Florida's Meyer Calling for I-A Playoffs.....

[AZGrizFan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=maisel_ivan&id=2675649


"Here's our style," Meyer said. "Let's see, you got at Tennessee, you got Kentucky, who's 7-4 [7-5 after the loss to Tennessee on Saturday], you got Alabama, LSU, Georgia and Auburn and at Tallahassee. So much for style. You want to put that against anyone in the country, let's go ahead and go. … The style points? That's what's wrong with it. [If] that's what making decisions, I want to stand by my comment a week ago. Implode it. It's over. If that's what making a decision, style points, which that's what I imagine it is, you got a problem. Let's call it winning and losing and playing a difficult schedule."


Meyer's comment a week ago, which he alluded to above, included this statement from a coach who is a self-professed proponent of the bowls: "I do believe as this thing moves on we do need a playoff system."


There is no playoff, so everyone is left to guess......


Interesting the # of big time coaches who are seeing the light as their teams get screwed repeatedly....:read: :read: :read:

[BlueHen86]

Good for him. A playoff is the only sensible way to go. I don't think they have any idea how much money a playoff would bring in. ( I don't either, but I'd be willing to bet it's more than the bowls.)
I guess the bowls are against a playoff because they fear that they would lose control and/or money, but there has to be a way to work the bowls into the playoffs.

[blackfordpu]

Of course he is, a playoff is the only way his team would have a shot at the title. Many good teams are going to get screwed by the system again this season.

[wannabegaucho]

I guess Urban Cryer is the now-reincarnate of Tommy Whinerville.

[BlueHen86]

I guess Urban Cryer is the now-reincarnate of Tommy Whinerville.
Is he wrong? His team is 11 - 1, plays in arguably the toughest BCS conference and has virtually no shot at the championship.
The bowls are a stupid system, I wish more coaches would speak out.

[unknown-swac]

Who's fault is it that their out of conference schedule was laughable at best and they finished up with a D-IAA team. They only hurt themselves.

[ucdtim17]

They haven't played an OOC game out of the south in 15 years or so I think. Only themselves to blame, like Auburn 2 years ago

[Peems]

they should have 16 teams make the playoffs, and then to keep everyone else happy they should have smaller "bowl" games. so teams that would be bowl eligible still can have a postseason game they just wont factor into the national championship.

[ngineer]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=maisel_ivan&id=2675649



Interesting the # of big time coaches who are seeing the light as their teams get screwed repeatedly....:read: :read: :read:

Yes, all depends on whose ox is getting gored...:rolleyes:

[Marcus Garvey]

The coaches who whine in favor of a playoff are those whose teams are perennial BCS Chamipionship contenders: UMich, Ohio St., Penn St., Flordia, FSU, Miami, USC, Oregon, Texas, Nebraska, LSU, Auburn, etc..

They can whine all they want, but it's all about the $$$$. The BCS guarentees a HUGE payout. It'd be tough for any playoff to do the same, plus any playoff would have to be sanctioned and overseen by the NCAA, which beans the "Big 6" conferences would have to split it up with the little guys. Not gonna happen anytime soon.

[BlueHen86]

The coaches who whine in favor of a playoff are those whose teams are perennial BCS Chamipionship contenders: UMich, Ohio St., Penn St., Flordia, FSU, Miami, USC, Oregon, Texas, Nebraska, LSU, Auburn, etc..

They can whine all they want, but it's all about the $$$$. The BCS guarentees a HUGE payout. It'd be tough for any playoff to do the same, plus any playoff would have to be sanctioned and overseen by the NCAA, which beans the "Big 6" conferences would have to split it up with the little guys. Not gonna happen anytime soon.

I agree with you on 2 of three:

I think a playoff would generate MORE money.
The "Big 6" conferences don't want to split the money.
It's not gonna happen anytime soon.

[Marcus Garvey]

I agree with you on 2 of three:

I think a playoff would generate MORE money.
The "Big 6" conferences don't want to split the money.
It's not gonna happen anytime soon.

I'm skeptical of the money issue because the bowls get some leeway in "choosing" teams, thus maximizing ticket sales and TV ratings, the latter of which gets factored into TV contracts. FOX knows that if Notre Dame is available, the Fiesta, Sugar and Orage Bowls will always take them 1st chance.

I think ticket sales would take a hit for games at host sites, even more so at neutral sites. The bowl games have large alotments of tickets set aside for the 2 teams, 30,000+ That's way more than the Final Four. Plus, football fans get 4 weeks or so to make arangements. Gonna be tough with only a week or two notice.

The Bowls are a sure bet. If a TV network offered even more money to the Big 6, they might go along, but that would mean paying more overall than the BCS because the money has to be split more ways.

[*****]

I'm skeptical of the money issue because the bowls get some leeway in "choosing" teams, thus maximizing ticket sales and TV ratings...That's called "pimping" and schools should be against that. If these schools would say screw the BCS we are holding our own playoff championship, then the bowls would whimper and die. Bowls don't make the games, teams make the games.

[unknown-swac]

Honestly I can say i'd NEVER want to watch Boise State and Idaho in the national championship. Even though it probably wouldnt happen mor ethan likely, thats what the playoffs could bring. Ratings...way down, attendance, way down...

[dbackjon]

Honestly I can say i'd NEVER want to watch Boise State and Idaho in the national championship. Even though it probably wouldnt happen mor ethan likely, thats what the playoffs could bring. Ratings...way down, attendance, way down...

Even if Boise was the best team in the nation?

[unknown-swac]

I STILL wouldnt want to watch it and I dont know too many people that would. The ratings would be crap and who would actually want to go to that game other than Boise & Idaho fans..I doubt they'd even fill the stadium. Sure the BCS isnt fair but I have to admit i'm biased. I'd rather see BCS caliber teams in bowls than watch a national championship with Troy and FIU anyday.

[Tribefan]

So Urban Myth hasn't even been in the SEC for two full seasons and he's the official spokeswoman? Give me a break. Much of the SEC was just not that good this season, I don't think getting through that conference was anymore difficult than some of the others.

Tim Tebow is pretty good fullback by the way.

[putter]

I think it could work. You may have to cut 1 OOC game but PCS play 15 games (if you go to Nooga). Why not let BCS play 13 or 14?

1. Ohio State
Boise St

5. LSU
Florida

3. Michigan
Louisville

Wisconsin
2. USC

The losers in the first bowls get placed in the higher paying bowl games. The last two play in the NC, semi-final losers get remaining non-NC BCS bowl and so forth going backwards.
People would not pay to watch these games??? :nod:

[OL FU]

So Urban Myth hasn't even been in the SEC for two full seasons and he's the official spokeswoman? Give me a break. Much of the SEC was just not that good this season, I don't think getting through that conference was anymore difficult than some of the others.

Tim Tebow is pretty good fullback by the way.

I don't quibble with anyting you said above,

Still, He is correct even if for self serving reasons. It may be understandable , but it is lunacy for the most popular collegiate sport at the highest level not to have a playoff for the national champions.

[DinoDex200]

Give me a break. Much of the SEC was just not that good this season, I don't think getting through that conference was anymore difficult than some of the others.

Right...4 of the top 12 in the BCS are from SEC, of which Florida will have played all of the other 3 after Saturday. Real cupcake schedule.

BTW, only the Big 10 (with 3) has more than 1 of its teams in the top 12.

If you take it out farther, there are 5 SEC schools in the top 16 in the BCS, and Florida played the 5th team too. Add to that bitter rivals Georgia and Florida State...I don't think you'll find a BS team that has played that many difficult games. All Ohio State had to do was beat 3 loss Texas and Michigan...

[I Bleed Purple]

I STILL wouldnt want to watch it and I dont know too many people that would. The ratings would be crap and who would actually want to go to that game other than Boise & Idaho fans..I doubt they'd even fill the stadium. Sure the BCS isnt fair but I have to admit i'm biased. I'd rather see BCS caliber teams in bowls than watch a national championship with Troy and FIU anyday.

I personally have troubles calling a sport a sport when 65-70% of the teams coaches tell their players that they can lose zero games and still have no chance to play for a national title.

[kardplayer]

I personally have troubles calling a sport a sport when 65-70% of the teams coaches tell their players that they can lose zero games and still have no chance to play for a national title.

I'd go easy with that statement - about a third of FCS coaches are in the same position...

[kardplayer]

By my count, 40-50 FCS coaches can say that, and 50-60 BS coaches. Not that big a difference.

[dbackjon]

By my count, 40-50 FCS coaches can say that, and 50-60 BS coaches. Not that big a difference.

Most by choice of not choosing to participate in the playoffs.

[Marcus Garvey]

For decades, college football teams on all levels played to win ther 8-11 games each season, then go back to studying (presumeably). Who cared who the "national champion" was? Why should it be a big deal? Let the wire service poll decide the national champ and go back to the old bowl system with fewer tie-ins.
And if the AP votes Ohio St. #1 at the end of the season, it'll be because the BUCKEYS WERE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE!!! IF THE PRESS WANTS TO CROWN THEIR ASS, THEN CROWN 'EM!!!!
xlolx xlolx xlolx

http://www1.whdh.com/images/news_articles/389x205/061017_dennis_green.jpg

[kardplayer]

Most by choice of not choosing to participate in the playoffs.

While true, that doesn't make my statement false, or really even misleading, for two reasons.

1) The number of teams who enter the season with no way to play for a national championship is about the same.

2) Any school, other than Notre Dame, that chooses to play in I-A/BS and not in a BCS conference, is making the choice not to play for a national championship. Many, but certainly not all, of these schools were once in I-AA (Marshall, Idaho, Troy, Western Kentucky etc. etc. etc.). There may be a subtle difference between the two "choices", but in both cases, the schools have in fact made a choice.

[I Bleed Purple]

22 years ago, if you were not in what is today a BCS conference and you went undefeated, you had a chance to win the national title. BYU in '84. If BYU had gone undefeated this year, they would have had no chance. It is not a choice. It's a freeze out.

[CamelCityYosef]

Somewhere up above someone said something like "if we had team A meet team B in playoff-driven national championship game, I wouldn't watch it".

I think this is the exception, not the rule. Look at the ratings for the NFL playoffs & Super Bowl, and look at how the NCAA basketball tourney takes over the month of March.

The American sports-viewing public loves this kind of stuff. Even if you don't have a dog in the fight, you find a dog to root for at tourney time. I-AA/FCS, plus all the other NCAA football divisions, prove that you can have playoffs in college football.

You take the top 16 teams from the BCS, bracket 'em up, and play them off. Let top seeds host first round, then rotate the 7 quarter, semi, and NC game rounds thru the traditional big bowl sites. Let Pasadena continue to have the Parade.

What do you gain? A December of college football mania similar to that found in March, and at the end, a true, 4 post-season game winning National Champion.

What do you lose? Well, if you still want to have the Carquest Bowl and the Soup Bowl and the Tidy Bowl for all the 7-4's and 6-5's left, go ahead. But I'd bet dollars to donuts that if we had a real I-A playoff system, the little bowls would whither and die on the vine within 5 years due to low ratings and low attendance.

It would be painful at first, especially for the alum & fans of the teams outside the playoffs, but ultimately worth it.

[kardplayer]

Somewhere up above someone said something like "if we had team A meet team B in playoff-driven national championship game, I wouldn't watch it".

I think this is the exception, not the rule. Look at the ratings for the NFL playoffs & Super Bowl, and look at how the NCAA basketball tourney takes over the month of March.

The American sports-viewing public loves this kind of stuff. Even if you don't have a dog in the fight, you find a dog to root for at tourney time. I-AA/FCS, plus all the other NCAA football divisions, prove that you can have playoffs in college football.

You take the top 16 teams from the BCS, bracket 'em up, and play them off. Let top seeds host first round, then rotate the 7 quarter, semi, and NC game rounds thru the traditional big bowl sites. Let Pasadena continue to have the Parade.

What do you gain? A December of college football mania similar to that found in March, and at the end, a true, 4 post-season game winning National Champion.

What do you lose? Well, if you still want to have the Carquest Bowl and the Soup Bowl and the Tidy Bowl for all the 7-4's and 6-5's left, go ahead. But I'd bet dollars to donuts that if we had a real I-A playoff system, the little bowls would whither and die on the vine within 5 years due to low ratings and low attendance.

It would be painful at first, especially for the alum & fans of the teams outside the playoffs, but ultimately worth it.

My gut completely agrees with you, but the anecdotal statistics I've heard say otherwise.

The big one - last year's Final Four semis in hoops (with George Mason) had poor ratings compared to other years.

Not sure how much of that is the fact the games were blowouts and how much of that is people didn't show up in the first place - I believe it was a little of both.

Also, this year's World Series with the underdog Tigers had the worst ratings ever.

March Madness works because of upsets and great finishes in the first two rounds, but most of America wants to see teams they know in the Final Four and, extending to other sports/leagues, playing for the championship. :twocents:

[CamelCityYosef]

My gut completely agrees with you, but the anecdotal statistics I've heard say otherwise.

The big one - last year's Final Four semis in hoops (with George Mason) had poor ratings compared to other years.

I think that's fair. If you have a true playoff system, you run the risk of having a "down" year where the 9th or 10 seed makes it through to the big game, and deprives the nation of the marquee matchup.

I think the NFL playoffs are a better comparison (I know, I'm the one who brought up the bball tourney). Fewer teams in the bracket (which means better teams in the bracket) mitigates the George Mason factor somewhat. And in football, there's always a chance there will be a blowout, even between 2 evenly matched teams. That's just how the game flows sometimes.

As far as baseball goes, I think America has pretty much given up on baseball. But that's a different thread completely...:smiley_wi

[dirtbag]

As far as baseball goes, I think America has pretty much given up on baseball. But that's a different thread completely...:smiley_wi

Oh yeah, MLB is really hurting...

"MLB revenues will approach $6 billion in 2007, up 15 percent from this year's figure of $5.2 billion and up an astounding 400 percent from 1994's figure of $1.2 billion. The figures compare favorably with the NFL, the acknowledged money machine of U.S. sports, which will generate $6.5 billion in revenue this year."

http://prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=41707&TM=25638.96

[CamelCityYosef]

Of course revenues are up 400% from 1994-- that was the strike year when there was no World Series.

Revenues are one thing, but how are profits? Baseball stages a ton more games to earn 6 billion than the NFL does to earn 6.5-- MLB held 2,420 games in 2005, NFL held 256.

I don't think major league baseball is in any danger of dying off, but it's certainly not the pro sport that captures the imagination of the American public anymore.

[dirtbag]

Of course revenues are up 400% from 1994-- that was the strike year when there was no World Series.


OK, how about let's go back 5 years -- MLB revenues were $2.79B in 2001. Again, projected to be $6B next season. Yeah, America has pretty much given up on baseball.


Revenues are one thing, but how are profits?

Who cares? Revenue measures fan interest. Profits mix in how submissive the union is.


Baseball stages a ton more games to earn 6 billion than the NFL does to earn 6.5-- MLB held 2,420 games in 2005, NFL held 256.

So what? That's the nature of the game.

And BTW, 2001 revenues for the NFL were $3.51B, so MLB revenue has grown faster than NFL revenue. Which sport is America giving up on again?

[DinoDex200]

OK, how about let's go back 5 years -- MLB revenues were $2.79B in 2001. Again, projected to be $6B next season. Yeah, America has pretty much given up on baseball.



Who cares? Revenue measures fan interest. Profits mix in how submissive the union is.



So what? That's the nature of the game.

And BTW, 2001 revenues for the NFL were $3.51B, so MLB revenue has grown faster than NFL revenue. Which sport is America giving up on again?

Well, MLB also eliminated one of it's big money losers in the Expos...and placed them in a large market. Also, I believe the World Baseball Classic was an adjunct of MLB, so I imagine that had something to do with it...along with the League's more international appeal.

[kardplayer]

...Which sport is America giving up on again?

...he asks on a football message board... :D

[mtgrizfan4life]

Good for Meyer and Tubberville calling for a playoff. A 16 team playoff system is needed. Granted, someone will have an arguement for being left out, nonetheless it is better than all but 2 teams (2 in the championship). I will be honest, the only bowl games I watch right are the Championship and regional teams (west of the mississippi for the most part). I gurantee I would watch every game in the playoffs, just like in march madness.

Recently on ESPN the football guys and basketball guys have been making their points as to which is better. Dickie V put it as well as anyone. Basically until the championship is won on the field, basketball is better as for getting the right result!!!!!!! Also he said at least it gives most every deserved participant and opportunity regardless of how big a school or conference is.

As for the money arguement, I am sure there would be corporations more than willing to pony up $$$$$$$$ for sponsorships. I for one would be more likely to spend $$$$$$ with those corporations that could give truely giving us a playoff system.

For those that are BCS conference supporters, just give the BCS conference champion a 1st round bye or vote on 1st round byes. By giving 1st round byes, it could possibly open up a few more playoff slots.

I agree with Urban, "time for a playoff."

[chiapet9]

My gut completely agrees with you, but the anecdotal statistics I've heard say otherwise.

The big one - last year's Final Four semis in hoops (with George Mason) had poor ratings compared to other years.

Not sure how much of that is the fact the games were blowouts and how much of that is people didn't show up in the first place - I believe it was a little of both.

Also, this year's World Series with the underdog Tigers had the worst ratings ever.

March Madness works because of upsets and great finishes in the first two rounds, but most of America wants to see teams they know in the Final Four and, extending to other sports/leagues, playing for the championship. :twocents:


i LOVE march madness BECAUSE of the upset potential. i love to fill out my brackets and try to figure out which team will be cinderella and which top team will get hosed in the first round. i think people need to get over their preconceived notions about who SHOULD win or lose...i think the only true way you can crown a champion is by playing for it. you've got to give the Ohio States, the USCs, and whoever else to chance to PROVE it on the field...

p.s. - i LOVED George Mason in the final four....who in the world has ever heard of George Mason outside of Virginia - i think it was good for them, good for Virginia, good for the CAA...

[Peems]

the one difference in football compared to basketball is upsets. The "mid majors" in basketball will pull the upsets much more than in football. Half of that is because we dont have 64 teams competing and all 16 teams would have a legit shot. Another question, do you guys think their should be auto bids in the upper echelon or just the top 16 teams

[chiapet9]

the one difference in football compared to basketball is upsets. The "mid majors" in basketball will pull the upsets much more than in football. Half of that is because we dont have 64 teams competing and all 16 teams would have a legit shot. Another question, do you guys think their should be auto bids in the upper echelon or just the top 16 teams


generally the top team in each of the Big 6 conferences are ranked in the top 16 anyway. so - i think the Big 10, Big East, ACC, Big 12, Pac-10, and SEC can be given auto-bids....but they don't really even need them. so - i think it could honestly go either way.