Happy New Year, everyone! This will kind of be a follow-on to the last post dealing with opt outs, etc. I've had a lot of really intense conversations with folks, and there is a ton of emotion attached to this topic, so I think it's worth writing about.
Changing things up a little. I asked a friend of mine, Dave Fazenbaker (fellow PSU alum and former colleague) to have a discussion on the bowl season, and the need for an expanded playoff.
We’re (at the time) 20 games in to the bowl season—should be 24—and I think that for a number of reasons, this bowl season just feels different than ones in the past. Opt outs, Transfer Portal entries, COVID, all have left their mark on this post season. Do you think it’s time to take a good hard look at the bowl construct and whether or not it’s still viable?
Faze: I think there are two main issues at play here. First, COVID. We are still, almost 2-years later, trying to understand the impacts. The NCAA protocols may or may not be accurate. But, regardless of that, player safety is still important. Even without COVID implications, I don't think the current bowl construct is viable moving forward. The only significant changes to the construct in recent years has been MORE bowls, which you should read as more opportunity for sponsors to make money. The point here is that as CFB has changed over the past ten years; including BCS to CFP, grad transfers, transfer portal, and NIL, the bowl construct has remained stagnant. If that remains, fans should be prepared for this to continue and need to rethink what the bowls really are. Actually, this should probably happen anyway. They are not, and really never have been, an entitlement for fans. They are a great opportunity to watch you team in another game, a tremendous recruiting tool, and an opportunity to get some extra practices and look forward.
Andy: I think you make some really good points here, Faze. We can talk health and safety protocols in a different discussion, but I want to focus on the games themselves. I never really looked at the entire landscape when examining the bowl construct. And the more I think about it, there’s really only one conclusion: this is the new normal. For starters, I don’t think we’ll see a reduction in the bowl games as long as ESPN has the (nearly) sole broadcast rights. And I am not sure that’s a bad thing. I mean, I truly believe that the coaches relish the extra practices, no matter where they coach. And the players that compete in the Radiance Technologies Bowl, a) like the swag bag, and b) really want to win the game. If you’re a kid at ODU, then winning 5 in a row and getting to play in the Myrtle Beach Bowl is probably a really big deal. And it’s a big deal for these smaller programs for the reasons you mentioned.
Now, I think as you move up the bowl hierarchy, the calculus changes, right? The players that play still want to win (I’m watching Clemson-Iowa State right now). The coaches still want to win, but that’s tangential to the foundation-building practices. The change is the quality of the team/players. The Independence Bowl might feature two teams that have 1 or 2 potential NFLers on their rosters. The Peach Bowl probably has three times that many. That’s where the opt outs, etc, come in to play. This is just a long way of agreeing with you that I think the current landscape (2021) is what it’s going to be and we all need to get used to it. That is, until (cue transition)…the expansion of the CFP.
There’s been talk of expanding the CFP to 12 teams. I think that’s probably too many. How would you structure the CFP?
Faze: For me CFP restructure is easy. Well, that because I'm just a fan and have NO financial stake in the process. I think expansion is inevitable, and already late. I know there are 1K different expansion ideas, but I'll give you two that would support. First, expansion to 8 or 12. From a fan perspective, I'm not sure it matters which one you choose. (I prefer 8.) But, either way, I do want automatic qualifiers. P5 conference Champs, plus top G5 get in. Leaving the remaining spots for "at large" selection. If we have conference championships, we should value them. You win you championship game...you're in. Then we can let the "committee" determine at large and seeding. To me this makes the most sense. It generally doesn't expand the season too much longer and makes this conference alignment actually mean something. You'd get representation from all regions, plus some really intriguing matchups. Now, all the traditionalists will say that they don't want a 3- loss champion in the CFP. I say, who cares. If they are the best team in their conference, then let's play. This idea that the National Champion have to have a certain # of loses is as old as, well, the bowl structure.
Andy: I am glad you brought up the conference championship games. I have mixed feelings about them. On one hand, I think we could get by without them. They’re an additional game, borne largely out of marketing, and have led to a cumbersome division structure within the conferences. We had no problem identifying conference champions before this game, so why do we need it? On the other hand, the expansion of these P5 conferences to 12, 14 teams probably means that we can’t go back to the old way of doing things. That being said, I think you’re “you win your conference, you’re in” mantra is key to the whole expansion argument. I’m biased, but 2016 is a good case in point. Sorry to interrupt…
Faze: A couple of pros, at least to me, for this concept. First, I think it better defines the path to the CFP for every team, especially P5. Win your conference. Theoretically, it would also open the door for more P5 non-conference games. If I can play Alabama and lose, but still make the CFP without having to go undefeated the rest of the way....I may play Alabama more often. Second, there are clearly tiers of P5 teams in CFB. Those top teams are the ones that get to the CFP regularly. Alabama, Ohio St, and Clemson have had the most success, which equates to recruiting success. You want parity, allow more teams to participate. OU, Georgia, and ND are the next tier, based on appearances, but still a gap between these teams and the top tier. And an even larger gap between these six and the rest. That gap only closes with opportunity and I believe that comes with expansion.
Andy: Again, a lot to agree with here. Out of 120 FBS teams, there are really, maybe 6-10 that have any chance of playing for the national championship. And that 10 is probably high. Look at the recruiting rankings since 2015 years. Alabama has had the top recruiting class every year but two. Georgia has been in the top 5 every year but two. I know it’s not a 1 for 1 (USC, Texas, Michigan are routinely in the top 10 recruiting classes), but it’s close.
Your point on out of conference games against high profile opponents is an interesting one. I think there is some merit in that it would be great for college football to have the big boys play each other, knowing that a loss doesn’t derail the season. You could have the regional matchups that matter to the fan bases (Penn St/WVU), and the national matchups that would be must-see. The downside is that it benefits only the big boys. The “money” games that the mid-level teams rely on to fund their ADs would dry up. Small downside, but one that affects the landscape. The bottom line, like you said is that opportunity is only afforded to a select few now, and that is bad for the game.
Faze: Now, if you disagree with construct I outlined above, let's get real crazy. Don't value conference championships, let's get rid of conference championships. Play your season and start a 16-team playoff the next week, using campus sites. I pushed this idea to a friend who is a SEC team fan, who was adamantly against it. Until I asked a question, "You want to win an SEC Championship or a National Championship". 2017 Auburn would probably have preferred a 16 team playoff vs a conference championship game loss. I know it would never get any traction, but mostly for emotional reasons.
Andy: Emotional and monetary reasons…I mean, Dr Pepper would come after you if this went through. But, it goes back to my point earlier that the conference championship games are artificial. I mean, not every conference even plays the same number of conference games! Level the playing field. Every team plays 9 conference games, 2 out-of-conference. Gonna have to reduce the number of games anyway to fit in an expanded playoff.
Thanks for the discussion, Faze. There’s a lot of similar pieces out there now about opt outs, expanded playoffs, etc. I’m not sure you and I broke any new ground, but it’s fun to talk about this kind of stuff. Let’s do it again!
Comments