Taking a longer/larger view, however, I see this as problematic for the health of the sport as a whole. Purdue was always at a disadvantage relative to tOSU/M but in the old days they had at least a chance. They won the league and went to the RoseBowl in the 2000 season. Sure that was 20+ years ago and the Buckeyes (11) and Wolverines (4) have each won multiple league titles since then, but for Purdue there was always a chance, slim as it may have been, that next year would be their year again.
@betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) has recounted his story of traveling to Pasadena for Purdue's appearance in the 2001 Rose Bowl and I think that the (slim) chance that Purdue might make it back eventually helped to keep him around.
As a fan of a rich team, these rich-get-richer changes are good for me in a way, but I am increasingly convinced that the people running college athletics have their hands wrapped firmly around the neck of the goose and they don't seem to understand that if they kill the goose the golden eggs will stop.
Is Miami a Helmet School? UCLA? Nebraska? Auburn? Florida?Well, now you've done it
Is Miami a Helmet School? UCLA? Nebraska? Auburn? Florida?We don't need to debate who is or isn't a helmet.
Yeah the portal has created free agency similar to the NFL, but without the multi-year contracts and salary caps that serve to balance and restrict the rate of flow of the talent. It would take major structural and procedural changes, to make a difference in the current expected outcomes.I feel like the portal was meant to appease players to try and get them to back down on the payment thing.
It'll be interesting to see in a few years, how the Portal Bust Rate, compares to the Recruiting Bust Rate.
There is no excuse now for a helmet school to ever be at a roster disadvantage. I think the only way it happens now is if they are at a coaching disadvantage. Oklahoma might have that right now. Jury is out on Texas.I agree with one exception, injuries. Ohio State's running back situation late last year is a prime example. On paper Ohio State's roster was loaded with RB talent but by the time the Buckeyes played Michigan and Georgia (not coincidentally the two games they lost), the projected top three (Henderson, Williams, Pryor) were ALL out due to injuries so at that point in the season Ohio State had a talent deficit at the RB position relative to a lot of non-helmet schools that you would never expect to be able to out-talent tOSU.
It'll be interesting to see in a few years, how the Portal Bust Rate, compares to the Recruiting Bust Rate.The portal bust rate will almost certainly be lower because when you are looking at a portal transfer you've actually seen him compete against other CFB players in a CFB system.
The portal bust rate will almost certainly be lower because when you are looking at a portal transfer you've actually seen him compete against other CFB players in a CFB system.
Exactly. 2022 was an outlier in that Purdue won a terrible B1G West and then got skewered when playing in the CCG, as expected. So basically Purdue is already eliminated from winning the conference because they're going to face a juggernaut in the CCG. The chances that the best team out of UM/OSU/PSU is bad enough to be vulnerable to Purdue are minimal.I know this is picking nits but Purdue's last title prior to 2000 was 1967 not 1966.
2000 was a generational talent and likely the best QB in school history for a school like Purdue, and an innovative coach who was ahead of the curve for Big Ten style of play. And even then it took winning a 3-way tiebreaker with two conference losses to get to Pasadena.
Before that it was 1966. And at the time you could argue he was another generational talent for a school like Purdue at QB.
But in the 18-team league, the CCG world, the NIL world, the transfer portal world? I don't believe Purdue can, much less will, ever have a chance at winning the conference again.
The only way it could happen is if the idea @Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) mentioned in another thread--embrace NIL in a 24+24 team (48 total) superconference that breaks away from the NCAA. THEN, reduce roster limits and enforce a salary cap so that there is actually enforced parity across the system. But I don't believe that will ever happen, because the helmets aren't going to want parity, even if it is good for the health of the sport.
Which is one of the reasons I'm out. The other, of course, is a history of heartbreaking Purdue underperformance on banana peels in March.
Even beyond the conference, prior to NIL, the portal, the CFP, and the BCS I would argue that there was even a sliver of a chance for a Purdue to win the NC.Correct on 1967 being the tied conference title. I forgot that Purdue went to the 1966 Rose Bowl after finishing second due to the "no repeat rule" so MSU couldn't go.
Correct on 1967 being the tied conference title. I forgot that Purdue went to the 1966 Rose Bowl after finishing second due to the "no repeat rule" so MSU couldn't go.But the fun thing is that used to matter. I went nuts when MSU came back to beat PSU in 2006 to get their first bowl bid 3 years. Playing Georgia in a January 1 Citrus Bowl, even in a loss, against Stafford and Moreno, I thought might be peak. Then to actually win a Big Ten title, and a couple years later go to the Rose Bowl. Holy shit.
BTW I always considered the NC above Purdue's ceiling. Just finding some way to backdoor a conference championship and a trip to the Rose Bowl, maybe even a win(!) there, is about all that any Purdue fan thought would/could happen.
Realistically Purdue, to get enough votes in the old system, would have to go undefeated.
Counting the bowl game, Purdue hasn't had a season with 3 or fewer losses since they went 9-3 (with a bowl win) in 1997. Most recent 2-loss season (with a bowl win) was 1979. Most recent 2-loss regular season was 1969. Most recent one-loss season was 1958, but that season also had two ties to finish 6-1-2. Prior to that they had no more one-loss [or better] seasons until 1943, which incidentally is also their most recent undefeated season. But, ya know, there might be a little asterisk what with a World War on and all...
So at best would be an appearance in the Rose Bowl. Which Purdue is likely to never again do in my lifetime, other than playing a conference away game at UCLA, of course.
But in the 18-team league, the CCG world, the NIL world, the transfer portal world? I don't believe Purdue can, much less will, ever have a chance at winning the conference again.It may not seem like it because I'm obviously a fan/alum of a helmet but I do understand and sympathies with this position. My analogy is my relationship with the MLB.
Which is one of the reasons I'm out.
I like Oktoberfest and pumpkin (sorry) beers.Damn. If you were local, I've got a bunch of pumpkin beers in my fridge from a mixed 24-pack that I'd give you lol...
It may not seem like it because I'm obviously a fan/alum of a helmet but I do understand and sympathies with this position. My analogy is my relationship with the MLB.NFL has a draft, a hard salary cap, and being a complete "team" game doesn't allow for one or two star players making a bad team into a contender. So there's parity. And yeah, your Browns suck because of decades of bad management.
Most Cleveland sports have sucked for most of my lifetime. There have only been a few exceptions. The Browns were really good in the late 1980's and only BARELY missed the SuperBowl a few times. The Cavaliers were really good when they had LeBron, and the Indians have been periodically good.
Cavaliers:Sure they could. They could eliminate the max and supermax contracts. The NBA not only has a team cap, but a player cap. Imagine if Mahomes was capped on top of the salary cap. The Chiefs would be unstoppable. Brady voluntarily took less than he could to win titles, but if there were contract limits like the NBA, all top QBs would be in that boat
The Cavs ONLY won a title because LeBron decided he wanted to win one for the home team. Full stop. In the case of the NBA this isn't really the league's fault and I don't know that they even could fix it. High-end BB players get most of their money from endorsement deals and those are naturally more lucrative if you:Thus, the great players tend to congregate on good teams in large media markets. They are literally better off playing for half the money on a great team in LA than playing for twice the salary on a crappy team in Cleveland so it is structurally impossible for the Cavaliers to compete unless they get some weird advantage like having the greatest player in a generation happen to be born nearby and want to play at home.
- Play in a large media market, and
- Play on a winning team.
Fall is great. I used to temper that with the knowledge that winter would follow, but here winter is not bad anyway, usually. We still go outside nearly daily. Fall also has baseball of course, which I enjoy more and more. Fall colors, crisp fall mornings, quick trip to the mountains perhaps, blue skies oh my, grits and eggs, the smell of a fire, and college football.Winter in the hybrid work environment is a whole different animal. Under 40 = work from home
Seems like the transfer portal also makes it tougher to fill out depth for the helmet teams. Having three rows of studs doesn't make a ton of sense for them if they can leave as soon as they know they aren't starting.You'd think, but football is a violent game. For some 5* and 4* players, sitting your freshman and sophomore year behind upperclassmen, balling out for 1 year and only getting beaten to a pulp for one year, and then getting drafted, makes a lot of sense.
You'd think, but football is a violent game. For some 5* and 4* players, sitting your freshman and sophomore year behind upperclassmen, balling out for 1 year and only getting beaten to a pulp for one year, and then getting drafted, makes a lot of sense.Yeah, I almost think that also hurts the next level more. If Ohio State wanted you, and you sat for 3 years and showed out, the NFL is drooling. you are still an elite talent, but with less wear and tear. If it takes you 3 years to get on the field at MSU or Purdue, you are garbage. Those kids would rather show out than being a depth kid at a mid level P5 team. Being a backup at OSU just means you are an elite talent farther away from the CTE kicking in
Especially if you're a position with a short NFL shelf life like running back. The fewer years of abuse you can take in college where you're barely getting paid, the more years of abuse you can take in the NFL where you're setting yourself up for a comfortable retirement.
You'd think, but football is a violent game. For some 5* and 4* players, sitting your freshman and sophomore year behind upperclassmen, balling out for 1 year and only getting beaten to a pulp for one year, and then getting drafted, makes a lot of sense.If that were so, you'd think transfers would be a lot more willing to sit out a year before suiting up.
Especially if you're a position with a short NFL shelf life like running back. The fewer years of abuse you can take in college where you're barely getting paid, the more years of abuse you can take in the NFL where you're setting yourself up for a comfortable retirement.
MLB has a built-in effective "fairness" aspect: the short postseason series.
MLB allows a rich franchise to basically buy a team. There's basically a handwaving about parity with the luxury tax, but it is ineffective. So Cleveland is screwed as you point out by being a small-market team.
Yeah, I almost think that also hurts the next level more. If Ohio State wanted you, and you sat for 3 years and showed out, the NFL is drooling. you are still an elite talent, but with less wear and tear. If it takes you 3 years to get on the field at MSU or Purdue, you are garbage. Those kids would rather show out than being a depth kid at a mid level P5 team. Being a backup at OSU just means you are an elite talent farther away from the CTE kicking inEhhh....the games aren't the wear and tear. 4-5 days of practice takes more out of you than the game. The game is fun. A RB carries the ball dozens of times during the week, mostly vs air or pads, but many more times live than they do in any one game.
We know who the best teams are. We always have. But we've eliminated the randomness where Northwestern can go to a Rose Bowl because Michigan upsets Ohio State, and Northwestern doesn't have to play them. And we've eliminated caring about even going to a January 1 bowl, or the Rose Bowl.It's interesting, the time I was at UW or planning to attend had a blend of A. A team that made a run to being undefeated in Nov. with no business doing so, B. A couple hype cycles that fell drastically short, and C. Seasons that made it clear bowl placement was kinda secondary (teams of differing qualities kept going to the same bowls for standings reasons). And it totally short circuited my interest in begging for an undefeated rise in the polls or staring at bowl stuff.
I love fall. I love fall cooking. I like Oktoberfest and pumpkin (sorry) beers. I associate those things with college football, and thus it's all still somewhat intertwined. But I certainly no longer love college football. I'm not even sure I like it. It has fallen behind the NFL and the MLB playoffs in my watching hierarchy
NFL has a draft, a hard salary cap, and being a complete "team" game doesn't allow for one or two star players making a bad team into a contender. So there's parity. And yeah, your Browns suck because of decades of bad management.This is incredibly frustrating.
This is incredibly frustrating.truly is an art not a science.
Consider this:
As we all know, NFL draft picks go first to the worst teams in an effort to maintain some sort of balance by giving the worst teams a jump on the best young players. When the Browns returned in 1999 they got the first pick and selected Tim Couch. In the 20-odd years since then they have only finished ahead of the hated Steelers a few times (I think three but don't care enough to go look it up). The point is that the Browns have picked ahead of the Steelers almost every year and usually WAY ahead. Despite that, if you look at Cleveland's first round picks it is a whose who of NFL busts while Pittsburgh's almost universally had successful NFL careers.
I'm honestly not exaggerating (at least by much) when I say that the Browns might literally have been better off to make their selections by throwing darts at a wall with prospect's names rather than whatever method they actually used because you have to figure that random chance would at least occasionally work out.
truly is an art not a science.Yup.
Tim Couch went #1 overall. Tom Brady went in the 6th round. Crazy.
College football has always been heavily weighted towards the better teams. But previously. You lost at Missouri or Purdue or South Carolina, on a random October afternoon, no title for you. Now there are so many chances. You lose a regular season game, you still might get to the CCG, or backdoor into the CFP. You give the best teams enough chances, they'll win. And when you make the "consolation prizes" so insignificant that it doesn't matter, that's how you lose interest. MSU's two best seasons since the CFP, they went 10-2. One year they played Washington State in the Holiday Bowl because they had been to Florida too many times recently, and all the non-CFP bowls are equally meh. And the other time they played Pitt on December 30 in the Peach Bowl, where the best player from both teams sat out.Sadly Post of The Year!
We know who the best teams are. We always have. But we've eliminated the randomness where Northwestern can go to a Rose Bowl because Michigan upsets Ohio State, and Northwestern doesn't have to play them. And we've eliminated caring about even going to a January 1 bowl, or the Rose Bowl.
I love fall. I love fall cooking. I like Oktoberfest and pumpkin (sorry) beers. I associate those things with college football, and thus it's all still somewhat intertwined. But I certainly no longer love college football. I'm not even sure I like it. It has fallen behind the NFL and the MLB playoffs in my watching hierarchy
Yup.crapshoot is probably a better word for it.
And sometimes it's neither an art nor a science, but rather a crapshoot.
I think pining for the past can be limiting, we can still enjoy the present, I think, or I do anyway (the last two seasons were pretty fun).I'm with you. I like all the changes because it benefits the player. At the end of the day that's all any fan should care about. The players.
In this world, money drives actions (with some exceptions). It's inevitable, no reason to blame someone for being greedy. Like most here, given a choice I'd go back to the Olden times (maybe the 1920s...). I enjoyed the irrationality of bowls and rankings and MNCs. Most humans want structure and certainty, a la NFL. And there is the money.
Very clearly, CFB is being NFLized, and that will continue. I'd guess most 30 year old fans think it's for the best.
I'm with you. I like all the changes because it benefits the player. At the end of the day that's all any fan should care about. The players.
I don't know that these changes benefit most players. You have this 85 man roster, often larger at home, and many never play a down. Some get to play a few downs in a game, get sparing recognition, no NIL, take their lumps, some at least have scholarships but that hasn't changed. They could portal, but then what? To get PT they'd have to go to Ball State.the changes benefits all the players, period. there were guys on 85 man rosters that never played a down way before NIL or the portal. 99% always wound up largely forgotten with lingering physical injuries way before NIL or the portal. very few ever become star players in college, and even fewer actually make it to the NFL.
Some players obviously benefit financially, and can leap ship. But some end up largely forgotten perhaps with lingering physical injuries.
the changes benefits all the players, period. there were guys on 85 man rosters that never played a down way before NIL or the portal. 99% always wound up largely forgotten with lingering physical injuries way before NIL or the portal. very few ever become star players in college, and even fewer actually make it to the NFL.
NIL allows these kids to actually make money off their god given abilities and hard work, which is long over due when you have head coaches making north of $10 million a year and schools pulling in hundreds of millions a year and conferences billions. The portal allows kids to not have to be locked into a school that they don't want to be at anymore without having to lose a year of eligibility, when coaches that recruited them can and do leave at will for bigger paychecks at other schools or in the NFL all the time.
I hear what you're saying, but is the game for the players, or is it for the fans?it's still for the players imo. they are the ones risking life and limb and potential brain injury week in week out. without them you have nothing for the fans to watch. fans just sit on their asses at home and watch tv or go to a tailgate and games here and there.
If it's for the players, then they should all be fine with playing in front of nobody but their parents, in some back sandlots near the exit of the girls' gym. Right? And they should be fine with zero compensation of any kind, since the game is just for the players. Right?
Except that's not how it works. That's not how ANY of this works.
Without the fans there's no money to distribute to the coaches and players, there's no talk of NIL or "NFLization" of the sport. There's no problems at all. Line up your 11 best against the 11 best from some school a couple miles away, let the parents watch, and call it a day.
I'm gonna watch my school and have fun doing it. Better to win than lose, of course.This is where I've landed, and gets back to some themes on this thread that others have mentioned.
I'm pro-entertainment. The not paying players was just legalized theft, and I'm glad it has gone away. It's not entertaining to know someone is getting bilked out of their money. I'm less convinced on the transfers - part of college sports is seeing your guys develop and grow. College basketball is almost like everyone picks teams at the start of the year, which isn't particularly entertaining.I think a one time transfer portal rule is fine. sometimes kids don't want to be at a place anymore. let them go. it's almost like fans have an abusive boyfriend relationship where they want to force a chick that doesn't want to be around anymore to stay with them or else....
Portal swings both ways. Some players didn't do squat at their original school, they make something of themselves at the next stop. Some players find that they just needed a smaller program from the get go, some matured in 2-3 years and going to "the next CFB Level" is a good move for them. A guy at say, New Mexico, now has the opportunity to go to an Alabama or OU when they never even gave him a look out of High School. He then gets to show his stuff on a larger stage, get more attention, better chances in the NFL, and probably better coaching, nutrition, strength conditioning, etc.bolded part - that's a great idea. NCAA/schools should award players who finish their degrees- incentivize them to get a degree. great idea.
In order to even the playing field I'd propose two things.
#1- Limit the number of scholarship players from 85 down to maybe 75. I know that it's tough having the necessary depth etc but the NFL does it with 55. Obviously there are differences like trading players mid-season and promoting players from practice squads. But if all teams have a cap of 75 or so, they all have the same limit. The better teams will have to take less players, and the bubble 3/4* players will be pushed to the 2nd tier programs like Wisconsin, A&M, oSu, and such.
#2- Make eligibility 5 years. It's been said a lot that a college degree really takes 5 years. My thought on it is that the smaller schools with less talent would benefit from players who aren't likely to turn pro, and there are a lot of really great CFB players who won't do squat in the NFL. And if we're really moving away from the amateur model, who really gives a shit how long these guys play? I say give em 5 years, no medical redshirts etc. 5 years from the first day they strap on pads or start practice.
Obviously the #1 and #2 things interfere with each other because now they will be forced to sign less players per season, but each team should be affected equally. Plus, there is always the portal to fill gaps.
I also think there should be some kind of incentive for players who don't transfer. Say the NCAA awards $XX,XXX dollars to athletes who finish their full 5 years at the same school.
I've often thought that smaller schools like KSU, oSu, etc would greatly benefit from having those special players stay for that 5th year. Players like Collin Klein who won't ever make waves in the NFL but are just great college FB players.
I'm with you. I like all the changes because it benefits the player. At the end of the day that's all any fan should care about. The players.How is NFLizing anything good for the community? You like rewarding the players fine,but I don't like additional taxes that benefit literally Billionaire owners and millionaire players to build their playhouse. Here in Cleveland there is a 23 yr old Stadium and real slimeball in a sea of puss owner Haslem wants to stick the taxpayers with either massive updates or a new facility. Let the owners or those who want to vote for the tax fund it. Bridges,roadways in disrepair or constant repair storm sewers flooding basements and all other civic resposibilities lagging and this asshole thinks we should fund his 230 million dollar QB? Let alone one that was known groper of woman even if he somehow found jesus. If I get my hands around Haslams neck he'll meet jesus alright
bolded part - that's a great idea. NCAA/schools should award players who finish their degrees- incentivize them to get a degree. great idea.Wisconsin already does this.
BTW I always considered the NC above Purdue's ceiling. Just finding some way to backdoor a conference championship and a trip to the Rose Bowl, maybe even a win(!) there, is about all that any Purdue fan thought would/could happen.I did say it was a slim chance but hey, BYU was awarded one with a team that was no better than about 20th nationally so it did happen in the old days, it was just exceedingly rare.
Realistically Purdue, to get enough votes in the old system, would have to go undefeated.
Counting the bowl game, Purdue hasn't had a season with 3 or fewer losses since they went 9-3 (with a bowl win) in 1997. Most recent 2-loss season (with a bowl win) was 1979. Most recent 2-loss regular season was 1969. Most recent one-loss season was 1958, but that season also had two ties to finish 6-1-2. Prior to that they had no more one-loss [or better] seasons until 1943, which incidentally is also their most recent undefeated season. But, ya know, there might be a little asterisk what with a World War on and all...
So at best would be an appearance in the Rose Bowl. Which Purdue is likely to never again do in my lifetime, other than playing a conference away game at UCLA, of course.
I love fall. I love fall cooking. I like Oktoberfest and pumpkin (sorry) beers. I associate those things with college football, and thus it's all still somewhat intertwined. But I certainly no longer love college football. I'm not even sure I like it. It has fallen behind the NFL and the MLB playoffs in my watching hierarchyMy concern is that we (here on this board) aren't "average" CFB fans. We are the extreme fanatical outliers and if even we are losing interest, that has to be a bad sign!
I think pining for the past can be limiting, we can still enjoy the present, I think, or I do anyway (the last two seasons were pretty fun).
I'm with you. I like all the changes because it benefits the player. At the end of the day that's all any fan should care about. The players.
Yup. College football is absolutely killing the golden goose.
My concern is that I doubt that CFB can sustain itself with only fans of UGA, Bama, tOSU, M, and a few other schools that can actually compete once all the fans of PU, MSU and the rest of the non-helmets go the way of @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) and @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) and either drop out or decide that the NFL and the MLB playoffs are more important.
My concern is that I doubt that CFB can sustain itself with only fans of UGA, Bama, tOSU, M, and a few other schools that can actually compete once all the fans of PU, MSU and the rest of the non-helmets go the way of @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) and @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) and either drop out or decide that the NFL and the MLB playoffs are more important.it's always been a sport of the haves vs have nots. nothing has really changed. what changed things for the worse is the playoff ruining the bowls bc now there is really no point to play in a bowl game and risk injury if you're going to be a 1st or 2nd rd pick. my hope is that by expanding the playoffs they will fix some of that.
Yup. College football is absolutely killing the golden goose.Agreed. Upthread I said that I thought they had their hands wrapped firmly around the goose's neck with apparently no concept that if the goose dies, the eggs stop coming.
truly is an art not a science.
Tim Couch went #1 overall. Tom Brady went in the 6th round. Crazy.
It's not totally random of course. There is some correlaation between high draft pick and NFL success, but the exceptions stand out.
Yup.
And sometimes it's neither an art nor a science, but rather a crapshoot.
I'm with you. I like all the changes because it benefits the player. At the end of the day that's all any fan should care about. The players.I understand where you're coming from.
I understand where you're coming from.This is true. My wife asked me if we were boating Saturday and I said we weren't.
However, some of the changes might be good for the player in the short term, but damage the sport long term. Because if the sport is just Michigan/OSU/Georgia/Bama/USC/Texas/ND/etc battling it out every single year, and NOBODY else has a chance because they can't recruit and spend with those guys, well, you'll see fans start to step back from the game. And then ratings drop. And then revenues drop. And then the goose is dead and we run out of golden eggs.
We've never had true parity in the past. But we've at least have reasons for the lesser teams to care. Now we don't, and I might argue it will hollow out the fandom of the sport because there's a lot of other things to do on Saturday for the fanbases of those schools than watch the games.
#1- Limit the number of scholarship players from 85 down to maybe 75. I know that it's tough having the necessary depth etc but the NFL does it with 55. Obviously there are differences like trading players mid-season and promoting players from practice squads. But if all teams have a cap of 75 or so, they all have the same limit. The better teams will have to take less players, and the bubble 3/4* players will be pushed to the 2nd tier programs like Wisconsin, A&M, oSu, and such.Couple of issues here.
the sport has always been in desperate need for parity. that is why I think going to a 48 to maybe even 60 team super league and trimming a lot of the fat that is left over from the B12/ACC/PAC4, cutting scholarships to about 75, and then allowing for revenue share with the players and instituting a salary cap where every player makes the exact same thing at every school might be the way to go. make it so that guys that finish their degrees get bonus $$$$.Yes, it has. But what incentive to the helmets and quasi-helmets have to share the piece of the pie with the rest of the old P5?
it's always been a sport of the haves vs have nots.Agree.
nothing has really changed.Disagree. What changed is that, as discussed upthread, fans of "have nots" as you put it had non-NC things to root for that were seen as worthwhile. Those things (beating rivals, knocking off helmets, winning a league title once in a great while, winning the Rose Bowl) were enticing enough that @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) (PU) and @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) (MSU) were serious followers of the sport as a whole. I think we are losing those guys and if we're losing message board fanatics like those two guys, we're in big trouble.
what changed things for the worse is the playoff ruining the bowls bc now there is really no point to play in a bowl game and risk injury if you're going to be a 1st or 2nd rd pick. my hope is that by expanding the playoffs they will fix some of that.As I've said before, the CFP has effectively sucked all the oxygen out of the room. When I was a kid up through college (the BCS didn't start until after I graduated) even a "helmet" fan like me was really rooting for sub-NC goals. We always said the goals were:
the sport has always been in desperate need for parity. that is why I think going to a 48 to maybe even 60 team super league and trimming a lot of the fat that is left over from the B12/ACC/PAC4, cutting scholarships to about 75, and then allowing for revenue share with the players and instituting a salary cap where every player makes the exact same thing at every school might be the way to go. make it so that guys that finish their degrees get bonus $$$$.I think that this might make for an interesting discussion but I also think that the discussion would be purely academic because it is simply NEVER going to happen.
do all that. keep the one time transfer portal rule. NIL is here to stay can't really do anything with that- but by doing a rev share with a salary cap where every single program pays X million a year in salary and every player from every program gets paid the same thing- you can probably get rid of the NIL collectives that set up those funds where position X makes X amount- which is really just pay for play schemes to try and get recruits at that position to come to the school. Won't really be a need for that with rev share and players actually earning money. NIL can instead than be used what it was intended for- letting the proven star players and starting QBs to cash in on their names and earn money.
I think Cincy is right. We can all point to early-round busts and late-round gems and call it a crapshoot, but it's not a crapshoot.I agree, it is not different than recruiting. There are plenty of examples of 5* busts and 2* All Americans but that doesn't mean that 2*'s are better than 5*'s. Statistically 5*'s ARE better but there are exceptions.
It's like poker. If you always make the right statistical plays (at least in limit games), you're likely to have few "monster nights" but a net positive outcome over the long term. If you make risk plays, try to bluff a lot, and generally go for the big scores rather than the statistical play, you might win big on a lot of nights, lose big on a lot of nights, and have a net negative outcome over the long term.
I'd argue a team like the Patriots are built on making non-flashy, solid, statistical plays. A team like the Browns goes "all-in" pre-flop with a massive contract to Deshaun Watson in a high-risk, high-reward strategy that if it fails, hampers their ability to make any good moves later.
The Browns are so pathetic. Seriously, what have they done to deserve any fan support at all ?This is where I am with pro sports. I'm admittedly a fair weather fan. I'm not a bandwagon guy because I don't jump from team to team. I stick with my local teams, I just don't bother to follow them unless they "earn it" as you said, but being good enough to be worth following. If and when the Browns get to the playoffs, I'll be there rooting for them. If they go 3-13 I will not have wasted any time following them.
Fans should just do themselves a favor and quit on the teams that are just so miserable and terrible year after year, decade after decade. Make them earn it.
What changed is that, as discussed upthread, fans of "have nots" as you put it had non-NC things to root for that were seen as worthwhile. Those things (beating rivals, knocking off helmets, winning a league title once in a great while, winning the Rose Bowl) were enticing enough that @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) (PU) and @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) (MSU) were serious followers of the sport as a whole. I think we are losing those guys and if we're losing message board fanatics like those two guys, we're in big trouble.
Yup. I have a good friend who is a longtime die hard Texas Tech fan. He's now despondent about the whole thing and hasn't watched college football since TX/OU announced they were leaving the B12. He just doesn't care anymore. And this guy was a MASSIVE fan, traveled from Austin to Lubbock for pretty much every home game, ran a big tailgate party up there, and attended plenty of UT home games just to get a fix when he couldn't make it to Lubbock.I knew it was far but I wasn't sure how far so I checked and Google says Austin->Lubbock is six hours . . . Each way. That's 12 hours of driving plus probably two nights in a hotel for each game.
Now, he just doesn't care. At all. This is not an isolated case, it's happening all over the place. I don't see it stopping, it'll only get worse in the coming years.
I knew it was far but I wasn't sure how far so I checked and Google says Austin->Lubbock is six hours . . . Each way. That's 12 hours of driving plus probably two nights in a hotel for each game.Absolutely. Even if those teams weren't a direct part of the NC race, they could still affect the ultimate outcomes.
Like you said, massive fan. If we are losing guys like that and the two from our board, we're in big trouble.
I think part of the reason we are losing them is that their team's can no longer ruin our teams' seasons. In the old days a Texas loss in Lubbock or an Ohio State loss in West Lafayette or a Michigan loss in East Lansing usually derailed TX/tOSU/M's NC hopes. Thus, TxTech, PU, and MSU could and did have a major impact on the NC race. Now, not so much. Next year, hardly at all.
I was a big Braves fan through the 80s when they were horrible, annually in last place most years. I think they won the division in 82/83 then went south. But they were entertaining, and on WTBS of course. Ted Turner had bought this ridiculous UHF station, Channel 17, we could just barely get a fuzzy signal, and there was little on it worth watching anyway. Then he bought the Braves, and broadcast every game (nearly). Then cable erupted and now they had fans in places like Idaho (still do apparently).years of falling behind the top dawgs (see what I did there Cincy) in the SEC compounding like interest due to lots of bad coaching hires back to back to back in succession post-Urbs. gets to a point where you wind up so far behind the elite and it all just snowballs south and the odds of turning it around become more and more insurmountable. then when you find an elite coach- all bets are off- he can flip it fast. lots of good coaches. very few elite ones.
I still enjoyed watching them, it was low stress, if they won it was a feel good miracle. If they lost, well, it was expected.
It can be fun just viewing for pure entertainment. I do agree the times when a "Purdue" can upset an "Ohio State" may be waining, or gone. I don't think that is fixable outside a year when Ohio State is just really down (as if). Maybe the elite teams will never be down significantly any more, I dunno. Florida is an example of that currently. Their O/U is 5.5 I think for 2023. How does that happen? Is it just coaching?
That 6-7 team that Urbs flipped was loaded with talent, and because he was able to come in November and immediately start recruiting, voila.all true. but my point was that they were extremely fortunate and blessed to get Urbs when they did.
The team was in turmoil because they lost their coach. Tressel would have coached that team to 10 wins. Fickell was put in a tough spot as interim coach too. Some of the kids just checked out.
But it's OSU. Fire a legend - Tressel. Bring in Urban - elite.
Duh.
That 6-7 team that Urbs flipped was loaded with talent, and because he was able to come in November and immediately start recruiting, voila.I agree with everything you said and I'll add that the 6-7 team had a lot of bad luck and the 12-0 team had a lot of good luck. The two games that immediately spring to mind are the two Purdue games because I attended both:
The team was in turmoil because they lost their coach. Tressel would have coached that team to 10 wins. Fickell was put in a tough spot as interim coach too. Some of the kids just checked out.
But it's OSU. Fire a legend - Tressel. Bring in Urban - elite.
Duh.
Absolutely. A stroke of luck too.Smart? Obviously a germane question even as soon as 2024 possibly. I'm available.
What happens to Bama when Saban is done?
Dubose? Francione? Price? Shula?
Smart? Obviously a germane question even as soon as 2024 possibly. I'm available.Kirby might be a UGA lifer. not even 50 yet and not sure he'll ever be a high level NFL head coach prospect.
one of my favorite memories
The 2011 team was 6-7 but six of the seven losses were within one score:
- To Nebraska by a TD, the largest comeback in UNL history, I travelled to Lincoln for this one, thanks @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) for hosting.
Vs Purdue in 2012:Speaking of banana peels, how 'bout them 2012 Boilermakers?!
Ohio State was down by the same 20-14 score after a late-third-quarter Purdue TD. Then in the fourth quarter Ohio State committed a penalty near the goal that resulted in a safety making it an eight-point game at 22-14. Then, with less than three minutes to go Purdue got what should have been the game-clinching interception. Purdue got the ball up by eight with 2:40 to go then proceeded to do pretty much everything wrong:Even after all of that, Ohio State's chances were still pretty remote. They had the ball but they needed a TD and a 2pt conversion, and to win the game in OT. Oh, and they only had a little better than thirty seconds left. Then career backup Kenny Guiton put on his superhero cape and proceeded to do incredible things for a few minutes and Ohio State scored a TD, converted a 2pt conversion, scored another TD in OT, and won the game 29-22.
- False Start before their first down play made it 1st and 15.
- 1st and 15 was a one-yard gain.
- 2nd and 14 Purdue rushed but only gained a yard.
- 3rd and 13 Purdue rushed for seven.
- 4th and 6 Purdue punted.
Miami has been in the ACC for 18 years and has 1 division title.100%.
And they got their asses beaten in that CCG.
Poor coaching/recruiting/development will retard any and all programs.
Miami has been in the ACC for 18 years and has 1 division title.I put that elsewhere. No top 15ish program should be handicapped by roster, but they can be handicapped by bad coaching hires
And they got their asses beaten in that CCG.
Poor coaching/recruiting/development will retard any and all programs.
They had a good discussion on the Athletic college football podcast this week about whether it would be better to have a super league, and let the rest of the sport revert to their previous goals. Ideally, sure. But if that was the the case, the Group of 5 would already have their own playoff. But they'd rather let their best team play in a random bowl game against a P5 team who finished 3rd in their league, without all of their NFL talent. Appalachian State gave up winning FCS titles, to be in the Sun Belt. Setting a new line, just makes anyone below that line want to be above it.Who was hosting? I have a guess, and while I like the make, his perspective is … complicated.
Sure a Purdue can still upset an Ohio State, but it doesn't matter anymore. So that's where it hits me. I distinctly remember playing touch football in my backyard, and my dad yelling to us that Indiana was tied with Ohio State. We stopped the game, and watched it, due to the implications. We've removed a good deal of those implications. If Indiana beats OSU, OSU can still beat UM and PSU, reach the CCG, where they will likely win, and go to the CFP. The sport needs a 2 team title game, and meaningful bowl games, based upon merit, not sales.
Forcing people to care about bowl games is past. But if you tied bowl games to record, and then tied tangible benefits to both qualifying and winning bowl games, now you have something. Like qualifying for a better bowl gave you additional recruiting time, or scholarships, and then winning that game gave you even more? Now those games have a meaning. And if you are fine with bowls just being meaningless, then you are also fine with 99% of college football games being meaningless
Who was hosting? I have a guess, and while I like the make, his perspective is … complicated.Ari Wasserman.
Kirby might be a UGA lifer. not even 50 yet and not sure he'll ever be a high level NFL head coach prospect.Kirby Smart played for Georgia!!
Isn’t Miami really kind of a fluke though? Smallish private school, no history at all prior to the 80’s, rises to prominence and had some questionable recruiting practices ( along with a lot of other programs I might add). Sure they won big in the 80’s and for a few years in the early 2000’s, but does anybody really think they can reclaim any kind of superstar future moving forward?I'd guess they are one elite coach away from being relevant again. The kind that grows on trees ...
Kirby Smart played for Georgia!!Yeah, he was pretty good too. I can't see his leaving UGA for anything other than poor performance or health/family reasons.
I'd guess they are one elite coach away from being relevant again. The kind that grows on trees ...I wouldn't call Dennis Erickson or Larry Coker elite coaches by any stretch.
Sure a Purdue can still upset an Ohio State, but it doesn't matter anymore. So that's where it hits me. I distinctly remember playing touch football in my backyard, and my dad yelling to us that Indiana was tied with Ohio State. We stopped the game, and watched it, due to the implications. We've removed a good deal of those implications. If Indiana beats OSU, OSU can still beat UM and PSU, reach the CCG, where they will likely win, and go to the CFP.There is something here that I want to expand upon. IIRC, you grew up in Michigan as a Michigan Fan and in a Michigan fan household so when Indiana was tied with Ohio State, that didn't involve your team. My guess is that your childhood touch football game in Michigan was with a bunch of Michigan fans with *MAYBE* an MSU or ND fan or two sprinkled in so NOBODY involved in this story was a fan of either Indiana or Ohio State. Despite that, you dropped your game and ran inside to watch the IU/tOSU game because it was a REALLY big deal. The potential of Ohio State losing to Indiana was HUGE because it would rearrange not only the league title picture but the national title picture as well.
I wouldn't call Dennis Erickson or Larry Coker elite coaches by any stretch.It's true that neither were elite, but they both inherited elite teams with elite rosters from elite coaches day 1 on the job. Erickson inherited a loaded squad from Jimmy Johnson and kept it going. With a little cheating of course. But hey, that never hurt anyone. Coker honestly didn't really do sh*t, he inherited a freaking all-time loaded squad from Butch Davis. Once Davis' players all went pro/graduated and it was all Coker's recruits the team fell apart at the seams into shambles.
They just recruited Dade and Broward counties and admissions would take anybody in.
Admissions no longer does that at Miami, by the way. Donna Shalala turned that around.
Kirby Smart played for Georgia!!Yeah....I know. Don't mean shit. Jeem played at Michigan. And his ass is bout to go straight back to the NFL here soon. Kirby will go to the NFL if he wants it and the NFL wants it. Not sure the NFL will ever want it....
I still think an elite coach would turn them around, even if they could do well with a cheating mediocrity.put a guy like Saban or Kirby who land basically any recruit they want at Miami and they might go 4 years only losing 3 games- which I believe Jimmy Johnson did there back in the day.
Kirby has a couple guys on staff reputed to be great recruiters. I suspect Kirby only comes in to seal the deal, or if a kid is iffy and elite. Location is important. Alabama is however not a great state for HS talent, nor is it awful.state of Alabama always has few high end top HS talent, but doesn't have the depth of places like TX, FL, CA, GA or OH. does great per capita though. not sure anyone comes close to Louisiana per capita though- something down in the water there.
It's true that neither were elite, but they both inherited elite teams with elite rosters from elite coaches day 1 on the job. Erickson inherited a loaded squad from Jimmy Johnson and kept it going. With a little cheating of course. But hey, that never hurt anyone. Coker honestly didn't really do sh*t, he inherited a freaking all-time loaded squad from Butch Davis. Once Davis' players all went pro/graduated and it was all Coker's recruits the team fell apart at the seams into shambles.Coker did not, and maybe that's why he failed? I'll always remember this one:
They recruited the shit out of Palm Beach too....nearly as much talent in that county as the other two. Cannot forget Palm Beach.
Miami is a small private school for rich kids that has always stuck up it's nose at the athletes in the football program, way before Donna Shalala- who hasn't worked there in almost a decade btw. Don't kid yourself, they make massive exceptions still to get kids into the school that would never in a million years otherwise be admitted if they weren't insanely good at football.
Coker did not, and maybe that's why he failed? I'll always remember this one:dude was talking about basically recruiting only South Florida, of which Palm Beach county is in - which is basically all that Howard Schnellenberger, Jimmy Johnson, Dennis Erickson, and Butch Davis did. Most of their depth chart and almost all of their star players were from 3 counties in Florida...
Field reporter lady: Coach, what is it like to recruit in a state like Florida?
Coach: We only recruit the State of Miami.
Of the three, which one is the strongest? I always thought it was Broward.Miami-Dade county, it has the largest population of the three and has the largest population of any county in Florida. Broward and Palm Beach aren't far behind though, they are the #2 and #3 counties in terms of population in the state. Those two counties have the expensive private schools like St Thomas Aquinas in Ft Lauderdale, Chaminade-Madonna in Hollywood, or American Heritage in Delray Beach that go out recruit all the top talent in South Florida and give them scholarships. Miami-Dade is basically all straight up public schools churning out that talent- which is insane.
the one where they catch rabbits in the grassthat's in Belle Glade and Pahokee, both in Palm Beach county waaaaay out west in the boondocks near Lake Okochobee in the middle of f'n nowhere.
that's in Belle Glade and Pahokee, both in Palm Beach county waaaaay out west in the boondocks near Lake Okochobee in the middle of f'n nowhere.We drive that when we go see our friends over in Palm Beach. It's an... interesting area... that we don't make any stops in.
I'd guess they are one elite coach away from being relevant again. The kind that grows on trees ...they just need someone that will identify and keep the cream of the crop at home. like they used to. nowadays they lose everyone they really want to Ohio State, Alabama, LSU, Georgia, etc..
We drive that when we go see our friends over in Palm Beach. It's an... interesting area... that we don't make any stops in.I've lived in Florida 20+ years and I've never been to Tampa. Couldn't tell you much about it. I don't really leave South Florida.
How's the football in Tampa? I haven't been here long enough to follow.
Football around here is better than the football was in the NW Chicago burbs.
This is the simple truth.Auburn isn't winning sh*t imo. Auburn got lucccccky as hell Cam Newton liked stealing laptops and his dad needed $250,000. It was a one-off fluke that just isn't going to happen again anytime soon. That team was so mid and Cam Newton was so awesome he literally carried it on his back all by himself to a title.
The NC will be won 9 out of 10 years by an SEC team. In the years that it is not won by an SEC team, there are only a handful of teams that can win. FSU, Clemson, Notre Dame, Ohio St, or Michigan.
The only SEC teams that can win are Bama, UGA, Florida, LSU, or Auburn, and now OU and Texas.
12 teams will win 96% of all future CFB national championships.
This is the simple truth.It'll be like the 70s when only bluebloods mattered.
The NC will be won 9 out of 10 years by an SEC team. In the years that it is not won by an SEC team, there are only a handful of teams that can win. FSU, Clemson, Notre Dame, Ohio St, or Michigan.
The only SEC teams that can win are Bama, UGA, Florida, LSU, or Auburn, and now OU and Texas.
12 teams will win 96% of all future CFB national championships.
I've lived in Florida 20+ years and I've never been to Tampa. Couldn't tell you much about it. I don't really leave South Florida.I feel like Tampa-area HS football has been up-and-down the last 25 years, but don't quote me on that. The 'name' programs, in no particular order are:
Tampa area has IMG Academy of course, but they recruit players from all over the country.
I'm sure there are great football players all over the state in Tampa, Panhandle, Jax, and Orlando. But there is nothing like the insane concentration of elite HS football talent in South Florida anywhere else in the state, maybe even in the entire country.
Auburn isn't winning sh*t imo. Auburn got lucccccky as hell Cam Newton liked stealing laptops and his dad needed $250,000. It was a one-off fluke that just isn't going to happen again anytime soon. That team was so mid and Cam Newton was so awesome he literally carried it on his back all by himself to a title.The reason I listed Auburn is because they’ve won one this century and played for a second. I would maybe list Oregon in there since they’ve played for the title like 2-3 times, but with this PAC thing collapsing I’m keeping them off my list.
OU's day might've come and gone, they are going to get run through in the SEC. Won't be able to keep up with the Jonses imo. Bama was in the doldrums for 25+ years until they landed the GOAT. It's not a given they'll win forever without him. It's a small state with a small population that doesn't produce enough talent to sustain two major in-state SEC programs- Bama and Auburn.
UGA, Florida, Texas, and LSU will always have insane in-state recruiting advantages. Doesn't mean they'll always win- but whenever they have the right coach in place they're pretty much guarantee to be in it.
the Trojans?They are gonna come into the Big Ten and run roughshod over the conference.
cutting scholarships to about 75My knee jerk reaction when I read this was to dismiss it in part because, in your post, it was lumped in with a bunch of unrealistic stuff. I also agree with @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) 's post that you'd probably need roster rather than scholarship limits because scholarships are more-or-less irrelevant in the NIL era.
They are gonna come into the Big Ten and run roughshod over the conference.just like Penn State did right :P
just like Penn State did right :PAnd Nebraska. :)
USC better buy a new DC and better defensive players with NIL money before they start the 2024 season in the B1G
And Nebraska. :)USC has a built-in recruiting advantage, too. You don't spend half the school year in frigid temps and ll the coeds on campus have put on their winter coat of fat to stay warm and are dressed for a blizzard every day.
USC should buy Jim Leonhard. Not a great recruiter, but USC has plenty of those (and $$$).
USC has a built-in recruiting advantage, too.Yes, yes they do.
My knee jerk reaction when I read this was to dismiss it in part because, in your post, it was lumped in with a bunch of unrealistic stuff. I also agree with @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) 's post that you'd probably need roster rather than scholarship limits because scholarships are more-or-less irrelevant in the NIL era.Well, I didn't intend to say scholarships should be limited to 75, rather total players on the team should be limited. I don't know what that number should be. 55? 65? 75? It's kind of complicated really, but the goal should be to limit the talent that goes to the same 10 schools. Would it really work? Transfer portal complicates things for sure.
That said, @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) 's recent post comparing the present to the 70's made me think back to this.
I think you two might be onto something. In the 70's the Buckeyes and Wolverines flat dominated the Big Ten. This was the "Big Two, Little Eight" era:Most people here probably already knew the above but what you may not have known is something that @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) 's comment refers to. Roughly the same thing happened across the sport, it wasn't limited to the Midwest. In the 1970's the helmets dominated. Scholarship limits curtailed that so maybe we can use scholarship/roster limits to curtail that level of dominance again.
- From 1968 through 1980 (seasons) the Big Ten rep to the RoseBowl was either Ohio State or Michigan EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
- From 1970-1979 Michigan lost more league games to Ohio State (5) than they did to the other eight teams in the league combined (4, 2 to PU and 1 each to MN and MSU).
- Similarly over the same decade the Buckeyes lost only one less league game to Michigan (4) than they did to the other eight teams in the league combined (5, 3 to MSU, 1 each to PU and NU).
Forgive me, but my impression is that the Big 10 was always dominated by OSU and Michigan. I know Minnesota was a force before then, but other than the occasional Wisconsin or Michigan State it was all OSU and Michigan. Same thing with Big 8 and OU/Nebraska.No, not really. This isn't an exact parallel with being the best due to tiebreakers, the no-repeat rule, and the longest loser tiebreaker but the Big Ten/Pac Ten Rose Bowl agreement started just after WWII for the 1946 season. In the 22 seasons from 1946-1967 here we're the Big Ten's Rose Bowl representatives (going by game year)
No, not really. This isn't an exact parallel with being the best due to tiebreakers, the no-repeat rule, and the longest loser tiebreaker but the Big Ten/Pac Ten Rose Bowl agreement started just after WWII for the 1946 season. In the 22 seasons from 1946-1967 here we're the Big Ten's Rose Bowl representatives (going by game year)Yeah, but I'm not really talking about that far back. I'm more or less referring to the period after the 70's, even really the 80's and into the 90's. And I'm only speaking about my own observations, mainly from watching college football shows and interacting with fans on these boards. And, I might add really, I didn't realize the Rose bowl was such a big deal to Big 10 fans. I knew it was considered an important bowl game, but never really considered the importance WRT conference champions like you show in your list. Maybe because I didn't follow CFB until bowl season was already diluted and there was just so many damn bowl games that none seemed really important.So in 22 years all 10 teams went with eight (all but UW and IU) winning at least once. Ohio State and Michigan had three appearances each which was tied for the lead but it wasn't a dominating lead as IL, MSU, and UW also had three appearances each.
- 3 Illinois, 3-0, 47, 52, 64
- 3 Michigan, 3-0, 48, 51, 65
- 3 Ohio State, 3-0, 50, 55, 58
- 3 Michigan State, 2-1, 54, 56, 66
- 3 Wisconsin, 0-3, 53, 60, 63
- 2 Iowa, 2-0, 57, 59
- 2 Minnesota, 1-1, 60, 61
- 1 Northwestern, 1-0, 49
- 1 Purdue, 1-0, 67
- 1 Indiana, 0-1, 68
The "Big Two / Little Eight" thing basically started with 1968.
Yeah, but I'm not really talking about that far back. I'm more or less referring to the period after the 70's, even really the 80's and into the 90's. And I'm only speaking about my own observations, mainly from watching college football shows and interacting with fans on these boards. And, I might add really, I didn't realize the Rose bowl was such a big deal to Big 10 fans. I knew it was considered an important bowl game, but never really considered the importance WRT conference champions like you show in your list. Maybe because I didn't follow CFB until bowl season was already diluted and there was just so many damn bowl games that none seemed really important.Up until 1998, the Rose Bowl was the ultimate prize and priority for the Big Ten coaches, players and fans - win or lose. The BCS changed some things, but the Rose was still very important. Then they playoff happened. Less important. Now there is no PAC-? and so it is meaningless to most everyone.
No, not really. This isn't an exact parallel with being the best due to tiebreakers, the no-repeat rule, and the longest loser tiebreaker but the Big Ten/Pac Ten Rose Bowl agreement started just after WWII for the 1946 season. In the 22 seasons from 1946-1967 here we're the Big Ten's Rose Bowl representatives (going by game year)If you look at it based on league titles (includes co-championships and does NOT include RB appearances without a league title), it looks a little more slanted toward tOSU/M but still not at the level that most people would describe as "domination" prior to 1968. Here are league titles from 1946-1967:So in 22 years all 10 teams went with eight (all but UW and IU) winning at least once. Ohio State and Michigan had three appearances each which was tied for the lead but it wasn't a dominating lead as IL, MSU, and UW also had three appearances each.
- 3 Illinois, 3-0, 47, 52, 64
- 3 Michigan, 3-0, 48, 51, 65
- 3 Ohio State, 3-0, 50, 55, 58
- 3 Michigan State, 2-1, 54, 56, 66
- 3 Wisconsin, 0-3, 53, 60, 63
- 2 Iowa, 2-0, 57, 59
- 2 Minnesota, 1-1, 60, 61
- 1 Northwestern, 1-0, 49
- 1 Purdue, 1-0, 67
- 1 Indiana, 0-1, 68
The "Big Two / Little Eight" thing basically started with 1968.
Up until 1998, the Rose Bowl was the ultimate prize and priority for the Big Ten coaches, players and fans - win or lose. The BCS changed some things, but the Rose was still very important. Then they playoff happened. Less important. Now there is no PAC-? and so it is meaningless to most everyone.I know YOU know this, but I'll add mostly for @Gigem (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1706) that prior to the mid-1970's the Big Ten had a rule that the ONLY bowl a league team could go to was the Rose Bowl so even the VERY good non-champions from the league simply did NOT bowl. Additionally, until around the same time they had a "no repeat" rule so some of our champions didn't even go to a bowl. Michigan, for example, won an NC in 1948 but DID NOT go to the 1949 Rose Bowl because they had gone to the 1948 Rose Bowl after winning the 1947 league title so they were ineligible based on the "no repeat" rule and Northwestern went in their place.
I know YOU know this, but I'll add mostly for @Gigem (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1706) that prior to the mid-1970's the Big Ten had a rule that the ONLY bowl a league team could go to was the Rose Bowl so even the VERY good non-champions from the league simply did NOT bowl. Additionally, until around the same time they had a "no repeat" rule so some of our champions didn't even go to a bowl. Michigan, for example, won an NC in 1948 but DID NOT go to the 1949 Rose Bowl because they had gone to the 1948 Rose Bowl after winning the 1947 league title so they were ineligible based on the "no repeat" rule and Northwestern went in their place.I kinda knew this vaguely, but thanks for the explanation.
The Rose Bowl was HUMONGOUS for us in part because for a LONG time it was the ONLY bowl for a Big Ten team.
On top of that, the Big Ten dominated the Rose Bowl in the early years of the Big Ten / Pac Ten agreement and frequently the winner was the national Champion. Looking, for example, at Woody, his first three Rose Bowls were each wins and each of the three resulted in an NC for the Buckeyes. Back then when Ohio State fans said that the goals were to 1) Beat Michigan, 2) win the Big Ten, 3) win the Rose Bowl, and 4) win the National Championship those four things were more-or-less just different ways of saying the same thing.
Rose Bowl was like all the B1G teams cared about until the BCS and CCG upset that apple cart a little bit and then the playoff basically destroyed the apple cart.Rose Bowl > Super Bowl until like yesterday, if B1G fans are to be believed.
Rose Bowl > Super Bowl until like yesterday, if B1G fans are to be believed.No 9-7 team ever won a Rose Bowl.
Rose Bowl > Super Bowl until like yesterday, if B1G fans are to be believed.well I mean before BCS and CCGs and expansion and playoffs there was no real way of crowning a national title.....I mean look at Nebraska and Michigan in '97, they didn't get to play. The natty was out of your control, even if you ran the table back then. So the only thing that was actually obtainable within your own control for the B1G teams was the Rose Bowl. And before the divisions/CCG's there was no way for Northwestern or Iowa or Purdue to win a West side of the conference and then get smoked in the CCG by Michigan or Ohio State in the East side of the conference- those teams could still win a share and claim a B1G title and sneak a Rose Bowl trip in there.
No 9-7 team ever won a Rose Bowl.Give it time.
Give it time.oh it'll happen when they expand this thing to 16 teams. don't know when it'll happen, but it will. there will be a fluke that gets hot at the right time and gets favorable matchups and goes all the way with it.
well I mean before BCS and CCGs and expansion and playoffs there was no real way of crowning a national title.....I mean look at Nebraska and Michigan in '97, they didn't get to play. The natty was out of your control, even if you ran the table back then. So the only thing that was actually obtainable within your own control for the B1G teams was the Rose Bowl. And before the divisions/CCG's there was no way for Northwestern or Iowa or Purdue to win a West side of the conference and then get smoked in the CCG by Michigan or Ohio State in the East side of the conference.I get it, but it was kinda dumb.....speaking about the RB in hushed tones, marveling at the San Gabriels and getting turned on by a parade with one breath and then bitching about having to play in the Orange Bowl or Sugar Bowl as an away game in the next breath.
I get it, but it was kinda dumb.....speaking about the RB in hushed tones, marveling at the San Gabriels and getting turned on by a parade with one breath and then bitching about having to play in the Orange Bowl or Sugar Bowl as an away game in the next breath.hey i'd much rather go to Miami or New Orleans for a weekend trip than to Pasadena. don't have to sell me on that.
Maybe it's 2 diff fanbases, but the dichotomy is/was vast.
hey i'd much rather go to Miami or New Orleans for a weekend trip than to Pasadena. don't have to sell me on that.Then you are not a true B1G fan.
The 70s:I could have sworn A&M won the SWC in ‘75. In fact many old timers decry that we were ranked #1, and they delayed our game at Arky for TV. We lost big.
Big Ten: UM and/or OSU all 10 years, with MSU a share 1 season
SEC: Bama 8 out of 10 years
SWC: Texas 6, with UH and Ark getting a pair each
Big 8: UNL or OU all 10 years, shared with others in '76
PAC-8: USC 6, Stanford 2
.
The whole decade was an annual blueblood convention in the top 10 each year. Add to that ND being a top 15 team in 8 of the 10 years, with 2 NCs.....and yeah.
.
The problem with what may transpire now is that all those big-boy programs separate, but don't have the have-nots to fatten up on. They'll all feast on each other and it will create a new bell curve, with some pretty sexy programs on the wrong end.
I get it, but it was kinda dumb.....speaking about the RB in hushed tones, marveling at the San Gabriels and getting turned on by a parade with one breath and then bitching about having to play in the Orange Bowl or Sugar Bowl as an away game in the next breath.2 different fan bases but the Big Ten fans bitched about playing an away game vs the PAC in Pasadena
Maybe it's 2 diff fanbases, but the dichotomy is/was vast. Maybe Big 8 teams needed an attitude adjustment. Snorting coke off a dance club toilet seat doesn't rival the Tournament of Roses parade?!?
Then you are not a true B1G fan.We all know it's over. Time to find something new to pick about here.
The 70s:Thank you for adding the other conferences. I had already listed the Big Ten and stated that the others were similar but didn't take the time to get the data.
Big Ten: UM and/or OSU all 10 years, with MSU a share 1 season
SEC: Bama 8 out of 10 years
SWC: Texas 6, with UH and Ark getting a pair each
Big 8: UNL or OU all 10 years, shared with others in '76
PAC-8: USC 6, Stanford 2.
The whole decade was an annual blueblood convention in the top 10 each year. Add to that ND being a top 15 team in 8 of the 10 years, with 2 NCs.....and yeah.
Thank you for adding the other conferences. I had already listed the Big Ten and stated that the others were similar but didn't take the time to get the data.
What I think has changed here is that with the advent of a four (soon-to-be 12) team playoff, the non-helmets no longer even have the ability to impact the race. Looking at the 1970's:
1970:
Nebraska won at 11-0-1 (tie was at USC). Notre Dame, Texas, Tennessee, Ohio State, and Michigan each finished with one loss so they would likely have won the NC but for that loss:Auburn and Stanford are really the only non-helmets there but their wins over Tennessee and Ohio State did prevent the Volunteers and Buckeyes from winning the NC.
- Notre Dame's loss was to USC
- Texas' loss was to Notre Dame
- Tennessee's loss was to Auburn
- Ohio State's loss was to Stanford
- Michigan's loss was to Ohio State
Thank you for adding the other conferences. I had already listed the Big Ten and stated that the others were similar but didn't take the time to get the data.You just posted a lot of data about how the non-helmet teams could impact the MNC, but under the new system the non-helmets actually can play for the title. You know, #4-12, mostly consisting of non-helmet teams, many of whom will have 2-3 losses, sometimes close losses that could've went either way.
What I think has changed here is that with the advent of a four (soon-to-be 12) team playoff, the non-helmets no longer even have the ability to impact the race. Looking at the 1970's:
1970:
Nebraska won at 11-0-1 (tie was at USC). Notre Dame, Texas, Tennessee, Ohio State, and Michigan each finished with one loss so they would likely have won the NC but for that loss:Auburn and Stanford are really the only non-helmets there but their wins over Tennessee and Ohio State did prevent the Volunteers and Buckeyes from winning the NC.
- Notre Dame's loss was to USC
- Texas' loss was to Notre Dame
- Tennessee's loss was to Auburn
- Ohio State's loss was to Stanford
- Michigan's loss was to Ohio State
1971:
Nebraska won it at 13-0. Oklahoma, Alabama, Penn State, Michigan, and Georgia each finished with one loss so they at least might have shared the title but for that loss:So again, Auburn and Stanford each had NC altering wins. BTW, Nebraska was a monster that year they beat the final #2, #3, and #4.
- Oklahoma's loss was to Nebraska
- Alabama's loss was to Nebraska
- Penn State's loss was to Tennessee
- Michigan's loss was to Stanford
- Georgia's loss was to Auburn
1972:
USC won it at 12-0. Oklahoma, Texas, and Michigan each finished with one loss so they at least might have shared the title but for that loss:Colorado had a NC altering win.
- Oklahoma's loss was to Colorado
- Texas' loss was to Oklahoma
- Michigan's loss was to Ohio State
1973:
Notre Dame won it at 11-0. Ohio State and Michigan both finished 10-0-1 after tying each other. Alabama (ND) finished with one loss.
1974:
Oklahoma won it at 11-0. USC finished 10-1-1. Michigan and Alabama both finished with one loss so they at least might have shared the title but for that loss:1975:
- Michigan's loss was to Ohio State
- Alabama's loss was to Notre Dame
Oklahoma won it at 11-1 after beating Michigan in the Orange Bowl. Note to @Gigem (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1706) , this was Michigan's first ever bowl game other than the Rose Bowl. Oklahoma's loss was to a mediocre Kansas team and very nearly cost them the NC. They went into the bowls #3 behind tOSU and aTm but luckily for them the Buckeyes and Aggies lost the Rose and Liberty Bowls. Alabama finished with only one loss, to Missouri.
This season may be the best example of what could happen. Wins by Kansas (OU), Mizzou (Bama) and UCLA (tOSU) had a humongous impact on the NC race.
As a Buckeye fan I feel obligated to point out that Ohio State's loss to (final) #5 UCLA in SoCal after having beaten UCLA earlier in the season was MUCH better than Oklahoma's loss to a Kansas team that finished 7-5 and unranked or Bama's loss to a Mizzou team that finished 6-5 and unranked. This was Woody's last great team and his last win over Michigan. It has long been speculated that IF he had won the NC he'd have retired on top.
1976:
Pitt won it at 12-0. USC finished with only one loss, to Mizzou. Thus, for the second consecutive year Mizzou was a mediocre team but managed to pull of a huge upset win that had a major impact on the NC race.
1977:
Notre Dame won it at 11-1. Bama, Arkansas, Texas, Penn State, and Kentucky each finished with one loss.Kentucky and Baylor were both non-helmets who had NC altering wins. Also, Notre Dame's loss was an early season loss to a bad Ole Miss team in Jackson, Mississippi so you can add the Rebels to the list of non-helmets who impacted the race. Notre Dame went into the bowls at #5 but they took out #1 Texas in the Cotton Bowl and meanwhile #2 OU lost to Arkansas (Orange) and #4 Michigan lost to Washington (Rose). #3 Bama beat #9 tOSU (Sugar) in Ohio State's first non-Rose Bowl but that wasn't enough to keep them ahead of the Irish who knocked off #1.
- Alabama's loss was to Nebraska
- Arkansas' loss was to Texas
- Texas' loss was to Notre Dame
- Penn State's loss was to Kentucky
- Kentucky's loss was to Baylor.
1978:
Alabama won it at 11-1 after beating prior #1 PSU (Sugar). USC, Oklahoma, Penn State, and Clemson each finished with one loss:ASU had an NC altering win.
- USC's loss was to ASU in ASU's first year in the PAC10 which had been the PAC8 up through 1977
- Oklahoma's loss was to Nebraska
- Penn State's loss was to Bama
- Clemson's loss was to Georgia
1979:
Alabama won it at 12-0. USC finished second at 11-0-1. Oklahoma, Ohio State, Houston, Florida State, and Pitt each finished with one loss.Stanford and North Carolina were non-helmets but they had NC altering wins.
- USC's tie was with a .500 Stanford team.
- Oklahoma's loss was to Texas
- Ohio State's loss was to USC
- Houston's loss was to Texas
- Florida State's loss was to Oklahoma
- Pitt's loss was to North Carolina
It didn't happen often but it DID happen. A non-helmet *COULD* impact that NC race and even the eventual winner. Non-helmet fans like @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) 's TxTech friend, @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) , and @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) rooted for teams that could and sometimes did have a MAJOR impact on the NC race. For those three schools:
Texas Tech:
youtube.com/watch?v=TESavSr2Cew
Michael Crabtree's TD had a HUMONGOUS impact on the NC race. TxTech wasn't really all that good. They got absolutely smoked in Norman and drilled in the Cotton Bowl by an SEC also-ran but on one night at home against the Longhorns they hit the dream. Ultimately Texas, Oklahoma, and TxTech tied for the B12-S Championship and Oklahoma won that on a controversial tiebreaker which sent the Sooners to an easy win over Mizzou in the B12CG and on to the BCSNCG where they lost to Florida thus giving the Gators the 2008 NC. If TxTech hadn't upset the Longhorns, the Longhorns would have beaten the Tigers and played the Gators and who knows, they might have won.
Purdue:
The 2018 Boilermakers weren't very good. They finished below .500 but in late October they showed up for a home game against the Buckeyes and looked like a powerhouse. That Buckeye squad finished just outside of the CFP and won a consolation Rose Bowl to finish 13-1. If Purdue hadn't upset the Buckeyes, the Buckeyes would have obviously been in the CFP at 13-0 and who knows, they might have won.
Michigan State:
The 2015 Spartans probably weren't as good as their 12-2 final record. I say that because both losses were bad and because they had multiple close wins over bad and mediocre teams. The Nebraska loss was bad because Nebraska was bad (6-7) while the Alabama loss was bad because it was a 38-0 shutout. Michigan state also beat Purdue (2-10), Rutgers (4-8), Michigan (10-3), Ohio State (12-1), and Iowa (12-2) by one score each. That said, on a cold November afternoon in Columbus they stymied the vaunted Ohio State offense. That Ohio State team averaged 36 ppg but only put up 14 against the Spartans. If Michigan State hadn't upset the Buckeyes, the Buckeyes would have gone to Indy to take out the Hawkeyes then on to the CFP and who knows, they might have won.
You just posted a lot of data about how the non-helmet teams could impact the MNC, but under the new system the non-helmets actually can play for the title. You know, #4-12, mostly consisting of non-helmet teams, many of whom will have 2-3 losses, sometimes close losses that could've went either way.That is true. But teams 5-12 will have to win 4 consecutive games against the best of the best to win that title.
You just posted a lot of data about how the non-helmet teams could impact the MNC, but under the new system the non-helmets actually can play for the title. You know, #4-12, mostly consisting of non-helmet teams, many of whom will have 2-3 losses, sometimes close losses that could've went either way.First of all, your team is not that far below a helmet and has shown a willingness and ability to spend with the big boys on NIL so they just might manage to obtain enough talent to win two or more playoff games and win an NC so you aren't really the type of fan I'm worried about our sport losing.
I find that all of this drivel is mostly coming from the fans of the helmet teams. I swear, the old system was like a boxing match where 90% of the matches are decided by judges, not a KO. Nothing more than a beauty pageant where the helmet teams are always given the benefit of the doubt. I don't like them but TCU played their way into the championship game over Michigan, if it was up to the playoff committee they would've never been given the chance. In 1998 KSU was screwed over the chance to play for a title because they were a non-helmet team and they lost a close game to a really good A&M team, whereas OU was giftwrapped the chance to play in the 2003 CG after losing to KSU in that title game.
Imagine how strange it would be for there to be two superbowl champions, or two world series champs.
I'm always in favor of settling it on the field. The best team wins. One true champion, and if the helmets prevail then so be it.
That is true. But teams 5-12 will have to win 4 consecutive games against the best of the best to win that title.Purdue is always going to be at a talent deficit relative to tOSU/PSU/M. In the past they could still potentially win the league by ducking one on the schedule, upsetting one, and catching one in turmoil. Now with a CG? Well they made it to the CG last year, that worked out as well for them as TCU making the CFPCG.
Is it possible? Yes. But CFB doesn't have the same level of parity as the NFL where a 9-7 wild card team can go on a run and beat the 18-0 Patriots to win the Super Bowl.
IMHO it's harder for a non-helmet to win the title in the new system than the old.
I cannot emphasize this enough. Let them settle it on the field, you know like they do in every other sport.What made the CFB regular season special was that a random Purdue/tOSU (2018), Bama/Mizzou (1975), or Tx/TxTech (2008) game might significantly impact the NC. Each regular season game mattered because each one *COULD* change the whole season. Not anymore.
I know this might be difficult for a helmet fan to understand... But no, we plebes don't define our seasons solely based upon the ability to ruin yours. Even though my team has proudly worn the "Spoilermakers" moniker from time to time, we also want something to play for beyond spoiling your fun.I do actually get that you, as a Purdue fan, cheered Purdue's win more that tOSU's loss but recall that one of the catalysts to this whole discussion was @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) sharing a story of playing backyard football as a kid and pausing their game to run inside and watch because dad came out and yelled that Indiana was tied with Ohio State.
In the old setup, a school like Purdue had a chance at a conference championship, and a chance at a trip to a Rose Bowl that meant something. A Rose Bowl that, while for us wouldn't have NC implications, would be the sort of game that a national audience tuned in to simply because it was the Rose Bowl, the granddaddy of them all. It was a destination, one that any team in the B1G was proud to make it to.
The difference now is that with an 18-team conference and CCG, it's unlikely a team like Purdue will ever even appear in a CCG much less have a chance to win it. And now, even if Purdue got into some sort of crazy scenario where they had a dream season, appeared in the CFP, and their game was held at the Rose Bowl, it is no longer a destination. It's merely a stepping stone (where they'd likely get eliminated of course) with zero standalone value as a game. It's both almost unattainable in the new system, but at the same time meaningless for a team like Purdue if they actually do attain it.
In 2018 we enjoyed improbably beating a really good team, under the lights, with much of the country watching and collectively asking themselves "WTF is happening???" Yeah, it derailed your CFP hopes that year, but it was OUR win that we cheered, not YOUR loss.
You brought up TCU and that they beat Michigan in a CFP game. You said that the committee would never have given them a shot. Well, that is obviously wrong, the committee gave them a spot even though they lost their CG and looked a lot less impressive than other candidates.
Purdue is always going to be at a talent deficit relative to tOSU/PSU/M. In the past they could still potentially win the league by ducking one on the schedule, upsetting one, and catching one in turmoil.And yet I also know the level of privilege that Purdue has just be being part of the B1G. Obviously financially, but also due to recruiting.
First of all, your team is not that far below a helmet and has shown a willingness and ability to spend with the big boys on NIL so they just might manage to obtain enough talent to win two or more playoff games and win an NC so you aren't really the type of fan I'm worried about our sport losing.I would say that A&M is definitely in that 2nd tier status, just below the helmets. Somewhere in the 18-22 range. So good enough to be in the conversation at times, but never with enough luck (TCU) to make it in to the dance. 2020 season still stings from that view point.
@betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) , @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) , and @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) 's TxTech fan friend are in a different situation. Their teams are never going to have enough top-level talent to win a four-team playoff.
You brought up TCU and that they beat Michigan in a CFP game. You said that the committee would never have given them a shot. Well, that is obviously wrong, the committee gave them a spot even though they lost their CG and looked a lot less impressive than other candidates.
That win over Michigan is just one of those examples of "upsets happen". Sometimes the .500 Purdue team takes out otherwise undefeated Ohio State but how did that work out for TCU when they got to the CG?
TCU making the CG last year doesn't prove that non-helmets can win in this system, it is proof of this:Purdue is always going to be at a talent deficit relative to tOSU/PSU/M. In the past they could still potentially win the league by ducking one on the schedule, upsetting one, and catching one in turmoil. Now with a CG? Well they made it to the CG last year, that worked out as well for them as TCU making the CFPCG. What made the CFB regular season special was that a random Purdue/tOSU (2018), Bama/Mizzou (1975), or Tx/TxTech (2008) game might significantly impact the NC. Each regular season game mattered because each one *COULD* change the whole season. Not anymore.
Next year, when we have a 12 team playoff if Purdue beats tOSU/M/PSU will anyone outside the Midwest even notice?
I ask again: What is wrong with letting the teams settle it on the field instead of in the polls?
I ask again: What is wrong with letting the teams settle it on the field instead of in the polls?I can't speak for medina, but there's actually nothing wrong with it being settled on the field.
So as long as the system is rigged for the betterment of your team you're happy with the system, but when we make it more equal for the rest we're killing the golden goose?LoL.
Correctly so. 65-7.
I stated that poorly. What I meant was under the old system, whether it be BCS computers or the polls or whatever system we had in the past they would never have given TCU a shot.
Correctly so. 65-7.Eh, tough to take that argument seriously. The BCS also gave us FSU over Virginia Tech, Miami over Nebraska, an Oklahoma team that got blown out, USC over Oklahoma, Florida over Ohio State, Bammer over Texas, Bama over LSU, and Bama over Notre Dame. Your "correct" system gave us all sorts of blowouts. At least last year we got some good playoff games. Tough to make any sort of cogent argument that the BCS was gave us more deserving teams or more entertainment, which is why it was wisely sent to the garbage bin of failures.
65-7 was different. It could have been worse. That's the part you're ignoring.Why would anyone possibly care? That is the part you are avoiding. Watching a 21 point blowout and a 58 point blowout are typically pretty equally boring. But in the playoffs, we saw TCU beat Michigan. In your world, we just get the blowout. There is no rational argument for wanting one blowout over two great games and one blowout. Your math ain't mathin'.
Why would anyone possibly care? That is the part you are avoiding. Watching a 21 point blowout and a 58 point blowout are typically pretty equally boring. But in the playoffs, we saw TCU beat Michigan. In your world, we just get the blowout. There is no rational argument for wanting one blowout over two great games and one blowout. Your math ain't mathin'.Boring's got nothing to do with it. I specified they played with their hair on fire and beat UM. I literally typed that in my post you mustn't have read.
Boring's got nothing to do with it. I specified they played with their hair on fire and beat UM. I literally typed that in my post you mustn't have read.Yes, it was a great game. A game you are saying should never have happened. I don't understand this position, arguing against more access for more teams and in favor of having fewer, suckier games among the chosen few five teams.
Anyway, I've repeatedly said in the past that crowing a champion should be exclusive, not inclusive.Technicality. That was not the XII CCG.
I happen not to want 9-7 Super Bowl "champions."
I happen to like every regular season game meaning a lot.
TCU lost it's last game (and this began in 2001) and happened to not drop 1 spot in the polls for 2 reasons:
1 - to avoid a UM/OSU rematch in a semifinal (which is a BS reason)
2 - because everyone else had one too many losses (when they happened and who they were against being completely ignored)
All of it was stupid. As it was stupid when OU got rocked in its CCG, but still played for the NC in 03. As it was stupid Nebraska was the sacrificial lamb vs Miami in 01 after allowing 63 points vs CU in its CCG.
People have broken the idea of logic by doing these things. Why did the Big XII have a CCG game in 2022? What was the point, from a competition point of view?
Technicality. That was not the XII CCG.I remember that season well. Because CU was not really all that great, but they had it dialed in for those two games and then went to the Fiesta Bowl or something and got spanked.
Colorado beat #3 Texas in the CCG. If not, Texas would have been in the BCS championship game.
Eh, tough to take that argument seriously. The BCS also gave us FSU over Virginia Tech, Miami over Nebraska, an Oklahoma team that got blown out, USC over Oklahoma, Florida over Ohio State, Bammer over Texas, Bama over LSU, and Bama over Notre Dame. Your "correct" system gave us all sorts of blowouts. At least last year we got some good playoff games. Tough to make any sort of cogent argument that the BCS was gave us more deserving teams or more entertainment, which is why it was wisely sent to the garbage bin of failures.
The new system absolutely does give more teams a chance. Saying otherwise is just silly.
Technicality. That was not the XII CCG.
Colorado beat #3 Texas in the CCG. If not, Texas would have been in the BCS championship game.
I remember watching the end of that 2001 season closely.It was a crazy end to the season, no doubt.
I really thought 11-1 Oregon should have been the opponent for Miami. Only loss was midseason to a very good Stanford team.
They were the ones who stomped Colorado in the Fiesta. They were the ones with the speed to maybe give Miami a game. They had Joey Heisman.
| 1 | < | 1 | [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Tennessee (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=28)[/iurl] (70)[/font][/size][/color] | SEC (Southeastern) | 12-0 | 1750 | 1 | W 24-14 N #23 Mississippi State |
| 2 | < | 4 | [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Florida State (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=139)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] | ACC (Atlantic Coast) | 11-1 | 1671 | 2 | |
| [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)]3[/font][/size][/color] | [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)]<[/font][/size][/color] | [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)]5[/font][/size][/color] | [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)][color=var(--bs-link-color)]Ohio State (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=31)[/iurl][/color][/font][/size][/color] | [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)]Big Ten[/font][/size][/color] | [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)]10-1[/font][/size][/color] | [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)]1602[/font][/size][/color] | [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)]4[/font][/size][/color] | [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)] [/font][/size][/color] |
| 4 | < | 2 | [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Kansas State (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=141)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] | Big 12 | 11-1 | 1476 | 3 | |
| 5 | < | 6 | [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Arizona (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=138)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] | Pac-10 | 11-1 | 1412 | 7 | DNP (Did not play) |
| 6 | < | 3 | [color=var(--bs-link-color)]UCLA (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=59)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] | Pac-10 | 10-1 | 1398 | 5 | |
| 7 | < | 7 | [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Florida (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=117)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] | SEC (Southeastern) | 9-2 | 1337 | 8 | |
| 8 | < | 10 | [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Texas A&M (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=14)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] | Big 12 | 11-2 | 1310 | 6 | |
| 9 | < | 8 | [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Wisconsin (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=36)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] | Big Ten | 10-1 | 1176 | 9 | |
| 10 | < | 9 | [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Tulane (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=18)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] | C-USA (Conference USA) | 11-0 | 1067 | 10 | DNP (Did not play) |
| 11 | < | 11 | [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Arkansas (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=32)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] | SEC (Southeastern) | 9-2 | 960 | 13 | |
| 12 | < | 12 | [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Georgia Tech (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=63)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] | ACC (Atlantic Coast) | 9-2 | 874 | 14 |
Under the old system TCU would have not been given a shot. Michigan is still being defended as being some kind of victim.Nobody is defending Michigan nor suggesting that they are a victim of some nefarious plot.
Or do we just not really care about the scoreboard, just start giving the W to the closest blue blood?OAM and I care a lot more about scoreboards than you do. In the soon-to-be 12-team CFP the scoreboards in the 11 CFP games will matter a lot but the scoreboards in the ~1,500 regular season games will only matter collectively, not individually.
Sure they got their ass kicked in the final. It happens a lot, not much different than many other years. But they played their way into it, and settled it on the field.
Just for kicks I went back and looked at the last poll of the 1998 season (AP poll) and sliced out the top 12 teams:Sure, (some of) those playoff games would have been fun but if we'd had a 12-team CFP then:
https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?appollid=821I picked 1998 in particular because it was a memorable year for me. A&M won the Big 12 over KSU, who then lost their chance to play for the BCS championship. UCLA had a chance to play for the title but had to play a late season game vs Miami and ended up losing. KSU was aware of the UCLA loss, which some have said made them think they had it in the bag while the game was still in doubt. A&M (uncharacteristically) overcame a 4th quarter 15 pt deficit and beat them. Tulane was pretty good, Arkansas was pretty good. Now imagine if these 12 teams all made the playoffs. Whatever format you want to pick, it would make for some pretty good football. I realize that Tulane and GT and Ark would probably be out in the first round, but upsets happen all the time and you could very easily have somebody like Florida winning it all that year or KSU or UCLA. Heck, even a good but not great A&M could have a chance to at least make the 2nd or 3rd round. We did end up playing both FSU and OSU that season, both were losses but as I recall they were competitive games and we just didn't have enough offense to beat either team.
1 < 1 [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Tennessee (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=28)[/iurl] (70)[/font][/size][/color] SEC (Southeastern) 12-0 1750 1 W 24-14 N #23 Mississippi State 2 < 4 [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Florida State (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=139)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] ACC (Atlantic Coast) 11-1 1671 2 [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)]3[/font][/size][/color] [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)]<[/font][/size][/color] [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)]5[/font][/size][/color] [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)][color=var(--bs-link-color)]Ohio State (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=31)[/iurl][/color][/font][/size][/color] [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)]Big Ten[/font][/size][/color] [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)]10-1[/font][/size][/color] [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)]1602[/font][/size][/color] [color=var(--bs-table-hover-color)]4[/font][/size][/color] 4 < 2 [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Kansas State (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=141)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] Big 12 11-1 1476 3 5 < 6 [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Arizona (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=138)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] Pac-10 11-1 1412 7 DNP (Did not play) 6 < 3 [color=var(--bs-link-color)]UCLA (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=59)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] Pac-10 10-1 1398 5 7 < 7 [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Florida (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=117)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] SEC (Southeastern) 9-2 1337 8 8 < 10 [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Texas A&M (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=14)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] Big 12 11-2 1310 6 9 < 8 [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Wisconsin (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=36)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] Big Ten 10-1 1176 9 10 < 9 [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Tulane (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=18)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] C-USA (Conference USA) 11-0 1067 10 DNP (Did not play) 11 < 11 [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Arkansas (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=32)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] SEC (Southeastern) 9-2 960 13 12 < 12 [color=var(--bs-link-color)]Georgia Tech (https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=1998&teamid=63)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] ACC (Atlantic Coast) 9-2 874 14
Seriously, those who cannot keep up with NIL/Facilities/spending and the whole 9 should just split out already. You're already stated how the situation for a program like Purdue is. Their chance or winning the MNC before 2010 = essentially zero. Their chance after NIL/TP etc = Absolute Zero. So they're just basically cannon fodder. If they weren't in the Big 10 from way back, realistically speaking, what conference would they be in? MAC? WAC? There is a line of major/non-major CF programs. A&M barely makes it, but Purdue, TT, IU, ISU do not. It's obvious, and it's inevitable because eventually there is just too much money coming in and the games are just too good. You can't fight the future. You can delay it, you can make it complicated.
I think after this next TV deal expires, football conferences will cease to exist.
You'll have Big Ten hoops and Olympics. PAC (or whatever), SEC, ACC, XII the same. Geographically positioned too.
The fat gets trimmed and only Kings, Barons and Knights are in the big football league, which will simply be a minor league for the NFL.
And I'll be boating and golfing and not watching that shit.
I still think it could happen, with the power league schools funding the conference they came from.
But it would need a reset. The PAC schools would have to get back together. No conference can be more than 10 schools.
Using the 2022 list from Mandel:
So, if the Kings, Barons and Knights from the Big Ten (pre-PSU) were in the power league, it would include Ohio State and Michigan as Kings, Iowa, MSU and Wisconsin as Barons, and Minnesota and Northwestern as Knights.
7 out of the "original" 10 schools are in. Illinois, Indiana and Purdue are left out, but still get a slightly reduced share of football revenue to fund other sports, and their football programs. Football is free to schedule as they wish, as those would be independent.
Now, this works for the Big Ten for sure.
Looking at the PAC (pre-Utah and Colorado) they would have also have 7 of the 10 "originals" in the power league. This works.
Who would get whacked from the XII so they could get to 10? Or do you go to the Big 8 and SWC and add enough schools to those conference to get to 10? Big 8 could grab Utah and BYU probably. SWC would need one more member.
Arky would go back to the SWC as the SEC has to get to 10.
USCe would go to the ACC and bring them to 9, unless FSU is a part of that conference. Then they are at 10.
Then there is the East Coast Conference. PSU, Miami, Cuse, BC, Rutgers, WVU, Pitt, VT, Louisville and Cincy??
SEC should have no issues getting the majority of its members in the power league, sans Vandy.
Peasants include:
(https://i.imgur.com/6mVaOFj.png)
Doesn't seem convoluted to me at all.
The "traditional" conferences get to keep all their Olympic sports. The football schools are all like Notre Dame - Independent - except for the divisions they are placed in within the power league.
This could become a food and wine and booze and travel and energy and weather board. And other news, of course. No electric cars. F that. Sporty cars is fine.For some of us, it already is...
For some of us, it already is...Very true.
Huh? Are these supposed to be examples of "blowouts?" Alabama only led Texas by 3 points with 3 minutes to go, with Texas having the ball at the time.Not the point. I remember going to bed at halftime because the game wasn't competitive. In OAM's world, that is all that matters. There is no universe where Texas won the game, and football always goes by what we think is going to happen.
If Colt McCoy hadn't been knocked out in the 1st quarter, I have no doubt how that game would have turned out.
This thisi this this this
You simply can't have it both ways. You can either have a big postseason tournament OR you can have regular season games that matter.
Please quit beating up strawmen. Nobody is saying that we don't want games to matter or that we want upsets to be ignored. The debate is over which games matter and when upsets matter.
Not the point. I remember going to bed at halftime because the game wasn't competitive. In OAM's world, that is all that matters. There is no universe where Texas won the game, and football always goes by what we think is going to happen.Put on some sunglasses or something, your ire for me is blinding you.
FSU was a 10 point dog in 2000. Didn't score a point on offense.FSU was an 11.5 favorite and by your logic Oklahoma should not have been allowed in the game. That's my point - you keep saying these big upsets should not have been allowed to happen. I agree, to some extent, that expanding the playoffs cheapens the regular season, though that is more because of the selection process. The BCS even had the same problem - the LSU-Bama championship game was an all time own goal. I don't think there is a solution when the "process" is obsessed with selections as opposed to objective ways to earn your way in.
People are trying to argue the CFP in here.I'm just not seeing it. Basketball as quickly shown the effects of the transfer portal and NIL, and love it or hate it, I don't see much argument that blue bloods are dominating the sport.
If you go all the way back to @medinabuckeye1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1547) 's original post, it's not about the playoff.
It's about the fact that NIL and the transfer portal are tilting the field SO FAR in favor of the blue bloods that fans of every other team in CFB might start losing interest. The CFP may be a part of this, but mostly in that it has completely sucked the postseason air out of the room such that if a non-helmet team goes 8-4 and gets invited to the Punxsutawney Phil Bowl, is that even worth tuning in for? It at least used to be.
There was never true parity, but much of what the sport has done over the last several decades had an intent of increasing parity. NIL and the transfer portal is going FAR in the opposite direction, and may kill interest in the sport if you're not a helmet or helmet-adjacent team. And there may not be enough interest at that point, because all it becomes is a shittier version of the NFL.
FSU was an 11.5 favorite and by your logic Oklahoma should not have been allowed in the game. That's my point - you keep saying these big upsets should not have been allowed to happen. I agree, to some extent, that expanding the playoffs cheapens the regular season, though that is more because of the selection process. The BCS even had the same problem - the LSU-Bama championship game was an all time own goal. I don't think there is a solution when the "process" is obsessed with selections as opposed to objective ways to earn your way in.FSU was favored, by 10, so thanks for finding my mistake.
FSU was favored, by 10, so thanks for finding my mistake.Why is at the corner of Who Cares and So What
But even with that, TCU was the biggest underdog in a modern NCG. Guess why?
Why is at the corner of Who Cares and So WhatActually, this is wrong. The Why is because we have like three teams getting the bulk of the high end talent in college football. But God forbid we change the rules to help the other 120 teams.
You just said "help the other 120 teams."I know - it's the major problem. Too many teams have little to play for before the season even starts. A team should be able to win their way to a championship no matter what. That is the essence of sports. Instead, we get lots of protection for big market brands.
That's a lot of help, boss.
I know - it's the major problem. Too many teams have little to play for before the season even starts. A team should be able to win their way to a championship no matter what. That is the essence of sports. Instead, we get lots of protection for big market brands.I totally agree. That's why I've advocated for everyone to stop the lie and either demote G5 or create a tweener division.
I totally agree. That's why I've advocated for everyone to stop the lie and either demote G5 or create a tweener division.It doesn't work unless there is a path to move up for good programs. Otherwise it's just the same old same old - the rich programs protecting themselves from the poors.
I totally agree. That's why I've advocated for everyone to stop the lie and either demote G5 or create a tweener division.I've been saying that forever. it's absolutely ridiculous that there are 135 FBS schools or whatever the hell it is now. there should be 60 FBS schools, if that.
It doesn't work unless there is a path to move up for good programs. Otherwise it's just the same old same old - the rich programs protecting themselves from the poors.they can move to the Big 12 or PAC4
Programs like Akron average like 12,000 fans per game and have TV deals with Animal Planet for $600K/yr.agree 100%.
When they play Ohio St or VA Tech or Texas, it's like a homeless person playing poker with a CEO. It's not entertainment, it's a bludgeoning.
The best a Zip can do is go 10-2, win the MAC, and enjoy their trip to the Obscure.com Bowl in Mobile, AL.
No thanks.
Actually, this is wrong. The Why is because we have like three teams getting the bulk of the high end talent in college football. But God forbid we change the rules to help the other 120 teams.We spent a long time trying to stop the helmets from being able to simply buy the best team. To attempt that was cheating.
@MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1572) if your plan is to get 120+ programs on equal footing, you're not sharing the same reality as the rest of uswell, ya gotta define equal footing
@MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1572) if your plan is to get 120+ programs on equal footing, you're not sharing the same reality as the rest of usyou'll never get P5 teams on equal footing let alone all of FBS.
We spent a long time trying to stop the helmets from being able to simply buy the best team. To attempt that was cheating.yes, but the richest players are now able to get richer than their peers
Now it's all above board. Richest boosters win!
It doesn't work unless there is a path to move up for good programs. Otherwise it's just the same old same old - the rich programs protecting themselves from the poors.Do you even watch college football?
@MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1572) if your plan is to get 120+ programs on equal footing, you're not sharing the same reality as the rest of us"Equal footing" is a loaded term. For all teams to be equal is silly. But there ought to be certain opportunities for good programs to move up. Right now, every conference and schedule determination is based on money, not competition. While money makes the world go round, it does lead to things like Georgia having better players at every position compared to TCU. If we made things based on competition, the results would be different.
Do you even watch college football?Yes! That's the problem! It takes two decades of great play just to break in. That is impossibly stupid. Imagine if say, the Detroit Lions, went 16-1 this season and the NFL said, "keep it up and in 17 years we may give you a shot."
In 2005, TCU went 11-1 and their reward? A trip to the Poinsettia Bowl.
8 years after going 1-10 in the WAC, they did that. As a member of the MWC.
17 years later, they played for the NC (sorta).
Open your eyes.
"Equal footing" is a loaded term. For all teams to be equal is silly. But there ought to be certain opportunities for good programs to move up. Right now, every conference and schedule determination is based on money, not competition. While money makes the world go round, it does lead to things like Georgia having better players at every position compared to TCU. If we made things based on competition, the results would be different.One of us is realistic and the other is you.
The problem I have with your logic is you take the money side and then pretend that is the same as competition. That is the biggest lie going in college sports.
Yes! That's the problem! It takes two decades of great play just to break in. That is impossibly stupid.BUT IT EXISTS.
One of us is realistic and the other is you."Realistic" is just a loaded term for being all out of ideas. It's no secret that college football presidents are being swamped by TV executives. What is best for college football and what is best for television networks isn't the same. But as long as people like you are pro-network, and I agree most fans are, then we aren't going to get much positive change.
I'd like the lie to end, but me wanting something doesn't make it so. What should be vs what is......open your eyes.
2 decades of great play only got them a seat at the table because of realignment completely out of their control and had very little to do with their great playHence my listing luck first.
"Realistic" is just a loaded term for being all out of ideas. It's no secret that college football presidents are being swamped by TV executives. What is best for college football and what is best for television networks isn't the same. But as long as people like you are pro-network, and I agree most fans are, then we aren't going to get much positive change.I'm pro-network? Cool. Tell me more about myself.
I'm pro-network? Cool. Tell me more about myself.I will. You pretend that what is good for television is magically good for spots. Your entire point is that programs that aren't as well funded should simply not get the same chances at more well funded teams. You've been very vocal that if there is a good chance for a blowout, the game should not even be played, in favor of a closer game between teams that did not earn it on the field. That is pro-television, not pro-sports.
I will. You pretend that what is good for television is magically good for spots. Your entire point is that programs that aren't as well funded should simply not get the same chances at more well funded teams. You've been very vocal that if there is a good chance for a blowout, the game should not even be played, in favor of a closer game between teams that did not earn it on the field. That is pro-television, not pro-sports.You're ignoring WHY they're not as well funded.
You're ignoring WHY they're not as well funded.They aren't well funded because the rules don't make that an incentive. It's not like Alabama is magically richer than other programs. They were really good and got a big fan base and lots of support. It's the same with every other program -FSU and PSU are big based on having the same great coach for thirty years. There aren't many reasons that other programs can't become good and big, other than the rules don't provide any way for small programs to become big programs and in fact actively block it.
And I've made zero comments about suggesting what's good for networks is good for college football. You're inventing shit. What's good for college football is actual competition, not pretending TCU is a deserving playoff team. Beat Kansas State, bro!Alabama-LSU suffered the same problem and largely ended the BCS. Alabama still won a championship in the playoff era despite not even qualifying for their championship game. How is this a new problem? Oklahoma got destroyed in their championship game and still made the BC game. It's not a new problem.
I want the best 2 deserving teams to play for the championship. I want every game among the top teams to count. Why did they bother playing the Big 12 CG in 2022?!? The ramifications of the outcome were fuck-all.
Answer that.
A direct statement I can make that might help out with your comprehension and understanding is this:As I read this, I’m just sort of struck by the hunting for complaints.
it's a lot about before the game begins - no team should win a national championship on a huge upset.
Is that actually inflammatory?
Am I nuts??
Biggest NCG upsets since the beginning of the BCS:
+11 - OSU, 2002
+7 - Florida, 2006....Texas, 2005....LSU, 2003
+6.5 - Clemson, 2016
.
And I'll stop there.
National championship games should have a big bouncer at the door, a spike strip in the parking lot, and surrounded by the walls of Troy.
Only big swinging dick programs with impressive schedules need apply.
Why?
Because outside of 1 season, everyone we thought had no chance HAD no chance.
ND in 2012. Destroyed.
FSU was a 10 point dog in 2000. Didn't score a point on offense.
The Huskers in 2001. No shot.
TCU....give me a break.
.
I want 2 teams that will have big days on Day 1 of the NFL draft. I want great HCs and battle-tested teams.
I believe there were like 6-7 different teams that would have had better odds vs Bama in 2012. Everyone knew ND wasn't worthy. But they had a magical zero in the loss column. Well, so did Boise a few times. So did Tulane in '98. So what?
A five-year old could rank teams by number of losses. You want to criticize me for what I said about TCU-UM (I still have no idea what I said wrong about it), but YOU'RE the one ignoring TCU's loss to KSU yielding ZERO consequences! That's bullshit. Everyone knows it.
We've taken the sport with THE best, most intense regular season and transformed it into a conference championship game outcome being meaningless.
Fuck that noise. You can have it.
They aren't well funded because the rules don't make that an incentive. It's not like Alabama is magically richer than other programs. They were really good and got a big fan base and lots of support. It's the same with every other program -FSU and PSU are big based on having the same great coach for thirty years. There aren't many reasons that other programs can't become good and big, other than the rules don't provide any way for small programs to become big programs and in fact actively block it.This is exhausting.
To put it a different way - there is no reason based in sports or competitiveness that puts Rutgers in the Big Ten over Cincinnati. Those decisions are based in money and contracts and largely driven now by television networks.
This is exhausting.not if you let it go
Duh!!!!!
Alabama-LSU suffered the same problem and largely ended the BCS. Alabama still won a championship in the playoff era despite not even qualifying for their championship game. How is this a new problem? Oklahoma got destroyed in their championship game and still made the BC game. It's not a new problem.I already mentioned that OU team. I'm not saying it's a new problem, it's the same problem in the newest system.
This is exhausting.It's exhausting for you because you have no point. It didn't take "decades" for FSU to work it's way up. They played in the Orange Bowl in 1980, just four years after Bowden started coaching. My point is that without artificial barriers in place, FSU quickly worked their way to the top of college football after years of being an also-ran, a team that by your logic shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near the top of college football. You keep pretending that college football is a one off every year, when it absolutely isn't. Good programs build over time, and a good system in place should reward good programs. I don't know why anyone would be satisfied with television conference deals determining things over results on the field, but here we are.
Look at what you've said.
You complain that it took TCU two decades to navigate and work it's way up.
Here, you recognize that traditional powers had to be good for decades to reap the rewards.
IT'S NO DIFFERENT.
It's exhausting for you because you have no point. It didn't take "decades" for FSU to work it's way up. They played in the Orange Bowl in 1980, just four years after Bowden started coaching. My point is that without artificial barriers in place, FSU quickly worked their way to the top of college football after years of being an also-ran, a team that by your logic shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near the top of college football. You keep pretending that college football is a one off every year, when it absolutely isn't. Good programs build over time, and a good system in place should reward good programs. I don't know why anyone would be satisfied with television conference deals determining things over results on the field, but here we are.Red + blue ------- who are you debating? When did I suggest any of that? Wtf?
Last part - why do you feel the need to say that? Everyone knows that and no one is suggesting otherwise.But you are! You're entire point is that the worst thing that can happen in post season college football is that a team like TCU (or Cincinnati before them) could be allowed into the room. That is the exact same position Tv execs have. They want OSU, Bama, Georgia, and Notre Dame every year, maybe rotate in whoever else are in the top markets. Pro sports have large and small markets, but are infinitely more diverse in their postseason compared to college football.
If I'm advocating for the playoff to be exclusive for completely different reasons than TV execs, then you're being dishonest by lumping us together.Don't blame me, I voted for Nixon for Good Reasons
Both a bee and an airplane can fly, but why the hell would anyone lump the two together?!?
Go away.
Both a bee and an airplane can fly, but why the hell would anyone lump the two together?!?Because they both can fly?
So when your biggest objection is that the have nots sneaks their way into the postseason, you are 100% aligned with the ESPN execs who want the championship game to be in prime time on Monday night between Ohio State and Georgia.Baptist and bootlegger scenario, my friend.
Because they both can fly?Right, I'm not concerned if my wanting the 2 best teams to play for the NC happens to coincide with what TV networks want. He's acting like I'm their toady or something. I don't give a shit about TV networks, I care about the best regular season in sports and deserving teams playing to see who's best.
They share a common feature, they also both have wings. That's about it I think.
All playoffs generate a "playoff champion", all of them. None are really intended to reward the "best team", though it happens of course. The "best team" will likely NOT win three games in a row against upper level teams. Some here prefer the old bowl system with its idiosyncracies, including me.Absolutely right.
What I prefer of course is perhaps amusing but hardly relevant, we havea playoff in CFB and that won't change, though the design of course will.
Teams don't/can't perform so much better than they've shown 2 games in a row. I am 100% sure there are exceptions, but frankly, I'm too busy focusing on the 99.7% of the time the exceptions don't happen. Sue me.I would say that's my major problem with your viewpoint. You say competition matters, but in reality, you would take a losing team over a winning team if they have better recruiting rankings, all for "accuracy." It's the same with the playoff committee, so it's not an unpopular view.
I would say that's my major problem with your viewpoint. You say competition matters, but in reality, you would take a losing team over a winning team if they have better recruiting rankings, all for "accuracy."This can't possibly be the takeaway from my post above. I refuse to believe you read it and think this. It's impossible.
This can't possibly be the takeaway from my post above. I refuse to believe you read it and think this. It's impossible.
All I'm honestly pining for is choosing the playoff teams based on the most amount of data and evidence possible.
Ya well Baptists don't recognize the Pope or each other in the Liquor store either
That doesn't mean the Baptist is doing what they're doing in order to seek alignment with the bootlegger's interests.
Maybe the problem is not with his interpretation. If folks consistently misinterpret what I meant, I try and do better to be more clear. It works better than just saying "That's not what I meant."I took the time to type out lengthy, segmented post expressing and re-expressing the simple idea, including images and statistics.
I took the time to type out lengthy, segmented post expressing and re-expressing the simple idea, including images and statistics.You outright said:
The last thing I need is your confused self joining in with him.
You outright said:And you're the one looking at a LIST and only cherry-picking one thing from it, then straw-manning me by only mentioning that one thing.
"It's not W/L record only. That's childish. Schedule matters. Margin of victory matters. Good wins AND bad losses matter. Talent matters."
That obviously refers to recruiting rankings. Then when I say you want to include recruiting rankings in who gets invited to the playoffs, you claim no one understands you and you might as well be speaking Chinese.
so, git rid of the selection committee as well(https://i.imgur.com/W4jtS4I.jpg)
And you're the one looking at a LIST and only cherry-picking one thing from it, then straw-manning me by only mentioning that one thing.I don't know what your complaint is. Your biggest problem is that TCU made the postseason when they apparently didn't deserve it, based presumably on their recruiting rankings being far below Georgia's. We all get that. I understand it. You want only the best teams to be playing for a championship. I get it. I understand.
You're a dishonest interlocutor.
Stop wasting our time, friend.
I don't know what your complaint is. Your biggest problem is that TCU made the postseason when they apparently didn't deserve it, based presumably on their recruiting rankings being far below Georgia's. We all get that. I understand it. You want only the best teams to be playing for a championship. I get it. I understand.Please stop typing this. You don't understand. You have no desire to understand. You're dishonest. Move on.
Please stop typing this. You don't understand. You have no desire to understand. You're dishonest. Move on.Your actual position is a mystery. Quote you? I never said that. Refer to prior posts? Unfair. This is Trumpian levels of pretend.
Which conferences?Great question.
Great question.Why can't teams from the strong conferences join the weaker ones? Seems an extremely easy solution.
If you want to take the P4 conf champs, you've got 2 insanely strong conferences and 2 "others."
Which means 2 have a tough road to the playoff and 2 have an easy one.
Objective my ass.
Why can't teams from the strong conferences join the weaker ones? Seems an extremely easy solution.Okay, let's run a race.
Okay, let's run a race.That is some word salad of a response.
You have to run 100m and I'll run 70.
No?
Why not?
I mean there's no central body that can order the polls to cease. If you don't like them just ignore them. In my opinion they're one of the unique and interesting things about college football so I wouldn't ever really wish for them to go away.As I've gotten older, I've grown more fascinated with the fact that they don't count and many people just cannot ignore them in a real way.
Okay, let's run a race.What other gems have you mined for the congregation today? He didn't suggest anything remotely close to that,are you taking peyote buttons and playing with ouija boards again? :cheer:
You have to run 100m and I'll run 70.
No?
Why not?
I don't know when they started but I see ESPN now ranks baseball teams (MLB). It gets amusing when some team barely makes the playoffs as a WC and then "gets hot" and runs the table and they sorta have to move them from 8th to first when clearly they are not that great.youre starting to sound like OAM
But they are the playoff champions ... of the world.
As I've gotten older, I've grown more fascinated with the fact that they don't count and many people just cannot ignore them in a real way.Oh, but they do count. In the old days (BCS era and before) they definitely counted, and USC/LSU and Neb/Mich can attest that they counted. Hell, UCF still counts theirs.
Oh, but they do count. In the old days (BCS era and before) they definitely counted, and USC/LSU and Neb/Mich can attest that they counted. Hell, UCF still counts theirs.The AP poll hasn’t counted since 2004. The BCS died a decade ago. No poll even put UCF No. 1. Even the CFP rankings are just silly filler. Every poll that has come out since 2014 is functionally for funzies (for us)
What I'm getting at is we should place less emphasis on the polls. When they preview a game, it should only be something like 2-0 Alabama vs 2-0 Texas, or 4-2 Auburn vs 6-0 LSU. The media should do away with presenting the polls as some kind of rock of Gibraltar stereotype. I realize that it is asking a lot, but if we're truly going to go to a 12 team playoff, or more, what real reason do the polls serve?
I don't know when they started but I see ESPN now ranks baseball teams (MLB). It gets amusing when some team barely makes the playoffs as a WC and then "gets hot" and runs the table and they sorta have to move them from 8th to first when clearly they are not that great.They’ve done that for a long, long time. At least as power ratings.
But they are the playoff champions ... of the world.
youre starting to sound like OAMYou take that back
The AP poll hasn’t counted since 2004. The BCS died a decade ago. No poll even put UCF No. 1. Even the CFP rankings are just silly filler. Every poll that has come out since 2014 is functionally for funzies (for us)There is more than one poll, and some put UCF at #1. The polls may not count directly toward anything but don't tell me they have a huge indirect influence on the overall status quo WRT College Football, helmet teams, etc.
But you’re talking about the media doing away with presenting them in such a way. First, I don’t think it’s presented has hard and fast. It’s just for hype. And that’s the issue. The polls exist for two main reasons: they allow channels to hype games and people really, really consume them. So the producers keep making them. The only way to make that stop is to stop demanding polls by caring about them. If everyone gave them an “oh, that’s nice, whatever,” they’d start drying up and fading away.
I don't know when they started but I see ESPN now ranks baseball teams (MLB).Oh god, there is nothing more stupid than MLB power ratings.....in September.
What other gems have you mined for the congregation today? He didn't suggest anything remotely close to that,are you taking peyote buttons and playing with ouija boards again? :cheer:Great, 2 more of you are being oblivious.
Great, 2 more of you are being oblivious.The question was: why can't the teams in the strong leagues move to the weaker leagues, leading to four balanced leagues?
Okay, the premise was that the 4 conf champs of the SEC, B1G, ACC, and XII get in the playoff.
2 of them are champions of very strong leagues and the other 2 are champions of weak leagues.
The 2 weak league champs had an easier path to the playoff than the strong league champs.
That is akin to their running 70m (easier) vs 100m (tougher).
Sorry, I have to spell out things for kids all day. Doing it for adults in my free time isn't fun (honestly, not a shot at you, just a fact).
The question was: why can't the teams in the strong leagues move to the weaker leagues, leading to four balanced leagues?Oh!
The question was: why can't the teams in the strong leagues move to the weaker leagues, leading to four balanced leagues?They can.
Great, 2 more of you are being oblivious.
Run Forest Run! There was actually 3 questioning your post but who's counting. Great so others who don't recoginize what you perceive as unriveled intelligence are oblivious?Fetching
Okay, the premise was that the 4 conf champs of the SEC, B1G, ACC, and XII get in the playoff.
2 of them are champions of very strong leagues and the other 2 are champions of weak leagues.
The 2 weak league champs had an easier path to the playoff than the strong league champs.
Define weak - by what metric? Before Ohio St played Alabama after the '14 season 47 of 48 of ESPNs "Expert" analasysts had the Tide winning - 47 of 48. For a 2 week period that season the committee and they had all top 4 teams from the SEC.Not Fla St,not Oregon,not tOSU - all final play off participants.So you swallowing their narrative whole shows you belong with the sheeple.
That is akin to their running 70m (easier) vs 100m (tougher).
Sorry, I have to spell out things for kids all day. Doing it for adults in my free time isn't fun (honestly, not a shot at you, just a fact).
No that's akin to you realizing hallucinations again.And I don't care what you do during the day in here - you spray graffiti at least as much as you spell anything out,so let's just move on.
beat 3 ranked (at the time) teams that season. The last one is absurd of course. "Hey, we beat 5 ranked teams (3 of which ended up with losing records and another ended up 7-5)."That one bothers me too. I think most of us in here avoid that and:
Final poll is the only one that counts
- When talking about the current season refer to teams ranked in the latest poll.
I figure if a single person misses my point, it could well be that I didn't express it well, or maybe they just are incapable of understanding it.Or it's like explaining evolution to a few illiterate goat-herders.
When a host of people do it, consistently, I figure I am not expressing things well at all.
Or it's like explaining evolution to a few illiterate goat-herders.I am of the opinion that nearly everyone here is literate and pretty smart, else we would go elsewhere. I think some folks here are very smart, maybe most folks, probably smarter than I am (which isn't a high bar). If I thought folks here were on the intellectual level of "illiterate goat herders" (who might be smart also, just ignorant), I'd move elsewhere to a site more in keeping with what I perceived as my own massive intellect.
They can.Maybe - the money is currently being sent to conferences for whatever reason to split. That is a major source of revenue, but it isn't the only source. Being in the postseason on a regular basis could also, theoretically, improve a team's revenue. In any event, without any sort of automatic qualifier, there isn't much incentive to be in other leagues, so I wouldn't just conclude that.
But they won't.
Because $$$$.
Or it's like explaining evolution to a few illiterate goat-herders.The biggest problem is that you think I or anyone else don't understand your point. We understand, and when we make a counterpoint, you just huff off.
Maybe - the money is currently being sent to conferences for whatever reason to split. That is a major source of revenue, but it isn't the only source. Being in the postseason on a regular basis could also, theoretically, improve a team's revenue. In any event, without any sort of automatic qualifier, there isn't much incentive to be in other leagues, so I wouldn't just conclude that.Well, the money is not necessarily causative, but correlates with a lot of other positives. Some of which might go away if you move to a weaker conference.
Also, the NFL merged with the weaker AFL and that seemed to work out.
MrNubbz:The amusement continues, your scandel of the glands is acting up again. You didn't state that,leaving that little tid bit out which would make US left to assume and that's strictly a bridge you haunt. Care to address the 3rd then if it's not to difficult? Enough of this nonsense you're dragging us down to your level and winning with experience - your right about one thing gets Irksome educating adults also,Thank You
(https://i.imgur.com/jmcSVnN.jpg)
Correct.
The original one.......plus 2 MORE.
That makes 3.
This is a perfect example of the problem you don't believe exists. Exhibit A. Thank you!!!!
Well, the money is not necessarily causative, but correlates with a lot of other positives. Some of which might go away if you move to a weaker conference.Certainly, there are lots of factors to consider when changing conferences. My point is that right now, there is almost no benefit to switching conferences except for the amount of money coming in from the conference. If you change up the incentives a bit, then the behavior of the various schools may also change. To put it a different way, having an invitational only playoff means it doesn't much matter what conference you are in - you can get invited from any conference. So the conference affiliation is only determined by who gives you the most money. If you get money AND a playoff spot (and theoretically, a percentage of the playoff money) then you have additional incentives to make a conference affiliation.
I.e. I posted upthread about my previous lament that Darrell Hazell was recruiting at a MAC level. In truth, when I started looking at recruiting classes, his teams on paper would DOMINATE the MAC. The worst recruiting program in the B1G over that 4 year stretch and it was FAR better than anything in the MAC.
So you might ask--why does Purdue get its teeth kicked in repeatedly in the B1G instead of dropping down, and then kicking ass and taking names in the MAC?
Well the answer, in addition to all the money of course, is that if Purdue dropped down to the MAC, they'd start recruiting like a MAC team instead of a B1G team. Purdue recruits know they're going to play in big games on national TV, even if they're likely to lose them. MAC recruits, well, don't, unless it's an annual paycheck game to get your teeth kicked in by a B1G team.
That's a more stark example than say a B1G or SEC team moving to the B12 or ACC, of course. But programs move up for aspirational reasons when the opportunities arise, not down to beat up on weaker competition. Because teams often rise or fall to the level of what's around them. If Penn State left the B1G and moved to the ACC or B12 to have a better chance of winning their conference, would they still recruit like Penn State?
Certainly, there are lots of factors to consider when changing conferences. My point is that right now, there is almost no benefit to switching conferences except for the amount of money coming in from the conference. If you change up the incentives a bit, then the behavior of the various schools may also change. To put it a different way, having an invitational only playoff means it doesn't much matter what conference you are in - you can get invited from any conference. So the conference affiliation is only determined by who gives you the most money. If you get money AND a playoff spot (and theoretically, a percentage of the playoff money) then you have additional incentives to make a conference affiliation.
There is no reason to be in the MAC right now other than no one else will take you. But if the MAC was guaranteed a playoff spot, Purdue might take a lot longer look at them.
Certainly, there are lots of factors to consider when changing conferences. My point is that right now, there is almost no benefit to switching conferences except for the amount of money coming in from the conference. If you change up the incentives a bit, then the behavior of the various schools may also change. To put it a different way, having an invitational only playoff means it doesn't much matter what conference you are in - you can get invited from any conference. So the conference affiliation is only determined by who gives you the most money. If you get money AND a playoff spot (and theoretically, a percentage of the playoff money) then you have additional incentives to make a conference affiliation.I think prior to the 12-team playoff, teams were moving UP in conference difficulty in exchange for access. In the 4-team playoff we were already seeing the PAC and the B12 champs as potential to be left out or have a higher bar to clear than the B1G/SEC champs, and a non-champ from those leagues was probably never going to have a chance at the 4-team playoff. I'd argue that this, in addition to the issue of money, may have spurred TX/OU and USC/UCLA to announce their moves when they did. (Admittedly, I don't recall the exact timing of that compared to announcement of the 12-team playoff with conference champs getting automatically included. I could be wrong on the timing here.)
There is no reason to be in the MAC right now other than no one else will take you. But if the MAC was guaranteed a playoff spot, Purdue might take a lot longer look at them.
There is no final CFP poll, just AP and Coaches and whoever. There COULD be a time when the AP final poll doesn't have the playoff winner at Number One. It's possible.Even if we stayed with a 4-team model forever, I strongly doubt this would ever happen.
But if you do that, you also kill CFB as it's just a minor-league version of the NFL.
If you get money AND a playoff spot (and theoretically, a percentage of the playoff money) then you have additional incentives to make a conference affiliation.One more thing, and it's one that I think fans of helmet teams fail to understand.
There is no reason to be in the MAC right now other than no one else will take you. But if the MAC was guaranteed a playoff spot, Purdue might take a lot longer look at them.
Here is what COULD happen, someday, with the 12 team concept. UAB gets in as the 12 seed as the highest ranked G5 conference champ at 11-2. They play say at UGA and score a HUGE upset as the Dawgs have 4 TOs to none etc. Then they upset Texas in the final four round by a point, and then they beat Ohio State miraculously. All highly improbable of course. The AP poll comes out with Alabama as Number 1 and UAB at 5.Problem #1 is that you only have them winning three games:
Problem #1 is that you only have them winning three games:Exactly. It's like asking "but what if a 16-seed won the NCAA Tournament?" After all, if they can knock of a 1 seed (which has happened twice now), they can beat anyone in the field, right?The 12-seed would have to win four games:
- Georgia
- Texas
- Ohio State
- 12 over 5 to get into the final eight
- 12 over 4 to get to the final four
- 12 over 1/8/9 to get to the CG
- 12 over 2/3/6/7/10/11 in the CG
So in addition to the three helmets you already have them taking out, they'd need a fourth big win.
Problem #2 is that the chances of pulling off four consecutive stupendous upsets are vanishingly small.
Problem #3 is that if they did all of that I just can't see anyone, not even @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) or I arguing that they didn't deserve the #1 ranking.
I'm very outspoken in making the argument that upsets happen and the best team doesn't always win so in your example I'd probably still be saying that after UAB's road win at Georgia and maybe even after their upset of Texas but once they pulled off a third and then a fourth consecutive upset the numbers just don't work. It becomes more likely that we are wrong than it is that they beat those odds four consecutive times.
Problem #4 is that it would never happen. The playoff and playoff expansion makes it less likely rather than more likely for a non-helmet to win because UGA/TX/tOSU recruit at the highest level and spend the most on coaching, NIL, facilities, etc. They will suffer upsets but the more chances you give themen the more likely they (collectively) are to eventually win.
Given that for every school and every conference, football is the primary revenue driver by a huge margin and is used to support all of the other sports, then the amount of money associated with that playoff spot would have to equal or exceed the amount of money the B1G is paying to Purdue right now. Because I highly doubt that the Purdue athletic department is running in the black. Every dime that comes in, is spent on the annual athletic budget.Yeah but the downside of conference sharing is that teams like Ohio State share revenue with teams like Purdue. That was exactly the reason Oklahoma and Texas left the Big 12, because they didn't want to share money when they could join a different conference and make up a bigger share. Leaving things the way they are actively encourages the OSU's and Alabamas to join a super conference. It's almost inevitable - we are effectively down to two super conferences by next year now. So like it or not, schools will be facing tough decisions.
But if the above were true, then it would also mean that an Ohio State that makes the playoff, would not only be getting that huge playoff money, but they'd also still be getting their share of the B1G contract money. So they'd be making something like double what Purdue is getting. No school is going to make that move.
As always, the main sticking point is that we're not just talking about football teams here. We're talking about entire athletic departments that support 10-20 other sports, none of which make enough money to prop up the rest.
One more thing, and it's one that I think fans of helmet teams fail to understand.Well, I understand that, but I think it leads to the opposite conclusion. Purdue may have never had legit national championship aspirations, but could realistically play in the Rose Bowl. There was a reward for having a great season. Now, even though they played in the Big Ten championship as recently as this past season, there isn't much reward, because they were never making the playoffs. If you win the Big Ten and make the playoffs, then Purdue has something to play for until they are mathematically eliminated.
You've spent your entire fandom thinking about national championships. That's what you play for.
So you think about a team like Purdue and assume our goal is to make it into a playoff where we challenge for a national title.
But that's not it. Fans of non-helmet teams largely did NOT think about national championships. Honestly I rarely cared about the MNC at all. Going 8-4 or 9-3 was a successful year. Maybe having a good enough year to have a NYD bowl. Maybe beating Notre Dame (and definitely beating the Hoosiers). We had things to play for that were NOT the NC.
Or, at least we used to. Now with a 12-team playoff, the playoff is all that matters. And it only matters to about a dozen teams at the top of the sport who can recruit and have legit NC aspirations. Of which mine is not one, so the sport no longer matters to me.
Exactly. It's like asking "but what if a 16-seed won the NCAA Tournament?" After all, if they can knock of a 1 seed (which has happened twice now), they can beat anyone in the field, right?San Diego State and Florida Atlantic will never play in the Final Four. Laughable to even think of it.
Theoretically, it can happen. Realistically, it's impossible.
So it's not really worth thinking about.
Yeah but the downside of conference sharing is that teams like Ohio State share revenue with teams like Purdue. That was exactly the reason Oklahoma and Texas left the Big 12, because they didn't want to share money when they could join a different conference and make up a bigger share. Leaving things the way they are actively encourages the OSU's and Alabamas to join a super conference. It's almost inevitable - we are effectively down to two super conferences by next year now. So like it or not, schools will be facing tough decisions.
San Diego State and Florida Atlantic will never play in the Final Four. Laughable to even think of it.I'm pretty sure they weren't 16 seeds.
I'm pretty sure they weren't 16 seeds.No, but they were lower than whatever the 12th team would be in a college football playoff.
If we're headed to two "real" super conferences with no Vandys or Purdues or NWs or whoevers, I will probably lose interest.Those conferences might actually have more competitive contests which would draw ratings - IMO
(I suspect betting is at the core of NFL popularity, as well as NBA/MLB/etc.)Fantasy leagues too. If you are in one you end up with a rooting interest in a whole lot of NFL games that you otherwise wouldn't care about.
No, but they were lower than whatever the 12th team would be in a college football playoff.Are you sure?
Are you sure?And I chose the 16-seed thing deliberately.
I guess it depends how you measure things. In CFB there are a lot less teams so as a percentage the 12/~130 is ~9%. In CBB there are ~360 teams so as a percentage the 68/~360 is roughly double at 19%.
This is totally anecdotal but it just "feels" to me like the rich-to-poor gap in CFB is bigger then that gap in CBB.
Are the spreads equivalent?
In any case he ( @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) ) specifically said 16 seed and you beat up a strawman by using 5th seeded SDSU and 9th seeded FAU.
Note that in addition to the fact that neither of them were #16 seeds, neither of them actually won either.
It is easy to forget this because making it to a S16 seems like such a big deal (especially to someone like you and I who are fans of a dysfunctional BB program) but remember that it takes six Tournament wins to win an NC:
- Making the S16 is only 1/3 of the way there.
- Making the E8 is only 1/2 way there.
- Making the F4 (#9 FAU) is only 2/3 of the way.
If the goal is to make the CFP a participation trophy much like the NCAAT, then you should make it probably 24 teams (similar to NCAAT as far as percentage of total teams), auto-bid every conference champ, and let in a bunch of P4 teams who finish at 8-4. None of them will win, mind you, but at least "making the playoff" then becomes something of value. Much like the NCAAT, it's still a small cadre of teams that actually have a chance to win, but everyone else can at least say they got to the dance.Maybe, but isn't that exactly what you were saying used to be the case and is now lost under the current rules? Wouldn't having more teams having more to play for liven up pretty much every league and fan base? That good seasons are rewarded substantially and the media pays attention to everyone, not just the half dozen teams with a shot at the playoff?
It is easy to forget this because making it to a S16 seems like such a big deal (especially to someone like you and I who are fans of a dysfunctional BB program) but remember that it takes six Tournament wins to win an NC:Yes! This is exactly my point. I can barely remember who wins the basketball championship year after year. It almost doesn't matter, because college basketball has lots of levels of success. Programs can hang banners for Sweet Sixteens and Final Fours, despite not winning a championship. That, coupled with the fact that every team knows exactly how they can win a championship before the first whistle, makes college basketball have the best postseason in sports by a pretty fair margin.
- Making the S16 is only 1/3 of the way there.
- Making the E8 is only 1/2 way there.
- Making the F4 (#9 FAU) is only 2/3 of the way.
Maybe, but isn't that exactly what you were saying used to be the case and is now lost under the current rules? Wouldn't having more teams having more to play for liven up pretty much every league and fan base? That good seasons are rewarded substantially and the media pays attention to everyone, not just the half dozen teams with a shot at the playoff?Maybe. But we're not there.
They're playing for the prestige of making the dance. The CFP just replaces the bowls.Well, yes. I'm not one that every sport has to resemble another, but there is a reason pretty much every sport everywhere has a playoff like format to determine a champion. It's fair, and it's fun. The bowl system started more or less as an exhibition and sort of sloppily evolved into the college football postseason. It was fun but always kind of stupid.
I am of the opinion that nearly everyone here is literate and pretty smart, else we would go elsewhere. I think some folks here are very smart, maybe most folks, probably smarter than I am (which isn't a high bar). If I thought folks here were on the intellectual level of "illiterate goat herders" (who might be smart also, just ignorant), I'd move elsewhere to a site more in keeping with what I perceived as my own massive intellect.You took that literally.
This thread has devolved to talking about a B1G team joining the MAC and UAB beating 3 helmet teams having elite seasons.Four. The three was corrected.
(https://i.imgur.com/VdToF5G.jpg)
Four. The three was corrected.Exactly. :73:
This thread has devolved to talking about a B1G team joining the MAC and UAB beating 3 helmet teams having elite seasons.Hey, it's an improvement on the previous conversation on how horrible it would be if we don't Maximize Profit for the Shareholders.
Yes! This is exactly my point. I can barely remember who wins the basketball championship year after year. It almost doesn't matter, because college basketball has lots of levels of success. Programs can hang banners for Sweet Sixteens and Final Fours, despite not winning a championship. That, coupled with the fact that every team knows exactly how they can win a championship before the first whistle, makes college basketball have the best postseason in sports by a pretty fair margin.Here is the thing. I have repeatedly used as my examples of the type of fan that I think we are pushing away three people:
I'm not saying that college football needs to copy the tourney. But they should take note that obsessing about winning a championship makes no sense - the goal is get more involvement from more fans for more teams, and the only way to do that is to give everyone something to play for. So, clear paths to the postseason for every team make a heck of a lot more sense than restricting access to the same teams every year.
Why take the enormous risk of losing guys like the three listed above when the ultimate payoff is no improvement at all?Well, I would definitely disagree on their being no improvement. We already killed the big games by making them "data points" instead of games where the results matter. Games should matter! The results should matter. Last year, Michigan and Purdue played in the Big Ten championship. It was a meaningless game, because Michigan still would have enough "data points" to make the playoffs and Purdue had no path even if they won the conference. Meaningless games are what is making the sport bland, and there are far, far too many of them.
Well, I would definitely disagree on their being no improvement. We already killed the big games by making them "data points" instead of games where the results matter. Games should matter! The results should matter. Last year, Michigan and Purdue played in the Big Ten championship. It was a meaningless game, because Michigan still would have enough "data points" to make the playoffs and Purdue had no path even if they won the conference. Meaningless games are what is making the sport bland, and there are far, far too many of them.The argument that @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) and I (and others) have been making since we've been discussing this is that expanding the playoff necessarily diminishes the importance of the individual games before the playoff starts. Your example of the B1GCG last year being meaningless (the B12CG was as well) is a good one. Last year's final CFP rankings:
I'll use tOSU's schedule this year as an example. Assume that Ohio State loses in South Bend next Saturday then turns around three weeks later and loses in West Lafayette. They'd be 4-2 and unlikely to be able to make the CFP because no 2-loss team has yet made it. In the BCS era that team would have been effectively eliminated because only one 2-loss team ever made the BCSNCG. In the pre-BCS era they'd have been done. Ie, in the CFP, BCS, and pre-BCS eras Ohio State's games against Notre Dame and Purdue matter a lot. However, in a larger CFP with auto-bids the 4-2 Buckeyes would still completely control their own destiny. By winning out they would win the B1G-E and a win in the B1GCG would make them a league Champion and get them an auto-bid. The OOC and crossover loss don't matter.Yeah, but if they go 4-2 and are out of the playoffs, then their last six or seven games also don't matter. The good thing about auto-bids is that teams have a known way to get in the playoffs that is certain. We can say what the stakes of a particular game are, which is far different than now, where everyone just sort of guesses. Does this game matter? Only the committee truly knows, and they will tell you after the season is over. Not exactly a barrel of excitement.
Yeah, but if they go 4-2 and are out of the playoffs, then their last six or seven games also don't matter. The good thing about auto-bids is that teams have a known way to get in the playoffs that is certain. We can say what the stakes of a particular game are, which is far different than now, where everyone just sort of guesses. Does this game matter? Only the committee truly knows, and they will tell you after the season is over. Not exactly a barrel of excitement.Only they did. In the old days when Ohio State lost a couple early games that just recalibrated things and the goals became the same for us as @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) 's goals for Purdue, see above. A 4-2 tOSU in the old days could potentially still:
Only they did. In the old days when Ohio State lost a couple early games that just recalibrated things and the goals became the same for us as @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) 's goals for Purdue, see above. A 4-2 tOSU in the old days could potentially still:Right. And I don't know how this topic (which IMHO had more to do with the transfer portal and NIL) keeps coming back to the playoff.
- Beat rivals
- Win the Big Ten
- Go to the Rose Bowl
- Win the Rose Bowl
- Finish in the top-10 (maybe top-5).
It seems like college football has to solve for two things:Just to clarify, #2 INCLUDES a lot of helmets currently and probably would even with a 12 (or more) team playoff. Consider a 4-2 Ohio State that lost two games in the State of Indiana (South Bend and West Lafayette):
- How to best crown a champion.
- How to keep the game interesting for the fans of the 80% of schools that are out of the NC picture.
(https://j.gifs.com/vV5p5q.gif)I LOVE this because it is a perfect illustration of what has been provided for the G5's and the Purdue's of the sport. You have a path, see the road here? Oh, by the way the road is actually a brick wall, meep meep.
Only they did. In the old days when Ohio State lost a couple early games that just recalibrated things and the goals became the same for us as @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) 's goals for Purdue, see above. A 4-2 tOSU in the old days could potentially still:Yeah but these aren't the old days. They are gone, dead and buried. These are these days, where I agree everything is focused on the playoff and the national championship, to the detriment of many teams. My point is that there are ways to include many more teams and make many more games meaningful, which ultimately improves the sport and makes for better television, to boot. Playoffs with autobids make sense. Super leagues with promotion/relegation makes sense. Sitting and waiting and hoping ... probably leads to a super league and everyone else just does their own thing.
- Beat rivals
- Win the Big Ten
- Go to the Rose Bowl
- Win the Rose Bowl
- Finish in the top-10 (maybe top-5).
And then what happens? Winning the B1G and going to the Rose Bowl was a destination. A culmination of a beautiful season, win or lose. The playoff, for a team like Purdue? Well that's just a chance to enter the meat grinder and be exposed for not having the talent that the helmets have in round 1. Which we knew going into the season.Sorry, but saying making the playoff isn't exciting compared to the Rose Bowl reminds me of those who say they would rather make the NIT for the chance to play in Madison Square Garden.
So Purdue's path (after winning the B1G-W) is:I challenge anyone on earth to say they would rather play in the Who Cares Bowl over being in the playoffs. Under this system, they have a shot to win an actual playoff game. To even suggest that wouldn't be exciting for Purdue fans is a Trumpian level of denial.
- Beat Michigan in Indianapolis.
- Beat TCU in Ft. Worth.
- Beat Clemson in a Bowl probably MUCH closer to SC than IN.
- Beat Utah, USC, or tOSU at a neutral site.
- Beat Georgia, Tulane (yeah right), Michigan (again), KSU, Tennessee, or Alabama in a neutral site NC Game
Yeah but these aren't the old days. They are gone, dead and buried. These are these days, where I agree everything is focused on the playoff and the national championship, to the detriment of many teams. My point is that there are ways to include many more teams and make many more games meaningful, which ultimately improves the sport and makes for better television, to boot. Playoffs with autobids make sense. Super leagues with promotion/relegation makes sense. Sitting and waiting and hoping ... probably leads to a super league and everyone else just does their own thing.Essentially that's what we're getting. College football will be relevant to about 20 schools nationwide, and the rest of us, well, probably won't give a shit any more. Because if you're not playing to win it all, why are you playing at all?
Sorry, but saying making the playoff isn't exciting compared to the Rose Bowl reminds me of those who say they would rather make the NIT for the chance to play in Madison Square Garden.Completely different thing. The NIT was always second fiddle to the NCAAT. The Rose Bowl was second fiddle to nothing. It wasn't called "the granddaddy of them all" for nothing.
Maybe an NCAAT model is what you think is amazing. But nobody outside CBB diehards care about the NCAAT (or college basketball) except for bracket pools.Let's see, a postseason which draws in people from all walks of life who don't care about the sport and causes work productivity to come to a standstill is something we shouldn't want? Did they promote you to manager or something?
Again, this made the world better for 20 or so schools. And the other 110, well, might as well be Tiddlywinks.I absolutely agree, though where I disagree is that this is somehow something that can't be changed or influenced. When you create an invitational only 4 team playoff, it's going to reward the very tip top of the sport. Rewarding the rest of the teams is where the schools should be trying to throw their weight around, instead of chasing every dollar.
I challenge anyone on earth to say they would rather play in the Who Cares Bowl over being in the playoffs. Under this system, they have a shot to win an actual playoff game. To even suggest that wouldn't be exciting for Purdue fans is a Trumpian level of denial.Again, it's looking at things through a prism of "well, we have a 12-team playoff, so get on board."
I challenge anyone on earth to say they would rather play in the Who Cares Bowl over being in the playoffs. Under this system, they have a shot to win an actual playoff game. NO THEY DON'T, STOP PERPETUATING THE LIE !!! To even suggest that wouldn't be exciting for Purdue fans is a Trumpian level of denial.16 teams? 32? Let's do 64. Oh, play-in games, let's go to 68. Half of everyone gets a "chance" to win the NC. Go Zips!!!
What are we saying here? Everyone only cares about the playoffs. Well, add more teams to the thing everyone cares about. That's a simple win with the only downside being, apparently, it doesn't damage the helmet teams enough. The helmet teams currently dominate the landscape, so that's not a particularly convincing argument.
I think it also leads to more of what we want, which is big games against big teams. Yes, Bammer, Georgia, OSU, Michigan and whomever will make the playoffs more and win more, which leads to more games against each other. Which is also what we want.
Let's see, a postseason which draws in people from all walks of life who don't care about the sport and causes work productivity to come to a standstill is something we shouldn't want? Did they promote you to manager or something?Yeah. Weren't you just castigating OAM for being in thrall to the networks because he wants the most helmets in the CFP?
Well, I would definitely disagree on their being no improvement. We already killed the big games by making them "data points" instead of games where the results matter. Games should matter! The results should matter. Last year, Michigan and Purdue played in the Big Ten championship. It was a meaningless game, because Michigan still would have enough "data points" to make the playoffs and Purdue had no path even if they won the conference. Meaningless games are what is making the sport bland, and there are far, far too many of them.Data points?
Last year's final CFP rankings:I mean look at it. It's embarrassing. 0-0-1-1-2-2-2 losses. A shaved ape could do that. Ohh, intrigue, 3-loss Utah and KSU get bonus points for winning their conference. Then, it's back to 2-2-2.
- 13-0 UGA, SEC Champ
- 13-0 M, B1G Champ
- 12-1 TCU, lost last game - B12CG to #9 KSU
- 11-1 tOSU, lost last game - The Game to #2 M
- 10-2 Bama
- 10-2 Tn
- 11-2 Clemson, ACC Champ
- 10-3 Utah, Pac Champ
- 10-3 KSU, B12 Champ
- 11-2 USC, lost last game - Pac CG to #8 Utah
- 10-2 PSU
- 10-2 Washington
P5 Champs in bold.
This is such a perfect example of several things: not just Wyle E. Purdue smacking his face into an elite program, given a playoff berth...but also, he's only trying it out despite having painted it himself because the roadrunner (ie- helmet team) ran right through it....right into the playoff. Even as a 2 or 3-loss lower seed, just headed right into the playoff with confidence and talent.
(https://j.gifs.com/vV5p5q.gif)
I haven't watched a Purdue sporting event since March 2022
Under this system, they have a shot to win an actual playoff game. NO THEY DON'T, STOP PERPETUATING THE LIE !!!Under this scenario, they play TCU in the first round. Are you saying Purdue has no actual chance to win a game against TCU? Honestly, I don't understand what you are thinking on that. I get saying don't think Purdue is going to win four games and a championship. But a first round game against a team without all those extra advantages? No doubt at all that they can compete.
Data points?Under the current system, there is absolutely no way to play your way into the playoff with certainty. This isn't debatable. It is a fact. A team can win all their games 10,000-0 and this does not guarantee their spot in the playoff.
WTF are you talking about? You're in 1999, bud.
UM's season, taken as a whole, was one of the 4 best. How is that a "data point?"
FTR, this was the game I referenced.I'm pretty sure you said you were a young kid at the time. Damn kid, I was in college, watched that game from my apartment.
https://youtu.be/JdIaH_kNXuc?si=XqAVXXNXBTT9D4Qm
Under the current system, there is absolutely no way to play your way into the playoff with certainty. This isn't debatable. It is a fact.First, you say this like it is a bad thing. I would argue that the uncertainty is part of what has driven CFB fandom. You can't just win every game 10-9 because that *MIGHT* not be good enough.
A team can win all their games 10,000-0 and this does not guarantee their spot in the playoff.This is just plain silly. It is "true" in a theoretical, legalistic sense but it is obviously false realistically because clearly there aren't going to be FOUR other teams who won all of their games 10,001-0.
You don't know until all the games are done whether they mattered or didn't.That is kinda the point. Ohio State's game against Notre Dame *MIGHT* matter in terms of CFP access or it *MIGHT* not. If Ohio State ends up either:
The issue for the non-helmet fans is a much bigger problem. You ( @MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1572) ) keep telling them that they should love this, they have a guaranteed path! You haven't convinced them. The point I've made repeatedly is that @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) , @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) , and @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) 's TxTech fan friend aren't just run-of-the-mill fans. These guys were SUPERFANS of non-helmet teams and we are clearly pushing them away. That is a problem.
I'm pretty sure you said you were a young kid at the time. Damn kid, I was in college, watched that game from my apartment.I was in middle school
Sooner Magic
I have to ask about 1985 (if it was something other than a bowl invite accepted too soon) - why didn't 1 and 2 play each other, as both were independents (1 PSU, 2 Miami)? Did every bowl of consequence have a conference tie-in? As it stood, they both lost and OU got their ring.
I was in middle schoolDamn kid.
You keep wanting guarantees but my argument here is that the lack of guarantees is part of what made the CFB Regular season so intense and so compelling. There was always a chance in any given week that Ohio State could lose an NC on a bad afternoon in Bloomington or at home against MSU (1998).Yes, the regular season was compelling and fun. This is a fact. It also was somewhat meaningless. Notre Dame didn't win a national championship in 1993 despite beating champ Florida State. Penn State didn't win a national championship despite going undefeated in 1994. The reason the BCS was created and then the playoffs was because the bowl system was a completely idiotic way to crown a national champion. All of these things are going to have tradeoffs, the issue is what we are trading off.
The issue for the non-helmet fans is a much bigger problem. You ( @MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1572) ) keep telling them that they should love this, they have a guaranteed path! You haven't convinced them.
Damn kid.About to turn 40, so I'll take it
We will have to agree to disagree about that. Middle aged men wishing things were how they used to be is not the best test to what the fans want. I'd say nearly every fan everywhere would want an easier path to the playoff as opposed to a harder one for their particular team. In general, my theory is that:
- Fans lose interest when there is no realistic chance for their team to participate
- Fans lose interest when the results of games have little meaning
So Agenda 1 and 2 should be to make sure the games have meaning and more teams have a realistic chance to participate. Sure, big upsets were more compelling if they knocked a team out of the race, but these upsets are still compelling because upsets are naturally compelling. If it doesn't lead to actual chances for other teams, then it doesn't matter anyway.
The previous college football postseason was a poor method for crowning a champion, I'll grant you that.Agree with all of this.
But it was a great postseason for all but those top 15 programs in the country who cared about being the champion.
Purdue fans wanted to make a bowl. ANY bowl. Even that stupid one in Detroit. If you make a bowl, you're going to have a destination for your season. Typically, you'll be matched up against a team of relatively equal strength, so more often than not you're going to have an exciting game and maybe come out with a win.
With 35-40 bowls, that means there were 35-40 teams finishing the postseason with a win and a smile.
With the playoff, there is only ONE goal. To be the champion. And only ONE team is going to win it. And it will NEVER, EVER, EVER, be my team.
With an 18-team conference, CCG that becomes "top two teams" instead of division winners, and the transfer portal / NIL world, I'd argue that a 12-team playoff does NOT give my team a realistic chance at participation. So Agenda 1 is dead. Maybe if all the stars align, once every 20 years? And then on that OFF chance that we make it once a generation, it's just a matter of how long we can survive until getting curb-stomped by a team whose third-string redshirts are more talented than our starters. Because the road to the final is such an arduous gauntlet that a team that isn't full of STARZ will have zero shot.
So you want our games to have meaning? What meaning is there in having to have a generationally successful team to even sniff the postseason, while knowing that getting to the playoff doesn't get you any realistic chance of winning the thing?
Bowl games were maybe meaningless. But they were fun. For a team like Purdue, the CFP doesn't sound like fun at all.
Yes, the regular season was compelling and fun. This is a fact. It also was somewhat meaningless.It was compelling and fun because you didn't KNOW at the time which losses would be fatal to NC aspirations and which would be survivable.
Notre Dame didn't win a national championship in 1993 despite beating champ Florida State.That FSU@ND game was the first time ESPN went on the road in what became their College Gameday program. You are correct, of course, that FSU ended up winning the NC despite losing in South Bend but there are multiple things that I think you are overlooking here:
The reason the BCS was created and then the playoffs was because the bowl system was a completely idiotic way to crown a national champion.You can call it idiotic all you want but the REASON that CFB had the best regular season in sports was BECAUSE of the Polls and Bowls system of crowning a NC.
All of these things are going to have tradeoffs, the issue is what we are trading off.Yep. With a 12-team playoff there will be 11 hyper-intense games because they are single-elimination and thus very high stakes. All the games before that are just about getting there and all the power-league teams are going to realistically know that they are in at 10-2 or better so they effectively have two mulligans. The intensity of regular season games is gone. So you've traded hundreds of intense games for 11.
On that end, the lack of certainty is what made it all feel unfair and somewhat rigged. That it didn't really matter what the results of games were, as opposed to the "eye test," which further favored the teams that already had all the advantages.This statement is, at best, disingenuous. Game results DID matter. Sure, some results got overridden. That HAS to happen because you are going to end up with multiple 1-loss teams. I remember seeing a ND shirt after the 1989 season that had a convoluted list of results of ND over ___ over ___ over ____ . . . over Miami, thus Notre Dame should be NC.
We will have to agree to disagree about that. Middle aged men wishing things were how they used to be is not the best test to what the fans want. I'd say nearly every fan everywhere would want an easier path to the playoff as opposed to a harder one for their particular team. In general, my theory is that:Funny you should mention this because it is EXACTLY the reason that non-helmet superfans are walking away. They don't have games that matter anymore. They don't have obtainable goals that anyone cares about anymore.
- Fans lose interest when there is no realistic chance for their team to participate
- Fans lose interest when the results of games have little meaning
Agree with all of this.My examples are two with YOUR damn team:
I've said before, college football has always been super top heavy. The only counter balance is that one team might catch every break in a year, like a 5th down, while the best team in the country might be unfocused on a random rainy October Saturday in Columbia, Missouri. Giving teams more chances to absorb losses and redeem themselves certainly gives us a truer champion. Hell, I'd have a hard time arguing the best team ever DIDN'T win the NC in the CFP era. But is that worth ruining the regular season over? I don't think so. I never particularly cared who won the NC. I just loved the fun of it. Even when a team sneaks up into the top now, it's not all that meaningful, because they will get got in the CCG, or the semi, or the championship game. I think MSU got up to #2 after they beat Michigan in 2021 to get to like 8-0? I never had any thought they were winning a national championship. And when Purdue upset them the next week, it wasn't all that crushing, because we needed to win 3 more fluke games to win a title anyway. In 2003, that would have been a MASSIVE blow. A game against OSU is all that would have stood between MSU and a championship game.
That was similar to BC upsetting Notre Dame in 1993. Except that actually mattered
My examples are two with YOUR damn team:Just win Baby
You will NEVER convince me that MSU's teams in 1998 and 2015 were better than Ohio State's teams those years. Worse, Ohio State was good enough in both of those years that but for the losses to MSU, they might well have won the NC*.
Just win BabyIf the power conferences had joined together then, and negotiated tv deals together, we might have had something
I'd like to go back to like'95 alignment of Conferences with one caveat . Revenue sharing pertaining to Networx and Gov't grants for all conf. members. The last 10-12 yrs are just BS and will be the undoing of what we came to enjoy in the sport IMHO. Adding Rutgers/Maryland where just a bad fit and too much for the divisions also. If I ever see Big Jim I'll kick his cajones in if he has any
For a team like Purdue, the CFP doesn't sound like fun at all.Listen, I know you believe this. Your inner Purdue fan has been through the ringer and now resembles this:
This statement is, at best, disingenuous. Game results DID matter.
Alright Sam, you've convinced me. The Playoff is great, and it's going to inspire hordes of future little Purdue fans because of how exciting it will be.You're literally telling him your own preference for your own program and he's telling you you're wrong.
I look forward to Purdue's first appearance in the College Football Playoff. God willing, I'll be able to dress my wee little great-grandson up for it and light the Boilermaker fires within his soul.
No. It is fact. In baseball, a team has a record. First place wins their division and makes the playoffs. The next group makes the wildcard. They don't wait until the season ends and then vote on who should go to the playoffs. You know, with certainty, the benefits of a particular win or loss.Just stop, you are making yourself look silly.
The 2016 Big Ten Championship featured two great teams in Penn State and Wisconsin. Penn State wanted to make the playoffs because they already beat OSU. Wisconsin had the same record as Penn State. The game didn't end up mattering either way, though you didn't really know that at the time. It was just a guess. Maybe you were rooting for something big. Maybe you weren't. They tell you after it's over. Maybe you find that fun, but I certainly don't. I think that is just neutering big games and then saying it's for the greater good.
You're wrong for not wanting to get throttled by a juggernaut in your final game of the season. Just getting to the playoff is going to warm your heart for decades. Ignore the embarrassing final score. You got in! Celebrate!
Bowl games were maybe meaningless. But they were fun. For a team like Purdue, the CFP doesn't sound like fun at all.
You're wrong for not wanting to get throttled by a juggernaut in your final game of the season. Just getting to the playoff is going to warm your heart for decades. Ignore the embarrassing final score. You got in! Celebrate!It's ok. I'm just a middle-aged man pining for the way things used to be.
Correct your opinion. Duh!!
Just stop, you are making yourself look silly.Yes it does! I mean, when you are wrong you're wrong, and here you are 100%, without a shadow of a doubt, living in a dreamland wrong.
In 2016 Penn State lost to a mediocre Pitt team and got annihilated by a Michigan team that Ohio State beat.
Lack of certainty is not the same thing as game results not mattering.
Penn State's win over Ohio State mattered but so did Ohio State's 11 wins, Penn State's other 10 wins, AND Penn State's two bad losses.
The fact that you thought the committee got the wrong answer does not mean that game results did not matter, it means that they ALL mattered not just divisional games.
It's ok. I'm just a middle-aged man pining for the way things used to be.If the Alamo Bowl can make you pine for the good ole days, just think what a playoff appearance would do to the pimply teenaged Purdue fans now.
It's those future Purdue fans who will be excited to make the playoff. For, you know, the school who hasn't had a 2-loss regular season since 1979, and hasn't had a 1-loss regular season since 1958.
And who is now in an 18-team conference where starting in 2024 there won't be divisions and they will pick the top two conference teams for the CCG.
I'm sure that CFP-worthy record is JUST AROUND THE CORNER.
You're wrong for not wanting to get throttled by a juggernaut in your final game of the season. Just getting to the playoff is going to warm your heart for decades. Ignore the embarrassing final score. You got in! Celebrate!We can all agree that Florida should have folded their program after getting throttled by Nebraska. Surely Nebraska reigns supreme to this day and Florida never accomplished another thing of note in football again.
Correct your opinion. Duh!!
If the Alamo Bowl can make you pine for the good ole days, just think what a playoff appearance would do to the pimply teenaged Purdue fans now.Sam, what's your over/under on the year Purdue makes their first playoff appearance?
Sam, what's your over/under on the year Purdue makes their first playoff appearance?2031, when they win the MAC and go to the Tournament of Champions and face Big South winner Arkansas State on Google Pass
2031, when they win the MAC and go to the Tournament of Champions and face Big South winner Arkansas State on Google PassNo, I honestly meant that as a serious question.
No, I honestly meant that as a serious question.I am being serious. You think the networks are going to keep giving 50 million dollars to every school in the Big Ten? I don't. The next go around of conference shenanigans will probably be to break up the ACC, followed by cutting off the chaff from the SEC and Big Ten. Honestly, I'm not sure who gets the chopping block and whether Purdue would be considered or not, but it's coming.
Assumptions: 18-team B1G (no further expansion). No divisions and top two teams make CCG. 9 team conference schedule (since it hasn't been announced to be 10). 12-team playoff with *5* (not 6) auto-bids of the top conference champs since there's only a P4 now, and thus 7 at-large bids.
Knowing the history of CFB, what do you realistically think is the o/u on the first year Purdue makes the playoff?
Yes it does! I mean, when you are wrong you're wrong, and here you are 100%, without a shadow of a doubt, living in a dreamland wrong.You are literally changing your argument midway through your post.
It doesn't matter that you can say, in retrospect, what games matter and what didn't. That doesn't tell you, at the time they are played, when they are played, how they will matter and why. The stakes are uncertain. If you like that, more power to you, though there is a reason pretty much all sports that can have moved away from that system. When the games are played, you don't know if they matter, whether they will matter, and how they will matter. That's the whole problem! The 2016 Big Ten Championship was maybe for something and maybe not for something. While you were watching, you didn't know. It was NOT, win and you advance, which is exciting. It was "win and hope" which is very much more of a wet fart.
You claim to be arguing for games that matter but then your explanation isn't whether or not or how many games matter but rather whether or not the stakes were 100% known in advance.It is the same thing. As I have said from the start, the invitational only playoff means that every game is of uncertain value, and you only know how it matters at the end of the season, when they tell you. This is something you have agreed with and in fact said is a positive. Fair enough. But it is in no way changing the fact that in an invitational only playoff, games are of uncertain value until they tell you at the end of the season what they meant. I don't really see what we are even arguing about there.
But that is not the same thing.
You completely ignored my take down of your 2016 argument. Your argument was that the PSU over tOSU game didn't matter ignored the fact that the system you advocate would make Penn State's BAD losses to Pitt (bad because they sucked) and Michigan (bad because it was a blowout) meaningless. In your own chosen example you are arguing for one meaningful game (PSU>tOSU) instead of the other 23 games that tOSU and PSU played.I did not ignore it at all. I'm simply stating the facts. The 2016 Big Ten championship game, which was to crown the champion of the Big Ten, was clearly of uncertain quality when it came to the playoffs. It was not clear, at the time the game was being played, what it meant for the playoffs. Therefore, it wasn't clear what stakes the game had. You didn't disagree with that, but instead tried to justify the committee's decisions. I (obviously) love the committee's decision because they voted for my team. But it doesn't change the fact that the game, at the time, was more of a data point than a meaningful game.
I'm being very charitable to say that for you to claim that you are arguing for games that matter is disingenuous.Well, again, we are talking about tradeoffs. Playoffs are here. They are not going away. They will expand. These are assumptions I am making that I think are very grounded in fact. I am not arguing what is better between the bowl system and BCS and playoffs because I think it is completely irrelevant. The bowl system is over. The past is dead and buried. The only question is what system we are going to use in the future. My concern the have not teams are going to be even more dead and buried because college football people are just giving everything away to television executives with little concern as to the overall health of the sport. My contention is these invitational only playoffs are designed to get the big money, big market teams the most exposure, which will naturally lead to the 30 team super conference NFL Lite.
You're completely ignoring what the helmet programs have done to reap their rewards. They won. A lot. For decades. They invested time and money to build immense stadiums and fuel the motivations to fill them.(https://media4.giphy.com/media/nTfdeBvfgzV26zjoFP/200w.gif?cid=6c09b9528dsb5kktrmb161bgh7pxg461rpzgrdgj97l806hw&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)
They're not in privileged positions "just because."
Stop acting like it.
I am being serious. You think the networks are going to keep giving 50 million dollars to every school in the Big Ten? I don't. The next go around of conference shenanigans will probably be to break up the ACC, followed by cutting off the chaff from the SEC and Big Ten. Honestly, I'm not sure who gets the chopping block and whether Purdue would be considered or not, but it's coming.This thread has taken a weird turn. I remember how it started:
We're making a bunch of changes to the sport that seems to be only of benefit to helmet and helmet-adjacent teams and it's driving away superfans of the other teams. This can't be healthy for the sport."This is what is coming:
We'll create a playoff that primarily benefits the helmet and helmet-adjacent teams leading to the death of the bowl system that those fans liked. And then we'll throw them out of their traditional conferences because they're not good enough to move the needle for ratings for the helmet and helmet-adjacent teams and they're diluting the money. And we'll just tell them it's awesome and they'll believe us, because what are they gonna do? Not watch?! Go do something else on Saturdays? No! That'll never happen! It's gonna be great for the health of the sport!"I'm trying to suggest things that could actually happen that move the needle the other way. The response has generally been 2500 word point by point dissertations on why Gameday was better before Lee Corso had a stroke and that they need to bring that guy back.
Clearly I'm not articulating well.I guess I missed those suggestions.
<snip>
I'm trying to suggest things that could actually happen that move the needle the other way.
I guess I missed those suggestions.Well, like I said before, getting back to a system that makes people feel good even if they don't win a championship seems optimal. We already see with the CBB that this is a real thing. I wouldn't advocate for a 64 team playoff, but one with home field advantage and byes makes sense. Purdue going to Georgia in the first round isn't optimal. Hosting TCU in the first round? Hey, that's something.
All I've heard is a defense of the playoff as it is constructed. And perhaps an effort to expand it. I don't know how that moves the needle to make the 80+% of the sport that has no chance at a national championship feel better about being part of a sport that seems now to ONLY be about crowning a champion.