If this trend of NFL prospects sitting out bowls is going to be a trend, should the committee consider that in there rankings outside of the top 4?

This year we had some impact players that decide not to play in the bowl game and I see this as a disturbing trend that will impact the bowls and the ranking of the team from #5 on down.

If this continues, I think the committee should take into consideration the final ranking who will be sitting out and rank accordingly. I don't think its fair to say this team is #6 if a star player or two isn't going to play in the bowl due to focusing on the NFL. It affects the bowl of a lower ranked team that would be ranked higher otherwise. Not to mention the fans.

Just something I think that needs to be discussed and if this continues, to have players make their declaration they are sitting out if their team isn't in the playoffs before the committee put out the final rank.

I don't think they'd be sitting out of playoff games.

(12-31-2016 12:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think they'd be sitting out of playoff games.

That is why I mention outside of the top 4 teams that are in the playoff.

(12-31-2016 12:28 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think they'd be sitting out of playoff games.

That is why I mention outside of the top 4 teams that are in the playoff.

But isn't that kind of answering your own question?

1. No uninjured player is sitting out of a playoff game.
2. No uninjured player is sitting out of a CFP bowl.
3. The players who sat out of non-CFP bowls made their announcements after the bowl pairings had been set. And, it's very likely that any player who sits out in the future will also make his announcement only after the bowl pairings have been set.

So, there is nothing the committee could or should have done about this.

(12-31-2016 12:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:28 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think they'd be sitting out of playoff games.

That is why I mention outside of the top 4 teams that are in the playoff.

But isn't that kind of answering your own question?

Not really....why should the committee rank a team #5 if their star player is going to sit out of the bowl if there are not in the playoff? Shouldn't they rank that team differently? Isn't a disservice to the fans, the bowls and the lower ranked teams who is going to have their full team?
If Francois of FSU wasn't going to play in the Orange Bowl, doesn't that effect how the team is ranked and if ranked accordingly? That could possibly put Louisville in the Orange bowl instead.

(12-31-2016 12:39 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:28 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think they'd be sitting out of playoff games.

That is why I mention outside of the top 4 teams that are in the playoff.

But isn't that kind of answering your own question?

Not really....why should the committee rank a team #5 if their star player is going to sit out of the bowl if there are not in the playoff? Shouldn't they rank that team differently? Isn't a disservice to the fans, the bowls and the lower ranked teams who is going to have their full team?
If Francois of FSU wasn't going to play in the Orange Bowl, doesn't that effect how the team is ranked and if ranked accordingly? That could possibly put Louisville in the Orange bowl instead.

I think it creates a "what difference does it make" situation.

If you are outside the top 4 who cares? If you are number 5 or number 6 you are still going to a good bowl game but one that ultimately means nothing.

(12-31-2016 12:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  1. No uninjured player is sitting out of a playoff game.
2. No uninjured player is sitting out of a CFP bowl.
3. The players who sat out of non-CFP bowls made their announcements after the bowl pairings had been set. And, it's very likely that any player who sits out in the future will also make his announcement only after the bowl pairings have been set.

So, there is nothing the committee could or should have done about this.

Nevermind.

(12-31-2016 12:39 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:28 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think they'd be sitting out of playoff games.

That is why I mention outside of the top 4 teams that are in the playoff.

But isn't that kind of answering your own question?

Not really....why should the committee rank a team #5 if their star player is going to sit out of the bowl if there are not in the playoff? Shouldn't they rank that team differently? Isn't a disservice to the fans, the bowls and the lower ranked teams who is going to have their full team?
If Francois of FSU wasn't going to play in the Orange Bowl, doesn't that effect how the team is ranked and if ranked accordingly? That could possibly put Louisville in the Orange bowl instead.

And they should have left Ohio St. out of the top 4 two years ago since their top two QBs were hurt.

(12-31-2016 12:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  1. No uninjured player is sitting out of a playoff game.
2. No uninjured player is sitting out of a CFP bowl.
3. The players who sat out of non-CFP bowls made their announcements after the bowl pairings had been set. And, it's very likely that any player who sits out in the future will also make his announcement only after the bowl pairings have been set.

So, there is nothing the committee could or should have done about this.

1. True
2. True (hopefully)
3. This is the disconcerting trend. Should Stanford be #16 without McCaffery? That would have put Utah a higher ranking and given them better bowl for example.

(12-31-2016 12:50 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  1. No uninjured player is sitting out of a playoff game.
2. No uninjured player is sitting out of a CFP bowl.
3. The players who sat out of non-CFP bowls made their announcements after the bowl pairings had been set. And, it's very likely that any player who sits out in the future will also make his announcement only after the bowl pairings have been set.

So, there is nothing the committee could or should have done about this.

1. True
2. True (hopefully)
3. This is the disconcerting trend. Should Stanford be #16 without McCaffery? That would have put Utah a higher ranking and given them better bowl for example.

Bowl selections don't punish teams whose coaches bail out before the bowl games — if they did, teams like this year's Houston or South Florida would have been relegated to something like the Cure Bowl, but that didn't happen. So why approach it differently if the person bailing out is a player rather than the head coach?

Remember that while no player has left his team before a major bowl, a head coach has. Brian Kelly abandoned his undefeated Cincinnati team before the Sugar Bowl.

(12-31-2016 12:39 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:28 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think they'd be sitting out of playoff games.

That is why I mention outside of the top 4 teams that are in the playoff.

But isn't that kind of answering your own question?

Not really....why should the committee rank a team #5 if their star player is going to sit out of the bowl if there are not in the playoff? Shouldn't they rank that team differently? Isn't a disservice to the fans, the bowls and the lower ranked teams who is going to have their full team?
If Francois of FSU wasn't going to play in the Orange Bowl, doesn't that effect how the team is ranked and if ranked accordingly? That could possibly put Louisville in the Orange bowl instead.

Why is it any different than when players get injured? Rankings are based on what you did, not what you could do. How many spots do you drop Louisville if Jackson got hurt? I mean it's a silly idea of dropping teams rankings because certain players can't/wont play.

It's not really the committee's concern, but it is a potential concern for the bowls, the networks, the advertisers, etc. if ratings and interest are diminished in bowl games. It's possible that both the 4-team playoff and the increase in # of bowl games has popped the bowl bubble. If so, you'll quickly see a move to an 8- or 16-team playoff.

(12-31-2016 06:24 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  It's not really the committee's concern, but it is a potential concern for the bowls, the networks, the advertisers, etc. if ratings and interest are diminished in bowl games. It's possible that both the 4-team playoff and the increase in # of bowl games has popped the bowl bubble. If so, you'll quickly see a move to an 8- or 16-team playoff.

I'm wondering what the impact will be on their draft standing. If I were a pro director of talent scouting, I could argue it helps because there is less chance of injury before the draft. However, on the other hand, I might have severe reservations about the player's commitment to his team, and push him down. (Personally, I'm inclined to question whether the selfishness might get in the way of team goals.)