Interesting article on the future of bowls

[TaleofTwoDogs]

From Yardbarker.

Even in the old days most bowls were meaningless it was just that there were fewer bowls and better quality teams.

http://a.msn.com/02/en-us/AAK6rzx?ocid=se

[Liverpooldawg]

From Yardbarker.

Even in the old days most bowls were meaningless it was just that there were fewer bowls and better quality teams.

http://a.msn.com/02/en-us/AAK6rzx?ocid=se

I love bowls. The more the better. It's college football and I love college football. Why anyone would want less of it boggles my mind.

[MafiaDawg]

Exactly. If you do not like them, Just do not watch. More football is a good thing.

[ShotgunDawg]

- Lower scholarships to 70-75
- 16 team playoff
- 1st round on campus
- 2nd round at bowls.

[TheLostDawg]

- Lower scholarships to 70-75
- 16 team playoff
- 1st round on campus
- 2nd round at bowls.

No. Way too many games they'd have to play to get to the championship. Plus take away from value of bowl games. The only way they should extend is to 6 and let the bottom 4 of those play each other. That would give someone like Memphis a chance while making sure the top two teams make it to the semi finals. As much as I'd like for then to extend the number for us to give us a better chance to make it, it takes away from the value of other bowls and making the playoffs itself as well. This isn't basketball. You can't go play two or three games a week either.

[chef dixon]

Bowl games are meaningless. Its an exhibition game. Its like Upward football. 16 team playoff gives teams like us hope and every single match up in that tournament is a game that College Gameday would go to. Who wouldn't be glued to their TV for that?

[Quaoarsking]

Why not both?

Expanded playoff, and if a bowl still makes financial sense below that (several of them would), they can play in the postseason too.

[DownwardDawg]

No. Way too many games they'd have to play to get to the championship. Plus take away from value of bowl games. The only way they should extend is to 6 and let the bottom 4 of those play each other. That would give someone like Memphis a chance while making sure the top two teams make it to the semi finals. As much as I'd like for then to extend the number for us to give us a better chance to make it, it takes away from the value of other bowls and making the playoffs itself as well. This isn't basketball. You can't go play two or three games a week either.

8 teams is the magic number. It should have always been 8 and it will be soon. 8 is plenty and not too many. It’s the perfect number.
I could live with 6 though.

[TheLostDawg]

8 teams is the magic number. It should have always been 8 and it will be soon. 8 is plenty and not too many. It’s the perfect number.
I could live with 6 though.

I would love 8 but six gives all power 5 a slot and then one group of 5. Two extra teams would give the committee wiggle room which would really help our chances. We just would have to put a lot of money in analysts if we had to play three games in the playoffs.
Also yeah you're getting viewers for football but you're taking away from basketball especily if you go into January when, for example, SEC play starts.

[Maroonthirteen]

I would call it a depressing article.

The author seems to believe the only sporting contest that mean anything are those in which the athletes are paid. Also by the logic of this article, Michigan was out of the playoffs on october 19.... so every game played past that Point was a meaningless game for the individual athlete.

What does the heisman trophy really mean for the nfl draft? Nothing. So why should any athlete risk death on a plane flight or car ride to the ceremony tonight?

[R2Dawg]

- Lower scholarships to 70-75
- 16 team playoff
- 1st round on campus
- 2nd round at bowls.

Like it. Only value in bowl games is conf vs conf match ups. That can still happen in expanded playoff. Not sure what you do with conf. championship game. Season would have to be shortened or something.

[ShotgunDawg]

No. Way too many games they'd have to play to get to the championship. Plus take away from value of bowl games. The only way they should extend is to 6 and let the bottom 4 of those play each other. That would give someone like Memphis a chance while making sure the top two teams make it to the semi finals. As much as I'd like for then to extend the number for us to give us a better chance to make it, it takes away from the value of other bowls and making the playoffs itself as well. This isn't basketball. You can't go play two or three games a week either.

You're stuck in 1972.

Basketball & baseball play infinitely more games. Ridiculous opinion

[ShotgunDawg]

Expanding the playoff does absolutely no good unless you decrease scholarships to create a little more parity.

8, 16, 64.... doesn't matter. It'll still be the same 4 of 6 teams every year.

Bama
LSU
OSU
Clemson
Oklahoma
UGA

[Political Hack]

- Lower scholarships to 70-75
- 16 team playoff
- 1st round on campus
- 2nd round at bowls.

No way we should reduce scholarships. Increase them. The more opportunities to educate people the better. College football is about a lot more than just football.

[Apoplectic]

like nfl roster 55 sships

[was21]

lsu doesn't belong in that list as a perennial...not really staying power

[DownwardDawg]

Expanding the playoff does absolutely no good unless you decrease scholarships to create a little more parity.

8, 16, 64.... doesn't matter. It'll still be the same 4 of 6 teams every year.

Bama
LSU
OSU
Clemson
Oklahoma
UGA

Wait a minute!!! Now LSU is gonna be a regular?!?!! Ain’t happening. Ain’t gonna be that many heisman trophy transfers every year.

[Westdawg]

This simple. You want to INCREASE viewership and on campus participation across the entire spectrum. Here's how you accomplish it.
Decrease scholly limit to 75 across the board. This does a few things that are beneficial.
- causes teams to truly be more balanced in numbers and talent.
- upper echelon teams cannot just stockpile talent.
- schools will make sure to place a much more stringent approach to academics (which they should be already #TutorGate), discipline, and ensuring that all things with recruiting practices and other NCAA governed activities within the athletic department are done above board. You clip a team for 3+ schollies at 75 schollies? You can see a program experience the true effects that the punishment was meant to give.
- increase the playing field to 16-20 teams. If 20, have bottom 8 play each other to fill the last 4 in, then give them two weeks before the playoff start. Or just take top 16 and begin third week of December. Play first round the on the fourth weekend of December. And then play final two rounds first two weekends of January.
Have the first round hosted by the top 8 on their campus. TALK ABOUT ELECTRIC!!!
- this also does something that hasn't happened in D-1 (FBS) football in DECADES. You get the chance to possibly watch a school be able to build upon making it to the playoffs (long term- i.e. = 5-10 years) and build themselves into a legit top program. Think of a team like Butler in college hoops, but seeing it in football. Maybe a Memphis or UNLV or the like. It would be fascinating to watch. Yes, each game in the season still matters, but it would matter to even more schools.
- cut one of the bye weeks in the season....or cut one non-game out in order to shorten the season by a week.
- no more conference champ game. Season winner gets the nod.
-P5 conference winners get automatic berth, I would even consider giving the G5 champs auto birth if we made it the Top 20.
- use metric in place for playoffs currently to determine who gets in and in what order.
- might it be possible to use the current bowl tie-ins for second or third round games? Or possibly use those bowls for in-season games to feature two teams and pre-set that schedule years out with conference offices and schools for the non conference games. Would make some intriguing in-season matchups

- you think people watch bowl games???? The tv rights would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars for a legit college playoff - LEGITIMATE. Sure, there would be teams that would seemingly have no hope not reason to be there, but it's that way to some degree at every level of the game from pee-wee to NFL. And for the most part, the games go as they should, but there WOULD BE a few games where there are "upsets" and shakeups. And that would bring serious interest back to the game from a lot of fans who have kind of just given up on it.

[TUSK]

This was solved in 1998, when the BCS first came out, on the radio show "Conference Call"...

As was predicted the path the last 2 decades...

[DownwardDawg]

No way we should reduce scholarships. Increase them. The more opportunities to educate people the better. College football is about a lot more than just football.

I like your thinking, but this is about football. We need to reduce football scholarships to 70 per school. It would help the MSU’s of the world tremendously.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Like it. Only value in bowl games is conf vs conf match ups. That can still happen in expanded playoff. Not sure what you do with conf. championship game. Season would have to be shortened or something.

I will say this lowering from 85 to 75 would be huge for us. Bama, UF, LSU, and GA would becer allow it.

[Dawgtini]

No way we should reduce scholarships. Increase them. The more opportunities to educate people the better. College football is about a lot more than just football.
Boo. Too dang many on scholly now for the big boys. You decrease schollies and there is more talent for us have nots.

[HoopsDawg]

- Lower scholarships to 70-75
- 16 team playoff
- 1st round on campus
- 2nd round at bowls.

Agree except first 2 rounds would need to be on campus. Tough to have 3 rounds of neutral site games.

[Rex54]

No way we should reduce scholarships. Increase them. The more opportunities to educate people the better. College football is about a lot more than just football.

Grug brained level ice cold take here.

Also, 4 is the perfect playoff number.

[ShotgunDawg]

No way we should reduce scholarships. Increase them. The more opportunities to educate people the better. College football is about a lot more than just football.

Short term view.

The sport needs more parity to grow and thrive. Adding scholarships may offer more kids a chance in the short term while destroying the sport in the long term to the point where programs at the lowest levels fold, thus decreasing the scholarships.

It's important that college football remains popular and making money because it funds so much. The best way to do that is to create more parity, which would require cutting some scholarships or a draft. Take your pick.

You may say: college football makes tons of money, but that isn't true at all the G5 and SWAC type schools. The more competitive those schools are, the more interest there'll be, and the more financially viable the program will be to continue to offer scholarships

[dawgs]

I would call it a depressing article.

The author seems to believe the only sporting contest that mean anything are those in which the athletes are paid. Also by the logic of this article, Michigan was out of the playoffs on october 19.... so every game played past that Point was a meaningless game for the individual athlete.

What does the heisman trophy really mean for the nfl draft? Nothing. So why should any athlete risk death on a plane flight or car ride to the ceremony tonight?

When pro athletes worked offseason jobs to lay the bills, the notion that they played for the love of the game over a paycheck had a little more substance behind it. But when literal life altering money is at stake, any player who has established their professional value should preserve that value in the smartest way possible. I'd tell Kylin hill to sit out the music city bowl because nothing that happens in that game will help his draft stock and plenty could happen that'd hurt it. A music city bowl trophy ain't worth the risk.

[dawgs]

Wait a minute!!! Now LSU is gonna be a regular?!?!! Ain?t happening. Ain?t gonna be that many heisman trophy transfers every year.

There's 12 or so programs capable of being regulars. They can't all be regulars at the same time. LSU is one of those 12 or so programs. No reason they can't consistently be in the hunt and for all we know, they are cycling up.

But yes, all expansion does is set up a potential first round upset, but Oregon or Wisconsin wasn't gonna run off 3 straight Ws over LSU/tosu/clemson. Doesn't really expand the number of programs capable of winning a natty any given year in the current state of CFB because there's never 6-8 teams capable of winning the CFP. There's on 3-4 teams any season even capable of running 3 straight Ws off against top 10 caliber competition and those are all already in the 4 team playoff as is. I used to think 8, but after seeing how 4 has played out, there's never been a team sitting in the outside that I felt truly deserved a spot and had a legit shot at winning it, so seems like a perfectly good system to me. I was a huge advocate for the CFB over the BCS too, so I'm not someone always worried about change.

Now I'd be fine with 8 (or 16) teams playoffs if:

(1) most of the P5 programs (give or take a few Rutgers' and Boise st's) broke away and condensed down to the 4 16 team mega conferences like has been batted around for years, you could have the conf championship games double as quarterfinals of an 8 teams playoffs.

or

(2) more institutional changes to CFB were made (like cutting scholarships down) that increased parity to the point where the 8th ranked team could conceivably run the table against #1, #4, and #2 or #3. We haven't seen that in the CFP era, so there's not much point in expanding the playoffs in the current state of the sport imo.

[RiverCityDawg]

There's 12 or so programs capable of being regulars. They can't all be regulars at the same time. LSU is one of those 12 or so programs. No reason they can't consistently be in the hunt and for all we know, they are cycling up.

But yes, all expansion does is set up a potential first round upset, but Oregon or Wisconsin wasn't gonna run off 3 straight Ws over LSU/tosu/clemson. Doesn't really expand the number of programs capable of winning a natty any given year in the current state of CFB because there's never 6-8 teams capable of winning the CFP. There's on 3-4 teams any season even capable of running 3 straight Ws off against top 10 caliber competition and those are all already in the 4 team playoff as is. I used to think 8, but after seeing how 4 has played out, there's never been a team sitting in the outside that I felt truly deserved a spot and had a legit shot at winning it, so seems like a perfectly good system to me. I was a huge advocate for the CFB over the BCS too, so I'm not someone always worried about change.

Now I'd be fine with 8 (or 16) teams playoffs if:

(1) most of the P5 programs (give or take a few Rutgers' and Boise st's) broke away and condensed down to the 4 16 team mega conferences like has been batted around for years, you could have the conf championship games double as quarterfinals of an 8 teams playoffs.

or

(2) more institutional changes to CFB were made (like cutting scholarships down) that increased parity to the point where the 8th ranked team could conceivably run the table against #1, #4, and #2 or #3. We haven't seen that in the CFP era, so there's not much point in expanding the playoffs in the current state of the sport imo.

Excellent post

Increasing to more than 4 with the way things are would only add teams that have no business competing for the national championship and would just dilute the regular season, which is the greatest thing about the sport. There's a legitimate question over who is the best team between three teams this year, so why add more teams? We already know Penn State isn't the best team in the country. Isn't that what we're trying to determine with the playoff?

Focus should be on increasing competition though out the regular season - cut scholarships, eliminate cupcake games, more conference games, etc. This would drive ratings even more and have a better chance of putting people in the stadiums during the season.

Adding 4 or 12 more teams to the playoff would cause this growing feeling some have that "the bowl games are meaningless" to infiltrate the regular season and you would kill the golden goose. Sure, the playoff would be fun, but at the expense of the season and the 100+ teams that do not have a chance at winning it anyway.

[Quaoarsking]

(2) more institutional changes to CFB were made (like cutting scholarships down) that increased parity to the point where the 8th ranked team could conceivably run the table against #1, #4, and #2 or #3. We haven't seen that in the CFP era, so there's not much point in expanding the playoffs in the current state of the sport imo.

I'm going to disagree here - I think #13 (Alabama) would be a strong candidate to win the playoffs this year. Other 10-2 SEC teams could have plausibly done it in the past.

The question is whether we expand it too much so that it just doesn't feel right if a team wins it. Like when Oregon State won the CWS after going 10-14 in their conference, it was just too much, and I think the baseball field should shrink.

I think 8 is probably the ideal number, because you could guarantee each P5 conference gets a bid, and we should also cut out the conference championship games (and adjust all conference schedules accordingly) to get around the player safety arguments. But I think a 16- or 24-team bracket would be very exciting and wouldn't fight it if that's what the powers that be decided.

[Quaoarsking]

Excellent post

Increasing to more than 4 with the way things are would only add teams that have no business competing for the national championship and would just dilute the regular season, which is the greatest thing about the sport. There's a legitimate question over who is the best team between three teams this year, so why add more teams? We already know Penn State isn't the best team in the country. Isn't that what we're trying to determine with the playoff?

Without conference championship games (which were mostly meaningless this year), we would have had:

1 Ohio State (12-0)
2 LSU (12-0)
3 Clemson (12-0)
4 Georgia (11-1)
5 Utah (11-1)
6 Oklahoma (11-1)
7 Baylor (11-1)
8 Memphis (11-1)

That sounds like a pretty perfect system to me. If December 7 had these 4 quarterfinal games rather than the meaningless CCGs, it would have been very exciting and not lessened the regular season at all.

[RiverCityDawg]

Without conference championship games (which were mostly meaningless this year), we would have had:

1 Ohio State (12-0)
2 LSU (12-0)
3 Clemson (12-0)
4 Georgia (11-1)
5 Utah (11-1)
6 Oklahoma (11-1)
7 Baylor (11-1)
8 Memphis (11-1)

That sounds like a pretty perfect system to me. If December 7 had these 4 quarterfinal games rather than the meaningless CCGs, it would have been very exciting and not lessened the regular season at all.

That would be a fine tournament, but I don't think it gives us any better chance to determine the best team in the country than what we have now. It is between Clemson, LSU and Ohio State, and no one really disputes that.

But I do think it would cause people to care less and less about games outside of what impacts the playoff. I love how teams have to finish the season strong or miss out on a chance to be champions at the end. It's not like that in leagues with big playoffs and in the 8 team playoff you outline I think November games would matter very little for most teams in regards to the playoff and therefore many fans would lose interest.

The greatest evidence for this is what we've seen since the 4 team playoff was created. People say the bowls are meaningless now outside of the playoff, so they don't care. Players quit before the bowl game and fans shrug their shoulders and say the bowl doesn't matter. But really, it's the same as it has always been. So why the different view? I think because so much focus is put on the playoff. Add more teams and I think the apathy for non-playoff impacting games will grow spread into the regular season even more so than it has already.

[Maroonthirteen]

When pro athletes worked offseason jobs to lay the bills, the notion that they played for the love of the game over a paycheck had a little more substance behind it. But when literal life altering money is at stake, any player who has established their professional value should preserve that value in the smartest way possible. I'd tell Kylin hill to sit out the music city bowl because nothing that happens in that game will help his draft stock and plenty could happen that'd hurt it. A music city bowl trophy ain't worth the risk.

By this logic, he shouldn’t have played in the Egg bowl. An egg bowl trophy isn’t worth the risk either.

[dawgs]

Without conference championship games (which were mostly meaningless this year), we would have had:

1 Ohio State (12-0)
2 LSU (12-0)
3 Clemson (12-0)
4 Georgia (11-1)
5 Utah (11-1)
6 Oklahoma (11-1)
7 Baylor (11-1)
8 Memphis (11-1)

That sounds like a pretty perfect system to me. If December 7 had these 4 quarterfinal games rather than the meaningless CCGs, it would have been very exciting and not lessened the regular season at all.

When you consider conf CGs almost as quarterfinals, uga, Utah, and Baylor were eliminated. And Memphis would be fun to speculates ruining someone's season, but reality is it'd be fun for a quarter then LSU or tosu would run away and win 58-20 or something.

[dawgs]

By this logic, he shouldn’t have played in the Egg bowl. An egg bowl trophy isn’t worth the risk either.

I do think there's a difference in regular season and a bowl game after a month off. But there's been some folks speculate that players, like Clooney, should/would sit out their junior seasons. Bosa basically did at tosu, he got injured but evwryone expected he'd miss like 3 games and he ended up sitting out the whole season "injured". Hill didn't have clowney's or bosa's track record and draft pedigree and needed 2019 to establish himself as a potential NFL RB, so sitting out the season wasn't an option for him.

[Quaoarsking]

When you consider conf CGs almost as quarterfinals, uga, Utah, and Baylor were eliminated. And Memphis would be fun to speculates ruining someone's season, but reality is it'd be fun for a quarter then LSU or tosu would run away and win 58-20 or something.

I don't consider them "almost as quarterfinals," since Clemson, Ohio State, and LSU would have all still made the playoffs had they lost. Some years, they are, and Baylor/Oklahoma was essentially a quaterfinal this year, but I think it makes a lot more sense to abolish CCGs and revamp conference scheduling rules accordingly and then have actual quarterfinals. It would make the regular season better because more teams would have something to play for.

And I agree with you about Memphis probably, but I also thought UMBC had no chance, and that Fresno State could possibly win a Regional but obviously no chance at the whole College World Series. The G5 teams have a winning record in New Years Six games, so I think they would win a playoff game or two per decade, which honestly is about as good as the Pac-12 or the ACC other than Clemson would do.

[dawgs]

I don't consider them "almost as quarterfinals," since Clemson, Ohio State, and LSU would have all still made the playoffs had they lost. Some years, they are, and Baylor/Oklahoma was essentially a quaterfinal this year, but I think it makes a lot more sense to abolish CCGs and revamp conference scheduling rules accordingly and then have actual quarterfinals. It would make the regular season better because more teams would have something to play for.

And I agree with you about Memphis probably, but I also thought UMBC had no chance, and that Fresno State could possibly win a Regional but obviously no chance at the whole College World Series. The G5 teams have a winning record in New Years Six games, so I think they would win a playoff game or two per decade, which honestly is about as good as the Pac-12 or the ACC other than Clemson would do.

Football isn't as random as other sports.

[Tbonewannabe]

I do think there's a difference in regular season and a bowl game after a month off. But there's been some folks speculate that players, like Clooney, should/would sit out their junior seasons. Bosa basically did at tosu, he got injured but evwryone expected he'd miss like 3 games and he ended up sitting out the whole season "injured". Hill didn't have clowney's or bosa's track record and draft pedigree and needed 2019 to establish himself as a potential NFL RB, so sitting out the season wasn't an option for him.

Hill having the chance to set the MSU single season rushing record probably has a lot to do with him playing in the bowl game. He needs around 50 yards so he should do it unless Louisville somehow figures out how to stop a team from rushing on them.

[dawgs]

Hill having the chance to set the MSU single season rushing record probably has a lot to do with him playing in the bowl game. He needs around 50 yards so he should do it unless Louisville somehow figures out how to stop a team from rushing on them.

I'm sure it is a factor. I just hope he walks off the field healthy. And I'm not saying that a pro contract/draft status is all that matters, it's not. But I'll never bash a guy for thinking about their financial future when it comes to this type of decision because it's always gonna be a defensible position.

[Jack Lambert]

1. They need to expand the play off.
2. The P 5 Conference Champions should get automatic bid.
3 Have three at large bids
4. I love bowl season. The more the better. Some of these G5 bowl games are entertaining to watch. I enjoy bowl season.

[TUSK]

I'm going to disagree here - I think #13 (Alabama) would be a strong candidate to win the playoffs this year. Other 10-2 SEC teams could have plausibly done it in the past.

The question is whether we expand it too much so that it just doesn't feel right if a team wins it. Like when Oregon State won the CWS after going 10-14 in their conference, it was just too much, and I think the baseball field should shrink.

I think 8 is probably the ideal number, because you could guarantee each P5 conference gets a bid, and we should also cut out the conference championship games (and adjust all conference schedules accordingly) to get around the player safety arguments. But I think a 16- or 24-team bracket would be very exciting and wouldn't fight it if that's what the powers that be decided.

This is correct... They/Bammer (based on health issues) might even be favored to win the thing...

For selfish reasons, I'm all for an increase in the number of playoffs teams.... All that will do is increase the odds of the most talented teams...

As best as I can recall, the BCS/CFP got it right until this year (assuming the goal was for "best" teams), IMO....