BleedGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 60,728
- Reaction score
- 16,034
- Points
- 113
This article is a week or so old, but interesting read:
Ian Dettloff probably would agree: “Bowl games are the most overrated part of college football.”
But bowl games aren’t unanimously disgraced. Elliott Locklair sees the neutral-site competitions as a pillar of the game: “More Playoff games will continue the devaluation of the bowls. … Bowl games will continue to fade away as will the traditions of families who love college football with its traditions. Can you tell I’m an old curmudgeon?”
Excited fan Arthur Mansbach thinks expansion is a positive for bowls: “This was the only way to save the top bowls. Last year, for the first time, players sat out the Rose Bowl. This had been unthinkable.”
Nate suggests a reworking: “Bowls being moved to Labor Day weekend to open the season! Non-bowl-eligible teams playing each other (selected by a governing body) the week prior to that at home locations, giving fans an extra week of college football. Can you imagine the Labor Day bowl week? That would be insanely fun and fans would travel! If you are a Playoff team in the prior season, simply make a rule that your following-the-season’s bowl game will not be a rematch of someone you played in the Playoff. It’ll likely just be a different team that made the Playoff. Oh yeah, our big bowls (Orange, Rose, etc.) are still in December and incorporated into the Playoff.”
Here’s what our writers had to say:
Nicole Auerbach, national writer: The 12-team model as currently constructed is still a hybrid, with on-campus games — finally! — and then the rest of the games at bowl sites. It’s an interesting dynamic when you think of the role bowls had back in 2012 when the CFP was first formed to now. They’ve diminished in importance. They’ve added to travel costs expected of fans for teams that regularly make the CFP. A better system would be one where the CFP puts on the games itself instead of trying to incorporate the various bowls into its playoff system by contracting them out to run its events. Alas, that’s not what was approved. What I am curious to see is what happens once we get a taste of on-campus games. I’m pretty confident that once we see the electricity and the atmosphere, we’re going to want more of them and fewer neutral-site games. Could the bowls’ role diminish even further?
Stewart Mandel, senior columnist: The model as proposed is the best thing that could have possibly happened to the New Year’s Six bowls. Right now they’re caught in this purgatory where they’re only relevant once every three years; the other two, you’re liable to see the best players opt-out like Kenneth Walker and Kenny Pickett in last year’s Peach Bowl. Attendance for the Fiesta/Orange/Sugar Bowls in their non-semifinal years has been on a continual decline. Now they’ll be quarterfinal or semifinal hosts every year. … Now, you could argue that it’s devastating to all the bowls below those six; with the CFP as everyone’s goal now, the Citrus, Outback, etc., will be viewed like the NIT. I’d counter that’s already the case.
David Ubben, national writer: It’s definitely better for the New Year’s Six bowls which can have a big game each year, but games that aren’t involved in the title race are going to struggle, unless programs not used to reaching bowls are playing in them. They’re going to feel very meaningless and we’ll see way more opt-outs. If people care, I suspect TV ratings will remain static. So in previous years, if programs were happy to reach that bowl, they’ll still be happy to reach it. If they would have been disappointed, that disappointment will only grow and spawn more apathy to lower-level games.
Ari Wasserman, national writer: The sport has shifted to Playoff-focused discourse. Since the Playoff began in 2014, the bowls not included in the national championship race have lost their luster. Now add in the fact that USC and UCLA aren’t even going to be in the Pac-12 anymore, and the Rose Bowl, the Big Ten’s dream of playing out West in January, took a huge hit. There will be more opt-outs and more “meaningless” bowls in this new system, sure, but people still love having football on in their house and they’ll continue to watch.
Scott Dochterman, Iowa writer: The Big Ten adding USC and UCLA permanently changed the bowl dynamic. The Rose Bowl was a mythical destination for Midwestern football fans, and the Big Ten protected it as an institution. Now that most Big Ten teams will play in that stadium once every three or four years, the Rose Bowl becomes just a Playoff location. The bowl system will never recover from this.
Chris Vannini, national writer: The NY6 bowls are already in purgatory if they’re not a CFP game. Ohio State players opting out of a Rose Bowl was something I never thought I’d see. An expanded playoff will help these bowls by turning them into CFP games. But the middle- and low-tier bowl games will be fine because they’re simply TV content now, and ESPN needs inventory. From Dec. 27 to Jan. 1 last year, nine of the 20 most-watched television programs were bowl games. People who say there are too many bowl games don’t understand that most people love them, no matter who is playing.
G. Allan Taylor, Florida writer: The bowls will become even more NIT-like once the on-campus sites — currently slated for first-round games — become a fixture of the quarterfinals too. We can’t expect even the most passionate fans to travel to four postseason neutral-site games, which is a possibility for teams that reach the title game. As Florida athletic director Scott Stricklin told me recently: “My guess is, as the years go by, I wouldn’t be surprised if we add another round or two of campus sites,” he said. “My guess is we’re going to find out quickly that it’s a pretty special experience, and we’re going to want to have more of those. That is going to be an all-time type event on that campus.”
Brad D. shares the anger and wants a return to polls: “Playoff expansion is just another drumbeat (albeit a large one) on the march toward the NFL-ization of college football. College football will of course survive, but it will be so completely different and lose all of its awesome quirkiness and regional identity. I’m obviously in the minority in this, but I mourn for it.”
Ryan H., an excited fan, thinks this “NFL-ization” might not be so bad: “There will be teams that win a championship that aren’t considered ‘the best team in college football. And that’s a good thing. This happens in the NFL all the time and it’s better for the long-term future of the sport.”
Although common, the NFL wasn’t the only comparison. Richie, who vouches for a Playoff of more than 16 teams, suggests a mimic of college basketball: “Let’s have December Madness! 64 teams to determine a true gridiron champion.”
Greg, an excited CFB fan, points to the FCS’s 24-team Playoff bracket: “FCS has done playoffs for years. Use that model.”
Here’s what our writers had to say:
Audrey Snyder, Penn State writer: What has the NFL gotten wrong about the playoffs? Truly, it’s the best format and it’s must-watch television. For the “I won’t watch this because it’s not the sport I grew up on and it’s ruining college football” crowd, go ahead and don’t watch. If you care enough you’ll be watching and what you’ll see is a super entertaining postseason that’s taken way too long to get here.
Justin Williams, Cincinnati writer: Expansion probably helps to stave off college football becoming Diet NFL or a so-called Super League no one actually wants. Conference realignment has unfortunately sucked some soul out of the sport as far as most fans are concerned, but the 12-team Playoff model will still keep some in-season rivalries alive, and may even reignite a few now that nonconference losses won’t be as disqualifying to Playoff entry. It also amplifies the importance of league title races — even if the conference lineups look a little different — which is a huge part of what made college football special and distinct for so long.
Ubben: The only way I see it becoming the minor leagues of the NFL is if players become employees and then no longer have any academic obligations. If they’re employees, it’s fair to ask if they should. And then players begin to have an increasingly tenuous relationship with the institutions they represent. Will fans care? Some say they will. I believe stadiums at places that care about college football will still be full and fans will tune in. Nobody is lined up outside the history building on Tuesday morning cheering players on the way into class.
Wasserman: Is it not NFL-lite already? Yes, there is the huge elephant in the room about whether or not players should be directly compensated by the schools or grab a piece of that sweet pot of television gold, but what is the focus of a recruitable athlete coming out of high school? It’s all about making it to the league. Prospects are most swayed by which programs will develop them into an NFL player. Some say NIL is changing the game in that regard, and maybe it is, but there is no question that college football hasn’t been the movie “Rudy” for a long, long time. It has always been financially driven, it is just now in our faces more as the sport has dramatically evolved in the past two years. This is minor league NFL and there is a congestion of prime talent at the schools that tend to win the most and develop the most.
Dochterman: Whatever. NIL and an expanded CFP will keep the players more engaged and invested in college football. Instead of marginal players declaring for the NFL Draft too early, they’ll return to school because of NIL. Good players who might opt out of New Year’s Six bowls won’t walk away from a chance at a national title. Would Michigan State’s Kenneth Walker III or Pitt’s Kenny Pickett have bowed out of the Peach Bowl last year if it was part of the CFP? Hardly.
Matt Fortuna, national writer: (Whispers) It already is. And by the way, a bigger, NFL-style Playoff format hasn’t seemed to hurt FCS schools all that much, has it?
theathletic.com
Go Gophers!!
Is Playoff expansion better or worse for bowls?
Matt C. is excited for Playoff expansion, but as for the bowls?: “For the love of God, please get rid of the bowls. If one has to stay, make it the Rose Bowl to host the championship every year. Otherwise, punt those ugly blazer-wearing parasitic vultures to the curb permanently.”Ian Dettloff probably would agree: “Bowl games are the most overrated part of college football.”
But bowl games aren’t unanimously disgraced. Elliott Locklair sees the neutral-site competitions as a pillar of the game: “More Playoff games will continue the devaluation of the bowls. … Bowl games will continue to fade away as will the traditions of families who love college football with its traditions. Can you tell I’m an old curmudgeon?”
Excited fan Arthur Mansbach thinks expansion is a positive for bowls: “This was the only way to save the top bowls. Last year, for the first time, players sat out the Rose Bowl. This had been unthinkable.”
Nate suggests a reworking: “Bowls being moved to Labor Day weekend to open the season! Non-bowl-eligible teams playing each other (selected by a governing body) the week prior to that at home locations, giving fans an extra week of college football. Can you imagine the Labor Day bowl week? That would be insanely fun and fans would travel! If you are a Playoff team in the prior season, simply make a rule that your following-the-season’s bowl game will not be a rematch of someone you played in the Playoff. It’ll likely just be a different team that made the Playoff. Oh yeah, our big bowls (Orange, Rose, etc.) are still in December and incorporated into the Playoff.”
Here’s what our writers had to say:
Nicole Auerbach, national writer: The 12-team model as currently constructed is still a hybrid, with on-campus games — finally! — and then the rest of the games at bowl sites. It’s an interesting dynamic when you think of the role bowls had back in 2012 when the CFP was first formed to now. They’ve diminished in importance. They’ve added to travel costs expected of fans for teams that regularly make the CFP. A better system would be one where the CFP puts on the games itself instead of trying to incorporate the various bowls into its playoff system by contracting them out to run its events. Alas, that’s not what was approved. What I am curious to see is what happens once we get a taste of on-campus games. I’m pretty confident that once we see the electricity and the atmosphere, we’re going to want more of them and fewer neutral-site games. Could the bowls’ role diminish even further?
Stewart Mandel, senior columnist: The model as proposed is the best thing that could have possibly happened to the New Year’s Six bowls. Right now they’re caught in this purgatory where they’re only relevant once every three years; the other two, you’re liable to see the best players opt-out like Kenneth Walker and Kenny Pickett in last year’s Peach Bowl. Attendance for the Fiesta/Orange/Sugar Bowls in their non-semifinal years has been on a continual decline. Now they’ll be quarterfinal or semifinal hosts every year. … Now, you could argue that it’s devastating to all the bowls below those six; with the CFP as everyone’s goal now, the Citrus, Outback, etc., will be viewed like the NIT. I’d counter that’s already the case.
David Ubben, national writer: It’s definitely better for the New Year’s Six bowls which can have a big game each year, but games that aren’t involved in the title race are going to struggle, unless programs not used to reaching bowls are playing in them. They’re going to feel very meaningless and we’ll see way more opt-outs. If people care, I suspect TV ratings will remain static. So in previous years, if programs were happy to reach that bowl, they’ll still be happy to reach it. If they would have been disappointed, that disappointment will only grow and spawn more apathy to lower-level games.
Ari Wasserman, national writer: The sport has shifted to Playoff-focused discourse. Since the Playoff began in 2014, the bowls not included in the national championship race have lost their luster. Now add in the fact that USC and UCLA aren’t even going to be in the Pac-12 anymore, and the Rose Bowl, the Big Ten’s dream of playing out West in January, took a huge hit. There will be more opt-outs and more “meaningless” bowls in this new system, sure, but people still love having football on in their house and they’ll continue to watch.
Scott Dochterman, Iowa writer: The Big Ten adding USC and UCLA permanently changed the bowl dynamic. The Rose Bowl was a mythical destination for Midwestern football fans, and the Big Ten protected it as an institution. Now that most Big Ten teams will play in that stadium once every three or four years, the Rose Bowl becomes just a Playoff location. The bowl system will never recover from this.
Chris Vannini, national writer: The NY6 bowls are already in purgatory if they’re not a CFP game. Ohio State players opting out of a Rose Bowl was something I never thought I’d see. An expanded playoff will help these bowls by turning them into CFP games. But the middle- and low-tier bowl games will be fine because they’re simply TV content now, and ESPN needs inventory. From Dec. 27 to Jan. 1 last year, nine of the 20 most-watched television programs were bowl games. People who say there are too many bowl games don’t understand that most people love them, no matter who is playing.
G. Allan Taylor, Florida writer: The bowls will become even more NIT-like once the on-campus sites — currently slated for first-round games — become a fixture of the quarterfinals too. We can’t expect even the most passionate fans to travel to four postseason neutral-site games, which is a possibility for teams that reach the title game. As Florida athletic director Scott Stricklin told me recently: “My guess is, as the years go by, I wouldn’t be surprised if we add another round or two of campus sites,” he said. “My guess is we’re going to find out quickly that it’s a pretty special experience, and we’re going to want to have more of those. That is going to be an all-time type event on that campus.”
CFB will turn into CBB … or an NFL minor league … or the G-League … or …
An anonymous respondent who would prefer a return to the BCS system and is angry about CFP expansion wrote: “It’s becoming the NFL or any other American sport. It’s still entertaining, but why bother paying as much attention to regular season if teams with three losses can win a national championship.”Brad D. shares the anger and wants a return to polls: “Playoff expansion is just another drumbeat (albeit a large one) on the march toward the NFL-ization of college football. College football will of course survive, but it will be so completely different and lose all of its awesome quirkiness and regional identity. I’m obviously in the minority in this, but I mourn for it.”
Ryan H., an excited fan, thinks this “NFL-ization” might not be so bad: “There will be teams that win a championship that aren’t considered ‘the best team in college football. And that’s a good thing. This happens in the NFL all the time and it’s better for the long-term future of the sport.”
Although common, the NFL wasn’t the only comparison. Richie, who vouches for a Playoff of more than 16 teams, suggests a mimic of college basketball: “Let’s have December Madness! 64 teams to determine a true gridiron champion.”
Greg, an excited CFB fan, points to the FCS’s 24-team Playoff bracket: “FCS has done playoffs for years. Use that model.”
Here’s what our writers had to say:
Audrey Snyder, Penn State writer: What has the NFL gotten wrong about the playoffs? Truly, it’s the best format and it’s must-watch television. For the “I won’t watch this because it’s not the sport I grew up on and it’s ruining college football” crowd, go ahead and don’t watch. If you care enough you’ll be watching and what you’ll see is a super entertaining postseason that’s taken way too long to get here.
Justin Williams, Cincinnati writer: Expansion probably helps to stave off college football becoming Diet NFL or a so-called Super League no one actually wants. Conference realignment has unfortunately sucked some soul out of the sport as far as most fans are concerned, but the 12-team Playoff model will still keep some in-season rivalries alive, and may even reignite a few now that nonconference losses won’t be as disqualifying to Playoff entry. It also amplifies the importance of league title races — even if the conference lineups look a little different — which is a huge part of what made college football special and distinct for so long.
Ubben: The only way I see it becoming the minor leagues of the NFL is if players become employees and then no longer have any academic obligations. If they’re employees, it’s fair to ask if they should. And then players begin to have an increasingly tenuous relationship with the institutions they represent. Will fans care? Some say they will. I believe stadiums at places that care about college football will still be full and fans will tune in. Nobody is lined up outside the history building on Tuesday morning cheering players on the way into class.
Wasserman: Is it not NFL-lite already? Yes, there is the huge elephant in the room about whether or not players should be directly compensated by the schools or grab a piece of that sweet pot of television gold, but what is the focus of a recruitable athlete coming out of high school? It’s all about making it to the league. Prospects are most swayed by which programs will develop them into an NFL player. Some say NIL is changing the game in that regard, and maybe it is, but there is no question that college football hasn’t been the movie “Rudy” for a long, long time. It has always been financially driven, it is just now in our faces more as the sport has dramatically evolved in the past two years. This is minor league NFL and there is a congestion of prime talent at the schools that tend to win the most and develop the most.
Dochterman: Whatever. NIL and an expanded CFP will keep the players more engaged and invested in college football. Instead of marginal players declaring for the NFL Draft too early, they’ll return to school because of NIL. Good players who might opt out of New Year’s Six bowls won’t walk away from a chance at a national title. Would Michigan State’s Kenneth Walker III or Pitt’s Kenny Pickett have bowed out of the Peach Bowl last year if it was part of the CFP? Hardly.
Matt Fortuna, national writer: (Whispers) It already is. And by the way, a bigger, NFL-style Playoff format hasn’t seemed to hurt FCS schools all that much, has it?
Survey: Where do bowls fit in CFP expansion? Is CFB turning into NFL lite? Our experts weigh in
The Athletic writers and readers weigh in on College Football Playoff expansion topics.
theathletic.com
Go Gophers!!
