12 team playoff might be the best option

[Codaxx]

While I think 12 is entirely excessive and unnecessary, at least the one proposed here doesn't take auto bids for conf champions so it's not a total and complete waste of time. The folks that keep banging that drum make me question their ability to actually think.

Not in favor of removing the CCG's just as a means to clear the way for more playoff rounds.

In the end bowls are excessive and unnecessary. The larger the playoff, the less crappy bowls I have to watch. Expansion is about me. I want more meaningful postseason games. I really don't care about a "true champion", that I will forget about in a couple years, I want memorable games.

 

[Lance Armstrong]

In the end bowls are excessive and unnecessary. The larger the playoff, the less crappy bowls I have to watch. Expansion is about me. I want more meaningful postseason games. I really don't care about a "true champion", that I will forget about in a couple years, I want memorable games.

Maybe watch the NFL.

 

[WizardHawk]

In the end bowls are excessive and unnecessary. The larger the playoff, the less crappy bowls I have to watch. Expansion is about me. I want more meaningful postseason games. I really don't care about a "true champion", that I will forget about in a couple years, I want memorable games.

We ALL want better/more memorable games. 100% of us.

I can't stand the bowl season because most of it is pure garbage, but it's here and the money involved has to be addressed to remove it. The sport is hemorrhaging enough as it is financially with people everywhere now also wanting players to get paid and more of other benefits that all have to come from somewhere. It's a fine balance that has to be central to any real actionable change.

We won't get every wish and nice thought without addressing every negative consequence which is why the landscape has been slow to change as it is.

An expansion of the playoffs is certainly possible, but not inevitable. It has to bring in more money than what it displaces and not be voted down by the academic side that is always pushing against any expanded schedules.

 

[4down20]

In the end bowls are excessive and unnecessary. The larger the playoff, the less crappy bowls I have to watch. Expansion is about me. I want more meaningful postseason games. I really don't care about a "true champion", that I will forget about in a couple years, I want memorable games.

Nobody forces you to watch anything.

 

[4down20]

And btw, if the games have to have meaning to be entertaining to you, then what do you do as a Texas fan after week 4?

 

[Codaxx]

We ALL want better/more memorable games. 100% of us.

I can't stand the bowl season because most of it is pure garbage, but it's here and the money involved has to be addressed to remove it. The sport is hemorrhaging enough as it is financially with people everywhere now also wanting players to get paid and more of other benefits that all have to come from somewhere. It's a fine balance that has to be central to any real actionable change.

We won't get every wish and nice thought without addressing every negative consequence which is why the landscape has been slow to change as it is.

An expansion of the playoffs is certainly possible, but not inevitable. It has to bring in more money than what it displaces and not be voted down by the academic side that is always pushing against any expanded schedules.

Never happen or at least it would take decades to happen, but I would like to kill all the bowls and just make a larger playoff. No BS games. Let it start 2 weeks after the last regular season game. You him to 28 (4 byes) and be done in 5weeks. Most kids would have MORE time for school.

 

[Codaxx]

And btw, if the games have to have meaning to be entertaining to you, then what do you do as a Texas fan after week 4?

So original. You must knock them dead in the sandbox with your wit. Elimination games are always more meaningful. Playing for even an outside chance at A title tends to up the intensity. I dont watch NFL preseason, but i do watch the playoffs. Most bowls resemble an NFL preseason game.

 

[NolePride]

This is why I'm in favor of two different playoffs, the P-5 and G-5.
P-5
(1)Clemson (12-1) vs (8)USC (11-2)
(4)Alabama (11-1)* vs (5)Ohio St (11-2)

(2)Oklahoma (12-1) vs (7)Auburn (10-3)*
(3)Georgia (12-1) vs (6)Wisconsin (12-1)*
------------
G-5
(1)UCF (12-0)
(2)Memphis (10-2)*

(3)Boise St (10-3) vs (6)Troy (10-2)
(4)Toledo (11-2) vs (5)FAU (10-3)
(*)at-large

It was tough coming up with 8 G-5 teams so I made it 6. I'm in favor of 6 for both, but I can live with 8.

I don't have an issue with that. I believe Div 1 should be divided
into 3 groups instead of the current 2.

 

[Codaxx]

This conversation had me look up the growth of bowl games. I remember getting excited as a kid for bowl games.

1968- 11 bowls (before my time)
1984- 18
1997- 20
2006- 32
2014- 39 (article printed in 2014)

Less than 30% of D1 made a bowl on 1982, 59.4% of D1 made a bowl in 2014.

 

[WizardHawk]

This conversation had me look up the growth of bowl games. I remember getting excited as a kid for bowl games.

1968- 11 bowls (before my time)
1984- 18
1997- 20
2006- 32
2014- 39 (article printed in 2014)

Less than 30% of D1 made a bowl on 1982, 59.4% of D1 made a bowl in 2014.

Anything above 20 is insane IMO, but the money is driving the bus right now and schools can't get enough of it.

I've love to either go back to early 80's levels or wouldn't mind them all going away with something better in place, but the money is too strong to let it go. There is no playoff system you can devise that would bring in as much money. And the schools like the bowls for travel, exposure of their program, recruiting, extra practices to improve their program, and a host of other reasons why it will be very difficult to let them go.

 

[Codaxx]

Anything above 20 is insane IMO, but the money is driving the bus right now and schools can't get enough of it.

I've love to either go back to early 80's levels or wouldn't mind them all going away with something better in place, but the money is too strong to let it go. There is no playoff system you can devise that would bring in as much money. And the schools like the bowls for travel, exposure of their program, recruiting, extra practices to improve their program, and a host of other reasons why it will be very difficult to let them go.

Lot of that money is purely for ESPN's benefit. Universities don't make a lot on the lesser bowls, many lose money on them. It would take time for the bowls to go away. My ideal format was 0 bowls and a large playoff format. If anything I think 6 is next. TOP 2 get byes and play the winners of the 2 1st round games.

 

[WizardHawk]

Lot of that money is purely for ESPN's benefit. Universities don't make a lot on the lesser bowls, many lose money on them. It would take time for the bowls to go away. My ideal format was 0 bowls and a large playoff format. If anything I think 6 is next. TOP 2 get byes and play the winners of the 2 1st round games.

Yes, and no.

Some schools do lose money directly on THEIR bowl. Yes. But no, they do not lose money on the bowl season. Teams are allowed to keep a portion of that bowl money with the rest going to their conference bowl fund and is split around the rest of their conference. There aren't any schools spending more on going to a bowl than they get back from their leagues bowl fund. That's a common misnomer pitched about what is wrong with bowls though.

The Pac brought in $62 million for the bowl payouts. More than $5m/team for mostly getting their asses handed to them.

A playoff isn't going to come up with hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate sponsorship the way the bowls currently do. It's just not going to happen.

Hell, the big 10 brought in almost $90 million alone. The G5's were given more than $81 million.

There are entire programs that wouldn't exist if not for that cash stream. It's not insignificant.

 

[Deep Creek]

This is why I'm in favor of two different playoffs, the P-5 and G-5.
P-5
(1)Clemson (12-1) vs (8)USC (11-2)
(4)Alabama (11-1)* vs (5)Ohio St (11-2)

(2)Oklahoma (12-1) vs (7)Auburn (10-3)*
(3)Georgia (12-1) vs (6)Wisconsin (12-1)*
------------
G-5
(1)UCF (12-0)
(2)Memphis (10-2)*

(3)Boise St (10-3) vs (6)Troy (10-2)
(4)Toledo (11-2) vs (5)FAU (10-3)
(*)at-large

It was tough coming up with 8 G-5 teams so I made it 6. I'm in favor of 6 for both, but I can live with 8.

Yep. Christ will return before a G-5 makes the current CFP. They'll never have the SOS to get in even if they play and beat 3 P-5s in OOC. Their in conference foes will drop their SOS like a rock. Especially C-USA. My Miners can drop their SOS alone!

 

[Deep Creek]

This conversation had me look up the growth of bowl games. I remember getting excited as a kid for bowl games.

1968- 11 bowls (before my time)
1984- 18
1997- 20
2006- 32
2014- 39 (article printed in 2014)

Less than 30% of D1 made a bowl on 1982, 59.4% of D1 made a bowl in 2014.

Whippersnapper

 

[BamaDude]

I thought about this for the last couple of weeks, and I am actually starting to dig a 12-team playoff over the popular 4-8 team playoff.

NO! NO! NO!

 

[tducey]

I'd like to see an expanded playoff for college football but 12 teams is overdoing it. 6 or 8 teams is fine IMO.

 

[Codaxx]

Yes, and no.

Some schools do lose money directly on THEIR bowl. Yes. But no, they do not lose money on the bowl season. Teams are allowed to keep a portion of that bowl money with the rest going to their conference bowl fund and is split around the rest of their conference. There aren't any schools spending more on going to a bowl than they get back from their leagues bowl fund. That's a common misnomer pitched about what is wrong with bowls though.

The Pac brought in $62 million for the bowl payouts. More than $5m/team for mostly getting their asses handed to them.

A playoff isn't going to come up with hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate sponsorship the way the bowls currently do. It's just not going to happen.

Hell, the big 10 brought in almost $90 million alone. The G5's were given more than $81 million.

There are entire programs that wouldn't exist if not for that cash stream. It's not insignificant.

Now we are on to how you structure the money and if the playoffs would raise more than the bowls. The money is not the issue, that is easy enough to come up with. Since NCAA wouldn't run it, who would negotiate the payouts and govern the playoffs? Guessing a P5 committee would have to be worked out. That is why it is something that would take a long time. The big issue is getting everyone together and coordinating everything

 

[4down20]

Yep. Christ will return before a G-5 makes the current CFP. They'll never have the SOS to get in even if they play and beat 3 P-5s in OOC. Their in conference foes will drop their SOS like a rock. Especially C-USA. My Miners can drop their SOS alone!

TCU in 2009?
TCU and Cincy in 2010?

 

[4down20]

Yes, and no.

Some schools do lose money directly on THEIR bowl. Yes. But no, they do not lose money on the bowl season. Teams are allowed to keep a portion of that bowl money with the rest going to their conference bowl fund and is split around the rest of their conference. There aren't any schools spending more on going to a bowl than they get back from their leagues bowl fund. That's a common misnomer pitched about what is wrong with bowls though.

The Pac brought in $62 million for the bowl payouts. More than $5m/team for mostly getting their asses handed to them.

A playoff isn't going to come up with hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate sponsorship the way the bowls currently do. It's just not going to happen.

Hell, the big 10 brought in almost $90 million alone. The G5's were given more than $81 million.

There are entire programs that wouldn't exist if not for that cash stream. It's not insignificant.

I don't think SEC schools lose money on bowl games because all that money is pooled together and then split up among the teams.

But even if they lost they'd probably still pay it because there are many benefits to being a bowl team. Exposure, practice, etc.

 

[Deep Creek]

TCU in 2009?
TCU and Cincy in 2010?

That ain't the CFP era.