OT: D1

[IUP24]

I would say the Ohio State-Michigan game did mean something as it kept Ohio State out of the conference championship game and means they'll have to win their way through the whole bracket to win the natty. And Tennessee is certainly not an easy draw for a first-round game. Oregon winning the title puts them automatically into the quarterfinals. I'm sure Ohio State would rather be sitting home that first week than playing Tennessee.

I will say I don't like these 16- and 18-team single-division conferences as that increases the chance you'll get into multiple tie-breaking scenarios for these conference championship games.

Yeah... I mean... Okay, it meant something. Sure.

I liked when teams walked onto the field with everything on the line in one of those games. If getting a home game in the College Football Playoff equates to "meaning something," then we are pretty far apart in our definitions and likely won't find common ground.

[Ship69]

It creates more games that are meaningful down the line for other teams. But it renders a lot of games that people "get up" to watch as fans, mostly meaningless.

Ohio State-Michigan was fun to watch as a fan, but it meant nothing. Oregon-Ohio State early in the season proved to mean mostly nothing (both made it, and may play again in the 2nd round). Penn State-Ohio State meant nothing (and OSU's win over them meant nothing). Tennessee-Georgia is a game I enjoy watching, but neither did anything to harm the other. Texas and Georgia squared up two times, with Georgia winning both (Georgia can't even say they knocked Texas out of the field). You can say that maybe Tennessee-Alabama was a critical game that meant something (because Bama was left out), but most of those types of matchups meant nothing at the end of the day.

The games that you're creating as intriguing, meaningful games are the games in which the name programs that started the season highly ranked (and have already lost) are now getting 2nd and 3rd chances to not blow a chance at the 10 seed, against a middle of the pack team in their conference looking to challenge for that same spot.

I get your argument (to be clear, I agree that winning your conference in a championship game SHOULD matter - referencing your point about the B12 championship). My point is I don't buy into the discussion that we made things more exciting for a matchup between Ole Miss and South Carolina, both with either 2 or 3 losses in week 10, in a given year. And like I said, most of these "meaningful games" we are always referencing are between teams with multiple losses. I like that a season is not derailed from one loss, but I don't like that we are mostly talking about this from the perspective of being excited about big playoff implications between teams who are just getting 2nd or 3rd chances to not blow their chance.

I would say the Ohio State-Michigan game did mean something as it kept Ohio State out of the conference championship game and means they'll have to win their way through the whole bracket to win the natty. And Tennessee is certainly not an easy draw for a first-round game. Oregon winning the title puts them automatically into the quarterfinals. I'm sure Ohio State would rather be sitting home that first week than playing Tennessee.

I will say I don't like these 16- and 18-team single-division conferences as that increases the chance you'll get into multiple tie-breaking scenarios for these conference championship games.

[IUPNation]

I don’t disagree with your overall point that the playoff and its expansion has devalued regular season games but “Every game mattered” went out the window when Bama and LSU played a rematch for a title or perhaps when Oklahoma lost the B12CG but still got to play USC for a title. Hell, one of Spurrier’s Fun n’ Gun Gator teams were AP champs after beating FSU in a bowl rematch.

But they aren’t devalued. Every win means a better position. Conference title games matter. The OSU/UM game still had it consequences.

its clear that in the BIG and SEC being in that top four in each conference is necessary to get a shot at a playoff slot.

[TheBigCat2192]

I'm not sure that's raising the bar. Can't beat your rival in the regular season, but line up against them again in the playoffs? How many shots should Texas have to beat Georgia?

The proposition of having one shot in some of these games was what actually raised the bar. A 4-7 Pitt team knocked West Virginia out of the National Championship in 2007 in an upset that was a major domino in the first wave of modern college football realignment. A bad Michigan team beating Ohio State on the road didn't even cost the Buckeyes a home game.

NFL and College Football are fundamentally different games - and that's okay. The way the sport is played is different at both levels. And structurally, there is nothing wrong with having a different format as well. Having a regular season where every game legitimately mattered was what created the uniqueness of college football.

I don’t disagree with your overall point that the playoff and its expansion has devalued regular season games but “Every game mattered” went out the window when Bama and LSU played a rematch for a title or perhaps when Oklahoma lost the B12CG but still got to play USC for a title. Hell, one of Spurrier’s Fun n’ Gun Gator teams were AP champs after beating FSU in a bowl rematch.

[IUPNation]

I'm not sure that's raising the bar. Can't beat your rival in the regular season, but line up against them again in the playoffs? How many shots should Texas have to beat Georgia?

The proposition of having one shot in some of these games was what actually raised the bar. A 4-7 Pitt team knocked West Virginia out of the National Championship in 2007 in an upset that was a major domino in the first wave of modern college football realignment. A bad Michigan team beating Ohio State on the road didn't even cost the Buckeyes a home game.

NFL and College Football are fundamentally different games - and that's okay. The way the sport is played is different at both levels. And structurally, there is nothing wrong with having a different format as well. Having a regular season where every game legitimately mattered was what created the uniqueness of college football.

But then we had National Champions by committee. The 1994,Nits got penalized from a title because they didn’t beat up Fake Indiana enough.

Are we happy when IUP’s season is over in September?

That OSU loss cost them a better bracket. I’m sure they’d rather play SMU than Tennessee and if they win they have to face Oregon instead of Boise State. Had they beaten Mestchicken they’d either be #1 in the bracket or #5.

So yeah..that loss screwed them.

What I’m enjoying is two southern teams are forced to many up North. It’s about time that unfair advantage got taken away.

[IUP24]

The NFL has repeat games. I don’t see why college should not be the same. Rivalry games were big when there was no playoff.

The bar has been raised.

I'm not sure that's raising the bar. Can't beat your rival in the regular season, but line up against them again in the playoffs? How many shots should Texas have to beat Georgia?

The proposition of having one shot in some of these games was what actually raised the bar. A 4-7 Pitt team knocked West Virginia out of the National Championship in 2007 in an upset that was a major domino in the first wave of modern college football realignment. A bad Michigan team beating Ohio State on the road didn't even cost the Buckeyes a home game.

NFL and College Football are fundamentally different games - and that's okay. The way the sport is played is different at both levels. And structurally, there is nothing wrong with having a different format as well. Having a regular season where every game legitimately mattered was what created the uniqueness of college football.

[IUPNation]

As a Phillies fan, the signing is a little disconcerting. The Mets are the Phils' archrival now. Dombrowski and the Phillies could have entered the sweepstakes, especially with Soto's personal connections to other Phillies players, but chose not to. Something about money, I guess.

I'm glad that it is not "deferred." That's a bad road to go down, IMO.

They are the Flushing Toilet Mess..they’ll find a way to suck.

[IUPNation]

Nobody ever opted out of a bowl game until Christian McAffery did so. One of these guys will eventually opt out of the playoff. And honestly, I can't blame them one bit.

Well we see why..he’s made of glass.

[IUPNation]

I'm happy for SMU and Indiana. They took care of their business, had no bad losses, and reached the tournament (as it should be). You can argue or discuss schedules all you want, but winning football games has to matter at some point.

Boise was undoubtedly the best G5 of the year (and they beat arguably the 2nd best G5 team, UNLV, twice), and they deservedly got in.

Arizona State was one of the hottest teams in the 2nd half of the season, got on a huge run, and won their conference. They got in and have a seat at the table.

Clemson was written off, backed into a conference title game because of a Week 12 upset, and won their way into the field. That is the exciting "bid stealing" proposition that everybody loves that makes March unique.

There are advocates far and wide for a SEC and B1G invitational, but that's not how this should go. Who you want to watch on tv, who garners the biggest ratings, and how Vegas would handicap a game should have nothing to do with deciding a national champion. I don't think this system is perfect (and I stand by that I wish they never expanded from four teams for a variety of reasons), but I think the committee got everything right. It doesn't matter to me who wins, what the spreads are, which conference is best, etc. I care that every team who, without a doubt earned their way to the moment, has an opportunity.

I still think this entire system devalues the regular season. I think it renders what used to be critical matchups to be meaningless (Oregon's reward for beating OSU is to play them again potentially in the 2nd round). I still believe that the cache of "rivalry games" have lost their meaning because you can no longer effectively ruin a season in one (Ohio State and Clemson are the perfect examples). But those are all separate conversations independent of this post. You can argue seedings, but you can't argue the field. I think they got the right 12 teams in.

The NFL has repeat games. I don’t see why college should not be the same. Rivalry games were big when there was no playoff.

The bar has been raised.

[IUPNation]

Juan Soto

New York Mets

15 years

$765 million

But they’ll still suck.

[IUP24]

I would offer a counter argument that the new playoff format might actually have created more meaningful games. It wouldn't have mattered much what Boise State did last year because they probably would not have been included in a four-team playoff. The Iowa State-Arizona State Big 12 title game was literally a fight for which team made the playoff field. Also the old format discouraged strong scheduling because one or two losses often knocked you out of contention.

It creates more games that are meaningful down the line for other teams. But it renders a lot of games that people "get up" to watch as fans, mostly meaningless.

Ohio State-Michigan was fun to watch as a fan, but it meant nothing. Oregon-Ohio State early in the season proved to mean mostly nothing (both made it, and may play again in the 2nd round). Penn State-Ohio State meant nothing (and OSU's win over them meant nothing). Tennessee-Georgia is a game I enjoy watching, but neither did anything to harm the other. Texas and Georgia squared up two times, with Georgia winning both (Georgia can't even say they knocked Texas out of the field). You can say that maybe Tennessee-Alabama was a critical game that meant something (because Bama was left out), but most of those types of matchups meant nothing at the end of the day.

The games that you're creating as intriguing, meaningful games are the games in which the name programs that started the season highly ranked (and have already lost) are now getting 2nd and 3rd chances to not blow a chance at the 10 seed, against a middle of the pack team in their conference looking to challenge for that same spot.

I get your argument (to be clear, I agree that winning your conference in a championship game SHOULD matter - referencing your point about the B12 championship). My point is I don't buy into the discussion that we made things more exciting for a matchup between Ole Miss and South Carolina, both with either 2 or 3 losses in week 10, in a given year. And like I said, most of these "meaningful games" we are always referencing are between teams with multiple losses. I like that a season is not derailed from one loss, but I don't like that we are mostly talking about this from the perspective of being excited about big playoff implications between teams who are just getting 2nd or 3rd chances to not blow their chance.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Iowa's bowl game should be a dud as their big running back, who is about 65 percent of their offense, has opted out. As for opting out of the playoffs, it depends. If they are getting significant NIL money, I can very well blame them for opting out.

The day is coming soon when a player will say his NIL money was for the regular season. And, the regular season is over. It didn't include these extra games. So, if you want them to not opt-out, write another check.

The NFL Draft isn't that far away. These sure-fire RD1 guys obviously have to take that into consideration. Not everybody cares about winning a title. They want 4-5 Ferrari's and a real big bag. Blow out a knee in a Round 2 loss ... Round 1 is now highly likely a pipe dream.

And ... what an incredible time to renegotiate for a star player. Imagine what the cult in Columbus would all the sudden pony up.

[IUP24]

What you describe is exactly how it should work. Schedules are what they are. As I've mentioned, a lot of schools have their schedules set a decade in advance when either team could be very different. If someone wins all or nearly all of their games and wins their conference, there should be no question. Its my pipe dream, but if and when we have multiple G5 schools with 11 FBS wins and a conference championship, the #3 SEC or Big Ten teams may need to warm to the idea of the Pop Tarts Bowl.

I think that's fair. Winning your games should matter. I remember the year Northern Illinois went 12-0. They got smoked in the BCS bowl they were selected to, but that should be mostly irrelevant. I'd rather see those teams do what they were asked to do and garner a seat at the table. It's irrelevant whether Georgia would be favored by 20.5 over Tulane or Army. Why even play football games at that point if you are just going to decide the field based on a spread?

And I get not everybody agrees with that proposition, but I won't apologize for it. If Lane Kiffin wanted a shot, he shouldn't have lost to a horrendous Kentucky team AT HOME. The SEC got 3 teams into the field. The outrage that some have is way overblown.

[Ship69]

Nobody ever opted out of a bowl game until Christian McAffery did so. One of these guys will eventually opt out of the playoff. And honestly, I can't blame them one bit.

Iowa's bowl game should be a dud as their big running back, who is about 65 percent of their offense, has opted out. As for opting out of the playoffs, it depends. If they are getting significant NIL money, I can very well blame them for opting out.

[Ship69]

I'm happy for SMU and Indiana. They took care of their business, had no bad losses, and reached the tournament (as it should be). You can argue or discuss schedules all you want, but winning football games has to matter at some point.

Boise was undoubtedly the best G5 of the year (and they beat arguably the 2nd best G5 team, UNLV, twice), and they deservedly got in.

Arizona State was one of the hottest teams in the 2nd half of the season, got on a huge run, and won their conference. They got in and have a seat at the table.

Clemson was written off, backed into a conference title game because of a Week 12 upset, and won their way into the field. That is the exciting "bid stealing" proposition that everybody loves that makes March unique.

There are advocates far and wide for a SEC and B1G invitational, but that's not how this should go. Who you want to watch on tv, who garners the biggest ratings, and how Vegas would handicap a game should have nothing to do with deciding a national champion. I don't think this system is perfect (and I stand by that I wish they never expanded from four teams for a variety of reasons), but I think the committee got everything right. It doesn't matter to me who wins, what the spreads are, which conference is best, etc. I care that every team who, without a doubt earned their way to the moment, has an opportunity.

I still think this entire system devalues the regular season. I think it renders what used to be critical matchups to be meaningless (Oregon's reward for beating OSU is to play them again potentially in the 2nd round). I still believe that the cache of "rivalry games" have lost their meaning because you can no longer effectively ruin a season in one (Ohio State and Clemson are the perfect examples). But those are all separate conversations independent of this post. You can argue seedings, but you can't argue the field. I think they got the right 12 teams in.

I would offer a counter argument that the new playoff format might actually have created more meaningful games. It wouldn't have mattered much what Boise State did last year because they probably would not have been included in a four-team playoff. The Iowa State-Arizona State Big 12 title game was literally a fight for which team made the playoff field. Also the old format discouraged strong scheduling because one or two losses often knocked you out of contention.