A Sensible College Football Playoff Plan Version 2.0
Fourteen months ago we proposed a sensible college football playoff plan. Since then our own views have altered a bit. Those of traditional stalwarts such as the Big Ten have changed radically. With some form of playoff all but a veritable certainty, we felt it was time for an update. Here is version 2.0 of The Duffy Plan.
Eight Teams: Dan Wetzel’s 16-team playoff is fair and equitable, a little too fair and equitable to ever happen. The four-team playoff would be an improvement and, with Jim Delany (and his eyebrows) on board, easier to approve, though it will not bring enough reform for a permanent solution. Controversies will still rage. The true financial value of a playoff won’t be realized. Eight feels like a happy medium.
An Objective Formula: Version 1.0 had a human component. Version 2.0 will not. Polls are fun discussion fodder, but we do not believe there is a human constituency with the requisite insight and objectivity to add value to a formula. The AP poll comes closest, though we are against writers making the news they cover and we cannot condone Craig James being involved.
Our formula will be clear and transparent, accounting for both schedule strength and margin of victory. The formula can be optimized to stay statistically valid, while minimizing the #beatemdown incentive. If man can split atoms and land on the moon, he can develop criteria to rank football teams accurately.
An objective formula is essential because it ends the fruitless debates. The criteria would be straightforward. The output would be numerical and, mostly, conclusive. There would be no one to blame.
Selection: We originally had the six BCS conferences receiving an automatic bid. We felt, in December 2010, as though that would be a necessary sacrifice to get the conferences on board. That hurdle has been overcome. In fact, having automatic bids at all would be undesirable and a potential legal liability. The Duffy Plan will not have automatic bids, but will still reward conference champions.
Conferences will stand on their own merits. The six highest ranked conference winners receive automatic bids, whatever conference they emerge from. That could be the original six BCS teams. That could mean one or two teams from the great unwashed. Two at large bids would go to the two highest ranked teams left unselected, regardless of conference.
For the sake of argument, we will use the Simple Rating System as our formula. Had our plan been in place in 2011, the teams selected would have been LSU (SEC), Oklahoma State (B12), Oregon (P12), Wisconsin (B1G), TCU (MWC), Clemson (ACC), Alabama (AL), Stanford (AL).
Selecting the teams in this manner offers two benefits. First, It enhances the regular season. Winning your conference becomes vital. Every conference title game is a potential playoff elimination. Most conference and division races would have a direct bearing on the national title. The season would build to a climax rather than peter.
It also offers a true national championship. Teams from lesser conferences that went undefeated almost undoubtedly would receive a chance to play for the national title. Every team would have to be beaten on the field. Nearly every year this would offer the de facto equality of opportunity from Wetzel’s plan, without bogging the field down with an initial round of rubber stamp games.
Format: The first round would occur the weekend following the end of the season. Teams would be seeded by their formula ranking. The top four would play home games. Losers would be eligible for bowl selection. This would turn a dead, “honey do” Saturday into one of the greatest sports spectacles of the year. Here is how it would have played out in 2011.
(1) LSU vs. (8) Clemson
(2) Oklahoma St. vs. (7) TCU
(3) Alabama vs. (6) Wisconsin
(4) Oregon vs. (5) Stanford
The final four would be played during bowl week. We are not tied to the bowl system, but it seems the easiest logistical solution would be to have two bowl games (present BCS + Cotton on rotation) serve as neutral semifinals during bowl week. That’s likely the solution that would best serve the players, who would still get to be toast of the town and a regulated amount of swag. College football’s championship game would be played a week later, bid out to a neutral site like the Super Bowl.
College football’s playoff has to be fair, has to be feasible and has to be profitable. It must augment rather than degrade the regular season. It must provide an entertaining and satisfying conclusion. We feel this playoff does the best job of balancing those concerns.
[Photo via Getty]

- Spurs Outscore Grizzlies 18-7 in Overtime, Take 3-0 Series Lead
- Cain Velasquez Knocked Out Bigfoot Silva, Retains UFC Heavyweight Title at UFC 160 [gif]
- Junior dos Santos Knocked Out Mark Hunt With a Spinning Heel Kick at UFC 160 [gif]
- Everett Golson, Notre Dame QB, Reportedly Has Left the School [UPDATE]
- Gregg Popovich and His Two Word “Turnover” Interview [Video]

- resolutedefense on Spurs Outscore Grizzlies 18-7 in Overtime, Take 3-0 Series Lead
- Benjamin Franklin Rodriguez has the highest WAR evah! on Spurs Outscore Grizzlies 18-7 in Overtime, Take 3-0 Series Lead
- Some Random Old Dude on Spurs Outscore Grizzlies 18-7 in Overtime, Take 3-0 Series Lead
- resolutedefense on Spurs Outscore Grizzlies 18-7 in Overtime, Take 3-0 Series Lead
- Tim Ryan on Spurs Outscore Grizzlies 18-7 in Overtime, Take 3-0 Series Lead
183 Responses to “A Sensible College Football Playoff Plan Version 2.0”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.






February 21st, 2012 at 3:19 PM
In b4 shots are fired.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:19 PM
Dynamite: Part Deux
February 21st, 2012 at 3:20 PM
I’m confident that this particular comment thread will be measured and rational.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:21 PM
I demand to differ.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:23 PM
Is it a fact that the more teams in a playoff (the more rounds there are), the greater a chance that the ‘hottest’ or ‘luckier’ team will win a championship, rather than the ‘best’?
February 21st, 2012 at 3:24 PM
/TJ
This is proof positive that some idiots have way too much free time on their hands.
/ End TJ
February 21st, 2012 at 3:24 PM
“we” works so much better for TBL than for Duffy.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:24 PM
I don’t think people will ever (at least in my lifetime) trust “computers” to completely decide anything without any human input.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:25 PM
So if we work backwards playing zero games would yield the true best team?
/You ideas have intrigued me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter
February 21st, 2012 at 3:26 PM
epic Sparty banned thread that was.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:27 PM
link?
February 21st, 2012 at 3:27 PM
So are you proposing a formula here or not? I don’t think you’re really using the word “objective” here properly at all.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:28 PM
Would’ve been nice in ’97.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:29 PM
This is a good start, however I would add that conferences eliminate divisions. Team Speed Kills made a good argument last week that divisions would inevitably give rise to controversy to a playoff that took only conference champs. Main example: LSU and Alabama this previous season. If the REAL top two teams in a conference play in a conference championship (i.e. no divisions) then we’d be gold. Alabama would have played LSU in the SEC Champ. Game (a virtual national semi-final)
February 21st, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Basically. I’d argue that if you truly wanted the ‘best’ team identified at the end of the year, you’d have no playoffs, no bowl games, and emphasize quality (especially non-conf) victories in your voting.
Personally, I don’t really care what happens. Now that my team has gotten mixed up in this conference square-dance bullshit, and left most of its exciting rivalries, college athletics is nearly completely off my radar. I just enjoy watching all you college football people get worked up.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:29 PM
That is to say, if you’re creating a formula, it by definition is not objective if one relevant measure is left out. People will find it fair and won’t be able to bitch at the human element? Ah yes just like when nobody ever complained about any of the metrics used in the BCS formula.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:30 PM
How does this jibe with this:
…when Boise State’s SRS is 8 and Clemson’s is 27?
February 21st, 2012 at 3:30 PM
At least you backed off 16 teams (lol @ the big boys allowing that to happen), but continuing to use the Simple Rating System as your formula is head scratching. However, baby steps.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:30 PM
Not seeing where SmartFootball’s SoS formula comes from. Otherwise I understand the rest. Your first round still takes place during Finals week but attempting to argue that point is fruitless in this forum. Your national semi-finals will be competing with the NFL.
Otherwise you’ve cleaned this up much more than previous proposals.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:30 PM
He was spitting all over the place. It was quite impressive. I actually started rooting for that little brat. Guess I was wrong.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:31 PM
Boise State did not win its conference.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:31 PM
Yeah I don’t see it in a sticky or on the about section of that site, which is kind of retarded.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:31 PM
This annoys me a little (the concept, not you) because people write the computer program to have some objectivity. They tell the computer what they value, and how much, but if the answer isn’t what they expect, it must be wrong. The reason to have an objective/numerical output is to eliminate subjectivity. Then it’s just added in because you don’t get what you want.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:31 PM
I thought the same thing. Read the whole post though. The SmartFootball link has the formula. People would have been pretty upset with Texas A&M being where they are ranked otherwise it seemed pretty fair.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:31 PM
Ooops… I meant Dawg Sports here
February 21st, 2012 at 3:32 PM
Computers technically have human influence because humans program them.
I’d be down with this. But then again, I’d be down with anything other than the season as currently constituted.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:32 PM
Boobs.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:32 PM
Nah I got that I just meant is he proposing a different formula beyond this post or is his pulling of the Smart formula for sake of argument the end of the creation of a formula for this format.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:33 PM
Link?
February 21st, 2012 at 3:33 PM
Link that shit MS. I don’t want to hear about what you are looking at on your other screen. Link it.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:34 PM
The Smart Football formula is just for the sake of projecting the 2011 season, since I don’t have a formula. Settle down.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:34 PM
Link?
I didn’t have one handy, I just wanted to add something to the discussion without reading the post.
But since you asked: http://egotastic.com/photos/arianny-celeste-nekkid-on-her-balcony-in-miami/arianny-celeste-nude-balcony-miami-01/full-size/
NSFW
February 21st, 2012 at 3:34 PM
INEAY
February 21st, 2012 at 3:35 PM
The question is, can we figure out a way to get a Jeremy Lin mention in on this post?
February 21st, 2012 at 3:35 PM
I still have no problem with the BCS because I feel it has accurately crowned the best team in college football for 6 of the last 7 years (exception being Auburn).
February 21st, 2012 at 3:35 PM
Objective – not influenced by personal feelings or opinions (i.e. no polling). Obviously, nothing is truly objective.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:36 PM
He’s going to be programming the computers, obviously.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:37 PM
Gotcha, that’s what I figured just wanted to make sure.
Obviously “would you care to elaborate on a formula that you might be happy with” is a bit loaded of a question for this point but I’m just curious what measures you would be taking into consideration on the whole. Future posts?
February 21st, 2012 at 3:37 PM
Like it, Duffy. Always felt like the defense (or slight modification of) Wetzel’s plan by you and the EIC was a problem. This is much better.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:38 PM
The Smart Football formula is just for the sake of projecting the 2011 season, since I don’t have a formula. Settle down.
you’re certainly johnny on the spot with this post then.
I believe in transparency, fairness, and a formula that guarantees Michigan a spot in the years when Michigan has a good record, but that doesn’t guarantee the Big 10 a spot when Michigan doesn’t.
/of course i didn’t read the post, it’s February the somethingth
February 21st, 2012 at 3:38 PM
As a computer programmer, I realize that. However, I really think most people think their own eyes are more reliable than a formula or some numbers. I am not one of those people myself.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:39 PM
What about Stanford vs. Oregon?
Except for Stanford and Oregon.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:39 PM
you watched I, Robot this weekend too, didn’t you?
February 21st, 2012 at 3:39 PM
How?
February 21st, 2012 at 3:39 PM
Strongly disagree with this. I’m still waiting for a good explanation as to how Alabama could lose at home and not win its conference yet still be the undisputed national champion? LSU had a better SOS, better wins, won its conference, and finished with the same record. Alabama is the champ because they won a mythical title game six weeks after the season?
February 21st, 2012 at 3:39 PM
Of course. The nitpicking is a result of your claim that it would end the fruitless debates (not sure if that statement was completely sincere though). We all know that nothing can end the fruitless debates when it comes to this situation.
Make the most amount of people not pissed? Maybe. But there’s always going to be some jackass like Seth Greenberg who isn’t happy with any kind of sporting decision.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:40 PM
Actually, I think that’s the flaw you’ll find in this one if it was applied to last season. Michigan not getting a playoff spot would have caused an unimaginable shitstorm.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:40 PM
(1) I took one semester of Stats 100 in college and passed that because we could use cheat sheets with the formula.
(2) Basically, I would do what I said. Base it on SOS and MOV.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:40 PM
In short, yes.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:41 PM
Indeed.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:41 PM
I actually like a lot of what is in this idea I’m just curious as to the details of it. The post just read like an Obama speech. Get the ideas out there, we’ll fix the details behind them in post production.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:42 PM
That class was fucking awesome! I took a “math for athletes” class that was just like that. Good times, good times.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:42 PM
Pretty easy to make a weighted margin of victory calculation.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:42 PM
Duffy is an industrious BCS critic.
/shots fired!
February 21st, 2012 at 3:43 PM
Nothing mythical about it, it actually happened.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:43 PM
Version 2.0 is 100x better than Version 1.0. However, there is nothing left “Duffy” about this. It’s simply an 8 team playoff proposal like all the other ones.
My question is this – when in the modern history of college football have 8 teams, based on one season of work, ever been able to claim a shot at a national title? Zilch. Why make it 8 unless your only motivations are Cinderella Schaudenfreude or for ratings…in which case, you’re mens rea is no different than the BCS.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:44 PM
Cue three years of grandstanding and bending over and taking it from the “in favor of bowl games” faction.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:45 PM
Dan Wetzel’s 16-team playoff idea remains the gold standard, IMO. But I’d certainly take the eight-team plan as described above over the ridiculous system that’s in place now.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:45 PM
I know. Auburn should have won in 2004.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:46 PM
I just want to say: Duffy, you’re an idiot! Logistics! This will never work! Now, to read the post…
February 21st, 2012 at 3:46 PM
Too much Sun Belt for my liking…this post is miles better than his plan
February 21st, 2012 at 3:47 PM
gross.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:48 PM
Screw at-large.
Win and you’re in.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:48 PM
gross.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:48 PM
Michigan would never crack the top 4. And ending every year with a loss to Ohio State ensures they’d never finish that high in the polls even if they went 11-0 up to that point, so the exclusion of the polls entirely makes sense.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:50 PM
Whoa, don’t see that you’re/your backward stuff much. Weird.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:51 PM
So basically you hate American sports because that’s exactly the case in all of them, except maybe baseball, which only lets four in from each league.
Can we get some single table discussion, maybe have a cup going on at the same time as the season?
/soccer’d
February 21st, 2012 at 3:51 PM
I don’t think I’ve ever seen Dan Wetzel mentioned as a gold standard for anything. What an interesting day this has been.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:52 PM
He’s the gold standard for writing a book that appealed to the interests of people that complain about college football because it’s not like the NFL with the explicit purpose of making money.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:53 PM
Wetzel’s post-Super Bowl Tom Brady article was pretty swell.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:53 PM
I don’t like the thought of Clemson being ahead of Boise just because they won the ACC. I hate the idea of giving conference champs a better shot just because they win their shitty fucking league. Top-8 teams in whatever ranking people decide upon, no matter what their conference affiliation is.
/of course that will never happen
February 21st, 2012 at 3:54 PM
It’s almost like duffy starts with matchups that he likes, and then reverse engineers a playoff to get him what he wants.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:54 PM
128 team triple elimination tourney all at neutral sites or GTFO.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:54 PM
Not at all… I’m just saying there is a difference between the ‘champion’ and the ‘best team’ each year, and that in considering a playoff in college football, you might want to at least start at the philosophical basis of the problem.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:54 PM
Exactly. The masses are always right! This is for the people!
/ the people agree and just went to the movie theater to watch Ghost Rider 2
February 21st, 2012 at 3:54 PM
Because they were the best team in the nation. By a mile.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:54 PM
only gold standard for the Death to the BCS crowd.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:55 PM
By 2013, there will be 124 full members of the FBS so just get four more to join and voila!
February 21st, 2012 at 3:56 PM
Some may argue that this plan is unfair to Notre Dame which is absurd because ND will never be a top 8 team anyways.
/Stop being such a cunt strawman
February 21st, 2012 at 3:56 PM
Steve Downie traded to the Avs.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:57 PM
Someday people are going to understand that getting lucky over the small sample size of a football season doesn’t mean the best teams are the ones who finish with the best records
February 21st, 2012 at 3:57 PM
Wow.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:57 PM
triple elimination is a little excessive. scale it back to double and I’ll hop on that train.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:57 PM
If we went to an entirely computer-based ranking system as an NCAA-sanctioned way of ordering things, it would take maybe 2 weeks of rankings for the vast majority of college fans to just shut up and accept it. Until some team figures a way to game said system, which would be difficult with conference schedules and a specified number of games for each team, nobody would really complain that much. Think about the way seedings and rankings work for tennis. How many people, even hardcore fans, know how those rankings are computed? Nobody cares. We just accept them.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:57 PM
Agreed. The playoff should be a reward for the potential best’s season of work. Tweak the BCS formula if you want, but the top-4 BCS teams have always contained who is truly the “best” based on one season of play. Since when has anyone said, but what about number 7?!?!?!? at the end of the year?
February 21st, 2012 at 3:58 PM
Yet their resume doesn’t reflect that.
I’m with Duffy on completely booting the human polls from the equation. If you zoom out and look that this with clear eyes, there isn’t a worse possible idea for determining a champion than having coaches and ADs of affected schools decide who plays. In a rational society that’s Exhibit 1 Fucking A on what not to do.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:58 PM
Nope. Giants fans are convinced they were the best NFL team this season.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:59 PM
That was one of the more shocking comments in quite a while.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:01 PM
Here’s why, more and more, I hate the playoffs in a lot of our sports.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:01 PM
Don’t give a fat fuck. That was the best team in the nation and I really don’t think it was all that close.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:02 PM
/does some math
//drinks whiskey
///does more math
////crumples up paper
Motherfucker, I can’t do it.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:02 PM
They’re an outlier that still doesn’t make sense to me…I was agreeing with you that Alabama was better than LSU, just had some back luck with the FG kicking in the first game
February 21st, 2012 at 4:02 PM
What an interesting day this has been.
Just wait until you see the Lin for Heisman post that is coming up next.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:02 PM
Since whenever they make a 6-team playoff.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:03 PM
Never in the history of the sport.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:03 PM
I like them when it’s not single elimination (exception being the NCAA basketball tournament… and that’s only because I like to gamble). The NBA, NHL and MLB playoffs give teams more than 1 chance at advancing.
NFL usually gets the hottest team that got good matchups but what are you gonna do? After reading this place for like 4 years I’ve just come to accept sports are sports and enjoy what I can.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:03 PM
Having a tough time with 6 conferences auto-bids as the conferences are in flux anyways. Unless you end up with two giant conferences can’t see the second place SEC team get booted for whichever mediocre idiots win whatever conference boise stays in.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:04 PM
Luck is part of the game, though. Ask the two teams that just played in the Super Bowl.
College football will never be “fair” because the season is too short and the system is set up to reward large schools. But removing human polls would have done a lot of good over the past decade. Absent a playoff, that’s the change I want more than anything.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:05 PM
While the NBA allows too many teams in since the lower seeds rarely win I’m still considering theirs to be the gold standard since it’s really hard to “get hot” and make a run against better teams
MLB having best-of-5 series will always bug me
February 21st, 2012 at 4:06 PM
This isn’t accurate, outside of the two Giant teams the Super Bowl champs since the expansion to 32 teams has still finished in the Top 5 using Pro-Football Reference’s SRS
February 21st, 2012 at 4:06 PM
Here’s what I’ve never understood. From a competition standpoint, how can 16 teams make the playoffs in both the NHL and NBA? Obviously, from a financial perspective, it makes perfect sense. Still, it gives the regular season less meaning.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:07 PM
College football will never be “fair” because the season is too short and the system is set up to reward
large schools.schools that care about playing competitive college football.February 21st, 2012 at 4:07 PM
I’m back in business
/uncrumples paper
single elimination = n-1 games
double elimination = 2n-1 games
February 21st, 2012 at 4:07 PM
That should teach college players because life isn’t fair to begin with.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:08 PM
But removing human polls would have done a lot of good over the past decade. Absent a playoff, that’s the change I want more than anything.
Agreed. I want a playoff just for the entertainment factor but I would love to see an entirely computer-based official poll
February 21st, 2012 at 4:09 PM
If memory serves, there was a time when there were 21 NHL teams and 16 made the playoffs. I love the pre-1969 MLB model myself, but I’m a reactionary.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:09 PM
The NHL giving an automatic birth to the winner of the Southeast Division does more harm to the meaning of the regular season than the playoff format.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:10 PM
The issue here is the choice of the word “luck”. Yes, the Packers were the superior team over the course of the entire season, but the Giants beating the shit out of them — really, it wasn’t close — was in no way “lucky”. They were the better team that week — can anyone argue otherwise?
February 21st, 2012 at 4:10 PM
+1 error per game for David Ortiz
/okay that was 1973
February 21st, 2012 at 4:11 PM
All of this. Completely ridiculous. You play 162 games to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you win 4 out of 7 games, you go 93-69; if you only win 3 out of 7, you go 69-93 (I always cite this point from Bob Costas’ Fair Ball). You play all those games to balance out all the terrible bloop singles and line drive outs.
Why play 162 games if you’re then going to decide things in a crapshoot 5 game series?
February 21st, 2012 at 4:11 PM
Yeah that’s not accurate.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:12 PM
Nevermind I forgot about the WHA merger era. Yeah that did happen. And was eventually changed to fit the league better thank god.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:13 PM
I think you are talking about something different.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:13 PM
Yes.
1. Given: the Giants sucks
2. Given: Eli Manning sucks
3. Given: the alternate interior angles theorem
4. Therefore: the Giants got lucky to win the Superbowl
February 21st, 2012 at 4:14 PM
You’re gonna love the 1-game playoff between two WC teams next year, aren’t you.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:15 PM
My fanhood stretches back a ways… Didn’t realize it was THAT long ago.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:15 PM
The Giants’ luck factor isn’t about the Packers game really. It’s that they got in at 9-7. Its that they recovered eight of 10 fumbles. It’s that the 49ers had to fumble in OT to get the win. It’s that a chuck to a double-covered wide receiver happened to land perfectly in his hands 50 yards down the field.
In short, its a collection of events.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:16 PM
1. No rational Giants fan thinks they had the best team all season. So, strawman.
2. That still doesn’t address how the Giants were “lucky over the small sample size of a football season”.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:16 PM
/slams head on desk
//debates putting out a hit on Bud Selig
February 21st, 2012 at 4:16 PM
On the plus side, I don’t have to give people to hate the Giants, their fans will do that for me.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:17 PM
Yeah, I was thinking of when they had 12 spots for 18 teams, forgot that changed to 16 for 21 in 8….1 I think? Maybe 80. That was so ridiculous. Well we’re adding three teams, so let’s add four more spots!
And Toronto STILL couldn’t win.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:19 PM
Personally, I think all the playoffs suck ass except for the NFL, and even that shits the bed by giving division winners an automatic home game regardless of record.
Baseball is a joke — you play 162 games and let in four teams. I’m shocked fans are fleeing the sport. NBA and NHL have the opposite problem — after long, boring seasons, the playoffs usher in…another long, boring season.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:21 PM
More than anything I’m pleased that a commenter who’s name is a combination of a pussy fart and a terrorist-killing action-hero is unreasonable.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:22 PM
I’m shocked fans are fleeing the sport.
They are? Let’s just check overall attendance and revenue growth and… They are?
February 21st, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Meanwhile college football stadiums jam 110K people in every week and gets huge ratings in the regular as well as postseason.
It really is in need of major changes to “fix” it.
/wanking motion
February 21st, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Can’t you argue that 162 is enough games to figure out who is good and deserves to be in the playoffs? That’s a pretty big sample size.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:24 PM
Yes but the WC keeps more teams and fanbases interested in the playoff chase…it’s just smart business
February 21st, 2012 at 4:25 PM
Seems like you really like sports
February 21st, 2012 at 4:27 PM
The season would build to a climax rather than
petermunson./kingpin’d
February 21st, 2012 at 4:27 PM
This. Baseball could learn an awful lot from football.
I guess. Was Tampa Bay not good enough last year? Was Boston? It’s really hard to accept that only eight teams are “deserving” every year after a interminable slog of a season.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:27 PM
I think one place to start is the fact they recovered 8 of 10 fumbles in playoff games. Its usually a 50/50 split.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:27 PM
Hey I like the WC. I just don’t think we need to start letting 6 teams in with two byes in baseball.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:29 PM
Agreed, I hate the extra WC idea…in a perfect world they’d stick with 8 and have all Best-of-7 series
February 21st, 2012 at 4:29 PM
Playing lots of baseball games makes a person tired. Everyone deserves a playoff spot.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:31 PM
Id be fine with 12 teams total in baseball. The more fans you can keep engaged over a longer amount of time, the better it is for the sport.
Once Bud is gone I think you’ll see the game get modernized in a lot of ways — standardized rules, instant replay, balanced schedules, salary cap, more playoff teams — that improve ratings and attention. Hopefully, anyway.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:31 PM
They are? Let’s just check overall attendance and revenue growth and… They are?
yeah, they’re not fleeing.
and baseball has more than 4 playoff teams.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:31 PM
Lucky that in the NFL you dont have to actually beat any good teams until January.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:32 PM
Tampa Bay was good enough last year. Boston was not.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:34 PM
NBA and NHL have the opposite problem — after long, boring seasons, the playoffs usher in…another long, boring season.
Id be fine with 12 teams total in baseball. The more fans you can keep engaged over a longer amount of time, the better it is for the sport.
something doesn’t add up.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:35 PM
Easy hoss, this describes most Top 25 NCAA schedules
-NBA/NHL postseasons are too long
-MLB needs a longer postseason
February 21st, 2012 at 4:35 PM
You realize that this only serves to depress player salaries while not achieving its stated goal of creating parity, right?
February 21st, 2012 at 4:35 PM
Convoluted, arbitrary, and corrupt > fair. Amiright, college football fans?
February 21st, 2012 at 4:36 PM
Id be fine with 12 teams total in baseball. The more fans you can keep engaged over a longer amount of time, the better it is for the sport.
Interesting use of logic
February 21st, 2012 at 4:37 PM
Well unless you are an Orioles fan, most years your team will be within striking distance for a WC (or one of the two WCs) until at least September
February 21st, 2012 at 4:37 PM
standardized rules
name one sport that can say it has standardized rules, and gymnastics/figure skating isn’t a sport.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:38 PM
That’s why good teams have to play a first-place schedule.
/Tibble
February 21st, 2012 at 4:38 PM
Ratings are down (which is how most people see a baseball game) across the board. Football has no longer stepped aside for the World Series and CRUSHES the sport in head to head competition. Baseball does OK in the middle of the summer when there’s nothing to challenge it. When football comes back though? Game over.
Also, attendance was down 1.3 percent this year. And this is a good read on how baseball teams manipulate attendance numbers to affect reveniue sharing.
Oh, and revenue is up because ticket prices are higher.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:39 PM
They should adopt the NFL “free tickets to everyone” model where ticket prices don’t drive revenue increases at all.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:41 PM
This is fascinating. I’m not sure how one arrives at whatever conclusion is being drawn here, or what the first sentence means, but it’s a fascinating paragraph.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:42 PM
Or digital media sales. Either one.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:42 PM
I’m just waiting for McIntyre to quote it and deliver a “KABOOM” since it meshes with that mindset
February 21st, 2012 at 4:42 PM
Oh no. No. Baseball playoffs need longer series, but not more teams.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:43 PM
It was actually a pretty typical discussion.
Person who doesn’t like baseball: “Baseball is in real trouble.”
Person who likes baseball: “Really? I don’t think that is correct. How so?”
Person who doesn’t like baseball: “NFL NFL NFL NFL NFL NFL”
February 21st, 2012 at 4:44 PM
Well, that’s not correct. But even so, what do I care if player salaries are depressed? These guys are grossly overpaid with guaranteed contracts regardless of performance or injury. They spend 95 percent of a game standing in a field or sitting on a bench. Lower the salaries, please.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:46 PM
+1 player salary drinking problem
February 21st, 2012 at 4:48 PM
Not very complex. Baseball ratings are down.
In the past, the NFL would not schedule a Sunday night game because it conflicted with the World Series. A few years back the NFL essentially said “fuck it, we’re going to have a game.” The ratings for that regular season game crushed those for the World Series, baseball’s signature event.
Baseball benefits from a lack of competition in the summer. There’s nothing else on to watch. When football returns in early September, the bulk of the media coverage and fan attention shifts. I think baseball could take steps to alleviate that drain, but it has proven unwilling to change.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:48 PM
Why, so the owners can pocket more of the revenue?
Love hearing the common fan speak out from a place of envy against athlete salaries in general (it’s one thing to talk about Barry Zito’s bad contract but wanting lowered salaries across the board is ridiculous)
February 21st, 2012 at 4:50 PM
NFL is #1, no doubt.
but you stated that people are “fleeing the sport” and, by your comparisons, assuming now they only watch football. that’s simply not accurate.
all teams tweek attendence numbers for one reason or another.
and attendence has been falling in a lot of other areas besides baseball. my guess would be that it has something to do with the state of the economy.
but i’d agree that baseball, like the NBA, could cut a couple teams from the league.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:51 PM
You should sign up for a basic econ class as soon as possible.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:52 PM
but i’d agree that baseball, like the NBA, could cut a couple teams from the league.
It might even be in our mutual best interests if the O’s are contracted, ill
February 21st, 2012 at 4:54 PM
“Man, I would so watch baseball instead of the NFL if only they had a salary cap and standardized rules.”
February 21st, 2012 at 4:54 PM
Seeing as how a salary cap would have to be collectively bargained with the MLBPA, which just happens to be the most powerful players union in all of sport, I think the fact that a salary cap artificially depresses player salaries is germane to this conversation. Feel free to disagree.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:55 PM
Spare me the athlete poverty sob story. These guys aren’t homeless.The minimum salary in baseball is $415,000. Say a salary cap takes 25 percent off across the board. That’s still over $300,000 a year for playing baseball.
I get your point, but to positives of a salary cap far outweigh the negatives. Seems to work pretty well for football.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:57 PM
It might even be in our mutual best interests if the O’s are contracted, ill
how are we supposed to win the wild card this year if we contract?
/shit i dream
February 21st, 2012 at 4:57 PM
/troof injection
Its going to take the purists dying off for the sport to change. But its inevitable.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:59 PM
This can all be traced back to my Orioles fandom, I’m sure.
February 21st, 2012 at 5:01 PM
Seems to work pretty well for football.
financially starve the players just enough to keep them playing hard, then refuse to assist with medical treatment for lingering effects later in life. high moral code that #1 sport has…
February 21st, 2012 at 5:03 PM
Fucking-ay, this…people like to point out how baseball is going to go extinct but just wait until the NFL puts in even more rules changes to keep players safe while the talent pool potentially dries up as fewer parents let their kids play
Could be an interesting next 20 years for the sport
February 21st, 2012 at 5:04 PM
Football chose to act like selfish dicks, though. Its not because they lacked the money or suffered from the effects of the salary cap. The owners were greedy and the league didn’t do nearly enough on its end to assist former players.
Football players aren’t “financially starved” either.
February 21st, 2012 at 5:06 PM
People said something like this in 1890, too, I’m sure. But they used a contraction.
February 21st, 2012 at 5:07 PM
Meant apostrophe, dang it. Someone apply a salary cap to me, stat.
February 21st, 2012 at 5:08 PM
What’s the magic word in corporate America? Liability. Potential liability costs in football are astronomical. In baseball? Not very much. MLB is the only league that has figured out that whole “New Media” (18 years on can we still call it that?) thing
February 21st, 2012 at 5:10 PM
MLB pulls highlight clips from YouTube the second they appear. Because why would they want fans to see great plays?
New media masters, indeed.
February 21st, 2012 at 5:16 PM
I go to MLB.com to see the highlights, not that difficult…why give the milk away for free if you’re them?
Pattern developing here of disliking anyone making money from baseball
February 21st, 2012 at 5:16 PM
MLB pulls highlight clips from YouTube the second they appear. Because why would they want fans to see great plays?
Because if fans have to go to mlb.com or to a broadcast partner that is paying for the highlights, mlb is the revenue earner rather than just letting google log those eyeballs at no charge.
February 21st, 2012 at 5:27 PM
Look, I’m an O’s fan, too, so I can understand feeling like baseball has been in decline for at least 15 years but there isn’t really a lot of data to support it. RRRRRATINGS!!! do not actually = $$$. The league and its member teams are paid based on a TV deal that is based on an expected # of viewers. One year to the next having a roller coaster like rise or fall in viewers affects the next deal but it isn’t like NBC calls up Selig’s office after the World Series and says “10.2 rating last night. We’ll send the check for $11 million over this afternoon.” Look at the TV deals that MLB has in place, the network ownerships/partnerships, the merchandising deals, et al, and notice the amount of $ pouring into MLB’s coffers. It’s pretty impressive.
February 21st, 2012 at 5:37 PM
Im real curious to see what happens if one of the networks decides to walk away when it comes time to negotiate for the next deal. If FOX says no thanks, does another major network step in? And if so, for what price?
I mean, a good chunk of the playoffs is already on TBS. That’s, uh, not what you’d expect from a healthy major American sport.
Baseball may be making money, but it has all the signs of a bubble. Eroding cultural footprint, declining attendance, declining ratings. Yet the money just keeps pouring in behind new stadiums, higher ticket prices, and regional TV deals. I feel like that wave has to crest at some point, and its a long drop from there.
February 21st, 2012 at 5:38 PM
I’m still waiting to hear how standardized rules are gonna bring the flock in.
If someone didn’t watch baseball before, they’re gonna start if the NL has a designated hitter?
February 21st, 2012 at 5:44 PM
Get in line, I’m still curious why longer playoffs are good for MLB when we were told that long playoffs are bad in other sports
February 21st, 2012 at 5:52 PM
Im real curious to see what happens if one of the networks decides to walk away when it comes time to negotiate for the next deal.
Most of the speculation I’ve read has the next round of TV deals worth about twice what the current round is worth. Think of ratings as a raw metric. The overall deal is based on the total # of viewers, the prevalence and availability of advertising sales, the demographics reached, and some other shit that I can’t think of off the top of my head.
February 21st, 2012 at 5:54 PM
In this instance, the long season and live viewership are actually positives for the sport in spite of the overall decline in Nielsen ratings.
February 21st, 2012 at 6:34 PM
This is actually a very good thing for baseball. It’s good for everybody involved. Obviously a win for TBS, a win for Fox in that they disrupt less of their regular network programming, and it adds another competing network to the mix as far as bidding for rights goes, so that’s a win for MLB. If playoffs on TBS were a warning sign, are NBA playoff games on TNT a warning sign?
February 21st, 2012 at 9:06 PM
And what does this accomplish? It will not lower ticket prices at all. The Red Sox can pay their team a 100 dollars for a season and the ticket prices for this year will still be higher then last year and they will still hit over 100 percent capacity.
Yeah except it doesn’t. The “parity” of the NFL is a result of its structural differences with the other sports. No other team sport that matters has the specialization of Football. No other sport has as many players active on a single play as football. No other sport has 1 position of such value over the other positions. No other sport has such a small sample size.
That is before getting into the NFL engineering parity by rewarding bad teams and punishing good teams with schedules where the difference between the easisest and hardest is worth about 2 games. It gives bad teams better access to the best incoming players. And even with this the last 9 AFC champs have been the same 3 teams.