We've all had opinions on the NCAA and its purpose. I think this letter says a lot and sends a very clear message.the NCAA has 10 years left max when it comes to P4 big-time football.
The NCAA has to go.
(https://i.imgur.com/wsOKFBx.png)
A breakaway might happen. If it does, it'll only be football.agreed. it'll only be football because: football is king and generates 99.9% of all the revenue in college sports.
The NCAA will still be around to govern the other 93.87% of collegiate athletic interactions.
So... yeah.
yes, but we can hope the new governing body is more competentthe new governing body will basically be the bitch boy of the schools, the way that Roger Goodell is the bitch boy of the NFL owners.
yes, but we can hope the new governing body is more competent
the new governing body will basically be the bitch boy of the schools, the way that Roger Goodell is the bitch boy of the NFL owners.On the other hand, being a "bitch boy" doesn't really scream out "competence" now does it?
Honestly, the NCAA's impotence is making it hard for me to enjoy the sport.I'm legitimately curious about what, specifically, is bothering you this much about the NCAA's governance?
Honestly, the NCAA's impotence is making it hard for me to enjoy the sport.
I'm legitimately curious about what, specifically, is bothering you this much about the NCAA's governance?It's the lack thereof.
It's the lack thereof.It's completely unavoidable. They can't really enforce it because the rule makes no sense in the first place. Imagine trying to hire someone but not being able to tell them what they will be paid. It's nonsense.
Schools aren't supposed to be allowed to use NIL to recruit, but some are doing it, and nothing is being done about it.
It's the lack thereof.State laws supersede the NCAA's governance capability in all areas. This is not a problem the NCAA can solve.
Schools aren't supposed to be allowed to use NIL to recruit, but some are doing it, and nothing is being done about it.
It's completely unavoidable. They can't really enforce it because the rule makes no sense in the first place. Imagine trying to hire someone but not being able to tell them what they will be paid. It's nonsense.
I'm legitimately curious about what, specifically, is bothering you this much about the NCAA's governance?In roughly the past decade we've watched Auburn and Michigan openly flaunt NCAA rules in such a way that literally everyone knew they had cheated and yet they won NC's.
Apparently, Tampering is now legalAthletes talking to schools through back channels is nothing new. The only new thing is that there's now legitimate over-the-table money that can back it up. And that's because the STATES have made laws to allow it.
Businesses and collectives have to be free to compete, I'd think, and that requires putting your cards on the table and telling a kid what you'll pay, right?Agree with all of this.
I agree with the later parts of Tennessee's letter.....it's ridiculous for the NCAA to "allow" NIL and think it will stay separate from recruiting. I don't see how it possibly could. If the point of NIL is for kids to be compensated for their...well, NIL, then that kid has a right to know exactly what the compensation will be. I don't see any way to avoid that. And once they know, it absolutely factors into the recruiting process because the majority of the time kids will be looking to maximize their earning.
In roughly the past decade we've watched Auburn and Michigan openly flaunt NCAA rules in such a way that literally everyone knew they had cheated and yet they won NC's.
At this point why is anyone following any of their rules? If you don't have the power to enforce your rules in a meaningful way then why have rules at all which is the basic sentiment that led to the NIL which is (IMHO) another disaster.
In roughly the past decade we've watched Auburn and Michigan openly flaunt NCAA rules in such a way that literally everyone knew they had cheated and yet they won NC's.
At this point why is anyone following any of their rules? If you don't have the power to enforce your rules in a meaningful way then why have rules at all which is the basic sentiment that led to the NIL which is (IMHO) another disaster.
https://www.outkick.com/tennessee-lawsuit-ncaa-nil-investigation-football/
State of TN / Commonwealth of VA vs. NCAA
I don't have the feeling that the NCAA has treated Michigan in a fair and unbiased manner. And I haven't seen Michigan develop the institutional backbone to call the NCAA on its shit. All the way from Stretchgate under Rich Rod to the recent cave by Michigan's BOR in seeking a TRO on Harbaugh's suspension are examples. For many regents athletics is a sideshow compared to more important stuff like DEI and research. But you're entitled to your bucknut opinion.It is hilarious that you are trying to imply that I am biased in a post in which you are also claiming that your school's troubles with the NCAA over decades and multiple coaches are the result of bias against your school.
https://www.outkick.com/tennessee-lawsuit-ncaa-nil-investigation-football/
State of TN / Commonwealth of VA vs. NCAA
I don't have the feeling that the NCAA has treated Michigan in a fair and unbiased manner. And I haven't seen Michigan develop the institutional backbone to call the NCAA on its shit. All the way from Stretchgate under Rich Rod to the recent cave by Michigan's BOR in seeking a TRO on Harbaugh's suspension are examples. For many regents athletics is a sideshow compared to more important stuff like DEI and research. But you're entitled to your bucknut opinion.
My issue with this...
The amateurism ideal is that it's not "pay for play". People complained (rightly) that in other areas of amateurism, where it is NOT pay for play, we still allow athletes to make money off of their fame. I.e. if Dr Pepper wants to pay DJ for Fansville ads, or Nissan wants to pay Caleb Williams for Heisman House ads, they should be able to monetize their fame w/o jeopardizing their amateur status. Because that's not pay-for-play.
But what these collectives are doing? 100% pay-for-play. It's not monetizing their NIL via endorsements. It's "come to school X and you'll make Y per year". And because it's an arms-length transaction from the school, it can't be meaningfully stopped or policed.
Now, you can make an argument the athletes SHOULD be allowed to be paid for play. But if you maintain that they're amateurs, this collective crap is just a loophole to get to pay-for-play and is a way to get it without making the argument.
I suspect Michigan--like most everyone else at the moment--is keeping a close eye on how this TN/VA stuff plays out. If we get legal precedent handcuffing the NCAA, it may be that a lot of other schools will adopt more "institutional backbone" and begin telling the NCAA is STFU.If Programs are openly flaunting long standing rules/violations and nothings done then the sport is dead.The NCAA more than likely would penalize a blue blood than any league would their own because of revenue - IMO
Yup. Texas will clearly benefit from NIL. The sport will not.Agree 100%. For me it is three factors:
It's been sliding toward something I am far less interested in, for years. The entire sport is less fun with its current trajectory.
Yup. Texas will clearly benefit from NIL. The sport will not.
It's been sliding toward something I am far less interested in, for years. The entire sport is less fun with its current trajectory.
I agree, yet I continue to try to think of ways my waning interest can be salvaged.I agree with your sentiment and with what you are trying to accomplish but sadly I don't think there are any practical ways to get where you are trying to go.
Would it be possible for the schools to collectively agree in some type of binding manner (i.e., involve the NCAA or replicate their role) on a flat-reimbursement for football athletes in order to maintain "amateur status?" If we call it a reimbursement rather than a fee, the guise of amateurism can still be maintained, and if they're all equal--maybe something reached similar to a collective bargaining agreement--then players can profit from their NIL but it wouldn't transfer all the power to the Haves, which it currently seems to be trending towards. The biggest names and stars probably wouldn't like it, but the point is they're not supposed to be in the free market...they're supposed to be amateurs doing it for other reasons. I always found arguments that athletes shouldn't be prohibited from earning money off their skill compelling, but it's in tension with other arguments that these are supposed to be amateurs I also find compelling. I'm just wondering if there's a middle ground.
As it is now, it's lost all semblance of amateurism, which as MedinaBuckeye outlined, sucks, because at the heart of why and how I always rooted for LSU athletes was because they were either Louisiana kids who wanted to represent the state at the flagship program, or they were out-of-state kids the staff sold on the program and what life could be there for them. I never cared much about the NFL because it lacked that athlete-program tie, they just played for whoever paid them*, and now that's more or less what cfb is turning into.
This realization forced me to accept that when I cheer Ohio State beating Michigan or lament Michigan beating Ohio State I'm not actually cheering for Ohio State students to beat Michigan students. In reality I'm cheering for Ohio State's ringers to beat Michigan's ringers and in an average football game there probably aren't more than one or two starters (out of 44, both sides of the ball, both teams) who are legitimately smart enough to get into either school.That's kind of it in a nutshell,no recruiting,delevopment,progam ties,waiting your turn to crack the lineup or even feigning GPAs
coaches are sick of the NCAAyup. sick of NCAA. sick of NIL. sick of recruiting. sick of portal. sick of re-recruiting roster to keep them there. sick of fundraising and speaking engagements. sick of it all. don't blame them.
Leaving for NFL HC jobs is a no brainer, now guys are leaving NCAA HC jobs to be NFL coordinators. Rumors Chip Kelly is going to do the sameChip hated recruiting before all of this bullshit came.
https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1752833836256317495?t=UnC4m7C1vFFd8f6zk-vs8A&s=19
https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1752833836256317495?t=UnC4m7C1vFFd8f6zk-vs8A&s=19I feel like the Halfly NFL think it’s going to be overplayed on the “state of college football and NIL“ thing and underplayed on the “he had a hard job without a ton of prospects for growth” thing.
The state of college football is headed for disaster. That can't be overplayed. It's not sustainable.
What's gonna happen is that the smaller revenue schools are just going to drop out or drop down.As long as Northwestern receives a B1G revenue share, why would they drop down?
I don't want to lose Northwestern, etc.
some folks didn't want to lose U of Chicago eitherDifferent story on that one.
As long as Northwestern receives a B1G revenue share, why would they drop down?What if your school lost the ability to compete? Is it still "so what" for you?
I'm assuming that they have/will lose any realistic ability to compete but so what?
someone has to be the doormatThe Badgers have one. :57:
What if your school lost the ability to compete? Is it still "so what" for you?
What if your school lost the ability to compete? Is it still "so what" for you?For me as a fan, I really don't have any choice.
What's gonna happen is that the smaller revenue schools are just going to drop out or drop down.
I don't want to lose Northwestern, etc.
I think he's saying Northwestern has already lost it's ability to compete, so what's the difference?Northwestern is still competing, for now.
I think OAM has made the point that the less successful programs will be incentivized ($) to stick with the big dogs because there has to be doormats. You can't have Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, Oregon, etc. all going 6-6 because they got no pastries. I mean, you can, but fans aren't going to want that, and the programs know it.Is it?
I think it's a solid point.
For me as a fan, I really don't have any choice.Yeah... I've said it before. I *NEVER* cared about the national championship as a Purdue fan. I still don't. It's a fun game to watch, but I kinda look at it like the Super Bowl as I don't really have a true fandom of an NFL team. I might pick a team I want to win that day, but it's never "personal" to me.
If I were a Purdue fan like @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) I think I'd look at the new CFB landscape and either stop caring altogether or at least dial down goals/expectations to something more manageable (ie, beat rival IU, win 50%).
The state of college football is headed for disaster. That can't be overplayed. It's not sustainable.Always has been.
??I still think this all started with the Bowl Coalition / Bowl Alliance / BCS.
It was fine before all of the realignment and huge money, which were the first strikes.
Throw in free transfers and NIL and it's a disaster.
I was all for players being compensated... with scholarships.scholarships aren't worth jacksh*t. those players are worth WAY more than whatever those scholarships cost the school.
If making them employees and taking out transfers is the way, then fine.
I still think this all started with the Bowl Coalition / Bowl Alliance / BCS.
Northwestern is still competing, for now.Are they?
What they did last year after the Fitz debacle was amazing.
all aside, though, I just miss the purity of the game when all this drama didn't matter and wasn't even a consideration... yeah, the schools were exploiting those kids and had been.... but we knew nothing about it unless they broke a rule and when the NCAA had honor.
I've always found the supporting arguments for this pov to be flawed, and thus it didn't bother me for schools not to pay players. I just also found arguments against athletes receiving $ from outside sources to be likewise flawed, and so NIL, while I don't like it, is not something I can really complain about.yeah, gonna have to disagree with you vehemently there. the football players- specifically in the SEC & B1G- have been getting exploited, period, end of discussion. THEY are the ones driving the insane revenues. And not a damn other person except for the coaches- and well- those coaches are all WELL compensated with multi-million dollar per year guaranteed contracts (Hi Mel Tugger!)- and it's NOT the coaches who risk life and limb out there on the field every practice and every Saturday- it's THE PLAYERS.
But all this gets to the point of something utee94 mentioned in the Hotties thread, about Olivia Dunne spearheading an NIL collective for girls. Female athletes can't claim exploitation and never could, because I don't know about yall's schools, but at LSU our women's teams don't make a dime. Every program besides football, baseball, and maybe men's basketball--although I'm not even sure about that--lose the school money. You can't exploit somebody you're giving a free ride to who ultimately loses you money. So if women have the ability to earn $ based on their NIL outside of the school, that's got to be where the money comes from, because that's the only place it is, and ever was. And the kicker is, this applies to a majority of male athletes as well. Track and field, golf, fishing, you name it....those dudes don't make LSU any money. Or any other school either.
They weren't being exploited by the schools. But they were being prohibited--perhaps unjustly so--from using their talents to make money.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but LSU is one of the few schools whose baseball program makes money. I think that reality is lost in these "scholarship is/is not just compensation" conversations. We're only talking about one sport...football...that makes athletic departments money hand over fist. While I still find the exploitation/scholly-is-not-enough arguments flawed, I can at least see their point in football. I'm not even trying to listen to any of that about other sports.
The rest of the world can pay Olivia Dunne and Angel Reese. LSU just loses money on them and owes them nothing.
The top three teams in the B1G-E played a combined total of 10 games against B1G-W teams last year:
- Even if they had beaten Iowa, tied for the B1G-W Championship, and won the tie based on the win over Iowa that would only have gotten them a date with Michigan and . . . Ask as Iowa fan how that worked out for them.
But all this gets to the point of something utee94 mentioned in the Hotties thread, about Olivia Dunne spearheading an NIL collective for girls.It is cute you think Olivia Dunne is making money based on her gymnastic talents.
They weren't being exploited by the schools. But they were being prohibited--perhaps unjustly so--from using their talents to make money.
It is cute you think Olivia Dunne is making money based on her gymnastic talents.Everything you said is true. But... What's your point?
Seriously though, that does raise an issue that I wanted to bring up. If I were the AD at Ohio State, I would want NO PART of hosting LSU in a gymnastics meet.
I read an article a while back about a gymnastics meet that LSU attended. I think it was at Utah but the exact location is not important to the underlying point. Anyway, due to Dunne's stardom there were literally thousands of "fans" (I'm going to say probably mostly pervs) that showed up at the meet (I didn't say "to watch the meet" because it was pretty clear that they were there to get a glimpse of Dunne and if she did something flexible in her gymnastics outfit that was just a bonus).
I see this as a likely disaster. My guess is that a typical gymnastics meet draws maybe a couple hundred "fans" with the bulk of those being parents and family. Throw in a few roommates and a boyfriend or three and that is probably it. Based on that I would guess that the "usual and customary" security for a collegiate gymnastics meet is that the host school hires an offduty cop or *MAYBE* two offduty cops and the most intense security issue they probably EVER face is some hotheaded dad getting belligerent because his little princess got a 9.6 for her routine and he thinks she should have gotten at 10.0.
So imagine for a minute that you are the AD at another school. It doesn't matter which one so for this example I'll use mine. Say you are Gene Smith, AD at Ohio State and you have an upcoming gymnastics meet where LSU will be competing against the Buckeyes in Columbus. It would absolutely be negligent of you not to provide a MASSIVELY upgraded security contingent because at this point Olivia Dunne's fame and draw are known. Worse, you aren't talking about just typical sports fans like for a BB or FB game. Ohio State (and all the big schools) deal with thousands of those many times per year so that is very much in their wheelhouse, they know what they are doing.
In this case you are talking about CREEPY Stalkerish weirdos. I'm sure some of the THOUSANDS of extra "fans" who show up for Dunne's meets are typical college guys and those are probably harmless. They are more following a cultural wave than anything else and anyway to the extent that they are attending to get a glimpse of the very attractive Ms. Dunne, they are college aged guys and she is a college aged girl so there really isn't anything weird going on. Where it gets into creepy territory is that I'm sure that some of those extra fans were guys my age. Typically there are only a VERY few reasons a guy my age shows up at a Women's College Gymnastics Meet:
- He is the coach.
- His daughter is one of the gymnasts.
- He has some other occupational requirement to be there, ie, he sells gymnastics equipment or is the janitor for the arena or something.
That is it. Any other guy past about 25 who shows up is a security nightmare. Recall that Reagan was shot in an effort to get Jodi Foster's attention (apparently Hinkley didn't realize that Foster was on the other team so she wouldn't be interested in him regardless). Multiple Hollywood Starlets have been MURDERED by creepy stalkers who decided that if they couldn't have her, nobody else could either.
Frankly, if I were Gene Smith my first inclination would be to simply cancel the meet. I would view it as not worth the risk to go forward. If not that, my second thought would be to go back to LSU and renegotiate based on circumstances not known nor reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was signed. More bluntly, I would tell LSU's AD that if tOSU is going to host LSU's Women's Gymnastics team, LSU will have to pay for the enhanced security and I'd determine what exactly was necessary by hiring a security expert so that if this all went South and I got sued I could document that I made all my decisions in accordance with the best professional advice. Then I'd HOPE that my ability to prove that I had made reasonable decisions guided by experts in the field would protect me against the Negligence suit.
Everything you said is true. But... What's your point?Well, I'm mostly just curious how this will play out. In a case like Dunne, it wouldn't be insane for LSU to ask for a cut of the NIL to cover security costs. That has some dubious optics so I'm not sure it actually goes that way but maybe.
Yes, it creates a situation that probably isn't very good... But is that Dunne's "fault", and should she be barred from NIL because of it?
If the point is just to point out unintended consequences, then I get it. But I don't know if there's anything actionable there, which is why I'm asking about the point.
It is cute you think Olivia Dunne is making money based on her gymnastic talents.Honestly, this is reality. I get what you are saying, she's hot and dudes follow her because she is hot. This is true. But it is also because she is great at gymnastics. She isn't hotter than any other random hot girl, but she is a hell of a lot better at one of the most challenging athletic competitions in the world. That's what makes gives her lots of fans.
scholarships aren't worth jacksh*t. those players are worth WAY more than whatever those scholarships cost the school.That's part of the Problem as that is the mindset but they are - anyone of those kids could have a career ending injury before the even collect any coin.And if they are collecting NIL scratch IMO then the Scollie should be paid in full back to the University so it may go to someone who thinx they are worth jacksh*t
scholarships aren't worth jacksh*t. those players are worth WAY more than whatever those scholarships cost the school.At Wisconsin and most other B1G schools, if you include OOS tuition, room and board, professional training, a nutritionist, food, apparel, and all the rest, it's a $300K investment for each player. That' a little more than jack shit IMO. Then they got a stipend on top of that, for travel to see family, etc.
At Wisconsin and most other B1G schools, if you include OOS tuition, room and board, professional training, a nutritionist, food, apparel, and all the rest, it's a $300K investment for each player. That' a little more than jack shit IMO. Then they got a stipend on top of that, for travel to see family, etc.This is the inherent problem.
This is the inherent problem.And you make up for that with NIL.
You @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) and @Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) both have a point. For the STAR QB who is a surefire first round pick, $300k IS Jack Shit. For the backup long snapper who will never get into an NFL game without buying a ticket like the rest of us, it is a fortune.
Honestly, this is reality. I get what you are saying, she's hot and dudes follow her because she is hot. This is true. But it is also because she is great at gymnastics. She isn't hotter than any other random hot girl, but she is a hell of a lot better atI've never heard of her gymnastics successes at all. I assumed she was an Anna Kournikova type (never won, got the most publicity). If she's not.....shrug. It's irrelevant.one of the most challenging athletic competitions in the world.orchestrating her online content. That's what makes gives her lots of fans.
At Wisconsin and most other B1G schools, if you include OOS tuition, room and board, professional training, a nutritionist, food, apparel, and all the rest, it's a $300K investment for each player. That' a little more than jack shit IMO. Then they got a stipend on top of that, for travel to see family, etc.Caleb Williams has that in his couch cushions.
I've never heard of her gymnastics successes at all. I assumed she was an Anna Kournikova type (never won, got the most publicity). If she's not.....shrug. It's irrelevant.Maybe more of a Dan Marino type. Irrelevant at everything but what the weirdo fans want to talk about.
Maybe more of a Dan Marino type. Irrelevant at everything but what the weirdo fans want to talk about.Dan Marino's ass was a 7 at best
??It's always been headed for disaster. It's a system that at its base is deeply unstable.
It was fine before all of the realignment and huge money, which were the first strikes.
Throw in free transfers and NIL and it's a disaster.
Caleb Williams has that in his couch cushions.Do you know that he actually wanted to transfer to Wisconsin? He loved Paul Chryst.
yeah, gonna have to disagree with you vehemently there. the football players- specifically in the SEC & B1G- have been getting exploited, period, end of discussion. THEY are the ones driving the insane revenues. And not a damn other person except for the coaches- and well- those coaches are all WELL compensated with multi-million dollar per year guaranteed contracts (Hi Mel Tugger!)- and it's NOT the coaches who risk life and limb out there on the field every practice and every Saturday- it's THE PLAYERS.
B1G's latest tv deal was $8 billion. EIGHT. BILLION. F**KING. DOLLARS. You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me the players don't deserve a cut of any of that? Uh, yeah, no. The only reason they get that kind of TV deal is again because of.....the players, who you know, actually, play the games. And that's just the TV money. This doesn't take into account ticket sales, concessions sales, parking revenues, merchandise & licensing, donations (teams that tend to win a lot- typically tend to get fatter donation checks from boosters/alums).
Most lucrative TV contracts in media is the NFL, obviously. And you know what? The players get a FAT chunk of that tv money. Second most lucrative TV contracts in all of media? B1G & SEC football. And the players get absolutely none of that.
Enough with this, "but oh they get a a scholarship" bullsh*t please. That scholarship isn't worth the paper it's written on in comparison to the INSANE revenues those players are generating year in year out.
It is cute you think Olivia Dunne is making money based on her gymnastic talents.
Seriously though, that does raise an issue that I wanted to bring up. If I were the AD at Ohio State, I would want NO PART of hosting LSU in a gymnastics meet.
And really, the point of most of my post you responded to was raising an exception to @Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) where he claimed exploitation for college athletes in general. I was saying how outside of football, I'm not sure that view is sustainable. I laid out why, and was hoping for him (or you, or whoever) to respond to see what y'all think.
I 100% agree with you on this front. all the women's sports & other sports that lose money are funded at the expense of the football players who make all the money, which = exploitation.
Yeah, I've heard the arguments, and like I said, it's not that I don't see their/your points. I just find they ignore a variety of other counterpoints and separate points, and personally I ultimately don't find this view persuasive. But because I understand the opposing POV and also a person in general is unlikely to change their mind on most things, and because it's not that important to me in the grand scheme, I don't spend much time arguing "my" side or trying to change minds in this matter.
And really, the point of most of my post you responded to was raising an exception to @Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) where he claimed exploitation for college athletes in general. I was saying how outside of football, I'm not sure that view is sustainable. I laid out why, and was hoping for him (or you, or whoever) to respond to see what y'all think.
The $8 billion tv deals are there because of football.this could've been dealt with very easily....could've made realignment football only...or just dissolved the conferences for everything but football and let the women's field hockey teams and women's basketball teams all be independents that play a bunch of regional schools. it's not rocket science.
But also so is the fact that the gymnastics team has to fly to Eugene on a random Tuesday night in February
this could've been dealt with very easily....could've made realignment football only...or just dissolved the conferences for everything but football and let the women's field hockey teams and women's basketball teams all be independents that play a bunch of regional schools. it's not rocket science.
It's always been headed for disaster. It's a system that at its base is deeply unstable.On the old board I basically stated this when implementing the CFB playoffs - there was immediate talk of expanding it before the ink was even dry. However i never saw this shit storm coming with the unregulated NIL. The portal - I'm fine with for a one time move & play,after that IMO they should sit out a year. My original concerns were many kids sitting justifiably for injury concerns - And that is still valid.
The $8 billion tv deals are there because of football.I've been wondering for a while if there would eventually be a "correction" on this. You used Oregon as the example, but does it even make sense for say the tOSU and MSU gymnastics teams to play each other? There is no TV money and the gate (if there is any) is trivial at best so wouldn't it be cheaper for tOSU to play OhioU and MSU to play WMU rather than shipping OhioU's team from Athens to Kalamazoo and Michigan State's team from East Lansing to Columbus?
But also so is the fact that the gymnastics team has to fly to Eugene on a random Tuesday night in February
Step 1they are going to swallow up FSU, ND, and the few remaining trophy brands that are left and then breakaway and forum a super league. these are the seeds being planted before our eyes right now. and once they do so, the tv money will be even more ludicrous than it is right now. could be looking at $20+ billion tv deal. 20 billion reasons to do so...that's a lotta reasons to do something.
https://twitter.com/bigten/status/1753470893689311246?s=20
Step 1Bad.
https://twitter.com/bigten/status/1753470893689311246?s=20
Bad.Great.
I mean if the only point of gymnastics is making/saving money, just cut the program. At least the conferences were generally geographic.I hear you on gymnastics but I'm not trying to cut everything just limit unnecessary expenditures. I kinda think that the new expanded B1G will eventually try to at least manage schedules in such a way that say MSU and tOSU play each other a lot more in non-revenue sports than either of them play the PACNW or LA schools. This is one reason that I think we will eventually end up with some form of pods*.
The weird one to me is basketball. If you go back and look at schedules from the 80s, team played all of their buy games against regional opponents. And the small schools played the other small schools around them.
Seems like there is a ton of unnecessary travel in basketball OOC games now. MSU didn't play a single MAC team this year
Step 1
https://twitter.com/bigten/status/1753470893689311246?s=20
All of these responses, and lots of talk, but everybody on this board knows that the "amateurism" in CFB left sometime in the 80's to early 90's.What does that look like?
It's well known that football, whether it's the NFL or CFB, is now the number one sport in America. An average NFL game draws more audience than the World Series. A marquee matchup in CFB will outdraw almost everything outside of the WS and good NFL games. In other words, CFB is going to become #2 in terms of ratings. You can't stop it, unless all the teams, colleges, etc stop putting the games on TV. And if we did that, the schools would have to accept less revenue, and the coaches/AD's/Asst all the way down to the ticket takers would have to accept less salary and pay.
They're not going to do that. They're (people at the top) making millions of dollars per year, interest in the sport has never been higher and it's only getting worse.
They shut the players out of receiving anything for 30+ years, and they built the league on the backs of players with nothing more than a few thousand for a scholarship and maybe a promise to make it to the league, and most didn't play in the NFL and get the big reward. That wasn't sustainable, everybody knew it but the idiots in charge of the NCAA refused to budge and now we're stuck with this giant mess.
Of course the players need some kind of compensation. There is more than enough money to do that, just figure out a way to get it done right. Portal should not be a free-for-all. And I think that players who have good academics should have advantages that other players don't.
What does that look like?Right . . .
If you are a player in the General Studies program at Michigan, it's easier to have good academics than a player in the engineering program at Central Michigan.
Beyond all that the market value for a football player at Ohio State is much greater than the market value for a football player at Northwestern. So the Ohio State player should get paid more. Which is what's happening anyway. But that's not what most of you are talking about here on this thread.Friend of mine years ago went to a NU vs tOSU at Ryan Field in Evanston. They were cheering - 'You'll kick our butts but you'll work us"
Friend of mine years ago went to a NU vs tOSU at Ryan Field in Evanston. They were cheering - 'You'll kick our butts but you'll work us"When I went to a game in Evanston every time the Buckeyes did something good we heard:
When I went to a game in Evanston every time the Buckeyes did something good we heard:Variation on the theme:
"That's alright, that's ok, you will work for us someday."
If you pay football players their market value, then you have to cut a bunch of other sports,Nobody cares about anything other than football. Even College BB is a distant 2nd. If there is not enough interest for any sport to merit having it then it's just utter bullshit. It's been suggested several times on this board and elsewhere, but it's worth saying again. NCAA rules/regs work just fine for the truly amateur sports. Women's Swimming and Diving, Lacrosse, gymnastics, volleyball. Same for the men's sports outside of BB and baseball.
What does that look like?Agree with you, but they are still student athletes. At least for now.
If you are a player in the General Studies program at Michigan, it's easier to have good academics than a player in the engineering program at Central Michigan.
Nobody cares about anything other than football. Even College BB is a distant 2nd. If there is not enough interest for any sport to merit having it then it's just utter bullshit. It's been suggested several times on this board and elsewhere, but it's worth saying again. NCAA rules/regs work just fine for the truly amateur sports. Women's Swimming and Diving, Lacrosse, gymnastics, volleyball. Same for the men's sports outside of BB and baseball.
They spend millions of dollars to have all these sports that nobody cares about only because of Title IX. But if you can figure out how to separate football (and probably basketball) out of amateur athletics and make them their own stand-alone and then simply compare all the money spent on men's sports and women's sports (outside of FB) then obviously all sports will be scaled back.
Go back to regional conferences, a no team should spend more than 5-6 hours on a bus ride to compete. You can still have all the other sports, whatever they are. You just can't spend millions of dollars for them.
Agree with you, but they are still student athletes. At least for now.For now, until they aren't.
What does that look like?Simple.
If you are a player in the General Studies program at Michigan, it's easier to have good academics than a player in the engineering program at Central Michigan.
As I said before, I admire the idealism.I don’t decide anything. I’m just stating the obvious.
There's a lot of inertia in directions opposite what you're suggesting. I suppose it's possible to overcome that but I don't think it's likely.
I don’t decide anything. I’m just stating the obvious.Heck yeah, amen brutha.
But if somebody put me in charge I’d put the college back in college football, scale back the coaches pay, and put the extra money back to the university where it belongs , and go back to regional conferences.
The SEC is the NFC and the B1G is the AFC.I still think if the goal is to be NFL-Lite (which seems to be the sport's trajectory), there's a point at which diluting the money by paying off the red-headed stepchildren is a less desirable outcome than simply excluding them and accepting that teams will have more losses every year.
When we wind up with 2 conferences of 20+ programs each, I hope they don't forget to include the red-headed stepchildren.
Without average ladies to compare them to, the hotties all start looking kind of 'meh.'
One underrated thing about the past structure of college football is how healthy having a lot of quality independent programs was.
It helped with scheduling freedom and kept any individual conference from having too much power.
ND, Penn St, FSU, Miami, S.Carolina, BC, VT, WV, Pitt, Syracuse.....the Big Ten was good enough, the SEC was good enough, the SWC was good enough and the PAC was.....way out there and good enough (thanks to USC).
The independents were like electrons filling in to complete this season/outcome (atom) and that season/outcome. Not really having them has caused both inequality among the conferences and an obvious, resulting arms race.
I know "too much" has changed since then, but it's still worthwhile to acknowledge some of these past dynamics.
I still think if the goal is to be NFL-Lite (which seems to be the sport's trajectory), there's a point at which diluting the money by paying off the red-headed stepchildren is a less desirable outcome than simply excluding them and accepting that teams will have more losses every year.This makes me throw up in my mouth.
I think that these helmet teams knowing that the goal was a 12-0 or 11-1 season--and scheduling enough patsies to know that anything worse than 9-3 was off the table--was entirely predicated on the idea that you were excluded from the national championship if you DIDN'T have that record.
But once the 12-team playoff comes in, it immediately changes the calculus of how many losses you can sustain. In a 130-team setup, as a helmet you need to be no worse than a 3-loss team, and may have to be a 2-loss team some years.
And then go a step further. Let's say you can restrict your "big boy" breakaway division to 28 teams that only play each other, with a 12-team playoff. Now you can probably make the playoffs at 8-4. Maybe even 7-5.
Keeping a team like Purdue in the field to pad your win totals just means you're letting them have a bunch of money that you want to keep for yourselves.
The entirety of making everything about the NC excludes the red-headed stepchildren. Might as well just make it official.
Simple.It's not that simple.
Certain majors get an automatic bonus and you need a 3.5+ gpa in the non-automatic majors to qualify for brain dollars.
It's not that simple.
Being an engineering major at Auburn is not like being an engineering major at Florida.
But let's be transparent with the concept-- how many football players are studying engineering at ANY school? Or ANY of the hardest disciplines, whatever they may be. It's a really low number.Ya maybe the back up long snapper or the kid holding the clipboard next to the coach.Nobody else on the Blue Bloods is splitting any atoms
But let's be transparent with the concept-- how many football players are studying engineering at ANY school? Or ANY of the hardest disciplines, whatever they may be. It's a really low number.Quite a few at my school, honestly.
This makes me throw up in my mouth.Might as well get the mouthwash because this is going to happen. I am old curmudgeon and want what I had as a teen and early 20s but it ain't going happen and it ain't stopping the direction it is going.
Quite a few at my school, honestly.I can't find the link right now but when we looked at that report that compared football player SAT scores to general student SAT scores I don't remember Wisconsin standing out.
But also, a lot of communication arts (WTF?) and Ag journalism. More of those types than STEM, for sure.
Starting QB a few years ago was Civil Engineering. I connected with him on LinkedIn and offered him a job (as he was/is obviously disciplined).
He didn't want to move to Illinois (I don't blame him - I don't either).
the judge said you can't restrict the player's ability to make $$$
education and intelligence got nuttin to do wit it
This makes me throw up in my mouth.Maybe, but honestly, the blue bloods today play 9 games a season against teams that shouldn't legitimately challenge their 2nd string squad. For Michigan this year, it was 11, including the conference championship. Only games against opponents that could legitimately challenge them were PSU, OSU, and the CFP.
It's not that simple.Jeez. Not sure if you’re digging at Auburn or Florida. Haven’t met many Auburn alums of any major in my line of work. Is Auburn considered poor academically ? I haven’t heard that.
Being an engineering major at Auburn is not like being an engineering major at Florida.
Maybe, but honestly, the blue bloods today play 9 games a season against teams that shouldn't legitimately challenge their 2nd string squad. For Michigan this year, it was 11, including the conference championship. Only games against opponents that could legitimately challenge them were PSU, OSU, and the CFP. This is the sign of a shit conference.2023 UM's schedule shouldn't be a model for anyone, but there's a TON of gray area between it and making a playoff with 5 losses (even to strong teams).
You get more excited when Alabama or Georgia goes 11-1 with 9+ of their opponents being patsies, ehhhh, 9 years out of 10, this isn't possible than if they went 8-4 against a schedule of 12 teams that are equals on paper? I'd argue the latter is more impressive.
The SEC has held firm on the 8-game conference schedule and the late-season FCS tune-up NOT to provide better entertainment for the fans, but to make sure they schedule as few losses as possible for the helmet teams. If an 8-game conf schedule yields a top 20 SOS, why pile on?
Maybe these teams need to stop filling up on cupcakes. It's gonna go straight to the hips.
2023 UM's schedule shouldn't be a model for anyone, but there's a TON of gray area between it and making a playoff with 5 losses (even to strong teams).All I'm saying is that you don't need to pad your win column with teams like Vanderbilt and Purdue, much less the current G5 or FCS teams. Restrict it to the top say 24 or 28 teams in CFB for your big-boy league, and don't play anyone outside that group. All do you by playing outside the top 28 is to dilute your revenue share.
Let's just have the 13 best teams and hope they all go 6-6.Might as well. They're the only 13 teams you think should ever be allowed into the inner circle to be anointed as national champions anyway.
Might as well. They're the only 13 teams you think should ever be allowed into the inner circle to be anointed as national champions anyway.How's that?
well, ya sure don't want Liberty Biberty in thereI was wrong. Let's give the team with the worst SOS in the country a seat at the table.
How's that?You believe in the eye test, particularly yours, for which teams are "worthy" of the CFP.
You're proposing we saddle half of them with losses they're not accustomed to. Guess what many will do?So you need Purdue and Vandy around so those poor snowflake helmet team fans don't have their egos bruised?
Their eyeballs will close and their pointer fingers cease to click.
You believe in the eye test, particularly yours, for which teams are "worthy" of the CFP.I'm honestly mystified.
Outside of a dozen or maybe a little more programs in the country, none will pass your "eye test" even if they're undefeated. It comes up every time a team you deem unworthy is selected over a team that you deem worthy.
This is a poor description of my thoughts. A few of you seem to think I'd vouch for someone like a 8-4 USC team with top 10 recruiting classes over a 11-1 Iowa team without much talent. I have no earthly clue why anyone thinks that.
Somehow, my opinion that blindly ranking teams by number of losses without taking into account any context as a bad practice has been bastardized into "then why even bother playing the games?"
And again, this baffles me. It'd be great if someone could provide some evidence of why I somehow became Captain Eye Test.
And it typically correlates with what you think their respective talent level is, which is based on their recruiting, which is based on how shiny the helmet is. Any team that isn't a helmet shouldn't be in, right? Yeah, I'm not following here. I'll likely side with Team A with the very difficult schedule and perhaps 1-2 more losses over the ?lesser helmet? Team B with a pretty record vs the Deaf & Blind scheduling house.
So you need Purdue and Vandy around so those poor snowflake helmet team fans don't have their egos bruised? Here, you're just slanting the idea into insult for some reason. The short answer is "yes," but I also stated WHY, which you've chosen to ignore.
You're better than that.
Jeez. Not sure if you’re digging at Auburn or Florida. Haven’t met many Auburn alums of any major in my line of work. Is Auburn considered poor academically ? I haven’t heard that.I "think" Auburn affords an OK engineering degree. Florida is ranked a lot higher overall. I wouldn't say Auburn is "poor" academically.
Nothing?Fro watching TCU make the national championship game
Was it a crime to say TCU over UM was an upset?
In any universe, would UM have lost to UGA 65-7?
Why was TCU's loss to KSU in 2022 meaningless and they didn't drop 1 spot, yet UGA's loss to Bama in 2023 dropped them out completely?
Putting your head in the sand and pretending 12-0 is always better than 11-1 is childish. Endlessly advocating for mid-majors with dogshit schedules to be included when they have no actual chance at winning it all is worse than the big, fat lie we previously had. Now it's allowing them to try and climb the mountain, but with no tools and wearing flip-flops. It's a joke.
This is a separate thing I mentioned, but look at the absurd discrepancy between 22 and 23 (not involving FSU).Bad luck is part of the deal when you have to pick 4 teams out of 130.
TCU is ranked 3, loses its CCG to a team ranked 13 and DID NOT MOVE DOWN.
Meanwhile,
UGA is ranked 1, loses its CCG to a team ranked 8 and DROPPED DOWN TO 6.
.
What is the point?!?
This is a separate thing I mentioned, but look at the absurd discrepancy between 22 and 23 (not involving FSU).Understand that I agree with your underlying point but I don't think that this argument works.
TCU is ranked 3, loses its CCG to a team ranked 13 and DID NOT MOVE DOWN.
Meanwhile,
UGA is ranked 1, loses its CCG to a team ranked 8 and DROPPED DOWN TO 6.
.
What is the point?!?
I can see some "logic" in their decisions even if I might choose differently. I can't think of an egregious selection or omission in the past, just some that could have been otherwise (often more evident after the fact). What's the worst choice they ever made?I agree with this.
Nothing?I don't think that you'd put an 8-4 USC team into the CFP over an 11-1 Iowa team, no.
Was it a crime to say TCU over UM was an upset?
In any universe, would UM have lost to UGA 65-7?
Why was TCU's loss to KSU in 2022 meaningless and they didn't drop 1 spot, yet UGA's loss to Bama in 2023 dropped them out completely?
Putting your head in the sand and pretending 12-0 is always better than 11-1 is childish. Endlessly advocating for mid-majors with dogshit schedules to be included when they have no actual chance at winning it all is worse than the big, fat lie we previously had. Now it's allowing them to try and climb the mountain, but with no tools and wearing flip-flops. It's a joke.
This is a separate thing I mentioned, but look at the absurd discrepancy between 22 and 23 (not involving FSU).
TCU is ranked 3, loses its CCG to a team ranked 13 and DID NOT MOVE DOWN.
Meanwhile,
UGA is ranked 1, loses its CCG to a team ranked 8 and DROPPED DOWN TO 6.
.
What is the point?!?
This is a separate thing I mentioned, but look at the absurd discrepancy between 22 and 23 (not involving FSU).Demanding that polls reflect wins and losses in this way is part of the reason polls are deeply useless, other than excuses to get angry about nothing.
TCU is ranked 3, loses its CCG to a team ranked 13 and DID NOT MOVE DOWN.
Meanwhile,
UGA is ranked 1, loses its CCG to a team ranked 8 and DROPPED DOWN TO 6.
.
What is the point?!?
I don't think that you'd put an 8-4 USC team into the CFP over an 11-1 Iowa team, no.It's not about helmet at all. It's about talent, sure, but I actually care little about talent if it doesn't DO anything.
But I think you'd not hesitate one bit to consider that Iowa team unworthy, to gloat when they get stomped in a CFP game, and to refer to the outcome with disgust, as you often do in these arguments with responses like "Ew" and "Gross".
I mean, doesn't this very reply above suggest that despite TCU actually winning a damn game, you view them as unworthy and don't think they should have been there at all?
- TCU: "Ew. Gross"
- Mid-majors: "Ew. Gross."
- 13-0 FSU who had lost their QB: "Ew. Gross."
- 2015 MSU who gets stomped: "Ew. Gross."
Who doesn't get your ire? The elite of the elite shiny helmet teams. Particularly if they're in the SEC. The teams that win. The teams that are double-digit favorites vs teams who had a great season, but not so much when context is taken into account.
The point is that it's all "eye test". And your "eye test" is going to be more dominated by talent/recruiting, which is dominated by helmet team status, which is another way of saying that if a non-elite team ever even gets into the playoff: "Ew. Gross."
Yeah, you might not take a team with STARZ who finished 8-4 and let them in. But that doesn't mean you ever want to see a team without STARZ because you think they just don't belong.
Ed Zachery
First of all, the reason TCU didn't fall from 3rd to 4th was simply to avoid a semi-final rematch.
That's a bullshit reason.
The problem is trying to make the games matter. Putting teams that lost and didn't have a better record than TCU and didn't win their conference means you are just sort of waving away the actual results of games in favor of your imagination. There is no getting around that. It's just part of the system.Then make the 2022 Big XII Championship game matter.
It seems people like to pretend being a conference champ matters for playoff inclusion.There was no one to move them under
TCU wasn't the champions of squat. And they STILL didn't move down 1 spot.
They should not have even played the game. Why did they bother keeping score?
leme see...... since being a conference champ didn't matterBama and TCU had a game in common - at Texas. Bammer won by 1, TCU by 7. Bama also didn't win their division.
Bama, Tennessee, Ohio St., Penn State, and/or Washington
take your pick, all with more impressive results on the field of play than TCU
Not sure what is impressive about any of that.The helmet sure is shinier.
Rankings have to hinge on context, who else is available? In some years, UGA could, and did, lose in the CG and make it, but not last year. TCU lost but there was not clear alternative that season.I noticed that @Cincydawg (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=870) (UGA fan) and I (Ohio State fan) aren't too upset about missing the 2023 playoff. I was thinking about it and it is worth mentioning that a BIG part of the reason for this is that we root for teams that made multiple CFP appearances in the 10-year run of the 4-team CFP and that won at least one NC.
There was no one to move them underSince when?
Yeah, UGA will likely start 2024 ranked #1, and almost certainly will make the 12 team scheme. The four teams selected were conference champions, UGA and OSU weren't. FSU has a better technical beef.BEFORE THE SEASON BEGINS, Georgia knows for a fact that it can lose twice and still comfortably make the playoff.
UGA has some tough road games next year though they are favored in each so far, Texas, Bama, Ole Miss. I'd guess they lose at least one of those, two is very possible as well. They start with Clemson in ATL. That said, UGA has a lot coming back of note, which of course doesn't mean they are likely to win an NC.
There is no perfect system, and I find it far easier to criticize rankings or whatever than propose my own.
Since when?No one did, but none of those teams had a compelling reason to jump TCU. So they didn't.
Bama, Tennessee, and Clemson had 1 more loss than TCU. None of the four was a conference champ. TCU had the most recent loss. TCU didn't have one of the top 2 resumes (what keeps being called eye test here, for some reason).
Who set the loss limit at 1? And when did that happen?
It's the 7 year-old method of ranking teams. And no, it's not about eye test, it's about resume beyond the L column.The problem is Alabama lost twice in the regular season, compared to zero for TCU, and they had a game in common where TCU outperformed them. Their biggest argument was their schedule was marginally more difficult, but it wasn't much of an argument. They weren't particularly impressive in their other games, either. Bama was easily the best other team available, and they weren't particularly good. So the the arguments against TCU were pretty weak, which was why they made the field.
If say Penn State had a better resume than Liberty (they did), then the 1-loss season is not automatically better than the 2-loss season.
The Big XII was pretty shitty in 2022. Not taken into account. TCU had 5 close calls. Not taken into account. Didn't even drop behind OSU. There is no sound argument for that.
Just have a 2nd-grade class do it. The committee is embarrassing, and not for leaving out FSU.
The problem is Alabama lost twice in the regular season, compared to zero for TCU, and they had a game in common where TCU outperformed them. Their biggest argument was their schedule was marginally more difficult, but it wasn't much of an argument. They weren't particularly impressive in their other games, either. Bama was easily the best other team available, and they weren't particularly good for "Alabama'. So the the arguments against TCU were pretty weak, which was why they made the field.Alabama not being particularly good is utter nonsense. 4 points away from 12-0. Bryce Young. Will Anderson. You love you some force-fed narrative, don't you?
Alabama not being particularly good is utter nonsense. 4 points away from 12-0. Bryce Young. Will Anderson. You love you some force-fed narrative, don't you?Compared to TCU, which was 0 points away from being 12-0.
But why treat the final ranking differently than one in October? No team who loses to another team far below them in the polls simply stays put at their same ranking at any other time of the season. TCU would have obviously dropped, probably 5-6 spots, if they had lost to KSU in their first meeting.Again, sure, but in October there were a million teams that could have jumped them. Not so by the end of the season. There is no magic rule where losing a game means you must drop below every other team no matter what their records and common sense would tell you.
It's about inconsistency and special pleading. It's a joke. If they're incapable of nuance and slaves to the loss column, honestly, let kids do it.
Compared to TCU, which was 0 points away from being 12-0.Great.
Again, sure, but in October there were a million teams that could have jumped them. Not so by the end of the season. There is no magic rule where losing a game means you must drop below every other team no matter what their records and common sense would tell you.This is delicious.
Again, sure, but in October there were a million teams that could have jumped them.This is utter nonsense.
I'm personally not really bothered by the committee's decisions. Maybe I'd have chosen differently, so what? It's not at all clear to me that they were wrong, ever. It's arguable, sure, but to what end?This isn't really about the committee being wrong. It's worse.
Great.Tired: Winning games
Listen up, everyone! Don't schedule any top 15 teams! Just get that zero in the loss column! That's all it takes!!!
This is utter nonsense.Is this real? This has to be a bit. The week after they beat Kansas State, they were 7-0 and ranked 7th in the AP poll. Had they lost, they would have been 6-1. At the time, there were thirteen teams with one loss in the AP poll. You are here, I guess seriously, trying to claim that the polls at that time and the polls at the end of the season were somehow remotely similar. This is utter nonsense.
You can't possibly believe this.
I guess they should leave the spots behind certain teams blank if they're unable to be ranked by number of losses (as how a child would).I mean...this is what you keep saying you want. No matter the results on the field, only a small handful of teams can actually be included. The Afro poll.
1. Georgia 7-0
2.
3.
4. Michigan 6-1
5. Ohio St 6-1
6. Alabama 5-1
7. Oregon 6-1
8.
9.
10.
11. Penn St 5-2
.
Yup, that's better. Let's do that. I'll propose to the committee.
He would cancel the regular season and just set up a 2 team playoff between the top 2 teams in the 247 composite.How in the hell do you get this from my posts?
I mean...this is what you keep saying you want. No matter the results on the field, only a small handful of teams can actually be included. The Afro poll.I guess I could straw man you and say UCF was the 2017 National Champions?? I've given up expecting you to support your opinions with any kind of rationale long ago.
How in the hell do you get this from my posts?Because you keep saying TCU had no business being in the playoff, and FSU had no business being in the playoff, and it is a big lie when any G5 team is even contemplating making the playoff. These are your words.
Please, explain it to me. I have no earthly clue.
I guess I could straw man you and say UCF was the 2017 National Champions?? I've given up expecting you to support your opinions with any kind of rationale long ago.See. I use facts to directly to directly respond to your actual words, and then you always respond that no one understands what you are trying to say. Yet you never clarify what you are trying to say. It's always something else, unknowable, and everyone else is wrong for not knowing it.
How in the hell do you get this from my posts?It occurs to me, once again, that you never make any effort to simply clarify what you mean, you just complain someone (many of them) misunderstand what you said.
Please, explain it to me. I have no earthly clue.
How in the hell do you get this from my posts?I don't know how you could find another take. You want as small a playoff as possible, and want the teams with the best rosters, not the best seasons. It's fine, the committee agrees with you (on the selection side, not the expansion side)
Please, explain it to me. I have no earthly clue.
what it means???
Commercial timeout for TV advertising $$$$
It occurs to me, once again, that you never make any effort to simply clarify what you mean, you just complain someone (many of them) misunderstand what you said.I didn't complain or attack anyone. I earnestly asked him to explain how he got what he did from my posts.
Maybe the fault is not with the someones. If someone misunderstands your point, just make some effort to clarify it instead of attacking them for being obtuse.
See. I use facts to directly to directly respond to your actual words, and then you always respond that no one understands what you are trying to say. Yet you never clarify what you are trying to say. It's always something else, unknowable, and everyone else is wrong for not knowing it.I type it out as plainly as I can. So that's where I'm flabbergasted when you or others make odd leaps that I can't understand.
Because you keep saying TCU had no business being in the playoff, and FSU had no business being in the playoff, and it is a big lie when any G5 team is even contemplating making the playoff. These are your words.I think the NCG score said TCU didn't belong much louder than I ever could.
What systematic change would you propose to correct this flaw?His solution is simple. Dissolve the committee and let OAM pick the teams. He's always right, after all; just ask him.
I don't know how you could find another take. You want as small a playoff as possible, and want the teams with the best rosters, not the best seasons. It's fine, the committee agrees with you (on the selection side, not the expansion side)What do you mean, "the teams with the best rosters, not the best seasons"??? I've solely discussed resume here.
What systematic change would you propose to correct this flaw?Consistency.
some folks like the underdog line and would include TCU and FSU this seasonIf anyone on the committee feels this way on either end of it, they shouldn't be on the committee. Underdogs and Cinderellas shouldn't matter, neither for or against.
others don't like it a bit
I'm sure there are a few on the committee that see it each way
His solution is simple. Dissolve the committee and let OAM pick the teams. He's always right, after all; just ask him.This is the type of bullshit that keeps popping up, with no backup. it gets a few likes, but isn't based on anything.
Consistency is not something practicable. It’s a notion.Penalizing a loss, regardless of date.
Penalizing a loss, regardless of date.Sounds good. Perhaps in the future we penalize two losses even more than one.
Better?
Sounds good. Perhaps in the future we penalize two losses even more than one.in the future
Sounds good. Perhaps in the future we penalize two losses even more than one.You're 7 years old.
You're 7 years old.Ah, so losses should be penalized and penalizing losses means you're thinking like a small child. We mere mortals can only hope to reach this level of reasoning.
Let's rank Liberty ahead of Penn State. Hey, maybe you'll grow up to be an astronaut someday!!!
A systemic change is what I requested. What you provided is some wish list, things like "losses should count", and of course they do, already, and have in the past.11/29 Playoff Rankings
11/29 Playoff RankingsUSC lost by 23 points. TCU lost by 3, in OT. I wouldn't say that the losses were equal, so why would they be treated the same? You're the guy who says TCU shouldn't have been in based on the 65-7 loss, so wouldn't you say a three-score blowout loss in their conference championship game should punish USC more than being tied at the end of regulation and losing in OT punishes TCU?
2. Michigan 12-0
3. TCU 12-0
4. USC 11-1
.
2. Michigan 13-0
3. TCU 12-1 (lost to #13 KSU)
4 Ohio St 11-1
5
6
7
8
9
10 USC 11-2 (lost to #12 Utah)
.
Tell me again that losses count. I guess they count if you're USC in 2022, but not if you're TCU.
Simple request is that losses count with any semblance of consistency.
Hell, even 7 year-olds wouldn't have done this with TCU and USC.
None of the 'USC was blown out' point addresses the fact that TCU was not penalized at all, lol.They weren't ranked #1 or #2, so there was some penalty
And if your defense for one shit idea (not penalizing TCU) is another shit idea (ranking to avoid a rematch), have fun with that, boss.
None of the 'USC was blown out' point addresses the fact that TCU was not penalized at all, lol.Maybe the committee still thought they were the #3 team in the country despite a loss? I wasn't in the room where it happened.
And if your defense for one shit idea (not penalizing TCU) is another shit idea (ranking to avoid a rematch), have fun with that, boss.
Maybe the committee still thought they were the #3 team in the country despite a loss? I wasn't in the room where it happened.I'm the one being told losses matter, yet those same people telling me that are also defending TCU's loss not mattering. And not as in kinda-sorta not mattering, or mattering less than normal, but utterly not mattering so completely that if they didn't play the game, nothing would have been different.
You're the one that says we shouldn't rank by number of losses. Well, in this case they dropped one team based on a loss and not another team. They didn't blindly assume that a loss MUST be fatal to their CFP resume. Are we going to assume that they had ZERO rationale for why they still thought TCU was worthy, right or wrong?
You extrapolate and say 65-7 says they weren't worthy. But, ya know, they DID beat the #2 seed to get into that game where they got trounced. There maybe was SOMETHING there?
I'm the one being told losses matter, yet those same people telling me that are also defending TCU's loss not mattering. And not as in kinda-sorta not mattering, or mattering less than normal, but utterly not mattering so completely that if they didn't play the game, nothing would have been different.There are many examples of losses not mattering. So, so many. Obama v. Auburn. Georgia v. Bama. OSU v. PSU. And many more.
.
hypocrisy
noun (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun)
hy·poc·ri·sy hi-ˈpä-krə-sē (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=h&file=hypocr01)
also hī-
pluralhypocrisies
Synonyms of hypocrisy (https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hypocrisy)1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel
The 4th graders would have gotten Florida State rightThe committee already got FSU right, they weren't close to one of the best four teams.
He has access to a classroom
I'm the one being told losses matter, yet those same people telling me that are also defending TCU's loss not mattering. And not as in kinda-sorta not mattering, or mattering less than normal, but utterly not mattering so completely that if they didn't play the game, nothing would have been different.Is your issue that the TCU loss didn't matter as much as normal, or is your issue that TCU got in at all and you think they just didn't belong? Especially when the program on the outside looking in at #5 was SEC darling Bama?
The committee already got FSU right, they weren't close to one of the best four teams.They didn't accumulate enough data points. Their composite recruiting ranking should have been higher. Fourth graders can't understand this.
Is your issue that the TCU loss didn't matter as much as normal, or is your issue that TCU got in at all and you think they just didn't belong? Especially when the program on the outside looking in at #5 was SEC darling Bama?This post is exemplary of the disconnect between everything I've said and what you think I mean. Jesus Christ. I don't give a shit which team benefits. If I'm going to be hounded by the "the results should matter" chant endlessly on this board, then why in the holy hell is everyone suddenly trying to sweep TCU's conference championship loss under the rug?!?!?!?!
They didn't accumulate enough data points. Their composite recruiting ranking should have been higher. Fourth graders can't understand this.It isn't about recruiting and I think FSU's recruiting is pretty strong anyway. It is about them losing a QB and looking REALLY shaky without him.
This post is exemplary of the disconnect between everything I've said and what you think I mean. Jesus Christ. I don't give a shit which team benefits. If I'm going to be hounded by the "the results should matter" chant endlessly on this board, then why in the holy hell is everyone suddenly trying to sweep TCU's conference championship loss under the rug?!?!?!?!What you've stated is that you want the best four teams and that we shouldn't just line up teams based on number of losses. The idea being that quality of team is a lot more complicated than just the number of losses they've suffered, right.
It's not about TCU not deserving a CFP spot, it's about their CCG loss having zero consequences. Their game vs KSU needn't have been played. They end up with one loss, yet didn't drop 1 spot in the rankings. OSU was right behind them with a much better loss as their only loss, but didn't move up.
Someone find me an example of that ever happening. I'll wait.
Didn't drop them "far enough"...........are you incapable of an honest back-and-forth?!?Yes, they didn't drop them at all. Which means that the prima facia interpretation of the committee's behavior is that they thought they were still the third-best team in the country, despite the loss.
They didn't drop them at all.
Stop pretending I'm being unreasonable and whiney.
You guys defending this has got you using word salad and backtracking on yourselves.
Didn't drop them "far enough"...........are you incapable of an honest back-and-forth?!?You don't respond to anyone's points. You want them dropped behind OSU. But they had a better record than OSU. OSU didn't make its championship game, and they lost their last game, too. Further, who the hell cares? They should have dropped TCU one spot as an appropriate punishment for losing a game? How is this even a discussion?
They didn't drop them at all.
Stop pretending I'm being unreasonable and whiney.
You guys defending this has got you using word salad and backtracking on yourselves.
THE GAMES ARE SUPPOSED TO MATTER!Hey I've been advocating for that forever only to be told I'm thinking like a fourth grader. You wanted a beauty pageant, this is what you get.
At least, that's what I've been told here.....ad nauseum.
It isn't about recruiting and I think FSU's recruiting is pretty strong anyway. It is about them losing a QB and looking REALLY shaky without him.I can only imagine if one of those games was similar to how Alabama played against Auburn.
It's not about TCU not deserving a CFP spot, it's about their CCG loss having zero consequences. Their game vs KSU needn't have been played. They end up with one loss, yet didn't drop 1 spot in the rankings. OSU was right behind them with a much better loss as their only loss, but didn't move up.but, it did NEED to be played
It isn't about recruiting and I think FSU's recruiting is pretty strong anyway. It is about them losing a QB and looking REALLY shaky without him.So it's not about resume, it's about how talented the available roster is.
This either one thing OR the other nonsense is stupid. It's not solely either. It's both. It's all of it.You can’t believe your eyes because TCU didn’t win by 1. So you didn’t see that as all.
And I can't believe my eyes when someone acts like TCU's 1-point win over UM and subsequent 58-pt loss to UGA supports that they belonged.
If you polled the committee members if they actually believed TCU was the 3rd-best team, out of 16, I bet fewer than 5 would admit to it. Not solely because of their roster quality, but also because of their numerous narrow wins vs non-elite teams.
I could fill a barn with all the straw-manning going on in this thread.
ANY system will have flaws, it's inherent. That's why we don't see suggestions here for something better.It's no different than the "I hate the NCAA tear it down" cabal.
This either one thing OR the other nonsense is stupid. It's not solely either. It's both. It's all of it.I actually don't give a crap about TCU. I just like watching you twist.
And I can't believe my eyes when someone acts like TCU's 1-point win over UM and subsequent 58-pt loss to UGA supports that they belonged.
If you polled the committee members if they actually believed TCU was the 3rd-best team, out of 16, I bet fewer than 5 would admit to it. Not solely because of their roster quality, but also because of their numerous narrow wins vs non-elite teams.
I could fill a barn with all the straw-manning going on in this thread.
If you polled the committee members if they actually believed TCU was the 3rd-best team, out of 16, I bet fewer than 5 would admit to it.
How would you choose the 3 at large?Let the committee do it.
We only have 4 power conferences now, but you include one "G5" which seems like a legal requirement today.
I'd be fine with 5+3, or even 5+1, or whatever else really. But we're at 12, and I can deal with it I reckon, having no real choice in the matter.I actually wouldn't like 5+3 after all the conference realignment. As I've said elsewhere, with 18 conference teams, no divisions, and the CCG being "best two teams", my team is effectively locked out of the playoff. 5+3 with the old conference alignment my team could at least hope to squeak into the B1G CCG as the West winner and hope for an upset.
I actually wouldn't like 5+3 after all the conference realignment. As I've said elsewhere, with 18 conference teams, no divisions, and the CCG being "best two teams", my team is effectively locked out of the playoff. 5+3 with the old conference alignment my team could at least hope to squeak into the B1G CCG as the West winner and hope for an upset.Shouldn't have squandered the previous 50 years, I guess....when it was wide open for ya'll.
And that same issue exists for my team in the 12-team system. With MAYBE an outside chance that one year out of 30 my team sneaks into the 10 or 11 seed before getting squashed.
So as I've said, my way to "deal with it" is to retract from the sport. It doesn't want me (or my team), so I don't have to watch it.
You can’t believe your eyes because TCU didn’t win by 1. So you didn’t see that as all.I absolutely agree.....but that's the precedent, almost without exception.
(I must admire the bit when getting spun up about basically the most nonsensical part of a sport with polls. “They just lost, WHY DON’T THE DROP?!?” It’s maybe the most flawed and least intelligent way to run these things)
But here's the bit of why people needle you on this...It's less "I know better" and more "why be inconsistent now (2022)?!?"
The CFP committee is made up of legitimate college football "experts". People who have spent much of their adult lives as part of the sport. People whose combined decades of experience is a multiple of your lifespan. And it's set up as a committee to ensure that multiple competing voices are heard and the rankings they end up with are a consensus of the group's expertise and opinion.
You've never played nor coached college football. This isn't a criticism, but your adult life has been spent as a schoolteacher. Your expertise regarding college football is that of being an interested fan, the creator of a college football historically-based board game, and arguing with yahoos like us on the internet.
So the CFP, a group of legitimate experts, comes to the conclusion that TCU is the #3 team in the country, despite a loss. And you, a yahoo on the internet, say: "Well, I know better! They're so obviously wrong and stupid! Why doesn't everyone listen to me?"
Which is why I say that it's all just a beauty pageant, and you're pissed off that they don't share your aesthetic taste.
It's less "I know better" and more "why be inconsistent now (2022)?!?"
But also, the committee isn't just ranking the teams. They're judged by the public and have to face the masses. That's why the FSU thing this year was a big hullabaloo. They kept TCU ranked (likely) due to 'deserve' over 'belong' and then the next year did the opposite for the Noles.
Issue of consistency.
Like a team not dropping 1 spot after a loss to a lower-ranked team. I'm still not sure that had ever happened before. Ever.
Inconsistent.
.
It's not about my ego or SEC teams being benefitted.
Any time 2 people disagree each thinks they're right. Hence the disagreement.2016, Michigan lost to 5-4 Iowa.
You're way too focused on me and not on the matter at hand.
You could probably shut me up by finding an example of a team losing to a lower-ranked team and not moving down even 1 spot in the rankings......:57:
Wow, 8 years ago and to an unranked team. I guess the committee is consistent after all.Nobody here is arguing they are perfect, or consistent, or get it right. Nobody. They don't. I think we all agree.
I stand corrected. They really do know what they're doing.
Any time 2 people disagree each thinks they're right. Hence the disagreement.Yes, that's true. People should come into a disagreement with the humility to know that they MIGHT be wrong, though. And generally with the charity of mind to believe that the other side is reasonably intelligent and is honestly believing in their opinion.
Wow, 8 years ago and to an unranked team. I guess the committee is consistent after all.
I stand corrected. They really do know what they're doing.
Wow, 8 years ago and to an unranked team. I guess the committee is consistent after all.So this will not shut you up as you said it might?
I stand corrected. They really do know what they're doing.
https://twitter.com/ChrisVannini/status/1760651119586373987?s=20I think that's frankly a great deal for most CFB players, especially smaller-school programs, but I wonder what they're going to do for very big-name big-school players who don't think $600 is enough?
I think that's frankly a great deal for most CFB players, especially smaller-school programs, but I wonder what they're going to do for very big-name big-school players who don't think $600 is enough?Apparently there are going to be additional NIL deals for top players, probably to be involved with some additional purchasable content.
I.e. let's say the RB from Michigan, Edwards, decides not to sign up. He thinks he's worth $10K. Does EA just replace him with a truly fictional RB, or do they engage his agent and negotiate?
Apparently there are going to be additional NIL deals for top players, probably to be involved with some additional purchasable content.Got it. That makes sense.
Got it. That makes sense.Correct, but I don't think enough to get an increased pay day. Remember MJ used to opt out of the NBA Live games, so they just made it without him. $600, plus being in the game seems better than opting out. Because not even the biggest college football names, a Tim Tebow, is even close to the pull of 90s MJ
I'm sure there are a LOT of players--especially those who are at the big schools with the big collectives making decently largepay-for-pay salariesNIL money where $600 wouldn't move the needle in their lives at all.
If the players are able to be edited, then any players that hold out are idiots. They're easily creatable. We've been doing it for years before the game ended.They claim they are blocking it. No clue how that's possible
Same with Jordan in the NBA Live series. Just made him. Yawn.
There has to be edits, because kids like to mess with all the aesthetics n stuff. Non-editable players is total nonsense, agreed.They say there are edits, but no way to put in players who opt out.
https://twitter.com/ChrisVannini/status/1760651119586373987?s=20Athlon predicts the highest rated players in the upcoming game...I'm pretty much on board with all of these except Quinn Ewers. Mason Graham should be on that list by the way.