OT: D1

[IUP24]

I want theater. I could give two sh!ts who wins. I'm a casual D1 viewer. No allegiance to any team.

That said, I wouldn't even turn on Georgia vs Tulane as background television. That's the problem. Many feel that way.

My opinion, of course, is meaningless. Your beef is with the machine. I understand.

I do think it's hilarious Alabama may backdoor its way in. I'd love to see them get hot and wreck havoc. Now THAT woud be great theater. America would love that underdog story. In March that would be called a Cinderella Story ... the low seed who snuck in and created chaos.

You’re in favor of an invitational tournament then, not a national championship. I at least appreciate you admitting that.

I’ve long stated that we once rooted for Cinderella. We no longer do. The college football invitational tournament allows for “more teams to have a chance,” but it only offers 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chances to more of the same teams from the Power 2. It doesn’t actually afford an opportunity to those who actually earned their seat at the table.

UCF was 12-0 in 2017 and was laughed at for even wanting consideration for the playoff. They would have made the playoff under this format, but the point stands.

The networks and their talking heads have pushed the narrative so hard that nobody can crash the party anymore. We have been conditioned to “want theater” and assume everyone not from 2 conferences deserves no shot.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Why are they staging these other useless bowls?

Nobody cares watching mediocre teams play meaningless games in half empty stadiums.

Portal departures and opt-outs will make bad games even worse.

The pimp says the whores gotta keep working. The show goes on.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

I’m not stupid, I know where all this starts and ends. I don’t care what the networks want. I don’t care what the conference commissioners want. I don’t care what fans of the SEC or B1G want. All I’m doing is talking college football and the farce of a playoff that exists.

I’m asking you (with zero other influencing factors)… Do you want television theatre, or a national championship process? One or the other.

Because here’s the deal. Let’s say Georgia beats Texas on Saturday. Why on Earth should the Longhorns get a 3rd shot to beat Georgia to win a national championship?

If that’s anybody wants, that is not a national championship playoff tournament. That is an invitational style tournament built for television theater. If that’s what it is, fine. But don’t pretend it’s something it’s not.

I want theater. I could give two sh!ts who wins. I'm a casual D1 viewer. No allegiance to any team.

That said, I wouldn't even turn on Georgia vs Tulane as background television. That's the problem. Many feel that way.

My opinion, of course, is meaningless. Your beef is with the machine. I understand.

I do think it's hilarious Alabama may backdoor its way in. I'd love to see them get hot and wreck havoc. Now THAT woud be great theater. America would love that underdog story. In March that would be called a Cinderella Story ... the low seed who snuck in and created chaos.

[IUPNation]

Why are they staging these other useless bowls?

Nobody cares watching mediocre teams play meaningless games in half empty stadiums.

[IUP24]

Yes. The world wants Part 3. Nobody wants Texas vs Tulane and a 70-7 score that 90 percent flip the channel by the end of of Q1.

The networks want attractive matchups. The latter is not.

I hear your arguments but you have to remember the most important factor in all of this ... $$$

That's where it all starts and all ends.

I’m not stupid, I know where all this starts and ends. I don’t care what the networks want. I don’t care what the conference commissioners want. I don’t care what fans of the SEC or B1G want. All I’m doing is talking college football and the farce of a playoff that exists.

I’m asking you (with zero other influencing factors)… Do you want television theatre, or a national championship process? One or the other.

Because here’s the deal. Let’s say Georgia beats Texas on Saturday. Why on Earth should the Longhorns get a 3rd shot to beat Georgia to win a national championship?

If that’s anybody wants, that is not a national championship playoff tournament. That is an invitational style tournament built for television theater. If that’s what it is, fine. But don’t pretend it’s something it’s not.

[Chuck Norris]

It works for basketball. That first time a Boise State or Army beats a Tennessee or Ohio State, people remember what used to be great about bowl games. That one time 3 of the top 4 teams lose, chaos ensues but it's great drama. Just like basketball.

The goal isn't putting the 16 best teams in the tournament. It's equal opportunity to qualify. You'll see how the MAC champ sizes up to the #2 team from the Big Ten or SEC. Ohio State doesn't like to play the Ohio MAC schools. They don't like to play Cincinnati. But Miami upsetting Ohio State would make pets heads fall off in Ohio.

The basketball tournament does give every conference a shot, but there’s still a selection process for over half the field. And every March there are gripes about who didn’t make it. That’s inevitable in college sports. Short of turning the entire country into one 134 team league and putting in the X number of teams with the best records, there will always have to be a selection process to some degree.

I don’t want every conference champion in the playoff. Sure, you’d get an occasional upset, but 98% of the time you’d get what Notre Dame did to the service academies this year. That’s ok in March when there’s a whole bunch of other games to watch, but in football? That doesn’t appeal to me.

There’s no perfect system for a college tournament. Part of me would rather scrap the whole idea and go back to all the traditional bowl games/conference alignments.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

The D1 signing day was today.

Many realized today Uncle Jimmy was lying and Alabama isn't calling. Our schools start to be more attractive all the sudden.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Make it 6 teams. 16 is way too many. 12 is too much also.

Make it the 6 highest ranked conference champions or independents. The top 2 get byes. In that format this year you would have…

1. The SEC winner (Texas or Georgia)
2. The B1G winner (Oregon or Penn State)
3. Notre Dame
4. The ACC winner (SMU or Clemson)
5. The MWC winner (Boise State or UNLV - both ranked)
6. The AAC winner (Army or Tulane)

So consider each of your conference championships are effectively playoff games.

Would that format and those teams actually be that much of a travesty?

Or would people be that angered that there would not a Georgia-Texas Part 3?

Yes. The world wants Part 3. Nobody wants Texas vs Tulane and a 70-7 score that 90 percent flip the channel by the end of of Q1.

The networks want attractive matchups. The latter is not.

I hear your arguments but you have to remember the most important factor in all of this ... $$$

That's where it all starts and all ends.

[IUP24]

It works for basketball. That first time a Boise State or Army beats a Tennessee or Ohio State, people remember what used to be great about bowl games. That one time 3 of the top 4 teams lose, chaos ensues but it's great drama. Just like basketball.

The goal isn't putting the 16 best teams in the tournament. It's equal opportunity to qualify. You'll see how the MAC champ sizes up to the #2 team from the Big Ten or SEC. Ohio State doesn't like to play the Ohio MAC schools. They don't like to play Cincinnati. But Miami upsetting Ohio State would make pets heads fall off in Ohio.

Make it 6 teams. 16 is way too many. 12 is too much also.

Make it the 6 highest ranked conference champions or independents. The top 2 get byes. In that format this year you would have…

1. The SEC winner (Texas or Georgia)
2. The B1G winner (Oregon or Penn State)
3. Notre Dame
4. The ACC winner (SMU or Clemson)
5. The MWC winner (Boise State or UNLV - both ranked)
6. The AAC winner (Army or Tulane)

So consider each of your conference championships are effectively playoff games.

Would that format and those teams actually be that much of a travesty?

Or would people be that angered that there would not a Georgia-Texas Part 3?

[Fightingscot82]

Obviously that's not putting the top 16 teams into the field. That's starting to sound a lot like the hated 'earned access' we all yap about yearly.

The 'bias' isn't going away. Nobody wants to watch G5 teams get hammered. Is it really a bias? The big conferences aren't equal (as much as that hurts feelings). They aren't equal on the field -- and they sure as heck aren't equal when it comes to TV viewers.

It works for basketball. That first time a Boise State or Army beats a Tennessee or Ohio State, people remember what used to be great about bowl games. That one time 3 of the top 4 teams lose, chaos ensues but it's great drama. Just like basketball.

The goal isn't putting the 16 best teams in the tournament. It's equal opportunity to qualify. You'll see how the MAC champ sizes up to the #2 team from the Big Ten or SEC. Ohio State doesn't like to play the Ohio MAC schools. They don't like to play Cincinnati. But Miami upsetting Ohio State would make pets heads fall off in Ohio.

[IUP24]

Obviously that's not putting the top 16 teams into the field. That's starting to sound a lot like the hated 'earned access' we all yap about yearly.

The 'bias' isn't going away. Nobody wants to watch G5 teams get hammered. Is it really a bias? The big conferences aren't equal (as much as that hurts feelings). They aren't equal on the field -- and they sure as heck aren't equal when it comes to TV viewers.

Why are you shilling so hard for the SEC and B1G?

Did you watch the bottom half of the B1G this year? I’m not saying the Big 12 or the ACC are better. I’m not saying they are pound for pound equal either. But man, they are much closer than you’ll ever admit. I am well aware we will never agree on this. Are people so convinced that SMU isn’t as good as Indiana simply because they aren’t in the Big Ten? Is that where we are honestly at?

Colin Cowherd and the committee can talk about ranked wins all they want. The CFP committee is setting the rankings they are using at this point in the season. They are justifying some of these bubble SEC teams because they beat freaking Missouri. But they were the ones who ranked Missouri to give those teams that ranked win!

Some people want a clear path to determine who goes and how you get there. That’s the camp I’m in.

Others want television, brands, and name matchups for their viewing pleasure. That’s what the Maui invitational is for in basketball. 6 blue bloods. A scrappy mid major who can pull off a single win. And another power conference school who doesn’t threaten to actually win it. We’ve effectively created the college football invitational. I’m not specifically sure if that’s the camp you are in, but I think you support something similar to that structure.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

I used to work for someone who was on the CFP Committee. I was amazed at how little respect he had for football below what was then the P5. He was the most surprising person I've met who thought the divisions were based on promotion/relegation instead of money - and he was the president at a college with D3 football! They chose who made the most sense for TV ratings and revenue.

The most fair model is what you see in FCS. Expand to 16 teams and the power 4 conferences each get 2 bids, G5 conferences each get 1, and that allows for 2 at large bids to cover independents. Ideally everything is objective with no human element. But there are too many people advocating for the #4 team in the SEC who played a 50 scholarship FCS school in Week 9 over the #1 team in the Mountain West who beat 12 FBS teams.

Obviously that's not putting the top 16 teams into the field. That's starting to sound a lot like the hated 'earned access' we all yap about yearly.

The 'bias' isn't going away. Nobody wants to watch G5 teams get hammered. Is it really a bias? The big conferences aren't equal (as much as that hurts feelings). They aren't equal on the field -- and they sure as heck aren't equal when it comes to TV viewers.

[Fightingscot82]

The challenge is that the perception of the Top 25 rankings (largely created by bias and uninformed AP writers) inflate teams with brand or conference recognition unfairly. Why did it take Syracuse beating #6 Miami to reach 9-3 to get them into the Top 25? All season the voters have been finding ways to rank Illinois and Missouri. Is Cuse worse than either of those programs? Pound for pound, I have no idea, but one being in the ACC compared to the others in the B1G or SEC means way more than it ever should.

And if anybody thinks those rankings (at that level) do not influence how the CFP committee assesses things and sets their own rankings, they have very little knowledge or understanding of how college football works.

I used to work for someone who was on the CFP Committee. I was amazed at how little respect he had for football below what was then the P5. He was the most surprising person I've met who thought the divisions were based on promotion/relegation instead of money - and he was the president at a college with D3 football! They chose who made the most sense for TV ratings and revenue.

The most fair model is what you see in FCS. Expand to 16 teams and the power 4 conferences each get 2 bids, G5 conferences each get 1, and that allows for 2 at large bids to cover independents. Ideally everything is objective with no human element. But there are too many people advocating for the #4 team in the SEC who played a 50 scholarship FCS school in Week 9 over the #1 team in the Mountain West who beat 12 FBS teams.

[IUP24]

What I am actually surprised about is not one person has correctly evaluated what the CFP said and did last night with their rankings. Specifically, with the 2nd point here regarding SMU.

1) Miami - season over. They are 12 and will get automatically booted for the Big 12 champion. The committee just told everyone that they value a 3-loss SEC program over a 2-loss program from the ACC who lost on the road at Georgia Tech and 9-3 Syracuse. The ACC has the most bowl eligible teams. That doesn't just "happen" without having some decent football teams in your league. I think a fair Miami comparable is a local B1G school.

Sure, Miami pulled out some games late. You know who else did? James Franklin... Penn State needed a fake punt to beat Minnesota, they needed OT to beat USC, and a late pick six to separate themselves from a 5 win Wisconsin team. They beat Illinois in a game that 'apparently,' carries a TON of weight. They lost the game to the best team they played. THAT SOUNDS A LOT LIKE MIAMI!!!!!!!! And Miami went on the road to Gainesville and STOMPED Florida! If I'm told by everyone that the SEC is so elite, why does that win not matter????

2) SMU - They are slotted 8th, but need to win their conference to reach the CFP after having an 11-1 regular season. The chair of the committee said it last night. He was asked, "If SMU loses the ACC Championship game, would they fall below Alabama?" His response: "Yes, potentially." Indiana, with a far weaker schedule, is safely and squarely in the field. So what the committee told you all is that if SMU had a B1G patch on their jersey, they would be in the field. Can't compare schedules when Indiana had the worst P4 schedule in the country. SMU has the better resume! LOL

I can't believe I'm typing this, but if I was SMU I would forfeit the game against Clemson (and there's real chatter about others suggesting they do that online - they won't of course). If I am good enough for the CFP right now at 11-1, like Indiana is, then evaluate me with my 11-1 record like you are evaluating the Hoosiers. The immediate argument is "Well SMU hasn't beaten anybody! This is their shot to do so!"... You know who else hasn't beaten anybody? Indiana!!!!!

3) Big 12 - "Screw off Big 12 fans! Thanks for playing" - That's what they said with the final rankings last night. All that fun and excitement in the Big 12 all year with Iowa State, BYU, Colorado, and Arizona State meant absolutely nothing. They were all just placeholders for when it was time to rank the REAL teams.

[IUP24]

Good points, although Top 25 rankings are so subjective. I'd hate to use subjective rankings in a subjective selection process, but alas, here we are. South Carolina posted online their "argument" for inclusion and it was all about this and that against top 25.

Alabama went 3-1 against top 25 teams. Miami didn't play any top 25 teams. Why? All four top 25 teams Alabama played were SEC conference games. The ACC doesn't have any top 25 teams other than Miami. I will always argue that conference schedules aren't the fault of the school. They are going to play who they play in the conference. They don't get to pick the best teams and ignore the bad ones.

The challenge is that the perception of the Top 25 rankings (largely created by bias and uninformed AP writers) inflate teams with brand or conference recognition unfairly. Why did it take Syracuse beating #6 Miami to reach 9-3 to get them into the Top 25? All season the voters have been finding ways to rank Illinois and Missouri. Is Cuse worse than either of those programs? Pound for pound, I have no idea, but one being in the ACC compared to the others in the B1G or SEC means way more than it ever should.

And if anybody thinks those rankings (at that level) do not influence how the CFP committee assesses things and sets their own rankings, they have very little knowledge or understanding of how college football works.