OT: D1

[IUPbigINDIANS]

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.

They should put all (136) teams in and run it until April or May.

Mercyhurst at Alabama in Round 1.

This is all good message board bantering but I'm more interested at this point in the year in the Jake Paul fight tomorrow than these Round 1 games. I'll probably put the Round 2 games on but if something comes up I won't lose any sleep over not seeing them. The final game I will watch.

I'm a casual D1 fan. That said, nothing could motivate me to watch James Madison get slaughtered by Oregon. I'd literally watch the PBA (bowling) instead.

These conferences aren't created equal. Some of them pretty much suck. But, for purposes of money (which this is all about) I'd assume this field keeps getting expanded, watered down, expanded, watered down, etc.

It's great for the economy of these towns. Penn State had 100-some thousand in town the week before Christmas last year. That's a heck of a lot of extra revenue flowing in to town.

[Chuck Norris]

They should put all (136) teams in and run it until April or May.

Mercyhurst at Alabama in Round 1.

This is all good message board bantering but I'm more interested at this point in the year in the Jake Paul fight tomorrow than these Round 1 games. I'll probably put the Round 2 games on but if something comes up I won't lose any sleep over not seeing them. The final game I will watch.

I'm a casual D1 fan. That said, nothing could motivate me to watch James Madison get slaughtered by Oregon. I'd literally watch the PBA (bowling) instead.

These conferences aren't created equal. Some of them pretty much suck. But, for purposes of money (which this is all about) I'd assume this field keeps getting expanded, watered down, expanded, watered down, etc.

It's great for the economy of these towns. Penn State had 100-some thousand in town the week before Christmas last year. That's a heck of a lot of extra revenue flowing in to town.

Oh man, this Jake Paul thing is so played out. He was set to fight a guy half his size until it fell through and now we’re supposed to believe his fight against a heavyweight is going to be in any way legitimate? I just find it amusing that Netflix put on Canelo-Crawford, probably the biggest fight that could be had in boxing right now, and yet they remain in bed with the Jake Paul clown show.

And I will absolutely have that fight on whatever device I’m not watching Oklahoma-Alabama on. Lol.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Oh man, this Jake Paul thing is so played out. He was set to fight a guy half his size until it fell through and now we’re supposed to believe his fight against a heavyweight is going to be in any way legitimate? I just find it amusing that Netflix put on Canelo-Crawford, probably the biggest fight that could be had in boxing right now, and yet they remain in bed with the Jake Paul clown show.

And I will absolutely have that fight on whatever device I’m not watching Oklahoma-Alabama on. Lol.

It's not an exhibition. Anybody can be bought but I'd be shocked if AJ takes a dive.

Jake may end up like Apollo Creed.

[Fightingscot82]

Jesus Mary and Joseph...what is wrong these man whores?

Can't you hook up with others outside of work?

Turns out he was habitually drinking on the job.

[IUPNation]

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.

If certain conferences don’t belong in FBS..they should be moved to FCS. Every conference has to have a path.

They need to move Army/Navy to Veterans Day weekend and then have a play in week the week after Conference Title week. Save two spots of the 12 for two games as a play in..that could give G5 teams and P4 teams on the periphery a chance…it preserves the bye week and still rewards conference champions.

[TheBigCat2192]

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.

I can just as easily say "You can argue that the model that exists in FBS is imperfect, but I'm okay with that." I don't mind the ambiguity as much as you do so what you've posted isn't a compelling argument to me on a personal level.

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.

I suppose this is where we'll have to disagree. The MAC champion, WMU, went 9-4 with a two-score loss to a bad 4-8 MSU team and got absolutely demolished by good but not great 8-4 Illinois squad. You say this is standing at the gate and telling them they're not worthy because they're not marquee but it's just as much a reflection of them being qualitatively poor. Massey sees them as the 78th best team in CFB. SRS at Sports-Reference says 79th. Even Colley's rankings, which typically favor winners see them as only 54th. We can quibble over the accuracy of these systems but even if we take the most favorable they are just barely in the upper half of all FBS teams. I'm not in favor of pretending that being the best of a bunch of other poor squads should automatically grant you admission to the big chase. By the same token I didn't see a good reason for Duke to make the playoff even with their surprise ACC championship. They also got smoked by Illinois and had a three-score loss in their first game against Virginia. The computer systems favor them slightly over WMU (presumably because of their power-conference slate) but we're still talking about a team that ranks between 34-47 (just barely inside the top quartile to third of FBS teams). Why should a freak upset in their rematch against UVA get them in? This applies to any P4 team with a lucky CCG win: why should we select a 5-loss team that is qualitatively unimpressive when there are multiple qualitatively better teams with better records (including, funnily enough, JMU and Tulane) available to take? I'm in favor of giving preference to conference champions and CCG participants when all other factors are equal. For example a 12-1 conference champion should be given seeding priority over a qualitatively similar 12-1 CCG loser (to use a real-life example, Texas Tech should have been the two and OSU should have been either the three or four in my eyes) but in the specific examples at hand this season (Duke, MAC champion) those things were not equal so I don't have a problem with leaving them out.

[Ram040506]

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.

An FCS style playoff would be awesome at the FBS level. Let's do it.

PAC 12 doesn't count, so 9 conferences with auto entries. Tulane, Duke, Texas Tech, Indiana, Kennesaw State, Western Michigan, Boise State, Georgia, JMU. There is our first 9 in. We get 24 which means 15 at large teams, and I'd say let the committee pick the 15. This year the 15 would be the following:

Ohio State, Oregon, Ole Miss, Texas Am, Oklahoma, Alabama, Miami, BYU, Notre Dame, Texas, Vanderbilt, Utah, USC, Arizona, Michigan.

Top 8 get a bye- Indiana, Ohio State, Georgia, Texas Tech, Oregon, Ole Miss, Texas AM, Oklahoma

Kennesaw State @ USC
Western Michigan @ Utah
Boise State @ Vanderbilit
Duke @ Texas
JMU @ ND
Tulane @ BYU
Michigan @ Miami (have they ever played?!)
Arizona @ Alabama

Would be the best of both worlds IMO. We get a few more "new blood" teams that have every chance to prove their worth against some bigger programs. Also, gives the name brand only watchers a chance to rid the playoff of all those programs after round 1. The round of 16 would have lots of fun matchups. This would have my vote for sure.

[Chuck Norris]

If certain conferences don’t belong in FBS..they should be moved to FCS. Every conference has to have a path.

They need to move Army/Navy to Veterans Day weekend and then have a play in week the week after Conference Title week. Save two spots of the 12 for two games as a play in..that could give G5 teams and P4 teams on the periphery a chance…it preserves the bye week and still rewards conference champions.

I agree 100% about Army-Navy. The moment those schools both joined the AAC, their game should have had to be played within the regular season.

[IUP24]

I can just as easily say "You can argue that the model that exists in FBS is imperfect, but I'm okay with that." I don't mind the ambiguity as much as you do so what you've posted isn't a compelling argument to me on a personal level.



I suppose this is where we'll have to disagree. The MAC champion, WMU, went 9-4 with a two-score loss to a bad 4-8 MSU team and got absolutely demolished by good but not great 8-4 Illinois squad. You say this is standing at the gate and telling them they're not worthy because they're not marquee but it's just as much a reflection of them being qualitatively poor. Massey sees them as the 78th best team in CFB. SRS at Sports-Reference says 79th. Even Colley's rankings, which typically favor winners see them as only 54th. We can quibble over the accuracy of these systems but even if we take the most favorable they are just barely in the upper half of all FBS teams. I'm not in favor of pretending that being the best of a bunch of other poor squads should automatically grant you admission to the big chase. By the same token I didn't see a good reason for Duke to make the playoff even with their surprise ACC championship. They also got smoked by Illinois and had a three-score loss in their first game against Virginia. The computer systems favor them slightly over WMU (presumably because of their power-conference slate) but we're still talking about a team that ranks between 34-47 (just barely inside the top quartile to third of FBS teams). Why should a freak upset in their rematch against UVA get them in? This applies to any P4 team with a lucky CCG win: why should we select a 5-loss team that is qualitatively unimpressive when there are multiple qualitatively better teams with better records (including, funnily enough, JMU and Tulane) available to take? I'm in favor of giving preference to conference champions and CCG participants when all other factors are equal. For example a 12-1 conference champion should be given seeding priority over a qualitatively similar 12-1 CCG loser (to use a real-life example, Texas Tech should have been the two and OSU should have been either the three or four in my eyes) but in the specific examples at hand this season (Duke, MAC champion) those things were not equal so I don't have a problem with leaving them out.

I don't favor a "best teams" model, because no other sport, league, etc., subscribes to that theory. Are you free to disagree with that and rather they hand select participants and have zero care to other factors I've mentioned? Absolutely. I'm fully aware to the principle that basketball and football aren't the same sport, but the they don't get the "best" teams into the NCAA Tournament every year in March either, and people seem to love that. We seem to be okay with it because we - the fans - always seemed to enjoy Cinderella (at least we used to). Again, you can disagree, but I'm going to always advocate for clear pathways and defined requirements to reach the postseason (like every other sport has).

Here's where I'm going to challenge you, though. WMU isn't a good team metrics wise. But we eliminated any world that exists for them to ever get better. They went 9-4, won the MAC, and their team is about to get raided in the portal. They will be a bottom dweller next year in their conference because they lost their key contributors, somebody else will filter to the top, have their roster get poached, and the cycle just repeats. No pathway exists to allow those teams to ever improve and retain their players in this format and system.

There are so many caveats for teams outside the top 15-20 brands to get actual, legitimate recognition. You mentioned BYU. They were 11-1, in a P4 league, and were never even in position to get an at-large bid. Vandy went 10-2, were an SEC team, and again, never were in position to get an at-large bid. That entire conversation gets harder and tougher the further down the list you go. People want JMU to schedule tougher... Sure, but who are they going to play? Every P4 league is now at 9 conference games, 3 of the 4 P4 leagues now require a 10th game against a P4 opponent, and those P4 teams don't want to schedule an on the rise G5 team who could, in theory, beat them and ruin their season. So using Tulane as example, they go out and go 2-1 in games against P4 schools, yet they receive no credit for it because they didn't beat P4 programs who are perceived as tough enough. I'm not trying to "win" the argument or discussion. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the debate. We say that these teams aren't as good as the top teams... Sure, they're not. But how can any of those teams EVER get better in the environment that exists today? They can't.

So again, my earlier point is that you are simply going to be left with 80% of FBS programs that have no chance to even make the field in their best year. Eventually those fans will stop going to games, watching the games, and caring at all. And when we get to that point - and we will get to that point - people won't be prepared for the fallout of that.

[IUPNation]

The Delaware Blue Chickens won their bowl game.

[TheBigCat2192]

I don't favor a "best teams" model, because no other sport, league, etc., subscribes to that theory.

As I laid out here, I favor a best teams approach with preferences given to conference champions where appropriate. You might call it "best teams with guardrails" model. This also serves to keep poor P4 conference champions out at times, potentially in favor of an otherwise overlooked G5 champ like Tulane. A model like this can be a boon to lower conference teams if executed properly (whether or not the CFP is executing this idea properly is a different argument). I also disagree with the assertion that "no other sport or league subscribes to that theory." What do you think the power ratings systems that PIAA districts use to select participants for playoffs are if not a best teams model? No guarantee is given to any league champion that they will make the field if their rating is too low because of a weak non-league schedule or if they play in a poor league and it's actually entirely possible for a PIAA champion to win neither their league or their district before winning a state championship.

Here's where I'm going to challenge you, though. WMU isn't a good team metrics wise. But we eliminated any world that exists for them to ever get better. They went 9-4, won the MAC, and their team is about to get raided in the portal. They will be a bottom dweller next year in their conference because they lost their key contributors, somebody else will filter to the top, have their roster get poached, and the cycle just repeats. No pathway exists to allow those teams to ever improve and retain their players in this format and system.

Since moving up to FBS JMU has gone 8-3, 11-2, 9-4, and 12-1 and are in the playoff despite changing coaches and having their prior coach take a number of talented performers to his next job. Boise State has not had a losing season since 1997 when they were in the Big West(!) despite playing in two other G5 conferences. In the last 5 years they've changed coaches twice and still made the CFP. Toledo has never made the CFP but they also haven't had a losing season in 16 years despite having two coaches poached and playing in one of the bottom rung G5 conferences. In the last 4 years Tulane has won 12, 11, 9, and now 11 games with a coaching change in the middle despite going 31-43 in Willie Fritz's first 6 seasons, including a 2-10 season immediately prior to that 12 win season. Don't these examples of immediate success after moving up from FCS, sustained success, and quick improvement suggest that it's not impossible for a G5 school to maintain or elevate their quality?

This also strikes me more of a critique of NIL and the portal than a "best teams" playoff model. If there was no portal and NIL, would you consider a "best teams" or "best teams with guardrails" model more viable because G5 or lower-tier P4 schools could more realistically maintain their roster and trajectory? If so than I think you are arguing against a different problem in the current FBS world than the CFP's selection process. FWIW I'm not entirely happy with fake NIL, portal tampering (although I don't oppose the portal in principle) or the NCAA's impotence at enforcing the House settlement either so please don't confuse this with a defense of those things.

There are so many caveats for teams outside the top 15-20 brands to get actual, legitimate recognition. You mentioned BYU. They were 11-1, in a P4 league, and were never even in position to get an at-large bid. Vandy went 10-2, were an SEC team, and again, never were in position to get an at-large bid. That entire conversation gets harder and tougher the further down the list you go. People want JMU to schedule tougher... Sure, but who are they going to play? Every P4 league is now at 9 conference games, 3 of the 4 P4 leagues now require a 10th game against a P4 opponent, and those P4 teams don't want to schedule an on the rise G5 team who could, in theory, beat them and ruin their season. So using Tulane as example, they go out and go 2-1 in games against P4 schools, yet they receive no credit for it because they didn't beat P4 programs who are perceived as tough enough. I'm not trying to "win" the argument or discussion. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the debate. We say that these teams aren't as good as the top teams... Sure, they're not. But how can any of those teams EVER get better in the environment that exists today? They can't.

So again, my earlier point is that you are simply going to be left with 80% of FBS programs that have no chance to even make the field in their best year. Eventually those fans will stop going to games, watching the games, and caring at all. And when we get to that point - and we will get to that point - people won't be prepared for the fallout of that.

The PSAC requires its members to play 10/11 games in conference. Should we change that for the benefit of the NE-10 and MEC, subjectively our lessers over the last 10 years in this super region? If not, what's the problem with a P4 conference requiring nine conference games? It's not their job to prop up the other leagues. People also want to see good games so I don't see why implementing a scheduling requirement to play against another P4 team is a bad thing. You claim that people will stop watching but at other times have claimed many people only want to tune in for the names on the front of the jersey. Which is it? Will people be tuning in to watching a Clemson vs. Texas Tech game on opening weekend or will they be giving up on CFB in droves because JMU can't get a game against Ohio State to boost their resume?

[IUP24]

I also disagree with the assertion that "no other sport or league subscribes to that theory." What do you think the power ratings systems that PIAA districts use to select participants for playoffs are if not a best teams model? No guarantee is given to any league champion that they will make the field if their rating is too low because of a weak non-league schedule or if they play in a poor league and it's actually entirely possible for a PIAA champion to win neither their league or their district before winning a state championship.

If you want to pull out PIAA high school athletics as a "gotcha" because I said "no other sport or league subscribes to that theory," then congrats. You got me.

Since moving up to FBS JMU has gone 8-3, 11-2, 9-4, and 12-1 and are in the playoff despite changing coaches and having their prior coach take a number of talented performers to his next job. Boise State has not had a losing season since 1997 when they were in the Big West(!) despite playing in two other G5 conferences. In the last 5 years they've changed coaches twice and still made the CFP. Toledo has never made the CFP but they also haven't had a losing season in 16 years despite having two coaches poached and playing in one of the bottom rung G5 conferences. In the last 4 years Tulane has won 12, 11, 9, and now 11 games with a coaching change in the middle despite going 31-43 in Willie Fritz's first 6 seasons, including a 2-10 season immediately prior to that 12 win season. Don't these examples of immediate success after moving up from FCS, sustained success, and quick improvement suggest that it's not impossible for a G5 school to maintain or elevate their quality?

If you actually believe that in this environment those teams can gain even more positive trajectory, then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Look, I get your points you are trying to provide here, but I'm truthfully not sure if you are trying to disprove my position, win an argument, or just merely discuss anecdotals. I'd love to see any of the teams you mentioned grow, rise up, and progress to the point that they are knocking on the door of being a legitimate contender. But that simply isn't going to happen - and I know you know that.

This also strikes me more of a critique of NIL and the portal than a "best teams" playoff model. If there was no portal and NIL, would you consider a "best teams" or "best teams with guardrails" model more viable because G5 or lower-tier P4 schools could more realistically maintain their roster and trajectory? If so than I think you are arguing against a different problem in the current FBS world than the CFP's selection process. FWIW I'm not entirely happy with fake NIL, portal tampering (although I don't oppose the portal in principle) or the NCAA's impotence at enforcing the House settlement either so please don't confuse this with a defense of those things.

The conversation is interconnected. And if at this point people can't see that, I don't know how to break it down for them at this point. You asked above "Don't these examples...suggest that it's not impossible for a G5 school to maintain or elevate their quality?" It's simply not. Unless those programs have a sudden and miraculous infusion of cash to the level of the top 15-20 programs in the country, it's not possible. And again, I know you know that. North Texas was one of the better G5 teams this season. Their coach leaves and the players scurry to the portal like rats (many are going to OK State, sure). Curt Cignetti left JMU and nearly 30 players transferred to Indiana. Any G5 team rises up and has a great year, or great individual players, those players are gone in an instant. The reality is that this conversation exists within the lower half of the P4 too.

The bottom line is that when we talk about the playoff selection and who should be in or not, it all comes down to who people perceive to have better players. Last year's Indiana team was effectively the 2023 James Madison roster and a litany of transfers from G5 programs. So can those guys play? Absolutely. Are they evaluated differently because of the conference they reside in or who they play? 100%.

So again, yeah, those teams you mentioned have been successful. But none have been taken seriously in the CFP era despite Tulane even winning the Cotton Bowl against USC. You want a mid-major to rise? The roster needs to remain in tact and/or they need to have the money to buy impactful transfers off other programs. Revenue sharing, NIL, and the transfer portal prevents any of the teams you reference from ever taking the tangible next step. So if the data point is that they have lesser players, or the teams they play in the conference simply aren't as good, then I'd argue in favor of my position pretty strongly that "environment" that exists currently helps to significantly skew perception and how CFP teams get viewed. It would be awesome to have a Colt Brennan led Hawaii team play together for 4 years, be as good as the 4th place SEC team, and win a game or two in the postseason. But Colt Brennan is playing at Oregon after two seasons at Hawaii now. College football has never once been "fair" or on an event playing field. But the ability to simply keep your roster in tact used to exist. In the mid-2000s Boston College was an excellent football team because they had multiple seasons with Matt Ryan as the QB. Even amongst the P4 it's not fair; because today, Matt Ryan would have transferred to Ohio State. It's never been more poignant that money is what's keeping 80% of college football from taking the next step and breaking through.

The PSAC requires its members to play 10/11 games in conference. Should we change that for the benefit of the NE-10 and MEC, subjectively our lesers over the last 10 years in this super region? If not, what's the problem with a P4 conference requiring nine conference games? It's not their job to prop up the other leagues. People also want to see good games so I don't see why implementing a scheduling requirement to play against another P4 team is a bad thing. You claim that people will stop watching but at other times have claimed many people only want to tune in for the names on the front of the jersey. Which is it? Will people be tuning in to watching a Clemson vs. Texas Tech game on opening weekend or will they be giving up on CFB in droves because JMU can't get a game against Ohio State to boost their resume?

You are either not interpreting what I'm saying accurately, or you are really reaching to argue against my position. I'm not sure which. I never once said P4 programs playing nine conference games or playing a 10th game against a P4 program is a bad thing. Quite the contrary. I actually believe that's a good thing. If you've been following the media fallout of this - and I'm pretty certain you have - you've seen talking heads suggesting that for a G5 team to be considered for the postseason, they should have to play a minimum number of P4 games. How exactly are those games going to get scheduled when there would not even ben enough openings on schedules for the G5 teams to schedule those teams?

Regarding the "people will stop watching" comment... Come on man.. You know EXACTLY what I am saying. And I articulated it two times in two separate posts. When you create an invitational tournament that intentionally will deny access for 80% of the sport, those people are going to stop watching. If there's nothing to play for and no hope for any opportunity to have a seat at the postseason table in whatever playoff format exists, those people won't care - and in short, they won't watch. That's what I said, and that's what I meant. So please don't twist my words. Pertaining to the "names on the front of the jersey" comment, that needs no explanation. The casuals and the NFL fans will always tune in to see the marquee teams playing. Always have and always will.



I respect your opinions generally, and I think that there are things pertaining to the "state of college football" conversation that we generally agree on, but I just don't think our positions are aligned here.

[IUP24]

The PSAC requires its members to play 10/11 games in conference. Should we change that for the benefit of the NE-10 and MEC, subjectively our lessers over the last 10 years in this super region? If not, what's the problem with a P4 conference requiring nine conference games? It's not their job to prop up the other leagues. People also want to see good games so I don't see why implementing a scheduling requirement to play against another P4 team is a bad thing. You claim that people will stop watching but at other times have claimed many people only want to tune in for the names on the front of the jersey. Which is it? Will people be tuning in to watching a Clemson vs. Texas Tech game on opening weekend or will they be giving up on CFB in droves because JMU can't get a game against Ohio State to boost their resume?

Just to add here... College football has always been a regular season sport. It's not supposed to be the NFL. We can't devalue the regular season to the point that a JMU or a Tulane, or whoever, 9 years out of 10 having a phenomenal season in their own right, has nothing to ultimately play for or be excited about. And that sentiment is slowly creeping into the P4 ranks as well.

We pick and choose which teams and which conferences get to have do-overs. I don't care that Colin Cowherd thinks it's great that Ohio State's 30 million dollar roster can take their lumps 2x during the season, but peak at the right time in November and go onto win a national championship. Is that a story? Yeah, it is. But it's just not the story I prefer. I'm not sure why Texas can look pretty pedestrian for 8 games of the season, but because they play in the SEC and are Texas, they get the benefit of the doubt when Georgia Tech fans were essentially told that their season was over when they lost to NC State. That is stuff that rubs me the wrong way. We've created more games of value in the regular season, but we want to squash that excitement pretty quickly in a lot of cases.

I prefer the organic build and excitement that exists on the journey of a college football season. It's why I have season tickets for Pitt. It's why I drive 3.5 hours back to Pittsburgh 7 times a year for home games. If they never had an opportunity to EVER catch lightning in a bottle and play for something bigger, I would drop my tickets and I wouldn't care. But the slim hope that exists that maybe they can get on a run, go 10-2, and just have an outside chance to make the field is exciting to me. The "games that matter" conversation applies there too. Pitt's final three games against ND, GT, and Miami were awesome. It was so cool, as a fan, for my team to be in position to reach the ACC Championship Game on the final weekend of the season with the opportunity to play for a playoff spot. Did it work out? No. But that's not the point.

When Pitt won the ACC in 2021, I'll never forget the moments built into that run. I went to Knoxville when they beat Tennessee. The win over a 10-3 Clemson team was special in an awesome environment. The goal line stand and OT win over UNC. The crazy Jordan Addison catch and TD that clinched the ACC coastal. Those were all moments that mattered to me. And it was a 4-team format then, so I wasn't expecting them to reach the CFP, but we can't create a model where those types of moments all year aren't really worth celebrating. And I just tend to think that's the direction we're heading.

Just my opinion.

[TheBigCat2192]

If you want to pull out PIAA high school athletics as a "gotcha" because I said "no other sport or league subscribes to that theory," then congrats. You got me.

I respect your opinions generally, and I think that there are things pertaining to the "state of college football" conversation that we generally agree on, but I just don't think our positions are aligned here.

As far as the first line goes I pointed out that up until this year D2 was using something akin to a “best team” model with no automatic qualification for conference champs and you did not respond to that. I thought a second example might serve to reinforce the point that not every level takes all conference xhampions. Since I’m commenting from a phone at the moment and I hate mobile browsing I’m not going to spend a long time quoting both comments and providing a rebuttal to everything you’ve said given that I don’t see what you’ve said as a full rebuttal of my points either. At this point we’re restating our positions at each other and it’s getting us nowhere.

I suppose we can just leave this as an “agree to disagree” moment. That’s fine; it’s not realistic for everyone to agree on how the playoff should be structured or how the participants should be chosen. Even if the NCAA picked one of our preferred models I imagine there’d be a lot of pissing and moaning over who was selected at-large in a given season. This has still been a more interesting argument than rehashing why our teams can’t win in the semis for the 9000th time though.

[IUPalum]

Pitt Volleyball choking off their final 4 match!