Interesting article out of Jacksonville.

Florida Times-Union reports

The impact of the CFP has been that lesser games are getting lesser attention than they have traditionally received.

Apparently, both attendance and the finances are being squeezed.

That and there's way more bowls than there used to be so I'm sure some aspect of this is a flooding of the market.

(05-20-2018 07:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Interesting article out of Jacksonville.

Florida Times-Union reports

The impact of the CFP has been that lesser games are getting lesser attention than they have traditionally received.

Apparently, both attendance and the finances are being squeezed.

That and there's way more bowls than there used to be so I'm sure some aspect of this is a flooding of the market.

There is no reason why we can't abandon some of those mid tier bowls the 2nd week of December to have that second round of conference playoffs. We keep all of the revenue, generate more interest, and if played at the home venue of the higher seeded school even keep concessions.

It would be much more profitable for those schools than playing in these midtier bowls. Then our 3rd place teams in each division would get bumped up to better bowls. This would be true for the Big 10, ACC, and PAC as well.

Then those mid tier bowls could go to the G5.

(05-20-2018 08:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-20-2018 07:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Interesting article out of Jacksonville.

Florida Times-Union reports

The impact of the CFP has been that lesser games are getting lesser attention than they have traditionally received.

Apparently, both attendance and the finances are being squeezed.

That and there's way more bowls than there used to be so I'm sure some aspect of this is a flooding of the market.

There is no reason why we can't abandon some of those mid tier bowls the 2nd week of December to have that second round of conference playoffs. We keep all of the revenue, generate more interest, and if played at the home venue of the higher seeded school even keep concessions.

It would be much more profitable for those schools than playing in these midtier bowls. Then our 3rd place teams in each division would get bumped up to better bowls. This would be true for the Big 10, ACC, and PAC as well.

Then those mid tier bowls could go to the G5.

I have a feeling some of these bowls are going to simply cease to exist in the not too distant future. The market is saturated and as you say, there are ways for the leagues to make more if they keep games in house.

I know they are decent product for ESPN, but the local bowl organizers have to make money too in order for it to be worth the trouble. Perhaps ESPN and others will have to increase their payouts to keep some of these games afloat.

But the conference semis would work as a way to boost the leagues. Perhaps then the bowl organizers will try to schedule early season neutral site games as a way to maintain attention and revenue. At least then, the season is full of hope and there's greater flexibility with who can be scheduled which should all increase interest. Albeit in a situation like that, some of these bowl locales would be so far down the pecking order as a travel destination that it probably wouldn't be worth the trouble for them.

(05-21-2018 09:38 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-20-2018 08:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-20-2018 07:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Interesting article out of Jacksonville.

Florida Times-Union reports

The impact of the CFP has been that lesser games are getting lesser attention than they have traditionally received.

Apparently, both attendance and the finances are being squeezed.

That and there's way more bowls than there used to be so I'm sure some aspect of this is a flooding of the market.

There is no reason why we can't abandon some of those mid tier bowls the 2nd week of December to have that second round of conference playoffs. We keep all of the revenue, generate more interest, and if played at the home venue of the higher seeded school even keep concessions.

It would be much more profitable for those schools than playing in these midtier bowls. Then our 3rd place teams in each division would get bumped up to better bowls. This would be true for the Big 10, ACC, and PAC as well.

Then those mid tier bowls could go to the G5.

I have a feeling some of these bowls are going to simply cease to exist in the not too distant future. The market is saturated and as you say, there are ways for the leagues to make more if they keep games in house.

I know they are decent product for ESPN, but the local bowl organizers have to make money too in order for it to be worth the trouble. Perhaps ESPN and others will have to increase their payouts to keep some of these games afloat.

But the conference semis would work as a way to boost the leagues. Perhaps then the bowl organizers will try to schedule early season neutral site games as a way to maintain attention and revenue. At least then, the season is full of hope and there's greater flexibility with who can be scheduled which should all increase interest. Albeit in a situation like that, some of these bowl locales would be so far down the pecking order as a travel destination that it probably wouldn't be worth the trouble for them.

It may have been JRs idea on here but perhaps these games could become spring exhibition matchups. Much more interest when people are football starved. TN vs ETSU would be a great matchup in April, much less so on the actual schedule in September.

(05-21-2018 10:20 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 09:38 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-20-2018 08:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-20-2018 07:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Interesting article out of Jacksonville.

Florida Times-Union reports

The impact of the CFP has been that lesser games are getting lesser attention than they have traditionally received.

Apparently, both attendance and the finances are being squeezed.

That and there's way more bowls than there used to be so I'm sure some aspect of this is a flooding of the market.

There is no reason why we can't abandon some of those mid tier bowls the 2nd week of December to have that second round of conference playoffs. We keep all of the revenue, generate more interest, and if played at the home venue of the higher seeded school even keep concessions.

It would be much more profitable for those schools than playing in these midtier bowls. Then our 3rd place teams in each division would get bumped up to better bowls. This would be true for the Big 10, ACC, and PAC as well.

Then those mid tier bowls could go to the G5.

I have a feeling some of these bowls are going to simply cease to exist in the not too distant future. The market is saturated and as you say, there are ways for the leagues to make more if they keep games in house.

I know they are decent product for ESPN, but the local bowl organizers have to make money too in order for it to be worth the trouble. Perhaps ESPN and others will have to increase their payouts to keep some of these games afloat.

But the conference semis would work as a way to boost the leagues. Perhaps then the bowl organizers will try to schedule early season neutral site games as a way to maintain attention and revenue. At least then, the season is full of hope and there's greater flexibility with who can be scheduled which should all increase interest. Albeit in a situation like that, some of these bowl locales would be so far down the pecking order as a travel destination that it probably wouldn't be worth the trouble for them.

It may have been JRs idea on here but perhaps these games could become spring exhibition matchups. Much more interest when people are football starved. TN vs ETSU would be a great matchup in April, much less so on the actual schedule in September.

No, it wasn't my idea. My idea was to do away with the Spring games and to play a preseason game in mid August against an in state FCS or lower tier FBS school so that the game's ticket could be sold as the 7th home game in the Season Ticket book. It frees up two sport athletes to play hoops and baseball and it solves issues in advance for the day when we play an all P schedule. And it provides the needed revenue boost for the smaller schools and gets the coaches a much needed break in the Spring especially now that we have early signing. And I don't know about you guys but the glorified practice during baseball season does absolutely nothing for me and I think a lot of fans are losing interest.

As to ATU points I agree that there are too many bowls. And bowls serving as an end of season exhibition for teams not making the conference and CFP playoffs is still a good idea. But as the revenue shifts to the playoffs and conferences the top bowls need to seek out historic match ups between schools with large followings if they wish to survive. Having the CFP utilize the CFP is a good idea. But we don't need to double dip those sites by allowing them to schedule minor bowls as well. And some of these bowls could be used for the fist round of conference playoffs if necessary while others could utilize the conference finals (like the Peach for the SEC, the Belk for the ACC, etc). Keeping the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta or Cotton Bowls for the CFP is fine.

So I think there is a place for the more venerated bowls and the playoffs to exist profitably together. But the Poulan Weedeater type bowls? Well that's up to them as to whether they can attract decent also rans or not.

(05-21-2018 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 10:20 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 09:38 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-20-2018 08:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-20-2018 07:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Interesting article out of Jacksonville.

Florida Times-Union reports

The impact of the CFP has been that lesser games are getting lesser attention than they have traditionally received.

Apparently, both attendance and the finances are being squeezed.

That and there's way more bowls than there used to be so I'm sure some aspect of this is a flooding of the market.

There is no reason why we can't abandon some of those mid tier bowls the 2nd week of December to have that second round of conference playoffs. We keep all of the revenue, generate more interest, and if played at the home venue of the higher seeded school even keep concessions.

It would be much more profitable for those schools than playing in these midtier bowls. Then our 3rd place teams in each division would get bumped up to better bowls. This would be true for the Big 10, ACC, and PAC as well.

Then those mid tier bowls could go to the G5.

I have a feeling some of these bowls are going to simply cease to exist in the not too distant future. The market is saturated and as you say, there are ways for the leagues to make more if they keep games in house.

I know they are decent product for ESPN, but the local bowl organizers have to make money too in order for it to be worth the trouble. Perhaps ESPN and others will have to increase their payouts to keep some of these games afloat.

But the conference semis would work as a way to boost the leagues. Perhaps then the bowl organizers will try to schedule early season neutral site games as a way to maintain attention and revenue. At least then, the season is full of hope and there's greater flexibility with who can be scheduled which should all increase interest. Albeit in a situation like that, some of these bowl locales would be so far down the pecking order as a travel destination that it probably wouldn't be worth the trouble for them.

It may have been JRs idea on here but perhaps these games could become spring exhibition matchups. Much more interest when people are football starved. TN vs ETSU would be a great matchup in April, much less so on the actual schedule in September.

No, it wasn't my idea. My idea was to do away with the Spring games and to play a preseason game in mid August against an in state FCS or lower tier FBS school so that the game's ticket could be sold as the 7th home game in the Season Ticket book. It frees up two sport athletes to play hoops and baseball and it solves issues in advance for the day when we play an all P schedule. And it provides the needed revenue boost for the smaller schools and gets the coaches a much needed break in the Spring especially now that we have early signing. And I don't know about you guys but the glorified practice during baseball season does absolutely nothing for me and I think a lot of fans are losing interest.

As to ATU points I agree that there are too many bowls. And bowls serving as an end of season exhibition for teams not making the conference and CFP playoffs is still a good idea. But as the revenue shifts to the playoffs and conferences the top bowls need to seek out historic match ups between schools with large followings if they wish to survive. Having the CFP utilize the CFP is a good idea. But we don't need to double dip those sites by allowing them to schedule minor bowls as well. And some of these bowls could be used for the fist round of conference playoffs if necessary while others could utilize the conference finals (like the Peach for the SEC, the Belk for the ACC, etc). Keeping the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta or Cotton Bowls for the CFP is fine.

So I think there is a place for the more venerated bowls and the playoffs to exist profitably together. But the Poulan Weedeater type bowls? Well that's up to them as to whether they can attract decent also rans or not.

CFB needs a full fledged playoff. If 24 or 32 teams would be too many weeks leave a unscheduled game at the end of the season to begin the first round. Teams not participating get a matchup with a regional team that would be a fun rivalry game for the two teams.

The idea of a postseason exhibition should have been done away with a LONG time ago!

The bowls need to go. We need to go to a 16 team playoff. All conference champs and 6 at large. First two rounds on campus of the highest seed.

That is a lot of money we are leaving on the table by not doing this. Could you imagine the tv coverage and ticket sales for the first two rounds. Let’s say Appalachian State was the 16 seed and went to Alabama who was the 1 seed. Alabama would make a lot of money in ticket sales by having that extra home game plus the tv money. On top of that it would be a good football game. Let’s Alabama won and the next week they hosted the 8 seed which happen to be USC. Southern Cal vs Alabama at Alabama in a playoff game. You would make a fortune just on game day sales and ticket sales not including how many people would be watching that game and the atmosphere on top of that.

Including the so called Cinderella’s and playing two rounds on campus would make the schools and tv a lot more money. College football is all about the atmosphere and playing playoff college football games on campus would be like something we have never seen.

The CFB bowl season has always been a meaningless exhibition match to reward similarly strong teams with a well earned match against one another at some neutral site organized by some committee to help the local economy with tourism.

With the playoffs removing four top teams from the traditional top bowl games, the next team up assumes that bowl game selection which downgrades that match up.

Eliminate, say, 5 bowl games - and also eliminate the rule that allows a 6-6 MAC team to go to a bowl.

A 7-5 Missouri team going to the St. Pete Bowl will always bring more fans than Central Michigan.

(05-22-2018 06:27 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  The bowls need to go. We need to go to a 16 team playoff. All conference champs and 6 at large. First two rounds on campus of the highest seed.

That is a lot of money we are leaving on the table by not doing this. Could you imagine the tv coverage and ticket sales for the first two rounds. Let’s say Appalachian State was the 16 seed and went to Alabama who was the 1 seed. Alabama would make a lot of money in ticket sales by having that extra home game plus the tv money. On top of that it would be a good football game. Let’s Alabama won and the next week they hosted the 8 seed which happen to be USC. Southern Cal vs Alabama at Alabama in a playoff game. You would make a fortune just on game day sales and ticket sales not including how many people would be watching that game and the atmosphere on top of that.

Including the so called Cinderella’s and playing two rounds on campus would make the schools and tv a lot more money. College football is all about the atmosphere and playing playoff college football games on campus would be like something we have never seen.

8 team playoff; automatic bid for the following:

PAC12
BIG12
ACC
SEC
BIG10

The American gets a "semi automatic" bid provided the conference winner has at least 10 wins and/or is in the top 25

Another at large to the next best G5 team provided they have at least 10 wins AND is in the top 25

And a third at large that can go to anyone.

In summation, there could be (3) G5 teams - or none at all.

-OR-

12 team playoff with teams 1-4 getting a bye with teams 5-12 playing in bowl games as the first round.

Seems fair. Which means it won't happen.

(05-22-2018 10:58 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Eliminate, say, 5 bowl games - and also eliminate the rule that allows a 6-6 MAC team to go to a bowl.

A 7-5 Missouri team going to the St. Pete Bowl will always bring more fans than Central Michigan.

Eliminate all 6-6 teams and let bowl attrition set in. 6-6 is nothing to celebrate unless you are Kansas.

(05-22-2018 11:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 10:58 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Eliminate, say, 5 bowl games - and also eliminate the rule that allows a 6-6 MAC team to go to a bowl.

A 7-5 Missouri team going to the St. Pete Bowl will always bring more fans than Central Michigan.

Eliminate all 6-6 teams and let bowl attrition set in. 6-6 is nothing to celebrate unless you are Kansas.

It really has little to do with the records. It has to do with the fact they are POST-SEASON EXHIBITION games. They mean nothing. I watch CFB on Saturdays a lot of the days 11 AM CST until at least 10:30 CST and even then a lot of times I am tuning into the late night MWC & PAC games. But I only watched the bowl games for the two teams from my state. Bowl games don't mean anything. Sure you want your team to win but to play a post-season exhibition game to end your season is such a downer. I can't think of another sport that does this including lower levels of college football and don't tell me it adds to the unique aspect of CFB, its horrible.

If there were playoff games. I don't care if the teams were 8-4 if winning meant they advanced and had a chance at the national championship, I would tune into everyone of them. It doesn't help they play these meaningless games a month after the season so the teams are not in playing shape.

(05-22-2018 02:19 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 11:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 10:58 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Eliminate, say, 5 bowl games - and also eliminate the rule that allows a 6-6 MAC team to go to a bowl.

A 7-5 Missouri team going to the St. Pete Bowl will always bring more fans than Central Michigan.

Eliminate all 6-6 teams and let bowl attrition set in. 6-6 is nothing to celebrate unless you are Kansas.

It really has little to do with the records. It has to do with the fact they are POST-SEASON EXHIBITION games. They mean nothing. I watch CFB on Saturdays a lot of the days 11 AM CST until at least 10:30 CST and even then a lot of times I am tuning into the late night MWC & PAC games. But I only watched the bowl games for the two teams from my state. Bowl games don't mean anything. Sure you want your team to win but to play a post-season exhibition game to end your season is such a downer. I can't think of another sport that does this including lower levels of college football and don't tell me it adds to the unique aspect of CFB, its horrible.

If there were playoff games. I don't care if the teams were 8-4 if winning meant they advanced and had a chance at the national championship, I would tune into everyone of them. It doesn't help they play these meaningless games a month after the season so the teams are not in playing shape.

They are played for revenue. I just don't think we need so many bowls, and I don't mind schools getting bumped up to fill those spots vacated by playoff teams. There are simply too many.

What you could do instead of bowls that would make more money is to play conference challenges on or around New Year. Take all of the schools that are not in the playoffs and pit them against the school that finished in the same position in another conference. You play half of the games in the home stadiums of each conference and have a trophy that is exchanged between conferences. It would be more meaningful even though they are exhibitions as well. And more importantly all of the money is divided between the two conferences.

The games could be played on days not involving playoff games.

(05-22-2018 02:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 02:19 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 11:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 10:58 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Eliminate, say, 5 bowl games - and also eliminate the rule that allows a 6-6 MAC team to go to a bowl.

A 7-5 Missouri team going to the St. Pete Bowl will always bring more fans than Central Michigan.

Eliminate all 6-6 teams and let bowl attrition set in. 6-6 is nothing to celebrate unless you are Kansas.

It really has little to do with the records. It has to do with the fact they are POST-SEASON EXHIBITION games. They mean nothing. I watch CFB on Saturdays a lot of the days 11 AM CST until at least 10:30 CST and even then a lot of times I am tuning into the late night MWC & PAC games. But I only watched the bowl games for the two teams from my state. Bowl games don't mean anything. Sure you want your team to win but to play a post-season exhibition game to end your season is such a downer. I can't think of another sport that does this including lower levels of college football and don't tell me it adds to the unique aspect of CFB, its horrible.

If there were playoff games. I don't care if the teams were 8-4 if winning meant they advanced and had a chance at the national championship, I would tune into everyone of them. It doesn't help they play these meaningless games a month after the season so the teams are not in playing shape.

They are played for revenue. I just don't think we need so many bowls, and I don't mind schools getting bumped up to fill those spots vacated by playoff teams. There are simply too many.

What you could do instead of bowls that would make more money is to play conference challenges on or around New Year. Take all of the schools that are not in the playoffs and pit them against the school that finished in the same position in another conference. You play half of the games in the home stadiums of each conference and have a trophy that is exchanged between conferences. It would be more meaningful even though they are exhibitions as well. And more importantly all of the money is divided between the two conferences.

The games could be played on days not involving playoff games.

That's an improvement over existing bowls but I still don't like waiting until holidays/new years. It would be fun to see SEC/ACC & PAC teams play in B1G stadiums that time of year, I have long felt the bowls were a big disadvantage to the teams in the north.

Its still probably trying to put lipstick on a pig if you compare that to just having a playoff.

(05-22-2018 04:05 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 02:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 02:19 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 11:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 10:58 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Eliminate, say, 5 bowl games - and also eliminate the rule that allows a 6-6 MAC team to go to a bowl.

A 7-5 Missouri team going to the St. Pete Bowl will always bring more fans than Central Michigan.

Eliminate all 6-6 teams and let bowl attrition set in. 6-6 is nothing to celebrate unless you are Kansas.

It really has little to do with the records. It has to do with the fact they are POST-SEASON EXHIBITION games. They mean nothing. I watch CFB on Saturdays a lot of the days 11 AM CST until at least 10:30 CST and even then a lot of times I am tuning into the late night MWC & PAC games. But I only watched the bowl games for the two teams from my state. Bowl games don't mean anything. Sure you want your team to win but to play a post-season exhibition game to end your season is such a downer. I can't think of another sport that does this including lower levels of college football and don't tell me it adds to the unique aspect of CFB, its horrible.

If there were playoff games. I don't care if the teams were 8-4 if winning meant they advanced and had a chance at the national championship, I would tune into everyone of them. It doesn't help they play these meaningless games a month after the season so the teams are not in playing shape.

They are played for revenue. I just don't think we need so many bowls, and I don't mind schools getting bumped up to fill those spots vacated by playoff teams. There are simply too many.

What you could do instead of bowls that would make more money is to play conference challenges on or around New Year. Take all of the schools that are not in the playoffs and pit them against the school that finished in the same position in another conference. You play half of the games in the home stadiums of each conference and have a trophy that is exchanged between conferences. It would be more meaningful even though they are exhibitions as well. And more importantly all of the money is divided between the two conferences.

The games could be played on days not involving playoff games.

That's an improvement over existing bowls but I still don't like waiting until holidays/new years. It would be fun to see SEC/ACC & PAC teams play in B1G stadiums that time of year, I have long felt the bowls were a big disadvantage to the teams in the north.

Its still probably trying to put lipstick on a pig if you compare that to just having a playoff.

We will have expanded conference playoffs before we expand the national playoff. Plus ESPN put all of those bowls on life support so until ESPN is too broke to pay them they will be around. Conferences will want to keep more of their schools energized deep into the season and with further expansion likely look for conference semis to be the de facto playoff expansion that feeds into the final four.

Weather matters when it comes to December and January games. With conferences negotiating x number of slots for the bowls, just about everyone with a winning season record, gets placed. The BIG gets some excellent game venues in Florida and elsewhere.

(05-22-2018 05:42 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Weather matters when it comes to December and January games. With conferences negotiating x number of slots for the bowls, just about everyone with a winning season record, gets placed. The BIG gets some excellent game venues in Florida and elsewhere.

That's true. And the SEC has no reason to head North in November to play. The Big 10 needs the trips South not only for the weather, but for exposure in good recruiting grounds.

Every Spring Ohio State plays baseball down here for about a month, as has Indiana and Minnesota. It's not an unfair advantage for Southern teams as much as it is a necessity in just getting the early games played.

If the SEC ever develops Hockey I'm sure we'll schedule some games on Big 10 home ice!

I've thought for a while that the conferences should own the bowl games if we're going to bother having them. Actually, I thought it would soon become a trend after the Sugar Bowl deal.

Either way, I do agree that the leagues should cooperate more and come up with ways to control the postseason to a greater degree. If ESPN is willing to pay for those games and we all know they need them...and if the leagues are willing to play them then that's a nice recipe.

What I might do is this:

Forget what we understand as an exhibition game...

The leagues take control of the games and create a series of Power on Power match-ups to take place over the course of a couple of Saturdays before the CFP begins. Forget these midweek games...

Each Power conference offers up their squads that had either a .500 record or winning record in conference play. Their overall record is not taken into consideration.

An even* number of teams are thrown into a random draw. Match-ups are created at random with the only qualifier being that two teams from the same conference can't meet. The drawing itself will be a TV event. The CFP can get one night and the rest of college football can get their own.

The games will take place at campus sites. The winners of each game will take twice the purse of the loser, but each game awards the same amount of money overall. Add to that, the conference with the highest winning percentage at the end of this series will get to have all home games when the series is picked back up the following season.

*If it happens to be that an odd number of schools qualify then conference standings can be taken into consideration. The last place teams from each league are compared and overall record disqualifies one team so that the number is brought back to even in a given year.

As far as who gets home field advantage, you're always basing it on the previous season's results, but obviously it's self-pertuating to some degree.

I think this would create more compelling content and you'd have a pride factor that comes with a tangible reward for outdoing the other guy. Also, if you stack all the games up on the weekends instead of a game or two a day during those weeks then I think that's better for fans and for generating interest.

EDIT: There's also the added benefit of getting to see squads you wouldn't normally see and visit campus locations you might not normally get to visit. That also creates more interest.

(05-22-2018 11:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've thought for a while that the conferences should own the bowl games if we're going to bother having them. Actually, I thought it would soon become a trend after the Sugar Bowl deal.

Either way, I do agree that the leagues should cooperate more and come up with ways to control the postseason to a greater degree. If ESPN is willing to pay for those games and we all know they need them...and if the leagues are willing to play them then that's a nice recipe.

What I might do is this:

Forget what we understand as an exhibition game...

The leagues take control of the games and create a series of Power on Power match-ups to take place over the course of a couple of Saturdays before the CFP begins. Forget these midweek games...

Each Power conference offers up their squads that had either a .500 record or winning record in conference play. Their overall record is not taken into consideration.

An even* number of teams are thrown into a random draw. Match-ups are created at random with the only qualifier being that two teams from the same conference can't meet. The drawing itself will be a TV event. The CFP can get one night and the rest of college football can get their own.

The games will take place at campus sites. The winners of each game will take twice the purse of the loser, but each game awards the same amount of money overall. Add to that, the conference with the highest winning percentage at the end of this series will get to have all home games when the series is picked back up the following season.

*If it happens to be that an odd number of schools qualify then conference standings can be taken into consideration. The last place teams from each league are compared and overall record disqualifies one team so that the number is brought back to even in a given year.

As far as who gets home field advantage, you're always basing it on the previous season's results, but obviously it's self-pertuating to some degree.

I think this would create more compelling content and you'd have a pride factor that comes with a tangible reward for outdoing the other guy. Also, if you stack all the games up on the weekends instead of a game or two a day during those weeks then I think that's better for fans and for generating interest.

EDIT: There's also the added benefit of getting to see squads you wouldn't normally see and visit campus locations you might not normally get to visit. That also creates more interest.

I like the idea of the winner getting two thirds of the pot. That would stop coaches from using a bowl game as a vacation for their players and dogging it in the game.

I don't think the schools would go for a winner take all of the home games scenario. It might be argued that having all home games makes winning the overall series self perpetuating. But the concept as a whole has great merit. I think it would be a better comparison however if schools with similar conference finishes were pitted against one another. That might even give meaning to two .500 schools playing.

What the drawing could do is place all 4 schools finishing in say 5th position into a hat and then the drawing pairs them. So an SEC school could draw a PAC, ACC, or Big 10 school to play.

(05-22-2018 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 04:05 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 02:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 02:19 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 11:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Eliminate all 6-6 teams and let bowl attrition set in. 6-6 is nothing to celebrate unless you are Kansas.

It really has little to do with the records. It has to do with the fact they are POST-SEASON EXHIBITION games. They mean nothing. I watch CFB on Saturdays a lot of the days 11 AM CST until at least 10:30 CST and even then a lot of times I am tuning into the late night MWC & PAC games. But I only watched the bowl games for the two teams from my state. Bowl games don't mean anything. Sure you want your team to win but to play a post-season exhibition game to end your season is such a downer. I can't think of another sport that does this including lower levels of college football and don't tell me it adds to the unique aspect of CFB, its horrible.

If there were playoff games. I don't care if the teams were 8-4 if winning meant they advanced and had a chance at the national championship, I would tune into everyone of them. It doesn't help they play these meaningless games a month after the season so the teams are not in playing shape.

They are played for revenue. I just don't think we need so many bowls, and I don't mind schools getting bumped up to fill those spots vacated by playoff teams. There are simply too many.

What you could do instead of bowls that would make more money is to play conference challenges on or around New Year. Take all of the schools that are not in the playoffs and pit them against the school that finished in the same position in another conference. You play half of the games in the home stadiums of each conference and have a trophy that is exchanged between conferences. It would be more meaningful even though they are exhibitions as well. And more importantly all of the money is divided between the two conferences.

The games could be played on days not involving playoff games.

That's an improvement over existing bowls but I still don't like waiting until holidays/new years. It would be fun to see SEC/ACC & PAC teams play in B1G stadiums that time of year, I have long felt the bowls were a big disadvantage to the teams in the north.

Its still probably trying to put lipstick on a pig if you compare that to just having a playoff.

We will have expanded conference playoffs before we expand the national playoff. Plus ESPN put all of those bowls on life support so until ESPN is too broke to pay them they will be around. Conferences will want to keep more of their schools energized deep into the season and with further expansion likely look for conference semis to be the de facto playoff expansion that feeds into the final four.

I get that point if we had 4 power leagues but we don't we have 5 power leagues and most likely will until 2025. While we all like to discuss realignment at this point I think it looks there is a better chance it remains the same in 2025 instead of changing and that would probably change realignment speculation dates to more like 2035 when the ACC GOR's is up.

I wish we would do away with CCG's go to a 16 or 24 team playoff. If every other of football does it, surely the highest level can. Give each P5 league 2-3 auto qualifiers, let the AAC & MWC get one each auto qualifier if its 24 teams, if its 16 let the winner of the two leagues advance. Then pick the remaining number of spots as at large qualifiers. Play on homefields to the Final 4. The games could have payouts for units similar to what NCAA bball does.