Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

CFP-With Right HC and 8 teams, this is not unrealistic

Not Sure said:
There are several million reasons, actually.
Click to expand...
That’s maybe true. And an easy answer.

What about divisions, CCGs, AQs, G5, revenue distribution, location, bowl structure, timing, ESD, on and on?

This is a gnarley issue and won’t be solved by money alone.

You think SEC gives up CCG? It had higher rating than CFP semis.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
Something I think the NCAA should consider vis a vis creating more parity is a reduction of scholarships based on success. Sort of like the NFL makes the SB winner draft last. Im not sure how you do it. Maybe something like conference champion loses X number of scholarships, playoff birth teams lose X+1, NC game teams lose X+2, NC winner loses X+3. Like the Patriots they'll still win. But it'll be harder and itll give others a better chance.
Click to expand...
This is the best solution to parity. Plus financial restrictions. More playoff teams is not the answer, to me.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
Something I think the NCAA should consider vis a vis creating more parity is a reduction of scholarships based on success. Sort of like the NFL makes the SB winner draft last. Im not sure how you do it. Maybe something like conference champion loses X number of scholarships, playoff birth teams lose X+1, NC game teams lose X+2, NC winner loses X+3. Like the Patriots they'll still win. But it'll be harder and itll give others a better chance.
Click to expand...

No thanks. Not every conference champion is dominant and those reductions would stunt any hard work and momentum of teams like CU.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
Something I think the NCAA should consider vis a vis creating more parity is a reduction of scholarships based on success. Sort of like the NFL makes the SB winner draft last. Im not sure how you do it. Maybe something like conference champion loses X number of scholarships, playoff birth teams lose X+1, NC game teams lose X+2, NC winner loses X+3. Like the Patriots they'll still win. But it'll be harder and itll give others a better chance.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
Duff Man said:
No thanks. Not every conference champion is dominant and those reductions would stunt any hard work and momentum of teams like CU.
Click to expand...
It would have to be based on conference standings, not championships, and be weighted by some kind of “dominance ranking” such as power ratings, FPI, etc.

It’s not an elegant solution. At all.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
Something I think the NCAA should consider vis a vis creating more parity is a reduction of scholarships based on success. Sort of like the NFL makes the SB winner draft last. Im not sure how you do it. Maybe something like conference champion loses X number of scholarships, playoff birth teams lose X+1, NC game teams lose X+2, NC winner loses X+3. Like the Patriots they'll still win. But it'll be harder and itll give others a better chance.
Click to expand...
You’ve hit the double whammy: not only this is a truly horrible idea, but it’s also one that would never come even remotely close to happening, ever.
 
Just end the charade that there are 125+ "Division I-FBS" programs. Take the P5 conference champs as AQ into a playoff. MWC and AAC champs have to play-in along with 2 at-large teams.

Relegate the MAC, Sun-Belt, Conference USA and all independents except Notre Dame, BYU, and Army to D-I FCS status.

Conference champs getting in, means there will be more quality OOC games scheduled for the top teams and we can stop arguing about "strength of schedule" "eye test" etc and actually let the games on the field in conference dictate the playoff implications. There is no pre-season for college and some of these kids are straight out of high school. Allowing them some quality tune-up games without fear/pressure of playoff implications is beyond reasonable.

Make every conference play 9 conference games during regular season. Conferences can either play divisional winners in a title game or "top 2" based on whatever system they choose.

Promotion to D-I FBS and relegation to D-I FCS would be based on on-field success (football only), financial support, and paid live game attendance. That way there is a path for schools to do the "Boise State" or maintain a standard to be at the adult's table.

Would be pretty awesome to have a true promotion/relegation "challenge bowl game" with the best of the FCS taking on the worst of the AAC or MWC for their place in that conference! But I know that isn't for everyone.

This would only be for football and programs can maintain their other sports conference affiliation separate from football.

This gives everyone a path to the playoff on the field in each of their respective divisions, while creating more money (expanded playoff and higher rated/attended regular season OOC matchups).

This would reduce the overall football scholarships (by dropping 37 programs with 85 full schollies down to 63 schollies) by 814 but it would also take most programs that are relying on institutional support and make them more solvent. I would offset the loss of scholarships by allowing the remaining 91 programs go to 94 schollies, so there is a net gain of 5. This would help create more separation and offset the impact of the new transfer trends.

The playoff expansion in each division would increase revenues to everyone that could also help to balance the budgets.
 
Last edited:
BerkeleyBuff said:
You’ve hit the double whammy: not only this is a truly horrible idea, but it’s also one that would never come even remotely close to happening, ever.
Click to expand...

Im well aware that it will never happen. It's about money and not parity.

There have been a lot of decade dynasty's in college football from Notre Dame to Nebraska, Oklahoma to Miami, Alabama, PSU, USC, FSU, tOSU. If that's acceptable to you to see unbeatable programs repeat over and over then stop reading here.

I just prefer the ones where the games are much closer and we're not sure whos going to win til the end. I was a Miami season ticket holder with my dad until 1990 when i left for college. Ive seen more epic beat downs than I can remember.

The biggest changes the NCAA made was imposing a 100 scholarship cap on programs. Later they reduced it to 85 and started limiting walk ons. Even if you reduced scholarships to 70 the same programs would probably still win because their fans and alums put pressure on the program and the program responds and eventually finds the right coach. Reducing the talent available to those programs would ultimately spread it around further. If the trend is true that HS football participation is starting to decline that factor could be important in the future as things get lopsided again with 4-5 programs hording the best talent and outspending everyone else.
 
Last edited:
I feel like they added so many bowl games that they watered down the product. Being in a bowl no longer seems "special" and the games don't feel special any more. On top of that, they added the BCS title game and that morphed into the CFP. That made all of the other games so much less than they were.

This may be a generational thing, but with the bowl system I have to admit that if I take a step back it is only nostalgia and a desire to see some more college football before it's over for the season that is keeping me watching. But I'm nowhere near as interested as I once was. They all feel like exhibition games to me now -- moving more each year to being like a pro league all-star game in terms of my interest level if it's not the playoff or the Buffs playing.

I think this feeling is what's pushing me toward wanting another round of realignment and a much bigger playoff.
 
Buffnik said:
This may be a generational thing, but with the bowl system I have to admit that if I take a step back it is only nostalgia and a desire to see some more college football before it's over for the season that is keeping me watching. But I'm nowhere near as interested as I once was. They all feel like exhibition games to me now -- moving more each year to being like a pro league all-star game in terms of my interest level if it's not the playoff or the Buffs playing.

I think this feeling is what's pushing me toward wanting another round of realignment and a much bigger playoff.
Click to expand...

25 years ago in 1983, 16 Bowl games.

in 2017, 40 bowl games.

As a kid in Miami it was fun to see The Rose Bowl and some of the other games. The Pac10 was almost never on TV. Also to have some strange teams come into town for the Orange Bowl. That was nostalgic for me. That and spending a few days during the break watching the few bowl games that there were. It did kind of feel special.

There are too many games now. I saw my first games of this bowl season yesterday. The more days before NYD the more meaningless they are. Holiday Bowl, Citrus Bowl, Liberty Bowl, Peach Bowl, Aloha Bowl were usually competetive filler ahead of the big ones. Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Cotton Bowl, were must see TV. Games were on in the daytime too.
 
Last edited:
I'd go with a 70 scholarship limit plus a mandatory 9 game conference schedule for now to see how it works. Just expanding the playoff with no further measures is more likely to have a counter effect than achieve what is actually intended IMO. Expanding the playoff would a) further strengthen Clemson and Alabama and b) probably elevate UGA, OU and OSU to a new level where we'd be left with a similar situation we're in now where a handful of programs are heads and shoulders above the rest and that a) causes them to raise their profile and attract more talent on the field and b) their recent success gives them the benefit of the doubt where they win any argument. The rich would only get richer and that's what I've seen happening elsewhere.
 
Duff Man said:
80 scholarship limit
Mandatory 9-game conference schedule
Mandatory home and home series against a P5 opponent every four years
Click to expand...
I don't care that it's a 9-game conference schedule. Let conferences do whatever they want. However, make it so that a team has to play 10 P5 opponents and that only those games will be considered for the CFP in terms of wins (losses in non-P5 games will be considered, however) -- including the CFP ranking that will determine bowl order for conference members.
 
Duff Man said:
Mandatory home and home series against a P5 opponent every four years
Click to expand...
I’m not following you here.

Are you saying Michigan plays Florida OOC (for example) home and away over four years and the rest of the OOC games over those four years can be the likes of Prarie View A&M?
 
4DemBuffs said:
I’m not following you here.

Are you saying Michigan plays Florida OOC (for example) home and away over four years and the rest of the OOC games over those four years can be the likes of Prarie View A&M?
Click to expand...

I am saying a school must play at least one home and home series (two games) against a P5 opponent every four years.
 
Duff Man said:
I am saying a school must play at least one home and home series (two games) against a P5 opponent every four years.
Click to expand...
I see what you mean. You want to see at least some true road games against quality non-conference opponents. UT playing a neutral site game against a top team in Arlington isn't really a neutral game and is much different than a road game. Like Auburn playing Washington in Atlanta this year -- very different than if the matchup had been 1 game in Auburn and 1 game in Seattle.
 
Buffnik said:
I see what you mean. You want to see at least some true road games against quality non-conference opponents. UT playing a neutral site game against a top team in Arlington isn't really a neutral game and is much different than a road game. Like Auburn playing Washington in Atlanta this year -- very different than if the matchup had been 1 game in Auburn and 1 game in Seattle.
Click to expand...

Would we see more quality road games if there was more freedom to hold scrimmages or a pre season game?

NCAA rules allow FBS college football teams to play 12 contests, including scrimmages against other teams. No school is about to give up a regular-season game to play a game that doesn’t count. Since the 2016 season, all FBS conferences have been allowed to conduct a championship game that does not count against the limit of 12 regular-season contests.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
25 years ago in 1983, 16 Bowl games.

in 2017, 40 bowl games.

As a kid in Miami it was fun to see The Rose Bowl and some of the other games. The Pac10 was almost never on TV. Also to have some strange teams come into town for the Orange Bowl. That was nostalgic for me. That and spending a few days during the break watching the few bowl games that there were. It did kind of feel special.

There are too many games now. I saw my first games of this bowl season yesterday. The more days before NYD the more meaningless they are. Holiday Bowl, Citrus Bowl, Liberty Bowl, Peach Bowl, Aloha Bowl were usually competetive filler ahead of the big ones. Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Cotton Bowl, were must see TV. Games were on in the daytime too.
Click to expand...

25 years ago in 1983? Lol. Does that mean I’m 23 again??
 
I like the mandatory home and home, like the required 10 P5 opponents each year, might even put in a requirement that a school play at least one opponent from each of the other P5 conferences home and home in an 8 year stretch. Force some teams to leave their comfort zones.

When the scholarship limit dropped to 85 it helped improve the level of competition by pushing some players to mid-level programs who before would have spent a career on the bench at a top 10-15 school.

I think though that going below say 75 would make it hard for lower end schools who have to recruit some developmental players to compete. I would keep it at 75 or 80 but also make it much harder for the top schools to push guys out and replace them each year. Maybe say that 70% of the recruits who sign and are accepted by the school count against the limit for four years even if they aren't there. That way somebody like ****Baylor couldn't sign 25, keep 10 and chase the other 15 off and replace them with new freshmen each year. If they signed 25 in a year they would have at least 18 of those count against the limit for 4 years no matter what even if they got murdered or sent to jail for rape.
 
I don't like the idea of forced parity, that's too NFL-like. College football is a free enterprise to put as many resources into your program as you choose, that's what makes the sport interesting and gives us a disparity among teams and conferences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top