go back on that. That’s why I think a tournament system would never work.
"There's a lot of blood, sweat, and guts between dreams and success" - Coach Bryant
Well ...
A: Yes, less football is bad. Not even really necessary since most of December is taken off anyway.
A: No, only D-1 NCAAF has the issue of “mythical” … every other college sport already settles it on the field. Of course there’s debates, but what’s wrong with that?
The revenue argument and out-of-town concerns just doesn’t fly. The schools are already racking up millions (yes, even “small” schools) and a proper system could be designed to make it even more lucrative. If “Johnny-Come-Lately-St” wants to be taken seriously, they will find a way and the fanbase will enthusiastically support it. The big boys are just that and nobody should shed a tear for them.
The best two I’ve heard/thought of other than 8:
1- 16 teams: 11 conference champs + 5 at-large (everyone else can have their same bowls)
2- same system but use plus-1 for a best of 3
"That's the paradox of success. The moment you stop to enjoy it, you are in trouble. You have to keep moving forward. It's not what you have done that's important. It's where you are going."
— Alabama coach Nick Saban
A couple of questions...
…what about the $ that’s spent in and around Tuscaloosa on a game weekend? How do they make up for those lost weekends?
16 teams? That’s four additional weeks of football games, compared to the current one week. Are you suggesting 16-17 games, or cutting back regular season contests?
And it should be said, Bama has been settling it on the field.
by NiceLittleSaturday on Nov 20, 2008 10:54 PM CST up reply actions
Not suggesting any football to be dropped but I also don’t think you could make a good argument that so many top D-1 programs scheduling numerous D-1AA and lower games (in the same season) is really doing anything for entertainment or the quality of the game in general. T-Town would make more money by hosting a playoff game. What’s interesting is that you never hear divisions with playoffs complain about revenue being lost.
Yes, Bama is settling it. Unfortunately in the current system winning isn’t everything, however.
"That's the paradox of success. The moment you stop to enjoy it, you are in trouble. You have to keep moving forward. It's not what you have done that's important. It's where you are going."
— Alabama coach Nick Saban
Not...
…if you’re Utah. If you’re Bama, you win and you’re in.
by NiceLittleSaturday on Nov 21, 2008 2:08 PM CST up reply actions
I'm not so sure
that going back to 11 regular season games would be a bad idea. We had 11 for years and everybody seemed ok. Plus taking out 1 game would actually save the entire country a large amount of gasoline. And let’s face it, most teams make their 12th game pretty much a non game- like UF playing Citadel this week—give me a break. If there were a playoff then SEC teams would try to get their 3 non conference games against good teams to raise their strength of schedule.
But if you talk about money for schools. A real play-off in D-1 would make money for every school. More money then the schools would lose by dropping one game. And there is no reason to wipe out any of the 732 bowls that already exists. An 8 team playoff would at most mean that 8 teams did not go to bowls, but the other 203 bowl eligible teams could still go bowling.
Realistically
the best we can hope far anytime in the near future will be a + 1. Keeps the regular season important and it is just one more game for two teams.
Auburn fans are like slinkys... not really good for anything but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
Can't really say it's a playoff
since you can go undefeated and not win the championship. But I think an 8 team playoff is too much because most rivalry games are the final game, and I’d hate to see teams playing scrubs vs rivals because they already secured a spot.
why does the season need to be cut short for an 8 team playoff?
the maximum number of games played by a team would be three. There’s far more than three weeks between the end of the regular season and the MNC game.
In addition to the fact that there is plenty of time for those games
there is also a way to make even more money at home by awarding home field advantage to the higher ranked team going in. That actually gives any given team the chance to host at least one, perhaps two more games at home per year if they are able to win enough games. All other bowl-eligible teams go to their bowls, and the ones in the playoff have those games treated as bowls – I don’t see the loss here.
I bleed crimson and white...I puke Vol puke orange. RTR


















