Started By
Message
re: The new “opt out” bowls
Posted on 12/28/20 at 8:41 am to djsdawg
Posted on 12/28/20 at 8:41 am to djsdawg
quote:
Safe to assume a bowl is meaningful for many players now and then, but if championships matter, a bowl for a 7-4 team is not quite as meaningful as a playoff game or a game with playoff implications.
It has nothing to do with championships. It has to do with what agents can get away with. Agents could not get away with telling players not to play. The NFL knows they can get away with devaluing most bowls because people will watch them at about the same frequency. Whoever watches the Alamo Bowl watches it because it is on or they have an interest in the team. They won’t turn it off because a few players are not playing. Yet, everyone knows that if you start messing with the Championship games, you cross a line. They have not crossed that line... yet.
Draft prep is a big business and agents are out brokering for them and fronting the money. It is all part of the sales pitch. Agents have very little to lose in the current format. It is a numbers game for them.
Also, note that ESPN owns 1/3 of the Bowl games out there. They also have rights to the College Football Playoffs. Sadly, it will be them who will have to put their foot down on the NFL when kids start opting out of Playoff games. Which most certainly will devalue those games. I mean, why should kids risk getting hurt in playoff games, when they could be spending their time at EXOS getting better? an extra 6 weeks at EXOS could be worth millions if you have a good combine.
1
Posted on 12/28/20 at 8:51 am to olddawg26
What has always amused me is the number of 'first round draft pick' guys there seem to be. You hear that term all the time when in reality there are only 32.
I don't pay much attention to the draft; I just know that any guy drafted by the Falcons will do better somewhere else. The luckiest day of Brett Favre's life was when he was traded to Green Bay. I don't remember what Atlanta got for him, probably someone that was out of the league in two years.
I don't pay much attention to the draft; I just know that any guy drafted by the Falcons will do better somewhere else. The luckiest day of Brett Favre's life was when he was traded to Green Bay. I don't remember what Atlanta got for him, probably someone that was out of the league in two years.
Posted on 12/28/20 at 10:22 am to bunkerhill
Tyson Campbell said he’s playing.
Posted on 12/28/20 at 11:10 am to DawgsLife
quote:
But once the players see that the games for the lower teams truly are nonconsequential the players will begin to opt out.
This hasn’t happened vs the vandys of the world, so I doubt it.
quote:
You seem hesitant to address that the vast majority of the games in the semis are blow outs.
It’s beside the point we have been discussing, which is opt outs, so it makes sense to do that.
quote:
How do you think the players and the fans are going to react when they lose closely matched games from the Sugar, Orange and the other NY6 games for blow outs?
I am not sure this is the trade off. Neither of our sugar bowls were good games. Would they have been better with championship implications? Perhaps.
quote:
You would be happy with the system as is if we could find another way to stop opt outs?
I guess.
Posted on 12/28/20 at 12:08 pm to djsdawg
quote:
This hasn’t happened vs the vandys of the world, so I doubt it.
As far as I know nobody has opted out of a regular season game at all, so I'm not sure what your point is?
We are talking about the lower teams such as playoff teams #5-8, right? Look....if #4 can't compete with #1 why in the world do you believe #8 can?
quote:
It’s beside the point we have been discussing, which is opt outs, so it makes sense to do that.
That is exactly the point. Once the #5, #6, #7 and #8 teams get beat regularly by 40 points + it won't take long for the players to start opting out and "preparing for their pro day!"
quote:There have been many more competitive Sugar Bowl games than there have been #1 verses #4 playoff games. Now imagine the blood baths #1 verses #8 will be. It most definitely will be a tradeoff.
I am not sure this is the trade off. Neither of our sugar bowls were good games. Would they have been better with championship implications? Perhaps.
Peter alluded to it a bit earlier, so i will say it out loud.
The intensity of the games in the playoffs goes up tremendously by the best teams The also ran teams can't seem to turn it up a notch. This is pretty much true in most sports. #8 verses #1?
quote:
I guess.
Then why don't we discuss how to do it another way and preserve what we have? Once a system is scrapped it is almost impossible to restore it. I have to go do something, but when I get back I will make a post of one way they could POSSIBLY do your 8 team playoff and make it work.
Posted on 12/28/20 at 12:58 pm to DawgsLife
quote:That's not the only game played.
#1 verses #8
quote:I listed the possible games for the last few years and at least half were good matchups every season. 4v5 3v6 & 2v7 will usually be better matchups than 1v4, and you forget how in every sport a real playoff tends to create close games. Games are a big closer, teams feel the pressure, and bit time players (and those previously unknown clutch perfumers) step up. That's what sports is all about.
Once the #5, #6, #7 and #8 teams get beat regularly by 40 points
You also forget that players don't play for probable wins. Just the possibility for an upset the playoffs is enough to get players and coaches to lay it all on the line.
Posted on 12/28/20 at 1:18 pm to DawgsLife
The only way I can see the expanded playoffs to be the least bit interesting is if they did the following:
1-4 teams are safe and will be in the playoffs
Have a play in round with #5 vs. #8 and #6 vs. #7
Losers are out. Then the winners play #4 and #3
The winners of that round matchup against #1 and #2 with the winners meeting in the finals. It keeps similarly ranked teams playing each other, and hopefully closer games.
I would still rather keep the playoffs at 4 teams, though and explore ways to keep the players engaged and not opting out.
1-4 teams are safe and will be in the playoffs
Have a play in round with #5 vs. #8 and #6 vs. #7
Losers are out. Then the winners play #4 and #3
The winners of that round matchup against #1 and #2 with the winners meeting in the finals. It keeps similarly ranked teams playing each other, and hopefully closer games.
I would still rather keep the playoffs at 4 teams, though and explore ways to keep the players engaged and not opting out.
Posted on 12/28/20 at 1:25 pm to chillmonster
quote:
I listed the possible games for the last few years and at least half were good matchups every season. 4v5 3v6 & 2v7 will usually be better matchups than 1v4,
On paper it always looks good. In reality we usually get a blow out when it is 1 verses 4. Why do you think it will all of a suddenly change and become great match ups? No matter how you slice it we will get blow outs. If #1 vs. #4 produces blow outs, then it is silly to think ! vs. 8 ad 2 vs. 7 is suddenly become engaging games.
quote:Except in the sport we are talking about. 6 out of 7 years the #1 vs. #4 game has been a blow out. How can you say they have been good? They did not produce close games. We can look back and see that they have not produced close games.
and you forget how in every sport a real playoff tends to create close games.
quote:Well it certainly hasn't worked the last 6 out of 7 years. And if Clemson vs. ND is any indication this year will not be any different.
You also forget that players don't play for probable wins. Just the possibility for an upset the playoffs is enough to get players and coaches to lay it all on the line.
We have enough of a history to see and know what to expect. Why you all think if we add 4 more teams we will suddenly have close games is amazing to me.
Posted on 12/28/20 at 1:48 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
As far as I know nobody has opted out of a regular season game at all, so I'm not sure what your point is?
Sure they have (Nick Bosa opted out after half the season) and the logical conclusion to opting out for "meaningless"bowl games is to opt out for "meaningless" reg season games like the Vandy game this year.Its only a matter of time.
quote:
That is exactly the point. Once the #5, #6, #7 and #8 teams get beat regularly by 40 points +
Here we go again.JUst astounds me that you don't realize CFB and sports isn't a snapshot of the past 6 years and many teams who didn't make the top 4 were certainly more capable than those selected
but for whatever reasons (injuries,early season upsets) didn't make it.
BTW,there were LOTS of mismatches in the BCS championship games. I listed those earlier
Okay,for the FOURTH time, do you think Georgia is now capable of playing with Bama or Clemson now and would it be game worth seeing in a hypothetical playoff scenerio.
Posted on 12/28/20 at 2:06 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
Sure they have (Nick Bosa opted out after half the season) and the logical conclusion to opting out for "meaningless"bowl games is to opt out for "meaningless" reg season games like the Vandy game this year.Its only a matter of time.
Well, yes, but he did so after a huge injury. And I wouldn't stay we need to overhaul our entire football season based upon that.
quote:Seriously? It certainly gives us a clear pattern. 6 of the lat 7 years? You don't think that is an indication of something to be expected?
Here we go again.JUst astounds me that you don't realize CFB and sports isn't a snapshot of the past 6 years
quote:
many teams who didn't make the top 4 were certainly more capable than those selected
quote:
Based upon what? Based on the fact that the teams who were ranked above them got blown out? So obviously you think we should get worse teams into the playoffs? makes perfect sense.
[quote]Okay,for the FOURTH time, do you think Georgia is now capable of playing with Bama or Clemson now and would it be game worth seeing in a hypothetical playoff scenerio.
I have no idea. I know that Alabama kicked our teeth in the first time we played. We can say we would make it a better game, but honestly nobody knows. You seem to want the playoffs extended based upon this season. If we extend them , then people will be arguing the teams that were left out could do better if they are given a chance.
ETA
No. 4 Notre Dame is a 20-point underdog to Alabama, one of the biggest underdogs this bowl season.
This post was edited on 12/28/20 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 12/28/20 at 2:07 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
BTW,there were LOTS of mismatches in the BCS championship games. I listed those earlier
I don't know why you keep talking about the BCS. Is somebody wanting the BCS to come back?
Posted on 12/28/20 at 4:08 pm to Peter Buck
quote:
I mean, why should kids risk getting hurt in playoff games,
And from an NFL funbux point of view, playing in the playoffs is doubly-stupid, since it involves risking injury in two games instead of one. And it's not like the Shield is going to say: "Dude! You won a college title? That motherfrickin' rules! Here's an extra ten million, a shoebox full of blow, a voucher for your pick of three cheerleaders from each team, and a 'very understanding' DA in case you get particularly rambunctious with 'em."
Posted on 12/28/20 at 4:11 pm to bunkerhill
"What has always amused me is the number of 'first round draft pick' guys there seem to be. You hear that term all the time when in reality there are only 32."
Everyone thinks they're special. There are religious sects that believe only 144,000 souls will get into Heaven, and yet they still have more members than that.
Everyone thinks they're special. There are religious sects that believe only 144,000 souls will get into Heaven, and yet they still have more members than that.
Posted on 12/28/20 at 4:34 pm to FaCubeItches
quote:
And from an NFL funbux point of view, playing in the playoffs is doubly-stupid, since it involves risking injury in two games instead of one. And it's not like the Shield is going to say
If a guy isn't competitive enough to play in a playoff he's a problem, and teams would look at that.
I don't care if being able to say you beat Texas in the LinkedIn Bowl doesn't inspire you, but if you're not going to lay it on the line for a championship there's something wrong.
Posted on 12/28/20 at 4:42 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
On paper it always looks good. In reality we usually get a blow out when it is 1 verses 4. Why do you think it will all of a suddenly change and become great match ups? No matter how you slice it we will get blow outs. If #1 vs. #4 produces blow outs, then it is silly to think ! vs. 8 ad 2 vs. 7 is suddenly become engaging games.
Please read what I wrote before you respond. This is a discussion board.
My whole point was the 1v4 game isn't the barometer, and nobody says 1v8 will consistently be competitive.
Posted on 12/28/20 at 5:32 pm to FaCubeItches
quote:
"What has always amused me is the number of 'first round draft pick' guys there seem to be. You hear that term all the time when in reality there are only 32."
That's why you don't get as many opt outs as people make it seem. Most guys can improve their stock with a good performance, and almost everyone could do it in a playoff when everyone's watching.
Posted on 12/28/20 at 7:54 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
As far as I know nobody has opted out of a regular season game at all, so I'm not sure what your point is?
We are talking about the lower teams such as playoff teams #5-8, right? Look....if #4 can't compete with #1 why in the world do you believe #8 can?
Players arent going to opt out if their teams are in the playoffs.
quote:
Once the #5, #6, #7 and #8 teams get beat regularly by 40 points + it won't take long for the players to start opting out and "preparing for their pro day!"
#5 could beat #4 & #6 could beat #3. #7 could beat #2. Those players arent going to opt out if they have a playoff game.
quote:
There have been many more competitive Sugar Bowl games than there have been #1 verses #4 playoff games.
A quick review of the Sugar Bowls shows that most of them arent competitive. They often involve motivated, fully loaded G5 teams against a disappointed P5 team that might have some opt outs.
quote:
Then why don't we discuss how to do it another way and preserve what we have?
What other way? Players want to win championships. Giving more of them chances to win championships in the postseason will reduce opt outs.
Posted on 12/28/20 at 8:14 pm to chillmonster
quote:
Please read what I wrote before you respond. This is a discussion board.
I did read and I did respond. I thought we were discussing. I just don't understand why you think 2 vs. 7 would be any different than 1 vs. 4? It would be worse, more than likely. If 1 vs. 4 is bad, why is 2 vs. 7 going to be better?
You said you listed what would have been matchups the past few years and they looked good. They all look good until the games are played. that is when the blow outs happen. Most of the 1 vs. 4 games looked fine until they got on the field.
Maybe I am not understanding you. But I sure don't understand why if you add less talented teams to the mix why y'all think the games are going to get magically better.
quote:If 1 vs. 4 is a blow out 6 out of 7 years, why would 1 vs. 8 be good at any point? It wouldn't be competitive at any point more than likely. That has been my whole point. Y'all keep saying 1 vs. 8 won't be competitive consistently....crap. 1 vs 4 is not competitive but you apparently believe 1 vs. 8 will be competitive at all?
My whole point was the 1v4 game isn't the barometer, and nobody says 1v8 will consistently be competitive.
Maybe your logic just escapes me.
1 vs. 4 is not competitive but 1 vs. 8 might be!
Posted on 12/28/20 at 8:25 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Players arent going to opt out if their teams are in the playoffs.
Nobody thought players would opt out if they were in a bowl game....until they started to opt out. If we have learned anything in the past few years, it is nothing stays the same.
quote:Well, Yeah. And 8 could beat 1....except they won't more than likely.
#5 could beat #4 & #6 could beat #3. #7 could beat #2. Those players arent going to opt out if they have a playoff game.
Sure, there will be the occasional upset. Then you will have Coastal Carolina facing Alabama. That's some riveting football.
quote:
A quick review of the Sugar Bowls shows that most of them arent competitive.
But you think if you take those teams and put them against Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State the games will suddenly become competitive?
The reason many of the bowls are not competitive is because you have so many tie ins with the conferences.
quote:
What other way?
I haven't really given it a whol lot of thought. but I'm sure there are ways. I mean there were no opt outs until a few years ago.
quote:
Players want to win championships. Giving more of them chances to win championships in the postseason will reduce opt outs.
Do you honestly believe that the players don't know they are not going to beat the really good teams? They will say the right things, but I can assure you Coastal Carolina realize they are not going to win the National Championship.
Posted on 12/28/20 at 8:39 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Nobody thought players would opt out if they were in a bowl game....until they started to opt out. If we have learned anything in the past few years, it is nothing stays the same.
Players want a chance to win RINGS. The playoff made non playoff bowls less important in the eyes of players. Makes a heck of a lot more sense to quit while there is no championship to play for.
quote:
But you think if you take those teams and put them against Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State the games will suddenly become competitive?
All I am saying is that they would reduce how many players QUIT.
quote:
The reason many of the bowls are not competitive is because you have so many tie ins with the conferences.
Mainly because motivations change and differ from team to team. Too many bowls match a team that wants to be there with a team that doesnt. Playoffs match teams that want to be there.
quote:
I haven't really given it a whol lot of thought. but I'm sure there are ways.
Well, when you come up with something better than giving more players a meaningful postseason game, let us know.
quote:
Do you honestly believe that the players don't know they are not going to beat the really good teams?
Players are motivated and excited to beat a favorite. They believe they have a chance no matter how small. Thats why upsets happen. Hell, Coastal won the CWS this decade. Different sport, but same idea. CC shouldnt be good enough to win the CWS.
Page 7 of 10
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News