(11-27-2019 02:57 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 02:37 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 02:17 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 01:27 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I was being facetious. Of course a team that is eliminated from the national championship would want to go to a bowl if the option were available. Every season, virtually all FBS teams are eliminated from the CFP and they still seek to bowl. Teams lose CCGs all the time and still seek to bowl. That the losing teams of the first round of an early-starting expanded playoff would opt not to then go bowling is an absurd notion. It's one of the irrational beliefs that some people seem to cling to, like the idea that CCGs are somehow not postseason games or that the Big East is not a power basketball conference.

Sorry but no ******* chance.... . You know how we have players skipping bowl games..... Well- every single nfl prospect- even 6th/7th rd picks- would skip an even more meaningless bowl game after losing a playoff game. EVERY SINGLE one of them..... Sorry but that is definitely a no chance in hell proposal.....

Some players might perhaps opt out, but the team will absolutely go. Even if it's a low-paying bowl, the exposure must make it ultimately pay off, or the bowls wouldn't exist. Has a team eligible to bowl ever declined to bowl? The recent one that was canceled due to bad weather rather than rescheduled is the closest thing I know of to a team declining to bowl.

you are a delusional fool if you really believe that.... No chance in hell. NONE.

Good argument. Since you've just conceded, here's an FYI for future debates you get yourself into: When you resort to ad hominem, you've effectively thrown in the towel.

losing teams from playoffs will NEVER go to bowl games. Period, the end.... People propose this dumb **** every year and it has absolutely no basis in reality.

(11-27-2019 03:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 02:57 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 02:37 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 02:17 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Sorry but no ******* chance.... . You know how we have players skipping bowl games..... Well- every single nfl prospect- even 6th/7th rd picks- would skip an even more meaningless bowl game after losing a playoff game. EVERY SINGLE one of them..... Sorry but that is definitely a no chance in hell proposal.....

Some players might perhaps opt out, but the team will absolutely go. Even if it's a low-paying bowl, the exposure must make it ultimately pay off, or the bowls wouldn't exist. Has a team eligible to bowl ever declined to bowl? The recent one that was canceled due to bad weather rather than rescheduled is the closest thing I know of to a team declining to bowl.

you are a delusional fool if you really believe that.... No chance in hell. NONE.

Good argument. Since you've just conceded, here's an FYI for future debates you get yourself into: When you resort to ad hominem, you've effectively thrown in the towel.

losing teams from playoffs will NEVER go to bowl games. Period, the end.... People propose this dumb **** every year and it has absolutely no basis in reality.

Since you're interested in a post mortem of your argument...

Speaking of reality, I'm basing my assessment on historical college football practice -- e.g., schools that lose important games, such as CCGs, and those that don't even sniff the CFP go bowling and have never voluntarily declined to bowl. Because you were arguing against historical evidence and basic logic (read: $), the burden was on you to substantiate your claim. But the basis for your claim was "No, will never happen. Dumbsh*t. The more emphatic I am, the more believable I am."

(11-27-2019 05:26 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 03:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 02:57 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 02:37 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 02:17 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Some players might perhaps opt out, but the team will absolutely go. Even if it's a low-paying bowl, the exposure must make it ultimately pay off, or the bowls wouldn't exist. Has a team eligible to bowl ever declined to bowl? The recent one that was canceled due to bad weather rather than rescheduled is the closest thing I know of to a team declining to bowl.

you are a delusional fool if you really believe that.... No chance in hell. NONE.

Good argument. Since you've just conceded, here's an FYI for future debates you get yourself into: When you resort to ad hominem, you've effectively thrown in the towel.

losing teams from playoffs will NEVER go to bowl games. Period, the end.... People propose this dumb **** every year and it has absolutely no basis in reality.

Since you're interested in a post mortem of your argument...

Speaking of reality, I'm basing my assessment on historical college football practice -- e.g., schools that lose important games, such as CCGs, and those that don't even sniff the CFP go bowling and have never voluntarily declined to bowl. Because you were arguing against historical evidence and basic logic (read: $), the burden was on you to substantiate your claim. But the basis for your claim was "No, will never happen. Dumbsh*t. The more emphatic I am, the more believable I am."

There is a light years difference between CCG and a playoff game....

(11-27-2019 06:16 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 05:26 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 03:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 02:57 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 02:37 PM)stever20 Wrote:  you are a delusional fool if you really believe that.... No chance in hell. NONE.

Good argument. Since you've just conceded, here's an FYI for future debates you get yourself into: When you resort to ad hominem, you've effectively thrown in the towel.

losing teams from playoffs will NEVER go to bowl games. Period, the end.... People propose this dumb **** every year and it has absolutely no basis in reality.

Since you're interested in a post mortem of your argument...

Speaking of reality, I'm basing my assessment on historical college football practice -- e.g., schools that lose important games, such as CCGs, and those that don't even sniff the CFP go bowling and have never voluntarily declined to bowl. Because you were arguing against historical evidence and basic logic (read: $), the burden was on you to substantiate your claim. But the basis for your claim was "No, will never happen. Dumbsh*t. The more emphatic I am, the more believable I am."

There is a light years difference between CCG and a playoff game....

You're talking in terms of significance? The more the playoff expands, the less significant the early rounds are. In any case, there's no logical reason (again, follow the money) for a school to turn down a bowl opportunity if they're knocked out in an early playoff round. You may have missed it, but no school has ever willingly turned down the opportunity to bowl.

Lets just say I have nothing to worry about. It's not happening.

Yes, it's not happening.

But if it did, a 24-team playoff, as in FCS, is the way to go. Using the current CFP ranking for seeding and for choosing the 14 at-large teams, it would be

(1) Ohio State vs. winner of (17) Iowa at (16) Notre Dame
(8) Minnesota vs. winner of (24) Miami-O at (9) Baylor

(4) Georgia vs. winner of (20) Boise State at (13) Michigan
(5) Alabama vs. winner of (21) Oklahoma State at (12) Wisconsin

(2) LSU vs. winner of (18) Memphis at (15) Auburn
(7) Oklahoma vs. winner of (23) FAU at (10) Penn State

(3) Clemson vs. winner of (19) Cincinnati at (14) Oregon
(6) Utah vs. winner of (22) App State at (11) Florida

More entertaining than bowl games? Of course it would be. But the bowls have their tentacles too far into the system to permit this improvement on the CFB postseason.

What makes sense given the current direction by the TV overlords? That is key to watch.

Notice that the AAC largely regained its status as the 6th overall FB conference of the BE with its ABC laden, 7 million per school. However they didn't make a dent in upgrading itself on the bowl pecking order for 2020.

This says to me that its unlikely the AAC will hit P6 status and obtain the tie-in for its champ that comes with it for 2026.

But I think its obvious the playoff selection is stale with only 4 teams. Then when you watch 2 teams get dismantled in the semifinals it raises the question if the 5th, 6th, 7th or 8th place teams could have done better.

An 8 team playoff, expanding to an NY8 with each bowl hosting it every other year seems to me that it would be more attractive for TV than 4 teams, NY6 and hosting once every 3 years.

That said my pick for the additional 2 bowl games would be Outback and Gator bowls to accommodate the large number of teams that play in the Southeast. With all the G5 teams out there they should get at least 2 slots in the NY8.

This year we have Memphis, Boise St and App St all with really good seasons. One of them will end up with the access bowl but what about the other two? A loss in the conference championship game might dismiss one of them. They are all worthy though if they win out.

That to me is more of the problem with the G5 than a playoff autobid. If we go down the road of playoff autobids it might leave 5 conferences with just one. If instead it was a straight 8 playoff with a guarantee of a spot if you have an undefeated season that might be better for the G5 over the longer haul.

(11-30-2019 01:45 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  What makes sense given the current direction by the TV overlords? That is key to watch.

Notice that the AAC largely regained its status as the 6th overall FB conference of the BE with its ABC laden, 7 million per school. However they didn't make a dent in upgrading itself on the bowl pecking order for 2020.

One thing to remember is that in 2011 the BE turned down a media deal for around $12m per school, just a little less than the ACC's $13m deal signed in 2010.

The new $7m Aresco deal isn't in the same universe with any P5 deal, all of which are at $25m and climbing.

(11-27-2019 10:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No sport, at least no major one, has a playoffs where the majority of teams are conference champs.

This statement is factually incorrect.

Next week, here are your first round games.

NORTH (Rose A)
4 Central Michigan @ 1 Ohio State
3 Wisconsin @ 2 Oklahoma

WEST (Rose B)
4 Boise St @ 1 Georgia
3 Oregon @ 2 Utah

SOUTH (Sugar A)
4 FAU @ 1 LSU
3 Baylor @ 2 Memphis

EAST (Sugar B)
4 App St @ 1 Clemson
3 Penn State @ 2 Florida

Although Alabama and Minnesota may finish above Oregon, they were eliminated by their rivalry game losses.

Doesn't really make a ton of sense for a team to be eliminated from the playoff simply because they lost in the last game of the regular season.

(12-01-2019 12:11 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Doesn't really make a ton of sense for a team to be eliminated from the playoff simply because they lost in the last game of the regular season.

it's not, and TV would never allow it.

(11-30-2019 02:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2019 01:45 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  What makes sense given the current direction by the TV overlords? That is key to watch.

Notice that the AAC largely regained its status as the 6th overall FB conference of the BE with its ABC laden, 7 million per school. However they didn't make a dent in upgrading itself on the bowl pecking order for 2020.

One thing to remember is that in 2011 the BE turned down a media deal for around $12m per school, just a little less than the ACC's $13m deal signed in 2010.

The new $7m Aresco deal isn't in the same universe with any P5 deal, all of which are at $25m and climbing.

Then compare it to the money and exposure of the BE 2.0 deal.

ESPN's answer to the little league dilemma I believe is going to make the weekend before Christmas into a mini NYD by bumping up games to ABC as is done with Boca Raton this year.

A CFP answer seems to me it's going to be an additional access bowl with an expansion to an 8 team playoff instead of P6 elevation the Aresco dream.

(12-01-2019 12:33 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 12:11 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Doesn't really make a ton of sense for a team to be eliminated from the playoff simply because they lost in the last game of the regular season.

it's not, and TV would never allow it.

Admittedly it is the type of rule which schedulers could exploit.

However, I think it would mean much more GIVEN a subsequent 16-team playoff. Otherwise Ohio State and Alabama (and others) could have rested their starters, assured of an at-large spot. Rivalry week is the week you do NOT want that to happen.

Whatever committee is in charge of seeding teams would also announce, before the final week, which teams if any are immune from rivalry game elimination. The OP listed this as a Top 8 or Top 10 rule. If Auburn vs. Alabama were a meeting of 2 Top 10 teams, then that would be unfair to eliminate the loser. But if LSU is playing a #25-ish Texas A&M, then that fits perfectly into a pseudo-Round-of-32 game.

Again, for fun. If we're including all 10 champs, then I feel this would keep the regular season exciting.