OT: D1

[IUPNation]

I've subscribed (to a point) to the idea of creating more games of importance. I like football. I don't just like the big brands. So when USF and Tulane played in what was essentially a playoff game a month ago, I watched. Again, because I like football and think seeing teams playing in high leverage games is fun.

But what I've noticed is that all the same people who advocated for more games mattering are seemingly upset that teams they don't want to see in the CFP are playing in critical games that matter late in the season. And I think that's what has rubbed me the wrong way in this entire conversation. You don't get to pick and choose at your convenience. This is the world everybody wanted. More teams involved. More games that mattered. More interest and intrigue everywhere. You mostly have that now, and people are upset.

If you want to say that Iowa State and Cincinnati in early November (just picking two random teams) is effectively an elimination game, then you have to also recognize that Georgia/Tennessee or Ohio State/Michigan might be that too. We don't get to cherry pick which games are and are not quasi playoff games simply because of the logo on their helmet.

And I know that rubs people the wrong way, but so be it. I don't care if you'd rather watch the Food Network than Kennesaw State in the playoffs. Don't watch then. It just tells me you don't actually like football. And that's where I'm at with most of these people.

I'm with you.

If the Mountain West or the Sun Belt or the MAC shouldn't have a shot at these playoffs, then create a third D1 level and let them have their playoff system.

Or move them to FCS....I mean North Dakota State could probably hold it's own or beat a Tulane.

I just don't want to see the 4th or 5th team from the SEC in the playoffs. These teams had 12 games to prove their worth.

They need to ditch cupcake games too. No FBS team should be playing an FCS team.

[shipfbfan1]

I'm with you.

If the Mountain West or the Sun Belt or the MAC shouldn't have a shot at these playoffs, then create a third D1 level and let them have their playoff system.

Or move them to FCS....I mean North Dakota State could probably hold it's own or beat a Tulane.

I just don't want to see the 4th or 5th team from the SEC in the playoffs. These teams had 12 games to prove their worth.

They need to ditch cupcake games too. No FBS team should be playing an FCS team.

I like the FBS/FCS games but there should be a 1 game max for each FBS team and that game should not count towards bowl eligibility or any post season invite. For many players those games are the only time they'll see ample playing time due to be a walk-on. Plus the FCS programs profit off those games to help run their athletics department and those players on FCS teams can use that film to get FBS attention in the portal if they desire to move up.

[Chuck Norris]

I agree with all of this 100%. I am glad Tulane and JMU made the playoffs.

I don't think 5 teams from the SEC deserve to make the field. Why are the Sooners there? BYU should be in that slot. They are the school that got punished for losing a conference title game.

I'd also say Duke should be in the playoffs for winning the conference and not the Miami Detention Center.

Why play conference title games if you aren't rewarded making them and winning them?

If you think Duke should’ve made it, then your issue isn’t with Miami. JMU kept Duke out. Both were conference champions but JMU was ranked higher. Duke wasn’t in the discussion for an at large bid, nor should they have been.

[IUP24]

I'm with you.

If the Mountain West or the Sun Belt or the MAC shouldn't have a shot at these playoffs, then create a third D1 level and let them have their playoff system.

Or move them to FCS....I mean North Dakota State could probably hold it's own or beat a Tulane.

I just don't want to see the 4th or 5th team from the SEC in the playoffs. These teams had 12 games to prove their worth.

They need to ditch cupcake games too. No FBS team should be playing an FCS team.

Everybody is taking potshots at Tulane. But everybody fails to acknowledge that they played three P4 schools and went 2-1 against them this season. But because they beat Duke and Northwestern, those results aren't supposed to matter. The constant moving of the goalposts is pretty alarming. They were a G5 who scheduled P4 teams, beat them, and now those holding water for the TV networks suggest that a G5 being eligible for the playoffs should have to play 4 games at minimum against P4 competition. Joel Klatt suggested that this week.

There's no world where all G5 teams would be able to actually schedule 4 games against P4 teams. And the second a G5 team appears to have some semblance of momentum or potential that they could knock off a P4 in a non-conference game, that P4 team would pay them to cancel the game.

I don't support a third level of Division 1 football unless you completely overhauled the entirety of the system. And that will not happen in the manner that most envision it would (or would want it to happen).

[TheBigCat2192]

Ohio U has fired first-year HC Brian Smith for “serious misconduct” after previously placing him on leave.

[Chuck Norris]

I've subscribed (to a point) to the idea of creating more games of importance. I like football. I don't just like the big brands. So when USF and Tulane played in what was essentially a playoff game a month ago, I watched. Again, because I like football and think seeing teams playing in high leverage games is fun.

But what I've noticed is that all the same people who advocated for more games mattering are seemingly upset that teams they don't want to see in the CFP are playing in critical games that matter late in the season. And I think that's what has rubbed me the wrong way in this entire conversation. You don't get to pick and choose at your convenience. This is the world everybody wanted. More teams involved. More games that mattered. More interest and intrigue everywhere. You mostly have that now, and people are upset.

If you want to say that Iowa State and Cincinnati in early November (just picking two random teams) is effectively an elimination game, then you have to also recognize that Georgia/Tennessee or Ohio State/Michigan might be that too. We don't get to cherry pick which games are and are not quasi playoff games simply because of the logo on their helmet.

And I know that rubs people the wrong way, but so be it. I don't care if you'd rather watch the Food Network than Kennesaw State in the playoffs. Don't watch then. It just tells me you don't actually like football. And that's where I'm at with most of these people.

It’s hard to fully invest in and follow every tier of the FBS level. Most people simply don’t have the time. It’s why the NFL is so much more popular among the masses. It’s not really fair to say people don’t like football if they don’t watch all the games that matter and get excited about teams like Tulane making the playoff, and frankly, comes off as gatekeeping.

If given a choice to watch Notre Dame-Oregon or JMU-Oregon in a playoff game, I take the Notre Dame game 10 times out of 10. It doesn’t mean I won’t watch JMU-Oregon. I’ll be rooting for JMU to at least keep it interesting.

The G5s get their shot and that is fine. Do I love that there are 2 of them in a 12 team field this year? No, I’ll absolutely admit that I don’t. But I don’t like football because of it? That’s a bit of a leap.

[IUP24]

What's insanely unique to me is that there isn't a professional league anywhere who prefaces their playoff selection with "best teams." So why do so many care about that in college football? Every pro league has distinct and defined ways to reach the postseason. It's not subjective.

The NFL has had scenarios in numerous years where a bad team wins a bad division and 1-2 "good" teams who are "better" get left out. People b*tch and moan, but they still watch. They don't blow up the divisional format or playoff format because a 12-4 Saints team lost to a 7-9 Seahawks team on the road in the Wild Card round of the playoffs. It happened. Everybody moved on.

Divisions in the NHL are unbalanced. Scheduling, in turn, is also unbalanced. The "best" teams who fill one division play each other more, lose out on points in the standings because of it, and occasionally miss the playoffs. Such is life. You can say the same thing for how Major League Baseball's divisions and schedules are structured.

I don't grasp why people want the "best" teams in one isolated playoff format for one singular level of the sport when not one other sport they consume follows that model or concept.

[IUPNation]

If you think Duke should’ve made it, then your issue isn’t with Miami. JMU kept Duke out. Both were conference champions but JMU was ranked higher. Duke wasn’t in the discussion for an at large bid, nor should they have been.

Every conference champion should make it regardless of record.

At large bids should be for runners up...

Every school has 12 chances to make their case. I don't want teams way down in their conference standings to get a bid.

[IUPNation]

What's insanely unique to me is that there isn't a professional league anywhere who prefaces their playoff selection with "best teams." So why do so many care about that in college football? Every pro league has distinct and defined ways to reach the postseason. It's not subjective.

The NFL has had scenarios in numerous years where a bad team wins a bad division and 1-2 "good" teams who are "better" get left out. People b*tch and moan, but they still watch. They don't blow up the divisional format or playoff format because a 12-4 Saints team lost to a 7-9 Seahawks team on the road in the Wild Card round of the playoffs. It happened. Everybody moved on.

Divisions in the NHL are unbalanced. Scheduling, in turn, is also unbalanced. The "best" teams who fill one division play each other more, lose out on points in the standings because of it, and occasionally miss the playoffs. Such is life. You can say the same thing for how Major League Baseball's divisions and schedules are structured.

I don't grasp why people want the "best" teams in one isolated playoff format for one singular level of the sport when not one other sport they consume follows that model or concept.

This.

The NFC South Winner will most likely be the 4 seed and host a team from the NFC West with a better record.

If you ask me the P4 conferences should only get a max of three bids each....

[IUP24]

It’s hard to fully invest in and follow every tier of the FBS level. Most people simply don’t have the time. It’s why the NFL is so much more popular among the masses. It’s not really fair to say people don’t like football if they don’t watch all the games that matter and get excited about teams like Tulane making the playoff, and frankly, comes off as gatekeeping.

If given a choice to watch Notre Dame-Oregon or JMU-Oregon in a playoff game, I take the Notre Dame game 10 times out of 10. It doesn’t mean I won’t watch JMU-Oregon. I’ll be rooting for JMU to at least keep it interesting.

The G5s get their shot and that is fine. Do I love that there are 2 of them in a 12 team field this year? No, I’ll absolutely admit that I don’t. But I don’t like football because of it? That’s a bit of a leap.

I don't think it really is a leap. I think it may be better to say that they don't like "college football." You are level headed and I totally understand where you are coming from pragmatically. I was geared up to watch OSU-Tennessee last year. That game was a dud. And the reality is that most of these games are exactly that. The data bears that out.

My point is that there are so many fans who are supportive of the notion that 80% of college football programs don't matter. If you'd rather see Notre Dame-Oregon, that's fine. I probably would too. But the lengths that many are going to just eviscerate any program outside of the P4 (and in many cases, outside of the SEC or B1G), is quite remarkable to me. It's alarming that we've gotten here, and I can't say that strongly enough. I don't need two marquee brands to make me interested in watching a game. But I think there's a lot of people out there who do (probably more than you think).

What intrigues me is these same people just don't recognize that the standard margin of victory in college football tends to be pretty large. There's blowouts all over the place. People clamored for a format similar to the FCS playoffs... blowout city if you look through the bracket.

It's a sport that has such disparities of talent and general week to week performance that it lends itself to large spreads on the scoreboard. People who don't like that, or want to see tight games that are nearly always played on a razor's edge or decided by how an egg-shaped ball bounces in the 4th quarter, should probably just stick to the NFL. I think what's happened with college football is it's been infiltrated with non-college fans (ardent NFL viewers) and they are loud in their demands to want to see the names of the teams they know.

[Fightingscot82]

Every conference champion should make it regardless of record.

At large bids should be for runners up...

Every school has 12 chances to make their case. I don't want teams way down in their conference standings to get a bid.

Agree with this 100%. The NCAA recognizes four levels of college football and every team should have the same paths to participate. Win your conference or use the NCAA criteria to gain an at-large bid.

Every other NCAA football playoff autobids conference champions but they have different methods of filling out the field. There are 10 FBS conferences. So whether its a 12 team playoff or a 16 team playoff, you have the majority of your spots right there. That leaves either 2 or 6 open spots to give to conference runner-ups or independents.

I think FBS should go back to an 11 game standard schedule. They should have 12 weeks to play 11 FBS games. That gives them some opportunity to play an FCS game. Or they can play an additional non-conference game. Conferences determine how they determine their champion - by game or purely by record. It also helps emphasize quality non-conference games. No Alabama playing Austin Peay in Week 10 or Texas A&M playing multiple FCS games this season. The BCS was moving in this direction but then the SEC took that over.

[TheBigCat2192]

What's insanely unique to me is that there isn't a professional league anywhere who prefaces their playoff selection with "best teams." So why do so many care about that in college football? Every pro league has distinct and defined ways to reach the postseason. It's not subjective.

The NFL has had scenarios in numerous years where a bad team wins a bad division and 1-2 "good" teams who are "better" get left out. People b*tch and moan, but they still watch. They don't blow up the divisional format or playoff format because a 12-4 Saints team lost to a 7-9 Seahawks team on the road in the Wild Card round of the playoffs. It happened. Everybody moved on.

Divisions in the NHL are unbalanced. Scheduling, in turn, is also unbalanced. The "best" teams who fill one division play each other more, lose out on points in the standings because of it, and occasionally miss the playoffs. Such is life. You can say the same thing for how Major League Baseball's divisions and schedules are structured.

I don't grasp why people want the "best" teams in one isolated playoff format for one singular level of the sport when not one other sport they consume follows that model or concept.

I’ll play devil’s advocate and ask you the opposite question: why should FBS football be obligated to use the same “model or concept” as every other league? Why can’t it be different? Because the NFL, NHL, and MLB occasionally allow weak division champions to enter the playoffs or exclude strong teams from strong divisions does it logically follow that the NCAA must do the same? If you’d like an example closer to home, D2 conference champs weren’t actually guaranteed admission to the regional playoffs until this year. Does the NCAA acknowledging that some conferences are weaker than others at the D2 level make every playoff before 2025 invalid? If we could do it down here for decades why can’t the CFP do the same?

I don’t have a strong opinion on this particular playoff field wrt the G5 teams (in fact I think the Bama pick was substantially worse than either JMU or Tulane given their third loss and their CCG performance) but I understand why others felt that one of Tulane or JMU weren’t the right picks when there were other quality candidates out there like BYU, Utah, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame. JMU and Tulane will have their chance to prove those people wrong on the field but if they flop don’t be surprised when the chorus asking “why did we pick them” gets as loud as it was with Tennessee and Indiana last year. I’d also like to point out that two of those other contenders (Utah and Vanderbilt) don’t fit the profile of “big names/brands” and BYU is on the borderline given they haven’t been a consistent power since the 80s. Hell, Vandy is a historical doormat and while Utah has been a strong program for most of the 20th century it did about half of that work in the MWC and moved to the (somewhat) disfavored Big 12 when the Pac-12 collapsed. Notre Dame is the only one that clearly fits the pattern of big brand favoritism so I don’t think the evidence supports the idea that people’s objection to those choices is strictly driven by wanting the big names either.

[Chuck Norris]

Every conference champion should make it regardless of record.

At large bids should be for runners up...

Every school has 12 chances to make their case. I don't want teams way down in their conference standings to get a bid.

When you say every conference champion are you talking all 9 conference champions or just the power 4? Because I think you’d have to expand the field waaaay beyond 12 teams to make the former palatable to even the most ardent supporters of inclusivity.

For a 12 team playoff I honestly don’t hate the current setup. I do think you’ll see conferences tweek their tiebreakers for multiple team ties where they’ll put the highest ranked team in the championship game.

[IUP24]

It’s hard to fully invest in and follow every tier of the FBS level. Most people simply don’t have the time. It’s why the NFL is so much more popular among the masses. It’s not really fair to say people don’t like football if they don’t watch all the games that matter and get excited about teams like Tulane making the playoff, and frankly, comes off as gatekeeping.

I do want to add a comment on this specifically.

I personally never wanted to expand the playoff. But if you think back, the standard talking points included the following...

1. We always see the same teams. Expand the playoff so that we can see different teams and more teams make the playoffs.
2. If you expand the field, you allow more teams to be in position to have important games late in the season. It's great for fans!
3. If you expand access to the playoffs, there will be more teams who can compete and challenge the big teams.

Those were the talking points from most fans. The media echoed that too. I never bought in, but that's what everybody clamored for.

Now we have today...

1. "What?! How can you put SMU in over Alabama? I don't want to see SMU in the playoffs!"
   • So for 15 years, the largest throngs of people on social media complained about being sick and tired of Alabama. The expanded format created a world where a team like SMU could gain an at-large bid over them. Yet we immediately resorted back to wanting to see the same teams again that everyone was supposedly tired of seeing.
2. "Why should I care about this Pitt-Notre Dame game? Pitt sucks and Notre Dame you need to join a conference!"
   • So we went from wanting to have games that mattered. To getting games that mattered. To be being mad that the games that mattered didn't involve teams the masses or casual fans care about.
3. "That's an up and coming team with a really good freshman QB; I would love to see my team buy that QB off their roster"... "I wonder where Mason Heintschel will be playing next year?".... "Sam Leavitt, you really did great work leading Arizona State to the CFP, how much will it take for you to enter the portal?"
   • Your best teams who ever "rose up," got better, and challenged the power players were senior laden teams filled with experience. Boston College's top 5 team in the mid-2000s had Matt Ryan, a senior QB. Those mid-major teams that won BCS bowl games were littered with upper classmen. The second any school outside of the select 15-20 schools has a good player, a good coach or coordinator, or any positive momentum, their roster is raided. We have gone from wanting to see new teams gain traction, to effectively being okay with a wild west as long as it benefits the team we root for. Under the current model, only about 15-20 schools can compete long term.

I don't think I'm gatekeeping. I'm just pointing out that it's a bit hypocritical where we've gotten in this entire thing and how we ultimately got here.

[IUP24]

I’ll play devil’s advocate and ask you the opposite question: why should FBS football be obligated to use the same “model or concept” as every other league? Why can’t it be different? Because the NFL, NHL, and MLB occasionally allow weak division champions to enter the playoffs or exclude strong teams from strong divisions does it logically follow that the NCAA must do the same? If you’d like an example closer to home, D2 conference champs weren’t actually guaranteed admission to the regional playoffs until this year. Does the NCAA acknowledging that some conferences are weaker than others at the D2 level make every playoff before 2025 invalid? If we could do it down here for decades why can’t the CFP do the same?

I don’t have a strong opinion on this particular playoff field wrt the G5 teams (in fact I think the Bama pick was substantially worse than either JMU or Tulane given their third loss and their CCG performance) but I understand why others felt that one of Tulane or JMU weren’t the right picks when there were other quality candidates out there like BYU, Utah, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame. JMU and Tulane will have their chance to prove those people wrong on the field but if they flop don’t be surprised when the chorus asking “why did we pick them” gets as loud as it was with Tennessee and Indiana last year. I’d also like to point out that two of those other contenders (Utah and Vanderbilt) don’t fit the profile of “big names/brands” and BYU is on the borderline given they haven’t been a consistent power since the 80s. Hell, Vandy is a historical doormat and while Utah has been a strong program for most of the 20th century it did about half of that work in the MWC and moved to the (somewhat) disfavored Big 12 when the Pac-12 collapsed. Notre Dame is the only one that clearly fits the pattern of big brand favoritism so I don’t think the evidence supports the idea that people’s objection to those choices is strictly driven by wanting the big names either.

I'm simply in favor of eliminating subjectivity in the process. You can argue that the model that exists in pro leagues is imperfect, but I'm okay with that. The parameters exist and everybody knows what they are. You control your destiny ultimately. I don't have a problem with an at-large formula (to a degree), but I have a problem with Horacio at the Gate, telling everyone else, "You're not worthy," while opening the door for the marquee brands.

There's at-large selections in the FCS playoffs, but every conference champion gets in. Give me a format like that. I don't have an issue with expanding the field so that the MAC champion gets a bid. That stuff doesn't bother me. And if you expand the field reasonably, it would still allow value on the regular season from an at-large discussion standpoint. I'm not going to sit here and say that the SEC isn't a better league than the ACC or the Big 12, but we handpick who gets mulligans, and how many they get. That's the stuff that needs to get rectified, in my opinion.