Jump to content

CFP expansion discussion


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, PilotsError said:

The most annoying people in sports are the bowl apologists who claim to love more football and the "meaningless" bowls.  The ratings are pretty clear none of you watch them.  

 

I’m not sure a board devoted to college football is the best target for that sort of rant.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, PilotsError said:

The most annoying people in sports are the bowl apologists who claim to love more football and the "meaningless" bowls.  The ratings are pretty clear none of you watch them.  

 

I'm not going to list 2020 covid year because sports ratings were down across the board.

image.png.a07351a51497c62f140076081b163c81.png

I think the bigger issue that is currently plaguing the bowl system is there are too many bowls, the criteria being 6-6 gets you a bowl, and etc. In the same non covid year 2019 there were 40 bowl games. I'd say drop that number down to 28-32 bowl games and require 7 or 8 wins to participate. You'd arguably get better match ups and even higher ratings.

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I'm not going to list 2020 covid year because sports ratings were down across the board.

image.png.a07351a51497c62f140076081b163c81.png

I think the bigger issue that is currently plaguing the bowl system is there are too many bowls, the criteria being 6-6 gets you a bowl, and etc. In the same non covid year 2019 there were 40 bowl games. I'd say drop that number down to 28-32 bowl games and require 7 or 8 wins to participate. You'd arguably get better match ups and even higher ratings.

I would counter and say the more college football the better and I don't give a shit what the records are because they are not in a playoff situation and some of those bowl games that have teams with 6-6 records are some of the most entertaining games of the bowl season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, formermav43 said:

I’m not sure a board devoted to college football is the best target for that sort of rant.

It may or may not be, but the point is certainly valid. Those other bowl game are a ratings laughingstock. There were 16 bowl games (roughly 60% of the field) that failed to crack a 2.0 rating (roughly 3.5 million viewers), 9 of which didn't even crack 2 million viewers. More people watch The Wall than that shit. What's particularly embarrassing about that is the fact that the lower bowl games are played in their own individual time slots so as to avoid competing against other bowl games...and that's the best they can do? https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/

36 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

I would counter and say the more college football the better and I don't give a shit what the records are because they are not in a playoff situation and some of those bowl games that have teams with 6-6 records are some of the most entertaining games of the bowl season.

I would instantly counter your counter with "that's just you and a comparative handful of people. Most college football fans do not give a shit about those games."

Edited by hpslugga
Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't need to be a bowls vs. expansion discussion.  We can have both shitty bowls AND the expanded CFP.  If you love the shitty bowls with 6-6 teams, if they can still survive with their shit teams, games, and business model, and you're willing to watch their shit product, go for it.  The issue is that the bowls have been standing in the way of CFP expansion by throwing money and influence at teams and playing on nostalgia for the old days to keep their post-season shit on life support.  The "moar football" crowd is the clear minority as the rating show, otherwise we'd be watching the XFL in the Spring, because moar football = moar better, right?  Nope, people want quality games and compelling matchups.  Not meaningless "reward" games that are little more than participation medals for 6-6 teams where any player of note has opted out.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I'm not going to list 2020 covid year because sports ratings were down across the board.

image.png.a07351a51497c62f140076081b163c81.png

I think the bigger issue that is currently plaguing the bowl system is there are too many bowls, the criteria being 6-6 gets you a bowl, and etc. In the same non covid year 2019 there were 40 bowl games. I'd say drop that number down to 28-32 bowl games and require 7 or 8 wins to participate. You'd arguably get better match ups and even higher ratings.

We should just call them something like Bowls in Name Only and bar them from the playoff porn.  The choice of whether Fresno State stays home or plays a football game on Dec 21st has absolutely no relevance as to how ESPN determines a national champion, regardless of how the game is branded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

This doesn't need to be a bowls vs. expansion discussion.  We can have both shitty bowls AND the expanded CFP.  If you love the shitty bowls with 6-6 teams, if they can still survive with their shit teams, games, and business model, and you're willing to watch their shit product, go for it.  The issue is that the bowls have been standing in the way of CFP expansion by throwing money and influence at teams and playing on nostalgia for the old days to keep their post-season shit on life support.  The "moar football" crowd is the clear minority as the rating show, otherwise we'd be watching the XFL in the Spring, because moar football = moar better, right?  Nope, people want quality games and compelling matchups.  Not meaningless "reward" games that are little more than participation medals for 6-6 teams where any player of note has opted out.

Quality games and compelling matchups are great. Half the first round games in a 16 team playoff typically won’t offer that. By that criteria, most mid-tier bowls would be better, in fact.

Edited by formermav43
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, formermav43 said:

Quality games and compelling matchups are great. Half the first round games in a 16 team playoff typically won’t offer that. By that criteria, most mid-tier bowls would be better, in fact.

Maybe.  We don't really know b/c it doesn't exist yet.  Holding up  #1 Alabama vs. #16 BYU or Cincinnati is probably a blowout but at least it's two ranked teams.  A #7 Florida vs. #8 Oregon would be pretty good.  Regardless at least both games have implications for the round of 8 vs. the bowls which have zero implications beyond a trophy no one cares about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Maybe.  We don't really know b/c it doesn't exist yet.  Holding up  #1 Alabama vs. #16 BYU or Cincinnati is probably a blowout but at least it's two ranked teams.  A #7 Florida vs. #8 Oregon would be pretty good.  Regardless at least both games have implications for the round of 8 vs. the bowls which have zero implications beyond a trophy no one cares about.

 

Found this:

Why the College Football Playoff committee should change to a 16-team format

 

 

 

 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Found this mockup from 2018

 

image.thumb.png.826e6ce2fba6e1e0254a7214a24a86d7.png

 

First 4 seeds games would be a bloodbath

Except when they're not...sure Bama and Clemson will curb stomp anyone.  But someone like Fresno State has a history of upsets and OU has a history of choking, so...

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

It's not a one or the other thing and I'm not sure why you're making it that. Have the 8 team playoff AND bowls.

I'm not, read my OP where I specifically said that it didn't need to be.  I just think the right range is 12- or 16- not 8.  But I'd take 8 over 4.  And the shitty bowls can stick around too, even as they become less and less relevant with opt outs and whatnot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

Found this:

Why the College Football Playoff committee should change to a 16-team format

 

 

 

 

1.  Bama (SEC Champ)
2. Clemson (ACC Champ)
3. Ohio State (Big Ten Champ)
4. Washington (PAC 12 champ)
5. Penn State (B1G runner-up)
6. Michigan (B1G 3rd place)
7.  Oklahoma (Big 12 champ)
8.  Wisconsin (B1G 4th place team)



9.  Southern Cal (PAC 12 #2)
10.  Colorado (PAC 12 #3)
11.  Florida State (ACC #2)
12.  W. Michigan (MAC?)
13.  Temple (AAC)
14.  SDSU (MWC)
15.  W. Kentucky (CUSA?)
16.  App State (Sun Belt)

So the SEC and Big 12 got one team in each... the Big 10 had 3 schools seeded ahead of the Big 12 champ.  The PAC put three teams in - one of them Colorado?  

It'd be easier to sell a 16 team playoff if the graph reflected reality a little better.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

√ó
√ó
  • Create New...