2025 College Football Season

[Max Rockatansky]

Hence why they look like quitters to most people who aren't Notre Dame fans.  Like it or not the choice not to play put the team in the spotlight.

The fact that they are also walking away from a $1 million bowl game payout like it is no big deal also has a bourgeoisie feel.  I'll admit though that is probably chump change to any well funded program. 

[thspfc]

Hence why they look like quitters to most people who aren't Notre Dame fans.  Like it or not the choice not to play put the team in the spotlight.

The fact that they are also walking away from a $1 million bowl game payout like it is no big deal also has a bourgeoisie feel.  I'll admit though that is probably chump change to any well funded program. 

I'm not understanding how $1 million is not worth playing one more game you don't even have to play well in, yet the loss of a $4 million payout will make the AD whine his ass off. Where are we drawing the line here?

[Max Rockatansky]

Hence why they look like quitters to most people who aren't Notre Dame fans.  Like it or not the choice not to play put the team in the spotlight.

The fact that they are also walking away from a $1 million bowl game payout like it is no big deal also has a bourgeoisie feel.  I'll admit though that is probably chump change to any well funded program. 

I'm not understanding how $1 million is not worth playing one more game you don't even have to play well in, yet the loss of a $4 million payout will make the AD whine his ass off. Where are we drawing the line here?

That contradiction isn't lost on me.  A smaller program getting $1 million is a huge payday.

[tigerwings]

The B1G has tried to get ND has a full member. ND likes the TV contract with NBC and not playing conference games. But ND likes being in the B1G for Hockey.

[DTComposer]

I still fail to see how it's poor sportsmanship if the players don't do what you want them to do. Why should anybody care whether they do or don't play in a game?

It's part of the commitment.

Commitment to whom? They don't owe me, or anybody else, anything. Their commitment is to the team, and if the team agrees they don't want to play, then they are honoring their commitment. They don't owe ESPN an attractive bowl matchup so they can sell commercials.

The commitment is to themselves, and their development as sportsmen and citizens. You snipped my youth baseball analogy, but I stand behind it. College players are still teenagers and/or barely adults, and they're learning it's OK to walk away if they don't get exactly what they want.

And in my opinion, Bevacqua certainly hasn't helped with his whining about the ACC giving props to Miami - the team that actually plays football in the conference.

Here's a compromise: if a team is on the bubble for the CFP and then doesn't get in, then they can opt out of other bowl games. BUT every team they beat gets that L turned into a W for their own purposes - so a hypothetical 5-7 team that lost to Notre Dame would become a 6-6 team and bowl eligible. AND Notre Dame would give up any bowl eligibility the following season, regardless of record.

For the record: 1) I don't have an opinion on whether Notre Dame deserved to get in or not - I think they had a strong argument in any case; 2) I don't give a toot about ESPN or commercials; 3) Like most broken things, money and pride is at the root of all this, and I wish all college sports had an equal footing.

[bugo]

Why does it matter to you if the players don't want to play in a meaningless game? They don't owe you anything.

If you're going to use that logic, then why does it matter to you if they play at all?

They signed a contract, and they should fulfill that contract. Not sitting out games because they're butthurt that they didn't get into the playoffs (They do have a legitimate complaint, but throwing a hissy fit and refusing to play a bowl game is petulant and petty. It reminds me of Eric Cartman throwing a temper tantrum when he doesn't get his way.

[bugo]

There's the bowl opt-out and now this: https://x.com/dpshow/status/1998078296446181627?s=46&t=WqXB8tiok2zdZhDGtV8hHg
Has to be the most coddled program in the history of college football. So done with this shit. Join a fucking conference. You're not better than everyone else.

If that isn't some bullshit. As you said, if they want to make the playoffs then they can join a conference.

It's also bullshit that a 3 loss Alabama got in over a 2 loss Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Utah, and especially Brigham Young, which not only has one fewer loss than Alabama, but one more win as well. Alabama's silver spoon is approaching the size of Notre Dame's. Both teams are coddled and get things handed to them that they don't deserve. I won't agree with Notre Dame over Miami, but I do agree with Notre Dame over Alabama. But there were several 2 loss teams who were at least as worthy as Notre Dame.

[bugo]

This was 100% the players' decision, not the coaches. They didn't want to spend an extra two weeks on campus practicing for a meaningless game. The coaches would much prefer to have the extra practice time regardless of how the game went.

This is exactly the kind of entitlement that makes 99% of football fans hate Notre Dame. They believe that they are inherently superior to any other school, and their fans think that they deserve special treatment and shouldn't have to play games that are "beneath" them. They get everything handed to them on a silver platter as it is, and they think they are better than all of those schools that are conference members, and that the same rules shouldn't apply to them. They need to join a conference, man up and stop whining like the titty babies they are. FND

[bugo]

a team he believes capable of winning the championship not getting a chance

But they did have a chance. 12 chances, to be specific. And they failed in two of those chances. They started the season as the same 0-0 as everybody else does. If they wanted to get into the playoffs, they should have, you know, won their games. Or were those games against Texas A%M and Miami "meaningless games" and they shouldn't count against them?

And they get special treatment that NO other team in the BCS gets. And they are throwing a hissy fit because their own actions (refusal to join a conference) in part led to them missing the playoffs. It already isn't a level playing field - Notre Dame is the most privileged program in the country and gets coddled and given special treatment - but even with their coded-in advantages, they tuck their tails in between their legs and run away like petulant children.

If it is true that the players made the decision not to play and not the coaching staff or the athletic department, the coach should release every player on the roster and start from scratch. I wouldn't want quitters playing on my team.

[bugo]

I don't know about that scenario. It's up to the players to decide whether or not it's worth it. I expect you'll see it becoming more common to pass on bowl games.

Then you have a terrible coaching staff. They have no control of their players if that is true. The lunatics aren't supposed to run the asylum. Are you saying that players aren't obligated to obey the coach? If they run right when the coach says to run left, they will get benched. The coach absolutely has a right to tell his players what to do.

I still fail to see how it's poor sportsmanship if the players don't do what you want them to do. Why should anybody care whether they do or don't play in a game?

Would it be "poor sportsmanship" if the team thought one of their regular season games were beneath them and therefore unimportant? If they believed that a first round playoff game is "unimportant" because it isn't the actual National Championship game? Where does it end?

[gonealookin]

It's up to the players to decide whether or not it's worth it. I expect you'll see it becoming more common to pass on bowl games.

At the individual player level, passing on bowl games has been a thing for the last 15 years or so.  Anybody who thinks they have a shot at being drafted by an NFL team skips the down-ballot bowl games to avoid risking an injury that will cost him a ton of money "to prepare for the NFL Draft".

Add to that all the players who enter the transfer portal after the conclusion of the regular season, whether in search of a more prominent role on a team or a better NIL deal.  Plus all the coaches who bail out for a higher-paying job.  It leaves many teams with badly depleted rosters for their bowl game, and the resulting product is no better than an NFL preseason game. It's a lousy look for the sport.

In addition to Notre Dame, Iowa State and Kansas State also were bowl-eligible but declined invitations.  So you wind up with 5-7 Appalachian State being invited to fill ESPN's time slots.

The postseason bowl setup is an anachronism that needs to die.  The playoff is going to expand; I'd guess that a few years down the road you'll have 24 teams with 8 first-round byes.  That requires 23 games to determine a champion, which is plenty of postseason inventory, and with each game in that bracket setup being meaningful it eliminates the exhibition game mentality in so many of the bowl games.

Notre Dame, Iowa State and K-State have helped to point out the silliness of bowl games being played outside the playoff bracket, and I support their decisions.

[LilianaUwU]

I thought Catholics didn't like pulling out???

[bugo]

The requirement to play in the post-season should be a part of players' contracts to prevent teams like Notre Dame from embarrassing themselves from now on, barring injury or other circumstances, of course.

Not to sound like a boomer, but I'm not a big fan of some of the recent changes in college sports, namely the NIL and the transfer portal. If they are going to pay players, they should have a salary cap so the biggest names in the country won't be able to buy championships like they can now.

The transfer portal rules are shit. A player should be able to transfer only ONE time without sitting out a year. It harms the product when players have no loyalty, real or perceived, to any one team. At least in the NFL, players typically sign multi-year deals, so a fan can follow a player and watch them develop over the years.

Money ruins everything, and it has taken a lot of joy out of being a college sports fan.

[DTComposer]

The postseason bowl setup is an anachronism that needs to die.  The playoff is going to expand; I'd guess that a few years down the road you'll have 24 teams with 8 first-round byes.  That requires 23 games to determine a champion, which is plenty of postseason inventory, and with each game in that bracket setup being meaningful it eliminates the exhibition game mentality in so many of the bowl games.

Notre Dame, Iowa State and K-State have helped to point out the silliness of bowl games being played outside the playoff bracket, and I support their decisions.

Then you might as well just accelerate the process of making the FBS a pro league - in the pros, around half the teams make the playoffs. So cut the number of teams down to 32 - basically the two-super-conference (Big 10/SEC) league  - and have a 16-team playoff. All the other schools can go pound sand and play flag football at the club level.

[SEWIGuy]

The commitment is to themselves, and their development as sportsmen and citizens. You snipped my youth baseball analogy, but I stand behind it. College players are still teenagers and/or barely adults, and they're learning it's OK to walk away if they don't get exactly what they want.

They're professionals walking away from a glorified exhibition. I'm not a ND fan by any means, but I have no problem with that at all. Your youth baseball analogy is by and large terrible.

Then you might as well just accelerate the process of making the FBS a pro league

If by "pro league" you mean the games are played by people getting compensated for playing, it is already there.

[gonealookin]

The postseason bowl setup is an anachronism that needs to die.  The playoff is going to expand; I'd guess that a few years down the road you'll have 24 teams with 8 first-round byes.  That requires 23 games to determine a champion, which is plenty of postseason inventory, and with each game in that bracket setup being meaningful it eliminates the exhibition game mentality in so many of the bowl games.

Notre Dame, Iowa State and K-State have helped to point out the silliness of bowl games being played outside the playoff bracket, and I support their decisions.

Then you might as well just accelerate the process of making the FBS a pro league - in the pros, around half the teams make the playoffs. So cut the number of teams down to 32 - basically the two-super-conference (Big 10/SEC) league  - and have a 16-team playoff. All the other schools can go pound sand and play flag football at the club level.

I expect your Super League will be a reality within the next 10 years.

Cal won't be in it, because our games would dilute the value of any television contract.  We'll go back to playing in a more regionally-sensible conference, some version of the new Pac-12 that will play football starting in the 2026 season.  That will bring a lot less money that what we're getting as an ACC member, but we'll just have to deal with that aspect of it.

[DTComposer]

The commitment is to themselves, and their development as sportsmen and citizens. You snipped my youth baseball analogy, but I stand behind it. College players are still teenagers and/or barely adults, and they're learning it's OK to walk away if they don't get exactly what they want.

They're professionals walking away from a glorified exhibition. I'm not a ND fan by any means, but I have no problem with that at all. Your youth baseball analogy is by and large terrible.

Why is it terrible?

Also, if they want to be treated like pros, then they gotta act like employees. Glorified exhibition or not, bowls are big money and college football is a business. The bosses say whether you play or not.

[thenetwork]

For those who said it's the players decision to pick and choose their post-season bowl games, I call BS.

There are likely enough players on that team that would have loved to have the experience of playing in a bowl game -- it could be their only chance. 

And for some of the seniors who plan on entering the NFL draft, it's one more chance to be seen in front of the talent scouts -- maybe have their best game ever. 
If I had a shot to potentially make more money in my first real job after graduation, I wouldn't be saying no thanks.

[SEWIGuy]

The commitment is to themselves, and their development as sportsmen and citizens. You snipped my youth baseball analogy, but I stand behind it. College players are still teenagers and/or barely adults, and they're learning it's OK to walk away if they don't get exactly what they want.

They're professionals walking away from a glorified exhibition. I'm not a ND fan by any means, but I have no problem with that at all. Your youth baseball analogy is by and large terrible.

Why is it terrible?

Also, if they want to be treated like pros, then they gotta act like employees. Glorified exhibition or not, bowls are big money and college football is a business. The bosses say whether you play or not.

I mean, the bosses are saying they're not playing right? And they're not employees - the schools don't want to employ them intentionally. So they aren't subject to collective bargaining or anything that grants them rights in return for work standards. Under such a system, they COULD be tied to a school contractually through the bowl season. But because that system doesn't exist, again by design of the schools, the players have the freedom to say "no thanks" and explore their options. And you're going to judge them for that? Nah. They have to do what's in their best interests.

And I can't believe I would actually need to explain why high level college football is different from your kids baseball team.

[NWI_Irish96]

I don't know about that scenario. It's up to the players to decide whether or not it's worth it. I expect you'll see it becoming more common to pass on bowl games.

Then you have a terrible coaching staff. They have no control of their players if that is true. The lunatics aren't supposed to run the asylum. Are you saying that players aren't obligated to obey the coach? If they run right when the coach says to run left, they will get benched. The coach absolutely has a right to tell his players what to do.

I still fail to see how it's poor sportsmanship if the players don't do what you want them to do. Why should anybody care whether they do or don't play in a game?

Would it be "poor sportsmanship" if the team thought one of their regular season games were beneath them and therefore unimportant? If they believed that a first round playoff game is "unimportant" because it isn't the actual National Championship game? Where does it end?

Completely ridiculous analogy. The goal of a season is to win a conference and/or national championship. Skipping a regular season or playoff game ruins that goal. Skipping an exhibition game that keeps you on campus at Christmas instead of with your family comes after the end of the pursuit of that goal.

[NWI_Irish96]

For those who said it's the players decision to pick and choose their post-season bowl games, I call BS.

There are likely enough players on that team that would have loved to have the experience of playing in a bowl game -- it could be their only chance. 

And for some of the seniors who plan on entering the NFL draft, it's one more chance to be seen in front of the talent scouts -- maybe have their best game ever. 
If I had a shot to potentially make more money in my first real job after graduation, I wouldn't be saying no thanks.

I have it on very good word that it was 100% the players decision. The coaches/university would NEVER force the kids to miss out on an experience they want to have. I'm sorry this doesn't align with your narrative.

[DTComposer]

And I can't believe I would actually need to explain why high level college football is different from your kids baseball team.

You don't - I know the answer is money. But let's just accept what it's become and make a clean break by forming a true semi-pro league. Pay those players fairly, get them in a union, remove the burden of them pretending to be students.

Kids who still want to play football while going to college can do so as a non-revenue sport.

[SEWIGuy]

And I can't believe I would actually need to explain why high level college football is different from your kids baseball team.

You don't - I know the answer is money. But let's just accept what it's become and make a clean break by forming a true semi-pro league. Pay those players fairly, get them in a union, remove the burden of them pretending to be students.

Kids who still want to play football while going to college can do so as a non-revenue sport.

You can make them employees and still have them be college students. It's not that hard.

[hbelkins]

I'm bothered more by individual players opting out of bowl games than I am entire teams opting not to play. If an individual decides not to participate in their team's bowl game, they're letting their teammates down.

I'm also bothered by teams playing in conferences in some sports but not others. If Notre Dame wants to be in a conference, it needs to be in a conference in all sports.

The whole NIL thing bugs me, and the transfer rules do too.

Yeah, I'm old-fashioned. I remember what it was like when UK struggled to earn bowl bids and how good it felt to get Hall of Fame Bowl bids back in 1983 and 1984.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I'm also bothered by teams playing in conferences in some sports but not others. If Notre Dame wants to be in a conference, it needs to be in a conference in all sports.

It's just kind of an unfortunate necessity. Needless to say it would have been quite hard for Notre Dame to join the ACC for hockey.