College Football 2025 Season

[Vanimal46]

7 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

I bet Manning returns to school next year.

Though I'm thinking top rated HS QBs might want to start avoiding Steve Sarkisian. Jake Locker at Washington, Cody Kessler at USC and now Quinn Ewers and Arch Manning at Texas? Most college coaches never get a QB recruit as highly rated as those guys and none of them lived up to the hype.

 

7 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Agreed on all this. 

Would Manning even be talked about with a different last name?

both of you need to update your talk track. Sure he’s probably staying another year in college but he’s been way better over the last month+ of games. 

[nicksaviking]

13 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

 

both of you need to update your talk track. Sure he’s probably staying another year in college but he’s been way better over the last month+ of games. 

For sure, he’s clearly talented. But he’s not in Heisman talks or top of the draft talks like expected. And he’s capable of being in those talks. That was a Sarkisian rip, not a Manning rip.

[gunnarthor]

Rooting like crazy for Michigan today but I think Ohio State is a machine. 

[Vanimal46]

LSU's signing up for this? Lane Kiffin is just as much of a prick as he was 20 years ago coaching the Oakland Raiders. 

[Vanimal46]

Made me laugh 

[Parfigliano]

On 11/30/2025 at 9:54 AM, Vanimal46 said:

LSU's signing up for this? Lane Kiffin is just as much of a prick as he was 20 years ago coaching the Oakland Raiders. 

Lane's in the Lane business.  He'd hurt his mom if it guaranteed him a  head coaching Natty.  Schools know this and gladly go in business with him anyway.

Now that LSU has FA with Lane they will not escape the FO.  Nobody does.  Except Lane.

[gunnarthor]

He does seem like a jerk. If I recall correctly, didn't he want to coach the Vikings at one point?

[nicksaviking]

11 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

He does seem like a jerk. If I recall correctly, didn't he want to coach the Vikings at one point?

I don't remember, but looks like Lane was born in 1975 so he would have spent the later part of his childhood tied to the Vikings as his dad was a long time coach during the Burns and Green years.

So yeah, if he had a favorite team growing up, it was almost certainly the Vikings. 

[gunnarthor]

Kinda nice to see two big 10 teams ranked 1 & 2.

[Vanimal46]

Indiana wins the Big 10 conference and #1 seed in the CFP. Curt Cignetti is a stud HC and turnaround specialist. How many more coaches like him are stuck in the lower levels of D1 and high level D2/D3 programs until their early 60s? 

[nicksaviking]

That was shocking, and a 1v2 game shouldn’t be. 
 

OSU has been dominant, but everyone kind of missed how dominant IUs defense has been all year.

[Aggies7]

Notre dame takes their ball and goes home, opting out of a bowl game after not making the playoffs. College football is just a broken product, I have no idea how it’s as popular as it is. I have no interest.

[Mike Sixel]

11 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

Notre dame takes their ball and goes home, opting out of a bowl game after not making the playoffs. College football is just a broken product, I have no idea how it’s as popular as it is. I have no interest.

Way to give the seniors a kick in the nuts! Babies. 

[gunnarthor]

29 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

Notre dame takes their ball and goes home, opting out of a bowl game after not making the playoffs. College football is just a broken product, I have no idea how it’s as popular as it is. I have no interest.

Yeah, but it's ridiculous that they were left out. 

[Aggies7]

3 minutes ago, gunnarthor said:

Yeah, but it's ridiculous that they were left out. 

Maybe. Bowl games are an endangered species as it is now. Even Iowa state opted out…

[Mike Sixel]

2 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

Yeah, but it's ridiculous that they were left out. 

Given the rules, who doesn't go? If they want in, join a damn conference. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

18 hours ago, Aggies7 said:

Notre dame takes their ball and goes home, opting out of a bowl game after not making the playoffs. College football is just a broken product, I have no idea how it’s as popular as it is. I have no interest.

Only decision that makes sense.  Notre Dame can't win a national championship in 2025.  They can win a national championship in 2026, and barring massive and unexpected player/coach movement this offseason, will start the year as a top 5 team next year.  Say ND plays, and their QB (who is on track to be a 1st round, potentially top 5 pick in the 2027 NFL draft) tears his ACL?  That ends their 2026 season before it starts.  There is nothing to be gained by playing a meaningless game that almost no one will remember or care about, but potentially everything to lose.

[Cap'n Piranha]

17 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Way to give the seniors a kick in the nuts! Babies. 

Well, seeing as how the decision was made by the players, not the coaches or administration, I think your point here doesn't really make sense.

[Cap'n Piranha]

15 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Given the rules, who doesn't go? If they want in, join a damn conference. 

I assume you mean who should have been left out instead of ND?  Very easily either Alabama or Miami, and you could throw in Ole Miss, A&M, and Oklahoma as well.  By Sagarin, ND is 3rd, Miami 7th, Alabama 9th (Ole Miss 10th, A&M 8th, Oklahoma 13th).  By SP+, ND is 6th, Miami 9th, Alabama 13th (Ole Miss 7th, A&M 8th, Oklahoma 12th).  By FPI, ND is 3rd, Miami 7th, Alabama 8th (Ole Miss 12th, A&M 10th, Oklahoma 15th).  By PPG, ND is 2nd, Miami 18th, Alabama 42nd (Ole MIss 12th, A&M 15th, Oklahoma 74th).  By opponent PPG, ND is 12th, Miami 5th, Alabama 15th (Ole Miss 36th, A&M 54th, Oklahoma 7th).  By Strength of schedule, ND is 11th, Miami 21st, Alabama 3rd (Ole Miss 25th, A&M 9th, Oklahoma 8th).

Notre Dame played 10 games against Power conference teams (6 ACC, 2 SEC, 2 B1G), and went 8-2 scoring 427 points while giving up 194 (42.7-19.4).  Miami played 9 games against Power conference teams (8 ACC, 1 SEC) and 7-2 scoring 288 points while giving up 127 (32-14).  Alabama played 11 games against Power conference teams (9 SEC, 1 ACC, 1 B1G, including the SEC champ game), and went 8-3 scoring 256 points while giving up 226 (23.3-20.5).

Notre Dame hasn't trailed this season since 4 minutes left in the 3rd quarter against USC, all the way back on October 18th.  Notre Dame lost 2 games (it's first 2 games) by 4 points to teams that finished a combined 21-3.  Miami lost 2 games by 9 points to teams that finished a combined 16-8.  Alabama lost 3 games by 37 points to teams that finished a combined 27-10.

On November 25th, Notre Dame ranked ahead of both Miami and Alabama.  Since that date, ND beat 4-8 Stanford by 29, Miami beat Pitt 8-4 38-7, and Alabama beat 5-7 Auburn (who had already fired their coach) 27-20, and then lost to 12-1 Georgia 28-7, while barely getting 200 yards of offense, including -3 yards rushing.  It's a total joke that Alabama is in the CFP.

As for ND being in a conference, they for all intents and purposes are.  As I mentioned above, ND plays the equivalent of a full power conference slate every year, they just do it against multiple power conferences; this allows ND to continually play new and interesting opponents in every corner of the country (just this year ND played games in Florida, Indiana, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and California.  Miami didn't leave the state of Florida until November, and only played 4 road games all year (Florida, Texas, Virgina, Pennsylvania).  Alabama barely left the deep south (all games in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, and South Carolina).  Miami and Alabama both played an FCS school (Bethune and Eastern Illinois respectively), while ND's two non-power conference games came against 9-4 Boise (who won their conference championship), and 9-3 Navy.

If anyone thinks ND should be in a conference, it's either because they're jealous of ND being able to fill it's own schedule, or because they don't understand the reality of ND's schedule.

[The Great Hambino]

Wanna put a stop to bowl opt-outs?

If you voluntarily opt out, then you're out of the posteason the following year too.  Solves that problem real quick

[Cap'n Piranha]

18 hours ago, The Great Hambino said:

Wanna put a stop to bowl opt-outs?

If you voluntarily opt out, then you're out of the posteason the following year too.  Solves that problem real quick

This makes no sense to me--why do we care if players are opting out of meaningless exhibition games?  If these games are so important, surely you can tell me without googling who won such amazingly consequential games as the Gasparilla Bowl, the Poptarts Bowl, or the GameAbove Sports Bowl last year?

Also, you'll still get opt-outs; they'll just come in the form of "injuries" and "illnesses".  Now that almost every  FBS player has an agent, they'll have no trouble getting an opinion from a doctor that a player needs to rest a lingering injury right up until the day winter workouts start.

In the world we live in, where players are now being paid for playing, it shouldn't shock anyone that players don't want to risk an injury that could cost them millions in future earnings for playing in a game with no importance or impact at all.

Finally, if you're so adamant about stopping opt-outs from exhibition games called bowls, would you also propose that any NFL player who opts out of the Pro Bowl should miss the postseason the following year as well?

[Vanimal46]

8 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Also, you'll still get opt-outs; they'll just come in the form of "injuries" and "illnesses".  Now that almost every  FBS player has an agent, they'll have no trouble getting an opinion from a doctor that a player needs to rest a lingering injury right up until the day winter workouts start.

In the world we live in, where players are now being paid for playing, it shouldn't shock anyone that players don't want to risk an injury that could cost them millions in future earnings for playing in a game with no importance or impact at all.

Networks like ESPN want it both ways because they're paying for both the CFP and all of these bowl games. Players have to decide basically right now if they're going to transfer to a different school - so why would they play a bowl game if an injury derails their next destination in college? Or if they intend to enter the NFL draft, there's no reason for them to risk injury in a meaningless bowl game. 

The top echelon schools like Notre Dame, Texas, Ohio State, etc have a CFP or bust mentality. Why would they care about the Duke's Mayo Bowl when all season they were striving to make the CFP? 

It's a broken system and more players/teams will opt out of future bowl games. Except PJ Fleck... Winning the Duke's Mayo Bowl every year is his Super Bowl. 

[The Great Hambino]

14 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

This makes no sense to me--why do we care if players are opting out of meaningless exhibition games?  If these games are so important, surely you can tell me without googling who won such amazingly consequential games as the Gasparilla Bowl, the Poptarts Bowl, or the GameAbove Sports Bowl last year?

Also, you'll still get opt-outs; they'll just come in the form of "injuries" and "illnesses".  Now that almost every  FBS player has an agent, they'll have no trouble getting an opinion from a doctor that a player needs to rest a lingering injury right up until the day winter workouts start.

In the world we live in, where players are now being paid for playing, it shouldn't shock anyone that players don't want to risk an injury that could cost them millions in future earnings for playing in a game with no importance or impact at all.

Finally, if you're so adamant about stopping opt-outs from exhibition games called bowls, would you also propose that any NFL player who opts out of the Pro Bowl should miss the postseason the following year as well?

To clarify off the top, I'm talking about teams opting out en masse because they didn't get their way, not individual players making a business decision (more on that later)

Tell me who made the Sweet Sixteen of last year's March Madness without Googling.  Surely you can tell me who those teams were, otherwise it must be utterly inconsequential.

I can't imagine your conference mates being too thrilled when their bowl payout gets reduced because you decided to take your ball and go home (I know this doesn't apply specifically to Notre Dame, but it does to literally almost everyone else).

The TV revenue generated from bowl games is part of the overall ecosystem of TV contracts that drives interest in the sport, gets those sweet facilities constructed, gets alumni stoked (and by extension, those NIL collective coffers filled).  Long-term, the erosion of bowl season would lead to continuing erosion of college football's middle class, which is ultimately bad for the sport as well as the players at large.

As far as individual players opting out, that is certainly their right to gauge all the factors at play and make the best decision for themselves..  Not trying to take that away from them.  But every opt-out creates an opportunity for the next man on the depth chart.  More and more, bowl season is becoming a sneak preview of the following season.  The extra few weeks of practice teams get by being in a bowl are also very valuable in kicking off that process.

I've talked a lot about the financial incentives for networks, conferences, and schools.  In fairness, the rules preventing this from extending to the players (it's my understanding that pay-for-play NIL deals aren't allowed, which is dumb if true) need to be abolished.  If it's worthwhile financially for all the other stakeholders, then surely the players can be incentivized with bonuses to play in these games.  That's only fair and they've earned that right.  If they still opt out, well, that's their business decision to make.

But really team/player/coach opt outs are all symptoms of the same disease: football's jacked up calendar.  Signing day and the transfer portal need to be pushed outside of the postseason as much as possible.  It's tricky if they're going to be beholden to semesters, so the best I can come up with is this: 16-team playoff starting on championship game weekend (conference championship games have outlived their usefulness) so that the semifinals fall on Jan 1.  Now only championship game participants have their seasons bleeding into potential recruiting windows.  Coaches are subject to these transfer windows as well, meaning there are penalties if you sign a coach from another FBS school before then.  I'm open to other ideas, sorta spitballing here.  It's not an easy problem to fix.  But it needs fixing.

 

And for the record, it was Florida, Iowa State, and Toledo.  Didn't even have to Google it.  (I Bing'ed it)

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, The Great Hambino said:

To clarify off the top, I'm talking about teams opting out en masse because they didn't get their way, not individual players making a business decision (more on that later)

Tell me who made the Sweet Sixteen of last year's March Madness without Googling.  Surely you can tell me who those teams were, otherwise it must be utterly inconsequential.

I can't imagine your conference mates being too thrilled when their bowl payout gets reduced because you decided to take your ball and go home (I know this doesn't apply specifically to Notre Dame, but it does to literally almost everyone else).

The TV revenue generated from bowl games is part of the overall ecosystem of TV contracts that drives interest in the sport, gets those sweet facilities constructed, gets alumni stoked (and by extension, those NIL collective coffers filled).  Long-term, the erosion of bowl season would lead to continuing erosion of college football's middle class, which is ultimately bad for the sport as well as the players at large.

As far as individual players opting out, that is certainly their right to gauge all the factors at play and make the best decision for themselves..  Not trying to take that away from them.  But every opt-out creates an opportunity for the next man on the depth chart.  More and more, bowl season is becoming a sneak preview of the following season.  The extra few weeks of practice teams get by being in a bowl are also very valuable in kicking off that process.

I've talked a lot about the financial incentives for networks, conferences, and schools.  In fairness, the rules preventing this from extending to the players (it's my understanding that pay-for-play NIL deals aren't allowed, which is dumb if true) need to be abolished.  If it's worthwhile financially for all the other stakeholders, then surely the players can be incentivized with bonuses to play in these games.  That's only fair and they've earned that right.  If they still opt out, well, that's their business decision to make.

But really team/player/coach opt outs are all symptoms of the same disease: football's jacked up calendar.  Signing day and the transfer portal need to be pushed outside of the postseason as much as possible.  It's tricky if they're going to be beholden to semesters, so the best I can come up with is this: 16-team playoff starting on championship game weekend (conference championship games have outlived their usefulness) so that the semifinals fall on Jan 1.  Now only championship game participants have their seasons bleeding into potential recruiting windows.  Coaches are subject to these transfer windows as well, meaning there are penalties if you sign a coach from another FBS school before then.  I'm open to other ideas, sorta spitballing here.  It's not an easy problem to fix.  But it needs fixing.

 

And for the record, it was Florida, Iowa State, and Toledo.  Didn't even have to Google it.  (I Bing'ed it)

Teams aren't opting out because they're being pouty.  ISU and KSU had their coaches unexpectedly leave this week, so the players are reeling, and aren't in a headspace to prep; many are probably wondering if they should jump in the portal.  ND opted out because the coaches checked in on the players after the committee completely screwed them, and the players said that they knew so much of the team would opt out (due to going to the NFL, not playing through an injury like they would for the CFP, going to the portal, etc), that they didn't want to play a game that would have so much of the team missing.

I can't tell you who made the Sweet 16 without googling--but I can tell you that all those teams were playing for a National Championship, unlike any team in a non-CFP bowl.  The point was not that remembering who played makes a game meaningful.  The point was that you seemed offended teams didn't want to play in bowls, despite the fact that the games don't count for anything, the players don't get paid, and they might suffer career-altering injuries.

The bowl payouts are tiny, relatively speaking.  Only two bowls pay more than $8M to the teams, while 8 pay less than $1M. When you deduct the cost of sending everyone to a game (all the players, cheerleaders, band, support staff) and putting them in hotels and feeding them for multiple days, a not insignificant portion of the payout is getting chewed up just to play the game.  I would guess each school in a conference is getting maybe $1M at most, which is inconsequential (OSU supposedly spends $300M a year, and even the U of M reportedly spends $100M); no school is reliant on bowl revenue to do any of the things you mentioned above; that all comes from regular season tv contracts and revenue generated from home games.

Further, it's comical to think that bowls are what drives interest in college football.  No one is watching the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl unless they are already a college football fan.

Bowl practices are nowhere near as important as writers want you to think.  I can only speak for ND (because as an ND fan I listen to podcasts about the team, and reporters on those routinely mention that players directly tell them that the practices are not very important).

I agree that if the financial system changes, players will opt out less.  But it's going to need to change a lot--there are backup linemen getting high 6 figures to move to other teams in the portal; they're not going to put that at risk for a $25k game check in a game that does not matter.  You'll need to start giving the players on each team something like $5M to $10M to ensure no opt-outs (other than guys for sure going to the NFL and portal, which will still be a lot of guys), and since that's more than the total payout the schools are getting right now, you can guess at the odds of that happening.

I couldn't agree with you more on how stupid the calendar is; unfortunately that is a symptom of college football becoming a big business--without question the biggest minor league in all of sports--while still tied to institutions that supposedly are focused on academics.  There is no way to actually create a calendar that works without also compromising the academic portion (you know, the thing that's actually supposed to matter the most) without either insisting that every school have a concurrent academic dead period in which all transfers must take place (and have that before any and all bowl games), or to simply divorce college football from actual college.  Essentially, spin the athletic department into it's own entity, evict the students from school (unless they choose to retire), and charge the teams for access to the stadiums/facilities.

Short of that nuclear option, I would create a calendar with 14 weekends (last Saturday in August through last Saturday in November) in which all regular season games must be played.  I would abolish conference championship games, expand the playoff to 24 teams, and have 8 on campus games on the 1st Friday/Saturday in December.  The third Friday/Saturday in December would feature 8 more games in mid bowl sites, with the quarterfinals on New Years Eve/Day (unless one of those fall on a Sunday, which would be a regular NFL day; in that case, the games would be on the 30th/31st or the 1st/2nd) in 4 major bowl sites.  Semifinals are at least 10 days later, with the Final on the 3rd Monday of January (MLK day).  The portal will open on January 1, and close the day after the semifinal games are played; I agree with you that this is when coaches can move to a new school.  There will be a second portal that opens on Feb 1 and will last only 7 days; that portal is only for players who lost their head coach, coordinator, or position coach in the first window

[The Great Hambino]

28 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Teams aren't opting out because they're being pouty.  ISU and KSU had their coaches unexpectedly leave this week, so the players are reeling, and aren't in a headspace to prep; many are probably wondering if they should jump in the portal.  ND opted out because the coaches checked in on the players after the committee completely screwed them, and the players said that they knew so much of the team would opt out (due to going to the NFL, not playing through an injury like they would for the CFP, going to the portal, etc), that they didn't want to play a game that would have so much of the team missing.

I can't tell you who made the Sweet 16 without googling--but I can tell you that all those teams were playing for a National Championship, unlike any team in a non-CFP bowl.  The point was not that remembering who played makes a game meaningful.  The point was that you seemed offended teams didn't want to play in bowls, despite the fact that the games don't count for anything, the players don't get paid, and they might suffer career-altering injuries.

The bowl payouts are tiny, relatively speaking.  Only two bowls pay more than $8M to the teams, while 8 pay less than $1M. When you deduct the cost of sending everyone to a game (all the players, cheerleaders, band, support staff) and putting them in hotels and feeding them for multiple days, a not insignificant portion of the payout is getting chewed up just to play the game.  I would guess each school in a conference is getting maybe $1M at most, which is inconsequential (OSU supposedly spends $300M a year, and even the U of M reportedly spends $100M); no school is reliant on bowl revenue to do any of the things you mentioned above; that all comes from regular season tv contracts and revenue generated from home games.

Further, it's comical to think that bowls are what drives interest in college football.  No one is watching the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl unless they are already a college football fan.

Bowl practices are nowhere near as important as writers want you to think.  I can only speak for ND (because as an ND fan I listen to podcasts about the team, and reporters on those routinely mention that players directly tell them that the practices are not very important).

I agree that if the financial system changes, players will opt out less.  But it's going to need to change a lot--there are backup linemen getting high 6 figures to move to other teams in the portal; they're not going to put that at risk for a $25k game check in a game that does not matter.  You'll need to start giving the players on each team something like $5M to $10M to ensure no opt-outs (other than guys for sure going to the NFL and portal, which will still be a lot of guys), and since that's more than the total payout the schools are getting right now, you can guess at the odds of that happening.

I couldn't agree with you more on how stupid the calendar is; unfortunately that is a symptom of college football becoming a big business--without question the biggest minor league in all of sports--while still tied to institutions that supposedly are focused on academics.  There is no way to actually create a calendar that works without also compromising the academic portion (you know, the thing that's actually supposed to matter the most) without either insisting that every school have a concurrent academic dead period in which all transfers must take place (and have that before any and all bowl games), or to simply divorce college football from actual college.  Essentially, spin the athletic department into it's own entity, evict the students from school (unless they choose to retire), and charge the teams for access to the stadiums/facilities.

Short of that nuclear option, I would create a calendar with 14 weekends (last Saturday in August through last Saturday in November) in which all regular season games must be played.  I would abolish conference championship games, expand the playoff to 24 teams, and have 8 on campus games on the 1st Friday/Saturday in December.  The third Friday/Saturday in December would feature 8 more games in mid bowl sites, with the quarterfinals on New Years Eve/Day (unless one of those fall on a Sunday, which would be a regular NFL day; in that case, the games would be on the 30th/31st or the 1st/2nd) in 4 major bowl sites.  Semifinals are at least 10 days later, with the Final on the 3rd Monday of January (MLK day).  The portal will open on January 1, and close the day after the semifinal games are played; I agree with you that this is when coaches can move to a new school.  There will be a second portal that opens on Feb 1 and will last only 7 days; that portal is only for players who lost their head coach, coordinator, or position coach in the first window

Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that I was offended by Notre Dame's opt out.  I merely stated that tacking a one-season ban onto it would end it immediately.  Which it would.  Certainly not as offended as you are by a team being left out in favor of a team with the same record that beat them head to head.  Don't want to be left out?  Don't lose multiple games.  You have only yourselves to blame.

At no point did I say that bowl games are what drives interest in college football.  I said that erosion of the bowl season would over time have the effect of eroding the interest in football's middle class - to clarify, lower-tier power 4 and upper-tier G6 schools - since there would effectively be nothing for them to play for.  Which would push us toward the eventual Super League of Big Ten + SEC + whoever they deem worthy - whatever they deem to be dead weight, leaving everyone else a glorified FCS.  Maybe we're headed there anyway, but the bowls becoming more of an afterthought doesn't help keep things from going down that road.  I just don't think the Super League model is in the best interest of most schools, players, or fans.  Of course a Notre Dame fan thinks they're meaningless exhibitions - for the majority of fans that haven't chosen to latch on to a blue blood, they're the best we can reasonably hope for.

I don't think it's wise to add a round of games when you're already facing a calendar crunch, but overall I like your calendar proposal

[Cap'n Piranha]

23 hours ago, The Great Hambino said:

Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that I was offended by Notre Dame's opt out.  I merely stated that tacking a one-season ban onto it would end it immediately.  Which it would.  Certainly not as offended as you are by a team being left out in favor of a team with the same record that beat them head to head.  Don't want to be left out?  Don't lose multiple games.  You have only yourselves to blame.

At no point did I say that bowl games are what drives interest in college football.  I said that erosion of the bowl season would over time have the effect of eroding the interest in football's middle class - to clarify, lower-tier power 4 and upper-tier G6 schools - since there would effectively be nothing for them to play for.  Which would push us toward the eventual Super League of Big Ten + SEC + whoever they deem worthy - whatever they deem to be dead weight, leaving everyone else a glorified FCS.  Maybe we're headed there anyway, but the bowls becoming more of an afterthought doesn't help keep things from going down that road.  I just don't think the Super League model is in the best interest of most schools, players, or fans.  Of course a Notre Dame fan thinks they're meaningless exhibitions - for the majority of fans that haven't chosen to latch on to a blue blood, they're the best we can reasonably hope for.

I don't think it's wise to add a round of games when you're already facing a calendar crunch, but overall I like your calendar proposal

I assumed you were offended (perhaps the wrong choice of word) by bowl opt outs because you introduced it as a topic, along with a solution to fix it.  Why bring it up as a problem, unless you actually think it's a problem?

For the record, I'm not super annoyed that Miami got in ahead of ND (I certainly think the body of evidence, much of which I shared in this thread, points to ND being a better team right now than Miami).  At the end of the day, head to head is only one metric, and when that result comes in the first week of the season, it's reasonable to ask would that result be likely to duplicate at the end of the season.  I'm mostly annoyed that Alabama, who has more losses than ND and by any statistical metric is a worse team, got in.  Especially because only 12 days before the final rankings were announced, ND was ranked ahead of Alabama by the committee.  Somehow, Alabama moved ahead of ND 7 days later, even though no one in their right mind would agree that beating a 5-7 team that had already fired their coach should allow a team to jump another team that not only didn't lose, but beat a 4-8 team by 29.  Further, no one in their right mind would agree that getting demolished by 21 points (in a game that wasn't that close) should not have resulted in said team dropping a spot or two.

This idea that there's nothing for lower tier power 4 or G6 schools to play for without a meaningless bowl game is just ridiculous.  Do you think the U of M would rather beat Wisconsin, or beat Duke in a bowl game?  Would Cal rather beat Stanford, or beat Houston in a bowl game?  There's plenty of room for programs to lift themselves into the upper tier in the world of NIL; look at Vanderbilt which has been a laughingstock forever, and this year challenged for a CFP spot.  Look at Texas Tech, which has been an afterthought even in a watered down Big 12, and has now transformed themselves into a legitimate national title contender.  Or the best example of all--Indiana; perennial doormat in the B1G, and is now the only undefeated team in football after going toe-to-toe with the team everyone thought was clearly the best team in college football.  The bowls in no way keep fans continuing to have interest in their team--no one is saying "I'm going to switch my allegiance from Minnesota to Ohio State because I didn't get to see the Duke's Mayo Bowl".

I don't think the bowls are meaningless exhibitions because I'm an ND fan--it's because they are meaningless exhibitions.  It does not matter at all who wins them, and participation grants minimal advantages.

Like I said, I personally think college football should be divorced from the colleges, but until that happens, the best possible system should be implemented, and I think you have to expand the playoff to do that.