The bowl games are relevant because ESPN televises them. No exhibition game MEANS anything except the narrative about the team. The whole discussion tries to suggest the bowl games have always been meaningless but ignores the conferences paid more for travel to schools that had better bowl revenue and didn't always share the rest equally.

A good question is how bowl game revenue compares to a single home game revenue up and down FBS. Without that comparison we really don't have a picture of what the economic value is much less the sentimental value for seniors playing their last game.

I currently don't think expanding past sixteen is meaningful. So now we are discussing the 5-70 v. 9-75 or 17-80 as available seeds. The top is still solid. It is additive to the playoffs not subtractive. The bottom is better than watching me twiddle my thumbs.

greg.w.h said:

---

The bowl games are relevant because ESPN televises them. No exhibition game MEANS anything except the narrative about the team. The whole discussion tries to suggest the bowl games have always been meaningless but ignores the conferences paid more for travel to schools that had better bowl revenue and didn't always share the rest equally.

A good question is how bowl game revenue compares to a single home game revenue up and down FBS. Without that comparison we really don't have a picture of what the economic value is much less the sentimental value for seniors playing their last game.

I currently don't think expanding past sixteen is meaningful. So now we are discussing the 5-70 v. 9-75 or 17-80 as available seeds. The top is still solid. It is additive to the playoffs not subtractive. The bottom is better than watching me twiddle my thumbs.

---

Like it or not, Division I-A/FBS is slowly but surely going the way of Division I-FCS/I-AA, Division II, and Division III regarding crowning the national champion on the field instead of polls (this is a good thing). In lieu of an "arbitrary" seeding (via the polls) to decide the national championship, this is my proposal for a 16-team CFP playoff to settle it on the field:

1. Dropping the antiquated bowl system; no offense, but who wants to see a bowl of two sixth-place teams which is nothing more than a consolation prize?

2. Reversion of nomenclature to Division I-A making both Division I-FBS and Division I-FCS obsolete.

3. No more P5/G5 conference nonsense (they are all in Division I-A/FBS): 10 automatic bids will be granted for all 10 Division I-A conference champions (SEC, Big XII, Big Ten, Pac-12, ACC, American, C-USA, MWC, MAC, and Sun Belt) and six at-large bids. This way every Division I-A conference gets at least an equal opportunity to win the national title (CAVEAT: For some conferences only its champion will go to the playoff).

• For the at-large bids, keep the CFP committee to use the final BCS-style computer rankings to determine who is selected; this is where rankings will matter.
• This will make teams focus more on winning their conference championships and being ranked as high as possible to maximize their getting in the Division I-A playoff.

4. Also the CFP committee will match the selected Division I-A playoff contenders. For each playoff game until the national title game, the higher-ranked team will be the home team which will give the host institution more home games which in turn will potentially mean more revenue. Again rankings will matter here as well.

5. To keep a nostalgic link to the past, have the national championship game at a predetermined NY6 bowl site (Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, Peach, Orange); it could possibly be named: "(Sponsor) Division I-A national championship at the ___ Bowl". Each conference that team represents in the national title game will get a payout equivalent to a NY6 bowl.

As with other Division I sports, championships are won by the champions themselves instead of pollsters; so why should Division I-A/FBS football be any different?

greg.w.h said:

---

Oh. And been meeting since 2018

---

So we can expect the results to be published about......2030? Something like that?

Dallasag517 said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

Oh. And been meeting since 2018

---

So we can expect the results to be published about......2030? Something like that?

---

Make fun of the article if you wish. I didn't write it. It's the CFP not the NCAA.

I doubt the bowls go away. I doubt we see a vastly enlarged playoff. I think it won't ever be like FCS. I hope it does not include auto-bids like the FCS does.

I doubt the conference championship games are replaced by a first round of playoffs even. That suggests at most one extra week of football.

REMARCH11 said:

---

I think expanding this to 8 is a good idea because I believe it will create some parity in recruiting. Right now you have 4-5 schools that consistently compete in CFP. Giving coaches the ability to say we are just on the cusp and "you'll make the difference" within an 8 team playoff will go a long ways in catching up to Bama, OSU and Clemson. It will take a while but it will happen over time.

I do think that there should be no automatic qualifiers, top 8 teams are in.

---

This is the only argument to expanding the playoffs that makes sense to me. The other arguments undermine the championship in lieu of entertainment for the fans or money for the powers that be. It would be hard to argue that the best team has been left out during the playoff era. However, in order to help others recruit against Bama, Clemson and Ohio State, I could see opening up the playoffs a little more. If they go over 8 teams, I wouldn't be surprised if it kills the other bowl games. That would be a negative impact to recruiting

I don't think the "minor" bowl games are going to go away either.

They exist to provide tv inventory for ESPN etc and live sports are the only thing supporting commercials.

Plus, making a bowl game = weeks of extra practice. No coach is going to want to give that up.

I've finally changed my mind to allow 8 teams. Never mind that some won't belong. We need some of the best players distributed to more schools and that could be the way to get it done.

Kerrigan87 said:

---

I don't think the "minor" bowl games are going to go away either.

They exist to provide tv inventory for ESPN etc and live sports are the only thing supporting commercials.

Plus, making a bowl game = weeks of extra practice. No coach is going to want to give that up.

---

Seems like a good strategy. Must protect the programs nobody cares to watch so that we don't have to show more popular fishing and pro bowling competition.

Kerrigan87 said:

---

I don't think the "minor" bowl games are going to go away either.

They exist to provide tv inventory for ESPN etc and live sports are the only thing supporting commercials.

Plus, making a bowl game = weeks of extra practice. No coach is going to want to give that up.

---

I'm fine with keeping the bowl games, but I do think the bowl games should have to guarantee that the teams aren't going to lose money on the trips, nor require part of the teams "payout" to be done by selling 10,000 tickets at $75 each.


I'm also fine with non-bowl teams holding practices until the first round of playoffs or until the NCG or not at all, but they could allow them to practice by a simple NCAA rule change.


I'm also completely fine with players sitting out bowl games if they think they are something special for the NFL because while some teams see this as a farewell game to the seniors (which is a great idea), others might like having the focus on the new talent to develop.



However, I really dislike having revenue going to cities and bowl committees that should be going to local communities. I want a true playoff atmosphere not some bowl location that's hundreds of miles from both team locations. It really does mean the regular season means a lot.

For those who want auto qualifiers for the 10 conferences, while others still want a computer involved, you really could compromise and say 10 conference champs auto qualify IF they are in top 20 (or top 30 or whatever) in computer rankings.

greg.w.h said:

---

I doubt the bowls go away. I doubt we see a vastly enlarged playoff. I think it won't ever be like FCS. I hope it does not include auto-bids like the FCS does.

I doubt the conference championship games are replaced by a first round of playoffs even. That suggests at most one extra week of football.

---

I do, because under my proposed suggestion deserving teams who would not be considered under the current system (such as the highest-ranked G5 conference champion, left-out P5 conference champions, and P5 runner-ups) will at the very least have an equal opportunity to compete for the national title via winning it on the field.

1. Regardless where you are ranked, simply win your conference championship and you are in the
playoffs via an auto-bid; this ensures that every Division I-A/FBS conference will have at least one team in
the postseason.

2. If you are ranked high enough in the final BCS-style rankings, then:

a. If you did not win your conference title, you may be selected for an at-large bid by the CFP committee

b. Regardless of your bid, you may be the home team for the duration of the playoffs (until the national
championship game which is at a NY6 bowl neutral site) which may increase not only the number of
home games but also increase potential revenue for the host institution.

Again, the bowls are slowly but surely becoming obsolete...

Most of the secondary bowl games are owned by ESPN. They fund these bowls thru their TV deals. ESPN has done a ton of bad TV deals over the years. So as long as they are funding these Bowls they won't be going away

Ross discussed in his Town Hall with Will Johnson and Andrew Monaco. His analysis (opinion of course) is 8 or 12 and noted the number of season games won't decrease under 12. Did field a question asking if one round could be played on campus for the benefit of local communities/schools and thought it was possible.

I'm utterly and completely opposed to auto bids. They're stupid. But taking away discretion from the selection committee might cause delectable enjoyment

Playoffs going to 8, is just more insurance for teams like OSU, Bama, ND and OU. A bigger playoff isn't for teams like A&M. If Alabama or LSU go 10-2, they need to be in the Citrus bowl not the playoff.

DatTallArchitect said:

---

REMARCH11 said:

---

I think expanding this to 8 is a good idea because I believe it will create some parity in recruiting. Right now you have 4-5 schools that consistently compete in CFP. Giving coaches the ability to say we are just on the cusp and "you'll make the difference" within an 8 team playoff will go a long ways in catching up to Bama, OSU and Clemson. It will take a while but it will happen over time.

I do think that there should be no automatic qualifiers, top 8 teams are in.

---

This is the only argument to expanding the playoffs that makes sense to me. The other arguments undermine the championship in lieu of entertainment for the fans or money for the powers that be. It would be hard to argue that the best team has been left out during the playoff era. However, in order to help others recruit against Bama, Clemson and Ohio State, I could see opening up the playoffs a little more. If they go over 8 teams, I wouldn't be surprised if it kills the other bowl games. That would be a negative impact to recruiting

---

What I think would be really interesting is if you changed the OOC games. If every team had to play their respective counterparts from 2 other conferences it would be really interesting.

Think about, you could have a
1 and 2 of each conference play a 1 and 2 from another conference, on to 3 and 4, 5 and 6 so on and so on.
I know there are some flaws here, SEC - 14 teams BIG 12 - 10 teams, got it, but there are some work arounds I'm sure.

Bama OSU in week 2, Bama Clemson in week 4
Ags ISU in week 2, Ags NW in week 4
So on and so
This way you could keep the 4 team play off but there would suddenly be a lot more parity. Basically your bringing bowl season to the beginning of the season when teams care and there are no opt outs.

Would make for some really exciting football.

Quote:

---

On top of all that, as I said in my previous post, it's just more entertaining.

---

And isn't that the only reason that matters?

REMARCH11 said:

---

Think about, you could have a
1 and 2 of each conference play a 1 and 2 from another conference, on to 3 and 4, 5 and 6 so on and so on.

---

You could do the same thing with March Madness. Instead of 1 vs. 16, you could do 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, and so on. That may help achieve your desired parity and give the worst teams a better shot at a championship.

greg.w.h said:

---

Ross discussed in his Town Hall with Will Johnson and Andrew Monaco. His analysis (opinion of course) is 8 or 12 and noted the number of season games won't decrease under 12. Did field a question asking if one round could be played on campus for the benefit of local communities/schools and thought it was possible.

I'm utterly and completely opposed to auto bids. They're stupid. But taking away discretion from the selection committee might cause delectable enjoyment

---

Auto-bids are a reward for winning your conference therefore earning the right to compete in the postseason. If other Division I sports are doing this, then it can also work for Division I-A/FBS.

Rankings are still important, for they not only help the CFP select the teams that did not win their conference championship but also helps CFP seed and pair the teams as well; the higher ranked you are the best probability that you will be the home team which will potentially increase revenue:

• For example, if Rice, (ranked 23rd) wins C-USA they will get an auto-bid to the playoffs and if we are the SEC runner-up (ranked 6th) and we are granted an at-large bid to the playoffs and we happen to be paired together in the first round, then we get to play Rice at Kyle Field (more money for TAMU! Whoop!).

Whoever wins advances to the next round...etc. until the national championship game at a neutral site.

I think the playoff should stay the way it is. When you factor in the championship games, you already have play-in games.

Leave it alone! It works fine.

The Chicken Ranch said:

---

I think the playoff should stay the way it is. When you factor in the championship games, you already have play-in games.

Leave it alone! It works fine.

---

Like it or not, Division I-A/FBS is slowly but surely going the way of their Division I counterparts in I-AA/FCS regarding going to the playoffs to determine the national champion; if the bowls do stay in the future for reasons of nostalgia, they will only to serve as a "consolation" prize a la NIT basketball.

In the coming years the conference championship will be the target title to aim for which in my opinion should already be the primary goal for each team. In other words, win your conference and you are guaranteed a postseason bid; if not, then hope to be selected. Speaking of emphasis on conference championships in Division I-A/FBS, in the current CFP setup, there are six auto-bids to NY6 bowls (not always guaranteed to go to the semi-final bowls):

1. SEC champion
2. Big XII champion
3. Pac-12 champion
4. Big Ten champion
5. ACC champion
6. Highest-ranked Group of Five champion (AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, SBC)

....and five at-large bids to the highest-ranked/placed teams available (again, not always guaranteed to go to the semi-final bowls).

To be honest, expanding the playoffs to sixteen with auto-bids for all ten conference champions (SEC, Big XII, Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC, AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, & SBC) with six at-large bids to the highest-ranked/placed teams available will really not be much of a difference except that higher-ranked teams have a chance to have more home games which will potentially increase revenue for the home institution.

BJC said:

---

The Chicken Ranch said:

---

I think the playoff should stay the way it is. When you factor in the championship games, you already have play-in games.

Leave it alone! It works fine.

---

Like it or not, Division I-A/FBS is slowly but surely going the way of their Division I counterparts in I-AA/FCS regarding going to the playoffs to determine the national champion; if the bowls do stay in the future for reasons of nostalgia, they will only to serve as a "consolation" prize a la NIT basketball.

In the coming years the conference championship will be the target title to aim for which in my opinion should already be the primary goal for each team. In other words, win your conference and you are guaranteed a postseason bid; if not, then hope to be selected. Speaking of emphasis on conference championships in Division I-A/FBS, in the current CFP setup, there are six auto-bids to NY6 bowls (not always guaranteed to go to the semi-final bowls):

1. SEC champion
2. Big XII champion
3. Pac-12 champion
4. Big Ten champion
5. ACC champion
6. Highest-ranked Group of Five champion (AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, SBC)

....and five at-large bids to the highest-ranked/placed teams available (again, not always guaranteed to go to the semi-final bowls).

To be honest, expanding the playoffs to sixteen with auto-bids for all ten conference champions (SEC, Big XII, Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC, AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, & SBC) with six at-large bids to the highest-ranked/placed teams available will really not be much of a difference except that higher-ranked teams have a chance to have more home games which will potentially increase revenue for the home institution.

---

So hypothetically, UCLA wins the pac 12 with 8-3 record...losing to Washington,Utah and usc. Aggies lose to Bama, run the sec gauntlet, finish 10-1. You really think the bruins deserve the playoff over the Ags? I can't follow that reasoning. What if winner of conference is 7-4 or worse?

DOG XO 84 said:

---

BJC said:

---

The Chicken Ranch said:

---

I think the playoff should stay the way it is. When you factor in the championship games, you already have play-in games.

Leave it alone! It works fine.

---

Like it or not, Division I-A/FBS is slowly but surely going the way of their Division I counterparts in I-AA/FCS regarding going to the playoffs to determine the national champion; if the bowls do stay in the future for reasons of nostalgia, they will only to serve as a "consolation" prize a la NIT basketball.

In the coming years the conference championship will be the target title to aim for which in my opinion should already be the primary goal for each team. In other words, win your conference and you are guaranteed a postseason bid; if not, then hope to be selected. Speaking of emphasis on conference championships in Division I-A/FBS, in the current CFP setup, there are six auto-bids to NY6 bowls (not always guaranteed to go to the semi-final bowls):

1. SEC champion
2. Big XII champion
3. Pac-12 champion
4. Big Ten champion
5. ACC champion
6. Highest-ranked Group of Five champion (AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, SBC)

....and five at-large bids to the highest-ranked/placed teams available (again, not always guaranteed to go to the semi-final bowls).

To be honest, expanding the playoffs to sixteen with auto-bids for all ten conference champions (SEC, Big XII, Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC, AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, & SBC) with six at-large bids to the highest-ranked/placed teams available will really not be much of a difference except that higher-ranked teams have a chance to have more home games which will potentially increase revenue for the home institution.

---

So hypothetically, UCLA wins the pac 12 with 8-3 record...losing to Washington,Utah and usc. Aggies lose to Bama, run the sec gauntlet, finish 10-1. You really think the bruins deserve the playoff over the Ags? I can't follow that reasoning. What if winner of conference is 7-4 or worse?

---

By your example, under the current CFP setup for Division I-A/FBS, if UCLA is the Pac-12 conference champion even with an 8-3 record, they get an auto-bid to a NY6 bowl, so under my 16-team playoff proposal with their getting an auto-bid to the playoff as the Pac-12 conference champion, so what is the difference here?

By the way, we Ags did run the SEC gauntlet this past season and we indeed got our only loss to Bama (the SEC champ auto-bid to a NY6 bowl; due to their being ranked high enough they were selected to the CFP en route to becoming the eventual Division I-A/FBS national champion). What did we get? An at-large bid to a NY6 bowl (Orange) due to our being ranked high in the rankings. Under my 16-team playoff proposal, we would most likely get an at-large bid to the playoff; so again, what is the difference here?

• Due to our being ranked high, it will most likely mean more home games at Kyle Field; what if we were paired with UCLA in the first round? They will be the visiting team.

If this past season was applied to my 16-team playoff proposal using the CFP final rankings, here are the conference champion auto-bids:

1. Alabama (SEC)
2. Clemson (ACC)
3. Ohio State (Big Ten)
6. Oklahoma (Big XII)
8. Cincinnati (AAC)
12. Coastal Carolina (SBC)*
22. San Jose State (MWC)
25. Oregon (Pac-12)
NR. Ball State (MAC)
NR. UAB (C-USA)

*SBC co-champion with 19. Louisiana-Lafayette; won the auto-bid due to their head-to-head victory earlier in the season and final higher CFP ranking.

While the remaining six at-large slots would be filled by:

4. Notre Dame
5. Texas A&M
7. Florida
9. Georgia
10. Iowa State
11. Indiana

n.b. this past season four G5 conference champions were higher-ranked than a P5 champion and a G5 conference champion defeated an at-large P5 NY6 bowl winner.

Going by the CFP playoff pairings, for the first round they would be (home team in bold):

1. Alabama vs UAB
2. Clemson vs Ball State
3. Ohio State vs 25. Oregon (not the Rose Bowl)
4. Notre Dame vs 22. San Jose State
5. Texas A&M vs 12. Coastal Carolina
6. Oklahoma vs 11. Indiana
7. Florida vs 10. Iowa State
8. Cincinnati vs. 9. Georgia (nor the Peach Bowl)


Do away with the bowls and open it up and you will have a true national champion within the subdivision.

BJC said:

---

DOG XO 84 said:

---

BJC said:

---

The Chicken Ranch said:

---

I think the playoff should stay the way it is. When you factor in the championship games, you already have play-in games.

Leave it alone! It works fine.

---

Like it or not, Division I-A/FBS is slowly but surely going the way of their Division I counterparts in I-AA/FCS regarding going to the playoffs to determine the national champion; if the bowls do stay in the future for reasons of nostalgia, they will only to serve as a "consolation" prize a la NIT basketball.

In the coming years the conference championship will be the target title to aim for which in my opinion should already be the primary goal for each team. In other words, win your conference and you are guaranteed a postseason bid; if not, then hope to be selected. Speaking of emphasis on conference championships in Division I-A/FBS, in the current CFP setup, there are six auto-bids to NY6 bowls (not always guaranteed to go to the semi-final bowls):

1. SEC champion
2. Big XII champion
3. Pac-12 champion
4. Big Ten champion
5. ACC champion
6. Highest-ranked Group of Five champion (AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, SBC)

....and five at-large bids to the highest-ranked/placed teams available (again, not always guaranteed to go to the semi-final bowls).

To be honest, expanding the playoffs to sixteen with auto-bids for all ten conference champions (SEC, Big XII, Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC, AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, & SBC) with six at-large bids to the highest-ranked/placed teams available will really not be much of a difference except that higher-ranked teams have a chance to have more home games which will potentially increase revenue for the home institution.

---

So hypothetically, UCLA wins the pac 12 with 8-3 record...losing to Washington,Utah and usc. Aggies lose to Bama, run the sec gauntlet, finish 10-1. You really think the bruins deserve the playoff over the Ags? I can't follow that reasoning. What if winner of conference is 7-4 or worse?

---

By your example, under the current CFP setup for Division I-A/FBS, if UCLA is the Pac-12 conference champion even with an 8-3 record, they get an auto-bid to a NY6 bowl, so under my 16-team playoff proposal with their getting an auto-bid to the playoff as the Pac-12 conference champion, so what is the difference here?

By the way, we Ags did run the SEC gauntlet this past season and we indeed got our only loss to Bama (the SEC champ auto-bid to a NY6 bowl; due to their being ranked high enough they were selected to the CFP en route to becoming the eventual Division I-A/FBS national champion). What did we get? An at-large bid to a NY6 bowl (Orange) due to our being ranked high in the rankings. Under my 16-team playoff proposal, we would most likely get an at-large bid to the playoff; so again, what is the difference here?

• Due to our being ranked high, it will most likely mean more home games at Kyle Field; what if we were paired with UCLA in the first round? They will be the visiting team.

If this past season was applied to my 16-team playoff proposal using the CFP final rankings, here are the conference champion auto-bids:

1. Alabama (SEC)
2. Clemson (ACC)
3. Ohio State (Big Ten)
6. Oklahoma (Big XII)
8. Cincinnati (AAC)
12. Coastal Carolina (SBC)*
22. San Jose State (MWC)
25. Oregon (Pac-12)
NR. Ball State (MAC)
NR. UAB (C-USA)

*SBC co-champion with 19. Louisiana-Lafayette; won the auto-bid due to their head-to-head victory earlier in the season and final higher CFP ranking.

While the remaining six at-large slots would be filled by:

4. Notre Dame
5. Texas A&M
7. Florida
9. Georgia
10. Iowa State
11. Indiana

n.b. this past season four G5 conference champions were higher-ranked than a P5 champion and a G5 conference champion defeated an at-large P5 NY6 bowl winner.

Going by the CFP playoff pairings, for the first round they would be (home team in bold):

1. Alabama vs UAB
2. Clemson vs Ball State
3. Ohio State vs 25. Oregon (not the Rose Bowl)
4. Notre Dame vs 22. San Jose State
5. Texas A&M vs 12. Coastal Carolina
6. Oklahoma vs 11. Indiana
7. Florida vs 10. Iowa State
8. Cincinnati vs. 9. Georgia (nor the Peach Bowl)


Do away with the bowls and open it up and you will have a true national champion within the subdivision.

---

Your proposal is much more like the failed experiment of auto-bids in the Div I basketball tournaments. In neither are low-major games competitive and as often as not they underseed P6 teams at the 12 just to make it LOOK LIKE there are real Cinderella teams.

A single G5 slot is fine and it should not be based solely on current rankings or worst yet imbalanced conference championships in the G5 conferences. The G5's (and the Big 12) prove how silly a championship is at proving autbids to conference championships have any merit whatsoever.

Unlessit is a conference-only schedule. Like we did last year. Even then without meaningful schedule balancing it's pretty silly.

CraigSU84 said:

---

Most of the secondary bowl games are owned by ESPN. They fund these bowls thru their TV deals. ESPN has done a ton of bad TV deals over the years. So as long as they are funding these Bowls they won't be going away

---

Mentioned earlier that I'm fine keeping as many bowl games as whatever.

But bowls shouldn't be used for playoff games, except possibly NCG.
And colleges shouldn't be losing significant money going to a bowl game.