| FTBL Bowl organization wants all games in expanded College Football Playoff played at bowl sites

The non-profit organization Bowl Season that represents the 43 postseason bowl games has asked the College Football Playoff that all games in an expanded playoff be played entirely within the bowl system. In addition, the organization has asked for a spot at the table in further CFP discussion.

In a letter dated Monday and obtained by CBS Sports that went out to the 130 FBS presidents, athletic directors, coaches and 10 FBS commissioners, the organization stated:

"An expanded playoff should include all playoff games being played within the traditional Bowl structure, not the home site of one of the participating teams. The Bowls would provide a neutral, competitively fair setting for these games as they have throughout their history."

As currently proposed, a 12-team playoff would include four first-round play-in games for eight teams at campus sites. The next two rounds in the quarterfinals and finals would be played at bowl sites. Those sites would presumably be the current New Year's Six bowls – Cotton, Fiesta, Orange, Peach and Rose -- though the specific sites have yet to be officially determined.

The letter is signed by Bowl Season executive director Nick Carparelli and chairman Mark Neville, executive director of the Holiday Bowl. All 43 bowl games are listed.

"To exclude Bowl games from any round of an expanded playoff would be harmful to Bowl Season, individual Bowls and their host communities, and post-season college football in general," the letter states. "The future direction of college football has reached a volatile point. As a leader and caretaker of college athletics, we appreciate your consideration of the key role the Bowls play in your university experience."

The expansion process has been fractionalized as CFP leaders prepare to meet Wednesday and Thursday in Irving, Texas, for the next round of talks. There has been pushback on whether the current four-team field will expand to eight or 12 or at all. SEC commissioner Greg Sankey -- part of a four-person subcommittee to make the 12-team proposal -- has stated he is fine with the four-team field if an expansion decision can't be made.

There have already been questions raised about those first-round, on-campus games due to potential missed final exams and issues with "winterization," preparing a campus stadium for freezing December temperatures. There is also a situation where a team playing a first-round game could end up on the field for a record 17 games in a season if it reaches the CFP National Championship.

Hancock recently told the Associated Press that a new playoff structure could begin as soon as the 2024 season if expansion is finalized. If not, the current contract will likely be honored through the 2025 season with the expanded playoff beginning in 2026.

Further fractionalizing discussions is how to value an expanded playoff. Several stakeholders want the current contract to expire in an effort to maximize the value of a new, expanded playoff with multiple bidders taking part in the TV rights.

Bowl executives have complained about the impact of a championship postseason since the BCS was established in 1998. Alabama coach Nick Saban has argued in the past that the season focusing on the playoff has been detrimental to the regular season and other traditional bowl games.

Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby has been vocal about how an expanded playoff will enhance the regular season.

"It's going to be very good for regular-season TV," Bowlsby told CBS Sports. "It's going to be very good for regular-season attendance. This time of year, Week 7 or 8, there's going to be 40 teams that have a legitimate rooting possibility of being in there. Another 3-4 weeks from now, there's still going to be 20-25 teams. That's a far cry from [saying] 'Who's in' and there are 4 or 5 teams that have a chance."

 
Remember Giants...winning SB...as a wild card over Pats...undefeated Pats..
Let's think about this for a second. When you're talking about the Giants run in the playoffs let's consider the difference in the talent on that NY team when compared to the highest 'seeded' teams that season: Dallas and New England. The parity found in the NFL is in no way comparable to that in college football.

So, now let's move back to college football.

In essence we'd be looking at the #12 team getting their participation but having to run through three teams, all ranked higher due to their talent.

This idea that we'd see a team like Kentucky go through a mid-seed then two of the highest seeds isn't based in reality.

NY played the 4th, 1st, and 2nd seeded teams from the NFC. That would be like Kentucky having to beat Michigan, then Oklahoma, then Georgia to get to the championship game. They don't have that talent or depth.

We might see a Michigan State win over a similarly seed Oregon but we won't see that team run through a gauntlet of Ohio State, Alabama, and then to the championship game.

The parity found in the NFL isn't found in college. The same model, and what argument is being used to support it (NY wild card,) simply doesn't work.

The biggest reason, by far, is what happens to the regular season with the expanded playoffs. "We've won our conference, let's rest our starters." You want to see that happen to a regular season ending game; a lot of the times a BIG rivalry?

BTW, you did notice there's no home field advantage with this proposal? What does it matter if you're a #1 seed or a #2 seed? It'd be the difference between playing UK or Notre Dame. (IF you've noticed, as of today's rankings, the #2 seed has already won against our Notre Dame in this hypothetical.)
 
Let's think about this for a second. When you're talking about the Giants run in the playoffs let's consider the difference in the talent on that NY team when compared to the highest 'seeded' teams that season: Dallas and New England. The parity found in the NFL is in no way comparable to that in college football.

So, now let's move back to college football.

In essence we'd be looking at the #12 team getting their participation but having to run through three teams, all ranked higher due to their talent.

This idea that we'd see a team like Kentucky go through a mid-seed then two of the highest seeds isn't based in reality.

NY played the 4th, 1st, and 2nd seeded teams from the NFC. That would be like Kentucky having to beat Michigan, then Oklahoma, then Georgia to get to the championship game. They don't have that talent or depth.

We might see a Michigan State win over a similarly seed Oregon but we won't see that team run through a gauntlet of Ohio State, Alabama, and then to the championship game.

The parity found in the NFL isn't found in college. The same model, and what argument is being used to support it (NY wild card,) simply doesn't work.

The biggest reason, by far, is what happens to the regular season with the expanded playoffs. "We've won our conference, let's rest our starters." You want to see that happen to a regular season ending game; a lot of the times a BIG rivalry?

BTW, you did notice there's no home field advantage with this proposal? What does it matter if you're a #1 seed or a #2 seed? It'd be the difference between playing UK or Notre Dame. (IF you've noticed, as of today's rankings, the #2 seed has already won against our Notre Dame in this hypothetical.)
Ok...lets back up and use theTide...
2019...say a bama is essential a wild card....you give them no chance( about same team as 2020)
2013...give that bama team no chance...(beat on a fluke)
Maybe even the 2010 team....

Can make paper predictions...but things happen on the field...like a unranked Texas AnM team beating the #1 team...it happens

And...i am not all-in with proposal...but playoffs need some expansion...more than 4...all i am saying
 
Can make paper predictions...but things happen on the field...like a unranked Texas AnM team beating the #1 team...it happens
Like using the wild card with NY this is another bad example. When you're looking at the way Bama was favored in that game historically you'll see an upset 5.1% of the time.

You're suggesting the change based on something that happens that infrequently? Just because, "it might?"

"Fixing something that isn't broken."

The farther we're removed from the BCS the better the BCS looks in retrospect.
 
Like using the wild card with NY this is another bad example. When you're looking at the way Bama was favored in that game historically you'll see an upset 5.1% of the time.

You're suggesting the change based on something that happens that infrequently? Just because, "it might?"

"Fixing something that isn't broken."

The farther we're removed from the BCS the better the BCS looks in retrospect.
But it happens...

And

Your right...it might happen...

The playoff system isn't broken... But it can be fine tuned....and WILL BE!
You know that...

Just different philosophies....RollTide
 
fine tuned
princess-bride.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom