12 Team CFP the favorite

[BrentwoodJacket]

Probably, but I don’t know that anyone is going to care who is the best player in the NFL Jr.

Baseball and hockey are decent models. College football would still have fan interest, but it wouldn’t be the beast that it is now.

I don't care who is the best player now unless it is a Tech player. I care about Tech football. I do not care about college football in general.

 

[OptionJacket]

Probably, but I don’t know that anyone is going to care who is the best player in the NFL Jr.

Baseball and hockey are decent models. College football would still have fan interest, but it wouldn’t be the beast that it is now.

Yes it would because when you boil it down college fans root for the team not players. Look at teams like FSU, Auburn, GT and others who have sucked compared to their norm lately yet still have fans coming to see them. No one remembers who FSU’s QB was 2 years ago yet they still packed the stadium. I also think you’d get back a lot of fans who actually want to watch players develop and be on the team for 4 years instead of the hired guns. But, it won’t happen because no one in college football has any guts to go against the NFL. So the NFL will continue to call the shots.

 

[WracerX]

Yes it would because when you boil it down college fans root for the team not players. Look at teams like FSU, Auburn, GT and others who have sucked compared to their norm lately yet still have fans coming to see them. No one remembers who FSU’s QB was 2 years ago yet they still packed the stadium. I also think you’d get back a lot of fans who actually want to watch players develop and be on the team for 4 years instead of the hired guns. But, it won’t happen because no one in college football has any guts to go against the NFL. So the NFL will continue to call the shots.

It isn’t that colleges don’t want to go against the NFL. It is that colleges and the NFL have found a mutually beneficial setup.

The NFL doesn’t have to run a generally money losing minor league system. Colleges get to cash in on star players at a discount. No one is holding the bag for long term injuries for 99% of the players.

Unlike baseball, most college players are ready to ball by 21. The ones who aren’t are unlikely to ever hit it big in the majors.

Unlike basketball, very few players are ready for the NFL at 18. So the college set up really works for the NFL.

I can’t imagine the money lost on a career minor league football player. They would generate all of the costs long term of an NFL player and generate very little revenue.

The current set up benefits the schools and NFL at the expense of the players. Until that changes and the players start taking a bigger cut, we are going to have this faux amateur system.

 

[Techbert]

Probably, but I don’t know that anyone is going to care who is the best player in the NFL Jr.

Baseball and hockey are decent models. College football would still have fan interest, but it wouldn’t be the beast that it is now.

I don't think hockey Juniors are a good model. Slave labor sweat shop when they need to be going to school.

 

[OptionJacket]

It isn’t that colleges don’t want to go against the NFL. It is that colleges and the NFL have found a mutually beneficial setup.

The NFL doesn’t have to run a generally money losing minor league system. Colleges get to cash in on star players at a discount. No one is holding the bag for long term injuries for 99% of the players.

Unlike baseball, most college players are ready to ball by 21. The ones who aren’t are unlikely to ever hit it big in the majors.

Unlike basketball, very few players are ready for the NFL at 18. So the college set up really works for the NFL.

I can’t imagine the money lost on a career minor league football player. They would generate all of the costs long term of an NFL player and generate very little revenue.

The current set up benefits the schools and NFL at the expense of the players. Until that changes and the players start taking a bigger cut, we are going to have this faux amateur system.

I understand and agree on most points. I just don’t think those in charge of college football realize that they have far more power than they think compared to the NFL. There will always be star players no matter what the NFL does or doesn’t do. If the NFL had a minor league system, sure, Cam wouldn’t have been a college star but someone would have won the Heisman that year. College football will always have star players regardless if you peel away every 5 or 4 star player. College fans watch for the teams not individual players.

 

[WracerX]

I understand and agree on most points. I just don’t think those in charge of college football realize that they have far more power than they think compared to the NFL. There will always be star players no matter what the NFL does or doesn’t do. If the NFL had a minor league system, sure, Cam wouldn’t have been a college star but someone would have won the Heisman that year. College football will always have star players regardless if you peel away every 5 or 4 star player. College fans watch for the teams not individual players.

With an NFL minor league system, Joe Ham would have won the Heisman.

 

[FlatsLander]

But in our hypothetical the two leagues would be full of age peers. The Heisman wouldn’t be going to the best 18-22 y.o., but something like the 200th best.

Not necessarily, there would still be the 20% or so of elite players that stayed in CFB to get an education.

 

[WracerX]

Not necessarily, there would still be the 20% or so of elite players that stayed in CFB to get an education.

Calvin Johnson probably would have still come to Tech. Joe Hamilton also. JT5. Gotsis.

Dwyer and Bay Bay may have gone the minor league route. It is hard to say.

Non Tech. I bet both of the Mannings would have been college players. FSU would not have Winston. Cam probably goes minor league.

 

[18in32]

Colleges get to cash in on star players at a discount.

The current set up benefits the schools and NFL at the expense of the players.

I still don't really understand why people think colleges are getting rich off of college athletics.

At the lower end, colleges with struggling programs subsidize their athletics departments through direct cash subsidies and student fees. At the upper end of the range, athletics departments might subsidize the colleges to the tune of a few million dollars per year (in the context of institutions with billion dollar budgets). The transfers are a drop in the bucket.

The people who "profit" from the TV contracts, licensing deals, ticket sales, etc. that great players and great coaches generate are... (a) the players themselves, who get beaucoup free stuff that players in lesser divisions don't get, (b) the coaches, who get much nicer paychecks than coaches in lesser divisions get, (c) non-revenue coaches and athletes (including every single female collegiate athlete or coach in America), who get salaries, scholarships and support that non-revenue teams in lesser divisions don't get, and (d) administrators, who again have better offices and salaries and so forth than lower-tier administrators.

The people who "profit" from college football are the participants, plus women athletes and coaches, and some non-revenue teams. Revenue generated above the cost to generate it, is distributed to the worthy poor (ie. female athletes and coaches). Sounds pretty charitable to me.

 

[WracerX]

I still don't really understand why people think colleges are getting rich off of college athletics.

At the lower end, colleges with struggling programs subsidize their athletics departments through direct cash subsidies and student fees. At the upper end of the range, athletics departments might subsidize the colleges to the tune of a few million dollars per year (in the context of institutions with billion dollar budgets). The transfers are a drop in the bucket.

The people who "profit" from the TV contracts, licensing deals, ticket sales, etc. that great players and great coaches generate are... (a) the players themselves, who get beaucoup free stuff that players in lesser divisions don't get, (b) the coaches, who get much nicer paychecks than coaches in lesser divisions get, (c) non-revenue coaches and athletes (including every single female collegiate athlete or coach in America), who get salaries, scholarships and support that non-revenue teams in lesser divisions don't get, and (d) administrators, who again have better offices and salaries and so forth than lower-tier administrators.

The people who "profit" from college football are the participants, plus women athletes and coaches, and some non-revenue teams. Revenue generated above the cost to generate it, is distributed to the worthy poor (ie. female athletes and coaches). Sounds pretty charitable to me.

It seems odd that a large number of institutions would take on such an enormous burden if they weren’t deriving a substantial benefit from the endeavor.

There are plenty of indirect benefits from college athletics. Alumni donations, national recognition, merchandising. What is the value of national branding for a school like Nebraska? Is it really significantly better than say, the university of Vermont or Idaho?

The schools are fighting pretty hard to keep their football players from taking a bigger slice of the pie. And there are definitely some ‘worthy poor’ like women’s rowing drawing benefits. Of course there are plenty of ‘worthy poor’ being left out like men’s rowing.

Personally, I think all of college athletics would suffer from an NFL minor league. But there would be some side benefits as well. No more politicians pushing funding to one school in favor of another based on voters who would otherwise not care.

 

[covingtonjacket]

College football would thrive if a minor league system were in place for the NFL. The interest in college football is not player driven. Pro sports is player driven. College football is fan/tradition driven and the name on the front trumps the name on the back. To the poster who said no one wants a mediocre QB winning the Heisman. No mediocre would win the Heisman and college ball would still have stars. Someone will throw TD passes and someone would catch them. Did anyone in college hoops miss the 5 star who signed with a HBCU? Nope, and the kid ended up playing 2 games for 24 minutes. After the press told us how he was gonna change recruiting, March Madness came and went and no one missed him. It would be the same way for college football. Did we not enjoy watching Justin Thomas and Searcy and many others recently? I would welcome that with open arms.

I tend to agree. For instance, no one I know cares about the NBA g league, which is drawing more and more top recruits. They are going to start skipping the "one and done" schools. I don't think men's college basketball will suffer too much.

 

[KrazieJacket]

Getting back to the original topic, 12 teams is pretty dumb. There will never be a number where people are satisfied, may as well make it 18 or 32. If we need 12 to add more opportunities for the smaller conferences to get in then perhaps more opportunities for the conferences to realign needs to be the route.

All I see is more opportunities where conference championships mean less. (Wasn’t really a fan of that happening either). I really don’t care to see Alabama and ugag, OSU and Wisconsin, or even GT and Clemson to potentially play three times a year. But sure it makes more money. Maybe there can be a playoff for the playoff. Maybe we can find a way for these teams to play three games a week.

 

[OptionJacket]

Getting back to the original topic, 12 teams is pretty dumb. There will never be a number where people are satisfied, may as well make it 18 or 32. If we need 12 to add more opportunities for the smaller conferences to get in then perhaps more opportunities for the conferences to realign needs to be the route.

All I see is more opportunities where conference championships mean less. (Wasn’t really a fan of that happening either). I really don’t care to see Alabama and ugag, OSU and Wisconsin, or even GT and Clemson to potentially play three times a year. But sure it makes more money. Maybe there can be a playoff for the playoff. Maybe we can find a way for these teams to play three games a week.

12 teams is just for show and to appease folks for now. The playoff will expand way beyond 12 once the money numbers start coming in after the first few years of 12. I’ve posted before but we went from having media hacks picking a National Champ until 1998 when the BCS was created. So it took from 1998 to 2015 to go from none to 4. What caused this? Money and the old guys retiring/dying who believed a beat writer for the Tucson Daily Banner was the appropriate person to pick a National Champ. It’s taken a whopping 8 years to get to the idea of 12. Once the money starts rolling in due to playoff games being held on campus and the TV money this new generation will have this thing expanded to 32 or beyond way faster than the 8 years it went from 4 to 12.

As for your second paragraph, it’s true. Conference championships already mean very little. A lot of us are older and still remember when a Sugar Bowl or Orange Bowl were games to plan your entire holiday weekend around. Little could we envision a time when players refuse to play in bowl games or that bowl games became meaningless. But that is where we are. Now, conference championships in football will mean about as much as they do in hoops which is nothing. I’ve accepted it because there is no going back so I look to the upside which is expansion is the only way my team will have a reason to play after week 5 or so in years when we click.

 

[KrazieJacket]

12 teams is just for show and to appease folks for now. The playoff will expand way beyond 12 once the money numbers start coming in after the first few years of 12. I’ve posted before but we went from having media hacks picking a National Champ until 1998 when the BCS was created. So it took from 1998 to 2015 to go from none to 4. What caused this? Money and the old guys retiring/dying who believed a beat writer for the Tucson Daily Banner was the appropriate person to pick a National Champ. It’s taken a whopping 8 years to get to the idea of 12. Once the money starts rolling in due to playoff games being held on campus and the TV money this new generation will have this thing expanded to 32 or beyond way faster than the 8 years it went from 4 to 12.

As for your second paragraph, it’s true. Conference championships already mean very little. A lot of us are older and still remember when a Sugar Bowl or Orange Bowl were games to plan your entire holiday weekend around. Little could we envision a time when players refuse to play in bowl games or that bowl games became meaningless. But that is where we are. Now, conference championships in football will mean about as much as they do in hoops which is nothing. I’ve accepted it because there is no going back so I look to the upside which is expansion is the only way my team will have a reason to play after week 5 or so in years when we click.

So there is absolutely no reason for an education to be a concern, unless the individual SA desires. JMO

 

[WracerX]

8 conference champs only P5 get auto bids. The remaining conferences have to play regular season games to see which of the remaining conferences qualify.

 

[LegendaryGT]

Should just be conference champs get a spot. End of sentence. Bottom 4 seeds get a single elimination round then the round of 8 begins. ND stop whining.

 

[Old-Fashioned UGA Hater]

Getting back to the original topic, 12 teams is pretty dumb. There will never be a number where people are satisfied, may as well make it 18 or 32. If we need 12 to add more opportunities for the smaller conferences to get in then perhaps more opportunities for the conferences to realign needs to be the route.

All I see is more opportunities where conference championships mean less. (Wasn’t really a fan of that happening either). I really don’t care to see Alabama and ugag, OSU and Wisconsin, or even GT and Clemson to potentially play three times a year. But sure it makes more money. Maybe there can be a playoff for the playoff. Maybe we can find a way for these teams to play three games a week.

I mean I'm sure it's has been noted in this thread but the top four conference champions get a bye. How is this making conference championships less meaningful than our current system? Alabama a couple years back didn't even win their division and they weren't "punished" on their way to another national championship.

 

[ClydeBrick]

This whole playoff thing is a play by E$PN to cut out the payout to the bowl game regimes for their games. Make all post-season D1 CFB a wholly owned property of E$PN.

Put in as many teams as E$PN wants but the teams have to be champions of their conference. öööö wildcards.

 

[OptionJacket]

So there is absolutely no reason for an education to be a concern, unless the individual SA desires. JMO

What? Please don’t tell me you believe that these guys care about education? If so, you’ve been asleep for decades. And the schools definitely don’t care or they would hold the athletes to the same admission standards as regular students. It’s all a money making ponzi scheme we all allow to happen. I for one enjoy it. Bring in players for my entertainment while wearing GT gear even though they wouldn’t sniff regular admission. I’m shocked to find gambling going on here!

 

[KrazieJacket]

How is this making conference championships less meaningful than our current system?

Because when Alabama wins the Sec and gets in as number one you will have LSU, ugag, and maybe Florida sprinkled in also in the playoff. There is going to be no point to have a conference champion other than to get preferred seeding. This is college football, it’s special for a reason. Quit trying to “fix” what sets it apart and made it great. It’s stupid to have these teams play over and over again throughout a year. There is already a football league like that, follow the NFL.