Interesting idea listening to Nuno on the radio show...

Qualify for your bowls this year, but play the game NEXT fall. Bowl teams start the season a week early. No opt outs, it's going to be a part of your regular season results. He was pitching it for non-CFP teams, but I'm thinking you take it a step further. Remove the bowls from the CFP. Move ALL of the bowls to August.

This also lets you deal with coaching change opt outs.

Thoughts?

They will never remove the bowls from the CFP ..way too much money at stake

Since the SEC is going to 9 game conference schedule AND 1 P4 game, how about the bowls host a neutral site game that satisfy the P4 non-conference requirement and make that the season opener?

Counterpoint...
What about the seniors that sit out because "it means nothing" and could affect draft status
Why is a true freshman that never saw the field all year starting in January?

That would mean non-bowl eligible and CFP teams would have to scramble to find a week 1 opponent. You schedule someone for week 1 that makes a bowl, what do you do?

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

Terrible

What about the seniors that won't be there next year?

Why is a true freshman playing in a bowl he didn't earn?

---

Good questions but...yeah who cares? Do you think a senior (yes, I get that "one more game" mentality) is going to regret not playing in Mobile against some random directional school between Christmas and new years? Do you think a freshman cares about "earning" that right to play in a game the first week of the season? If anything this is a way to make bowls mean something and the added benefit of eliminating a BS game off the schedule. Replace one of the FCS/G4 payoff games on the schedule with a bowl game? Sign me up.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Thoughts?

---

You should stop thinking.

SMDH.....

I have spent am embarrassing number of hours formulating a 16-team playoff with the P5 conferences and Independents but then the P12 folded and that kinda compromised things.

Given the controversy of yesterday's release, I think it is time to follow the FCS's lead with 3 16-team playoffs - FCS, G5 and P4/Independent.

If you want to keep the "bowls" - fine - just make the first round of the G5 and P4/Indies the bowls. Most of the bowls are dominated by G5 teams anyways and are hardly worth watching...

Do away with these (essentially) meaningless conference championship games and begin the playoffs the first full weekend of December and you can keep the existing schedule...

Some of this is pretty damn simple...

The Banned said:

---

That would mean non-bowl eligible and CFP teams would have to scramble to find a week 1 opponent. You schedule someone for week 1 that makes a bowl, what do you do?

---

Pre-week 1... Make it a week 0 game
As for CFP teams, I said take the "bowls" out of the CFP and just make those CFP games vs "bowl games." If you're in the CFP you still play an August bowl game.

In the CFP right now, if you're a 5-12 seed and lose game 1, you don't play a "bowl" game.

Maybe the worst take ever?

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Interesting idea listening to Nuno on the radio show...

Qualify for your bowls this year, but play the game NEXT fall. Bowl teams start the season a week early. No opt outs, it's going to be a part of your regular season results. He was pitching it for non-CFP teams, but I'm thinking you take it a step further. Remove the bowls from the CFP. Move ALL of the bowls to August.

This also lets you deal with coaching change opt outs.

Thoughts?

---

Aside from last year's results affecting the next season's beginning, this is the NASCAR model. Daytona 500 starts the season, and is essentially the Super Bowl of racing.

So you are going to separate the games from:

1. The players who earned it.
2. The teams that earned it. Teams are drastically different from year to year, particularly with NIL.
3. A large chunk of the student fans who have graduated and moved on to jobs that don't allow them to travel for a bowl game experience in their first few months of a job.
4. The big money sponsors of the bowls who will paying now for an August game when teams are working in new players, new coaches, new schemes. As we know, many early games are nothing like the quality of the games later in the season.
5. The cities that help with the bowls because it means big visitor bucks at a time when people are spending money and have time in their schedules to travel.
6. A big chunk of the viewers who will watch back-to-back, day after day of bowl coverage with the current schedule versus all on one weekend under this proposal. I'm sure the networks will love the reduced audience and reduced advertising dollars.

I just don't see it happening.

- $$$$$$$

Interesting, points. I'm not sure on nuking conference championships, but I like the idea of having more playoff brackets that make more sense for the make up of college football. Then make later rounds bowl games. Who knows where it goes, just glad to see A&M has a chance at National Championship come December at #7. So some changes have been positive.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Interesting idea listening to Nuno on the radio show...

Qualify for your bowls this year, but play the game NEXT fall. Bowl teams start the season a week early. No opt outs, it's going to be a part of your regular season results. He was pitching it for non-CFP teams, but I'm thinking you take it a step further. Remove the bowls from the CFP. Move ALL of the bowls to August.

This also lets you deal with coaching change opt outs.

Thoughts?

---

Errrr.....uhmm.........dumb

Bowls and the Holidays go together. Keep it that way.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Counterpoint...
What about the seniors that sit out because "it means nothing" and could affect draft status
Why is a true freshman that never saw the field all year starting in January?

---

January? You said move all bowls to August….?

expand the playoffs to 24 teams, work in the bowls into the matchups #profit

Its a mockery might as well go all out! Move it later and have it for early enrollees. Spring Training and are you really worth NIL money interview

Bag said:

---

expand the playoffs to 24 teams, work in the bowls into the matchups #profit

---

Why though?
What team in the #13-#24 slot has a prayer of a chance to win the CFP?

HINT -- JMU is currently #24 in the CFP Top25. They're 3 score dogs to get absolutely trucked in the first round.

So is the goal of the CFP to determine the best team in college football or is the goal of the CFP to fill bowl slots? Well you've already got folks saying use more home games for CFP (much like home field advantage in the NFL). Or will a few winning teams have 3-5 "bowl" games every year?

You say PoundSign PROFIT, but at what point will fans NOT be able to afford that many post season games? There's already a thread on this board with folks talking strategy for what game/games they want to buy tickets for.

Folks have said in this thread that fans/recent graduates won't be able to travel for an August bowl. How many fans can travel for 2-3 December/January bowls?

BTW in the Mens BB tournament, no 12-16 seed has ever won. So why are we expecting any different in FB?

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Counterpoint...
What about the seniors that sit out because "it means nothing" and could affect draft status
Why is a true freshman that never saw the field all year starting in January?

---

January? You said move all bowls to August….?

---

I'm saying you've got players that didn't see much if any playing time playing the current bowls because starters opted out.

Sorry if I didn't convey that well.

In 1982, there were 16-17 bowl games for 32-34 teams.

Now? There are 37 bowls (at last count). More of something, devalues it.

I surmise the era of too many bowls is coming to an end.

Having said that what Notre Dame did is inexcusable. Instead of taking their ball and going home they should play and show the committee what they missed . I dunno who drove that bus for Notre Dame but it doesn't seem like a Marcus Freeman move at all.

This idea. It is terrible.

I'm okay with the bowls dying. Just expand the playoffs at this point.

It's not just ND. I heard this morning bowl opt outs are up to 10 programs that declined invites.

So the bowls as we've come to know them ARE over.

halfastros81 said:

---

I surmise the era of too many bowls is coming to an end.

Having said that what Notre Dame did is inexcusable. Instead of taking their ball and going home they should play and show the committee what they missed . I dunno who drove that bus for Notre Dame but it doesn't seem like a Marcus Freeman move at all.

---

It was the AD's call. They tried to pass it off as the players refusing to play the bowl game but it was Bevaqua's call. Since he was openly throwing a complete hissy fit in Grapevine to Heather Dinesh, as she reported.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Bag said:

---

expand the playoffs to 24 teams, work in the bowls into the matchups #profit

---

Why though?
What team in the #13-#24 slot has a prayer of a chance to win the CFP?

HINT -- JMU is currently #24 in the CFP Top25. They're 3 score dogs to get absolutely trucked in the first round.

So is the goal of the CFP to determine the best team in college football or is the goal of the CFP to fill bowl slots? Well you've already got folks saying use more home games for CFP (much like home field advantage in the NFL). Or will a few winning teams have 3-5 "bowl" games every year?

You say PoundSign PROFIT, but at what point will fans NOT be able to afford that many post season games? There's already a thread on this board with folks talking strategy for what game/games they want to buy tickets for.

Folks have said in this thread that fans/recent graduates won't be able to travel for an August bowl. How many fans can travel for 2-3 December/January bowls?

BTW in the Mens BB tournament, no 12-16 seed has ever won. So why are we expecting any different in FB?

---

the question was how to make the bowl games relevant.

• IMO, the only way to make them relevant is to make them count for something.
• There are several teams in the 13-24 that I think could make a run, Vandy, Texas, USC, Michigan, BYU, Utah and honestly the fact that no seed 12-16 has ever won the CBB title doesnt negate the fact that it is an awesome tournament, it is the holy grail of college sporting events
• More football > less football, it really is that simple

There were way too many bowls as it was. A total money grab. I'm glad if they start eliminating some of them.

Bag said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Bag said:

---

expand the playoffs to 24 teams, work in the bowls into the matchups #profit

---

Why though?
What team in the #13-#24 slot has a prayer of a chance to win the CFP?

HINT -- JMU is currently #24 in the CFP Top25. They're 3 score dogs to get absolutely trucked in the first round.

So is the goal of the CFP to determine the best team in college football or is the goal of the CFP to fill bowl slots? Well you've already got folks saying use more home games for CFP (much like home field advantage in the NFL). Or will a few winning teams have 3-5 "bowl" games every year?

You say PoundSign PROFIT, but at what point will fans NOT be able to afford that many post season games? There's already a thread on this board with folks talking strategy for what game/games they want to buy tickets for.

Folks have said in this thread that fans/recent graduates won't be able to travel for an August bowl. How many fans can travel for 2-3 December/January bowls?

BTW in the Mens BB tournament, no 12-16 seed has ever won. So why are we expecting any different in FB?

---

the question was how to make the bowl games relevant.

• IMO, the only way to make them relevant is to make them count for something.
• There are several teams in the 13-24 that I think could make a run, Vandy, Texas, USC, Michigan, BYU, Utah and honestly the fact that no seed 12-16 has ever won the CBB title doesnt negate the fact that it is an awesome tournament, it is the holy grail of college sporting events
• More football > less football, it really is that simple

---

12 seeds and 15 seeds have made the Elite 8. 9 seed has won the national championship.

If Notre Dame was the 11 seed this year, they'd be a solid favorite over Ole Miss on the road. Even if Kiffin stayed.

It COULD have been an awesome tournament this year, if the ACC had "defer to the rankings" as their tiebreaker.

Bowl games should have 0 part of the CFP. If you want a neutral site for a championship game, OK, let the Bowls bid on that 1 game. It's not a rotation, but a competitive bid.


Having bowl games host the playoffs is absurd.

First, it diminishes the value of the regular season and the CCG. Winning the SEC or Big Ten CCG should mean that team hosts throughout the playoffs. Those teams earned it with their regular season play. Indiana should be hosting games for their regular season excellence, not playing Alabama at the Rose Bowl.



Second, ,I swear that the conference commissioners are receiving some side deals to approve playing bowl games. Imagine the Chicago Bears and Dallas Cowboys meeting in the playoffs, but we are going to have the game in Atlanta, far from where the ticket demand is the highest. It's actually worse than that because the college towns should benefit from their teams success.

I saw this elsehwere...you opt out of your bowl, you opt out of next year's playoff too. Bowls become relevant again.

A relegation/promotion system like Premier League soccer is the only practical way of fixing the problems. The nature of college football is so confederated, I don't see a radical change like this ever getting implemented.

Consolidate into 4 conferences that make sense geographically/competitively. Divide each into 2 divisions. No preseason games. You play all teams in your division. The top 2 or 3 teams from the top division of each conference advance to the national championship playoffs. Have 0-4 at large bids depending on how large you want the brackets.

For the bottom 2 of the top division and the upper 2 of the bottom division, have a 4 team playoff to see who is relegated to Division 2 and who is promoted to Division 1. Now you never have to placate group of 5 teams again. They can earn it on the field or not.

The big problem is deciding who would be relegated to division 2 for the first year. There's no way there would ever be buy in with such a weak NCAA. This is something that would have to be forced. If it was planned far enough in advance, you could say that your rankings over the next 4 years would be used to determine your division placement for the first year of implementation.

Edit: after doing the math, it looks like 6 conferences of 2 divisions each would work best. 11 teams in each division means you have 10 conference games a year.

PascalsWager said:

---

Bag said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Bag said:

---

expand the playoffs to 24 teams, work in the bowls into the matchups #profit

---

Why though?
What team in the #13-#24 slot has a prayer of a chance to win the CFP?

HINT -- JMU is currently #24 in the CFP Top25. They're 3 score dogs to get absolutely trucked in the first round.

So is the goal of the CFP to determine the best team in college football or is the goal of the CFP to fill bowl slots? Well you've already got folks saying use more home games for CFP (much like home field advantage in the NFL). Or will a few winning teams have 3-5 "bowl" games every year?

You say PoundSign PROFIT, but at what point will fans NOT be able to afford that many post season games? There's already a thread on this board with folks talking strategy for what game/games they want to buy tickets for.

Folks have said in this thread that fans/recent graduates won't be able to travel for an August bowl. How many fans can travel for 2-3 December/January bowls?

BTW in the Mens BB tournament, no 12-16 seed has ever won. So why are we expecting any different in FB?

---

the question was how to make the bowl games relevant.

• IMO, the only way to make them relevant is to make them count for something.
• There are several teams in the 13-24 that I think could make a run, Vandy, Texas, USC, Michigan, BYU, Utah and honestly the fact that no seed 12-16 has ever won the CBB title doesnt negate the fact that it is an awesome tournament, it is the holy grail of college sporting events
• More football > less football, it really is that simple

---

12 seeds and 15 seeds have made the Elite 8. 9 seed has won the national championship.

If Notre Dame was the 11 seed this year, they'd be a solid favorite over Ole Miss on the road. Even if Kiffin stayed.

It COULD have been an awesome tournament this year, if the ACC had "defer to the rankings" as their tiebreaker.

---

I get that low seeds have made runs in the March tourney. It's undoubtedly great for those programs. I'm not contesting that.

But is a teams goal to make a run? Or is the goal to win the bloody thing?
I posted yesterday you could jump tomorrow to a 24 team CFP and only add 1 game. Run 2 12 team brackets, odd rankings on one side and the even ranks on the other. JMU (for example) is currently 24, so they'd be in. Does anyone realistically think they could win the damn thing? Of course not. They can (just like those 9-16s in March) get a game here and there, but they will not be able to consistently get the wins necessary to take the whole thing. If the goal is to get the best team in college football crowned the years champion, then expansion beyond those who have consistently shown to be capable of not only achieving, but sustaining that level of success is a waste of time.

UNLESS the sole purpose for expansion is to give the Wayne's Tire and Wheel Emporium Bowl a sense of relevance.

My point with my OP is I think you can build a sense of greater relevance with a marquee game in August as a preseason than you can in December/January.

Look at the November & December mens bb tournaments. Some of them are bad, but some them get good matchups.

Regarding playing those games to start the season, I would love those matchups but here is the issues.

1. Most teams don't want to schedule meaningful games week 1.
2. Most fans don't want to travel to bowl destinations in August/Early September. Going to Florida or Texas in January is appealing. Going there when football season starts and after already a summer of travel has minimal appeal.
3. Teams still do better financially when they host their own games against top opponents. A game against Notre Dame makes more money for both teams by rotating who hosts. It isn't just much higher demand that drives up ticket prices, it is the Athletic Departments being able to sell season tickets and sponsorships at higher prices because big names come to town. That's why no pro team plays neutral site games unless they are getting meaningfully compensated by the league to play in London, Mexico City or Paris. And the league is compensating those teams significantly.



It is OK to let the Bowls die. I don't mind them, but no university should lose money traveling to a bowl game, and that is happening. Bowls were great when two regional conference teams met in a bowl game. We now have California teams in the ACC, and Oregon & USC playing Rutgers and Maryland in the Big Ten. The Regionalism has long been replaced by an ESPN product.