OT: D1

[IUPNation]

I am not trying to argue, but I think you're missing the point.

Do you think that West Virginia team in 2007 would have loved to have been in the position that Ohio State is in right now? You bet. Or that undefeated Oklahoma State team that lost to Iowa State in the last week of the season in 2012? For sure. Sustaining a gigantic upset means very little now.

Every game meant something back then. Specifically, those rivalry games had way more juice. Because winning or losing could singlehandedly ruin a season, a dream, a career, etc. Ohio State will reach the playoff 8 of every 10 years (or better). Losing to Michigan meant nothing other than a bunch of idiots calling talk shows saying they would rather go 1-11 and beat Michigan, than go 11-1 and lose to them, but win the national championship (newsflash to those folks... No you wouldn't).

You seem to like seeing seasons ruined and careers destroyed.

One loss should not tank a season.

[IUPNation]

Speaking of articles, I read some stuff yesterday that turned back the clock to the BCS era. Basically said, "How would the BCS era of ranked these teams?" Interestingly, Oregon and Georgia would have played for the national championship.

What's kind of funny is, I could get behind that as being the championship game. They justified it all in the conversation...

- Oregon ran the table by beating Boise State, Ohio State, and Penn State.
- Georgia beat the perceived strongest team, Texas, twice. And won the perceived strongest conference.

------The rest of the field--------------------------------------------------------

- Ohio State beat Penn State and lost to Oregon, but they own a bad loss to Michigan.
- Penn State had two shots to beat top 5 teams and get two signature wins, and lost both opportunities, along with losing the B1G Championship Game. They beat just 4 teams that were bowl eligible.
- Clemson was a 3-loss conference champion and would not have been considered.
- Arizona State's 2 losses (Texas Tech and Cincinatti) were worse than the losses UGA sustained.
- Texas lost both games they played against UGA, which automatically drops them below the Dawgs.
- Notre Dame's wins over Texas A&M, Louisville, Navy, and Army would help get them to #3 in the BCS era rankings, but the loss to Northern Illinois (fairly) was not enough to overcome.
- Indiana's poor SOS would not allow them to climb enough to be in serious consideration.
- Boise State would have been ahead of Indiana. But they would not climb high enough to get into serious consideration.
- SMU, like Penn State, lost both games that were their real opportunities to get signature wins. Best wins were Louisville and Pitt.
-Tennessee owned a nice win Alabama and Ole Miss, but their loss to Arkansas, and the head to head loss to UGA put them into a spot where they would have been unable to vault UGA.

I think that's all fair and justified. Basically the finally rankings would have looked like this...

1. Oregon
2. Georgia
3. Notre Dame
4. Tennessee
5. Texas
6. Boise State
7. Ohio State
8. Penn State
9. Arizona State
10. SMU
11. Indiana
12. Clemson

All things considered, it's wild that how these rankings shook out and with all the craziness, etc., the BCS would have resulted in the top 2 seeds we have today still playing for the national championship.

Again champions by committee. I hate it. I like Conference Chsmpions are rewarded. I like a new season where the top teams get a chance to duke it out.

[IUP24]

You seem to like seeing seasons ruined and careers destroyed.

One loss should not tank a season.

It shouldn't, and for the most part, it doesn't. WVU lost on the road to South Florida early in the year in 2007 (who was a perennial top 10 team at the time). That wasn't a bad loss, but it's critical to recognize they weren't undefeated (so the one loss ruins your season theory is irrelevant). They took a loss and were still one win away from reaching the National Championship game. They needed to beat a Pitt team that was a horrifyingly bad 4-7, at home, on senior night, with one of the best offenses in the history of college football, with a Heisman trophy candidate. They lost 13-9. At some point, these games have to matter.

They used to.

[IUP24]

Again champions by committee. I hate it. I like Conference Chsmpions are rewarded. I like a new season where the top teams get a chance to duke it out.

That's fine. You just played an entire weekend of conference championship games. There's your field. Enough justifying everybody else. Take those teams and move on. You just said you like rewarding conference champions. Teams who rose to the top of their conference and won it earned the right to keep playing. Teams who failed to do so should only look in the mirror to ask the question of why.

If the counter point is that these leagues are too big, have unbalanced schedules, and all teams do not play each other in conference, I don't disagree. But this was the arrangement all of these schools signed up for. Keep in mind that Texas and Oklahoma announced they were leaving the Big 12 for the SEC prior to their being designs on a 12-team playoff. The B1G moves didn't happen until last summer of 2023, but the SEC agreed to expand their league and place two perceived heavyweights into their conference long before they were advocating (with the B1G) for a guarantee of 8 spots in a 12 team field. Did they believe that some of these teams wouldn't suffer losses in a scenario where they blew up divisions and had badly unbalanced scheduling?

My whole point in saying that is the conference expansion, cannibalization with these leagues, unbalanced schedules, etc... The conference membership all unanimously signed up for this because it meant more money. So I can't feel sorry for anybody if their season gets derailed for sustaining a apoplectic loss that should have never happened.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

It shouldn't, and for the most part, it doesn't. WVU lost on the road to South Florida early in the year in 2007 (who was a perennial top 10 team at the time). That wasn't a bad loss, but it's critical to recognize they weren't undefeated (so the one loss ruins your season theory is irrelevant). They took a loss and were still one win away from reaching the National Championship game. They needed to beat a Pitt team that was a horrifyingly bad 4-7, at home, on senior night, with one of the best offenses in the history of college football, with a Heisman trophy candidate. They lost 13-9. At some point, these games have to matter.

They used to.

They really don't. This is all about money -- camouflaged with a growing tournament. This thing will probably be up to 24 teams in a decade. This board will then be arguing the merits of the best 7-4 team in the country.

[IUP24]

They really don't. This is all about money -- camouflaged with a growing tournament. This thing will probably be up to 24 teams in a decade. This board will then be arguing the merits of the best 7-4 team in the country.

Truthfully, I don't care. You are not wrong with anything you are saying. But I don't care about the money related to any of this. I am not an AD, university president, coach, or player. That is an ancillary conversation independent of the system that we have that is being discussed. I could not care less about the financials or the tv ratings or anything else about the machine. I don't care about it. You're right. We'll be at 16 next. Then 24. Then we will argue for 32. It'll never stop. Because of money. But I don't care about that stuff specifically related to the confines of the conversation I'm trying to have.

Every piece of what I'm discussing is rooted solely in the concept of football and things on the field. That's it. Nothing more... Nothing less... The machine is what it is. It's why the genie is out of the bottle.

You're saying these games don't matter... I agree. They don't. But they used to. And I liked that system better. Some people disagree and want teams to have multiple mulligans. I don't like that concept. That's all I'm saying.

[Fightingscot82]

They really don't. This is all about money -- camouflaged with a growing tournament. This thing will probably be up to 24 teams in a decade. This board will then be arguing the merits of the best 7-4 team in the country.

They'll vote to expand with a not so subtle gentleman's agreement that all the P4 8-4 teams should get in over the 11-1 G5 conference champion. It's exactly what they did in March Madness.

[IUPNation]

I don’t see it getting expanded. Logistically it’s too much.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Billy B to Chapel Hill

[IUPNation]

Billy B to Chapel Hill

That will be a disaster.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Sounds like Rich Rod's return to Morgantown will be finalized soon.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Scott Frost (back) to UCF

What an interesting day

[Chuck Norris]

Sounds like Rich Rod's return to Morgantown will be finalized soon.

And they play Pitt on 9/13. Amazing.

[Chuck Norris]

Billy B to Chapel Hill

This is fascinating. It seems crazy, but with the new landscape of the college game, guys with NFL experience are probably better equipped to deal with everything than the college lifers. And come on, if the guy can talk a 24 year old young lady into his bed, how hard can it be to get 18-22 year old young men to play football for him?

[Ship69]

This is fascinating. It seems crazy, but with the new landscape of the college game, guys with NFL experience are probably better equipped to deal with everything than the college lifers. And come on, if the guy can talk a 24 year old young lady into his bed, how hard can it be to get 18-22 year old young men to play football for him?

We'll see. The Lovie Smith experiment at Illinois never worked out because Lovie, while a competent NFL coach, simply didn't like to have to go out and recruit. Whether Bill B., at age 71, will be overly enthusiastic about recruiting remains to be seen. It might work if he gets a young assistant to beat the bushes and then works as a closer if they're close to the deal. As far as talking to the young ladies when you're an older guy, it helps if you have fame and a lot of money, and I'm pretty sure Bill has plenty of both.