(05-02-2021 01:45 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Ditto on no “bowl” games for first-round losers. The bowls may prefer a #6 Notre Dame to a #24 Virginia, but an elimination game should end a team’s season.

With 10 teams, you only get 2 knocked out. Maybe you have a consolation bowl with the two losers, rotating among various locations.

(05-02-2021 05:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:45 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Ditto on no “bowl” games for first-round losers. The bowls may prefer a #6 Notre Dame to a #24 Virginia, but an elimination game should end a team’s season.

With 10 teams, you only get 2 knocked out. Maybe you have a consolation bowl with the two losers, rotating among various locations.

If we move to a 12 or even 16 member playoff the bowls have essentially lost their purpose, especially the smaller ones who aren't really in vacation destinations except for maybe the ones in Hawaii.

What would be great to have happen is to take those schools with winning records who don't make the CFP and let them be seeded against another P5 who finished similarly positioned in their conference and have a Post Season Challenge Cup which would be awarded to the conference that finished with the best post season record including the CFP. For instance last year the SEC won the Championship, but the B12 would have picked up the challenge cup. The only stipulation would be that losses against your own conference's foe (should that occur) would not count as a loss, but simply as a win.

I think this would generate some bragging rights interest and it would be hosted at the higher seeds home but with an even distribution of home and away in the planning process for the competition, much like a basketball challenge.

The major bowls, the so called NY6 could still be included in the playoff structure if need be. The rest have outlived their usefulness as the TV money dwarfs any incentives given by the local chamber of commerce.

Note: I'd favor this set up even in an 8 team playoff. The games would be better matched and playing at college venues just makes sense for attendance.

I’d love to see some of the obscure bowls go away and have a series of 4 team playoffs in some of the better travel destinations too.

No offense to Boise, Birmingham, Memphis etc but those just aren’t places people are excited to visit late in December.

(05-02-2021 01:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s a question for everyone:

If there is a 12 team playoff and the open round is played on campus sites prior to Christmas, do the losers still get to go to bowl games? The logistics would be complicated. You’d have have to have bowls willing to take whomever fell in that round.

Would fans still be motivated to travel for a bowl after falling in the playoff?

No, which is a major consideration for the overall system here. Realistically, those teams and fan bases aren’t going to be motivated to travel to a consolation bowl game at all after just playing and losing what was probably the biggest game of their lives up to that point. So, any December playoff games will automatically eliminate 4 elite teams from the bowl system entirely. A 12-team playoff would seem to indicate that the powers that be don’t really care about the bowl system anymore since it’s a huge deal to take away 4 of what would otherwise be among the most motivated and valuable fan bases away from the bowls.

I haven't seen much reluctance by P5 teams that lose in their CCG to go on to a bowl. Some players may opt out, but I don't think schools or their fans will if there are 3-4 weeks between the loss and the subsequent bowl trip.

(05-02-2021 06:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d love to see some of the obscure bowls go away and have a series of 4 team playoffs in some of the better travel destinations too.

No offense to Boise, Birmingham, Memphis etc but those just aren’t places people are excited to visit late in December.

Those bowls are great for fans of schools who go to those bowls. As a UC fan, I can remember the 1993 season were we sat at home after an 8-3 season. There are a lot of other programs who aren’t “in the fight conference” who have similar stories.

(05-02-2021 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 05:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:45 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Ditto on no “bowl” games for first-round losers. The bowls may prefer a #6 Notre Dame to a #24 Virginia, but an elimination game should end a team’s season.

With 10 teams, you only get 2 knocked out. Maybe you have a consolation bowl with the two losers, rotating among various locations.

If we move to a 12 or even 16 member playoff the bowls have essentially lost their purpose, especially the smaller ones who aren't really in vacation destinations except for maybe the ones in Hawaii.

What would be great to have happen is to take those schools with winning records who don't make the CFP and let them be seeded against another P5 who finished similarly positioned in their conference and have a Post Season Challenge Cup which would be awarded to the conference that finished with the best post season record including the CFP. For instance last year the SEC won the Championship, but the B12 would have picked up the challenge cup. The only stipulation would be that losses against your own conference's foe (should that occur) would not count as a loss, but simply as a win.

I think this would generate some bragging rights interest and it would be hosted at the higher seeds home but with an even distribution of home and away in the planning process for the competition, much like a basketball challenge.

The major bowls, the so called NY6 could still be included in the playoff structure if need be. The rest have outlived their usefulness as the TV money dwarfs any incentives given by the local chamber of commerce.

Note: I'd favor this set up even in an 8 team playoff. The games would be better matched and playing at college venues just makes sense for attendance.

Interesting ideas.

(05-02-2021 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 05:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:45 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Ditto on no “bowl” games for first-round losers. The bowls may prefer a #6 Notre Dame to a #24 Virginia, but an elimination game should end a team’s season.

With 10 teams, you only get 2 knocked out. Maybe you have a consolation bowl with the two losers, rotating among various locations.

If we move to a 12 or even 16 member playoff the bowls have essentially lost their purpose, especially the smaller ones who aren't really in vacation destinations except for maybe the ones in Hawaii.

What would be great to have happen is to take those schools with winning records who don't make the CFP and let them be seeded against another P5 who finished similarly positioned in their conference and have a Post Season Challenge Cup which would be awarded to the conference that finished with the best post season record including the CFP. For instance last year the SEC won the Championship, but the B12 would have picked up the challenge cup. The only stipulation would be that losses against your own conference's foe (should that occur) would not count as a loss, but simply as a win.

I think this would generate some bragging rights interest and it would be hosted at the higher seeds home but with an even distribution of home and away in the planning process for the competition, much like a basketball challenge.

The major bowls, the so called NY6 could still be included in the playoff structure if need be. The rest have outlived their usefulness as the TV money dwarfs any incentives given by the local chamber of commerce.

Note: I'd favor this set up even in an 8 team playoff. The games would be better matched and playing at college venues just makes sense for attendance.

You are incorrect on the statement I put in bold. The purpose of all those other games is twofold:

1. To get 60 schools not in the NY6 a few weeks of extra practice, coaches and AD's their annual bonuses
2. To fill the ESPN/ESPN2 TV slots in December which MACtion filled in November. What else are we going to watch on Tuesday night in the middle of December (that is why ESPN owns these).

Neither of those two situations are resolved with an 8 team or 12 team playoff.

(05-02-2021 08:26 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 05:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:45 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Ditto on no “bowl” games for first-round losers. The bowls may prefer a #6 Notre Dame to a #24 Virginia, but an elimination game should end a team’s season.

With 10 teams, you only get 2 knocked out. Maybe you have a consolation bowl with the two losers, rotating among various locations.

If we move to a 12 or even 16 member playoff the bowls have essentially lost their purpose, especially the smaller ones who aren't really in vacation destinations except for maybe the ones in Hawaii.

What would be great to have happen is to take those schools with winning records who don't make the CFP and let them be seeded against another P5 who finished similarly positioned in their conference and have a Post Season Challenge Cup which would be awarded to the conference that finished with the best post season record including the CFP. For instance last year the SEC won the Championship, but the B12 would have picked up the challenge cup. The only stipulation would be that losses against your own conference's foe (should that occur) would not count as a loss, but simply as a win.

I think this would generate some bragging rights interest and it would be hosted at the higher seeds home but with an even distribution of home and away in the planning process for the competition, much like a basketball challenge.

The major bowls, the so called NY6 could still be included in the playoff structure if need be. The rest have outlived their usefulness as the TV money dwarfs any incentives given by the local chamber of commerce.

Note: I'd favor this set up even in an 8 team playoff. The games would be better matched and playing at college venues just makes sense for attendance.

You are incorrect on the statement I put in bold. The purpose of all those other games is twofold:

1. To get 60 schools not in the NY6 a few weeks of extra practice, coaches and AD's their annual bonuses
2. To fill the ESPN/ESPN2 TV slots in December which MACtion filled in November. What else are we going to watch on Tuesday night in the middle of December (that is why ESPN owns these).

Neither of those two situations are resolved with an 8 team or 12 team playoff.

But they would be resolved with a challenge cup series by the winning teams not making the CFP.

Personally, i love "bowl mania", totally enjoy watching all those little bowls between around December 18 and December 28, before the big bowls start.

(05-02-2021 09:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Personally, i love "bowl mania", totally enjoy watching all those little bowls between around December 18 and December 28, before the big bowls start.

Sorry, but if Auburn fails to make the CFP at 8-4 I'd much rather host a school and fill Jordan Hare, or travel to say Tallahassee or Austin and see them play in a full venue than to freeze my butt off in Nashville or Memphis or Shreveport with maybe 16,000 Auburn fans. The money now Quo is in playing at home and on TV, or enjoying another campus site you normally would never see, rather than to keep going to same places you've been over and over in your lifetime. Most schools have state of the art venues which are much nicer than those small outdated ones that only host a college game once a year, or only seat 40,000.

I think the time of the minor bowls has past. I believe games at campus sites would be much more enjoyable and profitable.

Now the NY6 bowls certainly can play a role for the CFP. Add a 7th and you have enough to crown a champion in a playoff of 8.

(05-02-2021 10:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Personally, i love "bowl mania", totally enjoy watching all those little bowls between around December 18 and December 28, before the big bowls start.

Sorry, but if Auburn fails to make the CFP at 8-4 I'd much rather host a school and fill Jordan Hare, or travel to say Tallahassee or Austin and see them play in a full venue than to freeze my butt off in Nashville or Memphis or Shreveport with maybe 16,000 Auburn fans. The money now Quo is in playing at home and on TV, or enjoying another campus site you normally would never see, rather than to keep going to same places you've been over and over in your lifetime. Most schools have state of the art venues which are much nicer than those small outdated ones that only host a college game once a year, or only seat 40,000.

I think the time of the minor bowls has past. I believe games at campus sites would be much more enjoyable and profitable.

Now he NY6 bowls certainly can play a role for the CFP. Add a 7th and you have enough to crown a champion in a playoff of 8.

Ive always thought keeping the bowl guys in the loop was an odd move from a financial standpoint. They literally suck millions out of the CFP system that could go to schools. I mean---each school plans hundreds of games a year with an athletic department. Adding one more game at the home stadium would be no biggie for any school's athletic department. Furthermore, The CFP has a president and an entire CFP office and support staff--but they dont plan a single game. Why are the schools paying 700K or 1 million to these bowl chairman (plus all their staffs, support crews, offices for each bowl, etc) just to put on ONE game a year? Surely it can be done far more efficiently and for far less than that.

(05-02-2021 11:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Personally, i love "bowl mania", totally enjoy watching all those little bowls between around December 18 and December 28, before the big bowls start.

Sorry, but if Auburn fails to make the CFP at 8-4 I'd much rather host a school and fill Jordan Hare, or travel to say Tallahassee or Austin and see them play in a full venue than to freeze my butt off in Nashville or Memphis or Shreveport with maybe 16,000 Auburn fans. The money now Quo is in playing at home and on TV, or enjoying another campus site you normally would never see, rather than to keep going to same places you've been over and over in your lifetime. Most schools have state of the art venues which are much nicer than those small outdated ones that only host a college game once a year, or only seat 40,000.

I think the time of the minor bowls has past. I believe games at campus sites would be much more enjoyable and profitable.

Now he NY6 bowls certainly can play a role for the CFP. Add a 7th and you have enough to crown a champion in a playoff of 8.

Ive always thought keeping the bowl guys in the loop was an odd move from a financial standpoint. They literally suck millions out of the CFP system that could go to schools. I mean---each school plans hundreds of games a year with an athletic department. Adding one more game at the home stadium would be no biggie for any school's athletic department. Furthermore, The CFP has a president and an entire CFP office and support staff--but they dont plan a single game. Why are the schools paying 700K or 1 million to these bowl chairman (plus all their staffs, support crews, offices for each bowl, etc) just to put on ONE game a year? Surely it can be done far more efficiently and for far less than that.

Exactly.

Things have come to a head with the bowl system. It hasn't been truly valuable in a long time, and there's a variety of systems that could replace it.

As soon as the schools need the money bad enough, the bowls as we have come to understand them will be gone.

(05-02-2021 10:39 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 02:48 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 11:32 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Straight 8/12/16 are all probably all a no go. The G5 and the weaker P5s are going to want it set in stone that they have access and will be represented in the field.

The one thing that I think favors a "straight" system is that it is free of anti-trust or other legal issues. Give the P5 autobids but give one bid for the G5 as a whole, and you are still legally vulnerable.

So I think "straight" still has a pretty good chance.

If we were talking 8 vs. 12 there would be more pressure to have autobids.

But at 12 if you can't make the cut for that....simply you're team isn't that good.

Here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter.

I’ve said it all along: expansion talk is entirely about 100% guaranteed P5 auto-bids. Period. Any “straight ranking” system points to just keeping the current top 4 system.

It’s not about whether a P5 champ outside of the top 12 is deserving enough.

It’s not about whether being one of the “top 6 conference champs” or “top 7 conference champs” is good enough.

99% of the time isn’t good enough. The fact that the P5 didn’t ask for this on a top 4 playoff where you can’t have auto-bids anyway is absolutely irrelevant. If you have a playoff large enough to accommodate all P5 champs, then they’re getting those auto-bids. They’re not expanding the playoff to leave things up to chance in a subject committee room yet again.

Last year’s Oregon team as a lower-ranked Pac-12 champ is a perfect example. That’s *exactly* why the P5 will need auto-bids in a playoff expansion. That’s the whole point of auto-bid protection - they don’t need the protection when the champ is already in the top 4/8/12, but when it’s outside of it. That’s a *feature* to the P5 instead of a bug.

Now, I get that some fans might not like this or want this or believe that it’s fair. I’m just saying that this is the motivation: guarantees, guarantees, guarantees. That’s why the Super League was proposed in European soccer - a 99% chance of the top level wasn’t good enough even for the richest professional sports teams in the entire world. That extra 1% guarantee is what it’s all about for those in power. Downside protection in a bad year is always worth more than shooting the moon in a great year on the upside.

But the protection the autobid is to afford in a 12 team system is the right to appear on the road against the 5th ranked CFP team in December.

Its a totally different argument for autobids in a 8 team format.

1) The bar of Top 8 is significantly higher than Top 12. There is real concern of getting left out of 8 if you're the PAC or the AAC.

2) The autobid guarantees a spot for you're team in a NYD bowl game. Champ finishes 15th and they get a nice reward of a NYD bowl.

Its all about risk vs. reward. In a 12 team format risk to make the playoff is down with only a Top 12 ranking required. Reward is also down because as the 12th team you'll have to play a mid December game on the road.

If the decision was to go out to 16 with the round of 16 played in the bowl games then yes then the 99% to 100% argument becomes more sensible since inclusion would in that case be a reward.

5-1-6 format doesn't make sense. The G5 under the current CFP arrangement have a deal where 1 and only 1 G5 champion will receive a berth to a NYD bowl. At the time there was a question as to how good the G5 would be with all the realignment etc. so they were only deemed worthy of one slot. That slot though belongs to the access bowls, it doesn't belong to the playoff.

Why would the G5 agree to limit themselves to one guaranteed but only one playoff team? What if you have a year where the AAC, MWC and SBC all have Top 12 champions? Only the highest rated of the 3 gets in the 12 team field?

The 6 piece makes no sense either because its stated in a way that P5 will get 11 teams in each year. It is whomever is in the Top 12 of the rankings. That can be BYU, Army, ND, Liberty ect.

P5 autobids are in direct conflict with autobids for the NYD games. As it stands the SEC, XII, BIG, ACC, PAC commit their champions to NYD games and if they have a champ in the Top 4 they then send #2 to an NYD bowl. If the playoff had autobids that means the Rose becomes B1G #2 vs. PAC #2 officially but more like B1G #4 vs. PAC #3 in reality. The entire system collapses into itself because those big payouts for the Rose, Sugar etc. are based on having the champs under contract.

Having the existence of the dual bowl/playoff system is a different dynamic than what you have in European soccer because the P5 payouts are tied to individual bowl arrangements not the playoff system but its the playoff system which dictates the post season format. A straight 12 keeps the bowls at their maximum value.

(04-30-2021 06:35 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What’s everyone’s thoughts regarding the semis and finals?

Logistically, would it make sense to hold the semis and the final all in the same city a week a part with the idea that fans from all 4 teams travel to a given city a day or so before the semis.

Fans of the semi final games could then stay and partake in all the local tourist activities prior to the NCG. Fans of the losing teams potentially stay through that week too since they already have their hotel stay booked.

A Final Four, if you will?

Actually, I like it. Not sure they'll go for that because I think the quarters and anything before that will be on campus sites. It would mean some bowls get left out of the equation in given years. The value of 3 games in a single year would mitigate some of that, but a guaranteed game every year is hard to beat.

I'm starting to think 12 will win out as some recent articles have intimated. It gives the opportunity for 4 teams to get a bye and thus reward a special season. Any autobids not in the top 4 still get to be in the party and that's worth the price of admission.

Let's say we did it this way...

P5 get auto-bids. Highest ranked G5 champion gets an auto-bid. The other 6 can be voted on by a committee even though I'm not a big fan of committees.

The top seeds are also voted on. These are the teams that get the first round bye.

Seeds 5-8 get to host a playoff game on campus:

5 hosts 12
6 hosts 11
7 hosts 10
8 hosts 9

Winner of 5/12 plays at 4 seed
Winner of 6/11 plays at 3 seed
Winner of 7/10 plays at 2 seed
Winner of 8/9 plays at 1 seed

Winners of these games go to semis at bowl sites.

Rose, Sugar, and Orange are the first group. They will rotate semis and finals among themselves in years they host.

Fiesta, Cotton, and Peach are the second group. They will rotate semis and finals among themselves in years they host.

First group hosts playoffs in even years. Second group hosts them in odd years.

I agree with JR's proposal for a challenge cup. Any conference could participate to one degree or another. Honestly, I'm not even sure if matters if they've got winning records. Everyone could play one extra game for the sake of vying for conference supremacy.

If by minor you mean "ESPN owned", I'd be ALL FOR Nuking those.

(05-02-2021 09:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Personally, i love "bowl mania", totally enjoy watching all those little bowls between around December 18 and December 28, before the big bowls start.

I’m not advocating getting rid of all the other bowls—just concentrating them in some of the better travel sites and turning them into mini, 4-team tournaments.

(05-03-2021 07:09 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Personally, i love "bowl mania", totally enjoy watching all those little bowls between around December 18 and December 28, before the big bowls start.

I’m not advocating getting rid of all the other bowls—just concentrating them in some of the better travel sites and turning them into mini, 4-team tournaments.

I like the standalone nature of the minor bowls as well. It makes each one a moment of celebration, a chance for a coach to get doused in Gatorade and the school to take a trophy home, an earned trophy.

(05-03-2021 12:42 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'm starting to think 12 will win out as some recent articles have intimated. It gives the opportunity for 4 teams to get a bye and thus reward a special season. Any autobids not in the top 4 still get to be in the party and that's worth the price of admission.

I think 12 will win out too, but IMO it will be because it solves the major problem with giving the G5 along with all the P5 an autobid - with just eight teams, there are only three possible at large spots and the G5 would take up one of those, that is too much for the SEC and B1G to stomach.

But if we have 12, the G5 can have their autobid, and even if Notre Dame gets in, that means there are still 5 at-large slots for the B1G or SEC to get two or even three teams in.

(05-03-2021 12:20 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Why would the G5 agree to limit themselves to one guaranteed but only one playoff team? What if you have a year where the AAC, MWC and SBC all have Top 12 champions? Only the highest rated of the 3 gets in the 12 team field?

The 6 piece makes no sense either because its stated in a way that P5 will get 11 teams in each year. It is whomever is in the Top 12 of the rankings. That can be BYU, Army, ND, Liberty ect.

I think the 6 at-large bids would be available to the G5/BYU/Liberty, even G5 non-champs. If 12-0 BYU is #6, of course they'll be in a 12-team playoff.