|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Video Plus Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities 
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
Building a playoff system With any plan, there are wrinkles to be ironed out
Updated: Thursday December 28, 2000 12:41 PM
By John Donovan, CNNSI.com College football fans moan, they scream, they plead for a national championship game. And then there are Washington fans. Hoooo, boy. You haven't heard screaming and moaning 'til you've heard from a few huffy Huskies fans. The mythical college football championship -- and, let's face it, it's going to be mythical for the foreseeable future -- has been on the minds and lips of fans for decades. Every year at this time, the college football anarchists hit the airwaves and the e-mail to tell anyone who will listen how to make a better college postseason.
The folks running the show like it just fine the way it is. "Do you really ever have a flat-out, definitive champion in anything you do?" asks Roy Kramer, the Southeastern Conference commissioner and a co-founder of the Bowl Championship Series, the current means of determining who plays for the college football national title. "However you decide it, there's going to be a certain degree of [chance, luck, you name it] in the process. "There's always an argument for that settlement, on the field. But we have to be careful not to lose what we have." Yes, college football's Pooh-Bahs all love college football just the way it is. A little tweaking of the BCS may be in order, Kramer says, but the system has worked out just fine so far. Still, people scream. They want a playoff. They have their ideas. Guys like Kramer hear them all the time. More than 20,000 votes were cast in a recent CNNSI.com survey, in fact, in which users spelled out exactly what they wanted. But, as the good commissioner notes, there are wrinkles that need to be ironed out in every playoff plan with any merit.
1. Use them as part of the playoffs. The pros: You keep the bowls relevant. You get your single national champ. Nirvana to some. (In fact, about 54 percent of CNNSI.com users wanted all the playoff games, including the title game, to be bowl games.) The cons: Even if it's a mini-playoff -- say four or eight teams -- it wouldn't be the same old bowl look. The bowls would become stepping stones, not destinations. So forget the week of activities leading to the games. It'd be tough on fans, too, who'd have to be rich or have some major frequent flier mileage to get to two or three games. And schoolwork would be tough to squeeze in for the players as well. The word: "If the goal is to have a playoff, for whatever reason, then certainly I think at some point you can put together a coalition of bowls that would make sense for a playoff system," says Gary Stokan, president of the Peach Bowl. "[But] you'd further separate more bowls from the rest of the bowls. You'd further lose the impact of some of those bowls." And this, from Pac-10 commissioner Thomas Hansen: "The bowls are the opposite of the playoff. The bowl experience is going to a site and being entertained and enjoying the locale and the local sights and customs and all and really having a great time. A playoff situation ... the visitor would fly in the night before and fly out the night after. It would be a totally and completely different situation. I don't think it would be nearly as rewarding and entertaining for the players." 2. Use the bowls as consolation prizes. The pros: In this scheme, teams selected for the playoffs are not eligible for the bowls. A playoff can be played any way, and in some plans, any time -- perhaps during bowl season, perhaps directly after. You still get your single champ. (About 21 percent of CNNSI.com users said bowls should be a consolation for those teams that didn't make the playoffs.) The cons: The bowls are reduced to immediate second-class citizens to the new playoff -- something few in college football would stand for. The word: "No question that the bowl structure is significantly important for the entire structure of college football to work," Kramer says. "It's the backbone ... to have something to play for, to have some motivation ... it's what keeps [smaller] programs alive and well and healthy."
1. Play a limited one in mid- to late-December, after the regular season. The pros: It's a traditionally quiet time in college football and the NFL playoffs haven't kicked in, so there's little competition there. Everything could be wrapped up by the time the bowls are traditionally done or shortly thereafter. (About 30 percent of those who took the CNNSI.com survey chose this option. About 65 percent said it was OK to drag it into mid January, as long as it was done before the Super Bowl.) The cons: If the bowls are part of it, some would have to be moved up from their traditional dates. The NFL regular season is a formidable TV ratings opponent. It's exam time for many schools. Fans may not want to travel during the holiday season. It would have to be a limited playoff.
2. Play it after the bowls. The pros: It would put a perfect cap on the college football season. The bowls would not compete with a playoff. Depending on the size, it could be wrapped up fairly quickly. The cons: Still runs up against the NFL for TV ratings. It extends what some call an already too-long season, burdening student-athletes. Adds games to long football schedules, possibly risking injuries to players.
1. Everybody. The pros: How utterly democratic. The cons: How utterly impossible. No one really thinks this will work. 2. Lesser numbers. The pros: It's the only way it will work. Most people think a 16-team playoff might be too large (though that's the choice of about 40 percent of CNNSI.com survey takers). Eight (the choice of 43 percent), probably four (about 10 percent) is more like it. The cons: Someone, somehow, gets left out. And you could argue the real championship is not valid if everyone doesn't have a shot. The word: "If you pick two teams, the third team is upset. If you pick four, the fifth team is upset," Florida State coach Bobby Bowden said a couple weeks ago. "If you pick 16, you would have a legitimate gripe from No. 17."
1. Some sort of established rankings, like the AP poll, the coaches poll or the current BCS rankings. (About 40 percent of the CNNSI.com survey takers said something like the current BCS computer rankings should be used.) The pros: You know who to blame. And, in the case of the BCS, it's a computer, mainly. The cons: There's always a chance some deserving team will be left out. 2. A know-it-all panel would pick and seed the teams. The pros: You know who to blame. And you know where they work. (This was the choice of about 51 percent of CNNSI.com users.) The cons: There's always a chance some deserving team will be left out. There are other issues, too, in this bid to build a playoff. Many of them. Would conference championships matter (39 percent of CNNSI.com users say no)? Doesn't the whole idea lessen the importance of the regular season? Is college football, like many university presidents seem to believe, too big for its britches already? Maybe most importantly: Who will control this thing? Who gets the money? Who gets rich? And does any of this matter, considering the BCS is with us, because of TV contracts, until at least 2006? We'll give the last word on our quest to find a definitive college football national champion to commissioner Hansen of the Pac-10. "That's what we try to do with the BCS," Hansen says. "This year there's some debate. But the other two years it was pretty clear. I don't know what more closure we need."
We seed the 2000 playoffs, you figure out the first-round winners.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
