One thing that was striking this year between the major bowls and the playoffs was the issue of opt-outs. While some NFL bound players opted out of even some NY6 bowls, nobody I know of opted out of the playoffs.

The obvious reason is that everyone wants to play for a national title, but could expansion play this? If you are an NFL-level player, you are balancing the rewards of the playoffs, winning a title, against possible injury. Right now, the calculus seems in favor of playing, because with the CFP it's just one or two games.

But expand the system to make it 3 or 4 games to win the title, and you might start to see star players saying this is too many games, too risky, and opting out.

This would, IMO, seriously damage the integrity of the playoffs.

(01-11-2022 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  One thing that was striking this year between the major bowls and the playoffs was the issue of opt-outs. While some NFL bound players opted out of even some NY6 bowls, nobody I know of opted out of the playoffs.

The obvious reason is that everyone wants to play for a national title, but could expansion play this? If you are an NFL-level player, you are balancing the rewards of the playoffs, winning a title, against possible injury. Right now, the calculus seems in favor of playing, because with the CFP it's just one or two games.

But expand the system to make it 3 or 4 games to win the title, and you might start to see star players saying this is too many games, too risky, and opting out.

This would, IMO, seriously damage the integrity of the playoffs.

I don't think that will be the case.

I recall when the playoff proposal was first released and there were a bunch of interviews with NFL player agents, who have the most incentive out of anyone to make sure that their future clients don't get hurt. They all said with unanimity that their players would never opt-out of playoff games, especially with NIL money being a factor now. Players keeping healthy by passing up a consolation bowl game is one thing and isn't being held against them in the NFL Draft. On the other hand, refusing to play in actual playoff games with championship implications would be looked at very differently by NFL teams - that would be looked at as "bailing on a team" or "not a cultural fit" in their psychological profiles in a highly negative manner.

(01-11-2022 03:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  One thing that was striking this year between the major bowls and the playoffs was the issue of opt-outs. While some NFL bound players opted out of even some NY6 bowls, nobody I know of opted out of the playoffs.

The obvious reason is that everyone wants to play for a national title, but could expansion play this? If you are an NFL-level player, you are balancing the rewards of the playoffs, winning a title, against possible injury. Right now, the calculus seems in favor of playing, because with the CFP it's just one or two games.

But expand the system to make it 3 or 4 games to win the title, and you might start to see star players saying this is too many games, too risky, and opting out.

This would, IMO, seriously damage the integrity of the playoffs.

I don't think that will be the case.

I recall when the playoff proposal was first released and there were a bunch of interviews with NFL player agents, who have the most incentive out of anyone to make sure that their future clients don't get hurt. They all said with unanimity that their players would never opt-out of playoff games, especially with NIL money being a factor now. Players keeping healthy by passing up a consolation bowl game is one thing and isn't being held against them in the NFL Draft. On the other hand, refusing to play in actual playoff games with championship implications would be looked at very differently by NFL teams - that would be looked at as "bailing on a team" or "not a cultural fit" in their psychological profiles in a highly negative manner.

Yeah totally agree with you. Playoff games are a whole lot different than exhibition games.

(01-11-2022 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  One thing that was striking this year between the major bowls and the playoffs was the issue of opt-outs. While some NFL bound players opted out of even some NY6 bowls, nobody I know of opted out of the playoffs.

The obvious reason is that everyone wants to play for a national title, but could expansion play this? If you are an NFL-level player, you are balancing the rewards of the playoffs, winning a title, against possible injury. Right now, the calculus seems in favor of playing, because with the CFP it's just one or two games.

But expand the system to make it 3 or 4 games to win the title, and you might start to see star players saying this is too many games, too risky, and opting out.

This would, IMO, seriously damage the integrity of the playoffs.

There is already no integrity to the beauty contest. A four team field is not a playoff.

(01-11-2022 03:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  One thing that was striking this year between the major bowls and the playoffs was the issue of opt-outs. While some NFL bound players opted out of even some NY6 bowls, nobody I know of opted out of the playoffs.

The obvious reason is that everyone wants to play for a national title, but could expansion play this? If you are an NFL-level player, you are balancing the rewards of the playoffs, winning a title, against possible injury. Right now, the calculus seems in favor of playing, because with the CFP it's just one or two games.

But expand the system to make it 3 or 4 games to win the title, and you might start to see star players saying this is too many games, too risky, and opting out.

This would, IMO, seriously damage the integrity of the playoffs.

I don't think that will be the case.

I recall when the playoff proposal was first released and there were a bunch of interviews with NFL player agents, who have the most incentive out of anyone to make sure that their future clients don't get hurt. They all said with unanimity that their players would never opt-out of playoff games, especially with NIL money being a factor now. Players keeping healthy by passing up a consolation bowl game is one thing and isn't being held against them in the NFL Draft. On the other hand, refusing to play in actual playoff games with championship implications would be looked at very differently by NFL teams - that would be looked at as "bailing on a team" or "not a cultural fit" in their psychological profiles in a highly negative manner.

On top of that, playing on the biggest stage could increase your draft value. There's almost no upside to playing in a non-NY6 bowl for your pro prospects.

(01-11-2022 03:40 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  One thing that was striking this year between the major bowls and the playoffs was the issue of opt-outs. While some NFL bound players opted out of even some NY6 bowls, nobody I know of opted out of the playoffs.

The obvious reason is that everyone wants to play for a national title, but could expansion play this? If you are an NFL-level player, you are balancing the rewards of the playoffs, winning a title, against possible injury. Right now, the calculus seems in favor of playing, because with the CFP it's just one or two games.

But expand the system to make it 3 or 4 games to win the title, and you might start to see star players saying this is too many games, too risky, and opting out.

This would, IMO, seriously damage the integrity of the playoffs.

There is already no integrity to the beauty contest. A four team field is not a playoff.

I hear FCS has a large playoff. Any schools that at any point moved up from FCS to FBS have only themselves to blame.

The playoff games would mean more and we'd get better games. Honestly they would be more watched then a average bowl game. The bowl games are really for returning players and players like round 4-7 draft players. I expect people to play bowl games hoping to make the draft board.

(01-11-2022 05:15 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  I hear FCS has a large playoff. Any schools that at any point moved up from FCS to FBS have only themselves to blame.

Yup. People don't say this often enough.

Competing in FBS football is a voluntary choice. Even before it was ever called FBS, it was and remains a sport with many questionable aspects, like other sports such as boxing, pro wrestling, or horse racing. Anyone who is not an idiot and follows the sport, and any organization who chooses to participate, knows this full well.

Expecting it to be rigorously fair to everyone who chooses to participate is like sitting down at a mobster's poker table and naively assuming that the cards aren't marked and the deals are all on the level.

(01-11-2022 05:26 PM)46566 Wrote:  The playoff games would mean more and we'd get better games. Honestly they would be more watched then a average bowl game. The bowl games are really for returning players and players like round 4-7 draft players. I expect people to play bowl games hoping to make the draft board.

Note that the Alabama and Georgia players didn't enter the portal until after the game. They stayed available.