[jeffford76]

Bbradley62, on 2013-December-09, 22:21, said:

The way I read this, once Auburn and Alabama received automatic bids (ranked #2 and #3), no other SEC team should have been eligible to be selected. Why, then, was the Clemson able to participate?

Because they're in the ACC, not the SEC.

[billw55]

Bbradley62, on 2013-December-09, 22:21, said:

I'd like to see an 8-team playoff, with teams chosen strictly by the average of computer rankings, with no automatic berths, and no limits on the number of teams from one conference that can qualify.

Yes, this would be pretty good too. The only hurdle is the computer ranks. They are completely objective and fair, but people just have a distrust of them. (Look at how people talk about computer dealt bridge hands!) So we might get selection by committee instead. Basketball has had RPI ratings for many years now, but they aren't going to use those straight up anytime soon, and I really doubt they will do so in football either.

Ultimately, the proof is going to be in the pudding, so to speak. The four team playoff will be wildly successful, which will lead to expansion, and concurrently to the bowls games being marginalized. I predict that in ten years, there is a full playoff system in effect, and that bowls exist only for non-playoff qualifiers, if at all.

Also, the "no autmatic berths" isn't going to fly either. This would be waaay too threatening to the major conferences, who are really controlling the situation. This year, it would exclude Big 12 champ Baylor. Not going to happen.

[GreenMan]

billw55, on 2013-December-09, 16:09, said:

As for the FCS playoffs, I did check. Please look at the bracket. Most of the teams played 12 games already, with 5 rounds of playoffs. That's the same number of games as my proposal. In fact, compared to FBS teams that played only 12 games, it is one game more. And don't say those 12-gamers won't be in the final, look at Alabama.

Oy, it's worse than I realized. I looked for FCS division records and didn't see them; DII starts playoffs earlier, that's what I was going by.

Quote

Last, pro athletes would certainly think the way you do about extra games. But I doubt most college players would. They like playing.

I believe you have the motivations backward. Pros get paid extra for playoff games. College players do not. Some of them may be there just for fun, but most are either relying on scholarships to pay for their education, or hoping to go pro (and in both cases, hoping not to get hurt and lose their scholarship); either way, extra games mean extra work without extra compensation. Just because many of us enjoy watching them play doesn't mean they enjoy playing to the same degree.

[billw55]

GreenMan, on 2013-December-10, 10:44, said:

I believe you have the motivations backward. Pros get paid extra for playoff games. College players do not. Some of them may be there just for fun, but most are either relying on scholarships to pay for their education, or hoping to go pro (and in both cases, hoping not to get hurt and lose their scholarship); either way, extra games mean extra work without extra compensation. Just because many of us enjoy watching them play doesn't mean they enjoy playing to the same degree.

I guess it's hard to tell without actually trying it. I just look at the lower divisions, and see lots of players competing hard to get to the playoffs and win. Many have only partial scholarships, or perhaps none at all, and their pro prospects are pretty thin compared to FBS players.

Or we can compare basketball. The NCAA tournament adds potentially six games. Conference tournaments another three, if you consider that "postseason". Do we see players who don't want to go? Oh hell no. They all love it and desperately want to be there. I know, football is much rougher on the body. It's just something to think about.

On another tangent, I do think that college athletes should be able to earn money from their own celebrity. The schools themselves won't be able to pay them due to title 9 issues. But IMO athletes should be allowed to take money from other sources, in a sort of free-enterprise system. If boosters want to give cash and other goodies to recruits or roster players, I don't have a problem with it. Manziel selling autographs? OK by me.

[GreenMan]

billw55, on 2013-December-10, 11:08, said:

I know, football is much rougher on the body. It's just something to think about.

This is a much underrated factor.

Quote

On another tangent, I do think that college athletes should be able to earn money from their own celebrity. The schools themselves won't be able to pay them due to title 9 issues.

Title IX is a minor hurdle at worst. In practice there's nothing besides the NCAA's own rules standing in the way.

[billw55]

GreenMan, on 2013-December-10, 11:45, said:

Title IX is a minor hurdle at worst. In practice there's nothing besides the NCAA's own rules standing in the way.

I'm not so sure about title 9. If tested in court, it might well be interpreted to require that all athletes be compensated equally, male or female, revenue sport or not. If this is the case, even the big programs could probably afford a stipend of some kind ($1000 per term per athlete? - not sure), but not real salaries. Which would just put the situation back to square one, with hidden compensation from other sources, for top performers. So I say, just drop the "hidden" part.

Yeah, the NCAA rules are the main obstacle. They cling to an ideal of amateurism that anyone can see is obsolete.

[GreenMan]

Title IX, which requires equality of opportunity, not spending, is already mainly interpreted to require comparable numbers of athletic slots but not equal amounts of money; no one blinks at the football program spending more than the rest of the athletic department combined. Besides, if the football players are actually treated as workers instead of primarily students, Title IX may not come into play. It's murky, true, but I'm confident that there'd be little to no problem in this area.

[Mbodell]

billw55, on 2013-December-09, 13:53, said:

IMO by far the best playoff system I have heard of is this:

16 teams including all "FBS" conference champs and the remaining slots as at-large bids. Currently that would be 10 champs and 6 at large bids. Selection and seeding are by committee as per basketball. Rounds one and two (and maybe three) are home games for the higher seed. Finals (and maybe semifinals) are neutral site. Simple, fair, and zero good reasons for anyone to complain about being excluded. If anyone still wants to stage "bowl games," they are free to invite any team not in the field of 16.

A playoff would make massively more money for the NCAA than the bowl system. It's really a disgrace that the bowls lasted this long, both financially and competitively.

I like this except I think it might be good to start neutral sites earlier. Both for fairness, and also for weather reasons.

[billw55]

Mbodell, on 2013-December-10, 23:33, said:

I like this except I think it might be good to start neutral sites earlier. Both for fairness, and also for weather reasons.

Ideally for fairness, all games would be neutral site, as in basketball. Besides weather, this would run into travel fatigue issues for fans. The idea of home games is partly a concession to these problems, and partly an incentive for the elite programs to accept the system.

[GreenMan]

I was enjoying the thought of Alabama and Florida teams traveling to Ohio and Wisconsin (and Idaho!) for mid-January games.

The NCAA women's basketball tournament uses non-neutral sites for the first few rounds IIRC. The precedent is there. Otherwise a 16-team playoff would require 15 warm-weather stadia every year. Don't forget to factor site selection for the early rounds into the cost mix -- that's a non-negligible task.

[cherdano]

Mbodell, on 2013-December-10, 23:33, said:

I like this except I think it might be good to start neutral sites earlier. Both for fairness, and also for weather reasons.

I am sure weather conditions, fairness and safety for the players would be the main criteria when choosing neutral playing sites. In comparison, revenue would hardly be considered.
Yeah, right.

[mike777]

dup

[mike777]

billw55, on 2013-December-10, 14:51, said:

from other sources, for top performers. So I say, just drop the "hidden" part.

Yeah, the NCAA rules are the main obstacle. They cling to an ideal of amateurism that anyone can see is obsolete.

An alternative is too pull football programs out of the NCAA or simply for many colleges to drop the sport as the Univ of Chicago did. The big profitable programs don't need the NCAA. The unprofitable ones may drop them based on finance or health concerns.

[Bbradley62]

billw55, on 2013-December-11, 08:44, said:

Mbodell, on 2013-December-10, 23:33, said:

I like this except I think it might be good to start neutral sites earlier. Both for fairness, and also for weather reasons.

Ideally for fairness, all games would be neutral site, as in basketball. Besides weather, this would run into travel fatigue issues for fans. The idea of home games is partly a concession to these problems, and partly an incentive for the elite programs to accept the system.

GreenMan, on 2013-December-11, 10:56, said:

I was enjoying the thought of Alabama and Florida teams traveling to Ohio and Wisconsin (and Idaho!) for mid-January games.

I don't think "weather reasons" should be a consideration. Football is an outdoor sport, frequently played in inclement weather. Teams tailor their rosters according to the kind of weather they most frequently see during the regular season; some go for bigger and stronger players and others go for smaller more skilled or faster ones. It would be an unfair advantage to some teams and disadvantage to others to declare upfront that the playoff tournament would cater more to one than the other. (Yes, I think the NFL has been wrong, up until now, to make such a specification for the Super Bowl.) Giving home-field advantage to the team that earned the higher seed is perfectly reasonable.

[billw55]

Bbradley62, on 2013-December-11, 19:19, said:

I don't think "weather reasons" should be a consideration. Football is an outdoor sport, frequently played in inclement weather.

Agree in principle, but they need to sell tickets also. Filling the stadia for multiple neutral site games (other than the final) in frigid weather might not be so easy.

Bbradley62, on 2013-December-11, 19:19, said:

Giving home-field advantage to the team that earned the higher seed is perfectly reasonable.

Agree, and it solves the potential attendance problem. Home games will fill the seats no problem, regardless of weather.

The attendance issues are another big difference between basketball and football, when choosing venues.

[GreenMan]

Bbradley62, on 2013-December-11, 19:19, said:

I don't think "weather reasons" should be a consideration. Football is an outdoor sport, frequently played in inclement weather.

This is a bug, not a feature. Neutral warm-weather sites are a workaround.

I'm not saying neutral sites are preferable, but something like "the spirit of the game" is a weak justification for the approach that is more likely to lead to difficulties in both play and attendance.

Quote

Teams tailor their rosters according to the kind of weather they most frequently see during the regular season; some go for bigger and stronger players and others go for smaller more skilled or faster ones.

I don't know a lot about the minutiae of college sports recruiting, but I'm having a hard time believing that coaches and their staff use climate as a primary criterion. Can you provide some documentation?

[billw55]

GreenMan, on 2013-December-12, 10:26, said:

I don't know a lot about the minutiae of college sports recruiting, but I'm having a hard time believing that coaches and their staff use climate as a primary criterion. Can you provide some documentation?

Yeah it's a tough argument to make. Maybe we could speculate that cold weather inhibits pass-wacky offenses, and that a running game becomes more important? Don't know if that will jive with the data though.

The main effect of climate is that other things being equal, recruits prefer to go where it is warm. Elite offensive skill position players particularly: snow and cold make it harder to pile up stats and show off for NFL scouts.

[mycroft]

Heh, we had 45000 (and could have sold 30000 more, they only added 10000 temporary seats) for the Grey Cup this year. In Regina. In November. The game was lucky, it has warmed up to 20F (on Monday of that week it was -25F ignoring the windchill, which if you know the prairies is never something you can ignore). That was *before* people knew that it was going to be a home game.

Bad weather is only a bug if you come from the SEC, or the PAC-N I guess. Otherwise, it adds a definite and welcome element.

But I'm a Canuck. What warm-weather sites?

[Bbradley62]

mycroft, on 2013-December-12, 10:54, said:

But I'm a Canuck. What warm-weather sites?

Olympic Stadium in Montreal?

[mycroft]

well, actually, B.C. Place and Skydome (Yes, I know some people think it's been renamed. It hasn't) count. The Big Owe ... has its issues. And I'm not sure it can be "covered" for the Grey Cup:

"In 2009, the stadium received approval to remain open in the winter, provided weather conditions are favourable.[15] However, the Olympic Installations Board issued a report stating that the roof was unsafe during heavy rainfall or more than 8 centimetres (3 1/2 inches) of snow, and that it rips 50 to 60 times a year. The city fire department warned in August 2009 that without corrective measures, including a new roof, it may order the stadium closed. A contract for a new permanent steel roof was awarded in 2004, with an estimated $300 million price tag. In June 2010, the Olympic Installations Board sought approval from the provincial government for the contract.[16] In May 2011 a committee was formed to study the future of the stadium and improve the usage of the stadium, pool, and sports centre.[17][18]" (Wikipedia)