Would bowls (and CFB in general) be more fun if...

[AUwent 3,751]

(Move to Rivals if necessary, but I feel it applies here.)

I just saw how the Orange Bowl is basically going to be empty. Not a surprise, but it's increasingly obvious that fans and players are apathetic to non-playoff bowl games (imagine if our fans and players had sat out the 2004 Sugar Bowl). I've heard the sentiment that the 12-team playoff will help with this, but I've been thinking more and more about the ABSURD number of games that fans are going to have to travel to--oh, and for some teams this will be ON TOP of conference championships. I'd say a six-team playoff would be ideal from a perspective of fan affordability. Unfortunately, anything below an eight-team playoff and you'll be almost guaranteed to be forced to leave out a couple of very deserving teams--go back and look at each year since 1998, in most years a four or six-team playoff would've resulted in decisions just as controversial as this year. 

So, my question is...would bowls and college football in general be better if we quit trying so hard to figure out a champion and basically went back to the 80s and early 90s system in which the conference champions just automatically go to the assigned by conference bowl? Some of you may claim I'm lobbying for "PaRtIcIpAtIoN tRoPhYs" but there is no sport that's logistically tougher for which to organize a championship system. CFB was better when people were actually excited about bowl games and attend them, and thinking about how many empty seats the NC, semis and possibly even quarters will have is just kind of depressing.

(I know this won't happen--too much TV network $ to be made, but I just wanted your thoughts.)

Edited December 29, 2023 by AUwent

[passthebiscuits 6,846]

I think the bowls should have to fork up money to the players to participate and perhaps give more money to the winning team. This would incentivize some players to play the games. 
 

alas, I’m just not sure that any of this in its current form is sustainable.

I realize that it’s not your question, but instead of an A day game, I’d be in favor of a preseason game against a team we never see…like Notre Dame - Auburn, etc.  The outcome wouldn’t count, but it could sell tickets, give the players a chance to manage a game like a true preseason game and would be a heck of a lot more interesting. 

 

[Mikey 16,604]

If I counted correctly, there are currently 81 bowl games. That's ridiculous!

My idea for the playoffs was eight teams. The 12-team playoff giving the top four a bye just makes the rich be richer.

[AUwent 3,751]

9 minutes ago, Mikey said:

My idea for the playoffs was eight teams.

I would have seeds 1 and 2 host quarterfinals in that scenario. Two NY6 games would be quarterfinals for seeds 3-6, two would be semifinals, and two would be at-large.

I still think the semis and NC would have attendance issues but at least all the quarters would be well attended. It would be MUCH better than what's being planned, the more I think about it.

Edited December 29, 2023 by AUwent

[Gowebb11 9,324]

1 hour ago, AUwent said:

(Move to Rivals if necessary, but I feel it applies here.)

I just saw how the Orange Bowl is basically going to be empty. Not a surprise, but it's increasingly obvious that fans and players are apathetic to non-playoff bowl games (imagine if our fans and players had sat out the 2004 Sugar Bowl). I've heard the sentiment that the 12-team playoff will help with this, but I've been thinking more and more about the ABSURD number of games that fans are going to have to travel to--oh, and for some teams this will be ON TOP of conference championships. I'd say a six-team playoff would be ideal from a perspective of fan affordability. Unfortunately, anything below an eight-team playoff and you'll be almost guaranteed to be forced to leave out a couple of very deserving teams--go back and look at each year since 1998, in most years a four or six-team playoff would've resulted in decisions just as controversial as this year. 

So, my question is...would bowls and college football in general be better if we quit trying so hard to figure out a champion and basically went back to the 80s and early 90s system in which the conference champions just automatically go to the assigned by conference bowl? Some of you may claim I'm lobbying for "PaRtIcIpAtIoN tRoPhYs" but there is no sport that's logistically tougher for which to organize a championship system. CFB was better when people were actually excited about bowl games and attend them, and thinking about how many empty seats the NC, semis and possibly even quarters will have is just kind of depressing.

(I know this won't happen--too much TV network $ to be made, but I just wanted your thoughts.)

Excellent points. I was fine with the Coaches Poll/AP poll system. No less subjective and political than the current system. The more the PTB have tried to perfect the system, the more broken it has gotten.  I think it’s really ironic: we used to follow recruiting to keep us busy before the ever important bowl game. Now we are more excited about recruiting and signing day than we are the ‘meaningless’ bowl game. 

[ScotsAU 1,331]

2 hours ago, AUwent said:

(Move to Rivals if necessary, but I feel it applies here.)

I just saw how the Orange Bowl is basically going to be empty. Not a surprise, but it's increasingly obvious that fans and players are apathetic to non-playoff bowl games (imagine if our fans and players had sat out the 2004 Sugar Bowl). I've heard the sentiment that the 12-team playoff will help with this, but I've been thinking more and more about the ABSURD number of games that fans are going to have to travel to--oh, and for some teams this will be ON TOP of conference championships. I'd say a six-team playoff would be ideal from a perspective of fan affordability. Unfortunately, anything below an eight-team playoff and you'll be almost guaranteed to be forced to leave out a couple of very deserving teams--go back and look at each year since 1998, in most years a four or six-team playoff would've resulted in decisions just as controversial as this year. 

So, my question is...would bowls and college football in general be better if we quit trying so hard to figure out a champion and basically went back to the 80s and early 90s system in which the conference champions just automatically go to the assigned by conference bowl? Some of you may claim I'm lobbying for "PaRtIcIpAtIoN tRoPhYs" but there is no sport that's logistically tougher for which to organize a championship system. CFB was better when people were actually excited about bowl games and attend them, and thinking about how many empty seats the NC, semis and possibly even quarters will have is just kind of depressing.

(I know this won't happen--too much TV network $ to be made, but I just wanted your thoughts.)

While I was ecstatic for the two we’ve played for in this century, never really put much stock into championships. Because of the low number of games we play, there’s always going to be an asterisk next to the champion’s name. Every champion has at least one or two games where a key call went their way or a ball rolled just the right way. There’s a lot of chance and luck in getting a championship in football. 
 

The closest I think we could get to an ideal system would be to set up the entire season as a playoff. But, even then, the sample size for games is still too small.  
 

So yes. The old system pre-BCS was better. At least that system admitted to be imperfect. And championships weren’t held in as high of prestige as they are now. 
 

If actually argue the system we have now is the worst one that existed. Put a bunch of talking heads with who knows what biases in a room and just let them pick the top 4 with no clear objective criteria. Stupid system.

Edited December 29, 2023 by ScotsAU

[SLAG-91 1,483]

2 hours ago, AUwent said:

(Move to Rivals if necessary, but I feel it applies here.)

I just saw how the Orange Bowl is basically going to be empty. Not a surprise, but it's increasingly obvious that fans and players are apathetic to non-playoff bowl games (imagine if our fans and players had sat out the 2004 Sugar Bowl). I've heard the sentiment that the 12-team playoff will help with this, but I've been thinking more and more about the ABSURD number of games that fans are going to have to travel to--oh, and for some teams this will be ON TOP of conference championships. I'd say a six-team playoff would be ideal from a perspective of fan affordability. Unfortunately, anything below an eight-team playoff and you'll be almost guaranteed to be forced to leave out a couple of very deserving teams--go back and look at each year since 1998, in most years a four or six-team playoff would've resulted in decisions just as controversial as this year. 

So, my question is...would bowls and college football in general be better if we quit trying so hard to figure out a champion and basically went back to the 80s and early 90s system in which the conference champions just automatically go to the assigned by conference bowl? Some of you may claim I'm lobbying for "PaRtIcIpAtIoN tRoPhYs" but there is no sport that's logistically tougher for which to organize a championship system. CFB was better when people were actually excited about bowl games and attend them, and thinking about how many empty seats the NC, semis and possibly even quarters will have is just kind of depressing.

(I know this won't happen--too much TV network $ to be made, but I just wanted your thoughts.)

I am with you 100% in terms of sentiment. I was once a staunch playoff supporter using the bowl games as the venue (did my persuasive speech in my college speech course on this very topic), but as I've gotten older, I've cooled very much on how the process has evolved.

Your point about fan involvement is a valid one...with the expanded playoff, plus a conference championship game, you're looking at up to 4 games after a 12-game season, which is pretty much an NFL length season.

Speaking of, at this point, it's time to just completely blow it up and just "NFL-ize" college football completely because, as you said, we're not going back to the "Big Four on New Year's Day" days of the 70s and 80s.

I think winning a conference meant more in college football because the ultimate decision on a "national champion" was largely a beauty contest (and for many years was decided before bowl games), but a conference title was won on the field, no balloting required.

Going to that major bowl game mattered...that was the prize. Now, if it's not part of the playoffs, something like this year's Orange Bowl just feels like a consolation prize.

I didn't mind all of the discussions and "what-ifs" after bowl season back then. Would Miami have beaten Washington in 1991? Would Georgia Tech have beaten Colorado in 1990? Doesn't matter...each of them got a share of a MNC.

[TexasTiger 12,888]

3 hours ago, AUwent said:

(Move to Rivals if necessary, but I feel it applies here.)

I just saw how the Orange Bowl is basically going to be empty. Not a surprise, but it's increasingly obvious that fans and players are apathetic to non-playoff bowl games (imagine if our fans and players had sat out the 2004 Sugar Bowl). I've heard the sentiment that the 12-team playoff will help with this, but I've been thinking more and more about the ABSURD number of games that fans are going to have to travel to--oh, and for some teams this will be ON TOP of conference championships. I'd say a six-team playoff would be ideal from a perspective of fan affordability. Unfortunately, anything below an eight-team playoff and you'll be almost guaranteed to be forced to leave out a couple of very deserving teams--go back and look at each year since 1998, in most years a four or six-team playoff would've resulted in decisions just as controversial as this year. 

So, my question is...would bowls and college football in general be better if we quit trying so hard to figure out a champion and basically went back to the 80s and early 90s system in which the conference champions just automatically go to the assigned by conference bowl? Some of you may claim I'm lobbying for "PaRtIcIpAtIoN tRoPhYs" but there is no sport that's logistically tougher for which to organize a championship system. CFB was better when people were actually excited about bowl games and attend them, and thinking about how many empty seats the NC, semis and possibly even quarters will have is just kind of depressing.

(I know this won't happen--too much TV network $ to be made, but I just wanted your thoughts.)

I agree, but I’m old school on this. Never minded the “mythical” national champion thing. Money has driven college football where it is now— bowls are less meaningful, players sit out, free agency to the highest bidder, conferences are no longer regional and may ultimately be on their way out. Sports media, and especially ESPN, convinced everyone we needed an NFL-like playoff. I don’t see that we have a more enjoyable fan experience or student-athlete experience. 

[AURex 1,999]

I just watched the Alamo Bowl. Arizona vs Oklahoma. The stadium was full and it was a really interesting game. Oklahoma will be a tough game for us next season.

Are there too many bowl games? All these games between 6-6 and 7-5 teams (ahem .. cough .. cough .. ahem) do not attract big TV audiences. But just because I don't want to watch X vs Y does not mean there is no audience. And it doesn't mean the bowls should not exist.

By this reasoning, the Music City Bowl should not exist and Auburn should not be playing in a bowl game.

As for the playoff system, nobody is *obligated* to watch the games. So don't. Personally, I will.

 

[TexasTiger 12,888]

35 minutes ago, AURex said:

I just watched the Alamo Bowl. Arizona vs Oklahoma. The stadium was full and it was a really interesting game. Oklahoma will be a tough game for us next season.

Are there too many bowl games? All these games between 6-6 and 7-5 teams (ahem .. cough .. cough .. ahem) do not attract big TV audiences. But just because I don't want to watch X vs Y does not mean there is no audience. And it doesn't mean the bowls should not exist.

By this reasoning, the Music City Bowl should not exist and Auburn should not be playing in a bowl game.

As for the playoff system, nobody is *obligated* to watch the games. So don't. Personally, I will.

 

You missed the point.

[Mims44 1,870]

11 hours ago, AUwent said:

(Move to Rivals if necessary, but I feel it applies here.)

I just saw how the Orange Bowl is basically going to be empty. Not a surprise, but it's increasingly obvious that fans and players are apathetic to non-playoff bowl games (imagine if our fans and players had sat out the 2004 Sugar Bowl). I've heard the sentiment that the 12-team playoff will help with this, but I've been thinking more and more about the ABSURD number of games that fans are going to have to travel to--oh, and for some teams this will be ON TOP of conference championships. I'd say a six-team playoff would be ideal from a perspective of fan affordability. Unfortunately, anything below an eight-team playoff and you'll be almost guaranteed to be forced to leave out a couple of very deserving teams--go back and look at each year since 1998, in most years a four or six-team playoff would've resulted in decisions just as controversial as this year. 

So, my question is...would bowls and college football in general be better if we quit trying so hard to figure out a champion and basically went back to the 80s and early 90s system in which the conference champions just automatically go to the assigned by conference bowl? Some of you may claim I'm lobbying for "PaRtIcIpAtIoN tRoPhYs" but there is no sport that's logistically tougher for which to organize a championship system. CFB was better when people were actually excited about bowl games and attend them, and thinking about how many empty seats the NC, semis and possibly even quarters will have is just kind of depressing.

(I know this won't happen--too much TV network $ to be made, but I just wanted your thoughts.)

I disagree.

Not apathetic to Auburns bowl game at all, and it's a minor crappy one. I am apathetic to a LOT of the other minor bowl games, but honestly I didn't watch any of those teams throughout the season either. So same difference.

I do dislike midwest teams now being "SEC" schools, also not a huge fan of the SEC championship not being as big. But looking through SEC history... there's times Bama won the NC without winning the SEC before playoff/BCS and times they have done it since. and neither seems to matter much to their fans.

10 hours ago, passthebiscuits said:

I think the bowls should have to fork up money to the players to participate and perhaps give more money to the winning team. This would incentivize some players to play the games. 

Bolded it cause that's be awesome!

10 hours ago, Mikey said:

If I counted correctly, there are currently 81 bowl games. That's ridiculous!

My idea for the playoffs was eight teams. The 12-team playoff giving the top four a bye just makes the rich be richer.

I'd be interested to know for sure, but I doubt any of those companies are taking an L on the bowl games. Prolly all profitable and that's why there's so many.

8 hours ago, ScotsAU said:

While I was ecstatic for the two we’ve played for in this century, never really put much stock into championships. Because of the low number of games we play, there’s always going to be an asterisk next to the champion’s name. Every champion has at least one or two games where a key call went their way or a ball rolled just the right way. There’s a lot of chance and luck in getting a championship in football. 

You would have to put an asterisk next to every champion of damn near every sport for every year it was played.  

6 hours ago, AURex said:

I just watched the Alamo Bowl. Arizona vs Oklahoma. The stadium was full and it was a really interesting game. Oklahoma will be a tough game for us next season.

Are there too many bowl games? All these games between 6-6 and 7-5 teams (ahem .. cough .. cough .. ahem) do not attract big TV audiences. But just because I don't want to watch X vs Y does not mean there is no audience. And it doesn't mean the bowls should not exist.

By this reasoning, the Music City Bowl should not exist and Auburn should not be playing in a bowl game.

As for the playoff system, nobody is *obligated* to watch the games. So don't. Personally, I will.

 

That was a good game Rex. Watched the whole thing, even though it wasn't a playoff game  

[gr82be 14,425]

I don’t long for the old days of the polls determining a NC. 1983 is a good example of how messed up that was. The excitement for that era of bowl games may have been greater but the game today has reached a point of no return for me. I’ve always heard that the golden era of anything is one’s childhood and football is that for me. Memories tend to make things bigger and greater than they were for adults but to some young boy today, this is his golden era. There’s no going back, if you tried it wouldn’t be the same. Opting out is changing the Bowl game and there’s no putting the lid back on that box. I saw an article yesterday posing the question that some players in the 12 team playoff might still opt out. If being in the playoff wouldn’t entice you to play then why are you even playing competitive sports?…Yeah, I know the money potential for some but the pride of winning is a pretty awesome feeling if you give it a chance. Players started playing the game because they loved the game. I think some of them forget how much. 

[aubiefifty 16,793]

17 minutes ago, gr82be said:

I don’t long for the old days of the polls determining a NC. 1983 is a good example of how messed up that was. The excitement for that era of bowl games may have been greater but the game today has reached a point of no return for me. I’ve always heard that the golden era of anything is one’s childhood and football is that for me. Memories tend to make things bigger and greater than they were for adults but to some young boy today, this is his golden era. There’s no going back, if you tried it wouldn’t be the same. Opting out is changing the Bowl game and there’s no putting the lid back on that box. I saw an article yesterday posing the question that some players in the 12 team playoff might still opt out. If being in the playoff wouldn’t entice you to play then why are you even playing competitive sports?…Yeah, I know the money potential for some but the pride of winning is a pretty awesome feeling if you give it a chance. Players started playing the game because they loved the game. I think some of them forget how much. 

i miss the old bowl back in the day that meant something. the sugar and cotton and some of the others seemed to have lost something that is missing now. i remember being so proud any thime we went to the sugar bowl. now folks call N.O. a  dump and mostly care less about it if i am reading thjngs right. my mind lovesto play tricks on me anymore.

[gr82be 14,425]

57 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Not apathetic to Auburns bowl game at all, and it's a minor crappy one. I am apathetic to a LOT of the other minor bowl games, but honestly I didn't watch any of those teams throughout the season either. So same difference.

I feel the same way. There are so many games to choose from but I’ve also found myself turning off the TV. I’ll regret that after the Final Four and turn my thoughts again to college football. 

[aubaseball 2,615]

I believe it was the current NCAA president that mentioned the idea of making different divisions.    I have believed for a very long time that there are too many FBS schools.    There should be around 40 - 50(4 conferences ) and then a 12 team playoff.    No playing teams outside of the division and you would get a better representation of who is the deserving 12.   
Teams like LA Monroe, Troy and the like can have their own division.    It’s no different than FcS, Division 2 and Division 3.   

just my 2 cents 

[Mims44 1,870]

6 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

I believe it was the current NCAA president that mentioned the idea of making different divisions.    I have believed for a very long time that there are too many FBS schools.    There should be around 40 - 50(4 conferences ) and then a 12 team playoff.    No playing teams outside of the division and you would get a better representation of who is the deserving 12.   
Teams like LA Monroe, Troy and the like can have their own division.    It’s no different than FcS, Division 2 and Division 3.   

just my 2 cents 

You would lose out on a lot of good/fun teams though.

Although I do get your point.

 

This is dated a year but gives 2022 rankings for all 130+ teams.

College Football Top 131 Team Rankings for 2022 - AthlonSports.com | Expert Predictions, Picks, and Previews

Auburn is #41  

[CCTAU 3,327]

Use the BCS formula with an 8 team playoff. The BCS formula at the end of that era was pretty close. If we had used that and went to a 4 team playoff, we might not be as bitter today. But the NCAA loves power. So they created another committee to flex that power.
If you are arguing seeds 8 and 9, you really are at the shallow end of the pool. 

[arein0 956]

I think all college sports needs to move towards the European Soccer promotion/relegation system. It would keep every team having a season full of competitive games, every game would matter for everyone, it gives the smaller schools a path to moving up, it could bring back those regional rivalries that were lost in realignments

[BigBlueWDE 1,136]

Going back to the original bowl format combined with picking the 12 teams after those games are played makes everything relevant

Edited December 29, 2023 by BigBlueWDE

[frozennugget 0]

If this season was under the old bowl format Michigan and Alabama would have already been crowned co-champions.

[JuscAUse! 1,410]

15 hours ago, passthebiscuits said:

I think the bowls should have to fork up money to the players to participate and perhaps give more money to the winning team. This would incentivize some players to play the games. 
 

alas, I’m just not sure that any of this in its current form is sustainable.

I realize that it’s not your question, but instead of an A day game, I’d be in favor of a preseason game against a team we never see…like Notre Dame - Auburn, etc.  The outcome wouldn’t count, but it could sell tickets, give the players a chance to manage a game like a true preseason game and would be a heck of a lot more interesting. 

 

I heard someone on radio say just have the bowl games before the season, when there won't be any opt outs. Not spring , probably, but pre-season, as you said. You could even have first half starters and second half subs type game. Whatever, I think you would have to figure out some way to compensate the players to make it attractive, but I like where you're going with that. 

[AUwent 3,751]

1 hour ago, BigBlueWDE said:

Going back to the original bowl format combined with picking the 12 teams after those games are played makes everything relevant

I’ve heard this proposal tossed around, but it’s exactly my problem with a twelve team playoff—who’s going to be able to afford it? The NC game and semis, as is, are going to look like HS state championship games.

Edited December 29, 2023 by AUwent

[Hank2020 3,202]

4 hours ago, Mims44 said:

I disagree.

Not apathetic to Auburns bowl game at all, and it's a minor crappy one. I am apathetic to a LOT of the other minor bowl games, but honestly I didn't watch any of those teams throughout the season either. So same difference.

I do dislike midwest teams now being "SEC" schools, also not a huge fan of the SEC championship not being as big. But looking through SEC history... there's times Bama won the NC without winning the SEC before playoff/BCS and times they have done it since. and neither seems to matter much to their fans.

Bolded it cause that's be awesome!

I'd be interested to know for sure, but I doubt any of those companies are taking an L on the bowl games. Prolly all profitable and that's why there's so many.

You would have to put an asterisk next to every champion of damn near every sport for every year it was played.  

That was a good game Rex. Watched the whole thing, even though it wasn't a playoff game  

Bowl games are about advertising. I bet quite a few watch ( even though not many attend). Advertising is always about. Connecting whether in person or on tv.

[W.E.D 11,070]

Bowl games still pull relatively good numbers during a season when there is nearly nothing on besides the NBA and NFL on Sunday nights.

 

Start letting transfers play in non CFP related Bowl games.

Have a cash prize for the winning team above the gif allotment.  Might have more players stay and play in them.

 

[Win4AU 4,052]

Bowls are obviously making money or you wouldn’t see soo many. 
 

As far as the opting in or out of a bowl I believe this is more a sign of the times compared to the significance of the bowl.  The bowls in the 70s, 80s, and 90s didn’t hold anymore significance than they do now.  Opting out wasn’t a thing players did back then but now they’re been advised by their money men.