Can we stay competitive in the NIL era?

[bobongo]

I'm in favor of having a larger playoff but I don't think it will make any difference in terms of the number of teams truly competing for a NC.
Football is a very different sport than basketball.
It requires alot more players and alot more resources. Also, the rules in basketball give the smaller institutions a better chance of competing against the bigger institutions that doesn't really exist in college football.
Regardless of how many teams you have in a college football playoff there will realistically be less than 10 programs capable of competing for a NC on a consistent basis.

The basic issue with the current NIL setup is that instead of it being a way for a SA to truly earn money based on sponsorships by legitimate businesses it has quickly evolved into a pay-for-play structure (that is a violation of NCAA rules that will likely never be enforced) by fans of schools where the only real thing the SA has to do to get the money is sign a few footballs or make a public visit.

Eight's plenty.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

I'm in favor of having a larger playoff but I don't think it will make any difference in terms of the number of teams truly competing for a NC.
Football is a very different sport than basketball.
It requires alot more players and alot more resources. Also, the rules in basketball give the smaller institutions a better chance of competing against the bigger institutions that doesn't really exist in college football.
Regardless of how many teams you have in a college football playoff there will realistically be less than 10 programs capable of competing for a NC on a consistent basis.

The basic issue with the current NIL setup is that instead of it being a way for a SA to truly earn money based on sponsorships by legitimate businesses it has quickly evolved into a pay-for-play structure (that is a violation of NCAA rules that will likely never be enforced) by fans of schools where the only real thing the SA has to do to get the money is sign a few footballs or make a public visit.

I agree except in a playoff the little guy at least gets a shot. By limiting the playoff they have no shot at all. Imagine our 2014 team getting in and then imagine the week before we play #1 Bama their QB gets hurt. A unique offense coming at you in 6 days and your QB is out. Also, we all just watched a school with zero resources beat Kentucky in hoops. We’ve also seen Appy State beat Michigan in football and many other upsets. I don’t buy this notion that the little guys have no chance. I truly believe our fanbase is currently warped in our collective thinking because we are at an all time low. It wasn’t that long ago that we were beating Clemson and UGA even with half the resources. Expand the playoff and you’ll see tons of upsets.

And this idea that only conference champs should make a playoff is just ridiculous. #1 where does this come from? No other sport does this. #2 - until they can make a conference schedule even then it’s a moot point. GT has to play Clemson every year while VT doesn’t. Our own school starts out a game behind everyone else in our division so I simply laugh at the idea that conference champions only should make a tournament.

And it doesn’t matter what any of us think because it will happen very soon (in college football time) because the money is out there and is all that matters.

 

[bobongo]

And this idea that only conference champs should make a playoff is just ridiculous. #1 where does this come from? No other sport does this. #2 - until they can make a conference schedule even then it’s a moot point.

Another problem with only letting conference champs in the playoffs is that all OOC games are thus rendered moot as regards the championship.

 

[Mattmc10]

I agree except in a playoff the little guy at least gets a shot. By limiting the playoff they have no shot at all. Imagine our 2014 team getting in and then imagine the week before we play #1 Bama their QB gets hurt. A unique offense coming at you in 6 days and your QB is out. Also, we all just watched a school with zero resources beat Kentucky in hoops. We’ve also seen Appy State beat Michigan in football and many other upsets. I don’t buy this notion that the little guys have no chance. I truly believe our fanbase is currently warped in our collective thinking because we are at an all time low. It wasn’t that long ago that we were beating Clemson and UGA even with half the resources. Expand the playoff and you’ll see tons of upsets.

And this idea that only conference champs should make a playoff is just ridiculous. #1 where does this come from? No other sport does this. #2 - until they can make a conference schedule even then it’s a moot point. GT has to play Clemson every year while VT doesn’t. Our own school starts out a game behind everyone else in our division so I simply laugh at the idea that conference champions only should make a tournament.

And it doesn’t matter what any of us think because it will happen very soon (in college football time) because the money is out there and is all that matters.

Curious of where you think the upsets will come from? A 12 beating a 6? We have 8 years worth of data for the playoffs and anytime a marginal team has played a powerhouse they have been boat raced off the field. Examples: Michigan State, Washington, ND, and Cincy. You give powerhouses a couple weeks to rest and prepare talent will win out. The biggest upset in the CFP has been Ohio State over Bama in year 1 and it’s tough to even call that an upset.

 

[forensicbuzz]

And this idea that only conference champs should make a playoff is just ridiculous. #1 where does this come from? No other sport does this. #2 - until they can make a conference schedule even then it’s a moot point. GT has to play Clemson every year while VT doesn’t. Our own school starts out a game behind everyone else in our division so I simply laugh at the idea tha

There's nothing ridiculous about this. If you don't win your conference, you're obviously not the top team in your conference. You want to win the National Championship, start by winning your conference. Then you earn the right to play for a championship. It's much better than ANYTHING anyone has ever proposed to allow any team in any given year a chance to rise to the top. There are 11 FBS conferences. The 12th can come from the independents. There's your expanded playoff.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Curious of where you think the upsets will come from? A 12 beating a 6? We have 8 years worth of data for the playoffs and anytime a marginal team has played a powerhouse they have been boat raced off the field. Examples: Michigan State, Washington, ND, and Cincy. You give powerhouses a couple weeks to rest and prepare talent will win out. The biggest upset in the CFP has been Ohio State over Bama in year 1 and it’s tough to even call that an upset.

That's just it. With an expanded playoff, there are no weeks of rest and preparation. It would start the week after the conference championship games. They'd still be massive underdogs, but there would be a fair number of upsets due to injuries, lack of preparation, and looking past lower teams. The final four teams would probably be pretty predictable, but there are more opportunities. You'd also have less players "opting out" of games to protect themselves for the Pros.

 

[JacketOff]

You'd also have less players "opting out" of games to protect themselves for the Pros.

I don’t really think that’s true. I think if the playoff gets too big players will start opting out of playoff games as well. No one could’ve ever imagined a star from Stanford who was healthy not playing in the Rose Bowl, and then Christian McCaffrey sat out. Kenny Pickett, a guy who willed his way into an NFL draft pick over 6 years at Pitt sat out their biggest bowl game in about 20 years.

Before the playoff those scenarios would be unheard of, now they’re commonplace and expected. If the playoff goes to 12 or 16+ teams you’ll start seeing guys sit out those games too.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

That's just it. With an expanded playoff, there are no weeks of rest and preparation. It would start the week after the conference championship games. They'd still be massive underdogs, but there would be a fair number of upsets due to injuries, lack of preparation, and looking past lower teams. The final four teams would probably be pretty predictable, but there are more opportunities. You'd also have less players "opting out" of games to protect themselves for the Pros.

This is accurate. The upsets will happen in the middle rounds, but just like we’ve seen in other big games when star players get hurt anyone has a chance,

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

There's nothing ridiculous about this. If you don't win your conference, you're obviously not the top team in your conference. You want to win the National Championship, start by winning your conference. Then you earn the right to play for a championship. It's much better than ANYTHING anyone has ever proposed to allow any team in any given year a chance to rise to the top. There are 11 FBS conferences. The 12th can come from the independents. There's your expanded playoff.

I understand the thinking but those thoughts are now relics. Money will force the expansion just like it did from zero to 2 and 2 to 4. It will expand to probably 12 in the next iteration with top 4 getting byes. Then it will go to 24 with top 8 getting byes. We can argue all day IF IT SHOULD but the simple fact is it will. Just like the MLB and NFL have increased their playoffs. It’s all about ratings and money.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I don’t really think that’s true. I think if the playoff gets too big players will start opting out of playoff games as well. No one could’ve ever imagined a star from Stanford who was healthy not playing in the Rose Bowl, and then Christian McCaffrey sat out. Kenny Pickett, a guy who willed his way into an NFL draft pick over 6 years at Pitt sat out their biggest bowl game in about 20 years.

Before the playoff those scenarios would be unheard of, now they’re commonplace and expected. If the playoff goes to 12 or 16+ teams you’ll start seeing guys sit out those games too.

Those guys didn't have a chance at a championship. Those were meaningless bowl games. Make it count and there will be a ton of pressure on these players to play. Make it meaningless, and they'll opt out.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I understand the thinking but those thoughts are now relics. Money will force the expansion just like it did from zero to 2 and 2 to 4. It will expand to probably 12 in the next iteration with top 4 getting byes. Then it will go to 24 with top 8 getting byes. We can argue all day IF IT SHOULD but the simple fact is it will. Just like the MLB and NFL have increased their playoffs. It’s all about ratings and money.

I hold no thought that it will happen that way, but it would be the easiest, fairest playoff picture. You could probably double it to 24 teams and have the conference championship games be the first round. It won't happen because the B1G and SEC want to have 4 or 5 of the 12 teams because it means more $$ and more prestige for them (all the conferences want multiple participants). But...whatever.

 

[JacketOff]

Those guys didn't have a chance at a championship. Those were meaningless bowl games. Make it count and there will be a ton of pressure on these players to play. Make it meaningless, and they'll opt out.

That’s not the point. Basically every single bowl game since the beginning has been “meaningless” because a championship wasn’t on the line. In the poll era there were occasionally 2-3 different games that could have an impact on the championship. When the BCS came there was only 1 game that “mattered,” yet it was still unheard of for players to skip out on the Rose, Cotton, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta bowls. That was only 8 years ago.

Last year’s Peach Bowl was without the 2 best players on each teams’ offense due to opt outs - in a NY6 game. That never would have happened 10 years ago. In 10 more years if there are 16*+ teams in the playoff, I guarantee you that you’ll start to see players opt out of playoff games.

 

[TooTall]

That’s not the point. Basically every single bowl game since the beginning has been “meaningless” because a championship wasn’t on the line. In the poll era there were occasionally 2-3 different games that could have an impact on the championship. When the BCS came there was only 1 game that “mattered,” yet it was still unheard of for players to skip out on the Rose, Cotton, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta bowls. That was only 8 years ago.

Last year’s Peach Bowl was without the 2 best players on each teams’ offense due to opt outs - in a NY6 game. That never would have happened 10 years ago. In 10 more years if there are 16*+ teams in the playoff, I guarantee you that you’ll start to see players opt out of playoff games.

Nothing starts to happen until it happens for the first time. See Greg Paulus...no one had done the grad transfer thing until he did...now its everywhere.

 

[alagold]

Again--no, VERY doubtful we can compete in NIL era.Thus our chances of being in the PLAYOFFs even if there were 24 teams would be small.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

That’s not the point. Basically every single bowl game since the beginning has been “meaningless” because a championship wasn’t on the line. In the poll era there were occasionally 2-3 different games that could have an impact on the championship. When the BCS came there was only 1 game that “mattered,” yet it was still unheard of for players to skip out on the Rose, Cotton, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta bowls. That was only 8 years ago.

Last year’s Peach Bowl was without the 2 best players on each teams’ offense due to opt outs - in a NY6 game. That never would have happened 10 years ago. In 10 more years if there are 16*+ teams in the playoff, I guarantee you that you’ll start to see players opt out of playoff games.

Guys were sitting out bowl games long before 10 years ago. They just didn’t come out and say it because it was a different era. They just used the ole “twisted ankle” or “pulled hammy” excuse. You can’t use todays standards to discuss the past. Players were getting paid in the past just like players got phantom injuries. No one talked about it. Today because it’s acceptable to pay players and skip bowl games everyone can admit it with no shame. The present is the same as the past.

I agree that players wil sit out future playoff games because the reward for risk is out of balance for those games for the player. Of course the school wants them to play because they want to win but the player is smart to sit out. Look at the DLinemen who blew his Achilles during Michigans pro day. Cost the kid millions for something he really didn’t need to do as his stock was already rising. There is no scenario where a player projected to be drafted in the first few rounds should play in meaningless college games. We, the fans , want them too but no way they should. And this is just the beginning. You’ll see guys opting out mid season probably starting this year en mass once their team is out of it. And you’ll start seeing underclassmen skip their junior year all together as long as the current rule stays in place. I totally get it. The money is generation changing to take that risk.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Again--no, VERY doubtful we can compete in NIL era.Thus our chances of being in the PLAYOFFs even if there were 24 teams would be small.

That’s just nuts. About once a decade we have a top 15 type team. You simply are stuck on our current state of ineptitude.

2014 - 11-3
2009 - 11-3
2000 - 9-3
1998 - 10-2
1990- 11-0-1
1985 - 9-2-1

 

[RonJohn]

I think sitting out of playoff games, bowl games, and possibly moving into later portions third seasons could become more prevalent. There is a lot of discussion on message boards, recruiting sites, social media, among recruits, and even from coaches that the only reason to attend school "x" is to get a better chance of making the NFL.

If that really is the ONLY goal, then why would you keep playing past the point when you are guaranteed to be in the top rounds of the NFL draft? From some of the attitudes that I read on this forum, the players don't go to college for school, nor coaches, nor teammates, nor college experience. They are solely interested in having a shot at the NFL. If that is the goal, then which if more important, a national championship, or a large NFL contract? If half way through your junior year, you have the measurables and the resume then the ONLY thing that finishing your junior year could possibly do is give you an injury that takes that opportunity away.

 

[JacketOff]

Guys were sitting out bowl games long before 10 years ago. They just didn’t come out and say it because it was a different era. They just used the ole “twisted ankle” or “pulled hammy” excuse. You can’t use todays standards to discuss the past. Players were getting paid in the past just like players got phantom injuries. No one talked about it. Today because it’s acceptable to pay players and skip bowl games everyone can admit it with no shame. The present is the same as the past.

That’s not even close to true and you know it. Find me or name some instances from even as recent as the 2000s and early 2010s pre-playoff era of players who were healthy all year sitting out of bowl games. Especially BCS games, which are the equivalent of the NY6 now. There were probably more NY6 opt outs last year alone than the entirety of the BCS system’s lifespan.

 

[forensicbuzz]

That’s not the point. Basically every single bowl game since the beginning has been “meaningless” because a championship wasn’t on the line. In the poll era there were occasionally 2-3 different games that could have an impact on the championship. When the BCS came there was only 1 game that “mattered,” yet it was still unheard of for players to skip out on the Rose, Cotton, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta bowls. That was only 8 years ago.

Last year’s Peach Bowl was without the 2 best players on each teams’ offense due to opt outs - in a NY6 game. That never would have happened 10 years ago. In 10 more years if there are 16*+ teams in the playoff, I guarantee you that you’ll start to see players opt out of playoff games.

I agree it's become a thing more now, but that's not true. Bowls used to matter much more. Now, if you're not in the playoffs, there's no chance.

 

[JacketOff]

I agree it's become a thing more now, but that's not true. Bowls used to matter much more. Now, if you're not in the playoffs, there's no chance.

There hasn’t been a chance if you weren’t in the “playoff” since the creation of the BCS. There has been 1 single year since the BCS started in 1998 where a team who didn’t play in the BCS Championship game or the CFP was awarded a share of a title, and that was in 2003; almost 2 entire decades ago. The bowl games used to mean more because the best players were playing in them, not because there was a chance to win a title. Since the playoff started players sitting out is commonplace, and that wasn’t so before. There wasn’t a single player who opted out of the 2013 Rose Bowl between #4 Michigan State and #5 Stanford. The 2021 Rose Bowl saw 5 players from #6 Ohio State opt out alone. #5 Notre Dame had their best 2 defensive players sit out of the Fiesta Bowl.

You start asking future draft picks to put their careers on the line to play 15, 16, even 17 games in a college season with a 16-24 team playoff you’re going to see them opt out of playoff games. Sure they will be making money on NIL stuff, but that’s pennies compared to 1st rounder money.