With players opting out of Bowl games, is it time for an expanded playoff?

GatorJ said:

They will never get rid of bowl games. Kids love the swag and perks. Plus they get to go to a new city. Sometimes.

Click to expand...

And shoplift in a new town...at a Belk’s Department Store, while you’re in Charlotte to play in the Belk Bowl...while you’re at the Belk store at a sanctioned bowl event getting your free swag bag from Belk’s...literally. You can’t make this shiaat up.

NOLAGATOR said:

Really?

About as good as Dominion Voting machines...can you say OSU?...That's fair.

Click to expand...

What year OSU are you referring to?

NOLAGATOR said:

Okay Donk...justify going to any Bowl Game that is not in the Playoffs?

And after that...pick your replacement for Mullen.

Click to expand...

From whose perspective do you want the justification to be from? Let me know.

Swamp Donkey said:

you just don't get to lose two and the regular season and hope someone gives you a pretend championship.

Click to expand...

Your logic is too obtuse for me here???

RocketCityGator said:

You can argue the specifics, but heck yes go to an extended playoff system. College basketball, baseball, software, volleyball, etc. use a playoff/tournament system. All the pro leagues do. Division 2 runs a playoff system. But somehow it's bad for Division 1? I don't care abpit tje impact to the bowl games. And I don't want some pool of voters applying the eye test to determine the Division 1 champion. Win or lose it on the field.

Click to expand...

I always scratch my head when I hear people say “win it on the field” as justification for a playoff (or expanded playoffs). What do you think happened during the BCS era, they didn’t play a title game and somehow they didn’t win it on the field? Hello, they played a title game every year & the winning team was the champ.

So tell me, how is it “winning it on the field” in a playoff (4, 8, 16 teams, etc.) but it’s not winning it on the field when it’s #1 vs. #2 in a championship game?

GatorInGeorgia said:

I always scratch my head when I hear people say “win it on the field” as justification for a playoff (or expanded playoffs). What do you think happened during the BCS era, they didn’t play a title game and somehow they didn’t win it on the field? Hello, they played a title game every year & the winning team was the champ.

So tell me, how is it “winning it on the field” in a playoff (4, 8, 16 teams, etc.) but it’s not winning it on the field when it’s #1 vs. #2 in a championship game?

Click to expand...

winning it on the field means please let two or three loss teams have another chance bc they couldnt win it on the field like Clemson and Bammer.

Swamp Donkey said:

winning it on the field means please let two or three loss teams have another chance.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And that’s just silly. The regular season being meaningful is what makes CFB unique. For those that want playoffs, watch college hoops, NFL or 1-AA football. Leave FBS alone and get rid of this shytty playoff system.

RocketCityGator said:

You can argue the specifics, but heck yes go to an extended playoff system. College basketball, baseball, software, volleyball, etc. use a playoff/tournament system. All the pro leagues do. Division 2 runs a playoff system. But somehow it's bad for Division 1? I don't care abpit tje impact to the bowl games. And I don't want some pool of voters applying the eye test to determine the Division 1 champion. Win or lose it on the field.

Click to expand...

Spoken like a guy that doesn’t spend his Saturdays in the fall watching college football.

Two teams or eight teams. Four teams sucks. That's the real problem. Either we want to see #1 vs. #2, or we want a playoff that's not so tainted by favoritism for teams like Notre Dame and Ohio State that everybody except their fans wants to vomit and boycott the whole damned thing.

College football isn't NASCAR. We don't need to tweak sh_it every year to try and chase younger fans with the attention span of a gnat. Up until this abortion of a season the 4 team playoff worked fine. I see zero reason to expand it. Absolutely none.

This is especially true when it comes to opt outs. That needs to be dealt with from a financial and social perspective. If you betray your team and opt out, you should be treated as a non-person by the university and you should be required to repay every cent the university spent on you. If you won any awards the year you opt out, including the Heisman, you forfeit them. You should be removed from everything that was accomplished that year. No rings for conference champs. Nothing. If you don't want to play the games, then you get nothing.

Every time anything is changed (see targeting etc) it pussifies the sport and we move farther and farther away from the sport we grew up loving. This may be ok for children with little life experience, and those who have no respect for what football used to be. But its not to me. I want to see more hits like the one delivered to Joey Kent. Reggie Nelson would be thrown out of most of the games now. That's BS.

I think most of you are thinking about this as fans, and who has the "best" team at the end of the season. We need to realize that we have no direct power in how these things will go. You need to think about it as a network executive and how can I put the best product out there to maximize my return on the massive $$$ I am paying for this. Thinking about it from this standpoint, it is definitely time to expand the playoffs. Two driving factors. The first is obvious, more playoff games = more opportunities to market and drive interest in the product. The second is the track record that we currently have after 7 years of running this thing. When we have the same pool of 4-6 teams making the playoff every year, it is bad for the product. One only has to look at the NFL to see how they handle things. While they want marquee teams like the Giants and Cowboys to be relevant, they also want medium and small market teams to also be relevant so they have taken measures to ensure the playoffs are expanded and more parity exists. Coming at it from this point of view and I don't see how you argue against expanding the playoffs.

CU-UF said:

I think most of you are thinking about this as fans, and who has the "best" team at the end of the season. We need to realize that we have no direct power in how these things will go. You need to think about it as a network executive and how can I put the best product out there to maximize my return on the massive $$$ I am paying for this. Thinking about it from this standpoint, it is definitely time to expand the playoffs. Two driving factors. The first is obvious, more playoff games = more opportunities to market and drive interest in the product. The second is the track record that we currently have after 7 years of running this thing. When we have the same pool of 4-6 teams making the playoff every year, it is bad for the product. One only has to look at the NFL to see how they handle things. While they want marquee teams like the Giants and Cowboys to be relevant, they also want medium and small market teams to also be relevant so they have taken measures to ensure the playoffs are expanded and more parity exists. Coming at it from this point of view and I don't see how you argue against expanding the playoffs.

Click to expand...

The move to 8 teams is going to happen, just a matter of when. Now I don't believe there are 8 worthy teams for the championship game. Nor do I believe Ohio State should be in this year due to lack of resume. But money decides this all, and as the bowl games lose ratings and audience because of the playoffs, and media keep bringing up the lack of diversity in the field (ie no Bearcats this year) it's going to happen.

Another change that should happen is remove the committee of 13, can use the BCS formula to pick the teams. It was better at ranking them, then this bunch of agenda having ass holes.

CU-UF said:

I think most of you are thinking about this as fans, and who has the "best" team at the end of the season. We need to realize that we have no direct power in how these things will go. You need to think about it as a network executive and how can I put the best product out there to maximize my return on the massive $$$ I am paying for this. Thinking about it from this standpoint, it is definitely time to expand the playoffs. Two driving factors. The first is obvious, more playoff games = more opportunities to market and drive interest in the product. The second is the track record that we currently have after 7 years of running this thing. When we have the same pool of 4-6 teams making the playoff every year, it is bad for the product. One only has to look at the NFL to see how they handle things. While they want marquee teams like the Giants and Cowboys to be relevant, they also want medium and small market teams to also be relevant so they have taken measures to ensure the playoffs are expanded and more parity exists. Coming at it from this point of view and I don't see how you argue against expanding the playoffs.

Click to expand...

More money, sponsorships, and political correctness, all forced by marketing execs, are the last things college football needs. If I wanted to watch the NFL, I'd watch the NFL.

GatorInGeorgia said:

I always scratch my head when I hear people say “win it on the field” as justification for a playoff (or expanded playoffs). What do you think happened during the BCS era, they didn’t play a title game and somehow they didn’t win it on the field? Hello, they played a title game every year & the winning team was the champ.

So tell me, how is it “winning it on the field” in a playoff (4, 8, 16 teams, etc.) but it’s not winning it on the field when it’s #1 vs. #2 in a championship game?

Click to expand...

I have an issue with the idea of number 1 versus number 2. Example, 2004 Auburn Tigers, undefeated SEC Champs and deserving to play. The voters picked USC and Oklahoma, both conference champs and also deserving to play. Yes, USC won the game but they were handed the opportunity to play by the voters. Auburn was denied. I have not liked this approach since then.

If all other major team sports organizations can effectively run a tournament / playoff system, including Div 2 football, I'll ask again, why can't or what is wrong with Div 1 running a solid playoff system? is it "tradition", some allegiance to the bowl system? If so, I'm sorry to tell you that the bowls are mostly meaningless. When there was only a handful, going to a bowl was a really nice prize but in the era of dozens of bowls and a focus on the national championship, they don't matter, especially with all the opt outs now.

I'll watch the Cotton Bowl tonight, a loyal Gator fan, but with the opt outs and nothing on the line, it'll be about like watching the O&B game. And I have no plans to watch any other games except for the playoff games.

Swamp Donkey said:

winning it on the field means please let two or three loss teams have another chance bc they couldnt win it on the field like Clemson and Bammer.

Click to expand...

As I said, your logic makes no sense. How many 2 and 3 loss P5 teams are going to win their conference? Not many. And on the off chance that you can have a 2 loss P5 champ, so be it, step one win your P5 conference.

How many 2 and 3 loss teams are going to be ranked high enough for an at-large bid? Virtually none.

Back Alley Gator said:

College football isn't NASCAR. We don't need to tweak sh_it every year to try and chase younger fans with the attention span of a gnat. Up until this abortion of a season the 4 team playoff worked fine. I see zero reason to expand it. Absolutely none.

This is especially true when it comes to opt outs. That needs to be dealt with from a financial and social perspective. If you betray your team and opt out, you should be treated as a non-person by the university and you should be required to repay every cent the university spent on you. If you won any awards the year you opt out, including the Heisman, you forfeit them. You should be removed from everything that was accomplished that year. No rings for conference champs. Nothing. If you don't want to play the games, then you get nothing.

Every time anything is changed (see targeting etc) it pussifies the sport and we move farther and farther away from the sport we grew up loving. This may be ok for children with little life experience, and those who have no respect for what football used to be. But its not to me. I want to see more hits like the one delivered to Joey Kent. Reggie Nelson would be thrown out of most of the games now. That's BS.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you say except for the highlighted portion. I can't stand this selection committee stuff. Give me objective criteria any day over the "eye test".

Bear in mind that this season is an aberration, and that I’m a normal year, final regular season rankings and conference champions would be a better representation of quality than this season.

FBS football is comprised of 124 teams across 10 conferences and 7 Independents.

I would introduce a playoff that provides entry to each conference champion, and 6 at-large teams, to account for the fact that the power 5 conferences often have 2+ teams that are playoff worthy.

This provides potential access to all 1A teams, and quickly weeds out inferior teams.

Opt outs would become a thing of the past, as a lot of meaningful football would get played in the postseason.

There would be 15 total games, and would utilize the major bowls for locations. It adds 1 game to the current max total for 4 teams, and 2 games additional for 2 teams. 5 teams would play the same number of games that championship teams currently play.

The regular season would continue to have meaning, because the goal would continue to be to win your conference championship as the best means of securing a playoff spot.

The at-large teams would be selected using a BCS-type mix of computer polls and human rankings. The top 6 ranked teams that are not conference champions would be picked as at-large teams. Independents would need to do well enough to get selected to an at-large bid (or join a conference - I’m looking at you Notre Dane)

• This year, the automatic qualifiers (for winning their conference championships) would be:

• Alabama (SEC)
• Clemson (ACC)
• Ohio State (Big 10)
• Cincinnati (AAC)
• Oklahoma (Big 12)
• UAB (Conf USA)
• Ball St (MAC)
• San Jose St (MWC)
• Oregon (PAC 12)
• Coastal Carolina (Sun Belt)

•The at-large teams (using Sagarin ratings as a proxy for BCS) would be;

• Georgia
• Florida
• Notre Dame
• Texas A&M
• Iowa
• Iowa State

•Seeding these teams (also using Sagarin as a proxy for the BCS formula) becomes:

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Clemson
4. Oklahoma
5. Georgia
6. Florida
7. Notre Dame
8. Texas A&M
9. Iowa
10. Iowa State
11. Oregon
12. Cincinnati
13. Coastal Carolina
14. SJSU
15. Ball St
16. UAB

• Opening weekend matchups would pair highest and lowest ranked teams. Using the current bowl configurations, and ranking bowls in order of payoffs, it would look like this

Dec 25-26
G1:Texas-Iowa / Duke’s Mayo
G2:Notre Dame-Iowa St / Gator
G3:Florida-Oregon / Music City
G4:Georgia-Cincinnati / Cheez-It
G5:Oklahoma-Coastal Carolina / Texas Bowl
G6:Clemson-SJSU / Outback
G7:Ohio St-Ball St / Citrus
G8:Alabama-UAB / Alamo

Jan 1-2
G9: G4 vs G5 / Cotton
G10: G3 vs G6 / Peach
G11: G2 vs G7 / Rose
G12: G1 vs G8 / Sugar

Jan 9
G13: G9 vs G 12 / Fiesta
G14: G10 vs G11 / Orange

Jan 16
G15: G13 vs G14 / CFP Championship

There are some good matchups the first weekend, and potentially very good matchups for New Years weekend as well. There would be more relevant football to watch during the holidays, and P5 conferences get more opportunities to put teams into meaningful postseason games.

You’d no longer having a situation where an undefeated SEC team like Auburn gets left out (BCS caused this), or a situation where an undeserving media darling like Ohio St edges out a more deserving team like Texas A&M (though seeing Jimbo miss out doesn’t really bother me).

I know that I’ll get flamed for this by folks who resist anything other than a human poll-driven 1v2 matchup, but for most everybody else, I think this ticks all of the boxes. Flame away!

GatorInGeorgia said:

Exactly. And that’s just silly. The regular season being meaningful is what makes CFB unique. For those that want playoffs, watch college hoops, NFL or 1-AA football. Leave FBS alone and get rid of this shytty playoff system.

Click to expand...

This argument that the playoffs devalues the regular season doesn't hold. If you have an 8 team playoff based on the P5 champs and 3 at-large teams, I don't see how you win your conference or be ranked high enough to get an at-large bid if you don't place a value on winning the regular season. (Long sentence)