What about a Bowl Game for the 4 teams that were good enough to make the playoffs, but lost in the first round? I don’t think it’s fair that they just go home! The 4 losing teams could play each other in 2 Bowl Games or have 4 spots reserved in other Bowls. I would love to see IU play Tennessee, SMU, or Clemson in a warm weather Bowl Game!
Bowl Game for 1st round CFP losers?
- Thread starter NY-IU
- Start date
Probably one of the best ideas yet. Visiting teams kinda get screwed playing an away game.
Ha I understand people thinking this because of the bowl game nostalgia, however, what players will want to partake in a bowl game after losing in the playoffs?
Guys, every bowl game you're watching involves programs that likely will only ever dream of playing a CFP game at Notre Dame. That was our bowl game and the best one ever, at that.
Guys, every bowl game you're watching involves programs that likely will only ever dream of playing a CFP game at Notre Dame. That was our bowl game and the best one ever, at that.
Last edited:
Some teams that make the playoffs are penalized by playing an away game instead of a neutral site, even though the home team has a very similar record and SOS. How do you say college football is biased towards traditional powers without actually saying it?
Solution would be to make tickets 50/50 split. Higher seed still gets home field but fans would be rewarded for their teams success.
So much so that Boise and ASU got byes while Ohio State, Texas, Clemson, ND, and Penn St didn’t?
I mean, do we contemplate before we hit ‘Post Reply’?
I wish I could like this post twice.
IU/ND was the third most-watched (over 13 million viewers) college game this season behind only the SEC championship and Tennessee at Ohio State.
Yeah, that’s not gonna fly. Home teams aren’t going to tell their season ticket holders they’re SOL for a huge game.
I don't think Boise or ASU should have received byes, which is a separate issue.
I think you should contemplate sitting on a cactus and twirling.
What you THINK (I agree with that sentiment) and the REALITY do not support your notion of being biased towards traditional powers. Not to mention Bama playing in the Reliaquest Bowl while IU plays in the CFP
The committee was very smart (or conniving) or just plain lucky:
To insure all 4 home teams had large stadiums
Small stadium teams either were visitors during 1$T round or received a bye.
There are to many obstacles to expect a visiting team to go to small towns with limited hotels, on short notice and guarantee filling 50% of a 100,000 seat stadium. (SMU averaged less than 40,000 at home, how do you expect them to purchase 40,000 seats in Happy Valley or Boise State in the East Coast?
30% would be more fair than 75,000 to 3,000 in SB or 100,000 to 3,000 in Columbus.
But as Kraft said, the home teams will raise a stink if all of the season ticket holder’s don’t get tickets.
Since the Time between the selection and the game is short, and the CFP will want max $$$, the visiting school will need to guarantee the number of tickets they get. And with the short time given for the first round, logistics for visitors seems more complex than the familiarity that the home game provides.
IMO, the home game guaranteed the CFP full stadiums. If home games means more $$$ than bowl games, (which is probably the reason they were introduced), then we will continue to see home field advantage.
If CFP makes more $$$$ at a bowl than the home game situation, then the first round will be played in bowls.
12 teams may be too many. First round winners could play 4 games, if they make it to the championship game.
8 teams seems the best to me, but 12 sure generated interest and discussion.
The drastic home field advantage has to be modified (fairly).
Byes need to go to the top 4 teams based on ranking (possibly only one team from each conference in top 4).
The Top 5 Conferences are guaranteed only one team in the 12 team playoff. Conference Champs are not promised a playoff spot, but at least the top school in the top 5 conferences are promised a spot.
To insure all 4 home teams had large stadiums
Small stadium teams either were visitors during 1$T round or received a bye.
There are to many obstacles to expect a visiting team to go to small towns with limited hotels, on short notice and guarantee filling 50% of a 100,000 seat stadium. (SMU averaged less than 40,000 at home, how do you expect them to purchase 40,000 seats in Happy Valley or Boise State in the East Coast?
30% would be more fair than 75,000 to 3,000 in SB or 100,000 to 3,000 in Columbus.
But as Kraft said, the home teams will raise a stink if all of the season ticket holder’s don’t get tickets.
Since the Time between the selection and the game is short, and the CFP will want max $$$, the visiting school will need to guarantee the number of tickets they get. And with the short time given for the first round, logistics for visitors seems more complex than the familiarity that the home game provides.
IMO, the home game guaranteed the CFP full stadiums. If home games means more $$$ than bowl games, (which is probably the reason they were introduced), then we will continue to see home field advantage.
If CFP makes more $$$$ at a bowl than the home game situation, then the first round will be played in bowls.
12 teams may be too many. First round winners could play 4 games, if they make it to the championship game.
8 teams seems the best to me, but 12 sure generated interest and discussion.
The drastic home field advantage has to be modified (fairly).
Byes need to go to the top 4 teams based on ranking (possibly only one team from each conference in top 4).
The Top 5 Conferences are guaranteed only one team in the 12 team playoff. Conference Champs are not promised a playoff spot, but at least the top school in the top 5 conferences are promised a spot.
I'd go with 17 teams (hear me out)...
The top 15 are automatically in..., with numbers 16 and 17 matching up at a fixed neutral indoor site (I nominate Lucas Oil Stadium) in a Thursday night play-in game for the right to be the 16th team in the playoff... Byes to be determined by final Sunday before the play-in game rankings only, no other considerations may apply...
That gives the top 17 a more than fair shot to be in it and if you can't break the top 17 by end of season there really shouldn't be any valid argument about why a team should have made it; they'll have had 12 regular season games, possibly a conference championship game, and if they're #17, a play-in game, to make their case...
This format would be a $$$ maker too which is all the networks and the conferences actually care about... It would also get 5 more fan bases involved and (in theory) open things up to possibly one or two schools who would rarely have a shot at the current 12 team setup...
You could keep the Home game for the first 4 games (not including the play-in) and then attempt to go with indoor pro sites, my cedar with fair weather former Bowl sited from that point on asassigned by a closest to the highest ranked team criteria (someone's not gonna get a fair shake there but there are only so many venues available)...
If you go by the Sunday rankings after the last conference championship game then those championship games would still have real meaning (even in terms of playoff sites assigned...)...
Now I'm certain there are flaws in the above format but I doubt they insurmountable...
If that had been the format used this season BYU and Clemson would have faced each other in the play-in game and Alabama, Miami, Ol' Miss and South Carolina all would have made the Playoffs...
The really big payoff: No more having to hear all the whining from Herbstriet and Kiffen...
The top 15 are automatically in..., with numbers 16 and 17 matching up at a fixed neutral indoor site (I nominate Lucas Oil Stadium) in a Thursday night play-in game for the right to be the 16th team in the playoff... Byes to be determined by final Sunday before the play-in game rankings only, no other considerations may apply...
That gives the top 17 a more than fair shot to be in it and if you can't break the top 17 by end of season there really shouldn't be any valid argument about why a team should have made it; they'll have had 12 regular season games, possibly a conference championship game, and if they're #17, a play-in game, to make their case...
This format would be a $$$ maker too which is all the networks and the conferences actually care about... It would also get 5 more fan bases involved and (in theory) open things up to possibly one or two schools who would rarely have a shot at the current 12 team setup...
You could keep the Home game for the first 4 games (not including the play-in) and then attempt to go with indoor pro sites, my cedar with fair weather former Bowl sited from that point on asassigned by a closest to the highest ranked team criteria (someone's not gonna get a fair shake there but there are only so many venues available)...
If you go by the Sunday rankings after the last conference championship game then those championship games would still have real meaning (even in terms of playoff sites assigned...)...
Now I'm certain there are flaws in the above format but I doubt they insurmountable...
If that had been the format used this season BYU and Clemson would have faced each other in the play-in game and Alabama, Miami, Ol' Miss and South Carolina all would have made the Playoffs...
The really big payoff: No more having to hear all the whining from Herbstriet and Kiffen...
Last edited:
Well thought out in the early hours of the morning but that means one team could be playing 17 games doesn’t it? The NFL players were pissed when they added the 17th game. I can’t imagine how college players would feel. I see your point except for the last one dealing with the whiners😢. Let them whine ae there will always be someone no matter how many teams you put in. I go the opposite direction in saying 8 teams is enough. College teams just don’t have the depth in each position to deal with the injuries.
“OUCH!”
In chicken-speak, we laid an egg.
“Cock-a-doodle-do, any cock will do-o-o!”, said the chicken crossed with a hooker.
I’m a pass on playoff losers in another bowl. It’s too much of a letdown after a playoff game. Ya lose and you’re out. If you want to go to FL or AZ, just take a vacation.
If people like it that’s fine, just not for me.
If people like it that’s fine, just not for me.
At some point, you just have to say, “Enough!”. Otherwise, who wants to be a season-ending two time loser? Well then, maybe the four first round losers can face off against each other in a loser’s bracket to see who becomes the Biggest Loser of the post season. This way, only one of the four first round losers ends their season on a sour note. Maybe the consolation prize for losing all three post season games can be an extra 10K in NIL allotment for ‘25-‘26.
At some point football season has to become basketball season exclusively, followed by baseball season. Forget about cross-country, track, and teams of tiddilywinks.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Ole Miss safety transfer Louis Moore returning to Indiana- Latest: ZachBrowning
-
-
-