Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aordolin
There is no reason to make a system to just allow access to smaller conferences. Its not about whether Akron will not attract viewers its about level of play. Maybe once in a blue moon one of those small conference teams would upset a major power but on balance those teams do not have a prayer. Who wants to watch a slaughter? The dont have the athletes, they dont play the kind of schedules to make you think regardless what their record is that they deserve to play with the big boys. In a college football tournament I want to see the best of the best, each round, I dont think we need to add a tier of first round asswhiping just for the sake of having more teams.
|
But the thing is, part of the very reason some of these schools can't compete now is due to the disparity in cash from the top BCS schools to the non-BCS schools. When you have schools such as Baylor in the Big 12 that are raking in 3 mil a year in bowl payouts to sit around and win a few games a year while a team like TCU in the Mountain West who this year will probably get maybe $600,000, it causes a wide disparity in income, and that doesn't include teams like Texas who will end up raking in like 5 mil or more in bowl payouts this year. The system as it is now in inherently causing it to become harder and harder for the non-BCS schools to continue competing due to this disparity in income. That's the other half of the whole "The non-BCS schools can't compete" argument that people always tend to ignore. The money issue, as well as the recruiting advantage the BCS schools have in saying "Hey you can win a national championship here" while a non-BCS school can't make that statement at all because as Utah showed last year, you can go undefeated and still not make the national championship game. And let's not even mention the voter bias in the polls for BCS vs non-BCS schools which you have to look no further than where TCU is ranked currently in comparison to the other 1 loss schools in the country. They're currently ranked BEHIND not 2, not 4, but 8 2-loss teams.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aordolin
All the bowls are basically played in a 10 day peroid from christmas through the new year. So you would have to get all of them to agree to change their dates around to fit the new playoff system, so it really wouldnt be the bowls anymore. They might be called the Liberty.. Holliday, etc bowls but they arent really, not anymore. And lets say you do get it all arranged, say a playoff game which happens to feature (for the sake of argument) Oregon vs Wisconsin. Why on earth would anyone at the Liberty Bowl care for that matchup? Who in Memphis is going to care? No offense to those schools but those arent exactly schools that travel really well. Not everyone can have LSU, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Penn State or other school that have large national followings and whos fans will go wherever the game is. Its about money which is why it wont work. Your never going to get everyone to agree. They had enough problems just getting the 4 BCS bowls to agree. Which is why if a playoff is ever created I believe it will be in the format I said earlier. The bowls dont care about a playoff, they just want to make money. The schools wont agree to a major overhall because it would affect the money alot of them can make for going to a bowl who dont really have a chance to win national titles.
|
That's part of the reason I'd advocate for the first round of a 16 team playoff to be played on the campus of the higher seed. Then, you're only adjusting the dates around of 7 bowls, 1 of which won't be moved since it's already on New Years Day. Thus, you'll have 6 bowls with slightly adjusted dates. The other 21 bowls can still be around if they want to play host to the other schools that didn't make the 16-team tournament.