Who wants to see any team play against someone they know they will beat, at home nonetheless. It's ridiculous. If everyone played a competitive schedule, all would win, more the fans. Who cares if someone goes 12-0. It doesn't help a soul. It only serves to muddy the waters and provide a ****ty product for the fans. Let's move away from this tired paradigm into something truly beautiful. On top of that, to still provide incentive for winning teams, give them the home game in playoff games as we make our way to a 16 team playoff. That's the true nature of competitive sport. Let's get to this necessary push to a greater product. Thanks!

VALHALLA!

Tibbers said:

---

Who wants to see any team play against someone they know they will beat, at home nonetheless. It's ridiculous. If everyone played a competitive schedule, all would win, more the fans. Who cares if someone goes 12-0. It doesn't help a soul. It only serves to muddy the waters and provide a ****ty product for the fans. Let's move away from this tired paradigm into something truly beautiful. On top of that, to still provide incentive for winning teams, give them the home game in playoff games as we make our way to a 16 team playoff. That's the true nature of competitive sport. Let's get to this necessary push to a greater product. Thanks!

---

You're totally ignoring one of the draws of college football…huge upsets. That's the biggest difference between college football and the NFL.

Tibbers said:

---

Who wants to see any team play against someone they know they will beat

---

I guess you missed last season.

You need non conference games to prepare the team for conference play.

Yes!! No more App State!!!

There was an interesting ESPN article a year or two ago that reimagined how an ideal season would be scheduled if you started from scratch. If I remember right, they suggested

- FCS schools could only be played in spring scrimmages
- Bowl games would be the first games of the season
- A huge playoff. Maybe 16 or 32 teams.

I forget what else, but liked the ideas.

I think you need a couple of warm up games. Beyond that, no. It also helps the smaller schools monetarily.

I'll have to sort of disagree because warm up games are important when preparing for SEC teams. On the other hand, I'll agree because I don't want to play Prairie View or ACU in late November when we could play another SEC opponent.

I love watching teams get blown out by 60.
I love watching a FCS team take down a FBS team.

I hate the NFL.

Don't fully NFL college football !!

Perhaps we could 10x the college game and schedule a few High School teams. Just imagine the blowouts and upsets!!!

15 game conference only schedule

Playoffs ruined college football.

I said it.

HarryRocket said:

---

Playoffs ruined college football.

I said it.

---

Not for me.

Playing smaller schools help fund their programs thus allowing more kids to get educations.

OP, you probably never played competitive football if you don't understand the reason for non-con games and games against low-ranked opponents.

I want 10 Power 5 Games a year with either 9 conference games and 1 Power 5 nonconference or 8 conference games and 2 Power 5 nonconference games. I think there should be 2 payout cupcake games per year.

I don't think they are pointless. Many of "us" think it is easy to just roll out and overpower the "weak" teams, but I can guarantee the gap between them and the big guys is not as big as most fans think. They require planning and preparation, and it gives the better team a chance to put things in place. The fact that we have lost a handful of these "easy" games... including other recently <ahem> App State?... out to disavow anyone of this notion.

Nattie said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

Who wants to see any team play against someone they know they will beat

---

I guess you missed last season.

You need non conference games to prepare the team for conference play.

---

Isn't that what practices are for? And you would still have upsets as teams are ranked and some are not. If Mizzou beat Alabama would that not be an upset?

Bowl games are silly. They mean nothing and the players don't want to play in them anyway as many opt out. I think that would be corrected with an expanded playoff. More to play for and top seeded teams get a playoff game at their home stadium. The pageantry of college football would be on full display and the local citizens and business owners could reap some additional benefit.

If you are worried about a tune up game, simply schedule a scrimmage with Prairie View a week or two weeks before the season begins. It's optional and doesn't count, but would satisfy your craving for neutered football and live practice against an additional opponent.

Are you really defending wanting to see teams play Prairie View over a team like Michigan State or Wisconsin or Miami or Stanford? I mean, it's frankly silly to try and argue how that would be a more entertaining game than Utah State.

Further, college football has changed now that the transfer portal is in place and NIL is in place. Embrace the change or support a bygone era.

Are you really arguing that teams need to have tune up games because the game of football is too tough? Interesting argument. How does the NFL make it by playing 16 games? Besides, it's an equal playing field. All teams have to deal with injuries regardless of who they play. Are you saying players don't get hurt playing an FCS school?

Then schedule a scrimmage or two in August against SHSU and Texas State.

Tibbers said:

---

Nattie said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

Who wants to see any team play against someone they know they will beat

---

I guess you missed last season.

You need non conference games to prepare the team for conference play.

---

Isn't that what practices are for? And you would still have upsets as teams are ranked and some are not. If Mizzou beat Alabama would that not be an upset?

Bowl games are silly. They mean nothing and the players don't want to play in them anyway as many opt out. I think that would be corrected with an expanded playoff. More to play for and top seeded teams get a playoff game at their home stadium. The pageantry of college football would be on full display and the local citizens and business owners could reap some additional benefit.

If you are worried about a tune up game, simply schedule a scrimmage with Prairie View a week or two weeks before the season begins. It's optional and doesn't count, but would satisfy your craving for neutered football and live practice against an additional opponent.

Are you really defending wanting to see teams play Prairie View over a team like Michigan State or Wisconsin or Miami or Stanford? I mean, it's frankly silly to try and argue how that would be a more entertaining game than Utah State.

Further, college football has changed now that the transfer portal is in place and NIL is in place. Embrace the change or support a bygone era.

Are you really arguing that teams need to have tune up games because the game of football is too tough? Interesting argument. How does the NFL make it by playing 16 games? Besides, it's an equal playing field. All teams have to deal with injuries regardless of who they play. Are you saying players don't get hurt playing an FCS school?

---

The NFL has preseason. College plays non con as preseason. Do you not understand?

Quote:

---

Bowl games are silly. They mean nothing and the players don't want to play in them anyway as many opt out. I think that would be corrected with an expanded playoff

---

1 Bowl games are great. A lot of bowl games in 2022/23 season were more entertaining than the playoff games.
2. It's straight up crazy to think that a lengthier and more grinding season will convince draft-eligible players to stick it out longer for the name on the front of the jersey. You're just exposing them to more risk of injury.

Logos Stick said:

---

I think you need a couple of warm up games. Beyond that, no. It also helps the smaller schools monetarily.

---

Also helps fans on a budget monetarily by making a couple games available at more affordable prices.

College football isn't just a TV product or video game. Actually, it hasn't even been a video game in years, though some people who never played sports seem to think that's all it is.

Texagtrojan said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

Nattie said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

Who wants to see any team play against someone they know they will beat

---

I guess you missed last season.

You need non conference games to prepare the team for conference play.

---

Isn't that what practices are for? And you would still have upsets as teams are ranked and some are not. If Mizzou beat Alabama would that not be an upset?

Bowl games are silly. They mean nothing and the players don't want to play in them anyway as many opt out. I think that would be corrected with an expanded playoff. More to play for and top seeded teams get a playoff game at their home stadium. The pageantry of college football would be on full display and the local citizens and business owners could reap some additional benefit.

If you are worried about a tune up game, simply schedule a scrimmage with Prairie View a week or two weeks before the season begins. It's optional and doesn't count, but would satisfy your craving for neutered football and live practice against an additional opponent.

Are you really defending wanting to see teams play Prairie View over a team like Michigan State or Wisconsin or Miami or Stanford? I mean, it's frankly silly to try and argue how that would be a more entertaining game than Utah State.

Further, college football has changed now that the transfer portal is in place and NIL is in place. Embrace the change or support a bygone era.

Are you really arguing that teams need to have tune up games because the game of football is too tough? Interesting argument. How does the NFL make it by playing 16 games? Besides, it's an equal playing field. All teams have to deal with injuries regardless of who they play. Are you saying players don't get hurt playing an FCS school?

---

The NFL has preseason. College plays non con as preseason. Do you not understand?

---

Preseason is by definition before the season. NFL doesn't at week 8 have a preseason game. Do you not understand? Further, week 1 in order to garner eyeballs, has several premiere matchups with top flight teams. If nonconference was preseason and are tune up games to get teams ready to actually play a real game, they wouldn't have premiere games in weeks 1 and 2, right?

As to injury risk, it's a violent sport. Are you suggesting players can't get hurt in cupcake games? That argument falls flat on logic. Players get hurt, depth is important, weeks off are important and coaches balancing their roster to ensure players are as healthy as possible throughout has always been a strategy.

I am merely coming from the eyes of a fan because that's what I am. What I see is when the Aggies play cupcakes we see a drop in attendance and a diluted product on the field. If you're a fan of a team, why would want a lesser game? To protect the players? That's the coaches' job. If leagues like the NFL can maintain a 16 game season with far more athletic and strong heavy hitters, why would presume that can not be done in college sports?

One should never have to pay a team to show up to play. That's such a silly procedure that need not exist. The only reason cupcakes are important is protect the ability to run the table. Steel sharpens steel, I would rather see the best product possible, night in and night out as I am a fan and I presume you are too.

And yes, I believe that players will want to garner a championship trophy, to be crowned the kings of football much more than being the king of the Tax slayer bowl. As to why you think bowl games are more exciting, do you not see that is exactly what I am proposing? You like those games because they are top flight teams that don't often get to play against each other. That's the draw. You are proving my point. Further, neutral site games pale in comparison to a home atmosphere at either respective team. You must concede that point at least.

Microwave Onions said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I think you need a couple of warm up games. Beyond that, no. It also helps the smaller schools monetarily.

---

Also helps fans on a budget monetarily by making a couple games available at more affordable prices.

College football isn't just a TV product or video game. Actually, it hasn't even been a video game in years, though some people who never played sports seem to think that's all it is.

---

As a fan, it's clear to me that nonconference games do not outweigh the benefit of playing other P5 schools that fans have never seen play. Let me put it this way, last year week 2, did you tune in to watch Alabama vs Texas or did you tune in to watch Georgia vs. Samford? Come on man.

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

There was an interesting ESPN article a year or two ago that reimagined how an ideal season would be scheduled if you started from scratch. If I remember right, they suggested

- FCS schools could only be played in spring scrimmages
[b/]- Bowl games would be the first games of the season[b/]
- A huge playoff. Maybe 16 or 32 teams.

I forget what else, but liked the ideas.

---

I'm curious if they said how'd they'd pick the bowl lineups? Previous years record?? That would suck for teams like LSU when they won the NC and then got butt slammed the following year.

Ag_B_10 said:

---

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

There was an interesting ESPN article a year or two ago that reimagined how an ideal season would be scheduled if you started from scratch. If I remember right, they suggested

- FCS schools could only be played in spring scrimmages
[b/]- Bowl games would be the first games of the season[b/]
- A huge playoff. Maybe 16 or 32 teams.

I forget what else, but liked the ideas.

---

I'm curious if they said how'd they'd pick the bowl lineups? Previous years record?? That would suck for teams like LSU when they won the NC and then got butt slammed the following year.

---

There is no way Bowl games are moving to beginning of the season. They already do a few of those with "Kickoff Classics".


Bowl Games were established and still primarily function for tourism purposes. The appeal for a fan to travel to Arizona or Miami or Birmingham or most bowl destinations is so small during August when kids are in school versus in December and January when snow is on the ground.

Additionally, as evident by this thread, the average football fan does not want to play a game that the team might lose at the beginning of the season. The teams want the meaningless bowl game at the end to celebrate the excellence that a 6-6 or 7-5 season deserves.

This thread is dumb

That's why the Alabama vs Texas game didn't sell out. Certainly no one watched Ohio State vs Notre Dame, and lord knows there wasn't a nation wide audience for Oregon vs Georgia. All eyes were on A&M vs. Sam Houston State. We all know how important that first game was for the Aggies as the tune up worked wonders against App State.

But that's not my point, the point is that the average football fan wants to watch exciting games against great teams. The tribal football fan simply wants to see their team run the table so they can go to the playoffs, not so they can maybe make a meager bowl. If you expand the playoffs and harden the schedule for all, both segments of fandom are satisfied.

I agree. I'm just curious how they would pick the bowl participants.

Unfortunately this is football and injuries are a big part of why not a lot of scrimmages played.

AggieDub14 said:

---

Then schedule a scrimmage or two in August against SHSU and Texas State.

---

And as soon as a stud player gets a high ankle spraign in that scrimmage game, folks like you will be wailing and moaning and gnashing teeth at the stupidity and absurdity of a meaningless scrimmage game that does nothing but expose players to potential injury.

You can't have a schedule full of marquee games, anybody that thinks you can is a moron. There is a reason that pretty much through all of CFB history there are tune up games and the late season R&R game - because the tune up games give you a chance to polish things off in a game environment that cannot be replicated in practice or scrimmage.

The late season R&R game gives the team a chance to essentially back off a bit, gives some players a week to heal up from nicks and dings, gives younger guys an opportunity to get game time in that they probably wouldn't have otherwise, etc.

It really isn't hard to comprehend. The entitlement of some that they think they are owed a prime time powerhouse matchup every single week amazes me. It shouldn't, but it does.

Nattie said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

Who wants to see any team play against someone they know they will beat

---

I guess you missed last season.

You need non conference games to prepare the team for conference play

---

Not true. Welcome ACU to Kyle Field Nov 18

And the old bowl system needs to die completely. The insistence of trying to marry a playoff that really isn't a playoff with an old system that no longer has any real meaning outside of tradition is just dumb.

Either go back to the old bowl system and return D1 footbal back to the only sport that doesn't have a playoff (because somehow it won't work in D1 when it works in all other levels of football and every other sport) or sht can the last vestiges of the bowl system and go with a real actual playoff that has meaningful games and lets the teams dictate who ultimately ends up as champion.

Conference champions get an automatic spot and a bye. That will keep a huge value on winning your conference, and it will (IMO) reverse the idea that 20+ team superconferences are somehow the way to go. I despise the idea of super conferences because they really aren't conferences as much as they are grouping of teams. Rankings dictate the rest of the field, at least 16 teams. Bowls die. Nobody sits out a game because it's dumb and they want to keep from getting injured before the combine. There is a chance for a cinderella team to come out of nowhere and make a run. It will give teams that maybe lost a game early in the season and didn't make the CCG but got hot late to make the field and have a shot. Top ranked teams are still in like they are now, and they get a bye week as a reward for winning their conference.

An actual real live playoff.

Or we go to superconferences where we play most conference teams once every 20 years and that essentially returns us to the 4 team "playoff" with conference champions only having a shot and pointless bowl games are the "reward" for a good season but not winning your conference. So exciting.

Let's just award a 6-6 season and a participation trophy for every school every year and be done with it. Then let's sit around and reminisce about the good ol' days back when we was fab.

HarryRocket said:

---

Playoffs ruined college football.

I said it.

---

I so agree...