How do we fix the bowls?

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Apr 12, 2020
495
183
43
26
Stillwater
#81
You’re missing the point, it’s not an 8 team playoff.
REALLY????

More importantly ...2011.

(11 am Central)Orange Bowl: Clemson vs Boise State
(2 pm Central)Sugar Bowl: LSU vs Stanford
(5 pm Central)Rose: Oregon vs Wisconsin
(8 pm Central)Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma State vs Alabama
Sure looks like an 8 team playoff to me.
Yep, really. I would know, since it’s my preference of solution. Reread the post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Apr 12, 2020
495
183
43
26
Stillwater
#82
My ideal scenario isn’t realistic but...

Eliminate the CFP.

Get back to having 4 NYD bowls all played on NYD.

Have a committee pick the Bowl NYD matchups (have them take traditional bowl ties into account but not married to it).

From the winners of those bowl games have the committee choose the 2 that deserve to go to the + 1 championship game.

The idea, because winning the NYD bowl game doesn’t necessarily result in the championship game, it puts some added prestige back onto the NYD games. Also hosting them always on NYD in the exact same times re-injects some of the tradition back into the games.

So for example... this year could of looked like

(11 am Central)Orange Bowl: Clemson vs Ohio State
(2 pm Central)Sugar Bowl: Alabama vs Cincinnati
(5 pm Central)Rose: Oregon vs Oklahoma
(8 pm Central)Fiesta Bowl: Notre Dame vs A&M

Championship Game on Jan 4th, or next best days for ratings. Likely Bama vs Ohio State.

Essentially you’d have a 2-3 play in to face Bama between Clemson and Ohio State. But you give the G5 a shot and it’s not a bye for Bama. A&M and Notre Dame are playing in case something crazy happens they have an outside shot to get in. Oklahoma vs Oregon doesn’t matter.

More importantly ...2011.

(11 am Central)Orange Bowl: Clemson vs Boise State
(2 pm Central)Sugar Bowl: LSU vs Stanford
(5 pm Central)Rose: Oregon vs Wisconsin
(8 pm Central)Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma State vs Alabama

So you have the flexibility to basically treat it just like a 4 team playoff if that’s what a specific year calls for, with 2 side games.

Oh, also. You make a massive push to use traditional venues. You try to work with Miami to rebuild an Orange Bowl. You consider swapping the Cotton Bowl for the Fiesta Bowl if you could get it in the old Cotton Bowl.

Which ever major Bowl you’re leaving out (Cotton or Fiesta), give it the only slot on NYE. Then smash every other bowl into the December 26-30th window giving it a March madness/NFL redzone feel to it for those 4 days. The Championship would be in ATL where (currently) Chick Fila would be the naming sponsor after getting rid of the old Peach Bowl.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There it is, so you don’t have to go find it. If it’s actually unclear I can try to explain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

NinjaPoke

Cowboy
A/V Subscriber
Jul 9, 2016
527
327
113
26
Lawton, OK
#83
My bad if this been posted before.

Joe Klatt comes up with a reasonable solution. Long story short:
3 scenarios.
1. 16 team play offs. First 6 seeds host their initial games on campus. Others will be held at traditional bowls. NY6-like bowls will be during last 4 teams.
2. 14 team play offs. Same with first 6 seeds except seeds 1 and 2 have byes. Essentially, think of the NFL.
3. 10 team play off. First 2 seeds have byes. Same as 14 just 4 less teams.

Video:
 
Jan 15, 2017
204
66
78
34
Enid
#84
My bad if this been posted before.

Joe Klatt comes up with a reasonable solution. Long story short:
3 scenarios.
1. 16 team play offs. First 6 seeds host their initial games on campus. Others will be held at traditional bowls. NY6-like bowls will be during last 4 teams.
2. 14 team play offs. Same with first 6 seeds except seeds 1 and 2 have byes. Essentially, think of the NFL.
3. 10 team play off. First 2 seeds have byes. Same as 14 just 4 less teams.

Video:
Those are some pretty good options but until they start reducing scholarships for teams there is absolutely no reason for the playoff to be that big, right now the most controversy is in the 3-6 seeded teams so that’s what needs to be addressed. 1 and 2 seeds get byes. 3 and 6, 4 and 5 play, lowest seed that wins plays 1, highest seed left plays 2. Simple.

Also for the rest of the bowls get rid of the stupid conference tie-ins, the committee can seed the top 16 if they want then have 7 play 8 9 play 10 etc.. in all the other bowls, no shot at the title but much better bowl matchups.
 
Last edited:
Sep 29, 2011
2,218
494
713
61
Breckenridge, CO
#85
Those are some pretty good options but until they start reducing scholarships for teams there is absolutely no reason for the playoff to be that big, right now the most controversy is in the 3-6 seeded teams so that’s what needs to be addressed. 1 and 2 seeds get byes. 3 and 6, 4 and 5 play, lowest seed that wins plays 1, highest seed left plays 2. Simple.

Also for the rest of the bowls get rid of the stupid conference tie-ins, the committee can seed the top 16 if they want then have 7 play 8 9 play 10 etc.. in all the other bowls, no shot at the title but much better bowl matchups.
IMO the reason to expand the playoffs is NOT about giving more teams a real chance at winning the NC, it's about making the end of the season more meaningful for both players and fans. The same half-dozen teams will continue to be the only teams playing in the final game, but with 8 or 16 teams making the CFP it will hopefully provide an opportunity for teams other than the heretofore CFP participants to attract more of the top talent.

While I think reducing scholarships would help achieve better competitive balance, there's no way the traditional top 10 or 15 schools would support a measure that would potentially impede their stronghold on conference championships and playing in the CFP. Of course that wouldn't be their stated position, instead they'd claim reducing scholarships reduces the opportunities for (underprivileged) kids to get an education.
 
Nov 6, 2010
2,301
796
1,743
#86
IMO the reason to expand the playoffs is NOT about giving more teams a real chance at winning the NC, it's about making the end of the season more meaningful for both players and fans. The same half-dozen teams will continue to be the only teams playing in the final game, but with 8 or 16 teams making the CFP it will hopefully provide an opportunity for teams other than the heretofore CFP participants to attract more of the top talent.

While I think reducing scholarships would help achieve better competitive balance, there's no way the traditional top 10 or 15 schools would support a measure that would potentially impede their stronghold on conference championships and playing in the CFP. Of course that wouldn't be their stated position, instead they'd claim reducing scholarships reduces the opportunities for (underprivileged) kids to get an education.
Have to remember how physical the game is as well, hard to add additional games and reduce the number of players available. Gundy has stated he thinks the number should go up to 90 based on the wear and tear on the players.
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,218
494
713
61
Breckenridge, CO
#87
IMO the reason to expand the playoffs is NOT about giving more teams a real chance at winning the NC, it's about making the end of the season more meaningful for both players and fans. The same half-dozen teams will continue to be the only teams playing in the final game, but with 8 or 16 teams making the CFP it will hopefully provide an opportunity for teams other than the heretofore CFP participants to attract more of the top talent.

While I think reducing scholarships would help achieve better competitive balance, there's no way the traditional top 10 or 15 schools would support a measure that would potentially impede their stronghold on conference championships and playing in the CFP. Of course that wouldn't be their stated position, instead they'd claim reducing scholarships reduces the opportunities for (underprivileged) kids to get an education.
Have to remember how physical the game is as well, hard to add additional games and reduce the number of players available. Gundy has stated he thinks the number should go up to 90 based on the wear and tear on the players.
It is a tough balance. More scholarships might allow for more depth (for teams like OSU) and thus might make us more competitive later in the year, but it would also steer more top-tier players to the Alabama and OUs of the world.

At the end of the day, there’s a finite number of quality D1 players coming out of HS. From a talent perspective, increasing the number of scholarships would certainly help the top-tier teams and hurt the bottom-tier teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jan 15, 2017
204
66
78
34
Enid
#88
IMO the reason to expand the playoffs is NOT about giving more teams a real chance at winning the NC, it's about making the end of the season more meaningful for both players and fans. The same half-dozen teams will continue to be the only teams playing in the final game, but with 8 or 16 teams making the CFP it will hopefully provide an opportunity for teams other than the heretofore CFP participants to attract more of the top talent.

While I think reducing scholarships would help achieve better competitive balance, there's no way the traditional top 10 or 15 schools would support a measure that would potentially impede their stronghold on conference championships and playing in the CFP. Of course that wouldn't be their stated position, instead they'd claim reducing scholarships reduces the opportunities for (underprivileged) kids to get an education.
I think it would make an immediate impact on players leaving but after a few years of the 16 seed getting absolutely humiliated by the 1 seed the impact would diminish. IMO the fact that Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State are 3 of the best teams almost every year is more detrimental to players leaving than an expanded playoff, yes you would still have players leaving early (I think that’s just the times we live in now), but at least you would have different teams in the CFP with an actual shot to win the title.
And yes I agree the top programs absolutely do not want to see the playing field leveled because they are making $$$$$$ compared to everyone else so it needs to be an outside person or committee that decides to reduce scholarships.

You can also look to the NFL that has a 53 man roster that can play for 18-19 games, yes they do have people in and out from the practice squad but not 32 extra players so a 16-17 game schedule for NCAA shouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility.
 
Nov 6, 2010
2,301
796
1,743
#89
It is a tough balance. More scholarships might allow for more depth (for teams like OSU) and thus might make us more competitive later in the year, but it would also steer more top-tier players to the Alabama and OUs of the world.

At the end of the day, there’s a finite number of quality D1 players coming out of HS. From a talent perspective, increasing the number of scholarships would certainly help the top-tier teams and hurt the bottom-tier teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yea, I'm not in favor of more scholarships. I think the best answer to the wear and tear problem is just giving all the players 5 years of eligibility, and eliminate the redshirt concept altogether.
 
Nov 27, 2007
2,671
1,251
1,743
35
Tulsa
#90
To hell with scholarships. If we’re going to pay for play and allow for profit on image and likeness. That’s what everyone is advocating for, right? Let’s just look at college football players as junior professionals. If we’re going to do this, let’s do it right!

All programs are given a number of paid and volunteer football players allowed on the roster.

Players are now paid a salary. However, they must pay their own tuition, books and, room and board. - Every other student and professional has to pay for their stuff.

Players are drafted to, not recruited by the program.

All drafted players receive a 3 year contract with the program. The first 3 years, a player cannot be cut or join free agency. After completion of the 3rd year, the program has the ability to release or renew your contract for an additional 4th and/or 5th year if applicable. A released player has the ability to join the NFL draft or seek college free agency.

Free agency. At the completion of 3rd year of the contract, players have the ability to seek free agency. If a player wishes to seek free agency prior to his 3rd season, the player must sit out a year then would be able to play anywhere of his choosing. Keeping in mind, he would not be paid for that year, but would not lose a year of eligibility.

NFL step-down program. Since this is no longer an amateur sport, NFL players with college eligibility left would be able to return to a college program in the free agency period.

Trade - A program has right to trade players with other programs, however the trade cannot include future draft picks. This can only been done in the free agency period. Also, programs must adhere to the paid player caps.

What else?!?!
 
Jul 9, 2011
2,515
1,469
743
earrth
#91
My bad if this been posted before.

Joe Klatt comes up with a reasonable solution. Long story short:
3 scenarios.
1. 16 team play offs. First 6 seeds host their initial games on campus. Others will be held at traditional bowls. NY6-like bowls will be during last 4 teams.
2. 14 team play offs. Same with first 6 seeds except seeds 1 and 2 have byes. Essentially, think of the NFL.
3. 10 team play off. First 2 seeds have byes. Same as 14 just 4 less teams.

Video:
Just my opinion. This may fix the playoffs, but it won't fix the bowls. There are currently 40 bowl games.
 
Aug 16, 2012
2,675
1,277
743
57
#93
Have to remember how physical the game is as well, hard to add additional games and reduce the number of players available. Gundy has stated he thinks the number should go up to 90 based on the wear and tear on the players.
Still just 11 on the field at a time. Raising scholarships will just result in hoarding of players to keep someone else from having them
 
Apr 12, 2020
495
183
43
26
Stillwater
#94
Have to remember how physical the game is as well, hard to add additional games and reduce the number of players available. Gundy has stated he thinks the number should go up to 90 based on the wear and tear on the players.
Still just 11 on the field at a time. Raising scholarships will just result in hoarding of players to keep someone else from having them
Exactly, for the sake of parity can we like not do this? Bama and A&M have both convinced a 4 star recruit to gray shirt in the past 3 years, let’s not give those guys extra scholarship spots


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aug 16, 2012
2,675
1,277
743
57
#95
You can also look to the NFL that has a 53 man roster that can play for 18-19 games, yes they do have people in and out from the practice squad but not 32 extra players so a 16-17 game schedule for NCAA shouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility
NFL players...that is their life. They do nothing but live and breathe football. They can spend all week recovering/training with millions upon millions of dollars of equipment and personnel. If a student athlete is actually a student...not so much. Then you have to factor in the additional wear and tear on their bodies when they do move up. Many college pitchers face that dilemma every year and by the time they get drafted, their arm is a noodle.
 
Jan 15, 2017
204
66
78
34
Enid
#96
NFL players...that is their life. They do nothing but live and breathe football. They can spend all week recovering/training with millions upon millions of dollars of equipment and personnel. If a student athlete is actually a student...not so much. Then you have to factor in the additional wear and tear on their bodies when they do move up. Many college pitchers face that dilemma every year and by the time they get drafted, their arm is a noodle.
True it’s not quite the same but these “student”-athletes now a days are on a schedule of 530-8 football 8-2pm student, 2-8,9,10pm football. Saturday’s football, sundays recovery. For most of them class is actually their “down” time.
 
Sep 12, 2013
1,365
834
743
Broken Arrow, OK
#97
It is a tough balance. More scholarships might allow for more depth (for teams like OSU) and thus might make us more competitive later in the year, but it would also steer more top-tier players to the Alabama and OUs of the world.

At the end of the day, there’s a finite number of quality D1 players coming out of HS. From a talent perspective, increasing the number of scholarships would certainly help the top-tier teams and hurt the bottom-tier teams.
Yup, no matter how you slice it, 128 D1 teams cannot have NFL talent. If you increase the scholarships then the Alabamas of the world will be even more loaded. They will probably send more players to the transfer portal as well. Second tier schools may get Alabama's 2nd 5star QB as they go into their second year, when they realize they won't be the starter.

If you decrease the scholarships, then you spread the talent around. Maybe Alabama's two deep isn't full of 4 and 5 stars, but 3 and 4 stars.

When Name-Image-Likeness kicks in, the number of 5 star scholarships Alabama gives out could be zero when players make more than the cost of tuition and still have plenty of walk around money.
 
Nov 27, 2007
2,671
1,251
1,743
35
Tulsa
#98
Yup, no matter how you slice it, 128 D1 teams cannot have NFL talent. If you increase the scholarships then the Alabamas of the world will be even more loaded. They will probably send more players to the transfer portal as well. Second tier schools may get Alabama's 2nd 5star QB as they go into their second year, when they realize they won't be the starter.

If you decrease the scholarships, then you spread the talent around. Maybe Alabama's two deep isn't full of 4 and 5 stars, but 3 and 4 stars.

When Name-Image-Likeness kicks in, the number of 5 star scholarships Alabama gives out could be zero when players make more than the cost of tuition and still have plenty of walk around money.
I agree 100% accept this part.

"If you decrease the scholarships, then you spread the talent around. Maybe Alabama's two deep isn't full of 4 and 5 stars, but 3 and 4 stars."

I do believe that limiting scholarships will help spread talent around, but...

I don't believe that limiting the amount of scholarships will have an relationship with the quality of talent at schools like Alabama. Teams like Alabama will just be more selective on who they offer scholarships to. Take for example Alabama 2020 recruiting class they brought in 25 recruits, 4 of which are 3 stars, in 2021 they took 26 with 6 being 3 stars. If you shave then number of scholarships from 85 to 65, or 5 per class- one would assume that the 3 star talent would absorb a significant portion of those cuts.

So Bama's 2 deep will be just as loaded but, other programs would get a significant boost in talent.

The unfortunate side effect would be that fewer student athletes would have access to a scholarship. Its a trickle-down effect. You take a guy that may have been "good enough" in the past, now his athleticism may not provide him access to an education where that might be best chance to change the trajectory of his situation / life.