King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Go watch the NFL.

If cfb fans dont start saying no to this bs we're going to lose the sport

---

What is so great about watching ****ty teams getting owned in the playoffs? We already have to watch it throughout the year. Why is it a positive thing to see in the postseason?

---

Get rid of the playoff. Solves every single problem created by the playoff. Why make it complicated?

---

Because voting on a champion is the most idiotic thing ever. If we're going to get rid of the playoffs, then get rid of rankings and having an end of year #1. Just have your conference titles and move on. The playoff only exists because declaring someone #1 is ******ed.

Keep it as is but add an accountable committee that has transparent rules based guidelines. Ie if Texas A&M strength of schedule and strength of record are better than Ole Miss and Oregon, Texas A&M WILL be seeded ahead of Ole Miss and Oregon.

rootube said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

rootube said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

rootube said:

---

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

---

You don't see an issue with paying players to play (but not calling it that) and then not having a way to guarantee they play and/or taking away their money when they don't play. Right now, the players hold all of the power and there has to be some sort of balance.

---

The bigger issue is that they weren't being paid before to me. That and the fact that they were being paid under the table and that the deck was stacked against the on blue bloods.

---

So because they weren't being paid before (they were), now we need to create a system that will bankrupt half of college athletic programs and further benefit the blue-bloods?

---

---

We can afford it. That's why I said half. And we have had to hire an AD who's sole mission is to cut spending and generate revenue at every turn just to keep our program afloat, and we are in the ever-shrinking group of "haves." Hell, even a billionaire (Cody Campbell) who has essentially bought his way into the playoffs understands that there has to be some structure in order for this model to continue.

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Go watch the NFL.

If cfb fans dont start saying no to this bs we're going to lose the sport

---

What is so great about watching ****ty teams getting owned in the playoffs? We already have to watch it throughout the year. Why is it a positive thing to see in the postseason?

---

Teams are going to lose. Some are going to get blown out Nobody really cares that they are in as much as the teams that were excluded. If teams like ND, Texas, Vanderbilt, and others were in this wouldn't be a big deal

---

Again, it's terrible football. But worse, it give Ole Miss and Oregon a massive competitive advantage than the other 4 schools get in round 1. Being the 5 or 6 seed this year is objectively better than being in the top 4. That is beyond stupid.

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Go watch the NFL.

If cfb fans dont start saying no to this bs we're going to lose the sport

---

What is so great about watching ****ty teams getting owned in the playoffs? We already have to watch it throughout the year. Why is it a positive thing to see in the postseason?

---

Get rid of the playoff. Solves every single problem created by the playoff. Why make it complicated?

---

Because voting on a champion is the most idiotic thing ever. If we're going to get rid of the playoffs, then get rid of rankings and having an end of year #1. Just have your conference titles and move on. The playoff only exists because declaring someone #1 is ******ed.

---

Totally agree. UConn played Stetson in the first round of the NCAA basketball tournament last year and beat them 91-52. Did anyone say we need to scrap this tournament idea and instead go to 12 teams and let a committee decide. No. Because that would be complete stupidity. Like what we have today in CFB.

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

We played a championship game before the playoff. What?

---

The first BCS championship game was in 1999. The precursor to that game began in 1993. For the first 100 years of CFB the champion was voted on. The only began that game because people realized voting for a champ is stupid. But what's the difference between voting on a singular champion and voting on the 2 teams that get a chance to be the champion? Not a whole hell of alot, hence the playoff began. If you want the playoffs gone, then go back to pre-1993 and make it some made up title that people vote on and be done with it.

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Go watch the NFL.

If cfb fans dont start saying no to this bs we're going to lose the sport

---

What is so great about watching ****ty teams getting owned in the playoffs? We already have to watch it throughout the year. Why is it a positive thing to see in the postseason?

---

Get rid of the playoff. Solves every single problem created by the playoff. Why make it complicated?

---

Because voting on a champion is the most idiotic thing ever. If we're going to get rid of the playoffs, then get rid of rankings and having an end of year #1. Just have your conference titles and move on. The playoff only exists because declaring someone #1 is ******ed.

---

Totally agree. UConn played Stetson in the first round of the NCAA basketball tournament last year and beat them 91-52. Did anyone say we need to scrap this tournament idea and instead go to 12 teams and let a committee decide. No. Because that would be complete stupidity. Like what we have today in CFB.

---

Again, football is a far more violent sport, and takes a full week of game prep. It's chess and sport all in one. Oregon gets to start prepping for Tech this week, because their first game doesn't matter. Ole Miss gets to prep for Georgia. Meanwhile the other 4 schools have to be fully locked into round 1. This is nothing like basketball. The playbooks, the matchups, etc. It's requires far more out of the coaching staff and the bodies of the players than basketball ever will. It's a stupid comparison for anyone who has ever played/coached both sports.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

You don't see an issue with paying players to play (but not calling it that) and then not having a way to guarantee they play and/or taking away their money when they don't play. Right now, the players hold all of the power and there has to be some sort of balance.

---

Which is why the Georgia collective assigned their contract rights to the university and they are challenging a player who broke the contract and transferred to Missouri.

---

Do they stand a chance of winning? And what do you think would be the fallout if they do?

The other solution is go back to the bowl games when the Sugar Bowl meant the SEC champion versus somebody, the Cotton Bowl meant the Big 12 champ versus somebody, etc... and then do a "plus 1 game" for the natty.

rootube said:

---

TexAg2019 said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

---

The biggest complaint is pretending like other conferences actually matter. 2 G5 teams? The Big 12 team has sucked every year but this one. Tech may be a perennial playoff team now because of their budget, but it still remains to be seen if they can compete with the better conferences after their cupcake schedule. We make fun of the the B1G but Tech doesn't even have a close 2nd or 3rd to push them in that craptastic conference.

Making the playoffs bigger isn't a solution because we'll have more ****ty big 12 and ACC teams in. It's more useless first round and creates useless second round games. It will be terrible football

OP is right: The B1G and the SEC will split off. Probably waiting for the ACC implosion to bring those key pieces along. Unfortunately, Tech may be in that conversation as well. But the two mega conferences aren't going to keep pretending like Tulane, James Madison, BYU are playing equivalent football and deserve representation. At least the ACC still has some schools that can put serious talent together. No other conference has that.

It'll be 40 ish teams. Playoffs will be determined objectively like pro sports. Some of that collective bargaining etc may not need to happen though. All that happens is conferences agree to some no coach poaching terms and agree that any transfer within these 40ish teams has to sit a year. Kids coming up from smaller colleges or going down to a smaller college don't have to sit, so the kids can't complain they are being kept from furthering their careers in court.

---

I disagree completely. The issue is not that we invited JMU and Tulane to the playoffs. The issue is that the field is not big enough to logically include them. Are they going to win, no they probably aren't but that is no reason to not invite them to a division of CFB they are already members of.

The problem is not that we let two G5 teams in. The issue is that we excluded a few teams whom could have made a run by letting two G5 teams in.

---

FIFY

---

Wrong. Let them in and we can find out. If the field was 24 instead of 12 this would be a non issue. It's funny how CFB fans forget how playoffs work when it comes to CFB but understand in literally ever other sport. If you only invited teams them at had a 90% probably of winning college basketball would have a twelve team playoff and would have tons of controversy and would be a much crappier product.

---

Ole Miss beat Tulane by 5 touchdowns earlier this season. But sure, lets "find out." If college basketball works so well in your opinion, why don't we just expand the playoff to 64 teams then? Why stop at 24? Even you know that college football and college basketball are two inherently different products and can never reasonably have a playoff structured the same way without diminishing it.

The issue with the 12-team format has never been about the number of teams that get it. It has always been, and will always be, about the fact that this "12 best teams" format is really the 11 best teams and one charity case (or in this year's case, the 10 best teams and 2 charity cases). So long as the playoff format reserves any number of bids for certain conferences, regardless of the ultimate number of teams that are selected, it will never represent the complete set of "best" teams.

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Go watch the NFL.

If cfb fans dont start saying no to this bs we're going to lose the sport

---

What is so great about watching ****ty teams getting owned in the playoffs? We already have to watch it throughout the year. Why is it a positive thing to see in the postseason?

---

Get rid of the playoff. Solves every single problem created by the playoff. Why make it complicated?

---

Because voting on a champion is the most idiotic thing ever. If we're going to get rid of the playoffs, then get rid of rankings and having an end of year #1. Just have your conference titles and move on. The playoff only exists because declaring someone #1 is ******ed.

---

Totally agree. UConn played Stetson in the first round of the NCAA basketball tournament last year and beat them 91-52. Did anyone say we need to scrap this tournament idea and instead go to 12 teams and let a committee decide. No. Because that would be complete stupidity. Like what we have today in CFB.

---

Again, football is a far more violent sport, and takes a full week of game prep. It's chess and sport all in one. Oregon gets to start prepping for Tech this week, because their first game doesn't matter. Ole Miss gets to prep for Georgia. Meanwhile the other 4 schools have to be fully locked into round 1. This is nothing like basketball. The playbooks, the matchups, etc. It's requires far more out of the coaching staff and the bodies of the players than basketball ever will. It's a stupid comparison for anyone who has ever played/coached both sports.

---

Oh my goodness. You realize there is a lower division football league with a large format playoff right? How is the violence not doing them in?

Quote:

---

Totally agree. UConn played Stetson in the first round of the NCAA basketball tournament last year and beat them 91-52. Did anyone say we need to scrap this tournament idea and instead go to 12 teams and let a committee decide. No. Because that would be complete stupidity. Like what we have today in CFB.

---

Are the football playoffs named, "The NCAA Football Tournament"?

No? The reason for that is the NCAA doesn't own the College Football Playoffs. Media does. How the NCAA does things is irrelevant.

TexAg2019 said:

---

rootube said:

---

TexAg2019 said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

---

The biggest complaint is pretending like other conferences actually matter. 2 G5 teams? The Big 12 team has sucked every year but this one. Tech may be a perennial playoff team now because of their budget, but it still remains to be seen if they can compete with the better conferences after their cupcake schedule. We make fun of the the B1G but Tech doesn't even have a close 2nd or 3rd to push them in that craptastic conference.

Making the playoffs bigger isn't a solution because we'll have more ****ty big 12 and ACC teams in. It's more useless first round and creates useless second round games. It will be terrible football

OP is right: The B1G and the SEC will split off. Probably waiting for the ACC implosion to bring those key pieces along. Unfortunately, Tech may be in that conversation as well. But the two mega conferences aren't going to keep pretending like Tulane, James Madison, BYU are playing equivalent football and deserve representation. At least the ACC still has some schools that can put serious talent together. No other conference has that.

It'll be 40 ish teams. Playoffs will be determined objectively like pro sports. Some of that collective bargaining etc may not need to happen though. All that happens is conferences agree to some no coach poaching terms and agree that any transfer within these 40ish teams has to sit a year. Kids coming up from smaller colleges or going down to a smaller college don't have to sit, so the kids can't complain they are being kept from furthering their careers in court.

---

I disagree completely. The issue is not that we invited JMU and Tulane to the playoffs. The issue is that the field is not big enough to logically include them. Are they going to win, no they probably aren't but that is no reason to not invite them to a division of CFB they are already members of.

The problem is not that we let two G5 teams in. The issue is that we excluded a few teams whom could have made a run by letting two G5 teams in.

---

FIFY

---

Wrong. Let them in and we can find out. If the field was 24 instead of 12 this would be a non issue. It's funny how CFB fans forget how playoffs work when it comes to CFB but understand in literally ever other sport. If you only invited teams them at had a 90% probably of winning college basketball would have a twelve team playoff and would have tons of controversy and would be a much crappier product.

---

Ole Miss beat Tulane by 5 touchdowns earlier this season. But sure, lets "find out." If college basketball works so well in your opinion, why don't we just expand the playoff to 64 teams then? Why stop at 24? Even you know that college football and college basketball are two inherently different products and can never reasonably have a playoff structured the same way without diminishing it.

The issue with the 12-team format has never been about the number of teams that get it. It has always been, and will always be, about the fact that this "12 best teams" format is really the 11 best teams and one charity case (or in this year's case, the 10 best teams and 2 charity cases). So long as the playoff format reserves any number of bids for certain conferences, regardless of the ultimate number of teams that are selected, it will never represent the complete set of "best" teams.

---

Yes. Let's find out. The whole point of a playoff is not to have every game evenly matched. Playing a G5 team is a reward for the top seeds.

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Go watch the NFL.

If cfb fans dont start saying no to this bs we're going to lose the sport

---

What is so great about watching ****ty teams getting owned in the playoffs? We already have to watch it throughout the year. Why is it a positive thing to see in the postseason?

---

Get rid of the playoff. Solves every single problem created by the playoff. Why make it complicated?

---

Because voting on a champion is the most idiotic thing ever. If we're going to get rid of the playoffs, then get rid of rankings and having an end of year #1. Just have your conference titles and move on. The playoff only exists because declaring someone #1 is ******ed.

---

Totally agree. UConn played Stetson in the first round of the NCAA basketball tournament last year and beat them 91-52. Did anyone say we need to scrap this tournament idea and instead go to 12 teams and let a committee decide. No. Because that would be complete stupidity. Like what we have today in CFB.

---

Again, football is a far more violent sport, and takes a full week of game prep. It's chess and sport all in one. Oregon gets to start prepping for Tech this week, because their first game doesn't matter. Ole Miss gets to prep for Georgia. Meanwhile the other 4 schools have to be fully locked into round 1. This is nothing like basketball. The playbooks, the matchups, etc. It's requires far more out of the coaching staff and the bodies of the players than basketball ever will. It's a stupid comparison for anyone who has ever played/coached both sports.

---

Oh my goodness. You realize there is a lower division football league with a large format playoff right? How is the violence not doing them in?

---

Because they're evenly matched! The G5 is nowhere near the same sport as the Power 2 and it's stupid think it is otherwise. Split the G5 off and give them an actual shot at winning a championship.

4 teams have to play actual competition in round 1. The other 2 get an defacto bye week. It's stupid. Even if A&M was the 5 or 6 seed, I would still say this setup is stupid.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Totally agree. UConn played Stetson in the first round of the NCAA basketball tournament last year and beat them 91-52. Did anyone say we need to scrap this tournament idea and instead go to 12 teams and let a committee decide. No. Because that would be complete stupidity. Like what we have today in CFB.

---

Are the football playoffs named, "The NCAA Football Tournament"?

No? The reason for that is the NCAA doesn't own the College Football Playoffs. Media does. How the NCAA does things is irrelevant.

---

OK. You don't like basketball, then compare to literally every single other sport then. Why do you think other sports don't end their seasons with bowl games that are only for exhibition purposes?


So football can't expand because it's not run by the NCAA? We seemed to expand just fine without them so far. I don't see why further expansion is such an insurmountable hurdle.

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Go watch the NFL.

If cfb fans dont start saying no to this bs we're going to lose the sport

---

What is so great about watching ****ty teams getting owned in the playoffs? We already have to watch it throughout the year. Why is it a positive thing to see in the postseason?

---

Get rid of the playoff. Solves every single problem created by the playoff. Why make it complicated?

---

Because voting on a champion is the most idiotic thing ever. If we're going to get rid of the playoffs, then get rid of rankings and having an end of year #1. Just have your conference titles and move on. The playoff only exists because declaring someone #1 is ******ed.

---

Totally agree. UConn played Stetson in the first round of the NCAA basketball tournament last year and beat them 91-52. Did anyone say we need to scrap this tournament idea and instead go to 12 teams and let a committee decide. No. Because that would be complete stupidity. Like what we have today in CFB.

---

Again, football is a far more violent sport, and takes a full week of game prep. It's chess and sport all in one. Oregon gets to start prepping for Tech this week, because their first game doesn't matter. Ole Miss gets to prep for Georgia. Meanwhile the other 4 schools have to be fully locked into round 1. This is nothing like basketball. The playbooks, the matchups, etc. It's requires far more out of the coaching staff and the bodies of the players than basketball ever will. It's a stupid comparison for anyone who has ever played/coached both sports.

---

Oh my goodness. You realize there is a lower division football league with a large format playoff right? How is the violence not doing them in?

---

Because they're evenly matched! The G5 is nowhere near the same sport as the Power 2 and it's stupid think it is otherwise. Split the G5 off and give them an actual shot at winning a championship.

4 teams have to play actual competition in round 1. The other 2 get an defacto bye week. It's stupid. Even if A&M was the 5 or 6 seed, I would still say this setup is stupid.

---

They are absolutely NOT evenly matched. There are going to be some blowouts. This is exactly why you seed the teams in a playoff. It's going to be OK.

I'm a Tech grad and an old guy. I miss what college football was like when I was a kid. All my friends were fans of all the same schools… UT, A&M, Tech, Baylor, TCU, Arkansas… we liked watching football together. As a young man my friends and colleagues would talk good-natured (mostly) smack with each other at work and at church and whatever else. Of course as a Tech fan I was on the receiving end a lot more often than the giving, but it was still a fun cultural moment.

I hate the current Big 12. Even the "rivalries" of my childhood that are still in the conference, like Baylor, TCU and Houston (sorta) aren't interesting because college football is in a Cold War, and Tech didn't even play them this year.

The other rivalries - UT and A&M - have become ugly. I'm reading in this thread and all over TexAgs just endless vitriol. Makes me sad how much y'all seem to hate Tech. For my part, I'm cheering for A&M until they play Tech, if for no other reason than I have a bunch of friends and family that I love that are Aggies. And it's good for the state of Texas. So that's enough. But obviously y'all don't feel that way, and I guess that's fine. We don't play in the same conference anyway, so who cares, I guess.

I can't honestly imagine that A&M has much in the way of natural rivals in the SEC. I don't blame y'all for leaving the Big 12. If was boss at A&M at that time I would have done the same.

I guess the point of this long missive is simply that college football in my youth was about connections and pride and rivalries that were fun (and sometimes heated) but that meant something. College football now is mercenary annd mean spirited and ruthless and self-serving and driving by billions of dollars in revenue. It will eventually break into a super division like the OP has described.

Tech will be on the cusp of making into that super division. It will be interesting to see if Tech makes the cut when the day comes. And honestly, as an old guy with a bit of wistful nostalgia about the good old days, I don't know if I want them to make that cut.

If I could fix it, I would do so by breaking the super conferences into regional divisions that preserved regional interests and traditional rivals. Let the division winners play for the conference championships, with the conference championships being the first round of the playoffs. Like the NFL does. Like the NBA does. Like MLB does. Like the NHL does. Those all seem to work just fine.

Anyway. Good luck in the CFP. Hope we see y'all in the final game.

rootube said:

---

TexAg2019 said:

---

rootube said:

---

TexAg2019 said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

---

The biggest complaint is pretending like other conferences actually matter. 2 G5 teams? The Big 12 team has sucked every year but this one. Tech may be a perennial playoff team now because of their budget, but it still remains to be seen if they can compete with the better conferences after their cupcake schedule. We make fun of the the B1G but Tech doesn't even have a close 2nd or 3rd to push them in that craptastic conference.

Making the playoffs bigger isn't a solution because we'll have more ****ty big 12 and ACC teams in. It's more useless first round and creates useless second round games. It will be terrible football

OP is right: The B1G and the SEC will split off. Probably waiting for the ACC implosion to bring those key pieces along. Unfortunately, Tech may be in that conversation as well. But the two mega conferences aren't going to keep pretending like Tulane, James Madison, BYU are playing equivalent football and deserve representation. At least the ACC still has some schools that can put serious talent together. No other conference has that.

It'll be 40 ish teams. Playoffs will be determined objectively like pro sports. Some of that collective bargaining etc may not need to happen though. All that happens is conferences agree to some no coach poaching terms and agree that any transfer within these 40ish teams has to sit a year. Kids coming up from smaller colleges or going down to a smaller college don't have to sit, so the kids can't complain they are being kept from furthering their careers in court.

---

I disagree completely. The issue is not that we invited JMU and Tulane to the playoffs. The issue is that the field is not big enough to logically include them. Are they going to win, no they probably aren't but that is no reason to not invite them to a division of CFB they are already members of.

The problem is not that we let two G5 teams in. The issue is that we excluded a few teams whom could have made a run by letting two G5 teams in.

---

FIFY

---

Wrong. Let them in and we can find out. If the field was 24 instead of 12 this would be a non issue. It's funny how CFB fans forget how playoffs work when it comes to CFB but understand in literally ever other sport. If you only invited teams them at had a 90% probably of winning college basketball would have a twelve team playoff and would have tons of controversy and would be a much crappier product.

---

Ole Miss beat Tulane by 5 touchdowns earlier this season. But sure, lets "find out." If college basketball works so well in your opinion, why don't we just expand the playoff to 64 teams then? Why stop at 24? Even you know that college football and college basketball are two inherently different products and can never reasonably have a playoff structured the same way without diminishing it.

The issue with the 12-team format has never been about the number of teams that get it. It has always been, and will always be, about the fact that this "12 best teams" format is really the 11 best teams and one charity case (or in this year's case, the 10 best teams and 2 charity cases). So long as the playoff format reserves any number of bids for certain conferences, regardless of the ultimate number of teams that are selected, it will never represent the complete set of "best" teams.

---

Yes. Let's find out. The whole point of a playoff is not to have every game evenly matched. Playing a G5 team is a reward for the top seeds.

---

There are so many things wrong with your statement that its difficult to tell if you're actually trying to have an honest discussion. You're right in that the point of a playoff should is not to create evenly matched games, but I never claimed that it was. It should be about letting the 12 best teams play it out on the field. Is that the result that we have today? No. The committee has told us as much. Tulane is the 20th best team and JMU is the 24th.

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

It's hilarious that we all agreed that we needed to include the G5 and we set up rules to make sure that happened and now because the ACC has terrible tiebreaker rules we need to change the rules to exclude the G5. There are only two problems that need corrected. ACC needs to fix their tiebreaker rules and we need more playoff teams. People saying we need some super conference as a solution can jump in a lake.

---

Who all agreed to this? I remember plenty of pushback when this was announced. It was a stupid idea then and it's a stupid one now.

---

The committee literally made rules to include them as they should. If you want to break them off into different divisions fine but it would harm those teams and make football worse overall. They are in the same division but we are going to get mad if they get invited to playoffs for a division they are part of.

---

You and are use the same logic, but we have different opinions on what is better or worse for college football. I don't see how watching tulane and james madison lose by 3 touchdowns in the first round of the playoffs is good for the sport, but you do. I don't see how Oregon and Ole Miss getting tune up games while A&M, Miami, Bama and Oklahoma have to go into a dogfight is fair, but I guess you do.

Separate divisions levels the playing field for all involved. The G5 schools can legitimately compete for a championship for the first time in decades, and the Power schools don't have to sit out of the playoffs to pacify the schools who have no business being there.

---

I agree if you just can't imagine playing Tulane in the playoffs then put them in their own division. I think that's a mistake but it would be more fair to them rather than pretend they are in the same division then make rules to ensure they can't participate in the playoffs. The point I think you are missing is that if you just expand the playoffs this solves the issues. Top seeds get an easier path. Once in a blue moon some G5 is going to shock the world. It all super fun to watch, unlike the horrible bowl game exhibitions.

TexAg2019 said:

---

rootube said:

---

TexAg2019 said:

---

rootube said:

---

TexAg2019 said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

---

The biggest complaint is pretending like other conferences actually matter. 2 G5 teams? The Big 12 team has sucked every year but this one. Tech may be a perennial playoff team now because of their budget, but it still remains to be seen if they can compete with the better conferences after their cupcake schedule. We make fun of the the B1G but Tech doesn't even have a close 2nd or 3rd to push them in that craptastic conference.

Making the playoffs bigger isn't a solution because we'll have more ****ty big 12 and ACC teams in. It's more useless first round and creates useless second round games. It will be terrible football

OP is right: The B1G and the SEC will split off. Probably waiting for the ACC implosion to bring those key pieces along. Unfortunately, Tech may be in that conversation as well. But the two mega conferences aren't going to keep pretending like Tulane, James Madison, BYU are playing equivalent football and deserve representation. At least the ACC still has some schools that can put serious talent together. No other conference has that.

It'll be 40 ish teams. Playoffs will be determined objectively like pro sports. Some of that collective bargaining etc may not need to happen though. All that happens is conferences agree to some no coach poaching terms and agree that any transfer within these 40ish teams has to sit a year. Kids coming up from smaller colleges or going down to a smaller college don't have to sit, so the kids can't complain they are being kept from furthering their careers in court.

---

I disagree completely. The issue is not that we invited JMU and Tulane to the playoffs. The issue is that the field is not big enough to logically include them. Are they going to win, no they probably aren't but that is no reason to not invite them to a division of CFB they are already members of.

The problem is not that we let two G5 teams in. The issue is that we excluded a few teams whom could have made a run by letting two G5 teams in.

---

FIFY

---

Wrong. Let them in and we can find out. If the field was 24 instead of 12 this would be a non issue. It's funny how CFB fans forget how playoffs work when it comes to CFB but understand in literally ever other sport. If you only invited teams them at had a 90% probably of winning college basketball would have a twelve team playoff and would have tons of controversy and would be a much crappier product.

---

Ole Miss beat Tulane by 5 touchdowns earlier this season. But sure, lets "find out." If college basketball works so well in your opinion, why don't we just expand the playoff to 64 teams then? Why stop at 24? Even you know that college football and college basketball are two inherently different products and can never reasonably have a playoff structured the same way without diminishing it.

The issue with the 12-team format has never been about the number of teams that get it. It has always been, and will always be, about the fact that this "12 best teams" format is really the 11 best teams and one charity case (or in this year's case, the 10 best teams and 2 charity cases). So long as the playoff format reserves any number of bids for certain conferences, regardless of the ultimate number of teams that are selected, it will never represent the complete set of "best" teams.

---

Yes. Let's find out. The whole point of a playoff is not to have every game evenly matched. Playing a G5 team is a reward for the top seeds.

---

There are so many things wrong with your statement that its difficult to tell if you're actually trying to have an honest discussion. You're right in that the point of a playoff should is not to create evenly matched games, but I never claimed that it was. It should be about letting the 12 best teams play it out on the field. Is that the result that we have today? No. The committee has told us as much. Tulane is the 20th best team and JMU is the 24th.

---

What's magic about the number 12? Make that number 24 then think about what that looks like. It looks like more exciting playoff games to me. G5 would get a shot and some top seeded team gets an easier path to the final. What's so hard to understand about this?

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Go watch the NFL.

If cfb fans dont start saying no to this bs we're going to lose the sport

---

We are losing the sport now.

JohnClark929 said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Go watch the NFL.

If cfb fans dont start saying no to this bs we're going to lose the sport

---

We are losing the sport now.

---

We lost the sport at least two years ago. Conference expansion wasn't the beginning of the end. It was the final death blow.

JohnClark929 said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Go watch the NFL.

If cfb fans dont start saying no to this bs we're going to lose the sport

---

We are losing the sport now.

---

Not really. We used to have sportswriters vote on the winner. This is a MASSIVE improvement.

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Go watch the NFL.

If cfb fans dont start saying no to this bs we're going to lose the sport

---

What is so great about watching ****ty teams getting owned in the playoffs? We already have to watch it throughout the year. Why is it a positive thing to see in the postseason?

---

Get rid of the playoff. Solves every single problem created by the playoff. Why make it complicated?

---

Because voting on a champion is the most idiotic thing ever. If we're going to get rid of the playoffs, then get rid of rankings and having an end of year #1. Just have your conference titles and move on. The playoff only exists because declaring someone #1 is ******ed.

---

Totally agree. UConn played Stetson in the first round of the NCAA basketball tournament last year and beat them 91-52. Did anyone say we need to scrap this tournament idea and instead go to 12 teams and let a committee decide. No. Because that would be complete stupidity. Like what we have today in CFB.

---

Again, football is a far more violent sport, and takes a full week of game prep. It's chess and sport all in one. Oregon gets to start prepping for Tech this week, because their first game doesn't matter. Ole Miss gets to prep for Georgia. Meanwhile the other 4 schools have to be fully locked into round 1. This is nothing like basketball. The playbooks, the matchups, etc. It's requires far more out of the coaching staff and the bodies of the players than basketball ever will. It's a stupid comparison for anyone who has ever played/coached both sports.

---

Oh my goodness. You realize there is a lower division football league with a large format playoff right? How is the violence not doing them in?

---

Because they're evenly matched! The G5 is nowhere near the same sport as the Power 2 and it's stupid think it is otherwise. Split the G5 off and give them an actual shot at winning a championship.

4 teams have to play actual competition in round 1. The other 2 get an defacto bye week. It's stupid. Even if A&M was the 5 or 6 seed, I would still say this setup is stupid.

---

They are absolutely NOT evenly matched. There are going to be some blowouts. This is exactly why you seed the teams in a playoff. It's going to be OK.

---

I mean evenly matched in terms school resources. Roster talent is going to vary by year, as it should. N Dakota State is a million closer to S Dakota State than James Madison is to Ole Miss.

Skubalon said:

---

I'm a Tech grad and an old guy. I miss what college football was like when I was a kid. All my friends were fans of all the same schools… UT, A&M, Tech, Baylor, TCU, Arkansas… we liked watching football together. As a young man my friends and colleagues would talk good-natured (mostly) smack with each other at work and at church and whatever else. Of course as a Tech fan I was on the receiving end a lot more often than the giving, but it was still a fun cultural moment.

I hate the current Big 12. Even the "rivalries" of my childhood that are still in the conference, like Baylor, TCU and Houston (sorta) aren't interesting because college football is in a Cold War, and Tech didn't even play them this year.

The other rivalries - UT and A&M - have become ugly. I'm reading in this thread and all over TexAgs just endless vitriol. Makes me sad how much y'all seem to hate Tech. For my part, I'm cheering for A&M until they play Tech, if for no other reason than I have a bunch of friends and family that I love that are Aggies. And it's good for the state of Texas. So that's enough. But obviously y'all don't feel that way, and I guess that's fine. We don't play in the same conference anyway, so who cares, I guess.

I can't honestly imagine that A&M has much in the way of natural rivals in the SEC. I don't blame y'all for leaving the Big 12. If was boss at A&M at that time I would have done the same.

I guess the point of this long missive is simply that college football in my youth was about connections and pride and rivalries that were fun (and sometimes heated) but that meant something. College football now is mercenary annd mean spirited and ruthless and self-serving and driving by billions of dollars in revenue. It will eventually break into a super division like the OP has described.

Tech will be on the cusp of making into that super division. It will be interesting to see if Tech makes the cut when the day comes. And honestly, as an old guy with a bit of wistful nostalgia about the good old days, I don't know if I want them to make that cut.

If I could fix it, I would do so by breaking the super conferences into regional divisions that preserved regional interests and traditional rivals. Let the division winners play for the conference championships, with the conference championships being the first round of the playoffs. Like the NFL does. Like the NBA does. Like MLB does. Like the NHL does. Those all seem to work just fine.

Anyway. Good luck in the CFP. Hope we see y'all in the final game.

---

I agree 100%. I absolutely loved playing in the SWC, and I miss the regional rivalries. Even the original B12 was a big downgrade.

TXAG 05 said:

---

The NCAA has nothing to do with the playoffs/bowls.

---

Yeah, college football seceded from the NCAA a long time ago.

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

I disagree completely. The issue is not that we invited JMU and Tulane to the playoffs. The issue is that the field is not big enough to logically include them. Are they going to win, no they probably aren't but that is no reason to not invite them to a division of CFB they are already members of.

The problem is not that we let two G5 teams in. The issue is that we excluded a few teams whom could have made a run.

---

Don't remember who said this the other day, but I think it's accurate: Including the G5 this year is like the NBA including a D-League team or the MLB including the best AAA team in their playoffs. We're playing a totally different game.

There have probably been 3 G5 teams in the past 20 years that were on a reasonably even playing field with the big dogs, but that's it. It wouldn't be a huge deal if they were included on those off years, but we also know that had they been in a legit conference, they'd have 3-4 losses and not be in consideration. The gap between the G5 and the top two conference will continue to expand with conference consolidation. The G5 could quasi-compete when the Power 5 was truly the Power 5, because the top talent was diluted through those 60 ish teams. Right now there is really a Power 2, Mid 2 and G5, and the power 2 is pulling further and further away in revenue and talent they can pay for.

---

The issue is that teams in the SEC play 25% of their schedule against G5 and lower competition. Imagine the NBA, NFL or MLB playing even 20% of their regular season games against those types of teams. Those G5/FCS games don't have to be replaced with more SEC games, but should be replaced with P4 interconference games. Besides improving the schedule, there would be a lot more data points for evaluating teams between conferences (not enough, but a lot more than now).



My preference is that they aren't in the playoffs, but they also aren't on the regular season schedule either.

If P4 conferences are going to schedule17-25% of their regular season schedule against the G5, I am fine with the G5 getting 1/12 of the spots guaranteed each year.

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Go watch the NFL.

If cfb fans dont start saying no to this bs we're going to lose the sport

---

What is so great about watching ****ty teams getting owned in the playoffs? We already have to watch it throughout the year. Why is it a positive thing to see in the postseason?

---

Get rid of the playoff. Solves every single problem created by the playoff. Why make it complicated?

---

Because voting on a champion is the most idiotic thing ever. If we're going to get rid of the playoffs, then get rid of rankings and having an end of year #1. Just have your conference titles and move on. The playoff only exists because declaring someone #1 is ******ed.

---

Totally agree. UConn played Stetson in the first round of the NCAA basketball tournament last year and beat them 91-52. Did anyone say we need to scrap this tournament idea and instead go to 12 teams and let a committee decide. No. Because that would be complete stupidity. Like what we have today in CFB.

---

Again, football is a far more violent sport, and takes a full week of game prep. It's chess and sport all in one. Oregon gets to start prepping for Tech this week, because their first game doesn't matter. Ole Miss gets to prep for Georgia. Meanwhile the other 4 schools have to be fully locked into round 1. This is nothing like basketball. The playbooks, the matchups, etc. It's requires far more out of the coaching staff and the bodies of the players than basketball ever will. It's a stupid comparison for anyone who has ever played/coached both sports.

---

Oh my goodness. You realize there is a lower division football league with a large format playoff right? How is the violence not doing them in?

---

Because they're evenly matched! The G5 is nowhere near the same sport as the Power 2 and it's stupid think it is otherwise. Split the G5 off and give them an actual shot at winning a championship.

4 teams have to play actual competition in round 1. The other 2 get an defacto bye week. It's stupid. Even if A&M was the 5 or 6 seed, I would still say this setup is stupid.

---

They are absolutely NOT evenly matched. There are going to be some blowouts. This is exactly why you seed the teams in a playoff. It's going to be OK.

---

I mean evenly matched in terms school resources. Roster talent is going to vary by year, as it should. N Dakota State is a million closer to S Dakota State than James Madison is to Ole Miss.

---

CFB is not evenly matched and never will be. That doesn't mean we need to exclude G5 from their own division of CFB. If you value parity so much you need to start throwing out teams from the existing conferences. Is Mississippi state even in resources to Texas or Bama? Does Indiana have the same resources as OSU in football?

Almost everyone says FBS is too big and that the top of the sport needs to form its own division, and then coincidentally draws that dividing line to safely encompass their school. Ask A&M, it should be 24 teams. Ask Texas, maybe it should be 16. Ask Baylor or Tech, it should be 64.

I dunno, I enjoy college football being huge, the size and the asymmetry are what make it so much more fun than the NFL. I love the sport overall much more than I love the Aggies specifically. I wish it would just stay the same.

Skubalon said:

---

I'm a Tech grad and an old guy. I miss what college football was like when I was a kid. All my friends were fans of all the same schools… UT, A&M, Tech, Baylor, TCU, Arkansas… we liked watching football together. As a young man my friends and colleagues would talk good-natured (mostly) smack with each other at work and at church and whatever else. Of course as a Tech fan I was on the receiving end a lot more often than the giving, but it was still a fun cultural moment.

I hate the current Big 12. Even the "rivalries" of my childhood that are still in the conference, like Baylor, TCU and Houston (sorta) aren't interesting because college football is in a Cold War, and Tech didn't even play them this year.

The other rivalries - UT and A&M - have become ugly. I'm reading in this thread and all over TexAgs just endless vitriol. Makes me sad how much y'all seem to hate Tech. For my part, I'm cheering for A&M until they play Tech, if for no other reason than I have a bunch of friends and family that I love that are Aggies. And it's good for the state of Texas. So that's enough. But obviously y'all don't feel that way, and I guess that's fine. We don't play in the same conference anyway, so who cares, I guess.

I can't honestly imagine that A&M has much in the way of natural rivals in the SEC. I don't blame y'all for leaving the Big 12. If was boss at A&M at that time I would have done the same.

I guess the point of this long missive is simply that college football in my youth was about connections and pride and rivalries that were fun (and sometimes heated) but that meant something. College football now is mercenary annd mean spirited and ruthless and self-serving and driving by billions of dollars in revenue. It will eventually break into a super division like the OP has described.

Tech will be on the cusp of making into that super division. It will be interesting to see if Tech makes the cut when the day comes. And honestly, as an old guy with a bit of wistful nostalgia about the good old days, I don't know if I want them to make that cut.

If I could fix it, I would do so by breaking the super conferences into regional divisions that preserved regional interests and traditional rivals. Let the division winners play for the conference championships, with the conference championships being the first round of the playoffs. Like the NFL does. Like the NBA does. Like MLB does. Like the NHL does. Those all seem to work just fine.

Anyway. Good luck in the CFP. Hope we see y'all in the final game.

---

The only thing worse than the AD's and coaches not scheduling the regional rivalry games are the fans who defend playing Samford and Utah State games as a necessity, and express fear in playing local opponents with the "nothing to gain" phrase.


College football is better with rivalry games. It doesn't have to be every year, but play opponents with history, and if the school is going to play cupcakes, play the local cupcakes.



Utah and BYU should play Utah State.
Alabama and Auburn should regularly play Samford, Troy, South Alabama and UAB if playing G5 and below teams.

And while I prefer P4 vs P4 only games, if setting up contract cupcakes against G5 and below, A&M should play North Texas, Rice, Sam Houston, etc.




Those games have 0 interest nationally. At least play games that have regional or state interest.

For me it isn't sacrosanct that the 12 "best" teams be in the field or that every game has to be entertaining or that every team has to be a legitimate contender. As long as there are 13X teams in FBS, the legitimacy of a playoff system that provides plausible access for all of them is more important than any of that. I'm not staying awake at night that the 11th and 12th best teams in the country didn't go to the playoff, or that we might have a couple of boring games in the first round of the playoff, and I'd encourage anyone who is to watch a little less ESPN and maybe take a nice afternoon stroll.

The solution is to create a time machine and stop this from happening in 1984.

Everything we all want: a football "commissioner", regional conferences, a nationally relevant product popular everywhere, regional rivalries; it all goes away the moment you empower the conferences.

The thing that makes the most money is probably a 8 team round robin league table where everyone plays home and away. That MIGHT be the end game.

I agree. But if you heard Elko's presser we may be going in the opposite direction, which is bad for CFB. He alluded to not scheduling difficult non conference games because they are not being rewarded by the committee. In a perfect world we replace Samford with teams like Tech, Baylor, SMU, TCU, Houston etc.