I'm fine if the non-playoff bowls just go away; at this point they're a vestige of a bygone era for the sport. If somebody has some grand, non-punitive plan to get the coaches to coach and the players to play in them then fine, but otherwise their current state is just sad and not really serving anyone but ESPN. Come up with some other way to reward the players for a winning season.

Iowaggie said:

---

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 The Regionalism has long been replaced by an ESPN product.

---

Bowls were always terrible. It was just that more CFB was great so nobody complained. Expand the playoffs and kill the bowls. Easiest solution this usually the best.

Tamuag04 said:

---

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 damn simple part is you aren't in control…

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

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.

---

I wasn't responding to your post. But I will now. I'll agree with you and go further. EVERYONE needs to get more creative with scheduling.

If I'm the AAC and the Mountain West (or Pac in the future), I'm having a AAC/Mountain West Challenge every year.

If I'm the Sunbelt and CUSA (or whatever), I'm not even HAVING a conference championship game, I'm just having the two teams with the best overall record play against EACH other in hopes of getting a playoff bid. A G6 conference title game.

I want at least ONE flexible game for all Big 10 and SEC teams in November where good teams are draw against each other IN season instead of their normal scheduled opponent (or just leave it open altogether). Or if could be like this year and no one plays each other and you have a 15, 10 win teams.

All that in addition to your really good idea of having "bowl" games in August!

It's really a paradigm shift. We gotta get rid of the mindset that the bowls are special. They are primarily funded by the schools thru mandatory ticket purchases and the host city of the bowl. Who cares about post season bowls in games that mean nothing outside of the cfp. Play "bowl" games in late August as an end of summer vacation for fans and a meaningful game for teams. Then have a 16 team playoff at the end of the season with no other bowls. All games are played in higher seed stadiums except for the final game which will be played in a Super Bowl type set up.

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?

---

In the past, bowls were fun to watch when you had real power houses in 7 conferences (sec, b10, b8, swc, acc, b-east, pac10). Plus all the players played including those headed to the NFL. It was a chance to measure teams and players against each other to see who was legit. Those days are gone. Bowls are now dinosaurs. ESPN now makes money on very poor entertainment bowls because fans can't find anything better to do.

Had similar thoughts and love this idea. It effectively addresses the P4 / G5 controversy by letting teams play into the upper tier if they are good enough. And if you start sucking then you might fall. And it would restore more natural rivalries.

Use a BCS type ranking system built on analytics for the top 12 or 16 CFP.

Then take the next 16 ranked teams and have them play a separate tournament, using bowls for each game. They all play for a NIL payout similar to what college basketball does with the Vegas tournament.