The BCS should be against the law.

[Dave Gray]

Tommy's idea also works.  ...start the playoffs in the week before at the home sites of these stadiums.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

You guys are way off. I'm not talking a championship game here. That would sell out. What I am talking is bowl games constituting a first round playoff or even second round. It is very simple to understand those games are not going to have anywhere near as much attendance. How many of you go to see random teams play? How many of you have enough money to see you team travel across the country 2-3 times to see them play? If you don't think attendance will fall off you are just looking at the small picture.

Yeah, you might be right, that is why the NCAA Basketball tournament is such a huge bust and considered the worst format in all of college sports if not all of sports in general.  Nobody would travel first to  Kansas city, than to Memphis than to Detriot just to follow Okla thru the rounds.  And minor teams like Morehead state have zero fans in the stands for the game in which everyone knows they are going to be crushed by a powerhouse like Louisville.  It is pretty clear every single March that if there is one college playoff system that is an utter disaster and need of change it is the basketball tournie.  The BCS should do absolutely nothing change their flawless system to emulate that disaster.  In fact I am a strong advocate of scraping the tournament format used by college basketball in favor of the superior bowl system.

/sarcasm off. 

[Spider-Dan]

Teams would have to play three games at different locations to be a champion by the structure of taking the top 8 teams. No one, I repeat no one on this board is going to travel to three games across the country in three weeks time without hitting the lottery. It is very unlikely anyone you know is going to be able to go to three games across the country in three weeks time. Going to one bowl game is simple. Going to three bowl games is nearly impossible.

So to clarify:

Right now, today, fans travel to one bowl game without much problem.  Attendance (particularly for top 8 teams) is not an issue.  You do not dispute this.
The championship game will be well-attended regardless of who is in it.  You do not dispute this.

As I just said, the only question is whether or not the TWO semifinal games would be well-attended.  Your claim is that these playoff semifinals simply would not generate enough interest from their respective teams' fans, and generate virtually zero interest from fans of other teams.  This is difficult to believe, to say the least.

Again, using your logic, NFL divisional and conference championship games would have almost no fans of the road team, because who can possibly be able to go to multiple games when their team is on the road?  Super Bowl crowds would be entirely team agnostic, since the fans of two teams in the Super Bowl have already exhausted their travel capabilities, right?

[Phishfan]

Yeah, you might be right, that is why the NCAA Basketball tournament is such a huge bust and considered the worst format in all of college sports if not all of sports in general.  Nobody would travel first to  Kansas city, than to Memphis than to Detriot just to follow Okla thru the rounds.  And minor teams like Morehead state have zero fans in the stands for the game in which everyone knows they are going to be crushed by a powerhouse like Louisville.  It is pretty clear every single March that if there is one college playoff system that is an utter disaster and need of change it is the basketball tournie.  The BCS should do absolutely nothing change their flawless system to emulate that disaster.  In fact I am a strong advocate of scraping the tournament format used by college basketball in favor of the superior bowl system.

/sarcasm off. 

OK and the NCAA tournament provides a person with a poackage of games covering a weekend. They don't just see one game. Please keep on track if you want but this is way out in left field. You are filling a smaller arens with fans from a number of teams. Yea I really see how that compares with a larger stadium and just two teams.

[Dave Gray]

We can argue the individual points, but here's the jist -- attendance wouldn't be a problem -- especially not more than it is now.  I'm sure that colleges would have low priced tickets with busses gassed up and ready to travel, if need be.

[Phishfan]

So to clarify:

Right now, today, fans travel to one bowl game without much problem.  Attendance (particularly for top 8 teams) is not an issue.  You do not dispute this.
The championship game will be well-attended regardless of who is in it.  You do not dispute this.

As I just said, the only question is whether or not the TWO semifinal games would be well-attended.  Your claim is that these playoff semifinals simply would not generate enough interest from their respective teams' fans, and generate virtually zero interest from fans of other teams.  This is difficult to believe, to say the least.

Again, using your logic, NFL divisional and conference championship games would have almost no fans of the road team, because who can possibly be able to go to multiple games when their team is on the road?  Super Bowl crowds would be entirely team agnostic, since the fans of two teams in the Super Bowl have already exhausted their travel capabilities, right?

My original argument is against three neutral site games. You are using an example of two neutral site games. small difference, but it may make a difference.

In tems of the NFL, yes the visiting team is usually way outnumbered. I can;t believe you would even disput that. The number of fans traveling to see the away team is significantly smaller and that is a given.

The Super Bowl. Yes I would argue that the majority of the crowd is a fan of neither team. There may be some bandwagoners involved and people pulling for one of the teams because that is human nature, but the minority of those in attendance would be actual true fans of either team.

[Phishfan]

We can argue the individual points, but here's the jist -- attendance wouldn't be a problem -- especially not more than it is now.  I'm sure that colleges would have low priced tickets with busses gassed up and ready to travel, if need be.

Upper level endzone tickets for the Orange Bowl are currently $95 dollars. You think by cutting the number of bowl games from the number there are now, to only 8 is going to lower the prioce of tickets any? You are smarter than that.

[Dave Gray]

Upper level endzone tickets for the Orange Bowl are currently $95 dollars. You think by cutting the number of bowl games from the number there are now, to only 8 is going to lower the prioce of tickets any? You are smarter than that.

I'm not suggesting that we cut down to only 8 bowl games.  Where are you getting that from?

[Phishfan]

I'm not suggesting that we cut down to only 8 bowl games.  Where are you getting that from?

I am arguing my stance with four different people and not everyone is on the same page. In order to have a college playoff the last position I was talking against was there was an 8 team playoff which is actually 7 Bowl games (Tommy's scenario actually had the first round being at home fields so there are only three bowl games). Are you suggesting that you keep more teams in the playoff? Are you suggesting you keep what would now be meaningless bowl games since only 8 teams qualify for the real playoff? It is difficult for me to know which points to argue when everyone has a different plan. Maybe attendance wouldn't be an issue with some plans. It definitely is with others. It isn't the only issue that arises from talking playoffs, but it is one.

The fact that a consensus hasn't been reached on how to develop a playoff system is actually the first issue that has to be dealt with. How do you determine who gets in? Where is the cutoff? How do you create a tie breaker?

[Spider-Dan]

My original argument is against three neutral site games. You are using an example of two neutral site games. small difference, but it may make a difference.

Your argument is against 3 neutral-site games for a specific team.  I am talking about only the second game of the 3 (the playoff semifinal, of which there will be two individual contests involving four teams).

There is no question that the first neutral-site game will be well-attended; completely meaningless bowls are well-attended now, as is.
There is no question that the national championship (the third game for a given team) will be well-attended.
The only game with potentially questionable attendance is, therefore, the second neutral-site game.

I would like you to cite an example of a national championship semifinal in football, basketball, or baseball that has attendance problems.  The very idea seems completely preposterous.  Again, using your logic, the NCAA Final Four would be held in an empty building, since none of those teams' fans can possibly travel to another game (particularly after having spent multiple days at a regional final).

In tems of the NFL, yes the visiting team is usually way outnumbered. I can;t believe you would even disput that. The number of fans traveling to see the away team is significantly smaller and that is a given.

They are outnumbered because it's already a sellout, not because they are unwilling to attend.

[Spider-Dan]

Are you suggesting you keep what would now be meaningless bowl games since only 8 teams qualify for the real playoff?

Yes.  The other bowl games would be no less meaningless than they are today.

[Dave Gray]

Are you suggesting that you keep more teams in the playoff?

No.

Are you suggesting you keep what would now be meaningless bowl games since only 8 teams qualify for the real playoff?

Yes, sort of, but I would say that the current bowl system is just as meaningless.  You have a "real playoff" system now, but only 2 teams are in it.  You'd just be expanding that field of 2 to 8.

[Phishfan]

There is no question that the first neutral-site game will be well-attended; completely meaningless bowls are well-attended now, as is.
There is no question that the national championship (the third game for a given team) will be well-attended.
The only game with potentially questionable attendance is, therefore, the second neutral-site game.

There is an exclusiveness factor here. The first game is well attended because it equates to what is only a one game scenario now. You cannot argue that the prospect of three games does not alter travel perceptions. Maybe not as many people go to game number one because of the other two games. You are looking at this like there is a vacuum or something.

[Phishfan]

They are outnumbered because it's already a sellout, not because they are unwilling to attend.

The away team has just as much opportunity on Ticketmaster as the home team. Only the season ticket holders get an early shot.

[Spider-Dan]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that number of tickets freely available to the public is NOT simply equal to stadium capacity - number of season ticket holders.