Big XII Commish (Former OVC) Hates Playoffs?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_9327244


COLORADO SPRINGS — The Big Ten and Pac-10 have a new ally in their opposition to a "Plus One" system to determine a national champion in major-college football.

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe said Tuesday during the league's spring meetings at The Broadmoor that the Big 12's official position is against any proposal that adds a game (or more) to the present bowl system.

Beebe said personally he is opposed to any playoff format.

...

"But the question is whether it's the best thing to do," he said. "My view is, I don't think it would be a benefit. We have to distinguish ourselves from the NFL, continue to do that.

"We've got the best regular season of any sport. The bowl games have been highly beneficial."

...

During his years as commissioner of the Ohio Valley Conference, Beebe served on the former Division I-AA football committee which brackets an eight-team playoff. Because of the second-guessing of the seeding, "it did not avoid controversy," he said.

:pumpuke:

Talk about drinking the BC$...

xhomerx

[bluehenbillk]

Nice homework, when they talk about 1-AA having a 8-team playoff bracket.

[mcveyrl]

Nice homework, when they talk about 1-AA having a 8-team playoff bracket.

Hey, he was from the OVC...they never got past the first round anyway. It could've been a 256 team playoff for all he cared. xsmiley_wix xsmiley_wix

[walliver]

Apparently only the SEC and the ACC support any type of playoff (or +1 format). Apparently a lot of the other conferences feel they have a better chance of a "National Championship" with the current format (at least going by the recent BCS vote - I don't have a link and am too lazy to look for one).

[kirkblitz]

Apparently only the SEC and the ACC support any type of playoff (or +1 format). Apparently a lot of the other conferences feel they have a better chance of a "National Championship" with the current format (at least going by the recent BCS vote - I don't have a link and am too lazy to look for one).

"ACC commissioner John Swofford voted for Slive’s proposal, but it was four against two, and college presidents are overwhelmingly against a playoff system anyway."

only the SEC and ACC voted for the playoff proposal cause they are the only ones that actually have teams that arnt crap and dont need to play in a rigged system. I would LOVE to see how 1a survives without SEC and ACC teams. maybe it should just be a SEC vs ACC in the future?

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/Moore/entries/2008/05/02/sec_is_why_you_wont_see_footba.html#postcomment

[catamount man]

The SEC and the ACC play real college football, therefore the rest of the BCS hates them.xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx

[Golden Eagle]

He's merely doing his job. The schools of his conference do not want a playoff, therefore, he fights a playoff.

[Retro]

The reason all these A.D.'s and high position people don't want a playoff is because the bowl system brings in big money for some with just 1 game and that secures a nice paycheck for those same people.. It's all about money.. If only they had the common sense to realize you can incorporate the bowls into the playoff system and still have some left for those teams that don't make the playoff bracket.xrolleyesx

[Big Al]

If you're the champ of a BCS team you have a 1 in 6 chance of playing in the NC game provided you win your conference. Much better odds than a 16 team playoff field.

Also, how do you reward mediocrity if you eliminate all the 7-5 & 6-6 bowl games out there? The perennials like OSU, USC, & LSU aren't as threatened by a playoff as the Iowas, Arizonas & South Carolinas in those conferences.

[IndianaAppMan]

Big Al & Golden Eagle, you are absolutely right. Beebe doesn't represent Texas, Oklahoma, & the few other Big XII with a shot at the BCS. Heck, after last year, I wouldn't be shocked if Kansas, Missouri, AND Oklahoma wouldn't have loved an 8 or 12 team playoff because they each might have been in it. Let's remember that Beebe also represents Baylor & Iowa State, teams which get to taste the money of the BCS bowls regardless of how bad they are. Those schools would be as motivated to keep the status quo as any powerhouse team.

Beebe knows that even if the NCAA started playoffs for FBS teams, sure, they might generate even more money than the BCS does, but that cash wouldn't stay in-house within the major six conferences; it would be distributed among all eleven. Thank goodness that we have playoffs instead of the hyperpolitical BCS.

[89Hen]

If you're the champ of a BCS team you have a 1 in 6 chance of playing in the NC game provided you win your conference. Much better odds than a 16 team playoff field.
Not sure I agree with that sentiment.

You actually have a 1 in 3 chance (2 of 6 make it), but 8 of the top 8 have a chance to play in our tournament where they control their own destiny. 2/3rd of the BCS conference winners don't have a shot at all.

[IndianaAppMan]

Not sure I agree with that sentiment.

You actually have a 1 in 3 chance (2 of 6 make it), but 8 of the top 8 have a chance to play in our tournament where they control their own destiny. 2/3rd of the BCS conference winners don't have a shot at all.

Sometimes only 1/6th of the BCS conference winners make it to the title game. Remember in '03 and '01 when Oklahoma and Nebraska made the "title" game without winning their conference?

I love the concept of playoffs in general, but it needs to be the right size. In one sense (in a bad way), the bowl games are getting to be as lenient as the NBA playoffs, where over half the teams get in. In another sense, it's so narrow that only two teams are in the title round. Ridiculous! I think the NFL and baseball has the right size. They don't go straight to the championship round, but they don't let just anybody in, either.

I think the 16-team playoff has felt just about right for the FCS, with just the top 25% or so making the field. That's about on par with baseball, which lets 8/30 (26.67%) teams in. I'm not sure yet about having 20 teams since that'll make for 5 playoff games if a first-round team makes it to the final. With the 12-game regular season, that makes a 17-game season, one more than a non-playoff NFL team plays! Considering FCS teams have a MAX of 63 scholarships (instead of 85), that could easily wear down the roster.

[kirkblitz]

whats the issue? institute a playoff AND keep the lower bowls for lesser teams. Just think of it as NIT of NCAA football

[Big Al]

You actually have a 1 in 3 chance (2 of 6 make it), but 8 of the top 8 have a chance to play in our tournament where they control their own destiny. 2/3rd of the BCS conference winners don't have a shot at all.

Whoops. You caught me. I meant 1/6 to win the NC (yeah, yeah, it's not the NC it's the BCS Champ. Same diff.)

While the other 4 don't have a shot, they do get a big dollar payout. In this case, money is a powerful salve. It will likely keep the non-BCS conferences happy, as well. While they'll never contend for the championship, they'll get paid off on a semi-regular basis.

[TTUEagles]

I think a playoff system would work, but only if done like FCS, D-II etc. where you begin the playoffs around Thanksgiving (thus, only one bye week, not three, like some FBS used to get) and they could play the champ game around New Year's. Even then, the teams in the playoff but not making the champ game could still be rewarded for their good season in the New Year's Day bowls - sort of a consolation game, if you will. That's the whole purpose of a bowl game, to reward a team's good season with a holiday trip + a game. I just think that if they start an FBS playoff of 8 or so teams around Christmas, it gets dragged out way too much. As a former player myself (and for an OVC school, so what in the hell do I really know?), I agree with a poll some years ago (also too lazy to find the link) where players were largely against a playoff for the season was too long to begin with.

[Syntax Error]

(yeah, yeah, it's not the NC it's the BCS Champ. Same diff.)Look at the trophies. One is a crystal ball and the other is the NCAA D-I Championship trophy. One is a mythical "championship" and the other is the highest collegiate football title. The road to one is through computers and voters and the other is through a playoff system. One is a TV event to make money and the other is real football. There is a difference. xcoffeex

[Franks Tanks]

a "playoff" or "plus one" system with 4 teams in best IMO. Usually there are 2-4 elite teams and everyone else. You usually have the one or two preseason favorite teams who have been at the top all year, and then one or two teams they get blazing hot at the end of the year that you say "wow that team could beat just about anyone right now" somehwat like Georgia last year. I know you will have debate over who that 4th team is, but its better then leaving an undefeated team out like Auburn a few yesr back or having to choose between 3 very good one loss teams to play the one undefeated for example.

[Golden Eagle]

Look at the trophies. One is a crystal ball and the other is the NCAA D-I Championship trophy.

One is a crystal ball and the other is a piece of wood with some bronze stuff glued on. When you just "look at the trophies" there really is no competition.

[JohnStOnge]

The "best regular season" stuff is nonsense. They'd have more interest during the regular season if more teams stayed alive for a shot at the national title. There is absolutely no reasonable question that what we now call "FBS" college football would get more interest overall if it had a playoff tournament. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

If the FBS college football model was so good, it'd be widely practiced. It's not. FBS college football is the only sport that uses it.

What do you think would happen if, tomorrow, the NFL said it's going to switch to the FBS college football model and have bowl games?

NFL fans would go absolutely ballistic.

I think what this is about is who controls the revenue. I think a playoff system in FBS would generate MUCH more total revenue than the current bowl system does. It's also result in more "meaningful" regular season games. But it'd be controlled by the NCAA and not by the current BCS league conferences.

That, I think, is the issue.

[Tod]

The "best regular season" stuff is nonsense. They'd have more interest during the regular season if more teams stayed alive for a shot at the national title. There is absolutely no reasonable question that what we now call "FBS" college football would get more interest overall if it had a playoff tournament. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

If the FBS college football model was so good, it'd be widely practiced. It's not. FBS college football is the only sport that uses it.

What do you think would happen if, tomorrow, the NFL said it's going to switch to the FBS college football model and have bowl games?

NFL fans would go absolutely ballistic.

I think what this is about is who controls the revenue. I think a playoff system in FBS would generate MUCH more total revenue than the current bowl system does. It's also result in more "meaningful" regular season games. But it'd be controlled by the NCAA and not by the current BCS league conferences.

That, I think, is the issue.

What JSO said!

[Tod]

Look at the trophies. One is a crystal ball and the other is the NCAA D-I Championship trophy. One is a mythical "championship" and the other is the highest collegiate football title. The road to one is through computers and voters and the other is through a playoff system. One is a TV event to make money and the other is real football. There is a difference. xcoffeex

xbowx xbowx xbowx xbowx xbowx xbowx xbowx xbowx xbowx

[Big Al]

One is a TV event to make money and the other is real football. There is a difference. xcoffeex

*scratches head*

Both are media events, put on for public consumption. While I will agree 110% that a tournament is the only fair way to determine a "champion", the truth is either one and fifty cents still won't get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

PS - I dare you to tell the Ohio State or LSU football teams they weren't playing "real" football. ;D

[Lehigh Football Nation]

*scratches head*

Both are media events, put on for public consumption. While I will agree 110% that a tournament is the only fair way to determine a "champion", the truth is either one and fifty cents still won't get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

PS - I dare you to tell the Ohio State or LSU football teams they weren't playing "real" football. ;D

Short of a true playoff, I think "plus one" makes a lot of sense for FBS simply because there are plenty of chances that there are three or more undefeated or one loss teams during the regular season. I still think it's a crime that Hawaii went undefeated and a TWO loss team played for the hunk of crystal. Hawaii may have gotten killed, but they earned the right to play for it.

Of course, a real playoff, like the FCS, is the best solution xthumbsupx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

And therein lies the irony:


"But the question is whether it's the best thing to do," he said. "My view is, I don't think it would be a benefit. We have to distinguish ourselves from the NFL, continue to do that.

"We've got the best regular season of any sport. The bowl games have been highly beneficial."

Think Hawaii fans think it's the best regular-season of any sport?

Then compare that to Appalachian State's rollercoaster-ride of a season last year. Which regular-season was more compelling? What story was better? And - oh yeah - without the playoffs, it wouldn't have been *****.