College football fans have come to accept this broken system and even legitimize its broken structure.

I could run off any number of issues I have with college football but just as a general discussion and free for all conversation, what are you main issues and how would you address them?

Remove conference tie-ins for all bowl games and establish a pecking order that begins with the CFP and ends with the Myrtle Beach Bowl. The pecking order can be based on number of games played or size of the venue or payout. Then bowl games can select teams from a pool of available bowl-eligible teams. That way bowl games can determine which teams to invite to meet their goals, whether it be to have the highest ranked teams possible or teams that would travel well to that particular bowl.

It would also dissuade new bowls from popping up as they would be at the bottom of the pecking order and wouldn't get to choose who they want.

The core issue with the OP question is that we all may believe that the current structure is broken in some manner, but the reason why each of us may personally believe that it's broken might be diametrically opposed to each other. (We could say the same thing about politics in this country and many other areas of life. I'm sure that you could splice together a tape of quotes from every single presidential candidate from the past 50 years from both parties where they say at some point, "The system is broken!")

For instance, I believe in concept that there are problems with the college football postseason, but I would be diametrically opposed to what TrueBlueDrew proposed. In fact, what I personally believe would fix a lot of issues would be an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the P5 with traditional conference tie-ins (e.g. Rose Bowl is always Big Ten vs. Pac-12, Sugar Bowl is always SEC vs. at-large, etc.). That's just one example of how two people can identify what they perceive to be "broken" with the system, yet end up with two almost completely opposite ways of addressing it (mainly because we think the reason *why* the system is broken is based on completely different reasons).

I kind of like tradition and the bowls are part of college football tradition. So I’m still in favor of the Rose bowl being a BigTen vs PAC game.

I would not be opposed to a bowl game that had a SBC champ vs ACC #3

Wait until players start getting paid above board lol.

(12-19-2019 09:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The core issue with the OP question is that we all may believe that the current structure is broken in some manner, but the reason why each of us may personally believe that it's broken might be diametrically opposed to each other.

I think most college football fans do not believe that the sport is fundamentally broken. That's why it remains a very popular sport.

This forum is probably disproportionately populated with people who think it is. Heck, the OP is a UAB football fan. I've never actually met one of those in real life, and I have been circulating among college football fans for 45 years. You see species of fans here that are extremely rare in the "wild" so to speak. This forum is like a menagerie or zoo where the specimens have been collected in one place.

The denizens of this forum are disproportionately G5, and disproportionately likely to think things are broken, and thus to desire big changes of various kinds.

(12-19-2019 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 09:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The core issue with the OP question is that we all may believe that the current structure is broken in some manner, but the reason why each of us may personally believe that it's broken might be diametrically opposed to each other.

I think most college football fans do not believe that the sport is fundamentally broken. That's why it remains a very popular sport.

This forum is probably disproportionately populated with people who think it is. Heck, the OP is a UAB football fan. I've never actually met one of those in real life, and I have been circulating among college football fans for 45 years. You see species of fans here that are extremely rare in the "wild" so to speak. This forum is like a menagerie or zoo where the specimens have been collected in one place.

The denizens of this forum are disproportionately G5, and disproportionately likely to think things are broken, and thus to desire big changes of various kinds.

Well, I think that believing the "system is broken" comes in many forms. G5 fans are certainly going to look at their access as a broken part of the system in a way that P5 fans don't.

There are other things that don't really have to with postseason access that the general populace could see as broken. As SuperFlyBCat alluded to, player compensation is a major one. I personally believe that all players should be paid their free market value whatever it might be and the fact that this isn't happening means that the system is broken. On the other hand, others may believe that players being compensated would actually cause the system to break. The NCAA applying rules inconsistently (whether it's a major program-level violation or a more micro transfer waiver decision) can cause fans to believe that the system is broken. There are many other examples beyond the P5/G5 divide that could cause us to lose faith in the system.

Now, none of that detracts from my personal love of watching college football games every Saturday. The fact that the product is so entertaining essentially gets us to love the sport *despite* all of its structural problems. That doesn't negate that many fans see many structural problems with the sport coming from any different angles.

I don't think it's perfect, but I definitely don't think it's broken

Crowning a champion is more legitimate than it's ever been

(12-19-2019 11:47 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  I don't think it's perfect, but I definitely don't think it's broken

Crowning a champion is more legitimate than it's ever been

Exactly. The four team playoff is perfect and fits into the existing structure.

The cons are the rest of the NY6 bowls are slightly devalued, but not completely. Plus you still have the ridiculous tie-ins for tradition, but that's more of a pet peeve than anything else (The ACC/Orange Bowl is a disaster this year as an example). Then you have NFL bound players resting, which is inevitable even if you go back to a BCS system. This is a business after all.

Pros are I think you create more interest on the back end with the G5 bid looking to move up to P5 status with a big showing in a NY6 Bowl. As of now, it is not possible for a G5 to win a national championship barring A LOT of things falling into place, but sooner or later, if those schools keep winning big, they will be P5 targets for expansion candidates. I think it's evidenced by the success of the revamped AAC and MWC conferences plus BYU.

Until evidenced otherwise, like 5+ P5 schools in contention for the top 4 on a year to year basis, the four team playoff following the CCGs have held up. Not enough power schools to support a playoff beyond four right now.

(12-19-2019 01:32 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 11:47 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  I don't think it's perfect, but I definitely don't think it's broken

Crowning a champion is more legitimate than it's ever been

Exactly. The four team playoff is perfect and fits into the existing structure.

The cons are the rest of the NY6 bowls are slightly devalued, but not completely. Plus you still have the ridiculous tie-ins for tradition, but that's more of a pet peeve than anything else (The ACC/Orange Bowl is a disaster this year as an example). Then you have NFL bound players resting, which is inevitable even if you go back to a BCS system. This is a business after all.

Pros are I think you create more interest on the back end with the G5 bid looking to move up to P5 status with a big showing in a NY6 Bowl. As of now, it is not possible for a G5 to win a national championship barring A LOT of things falling into place, but sooner or later, if those schools keep winning big, they will be P5 targets for expansion candidates. I think it's evidenced by the success of the revamped AAC and MWC conferences plus BYU.

Until evidenced otherwise, like 5+ P5 schools in contention for the top 4 on a year to year basis, the four team playoff following the CCGs have held up. Not enough power schools to support a playoff beyond four right now.

This is key. There aren't and have not been 8 legitimate contenders by the end of any season.

Problem #1
- Too few quality cross-conference regular season matchups and too many exhibition-level payday home games. (I believe there is a correlation)

Solution:
- Allow one FCS *exhibition* game - as an additional game - that does not count toward win-loss record, statistics, or bowl-eligibility.
- Automatic playoff qualification for certain conference champions (see more below in response to Problem #2).

This would open up an additional regular-season game spot for most teams...which would force more inter-conference play. The automatic qualifiers would help protect teams that take an out-of-conference risk...so more out-of-conference matchups based on the attractiveness of the matchup for fans and television, rather than padding win-loss records and stats.

Problem #2
- Beauty-contest judging panel selects the playoff participants.

Solution:
- 5-1-2 playoff system with automatic qualifiers, using the NY6 bowls for the quarterfinals, with historic bowl affiliations - PAC v. B1G in Rose, SEC in Sugar, ACC in Orange, etc.
- Use *Polls* (not selection committee) for seeding and to select the 2 at large wild cards and G5 rep.

(12-19-2019 01:56 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  This is key. There aren't and have not been 8 legitimate contenders by the end of any season.

The only years I can recall in recent memory was 2007 when there were a bunch of 2 loss schools like USC, LSU, OU, UGa, all chasing a one loss OSU that LOST the final weekend of the regular season home to Illinois.

There was also 2008 when UT, OU and TTech were in a 3-way tie and 11-1. You also had PSU with one loss. One loss Pac 12. Even Boise was undefeated. They took OU and Fla.

07 and 08 had more than 5 teams with arguments for the top 2. Never have we had years like those since. And frankly, those years are no longer possible with the addition of CCGs for all major conferences and the realignment. Some of those schools would have extra wins or losses in the current structure.

(12-19-2019 11:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 09:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The core issue with the OP question is that we all may believe that the current structure is broken in some manner, but the reason why each of us may personally believe that it's broken might be diametrically opposed to each other.

I think most college football fans do not believe that the sport is fundamentally broken. That's why it remains a very popular sport.

This forum is probably disproportionately populated with people who think it is. Heck, the OP is a UAB football fan. I've never actually met one of those in real life, and I have been circulating among college football fans for 45 years. You see species of fans here that are extremely rare in the "wild" so to speak. This forum is like a menagerie or zoo where the specimens have been collected in one place.

The denizens of this forum are disproportionately G5, and disproportionately likely to think things are broken, and thus to desire big changes of various kinds.

Well, I think that believing the "system is broken" comes in many forms. G5 fans are certainly going to look at their access as a broken part of the system in a way that P5 fans don't.

There are other things that don't really have to with postseason access that the general populace could see as broken. As SuperFlyBCat alluded to, player compensation is a major one. I personally believe that all players should be paid their free market value whatever it might be and the fact that this isn't happening means that the system is broken. On the other hand, others may believe that players being compensated would actually cause the system to break. The NCAA applying rules inconsistently (whether it's a major program-level violation or a more micro transfer waiver decision) can cause fans to believe that the system is broken. There are many other examples beyond the P5/G5 divide that could cause us to lose faith in the system.

Now, none of that detracts from my personal love of watching college football games every Saturday. The fact that the product is so entertaining essentially gets us to love the sport *despite* all of its structural problems. That doesn't negate that many fans see many structural problems with the sport coming from any different angles.

I don't agree that players should be payees, but I agree that there is a problem there. Its actually worse in basketball than in football.

(12-19-2019 01:56 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 01:32 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 11:47 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  I don't think it's perfect, but I definitely don't think it's broken

Crowning a champion is more legitimate than it's ever been

Exactly. The four team playoff is perfect and fits into the existing structure.

The cons are the rest of the NY6 bowls are slightly devalued, but not completely. Plus you still have the ridiculous tie-ins for tradition, but that's more of a pet peeve than anything else (The ACC/Orange Bowl is a disaster this year as an example). Then you have NFL bound players resting, which is inevitable even if you go back to a BCS system. This is a business after all.

Pros are I think you create more interest on the back end with the G5 bid looking to move up to P5 status with a big showing in a NY6 Bowl. As of now, it is not possible for a G5 to win a national championship barring A LOT of things falling into place, but sooner or later, if those schools keep winning big, they will be P5 targets for expansion candidates. I think it's evidenced by the success of the revamped AAC and MWC conferences plus BYU.

Until evidenced otherwise, like 5+ P5 schools in contention for the top 4 on a year to year basis, the four team playoff following the CCGs have held up. Not enough power schools to support a playoff beyond four right now.

This is key. There aren't and have not been 8 legitimate contenders by the end of any season.

I would disagree but its arguable.. But there is no dispute there have been more than 4.

(12-19-2019 02:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 01:56 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 01:32 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 11:47 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  I don't think it's perfect, but I definitely don't think it's broken

Crowning a champion is more legitimate than it's ever been

Exactly. The four team playoff is perfect and fits into the existing structure.

The cons are the rest of the NY6 bowls are slightly devalued, but not completely. Plus you still have the ridiculous tie-ins for tradition, but that's more of a pet peeve than anything else (The ACC/Orange Bowl is a disaster this year as an example). Then you have NFL bound players resting, which is inevitable even if you go back to a BCS system. This is a business after all.

Pros are I think you create more interest on the back end with the G5 bid looking to move up to P5 status with a big showing in a NY6 Bowl. As of now, it is not possible for a G5 to win a national championship barring A LOT of things falling into place, but sooner or later, if those schools keep winning big, they will be P5 targets for expansion candidates. I think it's evidenced by the success of the revamped AAC and MWC conferences plus BYU.

Until evidenced otherwise, like 5+ P5 schools in contention for the top 4 on a year to year basis, the four team playoff following the CCGs have held up. Not enough power schools to support a playoff beyond four right now.

This is key. There aren't and have not been 8 legitimate contenders by the end of any season.

I would disagree but its arguable.. But there is no dispute there have been more than 4.

Definitely. Why would we think teams with 2 losses are not legitimate contenders, when we have no problem accepting college basketball teams with 10 losses that finished 4th in their conference as legitimate contenders?

(12-19-2019 09:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The core issue with the OP question is that we all may believe that the current structure is broken in some manner, but the reason why each of us may personally believe that it's broken might be diametrically opposed to each other. (We could say the same thing about politics in this country and many other areas of life. I'm sure that you could splice together a tape of quotes from every single presidential candidate from the past 50 years from both parties where they say at some point, "The system is broken!")

For instance, I believe in concept that there are problems with the college football postseason, but I would be diametrically opposed to what TrueBlueDrew proposed. In fact, what I personally believe would fix a lot of issues would be an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the P5 with traditional conference tie-ins (e.g. Rose Bowl is always Big Ten vs. Pac-12, Sugar Bowl is always SEC vs. at-large, etc.). That's just one example of how two people can identify what they perceive to be "broken" with the system, yet end up with two almost completely opposite ways of addressing it (mainly because we think the reason *why* the system is broken is based on completely different reasons).

(12-19-2019 09:51 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I kind of like tradition and the bowls are part of college football tradition. So I’m still in favor of the Rose bowl being a BigTen vs PAC game.

I would not be opposed to a bowl game that had a SBC champ vs ACC #3

The good part about my proposal is that those bowl game that are viewed more traditionally like the Rose and Sugar Bowl would be at the top of the pecking order and therefore would have the opportunity to choose a PAC vs B10 or other traditional match up if that's what they determine is most important to them.

My proposal also leaves room for the playoff to expand as the CFP is always at the top of the pecking order and can expand however large it wants.

The competitive disparity between the haves and have-nots, and the bloated length of games are my biggest gripes. A few changes that would be nice to see:

- Reduce scholarships from 85 to 70 (might balance out rosters)
- Reduce hash marks to those of the NFL (neutralize speed difference between teams)
- Eliminate stopping the clock on first downs unless it's in the last 2 minutes of a half
- Reduce halftime to 15 minutes (no reason for it to be 18; NFL is 15)

Games are nearly 4 hours nowadays, whereas the NFL has been 3 hours for ages. It sucks watching in person sometimes.

(12-19-2019 04:26 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  The competitive disparity between the haves and have-nots, and the bloated length of games are my biggest gripes. A few changes that would be nice to see:

- Reduce scholarships from 85 to 70 (might balance out rosters)
- Reduce hash marks to those of the NFL (neutralize speed difference between teams)
- Eliminate stopping the clock on first downs unless it's in the last 2 minutes of a half
- Reduce halftime to 15 minutes (no reason for it to be 18; NFL is 15)

Games are nearly 4 hours nowadays, whereas the NFL has been 3 hours for ages. It sucks watching in person sometimes.

I would love for CFB to implement the changes to reduce the game time to 3 hours.

Halftime is longer for college is for band performances for the school, which the NFL does not have... I don't think 3 minutes total is going to matter.

How about all these commercial breaks for games. Can we not have stoppages after scores or change of possession? There's a number of 3 to 5 minute commercials right there.
Problem now are more teams are passing the ball so many times a game. Incomplete passes stop the clock. Challenges/Instant Replays slow the game down too. It just adds up.

(12-19-2019 05:15 PM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  Halftime is longer for college is for band performances for the school, which the NFL does not have... I don't think 3 minutes total is going to matter.

I love 20-minute halves. Halftime bands help set college football apart from all other sports.

Plus, 15-minute halves would just result in people missing more gametime. Most stadiums aren't equipped with enough toiletry and concessions to move tens of thousands people through in 15 minutes.