Every bowl reform idea runs up against an issue of numbers. If you simply say "must win six" or "must win seven", the probability is that in a given year, the number of bowls will either be too large and thus you have too many games and end up placing a school not meeting the criteria or you have too few and some schools meeting the criteria will come up short.

The error of thinking of bowl eligibility in terms of a specific win threshold is it is impossible to accommodate every eligible team every year unless you have too many games.

Let's change the criteria for a bowl operating under the assumption that CFP will stay at four.

We will have two types of bowl games.
Assigned by CFP and assigned by conference.

The CFP selection committee will rank 1-26 instead of 1-25

Teams rated 1-4 go to the playoff.
Teams rated 5-26 go to CFP assigned bowl games.

Eleven games not hosting a semi-final will be CFP assigned bowls. The committee will first place some teams based on historic alignment, ie top non-playoff B1G and Pac-12 go to Rose, top non-playoff SEC goes to Sugar, top non-playoff ACC goes Orange, and Big 12 can to Cotton or Fiesta depending on the league's preference. The remaining slots will be filled with the committee trying to match closely ranked teams in the best geographic fits.

That fills 13 bowls, the two semi-final games and the 11 CFP assigned games.

Next each conference will be able to sign four bowl contracts for teams not ranked by the CFP. A conference must place its conference and divisional champions in those slots, if not selected for CFP and may assign non-selected, non-champions with 7 wins in any manner they choose. Six win teams cannot be selected unless the league has placed all seven win teams. Teams below 6 cannot be selected.

Two slots will be reserved for independents but an independent cannot be selected with 6 wins unless all 7 or better are placed and no one with less than 6 can be selected.

That gives you 21 general bowl games for a total of 34 or five fewer than currently.

Last year, AAC would have had two teams assigned via CFP #12 UCF and #19 Memphis and would have placed four more teams in general bowls.
MWC would have had Boise State placed at #25 and four more via contract.
SEC would have had two in the playoff #3 UGA and #4 Bama. Then #7 Auburn, #17 LSU, and #23 Miss State would have been placed in CFP bowls and four more via contracts which ended up being exactly the number of bowl eligible they had.

Why not just reduce the number of bowls, and say that no 6 win team can be selected ahead of a 7 (or more) win team? For any 6 win team, going to a bowl is a losing proposition financially anyway.

If there are more 6 win teams than there are slots available, they can be selected based on how long it has been since they last went to a bowl. Same procedure could apply in the unlikely event there are more 7 win teams than available slots.

This sounds similar to the plan originally floated by the Sunbelt and ACC for the CFP selected games. I think you'd end up with more interesting matchups this way. On the other hand, you might just have the Committee putting 4 and 5 loss P5 teams in front of 0 or 1-loss G5 teams citing "strength of schedule" in order to preserve the best bowl slots for the P5.

Honestly---there is just one reform I want. I want the CFP Selection Committee to be reformed to become a 10-member body with one representative from each FBS conference. That single move, all by itself, will fix 90% of what is wrong with college football.

(05-17-2018 12:56 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why not just reduce the number of bowls, and say that no 6 win team can be selected ahead of a 7 (or more) win team? For any 6 win team, going to a bowl is a losing proposition financially anyway.

If there are more 6 win teams than there are slots available, they can be selected based on how long it has been since they last went to a bowl. Same procedure could apply in the unlikely event there are more 7 win teams than available slots.

AState has made money on every trip except the Cure Bowl. When you aren't charging steakhouse trips for the administration and top donors and politicians to athletics you can keep your costs down.

Sure you can say no more than 30 bowls or 35 but that just means as the number declines, the greater the probability we are back where we once were with conference champs sitting at home.

One practical problem is that the Cotton, Peach, and Fiesta will object to giving CFP branding to several additional bowl games. That would water down their current status.

Also, it wouldn't bother me if they had 65 bowl games and every team got to play in one. I don't watch most of the ones played anyway, so go ahead, add more if someone wants to. It would be more practical to play most of the bowls on-campus, however many there are, to save the money being sucked up by the bowl committees and let the schools keep the money.

(05-17-2018 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  One practical problem is that the Cotton, Peach, and Fiesta will object to giving CFP branding to several additional bowl games. That would water down their current status.

Also, it wouldn't bother me if they had 65 bowl games and every team got to play in one. I don't watch most of the ones played anyway, so go ahead, add more if someone wants to. It would be more practical to play most of the bowls on-campus, however many there are, to save the money being sucked up by the bowl committees and let the schools keep the money.

If Im the CFP---I say tough stuff. The Rose maybe has some leverage---the others---not so much. The reality is the CFP would make more money bidding those semi-games out like they do the finals. If any bowl wants to step away from the CFP---there will be a long line of other bowls willing to take their slot. Thus, the current CFP Bowls dont have a lot of leverage in CFP negotiations. That said, they are long time partners and would likely receive some sort of preferential treatment to make them happy.

(05-17-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Honestly---there is just one reform I want. I want the CFP Selection Committee to be reformed to become a 10-member body with one representative from each FBS conference. That single move, all by itself, will fix 90% of what is wrong with college football.

Many fans of non-power teams complain about committee bias in the March Madness selection process, too. But have you ever looked at who's on the basketball tournament selection committee? It's not stacked in favor of P5 conferences. Here is the 2018 committee:

Bruce Rasmussen, director of athletics at Creighton University (chair)
Bernard Muir, vice chair of committee and director of athletics, Stanford University
Mitch S. Barnhart, director of athletics, University of Kentucky
Tom Burnett, commissioner, Southland Conference
Janet Cone, director of athletics, University of North Carolina at Asheville
Tom Holmoe, director of athletics, Brigham Young University
Jim Phillips, vice president for athletics & recreation, Northwestern University
Jim Schaus, director of athletics, Ohio University
Craig Thompson, commissioner, Mountain West Conference
Kevin White, director of athletics, Duke University

Also, I doubt that what you're suggesting would have the effect that you're looking for. In fact, I strongly suspect that if the committee was structured that way, the designated representatives of G5 conferences would be less likely to support an undefeated G5 team than current committee members. For example, let's say that Boise State has a 13-0 season in 2018. There's a very strong chance that someone from the AAC, MAC, CUSA, or Sun Belt (or all of them) would think, "Hell, no, I don't want a Mountain West team to get the glory of making the playoff. The media would hype their conference over ours. I'll just vote Ohio State #4 instead, and I'll just nod my head while the committee chair tells the media that while we respect Boise's achievements, Ohio State's schedule strength was the deciding factor."

(05-17-2018 01:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 12:56 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why not just reduce the number of bowls, and say that no 6 win team can be selected ahead of a 7 (or more) win team? For any 6 win team, going to a bowl is a losing proposition financially anyway.

If there are more 6 win teams than there are slots available, they can be selected based on how long it has been since they last went to a bowl. Same procedure could apply in the unlikely event there are more 7 win teams than available slots.

AState has made money on every trip except the Cure Bowl. When you aren't charging steakhouse trips for the administration and top donors and politicians to athletics you can keep your costs down.

Sure you can say no more than 30 bowls or 35 but that just means as the number declines, the greater the probability we are back where we once were with conference champs sitting at home.

Does the Sun Belt not share bowl revenues with all conference members? Even if you go on the cheap, the costs are still pretty high if you are staying out of town for 4-5 days. If you go to a bowl with a $1 million payout, there's not much left if you divide it 10 ways. If Belt teams are making any money at all, it is probably eaten up by staff bonuses.

Money isn't the reason teams are willing to play in low payout bowls. Extra practice time is.

(05-17-2018 01:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Honestly---there is just one reform I want. I want the CFP Selection Committee to be reformed to become a 10-member body with one representative from each FBS conference. That single move, all by itself, will fix 90% of what is wrong with college football.

Many fans of non-power teams complain about committee bias in the March Madness selection process, too. But have you ever looked at who's on the basketball tournament selection committee? It's not stacked in favor of P5 conferences. Here is the 2018 committee:

Bruce Rasmussen, director of athletics at Creighton University (chair)
Bernard Muir, vice chair of committee and director of athletics, Stanford University
Mitch S. Barnhart, director of athletics, University of Kentucky
Tom Burnett, commissioner, Southland Conference
Janet Cone, director of athletics, University of North Carolina at Asheville
Tom Holmoe, director of athletics, Brigham Young University
Jim Phillips, vice president for athletics & recreation, Northwestern University
Jim Schaus, director of athletics, Ohio University
Craig Thompson, commissioner, Mountain West Conference
Kevin White, director of athletics, Duke University

Also, I doubt that what you're suggesting would have the effect that you're looking for. In fact, I strongly suspect that if the committee was structured that way, the designated representatives of G5 conferences would be less likely to support an undefeated G5 team than current committee members. For example, let's say that Boise State has a 13-0 season in 2018. There's a very strong chance that someone from the AAC, MAC, CUSA, or Sun Belt (or all of them) would think, "Hell, no, I don't want a Mountain West team to get the glory of making the playoff. The media would hype their conference over ours. I'll just vote Ohio State #4 instead, and I'll just nod my head while the committee chair tells the media that while we respect Boise's achievements, Ohio State's schedule strength was the deciding factor."

Seems to me that insisting that every conference be represented on the selection committee means that you are OK with members being biased - you just want them to vote their bias in your favor. Even then, it probably wouldn't change anything for G5 conferences. The Coaches' Poll is pretty evenly split between G5 and P5, but UCF wouldn't have been close to making the playoff last year based on their votes. They would have gotten an NY6 invite, which they got anyway. And last year was probably the most favorable situation for the G5 in years.

The CFP selection process isn't 90% of what is wrong with college football. It's not even 10% in my view.

(05-17-2018 01:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Honestly---there is just one reform I want. I want the CFP Selection Committee to be reformed to become a 10-member body with one representative from each FBS conference. That single move, all by itself, will fix 90% of what is wrong with college football.

Many fans of non-power teams complain about committee bias in the March Madness selection process, too. But have you ever looked at who's on the basketball tournament selection committee? It's not stacked in favor of P5 conferences. Here is the 2018 committee:

Bruce Rasmussen, director of athletics at Creighton University (chair)
Bernard Muir, vice chair of committee and director of athletics, Stanford University
Mitch S. Barnhart, director of athletics, University of Kentucky
Tom Burnett, commissioner, Southland Conference
Janet Cone, director of athletics, University of North Carolina at Asheville
Tom Holmoe, director of athletics, Brigham Young University
Jim Phillips, vice president for athletics & recreation, Northwestern University
Jim Schaus, director of athletics, Ohio University
Craig Thompson, commissioner, Mountain West Conference
Kevin White, director of athletics, Duke University

Also, I doubt that what you're suggesting would have the effect that you're looking for. In fact, I strongly suspect that if the committee was structured that way, the designated representatives of G5 conferences would be less likely to support an undefeated G5 team than current committee members. For example, let's say that Boise State has a 13-0 season in 2018. There's a very strong chance that someone from the AAC, MAC, CUSA, or Sun Belt (or all of them) would think, "Hell, no, I don't want a Mountain West team to get the glory of making the playoff. The media would hype their conference over ours. I'll just vote Ohio State #4 instead, and I'll just nod my head while the committee chair tells the media that while we respect Boise's achievements, Ohio State's schedule strength was the deciding factor."

The Big East rep is always going to side with the P5 on selection criteria. That was certainly the case with Rasmussen. Pretending otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.

You have 17% (6/32) of conferences representing 50% (5/10) of the committee. There is no way to spin it. There is a ton of P6 privilege given the significantly disproportionate makeup of the committee. To pretend the rapid decline in mid-major bids is not related to this is naive.

(05-17-2018 02:04 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Honestly---there is just one reform I want. I want the CFP Selection Committee to be reformed to become a 10-member body with one representative from each FBS conference. That single move, all by itself, will fix 90% of what is wrong with college football.

Many fans of non-power teams complain about committee bias in the March Madness selection process, too. But have you ever looked at who's on the basketball tournament selection committee? It's not stacked in favor of P5 conferences. Here is the 2018 committee:

Bruce Rasmussen, director of athletics at Creighton University (chair)
Bernard Muir, vice chair of committee and director of athletics, Stanford University
Mitch S. Barnhart, director of athletics, University of Kentucky
Tom Burnett, commissioner, Southland Conference
Janet Cone, director of athletics, University of North Carolina at Asheville
Tom Holmoe, director of athletics, Brigham Young University
Jim Phillips, vice president for athletics & recreation, Northwestern University
Jim Schaus, director of athletics, Ohio University
Craig Thompson, commissioner, Mountain West Conference
Kevin White, director of athletics, Duke University

Also, I doubt that what you're suggesting would have the effect that you're looking for. In fact, I strongly suspect that if the committee was structured that way, the designated representatives of G5 conferences would be less likely to support an undefeated G5 team than current committee members. For example, let's say that Boise State has a 13-0 season in 2018. There's a very strong chance that someone from the AAC, MAC, CUSA, or Sun Belt (or all of them) would think, "Hell, no, I don't want a Mountain West team to get the glory of making the playoff. The media would hype their conference over ours. I'll just vote Ohio State #4 instead, and I'll just nod my head while the committee chair tells the media that while we respect Boise's achievements, Ohio State's schedule strength was the deciding factor."

The Big East rep is always going to side with the P5 on selection criteria. That was certainly the case with Rasmussen. Pretending otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.

You have 17% (6/32) of conferences representing 50% (5/10) of the committee. There is no way to spin it. There is a ton of P6 privilege given the significantly disproportionate makeup of the committee. To pretend the rapid decline in mid-major bids is not related to this is naive.

Even if you make the unprovable assumption that a Creighton AD is "siding with the P5", you still have fully half of that committee from the Southland, Big South, WCC, MAC, and MWC.

Why would the Southland and Big South fight tooth and nail for mid-major bids? They are low major leagues and have little to no investment who gets the at-large bids. The MAC also hasn’t had an at-large contender in many years.

So it’s 5 vs 2 or 5 vs 3. The 5 P6’s have incentive to vote as a bloc because their interests align. That isn’t the case with Southland/Big South and MWC/WCC.

This isn’t to forget the largest point of all - an objective committee should not have a 17% population receiving 50% representation every single year.

Got nothing to hide? Then divide the committee up so 1-6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-24, 25-32 leagues get 2 reps each year. We’ll never see that. Wonder why.

(05-17-2018 02:48 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Why would the Southland and Big South fight tooth and nail for mid-major bids?

Is anyone "fighting tooth and nail" for their own conference? Two of the teams with the most legit gripes about being left out this year were USC and Saint Mary's. Both of their conferences were represented on the selection committee.

Also, I doubt you'll find much support anywhere for the argument that at-large bids should be evenly distributed among all conferences. In computer metrics like RPI, KenPom, etc., nearly all of their top-50 teams get into the tournament and the ones that don't are just as likely to be P5 or Big East as not.

(05-17-2018 01:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Honestly---there is just one reform I want. I want the CFP Selection Committee to be reformed to become a 10-member body with one representative from each FBS conference. That single move, all by itself, will fix 90% of what is wrong with college football.

Many fans of non-power teams complain about committee bias in the March Madness selection process, too. But have you ever looked at who's on the basketball tournament selection committee? It's not stacked in favor of P5 conferences. Here is the 2018 committee:

Bruce Rasmussen, director of athletics at Creighton University (chair)
Bernard Muir, vice chair of committee and director of athletics, Stanford University
Mitch S. Barnhart, director of athletics, University of Kentucky
Tom Burnett, commissioner, Southland Conference
Janet Cone, director of athletics, University of North Carolina at Asheville
Tom Holmoe, director of athletics, Brigham Young University
Jim Phillips, vice president for athletics & recreation, Northwestern University
Jim Schaus, director of athletics, Ohio University
Craig Thompson, commissioner, Mountain West Conference
Kevin White, director of athletics, Duke University

Also, I doubt that what you're suggesting would have the effect that you're looking for. In fact, I strongly suspect that if the committee was structured that way, the designated representatives of G5 conferences would be less likely to support an undefeated G5 team than current committee members. For example, let's say that Boise State has a 13-0 season in 2018. There's a very strong chance that someone from the AAC, MAC, CUSA, or Sun Belt (or all of them) would think, "Hell, no, I don't want a Mountain West team to get the glory of making the playoff. The media would hype their conference over ours. I'll just vote Ohio State #4 instead, and I'll just nod my head while the committee chair tells the media that while we respect Boise's achievements, Ohio State's schedule strength was the deciding factor."

You don’t hear me gripe much about the basketball selections because 64 get in and every single league champ gets an autobid. I also think a 32 man selection committee would be too unwieldy. I would not have any obejection to a 15 man committee wirh 5 P5 reps. 5 G5 reps, and 5 non-FBs reps.

(05-17-2018 03:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:48 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Why would the Southland and Big South fight tooth and nail for mid-major bids?

Is anyone "fighting tooth and nail" for their own conference? Two of the teams with the most legit gripes about being left out this year were USC and Saint Mary's. Both of their conferences were represented on the selection committee.

Also, I doubt you'll find much support anywhere for the argument that at-large bids should be evenly distributed among all conferences. In computer metrics like RPI, KenPom, etc., nearly all of their top-50 teams get into the tournament and the ones that don't are just as likely to be P5 or Big East as not.

Not what I’m arguing. I’m arguing about committee makeup which is supposed to be objective.

Either have 1 rep from each of the 32 leagues.
Or 2 each from 1-6 (P6), 7-14 (conceivable non-P6 AL contenders), 15-20, 21-26, & 27-32.

The 2 P6 will have their own agenda.
The 2 G5+A10+MVC+WCC will have their own agenda.

The other 6 reps will be from near-eternal 1-bid leagues so they have no incentive who gets what bid and thus most likely to be objective between the two sides.

(05-17-2018 02:04 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Honestly---there is just one reform I want. I want the CFP Selection Committee to be reformed to become a 10-member body with one representative from each FBS conference. That single move, all by itself, will fix 90% of what is wrong with college football.

Many fans of non-power teams complain about committee bias in the March Madness selection process, too. But have you ever looked at who's on the basketball tournament selection committee? It's not stacked in favor of P5 conferences. Here is the 2018 committee:

Bruce Rasmussen, director of athletics at Creighton University (chair)
Bernard Muir, vice chair of committee and director of athletics, Stanford University
Mitch S. Barnhart, director of athletics, University of Kentucky
Tom Burnett, commissioner, Southland Conference
Janet Cone, director of athletics, University of North Carolina at Asheville
Tom Holmoe, director of athletics, Brigham Young University
Jim Phillips, vice president for athletics & recreation, Northwestern University
Jim Schaus, director of athletics, Ohio University
Craig Thompson, commissioner, Mountain West Conference
Kevin White, director of athletics, Duke University

Also, I doubt that what you're suggesting would have the effect that you're looking for. In fact, I strongly suspect that if the committee was structured that way, the designated representatives of G5 conferences would be less likely to support an undefeated G5 team than current committee members. For example, let's say that Boise State has a 13-0 season in 2018. There's a very strong chance that someone from the AAC, MAC, CUSA, or Sun Belt (or all of them) would think, "Hell, no, I don't want a Mountain West team to get the glory of making the playoff. The media would hype their conference over ours. I'll just vote Ohio State #4 instead, and I'll just nod my head while the committee chair tells the media that while we respect Boise's achievements, Ohio State's schedule strength was the deciding factor."

The Big East rep is always going to side with the P5 on selection criteria. That was certainly the case with Rasmussen. Pretending otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.

You have 17% (6/32) of conferences representing 50% (5/10) of the committee. There is no way to spin it. There is a ton of P6 privilege given the significantly disproportionate makeup of the committee. To pretend the rapid decline in mid-major bids is not related to this is naive.

From where I sit, to pretend that the 22-24 one bid conferences matter is naive. The decline in mid-major bids is due to a lot more factors than just the makeup of the selection committee.

(05-17-2018 04:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  The decline in mid-major bids is due to a lot more factors than just the makeup of the selection committee.

Among other things, look at the teams that have received at-large bids in this decade that were in a different conference 10 years ago. Removing those teams from their former conferences obviously makes those conferences less likely to have at-large teams going forward.

Bowl reform is the #1 thing that is going to make conferences money at this point with the TV packages so bloated.

A 7 win proposal would be good for everyone.

-Less bowl fatigue from the fans traveling for 6 win seasons.
-A chance for the market to winnow out weaker games.

Of course I don't think the powers that be want that for the very reason they believe programs get better by having the extra practices associated with a bowl. There probably isn't as much hard evidence to support that opinion as what a lot would think.

An NY8 setup with a couple more CFP bowls could add value. Keep the 4 team playoff but move the national semifinals to neutral sites a week later. That way the CFP can maximize TV windows.

Add the Citrus & Gator bowls. Give the G5 a second access bowl so their conference championship games are more intriguing since an unranked champion could back their way into a CFP bowl.

(05-17-2018 01:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 12:56 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why not just reduce the number of bowls, and say that no 6 win team can be selected ahead of a 7 (or more) win team? For any 6 win team, going to a bowl is a losing proposition financially anyway.

If there are more 6 win teams than there are slots available, they can be selected based on how long it has been since they last went to a bowl. Same procedure could apply in the unlikely event there are more 7 win teams than available slots.

AState has made money on every trip except the Cure Bowl. When you aren't charging steakhouse trips for the administration and top donors and politicians to athletics you can keep your costs down.

Sure you can say no more than 30 bowls or 35 but that just means as the number declines, the greater the probability we are back where we once were with conference champs sitting at home.

Does the Sun Belt not share bowl revenues with all conference members? Even if you go on the cheap, the costs are still pretty high if you are staying out of town for 4-5 days. If you go to a bowl with a $1 million payout, there's not much left if you divide it 10 ways. If Belt teams are making any money at all, it is probably eaten up by staff bonuses.

Money isn't the reason teams are willing to play in low payout bowls. Extra practice time is.

Extra practice is of basically no value when you play the first bowl weekend, it works out to around 4 or 5 because you shut down practice for finals.

Sun Belt takes the cash guarantee and 1/2 of your bowl ticket sales, you keep the other half. The league has a budget for each school in a bowl based on the expected hotel and meal costs and distance traveled. The league subtracts a percentage of the amount the school kept in ticket revenue from that budget and then pays the difference out of the bowl pool. Once everyone's costs are covered, any surplus is put in the general revenue pool for revenue sharing.

So if you sell well, you will make a profit.

The value of the bowls for most schools is it is the largest television audience they have all year.

(05-17-2018 03:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:48 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Why would the Southland and Big South fight tooth and nail for mid-major bids?

Is anyone "fighting tooth and nail" for their own conference? Two of the teams with the most legit gripes about being left out this year were USC and Saint Mary's. Both of their conferences were represented on the selection committee.

Also, I doubt you'll find much support anywhere for the argument that at-large bids should be evenly distributed among all conferences. In computer metrics like RPI, KenPom, etc., nearly all of their top-50 teams get into the tournament and the ones that don't are just as likely to be P5 or Big East as not.

Since selection rules require leaving the room an affiliated school is being discussed, having someone on the committee is potentially a disadvantage. USC and St Mary's might well argue that is the case.