Should BCS Be Replaced By Playoffs? -- Guynemer's Proposal

[Drake Tungsten]

Touche. I still don't think that the networks and the NCAA would willingly forgo the money that could be made from a full slate of eight teams, but I don't really have any evidence. Just putting my trust in greed, which is usually a good course of action...

[Ming]

As somebody who has negotiated multi million dollars with the network for over 24 years...

The NCAA would make the same amount of money no matter how many games there were, just like in the NBA, MLB, NHL where the number of games played in the playoffs doesn't effect the contract. A flat fee is paid by the networks involved. If a best of 5 series goes 3 games... of a best of 7 series goes 4 games, the Networks are the ones screwed. The holder of the rights just laughs, because they doen't really care once the contract has been signed. And believe me when I say that all the networks would bid up the rights to un godly levels even knowing this to be the case (see the current NBA or MLB contracts as examples of this) So yeah, the networks will make more money if all the games were played, but they have no say in the matter once the contract is signed... and they will sign it.

So yes... greed would be an important element... but would not get in the way of the system I suggest of only allowing teams with one loss or less to participate.

Plus, if you look, you can ALWAYS find some teams with only one loss or less in the smaller conferences. More than enough to make up only an 8 team playoff. You may laugh and say that nobody cares about Bowling Green vs Miami... all I can say is Gonzaga So I don't think we would have many years where they didn't have to play all the games.

And as far as having a conference champion with two losses not being invited... screw em. It's a lot tougher to argue that you should be given a chance after you have lost two games, then it is to argue that you have the right to be included if you haven't lost a game

And by using this system... the worst case scenario is that the national champion will have only one loss... and as long as there aren't more than 8 undefeated teams going in, the national champion will still be tied for the best record in the country.

[DanS]

Ming: The cynic in me looks at your system and finds that it is just a scheme to double dip (or triple dip) on TV rights for a potential national championship ND team. Everybody likes ND in the hunt because it makes everybody big money.

As an aside, do you have a link to the TV ratings for NBC, ABC, and CBS college football coverage?

"but would not get in the way of the system I suggest of only allowing teams with one loss or less to participate"

Anything that doesn't adequately reflect a strength of schedule approach would mean that ND and others water down their schedules. That would be a real shame.

[DanS]

JohnT: The basketball championships show slightly more variety. But the variety isn't as great as you might think, given the fact that the championships were based on 32 and 64-team tournaments.

By my count, the last 60 championships yield 31 different champions.

[Ming]

Originally posted by DanS
Ming: The cynic in me looks at your system and finds that it is just a scheme to double dip (or triple dip) on TV rights for a potential national championship ND team. Everybody likes ND in the hunt because it makes everybody big money.

While you are correct, it would provide More teams with a chance to prove on the field that they are the best, something the current system doesn't.

As an aside, do you have a link to the TV ratings for NBC, ABC, and CBS college football coverage?

While I'm sure there are sites that might provide it for free... I get the raw data because our agency subscribes to the information. What I see isn't available to the average person.

Anything that doesn't adequately reflect a strength of schedule approach would mean that ND and others water down their schedules. That would be a real shame.

Here, I would have to agree with you... but I'm not sure it would be a real shame. Teams could play easy schedules just to qualify... but they would still have to beat the best to actually win the national championship.
I don't have a problem with this, because it will be proved on the field, and not by the computers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess you don't find the prospect of a two or even three loss team winning the national title to be as distasteful as I do...

I sure don't.

Having the team with the best record win the title ONLY works if every team plays every team (like they do in national European soccer leagues). That is impossible in a college football league with 117 teams!

[Ming]

I disagree Imran... even though you are correct in terms of scheduling... any team that losses two games really can't in any fashion claim that they are best. Even if they lost too GREAT teams, they still lost. Limiting it to one loss would insure that the national champion had no more losses than anybody else (unless there were more than 8 undefeated teams to begins with... something that hasn't happened yet)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why can't a team with 2 losses be national champion? If they prove in the playoff they are the best then they are the best. I mean if you suffer in a tough conference (say Big 10) then why are you held to a much greater standard than a team in the Big East?

[Ming]

I find it difficult to even think that a team with two losses is a fitting national champion, when there are teams with less losses... A system that would only allow teams with one loss to have a chance for the championship game insures that the national champion has at least a tie for the best record in the country.

[Drake Tungsten]

Having the team with the best record win the title ONLY works if every team plays every team (like they do in national European soccer leagues). That is impossible in a college football league with 117 teams!

I think that if you review my posts, you'll see that I'm in complete agreement with you on this. This is why opinion will always play a role in determining the national champion; there are too many teams in D-I to sort out by play alone.

[DanS]

This focus on the best record to the exclusion of all else is weird. I don't know what you gain by it.

[Drake Tungsten]

The NCAA would make the same amount of money no matter how many games there were, just like in the NBA, MLB, NHL where the number of games played in the playoffs doesn't effect the contract. A flat fee is paid by the networks involved.

Thanks for the info, Ming. I wasn't aware of this.

[Ming]

I see that the "best record" should server as an invitation to the big dance... but that they need to play to determine who is best... unlike the current system.

[DanS]

"I see that the "best record" should server as an invitation to the big dance..."

To repeat, what is gained by this?

[Ming]

What is gained by this... Simply that the teams that should be considered are... An undefeated team has EVERY right to claim they are the best until they are beaten on the field... That's all A team that has lost more than one game is really in no position to claim that they are the best team in the country