Neutral Site Four Team Playoff Gaining Traction

[SWVAHusker]

It appears the BCS conference commissioners are headed towards finalizing a 4-team neutral site playoff. The semifinals would be played on New Year's Day with the championship game a week later.

As PimpMario said in his thread, despite what's coming out of the PAC-12 and B1G offices the BCS conference commissioners overall are willing to "screw the Rose Bowl" and not allow it to host a national semifinal game if it does not give up the traditional Big 10/Pac-12 tie-in.

The idea of on-campus semifinal games is dead because of logistical problems and I have to say I agree with it. Imagine going to TCU in a national semifinal game with only 45,000 seats. The ESPN article also makes the point that many cities don't have enough hotel rooms to host a big game like that. They use Portland, Ann Arbor Tuscaloosa and Lincoln as examples.

Lastly, what was nicknamed the "Nebraska rule" the last time they tried this and got nicknamed the "Alabama rule" this time, a rule requiring teams to win their conference to get in to the playoff is pretty much dead.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...playoff-format

[Porkchopexpress]

I'm all for a playoff, but I do not understand waiting a month to play the semi's, then playing the national title game a week later. There's a reason why the Super Bowl is played 2 weeks after the conference title games.

[SWVAHusker]

I'm all for a playoff, but I do not understand waiting a month to play the semi's, then playing the national title game a week later. There's a reason why the Super Bowl is played 2 weeks after the conference title games.

The same reason why most bowls are at least a few weeks after both teams play their last regular season games. Coaches love the fact that the bowl practices are basically an early spring practice. Osborne in particular loved them regardless which bowl Nebraska played in.

As for the Super Bowl, the reason it's played two weeks later is to give the NFL time to build up the hype machine. Plus now that week is reserved for the Pro Bowl in an effort to generate interest in that worthless game.

[bilsker]

As PimpMario said in his thread, despite what's coming out of the PAC-12 and B1G offices the BCS conference commissioners overall are willing to "screw the Rose Bowl" and not allow it to host a national semifinal game if it does not give up the traditional Big 10/Pac-12 tie-in.

The big 10 and pac 12 deserved to get screwed if they don't play ball.

The idea of on-campus semifinal games is dead because of logistical problems and I have to say I agree with it. Imagine going to TCU in a national semifinal game with only 45,000 seats. The ESPN article also makes the point that many cities don't have enough hotel rooms to host a big game like that. They use Portland, Ann Arbor Tuscaloosa and Lincoln as examples.

I prefer home sites until a title game...but will certainly live with whatever. Once they get to 8 teams...and they will...they will have to move to campus sites. The hotel think makes absolutely no sense. We are not talking about NCAA bball tourney where 8 teams and their fans descend on one city all at once. We are talking about Lincoln (if NU were to host a game) doing what it does 6-7 times every year: Host a football game attended almost exclusively by the home fans. If it has enough hotels to host Wisconsin in October it has enough to host Oregon in December. A bogus excuse to appease the "bowl" committees. Also, 4-5 weeks off at the end of the season is still an idiotic way to name a champion. Baby steps I guess.

Lastly, what was nicknamed the "Nebraska rule" the last time they tried this and got nicknamed the "Alabama rule" this time, a rule requiring teams to win their conference to get in to the playoff is pretty much dead.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...playoff-format

Excellent rule. In a limited field like 4 there's no way you should be in the playoffs if you don't win your conference. Despite what the "no playoffs ever" rubes say this WILL make the whole season a playoff.

[bilsker]

"What happens if TCU finishes No. 2 in the country and hosts a semifinal game?" the source said. "TCU finished No. 3 two years ago. Are they really hosting No. 3 Ohio State in a 45,000-seat stadium? Where are people going to stay if Oregon hosts a semifinal game? In Portland? As much as it would be great for the sport to see a game played in Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuscaloosa, Ala., or Lincoln, Neb., some of the logistical issues are just too severe. I think that idea has come home to roost as far as these guys are concerned."

It's really unfortunate that the bowl morons are still going to drive the bus. Who cares if Ohio State has to play at TCU? Oh...wait...the bowls still want to get their grubby little fingers in the cookie jar. Where would people stay if Oregon hosts a semifinal game? The same damn place they stay when they play their other home games. Are people stupid enough to buy that reasoning? I'd have more respect for them if they'd just say the real reason.

[SWVAHusker]

I prefer home sites until a title game...but will certainly live with whatever. Once they get to 8 teams...and they will...they will have to move to campus sites. The hotel think makes absolutely no sense. We are not talking about NCAA bball tourney where 8 teams and their fans descend on one city all at once. We are talking about Lincoln (if NU were to host a game) doing what it does 6-7 times every year: Host a football game attended almost exclusively by the home fans. If it has enough hotels to host Wisconsin in October it has enough to host Oregon in December. A bogus excuse to appease the "bowl" committees. Also, 4-5 weeks off at the end of the season is still an idiotic way to name a champion. Baby steps I guess.

I agree that it's not like the NCAA men's bball tournament because there's only two teams involved but I disagree that it would be just like a Nebraska home game. First, I think what's going to happen with each playoff game even if/when they get to campus sites is that the tickets will be split 50/50 between each team, the opposing team won't just get an allotment. Instead of each individual school being in charge of the ticket distribution the BCS would have to have rules on such things. I wouldn't be surprised if a dispute about ticket allotment is one of the reasons the BCS schools won't go to campus sites immediately. I'm sure there's a large segment of schools objecting to four schools getting to play additional home games because of the additional revenue involved. I can't see the BCS schools ever agreeing to a format like the NFL where the home team gets 99% of the crowd and all that additional revenue.

If each school got a 50/50 allotment instead of a few thousand Wisconsin fans coming to Lincoln you'd get, potentially, 30,000-40,000. Does Lincoln have enough hotel rooms to accommodate that kind of crowd?

Excellent rule. In a limited field like 4 there's no way you should be in the playoffs if you don't win your conference. Despite what the "no playoffs ever" rubes say this WILL make the whole season a playoff.

This rule isn't going to pass now and will never happen. It's just a whole lot of whining from whatever conference is mad in a given year. Reason? It can potentially disadvantage every BCS school and conference in the country and once cooler heads prevail everybody realizes it. That's why the rule didn't pass when Nebraska got in to the NC game after the Disaster in Boulder. Osborne hated the idea of CCG because they can potentially knock out a conference's NC game participant. The only reason CCG exist is because they make so much money for each conference, this rule would cost conferences money, not make them money.

[bilsker]

I agree that it's not like the NCAA men's bball tournament because there's only two teams involved but I disagree that it would be just like a Nebraska home game. First, I think what's going to happen with each playoff game even if/when they get to campus sites is that the tickets will be split 50/50 between each team, the opposing team won't just get an allotment. Instead of each individual school being in charge of the ticket distribution the BCS would have to have rules on such things. I wouldn't be surprised if a dispute about ticket allotment is one of the reasons the BCS schools won't go to campus sites immediately. I'm sure there's a large segment of schools objecting to four schools getting to play additional home games because of the additional revenue involved. I can't see the BCS schools ever agreeing to a format like the NFL where the home team gets 99% of the crowd and all that additional revenue.

If each school got a 50/50 allotment instead of a few thousand Wisconsin fans coming to Lincoln you'd get, potentially, 30,000-40,000. Does Lincoln have enough hotel rooms to accommodate that kind of crowd?

The idea of a 50-50 split at campus sites is moronic.

When NU hosts a super-regional in baseball do they divide the tickets evenly? I seriously doubt it. The freakin NCAA should run this. NOT the BCS.

Hopefully attendance at "neutral" site games will suck...with people waiting to see if their team makes the title game. Or the other way around...the fans of semi-final teams deciding on taking the guaranteed vacation.

It's a playoff so it's better. But the BCS running it will screw it up in all likelihood. Half empty stadiums. Teams that don't make the title game of their own conference, etc. Good christ...why can't the NCAA grow some balls and run THIS championship? They run one in every other sport. Like I said, I guess....baby steps.

[PimpMario]

I really liked the idea of semi-final games on college campuses. I really hoped the B1G could get it done. Give opposing team 50% of the tickets and if they can't fill their allotment than open it back up. Obviously most schools wouldn't buy half the tickets but they should have option (). See UCLA at Oregon for the Pac 12 Title.

[GoBigfRed]

Just fix the bowls back to pretty much what they were. Give the bowls the ability to put together the most attractive matchups outside of the championship game.

I haven't heard a compelling argument for playoffs yet. Too many teams left out, a serious cut in games that can be watched and enjoyed. Instead of a game or two or more a day over Christmas-New Years vacation, we'd have overlapped games, at best.

[Porkchopexpress]

The same reason why most bowls are at least a few weeks after both teams play their last regular season games. Coaches love the fact that the bowl practices are basically an early spring practice. Osborne in particular loved them regardless which bowl Nebraska played in.

As for the Super Bowl, the reason it's played two weeks later is to give the NFL time to build up the hype machine. Plus now that week is reserved for the Pro Bowl in an effort to generate interest in that worthless game.

The Super Bowl is also played 2 weeks after the conference championship games due to travel, players dealing with various requests that goes with making the Super Bowl (tickets, sponsorships), media requests, and yes hype. I'm guessing a true D1 college football national championship would bring with it plenty of hype, beat out only by the Super Bowl. Again, why play the semi's after a month off, but the title game a week later? How does that make any sense? It only makes sense with the BCS running the show.

[Porkchopexpress]

Just fix the bowls back to pretty much what they were. Give the bowls the ability to put together the most attractive matchups outside of the championship game.

I haven't heard a compelling argument for playoffs yet. Too many teams left out, a serious cut in games that can be watched and enjoyed. Instead of a game or two or more a day over Christmas-New Years vacation, we'd have overlapped games, at best.

1. I've always been fine with going back to the old bowl setup. It created more excitement in the bowl games, IMO.

2. There's plenty of compelling arguments. What does too many teams left out have to do with it? A playoff should be very selective. What do you mean by a cut in games? There will still be bowl games. The Rose Bowl will mean just as much as it does now, in terms of crowning a national champion, nothing.

[utsker]

should do the final four like college basketball....semis on Saturday, final on a Monday night. Nobody get's screwed since the teams are dealing with the same conditions.

[BubbaGene]

I really liked the idea of semi-final games on college campuses. I really hoped the B1G could get it done. Give opposing team 50% of the tickets and if they can't fill their allotment than open it back up. Obviously most schools wouldn't buy half the tickets but they should have option (). See UCLA at Oregon for the Pac 12 Title.

Why bother with the 50-50 split? If you earn a home playoff game, you should get most of the tickets. Does the NFL split tickets 50-50 on playoff games?

[RedRum]

The idea of on-campus semifinal games is dead because of logistical problems and I have to say I agree with it. Imagine going to TCU in a national semifinal game with only 45,000 seats. The ESPN article also makes the point that many cities don't have enough hotel rooms to host a big game like that. They use Portland, Ann Arbor Tuscaloosa and Lincoln as examples.

When you look at the real numbers, this argument makes no sense. Here is the seating capacities of the BCS stadiums:

Rose 94,118
Sugar - 76,468
Orange - 74,916
Fiesta - 63,400

and here is the BCS teams (assume they would have played home games in round 1)

Tennessee - 102,445
OSU - 102,329
Bama - 101,821
UT - 101,624
USC - 93,607
LSU - 92,542
Florida - 88,548
Auburn - 87,451
NU - 86,304
FSU - 82,300
OU - 82,112
Miami - 74,916 (orange bowl)
V-Tech - 66,233
Oregon - 53,800

So lets break down attendance each year. For the bowl scenario, we will take out the site that hosted the championship game that year and the team that hosted the prior year (you get no semi the year after you host the championship) you get the following:

98: Sugar, Orange = 151,384 VS Tenn/FSU = 184,755 = -33,371
99: Orange, Rose = 169,034 VS FSU/VT = 148,533 = +20,501
00: Rose, Fiesta = 157,518 VS FSU/OU = 164,412 = - 6,894
01: Fiesta, Sugar = 139,868 VS Mia/NU = 161,220 = -21,352
02: Sugar, Orange = 151,384 VS OSU/Mia = 177,245 = -25,861
03: Orange, Rose = 169,034 VS LSU/OU = 174,654 = - 5,620
04: Rose, Fiesta = 157,518 VS USC/OU = 175,719 = -18,201
05: Fiesta, Sugar = 139,868 VS Tex/USC = 195,231 = -55,363
06: Sugar, Orange = 151,384 VS Fl/OSU = 190,877 = -39,493
07: Orange, Rose = 169,034 VS LSU/OSU = 194,871 = -25,837
08: Rose, Fiesta = 157,518 VS FL/OU = 170,660 = -13,142
09: Fiesta, Sugar = 139,868 VS Bama/TX = 203,445 = -63,571
10: Sugar, Orange = 151,384 VS Aub/Ore = 141,235 = +10,149
11: Orange, Rose = 169,034 VS Bama/LSU = 194,363 = -25,329

Total advantage for campus games: 303,384 = 21,670 per yr = 10,335 per game

The closest thing to a TCU scenario is the low year for campus games when a 53,000 seat Oregon would have hosted and that year was still only 10,000 seats short of what BCS bowl semi would have given you. So a TCU may loose you 18k seats to the status quo. But when you look at what you have given up, Campus games would have given you a positive 18K in 9 of 14 years. And in two years campus games would have produced an extra 50,000 seats.

[Porkchopexpress]

Good numbers Red. I did notice you are using current capacity for on-campus stadiums. That could throw the numbers off a little bit. NU's capacity in 2001 was not 86,000+. Other than that, you pointed to what's the driving force behind this, money. Also, more and more college stadiums adding luxury suites, so the current bowl sites don't have that market cornered either.

[bilsker]

Good numbers Red. I did notice you are using current capacity for on-campus stadiums. That could throw the numbers off a little bit. NU's capacity in 2001 was not 86,000+. Other than that, you pointed to what's the driving force behind this, money. Also, more and more college stadiums adding luxury suites, so the current bowl sites don't have that market cornered either.

Unfortunately, what they bowls DO have is the "BCS" conferences in their pocket. They want the playoff games held in THEIR cities and stadiums...not Lincoln or Eugene or Ann Arbor.

Of course, the other problem is the SEC and ACC types want no part of playing in any kind of weather.

4 team is just a start. And they'll get away with this idiotic idea of Jan 1 semi-finals in neutral sites for now...but eventually it will grow to 8 and that will kill neutral sites until a title game.

[The Impaler]

I prefer home sites until a title game...but will certainly live with whatever. Once they get to 8 teams...and they will...they will have to move to campus sites. The hotel think makes absolutely no sense. We are not talking about NCAA bball tourney where 8 teams and their fans descend on one city all at once. We are talking about Lincoln (if NU were to host a game) doing what it does 6-7 times every year: Host a football game attended almost exclusively by the home fans. If it has enough hotels to host Wisconsin in October it has enough to host Oregon in December. A bogus excuse to appease the "bowl" committees. Also, 4-5 weeks off at the end of the season is still an idiotic way to name a champion. Baby steps I guess..

SPOT ON! Couldn't agree with this more. I think haveing potentially two games in a row that require the majority of fans to travel is ridiculous.

[The Impaler]

It's really unfortunate that the bowl morons are still going to drive the bus. Who cares if Ohio State has to play at TCU? Oh...wait...the bowls still want to get their grubby little fingers in the cookie jar. Where would people stay if Oregon hosts a semifinal game? The same damn place they stay when they play their other home games. Are people stupid enough to buy that reasoning? I'd have more respect for them if they'd just say the real reason.

Another spot on post. I am really getting sick of the bowls having their say. It's a corrupt system at this point and virtually everyone knows but insists on the "lalalalalalallala I can't hear you" response. Even those that are pro-bowl anti-playoff agree on this.

[mjw11]

The southern teams are bitching about having to potentially play in Ann Arbor in late December....boo friggen hoo

[PimpMario]

Instead of just "screw the rose bowl" how about Screw the Bowls! I would be willing to go to soldier field on January 1 for a semi-final game.