Today’s discussion is focused on which teams were left out and whether more teams should be added to the championship playoff, but I do not see it getting more than 16 teams in the mix - simply because of the number of games it would take to win the type of tournament. It seems likely that a 2nd level tournament will evolve to get more teams engaged and add meaning to the bowl games. Bundle a series of December bowl games into a playoff and target the 2nd level of teams who are not selected for the championship playoff, with the winner of this playoff declared the 2nd tier champion. If this occurs, ESPN viewership of the bowl games stays high because the bowl games matter, bowl sponsors anr happy their games stay relevant and alumni will be more interested to travel because winning these bowl games has more meaning.

nobody wants to play in them

..."above board." Now most players don't need those handouts.

Which I used to be totally against. I thought 4 teams was enough, we're just looking for the champ. MAYBE 6 but now it's out of hand in looking for #1. But I'd rather have an overblown playoff if we're going to lose post-season bowls altogether. The challenge is keeping it from being like March Madness. I don't want to see super-low seeds get embarrassed by the top seeds for 60 minutes. Those are not fun to watch, and I don't think we're going to see low-seeded Cindarellas give SEC teams fits. Football is different from basketball. ** Edited by Bleedin OandM at 12/8/2025, 12:25:15 PM

settle who’s who in course of season.

just as they are now. Push the "regular" season back a week if you have to. Can't be any worse than what bowl season has evolved into.

interesting matchup that would occur with a shifting of the actual bowls.

of the regular season. If you overlook that the bowl match-ups would based on last year's records and that both teams are completely different, then people should realize what they are proposing essentially exist now in the form of neutral site games played in Week 0 or Week 1. The reason there are not as many of those games as bowl games is because not as many people can travel in late August (due to work and/or the start of school) compared to the holiday season when most people are off from work and/or school. Plus, there is a reason majority of these games are played in the South and in outdoor stadiums. Who really wants to travel to some of these locations (i.e. El Paso, TX, Shreveport, LA, etc.) in late August to sit in an outdoor football stadium and fry to a crisp in the Sun because of the heat and humidity? What in late December when it is in the 70s there and 20s or 30s where they live?

They're largely different when 10-20 players per side are opting out anyway. I think you're overestimating the value of travel in the modern bowl landscape. These are TV events now. Because these games are increasingly viewed as meaningless, people don't care to travel for them...especially to places like Shreveport and El Paso. Watch some bowl games and tell me where the empty seats travelled from. Sure, host cities gladly take in some tourism money, but a lot of these games are very lightly attended (and plenty of attendees didn't travel). And yes, sites like that are traditionally used because of weather, but (a) traditions change and (b) we've got outdoor bowls in cold weather places like New York, Boston, Annapolis and Boise now...plus some places like Memphis, Nashville, and Charlotte that aren't exactly "warm weather" in December. Some warm weather bowls could die, some northern bowls could emerge. No one outside of El Paso and Shreveport is losing any sleep if those bowls go away in favor of Cleveland and Denver. ** Edited by Pylons at 12/8/2025, 1:29:18 PM

screwed based on how last year's team did. VT could end up being a good example of what I am talking about. Next year VT could be ranked in the Top 20 in the preseason polls, but not selected to play in a "bowl game" because of how it did this season. You can bet there would be quite a few posts on here talking about how it was a joke VT wasn't selected for a "bowl game" given all the buzz that had been generated for the program during the offseason because of the Franklin hire. Also, ticket purchasers could be upset because they think their team was "deserving" of a better bowl game or a more travel friendly bowl game. If people are still not attending these beginning season bowl games, then what has been accomplished by moving them? From the school's perspective, it could mean loss revenue of 1 game because every team may have to keep 1 slot free in case they are "selected" for a bowl game. Remember the only way schools can play 13 regular season games is if they agree to play 1 game at Hawai'i. Since the bowl games should be treated no differently than the neutral site games that exist now, there is no reason to modify the bylaws so teams can play a 13th regular season in Week 0 or Week -1 (aka the week before Week 0). If the NCAA keeps moving up the start date of the regular season, then it just moves up the start date of Fall practice so teams are starting Fall practice in mid to late-July. Not every school has indoor practice facilities to protect the players from the heat and humidity especially when they are in full pads. Schools could end up with another Junction Boys type situation.

You think potential ticket purchasers are excited now to go watch 2 opt-out-depleted rosters compete? There are downsides to the alternate scenario. Fine. It's still far better than the clown show that bowl season has become. What, TEN *teams* are choosing to not participate this year? Even in the face of fines in some cases? Not exactly a healthy system. It's an extra game. No need to keep some scheduling slot open. The game limit rule can change. The start of the season doesn't have to change...as you pointed out there are already preseason games that are sorta like preseason bowls...we already created the odd "week 0"...make it bowl week. The bowls are a shadow of what they were decades ago. They're a joke. Something needs to change.

my point. The start of the season will change because it includes Fall practice. The bylaw below would now apply to "bowl games" since they are now played at the beginning of the regular season instead of the postseason. "17.12.3.1 First Practice Date. [FBS/FCS] An institution shall not commence official preseason football practice sessions, for the varsity, junior varsity or freshman team, before 31 days before its first scheduled intercollegiate game. Before its first scheduled intercollegiate game, an institution may not engage in more than 25 on-field practices. (Revised: 1/11/89, 4/14/03, 4/24/03 effective 5/1/03, 4/28/05, 1/18/18, 6/11/18, 5/18/22)" The bylaw below would also be impacted by the change because the start of Fall practice would begin sometime mid to late July (as I previously stated) due to the moving of the bowl games and the impact it has on Bylaw 17.12.3.1. "17.12.2 Length of Playing Season. [FBS/FCS] The length of an institution's playing season in football shall be limited to the period of time between the start of preseason practice (see Bylaw 17.12.3) and the end of the regular playing season (see Bylaw 17.12.5), except as provided in Bylaw 17.12.7 (see Bylaw 17.12.4 for restrictions on first contest dates)." Since this currently no concept of preseason games in college football, which is what you seem to be claiming the bowl game would be, the following bylaw would apply (unless changed) and why I am suggesting that teams would need to have 1 slot available on their regular season schedule for it. Although it is worth noting the bylaw does include scrimmages as counting against the 12 regular season slots which could suggest the same would apply to the bowl game. "17.12.6 Number of Contests. [FBS/FCS] 17.12.6.1 Maximum Limitations -- Institutional. [FBS/FCS] In bowl subdivision football, an institution shall limit its total regular-season playing schedule with outside competition during the permissible football playing season in any one year to 12 contests (games or scrimmages), except as provided for member institutions located in Alaska and Hawaii, under Bylaw 17.32.2, and except as provided for all members under Bylaw 17.12.6.2. In championship subdivision football, a member institution shall limit its total regular-season playing schedule with outside competition during the permissible football playing season in any one year to 11 contests (games or scrimmages), except as provided for member institutions located in Alaska and Hawaii, under Bylaw 17.32.2, and except as provided for all members under Bylaw 17.12.6.2. Twelve football contests shall be permissible during those years in which there are 14 Saturdays from the first permissible playing date through the last playing date in November (e.g., 2024, 2025). (Revised: 1/12/99 effective 8/1/02, 8/5/99 effective 8/1/02, 4/28/05 effective 8/1/06, 12/15/06)"

are on stone tablets. Some rules would have to change. Ok, they change all the time. Allowing a 13th game and/or an extra week (with the stated potential downsides like hotter practices for some) is not that big of a deal in the context of changing bowl games from meaningless exhibitions that don't count to interesting real games that do. People love the "preseason" games like USC-VT. Give us more. Would you rather watch PSU play Clemson for nothing with half a roster and a lame duck coach/staff 2 days after Christmas or watch them play completely overhauled late next August in a game that actually matters? No one picks the former.

various reasons. There is a reason the schools have been reluctant to incorporate Week 0 into the regular season calendar and still require schools (FBS and FCS) to get a waiver before they can agree to play a Week 0 game. You may not think it is a big deal to practice in hotter conditions, but the schools may see it as a liability issue. Since the only college football games I watch on TV involve VT and sometimes JMU, I would have no interest in a Clemson-Penn State game regardless whether it is a bowl game or Week 0/1 regular season game. The whole discussion boils down to a simple economic one for me. If a location thought enough people would travel there in late August and companies were willing to sponsor the game, then we would be seeing more of these games being plan than we currently do now. The other piece of it is the network piece. Right now the bowl games are spread out with some played during the work week (early afternoon, mid-afternoon, and night) to minimize the number of games in direct competition with each other. For example, the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl is scheduled to play this year on December 22 (Monday) at 2pm. Since you said these games are essentially for TV ratings, how good of a ratings do you think the game would get if it were to play next year on August 24 (Monday) at 2pm? I count a total of 14 bowl games currently scheduled to play on a week day and kickoff before 5 pm. They should all get pretty good ratings because of the number of people off work or school during the holidays. Do you truly believe they would get the same ratings if they played on the same day of week and at the same time in August? If you believe those games would be limited to the evenings and/or the weekend, then their ratings should go down because they will be in direct competition with at least 1 other bowl game. If multiple bowl games are played at the same time, then they will all see a decline in ratings which doesn't make good business sense given that ESPN owns all except a handful of bowl games now.

Conferences and schools (especially the Group of 5) use it for media exposure and rights. Then, budget question for many questions how do you replace this share income to the conference members. (If you are CUSA, Sunbelt, amerian or mac, very limited opportuntiies) Also affects the big conferences. Its not just the 12 and the rest or 'perceived' losers is not accurate.

They currently get a token invitation to the playoffs, something they have no realistic chance of winning. Give the G5 their own playoff. Their own championship ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 12/8/2025, 12:54:54 PM

than watching two G5 teams play in an Uncle John's Flea Market Bowl Game.

and the revenue streams stay in place...maybe even increase

They are just neutral site, regular season games. And if you choose not to count them as part of your regular season record, then who's going to want to play them. You don't want to play a tough game and get your players injured before the season starts.

And they count if the CFP committee says they count. You want to opt out and take a loss, go for it. It doesn't have to be "before the season starts," it can be the season start...like you said "neutral site, regular season games"...except with sponsors and surrounded by "bowl week" hype.

Then let's just take everybody that won six games this year and call their first game of the season next year a bowl game. Move it to a neutral site. And we will have lots of bowl games. That might be technically accurate, but I don't think fans will feel the same way about it, nor will they feel the same way about any other version of a bowl game at the beginning of the season. Essentially you would still be doing away with the bowl system, and expanding the number of early season neutral site matchups. We already have those, just fewer of those than bowls. You can call it whatever you want. But fans will still see it for what it is. If we're going to do away with the bowl system, just do away with it. Don't drag it out into a slow, painful death. ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 12/8/2025, 1:28:13 PM

There is no way that espn gives them up easily. But I’m sure they are looking at new models based on how the teams and players are reacting and opting out. The changes are clearly accelerating and need to be addressed soon.

between Christmas Day and New Year's Day when most people are off from work or school? If not, then what content will ESPN use to fill those time slots which traditionally had been reserved for bowl games?

….without pre whistles [which negated one of KD’s rare completions.]