Should the committee take into consideration location of semi-final?

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Think about it: Lets say for arguments sake the top 4 ranked teams are Duke, Tennessee, Indiana, and Georgia. In 2014, the semis will be held at the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl. Are we really going to ask Duke fans to travel from North Carolina to California? If they decide that #1 and #4 play in the Sugar, and the #2 and #3 play in the Rose, you still would have to ask Volunteer fans to travel from Tennessee to California. Is this really economically smart?

Also, why should Duke and Georgia play on neutral grounds? Duke was seen as the better team.

 

[4down20]

Getting fans to travel for top bowl games has never been an issue, and it won't be an issue for playoff games either.

Duke might have some trouble I guess, but not because of distance, but because of fanbase size. Hell we played them a few years ago in their stadium and Alabama had way more fans than they did.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Getting fans to travel for top bowl games has never been an issue, and it won't be an issue for playoff games either.

Duke might have some trouble I guess, but not because of distance, but because of fanbase size. Hell we played them a few years ago in their stadium and Alabama had way more fans than they did.

Does UCF last season ring a bell? Virginia Tech had problems selling out for the Sugar Bowl against Michigan. BCS games don't even sell out, nix the Rose and National Championship game.

 

[4down20]

Does UCF last season ring a bell? Virginia Tech had problems selling out for the Sugar Bowl against Michigan. BCS games don't even sell out, nix the Rose and National Championship game.

The Sugar Bowl is close to VT, so maybe location wasn't the issue?

And UCF couldn't sell out?

 

[BoiseStateFan27]

If Tennessee was in the playoff they definitely would get a lot of fans anywhere.

I don't think we have to worry about UCF or Duke making the playoff.

 

[Camfantasy]

Does UCF last season ring a bell? Virginia Tech had problems selling out for the Sugar Bowl against Michigan. BCS games don't even sell out, nix the Rose and National Championship game.

"On the athletic department’s weekly radio show, Tech Talk Live, athletic director Jim Weaver said the school had sold more than 9,500 tickets as of Monday night. He conceded that the secondary market was making the sale of tickets more difficult — the lowest face value of a Sugar Bowl ticket the school can sell is $120, but tickets were going for as low as $50 on StubHub on Tuesday morning. Weaver also mentioned that the game is on a weekday, raising airfare costs and the bad economy as reasons why sales haven’t been as strong as expected."

 

[HuskerOC]

Getting fans to travel for top bowl games has never been an issue, and it won't be an issue for playoff games either.

Duke might have some trouble I guess, but not because of distance, but because of fanbase size. Hell we played them a few years ago in their stadium and Alabama had way more fans than they did.

The more expansion we do to the playoffs the less fans of teams will attend each game.

Right now, we already have a Conference Championship game and a Bowl Game for the top schools.

With the new 4 team playoff, that adds a 3rd game of travel for fans within a month and a half time frame.

We expand to an 8 team playoff, and that is 4 weeks within a 2 month time frame including possibly back-to-back-to-back weeks. Even if you bridge in an off week between games, how many people are going to go to 2 of those 4 games, much less 3 or 4. Hell, the 2 that people attend now with a CCG and Bowl Game has made many a fan make a stand to only attend one of those games.

Not many families can afford, much less get off of work, to travel 2 weeks in a month much less 4 weeks in 2 months.

The other scenario would be to have teams host games in 1st and maybe even 2nd round games if the playoffs expand. Not a big fan of that scenario. Too big of an advantage, and teams don't play enough games amongst each other to truly differentiate the "more deserving" team like we have in the NFL. We would be giving a 1 or 2 loss team a supreme TD or more advantage over another 1 or 2 loss team because of some ridiculous seeding system and/or perception of which team was better.

This isn't difficult.

4 teams. 5 power conferences. Pick the 4 best Champs. 1 team is butthurt, the rest move on. And in the instance in which a non-AQ conference team has earned its way in, then there will be 2 butthurt conference champs. Big deal. Win all your games, or at the very least don't lose 2 which is how that scenario would likely come about.

In the end if you can't win your conference? Then STFU. And if you win a conference and have 2 or more losses, then you didn't deserve a shot anyway.

 

[Codaxx]

Does UCF last season ring a bell? Virginia Tech had problems selling out for the Sugar Bowl against Michigan. BCS games don't even sell out, nix the Rose and National Championship game.

I think playoffs are different. Bowls are garbage. Playoffs are a path to a national title. I think they will sell out. I actually think corporate America will buy tons of tickets.

 

[4down20]

The more expansion we do to the playoffs the less fans of teams will attend each game.

Right now, we already have a Conference Championship game and a Bowl Game for the top schools.

With the new 4 team playoff, that adds a 3rd game of travel for fans within a month and a half time frame.

We expand to an 8 team playoff, and that is 4 weeks within a 2 month time frame including possibly back-to-back-to-back weeks. Even if you bridge in an off week between games, how many people are going to go to 2 of those 4 games, much less 3 or 4. Hell, the 2 that people attend now with a CCG and Bowl Game has made many a fan make a stand to only attend one of those games.

Not many families can afford, much less get off of work, to travel 2 weeks in a month much less 4 weeks in 2 months.

The other scenario would be to have teams host games in 1st and maybe even 2nd round games if the playoffs expand. Not a big fan of that scenario. Too big of an advantage, and teams don't play enough games amongst each other to truly differentiate the "more deserving" team like we have in the NFL. We would be giving a 1 or 2 loss team a supreme TD or more advantage over another 1 or 2 loss team because of some ridiculous seeding system and/or perception of which team was better.

This isn't difficult.

4 teams. 5 power conferences. Pick the 4 best Champs. 1 team is butthurt, the rest move on. And in the instance in which a non-AQ conference team has earned its way in, then there will be 2 butthurt conference champs. Big deal. Win all your games, or at the very least don't lose 2 which is how that scenario would likely come about.

In the end if you can't win your conference? Then STFU. And if you win a conference and have 2 or more losses, then you didn't deserve a shot anyway.

Conference champions means nothing, you take the best teams. Most often times that will include conference champions, but if the conferences champions don't fall in the category of being among the best teams, tough. Lets just get that out of the way right now.

I don't disagree that more games dilutes the value. But considering the prices that seats for the National Championship games are going for, I don't think there is going to be any problem for the teams.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Conference champions means nothing, you take the best teams.

What does the term "best team" mean? Is it the team which can't lose? Is it the team which would win a best-of-three tournament style playoff? If you can't define what it means ahead of time, then it is pure opinion.

Winning your conference means something, sir. It's a distinct and objective achievement. It means you conquered your conference's obstacle course. Virtually all team sports give conference champions a leg-up in the competition and preferential treatment. Most of the time, you can't control who you play within your conference.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

I think playoffs are different. Bowls are garbage. Playoffs are a path to a national title. I think they will sell out. I actually think corporate America will buy tons of tickets.

Good argument. Bowl games have always been consolation prize games and apologies for not getting picked to play in the National Championship game.

I going to make the assumption that the Semi-finals and National Championship are going to be like the Super Bowl, and will be sold to people who are not affiliated with the teams involved.

 

[HuskerOC]

Conference champions means nothing, you take the best teams. Most often times that will include conference champions, but if the conferences champions don't fall in the category of being among the best teams, tough. Lets just get that out of the way right now.

I don't disagree that more games dilutes the value. But considering the prices that seats for the National Championship games are going for, I don't think there is going to be any problem for the teams.

Spoken like a true Crimson Tide fan.

Conference Champions means nothing?

Sure, I guess if you can get voted in over a Conference Champion from another conference I'd probably have that opinion. But that is just an opinion. Opinions of who should move on to win a championship should be minimized as much as possible. Who cares about the potential of a team, lets reward the teams that actually get it done on the field of play and have earned the right to play for a championship.

I mean, if you can't score more than 6 points in a home game against your biggest opponent of the year; a game that decided the champion of your 6 team division of a 2 division conference; then what the fuck is the point of playing any regular season game to decide who does or does not belong?

Win your conference. That is a defined and realizable goal for each and every team. If you can't win your regional championship then you have no business playing for a national championship. There is no hidden agenda, there is nothing that should keep any team away from making that happen. Either you do or you don't. If you don't, then you don't belong in the next round. Pretty simple.

 

[4down20]

What does the term "best team" mean? Is it the team which can't lose? Is it the team which would win a best-of-three tournament style playoff? If you can't define what it means ahead of time, then it is pure opinion.

Winning your conference means something, sir. It's a distinct and objective achievement. It means you conquered your conference's obstacle course. Virtually all team sports give conference champions a leg-up in the competition and preferential treatment. Most of the time, you can't control who you play within your conference.

Winning your conference means shit because not all conferences are equal. It becomes especially true when a team is on a bowl ban like Ohio St was recently in the Big10. Telling me 8-5 Wisconsin deserved to be in the national championship picture because they won the Big10 and that it's some kind of qualifying feature makes me roll my eyes. And btw, if Nebraska had won, 10-3 Nebraska wouldn't have been much more.

Being in a strong conference becomes bad for teams if that happens. In 1 thread you are talking about how important SoS is, and then the next you are wanting to completely get rid of it? Because taking conference champions does that.

And with no SoS being a factor, we can pretty much kiss any cross conference games during the regular season.

Why don't you just say "I want college football to be the NFL", because that's all this really is.

What determines the best teams? The same way we do now. Please go back in history and show me where a team that didn't finish in the top 4 rankings should have been considered for a national championship chance. Like it or not, 4 team play off meets that goal because hell it was only every now and then that 2 teams didn't cover it(such as 2011 as discussed in the other thread). People want conference champions and more teams because they want handouts for their teams. Screw that.

 

[4down20]

Spoken like a true Crimson Tide fan.

Conference Champions means nothing?

Sure, I guess if you can get voted in over a Conference Champion from another conference I'd probably have that opinion. But that is just an opinion. Opinions of who should move on to win a championship should be minimized as much as possible. Who cares about the potential of a team, lets reward the teams that actually get it done on the field of play and have earned the right to play for a championship.

I mean, if you can't score more than 6 points in a home game against your biggest opponent of the year; a game that decided the champion of your 6 team division of a 2 division conference; then what the fuck is the point of playing any regular season game to decide who does or does not belong?

Win your conference. That is a defined and realizable goal for each and every team. If you can't win your regional championship then you have no business playing for a national championship. There is no hidden agenda, there is nothing that should keep any team away from making that happen. Either you do or you don't. If you don't, then you don't belong in the next round. Pretty simple.

Right, Alabama in 2011 didn't deserve to go because they weren't conference champions, but 8-5 Wisconsin did in 2012 because they were?

Win your conference? Play in one that is worth a shit first. Alabama didn't win the SEC in 2011, but it wouldn't have had any problem winning the Big10 conference. Which goes to highlight why "conference champions" is crap.

If you take the 4 best teams, then it's covered. If you can't be among the 4 best teams while winning your conference, then you conference championship isn't worth shit apparently.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Spoken like a true Crimson Tide fan.

Conference Champions means nothing?

Agreed. I think it is pivotal for college football to reserve its top 4 teams to conference champions or undefeated Independents. It does the following things:

1. Puts high emphasis on winning your conference or completing your obstacle course.
2. Prevents teams from winning by losing. Too often we see teams avoiding upper crust competition within their own conference simply because they lost their division. See Alabama in 2011 and Oregon in 2012.
3. Cuts down on the gray area. College football has too many great teams within the top 16 for us to pick an at-large opponent. Putting emphasis on conference champions, means we look at the big 5 conference champions and undefeated minor conference champions and Independents.
4. Gets us a chance to see cross-conference competition. Every conference plays a different style of ball, and it's more exciting to see how different styles match-up against each other.
5. Revenue sharing. Duplicate playoff entries means, one conference takes most of the playoff revenue. This will only cause major controversy.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Right, Alabama in 2011 didn't deserve to go because they weren't conference champions, but 8-5 Wisconsin did in 2012 because they were?

Strawman argument alert. We're only picking 4 teams.

In 2012, the final four would have been (or mostly likely): Notre Dame, Alabama, Kansas State, and Stanford. Wisconsin would have never been in the conversation.

 

[4down20]

Strawman argument alert. We're only picking 4 teams.

In 2012, the final four would have been (or mostly likely): Notre Dame, Alabama, Kansas State, and Stanford. Wisconsin would have never been in the conversation.

They won their conference.

Does that mean Notre Dame gets in every year? Or only when....they are among the 4 best teams?

 

[HuskerOC]

Right, Alabama in 2011 didn't deserve to go because they weren't conference champions, but 8-5 Wisconsin did in 2012 because they were?

Win your conference? Play in one that is worth a shit first. Alabama didn't win the SEC in 2011, but it wouldn't have had any problem winning the Big10 conference. Which goes to highlight why "conference champions" is crap.

If you take the 4 best teams, then it's covered. If you can't be among the 4 best teams while winning your conference, then you conference championship isn't worth shit apparently.

Wisconsin wouldn't have been one of the 4 teams in 2012. That would have easily been Alabama, Notre Dame, Stanford, and Kansas State. An undefeated non-AQ team and the 3 best conference champions from the AQ conferences. It isn't that difficult to understand.

But for some, special treatment must be given, right? Because they are better than everybody else. Just like Alabama was better than Utah in 2008, or La-Monroe in 2007, or Oklahoma in 2013, or Auburn in 2013, or LSU at home in 2011, or Southern Mississippi in 1989 and so on and so on.

What is the point of even playing games if teams get beat and still get rewarded?

Win your fucking conference. Period. End of story. Who gives a fuck about polls and opinions and I think this team is better even though they lost to team X bullshit. I still think Alabama was a much better football team than Oklahoma last year, but you didn't prove it on the field. Show up and win or STFU.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

They won their conference.

Does that mean Notre Dame gets in every year? Or only when....they are among the 4 best teams?

Please don't act ignorant. The argument presented was that the 4 team playoff should be reserved for conference champions or undefeated Notre Dame. Basically you have to run the table or win your conference in order to be eligible. If a team, regardless of conference, produces a poor winning percentages or plays nobody, they are unlikely to be selected or considered for the playoffs.

It's pure strawman to use Wisconsin in 2012 as a counterpoint.

 

[4down20]

Agreed. I think it is pivotal for college football to reserve its top 4 teams to conference champions or undefeated Independents. It does the following things:

1. Puts high emphasis on winning your conference or completing your obstacle course.

Even though the obstacle course isn't equal and teams 2nd or 3rd in a conference could likely finish the other teams obstacle course better.

2. Prevents teams from winning by losing. Too often we see teams avoiding upper crust competition within their own conference simply because they lost their division. See Alabama in 2011 and Oregon in 2012.

Yes, like in 2011 where because Alabama lost to the #1 team and a team that was competing for the conference championship couldn't go, but Oklahoma St losing to a worse team that didn't affect the conference championship could go. So, if you are going to lose, make sure it's to a horrible team, not a good one?

And I find it funny you mention avoiding upper teams. Because your 1. is saying they should just play the course laid for them, and conferences, not individual teams, set their schedule. In 2011, Alabama didn't play those teams because they weren't in rotation outside the SECCG. Just the way it goes.

3. Cuts down on the gray area. College football has too many great teams within the top 16 for us to pick an at-large opponent. Putting emphasis on conference champions, means we look at the big 5 conference champions and undefeated minor conference champions and Independents.

How does taking teams less deserving than others cut down on the grey area? So, in 2012 you think 8-5 Wisconsin should have gone to the playoffs instead of say Oregon?

4. Gets us a chance to see cross-conference competition. Every conference plays a different style of ball, and it's more exciting to see how different styles match-up against each other.

Ummm, actually it reduces it. Because there is no reason to play such games in the regular season as SoS becomes 100% meaningless. And they already play each other in bowl games at the end of the year.

5. Revenue sharing. Duplicate playoff entries means, one conference takes most of the playoff revenue. This will only cause major controversy.

I hate to break it to you, but the value and money of these games means almost nothing to the teams/conferences. These bowl games make only a small % of the yearly revenue and many teams lose money by going to post season games. They still go because of the benefits outside revenue, such as more national exposure for recruiting, and more practice time with players because the amount of practice a team can have is limited for safety reasons.

People who don't know the game that well are the ones who think these games are huge paydays for teams.