GatewayRedbirds.com

I love how Division 1A football players can't play up to 15 games in a fall semester but Division 1-AA, 2 and 3 players can...

There are SO many issues with a playoff system it's not even funny..

1) School -- as mentioned previously, these student athletes are just that....students first, athletes second....and adding more games is going to be a big problem..
2) Deleting games -- if you're going to make the, "get rid of non-conf. games" argument to the first point, it's feasible, but you can't cut out conference games (especially when the Big 10 already doesn't play 2 teams in the conf. every year) and you have to have at least 1-2 non conf. games for in-state rivalries, etc.
3) # of teams -- as also mentioned above...what playoff system do you go to? 8 team? 16? 32? CFB is ALWAYS going to have this issue, because there are ALWAYS going to be fringe teams...if you have 16, you have an argument on who the 17th best team is and why the 16th best team was better...so by having a playoff system everyone thinks its going to end the argument...on who should play where...it's not..
4) Logistics --- this, imo, is the biggest problem, and probably WHY there won't ever be a playoff...fan bases can usually afford to take a vacation to FL to see a bowl game....but travel to 3 playoff games? Or 4? You'll have to keep the tie-ins with the bowl locations, so you'll have to have at least 2 rounds of the playoffs be at neutral sites....I just find it hard to believe fans are going to travel one week to Pasadena to watch their team in the "Final Four" and then a week later travel to New Orleans to see the championship game
5) Sponsorships -- as mentioned previously as well, the NCAA makes a crap ton of money from these sponsors sponsoring the Bowl Games, and I guess if they want to sponsor playoff rounds, that would work, but I doubt that they would do that..
6) Locations --- Bowl games are a boost to local economies, so how do you determine who gets what round of what playoffs? Obviously the champ. game location is going to see more revenue then what a Final Four location will be, or what the first round will be, so is it on a rotating basis? Is it always the same locale every year? Do cities bid on the national champ game?

I'm sure theres even more issues then what I jsut mentioned...but I've always considered it an absolute nightmare to try and make it a playoff system...I think the best thing they can do is keep the bowl system and go to a +1 system after all the bowls have been played...

robbotis wrote:

clake wrote:Too bad the sponsors will never let it happen... The NCAA makes too much money to from these stupid meaningless bowl games to let a playoff happen.

I think they'd profit more from playoff games that acually mean something, in addition to the rest of the bowls. You'd lose some bowls, but oh well. You'd make more on playoffs than you would on the PapaJohns.com Bowl.

There's 32 bowl games this year. Too many potential ticked off sponsors. I wish they could do it but I just don't see it happening. It's pathetic, isn't it? Maybe it's just getting older but it seemed like there were only a handful of bowl games when I was younger and they seemed so much more important than a crappy pizza website's bowl game...

For everyone that thinks it's a crock that Hawaii isn't ranked higher because they are undefeated. They only played two teams with a winning record this season and are in one of the weakest conferences in the country.

This is who they've played this year and that teams record.
N. Colorado 1-11
@La. Tech 5-6
@UNLV 2-10
Charleston Southern 5-6
@ Idaho 1-11
Utah St. 2-10
@ San Jose St. 5-7
New Mexico St. 4-8
Fresno St. 7-4
@ Nevada 5-6
Boise St. 10-2
Washington 4-8

Does anyone really want a team that has played these teams in a national championship game?

Hudler wrote:For everyone that thinks it's a crock that Hawaii isn't ranked higher because they are undefeated. They only played two teams with a winning record this season and are in one of the weakest conferences in the country.

This is who they've played this year and that teams record.
N. Colorado 1-11
@La. Tech 5-6
@UNLV 2-10
Charleston Southern 5-6
@ Idaho 1-11
Utah St. 2-10
@ San Jose St. 5-7
New Mexico St. 4-8
Fresno St. 7-4
@ Nevada 5-6
Boise St. 10-2
Washington 4-8

Does anyone really want a team that has played these teams in a national championship game?

Do you think they would make it?

Why punish them for having teams back out? Didn't they originally have Michigan State on their schedule but MSU backed out? Getting schools to come out to Hawaii must be a chore when scheduling.

Hawaii has no chance at the NC game. I would think teams would jump at the chance to escape winter for a weekend by going to Hawaii to play football,but that's just me.

Hudler wrote:Hawaii has no chance at the NC game. I would think teams would jump at the chance to escape winter for a weekend by going to Hawaii to play football,but that's just me.

Winter has barely started and the college football season is pretty much over. Anyway, as a general rule, aren't most non-conference games scheduled towards the beginning of the season?

It was Michigan that was supposed to play Hawaii, but they backed out to play Appalachian State.

I wouldn't mind that 16-team playoff. Gant is right in saying that it would be a logistical nightmare. I think it'd be a nightmare to have UCF, Central Michigan and Troy in a playoff.

GatewaySnayke wrote:It was Michigan that was supposed to play Hawaii, but they backed out to play Appalachian State.

I wouldn't mind that 16-team playoff. Gant is right in saying that it would be a logistical nightmare. I think it'd be a nightmare to have UCF, Central Michigan and Troy in a playoff.

It was Michigan State:

http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf ... awaii.html

MSU could have played Hawaii
by Steve Grinczel
Monday November 19, 2007, 12:59 AM


EAST LANSING -- It may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but Michigan State gave up an opportunity to enhance its bowl standing when it backed out of the game it was supposed to play at Hawaii.

The Spartans qualified for a bowl with Saturday's 35-31 come-from-behind victory against Penn State. Its regular season finished, MSU must now wait for games in the coming weeks to be played before it knows its postseason fate.

If the selection process was being carried out today, the Insight Bowl, played on Dec. 31 in Tempe, Ariz., would get the first pick of the Big Ten's three 7-5 finishers -- Michigan State, Indiana and Purdue, according to Motor City Bowl executive director Ken Hoffman.

And, Hoffman's bowl, played in Detroit on Dec. 26, would choose next.

Ohio State, at 11-1, currently is positioned to get the BCS' automatic bid to the Rose Bowl.

But things could change dramatically if 9-3 Illinois, which currently is slated for the Capital One Bowl, were to move up in the BCS rankings at get selected for a BCS at-large berth by, say, the Sugar Bowl.

That won't happen, however, if undefeated Hawaii moves into the BCS' Top 12 because it would probably take an at-large bid away from the Big Ten, Hoffman said.

Michigan State could have stopped that from occurring by beating the Warriors in the game that was scheduled to be played in a couple weeks. With a victory, and with Illinois moving to the BCS, MSU could have been in line for the Champs Sports Bowl.

But, MSU unwittingly took destiny out of its own hands by paying $250,000 to get out of its contract and a trip to Honolulu, where it lost in miserable fashion in 2005.

GatewaySnayke wrote:It was Michigan that was supposed to play Hawaii, but they backed out to play Appalachian State.

I wouldn't mind that 16-team playoff. Gant is right in saying that it would be a logistical nightmare. I think it'd be a nightmare to have UCF, Central Michigan and Troy in a playoff.

I believe Michigan declined the request to play Hawaii in favor or playing App State.

mikechamp wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:And it's BS that Hawaii will get no chance to play in the championship game, despite going undefeated, while two teams with at least 1 loss duke it out. How can a coach in a non-BCS conference even recruit? "Hey, come play for us. You'll never have a chance to win a title because of the conference we're in, but you can't beat the Boise weather in the fall."
--P--

I'm no college football fanatic. I typically don't pay much attention until Thanksgiving (baseball plus mourning period delays my interest). But, for me, this might be my biggest beef about college football to date. How can Hawai'i be ranked lower than a 3-loss team (Florida)??? Weaker schedule or not, it makes no sense to me when both teams play D1-A teams. What is Hawai'i supposed to do, move? Or join the Big 10 or Big 12 or some other "BCS" conference? Neither are practical, so why penalize them for where they are located and who they have to play? If Hawaii and Florida played who do you think would win? SO why shouldn't Florida be ranked higher?

I might become Hawai'i's biggest temporary fan over these next 5 weeks.

It's hardly BS that Hawaii won't get a chance to play in a NC game. If every team is one loss, how do you judge who's best? You look at how strong their opponents are. If Notre Dame or Navy played 12 Cupcakes and got a shot at the National Title you'd all be up in arms...yet your advocating the same thing for Hawaii?? If Hawaii wanted a real shot at a National Title they could try and schedule 3 teams tougher than (1 - 11) N. Colorado, (2-10) UNLV, (4-8) Washington. Sure they probably can't wont and shouldn't schedule 3 games at LSU, at Ohio State and at USC. But you can do better than those three.

I think the easiest improvement is in the human polls. Why don't writers vote for the team they think is best? Everyone always says something like 'I think LSU is the best school in the country', then why are they ranked below 1? When Ohio State is the only unbeaten (who played a respectable schedule) they looked like the best team int he country - and when they lost they didn't. Win's and Losses still help you, but just because another team in front of you wins doesn't mean you should always move up or a loss doesn't mean you should always move down. Then a team like LSU or Kansas etc aren't punished for losing 1 game because of when it happens. Michigan would be less hurt by a loss to App State to start the seasona nd winning out than Kansas losing one game to a #4 (then becoming #1) opponent with the current way.