**Running College Football Updates Thread**

[dssl]

I see lawsuits by the rest of the NCAA members. Mainly the ACC, Big XII and Notre Dame.

Not sure what the lawsuit grounds would be. They either agree, or the big 2 just has a big 2 conference playoff, which would likely net those 2 conferences more money, and the other conferences less.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

With the 14 team playoffs, it's the same number of games for the SEC/B1G champions and runners ups. And then the other SEC/B1G playoff teams would play the same number of games as the loser of the SEC/B1G championship games, so unlike the current format, no extra week off for coming in 3rd or 4th in a big 2 conference. The only playoff teams that get an extra week off are the B1G and SEC champions.

The only teams that play more are the non big 2 conference champions, and the teams that make it to the playoffs WITHOUT playing in a conference championship game.

I also like that the SEC gets 4 playoff births, that way less penalty for playing a mostly brutal 9 game conference schedule.

So more marquee games. Yes more teams have to play 13 games, to make the playoffs. Yes more money, which will help pay for the revenue sharing.

All of this sounds like a huge improvement, surprised it's a "hard no" for you.

None of that really does anything for me. I don't like designating 4 playoff berths WITHOUT KNOWING there are 4 teams in each conference worthy of it.

You're wanting to increase to 14 or 16 teams. I don't think there are 14 to 16 teams capable of winning the title. All it seems to do is provide more risk to losing players to injury in games that probably shouldn't be played at all.

The only good thing out of this is the schools and ESPN get more money. ESPN will be the death of college football.

 

[BWilk55]

None of that really does anything for me. I don't like designating 4 playoff berths WITHOUT KNOWING there are 4 teams in each conference worthy of it.

You're wanting to increase to 14 or 16 teams. I don't think there are 14 to 16 teams capable of winning the title. All it seems to do is provide more risk to losing players to injury in games that probably shouldn't be played at all.

The only good thing out of this is the schools and ESPN get more money. ESPN will be the death of college football.

One benefit from all of this is that we will see more marquee games.

Every SEC team adds another SEC match up. On top of that, every big10 and SEC team will have a non-conference matchup against the other conference. Teams like Texas do this sort of scheduling already but now all 32 teams will.

And then a 14 or 16 team playoff insures even more high profile matchups in the post-season. As long as they fix the seeding fiasco from last year, most of the games will at a minimum be competitive and obviously very meaningful.

It also sounds like conference championship games will be altered. Instead of #1 vs #2, those teams are off and moving on to the playoffs. The conference championship weekend instead would be #3 vs #6 and #4 vs #5 with a playoff berth on the line.

 

[dssl]

None of that really does anything for me. I don't like designating 4 playoff berths WITHOUT KNOWING there are 4 teams in each conference worthy of it.

You're wanting to increase to 14 or 16 teams. I don't think there are 14 to 16 teams capable of winning the title. All it seems to do is provide more risk to losing players to injury in games that probably shouldn't be played at all.

The only good thing out of this is the schools and ESPN get more money. ESPN will be the death of college football.

I use to be against the idea of 4 designated births, but after seeing how things played out last year, it became clear to me that SEC teams were at a disadvantage for playing a tougher schedule. i.e. the rankings will put a team with a relatively easy schedule but 0 or 1 loss ahead of a team with 2 or 3 losses and a way more difficult schedule. In an ideal world the best teams would be ranked the highest, but unfortunately that's not what happens.

If playing less games, and making sure all the teams with a real shot get in was the objective, then it seems like eliminating the CCGs and going to an 8 team playoff would be the ticket. For better or worse those extra games generate lots of money, so probably aren't going away.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

I use to be against the idea of 4 designated births, but after seeing how things played out last year, it became clear to me that SEC teams were at a disadvantage for playing a tougher schedule. i.e. the rankings will put a team with a relatively easy schedule but 0 or 1 loss ahead of a team with 2 or 3 losses and a way more difficult schedule. In an ideal world the best teams would be ranked the highest, but unfortunately that's not what happens.

If playing less games, and making sure all the teams with a real shot get in was the objective, then it seems like eliminating the CCGs and going to an 8 team playoff would be the ticket. For better or worse those extra games generate lots of money, so probably aren't going away.

If the SEC schedule is your concern, surely you've considered that your format adds another SEC game to the schedule to replace one of the cupcakes SEC teams normally schedule? That format increases the disadvantage you mentioned.

 

[dssl]

One benefit from all of this is that we will see more marquee games.

Every SEC team adds another SEC match up. On top of that, every big10 and SEC team will have a non-conference matchup against the other conference. Teams like Texas do this sort of scheduling already but now all 32 teams will.

And then a 14 or 16 team playoff insures even more high profile matchups in the post-season. As long as they fix the seeding fiasco from last year, most of the games will at a minimum be competitive and obviously very meaningful.

It also sounds like conference championship games will be altered. Instead of #1 vs #2, those teams are off and moving on to the playoffs. The conference championship weekend instead would be #3 vs #6 and #4 vs

If the SEC schedule is your concern, surely you've considered that your format adds another SEC game to the schedule to replace one of the cupcakes SEC teams normally schedule? That format increases the disadvantage you mentioned.

Correct. I think they are coupling the 9 conference games to the 4 automatic playoff births.

 

[Baron]

Honestly, I don't see a damn thing wrong with this years format. I would love to see the Horns get the #1 seed or 5 seed every year.

 

[BWilk55]

Honestly, I don't see a damn thing wrong with this years format. I would love to see the Horns get the #1 seed or 5 seed every year.

Sounds like the SEC and Big10 are trying to fix the seeding issue. There is no way teams like Arizona State and Boise State deserved byes this year and that made first round matchups overly challenging for some schools (Tenn vs Ohio State for example) and then too easy for some schools in the round of 8 (Texas vs ASU, Penn State vs Boise).

 

[dssl]

Honestly, I don't see a damn thing wrong with this years format. I would love to see the Horns get the #1 seed or 5 seed every year.

From our small sample size of fans, it's clear that no matter what changes they make, or don't make they won't be able to please everyone.

Like it or not, money will play a major factor in what changes are made, and it's not hard to see what changes will generate additional revenue.

 

[Baron]

Sounds like the SEC and Big10 are trying to fix the seeding issue. There is no way teams like Arizona State and Boise State deserved byes this year and that made first round matchups overly challenging for some schools (Tenn vs Ohio State for example) and then too easy for some schools in the round of 8 (Texas vs ASU, Penn State vs Boise).

Yeah, the seeding issue will preclude Texas from being #5 if they change it. The Big 12 and the ACC might very well be 10 and 11.

 

[BWilk55]

Yeah, the seeding issue will preclude Texas from being #5 if they change it. The Big 12 and the ACC might very well be 10 and 11.

It certainly worked out in Texas' favor this year.

Had the seeding been straight 1-12 (with Clemson included as the 12 seed as an AQ), Texas would have had a bye in week 1 but then faced off against the winner of Ohio State and Arizona State in the round of 8.

 

[Sunkist]

Sounds like the SEC and Big10 are trying to fix the seeding issue. There is no way teams like Arizona State and Boise State deserved byes this year and that made first round matchups overly challenging for some schools (Tenn vs Ohio State for example) and then too easy for some schools in the round of 8 (Texas vs ASU, Penn State vs Boise).

We had it easy against ASU?

 

[tejasrulz]

Sounds like the SEC and Big10 are trying to fix the seeding issue. There is no way teams like Arizona State and Boise State deserved byes this year and that made first round matchups overly challenging for some schools (Tenn vs Ohio State for example) and then too easy for some schools in the round of 8 (Texas vs ASU, Penn State vs Boise).

I guess I watched a different Texas vs ASU game then you did. The one I watched Texas went into OT and had to score on a 4th & long to keep from losing it.

 

[BWilk55]

We had it easy against ASU?

I guess I watched a different Texas vs ASU game then you did. The one I watched Texas went into OT and had to score on a 4th & long to keep from losing it.

Texas was a 14 point favorite going into the game... That is not what you should expect from a quarterfinal matchup in the CFP.

 

[tejasrulz]

Texas was a 14 point favorite going into the game... That is not what you should expect from a quarterfinal matchup in the CFP.

So you're saying whoever set the spread was way off, got it.

 

[BWilk55]

So you're saying whoever set the spread was way off, got it.

No, you are judging the validity of the match up on the outcome of the game...the validity of the matchup is determined before the game begins.

Explain to me how in any reasonably seeded tournament the 3rd ranked team faces off against the 12th ranked team in the quarterfinals? Then explain how it makes sense that the 3rd ranked team played in the opening round and the 12 seed had a bye?

 

[tejasrulz]

No, you are judging the validity of the match up on the outcome of the game...the validity of the matchup is determined before the game begins.

Explain to me how in any reasonably seeded tournament the 3rd ranked team faces off against the 12th ranked team in the quarterfinals? Then explain how it makes sense that the 3rd ranked team played in the opening round and the 12 seed had a bye?

The 12th seed was Clemson who played Texas in the first round so they didn't have a bye. They awarded the top 4 conference champions with a bye, which I'm ok with. A team should be awarded for winning their conference as the champs.

This is your original statement: "There is no way teams like Arizona State and Boise State deserved byes this year and that made first round matchups overly challenging for some schools (Tenn vs Ohio State for example) and then too easy for some schools in the round of 8 (Texas vs ASU, Penn State vs Boise)." No matter what you retort, no way did Texas have it "too easy" vs Arizona State.

 

[Wayne]

The 12th seed was Clemson who played Texas in the first round so they didn't have a bye. They awarded the top 4 conference champions with a bye, which I'm ok with. A team should be awarded for winning their conference as the champs.

This is your original statement: "There is no way teams like Arizona State and Boise State deserved byes this year and that made first round matchups overly challenging for some schools (Tenn vs Ohio State for example) and then too easy for some schools in the round of 8 (Texas vs ASU, Penn State vs Boise)." No matter what you retort, no way did Texas have it "too easy" vs Arizona State.

That wasn’t the point they were trying to make. Had nothing to do with Texas. Arizona State didn’t deserve a first round bye. Winning a conference championship gets you in and that is all you should be rewarded with. The rankings should be the seeding. Like March Madness. An inferior team that wins a championship doesn’t deserve a high seed.

 

[BWilk55]

The 12th seed was Clemson who played Texas in the first round so they didn't have a bye. They awarded the top 4 conference champions with a bye, which I'm ok with. A team should be awarded for winning their conference as the champs.

This is your original statement: "There is no way teams like Arizona State and Boise State deserved byes this year and that made first round matchups overly challenging for some schools (Tenn vs Ohio State for example) and then too easy for some schools in the round of 8 (Texas vs ASU, Penn State vs Boise)." No matter what you retort, no way did Texas have it "too easy" vs Arizona State.

Clemson was the 16th highest ranked team. They were bumped to the 12 seed as an AQ. Arizona State was the 12th ranked team, bumped to the 4 seed because of the seeding rules about conference champions.

If you don't think a match up where you are a 14 point favorite is too easy for a quarterfinal in a quarterfinal I am not sure what to tell you.

And yes, I know that game was one Texas nearly lost but I'll again reiterate that the reasonableness of the match up is not determined post-game, but pre-game.

 

[tejasrulz]

Clemson was the 16th highest ranked team. They were bumped to the 12 seed as an AQ. Arizona State was the 12th ranked team, bumped to the 4 seed because of the seeding rules about conference champions.

If you don't think a match up where you are a 14 point favorite is too easy for a quarterfinal in a quarterfinal I am not sure what to tell you.

And yes, I know that game was one Texas nearly lost but I'll again reiterate that the reasonableness of the match up is not determined post-game, but pre-game.

Look at the Jets vs the Colts in Super Bowl 3, the Colts were favored by 16+ pts in the title game. The Jets won 16-7 in one of the biggest upsets in history. The Horns vs USC, nobody gave Texas a chance, but they won. I'll agree the point spread wasn't 14 in that game, but Texas was a huge underdog. USC blew ou away in the 2005 NC game in which the point spread was probably low but they won by almost 40 if I remember right.

I could list many more examples, but I believe you get my point. If not, we'll just agree to disagree. I don't pay much attention to point spreads because they're made-up numbers meant for Vegas. It's why they play the game instead of letting football geniuses figure out the winner via a spreadsheet.