Started By
Message
re: Saban: CFB Playoff has killed bowl games
Posted on 3/21/21 at 11:02 am to VADawg
Posted on 3/21/21 at 11:02 am to VADawg
I don’t hate your idea. I much prefer the smaller conference setup. I might even go with 12 7 team leagues- only 6 conference games to allow more OOC scheduling variation.
While a lot of teams have a theoretical path, they don’t have an actual one. There are only 16ish programs capable of winning a national title, so something has to be considered important other than just national titles.
quote:
The sport is fundamentally flawed if there are 60 teams before the season who do not have any sort of path to a national title.
While a lot of teams have a theoretical path, they don’t have an actual one. There are only 16ish programs capable of winning a national title, so something has to be considered important other than just national titles.
1
Posted on 3/21/21 at 11:04 am to Bench McElroy
File this under: Well, duh.
Posted on 3/21/21 at 11:10 am to TomRollTideRitter
From a practical standpoint, the largest an FBS playoff could possibly be is 12.
1. Bottom 8 teams play - Top 4 bye week
2. Group of 8 teams
3. Group of 4 teams
4. Final 2.
That's four weeks.
Anything longer would be extraordinarily hard for FBS teams to pull off.
You would have to play every week after championship week until NYD to get the playoff done before the beginning of Spring semester. (Assuming that the football programs still care about their players' academic success, I would assume they would want them to get into the Spring semester without any distractions.)
1. Bottom 8 teams play - Top 4 bye week
2. Group of 8 teams
3. Group of 4 teams
4. Final 2.
That's four weeks.
Anything longer would be extraordinarily hard for FBS teams to pull off.
You would have to play every week after championship week until NYD to get the playoff done before the beginning of Spring semester. (Assuming that the football programs still care about their players' academic success, I would assume they would want them to get into the Spring semester without any distractions.)
This post was edited on 3/21/21 at 11:11 am
Posted on 3/21/21 at 11:10 am to TomRollTideRitter
It wouldn't have mattered if the playoff existed or not. The same teams will win it each year. The bowls will continue to lose steam because of the lack of parity in college football.
The rest of college football needs to step up and provide a challenge instead of being complacent. But until that happens then interest from the general public will continue to decline.
The playoff didn't solve anything except pleasing the critics of the old formula. But the results are still the same.
The rest of college football needs to step up and provide a challenge instead of being complacent. But until that happens then interest from the general public will continue to decline.
The playoff didn't solve anything except pleasing the critics of the old formula. But the results are still the same.
This post was edited on 3/21/21 at 11:13 am
Posted on 3/21/21 at 11:11 am to Bench McElroy
He’s not wrong
Posted on 3/21/21 at 11:34 am to skrayper
quote:
Back when there was 10-12 at most, it was a big deal.
Hell, it was a big deal when there were over 30. Sure, only a few teams would get excited about a lower tier bowl, but a conference championship and a top 20 type bowl bid were exciting. The players loved the attention that gets showered on them for a week. The fans loved a road trip with a football game.
The playoffs have sucked the life out of that. There is no interest in any game anymore that is not a playoff game.
Posted on 3/21/21 at 11:41 am to bamameister
quote:
Really weird when you think about it. For a Rant fan base, with so many members being dead set against socialism, seems to be a lot of sentiment on how to create this so-called level playing field.
Nobody anywhere has mentioned creating a level playing field. Lemonpuppy completely missed the point about the stupid Title IX sports, and you did too, and somehow think it's about funding lesser programs.
Posted on 3/21/21 at 11:57 am to Bench McElroy
1) Make a schedule with only ten games (9 conference games)
2) To start the year, every team in Div-1 plays an OOC team (Div-1 or FBS)
3) The Conference Championship game is played between the winners of the two divisions, but the other conference teams play teams from the other side based on their ranking in the conference (11th game)
4) The bowls are seeded based on the above results (12th game)
5) After the bowls, the final 4 (or 8) are picked
6) Then they play, final four, 13th and 14th game
final eight, 13th, 14th, and 15th game
2) To start the year, every team in Div-1 plays an OOC team (Div-1 or FBS)
3) The Conference Championship game is played between the winners of the two divisions, but the other conference teams play teams from the other side based on their ranking in the conference (11th game)
4) The bowls are seeded based on the above results (12th game)
5) After the bowls, the final 4 (or 8) are picked
6) Then they play, final four, 13th and 14th game
final eight, 13th, 14th, and 15th game
Posted on 3/21/21 at 12:01 pm to TideFaninFl
ESPN is also to blame. They’ll be talking the potential playoff teams during a game between two teams that are not going to make the playoffs. All they do hype it up every segment and commercial break.
Posted on 3/21/21 at 12:15 pm to Lemonpuppy
quote:
I agree make the playoffs two extra games after bowl games.
It would be three games, not two. Two semis and a final.
And they're not going to play a college football championship game on January 15.
Posted on 3/21/21 at 12:21 pm to TideFaninFl
quote:
1) Make a schedule with only ten games (9 conference games)
Stopped reading right there.
Even if you expand to 16 teams, there will still be 80 teams that never sniff the playoffs in your lifetime.
You think the Wake Forests and the Rices and the Western Michigans and the Georga States and the Louisiana-Monroes of college football are just going to willingly give up the revenue from two games just to create more opportunities for the 20 teams at the top?
Anyone who has followed college football for longer than 30 minutes knows this is an absurdity.
Posted on 3/21/21 at 12:28 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
Without disparaging that 2011 LSU team too much, considering that AJ McCarron handled that defense in all areas of the field except the red zone, are we sure an Andrew Luck led offense wouldn’t have done the same, if not more?
Dude threw for 234 yards, no touchdowns, no picks in the second game and 199 yards, no touchdowns and a pick in the first game.
Not sure I'd call that "handling" them.
Posted on 3/21/21 at 12:33 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Dude threw for 234 yards, no touchdowns, no picks in the second game and 199 yards, no touchdowns and a pick in the first game.
Not sure I'd call that "handling" them.
About as good as you would expect from a QB going up against one of the two best defenses of that year. And I mentioned that the offense stalled in the red zone. To flip it, the other QB facing one of the two best defenses of that year couldn't manage to cross the 50 yard line in the second game.
This post was edited on 3/21/21 at 12:35 pm
Posted on 3/21/21 at 12:34 pm to Bench McElroy
Saban nailed it. Fans don’t care, players don’t care and some flat outs refuse to play in them.
Posted on 3/21/21 at 12:37 pm to X
quote:
And now those same people want to expand the playoffs like it will make a difference in who wins it all.
Who has said it will make a diff in that? No one that I am aware of.
Posted on 3/21/21 at 12:51 pm to Bench McElroy
The mass expansion of bowl games coupled with an expanded CFPs killed the post-season sense of value and worth.
Cut it back to 16 bowl games, including the CFP venues. That ensures only 30 of the 130 FBS teams are rewarded with post-season play beyond a CCG. That alone makes it more special. Moreover, conference teams making bowl games should get a larger share of payout vs all above expenses going to conference distributions
The value of the remaining bowl games rises with better matchups; staffs fighting for the extra practice/game reps, exposure, and increased revenue place more emphasis on the game; making a bowl becomes more elite and the reduced quantity of a higher quality product will attract more eyes and breakout performances are less likely to be lost among the masses, making it more attractive to players wanting more film in big games.
Cut it back to 16 bowl games, including the CFP venues. That ensures only 30 of the 130 FBS teams are rewarded with post-season play beyond a CCG. That alone makes it more special. Moreover, conference teams making bowl games should get a larger share of payout vs all above expenses going to conference distributions
The value of the remaining bowl games rises with better matchups; staffs fighting for the extra practice/game reps, exposure, and increased revenue place more emphasis on the game; making a bowl becomes more elite and the reduced quantity of a higher quality product will attract more eyes and breakout performances are less likely to be lost among the masses, making it more attractive to players wanting more film in big games.
Posted on 3/21/21 at 12:52 pm to Bench McElroy
He’s right
Of course I said this from the start.
Saban isn’t as smart as I am
Of course I said this from the start.
Saban isn’t as smart as I am
Posted on 3/21/21 at 1:01 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Also...it's not like the FCS is better for it.
Except it is as their post season is better for the sport as a whole. Unlike ours
Posted on 3/21/21 at 1:08 pm to Lemonpuppy
quote:
see your argument, but it’s time for football and basketball to stop bailing out the freaking swimming and rowing teams. People only care about the worlds best swimmers and rowers in the olympics. They don’t care about collegiate levels. It sucks and it sounds bad, but it’s reality.
Then get rid of title IX
Posted on 3/21/21 at 1:18 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
To flip it, the other QB facing one of the two best defenses of that year couldn't manage to cross the 50 yard line in the second game.
That isn't a good comparison since Jefferson clearly wasn't as good of a quarterback as McCarron.
McCarron has made a living on NFL rosters, Jefferson never even made one.
LSU also attempted like half as many passes as Alabama in either game so still not a good comparison.
I'm not saying McCarron didn't play good, I just wouldn't say he "handled" the LSU defense, just my opinion.
Page 4 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News