I prefer a 16 team playoff with all conferences represented. However that will never happen so Option 1 for me. Reward schools with an extra home game for being a top seed. Then continue the playoff among the NY6 games.

Who doesn't want to see Baylor go to Ohio State in December???

The system is great for fan interest and maximum revenue for conferences.

The Big Ten title game was watched by more people this year than ever before. Why? Because one team had a CHANCE at the CFP. If that team played well, they might get in. If that team played poorly, they might get left out. Fans from across the country had to WATCH to decide for themselves.

If there were four power conferences and each automatically got in the CFP--a true quarterfinal--no one in the SEC would watch the "lousy" Big Ten game. They'd ignore it.

The P5 are going to RAKE in the money for their CCGs in the next negotiations, as long as the system remains what it is.

(01-05-2015 02:31 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  The system is great for fan interest and maximum revenue for conferences.

The Big Ten title game was watched by more people this year than ever before. Why? Because one team had a CHANCE at the CFP. If that team played well, they might get in. If that team played poorly, they might get left out. Fans from across the country had to WATCH to decide for themselves.

If there were four power conferences and each automatically got in the CFP--a true quarterfinal--no one in the SEC would watch the "lousy" Big Ten game. They'd ignore it.

The P5 are going to RAKE in the money for their CCGs in the next negotiations, as long as the system remains what it is.

So, people wouldn't watch championship games if the winner was GUARANTEED a spot in the playoffs?! You don't think SEC fans wouldn't watch the Big Ten title game to see who their potential opponent might be?

Expanding to 8 will actually make the CCGs even more relevant and therefore worth more $$$.
An 8 team playoff makes too much money (for literally everyone) not to happen.

(01-05-2015 02:38 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  So, people wouldn't watch championship games if the winner was GUARANTEED a spot in the playoffs?! You don't think SEC fans wouldn't watch the Big Ten title game to see who their potential opponent might be?

Probably not the same. You KNOW one of those teams will be in if it's a guarantee. As it is now you watch because one, both, or neither team might be in, based on how they play, win or lose, and thus the interest is a little different.

I was all for 8 before the semis, but not anymore....

#7 and #8 this year would have been Miss St. and Michigan St.

Do we really need to expand a playoff so they can get in?? Michigan State lost to Oregon and Ohio State.....do they really get a double mulligan??

I think at most, you expand to 6 with two play-in games, making the top 2 teams get byes...

either that......

OR the Big XII gets picked apart by the other conferences

I would like to see it move to 16 teams with the Cotton,Feista,Orange,and Peach bowls being four team tournaments. Then the winners of those tournaments move on to the semi-finals which would be the Rose and Sugar bowls. Then we could have the Championship game. This is the only way I can see smaller programs getting a shot at playing for a National title.

(01-05-2015 02:54 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I would like to see it move to 16 teams with the Cotton,Feista,Orange,and Peach bowls being four team tournaments. Then the winners of those tournaments move on to the semi-finals which would be the Rose and Sugar bowls. Then we could have the Championship game. This is the only way I can see smaller programs getting a shot at playing for a National title.

There is a lot of resistance to giving smaller programs a shot at a NC in football, and not just on this site. But I bet there would be even more resistance to a playoff schedule that places the college championship game between the NFL division championship games and the Super Bowl. For the participants, that would have them playing just a few weeks before spring practice starts.

(01-05-2015 03:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 02:54 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I would like to see it move to 16 teams with the Cotton,Feista,Orange,and Peach bowls being four team tournaments. Then the winners of those tournaments move on to the semi-finals which would be the Rose and Sugar bowls. Then we could have the Championship game. This is the only way I can see smaller programs getting a shot at playing for a National title.

There is a lot of resistance to giving smaller programs a shot at a NC in football, and not just on this site. But I bet there would be even more resistance to a playoff schedule that places the college championship game between the NFL division championship games and the Super Bowl. For the participants, that would have them playing just a few weeks before spring practice starts.

Not really. Bowls season typically starts the day after Christmas. All the first round games of Cotton,Feista,Orange,and Peach start then and play their championship game on New Years day. The semi-final would be a week later and the championship a week after that. It would put it at mid-January.

If you are using a 16 team playoff, just remove the bowls from the equation. They simply can't exist in a 16 team playoff other than the championship game (maybe the semifinals). Which of course eliminates the idea of a 16 game playoff from ever getting off the ground.
TV brings a lot of money, but bowls make a LOT of money off traveling fans: that is why they pay so much more than they will ever get in gate revenue. Once you start taking that revenue stream away, the TV money has to increase exponentially just to break even. That was why a playoff was resisted for so long, and why when it came it came in the format it is in now, to best preserve the cash cow. We have to see how the first few years go in terms of travel, to see what if any changes are made. But if it turns out that the championship games are made up of mostly locals, and not 60,000 fans from out of town, the host cities will drastically lower the amount they pay for the game, and it will have a ripple affect. Note bowls and host sites are run by the tourism boards of their locales, and the revenue generated that goes to other business aside from the gate, are factored in, and include tax revenue generated.

(01-05-2015 10:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 02:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 10:48 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think you hit the nail on the head that logistics would be the though thing of going to 8. How does the timing work? How do you deal with travel? How are the bowls incorporated. First, I think it would be have to be a seeded 1-8. Otherwise you could punish the top team if the first round is a hard PAC-10/Big 10 matchup or something.

What I would do is this- have 1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6, 4 v 5 the week after the conf championsip games at the home field of the higher seeded team. Then you have the new years six rotation as is currently with winners of the 1 v 8 and the 4 v 5 at one location and the winners of the 2 v 7 and 3 v 6 at the other. That gives time off between the first round of the playoff and the bowls for fans to make travel arrangements, and teams to heal up. The losers of the first round could have guaranteed slots in the other new years six bowls to maintain the bowl tradition. Then you do the same 10 days or so layoff between the second round of the playoffs on Jan 1st and the the championship game.

Basically it is exactly as it is now, except you have the first round the week after the championship saturday.

I think this is perfect as far as logistics go. Basically nothing changes. You are just snapping a 4-game fist round onto the existing structure---and because the first round losers still are eligible for bowl games, you do not subtract 4 power teams from the bowl pool (thus keeping it from seriously damaging the number of teams available for the existing bowls).

Basically, ALL the money in the this first round will go to the playoff system. The bowls will not be part of it, so even if it is pays slightly less that the current games, it will still be just as profitable since all the media, ticket money, and marketing income will flow to the playoff (no bowl middle man). Essentially, the playoff will simply be paying for the home venue for one game. The home venue will get rent, concessions, and parking. This is the least disruptive and most profitable way to add the first round.

As far the format, I would have all five P5 champs AQ. The top G5 champ would be AQ. That ends any anti-trust legal issues. Then there would be 2 wildcards. That's a format that could operate for 100 years.

1st rd playoff losers will never go to bowls. Imagine what kind of effort you would get from Alabama/Florida St if they played again- knowing their dream of a title was gone.

You mean like every other team that plays in a major bowl? Most all of them were in the running for a national tile at some point in the season. What happens is these teams each have one last shot to go out as winners. I don't think it would be an issue.

(01-05-2015 03:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 02:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 10:48 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think you hit the nail on the head that logistics would be the though thing of going to 8. How does the timing work? How do you deal with travel? How are the bowls incorporated. First, I think it would be have to be a seeded 1-8. Otherwise you could punish the top team if the first round is a hard PAC-10/Big 10 matchup or something.

What I would do is this- have 1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6, 4 v 5 the week after the conf championsip games at the home field of the higher seeded team. Then you have the new years six rotation as is currently with winners of the 1 v 8 and the 4 v 5 at one location and the winners of the 2 v 7 and 3 v 6 at the other. That gives time off between the first round of the playoff and the bowls for fans to make travel arrangements, and teams to heal up. The losers of the first round could have guaranteed slots in the other new years six bowls to maintain the bowl tradition. Then you do the same 10 days or so layoff between the second round of the playoffs on Jan 1st and the the championship game.

Basically it is exactly as it is now, except you have the first round the week after the championship saturday.

I think this is perfect as far as logistics go. Basically nothing changes. You are just snapping a 4-game fist round onto the existing structure---and because the first round losers still are eligible for bowl games, you do not subtract 4 power teams from the bowl pool (thus keeping it from seriously damaging the number of teams available for the existing bowls).

Basically, ALL the money in the this first round will go to the playoff system. The bowls will not be part of it, so even if it is pays slightly less that the current games, it will still be just as profitable since all the media, ticket money, and marketing income will flow to the playoff (no bowl middle man). Essentially, the playoff will simply be paying for the home venue for one game. The home venue will get rent, concessions, and parking. This is the least disruptive and most profitable way to add the first round.

As far the format, I would have all five P5 champs AQ. The top G5 champ would be AQ. That ends any anti-trust legal issues. Then there would be 2 wildcards. That's a format that could operate for 100 years.

1st rd playoff losers will never go to bowls. Imagine what kind of effort you would get from Alabama/Florida St if they played again- knowing their dream of a title was gone.

You mean like every other team that plays in a major bowl? Most all of them were in the running for a national tile at some point in the season. What happens is these teams each have one last shot to go out as winners. I don't think it would be an issue.

Those teams would not have lost their last game. I mean, right now, what kind of effort would you expect from FSU? Also like what was brought up, what fans would go to that game? It totally would be an issue. There was a reason why CCG losers in the old BCS were viewed pretty much as poison. Conferences had to come up with specific floors to not have those teams fall too far down.

(01-05-2015 02:42 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 02:38 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  So, people wouldn't watch championship games if the winner was GUARANTEED a spot in the playoffs?! You don't think SEC fans wouldn't watch the Big Ten title game to see who their potential opponent might be?

Probably not the same. You KNOW one of those teams will be in if it's a guarantee. As it is now you watch because one, both, or neither team might be in, based on how they play, win or lose, and thus the interest is a little different.

I disagree. An auto-bid means there is something on the line. You have correctly assessed why the Big Ten championship game got better ratings and was important this year (a shot at the national championship was possibly on the line). But guaranteeing the winner of the Big Ten championship game a playoff spot doesn't remove what made this year's game more watchable, it does the exact opposite. It guarantees that every Big Ten championship game has meaning no matter the participants.

Just as a matter of comparison, why do you think ESPN (& other networks) show college basketball conference championship games? Because the game has built in drama that makes it more compelling. ESPN (& other networks) don't show many of these leagues throughout the regular season but their championship game is televised.

(01-05-2015 12:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 12:14 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 11:45 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 11:08 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:36 AM)stever20 Wrote:  totally different animals. It's a whole lot different when you have a chance to play for a national championship.

also remember- in basketball used to be 3rd place game in the NCAA tourney. They got rid of it because the players were going thru the motions.

But it is way different than the 3rd place game- there is 2-3 weeks off and even now there are lots of teams that lost their last game in bowls, including teams that if they win their champ game would be in the playoff. There was a talk that if AZ won the PAC 12 champ game over Oregon they would be in the playoff. Don't see the difference between their situation and what we are talking about.

That would be like sending the first-round losers in the NCAA basketball tournament to the NIT. The teams wouldn't be interested, and neither would their fans.

OK, I'll turn it around. If you play the first round right after the conf champ games, three weeks later when everyone else is playing bowl games, including teams far inferior to yourselves, don't you think teams and coaches will feel left out? Coaches love the extra practice time playing in a bowl provides, and the kids love the extracurricular activities and perks bowl games provide.

I think if you gave a coach and teams the option of playing in a bowl game and getting extra practice time and experiencing all the extracurricular activities and perks associated with a bowl game versus sitting at home during the bowl season watching others enjoy those things, almost all would pick playing and practicing.

Bowl games are different beasts than postseason play in all other sports. They are exhibitions first and foremost, and nobody is playing for anything other than the trophy from that particular game.

They won't play the first round of a playoff the week after conference title games. They'll do it two weeks after conference title games, to give everyone time to sell tickets and make travel arrangements. This year, that would have put the first round of an 8-team playoff on December 20. Then the four losers would have to turn around 10 or 12 days later and play in the Holiday Bowl or the Citrus Bowl. I don't see it.

You don't need that long. You would sell them with the conference championship tickets. Kinda like pro teams do when the playoffs are coming. Every team with a chance to be in the first round would start selling tickets a couple of weeks prior to the CCG's. Honestly---this is going to be about getting the home fans out. I have no expectation of trememdous traveling groups with short notice.

(01-05-2015 03:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 03:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 02:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 10:48 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think you hit the nail on the head that logistics would be the though thing of going to 8. How does the timing work? How do you deal with travel? How are the bowls incorporated. First, I think it would be have to be a seeded 1-8. Otherwise you could punish the top team if the first round is a hard PAC-10/Big 10 matchup or something.

What I would do is this- have 1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6, 4 v 5 the week after the conf championsip games at the home field of the higher seeded team. Then you have the new years six rotation as is currently with winners of the 1 v 8 and the 4 v 5 at one location and the winners of the 2 v 7 and 3 v 6 at the other. That gives time off between the first round of the playoff and the bowls for fans to make travel arrangements, and teams to heal up. The losers of the first round could have guaranteed slots in the other new years six bowls to maintain the bowl tradition. Then you do the same 10 days or so layoff between the second round of the playoffs on Jan 1st and the the championship game.

Basically it is exactly as it is now, except you have the first round the week after the championship saturday.

I think this is perfect as far as logistics go. Basically nothing changes. You are just snapping a 4-game fist round onto the existing structure---and because the first round losers still are eligible for bowl games, you do not subtract 4 power teams from the bowl pool (thus keeping it from seriously damaging the number of teams available for the existing bowls).

Basically, ALL the money in the this first round will go to the playoff system. The bowls will not be part of it, so even if it is pays slightly less that the current games, it will still be just as profitable since all the media, ticket money, and marketing income will flow to the playoff (no bowl middle man). Essentially, the playoff will simply be paying for the home venue for one game. The home venue will get rent, concessions, and parking. This is the least disruptive and most profitable way to add the first round.

As far the format, I would have all five P5 champs AQ. The top G5 champ would be AQ. That ends any anti-trust legal issues. Then there would be 2 wildcards. That's a format that could operate for 100 years.

1st rd playoff losers will never go to bowls. Imagine what kind of effort you would get from Alabama/Florida St if they played again- knowing their dream of a title was gone.

You mean like every other team that plays in a major bowl? Most all of them were in the running for a national tile at some point in the season. What happens is these teams each have one last shot to go out as winners. I don't think it would be an issue.

Those teams would not have lost their last game. I mean, right now, what kind of effort would you expect from FSU? Also like what was brought up, what fans would go to that game? It totally would be an issue. There was a reason why CCG losers in the old BCS were viewed pretty much as poison. Conferences had to come up with specific floors to not have those teams fall too far down.

Three of the four losers in P5 CCGs won their bowl game. I didn't see any quit in any of them.

(01-05-2015 04:01 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 02:42 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 02:38 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  So, people wouldn't watch championship games if the winner was GUARANTEED a spot in the playoffs?! You don't think SEC fans wouldn't watch the Big Ten title game to see who their potential opponent might be?

Probably not the same. You KNOW one of those teams will be in if it's a guarantee. As it is now you watch because one, both, or neither team might be in, based on how they play, win or lose, and thus the interest is a little different.

I disagree. An auto-bid means there is something on the line. You have correctly assessed why the Big Ten championship game got better ratings and was important this year (a shot at the national championship was possibly on the line). But guaranteeing the winner of the Big Ten championship game a playoff spot doesn't remove what made this year's game more watchable, it does the exact opposite. It guarantees that every Big Ten championship game has meaning no matter the participants.

Just as a matter of comparison, why do you think ESPN (& other networks) show college basketball conference championship games? Because the game has built in drama that makes it more compelling. ESPN (& other networks) don't show many of these leagues throughout the regular season but their championship game is televised.

You misunderstand me. The question was posed in regards to an SEC fan. To them, well to some of them, the Big Ten champion is the entrant, not the individual team. Thus there is no drama in the outcome: the Big Ten champion will be in the playoffs. But because there was no guarantee who would be in, because the Big Ten champion was not guaranteed to be in. and Ohio State, TCU, and Kansas St were all playing for one spot, all three games mattered to determine the champion. .


If you are a Big Ten fan, then yeah it has more meaning because you are watching to see who is going. But the question was about fans from other conferences, who may see the conference as one unit, and thus the drama is not knowing who would get in, and knowing it would be based on how good the teams looked, not just about who won.

(01-05-2015 03:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 03:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 02:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 10:48 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think you hit the nail on the head that logistics would be the though thing of going to 8. How does the timing work? How do you deal with travel? How are the bowls incorporated. First, I think it would be have to be a seeded 1-8. Otherwise you could punish the top team if the first round is a hard PAC-10/Big 10 matchup or something.

What I would do is this- have 1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6, 4 v 5 the week after the conf championsip games at the home field of the higher seeded team. Then you have the new years six rotation as is currently with winners of the 1 v 8 and the 4 v 5 at one location and the winners of the 2 v 7 and 3 v 6 at the other. That gives time off between the first round of the playoff and the bowls for fans to make travel arrangements, and teams to heal up. The losers of the first round could have guaranteed slots in the other new years six bowls to maintain the bowl tradition. Then you do the same 10 days or so layoff between the second round of the playoffs on Jan 1st and the the championship game.

Basically it is exactly as it is now, except you have the first round the week after the championship saturday.

I think this is perfect as far as logistics go. Basically nothing changes. You are just snapping a 4-game fist round onto the existing structure---and because the first round losers still are eligible for bowl games, you do not subtract 4 power teams from the bowl pool (thus keeping it from seriously damaging the number of teams available for the existing bowls).

Basically, ALL the money in the this first round will go to the playoff system. The bowls will not be part of it, so even if it is pays slightly less that the current games, it will still be just as profitable since all the media, ticket money, and marketing income will flow to the playoff (no bowl middle man). Essentially, the playoff will simply be paying for the home venue for one game. The home venue will get rent, concessions, and parking. This is the least disruptive and most profitable way to add the first round.

As far the format, I would have all five P5 champs AQ. The top G5 champ would be AQ. That ends any anti-trust legal issues. Then there would be 2 wildcards. That's a format that could operate for 100 years.

1st rd playoff losers will never go to bowls. Imagine what kind of effort you would get from Alabama/Florida St if they played again- knowing their dream of a title was gone.

You mean like every other team that plays in a major bowl? Most all of them were in the running for a national tile at some point in the season. What happens is these teams each have one last shot to go out as winners. I don't think it would be an issue.

Those teams would not have lost their last game. I mean, right now, what kind of effort would you expect from FSU? Also like what was brought up, what fans would go to that game? It totally would be an issue. There was a reason why CCG losers in the old BCS were viewed pretty much as poison. Conferences had to come up with specific floors to not have those teams fall too far down.

33 of the 76 teams playing in bowls lost their last game, including a few in conference championship games who were theoretically alive for the playoff.

(01-05-2015 04:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 03:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 03:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 02:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think this is perfect as far as logistics go. Basically nothing changes. You are just snapping a 4-game fist round onto the existing structure---and because the first round losers still are eligible for bowl games, you do not subtract 4 power teams from the bowl pool (thus keeping it from seriously damaging the number of teams available for the existing bowls).

Basically, ALL the money in the this first round will go to the playoff system. The bowls will not be part of it, so even if it is pays slightly less that the current games, it will still be just as profitable since all the media, ticket money, and marketing income will flow to the playoff (no bowl middle man). Essentially, the playoff will simply be paying for the home venue for one game. The home venue will get rent, concessions, and parking. This is the least disruptive and most profitable way to add the first round.

As far the format, I would have all five P5 champs AQ. The top G5 champ would be AQ. That ends any anti-trust legal issues. Then there would be 2 wildcards. That's a format that could operate for 100 years.

1st rd playoff losers will never go to bowls. Imagine what kind of effort you would get from Alabama/Florida St if they played again- knowing their dream of a title was gone.

You mean like every other team that plays in a major bowl? Most all of them were in the running for a national tile at some point in the season. What happens is these teams each have one last shot to go out as winners. I don't think it would be an issue.

Those teams would not have lost their last game. I mean, right now, what kind of effort would you expect from FSU? Also like what was brought up, what fans would go to that game? It totally would be an issue. There was a reason why CCG losers in the old BCS were viewed pretty much as poison. Conferences had to come up with specific floors to not have those teams fall too far down.

Three of the four losers in P5 CCGs won their bowl game. I didn't see any quit in any of them.

last year 3/4 lost their bowl games.

And even this year- a pretty huge difference between Arizona, Missouri, Ga Tech, and Wisconsin- none of whom had a real chance at making the sf(Arizona would have been close, but TCU/Baylor would have gotten in)- and Alabama or FSU.

(01-05-2015 04:16 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 03:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 03:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 02:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think this is perfect as far as logistics go. Basically nothing changes. You are just snapping a 4-game fist round onto the existing structure---and because the first round losers still are eligible for bowl games, you do not subtract 4 power teams from the bowl pool (thus keeping it from seriously damaging the number of teams available for the existing bowls).

Basically, ALL the money in the this first round will go to the playoff system. The bowls will not be part of it, so even if it is pays slightly less that the current games, it will still be just as profitable since all the media, ticket money, and marketing income will flow to the playoff (no bowl middle man). Essentially, the playoff will simply be paying for the home venue for one game. The home venue will get rent, concessions, and parking. This is the least disruptive and most profitable way to add the first round.

As far the format, I would have all five P5 champs AQ. The top G5 champ would be AQ. That ends any anti-trust legal issues. Then there would be 2 wildcards. That's a format that could operate for 100 years.

1st rd playoff losers will never go to bowls. Imagine what kind of effort you would get from Alabama/Florida St if they played again- knowing their dream of a title was gone.

You mean like every other team that plays in a major bowl? Most all of them were in the running for a national tile at some point in the season. What happens is these teams each have one last shot to go out as winners. I don't think it would be an issue.

Those teams would not have lost their last game. I mean, right now, what kind of effort would you expect from FSU? Also like what was brought up, what fans would go to that game? It totally would be an issue. There was a reason why CCG losers in the old BCS were viewed pretty much as poison. Conferences had to come up with specific floors to not have those teams fall too far down.

33 of the 76 teams playing in bowls lost their last game, including a few in conference championship games who were theoretically alive for the playoff.

The only 1 in a CCG who was alive for the playoff was Arizona. That's it.

Bottom line- it will NEVER happen. You think Nick Saban would want any part of a consolation game right now? Not a chance.

Ken, I tend to side with Stever on this. There is a difference between playing in your year end bowl, and playing in a bowl AFTER you already lost in the playoffs. Someone used the NIT as an example. Teams like playing in the NIT after their season is over. However no team (or few teams) that was in the NCAA tournament and eliminated, would then want to go and play in the NIT after the fact. It's also why you see in the NFL so many players who were in the playoffs and lost, skip the pro bowl or all of a sudden become too injured to play. But players on teams who missed the playoffs can't wait to get there.

(01-05-2015 04:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Ken, I tend to side with Stever on this. There is a difference between playing in your year end bowl, and playing in a bowl AFTER you already lost in the playoffs. Someone used the NIT as an example. Teams like playing in the NIT after their season is over. However no team (or few teams) that was in the NCAA tournament and eliminated, would then want to go and play in the NIT after the fact. It's also why you see in the NFL so many players who were in the playoffs and lost, skip the pro bowl or all of a sudden become too injured to play. But players on teams who missed the playoffs can't wait to get there.

I think I would take it even a step further. It'd be like Louisville last year losing in the sweet 16 then going to play in the NIT.