Possible playoff system for college football

I don't think it will work. The payouts would become really different. As of right now, each of the 4 BCS bowl games dole out $10-13 million to the winner. That wouldn't work in a playoff because the champion would get all the money from winning each bowl game in each round. One conference would get an inordinate amount of money and the rest would be left high and dry.

That's a major reason for bowl game tie-ins. Each conference has an equal shot at getting the cash prize.

If a playoff system were integrated, than the bowl games that weren't dubbed the championship game in any given year wouldn't want to give out the same hefty prize money, seeing as how their game has lost some luster and meaning by becoming a step in the championship race. If they drop their cash payouts, than the conferences would get upset and the playoff idea would be a no-go.

Somehow the conferences and the bowl sponsors would have to come to an agreement about how to hand out money so the champion's conference doesn't get all the money and everyone else is left holding their... well, ya know.

 

How do payouts work in basketball?

 

I don't know. But the fact that there aren't individually, corporate sponsored games in each round makes it a lot simpler in college basketball.

 

True.

 

I thought the schools got paid whether they won or not, actually.

 

You could never get the fans to travel to three different cities three weekends in a row. Imagine, Miami one week, Pasedena the next, then Tempe or New Orleans the next. The only way playoffs could work is to have games on campus.

 

OK, I did a little research.

Each of the Final Four participants gets a cash lump sum. In 1990 it was over $1.4 million.

From what I can find (which is very little)... there is a payout to each team, depending on what round you are knocked out in.

 

I believe that is correct. I don't know about the "play-in" game, however.

 

No, I mean football. I thought both BCS teams got the money, regardless whether they won or lost. That's how it used to be.

 

A Playoff system is definitely necessary. I read on ESPN, one idea would be to have 1 last game after all the bowls have been played. Obviously that would mean a 4 team playoff system.

That would not be bad. Afterall, many teams already play 12 games anyways. It would only mean 1 less non-conference game.

 

Perhaps. But there would still have to be tie-ins. Each major conference would have to have a representative, even during a down year like the ACC this season. Otherwise they'd be upset at not having a chance at the money and the idea would be a no-go.

 

I don't know. I think each team's expenses get covered for travel, lodging etc. But I think the winner gets the payout.

I can't find any info on it though.

 

I actually like this idea. But of course if it were applied to year's like this year (more than one undefeated team), the loser of the bowl game that pits the two undefeated teams would be really upset at not going to the real national championship game. Especially if the team that makes it to the real national championship has more than 1 loss. That could be fixed if the real national championship game pits the same two previously undefeated teams.

um, did that make any sense or did i just babble?

 

Hey, them's the breaks. I remember UT got ripped off in the 1990 College World Series. It was a 2 elimination series up until that year when they made it single elimination. UT was undefeated and Witchita State already had 1 loss. However, it was a winner-take-all game, changed just for television purposes.

Cliff Gustafason was an idiot as he pitched Kirk Dressendorfer to get to the championship game only to be stuck with no real ace.

 

My point was that if a team feels slighted, groans enough, and has enough power, we may end up making more alterations... like we do with the stupid BCS each year.

We need to come up with a solution that will (in a perfect world) make everyone happy... but at the very least will have the least amount of loopholes.

The additional game at the end may be it, but I was just throwing out an issue with it to show that its not the end-all be-all answer it may seem to be.

 

Well, first of all just like in Bball, once youre in the tournament and you lose it's just too bad no matter how many losses you have. You had your chance and you blew it.

Remember the 1982 NCAAs when UH and Louisville played in the semi-final and they were the 2 best teams while Georgia and NC State lucked out and got to play each other.

The only problem with a playoff system is determining who gets to go in the first place. You think its hard getting down to 64 and listening to borderline teams whine, imagine if youre the 5th ranked team. Woohoo, there'll be some b****ing there.

 

I agree with you, but I'm going to play devil's advocate.

Basketball started with the playoff system (if I remember correctly) and it has been the standard forever.

Football is considering altering from a bowl system to a playoff system. The higher-ups in the NCAA have to have a reason to switch from their ever-precious bowls, which they have shown to be very reluctant to do. If the new playoff system screws people over either monetarily or by not matching up the right teams (additional game at the end of the year)... Then what incentive will they have to change?

The idea that bowl games cannot be banished just makes a playoff system to tricky to create, in my opinion.

 

I personally think the first step is to have every conference have a conference title game like the Big 12 and SEC. Then in order to make it to a playoff or even the current system you would have to at least win your conference. This would eliminate ND, but oh well, those snobs didn't want to be in a real conference any way.