Can Playoffs & Bowl Games Really Co-exist?

MatatoGT

MatatoGT

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
1,474
7EC25108-ACD9-40D0-9F54-0139E2C59FBC.jpeg
Considering the format of the 12-team playoff, and how they’ve kept the NY6 bowl games as host sites for the quarterfinals and semifinals- can this really work?
For one, only teams ranked 5-8 will get to host a playoff game at their stadium. The best 4 get a bye, which is good, but will not get to host a game.
Two, they’re asking fans to potentially travel to 3 consecutive neutral site games in a row. How feasible is this, really?
Seems to me they are trying to keep the old bowls and the NFL playoff model at the same time, but it’s going to stretch too thin. The NFL playoffs work because the playoffs are at teams’ home field and only the final championship is the predetermined neutral site game.
All this travel and time and expense I don’t see working long term. How many would really go, e.g., to Pasadena on Jan 1, then Dallas a week later, then Atlanta 10 days after that?
 
MatatoGT said:
7EC25108-ACD9-40D0-9F54-0139E2C59FBC.jpeg
Considering the format of the 12-team playoff, and how they’ve kept the NY6 bowl games as host sites for the quarterfinals and semifinals- can this really work?
For one, only teams ranked 5-8 will get to host a playoff game at their stadium. The best 4 get a bye, which is good, but will not get to host a game.
Two, they’re asking fans to potentially travel to 3 consecutive neutral site games in a row. How feasible is this, really?
Seems to me they are trying to keep the old bowls and the NFL playoff model at the same time, but it’s going to stretch too thin. The NFL playoffs work because the playoffs are at teams’ home field and only the final championship is the predetermined neutral site game.
All this travel and time and expense I don’t see working long term. How many would really go, e.g., to Pasadena on Jan 1, then Dallas a week later, then Atlanta 10 days after that?
Click to expand...
We should only have to travel for one game so it will be nice for Tech come 2025.
 
As the season continues to extend for the schools that are trying to win it all (a rather small group), the team that handles attrition best is going to have a huge advantage. There's no free agent market available in college ball where injured guys can be replaced, so the teams that are fortunate enough to endure the injury bug should flourish. Take the starting QB off of most teams in the first round of the playoffs as a result of an injury, or even many other key positions, and you often have a different team.
Expecting college kids to play this many games in order to win it all is going to be tough when the the inevitable bangs and bruises take their toll.
 
Have they had problems selling out 2 rounds of neutral site playoff games so far? If not, then adding a third isn’t a huge leap. It might actually make some of the games more affordable to attend.
 
Meh. Lost a lot of interest in CFB anyway. I enjoy going to Atlanta and BDS. Like all of you folks.

I do admit, it was almost unbearable under Collins. Blaring music at us pregame so loud you couldn't think. It was like we were trying to be an NBA team.

There are obviously too many bowl games. Many are sparsely attended and are just put on to fill TV time with commercials. A sponsor gets to put his name at mid field and get 3 hours or so worth of TV ad out of it.
 
I think the current format with both semifinal and final be bowls works fine. I know if Tech ever made it I would be traveling to both rounds.

But quarterfinals as well? I'm very skeptical. I think I'd be at a bar for the quarterfinals, even though Tech making the playoffs is a once-in-a-generation type thing. It's just too much travel and expense. They're going to need a lot of local support.

This also makes it harder to travel to the semifinals since you won't know if you made it until ten days before. So realistically under this new format I'd probably only make the trip if we made it to the title game.
 
manjano mdudu said:
Expecting college kids to play this many games in order to win it all is going to be tough when the the inevitable bangs and bruises take their toll.
Click to expand...
You think they care about the so called “college kids”? And to be honest, I agree they should not care about them. Just like they should not care about the fans. The players use the school and the fans don’t have to attend. It’s all a business transaction so I’m fine with as many games as they want to play because it entertains me. And I enjoy sitting on my couch with my multiple screens being entertained. They give me options and I decide where and how to use my dollars no different than the players deciding where to play and for how long to play.
 
I'm surprised we still have football with all the safe spaces and butthurt going on. With football pants getting shorter each year, at least it'll be difficult for sponsors to get all their logos to fit on those hot pants. At least it is still feasible to be entertained by the games and forget about the world for a minute
 
andrew said:
I didn't think Division 2 had bowls or quarterfinals and semifinals at neutral sites.
Click to expand...
I meant FCS, not D2. No bowl games of course. Playoffs include 24 teams. Top 8 seeded teams get a bye in first round. Only the championship game is at a neutral site, so a top ranked team could play 3 playoff games at home while a lower ranked top seed might get only one even if they advance.
 
College football is all made for TV now, and the coaches and players are now TV stars. The school and the fans are all incidental to the "game," like a studio audience. It's sad to me, but it is what it is.
 
Chattanooga Jacket said:
I meant FCS, not D2. No bowl games of course. Playoffs include 24 teams. Top 8 seeded teams get a bye in first round. Only the championship game is at a neutral site, so a top ranked team could play 3 playoff games at home while s lower ranked top seed might get only one even if they advance.
Click to expand...

But the question was specifically if bowl games and the playoffs can coexist by using the bowls as neutral sites for quarterfinals, semis, and championship games like they're trying to do.
 
stinger78 said:
College football is all made for TV now, and the coaches and players are now TV stars. The school and the fans are all incidental to the "game," like a studio audience. It's sad to me, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
It’s the price major colleges have to pay when they take big TV dollars.
 
These 12 teams are largely the teams that would be in those bowl games anyway if there was no playoff.
 
stinger78 said:
College football is all made for TV now, and the coaches and players are now TV stars. The school and the fans are all incidental to the "game," like a studio audience. It's sad to me, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
It’s been this way for a long time. The majority of fans are just finally waking up to it. Remember when NBC and the Orange Bowl hand picked Notre Dame in 1990 before November‘s games were finished? That was when I woke up and saw reality as a 20 year old, although I woke up about teams buying players when I was 10 regarding Herschel. The system has been rigged and the stupid programs like GT who didn’t do the back door deals have paid a huge price for being relegated.

As to the specific question, no this model won’t last. Right now we are still in the hybrid years of bowls/playoffs. Give it time and the bowls will be gone - as they should. The bowl system was as corrupt as you could get. I’m glad that finally a bigger/tougher/smarter group (TV execs) moved into their turf and have made the bowls a historical footnote.
 
stinger78 said:
College football is all made for TV now, and the coaches and players are now TV stars. The school and the fans are all incidental to the "game," like a studio audience. It's sad to me, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
A big contributor to this was affordable, 4K, 75-inch TVs. When you see old video of football TV broadcasts from 25 years ago, it's easy to remember why everyone preferred to attend the games in person. I love the experience of game day tailgating and being in the stadium, but I'm not going to lie: the home experience offers some real benefits.
 
jacket67 said:
A big contributor to this was affordable, 4K, 75-inch TVs. When you see old video of football TV broadcasts from 25 years ago, it's easy to remember why everyone preferred to attend the games in person. I love the experience of game day tailgating and being in the stadium, but I'm not going to lie: the home experience offers some real benefits.
Click to expand...
To me the biggest advantage of watching on TV is that if it all goes bad and your team has a bad day, looks bad or loses you can cut the thing off and do something else. You can’t do that if you are there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top