Should the nfl go back to 4 teams? Would everyone be happy with that. We’ll go right from conference championship to Super Bowl. It’s the same concept. With 12 teams if you have an early loss your still alive.
#8 Penn State vs #9 Clemson (winner plays Georgia/Sugar Bowl)
#5 Ohio State vs #12 Tulane (winner plays USC/Rose Bowl)
#7 Tennessee vs #10 Kansas State (winner plays Michigan/Orange Bowl)
#6 Alabama vs #11 Utah (winner plays TCU/Cotton Bowl)
Should the nfl go back to 4 teams? Would everyone be happy with that. We’ll go right from conference championship to Super Bowl. It’s the same concept. With 12 teams if you have an early loss your still alive.
It rewards regular season success. Going to 12 simply dilutes it. And yes, there are too many teams in the playoffs in every professional sport.
Colllege seasons used to be ten games plus one bowl game
Should the nfl go back to 4 teams? Would everyone be happy with that. We’ll go right from conference championship to Super Bowl. It’s the same concept. With 12 teams if you have an early loss your still alive.
It rewards regular season success. Going to 12 simply dilutes it. And yes, there are too many teams in the playoffs in every professional sport.
Does four teams reward regular season success though? You can have two teams who both lose one game, but because one team lost at the beginning and one at the end of the season the team who lost at the end of the season gets left out.
Should the nfl go back to 4 teams? Would everyone be happy with that. We’ll go right from conference championship to Super Bowl. It’s the same concept. With 12 teams if you have an early loss your still alive.
It rewards regular season success. Going to 12 simply dilutes it. And yes, there are too many teams in the playoffs in every professional sport.
Does four teams reward regular season success though? You can have two teams who both lose one game, but because one team lost at the beginning and one at the end of the season the team who lost at the end of the season gets left out.
The line has to be drawn somewhere. And the entire body of work should be considered. Georgia would get in over Ohio State even if they lost to LSU.
#8 Penn State vs #9 Clemson (winner plays Georgia/Sugar Bowl)
#5 Ohio State vs #12 Tulane (winner plays USC/Rose Bowl)
#7 Tennessee vs #10 Kansas State (winner plays Michigan/Orange Bowl)
#6 Alabama vs #11 Utah (winner plays TCU/Cotton Bowl)
This is going to be fun when it happens.
Is that the way they are setting this up?
If the top 4 seeds get a bye, why wouldn't the #1 seed get to play the worst remaining seed after round one games are complete?
For example, if #12 Tulane beat Ohio St then wouldn't they have to play #1 Georgia?
a weird number. And how many likely to be drafted players opt out of 3 or 4 additional games?
I do like the extra games as a fan, but we have been disappointed when top players decline playing for fear of injury.
This whole thing is killing the essence of college football
College football was always about the games. Winning games, particularly against rival teams was singularly great. Winning conferences was meaningful.
As more and more attention goes to the playoffs and the national championship, it dilutes a lot of stuff that was great about college football. Not completely for sure, it will still be fun.
Now the games are more a means to an end. Hopefully they stop here before the regular season becomes an exhibition like college basketball.
Should the nfl go back to 4 teams? Would everyone be happy with that. We’ll go right from conference championship to Super Bowl. It’s the same concept. With 12 teams if you have an early loss your still alive.
It rewards regular season success. Going to 12 simply dilutes it. And yes, there are too many teams in the playoffs in every professional sport.
I have no idea how people always say that having more playoff teams makes the regular season irrelevant. It’s actually the opposite. Unless of course you’re a fan of the usual playoff teams like Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, etc. More teams gives more schools and fan bases something to strive for and dream on. Especially in college where they don’t always go with the teams that had the best regular seasons but veer more towards who the committee “thinks” is the best teams. Which typically eliminates the lesser known schools from consideration, regardless of how good they were in the regular season.
I feel like 8 would have been the sweet spot but 12 is better than 4, imo.
the ratings for the "championship game" (a/k/a the SEC Invitational) have been declining. You can't leave the entire tv audience west of the Mississippi (read CA and TX) without any rooting interest whatsoever. This will allow the "Committee" (ironic that this whole magilla was supposed to take the guess work away from the AP and UPI polls and then replaced it with the guess work of a Committee), to add teams from other locales.
Every team had something to strive for. Bowl games, rivalries, just winning for the sake of winning. The more that everything is focused on the playoffs, the more all of that stuff goes away.
This is actually a huge gap in American sports - how everything is about the playoffs and a singular championship. Watching European soccer and even F1 really opened my eyes to this - there is real competition and gratification from things other than a single championship, which is really good IMO.
College football had that and is progressively losing it.
between 4 and 12 that would reduce the total # of games a team might play, at least by one.
What's wrong with 8, for example?
So, we went from no playoffs (not too long ago) to FOUR rounds (including championship)?
I'm not a huge college fan, but 12 seems too much. They're supposed to be students and this isn't basketball where another game isn't too big a deal. And does a team like Tulane really have a chance against Ohio State?
Every team had something to strive for. Bowl games, rivalries, just winning for the sake of winning. The more that everything is focused on the playoffs, the more all of that stuff goes away.
This is actually a huge gap in American sports - how everything is about the playoffs and a singular championship. Watching European soccer and even F1 really opened my eyes to this - there is real competition and gratification from things other than a single championship, which is really good IMO.
College football had that and is progressively losing it.
Well said. Another thing is ties during the regular season, whether in football or hockey. What's wrong with that.
Every team had something to strive for. Bowl games, rivalries, just winning for the sake of winning. The more that everything is focused on the playoffs, the more all of that stuff goes away.
This is actually a huge gap in American sports - how everything is about the playoffs and a singular championship. Watching European soccer and even F1 really opened my eyes to this - there is real competition and gratification from things other than a single championship, which is really good IMO.
College football had that and is progressively losing it.
Exactly. Good post. The counter argument to the playoff system at the time was that it made most of the bowls meaningless which by definition made the season for most college teams meaningless.
Should the nfl go back to 4 teams? Would everyone be happy with that. We’ll go right from conference championship to Super Bowl. It’s the same concept. With 12 teams if you have an early loss your still alive.
It rewards regular season success. Going to 12 simply dilutes it. And yes, there are too many teams in the playoffs in every professional sport.
Everyone makes this same argument about diluting the regular season, but how does the regular season get less important when MORE teams have a chance for the playoffs later in the season?
Right now, if you have two losses, you're almost certainly not going to make the playoffs. If you have two top-10 teams squaring off and each already has two losses, that game is already completely diluted in the current 4-team playoff scenario. In the 12-team scenario, that game becomes a pre-playoff qualifying round, in a sense, because that third loss is going to put one of those teams on the outside looking in.
The issue that I have with the 12-team playoff is simply that I can already see that it's really just going to be a vehicle to ensure that 3+ SEC teams make the playoffs every year (and it'll probably be 4 SEC teams most years), and that Notre Dame basically becomes an automatic qualifier with 10 wins in any given year (and probably gets in with 9 wins most years as long as their losses aren't embarrassing).
If I actually believed that the process was going to be about broadening the field to include programs that are historically underrepresented, I'd be more enthused about the expansion.
between 4 and 12 that would reduce the total # of games a team might play, at least by one.
What's wrong with 8, for example?
So, we went from no playoffs (not too long ago) to FOUR rounds (including championship)?
I'm not a huge college fan, but 12 seems too much. They're supposed to be students and this isn't basketball where another game isn't too big a deal. And does a team like Tulane really have a chance against Ohio State?
D-3 has a 32 team playoff. Five rounds, no byes.
And unlike FBS, D-3 football players actually ARE students.
between 4 and 12 that would reduce the total # of games a team might play, at least by one.
What's wrong with 8, for example?
So, we went from no playoffs (not too long ago) to FOUR rounds (including championship)?
I'm not a huge college fan, but 12 seems too much. They're supposed to be students and this isn't basketball where another game isn't too big a deal. And does a team like Tulane really have a chance against Ohio State?
D-3 has a 32 team playoff. Five rounds, no byes.
And unlike FBS, D-3 football players actually ARE students.
but I'll live with 12. It's been long overdue for college football at the FBS to modernize with the rest of the college sports landscape, like basketball, baseball, lacrosse, soccer, tennis, golf, etc.
For too many years there have been exhibition games - disguised as bowls - that are meaningless and a colossal waste of time.
Now, we will have 11 bowl games that are hugely meaningful.
Yeah you do want to give the better record team an advantage. Derp.
If there's anything more idiotic than Roger Goodell it is a board of unnaccountable good ol' boy bureacrats.
If the complaints are the regular season won’t matter, then giving the team with the better record a home field advantage makes the regular season matter. But do you.
RE: too many games, how many of these kids won't play
But if players do, I will certainly understand the thinking. It's a sport with a short shelf life; and players who could play in the NFL need to protect themselves for that opportunity. Let the NCAA underwrite some protections to entice players to play. They certainly have enough money.
RE: too many games, how many of these kids won't play
Let them. College sports are not about getting its student athletes to a professional league. Go to 16 games. It would only lead to more upsets and there will be upsets in a 16 game tournament. When that happens a lot of good things will happen which will have a big impact imv.
a meaningless archaic pointless bowl game, not an exciting sudden death national huge rating playoff game that almost every other modern sports league adopted.
and require the remaining game to be played against a team from a similarly ranked conference. Keep Norte Dame vs USC but do we really need to see Alabama trounce Louisiana Monroe type games?
It’ll never happen but I’d be curious how a college football champions league would work? Top two teams from the top 5 conferences play a nine game round robin. Not sure how elevations and demotions would work but it would give the remains teams in the 5 conferences a shot without the perennial powerhouses dominating year after year.
If the top 4 seeds get a bye, why wouldn't the #1 seed get to play the worst remaining seed after round one games are complete?
For example, if #12 Tulane beat Ohio St then wouldn't they have to play #1 Georgia?
Costy's post is the way I've seen it reported, with no re-seeding. So if there's an upset in the first round, there's no reshuffling to match the top seed against the worst seeded advancing team.
you will absolutely see players with NFL futures opting out. What potential first round pick on the #11 team wants to play more games with no real shot at winning anything? Or even if he does, having to get through the grinder of 3 extra games?
And no, the NCAA will never have any financial guarantees for potential draft picks hurt in bowl games. It is just a cost-benefit analysis you are putting on these 20 year old kids. Do you piss of your university's fan base by sitting out, or do you bet your financial security and life long dream on a shot at glory?
As a fan I love having more meaningful games since most of the bowls have no tradition or interest. If I were a player with an a bright NFL future I think would not even consider suiting up for these games.
RE: RE: Colllege seasons used to be ten games plus one bowl game
a meaningless archaic pointless bowl game, not an exciting sudden death national huge rating playoff game that almost every other modern sports league adopted.
The bowl games were rendered meaningless by the dopey playoff system. Prior to that, they were showcases, especially for players from smaller schools or less well known players.
And we have no idea who will skip games under this new system. It was one thing to play two extra games at the end of the season instead of one bowl game. It's another to play 4 extra games at the end of the season instead of one bowl game.
#8 Penn State vs #9 Clemson (winner plays Georgia/Sugar Bowl)
#5 Ohio State vs #12 Tulane (winner plays USC/Rose Bowl)
#7 Tennessee vs #10 Kansas State (winner plays Michigan/Orange Bowl)
#6 Alabama vs #11 Utah (winner plays TCU/Cotton Bowl)
This is going to be fun when it happens.
It rewards regular season success. Going to 12 simply dilutes it. And yes, there are too many teams in the playoffs in every professional sport.
Now there is a scenario where a team could play up to 17 games, with 15 or 16 game seasons being routine.
And the vast majority of players are still risking their health for no pay.
Draft-worthy players who previously passed on bowl games should now logically pass on the extra half of a season.
You mean they're supposed to be students?
the money. (:-)
Quote:
Should the nfl go back to 4 teams? Would everyone be happy with that. We’ll go right from conference championship to Super Bowl. It’s the same concept. With 12 teams if you have an early loss your still alive.
It rewards regular season success. Going to 12 simply dilutes it. And yes, there are too many teams in the playoffs in every professional sport.
Does four teams reward regular season success though? You can have two teams who both lose one game, but because one team lost at the beginning and one at the end of the season the team who lost at the end of the season gets left out.
Quote:
In comment 15927782 Tuckrule said:
Quote:
Should the nfl go back to 4 teams? Would everyone be happy with that. We’ll go right from conference championship to Super Bowl. It’s the same concept. With 12 teams if you have an early loss your still alive.
It rewards regular season success. Going to 12 simply dilutes it. And yes, there are too many teams in the playoffs in every professional sport.
Does four teams reward regular season success though? You can have two teams who both lose one game, but because one team lost at the beginning and one at the end of the season the team who lost at the end of the season gets left out.
The line has to be drawn somewhere. And the entire body of work should be considered. Georgia would get in over Ohio State even if they lost to LSU.
#8 Penn State vs #9 Clemson (winner plays Georgia/Sugar Bowl)
#5 Ohio State vs #12 Tulane (winner plays USC/Rose Bowl)
#7 Tennessee vs #10 Kansas State (winner plays Michigan/Orange Bowl)
#6 Alabama vs #11 Utah (winner plays TCU/Cotton Bowl)
This is going to be fun when it happens.
Is that the way they are setting this up?
If the top 4 seeds get a bye, why wouldn't the #1 seed get to play the worst remaining seed after round one games are complete?
For example, if #12 Tulane beat Ohio St then wouldn't they have to play #1 Georgia?
Proportionally reg season still way less "diluted" than the NFL.
Now there is a scenario where a team could play up to 17 games, with 15 or 16 game seasons being routine.
And the vast majority of players are still risking their health for no pay.
Draft-worthy players who previously passed on bowl games should now logically pass on the extra half of a season.
With NIL, a lot of the players (especially with the top teams who will be playing a lot of those games) are making a good bit of money.
I do like the extra games as a fan, but we have been disappointed when top players decline playing for fear of injury.
As more and more attention goes to the playoffs and the national championship, it dilutes a lot of stuff that was great about college football. Not completely for sure, it will still be fun.
Now the games are more a means to an end. Hopefully they stop here before the regular season becomes an exhibition like college basketball.
Quote:
Should the nfl go back to 4 teams? Would everyone be happy with that. We’ll go right from conference championship to Super Bowl. It’s the same concept. With 12 teams if you have an early loss your still alive.
It rewards regular season success. Going to 12 simply dilutes it. And yes, there are too many teams in the playoffs in every professional sport.
I have no idea how people always say that having more playoff teams makes the regular season irrelevant. It’s actually the opposite. Unless of course you’re a fan of the usual playoff teams like Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, etc. More teams gives more schools and fan bases something to strive for and dream on. Especially in college where they don’t always go with the teams that had the best regular seasons but veer more towards who the committee “thinks” is the best teams. Which typically eliminates the lesser known schools from consideration, regardless of how good they were in the regular season.
I feel like 8 would have been the sweet spot but 12 is better than 4, imo.
That would help.
This is actually a huge gap in American sports - how everything is about the playoffs and a singular championship. Watching European soccer and even F1 really opened my eyes to this - there is real competition and gratification from things other than a single championship, which is really good IMO.
College football had that and is progressively losing it.
What's wrong with 8, for example?
So, we went from no playoffs (not too long ago) to FOUR rounds (including championship)?
I'm not a huge college fan, but 12 seems too much. They're supposed to be students and this isn't basketball where another game isn't too big a deal. And does a team like Tulane really have a chance against Ohio State?
This is actually a huge gap in American sports - how everything is about the playoffs and a singular championship. Watching European soccer and even F1 really opened my eyes to this - there is real competition and gratification from things other than a single championship, which is really good IMO.
College football had that and is progressively losing it.
Well said. Another thing is ties during the regular season, whether in football or hockey. What's wrong with that.
This is actually a huge gap in American sports - how everything is about the playoffs and a singular championship. Watching European soccer and even F1 really opened my eyes to this - there is real competition and gratification from things other than a single championship, which is really good IMO.
College football had that and is progressively losing it.
Quote:
Should the nfl go back to 4 teams? Would everyone be happy with that. We’ll go right from conference championship to Super Bowl. It’s the same concept. With 12 teams if you have an early loss your still alive.
It rewards regular season success. Going to 12 simply dilutes it. And yes, there are too many teams in the playoffs in every professional sport.
Everyone makes this same argument about diluting the regular season, but how does the regular season get less important when MORE teams have a chance for the playoffs later in the season?
Right now, if you have two losses, you're almost certainly not going to make the playoffs. If you have two top-10 teams squaring off and each already has two losses, that game is already completely diluted in the current 4-team playoff scenario. In the 12-team scenario, that game becomes a pre-playoff qualifying round, in a sense, because that third loss is going to put one of those teams on the outside looking in.
The issue that I have with the 12-team playoff is simply that I can already see that it's really just going to be a vehicle to ensure that 3+ SEC teams make the playoffs every year (and it'll probably be 4 SEC teams most years), and that Notre Dame basically becomes an automatic qualifier with 10 wins in any given year (and probably gets in with 9 wins most years as long as their losses aren't embarrassing).
If I actually believed that the process was going to be about broadening the field to include programs that are historically underrepresented, I'd be more enthused about the expansion.
What's wrong with 8, for example?
So, we went from no playoffs (not too long ago) to FOUR rounds (including championship)?
I'm not a huge college fan, but 12 seems too much. They're supposed to be students and this isn't basketball where another game isn't too big a deal. And does a team like Tulane really have a chance against Ohio State?
D-3 has a 32 team playoff. Five rounds, no byes.
And unlike FBS, D-3 football players actually ARE students.
Quote:
between 4 and 12 that would reduce the total # of games a team might play, at least by one.
What's wrong with 8, for example?
So, we went from no playoffs (not too long ago) to FOUR rounds (including championship)?
I'm not a huge college fan, but 12 seems too much. They're supposed to be students and this isn't basketball where another game isn't too big a deal. And does a team like Tulane really have a chance against Ohio State?
D-3 has a 32 team playoff. Five rounds, no byes.
And unlike FBS, D-3 football players actually ARE students.
good pt
Yeah you do want to give the better record team an advantage. Derp.
If there's anything more idiotic than Roger Goodell it is a board of unnaccountable good ol' boy bureacrats.
For too many years there have been exhibition games - disguised as bowls - that are meaningless and a colossal waste of time.
Now, we will have 11 bowl games that are hugely meaningful.
Gee, who wants that?
Quote:
That’s going to be pretty awesome to watch
Yeah you do want to give the better record team an advantage. Derp.
If there's anything more idiotic than Roger Goodell it is a board of unnaccountable good ol' boy bureacrats.
If the complaints are the regular season won’t matter, then giving the team with the better record a home field advantage makes the regular season matter. But do you.
Has anyone skipped a playoff game since players started skipping bowls?
They will?
But if players do, I will certainly understand the thinking. It's a sport with a short shelf life; and players who could play in the NFL need to protect themselves for that opportunity. Let the NCAA underwrite some protections to entice players to play. They certainly have enough money.
Let them. College sports are not about getting its student athletes to a professional league. Go to 16 games. It would only lead to more upsets and there will be upsets in a 16 game tournament. When that happens a lot of good things will happen which will have a big impact imv.
It’ll never happen but I’d be curious how a college football champions league would work? Top two teams from the top 5 conferences play a nine game round robin. Not sure how elevations and demotions would work but it would give the remains teams in the 5 conferences a shot without the perennial powerhouses dominating year after year.
Thoughts?
Is that the way they are setting this up?
If the top 4 seeds get a bye, why wouldn't the #1 seed get to play the worst remaining seed after round one games are complete?
For example, if #12 Tulane beat Ohio St then wouldn't they have to play #1 Georgia?
Costy's post is the way I've seen it reported, with no re-seeding. So if there's an upset in the first round, there's no reshuffling to match the top seed against the worst seeded advancing team.
And no, the NCAA will never have any financial guarantees for potential draft picks hurt in bowl games. It is just a cost-benefit analysis you are putting on these 20 year old kids. Do you piss of your university's fan base by sitting out, or do you bet your financial security and life long dream on a shot at glory?
As a fan I love having more meaningful games since most of the bowls have no tradition or interest. If I were a player with an a bright NFL future I think would not even consider suiting up for these games.
Quote:
for a relative few select teams.
Now there is a scenario where a team could play up to 17 games, with 15 or 16 game seasons being routine.
And the vast majority of players are still risking their health for no pay.
Draft-worthy players who previously passed on bowl games should now logically pass on the extra half of a season.
With NIL, a lot of the players (especially with the top teams who will be playing a lot of those games) are making a good bit of money.
I get that this is much more than history shows but today's players are much better conditioned.
@ the end of the day, it is all about the $.
And we have no idea who will skip games under this new system. It was one thing to play two extra games at the end of the season instead of one bowl game. It's another to play 4 extra games at the end of the season instead of one bowl game.