How do we get "good" non-conference games back in CFB?
Since the advent of the CFP (and somewhat the BCS before it, although it is essentially the same organization) we have all noted the influence on the quality of non-conference matchups within the community of "traditional power" programs (or the adventitious "P5" term that espn decided to force upon us). Specifically, it has reduced the incentive for teams to schedule any meaningful challenges for out of conference games since the risk/reward balance for CFP inclusion favors conference play... provided the team plays in a strong conference.
This CFP-induced trend has left the bowl games as the main source of quality non-conference matchups, yet that has become jeopardized by the newer trend of player opt-outs and perception marginalization (the "bowl games don't matter" crowd). We know (too well) how a game that looks fun and interesting on paper can be scuttled into a glorified scrimmage by one team losing a number of starters to this trend, making the bowl games even less interesting overall (despite being the most exciting non-conference pairings many of those teams will have that entire year).
So the question is this: what can or will be done (realistically) to restore having "good" non-conference games? We have noticed that some "power" programs are starting to announce limited quality matchups to their future schedules, which seems to be more to placate disgruntled ticket holders than anything else... yet it seems more of a token gesture that will not reverse the greater movements in favor of "cupcake" games for these programs. Can (or should) those matchups be saved? How should the treatment of regular season non-conference vs post season bowls differ going forward?
Just something to mull as we head into the end of cfb season yet again.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:40 AM ^
Expand playoff, simple
December 31st, 2020 at 9:40 AM ^
Power 5 breaks off into its own league.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:52 AM ^
How do we get good non conference games the OP ask?
We vote with our wallets. Instead of watching Bama versus Clemson, you watch something else. Watch less games and buy less products.
They will get the point.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:57 AM ^
The most logical solution seems to be make it so you can't schedule teams outside of the P5 or FCS teams. Now, you can always schedule bottom-feeders from the P5, but who knows how those teams will be in an off year when you schedule them 5 years out. It'll never fly because these non-P5 schools need the revenue they get from these bodybag games. But it might cause some equilibrium in the football world and cause Universities to look at whether they need to reduce their ADs.
December 31st, 2020 at 10:03 AM ^
Playoff needs to be expanded to 8 at minimum and then the committee has to actually show that they use SOS rather than the eye test and TV ratings. When it becomes obvious that SOS matters, it'll start being like college basketball where you'll see teams be more open to early season OOC matchups.
Change will come soon. The ratings for this playoff are going to be terrible. Like, people are going to be talking about this in comparison to the Alabama-LSU title game. No one outside of these 4 teams is going to care and when ESPN sees that their precious playoff is losing interest, that'll start the wheels of change again
December 31st, 2020 at 10:10 AM ^
I plan to watch Clemson v Ohio simply to revel in another buckeye defeat, hopefully. I have zero desire to watch Alabama and najee Harris and I will probably not watch the 5th installment of Alabama Clemson.
December 31st, 2020 at 11:37 AM ^
Rotating conference agreements similar to the Big Ten ACC challenge.
Playoff eligibility requirements to have one ooc p5 game and only 2 FCS games over any 5 year span.
December 31st, 2020 at 11:41 AM ^
If you have an 8 team playoff with P5 champ autobids, you’ve, in essence, created a 13 team playoff. That seems fine. 16 team, with autobids, seems unnecessary.
December 31st, 2020 at 11:51 AM ^
4 team CFP has been the worst thing for college football maybe ever. Ticket sales and viewer decline has proven that.
December 31st, 2020 at 11:56 AM ^
1. All teams that play 1-AA opponents are ineligible for playoffs or major bowls
2. 8-team postseason playoff with P5 conference champions and 3 at large teams.
When evaluating competing at large teams, weak non-conference schedules are penalized relative to strong non-con schedules.
December 31st, 2020 at 12:28 PM ^
Yeah there's a catch-22 -- only way to incentivize good matchups is to lower the stakes, as "fewest number of losses" is still the most important criterion for playoff rankings. But if we lower the stakes, the games become proportionately less exciting, as they "won't count."
December 31st, 2020 at 12:36 PM ^
I would say expand the playoff field.
But, that said, it would be my second choice. I'm tired of the playoffs. I was a big proponent early on. I thought they would be closer in feel to the HS fooball playoffs we have; where a team can get in with a couple losses and sometimes make a run. Or there are enough playoff games where making the playoffs and getting a win is still a good season in most books. But they have warped the game so much that any team outside the four that made it suddenly had a 'failure' of a season. Big money, warped perceptions, and a limited field have made fanbases more toxic. It's made bowls, which used to be fun, less so as guys bail early more often because the bowls don't mean anything. It's made the impact of one reguular season loss multiplied. It's incentivized teams to ignore rules and skirt things even more, IMHO. And the combination of all these things has made college football much less enjoyable.
I had way, way more fun watching football in the 90's. Even the 8-4 seasons.
December 31st, 2020 at 1:47 PM ^
- 16 team playoff
- or play the traditional bowls then pick the 4 best teams for the playoffs
Right now if you are not Bama, Clemson or OSU you can only lose one game and make the playoffs. The margin of error is very small
December 31st, 2020 at 2:17 PM ^
5 conference champions plus 3 at large. No ore than 2 from each conference. Undefeated Group of 5 gets a bid.
Sounds reasonable, right? Not so fast my friends....
2016
Champs:
Alabama, Clemson, Penn State, Washington and Oklahoma
At large:
Ohio State 11-1 (2nd B10 team), Western Mich 13-0, and...
Michigan 10-2- no 3rd B10 so they're out. USC 9-3, Colorado 10-3 (lost to Mich), FSU 9-3, Ok State 9-3 or Louisville 9-3 (Lamar Jackson!)
2018
Champs:
Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Washington and Oklahoma
At large:
Notre Dame 12-0, UCF 12-0 (Scott Frost :() and...
either 10-2 Michigan that just gave up 62 to OSU OR 11-2 Georgia that lost to Alabama 35-28 in SEC Championship game.
So even expanded playoffs probably lead to 2 additional dong punches...
BPONE
December 31st, 2020 at 2:18 PM ^
I'm not sure I have any original ideas, it's all been said before, but I would:
1) Expand the Alabama/Clemson/Ohio State Invitational. 8 teams minimum. 16 might even be interesting.
2) Change the criteria for selection for At-Large bids. Drop "Best" and switch to "Deserving." Deserving would mean playing tough games win or lose. Since that is still too subjective and judgemental I'm not sure it would help much. I am thinking a minimum of 11 P5 games - that hurts the Group of 5 contenders, but they could get auto bids for winning their conference.
3) The Big Ten/Pac 12 challenge was a great idea, until they realized how detrimental it was. More of this.
Like I said nothing original. More teams with auto bids will help, but it would just make the bowls even crappier.
December 31st, 2020 at 6:30 PM ^
8 teams, power five autobids, two at large, highest ranked G5 team
First round campus sites, neutral sites next two rounds. So easy
December 31st, 2020 at 9:06 PM ^
Agree. Expansion is the key.