Draft Prospects Skipping Bowl Games Hopefully Will Lead to an 8-Team Playoff

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,743
Reaction score
16,088
Points
113
per The Big Lead:

This is probably the best college football news I’ve ever heard in May. Maybe ‘news’ is strong for it, but you know when the ball gets rolling on something, it’s tough to stop. You can connect the dots: Leonard Fournette, Christian McCaffrey, Jake Butt. Take it away, ESPN!

“I can envision a time where you’re a first-round talent, your team went 9-3 and is going to play at the Belk Bowl and his agent says, ‘You don’t need to play,'” a Power 5 assistant said. “It’s not going to hurt you. You’re guaranteed right now if you don’t play another game, $15 million and now you’re going to go play in a meaningless bowl game?”

Start knocking these dominoes down, and you come up with another eventuality: Does that mean the playoff has to expand to more teams to keep making bowl games relevant? Commissioners vowed earlier this week during their playoff meetings that was not going to happen, but speaking in absolutes is no longer advisable.

http://thebiglead.com/2017/05/02/dr...mes-hopefully-will-lead-to-an-8-team-playoff/

Go Gophers!!
 

Yeah, because skipping one game to play in three will lessen your chance of injury. If you are playing in the Belk Bowl, you really got a shot at the play-off.

Better stay and get your degree.
 

Expanding the playoff wouldn't make the lesser games like the Belk Bowl more relevant, so you'd still have players skipping bowl games if they think it's unnecessary.
 

The only way this would make these games more relevant is if the playoff games didn't replace the top bowl games. Have your 4 or 8 playoff teams, but still have the Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, etc. as non-playoff bowl games. It would also weed out the need for some of the secondary bowl games
 

joshvanklomp said:
The only way this would make these games more relevant is if the playoff games didn't replace the top bowl games. Have your 4 or 8 playoff teams, but still have the Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, etc. as non-playoff bowl games. It would also weed out the need for some of the secondary bowl games
Click to expand...

The 9-3 team example was a bad one.

That said, expanding to an 8 team playoff would double the amount of players who would not sit out. It really wouldn't have any impact on the lesser bowls.
 


highwayman said:
Yeah, because skipping one game to play in three will lessen your chance of injury. If you are playing in the Belk Bowl, you really got a shot at the play-off.

Better stay and get your degree.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. They are saying that the NCAA wants to come up with a way so that less of their top players do not skip postseason games. The idea is that they could do this by doubling the number of teams (and theoretically prospects from those teams) from 4 to 8. Players on those teams, theoretically, will not skip the post season games.

As to your last point, it is a non-issue. They are discussing players who are/will be top end NFL talents. Whether or not they play in the bowl games will have absolutely no bearing on their degree. They are all either graduates (vast minority) OR they will drop out after the bowl game to focus on their NFL draft preparation. The discussion of "stay and get your degree" is absolutely not relevant to the discussion.
 

There is insurance for loss of value. Of course the usual weasel words apply in the policy as far as disclosure of preexisting injuries etc. I believe the schools can pay the policy premium. Some will take the bird in the hand rather than trusting the policy will pay out and given the sums at stake who can blame the player?
 

Somehow Carson Wentz managed to survive an extended college playoff season after season, I think they should expand to 16 or 24 and eventually eliminate all other bowl games as contracts expire. If you do 24, you can give the top 8 a bye. Most teams would play 1 to 2 games with just a few ending up playing more than that. Have the final 4 new years and the championship a week later
 

32 team playoff. Waiting for it...
 



LakerFan said:
Somehow Carson Wentz managed to survive an extended college playoff season after season, I think they should expand to 16 or 24 and eventually eliminate all other bowl games as contracts expire. If you do 24, you can give the top 8 a bye. Most teams would play 1 to 2 games with just a few ending up playing more than that. Have the final 4 new years and the championship a week later
Click to expand...

There are tons of examples of players who did not get hurt playing their football career including post seasons. It doesn't take anything away from the fact that it is a risk, especially for those players who stand to lose a ton of money from an injury.
 

So it would cover a couple more teams?

I would like a bigger playoff, but this is a dumb reason to do it.
 

How about no regular season and a 128 team tournament?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
How about no regular season and a 128 team tournament?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're joking, but in all seriousness if conferences went back to an 8 game conference season and eliminated non-conference play and conference championship games and used position in conference for seeding no team would play more games than they do today. A 128 team tournament needs 7 rounds, 8+7 = 15 which is the same number a National Champ that played in their Conference Championship Game played (assuming they didn't play NC at Hawaii and get an extra game, assuming that's still a rule).

The reason it will never happen is the Power 5 teams will lose home games, and that is a non-starter. Even if you say the higher seeded teams will have home games, middle of the pack teams may host only one or two. A team like Minnesota or Purdue or Indiana could lose significant revenue. Not to mention years that a team loses in the first round, then that's two or three less home games regardless. Plus fewer total games is probably less advertising potential so less overall money. Granted, later rounds could be VERY lucrative (see March Madness).
 



No plan can cover all possible outcomes.

In General, the top players are on the better teams, so expanding the playoffs would probably involve more of those players.

Now, if you happen to have a star player on a team that has an off year, and they wind up in the Ho-Hum bowl, then those are the players who will potentially skip bowl games.

But if you're the star player on a 1-loss or 2-loss team, and that team is part of an expanded playoff system, then I would guess that the vast majority of players will elect to play. If a team has a shot at a national title, and a player decides to skip the game, he is not going to be very popular with his teammates.
 

How about we have people like Coyle and Condoleeza Rice decide which are the best teams as in the current system. Makes sense.
 

Expanding the playoff to 8 in order to combat draft prospects skipping bowl games makes little sense. Adding those 4 teams would compel somewhere between 0 and 8 kids to play another college game? I guess you could have a year where 'Bama has like 6 kids all expected to go early and they miss the playoff under a 4 team scenario, but unlikely events like that are not a reason to change the format. Expanding the playoff then further dilutes the other bowls, so does that encourage potential high picks from skipping everything but the playoff?

To me if/when the playoff is expanded beyond 4, you will see interest in college football dwindle. What separates an average Saturday of college football from a Sunday (or Monday or Thursday) of NFL football is that one loss for your team can have devastating consequences.
 

I dont think that a 8 team playoff will ever happen.

If it does though Im sure that the power 5 will each want a automatic. That leaves only 3 spots for other teams. There will still be people bi*ching. It just wont be the Big 12 anymore.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I think you're missing the point. They are saying that the NCAA wants to come up with a way so that less of their top players do not skip postseason games. The idea is that they could do this by doubling the number of teams (and theoretically prospects from those teams) from 4 to 8. Players on those teams, theoretically, will not skip the post season games.

As to your last point, it is a non-issue. They are discussing players who are/will be top end NFL talents. Whether or not they play in the bowl games will have absolutely no bearing on their degree. They are all either graduates (vast minority) OR they will drop out after the bowl game to focus on their NFL draft preparation. The discussion of "stay and get your degree" is absolutely not relevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. Being in the play-offs does not lessen the chance of injury, it increases it. If they are skipping the Belk Bowl, they weren't on a team that would be in a play-off anyway. Whether in a major bowl or a minor bowl, the chance of getting hurt is exactly the same.

My point on the degree was that maybe they should try and have at least one coherent thought pass through their head before they leave school--instead of none. It was parody/sarcasm.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom