(08-06-2014 10:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 10:42 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 07:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ally-means

Quote:Simple math tells you at least one Power 5 conference will be left out each season. What will be the ramifications if, say, the Big 12 goes three straight seasons out of the playoff? What will be the pressures on the only Power 5 conference without a championship game?

Using the final 2013 BCS standings, the SEC would have had two teams in (Auburn, Alabama) to go along with the Big Ten (Michigan State) and ACC (Florida State). Pac-12 champ (Stanford) and Big 12 champ (Baylor) would have been left out.

"You have a steady diet of that over time," one Big 12 AD said, "there will definitely be some conversations."

Pretty clear whom Dodd thinks is going to be under the most pressure.

On another topic that I often go into myself:

Quote:When do we go to eight? CFP and ESPN officials maintain 12 years is 12 years, meaning the four-team bracket would not change until at least the 2026 season.

But experts/fans/journalists in some degree agree that an eight-team playoff is inevitable. And soon. An eight-teamer could conceivably accommodate the champions of the Power 5 conferences (Big 12, Pac-12, SEC, ACC, Big Ten) as well as two at-larges and an automatic qualifier from the Group of Five (Conference USA, Mountain West, MAC, Sun Belt).

The problem would be wedging all that in between Christmas and the second week of January. Wait, isn't that what we're doing now?

Whomever hasn't learned that just because groups such as the CFP and ESPN say that it will be 12 years before expansion of the playoffs, that doesn't mean it will actually be 12 years. That is just what they have to say Now.

Dodd pretty much is in step with what I have been saying that with the expansion, the major conferences will be assured to be in this very lucrative playoff every year. He also states that the group of five will have an auto bid at that point and he is correct there as well except that...I believe in the power of greed. I don't think that some of those schools will be able to fight off the temptation to form one mid major conference that can successfully steal away that auto bid from the G5 and in turn make it theirs entirely.

Getting down to four major conferences means they all still get a guaranteed share of the playoff money but then there are more chances for those conferences to get in a second team and garner even more money.

Saying that Dodd is putting more presssure on the Big12 is quite a stretch. Don't think he carries that kind of clout

It is all to be played out in public opinion court. Yes, Dodd does carry clout in that he is used as a mouthpiece. CBS Sports.

Next attempt anyone?

There is no need to be rude and condescending. Posters see that for what it is.

You post a lot of good stuff on this board. However, with all due respect, you sometimes state your opinion as though it were the gospel and you seem to expect everyone to accept it as such. Just because you say something, does not make it a fact. You have your opinion on Dodd, I have my opinion. Why don't we just leave it at that.

No need for "next attempt anyone?" type comments.

(08-07-2014 09:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 12:27 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 11:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Not sure I agree. If you go to 8 team utilizing bowls, you're looking at asking a fan base to potentially travel 3 times in the post season. I don't see that working well. My guess is the first round of games would be a seeded round played at on campus stadiums. That's much easier logistically and essentially can just be snapped onto the existing playoff with little disruption.

Never underestimate how much the power conferences want to protect the bowl system. It is a key mechanism for them to maintain control and power. An arbitrary collective determination of who is AQ and non-AQ invites antitrust scrutiny. Individual bowls signing contracts with individual conferences based on who can sell more tickets and get better TV ratings, on the other hand, is called perfectly legal (and encouraged) free market capitalism.

I've long believed that we'll eventually get to 8 teams and we'll simply use the 4 top bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange and either Fiesta or Cotton) as the quarterfinal sites. I've also always believed that the university presidents, with all of the money-grubbing and conference-busting that they have engaged in during the BCS era, are full of crap when they suddenly get sanctimonious when it comes to extending the season further into January. If they need to push the semifinals to a week after January 1st and then a week after that for the national championship game, they'll do it (considering that it's affecting a grand total of 2 teams versus the prospect of completely destroying the entire bowl system by attempting to push the playoff back earlier in December).

I tend to think a first playoff round DOES protect the bowl system. It preserves the current system and protects the bowls from travel fatigue. You could even further protect the existing system by allowing the first round losers to still be eligible for bowls. In essence--- every school in the first round would be guranteed 2 games--they either advance in the playoff or go to a bowl game of they fail to advance.

Is it a perfect solution for the bowls? No--its not. But the amount of money availbe for an 8 team playoff would probably double and the bowls can't come close to offering that. This is a solution that causes the least amount of damage to the current bowl system while allowing college football to scarf up the extra CFP money. With that kind of money sitting on the table--it's just a matter of time before it happens.

I think I took that as a given, but maybe I shouldn't have. I was operating from a presumption that the first round games would be played in early December. If the round of eight were played during the bowl season, even as early as Christmas, you couldn't guarantee more than one game to the participants.

(08-06-2014 09:12 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The MWC has a unique theme as a western G5. The MAC is Midwestern and a lot of small college towns. The AAC is more of urban school conference with bigger stadium. The Sun Belt is spread out across the Sun Belt. I'm not sure what CUSA is trying to do at this point and nobody can name all 14 teams in that conference.

The capacity at Tulane (30,000), Tulsa (30,000), and SMU (32,000) seems to contradict the statement of bigger AAC stadiums. C-USA is the original urban schools concept, and did the best they could in adding schools in significant media markets (stretching Louisiana Tech to include Shreveport).

I am willing to bet the average P5 fan could not name all of the teams in any of the G5 conferences, or map the 24 current football programs of the AAC and C-USA into the actual 2014 conference line-ups.

(08-07-2014 04:47 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 09:12 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The MWC has a unique theme as a western G5. The MAC is Midwestern and a lot of small college towns. The AAC is more of urban school conference with bigger stadium. The Sun Belt is spread out across the Sun Belt. I'm not sure what CUSA is trying to do at this point and nobody can name all 14 teams in that conference.

The capacity at Tulane (30,000), Tulsa (30,000), and SMU (32,000) seems to contradict the statement of bigger AAC stadiums. C-USA is the original urban schools concept, and did the best they could in adding schools in significant media markets (stretching Louisiana Tech to include Shreveport).

I am willing to bet the average P5 fan could not name all of the teams in any of the G5 conferences, or map the 24 current football programs of the AAC and C-USA into the actual 2014 conference line-ups.

I do not think small private schools need large stadiums. SMU certainly does not. Actually, I believe I read that Tulane's new stadium seats 24,000 and I know Tulsa's seats 27,500 and SMU's seats 32,000. IMO these stadiums are very adequate and it would be foolish for these schools to build larger ones..

(08-06-2014 09:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 08:55 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  He's creating an unlikely scenario and saying "what if"? You could just as easily ask what if the Big 12 gets in the playoff three years in a row because of upsets in other championship games?

If you look at the previous year's playoff what ifs, it's pretty unusual for a team to be in the top 4 the penultimate week get knocked out, unless it lost a game the last week. I'm not sure there is even a great example of that scenario if you look at previous years. Then to create a scenario where that happen three years in a row to a team from the same conference seems really far-fetched.

The reality is that most of the time the top four will work itself out based on the typical criteria- SOS, # of losses, who were the losses to and the timing of such losses. And most years the Big 12 champs ( indeed all the champs) will either be obviously in or obviously out.

You could ask what if the SEC missed 3 years in a row. Would they re-look at their divisions or their 8 game schedule?

Or you could just ask the simple question of "When was the last time the Big 12 had a credible shot at the national title and how many times have they risen to that echelon in the last 20 years?" You could also ask that question about the Big 10 and ACC. The second question for the ACC would be, "When was the last time they had anyone not named Florida State make a serious run at the title?"

My point being that everyone can spin this. And so far all I've heard out of the Big 12 posters is spin. So since we all have it why don't we just cut the crap and wait for the results. The old quote I like best for this situation is, "Statistics are for losers." In the end winning and winning consistently, and perhaps convincingly is the best way to access and take advantage of the playoffs. The reason I have been for a four champions model for so long is that it is the only way to cut the stupid politics and behind the scenes power plays out of the picture and end the stupid computer polls (all based on programming bias), committees (with network and conference agendas), coaches (who really are just a named proxy of an A.D. employee who votes), and the press (which is biased to areas of strongest influence and distribution).

When Oklahoma or Texas goes 12 - 0 in the regular season they'll be in. Maybe even at 11 -1. When dweebs, taking heads, pencil pushers, school hacks, and commercial interest is out of the system and it is decided by the jocks on the field only it will be a better day for the sport.

(08-07-2014 05:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 09:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 08:55 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  He's creating an unlikely scenario and saying "what if"? You could just as easily ask what if the Big 12 gets in the playoff three years in a row because of upsets in other championship games?

If you look at the previous year's playoff what ifs, it's pretty unusual for a team to be in the top 4 the penultimate week get knocked out, unless it lost a game the last week. I'm not sure there is even a great example of that scenario if you look at previous years. Then to create a scenario where that happen three years in a row to a team from the same conference seems really far-fetched.

The reality is that most of the time the top four will work itself out based on the typical criteria- SOS, # of losses, who were the losses to and the timing of such losses. And most years the Big 12 champs ( indeed all the champs) will either be obviously in or obviously out.

You could ask what if the SEC missed 3 years in a row. Would they re-look at their divisions or their 8 game schedule?

Or you could just ask the simple question of "When was the last time the Big 12 had a credible shot at the national title and how many times have they risen to that echelon in the last 20 years?" You could also ask that question about the Big 10 and ACC. The second question for the ACC would be, "When was the last time they had anyone not named Florida State make a serious run at the title?"

My point being that everyone can spin this. And so far all I've heard out of the Big 12 posters is spin. So since we all have it why don't we just cut the crap and wait for the results. The old quote I like best for this situation is, "Statistics are for losers." In the end winning and winning consistently, and perhaps convincingly is the best way to access and take advantage of the playoffs. The reason I have been for a four champions model for so long is that it is the only way to cut the stupid politics and behind the scenes power plays out of the picture and end the stupid computer polls (all based on programming bias), committees (with network and conference agendas), coaches (who really are just a named proxy of an A.D. employee who votes), and the press (which is biased to areas of strongest influence and distribution).

When Oklahoma or Texas goes 12 - 0 in the regular season they'll be in. Maybe even at 11 -1. When dweebs, taking heads, pencil pushers, school hacks, and commercial interest is out of the system and it is decided by the jocks on the field only it will be a better day for the sport.

If Texas' only loss is to Oklahoma and FSU's only loss is to UofL and FSU wins in the ACC championship game, which team would make the playoffs?

(08-07-2014 05:40 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 05:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 09:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 08:55 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  He's creating an unlikely scenario and saying "what if"? You could just as easily ask what if the Big 12 gets in the playoff three years in a row because of upsets in other championship games?

If you look at the previous year's playoff what ifs, it's pretty unusual for a team to be in the top 4 the penultimate week get knocked out, unless it lost a game the last week. I'm not sure there is even a great example of that scenario if you look at previous years. Then to create a scenario where that happen three years in a row to a team from the same conference seems really far-fetched.

The reality is that most of the time the top four will work itself out based on the typical criteria- SOS, # of losses, who were the losses to and the timing of such losses. And most years the Big 12 champs ( indeed all the champs) will either be obviously in or obviously out.

You could ask what if the SEC missed 3 years in a row. Would they re-look at their divisions or their 8 game schedule?

Or you could just ask the simple question of "When was the last time the Big 12 had a credible shot at the national title and how many times have they risen to that echelon in the last 20 years?" You could also ask that question about the Big 10 and ACC. The second question for the ACC would be, "When was the last time they had anyone not named Florida State make a serious run at the title?"

My point being that everyone can spin this. And so far all I've heard out of the Big 12 posters is spin. So since we all have it why don't we just cut the crap and wait for the results. The old quote I like best for this situation is, "Statistics are for losers." In the end winning and winning consistently, and perhaps convincingly is the best way to access and take advantage of the playoffs. The reason I have been for a four champions model for so long is that it is the only way to cut the stupid politics and behind the scenes power plays out of the picture and end the stupid computer polls (all based on programming bias), committees (with network and conference agendas), coaches (who really are just a named proxy of an A.D. employee who votes), and the press (which is biased to areas of strongest influence and distribution).

When Oklahoma or Texas goes 12 - 0 in the regular season they'll be in. Maybe even at 11 -1. When dweebs, taking heads, pencil pushers, school hacks, and commercial interest is out of the system and it is decided by the jocks on the field only it will be a better day for the sport.

If Texas' only loss is to Oklahoma and FSU's only loss is to UofL and FSU wins in the ACC championship game, which team would make the playoffs?

Those kind of hypothetical situations are why we need 4 champions and a P4.

(08-07-2014 05:40 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If Texas' only loss is to Oklahoma and FSU's only loss is to UofL and FSU wins in the ACC championship game, which team would make the playoffs?

In sufficient data to answer the question.

(08-07-2014 04:58 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I do not think small private schools need large stadiums. SMU certainly does not. Actually, I believe I read that Tulane's new stadium seats 24,000 and I know Tulsa's seats 27,500 and SMU's seats 32,000. IMO these stadiums are very adequate and it would be foolish for these schools to build larger ones..

I agree with you. Rice seems close to announcing a TCU-like upgrade (have a $12M seed donation) that also reduces seating capacity, but we still revisit the path SMU, Tulane, and Houston went down in starting over with smaller facilities that can command top dollar for suites and the best seats.

The smaller privates do have a tough path to hang with the much larger public schools. We know that all too well at Rice. I'll always smile a bit when I see SMU or Tulane beat ECU or Memphis.

Kittonhead comes across as critical toward C-USA for reasons I don't quite understand.

(08-07-2014 10:22 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 10:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 10:42 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 07:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ally-means

Quote:Simple math tells you at least one Power 5 conference will be left out each season. What will be the ramifications if, say, the Big 12 goes three straight seasons out of the playoff? What will be the pressures on the only Power 5 conference without a championship game?

Using the final 2013 BCS standings, the SEC would have had two teams in (Auburn, Alabama) to go along with the Big Ten (Michigan State) and ACC (Florida State). Pac-12 champ (Stanford) and Big 12 champ (Baylor) would have been left out.

"You have a steady diet of that over time," one Big 12 AD said, "there will definitely be some conversations."

Pretty clear whom Dodd thinks is going to be under the most pressure.

On another topic that I often go into myself:

Quote:When do we go to eight? CFP and ESPN officials maintain 12 years is 12 years, meaning the four-team bracket would not change until at least the 2026 season.

But experts/fans/journalists in some degree agree that an eight-team playoff is inevitable. And soon. An eight-teamer could conceivably accommodate the champions of the Power 5 conferences (Big 12, Pac-12, SEC, ACC, Big Ten) as well as two at-larges and an automatic qualifier from the Group of Five (Conference USA, Mountain West, MAC, Sun Belt).

The problem would be wedging all that in between Christmas and the second week of January. Wait, isn't that what we're doing now?

Whomever hasn't learned that just because groups such as the CFP and ESPN say that it will be 12 years before expansion of the playoffs, that doesn't mean it will actually be 12 years. That is just what they have to say Now.

Dodd pretty much is in step with what I have been saying that with the expansion, the major conferences will be assured to be in this very lucrative playoff every year. He also states that the group of five will have an auto bid at that point and he is correct there as well except that...I believe in the power of greed. I don't think that some of those schools will be able to fight off the temptation to form one mid major conference that can successfully steal away that auto bid from the G5 and in turn make it theirs entirely.

Getting down to four major conferences means they all still get a guaranteed share of the playoff money but then there are more chances for those conferences to get in a second team and garner even more money.

Saying that Dodd is putting more presssure on the Big12 is quite a stretch. Don't think he carries that kind of clout

It is all to be played out in public opinion court. Yes, Dodd does carry clout in that he is used as a mouthpiece. CBS Sports.

Next attempt anyone?

There is no need to be rude and condescending. Posters see that for what it is.

You post a lot of good stuff on this board. However, with all due respect, you sometimes state your opinion as though it were the gospel and you seem to expect everyone to accept it as such. Just because you say something, does not make it a fact. You have your opinion on Dodd, I have my opinion. Why don't we just leave it at that.

No need for "next attempt anyone?" type comments.

Yes, I have a healthy opinion of myself and my own opinion. There is no denying that. It's really not personal though. Someone called Terry a "heel". Personally I think I am the biggest heel around. I don't take it too seriously though and I had hoped that the name I chose to use would make it clear that it's not all That serious. You could call it a "character". You seem like an alright guy, so I thought I would share.

(08-07-2014 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 09:22 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Public opinion is dramatically shaped by what happens on the field.

Think how differently the ACC is perceived because of FSU's run last year. Things can change quickly.

FWIW, I don't think the ACC is perceived as being much different this year than in past year's. Just like back in the 1990s, nobody thought the ACC was football-strong even as FSU contended for the national title just about every year.

To me, FSU has never really been generally viewed as being "integrally representative" of the ACC, they have always been viewed as being kind of "grafted on" to the conference and their success has thus been attributed to themselves rather than as having emerged from the strength of the conference.

True. In the 90s, the rest of the ACC got degraded because they could never beat FSU. But no one else in the country other than Miami could either. The ACC teams got less credit than they deserved then.

getting an accurate feel for playoff berths, the last 3 yrs, basically BE was gone
and 4 P5 conf with CCG & B-12 at 10
the conf CCG had zero impact on bids
as matter a fact 7 of 12 berths did not play in CCG

(08-07-2014 05:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 09:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 08:55 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  He's creating an unlikely scenario and saying "what if"? You could just as easily ask what if the Big 12 gets in the playoff three years in a row because of upsets in other championship games?

If you look at the previous year's playoff what ifs, it's pretty unusual for a team to be in the top 4 the penultimate week get knocked out, unless it lost a game the last week. I'm not sure there is even a great example of that scenario if you look at previous years. Then to create a scenario where that happen three years in a row to a team from the same conference seems really far-fetched.

The reality is that most of the time the top four will work itself out based on the typical criteria- SOS, # of losses, who were the losses to and the timing of such losses. And most years the Big 12 champs ( indeed all the champs) will either be obviously in or obviously out.

You could ask what if the SEC missed 3 years in a row. Would they re-look at their divisions or their 8 game schedule?

Or you could just ask the simple question of "When was the last time the Big 12 had a credible shot at the national title and how many times have they risen to that echelon in the last 20 years?" You could also ask that question about the Big 10 and ACC. The second question for the ACC would be, "When was the last time they had anyone not named Florida State make a serious run at the title?"

My point being that everyone can spin this. And so far all I've heard out of the Big 12 posters is spin. So since we all have it why don't we just cut the crap and wait for the results. The old quote I like best for this situation is, "Statistics are for losers." In the end winning and winning consistently, and perhaps convincingly is the best way to access and take advantage of the playoffs. The reason I have been for a four champions model for so long is that it is the only way to cut the stupid politics and behind the scenes power plays out of the picture and end the stupid computer polls (all based on programming bias), committees (with network and conference agendas), coaches (who really are just a named proxy of an A.D. employee who votes), and the press (which is biased to areas of strongest influence and distribution).

When Oklahoma or Texas goes 12 - 0 in the regular season they'll be in. Maybe even at 11 -1. When dweebs, taking heads, pencil pushers, school hacks, and commercial interest is out of the system and it is decided by the jocks on the field only it will be a better day for the sport.

Touchy, Touchy. I was just using the SEC as an extreme example of the stuff being spouted.

The only spin is so many people assuming the Big 12 will be left out when that flies in direct contradiction to what has happened over the last 20 years. People are assuming everything must be totally different than the past which makes no sense.

Baylor was a late season loss away from being in the title game last year. KSU was a late season loss from being in the title game the year before that. OSU should have been in the title game the year before that. TCU was a stupid Alabama fumble from being in the title game vs. Oregon the year before that. Texas was in the title game the previous year. OU was in the title game the year before that and Texas just missed and Tech had a blowout next to last game loss or they would have been in. The year before that former Big 12er Missouri lost the ccg to drop out of the #1 spot and KU lost a few weeks before to Missouri or they would have been in. And WVU lost their last game or they would have been in. In 7 years 9 of the 10 Big 12 teams have been in position in mid-November + 1 former member. And the Big 12 was in 5 of the 7 ccgs before that and won two. Every Big 12 or former Big 12 member but Iowa St. and Texas A&M have been in position in mid-November during the BCS era to make the title game.

The SEC has the most titles and the most teams with titles by far, but no conference can match the % of teams who have risen to be contenders as the Big 12. So assuming they will suddenly be the only ones left out is a huge leap from past reality into some future fantasy.

(08-07-2014 07:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 10:22 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 10:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 10:42 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 07:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ally-means


Pretty clear whom Dodd thinks is going to be under the most pressure.

On another topic that I often go into myself:


Whomever hasn't learned that just because groups such as the CFP and ESPN say that it will be 12 years before expansion of the playoffs, that doesn't mean it will actually be 12 years. That is just what they have to say Now.

Dodd pretty much is in step with what I have been saying that with the expansion, the major conferences will be assured to be in this very lucrative playoff every year. He also states that the group of five will have an auto bid at that point and he is correct there as well except that...I believe in the power of greed. I don't think that some of those schools will be able to fight off the temptation to form one mid major conference that can successfully steal away that auto bid from the G5 and in turn make it theirs entirely.

Getting down to four major conferences means they all still get a guaranteed share of the playoff money but then there are more chances for those conferences to get in a second team and garner even more money.

Saying that Dodd is putting more presssure on the Big12 is quite a stretch. Don't think he carries that kind of clout

It is all to be played out in public opinion court. Yes, Dodd does carry clout in that he is used as a mouthpiece. CBS Sports.

Next attempt anyone?

There is no need to be rude and condescending. Posters see that for what it is.

You post a lot of good stuff on this board. However, with all due respect, you sometimes state your opinion as though it were the gospel and you seem to expect everyone to accept it as such. Just because you say something, does not make it a fact. You have your opinion on Dodd, I have my opinion. Why don't we just leave it at that.

No need for "next attempt anyone?" type comments.

Yes, I have a healthy opinion of myself and my own opinion. There is no denying that. It's really not personal though. Someone called Terry a "heel". Personally I think I am the biggest heel around. I don't take it too seriously though and I had hoped that the name I chose to use would make it clear that it's not all That serious. You could call it a "character". You seem like an alright guy, so I thought I would share.

Appreciate your comments....thanks for sharing. I guess we all need to remember that if life was a departemnt store, sports would be the toy department

(08-07-2014 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 09:22 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Public opinion is dramatically shaped by what happens on the field.

Think how differently the ACC is perceived because of FSU's run last year. Things can change quickly.

FWIW, I don't think the ACC is perceived as being much different this year than in past year's. Just like back in the 1990s, nobody thought the ACC was football-strong even as FSU contended for the national title just about every year.

To me, FSU has never really been generally viewed as being "integrally representative" of the ACC, they have always been viewed as being kind of "grafted on" to the conference and their success has thus been attributed to themselves rather than as having emerged from the strength of the conference.

My sentiment as well; they can and have put together rosters more like the SEC not the ACC.