The Territory: Forums: Message

The Porch

Reply To Message | Edit Message | Return to Index | Search

Kenny
	Subject	The playoff games would be played...
	Posted on	12-04-2006 13:23
	From	[IP Logged]

in December, even if they are done with the existing bowl structure. The bowls that serve as hosts for the earlier round playoff games would just have to move their dates to earlier in the year. So your first point is solved. This wouldn't be a spur of the moment thing where the bowls would have to adjust on the fly without a plan in place. The bowls that would participate in the playoff system would have themselves slotted in that role in advance with this system, and they would merely have to have a plan B in place for if they are not needed in the playoff structure in any given year due to a lesser number of teams qualifying. They'd just go into it with two possible scenarios and on the day the bracket is revealed, they know which one they'd have to go with. You'd also have bowls on standby with a plan B situation for years where more teams than usual qualify for the playoff.

As for the second point, what do you think would be better, playing the playoff games in bowl games? Or keeping the bowl games, but setting aside the playoffs from them. Note that under my system, *most* seasons will produce no more than 2 to 8 qualifiers, with an average year being 3 to 6 IMO. So is it a horrible thing for the bowl roster to be without those teams to where it will be OK to play those games at the home stadiums of the teams involved? Or would it be best to keep those teams within the bowl structure?

On that one, I think I lean towards setting aside the playoffs and keeping the bowls as they are. Yeah, the bowls would be relegated to NIT status by doing it that way, but with the exception of the title game, they are already in that same position. And now that the title game has been set aside from the traditional bowl in that same location, that's already happened for all the bowls now.

So looking at it that way, what is being considered is the tradeoff between having the top 2-8 teams in bowl games and asking those teams fans to travel to multiple away dates on their road to the title game or damaging the bowl system by depriving them of those teams. I think we'd be better off playing those games at the home sites of the higher seeded teams and just having the bowls do without those 2-8 teams. They are already doing without the top 2 teams now. Adding the small number of additional teams each year that earn their way to a playoff wouldn't be that much more of a detriment to the bowls. They'd still be able to matchup some conference champions that don't qualify for the playoff (teams like Oklahoma, USC, etc, from this season would still be available to them) and the matter of forcing fans of the playoff teams to travel too much would be solved.

Actually, light bulb just went on. You could still keep the bowls as they are and separate the playoffs from them because there's nothing to say that a team that loses in round one of the playoff, for example, can't still go to a bowl game afterwards. Actually that would be better because they'd be deprived of the fun bowl experience and would just be playing home/road games in the playoffs. The existing bowls could still draw from the losing pool of playoff teams. Granted they'd have to set up their matchup as TBA until after it is determined which losing playoff teams are available for them, and I could see that being a logistical problem, but if they are strongly concerned about the quality of matchup they would get with a playoff system drawing away the upper tier teams, they could still get those teams in their matchups if they really want to. It would require more effort on their part though, but they'd have to decide if that is an effort and price worth paying to get the more marquee matchup.

This message was edited by the author on 2006-12-04 13:26:22.

Messages In This Thread