College Football 2021

[Sec19Row53]

1 hour ago, sleuthpanther said:

Anyone else surprised that BYU ended up at the independence bowl vs UAB? Seems like a lowly position for a highly ranked team. No conference affiliation just screwing them perhaps?

It's not like you would expect BYU alumni to travel and spend money, either.

[ManillaToad]

3 hours ago, sleuthpanther said:

Anyone else surprised that BYU ended up at the independence bowl vs UAB? Seems like a lowly position for a highly ranked team. No conference affiliation just screwing them perhaps?

 

They have a tie-in to the Independence Bowl. They asked for it and they got it.

[GDAWG]

 

[MJWalker45]

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2021-12-05/2021-22-college-football-bowl-schedule-scores-tv-listings-matchup-information

The full list.

 

I'm guessing this is the makeup bowl, or was a second bowl in Frisco already planned? 

Frisco Football Classic 
Miami (Ohio) vs. North Texas
3:30 p.m. | ESPN
Toyota Stadium in Frisco, Texas

 

 

[crashcarson15]

The biggest flaw with the four-team system is that it gets caught fairly regularly between "every game matters" (pre-playoff era) and "teams get second chances" (future expanded playoff era) in a way that's just not equitable. Consider:

• 2017: 11-1 Alabama gets in over 12-1 Wisconsin
• 2020: 10-1 Notre Dame gets in over 8-1 Texas A&M
• 2021: 12-1 Georgia gets in over 11-1 Notre Dame

Within the confines of the current system, I think all three decisions were correct, but it's hard for me to make an objective case that any of those teams were more deserving of a spot than the other. Each of them lost the game you shouldn't be able to lose — but three got a second chance at it because, well, somebody had to. It's a super weird dynamic that I think leads to a lot of unrest over the current system.

 

I've long felt like the best possible playoff size would be variable, based on how many teams meet a set of objective criteria in a given season. Maybe this year, that's 3 (Alabama, Michigan and Cincinnati); maybe it's 5 (add Georgia and Notre Dame); or maybe it's more by adding all Power 5 champions, adding all 2-loss teams, etc. Obviously, this isn't logistically possible, so the best way to solve this is with playoff expansion.

 

That said, I think an 8-team field with 6 AQs leaves a lot of room open for inequity in access with just 2 at-large berths. Over the last decade, six 11-win Power teams would have missed an 8-team playoff, which is a pretty high hit rate IMO. Consider a season like 2012 — that year, Notre Dame (12-0) would have taken the first at-large berth, which means a committee could've only taken one out of No. 3 Florida (11-1), No. 4 Oregon (11-1) or No. 7 Georgia (11-2, lost in SEC championship). Each of those three teams would've been objectively deserving of a place in an 8-team playoff.

 

It's why ultimately, I really do like the 12-team proposals floating around. It materially rewards the best conference champions with a bye, balances Notre Dame's independence (and teams like 2016 Ohio State and 2017 Alabama's lack of a division title), and shifts any subjectivity in the selection process to your 10- and even 9-win teams, which is better than the current system or a messy year with an 8-team playoff.

 

If we had a 12-team system with 6 AQs and 6 at-large berths, since 2012 (not counting 2020):

• Every Power 5 team that won 11+ games would have made the playoff
• 70% of Power 5 teams that won 10 games would have made the playoff (30 of 43)
• Six 9-3 Power 5 teams would have made the playoff

That just feels right to me. It creates a pretty objective "every Power school gets at least one second chance" framework; gives 2-loss teams the ability to play their way into the postseason; and doesn't punish an 11-1 team for losing in the conference title game (vs. an 11-1 non-division champion). Sure, there's subjectivity within 10-2 teams, but most of the ones that miss will have been teams that had a glaring issue (10-2 Oklahoma this year, for example).

 

12 teams would also have the side impact of keeping more teams alive later in the season in a way that the 8-team playoff really doesn't. I think you'd have  to go all the way back to 2014 to find a team (Mississippi State) that would've made an 8-team playoff that wasn't still alive for the 4-team playoff in the last week of the regular season — for the most part, your two at-large teams in an 8-team playoff are already teams that are already under discussion now (11-1 P5 schools or 11-1/12-0 Notre Dame) or lost a conference title game. Obviously, yeah, playoff expansion to 12 making the Michigan-Ohio State game less important sucks, but I think it's balanced by how important games like the Civil War, Egg Bowl and Land Grant Trophy would have been instead. Having more fan bases truly engaged in the season can only be good for the sport.

[BBTV]

Could the non-"power" schools just create their own playoff system to determine who would get slots in the expanded playoff?  So you'd get the 5 + 1 at-large, then all the other conferences can work it out amongst themselves who gets the two remaining spots (if we're talking 8.)  If that means that they're selecting teams and having their own mini-playoff starting in early November, then so be it.  

[B-Rich]

All but 1 team in the SEC are in a bowl game (Vanderbilt being the outlier).

 

I know that probably says more about the preponderance of bowls out there now (and the pre-arranged conference tie-in formulas for those bowls);  but still,  that's unprecedented. 

 

And leave it to SEC Shorts to add a great bit of humor to the SEC Bowl match-up situation:

 

 

 

[MJWalker45]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

Could the non-"power" schools just create their own playoff system to determine who would get slots in the expanded playoff?  So you'd get the 5 + 1 at-large, then all the other conferences can work it out amongst themselves who gets the two remaining spots (if we're talking 8.)  If that means that they're selecting teams and having their own mini-playoff starting in early November, then so be it.  

Why add more games to beat each other up before getting into the playoff proper? I think the top G5 team being guaranteed a home playoff game is the best they'll get from the P5 teams. If that team was 13-0 Cincinnati and they got a bye into the quarters every few years like they would this year, that's great for them. but how many Group of 5 teams would have a win over Notre Dame on their resume? I don't say that to mean that Cincinnati isn't worthy of where they are, because they are, but these committee's give too much fealty to the traditionally stronger conferences instead of treating each year as a clean slate.  

3 hours ago, crashcarson15 said:

That said, I think an 8-team field with 6 AQs leaves a lot of room open for inequity in access with just 2 at-large berths. 

If each league had the best 2 teams playing, like the Big XII does, I think this would get rid of a lot of the inequities that could occur with a 12-0 team beating an 8-4 or 7-5 opponent.

3 hours ago, crashcarson15 said:

It's why ultimately, I really do like the 12-team proposals floating around. It materially rewards the best conference champions with a bye, balances Notre Dame's independence (and teams like 2016 Ohio State and 2017 Alabama's lack of a division title), and shifts any subjectivity in the selection process to your 10- and even 9-win teams, which is better than the current system or a messy year with an 8-team playoff.

 

If we had a 12-team system with 6 AQs and 6 at-large berths, since 2012 (not counting 2020):

• Every Power 5 team that won 11+ games would have made the playoff
• 70% of Power 5 teams that won 10 games would have made the playoff (30 of 43)
• Six 9-3 Power 5 teams would have made the playoff

That just feels right to me. It creates a pretty objective "every Power school gets at least one second chance" framework; gives 2-loss teams the ability to play their way into the postseason; and doesn't punish an 11-1 team for losing in the conference title game (vs. an 11-1 non-division champion). Sure, there's subjectivity within 10-2 teams, but most of the ones that miss will have been teams that had a glaring issue (10-2 Oklahoma this year, for example).

 

12 teams would also have the side impact of keeping more teams alive later in the season in a way that the 8-team playoff really doesn't. I think you'd have  to go all the way back to 2014 to find a team (Mississippi State) that would've made an 8-team playoff that wasn't still alive for the 4-team playoff in the last week of the regular season — for the most part, your two at-large teams in an 8-team playoff are already teams that are already under discussion now (11-1 P5 schools or 11-1/12-0 Notre Dame) or lost a conference title game. Obviously, yeah, playoff expansion to 12 making the Michigan-Ohio State game less important sucks, but I think it's balanced by how important games like the Civil War, Egg Bowl and Land Grant Trophy would have been instead. Having more fan bases truly engaged in the season can only be good for the sport.

I like how you've laid this out. It makes sense to get the best teams in, not the "most deserving" teams in and 12 to 16 spots would do this. As far as that expansion lessening the importance of rivalry games, I don't think that would happen, even if Ohio State and Michigan were both 11-0 going into the fame, playing for a first round bye as well as bragging right would still be compelling football. If teams started sitting players because they thought they had a spot wrapped up, that's where I would have problems with teams involved in the playoffs. Of course that's why I mentioned getting rid of divisions and having the best teams in each league compete for a title.  I also wouldn't want the first or second round games played at a neutral ground. Imagine the atmosphere if Mississippi or Oklahoma State had to play in Waco on Christmas Day this year instead of the Sugar Bowl on New Year's Day. Also, the idea of Ohio State visiting Cincinnati at Nippert and not Paul Brown! That game would be amazing for the entire state. 

[Dynasty]

A large number of these bowls shouldn't even exist. Why does Frisco have two bowls with its name? Why do some states and cities have their own bowls but others don't?

[Seadragon76]

6 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2021-12-05/2021-22-college-football-bowl-schedule-scores-tv-listings-matchup-information

The full list.

 

I'm guessing this is the makeup bowl, or was a second bowl in Frisco already planned? 

Frisco Football Classic 
Miami (Ohio) vs. North Texas
3:30 p.m. | ESPN
Toyota Stadium in Frisco, Texas

 

 

 

That is the extra game added to the schedule a few days ago largely to replace the San Francisco/Redbox Bowl, which isn't being played again this year.

 

It also assures all 84 bowl eligible teams a bowl game to play in. Otherwise, Miami of Ohio probably would have been the lone man out of the bowl picture at 6-6.

[Red Comet]

52 minutes ago, Dynasty said:

A large number of these bowls shouldn't even exist. Why does Frisco have two bowls with its name? Why do some states and cities have their own bowls but others don't?

Because for some reason that is completely beyond me, people actually want to visit San Francisco. Personally, I’d rather visit Mars, but, to each their own. 

[DEAD!]

Oh...I thought you talking about Frisco, Texas.. 

[Red Comet]

Frisco, Texas, San Francisco, both are wastelands in their own right. At least San Francisco can be exciting. Frisco is just a suburban wasteland. 

[Dilbert]

2 hours ago, Dynasty said:

A large number of these bowls shouldn't even exist. Why does Frisco have two bowls with its name? Why do some states and cities have their own bowls but others don't?

Most of these bowls are owned by ESPN. Frisco Football Classic is just a one time bowl. Yes some places dont make sense like Frisco, Albuquerque, Montgomery, and Boca Raton. Despite being outdoors, Fenway and Pinstripe Bowls are in large tourist type cities or have the quirk of being played in historic venues. Otherwise who would want to go to a football game outdoors in Boston in December? Does Orlando really need 3 bowl games? Honestly yes they need to cut back on bowls. We are getting bowls in odd places, sponsored by obscure companies in odd venues. Like we are this close from getting the Skyline Chili Bowl at Great American Ball Park because ESPN is bored.

[Red Wolf]

Bowls don't hurt anything and they don't really mean much for the most part so I say have as many as possible.

[MJWalker45]

3 hours ago, Dilbert said:

Most of these bowls are owned by ESPN. Frisco Football Classic is just a one time bowl. Yes some places dont make sense like Frisco, Albuquerque, Montgomery, and Boca Raton. Despite being outdoors, Fenway and Pinstripe Bowls are in large tourist type cities or have the quirk of being played in historic venues. Otherwise who would want to go to a football game outdoors in Boston in December? Does Orlando really need 3 bowl games? Honestly yes they need to cut back on bowls. We are getting bowls in odd places, sponsored by obscure companies in odd venues. Like we are this close from getting the Skyline Chili Bowl at Great American Ball Park because ESPN is bored.

Still better than the Barstool Arizona Bowl.  But if they expand the playoffs, hopefully they cut 6-8 bowl games too. But they'll probably add more instead because San Marcos, TX can't get left out of the bowl racket. 

[Dilbert]

7 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Still better than the Barstool Arizona Bowl.  But if they expand the playoffs, hopefully they cut 6-8 bowl games too. But they'll probably add more instead because San Marcos, TX can't get left out of the bowl racket. 

Surprisingly one of the ones that isnt operated by ESPN.  Only three bowl games aren't broadcast by ESPN/ESPN2/ABC (Sun Bowl on CBS, Arizona Bowl on Barstool Sports, and the Holiday Bowl on Fox)

 

ESPN operated games

 

Armed Forces

Bahamas

Birmingham

Boca Raton

Camelia

Cure

Potato

Fenway

First Responder

Frisco

Frisco Football Classic (one off game)

Gasparilla

Hawaii

Las Vegas

Myrtle Beach

New Mexico

Texas

Celebration (FCS between MEAC and SWAC champs)

 

 

[oldschoolvikings]

10 hours ago, Red Wolf said:

Bowls don't hurt anything and they don't really mean much for the most part so I say have as many as possible.

 

This is how I feel. It's like Tuesday Night Maction. I'd rather have a dumb game on than nothing. If it doesn't hold my interest I'll turn it off. You can do the same.

 

I never get why people get all worked up over there being so many bowl games. Your TV remote has an off button. Look into it 

[crashcarson15]

11 hours ago, Red Wolf said:

Bowls don't hurt anything and they don't really mean much for the most part so I say have as many as possible.

My bowl take is to let people enjoy things — some people love watching all 43 bowl games so hey, whatever makes them happy.

[Magnus]

I am happy that Cincinnati gets to make the playoff this year.

I still don't get why they don't just make the requirement for playoff qualification a conference championship or nothing. Win on the field, move on. That's how it works in literally every other sport.
You can have exceptions to make it an even number of teams to fill out your bracket, but if all 130+ teams are (at least, theoretically) at the same level of competition, they all deserve at least a theoretical shot at a national championship if they win their conference.

If you want to go with an 8 team playoff, take the conference champions from the Power 5, and 3 from the Group of 5 - that's it. If you want to go 12, then fine - 10 conference champions, and two wildcards, but that's it.

Otherwise just make separate playoff structures entirely if in most years the playoff committee considers G5 schools "unworthy".