OT: D1

[IUPbigINDIANS]

The root of my issue is that I have a fundamental disagreement with the justification of the state of college football pertaining to the class system as it currently exists with the expanded playoff.

NIL magnifying college football into tiers isn’t necessarily anything new. Those classes have always existed. But it would be far more tolerable if when those who were in the upper class slipped up, it meant something.

It no longer does. Plenty of people are okay with that. I am not.

I like having these conversations, because I like talking football. But I have mostly have a problem with the masses everywhere unknowingly supporting a format that’s just going to continue to build the divide, when nearly all of them root for a team who won’t ever have a seat at the table.

I get it. I realize you are very passionate about this topic.

My point is relax. In the big picture it's meaningless college football.

Three months from today the average fan wouldn't be able to name 8 of the 12 playoff teams.

I'm not totally disagreeing with you. We've known each other a long time. The reality however is the people calling the shots disagree with you.

My personal opinion as you know is I thought some real good teams got left out. I don't value Boise's record like you do. That's OK. We don't have to agree. We aren't changing anything anyway.

[IUP24]

I get it. I realize you are very passionate about this topic.

My point is relax. In the big picture it's meaningless college football.

Three months from today the average fan wouldn't be able to name 8 of the 12 playoff teams.

I'm not totally disagreeing with you. We've known each other a long time. The reality however is the people calling the shots disagree with you.

My personal opinion as you know is I thought some real good teams got left out. I don't value Boise's record like you do. That's OK. We don't have to agree. We aren't changing anything anyway.

The only reason the ones calling the shots have a different vision of what they want is because it lines their pockets more. Starts and ends there.

[IUP24]

By getting two bids in when the second team didn’t win the conference. The BIG didn’t deserve it either.

I don’t understand why you want the old way. It sucked. One loss should not tank your chances. Schedules aren’t even. Polls are crap and committees choosing who gets to play is even worse. This opened it up..and gave everyone a chance. The old way felt the same teams were always getting the chances while teams who had great seasons had. I **** because the pedigree was less.

I don’t “want” the old way. I just want the games in the regular season to matter. And down the lines games to decide the 11th or 12th team, to me, don’t make up for Notre Dame losing to Northern Illinois not mattering at all.

I don’t think you’ll see different teams in this format. I think you’ll see more of the teams everybody had fatigue from.

I want what you want too. Balanced scheduling. Regionalized conferences. Etc. But there’s too much money as it currently exists to ever get us to a sensible model. I didn’t love the BCS or the 4-team playoff either. But I liked those better because the regular was unique and it mattered.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

The only reason the ones calling the shots have a different vision of what they want is because it lines their pockets more. Starts and ends there.

And Bingo was his name

[IUPNation]

Yes we can. Apples to oranges. A regionalized playoff structure that exists in Division 2 football where every conference is represented isn’t remotely comparable to the format that exists at the level we are discussing.

Acknowledging that Ohio State, who had the best odds to win the national championship at the start of the season, won four games, doesn’t change that their loss to Michigan would have disqualified nearly every other team not of their status. And the “punishment” allowed Ohio State an opportunity to make additional money from a home game they can now turn into an NIL check, further widening their gap.

The sport has fundamentally changed in favor of the teams that just reached the final four, and we’re using, “they won four games” as the data point to justify the devaluation of what was once the greatest regular season of any sport.

It was even more unfair in the era you think was so magical.

Penn State had undefeated teams in 1968, 1969, 1973 and 1994 and didn't get to be called National Champions. Who is to say who the polls crowned got it right? Is this what you want back?

The 1994 team was never given that chance to play for a title. They got stuck playing a crappy Oregon team in the Rose Bowl and not the team of criminals from Nebraskastan.

That is the system you seem to be defending.

I found it to be even far more unfair....more susceptible to bias and not the way to crown a champion. I don't remember the first three times the Nits got hosed because I was 2, 3 and 7. But I was in my late 20's in 1994 and they were hosed by the polls. Those players deserved a chance to play for a title and they were denied because of the bull**** bowl system.

Teams that couldn't sniff a bid in the 4 team format got a seat at the table year. Money is spread out now and programs can't stack starters on 2nd and 3rd teams like Saban did when he had the biggest unfair advantage in the sport of all time. He bailed as soon as that was taken away from him.

Now if you argue that the playoffs took too long..I agree. The Army/Navy Game needs to be moved to a weekend before Conference Championship Weekend. Then the playoffs start the weekend the Army/Navy Game would have been on campuses. Then move the "Bowl Games" used for the next two rounds up...they don't have to be on New Years Weekend Every Year. The title game should be just after New Years...not deep into January.

Then get rid of most of the useless bowls filled with teams with 6-7 wins. That is a joke. 40 years ago there were 18 bowls...now there are 47. They need to go.

You bag on the Bucknuts getting extra money from a home playoff game and losing a game to Meatchicken? Really? Your Pitt Panthers got a bowl game despite losing 5 straight games to end the season. Do you think in say 1980..if they went 7-5 they'd get a bowl bid? No...but they got one this year...got paid for it...and then lost their 6th game in a row. You want to talk about devaluation...there it is right there.

The system is set up nicely now. Win your conference...get a higher seeding. If you are the runner up...you get at least a chance to host the first week on your home field. If you are a G5 team having the year of their lives...you now get a chance...a chance Central Flori-duh didn't get. If this year's system was in place...Flori-duh State doesn't get hosed.

FCS, D2 and D3 don't fully punish teams for losing in the regular season...well only IUP gets punished but that's another story.

I didn't fully care about the 4 team playoffs because it felt like only the privileged got invited. This year I watched because programs were getting chances and that was interesting to watch. Maybe the first round wasn't the greatest but so what..TCU getting disemboweled by Jawja was a waste of time.

The only change I would have made is that any conference champion who was not in the top 4 gets the home game in round 1. That would have given Clemson a home game and a seed in the 4-8 level.

[IUPNation]

I don’t “want” the old way. I just want the games in the regular season to matter. And down the lines games to decide the 11th or 12th team, to me, don’t make up for Notre Dame losing to Northern Illinois not mattering at all.

I don’t think you’ll see different teams in this format. I think you’ll see more of the teams everybody had fatigue from.

I want what you want too. Balanced scheduling. Regionalized conferences. Etc. But there’s too much money as it currently exists to ever get us to a sensible model. I didn’t love the BCS or the 4-team playoff either. But I liked those better because the regular was unique and it mattered.

But the games in the regular season DO matter. That Meatchicken loss cost the Bucknuts the BIG title game. That would have given them a chance for a bye had they beat Oregon. They could have lost to Tennessee-astan and be sent home.

Had the Bucknuts lost to Penn State too...they would have been playing a useless bowl.

One game should not make or break your whole season. Your whole resume should be in play. Notre Dame got a lower seed...because they can't win a conference title and then their early season loss probably pushed them further down. Had they beaten Northern Illinois they would have been the 5 seed.

I think you will see different teams at least for the lower seeds.

This format gave Fake Indiana a seat....and they may be able to build off of that. Same with SMU.

This gives programs a real incentive to try to up their game. The 4 team format was not going to let that happen.

[IUPNation]

The only reason the ones calling the shots have a different vision of what they want is because it lines their pockets more. Starts and ends there.

Everyone in the field got different payouts.

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/col...ts-1234824580/

Notre Dame walked home with 20 million clear
Texastan 10.25 million...the SEC gave them a big bonus,
Every BIG Team in the conference got the same payout 2.56 million....so you got paid even if you sucked.
SMU and Clemson got 4 million a piece
Arizona State got 500K because they had to share it too

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Everyone in the field got different payouts.

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/col...ts-1234824580/

Notre Dame walked home with 20 million clear
Texastan 10.25 million...the SEC gave them a big bonus,
Every BIG Team in the conference got the same payout 2.56 million....so you got paid even if you sucked.
SMU and Clemson got 4 million a piece
Arizona State got 500K because they had to share it too

People wonder why ND refuses to join a conference.

[IUP24]

It was even more unfair in the era you think was so magical.

Penn State had undefeated teams in 1968, 1969, 1973 and 1994 and didn't get to be called National Champions. Who is to say who the polls crowned got it right? Is this what you want back?

The 1994 team was never given that chance to play for a title. They got stuck playing a crappy Oregon team in the Rose Bowl and not the team of criminals from Nebraskastan.

That is the system you seem to be defending.

I found it to be even far more unfair....more susceptible to bias and not the way to crown a champion. I don't remember the first three times the Nits got hosed because I was 2, 3 and 7. But I was in my late 20's in 1994 and they were hosed by the polls. Those players deserved a chance to play for a title and they were denied because of the bull**** bowl system.

Teams that couldn't sniff a bid in the 4 team format got a seat at the table year. Money is spread out now and programs can't stack starters on 2nd and 3rd teams like Saban did when he had the biggest unfair advantage in the sport of all time. He bailed as soon as that was taken away from him.

Now if you argue that the playoffs took too long..I agree. The Army/Navy Game needs to be moved to a weekend before Conference Championship Weekend. Then the playoffs start the weekend the Army/Navy Game would have been on campuses. Then move the "Bowl Games" used for the next two rounds up...they don't have to be on New Years Weekend Every Year. The title game should be just after New Years...not deep into January.

Then get rid of most of the useless bowls filled with teams with 6-7 wins. That is a joke. 40 years ago there were 18 bowls...now there are 47. They need to go.

You bag on the Bucknuts getting extra money from a home playoff game and losing a game to Meatchicken? Really? Your Pitt Panthers got a bowl game despite losing 5 straight games to end the season. Do you think in say 1980..if they went 7-5 they'd get a bowl bid? No...but they got one this year...got paid for it...and then lost their 6th game in a row. You want to talk about devaluation...there it is right there.

The system is set up nicely now. Win your conference...get a higher seeding. If you are the runner up...you get at least a chance to host the first week on your home field. If you are a G5 team having the year of their lives...you now get a chance...a chance Central Flori-duh didn't get. If this year's system was in place...Flori-duh State doesn't get hosed.

FCS, D2 and D3 don't fully punish teams for losing in the regular season...well only IUP gets punished but that's another story.

I didn't fully care about the 4 team playoffs because it felt like only the privileged got invited. This year I watched because programs were getting chances and that was interesting to watch. Maybe the first round wasn't the greatest but so what..TCU getting disemboweled by Jawja was a waste of time.

The only change I would have made is that any conference champion who was not in the top 4 gets the home game in round 1. That would have given Clemson a home game and a seed in the 4-8 level.

You’ve mostly missed the entirety of what I’ve discussed over and over. And I’m not sure what Pitt has to do with anything. They’ll never even be part of this conversation. One loss will disqualify them. And they’re never going to go undefeated. What bowl game they go to is mostly irrelevant.

I think you’re confusing me not being a fan of this with believing that I think something else is far superior. I don’t believe that to be the case. I liked the four team playoff better than this format, but what I always stated (for years here) was that I preferred the BCS to the CFP. I’ve always been consistent in that opinion. And the BCS was not perfect. I said early on the CFP would be detrimental to FBS college football. It has created an arms race over a ten year period unlike anything we’ve seen. The playoff or bust culture that was ushered in aided a few programs with stockpiling all of the talent. Was there a gap between the best programs and the others previously? Yes. Is that gap wider today than it was before? Yes.

I also don’t understand why Saban lives rent free in everyone’s brains.

[IUP24]

People wonder why ND refuses to join a conference.

Mostly think ND gets a bad press for being independent. They traditionally have a schedule that is as challenging as some of the best P4 teams.

They never shy away from big time matchups. Typically play in a big opening weekend matchup. Rarely ever schedule an FCS opponent. Most teams would choose to be independent if they really could.

[Chuck Norris]

I don’t “want” the old way. I just want the games in the regular season to matter. And down the lines games to decide the 11th or 12th team, to me, don’t make up for Notre Dame losing to Northern Illinois not mattering at all.

I don’t think you’ll see different teams in this format. I think you’ll see more of the teams everybody had fatigue from.

I want what you want too. Balanced scheduling. Regionalized conferences. Etc. But there’s too much money as it currently exists to ever get us to a sensible model. I didn’t love the BCS or the 4-team playoff either. But I liked those better because the regular was unique and it mattered.

Notre Dame’s loss to Northern Illinois did matter. But it also mattered that they had 10 more games to play after that and won them all. That was their only chance to make the playoff and they did it.

Before Michigan, Ohio State’s only loss was by one point at Oregon. They’d also won at Penn State and smacked Indiana. Among the teams that just missed getting in, who deserved a bid over Ohio State?

I get your overall point, but I don’t equate teams getting a bid with multiple losses to the regular season not mattering. It might not matter as much as the days when a computer spit out who the top two teams in the country were and only they got to play a post season game for anything truly meaningful, but I’ll take that trade for a playoff, imperfect as it might be.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Mostly think ND gets a bad press for being independent. They traditionally have a schedule that is as challenging as some of the best P4 teams.

They never shy away from big time matchups. Typically play in a big opening weekend matchup. Rarely ever schedule an FCS opponent. Most teams would choose to be independent if they really could.

No doubt. They will play anybody.

I believe, however, staying independent makes that extremely lucrative NBC contract possible. If that's not the key item, it's near the top of the list.

[IUP24]

Notre Dame’s loss to Northern Illinois did matter. But it also mattered that they had 10 more games to play after that and won them all. That was their only chance to make the playoff and they did it.

Before Michigan, Ohio State’s only loss was by one point at Oregon. They’d also won at Penn State and smacked Indiana. Among the teams that just missed getting in, who deserved a bid over Ohio State?

I get your overall point, but I don’t equate teams getting a bid with multiple losses to the regular season not mattering. It might not matter as much as the days when a computer spit out who the top two teams in the country were and only they got to play a post season game for anything truly meaningful, but I’ll take that trade for a playoff, imperfect as it might be.

I truly don't disagree with your post. I don't dispute that either of those teams weren't more deserving than the ones just outside the field of 12. Under the parameters of this format and using a selection committee, I agree, those teams were deserving of a bid. I think our definition of the word "mattered" is different, and that's fine. We can find common ground there and move on.

The BCS was imperfect. The 4-team playoff was imperfect. The 12-team playoff, while great for some, is imperfect for me. None of these are foolproof systems.

I preferred when monumental upsets had seismic implications. That was fun to me, and it was truly what made college football special. And it was also my opportunity, as a fan of a program who won't ever have a seat at the table (like 90% of college football fans), to see the elite fans of programs in their ivory towers, have a mortal moment and have it all come crashing down.

[Ship69]

I truly don't disagree with your post. I don't dispute that either of those teams weren't more deserving than the ones just outside the field of 12. Under the parameters of this format and using a selection committee, I agree, those teams were deserving of a bid. I think our definition of the word "mattered" is different, and that's fine. We can find common ground there and move on.

The BCS was imperfect. The 4-team playoff was imperfect. The 12-team playoff, while great for some, is imperfect for me. None of these are foolproof systems.

I preferred when monumental upsets had seismic implications. That was fun to me, and it was truly what made college football special. And it was also my opportunity, as a fan of a program who won't ever have a seat at the table (like 90% of college football fans), to see the elite fans of programs in their ivory towers, have a mortal moment and have it all come crashing down.

Well, I think I heard a pretty loud crash when the Alabama ivory tower came crashing down this season. And it got even better when they lost in a secondary bowl to a meh Michigan team missing most of its best defenders. Georgia didn't exactly cover itself with glory in the quarterfinal. In the four-team era, the Notre Dame team that throttled them probably might not have been in the playoff.

[IUP24]

Well, I think I heard a pretty loud crash when the Alabama ivory tower came crashing down this season. And it got even better when they lost in a secondary bowl to a meh Michigan team missing most of its best defenders. Georgia didn't exactly cover itself with glory in the quarterfinal. In the four-team era, the Notre Dame team that throttled them probably might not have been in the playoff.

Sure, Bama was left out this year. I don’t have “Alabama fatigue” like others, so I wasn’t parading in the streets when they were left out. It didn’t phase me.

Overall, I prefer less of the elites being shoved down my throat, not more. I preferred that when Ohio State, or Bama, or Penn State, or Georgia, or whoever lost, they were done. Disagree with that opinion. It’s fine. The little guy, on a given day, destroying the dreams of entire programs, fan bases, etc., made college football more dramatic and enjoyable for me. Others can disagree, and that’s fine.

Doing things that favor the heavyweights of two conferences is just not the model for me. But I see and recognize how most fans of schools in those conferences have significantly different opinions on the state of college football entirely.