Bowl game options

[V-Doub]

Utah will also have a lot of their players opt out & they’re a big 12 team. On top of that, the game just doesn’t really matter. We need to just expand the playoff & eliminate bowl games for good.

24 teams. No more bowls. You either crack the top 25 and have a shot at the playoffs or your season is over. Kinda sucks to see the bowls go, but they no longer serve any real purpose and haven’t for a while.

 

[V-Doub]

The more expanded the playoff gets the less likely a natty gets in our current situation. The more expanded the playoff gets the more likely a talented but underperforming regular season team wins it is. Example one OSU last year.

It’s already that way, as you stated yourself. And you have a better shot at winning a natty if you’re actually in the playoffs. Zero % chance right now on the outside looking in.

 

[BeerConsumer67]

24 teams. No more bowls. You either crack the top 25 and have a shot at the playoffs or your season is over. Kinda sucks to see the bowls go, but they no longer serve any real purpose and haven’t for a while.

Perfect format to make rivalry week never matter again. OSU Indiana and a&m would’ve clinched by week 8

 

[ZJSARENOTFREE]

Perfect format to make rivalry week never matter again. OSU Indiana and a&m would’ve clinched by week 8

In the grand scheme it really doesn't matter anyway. Money and power has ruined college football.

 

[Irv]

Nebraska is never going to make 12-team field, unless we at some point find our Cignetti.

We fooled ourselves into thinking it could happen this year, but there are only 6 at large bids total. In the big ten, for the foreseeable future, those spots (and the championship spot) are going to largely be fought over by OSU, Oregon, Indiana and Michigan. That leaves very little room for anyone else.

And that’s why they will expand it. Growing it from 4 to 12 has given more teams hope they can make the playoff. But it’s still not enough for a healthy ecosystem. Look at the coaching bloodbath in the SEC. That’s not sustainable.

Look what’s happening in the big 12. if Tech solidifies what they’ve done this year and uses their money to become the powerhouse program in that conference, you’ve got 15 teams fighting for the right to play them in the title game as the only sure path to a playoff. That’s terrible for those fans and won’t keep them interested long term.

The more fans of more teams are invested in each season, the better for the sport overall. It can’t be limited to half the SEC and a third of the big ten that legitimately have a shot.

 

[Quint]

The more expanded the playoff gets the less likely a natty gets in our current situation. The more expanded the playoff gets the more likely a talented but underperforming regular season team wins it is. Example one OSU last year.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here.

To the bolded, prior to NDSU’s rise to dominance in the FCS, you’d see a lower seed team occasionally rise up and make a deep run. Kind of like March Madness, I don’t have an issue with that. If a 9-3 team ends up in the last slot in the current playoff configuration but still runs the table to win it all, great. They won the games. I’m not sure how expanding from the current format to include even more teams makes that more likely. The further you get away from the top two or three seeds at the FBS level, the wider the disparity in talent. In basketball, with a much smaller roster, it’s easier to get a couple of guys hot and make a deep run. Totally different animal in football, IMO.

 

[Quint]

Nebraska is never going to make 12-team field, unless we at some point find our Cignetti.

We fooled ourselves into thinking it could happen this year, but there are only 6 at large bids total. In the big ten, for the foreseeable future, those spots (and the championship spot) are going to largely be fought over by OSU, Oregon, Indiana and Michigan. That leaves very little room for anyone else.

And that’s why they will expand it. Growing it from 4 to 12 has given more teams hope they can make the playoff. But it’s still not enough for a healthy ecosystem. Look at the coaching bloodbath in the SEC. That’s not sustainable.

Look what’s happening in the big 12. if Tech solidifies what they’ve done this year and uses their money to become the powerhouse program in that conference, you’ve got 15 teams fighting for the right to play them in the title game as the only sure path to a playoff. That’s terrible for those fans and won’t keep them interested long term.

The more fans of more teams are invested in each season, the better for the sport overall. It can’t be limited to half the SEC and a third of the big ten that legitimately have a shot.

I hesitate to say ‘Never’, but we’ve still got a hill to climb.

I actually didn’t think we’d be a playoff team this year, but a 9-3 team with wins over Minnesota and Cockeye that we didn’t get. Our two worst performances of the year I had penciled in as wins in August.

Had we won those two games we’d still only have a 6-3 conference record and be out of the playoff. I don’t know how we change that metric without starting the year ranked, winning at least two games against ranked opponents and going no worse than 7-2 in conference. That’s definitely not happening in ’26.

To the bolded, we are in complete agreement. Right now ANY SEC team can have a breakout year and make the CFP. Almost any B1G team can do the same. It didn’t happen this year, but Cockeye State was actually set up to possibly make a run that could have had them included in the CFP if their only loss was to Tech, but they crapped the bed. Bigly.

 

[BeerConsumer67]

Th

I’m not sure what you’re saying here.

To the bolded, prior to NDSU’s rise to dominance in the FCS, you’d see a lower seed team occasionally rise up and make a deep run. Kind of like March Madness, I don’t have an issue with that. If a 9-3 team ends up in the last slot in the current playoff configuration but still runs the table to win it all, great. They won the games. I’m not sure how expanding from the current format to include even more teams makes that more likely. The further you get away from the top two or three seeds at the FBS level, the wider the disparity in talent. In basketball, with a much smaller roster, it’s easier to get a couple of guys hot and make a deep run. Totally different animal in football, IMO.

The 9-3 team that makes a run is likely to be a top 5 talent roster that played like shit in the reg. Like Texas this year. Not us lol.

 

[BeerConsumer67]

Nebraska is never going to make 12-team field, unless we at some point find our Cignetti.

We fooled ourselves into thinking it could happen this year, but there are only 6 at large bids total. In the big ten, for the foreseeable future, those spots (and the championship spot) are going to largely be fought over by OSU, Oregon, Indiana and Michigan. That leaves very little room for anyone else.

And that’s why they will expand it. Growing it from 4 to 12 has given more teams hope they can make the playoff. But it’s still not enough for a healthy ecosystem. Look at the coaching bloodbath in the SEC. That’s not sustainable.

Look what’s happening in the big 12. if Tech solidifies what they’ve done this year and uses their money to become the powerhouse program in that conference, you’ve got 15 teams fighting for the right to play them in the title game as the only sure path to a playoff. That’s terrible for those fans and won’t keep them interested long term.

The more fans of more teams are invested in each season, the better for the sport overall. It can’t be limited to half the SEC and a third of the big ten that legitimately have a shot.

Na bro let’s make it a 134 team field so every fan base is interested all year long 👍

 

[Irv]

Na bro let’s make it a 134 team field so every fan base is interested all year long 👍

Reasonable response.