I agree. Use the existing bowl games (and there are plenty) and go:I have no problem with a 16 format like the one proposed. It sure beats the 12 format from last year.
With a 16 team playoff, it would be possible (if not probable, especially for an SEC team) to play a dozen games a year against ranked teams. Looking at Bama's 2025 schedule, if things shake out well for Mizzou, OU and AU, there are potentially 7 ranked teams on tap in the conference schedule alone, plus P4 OOC games against FSU and Wisconsin. An SEC championship opponent plus four games in the CFP would mean 12 games against ranked teams in one season if Bama made the CFP title game, which is an unreal gauntlet.If they go to 16 in the playoff, they're going to have to shorten the regular season. Or eliminate conference championship games. Or both.
12 regular season games, a conference championship, and 4 rounds of playoffs = 17 games. That's just too many, especially when you consider that the extras are against top-flight competition.
I agree that that's what most people, especially talking heads will say. But they're incredibly short-sighted -- much like they were when clamoring for the transfer portal and pay-for-play..... most people are going to say "get rid of one of the cupcake games like ULM or Eastern IL", which doesn't help that much other than fractionally reducing the chance of injury.
IMO: The SEC Championship Game will haveIf they go to 16 in the playoff, they're going to have to shorten the regular season. Or eliminate conference championship games. Or both.
12 regular season games, a conference championship, and 4 rounds of playoffs = 17 games. That's just too many, especially when you consider that the extras are against top-flight competition.
I’m not sure what the best fix is because you are absolutely right that it’s too many games for teams in CFBP contention.If they go to 16 in the playoff, they're going to have to shorten the regular season. Or eliminate conference championship games. Or both.
12 regular season games, a conference championship, and 4 rounds of playoffs = 17 games. That's just too many, especially when you consider that the extras are against top-flight competition.
I agree with you, but let me play devils advocate.Just make it a 10-game regular season, with a 64-team field / 6 round playoff, for a max 15 game season.
Seed according to the old BCS combination of computer and human rankings.
Everybody gets a trophy, and now all we have to kvetch about is seeding.
Couldn’t decide whether this is (1) a cynical prediction, or (2) a blue-font absurdity.
It’s so hard to tell the difference these days. No blue font at all on that last sentence.
If they move to have more than one SEC game on the day of the SECCG, then I'll agree with you.IMO: The SEC Championship Game will have
outlived it's usefulness.
I think the portal is a bigger deal than pay-for--pay. But yeah, we need sanity on both. Don't see it happening without a CBA, though. Otherwise, the solution won't stand the inevitable court challenge.None of this matters if we don’t get the portal and NIL under control.
...or simply start the regular season a week earlier.If we eliminated the SECCG and shifted the schedule that might allow for another off week during the season. That would be a very good thing for the players.
Teams like ULM and Western Kentucky, among others, heavily depend on games against P4 teams to help fund their athletic department's budget. Not having these games will put a massive shortfall in their budgets.I agree that that's what most people, especially talking heads will say. But they're incredibly short-sighted -- much like they were when clamoring for the transfer portal and pay-for-play.
The so-called cupcake games are vital for getting through the season. First, those programs aren't sustainable without playing the big boys. Their athletic budgets depend on these games. Cut out the cupcakes and you cut out those programs, along with the opportunities they provide for players not quite at the P4 level.
Second, they provide much-needed breathers for the P4 teams. If you cut the P4 season to 10 or 11 games, but have them all against P4 teams, you have a bunch of battered teams at the end of the year....when playoffs start.
Third, they provide a great opportunity for reserve players to get meaningful playing time. Which gives starters a much-needed rest. Cut out these games, and player development takes a big hit. Not to mention starters being exposed to greater risk of injury than they already have -- both from more game reps and the greater physicality of higher-level teams.
So-called cupcake games have a meaningful place in the P4 programs, and they benefit both sides, though in different ways.
People who advocate eliminating them are exceedingly myopic.
The problem is that the federal courts (if I'm not mistaken) have already ruled that there can hardly be any restrictions on the players' ability to transfer. So right now, the NCAA and everyone in CFB have their hands tied. But we should have known when we started getting the courts involved, things weren't going to be done logically.I think the portal is a bigger deal than pay-for--pay. But yeah, we need sanity on both. Don't see it happening without a CBA, though. Otherwise, the solution won't stand the inevitable court challenge.