Iowaggie said:

---

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.

---

I agree

PascalsWager said:

---

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 think you are underestimating how popular an expanded playoff would be. With no bowl games.

PascalsWager said:

---

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 would be careful about thinking the good old days were perfect. The way they selected a champion was the worst of any sport, and the deck was stacked against teams like A&M who were not considered elite. The NCAA was also massively unfair.

Texas 8&4 said:

---

Collective Bargaining is coming next

---

That solves the lack of a congressionally authored anti-trust exemption and provides a place to negotiate with students other the courts.

My question is how do you select the super conferences. Could do a b10 and sec both with a east and west. 10 teams each. But it would be more about money schools than old blue bloods.

rootube said:

---

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?

---

Agree with the bolded. Put them in their own division.

I'm not arguing for perfect equality between all schools, because that's as stupid as it is impossible. But there is a cutoff where certain schools can or can't be competitive. Stadium size, revenues, alumni base... things that give a school a shot to compete, even if they don't win it all. MSST is much closer to texas than james madison is to MSST. You'd be a fool to argue otherwise.

The dogs in our conference can still create even-ish matchups on the field. JMU and Tulane do not.

Kozmozag said:

---

My question is how do you select the super conferences. Could do a b10 and sec both with an east and west. 10 teams each. But it would be more about money schools than old blue bloods.

---

It's hilarious that every one *****es about CFB becoming more like the NFL and at the same time fantasizes about how to make it more like the NFL.

rootube said:

---

PascalsWager said:

---

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 would be careful about thinking the good old days were perfect. The way they selected a champion was the worst of any sport, and the deck was stacked against teams like A&M who were not considered elite. The NCAA was also massively unfair.

---

There were no "good ol days". In 20 years, the generations coming up are going to laugh in our faces about any claimed national title before 1998. "They PICKED a national champion? what a complete joke.", they'll say.

I'm arguing that we WANT the decentralization from the past with the playoff of today. 7 or 8 regional conferences with their own conference title games and automatic playoff bid with 8 or 9 at large bids sharing SOME kind of money pot from a national TV contract (not necessarily all).

PascalsWager said:

---

rootube said:

---

PascalsWager said:

---

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 would be careful about thinking the good old days were perfect. The way they selected a champion was the worst of any sport, and the deck was stacked against teams like A&M who were not considered elite. The NCAA was also massively unfair.

---

There were no "good ol days". In 20 years, the generations coming up are going to laugh in our faces about any claimed national title before 1998. "They PICKED a national champion? what a complete joke.", they'll say.

I'm arguing that we WANT the decentralization from the past with the playoff of today. 7 or 8 regional conferences with their own conference title games and automatic playoff bid with 8 or 9 at large bids sharing SOME kind of money pot from a national TV contract (not necessarily all).

---

Oh. That I agree with 100%. We will never get pandora back in the box but would be nice.

rootube said:

---

Kozmozag said:

---

My question is how do you select the super conferences. Could do a b10 and sec both with an east and west. 10 teams each. But it would be more about money schools than old blue bloods.

---

It's hilarious that every one *****es about CFB becoming more like the NFL and at the same time fantasizes about how to make it more like the NFL.

---

Having an objective path to a championship isn't an "NFL" thing. It's a reasonable thing to want. High schools do it. Little League does it. Every freaking sport out there does it, outside of college football, and to a lesser degree, college basketball and baseball. For some reason in these sports, it makes sense to just pick who we think should play. Naturally people get pissed, but rather than creating an objective path, lets just increase how many people we pick to play.

rootube said:

---

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?

---

Nothing is special about 12. Just used it because that is how the playoff is currently structured. My point holds true regardless of the number of teams in a playoff though. As long as we're guaranteeing a certain number of bids for a conference when all 136 FBS teams are 0-0, we are setting ourselves up to fail at selecting the best field (whether that's 12, 16, 24, 32, 64, 136, whatever).

Lets use your number and this year's seeding as an example. Is JMU, a team without a single Power 4 win, really the best 24th best team in the country? Or were they set there so that the committee had an out to fill their "top 5 conference champs" rule in the event that Duke ended up winning the ACC CG (as they did)? I'm going with the latter considering that an 8-4 Iowa teem is seeded ahead of them at 23rd. You can't tell me that an 8-4 Tennessee or an 8-4 Mizzou aren't better teams than JMU.

Exactly. The best way to make CCG matter, but still give the maximum number of deserving teams a chance, is for each conference to have their own internal playoff. Send your champ to the interconference playoff. We now have the equivalent of a 36 team playoff, where the matchups are all competitive. Rankings will only be used to seed the conference champs in interconference playoff. The people who want to see Tulane smashed by a B1G/SEC can do that can watch that without leaving potentially deserving teams out. Iowa and Mizzou didn't do enough to make their conferences playoff. I don't think any of us would disagree with that.

Since conference play is the only thing that really matters, this would open teams up to play big, non-conference opponents. The only negative is that a team losing that game doesn't hurt as bad. There's less pressure to make sure you get the win.

I don't know, I still enjoy the heck out of college ball exactly how it is warts and all. The law of unintended consequences may rear it's head if we go that far towards an NFL type league. I can't put my finger on why I can't stand the NFL, but it seems so devoid of any spirit which college ball still has even today. The further the teams are divorced from the universities, the more bland it becomes IMO. There are problems, do doubt, but that's nothing new.

Barnacle said:

---

I don't know, I still enjoy the heck out of college ball exactly how it is warts and all. The law of unintended consequences may rear it's head if we go that far towards an NFL type league. I can't put my finger on why I can't stand the NFL, but it seems so devoid of any spirit which college ball still has even today. The further the teams are divorced from the universities, the more bland it becomes IMO. There are problems, do doubt, but that's nothing new.

---

The problem with the NFL is it's just a random team that is located in your town/state, but it's a business. If they decide they're better off moving to a new city/state, they'll do it. It doesn't work that way with universities. Yes, the roster turnover makes CFB less enjoyable than it was, but I think teams/conferences will sort it out in the next decade or so.

rootube said:

---

JohnClark929 said:

---

The problems being the insanity around playoffs, coaching contracts, NIL, and the portal.

The large programs need to leave the NCAA and form a professional league with rules that benefit the league as a whole. Yes like the NFL. Rules are needed.

A 24-36 team league can come up with a sensible playoff qualification. As for legal challenges on contracts, pay, and transfers, the league would have the same rights as the NFL; players and coaches are free to leave the league and go to other leagues if they want.

I know this is radical but the current situation isn't sustainable or good for the large schools or fans.

---

As long as we are talking about solutions that will never happen to fix college football I would do the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. College football would be better off if it were more regional not less. Breaking up the SWC and Big 8 and PAC10 was bad for college football.

---

The NFL should have a minor league. Want to get paid, go play in the minors first, want to do the Uni thing, get a scholarship.

But the NFL will never spend the money on something they get for free now.

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

Kozmozag said:

---

My question is how do you select the super conferences. Could do a b10 and sec both with an east and west. 10 teams each. But it would be more about money schools than old blue bloods.

---

It's hilarious that every one *****es about CFB becoming more like the NFL and at the same time fantasizes about how to make it more like the NFL.

---

Having an objective path to a championship isn't an "NFL" thing. It's a reasonable thing to want. High schools do it. Little League does it. Every freaking sport out there does it, outside of college football, and to a lesser degree, college basketball and baseball. For some reason in these sports, it makes sense to just pick who we think should play. Naturally people get pissed, but rather than creating an objective path, lets just increase how many people we pick to play.

---

We don't need a super conference. Basketball has more teams and as much disparity as CFB. The only difference is they have a bigger playoff field and don't have a meltdown at a 1 vs 16 seed matchup. The 16 seed is statistically not going to win but that is perfectly fine. They see it as more games are good and the seeding is the reward for a strong season. As they should.

Martels Hammer said:

---

rootube said:

---

JohnClark929 said:

---

The problems being the insanity around playoffs, coaching contracts, NIL, and the portal.

The large programs need to leave the NCAA and form a professional league with rules that benefit the league as a whole. Yes like the NFL. Rules are needed.

A 24-36 team league can come up with a sensible playoff qualification. As for legal challenges on contracts, pay, and transfers, the league would have the same rights as the NFL; players and coaches are free to leave the league and go to other leagues if they want.

I know this is radical but the current situation isn't sustainable or good for the large schools or fans.

---

As long as we are talking about solutions that will never happen to fix college football I would do the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. College football would be better off if it were more regional not less. Breaking up the SWC and Big 8 and PAC10 was bad for college football.

---

The NFL should have a minor league. Want to get paid, go play in the minors first, want to do the Uni thing, get a scholarship.

But the NFL will never spend the money on something they get for free now.

---

Disagree. You can't take a multi billion dollar media rights deal and say sorry players you get tuition and fees only. Good luck.

rootube said:

---

Martels Hammer said:

---

rootube said:

---

JohnClark929 said:

---

The problems being the insanity around playoffs, coaching contracts, NIL, and the portal.

The large programs need to leave the NCAA and form a professional league with rules that benefit the league as a whole. Yes like the NFL. Rules are needed.

A 24-36 team league can come up with a sensible playoff qualification. As for legal challenges on contracts, pay, and transfers, the league would have the same rights as the NFL; players and coaches are free to leave the league and go to other leagues if they want.

I know this is radical but the current situation isn't sustainable or good for the large schools or fans.

---

As long as we are talking about solutions that will never happen to fix college football I would do the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. College football would be better off if it were more regional not less. Breaking up the SWC and Big 8 and PAC10 was bad for college football.

---

The NFL should have a minor league. Want to get paid, go play in the minors first, want to do the Uni thing, get a scholarship.

But the NFL will never spend the money on something they get for free now.

---

Disagree. You can't take a multi billion dollar media rights deal and say sorry players you get tuition and fees only. Good luck.

---

A fair point but does the TV money stay at the same level with a farm system?

TexAg2019 said:

---

rootube said:

---

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?

---

Nothing is special about 12. Just used it because that is how the playoff is currently structured. My point holds true regardless of the number of teams in a playoff though. As long as we're guaranteeing a certain number of bids for a conference when all 136 FBS teams are 0-0, we are setting ourselves up to fail at selecting the best field (whether that's 12, 16, 24, 32, 64, 136, whatever).

Lets use your number and this year's seeding as an example. Is JMU, a team without a single Power 4 win, really the best 24th best team in the country? Or were they set there so that the committee had an out to fill their "top 5 conference champs" rule in the event that Duke ended up winning the ACC CG (as they did)? I'm going with the latter considering that an 8-4 Iowa teem is seeded ahead of them at 23rd. You can't tell me that an 8-4 Tennessee or an 8-4 Mizzou aren't better teams than JMU.

---

It does not hold true at all. The farther you move down the rankings the less controversial the decisions become. If you can't stand stand an SEC team being left out because of league disparity then go more than 24 teams. There is a number where the arguments become absurd. Unlike today with 12 where clearly ND, Vandy and horn could make an interesting run. The other think that is more important is that the resulting games would be amazing. Yes I want to see Iowa in a playoff. I think they are overrated but let's put them in and find out on the field and not in a committee.

rootube said:

---

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.

---

He is right, and he is wrong.


From the days of voting for the national champion, to the BCS and BCS playoffs, voters or committee members have counted losses of top conference teams as the first criteria, breaking ties based on the name brand of the school and conference. The lone exception to this was FSU being passed over by Texas and Alabama. So he is right.

However, now with 12 teams, there are going to be enough "close calls" between seeding teams that if A&M doesn't have that Notre Dame victory, they are probably hurt in their seeding. So in that way he is potentially wrong.




The problem isn't the seeding the committee does. The problem is that college football has incredibly unbalanced conferences that barely play over half of their own teams. With each team given the opportunity to play 12 games, most play 3 games that have no impact on their seeding. What is the committee supposed to do with the Samford or Utah State results? Replace all the P4 cupcake games with P4 games, and then the data will be better.

Martels Hammer said:

---

rootube said:

---

Martels Hammer said:

---

rootube said:

---

JohnClark929 said:

---

The problems being the insanity around playoffs, coaching contracts, NIL, and the portal.

The large programs need to leave the NCAA and form a professional league with rules that benefit the league as a whole. Yes like the NFL. Rules are needed.

A 24-36 team league can come up with a sensible playoff qualification. As for legal challenges on contracts, pay, and transfers, the league would have the same rights as the NFL; players and coaches are free to leave the league and go to other leagues if they want.

I know this is radical but the current situation isn't sustainable or good for the large schools or fans.

---

As long as we are talking about solutions that will never happen to fix college football I would do the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. College football would be better off if it were more regional not less. Breaking up the SWC and Big 8 and PAC10 was bad for college football.

---

The NFL should have a minor league. Want to get paid, go play in the minors first, want to do the Uni thing, get a scholarship.

But the NFL will never spend the money on something they get for free now.

---

Disagree. You can't take a multi billion dollar media rights deal and say sorry players you get tuition and fees only. Good luck.

---

A fair point but does the TV money stay at the same level with a farm system?

---

The fact that the average A&M fan is complaining about spiraling costs is ironic. Never in the history of our program have we been in a better position to compete. I love it that Tech is saying we aren't taking a backseat to anyone and putting their wallet where their mouth is. I also love it that BYU said sorry PSU but if you want to take our coach you are going to have to outbid us. I don't want anything to change if it's up to me.

Iowaggie said:

---

rootube said:

---

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.

---

He is right, and he is wrong.


From the days of voting for the national champion, to the BCS and BCS playoffs, voters or committee members have counted losses of top conference teams as the first criteria, breaking ties based on the name brand of the school and conference. The lone exception to this was FSU being passed over by Texas and Alabama. So he is right.

However, now with 12 teams, there are going to be enough "close calls" between seeding teams that if A&M doesn't have that Notre Dame victory, they are probably hurt in their seeding. So in that way he is potentially wrong.




The problem isn't the seeding the committee does. The problem is that college football has incredibly unbalanced conferences that barely play over half of their own teams. With each team given the opportunity to play 12 games, most play 3 games that have no impact on their seeding. What is the committee supposed to do with the Samford or Utah State results? Replace all the P4 cupcake games with P4 games, and then the data will be better.

---

I agree which is why expanding the playoffs is critical. If we wait for the SEC and B10 to meet up in bowls with conference tie ins we are going to be dead before it ever happens. Expanding the playoffs massively increases the chances of the top teams from each conference actually playing one another. Someone here is complaining that they don't wa t to see Iowa in the playoffs. The opposite is true in my opinion. We desperately need them in a playoff to find out on a football field.

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

Kozmozag said:

---

My question is how do you select the super conferences. Could do a b10 and sec both with an east and west. 10 teams each. But it would be more about money schools than old blue bloods.

---

It's hilarious that every one *****es about CFB becoming more like the NFL and at the same time fantasizes about how to make it more like the NFL.

---

Having an objective path to a championship isn't an "NFL" thing. It's a reasonable thing to want. High schools do it. Little League does it. Every freaking sport out there does it, outside of college football, and to a lesser degree, college basketball and baseball. For some reason in these sports, it makes sense to just pick who we think should play. Naturally people get pissed, but rather than creating an objective path, lets just increase how many people we pick to play.

---

We don't need a super conference. Basketball has more teams and as much disparity as CFB. The only difference is they have a bigger playoff field and don't have a meltdown at a 1 vs 16 seed matchup. The 16 seed is statistically not going to win but that is perfectly fine. They see it as more games are good and the seeding is the reward for a strong season. As they should.

---

Again, basketball is a totally different animal. It's not hard for a smaller, less talented squad to put up a fight. Just takes a little luck. Maybe the top 24 Power 4 we could see some fun upsets, but the Tulane's of the world aren't doing it

Not to mention the logistics are radically different. You can only play once per week, not set up multi-round mini-tournaments to cull the field from 64 to 16 in 3 days. A blowout in round 1 doesn't dampen the fun when there is another, bigger game tomorrow. But taking 2 full weeks to get rid of teams that shouldn't have been there in the first place is a bummer.

And again, this still doesn't address that it's totally subjective as to who gets in at 20-24 versus 25-28. People will still ***** and moan that it should be bigger so it can be fair.

How many times has a 16 seed beaten a 1 seed in the history of the basketball tournament?

Yes people will still complain but you have to admit the outrage becomes less and less as you move down the rankings. Leaving out the receiving votes team is a lot different than leaving out ND, Vandy or horn. The point is not to have complete agreement.

rootube said:

---

How many times has a 16 seed beaten a 1 seed in the history of the basketball tournament?

---

Once. But they've lost to the 8 or 9 seed 5 more times, which is the same weekend. The two seed loses quite frequently. 3-8 seed quite often. And it's jammed into one awesome weekend. Imagine watching the 1 seed beat the 16 seed, then waiting a week to play again. Then another week. Then another.

It would lose it's magic real fast. If they were playing 1 game per week, it would get capped at 24-32 real quick. And there would be an astronomical amount of *****ing and moaning from the 25th or 33rd seed. 17-24 have only won the tournament 3 times. No one below 24 has ever won. The only reason it is fun is because of the condensed chaos.

And you know who doesn't ***** and moan about not getting into a playoff? Every single sport other than NCAA football (and basketball and baseball to a lesser degree). Why? Because the path to the playoffs is very objective. You either won enough games or you didn't. And you aren't getting passed up by nobody teams that played nobody's during the season. Let's say we had a 16 team playoff right now. You think Michigan would be cool losing out to the Utes or BYU? Not a chance.

...and how many think a #16 through #24 seed have any chance of winning a NC trophy? There's a reason they're ranked low. I don't think anything is gained by a #1 vs #24 or #3 vs #22 (e.g. even if you have any first round byes). Bad football is unwatchable and if your team is in the top 10, you really want to risk freak injury having to play two extra rounds against low seeded teams?

Is an 8-4 team really a great draw in a playoff? Feels like 'participation trophy' time instead of serious competitive football.

The complaint shouldn't be 'the bracket isn't big enough'. It should be nobody knows what the selection criteria actually is year to year and while it's always going to be marginally subjective at the least - it shouldn't be as bad as it is now AND it needs to be more transparent, IMHO.

Leave the auto-bids out of the equation. If you want to participate, schedule meaningful games and win them. if a G5 team schedules, ND, Ohio State, LSU, Alabama, Georgia and beats them all? Then it's the same metric that warrants consideration as any other team. And the whole ND-gets-an-auto-bid-if-they're-in-the-top-12 becomes a mute point.

92_Ag said:

---

The complaint shouldn't be 'the bracket isn't big enough'. It should be nobody knows what the selection criteria actually is year to year and while it's always going to be marginally subjective at the least - it shouldn't be as bad as it is now AND it needs to be more transparent, IMHO.

---

This. There was not a single HS football team this year that felt "left out". You either ended the season high enough in your division or you didn't. Thems the stips. And yes, some non-qualifying teams in harder districts were better than some qualifying teams in weaker districts. Yet no one complains because the rules are clearly defined.

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

How many times has a 16 seed beaten a 1 seed in the history of the basketball tournament?

---

Once. But they've lost to the 8 or 9 seed 5 more times, which is the same weekend. The two seed loses quite frequently. 3-8 seed quite often. And it's jammed into one awesome weekend. Imagine watching the 1 seed beat the 16 seed, then waiting a week to play again. Then another week. Then another.

It would lose it's magic real fast. If they were playing 1 game per week, it would get capped at 24-32 real quick. And there would be an astronomical amount of *****ing and moaning from the 25th or 33rd seed

And you know who doesn't ***** and moan about not getting into a playoff? Every single sport other than NCAA football (and basketball and baseball to a lesser degree). Why? Because the path to the playoffs is very objective. You either won enough games or you didn't. And you aren't getting passed up by nobody teams that played nobody's during the season. Let's say we had a 16 team playoff right now. You think Michigan would be cool losing out to the Utes or BYU? Not a chance.

---

I don't understand your point here. I was simply replying to the point that basketball was so different than football because smaller teams can compete with bigger teams. This is kind of true but the more important point is that they are completely fine with a 1:16 matchup where the 1 seed is an overwhelming favorite. So people saying Tulane doesn't belong because they have no chance is invalid. Zero people are lobbying to eliminate the 16 seed in basketball because of their terrible track record. There is zero reason for football to not have a 24 team playoff and I would argue 32 is probably better than that.

The Banned said:

---

92_Ag said:

---

The complaint shouldn't be 'the bracket isn't big enough'. It should be nobody knows what the selection criteria actually is year to year and while it's always going to be marginally subjective at the least - it shouldn't be as bad as it is now AND it needs to be more transparent, IMHO.

---

This. There was not a single HS football team this year that felt "left out". You either ended the season high enough in your division or you didn't. Thems the stips. And yes, some non-qualifying teams in harder districts were better than some qualifying teams in weaker districts. Yet no one complains because the rules are clearly defined.

---

That's because high school is micro segmented by school size. To make this comparable to CFB you would have to create 10 separate divisions in CFB.

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

How many times has a 16 seed beaten a 1 seed in the history of the basketball tournament?

---

Once. But they've lost to the 8 or 9 seed 5 more times, which is the same weekend. The two seed loses quite frequently. 3-8 seed quite often. And it's jammed into one awesome weekend. Imagine watching the 1 seed beat the 16 seed, then waiting a week to play again. Then another week. Then another.

It would lose it's magic real fast. If they were playing 1 game per week, it would get capped at 24-32 real quick. And there would be an astronomical amount of *****ing and moaning from the 25th or 33rd seed

And you know who doesn't ***** and moan about not getting into a playoff? Every single sport other than NCAA football (and basketball and baseball to a lesser degree). Why? Because the path to the playoffs is very objective. You either won enough games or you didn't. And you aren't getting passed up by nobody teams that played nobody's during the season. Let's say we had a 16 team playoff right now. You think Michigan would be cool losing out to the Utes or BYU? Not a chance.

---

I don't understand your point here. I was simply replying to the point that basketball was so different than football because smaller teams can compete with bigger teams. This is kind of true but the more important point is that they are completely fine with a 1:16 matchup where the 1 seed is an overwhelming favorite. So people saying Tulane doesn't belong because they have no chance is invalid. Zero people are lobbying to eliminate the 16 seed in basketball because of their terrible track record. There is zero reason for football to not have a 24 team playoff and I would argue 32 is probably better than that.

---

I addressed that too. The condensed schedule that basketball tournaments allow for create the fun, chaotic environment. Drag that tournament out over 7 weeks and see how long people watch.

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

How many times has a 16 seed beaten a 1 seed in the history of the basketball tournament?

---

Once. But they've lost to the 8 or 9 seed 5 more times, which is the same weekend. The two seed loses quite frequently. 3-8 seed quite often. And it's jammed into one awesome weekend. Imagine watching the 1 seed beat the 16 seed, then waiting a week to play again. Then another week. Then another.

It would lose it's magic real fast. If they were playing 1 game per week, it would get capped at 24-32 real quick. And there would be an astronomical amount of *****ing and moaning from the 25th or 33rd seed

And you know who doesn't ***** and moan about not getting into a playoff? Every single sport other than NCAA football (and basketball and baseball to a lesser degree). Why? Because the path to the playoffs is very objective. You either won enough games or you didn't. And you aren't getting passed up by nobody teams that played nobody's during the season. Let's say we had a 16 team playoff right now. You think Michigan would be cool losing out to the Utes or BYU? Not a chance.

---

I don't understand your point here. I was simply replying to the point that basketball was so different than football because smaller teams can compete with bigger teams. This is kind of true but the more important point is that they are completely fine with a 1:16 matchup where the 1 seed is an overwhelming favorite. So people saying Tulane doesn't belong because they have no chance is invalid. Zero people are lobbying to eliminate the 16 seed in basketball because of their terrible track record. There is zero reason for football to not have a 24 team playoff and I would argue 32 is probably better than that.

---

I addressed that too. The condensed schedule that basketball tournaments allow for create the fun, chaotic environment. Drag that tournament out over 7 weeks and see how long people watch.

---

So you are worried about people losing interest in CFB playoffs if we expand. The expansion so far has not demonstrated that to remotely be an issue. In fact the opposite is true. Just wait till you see how successful the bowl games are outside of a few marquee matchups.

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

92_Ag said:

---

The complaint shouldn't be 'the bracket isn't big enough'. It should be nobody knows what the selection criteria actually is year to year and while it's always going to be marginally subjective at the least - it shouldn't be as bad as it is now AND it needs to be more transparent, IMHO.

---

This. There was not a single HS football team this year that felt "left out". You either ended the season high enough in your division or you didn't. Thems the stips. And yes, some non-qualifying teams in harder districts were better than some qualifying teams in weaker districts. Yet no one complains because the rules are clearly defined.

---

That's because high school is micro segmented by school size. To make this comparable to CFB you would have to create 10 separate divisions in CFB.

---

You wouldn't need 10. You need 3. The only reason school size matters in HS is because you can't recruit. College can be broken out by resource size. Go look at the top 40-50 athletic budgets in the nation, and you'll see exactly the schools you'd expect to see there. It's not rocket science. None is really upset about the Big 12 and the ACC getting a shot. It's the G5 nonsense, all because they were subjectively ranked above teams we know for a fact would beat them.

Split the G5 out. Create conference playoffs. Send your victor to play the others. It's objective and it's good football. If you want more interconference play, take the top 4 teams from each conference and rank them 1-16. Objective way to get in. subjective seeding for the drama. No one has to watch tulane and jmu play.

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

How many times has a 16 seed beaten a 1 seed in the history of the basketball tournament?

---

Once. But they've lost to the 8 or 9 seed 5 more times, which is the same weekend. The two seed loses quite frequently. 3-8 seed quite often. And it's jammed into one awesome weekend. Imagine watching the 1 seed beat the 16 seed, then waiting a week to play again. Then another week. Then another.

It would lose it's magic real fast. If they were playing 1 game per week, it would get capped at 24-32 real quick. And there would be an astronomical amount of *****ing and moaning from the 25th or 33rd seed

And you know who doesn't ***** and moan about not getting into a playoff? Every single sport other than NCAA football (and basketball and baseball to a lesser degree). Why? Because the path to the playoffs is very objective. You either won enough games or you didn't. And you aren't getting passed up by nobody teams that played nobody's during the season. Let's say we had a 16 team playoff right now. You think Michigan would be cool losing out to the Utes or BYU? Not a chance.

---

I don't understand your point here. I was simply replying to the point that basketball was so different than football because smaller teams can compete with bigger teams. This is kind of true but the more important point is that they are completely fine with a 1:16 matchup where the 1 seed is an overwhelming favorite. So people saying Tulane doesn't belong because they have no chance is invalid. Zero people are lobbying to eliminate the 16 seed in basketball because of their terrible track record. There is zero reason for football to not have a 24 team playoff and I would argue 32 is probably better than that.

---

I addressed that too. The condensed schedule that basketball tournaments allow for create the fun, chaotic environment. Drag that tournament out over 7 weeks and see how long people watch.

---

So you are worried about people losing interest in CFB playoffs if we expand. The expansion so far has not demonstrated that to remotely be an issue. In fact the opposite is true. Just wait till you see how successful the bowl games are outside of a few marquee matchups.

---

and you just wait to see how well the jmu and tulane ratings go in the first round.

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

92_Ag said:

---

The complaint shouldn't be 'the bracket isn't big enough'. It should be nobody knows what the selection criteria actually is year to year and while it's always going to be marginally subjective at the least - it shouldn't be as bad as it is now AND it needs to be more transparent, IMHO.

---

This. There was not a single HS football team this year that felt "left out". You either ended the season high enough in your division or you didn't. Thems the stips. And yes, some non-qualifying teams in harder districts were better than some qualifying teams in weaker districts. Yet no one complains because the rules are clearly defined.

---

That's because high school is micro segmented by school size. To make this comparable to CFB you would have to create 10 separate divisions in CFB.

---

You wouldn't need 10. You need 3. The only reason school size matters in HS is because you can't recruit. College can be broken out by resource size. Go look at the top 40-50 athletic budgets in the nation, and you'll see exactly the schools you'd expect to see there. It's not rocket science. None is really upset about the Big 12 and the ACC getting a shot. It's the G5 nonsense, all because they were subjectively ranked above teams we know for a fact would beat them.

Split the G5 out. Create conference playoffs. Send your victor to play the others. It's objective and it's good football. If you want more interconference play, take the top 4 teams from each conference and rank them 1-16. Objective way to get in. subjective seeding for the drama. No one has to watch tulane and jmu play.

---

You can't recruit in HS. That's news to me. If you exclude six man there are 10 high school subdivisions in Texas alone. They award a state championship to each one.

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

How many times has a 16 seed beaten a 1 seed in the history of the basketball tournament?

---

Once. But they've lost to the 8 or 9 seed 5 more times, which is the same weekend. The two seed loses quite frequently. 3-8 seed quite often. And it's jammed into one awesome weekend. Imagine watching the 1 seed beat the 16 seed, then waiting a week to play again. Then another week. Then another.

It would lose it's magic real fast. If they were playing 1 game per week, it would get capped at 24-32 real quick. And there would be an astronomical amount of *****ing and moaning from the 25th or 33rd seed

And you know who doesn't ***** and moan about not getting into a playoff? Every single sport other than NCAA football (and basketball and baseball to a lesser degree). Why? Because the path to the playoffs is very objective. You either won enough games or you didn't. And you aren't getting passed up by nobody teams that played nobody's during the season. Let's say we had a 16 team playoff right now. You think Michigan would be cool losing out to the Utes or BYU? Not a chance.

---

I don't understand your point here. I was simply replying to the point that basketball was so different than football because smaller teams can compete with bigger teams. This is kind of true but the more important point is that they are completely fine with a 1:16 matchup where the 1 seed is an overwhelming favorite. So people saying Tulane doesn't belong because they have no chance is invalid. Zero people are lobbying to eliminate the 16 seed in basketball because of their terrible track record. There is zero reason for football to not have a 24 team playoff and I would argue 32 is probably better than that.

---

I addressed that too. The condensed schedule that basketball tournaments allow for create the fun, chaotic environment. Drag that tournament out over 7 weeks and see how long people watch.

---

So you are worried about people losing interest in CFB playoffs if we expand. The expansion so far has not demonstrated that to remotely be an issue. In fact the opposite is true. Just wait till you see how successful the bowl games are outside of a few marquee matchups.

---

and you just wait to see how well the jmu and tulane ratings go in the first round.

---

I'd put the odds of the worst playoff ratings being better than the worst bowl at 100%.