Who else has completely lost interest in college football for the rest of this season?

[JustinTyme]

1) We declined a bowl invite so our season is in the books.

2) The playoff is so boring and stale like a rerun we have already seen half a dozen times (because we pretty much have seen this half a dozen times with almost no variation). Same teams. We've already seen Clemson embarrass Ohio St multiple times. We've already seen Alabama blowout Notre Dame and there isn't even a Notre Dame star with a made up girlfriend this time. And we are back to Alabama/Clemson part V- thousand.

3) With only a handful teams ever winning a playoff game, it seems that the "playoff" is not for anyone but those handful of programs. You have several undefeated teams that played just about a full season and they have no means whatsoever to play for a title. But we get the exact same handful of teams nearly every year that do. It has left the other 115 teams behind. Should the other 115 teams just leave the playoff behind? I mean, it has no impact on the anyone but the same handful of fanbases every year so what's the point? Why would it even matter to anyone else?

4) How does this change, ever? I mean we all know it should change because it is killing college football. But do you think Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio St will stop purchasing most of the top recruits? Do you think ND will stop scheduling in a way that they play almost no one and end up undefeated or 1 loss until the very end of the season and then have the media cover for them?

5) I'm done watching it. Zero interest. Snoozefest. I haven't watched the "playoff" games in a couple of years outside of I did watch the championship last year, only because LSU was a different name for once. But LSU was paying their guys on the field on camera so was it really any different? The same few teams buy the necessary talent. We have a season which apparently doesn't matter anymore. Then the same teams are "selected" by the same small group of power brokers. Then the same curbstompings happen to give us Alabama verses Clemson. Over and over and over and over.

 

[AWS1022]

1) We declined a bowl invite so our season is in the books.

2) The playoff is so boring and stale like a rerun we have already seen half a dozen times (because we pretty much have seen this half a dozen times with almost no variation). Same teams. We've already seen Clemson embarrass Ohio St multiple times. We've already seen Alabama blowout Notre Dame and there isn't even a Notre Dame star with a made up girlfriend this time. And we are back to Alabama/Clemson part V- thousand.

3) With only a handful teams ever winning a playoff game, it seems that the "playoff" is not for anyone but those handful of programs. You have several undefeated teams that played just about a full season and they have no means whatsoever to play for a title. But we get the exact same handful of teams nearly every year that do. It has left the other 115 teams behind. Should the other 115 teams just leave the playoff behind? I mean, it has no impact on the anyone but the same handful of fanbases every year so what's the point? Why would it even matter to anyone else?

4) How does this change, ever? I mean we all know it should change because it is killing college football. But do you think Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio St will stop purchasing most of the top recruits? Do you think ND will stop scheduling in a way that they play almost no one and end up undefeated or 1 loss until the very end of the season and then have the media cover for them?

5) I'm done watching it. Zero interest. Snoozefest. I haven't watched the "playoff" games in a couple of years outside of I did watch the championship last year, only because LSU was a different name for once. But LSU was paying their guys on the field on camera so was it really any different? The same few teams buy the necessary talent. We have a season which apparently doesn't matter anymore. Then the same teams are "selected" by the same small group of power brokers. Then the same curbstompings happen to give us Alabama verses Clemson. Over and over and over and over.

The first step to changing it is to add a sixth conference then have the playoffs only for conference champs. That’s not always going to keep OSU and Bama out (it will never keep Clemson out since the ACC is so horrible) but there would have been at least one year where OSU didn’t make it and one year where Bama didn’t make it. That way teams can focus on winning their conference...a break here or there and they’re in. Overcoming the juggernaut in your conference and winning over the committee is too steep a hill to climb.

 

[PineIslandLion]

I’m intending to watch, with hopes of seeing OSU & ND get humiliated.

 

[Beaver-Stadium]

1) We declined a bowl invite so our season is in the books.

2) The playoff is so boring and stale like a rerun we have already seen half a dozen times (because we pretty much have seen this half a dozen times with almost no variation). Same teams. We've already seen Clemson embarrass Ohio St multiple times. We've already seen Alabama blowout Notre Dame and there isn't even a Notre Dame star with a made up girlfriend this time. And we are back to Alabama/Clemson part V- thousand.

3) With only a handful teams ever winning a playoff game, it seems that the "playoff" is not for anyone but those handful of programs. You have several undefeated teams that played just about a full season and they have no means whatsoever to play for a title. But we get the exact same handful of teams nearly every year that do. It has left the other 115 teams behind. Should the other 115 teams just leave the playoff behind? I mean, it has no impact on the anyone but the same handful of fanbases every year so what's the point? Why would it even matter to anyone else?

4) How does this change, ever? I mean we all know it should change because it is killing college football. But do you think Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio St will stop purchasing most of the top recruits? Do you think ND will stop scheduling in a way that they play almost no one and end up undefeated or 1 loss until the very end of the season and then have the media cover for them?

5) I'm done watching it. Zero interest. Snoozefest. I haven't watched the "playoff" games in a couple of years outside of I did watch the championship last year, only because LSU was a different name for once. But LSU was paying their guys on the field on camera so was it really any different? The same few teams buy the necessary talent. We have a season which apparently doesn't matter anymore. Then the same teams are "selected" by the same small group of power brokers. Then the same curbstompings happen to give us Alabama verses Clemson. Over and over and over and over.

Very important thing your missing is many of those playoff team are sick of the expenses of traveling year after year to pricey bowl games. It's similar to the effect the Patriots had on Super Bowl ticket pricing recently where it's just no longer a novelty. I think the NC game in SF 2 years ago you could have got in for face value.

 

[LemonEars]

I have a small amount of interest in the 4-team playoff. Absolutely no interest in any of the other bowl games. I bet this years bowl games will set a record for low ratings.

 

[bcspsu]

1) We declined a bowl invite so our season is in the books.

2) The playoff is so boring and stale like a rerun we have already seen half a dozen times (because we pretty much have seen this half a dozen times with almost no variation). Same teams. We've already seen Clemson embarrass Ohio St multiple times. We've already seen Alabama blowout Notre Dame and there isn't even a Notre Dame star with a made up girlfriend this time. And we are back to Alabama/Clemson part V- thousand.

3) With only a handful teams ever winning a playoff game, it seems that the "playoff" is not for anyone but those handful of programs. You have several undefeated teams that played just about a full season and they have no means whatsoever to play for a title. But we get the exact same handful of teams nearly every year that do. It has left the other 115 teams behind. Should the other 115 teams just leave the playoff behind? I mean, it has no impact on the anyone but the same handful of fanbases every year so what's the point? Why would it even matter to anyone else?

4) How does this change, ever? I mean we all know it should change because it is killing college football. But do you think Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio St will stop purchasing most of the top recruits? Do you think ND will stop scheduling in a way that they play almost no one and end up undefeated or 1 loss until the very end of the season and then have the media cover for them?

5) I'm done watching it. Zero interest. Snoozefest. I haven't watched the "playoff" games in a couple of years outside of I did watch the championship last year, only because LSU was a different name for once. But LSU was paying their guys on the field on camera so was it really any different? The same few teams buy the necessary talent. We have a season which apparently doesn't matter anymore. Then the same teams are "selected" by the same small group of power brokers. Then the same curbstompings happen to give us Alabama verses Clemson. Over and over and over and over.

While I totally understand and accept the decision to decline a bowl invitation this year, I have a feeling that this is the beginning of a precedent in which, if the players actually have the major role in making the decision, most bowls are going to be declined unless it's a major one or for the playoffs.

I don't believe that football players should be treated like regular student athletes, and support them making money off of their images and likenesses. However, I also believe that they now are being given too much power in making decisions that affect the management and economic viability of a program. Because of this, I really hope that a minor football league is developed so that these problems will be eliminated.

Regarding the playoffs, Paul Zeise basically did his whole talk show yesterday about why programs like PSU and Michigan, which seemingly have all of the resources that OSU has, simply don't have the on-field success of an OSU. Is the allure of Columbus, Ohio so much better than Ann Arbor and State College? Obviously, these three programs were on a more equal level in the 1990s. Something changed since Meyer was OSU's head coach, because OSU simply is on another level or two from PSU and Michigan.

 

[Woodpecker]

4) How does this change, ever?

Ever is a long time. A long time ago, Michigan and Pitt were good ... no, really! In 300 years, we'll all look back on this and laugh.

 

[LemonEars]

While I totally understand and accept the decision to decline a bowl invitation this year, I have a feeling that this is the beginning of a precedent in which, if the players actually have the major role in making the decision, most bowls are going to be declined unless it's a major one or for the playoffs.

I don't believe that football players should be treated like regular student athletes, and support them making money off of their images and likenesses. However, I also believe that they now are being given too much power in making decisions that affect the management and economic viability of a program. Because of this, I really hope that a minor football league is developed so that these problems will be eliminated.

Regarding the playoffs, Paul Zeise basically did his whole talk show yesterday about why programs like PSU and Michigan, which seemingly have all of the resources that OSU has, simply don't have the on-field success of an OSU. Is the allure of Columbus, Ohio so much better than Ann Arbor and State College? Obviously, these three programs were on a more equal level in the 1990s. Something changed since Meyer was OSU's head coach, because OSU simply is on another level or two from PSU and Michigan.

Don't know why you listen to Zeise. He is a Penn State hater and tries his best to spin all info about PSU in a negative light. His kid was a football player at pitt and Zeise tries to build up pitt and the ACC as much as he can. He tires his best to tear down the BIG. I don't believe anything Zeise says. He is a world class a$$hole in my opinion.

 

[lions1995]

I can't remember the last time I watched a game. I follow everything on here and watch highlights, but with two kids in sports, our Saturdays are usually pretty booked.

 

[BlueLion]

Time for a big playoff. 16 teams will keep things interesting all the way through the regular season for every team in the top 25.

Aa far as the OP, I won't be watching any bowl games this season. I barely watched any games this season other than PSU and, I usually watch a ton of college football.

 

[bcspsu]

Don't know why you listen to Zeise. He is a Penn State hater and tries his best to spin all info about PSU in a negative light. His kid was a football player at pitt and Zeise tries to build up pitt and the ACC as much as he can. He tires his best to tear down the BIG. I don't believe anything Zeise says. He is a world class a$$hole in my opinion.

I know his history and about his son playing for Pitt. However, I never have sensed that he is anti-PSU. He's not a Pitt grad; he went to Temple. Moreover, I generally agree with his opinions, and definitely agreed with what he had to say yesterday. Also, he's been a proponent of letting youth sports proceed during this year, with which I agree.

By the way, in what seems to be a common occurrence of PSU grads in the media, Paul Alexander, who is a PSU grad, seems to take perverse pleasure in belittling PSU every chance he gets when he's on that station on the weekends. That's something that just doesn't happen in the Ohio media regarding OSU.

 

[83wuzme]

An unavoidable consequence of a playoff is that minor bowls will diminish.
The playoff system might expand to 8 at some point to pick up the revenue opportunities.
It has been hard to care about a lot of things this year that now seem less important.

 

[Op2]

I too am losing interest. One is because the overemphasis on the playoff. Another is because not only is there an overemphasis on the playoff, but the playoff is pretty much the same team every year.

Between the playoff and the conference championship games, which can effectively overturn the results of the regular season, the regular season doesn't mean much anymore.

Also, the TV coverage of games is awful and getting awful-er. Game broadcasts incessantly promote upcoming games rather than cover of the game that is on the screen. As I related on here elsewhere, I was watching the Clemson-VT game a couple weeks ago and DURING THE GAME they did an on screen interview with ND QB Ian Book. It was nothing more than an ad for their upcoming Clemson-ND game.

They do all this stuff because they think it will make them more money and maybe it will and maybe it won't, but if it makes them more money then it won't come from me because I've watching less and less. At this point, beyond knowing that Clemson beat ND to get into the playoff, I don't know who is in the playoff and I don't care.

 

[Op2]

An unavoidable consequence of a playoff is that minor bowls will diminish.
The playoff system might expand to 8 at some point to pick up the revenue opportunities.
It has been hard to care about a lot of things this year that now seem less important.

Another unavoidable consequence of a playoff is that the importance of the regular season will diminish. That happens to some degree in college basketball too but at least 68 or whatever teams make the tournament at the end rather than 4.

 

[Bob78]

My name is Bob78, and I'm a college football junkie. Always have been, probably always will be. When Penn State is a factor in the national scene, my interest is heightened, understandably, but it's crazy high anyway. I just can't help myself.

Even with the oddities of the 2020 season, I'll tune in and catch at least parts of almost all bowl games, just like every season, beginning today.

It is just sad to the normal world, but I ain't normal when it comes to college football. Bring it on, college football... warts and all, bring it on.

 

[IANit]

1) We declined a bowl invite so our season is in the books.

2) The playoff is so boring and stale like a rerun we have already seen half a dozen times (because we pretty much have seen this half a dozen times with almost no variation). Same teams. We've already seen Clemson embarrass Ohio St multiple times. We've already seen Alabama blowout Notre Dame and there isn't even a Notre Dame star with a made up girlfriend this time. And we are back to Alabama/Clemson part V- thousand.

3) With only a handful teams ever winning a playoff game, it seems that the "playoff" is not for anyone but those handful of programs. You have several undefeated teams that played just about a full season and they have no means whatsoever to play for a title. But we get the exact same handful of teams nearly every year that do. It has left the other 115 teams behind. Should the other 115 teams just leave the playoff behind? I mean, it has no impact on the anyone but the same handful of fanbases every year so what's the point? Why would it even matter to anyone else?

4) How does this change, ever? I mean we all know it should change because it is killing college football. But do you think Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio St will stop purchasing most of the top recruits? Do you think ND will stop scheduling in a way that they play almost no one and end up undefeated or 1 loss until the very end of the season and then have the media cover for them?

5) I'm done watching it. Zero interest. Snoozefest. I haven't watched the "playoff" games in a couple of years outside of I did watch the championship last year, only because LSU was a different name for once. But LSU was paying their guys on the field on camera so was it really any different? The same few teams buy the necessary talent. We have a season which apparently doesn't matter anymore. Then the same teams are "selected" by the same small group of power brokers. Then the same curbstompings happen to give us Alabama verses Clemson. Over and over and over and over.

Not much interest. Will probably watch some of the CFP if I can - at least Ohio State-Clemson - and maybe the Iowa and Iowa State bowl games. Beyond that, the Liberty/Coastal Carolina game looks somewhat interesting. Also will probably try to watch or listen to the Peach Bowl and Orange Bowl.

 

[Bruce K]

They need to go to an 8 team play off. Win your conference and your in. B1G,ACC,Big 12, SEC, PAC, AAC. two at large teams. You have to get more conferences involved. Finally no more than 2 teams from one conference. One conference champ one at large.

 

[ILLINOISLION]

While I totally understand and accept the decision to decline a bowl invitation this year, I have a feeling that this is the beginning of a precedent in which, if the players actually have the major role in making the decision, most bowls are going to be declined unless it's a major one or for the playoffs.

I don't believe that football players should be treated like regular student athletes, and support them making money off of their images and likenesses. However, I also believe that they now are being given too much power in making decisions that affect the management and economic viability of a program. Because of this, I really hope that a minor football league is developed so that these problems will be eliminated.

Regarding the playoffs, Paul Zeise basically did his whole talk show yesterday about why programs like PSU and Michigan, which seemingly have all of the resources that OSU has, simply don't have the on-field success of an OSU. Is the allure of Columbus, Ohio so much better than Ann Arbor and State College? Obviously, these three programs were on a more equal level in the 1990s. Something changed since Meyer was OSU's head coach, because OSU simply is on another level or two from PSU and Michigan.

“Allure” and “Columbus OH”.....I never thought I’d see those two words together!

 

[Lion84]

I know his history and about his son playing for Pitt. However, I never have sensed that he is anti-PSU. He's not a Pitt grad; he went to Temple. Moreover, I generally agree with his opinions, and definitely agreed with what he had to say yesterday. Also, he's been a proponent of letting youth sports proceed during this year, with which I agree.

By the way, in what seems to be a common occurrence of PSU grads in the media, Paul Alexander, who is a PSU grad, seems to take perverse pleasure in belittling PSU every chance he gets when he's on that station on the weekends. That's something that just doesn't happen in the Ohio media regarding OSU.

At the risk of sounding like a insecure Pitter I feel the same way about that tool bag Mike Missenelli is Philly - I think he played baseball at PSU, badly I am sure, but is a hater - never has a good thing to say about PSU Football.

 

[Lion Son/Husband/Father]

Dude did you watch Bama v UF? It was off the hook great tv. I’m all in.

 

[Bruce K]

Another idea to keep bowl interest up is pair off teams outside of the top 8 in bowl games. 9 vs 10, 11 vs 12 etc. That would make for good match ups and keep the interest. If you are concerned about player fatigue just drop one of the push over games on the schedule.

 

[PSUFBFAN]

While I totally understand and accept the decision to decline a bowl invitation this year, I have a feeling that this is the beginning of a precedent in which, if the players actually have the major role in making the decision, most bowls are going to be declined unless it's a major one or for the playoffs.

I don't believe that football players should be treated like regular student athletes, and support them making money off of their images and likenesses. However, I also believe that they now are being given too much power in making decisions that affect the management and economic viability of a program. Because of this, I really hope that a minor football league is developed so that these problems will be eliminated.

Regarding the playoffs, Paul Zeise basically did his whole talk show yesterday about why programs like PSU and Michigan, which seemingly have all of the resources that OSU has, simply don't have the on-field success of an OSU. Is the allure of Columbus, Ohio so much better than Ann Arbor and State College? Obviously, these three programs were on a more equal level in the 1990s. Something changed since Meyer was OSU's head coach, because OSU simply is on another level or two from PSU and Michigan.

"While I totally understand and accept the decision to decline a bowl invitation this year, I have a feeling that this is the beginning of a precedent in which, if the players actually have the major role in making the decision, most bowls are going to be declined unless it's a major one or for the playoffs".

No question this may be the start of a declining team-wide interest in attending bowls. It wasn't that long ago that kids came to school, sat their freshman year (unless they were really studs), and started playing in their sophomore year and played through their senior year. The more talented players then left for the NFL. The less talented players either returned for a 5th year (redshirt seniors) or they graduated and got on with their life.

Then, the rules were changed that allowed talented juniors to leave after their 3rd year. So, those kids had a decision to leave or return. The most talented ones left "a year early" for the NFL.

Then, the talented seniors and juniors started to sit out their bowl games.

This summer, Micah Parsons became the first (and probably wont be the last) player to sit out his entire junior year "to prepare for the draft" after only playing for less than 2 full years of games.

Now, (under extremely unusual circumstances), we have entire teams deciding to quit (I mean "opt out") at the end of the regular season rather than attend bowl games. (I know the reasons and this post isn't being written to debate that issue).

I can easily see where this attitude continues in the future where the only bowls of interest will be the CFP and NE6 games. You'll have teams completely divided at the end of the regular season with half the team wanting to continue to play and the other half ready to head home for the holidays.

It wasn't that long ago where it was unthinkable that a player would choose to sit out bowl game with his teammates, was it? Yet, that is now the norm. So, it won't surprise me at all to see bowl eligible teams with marginal records start "opting out" of bowl games at the end of their regular season in future years.

 

[psu1969a]

The first step to changing it is to add a sixth conference then have the playoffs only for conference champs. That’s not always going to keep OSU and Bama out (it will never keep Clemson out since the ACC is so horrible) but there would have been at least one year where OSU didn’t make it and one year where Bama didn’t make it. That way teams can focus on winning their conference...a break here or there and they’re in. Overcoming the juggernaut in your conference and winning over the committee is too steep a hill to climb.

I tend to agree. Playoffs should include the following: P5 conference champions, G5 conference champions, and top 2 ranked Independent teams. Yes a 12 team format; NO more than one team per conference.

Teams are ranked from 1 to 12.
Round 1 ROUND 2 Round 3
5 plays 12 4 plays winner of 5/12 winner plays winner of 1-8/9
6 plays 11 3 plays winner of 6/11 winner plays winner of 2-7/10
7 plays 10 2 plays winner of 7/10
8 plays 9 1 plays winner of 8/9

ROUND 4
Championship Game.

 

[bcspsu]

"While I totally understand and accept the decision to decline a bowl invitation this year, I have a feeling that this is the beginning of a precedent in which, if the players actually have the major role in making the decision, most bowls are going to be declined unless it's a major one or for the playoffs".

No question this may be the start of a declining team-wide interest in attending bowls. It wasn't that long ago that kids came to school, sat their freshman year (unless they were really studs), and started playing in their sophomore year and played through their senior year. The more talented players then left for the NFL. The less talented players either returned for a 5th year (redshirt seniors) or they graduated and got on with their life.

Then, the rules were changed that allowed talented juniors to leave after their 3rd year. So, those kids had a decision to leave or return. The most talented ones left "a year early" for the NFL.

Then, the talented seniors and juniors started to sit out their bowl games.

This summer, Micah Parsons became the first (and probably wont be the last) player to sit out his entire junior year "to prepare for the draft" after only playing for less than 2 full years of games.

Now, (under extremely unusual circumstances), we have entire teams deciding to quit (I mean "opt out") at the end of the regular season rather than attend bowl games. (I know the reasons and this post isn't being written to debate that issue).

I can easily see where this attitude continues in the future where the only bowls of interest will be the CFP and NE6 games. You'll have teams completely divided at the end of the regular season with half the team wanting to continue to play and the other half ready to head home for the holidays.

It wasn't that long ago where it was unthinkable that a player would choose to sit out bowl game with his teammates, was it? Yet, that is now the norm. So, it won't surprise me at all to see bowl eligible teams with marginal records start "opting out" of bowl games at the end of their regular season in future years.

I believe that now will happen much more often than not if the players are given the choice. The question is whether they should be given the choice considering that their "education" is being paid for them, and they essentially are de facto contractual employees whose contracts can be revoked each year.

 

[Bruce K]

People say that Bama and Clemson will always win but if you expand the playoffs and only allow conference champions sometimes you will see a Cinderella like happens in March madness. Also if PSU wins the B1G championship their in, no "Eye Test" for OSU or Michigan. Yes the main teams would still be dominate but others can get in.

 

[AWS1022]

I tend to agree. Playoffs should include the following: P5 conference champions, G5 conference champions, and top 2 ranked Independent teams. Yes a 12 team format; NO more than one team per conference.

Teams are ranked from 1 to 12.
Round 1 ROUND 2 Round 3
5 plays 12 4 plays winner of 5/12 winner plays winner of 1-8/9
6 plays 11 3 plays winner of 6/11 winner plays winner of 2-7/10
7 plays 10 2 plays winner of 7/10
8 plays 9 1 plays winner of 8/9

ROUND 4
Championship Game.

I can’t get behind two at large teams....that keeps the subjective part of it in and will always include a team like Bama. With the biases in the polling world, it’s better to have no at large and make everyone earn their way in.

 

[Bruce K]

I am fine with the two at large teams as long as they are not from a conference that is already in. Only one team from a conference, you convinced me to change my position on this.

 

[Bruce K]

Win your conference or your not in

 

[AWS1022]

I am fine with the two at large teams as long as they are not from a conference that is already in. Only one team from a conference, you convinced me to change my position on this.

I’m with you...only the conference champion, then if they want to add at large from non P5 conferences or ND, go for it.

 

[ericstratton-rushchairman]

1) We declined a bowl invite so our season is in the books.

2) The playoff is so boring and stale like a rerun we have already seen half a dozen times (because we pretty much have seen this half a dozen times with almost no variation). Same teams. We've already seen Clemson embarrass Ohio St multiple times. We've already seen Alabama blowout Notre Dame and there isn't even a Notre Dame star with a made up girlfriend this time. And we are back to Alabama/Clemson part V- thousand.

3) With only a handful teams ever winning a playoff game, it seems that the "playoff" is not for anyone but those handful of programs. You have several undefeated teams that played just about a full season and they have no means whatsoever to play for a title. But we get the exact same handful of teams nearly every year that do. It has left the other 115 teams behind. Should the other 115 teams just leave the playoff behind? I mean, it has no impact on the anyone but the same handful of fanbases every year so what's the point? Why would it even matter to anyone else?

4) How does this change, ever? I mean we all know it should change because it is killing college football. But do you think Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio St will stop purchasing most of the top recruits? Do you think ND will stop scheduling in a way that they play almost no one and end up undefeated or 1 loss until the very end of the season and then have the media cover for them?

5) I'm done watching it. Zero interest. Snoozefest. I haven't watched the "playoff" games in a couple of years outside of I did watch the championship last year, only because LSU was a different name for once. But LSU was paying their guys on the field on camera so was it really any different? The same few teams buy the necessary talent. We have a season which apparently doesn't matter anymore. Then the same teams are "selected" by the same small group of power brokers. Then the same curbstompings happen to give us Alabama verses Clemson. Over and over and over and over.

FWIW, ND's strength of schedule ranks 23 this year (PSU was 31)

 

[Roar More]

To answer the original question, I have felt detached from football all year. Probably because I couldn't attend games. Or weddings. Or funerals. Or movies. Or restaurants. Etc.

 

[Wallace Breen]

My interest has diminished consistently over the last ten years. It starts with my connection to Penn State which is almost non-existent beyond football and Thon. Like most people I know, I gave up hope that Franklin will ever consistently challenge for Big Ten titles much less the playoffs. Speaking of which, the playoffs, as an extension of the unnecessary drive for a 'true' champion, even though every system to include the playoff has failed to deliver a true champion, has undoubtedly impacted the game negatively and should be thrown in the trash before the damage is permanent.

 

[Jerry]

1) We declined a bowl invite so our season is in the books.

2) The playoff is so boring and stale like a rerun we have already seen half a dozen times (because we pretty much have seen this half a dozen times with almost no variation). Same teams. We've already seen Clemson embarrass Ohio St multiple times. We've already seen Alabama blowout Notre Dame and there isn't even a Notre Dame star with a made up girlfriend this time. And we are back to Alabama/Clemson part V- thousand.

3) With only a handful teams ever winning a playoff game, it seems that the "playoff" is not for anyone but those handful of programs. You have several undefeated teams that played just about a full season and they have no means whatsoever to play for a title. But we get the exact same handful of teams nearly every year that do. It has left the other 115 teams behind. Should the other 115 teams just leave the playoff behind? I mean, it has no impact on the anyone but the same handful of fanbases every year so what's the point? Why would it even matter to anyone else?

4) How does this change, ever? I mean we all know it should change because it is killing college football. But do you think Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio St will stop purchasing most of the top recruits? Do you think ND will stop scheduling in a way that they play almost no one and end up undefeated or 1 loss until the very end of the season and then have the media cover for them?

5) I'm done watching it. Zero interest. Snoozefest. I haven't watched the "playoff" games in a couple of years outside of I did watch the championship last year, only because LSU was a different name for once. But LSU was paying their guys on the field on camera so was it really any different? The same few teams buy the necessary talent. We have a season which apparently doesn't matter anymore. Then the same teams are "selected" by the same small group of power brokers. Then the same curbstompings happen to give us Alabama verses Clemson. Over and over and over and over.

This year has been so insane that it kind of stands alone, but I totally get where you're coming from.

For starters, I agree with those who've said the playoff needs to expand to 8 teams.

As for the other bowls, I tend to be interested in the intersectional match-ups, SEC versus Big-10 or, say, ACC versus Pac-12.

Regarding this year's playoff, I have an intense rooting interest against Ohio State, so I'll definitely watch that game. Also, who knows, Notre Dame-Alabama may be more interesting than most people think, but I'll turn it off if the predicted blowout takes shape.

One last thought: if you have some money riding on the outcome, even the most podunk bowl games become fascinating...

 

[Grant Green]

I'll be watching bowl games just like every season. Looking forward to them as always. Already have my eye on ball state vs San Jose.

 

[Bob78]

I'm one who agrees with an 8-team "playoff". I'm not sure I agree that the Conference winner should get an automatic bid, (what if 8-4 Northwestern upsets 12-0 and 2nd ranked Penn State in Indy next December?!) but I could live with that as I don't think I have a viable alternative suggestion. I think that is a weakness in the basketball tournament, especially for the low majors. (If a 9-22 team, e.g., somehow wins the conf. tourney, let the conf. select either them or the 23-9 regular season champ for the Dance and not see their truly best team sit out).

So 5 P5 teams minimum, top-ranked G5 team, and 2 at-larges from anywhere within FBS. In 2016, that would have been Ohio State as an at-large, PSU as an automatic. That ties up 4 of the NY6 bowls immediately, and gets #9 vs. #10 and #11 vs. #12 - no matter what conference they are or aren't affiliated with - into the remaining two NY6.
2nd round, cities have to bid just like they do for the NC game. Or, the off-cycle 2 NY6 bowls get the 2nd round, and have the "luxury" of hosting two games? Hmmm. That needs some more thought.

I'm also ok with foregoing divisions within conferences and simply playing the top two teams, based on conf. records, in the Conference title game. So in my above hypothetical, 6-2 Northwestern gets bumped out in favor of 7-1 Ohio State, and #2 PSU and #5 OSU face off again for the title. Both are likely to get into the playoffs regardless (unless PSU gets yet another screw job).

This allows for a non-conf loss without hurting the playoff chances, like it often does now. It also may lead to one fewer scheduled regular season game, and allowing the conferences to schedule final week matchups within the remaining teams like the B1G attempted this season. That would be pretty cool across all 10 conferences, and still provide for a 12 game season and all the money perks that come with that. The Independents can still do their thing for a 12th game; the TV ratings for a UConn-UMass rematch may be at an all-time high on public access in Stamford and Brockton.

 

[Bob78]

I'll be watching bowl games just like every season. Looking forward to them as always. Already have my eye on ball state vs San Jose.

Two coaches on the rise, certainly. The San Jose coach should be moving up soon - he has taken them from zero to Wow! in short order. To me, that is always worth a watch.

 

[PSU621]

I’m intending to watch, with hopes of seeing OSU & ND get humiliated.

Think you will get your wish, hope so anyway.

 

[PSUMATT85]

Think you will get your wish, hope so anyway.

Major miss of an opportunity putting in ND versus Cincinnati. Sends the wrong message too. Would have drawn some viewers wanting to see to. Funny to remember winning a MNC in the holiday bowl over a 6-6 um

 

[PSUFBFAN]

I'm one who agrees with an 8-team "playoff". I'm not sure I agree that the Conference winner should get an automatic bid, (what if 8-4 Northwestern upsets 12-0 and 2nd ranked Penn State in Indy next December?!) but I could live with that as I don't think I have a viable alternative suggestion. I think that is a weakness in the basketball tournament, especially for the low majors. (If a 9-22 team, e.g., somehow wins the conf. tourney, let the conf. select either them or the 23-9 regular season champ for the Dance and not see their truly best team sit out).

So 5 P5 teams minimum, top-ranked G5 team, and 2 at-larges from anywhere within FBS. In 2016, that would have been Ohio State as an at-large, PSU as an automatic. That ties up 4 of the NY6 bowls immediately, and gets #9 vs. #10 and #11 vs. #12 - no matter what conference they are or aren't affiliated with - into the remaining two NY6.
2nd round, cities have to bid just like they do for the NC game. Or, the off-cycle 2 NY6 bowls get the 2nd round, and have the "luxury" of hosting two games? Hmmm. That needs some more thought.

I'm also ok with foregoing divisions within conferences and simply playing the top two teams, based on conf. records, in the Conference title game. So in my above hypothetical, 6-2 Northwestern gets bumped out in favor of 7-1 Ohio State, and #2 PSU and #5 OSU face off again for the title. Both are likely to get into the playoffs regardless (unless PSU gets yet another screw job).

This allows for a non-conf loss without hurting the playoff chances, like it often does now. It also may lead to one fewer scheduled regular season game, and allowing the conferences to schedule final week matchups within the remaining teams like the B1G attempted this season. That would be pretty cool across all 10 conferences, and still provide for a 12 game season and all the money perks that come with that. The Independents can still do their thing for a 12th game; the TV ratings for a UConn-UMass rematch may be at an all-time high on public access in Stamford and Brockton.

"I'm one who agrees with an 8-team "playoff". I'm not sure I agree that the Conference winner should get an automatic bid, (what if 8-4 Northwestern upsets 12-0 and 2nd ranked Penn State in Indy next December?!)"

So, in other words, make the results of the games completely meaningless? No need to even play the game if you've already determined who "deserves" it. In fact, why even play any of the regular season games at all. Simply take a vote at the beginning of the year to determine the "best" 4 teams and start the playoffs right away. Sheesh.

 

[Bob78]

"I'm one who agrees with an 8-team "playoff". I'm not sure I agree that the Conference winner should get an automatic bid, (what if 8-4 Northwestern upsets 12-0 and 2nd ranked Penn State in Indy next December?!)"

So, in other words, make the results of the games completely meaningless? No need to even play the game if you've already determined who "deserves" it. In fact, why even play any of the regular season games at all. Simply take a vote at the beginning of the year to determine the "best" 4 teams and start the playoffs right away. Sheesh.

Sheesh indeed.
Perhaps reading the entire passage and the alternatives I've given will add more context, rather than creating the strawman of putting your own misinterpretation onto what I said.
Perhaps not.

It is lengthy, and I realize that keeps many people from reading the entire thing.

Either way, Merry Christmas to you and yours.