CFP versus Bowl Games
Are you happy with the CFP? When it was first announced I thought it took away from the bowl games which were an awesome way for our region conference to play an away game against the SEC and PAC-10 and see how we stacked up.
In years past I'd be happy with a 2 loss 10 win season and playing in what was traditionally the #2 bowl, but the sting of not being in the CFP hurts. On the flip side, there was debate about who the number 4 team should be instead of who the #1 team is at the end of the year. (Screw Nebraska and Scott Frost's mom.)
What do you think?
Does the CFP take away from the bowls? Are you excited about FSU? How about the Cottonbowl?
Should there be more teams (6? 8?) in the CFP?
Should you have to win your conference to be in the CFP?
Did the CFP solve the national champion debate? If WMU whoops WIsconsin real bad and bama and OSU both lose should WMU be the national champ?
December 8th, 2016 at 12:09 AM ^
Fans of various teams will spark interest in a particular bowl game. I will watch the Orange Bowl but will not watch the CFP or any other bowl game mainly because I do not have the time.
Knowing that Michigan has the team to compete in the CFP but is playing in the Orange Bowl produces anger. I will get over it I assume along with the rest of our fan base probably when next season starts. The worst part is having to wait another year to get a crack at OSU when the scoreboard should have had Michigan on top. Few will care that we beat FSU; it will be more about not beating Iowa and OSU.
December 8th, 2016 at 6:48 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 7:30 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 8:22 AM ^
the end
December 8th, 2016 at 12:16 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 1:01 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 8:34 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 10:28 AM ^
I love the playoff and settling the overall champion on the field. That said, it is currently too exclusive. If they can expand it to 8 (or even 6), it should make more games relevant and the bigger bowls more fun to watch overall. As we all know, it is logistically challenging, but not impossible to accomplish.
December 8th, 2016 at 12:17 AM ^
I enjoyed debates of old - of who was in fact the best team / deserved to be #1 - vs. the debates of new - of who should have been in the BCS title game / playoff. Not to mention the fact that nobody can clearly articulate what it takes to be in.
I do like "settling it on the field", but at the same, they've done gone and ruined the pinnacle of bowl season - New Year's Day.
I built my man cave on the premise and promise of Jan 1 (Jan 2 when Jan 1 is a Sunday). Three games at noon (Cotton, Gator, Whatever), the Granddaddy at 4:30, three games at night (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta). What a glorious college football orgy. And I miss it. Because the best part was that from 4:30 on, at least 2 of the games mattered, and some years 3 did.
I will enjoy watching Michigan one more time, as I always do, but to me it's not the same playing on December 30 (wtf) even though it's the Orange Bowl.
December 8th, 2016 at 12:41 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 8:10 AM ^
Unless I'm at the Michigan game, I am extremely happy to watch a "primary game" while knowing I have a few other choices to switch to during commercials. Or if I'm at a bar, it's nice to have different TVs to look at.
December 8th, 2016 at 8:21 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 9:18 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 9:39 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 12:03 PM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 9:55 AM ^
The goal always used to be to win the conference (beat up the kids on your block) and then go to the Rose Bowl and beat up the kids from the other block. That was what was special about college football. I used to enjoy watching all of the games on the days I had off of work or school and having the debate of B1G vs. PAC vs. SEC and even rooting for the MAC. The National Championship ruins that regional pride New Years football cornicopia. As you say here, the Conference Championship isn't even relevant. The B1G championship should mean something.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:02 AM ^
does mean something, unless you convince yourself it doesn't. It is not the existence of a national champion that ruins the New Years football cornicopia, it is your perception of what the national championship mean as to the rest of the sport that does so. Right now, put some distance between your feelings regarding how our season ended and what comes after. Do not watch the bowls and/or the Playoff with continued lingering anger as to how it relates to what came before it. If you are not the Playoff, watch the Fiesta Bowl because Ohio State v. Clemson, is, aside from its ramifications on us, a pretty great matchup to watch on the field. Do you see what I am getting at?
December 8th, 2016 at 10:23 AM ^
Callin' it
December 8th, 2016 at 10:29 AM ^
I just have issues (basically the same thing).
December 8th, 2016 at 12:21 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 12:40 AM ^
I think the CFP is fine, but it will probably take the "get of my lawn" side of me a few more years to get used to it. Considering how quickly Orange Bowl tickets sold out, I don't think there's a lack of interest for other bowls.
This year would've been an absolute mess trying to figure out who the number 2 team was if the BCS of old was still around. (Plus it'd probably end up being OSU vs Bama right off the bat, yuck)
December 8th, 2016 at 9:28 AM ^
of things here. I don't think there is much of a "get off my lawn" aspect to those that oppose the old system, I think it is more the "all or nothing" aspect of the up and coming fans that could prove to be the biggest evil to the Playoff proving successful.
You are right, the Orange Bowl student ticket sell out is a good sign, because the initial reaction to the Orange Bowl birth was concerning. College football fans play an important role in allowing the CFP to be successful, and they serve that role by now allowing it to detract from the other tradtions of the sport. It is an interactive process, you have to consciously remind yourself to do so. You have to treat the CFP as a different entity, a "part" of bowl season and "part" of college football, but not the only part and not necessarily the only indispensible part. You have to remind yourself that losing the The Game hurt, but not primarily because it meant basically disqualification from CFP consideration, but because we lost to those mouthbreathers, again, and it cannot happen again next year. You have to remind yourself that the Orange Bowl is itself, a historically significant game with its own ramifications.
The CFP still has work to do as well, and some of involves the currrent bowl tie-ins. I am 100% in favor of Western Michigan making a NY 6 bowl game or a "big bowl game," but I'm sorry, Wisconson v. Western Michigan in Texas just cannot happen. There are an absolute ass ton of matchups that would served both teams and fans well with these two teams, but them playing each other in Jerry World is an unacceptable result.
December 8th, 2016 at 9:44 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 12:35 AM ^
It's just another game now, regularly featuring 2nd or 3rd best teams in their conference.
Just for kicks, here's what (I think) the "traditional" (i.e., pre-2005) matchups would have been:
- Rose Bowl: Penn State (5) vs Washington (4)
- Sugar Bowl: Alabama (1) vs Ohio State (3)
- Orange Bowl: Oklahoma (7) vs Michigan (6)
- Fiesta Bowl: Clemson (2) vs USC (9)
These would be good, but I don't think those are any better than what we got. Again, the Rose Bowl would have been better, but that's about it.
December 8th, 2016 at 12:46 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 1:14 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 9:50 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 12:41 AM ^
I think there's definitely an argument to be made that you should have to win your conference to make the CFP (PSU is shut out even though they beat OSU straight up who is in? I think PSU would get clobbered but you can't say they don't have an argument). For that reason I'd argue for an 8 team playoff. Conference champs plus a few highly rated other teams, manipulate the rankings a little bit to produce interesting matchups, and have at it. Essentially it'd replace your highest level bowl games and give you more games to follow. The goal is always more and better football games, and expanding the playoff would give you exactly that, but with actual stakes instead of some one-off bowl game that gets you nothing.
In an 8 team playoff you could give a spot to WMU because it's kinda bullshit that they went undefeated and the best they can pull is a NY6 game. I think Wisconsin will steamroll WMU, but they should get a shot. Otherwise what's with all the rhetoric about "preserving the sanctity of the regular season"? You can argue the MAC is a shitty football conference, but isn't that why we play the games? They played the schedule they had, and they beat all comers. It's not the NFL where they can get some recognition and come back next year. This may never happen again for them.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 8th, 2016 at 12:57 AM ^
This version of the Plus-1 model has taken a lot of fun out of the other bowl games. They should have left all the bowl alliances the same, and have a playoff committee determine the 4 best teams after the bowls. Go back to 11-game regular seasons and you essentially play the same number of games.
Alabama, Clemson and Washington have played 13 games already, with a maximum of two more to go, so that's 15 total. You kill an extra non-conference game and the max number of games a team can play in the regular season is 12. Throw in a max of 3 more games for a bowl game then 2 playoff games and you end up back at 15 games. I could even live with just a Plus-1 model where the committee votes on the two best teams at the conclusion of the bowls. If they had that, the Rose Bowl this year would be between PSU and UW and the winner of that game would think they'd have just a good of a shot as the winner of the Sugar Bowl (likely Alabama vs. OSU), Fiesta Bowl (Oklahoma vs. Wisconsin or USC) or Orange Bowl (Clemson vs. Michigan).
The other bonus is that if you shorten the regular season by a week, the conference title games can be on Thanksgiving weekend, which gives an extra week to heal up before New Years.
December 8th, 2016 at 7:46 AM ^
they should have left the pre-BCS bowl system in place, and on January 2nd choose the two best teams to play for the NC.
I would be good with removing 1 game from the regular season, have the last game the Saturday before Thanksgiving, and a by week before the conference championship game, run the bowl games, pick the best four, and play in.
The problems with that are:
$ - anyone not a division loses a game - $
$$ - even though it gives the players a chance to have TG with family, what are people supposed to watch the Saturday after Thanksgiving? - $$
It eats into winter semester for NC contenders - when exactly are these kids supposed to be students again if not the winter semester?
December 8th, 2016 at 10:13 AM ^
Why not play NFL games that day? I think a bye week between the regular season and CCG would be beneficial and allow for better, healthier teams.
December 8th, 2016 at 12:58 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 8:13 AM ^
Spot on my good man. The playoff has nothing to do with the watering down of bowl season. Allowing 5 and 6 win teams to participate in bowls is what has caused this. Another poster mentioned above that it might take a few years for the "traditionalists" to get on board with the CFP. To be honest, I just don't understand what the big deal is. Instead of there being a debate over who is the best (which happened with the old system pre-BCS), now it gets decided on the field. Sure we can continue to re-hash the "four best teams" didn't make it argument, but how is the current or even an expanded CFP not the best answer? I'd much rather be playing for a National Title in the Coney Dog Bowl, than playing in the Rose Bowl just because. However, if Michigan makes the CFP next year, isn't the Rose Bowl a semi-final game once again? So, there is something for everyone next year should Michigan make the CFP.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:04 AM ^
rather be playing for a national title in the Coney Dog Bowl than be playing for a Rose Bowl just because." This is a complicated statement. I understand what you are saying, but I think it is important for the integration of the CFP and bowls that this kind of throught cannot completely abolish the meaning of other, historic bowl games.
The CFP is here to stay, but so are bowl games. It may be that there are too many, but that is kind of a different conversation. Being labelled as "national champion" based on participation in the CFP is one form of validation, and it is important, but if allowed to it has the effect of invalidating any other post season acheivement, which is a net loss for the sport IMO.
With 4 teams, not being in the Playoff does not mean you could not win the playoff. We can win the Orange Bowl and have full confidence that we could have beaten any team in the Playoff if we played well. In some years, the combination of these two things will have to be enough. Like I said above, the overall success of the CFP is dependent on fans buying in, not just to the CFP, but to the continued existence and meaning of other big bowl games.
As for the Las Vegas bowl, Pizza Bowl, Dirty Socks bowl, who really cares? The players get a trip and some swag. You know as a fan if you are watching big time football or not. These lower tier bowls, you can either watch them or pass, but I don't think they really have any effect on the conversation regarding the CFP and the NY 6.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:06 AM ^
not being in the CFP doesn't mean we couldn't have won it. The chips just didn't land where Michigan needed them to this year, it happens. I bet if Michigan wins the Orange Bowl, they end up ranked 3rd or 4th, depending on how the other bowls and the CFP play out. I also agree that the CFP shouldn't negate a NY6 bowl win for any team, that is still an achievement and should be regarded as such. I think we are on the same page though. I don't want to see the Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Cotton Bowls deemed less important either. I just think fans need to keep things in the proper perspective. The CFP will always be the goal from here on out, but a Rose Bowl or other big bowl win (at least to me) still comes with all the grandure and recognition.
*If we are being completely honest with ourselves, the only fanbases that think the other big bowls don't "mean anything" are the ones with teams in the CFP. Which is the hottest of all hot takes, because if OSU was playing in the Rose Bowl and Michigan was still in the Orange Bowl, there would be gloating of intolerable levels.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:13 AM ^
will come to hate the train of though that that "other bowl games don't mean anything" just as we hate it now. The teams that are in it this year are not going to be in it every year, and when the breaks don't go the way of the Clemsons and OSUs of the world for a couple of years, they are really going to be out to sea. As painful as it is, these first two years under Harbaugh, and this year in particular, are going to give Michigan fans an important perspective going forward. When the time comes when OSU is merely "good" and not the OSU of today(and that time will come), they are not going to know what to do with themselves.
This fan base will never take a spot in the CFP for granted, at least not the current generation(s). This is very much the "steel in the spine" period that we are living through right now.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:21 AM ^
destroy FSU in the Orange Bowl, put some more steel in the spine, work even harder, come back and beat all expectations for next year. I know this isn't popular opinion, but I think Michigan has a real shot at winning the B1G next year. The opening game with Florida will be an important one, "neutral field" game, young team, primetime. A win in that game and I think the snowball starts rolling downhill in a very positive way.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:36 AM ^
see some real potential for good things next year, though the schedule is tricky. I can't emphasize enough how much I hate the Air Force matchup, particularly for a team that will have this much youth on defense. Additionally, a trip to Camp Randall the week before The Game is a pretty substantial kick in the nuts.
I think the most important questions for next year are Clark's possible return and just how good Hill and Long can be, right away. I think Kinnel will be fine. Even without Hurst (and I think he will actually come back), Gary, Mone and Winovich form the basis for a completely passable defensive line, and I like McCray and Bush.
We have been spoiled with Lewis and Stribbling, and to a lesser extent with Hill. Filling that many holes in the secondary is my biggest concern.
December 8th, 2016 at 9:33 AM ^
The Weedwhacker Bowl didn't pull the Big Ten and Pac-12 champs out of the Rose Bowl. CFP did that.
December 8th, 2016 at 1:37 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 3:58 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 8th, 2016 at 6:16 AM ^
The whole conf champs are important argument bothers me. When I watched the CFP announcement, they showed Won-Loss records (Michigan was a "no", strength of schedule (we were low and similar to Wash/Penn St) and completely ingnored our record against top 10. They've continued to ignore it since, even dismissing OSU a bit which is also 3-1 against top 10.
CFP should be top teams and conf champs is meaningless. What about a future Conf 5 team who loses 2 non-conf games early, loses another conf game but still gets in and wins their conf championship game. Now a 3 loss team should play in the CFP? It could happen with a 4 loss team.
Since the bowl games expanded dramatically I find the overall quality very poor. Most Conf champ games as well. Didn't bother to watch Penn St/Wisc. It's time for conf championship games to be part of a playoff elim round.
Really wanted and felt we deserved a shot at Bama. The whole country would watch that.
Quick Lane Bowl? Cmon' man. What about introducing a Europa League/NIT like tournament for the lesser bowls to match an expanded CFP? I would watch the late rounds of that.
December 8th, 2016 at 8:55 AM ^
What about introducing a Europa League/NIT like tournament for the lesser bowls to match an expanded CFP? I would watch the late rounds of that.
Do you think the players would be interested in that?
I think they'd rather have one meaningless game than 3-4.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:23 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 3:10 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 4:37 AM ^
They play the damn final game on Monday night.
Unless my team is in the game, I can probably watch until halftime, or possibly be working the entire time and miss it all.
CFB is played on Saturdays, why not make it a Sat night game so viewing parties and the like can be organized?
I do like the "Final 4" as opposed to the old system of 1v2 for all the marbles. 6 would be interesting although the wear (injury) on the teams might make it really hard to go that deep into the season without playing a bunch of people who were backups at the start of the season.
I really think the CFP creates more controversy which is actually the designed result. Fans will be thinking about snubs for the entire 9 months until the next season and it will be rehashed in the media for months to come as well. So ultimately the "inequities" of the system might be good for interest, nationwide (somewhat parallel to the deflated footballs and T. Brady...kept everyone talking about it for 2 years)
I do like all the bowls, I play in a "pool" of predicting winners over nontraditional matchups, it make the whole thing enjoyable and interesting.
Bottom line is that I watch my kids in competition try to modify or create new rules so they can win "the next time around". Adults understand the rules and maximize opportunity within them. Our year will be in the future.
December 8th, 2016 at 6:57 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 8:56 AM ^
It makes no sense. How can they not arrange it with the NFL to have one Saturday night in January to themselves?
December 8th, 2016 at 11:54 AM ^
think somehow, some way, the ratings are better on Monday night than they would be on Saturday. Perhaps ratings are determined by how many TVs and/or streaming devices tune into the game for a specific period of time, perhaps 30 minutes or more. I think that there are probably less people that would watch the full game on Monday night than on a Saturday, but more people who will have the game on for some period of time? That is the only explanation I can think of. Otherwise, it would seem that you could not select a worse time than Monday at 9:00 PM.
December 8th, 2016 at 6:53 AM ^