24-team CFP nonsense

RUGuitarMan1

All-Conference
Apr 5, 2021
2,472
3,857
73
I don’t know why some can’t get away from the ancient idea that the college football regular season is diminished by an expanded playoff field. I don’t like the 24 team idea but I think 16 teams would be optimum imo. Don’t see how the importance of the regular season is diminished. Instead of a very good team being eliminated by 1 bad regular season game, they still have a chance to win the championship. I think college football is entering a very successful era. The interest in the post season is being elevated. Certainly the tv ratings support this.
 

Rutgers Chris

All-American
Nov 29, 2005
5,048
5,908
97
I don’t know why some can’t get away from the ancient idea that the college football regular season is diminished by an expanded playoff field. I don’t like the 24 team idea but I think 16 teams would be optimum imo. Don’t see how the importance of the regular season is diminished. Instead of a very good team being eliminated by 1 bad regular season game, they still have a chance to win the championship. I think college football is entering a very successful era. The interest in the post season is being elevated. Certainly the tv ratings support this.
We were told an expanded playoff would ruin the regular season. It didn’t even come close to happening. 16 would be just fine by me. I’d just want more on campus games in any scenario, those were great
 

Anon1751565407

Freshman
Jul 3, 2025
120
66
28
We were told an expanded playoff would ruin the regular season. It didn’t even come close to happening. 16 would be just fine by me. I’d just want more on campus games in any scenario, those were great
14 teams…
Top 3 get byes
Next 10 play 5 games. 4-13, 5-12, 6-11, 7-10, 8-9.
Boom!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: PSU_Nut

Rutgers Chris

All-American
Nov 29, 2005
5,048
5,908
97
14 teams…
Top 3 get byes
Next 10 play 5 games. 4-13, 5-12, 6-11, 7-10, 8-9.
Boom!
Cant Remember Who Knows GIF by Black Prez
 

RCBeta

Sophomore
Jul 8, 2025
116
108
43
I like 16 teams with no byes and rewarding the best teams during the regular season with home games until the Semifinal and Final (Warm weather location or indoor stadiums).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rutgers Chris

NickRU714

Heisman
Aug 18, 2009
14,009
12,811
113
Having just the straight top 23 (plus wherever the G5 representative lands) is the best selection process yet.

Obviously just having the Top 24 would be best but this would be pretty close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GeoRingoes

iReC89

All-Conference
Jul 2, 2014
2,435
1,863
78
Football is not a tournament sport. If a team is not in discussions for who is in the top 4 they have no business in a national champion playoff. To cut down on the whining, 8 extra
teams get in. Thats enough.
 

Rutgers Chris

All-American
Nov 29, 2005
5,048
5,908
97

NickRU714

Heisman
Aug 18, 2009
14,009
12,811
113
The selective focus on “conference representation” is very amusing.

7 from the SEC? So what. If they are among the top 24 teams in the country that is all that should matter.

Want more diverse conference representation? Give EVERY conference an AQ
“Oh well we don’t want that much conference diversity”
 

Rutgers Chris

All-American
Nov 29, 2005
5,048
5,908
97
So, the tallest midget? Non-CFP bowl games ratings blow.
Compared to what? The pinstripe bowl was on at noon on a weekend. It got 7.6 million viewers. That would put it in the top 5 of a weekly network tv rankings. That is what tv networks care about.
 

T2Kplus20

Heisman
May 1, 2007
31,765
19,770
113
Compared to what? The pinstripe bowl was on at noon on a weekend. It got 7.6 million viewers. That would put it in the top 5 of a weekly network tv rankings. That is what tv networks care about.
Yeah, 3-4 decent ratings and the other 20 are garbage (below late night talk shows or FoxNews on a random night).

Make the regular season more meaningful and those games would get much better ratings than crap bowls.
 
Last edited:

Rutgers Chris

All-American
Nov 29, 2005
5,048
5,908
97
Yeah, 3-4 decent ratings and the other 20 are garbage (below late night talk shows or FoxNews on a random night).

Make the regular season more meaningful and those games would get much better ratings than crap bowls.
You really just made my point for me 😂, AI research makes dumb takes so much harder to get away with:

“For the 2025–26 season, there were 33 non-playoff bowl games. If you remove those top three outliers, the average viewership for the remaining 30 games drops to approximately 2.5 million viewers.”

“Most of these bowl games air on ESPN (cable), just like Fox News. In the cable world, 2.5 million is considered a massive success. For a bowl game like the Military Bowl or the Texas Bowl, hitting these numbers means they are outperforming almost everything else on TV that night except for a few choice news programs.”

Tl/dr- the networks are happy with these bowl ratings and don’t want them to go away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tru2ru1

T2Kplus20

Heisman
May 1, 2007
31,765
19,770
113
You really just made my point for me 😂, AI research makes dumb takes so much harder to get away with:

“For the 2025–26 season, there were 33 non-playoff bowl games. If you remove those top three outliers, the average viewership for the remaining 30 games drops to approximately 2.5 million viewers.”

“Most of these bowl games air on ESPN (cable), just like Fox News. In the cable world, 2.5 million is considered a massive success. For a bowl game like the Military Bowl or the Texas Bowl, hitting these numbers means they are outperforming almost everything else on TV that night except for a few choice news programs.”

Tl/dr- the networks are happy with these bowl ratings and don’t want them to go away.
Exactly, total crap ratings especially based on the price networks pay for the content. Thanks!
 

rujheyl1

Freshman
Jan 30, 2006
300
80
28
What gives us a better chance of getting in 16 or 24? I would think we should go with that answer.
 

Rutgers Chris

All-American
Nov 29, 2005
5,048
5,908
97
Exactly, total crap ratings especially based on the price networks pay for the content. Thanks!
Wrong again…they pay $5-10 million to broadcast a game. They make $10-15 in ad revenue. Thus the reason they continually pay to air the games. If they weren’t profitable, the networks would be the first to stop airing them. That is when bowl games go away, not when casual fans who don’t understand broadcasting economics and ratings complain online about them.
 
Apr 8, 2002
15,467
26,520
113
The B1G (commish-former tv exec) is pushing this because his mindset is more money to be made through more TV exposure. Forget tradition or what the majority want. It's about chasing dollars at all cost. Remember when he tried to bully the league into that bad equity deal. I don't think he's a good commissioner.
 

RUInsanityToo

All-American
May 5, 2006
9,513
9,816
113
We were told an expanded playoff would ruin the regular season. It didn’t even come close to happening. 16 would be just fine by me. I’d just want more on campus games in any scenario, those were great

Yeah, I want to go back to the good ole days of having sports writers and a computer picking the championship game or champion .... LOL.

Playoffs and meaningful bowl games are the best thing about college football right now IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rutgersguy2

T2Kplus20

Heisman
May 1, 2007
31,765
19,770
113
Wrong again…they pay $5-10 million to broadcast a game. They make $10-15 in ad revenue. Thus the reason they continually pay to air the games. If they weren’t profitable, the networks would be the first to stop airing them. That is when bowl games go away, not when casual fans who don’t understand broadcasting economics and ratings complain online about them.
From your Gemini god. Sorry:

Non-playoff college football bowl games are increasingly unprofitable for networks due to plunging viewership, high production costs, and reduced advertising revenue caused by top players opting out. While some games still generate decent viewership, many lower-tier bowls suffer from poor attendance, low TV ratings, and diminished advertiser interest.
 

MADHAT1

Heisman
Apr 1, 2003
31,395
16,241
113
From your Gemini god. Sorry:

Non-playoff college football bowl games are increasingly unprofitable for networks due to plunging viewership, high production costs, and reduced advertising revenue caused by top players opting out. While some games still generate decent viewership, many lower-tier bowls suffer from poor attendance, low TV ratings, and diminished advertiser interest.
What I found is:
>TV viewing for college football minor (non-CFP) bowl games in the 2025-26 season was not down
; it was up significantly. Viewership for 33 non-CFP bowl games on ESPN networks increased by 13% year-over-year, averaging 3.1 million viewers. This marked the highest non-CFP bowl average since the 2015-16 season.<

But also found the non ESPN affiliated bowl games surviving on attendance wasn't doing as well and there's a good chance many of them will shut down because they are running a deficit and the TV revenues won't keep them going.
ESPN buys the bowls and uses it for programming filler while getting the advertisements that turn the game profitable for them despite low attendance, because there are enough College football fans turning on the minor bowl games to make companies want to buy advertisement time to place their commercials for the TV audience to see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rutgers Chris

Rutgers Chris

All-American
Nov 29, 2005
5,048
5,908
97
From your Gemini god. Sorry:

Non-playoff college football bowl games are increasingly unprofitable for networks due to plunging viewership, high production costs, and reduced advertising revenue caused by top players opting out. While some games still generate decent viewership, many lower-tier bowls suffer from poor attendance, low TV ratings, and diminished advertiser interest.
The amount of times you can be wrong in one thread is remarkable…
“Actually, that statement is largely false based on the data from the most recent 2025–26 bowl season.


While the "narrative" is that opt-outs and the expanded playoff would kill minor bowls, the actual numbers tell a different story. Far from being a "sinking ship," non-playoff bowl games just had their strongest viewership year in a decade.


The Reality Check: 2025–26 Data


The claim that viewership is "plunging" is contradicted by the 2025–26 season statistics:


• Surging Ratings: Across the 33 non-CFP bowl games on ESPN/ABC, viewership was up 13% year-over-year.


• A Decade High: The average of 3.1 million viewers per game was the highest average since the 2015–16 season.


• The "Pinstripe" Factor: The Pinstripe Bowl you were asking about actually set an all-time record with 7.6 million viewers (an 81% increase over the previous year).


Why the "Unprofitability" Narrative Persists


The idea that these games are failing usually comes from three specific areas that are true, but don't tell the whole story:


1. Attendance vs. TV: Lower-tier bowls (like the Myrtle Beach Bowl or Famous Idaho Potato Bowl) often have dismal "in-person" attendance. However, for a network like ESPN, the stadium crowd is irrelevant. They are "buying" 3.5 hours of live programming that still outperforms almost anything else they could air in that time slot.


2. The "Opt-Out" Myth: While stars like Arch Manning or top NFL prospects sitting out is a major talking point for fans, it hasn't translated to a ratings drop. Fans are proving they will watch "the jersey" and the brand of the school, regardless of who is starting at quarterback.


3. The "Transfer Portal" Chaos: This is a legitimate cost/logistics issue. Some teams (like Notre Dame in 2025) have actually declined bowl invites because too many players were in the portal to field a competitive team. This did hurt a few specific games (like the Birmingham Bowl, which struggled to find an opponent), but it hasn't affected the "prestige" mid-tier bowls like the Pinstripe or Pop-Tarts Bowl.


The Bottom Line


For a network, a bowl game that draws 2.5–3 million viewers is highly profitable. Compared to the cost of producing a scripted show or a documentary, "renting" a football game for $5M–$10M is a bargain that guarantees a top-tier audience for advertisers.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor Worm

T2Kplus20

Heisman
May 1, 2007
31,765
19,770
113
The amount of times you can be wrong in one thread is remarkable…
“Actually, that statement is largely false based on the data from the most recent 2025–26 bowl season.


While the "narrative" is that opt-outs and the expanded playoff would kill minor bowls, the actual numbers tell a different story. Far from being a "sinking ship," non-playoff bowl games just had their strongest viewership year in a decade.


The Reality Check: 2025–26 Data


The claim that viewership is "plunging" is contradicted by the 2025–26 season statistics:


• Surging Ratings: Across the 33 non-CFP bowl games on ESPN/ABC, viewership was up 13% year-over-year.


• A Decade High: The average of 3.1 million viewers per game was the highest average since the 2015–16 season.


• The "Pinstripe" Factor: The Pinstripe Bowl you were asking about actually set an all-time record with 7.6 million viewers (an 81% increase over the previous year).


Why the "Unprofitability" Narrative Persists


The idea that these games are failing usually comes from three specific areas that are true, but don't tell the whole story:


1. Attendance vs. TV: Lower-tier bowls (like the Myrtle Beach Bowl or Famous Idaho Potato Bowl) often have dismal "in-person" attendance. However, for a network like ESPN, the stadium crowd is irrelevant. They are "buying" 3.5 hours of live programming that still outperforms almost anything else they could air in that time slot.


2. The "Opt-Out" Myth: While stars like Arch Manning or top NFL prospects sitting out is a major talking point for fans, it hasn't translated to a ratings drop. Fans are proving they will watch "the jersey" and the brand of the school, regardless of who is starting at quarterback.


3. The "Transfer Portal" Chaos: This is a legitimate cost/logistics issue. Some teams (like Notre Dame in 2025) have actually declined bowl invites because too many players were in the portal to field a competitive team. This did hurt a few specific games (like the Birmingham Bowl, which struggled to find an opponent), but it hasn't affected the "prestige" mid-tier bowls like the Pinstripe or Pop-Tarts Bowl.


The Bottom Line


For a network, a bowl game that draws 2.5–3 million viewers is highly profitable. Compared to the cost of producing a scripted show or a documentary, "renting" a football game for $5M–$10M is a bargain that guarantees a top-tier audience for advertisers.”
Don’t yell at me. Go complain to Sundar. That was a simple cut and paste from Gemini when asked if non-playoff bowl games are profitable for networks. I stand by my AI gods. :)
 

Rutgers Chris

All-American
Nov 29, 2005
5,048
5,908
97
Don’t yell at me. Go complain to Sundar. That was a simple cut and paste from Gemini when asked if non-playoff bowl games are profitable for networks. I stand by my AI gods. :)
You posted a narrative without facts as usual, the facts show your prompt was tainted. You’ve officially died on the hill that expanded playoffs will lead to less viewers. You’ve been buried on that hill. I’m pretty sure you don’t watch much college football outside of Rutgers and the big playoff games. Leave expanded playoffs and ****** bowl games alone and let the rest of us enjoy.
 

NickRU714

Heisman
Aug 18, 2009
14,009
12,811
113
The B1G (commish-former tv exec) is pushing this because his mindset is more money to be made through more TV exposure. Forget tradition or what the majority want. It's about chasing dollars at all cost. Remember when he tried to bully the league into that bad equity deal. I don't think he's a good commissioner.

What do "the majority" want?
Its pretty clear its more money.

ADs, Coaches, Players, Fans.
They have all made it pretty clear.

Did you see all the complaints from "the majority" about "tradition" when the B1G destroyed the PAC-12, expanded to the West Coast all to make "more money"?
I must have missed it.

The celebration about the $1b media deal seemed to drown it out.
 

T2Kplus20

Heisman
May 1, 2007
31,765
19,770
113
You posted a narrative without facts as usual, the facts show your prompt was tainted.


Tainted? I'm shocked and appalled by that comment. LOL! Gemini said I was right, so I'm happy.

And FYI, I watched a most RU games and the last few IU games once it became clear my Raiders were getting the #1 pick. Otherwise college football is meh. Like watching a Double-AA baseball game.
 

Anon1753438667

Sophomore
Jul 25, 2025
262
161
43
I personally like the BIG proposal. More meaningful games. RU doesn’t really have a natural rival and even our manufactured rivalry against MD gets no respect - it’s not often on “rivalry weekend”.

Like the single table concept with seeding on championship weekend.
 

wheezer

Heisman
Jun 3, 2001
169,833
25,516
113
I don’t know why some can’t get away from the ancient idea that the college football regular season is diminished by an expanded playoff field. I don’t like the 24 team idea but I think 16 teams would be optimum imo. Don’t see how the importance of the regular season is diminished. Instead of a very good team being eliminated by 1 bad regular season game, they still have a chance to win the championship. I think college football is entering a very successful era. The interest in the post season is being elevated. Certainly the tv ratings su