OT: College Football Playoff Expansion

[IUPbigINDIANS]

I'm glad I was not the guy to say this lol...

It's reality. The money is in the South. The best teams are in the South.

Follow the $

Nobody gives a # about Fresno State.

[Fightingscot82]

It's not even remotely comparable.

There's no bowl season in D2. 40 games aren't nationally televised each week. There's far less money involved. There's far fewer boosters involved. There's far less interested parties involved. There's no media involved. There's significantly less NFL and personal gain influence for players. The regular season is 3 weeks shorter, when you consider the bye week built into the D1 schedule. Nobody is pounding the table for them to be paid. High school football gets significantly more coverage in many areas of the country than D2 or D3 football. It's not even the same discussion.

How do you not see this as nothing more than a money grab? Boatcapt is 100% right.

I think you missed my point.

The only way IUP wins a championship is by winning the playoff bracket. It has nothing to do with how the sports editor at the Johnsonburg Press votes in the top 25 poll. National champions are determined by a full playoff in FCS, D2, D3, NAIA, etc. State champions are determined by a playoff too. That's my point. FCS has the best model. Win your conference and you're in. D3 is somewhat similar.

Bowl games are pointless. That's why players don't play. And why people don't watch. They're antiquated. People in El Paso no longer get excited about seeing new teams to come to town for the Alamo Bowl and neither do the fans of the teams playing. The only bowls that had any luster were the ones that featured conference champions, like the Rose Bowl.

[Fightingscot82]

It's reality. The money is in the South. The best teams are in the South.

Follow the $

Nobody gives a # about Fresno State.

Unless Fresno State starts knocking off ranked teams.

Right now there's not much of an incentive to play a good non-conference schedule. A playoff would force some match ups of the upstart G5 teams against P5 teams. A lot of coaches gave UCF crap a few years ago but nobody took on the challenge of playing them.

[Fightingscot82]

I've long advocated for a similar structure. If you figuratively 'blow it all up,' I would like to see 30 teams basically create an NFL type league with divisions, conferences, and rotating schedules. If those 30 programs think they have money to pay the players, break away and operate as semi-pro football. Don't even charade it.

Let the remainder of your D1 schools who aren't even in that stratosphere be your Division 1A/FBS - and that's 75% of D1. Then go from there. The cat is obviously out of the bag and won't go back, but that's what I would like to see.

Problem is that when you pay players, the scholarship becomes taxable. That's also before any sort of Title IX challenge. It ain't happening.

[IUP24]

Problem is that when you pay players, the scholarship becomes taxable. That's also before any sort of Title IX challenge. It ain't happening.

I never supported players under what most call for - and still don't. My model above was more of a "what if" in terms of how it could look if schools broke away from the NCAA. My post on the basketball side describes my view pretty clearly.

When you start paying athletes, they shouldn't be receiving a scholarship any longer. They're employees of the university. Offer them the available employee tuition discount, whatever that may be. Nobody forces you to play college football. And nobody should force you to obtain a salary, either. If the salary of a player who isn't an NFL prospect is less than the value of his scholarship, they should opt to receive no payment and receive their education, room/board, and cost of attendance covered like it is now. The piece of paper they receive at the end of the end of the road is far more valuable than the dollars and cents they get as part of their employment of being a "college football player."

[IUP24]

I think you missed my point.

The only way IUP wins a championship is by winning the playoff bracket. It has nothing to do with how the sports editor at the Johnsonburg Press votes in the top 25 poll. National champions are determined by a full playoff in FCS, D2, D3, NAIA, etc. State champions are determined by a playoff too. That's my point. FCS has the best model. Win your conference and you're in. D3 is somewhat similar.

Bowl games are pointless. That's why players don't play. And why people don't watch. They're antiquated. People in El Paso no longer get excited about seeing new teams to come to town for the Alamo Bowl and neither do the fans of the teams playing. The only bowls that had any luster were the ones that featured conference champions, like the Rose Bowl.

I get it. You're not wrong, but there's a lot to the discussion that you people need to be willing to listen to as well.

Players didn't start opting out until the playoff. Television ratings for bowl games didn't plummet until the playoff. The debate about the purpose and significance of the bowl season was always debatable, but it wasn't until the playoff that it became truly meaningless. The level of pure dominance shared by three teams in the modern era didn't manifest until the playoff (there's been dominant teams before - but the gap between 3 and the next crop has never been greater). I'm merely saying that college football was better before the playoff. All parts of it - holistically, it was just better. We can debate every element that exists and we'll probably never see it the same. The calls for expansion on this will never stop.

[Fightingscot82]

I never supported players under what most call for - and still don't. My model above was more of a "what if" in terms of how it could look if schools broke away from the NCAA. My post on the basketball side describes my view pretty clearly.

When you start paying athletes, they shouldn't be receiving a scholarship any longer. They're employees of the university. Offer them the available employee tuition discount, whatever that may be. Nobody forces you to play college football. And nobody should force you to obtain a salary, either. If the salary of a player who isn't an NFL prospect is less than the value of his scholarship, they should opt to receive no payment and receive their education, room/board, and cost of attendance covered like it is now. The piece of paper they receive at the end of the end of the road is far more valuable than the dollars and cents they get as part of their employment of being a "college football player."

And its standard industry practice that employees get tuition waived. That benefit is taxable. I think it would cause some big problems for a lot of players. If you pay, everyone probably has to get paid the same amount. That will probably bother the star football player who makes the same amount as the redshirt freshman field hockey player.

[Fightingscot82]

I get it. You're not wrong, but there's a lot to the discussion that you people need to be willing to listen to as well.

Players didn't start opting out until the playoff. Television ratings for bowl games didn't plummet until the playoff. The debate about the purpose and significance of the bowl season was always debatable, but it wasn't until the playoff that it became truly meaningless. The level of pure dominance shared by three teams in the modern era didn't manifest until the playoff (there's been dominant teams before - but the gap between 3 and the next crop has never been greater). I'm merely saying that college football was better before the playoff. All parts of it - holistically, it was just better. We can debate every element that exists and we'll probably never see it the same. The calls for expansion on this will never stop.

I don't know if the playoff is their motivation for dropping out. I think players are taking their NFL prospects - especially first round prospects - into account more than ever. So if its a playoff or bowl game they don't want to blow everything. I get that. But remember FBS plays a 12 game regular season - 1 more than every other level of college football.

As I mentioned before, I think the prestige of the bowls went downhill with a lot of other big sporting events with the advent of cable. We gave ourselves too much of a good thing. It spread viewership thin and decreased the need to attend the game while also making it easier to broadcast a whole lot of everything. The number of bowls is actually down from 50 years ago. There were college football bowl games at nearly all levels in places as remote as Corry, PA. I think the best part of the bowls were those with conference affiliations like the Rose Bowl. It forced two great teams from different conferences to play each other. Ohio State will never schedule Arizona State but the Rose Bowl made it happen and that was a great game in 1997 (I was there). But then ESPN & ABC got involved, took ownership or controlling interest in several while starting their own, and boom suddenly we have mediocre teams from mediocre conferences playing in mediocre locations. Plus the BCS interrupted some of those conference auto-invites to the bigger bowl games somewhat creating the same effect. To me that's what devalued bowls.

I also like the idea that Toledo can go head to head with Clemson. We can all agree that it will most likely be a blowout. 50/50 that its competitive. Maybe 1 in 4 that its close and 1 in 10 that Toledo wins. But those latter scenarios make for great TV as we know from NCAA basketball, CWS, etc. I also like the idea of giving G5 teams a chance. I was one of those frustrated when it seemed the media didn't want to acknowledge what TCU and Boise State were doing 10-12 years ago. Most of the media mocked Central Florida even before they claimed a pseudo-national championship. The same goes for D2 - I like the fact that the PSAC can compete for a national championship. IUP would never have those chances now if we operated like FBS. You'd be stuck playing some quasi-exhibition game in Canton against Stonehill.

[boatcapt]

I've long advocated for a similar structure. If you figuratively 'blow it all up,' I would like to see 30 teams basically create an NFL type league with divisions, conferences, and rotating schedules. If those 30 programs think they have money to pay the players, break away and operate as semi-pro football. Don't even charade it.

Let the remainder of your D1 schools who aren't even in that stratosphere be your Division 1A/FBS - and that's 75% of D1. Then go from there. The cat is obviously out of the bag and won't go back, but that's what I would like to see.

Hummmm..."30 teams" and 32 NFL teams...Add two teams to your senario and you have a perfect "minor league" system. Read an article about the profitability of minor league baseball (which apparently is a cash cow for their owners). The discussion about the profitability centered on the fact that the salaries for players and coaches was shouldered by the "big club!" You could set up a similar four tiered system were the "college" teams are owned by, and all salaries are paid by, the NFL...Triple A would be the 30 (+2) teams you speak of, Double A would be the top 32 remaining FBS/FCS, SIngle A FCS/DII and Rookie League DII/D3...NFL teams recruit/sign HS players and place them at the level they deem appropriate and then move them up as their skills dictate. When appropriate, they are called up to the Big Club.

[CC_BU]

The NCAA surprisingly has absolutely nothing to do with the FBS post-season. They abdicated to have the season end in bowl games and allowed the media to use polling to determine. Neither determines a champion. Just a highest rating. Every other team sport at every other level uses a full playoff with equal access to determine the champion.

I'm really surprised that there's so much objection to it on here. If anything, we should be proponents of a full playoff with equal access like in D2.

I like the idea of equal access. Conference champs go to the playoffs. It's completely objective. Some conference champs might not belong on the same field as others, but they have their shot. If #2 in a conference cries foul because they're better then the champ from another conference, too bad. You had your shot in the regular season.

I'm reminded of when Bloomsburg beat UC Davis in the semi finals in 2000. If a subjective system determined who made the playoffs, that game never happens. Bloom probably loses that game 99 times out of 100, but we had our chance on the field, where games, and champions should be decided.

[Fightingscot82]

I like the idea of equal access. Conference champs go to the playoffs. It's completely objective. Some conference champs might not belong on the same field as others, but they have their shot. If #2 in a conference cries foul because they're better then the champ from another conference, too bad. You had your shot in the regular season.

I'm reminded of when Bloomsburg beat UC Davis in the semi finals in 2000. If a subjective system determined who made the playoffs, that game never happens. Bloom probably loses that game 99 times out of 100, but we had our chance on the field, where games, and champions should be decided.

There are 10 conferences and you could include 2-6 additional runner-ups from P5 schools to get a 12 or 16 team bracket.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

There are 10 conferences and you could include 2-6 additional runner-ups from P5 schools to get a 12 or 16 team bracket.

Yeah but how many freaking games are they going to make these 'student' athletes play?

[Fightingscot82]

Yeah but how many freaking games are they going to make these 'student' athletes play?

How many games national champions play at every other level of college football:

FCS: 16

DII: 16

DIII: 16

NAIA: 15

You would have no problem with IUP 'student' athletes playing 16 games.

For those interested, a PIAA state champion will play 14 games.

[iupgroundhog]

Bowl games are pointless. That's why players don't play. And why people don't watch. They're antiquated. People in El Paso no longer get excited about seeing new teams to come to town for the Alamo Bowl and neither do the fans of the teams playing. The only bowls that had any luster were the ones that featured conference champions, like the Rose Bowl.

I live in El Paso. El Paso holds the Sun Bowl, not the Alamo Bowl. It is the 2nd oldest Bowl Game behind the Rose Bowl. Just as an additional point to make in response to your comments, the Sun Bowl is a huge point of civic pride for El Paso. There is a big parade like the other bowls have but it focuses on the local culture i.e. Mexican-American/El Pasoan. There are festivals, etc. Civic and business leaders are heavily invested in it all. It may not be the most visible bowl game but large contingents of people come to town representing each school. So, it is in effect a huge tourism event. Just like the other bowls. Just sayin'.

[Fightingscot82]

I live in El Paso. El Paso holds the Sun Bowl, not the Alamo Bowl. It is the 2nd oldest Bowl Game behind the Rose Bowl. Just as an additional point to make in response to your comments, the Sun Bowl is a huge point of civic pride for El Paso. There is a big parade like the other bowls have but it focuses on the local culture i.e. Mexican-American/El Pasoan. There are festivals, etc. Civic and business leaders are heavily invested in it all. It may not be the most visible bowl game but large contingents of people come to town representing each school. So, it is in effect a huge tourism event. Just like the other bowls. Just sayin'.

Sorry, yes, you're right. Not sure why I thought Alamo when I know its Sun. But I think those older more established bowls are much more than a game - like to Rose Bowl with a marquis parade down Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena - and offer a lot more than the ones where they convert a baseball stadium to host a football game. Before cable TV these games brought a lot of people to a place like El Paso that isn't on many vacation or work conference lists. I've been to El Paso (granted for just 3 days for a side job at UTEP) and it was surprisingly nice and unique. I do wish I had a day to explore and get a sense of its character. And that is why some of them are run by a local visitors bureau. Some also do raise money for charity, which is always good, too. Some had their own stadiums too. I saw the 97 Rose Bowl, 98 Orange Bowl, and 99 Cotton Bowl in their respective stadiums.