Non-SEC Football

[Sirhornsalot]

 

[Sirhornsalot]

 

[Dillohorn1]

scalping

 

[dssl]

As expected from previous rumors, the 24 team playoffs, that eliminates the CCGs for 2027 is about to become official.

Google News

Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.

news.google.com

 

[63_Texas_1]

Interesting question by the Missouri coach.

Why are we associated with conferences anymore if we're not playing for a conference championship?

"Times are changing, so you've got to adjust with the times," Missouri coach Eli Drinkwitz told reporters Tuesday. "But my question is why are we associated with conferences anymore if we're not playing for a conference championship? If the point now is just to be playing into a sea of 24, are we just doing it for scheduling affiliation? If we're just doing it for scheduling affiliation, is there a reason to be flying all the way across the country to play games from a national perspective?"

Here is another observation:

"Bowl games are no longer valuable. Building a program and having a season to build for the next season, where your fans can be excited. 'OK, man, next year this has got a chance.' There's none of that because you don't know who's going to be back. Every team is starting over each year. There's no real regional rivalries anymore because there's no more regional conferences, outside of ours, which is the best conference in college football."

Interesting Observation

 

[hookemhorb]

Interesting question by the Missouri coach.

Why are we associated with conferences anymore if we're not playing for a conference championship?

"Times are changing, so you've got to adjust with the times," Missouri coach Eli Drinkwitz told reporters Tuesday. "But my question is why are we associated with conferences anymore if we're not playing for a conference championship? If the point now is just to be playing into a sea of 24, are we just doing it for scheduling affiliation? If we're just doing it for scheduling affiliation, is there a reason to be flying all the way across the country to play games from a national perspective?"

Here is another observation:

"Bowl games are no longer valuable. Building a program and having a season to build for the next season, where your fans can be excited. 'OK, man, next year this has got a chance.' There's none of that because you don't know who's going to be back. Every team is starting over each year. There's no real regional rivalries anymore because there's no more regional conferences, outside of ours, which is the best conference in college football."

Interesting Observation

He's referring to the top tier teams. The lower echelon teams will never compete for a championship unless they spend the money to create a championship team. Is he talking about Colorado or Purdue? I don't think so. The bowl games will be relegated to these teams while everyone else is in the playoffs. Think of the bowl games as the NIT basketball tournament.

 

[63_Texas_1]

He's referring to the top tier teams. The lower echelon teams will never compete for a championship unless they spend the money to create a championship team. Is he talking about Colorado or Purdue? I don't think so. The bowl games will be relegated to these teams while everyone else is in the playoffs. Think of the bowl games as the NIT basketball tournament.

His other observation (question).

If the point now is just to be playing into a sea of 24, are we just doing it for scheduling affiliation?

 

[dssl]

With a conference of 16 or more teams, where division formats suck, and each team plays 9 of the 15 or more conference teams, the criteria for the CCG is often problematic.

I understand this is likely to be an unpopular opinion here, but this doesn't seem terrible to me.

Instead of anointing the top 2 teams based on an often convoluted tie breaking formula, you pick the highest ranked team after the season, and declare them as the conference champion. Obviously not as sexy as a CCG, but on the other hand if a natty is the goal, why not declare the team that comes closest to that goal as the conference champion.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

I think it's all a load of shit. There are not 24 teams out there any year who can win the national championship. The season itself proves this.

The regular season isn't a big thing anymore and conference championships are being ended, so I agree with the question "why have conferences at all?"

The bowl season, long a popular staple of college football and families over the holidays, is going to end except for those hosting playoff games.

I struggle to see how any of this makes college football better. All it does is pad the pockets of a few select entities.

The same thing happened with Texas' UIL HS playoffs. They're not as exciting as they once were. As one who would attend good playoff games when one was close, I stop and wait for the first two rounds to be over because all they are a bunch of lopsided games that aren't entertaining.

We've seen teams with only two wins on the season qualify for the playoffs and then get beat 81-0. Whats fun about that? What service are we doing to anyone here?

Rant over.

 

[Dillohorn1]

I miss the SWC, Big 12, and the LHN.

 

[63_Texas_1]

I miss the SWC, Big 12, and the LHN.

I was thinking about your post. What appeared to me was what was the demise of the above you mentioned? ESPN (via SEC).

ESPN, directly or indirectly, has created the 24 team playoff. Everything has been about their own interests and not the best interests of collegiate sports. Now here we are.

 

[Grandpa Zorro]

Interesting question by the Missouri coach.

Why are we associated with conferences anymore if we're not playing for a conference championship?

"Times are changing, so you've got to adjust with the times," Missouri coach Eli Drinkwitz told reporters Tuesday. "But my question is why are we associated with conferences anymore if we're not playing for a conference championship? If the point now is just to be playing into a sea of 24, are we just doing it for scheduling affiliation? If we're just doing it for scheduling affiliation, is there a reason to be flying all the way across the country to play games from a national perspective?"

Here is another observation:

"Bowl games are no longer valuable. Building a program and having a season to build for the next season, where your fans can be excited. 'OK, man, next year this has got a chance.' There's none of that because you don't know who's going to be back. Every team is starting over each year. There's no real regional rivalries anymore because there's no more regional conferences, outside of ours, which is the best conference in college football."

Interesting Observation

There is value to having a conference…conference player of the week awards are valuable from a motivation standpoint. While there is motivation for national awards and national championships, the majority of the Current FBS schools have no chance at those awards on a national stage. And I assume we are only talking about football here…there are many other sports that need and want conference affiliation.

But the obvious answer is $$$$$. If there are no conferences, who negotiates TV deals and distributes money? The NCAA?? OH HECK NO!!!

Also, there is value in having bowl games, not only from a player standpoint but from the charity dollars generated and distributed.

 

[63_Texas_1]

From the new horizon, did Notre Dame came out ahead? They have their own network and generally speaking, can dictate their own schedule.

 

[Baron]

With a conference of 16 or more teams, where division formats suck, and each team plays 9 of the 15 or more conference teams, the criteria for the CCG is often problematic.

I understand this is likely to be an unpopular opinion here, but this doesn't seem terrible to me.

Instead of anointing the top 2 teams based on an often convoluted tie breaking formula, you pick the highest ranked team after the season, and declare them as the conference champion. Obviously not as sexy as a CCG, but on the other hand if a natty is the goal, why not declare the team that comes closest to that goal as the conference champion.

I don't like it. You're going to choose a champion out of two teams that may not have played each other. There is going to be some pissed off fan bases if an undefeated team with a shit schedule is crowned champion over a 2 loss team with 5 top 25 wins.

 

[dssl]

I don't like it. You're going to choose a champion out of two teams that may not have played each other. There is going to be some pissed off fan bases if an undefeated team with a shit schedule is crowned champion over a 2 loss team with 5 top 25 wins.

Given the constraints of the season, you are always going to have teams feeling short changed, no matter the post season format.

With the current CCG system you can easily have more then 2 teams that have a legitimate claim for a shot at the conference championship. Ideally maybe you would have an SEC playoff, but that's obviously not realistic.

IMHO, the conference champion selection is not perfect now, and it won't be perfect with this change.

I'm not crazy about the 24 team playoff but it will provide lots of compelling games, and generate lots of money.

Since we aren't the decision makers, our only option is to tune in , or tune out, and I doubt many will tune out because of this change.

 

[Baron]

Given the constraints of the season, you are always going to have teams feeling short changed, no matter the post season format.

With the current CCG system you can easily have more then 2 teams that have a legitimate claim for a shot at the conference championship. Ideally maybe you would have an SEC playoff, but that's obviously not realistic.

IMHO, the conference champion selection is not perfect now, and it won't be perfect with this change.

I'm not crazy about the 24 team playoff but it will provide lots of compelling games, and generate lots of money.

Since we aren't the decision makers, our only option is to tune in , or tune out, and I doubt many will tune out because of this change.

1. The scenario I put forward is viable the way the selection criteria has evolved with the committee.
2. I understand the opt out scenario considering what just happen politically in this country. I don't like it, but what can I do about it?