In my opinion it already has ceased to be "college football" in the major power conferences, and I predict by the end of the decade we'll have teams with no school affiliation.

Then we'll talk about Fan Duel Chupacabras playing American Airlines Jets team in the first round with second round matchup against Boeing's Ohio State Buckeye's.

rootube said:

---

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.

---

1. Don't be dumb. No you can't recruit in HS. Yes, there are cheaters, but you know the rules.

2. There are almost 1400 high schools in Texas. Not 133.

Dirt 05 said:

---

In my opinion it already has ceased to be "college football" in the major power conferences, and I predict by the end of the decade we'll have teams with no school affiliation.

Then we'll talk about Fan Duel Chupacabras playing American Airlines Jets team in the first round with second round matchup against Boeing's Ohio State Buckeye's.

---

Counterpoint. The next game at Kyle is arguably biggest in school history and we've been playing a long time.

rootube said:

---

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%.

---

Who cares? Maximize your playoffs. Just because it doesn't suck as much as something else doesn't make it good.

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

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.

---

1. Don't be dumb. No you can't recruit in HS. Yes, there are cheaters, but you know the rules.

2. There are almost 1400 high schools in Texas. Not 133.

---

So you are comparing a format of 1400 teams to FBS that has 136 teams and saying they should be the same?

I disagree that the G5 should be separate but would agree that if you are going to make rules to keep them out of the playoffs then sure separate them.

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

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%.

---

Who cares? Maximize your playoffs. Just because it doesn't suck as much as something else doesn't make it good.

---

So we should keep bowls even though you acknowledge they are worse than playoffs games because… Notre Dame thought so much of bowls that they declined to play in one when they missed the playoffs. I'm sure they would be thrilled to participate in a play in game vs Tulane and people would happily watch that game.

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

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.

---

1. Don't be dumb. No you can't recruit in HS. Yes, there are cheaters, but you know the rules.

2. There are almost 1400 high schools in Texas. Not 133.

---

So you are comparing a format of 1400 teams to FBS that has 136 teams and saying they should be the same?

I disagree that the G5 should be separate but would agree that if you are going to make rules to keep them out of the playoffs then sure separate them.

---

You're the one trying to make a 1 to 1 comparison. I'm saying that freaking high school playoffs are less ******ed that college because they have actual criteria to follow. Same with every other football league in existence. Why are we "picking" teams? Make the entry requirements objective. and we don't need 10 freaking divisions, like you said we would. 3 at most

And yes, G5 schools objectively don't belong and should be split out. I don't know why anyone would argue differently. The disparity of actual, physical talent is massive. Tulane is entering into a playoff they don't have a shot in hell at winning, nor will they ever. Isn't it in their best interest to have a separate playoff they could actually compete in?

ETA: FCS teams beat G5 teams quite frequently. something like 80% of FCS wins over FBS schools are against G5 schools.

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

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%.

---

Who cares? Maximize your playoffs. Just because it doesn't suck as much as something else doesn't make it good.

---

So we should keep bowls even though you acknowledge they are worse than playoffs games because… Notre Dame thought so much of bowls that they declined to play in one when they missed the playoffs. I'm sure they would be thrilled to participate in a play in game vs Tulane and people would happily watch that game.

---

If Tulane/JMU weren't taking their spot, they wouldn't need a worthless play in game.

I never advocated for the bowls, so no need to make it sound like I did. You are using the fact that bowl games suck to say that JMU getting beaten by 4 TDs is actually good for the sport instead watching ND go to Oxford

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

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%.

---

Who cares? Maximize your playoffs. Just because it doesn't suck as much as something else doesn't make it good.

---

So we should keep bowls even though you acknowledge they are worse than playoffs games because… Notre Dame thought so much of bowls that they declined to play in one when they missed the playoffs. I'm sure they would be thrilled to participate in a play in game vs Tulane and people would happily watch that game.

---

If Tulane/JMU weren't taking their spot, they wouldn't need a worthless play in game.

I never advocated for the bowls, so no need to make it sound like I did. You are using the fact that bowl games suck to say that JMU getting beaten by 4 TDs is actually good for the sport instead watching ND go to Oxford

---

You don't have to advocate for bowls they already exist whether we like them or not. My only point is if we expanded the playoffs we could solve the majority of the issues we are taking about currently. It's the simplest and by far the most effective way to do it. The other benefit is that we would create more interesting games people would love to watch. I've never understood why we need to be so precious about bowl invites and then happily stage bowl exhibition games instead.

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

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.

---

1. Don't be dumb. No you can't recruit in HS. Yes, there are cheaters, but you know the rules.

2. There are almost 1400 high schools in Texas. Not 133.

---

So you are comparing a format of 1400 teams to FBS that has 136 teams and saying they should be the same?

I disagree that the G5 should be separate but would agree that if you are going to make rules to keep them out of the playoffs then sure separate them.

---

You're the one trying to make a 1 to 1 comparison. I'm saying that freaking high school playoffs are less ******ed that college because they have actual criteria to follow. Same with every other football league in existence. Why are we "picking" teams? Make the entry requirements objective. and we don't need 10 freaking divisions, like you said we would. 3 at most

And yes, G5 schools objectively don't belong and should be split out. I don't know why anyone would argue differently. The disparity of actual, physical talent is massive. Tulane is entering into a playoff they don't have a shot in hell at winning, nor will they ever. Isn't it in their best interest to have a separate playoff they could actually compete in?

ETA: FCS teams beat G5 teams quite frequently. something like 80% of FCS wins over FBS schools are against G5 schools.

---

I'm not the one who compared CFB to high school, and we don't need three. We only need one with a minimum 24 team playoff.

The Banned said:

---

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.

---

Exactly this. I was a Luv Ya Blue Oilers fan and found this out the hard way as a kid. There's something so sterile about the pro game.