12 team playoff might be the best option

[Myles]

nah 8 at most

8 is ideal. It works with the current conferences and it allows special teams to make it. I was hoping that UCF would spur this along. Going undefeated and beating Auburn (who beat Bama) was a little bit of an embarrassment for the current format.

 

[NolePride]

So I'll ask you again.

How is an 8-9 game regular season better than the current format? As in, there wouldn't ever be another solid OOC game again. So how is it better?

Conf champ auto bids would eliminate independent teams forever. No one would ever schedule one. ND has no chance of doing their traditional rivalries unless they met in the playoffs. They have to join a conf or quit playing football. No more ND/Stanford or USC. No more out of conf rivalries. No more FSU/Florida. Ever.

You entirely reduce college football to intraconf matchups and exhibition games against teams like Mercer.

Even you would want to fire your AD for scheduling Florida for a game that had zero impact on your post season chances and one of your stars ended up hurt playing them. Guaranteed your base would call for his head.

Please, some of you really think about the consequences of what you are asking for. It can't and won't work. It entirely destroys way way more than it solves.

I could care less about ND.

Actually, there would be more intersectional games played than
now, because a team's season wouldn't be destroyed by a loss.

FSU AD would lose his job if he cancelled UF.

Teams also would be positioning themselves for bowl games.
Thus they cannot dodge that many good programs. There are
NCAA rules about scheduling that are connected to bowl eligibility.

It doesn't destroy anything. It just makes a Conf title more important than it has ever been.

 

[WizardHawk]

I could care less about ND.

Actually, there would be more intersectional games played than
now, because a team's season wouldn't be destroyed by a loss.

FSU AD would lose his job if he cancelled UF.

Teams also would be positioning themselves for bowl games.
Thus they cannot dodge that many good programs. There are
NCAA rules about scheduling that are connected to bowl eligibility.

It doesn't destroy anything. It just makes a Conf title more important than it has ever been.

So when your star QB breaks a leg against Florida, a game with ZERO impact on your all precious post season chances happens not one single person anywhere will be questioning the logic of scheduling those games? That's really your take?

Which has a greater chance of having valuable players getting injured? a game against Mercer, or a game against Alabama? In your world all that matters is winning the conference. A loss against Bama doesn't kill that, but a loss of your top RB does and they have some big boys ready to eat them. It's only a matter of time before those big injuries happen and after that you get one of two things: Either both teams play almost nothing but scrubs as development so you won't see an actual powerhouse game, or they simply never schedule them again. It is completely 100% inevitable and if you are honest with yourself you will see it.

Conf champion auto bids drops college football down to either an 8 game season, or 9, OR they eliminate OOC at all and everyone plays 11 against their own conf. At the very least they might go up to more and maybe still have a token warmup game. The point is the days of non conf rivalries would be dead entirely and forever.

 

[Codaxx]

So you think you can replace 39 bowls and an extra title game entirely with just an 8 or 12 team tournament and come up with more money? I mean do the math. There are currently 40 games that bring in a half a billion dollars a year. Now you expect 6-10 games to earn at least as much AND still only give the 8-12 teams doing ALL of the work for it now (vs nearly 80 teams now) to still hold next to nothing of it and give all of it away to every FBS team? I mean do you REALLY think there is any type of model where that works? I seriously can't find anything that would come even half way to that number and there's no way the current sharing would work under that model.

Not

At

ALL

What part of this are you not understanding? There currently isnt any team in FBS that comes out behind after ALL playoff/bowl money is distributed. No one comes close. When teams talk about net losses they are talking about JUST the part of THEIR OWN BOWL they keep vs expenses. IT DOES NOT COUNT THE CONF DISTRIBUTION.

I don't think there is a P5 team that gets less than $4m just in conf payouts. Every indy team gets a guaranteed predetermined payout and there is $81m in guaranteed payouts to how many G5's? Less than 81. DO THE MATH. The whole damned thing is a GIANT CASH GRAB.

And NO PLAYOFF ONLY FORMAT CAN COME CLOSE TO REPLACING IT. Period.

This was talking about a large playoff. I didn't say 8-12. The number was 28, so yes the math works. Nice rant though, I am not sure what this has to do to the post you replied to though. That one merely pointed out that many bowls lose money and the fact that larger bowls subsidizing those loses doesn't make those bowls money makers. Since you like math, that should make complete sense. I am not sure what doesn't make sense to you about that. Cutting out bowls that are NET losers (or profit if you like, quoting revenue is different than bottom line) would actually increase the bottom line. It is quite simple.

 

[WizardHawk]

This was talking about a large playoff. I didn't say 8-12. The number was 28, so yes the math works. Nice rant though, I am not sure what this has to do to the post you replied to though. That one merely pointed out that many bowls lose money and the fact that larger bowls subsidizing those loses doesn't make those bowls money makers. Since you like math, that should make complete sense

a 28 team tournament is as likely as a martian landing on the lawn of the white house. 8/12, maybe some day a 16. Maybe. Doubtful.

There is no path to go from 39 bowls and a 4 team playoff that starts with two of them directly to a 28 team playoff and no more bowl games.

Entirely and completely impossible.

 

[Codaxx]

a 28 team tournament is as likely as a martian landing on the lawn of the white house. 8/12, maybe some day a 16. Maybe. Doubtful.

There is no path to go from 39 bowls and a 4 team playoff that starts with two of them directly to a 28 team playoff and no more bowl games.

Entirely and completely impossible.

I already said that it was unlikely and if it ever happened it was probably decades away, but thanks for your colorful reply

 

[WizardHawk]

I already said that it was unlikely and if it ever happened it was probably decades away, but thanks for your colorful reply

Right and I already said there's no chance it ever gets there so thanks for the circle jerk. Did you bring extra towels anyway?

 

[Codaxx]

Right and I already said there's no chance it ever gets there so thanks for the circle jerk. Did you bring extra towels anyway?

Another thoughtful response. You go off and get yourself all worked up due to your lack of reading comprehension and it's my fault. I guess I should apologize, as I was unaware I was conversing with a minor.

 

[WizardHawk]

Another thoughtful response. You go off and get yourself all worked up due to your lack of reading comprehension and it's my fault. I guess I should apologize, as I was unaware I was conversing with a minor.

Worked up? Minor?

So this is the direction you are going?

You did nothing but prove my original point and I made a joke about it because I'm the opposite of worked up about anything.

There is no path at all, ever, for some mega replacement of bowls. There isn't one for any size.

The quote you won't post that somehow makes others look like their English skills are bad?

You him to 28 (4 byes) and be done in 5weeks.

Those indeed are all English words, however in their format they make no cohesive sense.

 

[PhilSimms11]

If you have to expand, expand to 6. 5 conference champions and 1 at large

THANK YOU. However, I'm going to warn you...some people think you have shit for brains for having conference champions in as automatics. I'm not one of them. What in the hell is the point of winning your conference if it doesn't reward you with anything?

(1)Clemson (12-1)
(2)Oklahoma (12-1)

(3)Georgia (12-1) vs (6)USC (11-2)
(4)Alabama (11-1)* vs (5)Ohio St (11-2)
------------
(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

 

[Codaxx]

Worked up? Minor?

So this is the direction you are going?

You did nothing but prove my original point and I made a joke about it because I'm the opposite of worked up about anything.

There is no path at all, ever, for some mega replacement of bowls. There isn't one for any size.

The quote you won't post that somehow makes others look like their English skills are bad?


Those indeed are all English words, however in their format they make no cohesive sense.

What original point? Only thing you said is that Universities make money on bowls due to revenue sharing, which is irrelevant to the fact that many bowls cost Universities money. The aggregate net money would be higher, if they did away with those money losing bowls.

 

[Codaxx]

THANK YOU. However, I'm going to warn you...some people think you have shit for brains for having conference champions in as automatics. I'm not one of them. What in the hell is the point of winning your conference if it doesn't reward you with anything?

(1)Clemson (12-1)
(2)Oklahoma (12-1)

(3)Georgia (12-1) vs (6)USC (11-2)
(4)Alabama (11-1)* vs (5)Ohio St (11-2)
------------
(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

I can understand the argument against a strict conference champ model. You have unbalanced schedules and their is the strength of league argument. Not to mention it is one of the few sports where division foes do not get a home and home.

 

[NolePride]

So when your star QB breaks a leg against Florida, a game with ZERO impact on your all precious post season chances happens not one single person anywhere will be questioning the logic of scheduling those games? That's really your take?

Which has a greater chance of having valuable players getting injured? a game against Mercer, or a game against Alabama? In your world all that matters is winning the conference. A loss against Bama doesn't kill that, but a loss of your top RB does and they have some big boys ready to eat them. It's only a matter of time before those big injuries happen and after that you get one of two things: Either both teams play almost nothing but scrubs as development so you won't see an actual powerhouse game, or they simply never schedule them again. It is completely 100% inevitable and if you are honest with yourself you will see it.

Conf champion auto bids drops college football down to either an 8 game season, or 9, OR they eliminate OOC at all and everyone plays 11 against their own conf. At the very least they might go up to more and maybe still have a token warmup game. The point is the days of non conf rivalries would be dead entirely and forever.

The chances are greater that injury will occur during a Mercer game than Alabama. A few years back UF, lost both their
starting DT's against The Citadel the week before they played us.

Injuries occur when players lose focus during a game or are just
going thru the motions. That doesn't happen against a Bama
where everybody is playing with high emotion and focus.

 

[Olyduck]

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.

No bowls woundt change. you would simply add more to the mix as part of the playoff

 

[7Samurai13]

The chances are greater that injury will occur during a Mercer game than Alabama. A few years back UF, lost both their
starting DT's against The Citadel the week before they played us.

Injuries occur when players lose focus during a game or are just
going thru the motions. That doesn't happen against a Bama
where everybody is playing with high emotion and focus.

And if the game is now deemed meaningless because only in conference games matter towards making the playoffs that will keep the focus up?

 

[WizardHawk]

What original point? Only thing you said is that Universities make money on bowls due to revenue sharing, which is irrelevant to the fact that many bowls cost Universities money. The aggregate net money would be higher, if they did away with those money losing bowls.

So you are clearly the one with reading issues then because I've been clear as day as saying that isn't true.

Teams report losing money on bowls, but the net is never a negative. You seem to not be able to grasp that. The teams involved do not get to keep every penny of the payout unless they are an independent team. ND, BYU, Army can keep the entire purse. The rest can only keep whatever allotment their league allows to cover expenses and the rest goes to the pool. How are you not getting that? The bowls themselves aren't losing ventures, it's the teams inability to go to them within the subset of money they are given for going. That's entirely not the same thing. At all.

AND after that same team that couldn't cover expenses out of their share get their league payout for their pool money every penny and some is made back up. The fact some teams end up not keeping as much of that global pool as others is not the same thing as saying it is a losing venture.

There are no teams asking for those bowls to go away. They want those shitty lower tier bowls because they get 15 more practices for going to them. They get travel for their fans. They get exposure in other recruiting beds and markets. They get more eyes watching them in those bowls on TV. They gladly take the travel money discrepancy for that.

It's not going away.

I said if I could have my way I'd drop at least half of the bowls. We have too many and most are garbage. The reality is they aren't going anywhere because of the money. End of story.

 

[WizardHawk]

The chances are greater that injury will occur during a Mercer game than Alabama. A few years back UF, lost both their
starting DT's against The Citadel the week before they played us.

Injuries occur when players lose focus during a game or are just
going thru the motions. That doesn't happen against a Bama
where everybody is playing with high emotion and focus.

Again, I gave you two choices and you only addressed one.

Either there will be less games against high level teams AND/OR you won't see teams playing stars in OOC games.

You will not see powerhouse out of conference games again in that system. And that is pure 100% fact. There would be no reason to risk hurting your stars for games that are now entirely exhibition. Period.

 

[Codaxx]

So you are clearly the one with reading issues then because I've been clear as day as saying that isn't true.

Teams report losing money on bowls, but the net is never a negative. You seem to not be able to grasp that. The teams involved do not get to keep every penny of the payout unless they are an independent team. ND, BYU, Army can keep the entire purse. The rest can only keep whatever allotment their league allows to cover expenses and the rest goes to the pool. How are you not getting that? The bowls themselves aren't losing ventures, it's the teams inability to go to them within the subset of money they are given for going. That's entirely not the same thing. At all.

AND after that same team that couldn't cover expenses out of their share get their league payout for their pool money every penny and some is made back up. The fact some teams end up not keeping as much of that global pool as others is not the same thing as saying it is a losing venture.

There are no teams asking for those bowls to go away. They want those shitty lower tier bowls because they get 15 more practices for going to them. They get travel for their fans. They get exposure in other recruiting beds and markets. They get more eyes watching them in those bowls on TV. They gladly take the travel money discrepancy for that.

It's not going away.

I said if I could have my way I'd drop at least half of the bowls. We have too many and most are garbage. The reality is they aren't going anywhere because of the money. End of story.

Let me break it down for you.
University X
Gets 1 million in bowl payouts, but loses 200k on their bowl. University X made 800k that year. They would have made 1 million by staying home. Playing the bowl game was a negative, despite finishing the year in the black. I am not sure why that concept is so hard to grasp

 

[Deep Creek]

There are no teams asking for those bowls to go away. They want those shitty lower tier bowls because they get 15 more practices for going to them. They get travel for their fans. They get exposure in other recruiting beds and markets. They get more eyes watching them in those bowls on TV. They gladly take the travel money discrepancy for that.

You had me right up til this one wiz! If the fans of those teams travel to a lot of the lower tier bowls, they must be dressed as empty seats because that is what I mostly see. We have more people at a 6-man football game in Texas than what I saw at a lot of those lower tier bowl games.

 

[Codaxx]

The chances are greater that injury will occur during a Mercer game than Alabama. A few years back UF, lost both their
starting DT's against The Citadel the week before they played us.

Injuries occur when players lose focus during a game or are just
going thru the motions. That doesn't happen against a Bama
where everybody is playing with high emotion and focus.

I think this premise it just wrong. Injuries are unpredictable. I don't think teams get injured more vs lesser opponents. I would argue things like concussions are more likely vs a rival or big time opponent, as the level of emotions are higher. An opponent falling on your leg and blowing out your MCL, is just random.