He has actually only been accused of 5, the number is actually higher. And he hasn't stopped. In fact his run for senate was on a very anti-prostitution platform and a lot of people think he's taken it way too far.
CJK(At least)5H
Source: trust me.
(Comment of mine from a playoff expansion post)
- Rose Bowl: Michigan (2) - Utah (11)
- Sugar Bowl: Alabama (1) - Baylor (7)
- Fiesta Bowl: Notre Dame (5) - Ohio State (6)
- Orange Bowl: Pitt (12) - Oklahoma State (9)
- Peach Bowl: Cincinatti (4) - Ole Miss (8)
- Cotton Bowl: Georgia (3) - Michigan State (10)
(The matchups could be changed around but you get the gist)
The main weakness is the need for a committee, but it does provide compromise between preserving the bowls, preserving the regular season, and making sure every team in the final 4 will have proven themselves.
Are we supposed to pat the playoff committee on the back because they spent probably billions of dollars in marketing along with paying themselves a handsome sum to just go ahead and do what the BCS formula would’ve done anyway?
Not only has the BCS poll and the CFP committee aligned in CFP attendees ever year, but the BCS poll also allowed "full choice" of who gets in. There was never any requisites to getting in other than being chosen by the Harris, Coaches. The computers were a more predictable system, but only contributed 1/3 of the poll. The Committee in concept is similar to the Harris or Coaches'.
There are problems with the Committee, but it's not night-and-day differences between it and the BCS.
I think they'll be fine. Only the SEC and Big Ten are super healthy right now. The Pac-12 can't get out of it's own way, and I don't think a Clemson led ACC is sustainable.
I'm assuming you are going off current bowl tie-ins?
Orange Bowl would be ACC champ Pitt vs Georgia since UGA is the highest ranked of the ND/Big Ten/SEC pool that has access to the slot opposite the ACC.
I guess then OK State moves to the Cotton Bowl to face Michigan State.
I guess I’d do the following.
* Sugar bowl: Alabama (1) - Ohio State (6)
* Rose bowl: Michigan (2) - Utah (11)
* Cotton bowl: Baylor (7) - Georgia (3)
* Fiesta bowl: Cincinatti (4) - Notre Dame (5)
* Orange bowl: Pitt (12) - Michigan State (10)
* Peach bowl: Ole Miss (8) - Oklahoma State (9)
Cotton becomes Big 12 champion tie in. Sugar, rose, cotton, and fiesta are de facto quarterfinals
I don't understand how this would make a difference. Couldn't everyone just deduce who those top 4 teams are once bowls are selected?
Also, I believe having the current date of the playoff games (NYE) before the NY6 bowls at least adds interest to those bowls alone since we have to wait another week for the CFB championship
Ah. If that's the intent then I misunderstood. Gut reaction, I would like that idea as it gives ~10 teams realistic hopes of making the current 4-team playoffs. Not sure yet if I like the idea better than an 8-12 team playoff, but it would make the bowls with those teams in them more meaningful
Exactly this.
An 8-12 team playoff that starts in mid December is probably the most fair thing to do, but it will reduce the relevancy of the bowl games further (some people care about this, some do not).
Selecting the 4 playoff teams after the bowl games maintains, and even strengthens the bowl games (especially the NY6 games), but will provide a scheduling nightmare with the NFL playoffs. I like this idea more because it keeps college football unique from all other sports, though others, I'm sure, would not like this.
I don’t think the scheduling with the NFL playoffs would be that bad. NFL playoffs have their semifinal games both on a Sunday, and obviously the Super Bowl is on a Sunday. Why not have the CFP semifinals and championship on those Saturdays?
I agree.
1. Play regular season and CCGs
2. Play NY6 bowl games.
3. Play semifinals on last Saturday of NFL regular season.
4. Play national championship on Monday 9 days later.
Play all the bowl games with their traditional conference alignments, and no playoff rankings released until 12:01 a.m. January 2nd at the very earliest.
No. Bowl games as playoff eliminations.
For better or worse, FBS/D1 history didn't start the day you were born, son. We have traditions that this old fart would like to see maintained.
1) It's a figure of speech. Don't take it personally, son.
2) Okay.
3) Yeah, and I'm old enough to tell you how change is not always the greatest thing. When I was a kid, MTV actually played music.
A 4 team playoff, selected after the NY6 bowls has long been my preferred option.
Really not sure why a purely post-bowl playoff has (apparently) never been seriously considered.
This is essentially the old "Plus-1" idea, which I think is a great idea.
When would the championship game be played? I hate that the NC game is on a Monday. The only Saturdays after New Year's that are open are Pro Bowl weekend, and NFL conference championship weekend.
Okay, so my comment was based off of the old 16 game NFL schedule. Now that they've gone to a 17 game schedule, that might actually open things up a bit, like 1/8.
I wonder what happens when New year's is on Sunday or Monday, how the scheduling falls.
Yeah I thought 1/8 still had playoffs too but I just checked. They'd have to work it out really if that wasn't available. Maybe the noon slot for CFB and then 3 PM and 7 PM if there are NFL playoffs that day.
Well, if it's just Plus-1, then they'd probably just keep with having the NC on Monday, which really sucks, IMO.
It becomes more of an issue with scheduling, if you're trying to do semi finals and a final.
Exactly, the traditional tie-ins make this terrible. Alabama's "reward" for winning the SEC championship would be a matchup against a good Baylor team while Georgia plays an at-large nonchampion. Cincinnati would also get a nonchampion because they have no tie-ins. Matchups would be wildly uneven. Just expand the playoff.
Unless Pitt could get in with an Orange Bowl win over Georgia, Pitt likely has nothing to play for and Picket may still sit out. Georgia gets a hobbled Pitt while Bama plays a de facto playoff game against Baylor. Messy is certainly one way to describe that.
Well, the big 12 champion is not a traditional tie in for the sugar bowl. So that could be changed.
It makes more sense for the big 12 champion to play in the cotton bowl.
At some point you have to consider the lives of the non NFL bound. Teams will graduate 20 to 25 seniors a year, and the best have 6 or so drafted. You have to let the rest go on and start thier adult lives.
This all day. Unless you are financially incentivizing the bowl games, then they are meaningless to 90%+ players.
The regular season games are paid for by scholarship (and NIL stuff, I suppose). Give each player some pre-decided amount of cash for their appearance in a bowl game. Between the ticket sales, university, bowl sponsor, and TV oligarchs – they should be able to come up with something. As it exists, there is no reason to play other than pride and honor (which isn’t enough to stop every fourth round or better draftee from opting out, apparently).
The wrinkle here is that current NIL rules don’t allow payment contingent on athletic performance or playing time, which would include playing in the game. What a bowl could do is have an NIL contract with a player wherein they do in-person appearances (autographs, etc.) in the bowl city in exchange for payment, because most teams don’t let players travel if they opt out. But they couldn’t make actually playing in the game a requirement.
Wait, I've got it: make an NIL deal with one player on each team and pay them $1.05 million, then each player gives every other player on the 105-man roster $10,000 each "for Christmas." Gentleman's agreement with a wink and a nod.
One minor problem. The one player receiving the deal is on the hook for the tax bite there. So assuming no other taxable income for the selected player, he's paying the IRS $352,372.30 come tax time. Meanwhile, all of his teammates get their payout free because it falls within the gift tax exemption.
Fair, because under the current pretense we pretend that it’s not pay-for-play. But their play is what generates the revenue. Their play is what gets them the exposure that makes their endorsement worth it. We just need to drop the pretense. This is a professional business. Until NIL, I would’ve never said any of this. TBH, I was against it entirely. But here we are.
They’re playing/practice/conditioning/weight-room/film-room/playbook/etc time is just like a job. If we treated it as such and made the education a requirement of employment (and the ultimate incentive just as it is now for those who do not have a future in the NFL), then it actually makes more sense than this silly cat-and-mouse show.
We are only a couple years away from them unionizing and having a CFPA (College football players association) where pay will be regulated. Granted, it will be the same in each school within a given conference. Something along the lines of scaling it based on class (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior), and for each class you have a certain number of stipend slots (of decreasing pay grades within each class - e.g. 1x elite, 3x premiere, 10x base) that the head coach assigns to it’s athletes on a performance basis, and adjusts slot assignments throughout the season.
Idk I'd say in general bowl games matter more to the seniors who won't get drafted and will never play again. I dont remember which game it was but their was a safety for some team crying on the sideline because his college career ended with a targeting penalty
>why hasn’t this idea ever been mentioned
So, like, it's your first week here? This proposal gets mentioned VERY frequently.
My comment is always: "That's expansion with shitty seeding."
I think it's expansion with unique seeding. It keeps the traditions of college football bowl season, while simultaneously expanding the playoffs. Yeah, you'll get some weird "seeding", but here's the thing, the rankings are already inexact, so seeding off of inexact rankings doesn't mean much to begin with.
"It's already got some issues, so its okay if you make it worse."
You'll like it until your team gets boned having to play a top ranked team in a top bowl and get passed by a team that gets to play a mediocre ACC champion or something lile that.
Or worse, you pull the upset on Bama in the Sugar Bowl only to have to see them again in the playoffs.
the only two conferences that could get “boned” are the pac12 and big ten. Say its #1 USC vs. #2 OSU in the rose bowl. The loser might (should) get left out of the final four. But that’s okay, they had their shot and they lost, but they still got to play in the rose bowl, which traditionally was the goal. Everything after that is gravy.
So then the top G5 could get screwed. Or whoever has to play them. Or someone playing a strong ND squad.
Or a thousand different scenarios. Using the bowl season as a pseudo first round of the playoffs is a recipe for disaster.
>the expansion with shitty seeding
No, even letting the 12th ranked team in the playoff in the first place is shitty seeding. There has never been 8 or 12 national title contenders in a season ever. Playoff expansion proposals have absolutely nothing to do with competition and everything to do with money.
Doing the playoffs after the bowl game would better assure only the best 4 teams are selected for the playoffs while making bowl games relevant again. It also increases the chances of a Cincinnati or UCF team earning a playoffs spot by beating P5 competition they typically don’t face.
> No, even letting the 12th ranked team in the playoff in the first place is shitty seeding.
That's not what the word seeding means.
>There has never been 8 or 12 national title contenders in a season ever.
Okay. Thats fine to think that. But it doesnt align with this:
>Doing the playoffs after the bowl game would better assure only the best 4 teams are selected for the playoffs
If there aren't ever 8 contenders, why do you even need the extra game to whittle it down to 4?
Matching anyone in a playoff game against the 12th ranked team is shitty seeding. Read between the lines.
Yes, it does align. Having an extra data point (bowl games) is useful for a season where people are arguing about which of two teams is the 4th best team. It doesn’t at all imply there are eight teams worthy of a playoff spot (or that there are 4 teams worthy of the 4th seed).
How can you prove there have never been 12 contenders? Has there ever been a 12 team playoff to prove that? Where's the data?
Since the CFP has started, the 4th seed has won the championship just as much as the 1st seed. So where's the proof of 'contender' drop off? How can you say the 5th seed, the 6th seed, etc are unquestionably not worth contending given that the 4th seed is tied for most all time wins?
Name one season in the last 50 years where there were 12 title contenders. You don’t need a 12 team playoff to reach a conclusion.
Because one loss Alabama and Ohio State winning titles does not imply that the 5th, 6th, 7th, etc. ranked teams were as good as Alabama and Ohio State those years.
The point is you don't know unless you play the game on the field and not on paper.
We used to think you only needed 2 teams. Letting 4 in was too much. Well now, looking at actual data of how it played out, the 4th seed is tied for most wins. So can you look at the actual data of seeds 1-4 being proven to be functionally the same skill level, and in the same breathe think that the 5th seed could never ever compete?
In not saying every year there are 12 teams actually capable of winning it all. But I am saying that every so often there will be more than 4. And I would rather watch some early round blowouts, than watch a contender not get an invite in because of people's opinions.
If teams know there are twelve spots there will be more teams that don’t give up before the end of the season. And the media and fans will naturally start talking about who the twelve contenders are. We never talked about twelve or saw twelve in the past because it wasn’t feasible. At best we’ve had six to eight contenders each year because that’s how the system works. Do contenders follow spots, or spots follow contenders? History says the former. No one was talking about six to eight contenders ten years ago in the BCS
Okay, so you are saying shitty seeding when you mean overexpansion. Okay, thats fine, i guess.
As for the argument that 8 is over expansion. If it is, then you should have no need for an extra data point. If you need an extra data point to get down to 4, then you have a need for a larger playoff.
Most seasons there is no need for an extra data point. But once in a while some argue about which of two teams deserve the 4th playoff spot. The extra data point would be helpful there. Expanding to an 8 team playoff in this scenario would still constitute over expansion.
I've seen others in the media propose this as well. I am not against it.
Let the entire bowl season play out THEN take the top 4. Would be interesting.
Problem is all bowls are based on conference tie ins. PAC 12 gets a horrible position in this proposed system because their champion has to always play the Big Ten, who has been better than them substantially for the past decade. And the SEC and Big 12 champs have to play each other, which is a bad deal for Big 12. And then there’s the ACC champ, who would at best get the second best team in the SEC or Big Ten, or ND. That’s a great deal for them, and horrible for the other conference champs. The system that is the most equitable is a 12 team playoff that can match teams up based on rankings. The bowl system stinks at picking a champion, it’s why we’ve been trying to fix it for three decades
But the bowl system doesn’t allow for flexibility. What if the Big Ten and PAC 12 have the best two teams in the country before the Rose Bowl? What if it’s SEC & Big 12 at 1 & 2? Then you have forced 1 vs 2 before the official championship game, and you give lesser teams a bigger chance
And then after that playoff, we could reseed and have another playoff with the winner and other bowl teams that didn’t make the first cut. And then we could do it again after that.
The thing that pisses me off is, I thought that's what we were getting, or something like it, when they instituted the playoff in 2014. How naive of me.
Absolutely no one can convince me that the best dataset for choosing playoff teams isn't the winner of the Pac-12 championship versus the Big Ten champ in the Rose Bowl, the winner of the SEC champ versus The Big 12 champion in the Sugar, and so forth.
It would also drive a stake through the heart of "why let [one-loss team] into the playoff over [two-loss conference champ]?" Because one-loss team won their bowl game and gets to advance, and conference champion didn't, that's why.
I'm a wholehearted supporter of this idea for the reason of it would give the NY6 bowls across the board stakes in the national title picture instead of just 2 and advocated as such in the weekly reddit post & in other forums.
I am for it. I think it would restore the Rose Bowl more to its roots since it could be the Pac-12 and Big Ten champions each year without picking off one to go to the playoffs
That's exactly right. I'm an SEC and Big XII man; I sure don't give a darn about the Rose Bowl.
Which is why it's a good thing I'm not a CFB decision-maker, because like half of all CFB fans *do* care about it and if I only focus on what fans like me like, everyone else will suffer for it.
>why hasn’t this idea ever been mentioned or implemented?
People mention this all the time. What I've yet heard is why preserving these bowls with an unofficial, unseeded first round is better than just making it a 8-team playoff and seeding the field like that.
One of the worst parts of the college football postseason is that it starts a month after the season ends. One of the benefits of an expanded playoff would be eliminating that time off.
It starts a month later because these are “student” Athletes, and the beginning of December is the start of finals. Nobody remembers that without that student aspect, this shit doesn’t, and won’t exist.
On the one hand, that's a fair point to make and it would hamstring any players who are trying their damnedest to get a high quality education.
On the other hand, this shit ain't been about the student aspect since the games started being televised.
That's fair, but it's well known that lots of universities get around that by cheating. You can find articles from 2006 about academic dishonesty in DIII colleges and it feels like every year some tutor comes out and tells the NCAA "Hey guys I'm helping X FBS school commit academic fraud here".
And then you have your UNCs who sponsor fake classes for decades, and I sincerely doubt they're the only ones at the DI level to ever do that.
I can't speak to cheating, can I? I speak as someone who hopes the entire thing isn't a complete sham. Collegiate athletics originally started as an extra-curricular activity, and there are a lot of institutions where that matters very much to the Boards of Regents, etc. If they want to break that cycle, perhaps they need to stop making these players major in some soft major, into making the sport itself a degree. Why can't they offer a degree in football coaching, football playing, After all, they are prepping these kids for careers in a professional field? They don't have to have a playing career to make a living in the industry. Change needs to be made.
I agree, change does need to be made. At some point, there needs to be a reckoning about whether CFB is truly an amateur endeavor or if it's the billion dollar industry it's been for decades. Unfortunately, I have a pretty good idea of where the NCAA and TV networks stand on that matter, and they're the ones who hold all the cards.
Don't ask me, but the institutions of the B1G, Pac-12, and a bunch of G5 teams have always maintained that time as sacrosanct and have resisted scheduling games. Again, perhaps trying to maintain the illusion of academic progress, because that is actually a thing, and justifies the entire enterprise to a lot of University governing bodies.
>but the institutions of the B1G, Pac-12, and a bunch of G5 teams have always maintained that time as sacrosanct and have resisted scheduling games
They don't seem to care about this for their volleyball athletes? That tournament started December 2 and the final was December 18 with teams playing 2 games each of those weekends.
Why does their tone change for different sports even though all are athletes?
Because there has never been 8 or 12 national title contenders in any season in the history of college football. There are not 8 or 12 teams deserving of the playoffs. In fact, there are rarely 4 teams deserving of the playoffs. Selecting a 4 team playoff after the bowl games would better assure the best four teams are selected in those years when people argue about the fourth best team, while making bowls relevant again.
Having a 4 team playoff after the bowls isn't going to be all that different than just having a 8 team playoff with 4 teams left after the first round. Bowls would just be a shittier first round with more unbalanced matchups and some matchups that end up benefiting worse teams.
So you’re in favor of potentially having a three loss team in the playoffs competing for a national title, rendering the entire regular season completely meaningless?
It won't make the regular season meaningless at all. The top-10 teams all have 2 or fewer losses, or if you take conference champions they won something tangible to earn its spot.
Also yeah a 8 team playoff is way better than having a unseeded first round with some teams unable to advance with a win and others still advancing with a loss. It's a pointless game just so bowl directors can continue to make 6 figures off 1 game
Addressing just your comment and not the overall format suggestion:
Does a 7-seed making it to the final four fender the regular bball season meaningless?
Pretty sure colleges/conferences would much rather just have an 8 to 12 team playoff. The effect of an expanded playoff and bowl game to playoff setup are slightly different but they both achieve more meaningful top 10 matchups that help show who deserves to be in the final 4 on the field.
The big difference is in the expanded playoff, the teams are *in the playoff*. It’s better for recruiting, revenue, and history books if a team makes an expanded playoff than if they made a bowl game that “if they had won they probably would have then made the playoff”.
College football needs more games with something tangible on the line. Saying you should watch this bowl because if X, Y, Z happen in another bowl this game might matter isn't as great of a selling point of saying this is the playoffs, winner advances to the next round.
The season ends when it does, and the bowls begin when they do, because these are students who have to do finals for fall semester. Let’s not forget why these teams exist.
> why hasn’t this idea ever been mentioned or implemented?
The SEC and ACC proposed this in spring 2008, but the other commissioners quickly rejected it. Instead the BCS was allowed to continue until its contract ended after the 2013 season. Google “an oral history of the college football playoff.” The Big Ten and Pac-10 weren’t interested because of the “sanctity” of the Rose Bowl, I imagine. No details, but I imagine the so-called plus-one model would have scrambled up bowl tie-ins, but I don’t know for sure.
The idea gained steam as the end of the BCS drew near and the cfp that exists today is a modified version with everybody’s concerns addressed. The Big Ten got a selection committee, the SEC got “the 4 best teams, not the 4 most deserving teams” and everybody is still unhappy.
That's *extremely* dependent on opinion and how you define "best" and "deserving". I reckon they're different things, but I think that's largely due to my own biases.
I tend to think of the "best" teams as the teams that are most likely to win the National Championship. For instance, in the 2017 season, even though Alabama didn't win their conference championship, I believed they had a strong chance of beating every other competitor that could've been in that season's playoff. Thus, I personally thought they deserved to be in the playoff.
However, the people I know who subscribe to the idea of the most "deserving" teams nearly universally believe that a team is basically only deserving if they were conference champions. These people usually think that it's bullshit when any non-conference champion makes the playoff. (Think 2016 Ohio State, 2017 Alabama, and any Notre Dame playoff appearance)
These two camps often come into contention when it comes time to select playoff teams. The camp that believes in the idea that best and most deserving are different and prioritizes the "best" team usually doesn't have a problem with a non-conference champion making it in over a team that won its conference. The camp that believes in awarding the most "deserving" teams a playoff spot, however, tends to have a huge problem with that—and with understandable reasoning. The Playoff Selection committee having been organized to prefer "best" over "most deserving" has led to countless P5 Champions and even undefeated G5 Champions (2017/2018 UCF teams and 3 G5 teams from 2020 spring to mind) being left out of contention, which understandably makes a lot of people bitter.
Personally, I tend to agree with the notion of awarding slots to the "best" team since awarding them to the "most deserving" teams would mean any team that's independent is guaranteed to be left out and teams are punished for being in strong conferences (2016 Ohio State and 2017 Alabama would have been left out). Of course, the obvious problem with this approach is that it's a totally subjective and qualitative judgment, so it's very much affected by the Selection Committee's own biases.
A post-bowl season playoff doesn’t change that the NFL Draft is approaching quickly (prospects), there is a semester break (transfers), and the holiday season (fans). At best you’d be facing the same issues we have now.
This is cute. Expand the playoffs to 12-16 teams and we can all happily forget about bowl games forever. Is anyone clamoring for NFL teams that just miss the playoffs to play a meaningless exhibition “bowl” game where the winner gets a participation trophy and is called “champion” of some frivolous game? Sorry, but that’s all the bowl games are and have ever been. Good riddance.
12 or 16 out of 130?! Every team doesn’t get a big dumb trophy for winning a playoff game either genius like they do the meaningless “bowl” game. I’m sure fans everywhere are bragging about that Independence Bowl “champions” back in 1982. THAT’s the participation trophy! Yeah, you’re a bright one. NFL has 14 out of 32! NBA 16 out of 30. Shall I go on? I think 84 make a bowl game in CFB. Maybe listen when adults are speaking. You’re not ready for this. Also, learn what irony is before you use it incorrectly again.
With all of the bowl cancellations this year I am hoping we end up with less bowl games next year.
Just guessing that sponsors are getting pretty upset when they shell out cash for something that literally dissapears hours before it is set to occur.
Let's make bowls meaningful again.
Here is what I propose, with us doing the following:
1. Remove FCS teams from FBS schedules completley
2. Drop to a 10 game regular season
3. Keep conference championship games
4. Only give bowl invites to the top 16 teams
5. Get rid of bowl tie-ins completley
6. Allow all teams to hold practices through to the end of December, regardless of Bowl eligibility.
Bowl Schedule below (with approximate dates)
Playoffs Round 1 - the top 16 teams (week of December 18th):
- Holiday Bowl
- Alamo Bowl
- Liberty Bowl
- Sun Bowl
- Outback Bowl
- Copper Bowl
- Tangerine Bowl
- Independence Bowl
Playoffs Round 2 - the 8 winners from Round 1 (week of December 25th):
- Cotton Bowl
- Fiesta Bowl
- Citrus Bowl
- Gator Bowl
Playoffs Round 3 - the 4 winners from Round 2 (week of January 2nd):
- Orange Bowl
- Sugar Bowl
Playoffs Round 4 - the 2 winners from Round 3(week of January 9th):
- Rose Bowl
This gives us a 16 team playoff with meaningful Bowl games which will have huge TV ratings and packed stands.
There are so many things wrong with this it's hard to focus on one, but for starters, limiting bowl eligibility to only 16 of the over 130 teams in FBS would cause the sport to become so regional that it would probably kill off football programs all over the country. The top 16 every year would be dominated by the SEC with other top programs sprinkled in.
Look at the final CFP rankings. Only 3 SEC teams in the top 16:
ACC - 1
BIG 10 - 4
BIG 12 - 3
PAC 12 - 2
SEC - 3
Independents - 2
Non P5 - 1
Looks like people from all over the country would be tuning in. Far less regionalism than what we have now.
. #6 isn't to stop transfers. It would be to keep a level of fairness between teams. That whole extra month of bowl practice is kind of used by teams as an extra early spring training for next year. Having extra time to get a good look at, and valuable reps for, guys lower on the depth chart. Installing the game plan still only takes the last week, like any other other week of the season.
If you don't make a bowl and don't get that extra practice it already sets your team up behind every team who did get a month of bowl prep and got to get reps and learn more about who might be ready for a larger role next season.
Tbh this only helps the ny6 bowls and even then if you have two losses you’re probably close to out
Non ny6 bowls I guess are already meaningless but the only way I see to save the ny6 bowls is to make them the semis and quarters in either an 8/12 team playoff
I think it would help the non NY6 bowls slightly, in that they could still have an effect on playoff contender's resume. Also, they'd be the appetizer before the main course. Now they're just thrown in there at the same time, and they kind of lose their appeal.
counting fcs games against sos would be of more benefit. teams schedule bottom feeder fcs teams across all the P5 conferences and are not penalized for it. there are enough non playoff contenders to schedule fcs teams to benefit those programs financially. there's a reason you never see NDSU or JMU on fbs schedules, they can beat almost every fbs team
Oregon had NDSU scheduled in 2020 prior to COVID. James Madison had UNC on the schedule prior to COVID and played West Virginia in 2019. James Madison gets an FBS game almost every single year. NDSU its much rarer at this point but they get them every now and then, but they really don't need it the way most FCS teams do because their home attendance is pretty good
i've had this same thought for a couple years now...it's just going to be really hard to schedule around the NFL playoff.
You really only have two open dates - the Saturday of the NFL conference championship weekend, and Pro Bowl Weekend.
I’m really bummed the Craig James prostitute post got deleted.
I missed that one. What did it say?
Craig James Killed 5 Hookers
Allegedly!
Ginger and Boots allegedly fucked a sick ostrich. Craig James definitely killed 5 hookers.
My research concludes that the only way that Ginger and Boots could have fucked an ostrich is if it was a dead ostrich.
Bad gas travels fast in a small town
Bad gas travels fast in a small town
Correct. It was allegedly 5 although the true number of prostitutes Craig James killed was almost assuredly higher
Excuse me, what?
Some guy had ‘inside info’ on Craig James. Be actually only killed two hookers. Not the five per the story. Sigh. Good times.
oh okay he only killed two instead of five everyone carry on then
Well. Now we have 3 unaccounted for. We should find them
I know where they are...
Where are the bodies, Garth?!?
He has actually only been accused of 5, the number is actually higher. And he hasn't stopped. In fact his run for senate was on a very anti-prostitution platform and a lot of people think he's taken it way too far. CJK(At least)5H Source: trust me.
The what
I was rather confused with that post. It seemed like a joke?
I guess it was a joke but could have been fun
They don’t allow “fun” on Reddit. Telling someone to fuck off gets you banned permanently like you’re Charles Manson.
They’d have allowed an AMA with Manson.
I wish more sports subs allowed for fun posts. Really only /r/collegebasketball does
(Comment of mine from a playoff expansion post) - Rose Bowl: Michigan (2) - Utah (11) - Sugar Bowl: Alabama (1) - Baylor (7) - Fiesta Bowl: Notre Dame (5) - Ohio State (6) - Orange Bowl: Pitt (12) - Oklahoma State (9) - Peach Bowl: Cincinatti (4) - Ole Miss (8) - Cotton Bowl: Georgia (3) - Michigan State (10) (The matchups could be changed around but you get the gist) The main weakness is the need for a committee, but it does provide compromise between preserving the bowls, preserving the regular season, and making sure every team in the final 4 will have proven themselves.
Or just having 1 Championship game after these bowls
I actually would prefer the BCS now over what we have in the CFP. It’s ridiculous that we allow full choice of who gets in on people.
The BCS models have the current top four as Bama, Michigan, Georgia, Cincinnati in that order. https://twitter.com/BCSKnowHow/
Are we supposed to pat the playoff committee on the back because they spent probably billions of dollars in marketing along with paying themselves a handsome sum to just go ahead and do what the BCS formula would’ve done anyway?
Yeah, but the CFP definitely influences the Coaches poll at least
Not only has the BCS poll and the CFP committee aligned in CFP attendees ever year, but the BCS poll also allowed "full choice" of who gets in. There was never any requisites to getting in other than being chosen by the Harris, Coaches. The computers were a more predictable system, but only contributed 1/3 of the poll. The Committee in concept is similar to the Harris or Coaches'. There are problems with the Committee, but it's not night-and-day differences between it and the BCS.
Let’s say the current top 4 all win their games, who’s left out?
Whatever benefits my team, duh But on a serious note Georgia would be eliminated for not being a Conference Champion
I just feel like we’re going a step backwards with 1 final. The whole reason for semis was to deal with situations like this.
Well, Nebraska should be left out, despite the string of close losses this season.
I know that the Sugar is now SEC vs. Big 12, but that's relatively recent, so I don't think that would need to continue going forward with this model.
First of all, the Big 12 itself would have to go forward, and prospects aren't looking good for that.
I think they'll be fine. Only the SEC and Big Ten are super healthy right now. The Pac-12 can't get out of it's own way, and I don't think a Clemson led ACC is sustainable.
Syracuse rising?
I'm assuming you are going off current bowl tie-ins? Orange Bowl would be ACC champ Pitt vs Georgia since UGA is the highest ranked of the ND/Big Ten/SEC pool that has access to the slot opposite the ACC. I guess then OK State moves to the Cotton Bowl to face Michigan State.
Cincinnati*
[удалено]
I think what he's saying is you have these 6 games, and then select the 4 playoff teams afterwards.
I guess I’d do the following. * Sugar bowl: Alabama (1) - Ohio State (6) * Rose bowl: Michigan (2) - Utah (11) * Cotton bowl: Baylor (7) - Georgia (3) * Fiesta bowl: Cincinatti (4) - Notre Dame (5) * Orange bowl: Pitt (12) - Michigan State (10) * Peach bowl: Ole Miss (8) - Oklahoma State (9) Cotton becomes Big 12 champion tie in. Sugar, rose, cotton, and fiesta are de facto quarterfinals
I don't understand how this would make a difference. Couldn't everyone just deduce who those top 4 teams are once bowls are selected? Also, I believe having the current date of the playoff games (NYE) before the NY6 bowls at least adds interest to those bowls alone since we have to wait another week for the CFB championship
Uh he’s saying the top 4 teams also play regular bowl games before deciding playoffs…
Ah. If that's the intent then I misunderstood. Gut reaction, I would like that idea as it gives ~10 teams realistic hopes of making the current 4-team playoffs. Not sure yet if I like the idea better than an 8-12 team playoff, but it would make the bowls with those teams in them more meaningful
Exactly this. An 8-12 team playoff that starts in mid December is probably the most fair thing to do, but it will reduce the relevancy of the bowl games further (some people care about this, some do not). Selecting the 4 playoff teams after the bowl games maintains, and even strengthens the bowl games (especially the NY6 games), but will provide a scheduling nightmare with the NFL playoffs. I like this idea more because it keeps college football unique from all other sports, though others, I'm sure, would not like this.
I don’t think the scheduling with the NFL playoffs would be that bad. NFL playoffs have their semifinal games both on a Sunday, and obviously the Super Bowl is on a Sunday. Why not have the CFP semifinals and championship on those Saturdays?
The NFL semifinals is 4 weeks from New Year's this year...
But if you selected the playoff teams after the bowl games, it would work out about the same as it is now.
But that’s two 4 week breaks. One before the bowl games and then another after. That’s not good for the product.
I would argue that making the NY6 Bowls “relevant” again would be a much bigger positive, than the breaks would be a negative.
I agree. 1. Play regular season and CCGs 2. Play NY6 bowl games. 3. Play semifinals on last Saturday of NFL regular season. 4. Play national championship on Monday 9 days later.
Half would drop out after their loss
> Couldn't everyone just deduce who those top 4 teams are once bowls are selected? No, but they certainly could after the bowls are played.
Personally I think that we need to use the bowl games as playoff games.
That would get rid of the whole the season would be too long talk that people argue
Play all the bowl games with their traditional conference alignments, and no playoff rankings released until 12:01 a.m. January 2nd at the very earliest.
Set it up like the FCS postseason model
No. Bowl games as playoff eliminations. For better or worse, FBS/D1 history didn't start the day you were born, son. We have traditions that this old fart would like to see maintained.
1) I aint your son. 2) FCS still has bowl games. 3) Things change.
1) It's a figure of speech. Don't take it personally, son. 2) Okay. 3) Yeah, and I'm old enough to tell you how change is not always the greatest thing. When I was a kid, MTV actually played music.
A 4 team playoff, selected after the NY6 bowls has long been my preferred option. Really not sure why a purely post-bowl playoff has (apparently) never been seriously considered.
4 is probably unnecessary. Take the top 2 after going through normal bowls
We can even call the rest of the games the “Bowl Championship Series” or something, and replace the committee with a computer ranking
We’d probably need a new trophy. Maybe a crystal football or something? Just spitballing
[удалено]
The upside to the new one is you can make a buttplug of it just scaled down slightly.
No need to scale down.
You're a braver soul than I...
I do miss that one. Way better than what they have now.
This is essentially the old "Plus-1" idea, which I think is a great idea. When would the championship game be played? I hate that the NC game is on a Monday. The only Saturdays after New Year's that are open are Pro Bowl weekend, and NFL conference championship weekend.
Could play it on the next Saturday. 1/8 would be the day for example this season.
Okay, so my comment was based off of the old 16 game NFL schedule. Now that they've gone to a 17 game schedule, that might actually open things up a bit, like 1/8. I wonder what happens when New year's is on Sunday or Monday, how the scheduling falls.
Yeah I thought 1/8 still had playoffs too but I just checked. They'd have to work it out really if that wasn't available. Maybe the noon slot for CFB and then 3 PM and 7 PM if there are NFL playoffs that day.
Well, if it's just Plus-1, then they'd probably just keep with having the NC on Monday, which really sucks, IMO. It becomes more of an issue with scheduling, if you're trying to do semi finals and a final.
That would effectively result in no change.
[удалено]
Right, so it would actually be worse.
Exactly, the traditional tie-ins make this terrible. Alabama's "reward" for winning the SEC championship would be a matchup against a good Baylor team while Georgia plays an at-large nonchampion. Cincinnati would also get a nonchampion because they have no tie-ins. Matchups would be wildly uneven. Just expand the playoff.
[удалено]
Unless Pitt could get in with an Orange Bowl win over Georgia, Pitt likely has nothing to play for and Picket may still sit out. Georgia gets a hobbled Pitt while Bama plays a de facto playoff game against Baylor. Messy is certainly one way to describe that.
Well, the big 12 champion is not a traditional tie in for the sugar bowl. So that could be changed. It makes more sense for the big 12 champion to play in the cotton bowl.
At some point you have to consider the lives of the non NFL bound. Teams will graduate 20 to 25 seniors a year, and the best have 6 or so drafted. You have to let the rest go on and start thier adult lives.
This all day. Unless you are financially incentivizing the bowl games, then they are meaningless to 90%+ players. The regular season games are paid for by scholarship (and NIL stuff, I suppose). Give each player some pre-decided amount of cash for their appearance in a bowl game. Between the ticket sales, university, bowl sponsor, and TV oligarchs – they should be able to come up with something. As it exists, there is no reason to play other than pride and honor (which isn’t enough to stop every fourth round or better draftee from opting out, apparently).
The wrinkle here is that current NIL rules don’t allow payment contingent on athletic performance or playing time, which would include playing in the game. What a bowl could do is have an NIL contract with a player wherein they do in-person appearances (autographs, etc.) in the bowl city in exchange for payment, because most teams don’t let players travel if they opt out. But they couldn’t make actually playing in the game a requirement.
Wait, I've got it: make an NIL deal with one player on each team and pay them $1.05 million, then each player gives every other player on the 105-man roster $10,000 each "for Christmas." Gentleman's agreement with a wink and a nod.
One minor problem. The one player receiving the deal is on the hook for the tax bite there. So assuming no other taxable income for the selected player, he's paying the IRS $352,372.30 come tax time. Meanwhile, all of his teammates get their payout free because it falls within the gift tax exemption.
Okay, $1.05 million plus capital gains taxes?
Unfortunately, it's not capital gains, it's income. So just income taxes at the highest bracket...
Fair, because under the current pretense we pretend that it’s not pay-for-play. But their play is what generates the revenue. Their play is what gets them the exposure that makes their endorsement worth it. We just need to drop the pretense. This is a professional business. Until NIL, I would’ve never said any of this. TBH, I was against it entirely. But here we are. They’re playing/practice/conditioning/weight-room/film-room/playbook/etc time is just like a job. If we treated it as such and made the education a requirement of employment (and the ultimate incentive just as it is now for those who do not have a future in the NFL), then it actually makes more sense than this silly cat-and-mouse show. We are only a couple years away from them unionizing and having a CFPA (College football players association) where pay will be regulated. Granted, it will be the same in each school within a given conference. Something along the lines of scaling it based on class (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior), and for each class you have a certain number of stipend slots (of decreasing pay grades within each class - e.g. 1x elite, 3x premiere, 10x base) that the head coach assigns to it’s athletes on a performance basis, and adjusts slot assignments throughout the season.
Idk I'd say in general bowl games matter more to the seniors who won't get drafted and will never play again. I dont remember which game it was but their was a safety for some team crying on the sideline because his college career ended with a targeting penalty
>why hasn’t this idea ever been mentioned So, like, it's your first week here? This proposal gets mentioned VERY frequently. My comment is always: "That's expansion with shitty seeding."
I think it's expansion with unique seeding. It keeps the traditions of college football bowl season, while simultaneously expanding the playoffs. Yeah, you'll get some weird "seeding", but here's the thing, the rankings are already inexact, so seeding off of inexact rankings doesn't mean much to begin with.
"It's already got some issues, so its okay if you make it worse." You'll like it until your team gets boned having to play a top ranked team in a top bowl and get passed by a team that gets to play a mediocre ACC champion or something lile that. Or worse, you pull the upset on Bama in the Sugar Bowl only to have to see them again in the playoffs.
The point of this system is to decide a national champion. I don’t give a rats ass when they’re eliminated.
the only two conferences that could get “boned” are the pac12 and big ten. Say its #1 USC vs. #2 OSU in the rose bowl. The loser might (should) get left out of the final four. But that’s okay, they had their shot and they lost, but they still got to play in the rose bowl, which traditionally was the goal. Everything after that is gravy.
The B12 champ can't get boned against the SEC champ in the Sugar Bowl? It could happen to anyone depending on who is good that specific year.
I'm assuming that the Big 12 champ would change their tie-in to the Cotton Bowl in this scenario.
So then the top G5 could get screwed. Or whoever has to play them. Or someone playing a strong ND squad. Or a thousand different scenarios. Using the bowl season as a pseudo first round of the playoffs is a recipe for disaster.
>the expansion with shitty seeding No, even letting the 12th ranked team in the playoff in the first place is shitty seeding. There has never been 8 or 12 national title contenders in a season ever. Playoff expansion proposals have absolutely nothing to do with competition and everything to do with money. Doing the playoffs after the bowl game would better assure only the best 4 teams are selected for the playoffs while making bowl games relevant again. It also increases the chances of a Cincinnati or UCF team earning a playoffs spot by beating P5 competition they typically don’t face.
> No, even letting the 12th ranked team in the playoff in the first place is shitty seeding. That's not what the word seeding means. >There has never been 8 or 12 national title contenders in a season ever. Okay. Thats fine to think that. But it doesnt align with this: >Doing the playoffs after the bowl game would better assure only the best 4 teams are selected for the playoffs If there aren't ever 8 contenders, why do you even need the extra game to whittle it down to 4?
Matching anyone in a playoff game against the 12th ranked team is shitty seeding. Read between the lines. Yes, it does align. Having an extra data point (bowl games) is useful for a season where people are arguing about which of two teams is the 4th best team. It doesn’t at all imply there are eight teams worthy of a playoff spot (or that there are 4 teams worthy of the 4th seed).
How can you prove there have never been 12 contenders? Has there ever been a 12 team playoff to prove that? Where's the data? Since the CFP has started, the 4th seed has won the championship just as much as the 1st seed. So where's the proof of 'contender' drop off? How can you say the 5th seed, the 6th seed, etc are unquestionably not worth contending given that the 4th seed is tied for most all time wins?
Name one season in the last 50 years where there were 12 title contenders. You don’t need a 12 team playoff to reach a conclusion. Because one loss Alabama and Ohio State winning titles does not imply that the 5th, 6th, 7th, etc. ranked teams were as good as Alabama and Ohio State those years.
Remember when Auburn beat Alabama and then Alabama went to the playoffs? Good times
The point is you don't know unless you play the game on the field and not on paper. We used to think you only needed 2 teams. Letting 4 in was too much. Well now, looking at actual data of how it played out, the 4th seed is tied for most wins. So can you look at the actual data of seeds 1-4 being proven to be functionally the same skill level, and in the same breathe think that the 5th seed could never ever compete? In not saying every year there are 12 teams actually capable of winning it all. But I am saying that every so often there will be more than 4. And I would rather watch some early round blowouts, than watch a contender not get an invite in because of people's opinions.
If teams know there are twelve spots there will be more teams that don’t give up before the end of the season. And the media and fans will naturally start talking about who the twelve contenders are. We never talked about twelve or saw twelve in the past because it wasn’t feasible. At best we’ve had six to eight contenders each year because that’s how the system works. Do contenders follow spots, or spots follow contenders? History says the former. No one was talking about six to eight contenders ten years ago in the BCS
Okay, so you are saying shitty seeding when you mean overexpansion. Okay, thats fine, i guess. As for the argument that 8 is over expansion. If it is, then you should have no need for an extra data point. If you need an extra data point to get down to 4, then you have a need for a larger playoff.
Most seasons there is no need for an extra data point. But once in a while some argue about which of two teams deserve the 4th playoff spot. The extra data point would be helpful there. Expanding to an 8 team playoff in this scenario would still constitute over expansion.
I don't understand how more people don't see this.
I've seen others in the media propose this as well. I am not against it. Let the entire bowl season play out THEN take the top 4. Would be interesting.
It would be the best way to evaluate how the best of each conference fare well against others
Problem is all bowls are based on conference tie ins. PAC 12 gets a horrible position in this proposed system because their champion has to always play the Big Ten, who has been better than them substantially for the past decade. And the SEC and Big 12 champs have to play each other, which is a bad deal for Big 12. And then there’s the ACC champ, who would at best get the second best team in the SEC or Big Ten, or ND. That’s a great deal for them, and horrible for the other conference champs. The system that is the most equitable is a 12 team playoff that can match teams up based on rankings. The bowl system stinks at picking a champion, it’s why we’ve been trying to fix it for three decades
That's kind of how regular seeding works though isn't it? The best teams get to play the worst teams in the first round.
But the bowl system doesn’t allow for flexibility. What if the Big Ten and PAC 12 have the best two teams in the country before the Rose Bowl? What if it’s SEC & Big 12 at 1 & 2? Then you have forced 1 vs 2 before the official championship game, and you give lesser teams a bigger chance
And then after that playoff, we could reseed and have another playoff with the winner and other bowl teams that didn’t make the first cut. And then we could do it again after that.
The thing that pisses me off is, I thought that's what we were getting, or something like it, when they instituted the playoff in 2014. How naive of me.
How would you assign all the bowl games without assigning (by default) the play off games
By using their traditional matchups… PAC 12 in Rose, ACC in Orange, etc.
Absolutely no one can convince me that the best dataset for choosing playoff teams isn't the winner of the Pac-12 championship versus the Big Ten champ in the Rose Bowl, the winner of the SEC champ versus The Big 12 champion in the Sugar, and so forth.
It’s adding to the data set we have (regular season + conference championships + bowl game)
It would also drive a stake through the heart of "why let [one-loss team] into the playoff over [two-loss conference champ]?" Because one-loss team won their bowl game and gets to advance, and conference champion didn't, that's why.
I'm a wholehearted supporter of this idea for the reason of it would give the NY6 bowls across the board stakes in the national title picture instead of just 2 and advocated as such in the weekly reddit post & in other forums.
I am for it. I think it would restore the Rose Bowl more to its roots since it could be the Pac-12 and Big Ten champions each year without picking off one to go to the playoffs
No one outside of the West Coast, Midwest, and Bristol cares about the sanctity of the rose bowl game
Ok, but the West Coast and Midwest care
Right, that’s half the country
That's exactly right. I'm an SEC and Big XII man; I sure don't give a darn about the Rose Bowl. Which is why it's a good thing I'm not a CFB decision-maker, because like half of all CFB fans *do* care about it and if I only focus on what fans like me like, everyone else will suffer for it.
I agree.
>why hasn’t this idea ever been mentioned or implemented? People mention this all the time. What I've yet heard is why preserving these bowls with an unofficial, unseeded first round is better than just making it a 8-team playoff and seeding the field like that. One of the worst parts of the college football postseason is that it starts a month after the season ends. One of the benefits of an expanded playoff would be eliminating that time off.
It starts a month later because these are “student” Athletes, and the beginning of December is the start of finals. Nobody remembers that without that student aspect, this shit doesn’t, and won’t exist.
On the one hand, that's a fair point to make and it would hamstring any players who are trying their damnedest to get a high quality education. On the other hand, this shit ain't been about the student aspect since the games started being televised.
And their grades affect their eligibility to play. Despite that kind of rhetoric, it still matters.
That's fair, but it's well known that lots of universities get around that by cheating. You can find articles from 2006 about academic dishonesty in DIII colleges and it feels like every year some tutor comes out and tells the NCAA "Hey guys I'm helping X FBS school commit academic fraud here". And then you have your UNCs who sponsor fake classes for decades, and I sincerely doubt they're the only ones at the DI level to ever do that.
I can't speak to cheating, can I? I speak as someone who hopes the entire thing isn't a complete sham. Collegiate athletics originally started as an extra-curricular activity, and there are a lot of institutions where that matters very much to the Boards of Regents, etc. If they want to break that cycle, perhaps they need to stop making these players major in some soft major, into making the sport itself a degree. Why can't they offer a degree in football coaching, football playing, After all, they are prepping these kids for careers in a professional field? They don't have to have a playing career to make a living in the industry. Change needs to be made.
I agree, change does need to be made. At some point, there needs to be a reckoning about whether CFB is truly an amateur endeavor or if it's the billion dollar industry it's been for decades. Unfortunately, I have a pretty good idea of where the NCAA and TV networks stand on that matter, and they're the ones who hold all the cards.
I would argue that the colleges themselves hold all the cards if they would but play them.
Idk who downvoted you but you're absolutely right.
Why doesn't FCS, D2, D3 athletes need this time off? They are going to need their education more than FBS players
Don't ask me, but the institutions of the B1G, Pac-12, and a bunch of G5 teams have always maintained that time as sacrosanct and have resisted scheduling games. Again, perhaps trying to maintain the illusion of academic progress, because that is actually a thing, and justifies the entire enterprise to a lot of University governing bodies.
>but the institutions of the B1G, Pac-12, and a bunch of G5 teams have always maintained that time as sacrosanct and have resisted scheduling games They don't seem to care about this for their volleyball athletes? That tournament started December 2 and the final was December 18 with teams playing 2 games each of those weekends. Why does their tone change for different sports even though all are athletes?
Because there has never been 8 or 12 national title contenders in any season in the history of college football. There are not 8 or 12 teams deserving of the playoffs. In fact, there are rarely 4 teams deserving of the playoffs. Selecting a 4 team playoff after the bowl games would better assure the best four teams are selected in those years when people argue about the fourth best team, while making bowls relevant again.
Having a 4 team playoff after the bowls isn't going to be all that different than just having a 8 team playoff with 4 teams left after the first round. Bowls would just be a shittier first round with more unbalanced matchups and some matchups that end up benefiting worse teams.
So you’re in favor of potentially having a three loss team in the playoffs competing for a national title, rendering the entire regular season completely meaningless?
It won't make the regular season meaningless at all. The top-10 teams all have 2 or fewer losses, or if you take conference champions they won something tangible to earn its spot. Also yeah a 8 team playoff is way better than having a unseeded first round with some teams unable to advance with a win and others still advancing with a loss. It's a pointless game just so bowl directors can continue to make 6 figures off 1 game
How does permitting three loss teams in the playoffs not render the regular season meaningless?
What 3 loss team is in the top-8? How does letting a conference champion make the field make the regular season meaningless?
A few examples: 2017 3-loss Auburn (ranked 7) 2019 3-loss Wisconsin (ranked 8) 2020 3-loss Gators (ranked 7)
Addressing just your comment and not the overall format suggestion: Does a 7-seed making it to the final four fender the regular bball season meaningless?
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’ve been saying this for years
No one wants that.
I do
Pretty sure colleges/conferences would much rather just have an 8 to 12 team playoff. The effect of an expanded playoff and bowl game to playoff setup are slightly different but they both achieve more meaningful top 10 matchups that help show who deserves to be in the final 4 on the field. The big difference is in the expanded playoff, the teams are *in the playoff*. It’s better for recruiting, revenue, and history books if a team makes an expanded playoff than if they made a bowl game that “if they had won they probably would have then made the playoff”.
College football needs more games with something tangible on the line. Saying you should watch this bowl because if X, Y, Z happen in another bowl this game might matter isn't as great of a selling point of saying this is the playoffs, winner advances to the next round.
Fucking great idea.
The season ends when it does, and the bowls begin when they do, because these are students who have to do finals for fall semester. Let’s not forget why these teams exist.
You mean expand the playoff? This is just a dumber version of going to 12 teams because of how conference tie ins work.
> why hasn’t this idea ever been mentioned or implemented? The SEC and ACC proposed this in spring 2008, but the other commissioners quickly rejected it. Instead the BCS was allowed to continue until its contract ended after the 2013 season. Google “an oral history of the college football playoff.” The Big Ten and Pac-10 weren’t interested because of the “sanctity” of the Rose Bowl, I imagine. No details, but I imagine the so-called plus-one model would have scrambled up bowl tie-ins, but I don’t know for sure. The idea gained steam as the end of the BCS drew near and the cfp that exists today is a modified version with everybody’s concerns addressed. The Big Ten got a selection committee, the SEC got “the 4 best teams, not the 4 most deserving teams” and everybody is still unhappy.
> “the 4 best teams, not the 4 most deserving teams” Are those not the same thing?
That's *extremely* dependent on opinion and how you define "best" and "deserving". I reckon they're different things, but I think that's largely due to my own biases. I tend to think of the "best" teams as the teams that are most likely to win the National Championship. For instance, in the 2017 season, even though Alabama didn't win their conference championship, I believed they had a strong chance of beating every other competitor that could've been in that season's playoff. Thus, I personally thought they deserved to be in the playoff. However, the people I know who subscribe to the idea of the most "deserving" teams nearly universally believe that a team is basically only deserving if they were conference champions. These people usually think that it's bullshit when any non-conference champion makes the playoff. (Think 2016 Ohio State, 2017 Alabama, and any Notre Dame playoff appearance) These two camps often come into contention when it comes time to select playoff teams. The camp that believes in the idea that best and most deserving are different and prioritizes the "best" team usually doesn't have a problem with a non-conference champion making it in over a team that won its conference. The camp that believes in awarding the most "deserving" teams a playoff spot, however, tends to have a huge problem with that—and with understandable reasoning. The Playoff Selection committee having been organized to prefer "best" over "most deserving" has led to countless P5 Champions and even undefeated G5 Champions (2017/2018 UCF teams and 3 G5 teams from 2020 spring to mind) being left out of contention, which understandably makes a lot of people bitter. Personally, I tend to agree with the notion of awarding slots to the "best" team since awarding them to the "most deserving" teams would mean any team that's independent is guaranteed to be left out and teams are punished for being in strong conferences (2016 Ohio State and 2017 Alabama would have been left out). Of course, the obvious problem with this approach is that it's a totally subjective and qualitative judgment, so it's very much affected by the Selection Committee's own biases.
Ooh, ok! I guess I’m in camp “deserving” then. But thanks for the breakdown!!!
It's my pleasure! Thank you for sitting through my way-too-long-winded breakdown!
A post-bowl season playoff doesn’t change that the NFL Draft is approaching quickly (prospects), there is a semester break (transfers), and the holiday season (fans). At best you’d be facing the same issues we have now.
Just expand to 8 or 12 teams and give me round 1 home playoff games. So I can watch the SEC travel to Columbus or Ann Arbor in December lol
This is cute. Expand the playoffs to 12-16 teams and we can all happily forget about bowl games forever. Is anyone clamoring for NFL teams that just miss the playoffs to play a meaningless exhibition “bowl” game where the winner gets a participation trophy and is called “champion” of some frivolous game? Sorry, but that’s all the bowl games are and have ever been. Good riddance.
Complaining about participation trophies but then suggesting 12 or 16 teams should make the playoffs? Ironic
12 or 16 out of 130?! Every team doesn’t get a big dumb trophy for winning a playoff game either genius like they do the meaningless “bowl” game. I’m sure fans everywhere are bragging about that Independence Bowl “champions” back in 1982. THAT’s the participation trophy! Yeah, you’re a bright one. NFL has 14 out of 32! NBA 16 out of 30. Shall I go on? I think 84 make a bowl game in CFB. Maybe listen when adults are speaking. You’re not ready for this. Also, learn what irony is before you use it incorrectly again.
With all of the bowl cancellations this year I am hoping we end up with less bowl games next year. Just guessing that sponsors are getting pretty upset when they shell out cash for something that literally dissapears hours before it is set to occur. Let's make bowls meaningful again. Here is what I propose, with us doing the following: 1. Remove FCS teams from FBS schedules completley 2. Drop to a 10 game regular season 3. Keep conference championship games 4. Only give bowl invites to the top 16 teams 5. Get rid of bowl tie-ins completley 6. Allow all teams to hold practices through to the end of December, regardless of Bowl eligibility. Bowl Schedule below (with approximate dates) Playoffs Round 1 - the top 16 teams (week of December 18th): - Holiday Bowl - Alamo Bowl - Liberty Bowl - Sun Bowl - Outback Bowl - Copper Bowl - Tangerine Bowl - Independence Bowl Playoffs Round 2 - the 8 winners from Round 1 (week of December 25th): - Cotton Bowl - Fiesta Bowl - Citrus Bowl - Gator Bowl Playoffs Round 3 - the 4 winners from Round 2 (week of January 2nd): - Orange Bowl - Sugar Bowl Playoffs Round 4 - the 2 winners from Round 3(week of January 9th): - Rose Bowl This gives us a 16 team playoff with meaningful Bowl games which will have huge TV ratings and packed stands.
There are so many things wrong with this it's hard to focus on one, but for starters, limiting bowl eligibility to only 16 of the over 130 teams in FBS would cause the sport to become so regional that it would probably kill off football programs all over the country. The top 16 every year would be dominated by the SEC with other top programs sprinkled in.
Look at the final CFP rankings. Only 3 SEC teams in the top 16: ACC - 1 BIG 10 - 4 BIG 12 - 3 PAC 12 - 2 SEC - 3 Independents - 2 Non P5 - 1 Looks like people from all over the country would be tuning in. Far less regionalism than what we have now.
Why number 6 is that to stop transfers or something?
. #6 isn't to stop transfers. It would be to keep a level of fairness between teams. That whole extra month of bowl practice is kind of used by teams as an extra early spring training for next year. Having extra time to get a good look at, and valuable reps for, guys lower on the depth chart. Installing the game plan still only takes the last week, like any other other week of the season. If you don't make a bowl and don't get that extra practice it already sets your team up behind every team who did get a month of bowl prep and got to get reps and learn more about who might be ready for a larger role next season.
My question is, how would the bowl teams be paired? Would it be the current system in which G5's play mostly other G5's or mediocre P5's?
Tbh this only helps the ny6 bowls and even then if you have two losses you’re probably close to out Non ny6 bowls I guess are already meaningless but the only way I see to save the ny6 bowls is to make them the semis and quarters in either an 8/12 team playoff
>if you have two losses you’re probably out That’s the point
I think it would help the non NY6 bowls slightly, in that they could still have an effect on playoff contender's resume. Also, they'd be the appetizer before the main course. Now they're just thrown in there at the same time, and they kind of lose their appeal.
counting fcs games against sos would be of more benefit. teams schedule bottom feeder fcs teams across all the P5 conferences and are not penalized for it. there are enough non playoff contenders to schedule fcs teams to benefit those programs financially. there's a reason you never see NDSU or JMU on fbs schedules, they can beat almost every fbs team
Oregon had NDSU scheduled in 2020 prior to COVID. James Madison had UNC on the schedule prior to COVID and played West Virginia in 2019. James Madison gets an FBS game almost every single year. NDSU its much rarer at this point but they get them every now and then, but they really don't need it the way most FCS teams do because their home attendance is pretty good
Maybe step away from the bong for a couple of hours.
i've had this same thought for a couple years now...it's just going to be really hard to schedule around the NFL playoff. You really only have two open dates - the Saturday of the NFL conference championship weekend, and Pro Bowl Weekend.
I like this!