Why doesn’t the NCAA run their own tournament or championship system for FBS?

[u/Hougie]

The CFP is independent of the NCAA. The NCAA owns and operates March Madness as well as the FCS Playoffs.

Why has the NCAA ceded running its most lucrative postseason to a third party and why are they not interesting in changing that?

[u/Competitive-Zone-330]

The old bowl system offered payouts so there was no incentive in the beginning to crown a national Champion, just to make a bowl. There wasn’t that many though, so making one was considered a successful season

[u/Silly_Assistant3667 → u/Competitive-Zone-330]

the whole bowl system was just a big party for boosters and ADs to get drunk together in warm weather

[u/AlphaChannel → u/Silly_Assistant3667]

It still is, but it was too.

[u/Brewpendous → u/AlphaChannel]

Sorry for the convenience

[u/UtahStateAgnostics → u/AlphaChannel]

/r/unexpectedmitch

[u/PUfelix85 → u/UtahStateAgnostics]

More like r/ExpectedMitch

[u/citrus1330 → u/Competitive-Zone-330]

that doesn't answer the question

[u/Tufoguy]

Back when the split of the subdivisions happened the big schools wanted to keep control over the football postseason. So they kept control of it and it's been that way ever since.

[u/Rock_man_bears_fan]

The Rose Bowl predates the NCAA. They never ceded anything to an outside party because it was never within in their jurisdiction in the first place

[u/StevvieV → u/Rock_man_bears_fan]

Even the basketball tournament didn't start until 1939. Even more bowls were well established by then. Championships wasn't something the NCAA was originally created for and since football was content with it's postseason never pushed or voted for a change

[u/drakeallthethings]

It didn’t cede anything. It never had a postseason for football until the Div 1AA* one (now FCS). Bowl have always been their own thing and the new playoff system is as well. The NCAA is welcome to offer whatever FBS postseason they want but I don’t think many of their member institutions will take them up on it. At best it’s an NIT-level event.

*edit to add: that might be wrong. One of the other divisions might have had a playoff sooner

[u/Better-Temporary-146 → u/drakeallthethings]

Right. FBS is the only sport without a NCAA sanctioned champion. Because the members want it that way

[u/graywh → u/drakeallthethings]

Speaking of NIT, that was the premier postseason tournament once upon a time.

[u/StevvieV → u/graywh]

1970 was basically the turning point. Marquette turned down an invite to the NCAA Tournament for the NIT. Which then had the NCAA create a rule to prevent schools from turning down a bid for the NIT.

[u/reno1441 → u/drakeallthethings]

The NCAA is welcome to offer whatever FBS postseason they want but I don’t think many of their member institutions will take them up on it.

It's hard to ballgame out what might transpire over the next decade. But I would not be surprised to see the collapse of the CFP system in 2031. Based on push/pull by the SEC/Big10, super league, further realignment, etc.

If that occurs, I would not be shocked to see a NCAA-sanctioned event arise. That said, I don't think it would end up including all of FBS (split national championships anybody?).

[u/clepsuoduuva → u/reno1441]

It would be open to all.  All conference champions, and a select few, just like all other ncaa tournaments.   The teams would say no for the money.  NCAA would crown the tournament champion.   I would watch that.  I don't give a fork about the shirt we have now.  

[u/thephotoman → u/reno1441]

I think we’re presuming that the SEC/B1G super league doesn’t collapse under its own ridiculousness.

[u/TheToxicBreezeYF]

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1h8vx6b/how_come_the_ncaa_never_arranged_an_fbs_national/

[u/ThompsonCreekTiger]

Back in the 1970s, there was a proposal to do a 4-team playoff following the bowl games (likely being picked from among winners of bowl games). Unfortunately it came up around the time that D1 would end up splitting.

The bowls were pretty good about lobbying against a playoff & major schools have put up fight for NCAA to have less control over the sport (see 1984 NCAA vs University of Oklahoma case, for example).

[u/kyrev21]

Because the Big Ten and Pac 12 thought the Rose Bowl was more important than determining a true national champion. The blue bloods loved the poll system because they got all the benefit of the doubt and were the only teams that really could compete. The poll voters weren’t able to watch most of the games so they just put the blue bloods down

[u/robotunes → u/kyrev21]

Because the Big Ten and Pac 12 thought the Rose Bowl was more important than determining a true national champion. 

Pac-12 whipping boy Larry Scott is the only reason we have a playoff today.

The following is from a 2014 ESPN article in which all 10 FBS commissioners at the time discuss how the FBS playoff came into being:

Shortly after being named conference commissioner, he quickly upset the status quo by saying the Pac-10 would consider being part of a playoff.

Larry Scott: I had determined that, not conclusively that we should have a playoff, but it's something we should be open to and engage in conversations about it, and I supported that as an overarching direction. It's fair to say that's when the Pac-10 position changed and we became much more open to the idea of a playoff.

People today pine for the BCS but it was MASSIVELY unpopular. That combined with Scott's arrival and the retirement of the anti-playoff Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe changed everything in early 2012.

Jim Delaney, then-commissioner of the Big Ten: Leadership and conferences changed. Larry Scott came in. Beebe left. In 2008, we went from Big Ten, Pac-10, Big East, Big 12, Notre Dame [opposing the playoff], to a point where most people in that group [approved of one]. The Big East was falling apart. Notre Dame was looking out for its interests. We obviously were looking out for our own. The Big 12 was in the middle of losing lots of members, so there was a lot of uncertainty, a lot of conference movement. It was a shift of public sentiment and sentiment inside leagues.

So the Big Ten reluctantly agreed to a 4-team playoff with two stipulations: The Rose Bowl would have to be part of the playoffs and there would have to be a selection committee, as a check against the supposed SEC bias among poll voters (an SEC team had won the previous 6 championships, including the all-SEC 2011-2012 championship game).

But none of that happens without Larry Scott upsetting 60+ years of tradition as well as the Rose Bowl and the Big Ten.

[u/kyrev21 → u/robotunes]

Rare Larry Scott w. Perhaps the only one.

It goes to show you how different the balance of power was in the 2000s because Slive suggested a playoff when undefeated Auburn was left out and the rest of the conferences laughed at him. But once the LSU and Alabama rematch happened the Big Ten was falling over themselves to make the playoff happen

[u/fsk → u/robotunes]

The 4 team playoff is what caused the Pac-12 to implode. Being the #5 conference in a 4 team playoff system put them on the path to irrelevance. With the Pac-12 champion being left out more often than anyone else, the Pac-12 lost its status.

[u/robotunes → u/fsk]

It started just before the 4-team playoff began. The problems were:

• The lack of TV exposure in 2011 because of Larry Scott's disastrous attempts to get the upcoming Pac-12 Network in the homes near each school's viewing footprint. They wound up getting a bunch of smaller, mostly rural cable providers and Dish Network, a satellite operation that didn't have nearly the subscriber numbers the Pac was counting on cable for.
• In 2011, the Pac was on the verge of acquiring Texas and Oklahoma but the deal fell apart. Getting those two blue bloods would have definitely boosted the conference's TV appeal.
• The 9-game conference schedule that handed out losses to top teams. If more poll voters had had a chance to see the top teams, they might have gotten the benefit of "the eye test" and gotten higher rankings. In 2014, just before the 4-team playoff began, Larry Scott said the 9-game conference slate would be an advantage for the Pac.

All of these things did so much damage to the Pac's on-field reputation that, as you said, the Pac-12 champion was left out more often than anyone else.

[u/fsk → u/robotunes]

You left out a big item. Due to pressure from TV networks, the Pac-12 started scheduling key games in the 10pm-11pm ET timeslot, which meant a lot of people on the East coast didn't get to see them play. The TV networks needed to fill the 11pm slot on their schedule, and they'd already lowered the Pac-12 status so they didn't have the leverage to say no.

[u/robotunes → u/fsk]

Amen

[u/majesticstraits → u/kyrev21]

Big Ten and PAC 10 were 100% right and we’d all be better off if they’d won out

[u/kyrev21 → u/majesticstraits]

We’re in that timeline right now. If the conferences had agreed to a playoff thirty years ago the Big East, Pac 12, and maybe the SWC and Big Eight are still alive today because they would have guaranteed playoff paths.

[u/-Jack-The-Stripper → u/kyrev21]

7 conferences of 10 teams, SEC, B1G, ACC, PAC, Big East, Big 8, SWC, round robin for the conference championship, all champs plus the top G5 team gets an autobid, plus a few at larges. That’s the dream CFB setup for me but of course we’re well past that.

[u/kyrev21 → u/-Jack-The-Stripper]

In the early 90s there were only three bottom-tier conferences, so autobids for every champ likely would've happened. Accommodating three teams from lower leagues is more palatable than five or six teams.

Some of the conferences would probably have had to expand beyond ten because there were dozens of independents

[u/-Jack-The-Stripper → u/kyrev21]

Autobids for everyone would be fine with me. Just make winning the conference the primary goal of the season again. Beating your local rivals and then going to a more nation-wide postseason at the end could’ve been such a special thing for CFB.

[u/OrangeJuliusCaesr → u/-Jack-The-Stripper]

G5 didn’t exist back then. BYU won while in the WAC. The BCS started that

[u/-Jack-The-Stripper → u/OrangeJuliusCaesr]

Sure, but “7 conferences of 10 teams” was meant to imply the current P4 realigns into those conferences. I didn’t really mean anything deep by it though, just smaller conferences with more meaning given to winning the conference championship.

[u/majesticstraits → u/kyrev21]

We chose the worst of all worlds with the 4 team playoff but the Bowls and Polls system and even the BCS were way better

[u/kyrev21 → u/majesticstraits]

anyone who seriously thinks leaving it up to the computers to pick two and only two teams to compete for the national championship have stockholm syndrome

[u/majesticstraits → u/kyrev21]

I just don’t think the sport should be centered around the national championship

[u/StevvieV → u/kyrev21]

No they were just too young to have experienced it. The only time the committee got it 100% wrong was by leaving undefeated Florida State out

[u/OrangeJuliusCaesr → u/kyrev21]

This is the correct answer. The rose bowl darlings held back the sport for decades, it’s fitting the big 10 stabbed the pac 12 in the back

[u/Logical-Database4510]

Cart before horse my dude

D1 football preceded the NCAA. This meant certain concessions had to be made in order to get schools to agree to join.

[u/Competitive_Feed_402 → u/Logical-Database4510]

Football wasn't split into divisions until the 1950s. The NCAA began in the early 1900s. The appearance of bowl games so early on the scene is what really stunted any chance of the traditional playoffs.

[u/Logical-Database4510 → u/Competitive_Feed_402]

It wasn't split into divisions formally but that doesn't mean what we consider "d1" ball didn't exist informally.

Big schools naturally scheduled other big schools which led to informal structures that inevitably became what we have today. That doesn't mean it "didn't exist" it was just presented differently.

[u/Hougie → u/Logical-Database4510]

That didn’t prevent the FCS Playoffs or March Madness though. Hard to follow that line of logic.

[u/Logical-Database4510 → u/Hougie]

Very easy to follow that line of logic.

Football has always been big money. No one is going to give that up to the NCAA /willingly/.

FCS schools didn't have the power to resist, D1 schools did

If the NCAA tried to take control of D1 post season there simply never would have been an NCAA to begin with.

Edit: also with basketball you're projecting today's popularity backwards. When the NCAA offered to host a big national basketball tournament everyone likely shrugged because when they started to do so there wasn't really a lot of money there to do so. NCAA now reaping on University's lack of foresight on that one.

With football, it's /always/ been mega popular.

[u/AlphaChannel → u/Logical-Database4510]

Plus the NIT used to be considered the primary basketball tournament. Teams would turn down NCAA invites to play in the NIT. Wasn’t all that different than you can imagine a bowls vs playoff argument being early on. NCAA just happened to win out in basketball.

[u/fsk → u/AlphaChannel]

The NCAA passed a rule that you couldn't turn down an invite to the NCAA basketball tournament to play in the NIT. That guaranteed that the NIT would be permanently relegated to consolation tournament status.

[u/GuyOnTheMike → u/Hougie]

NCAA began sponsoring the basketball tournament (1939) and College World Series (1948) long before those sports were really that prominent.

They first began consistently sponsoring national championships in the late 30’s, by which point the Rose Bowl was already established as THE premier college athletic event, plus the Sugar, Cotton, and Orange bowls had all been recently founded and quickly rising to prominence beyond anything the organization sponsored in anything else. I doubt there was much willpower from the NCAA voting members to establish a national football tournament for that reason.

Plus, the once-a-week nature of football was already well established, so bringing 4-8 teams together for a tournament wasn’t really feasible, especially when reliable air transportation really didn’t take hold until after World War II

[u/graywh → u/GuyOnTheMike]

But the NIT tournament the preferred postseason destination for decades. The NCAA didn't make it mandatory for conference champions until '71.

[u/Alternative_Reality → u/Hougie]

NCAA rules stipulate that in order to be a sanctioned national championship tournament, all conferences at that level must have an automatic bid. That is a non-starter for FBS, so FCS will continue to be considered the NCAA D1 football national champions.

[u/AldermanAl]

Because the the college football leadership does not want and has never wanted the NCAA to do so.

[u/Micethatroar]

Because polls and Bowls was awesome so they didn't need to when they controlled the money.

It was also still a pretty regional sport until ESPN got involved seriously in the early 90s. The tv contract wasn't massive when it was only the 3 networks (pre-Fox).

Conferences took control of the money in 1987 or so (whenever the case was finally decided; can't remember the exact date).

So once you had the combination of ESPN being a major player, the NCAA wasn't the one negotiating anything for football.

They still handle the tv rights for the others.

[u/QCTID]

Blame Oklahoma, it starts with them suing the NCAA and just kinda rolls from there. Like the OG triple triple of billable hours.  

ETA: NCAA had their teeth pulled on the legal battlefield, the postseason has evolved over the years but NCAA looking spineless and powerless starts there imo 

EE: to add a quote from right after that decision. 

  “The tail is about to wag the dog. It is television now. It will be recruiting tomorrow. It will be academic standards after that. It will be buying athletes next until the whole college athletic structure tumbles down.” 

• Eddie Robinson. 

[u/SirMellencamp → u/QCTID]

Well it wasnt just Oklahoma they were just the school that was at the forefront. For the fan what OU did was the best thing for college football's popularity now. Schools were no longer limited on how many times they would be on TV

[u/QCTID → u/SirMellencamp]

Couldn’t you argue that it also opened the door for modern realignment and the version of CFB that so many complain about today? The SEC expanded not long after with the purpose of a CCG (more TV money). 

[u/SirMellencamp → u/QCTID]

Absolutely but the market dictates the media rights

[u/QCTID → u/SirMellencamp]

Which makes it more of a double edged sword in that fans did get more access to see their teams play but teams/conferences also became emboldened to pursue dollars over tradition, and to challenge the NCAAs power in court whenever they saw fit. 

Coach Eddie Robinson called it when it happened.

[u/robotunes → u/QCTID]

Blame Oklahoma, it starts with them suing the NCAA

Nah, talk of a playoff preceded the 1984 Oklahoma decision by at least 20 years. Off-and-on rumors about playoffs peaked during the 1970s but things never came anywhere close to reality.

Here's Bear Bryant on Jan. 1, 1980 talking about the polls versus a playoff.

[u/Revolver_Oshawott_ → u/robotunes]

Damn this is the first time I've heard this clip.

Dude prognosticated a ton of shit

[u/QCTID → u/robotunes]

Article breaking down the different proposals from 60s onward.

Technically you could blame all of the blue blood schools, they’ve always wanted preferential treatment or to break away in every instance mentioned in that article. The SCOTUS decision validated them after 17 years of debate over the topic, then we got the rate race that was realignment and the creation of CCGs & the BCS. By the time we got a playoff the big schools knew they could form their own committee to run the show because the 84 SCOTUS decision set that precedent. 

[u/Schmenza → u/QCTID]

Thank Oklahoma

[u/Frosty-Tiger-85 → u/QCTID]

Think Eddie Robinson was a prophet regarding that prediction

[u/jebei → u/QCTID]

This is the answer. It's a combination of conferences owning their media rights due to Oklahoma Supreme Court case and the college football post season always being the bowl system since the beginning. Add the two together and NCAA gets nada from college football. It's actually a net drain on the NCAA, they get all their operativing revenue from the basketball tournament.

[u/lowes18]

Corruption from the bowl system

[u/SirMellencamp → u/lowes18]

The old bowl system corruption doesnt get talked about enough. It was a whole scheme.

[u/lowes18 → u/SirMellencamp]

People forget the bowls basically openly bribed athletic directors and politicans up until 2011 when they got caught, then suddenly everyone was ok with a playoff.

[u/SirMellencamp → u/lowes18]

You had the executive director of the Sugar Bowl making $800k a year to run one football game and a charity run every year. It was the same setup for both every single year. He was making more than almost all of the ADs in the SEC.

[u/Schmenza → u/SirMellencamp]

But God forbid a player get a free tatto in exchange for some autographs

[u/ShweatyPalmsh]

It comes down to the NCAA owning the media rights versus the schools/conferences. OU sued the NCAA back in the 80s (along with Penn State i believe) and won which allowed them to control their own media rights for football. Schools then pooled that together to conference media deals. Obviously since the NCAA doesn’t own the media rights for football this caused a bunch of inequality and crafted the environment for the two power conferences we have today holding things hostage.

[u/Wonderful_Adagio9346]

Because the FBS (and BCS) are based on bowl games, which are independent of the NCAA.

March Madness and other playoffs aren't about money. Bowl games ARE. Can the NCAA run a playoff system paying out millions per game without the bowl games participation? And if the playoff causes the demise of classic bowls (Cotton?), can they handle the PR spin?

[u/JakeDuck1]

The FCS is the official ncaa division 1 football championship that the ncaa runs. The big conferences chose to do their own thing a long time ago.

[u/pat88kane]

NCAA stands for National Collegiate Athletic Association. It is a completely voluntary association that the schools join.

The president of theNCAA is elected by the board of governors, which is made up of university presidents, chancellors, and conference commissioners.

They aren’t two separate groups. Everyone acts like they are. The schools are the NCAA. If the schools want something, so does the NCAA and vise versa

[u/AsphaltPizza]

The NCAA sucks. You don’t want them MORE involved in college football.

[u/Better-Temporary-146]

The NCAA can’t because the member institutions have created cartels in their conferences to prevent that. 

The NCAA is as powerful as its members allow. 

[u/advancedmatt]

The NCAA is fortunate that they still have March Madness as their cash cow. March Madness is dependent on an NCAA rule that is 100% illegal that no schools have decided to challenge. The NCAA rule is that any Division I team that is invited to March Madness cannot play in any other postseason tournament that season. If you are invited by the NCAA tournament committee, your only options are to play in the NCAA tournament or stay home; you can't play in any competing postseason tournament that season.

[u/That_Don_Guy_1]

My best guess is: the power conferences got a look at how much of the men's basketball TV money goes into the NCAA's pockets (and kept out of theirs), and told the NCAA, "That's OK; we've got this."

Actually, the NCAA did offer to run a national championship in men's rowing at one point, but the main rowing powers told the NCAA pretty much the same thing.

[u/reno1441 → u/That_Don_Guy_1]

Actually, the NCAA did offer to run a national championship in men's rowing at one point, but the main rowing powers told the NCAA pretty much the same thing.

Part of it is also the collegiate rowing association also predating the NCAA.

So funnily enough very similar to the bowl situation here. That, the IRA, and the NIT might be the only three weird historical anomalies for the NCAA.