- Messages
- 5,298
- Likes
- 25,449
Why we getting rid of bowls? I say screw the minimum win requirement. Anyone not in the playoff is eligible for bowl games. I don't want less football. I want more.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to The Platinum Board. We are a Nebraska Husker news source and fan community.
Sign Up Now!Why we getting rid of bowls? I say screw the minimum win requirement. Anyone not in the playoff is eligible for bowl games. I don't want less football. I want more.
That’s fine if you want bowls. I really meant I would rather the playoff games have no bowl affiliation and the top seeds get home field advantage throughout the whole playoff.Why we getting rid of bowls? I say screw the minimum win requirement. Anyone not in the playoff is eligible for bowl games. I don't want less football. I want more.
I'm 100% for as many playoff games on campus as possible. It sounds like there might be some traction to getting the quarterfinal games on campus, but anything beyond that is a pipe dream unfortunately.That’s fine if you want bowls. I really meant I would rather the playoff games have no bowl affiliation and the top seeds get home field advantage throughout the whole playoff.
It would be cool to see some south schools have to leave their safe haven and have to come up north and play in the cold, but like you said it won’t happen past the quarterfinals.I'm 100% for as many playoff games on campus as possible. It sounds like there might be some traction to getting the quarterfinal games on campus, but anything beyond that is a pipe dream unfortunately.
If you do 16 games it for sure should be home games for the top 4 seeds. Beyond that I like neutral field warm weather games where weather generally isn't a factor in the game.That’s fine if you want bowls. I really meant I would rather the playoff games have no bowl affiliation and the top seeds get home field advantage throughout the whole playoff.
Would be top 8 actually.If you do 16 games it for sure should be home games for the top 4 seeds. Beyond that I like neutral field warm weather games where weather generally isn't a factor in the game.
The problem with that is if you are a team like Nebraska, a team in the BIG or SEC, there are fewer chances to make the playoffs because your conference is much stronger. Even with 12 teams, conference winners from the BIG 12 or PAC 12, will have an easier time than NU because those leagues won’t have OU, TX and USC, UCLA respectively.I’ve always been a fan of 8.
Winner of each Power 5 conference plus 3 at large teams.
agreed, you would need some kind of stipulation that the conference champ has to be in the top 10 or something. otherwise you are just asking for a 3 loss Pac-12 or Big 12 team in the playoffThe problem with that is if you are a team like Nebraska, a team in the BIG or SEC, there are fewer chances to make the playoffs because your conference is much stronger. Even with 12 teams, conference winners from the BIG 12 or PAC 12, will have an easier time than NU because those leagues won’t have OU, TX and USC, UCLA respectively.
If it's 12 teams I think you could say top 15-20. The top 10 are going to be in anyway.agreed, you would need some kind of stipulation that the conference champ has to be in the top 10 or something. otherwise you are just asking for a 3 loss Pac-12 or Big 12 team in the playoff
I think you'd repurpose the bowl games as playoff hosts after the playins and first round in expanded playoffsWhy we getting rid of bowls? I say screw the minimum win requirement. Anyone not in the playoff is eligible for bowl games. I don't want less football. I want more.
I think your first 2 rounds of a large playoff format would be homes for high seeds, still getting your expected revenue. Then in Leach's proposition - your non qualifiers have a 2 week period where they schedule to play other non-qualifiers, similar to the B1G approach during covid. That, plus restructured tv deals and revenue sharing, plus incentivizing conferences - you can make that difference up and then some.fewer regular season games equals less revenue. the one thing we can guarantee is that whatever happens no one is making the choice to reduce revenue
schools with little or no shot at the playoff will never agree to that
Why stop at 16? Just say fuck it and go to 24 at this point. It's all about the money anyways.Link
People are going to bitch and say that only a few teams are capable of winning it, blah blah blah, but I don't see any downside to adding more playoff games. The stakes will be higher than bowl games. And you'll get home playoff games in December, which is way more exciting than some useless bowl game that no one watches.
My current position as well.I’ve always been a fan of 8.
Winner of each Power 5 conference plus 3 at large teams.
I figure it works well in the NFL and other divisions of college. If anything play the championship on a neutral site.If you do 16 games it for sure should be home games for the top 4 seeds. Beyond that I like neutral field warm weather games where weather generally isn't a factor in the game.
Didnt watch a single game outside the playoffs. Hope that helps.There is still a significant amount of viewership of lower tiered bowl games.
There games were played before Dec 22nd.
Vegas Bowl, 2.5M
Celebration Bowl, 2.42M
LA Bowl, 2.39M
New Mexico Bowl, 2.03M
Fenway Bowl, 1.96M
For comparison
Nebraska v Cockeye 1.4M
Nebraska v Wisconsin 1.6M
Yeah well you're stupid.Didnt watch a single game outside the playoffs. Hope that helps.
The 5 best non-playoff games for me:Yeah well you're stupid.
That's your loss, Thom. Seriously - there were some terrific bowl games this year.Didnt watch a single game outside the playoffs. Hope that helps.
For shoreYeah well you're stupid.
Could be.That's your loss, Thom. Seriously - there were some terrific bowl games this year.