(08-19-2016 03:12 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 02:39 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 01:49 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  He acts like college football post season has become the NCAA tournament, where there are mid majors everywhere, etc. News flash: The BCS games and now playoff games are primarily filled by ''traditional powers'' every year. That hasn't changed. You can't go fixing things to ensure that certain brand names get in over other deserving teams. The sport will tank. The ASU fan is spot on-The NFL does the exact opposite of what Texas fan is saying, and they are by far the most popular sport on earth. No one wants to watch a ''brand name'' in the playoffs if they aren't deserving of that spot.

Don't think anyone could say I was comparing it to the NCAA tournament.

As far as insuring only brand names get in, not only can they, they are in the process of doing just that. Fact is they are just "given the people what the people want".

How is that different from now? Last year was OU, Clemson, Bama, and MSU. That is, at worst, 3 huge brands in the playoff. I don't understand what sort of drastic change you seem to be advocating. National brands still need other teams to pad their win totals with. Otherwise, its all for not. No one wants to see a 8-4 Alabama in the playoff.

Your delusion of ''what the people want'' is just off base. If conferences are eliminated and the system is fixed, no fans of those schools outside of a few are going to watch it. They just won't. Hell, all the fans of bottom SEC schools right now have nothing to tout except that they are in the same conference as teams like Bama. take away that association, and they are not going to tune in to support Bama/LSU/UF in the playoffs.

Agree with both paragraphs.

I don't know Seminole Indian's background other than he is an FSU fan, but I often think that people who share opinions like his didn't go to a four year university that has FBS level football. If he did go to FSU, he just doesn't understand how it works elsewhere.

A large majority of CFB fans across the country are alums of the school that they root for. They are not going to just pick up and root for another school in the Top 15 because their school is excluded. As an example, Louisville or Kentucky graduates would not all of a sudden become Tennessee fans because the Vols are in this new league. If anything this type of separation will cause graduates of excluded schools to become even more resistant to support those schools.

(08-19-2016 03:12 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  National brands still need other teams to pad their win totals with.

True. As in the top European football leagues, the big name CFB teams got that way by consistently beating a large number of outmanned and underfunded teams.

But, keep in mind that a La Liga or Bundesliga-style imbalance of power is what the big boys of CFB also want, and that's the direction in which money continues to drive CFB. CFB never has been and never will be a system of intended parity like the NFL. Ohio State and Alabama and the other "king" programs have no interest in CFB football parity. They want a league full of teams they can beat over 80% of the time, with maybe one or two consistent rivals for the league title, and non-con opponents they can beat well over 90% of the time. And the rest of their conference mates want to be able to pad their own win totals to make up for rarely beating Ohio State or Alabama.

(08-19-2016 04:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 03:12 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  National brands still need other teams to pad their win totals with.

True. As in the top European football leagues, the big name CFB teams got that way by consistently beating a large number of outmanned and underfunded teams.

But, keep in mind that a La Liga or Bundesliga-style imbalance of power is what the big boys of CFB also want, and that's the direction in which money continues to drive CFB. CFB never has been and never will be a system of intended parity like the NFL. Ohio State and Alabama and the other "king" programs have no interest in CFB football parity. They want a league full of teams they can beat over 80% of the time, with maybe one or two consistent rivals for the league title, and non-con opponents they can beat well over 90% of the time. And the rest of their conference mates want to be able to pad their own win totals to make up for rarely beating Ohio State or Alabama.

We all know what they want. Whether what they want is good for the sport is the question. I don't see how any logical person can honestly say it is.

(08-19-2016 12:51 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Every school in the Top 10 revenue should be allowed to form their own league where they are the only members and [b]they only play with themselves.[/b]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

that be illegal? Unless it's done in private .

(08-19-2016 04:28 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 04:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 03:12 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  National brands still need other teams to pad their win totals with.

True. As in the top European football leagues, the big name CFB teams got that way by consistently beating a large number of outmanned and underfunded teams.

But, keep in mind that a La Liga or Bundesliga-style imbalance of power is what the big boys of CFB also want, and that's the direction in which money continues to drive CFB. CFB never has been and never will be a system of intended parity like the NFL. Ohio State and Alabama and the other "king" programs have no interest in CFB football parity. They want a league full of teams they can beat over 80% of the time, with maybe one or two consistent rivals for the league title, and non-con opponents they can beat well over 90% of the time. And the rest of their conference mates want to be able to pad their own win totals to make up for rarely beating Ohio State or Alabama.

We all know what they want. Whether what they want is good for the sport is the question. I don't see how any logical person can honestly say it is.

That's true of almost every sport you can think of. The Olympics would be far more competitive if athletes in every country had the same level of funding and access to commercial sponsors that U.S. athletes have. The European football leagues would be much more competitive if the least-wealthy teams in the top leagues were not being outspent 20:1 or more, let alone the second- or third-division teams whose budgets are 1/500 or less of the wealthiest top-division teams. Maybe the NBA would be more entertaining if it had 120 equally well-funded franchises, and it would bring the highest level of basketball to almost every corner of the U.S. None of these things are going to happen, though.

At any rate, the original point stands. The big boys want pretty much what they have now except that, like everyone in the world, they want more of it than they already have.

(08-19-2016 04:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 04:28 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 04:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 03:12 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  National brands still need other teams to pad their win totals with.

True. As in the top European football leagues, the big name CFB teams got that way by consistently beating a large number of outmanned and underfunded teams.

But, keep in mind that a La Liga or Bundesliga-style imbalance of power is what the big boys of CFB also want, and that's the direction in which money continues to drive CFB. CFB never has been and never will be a system of intended parity like the NFL. Ohio State and Alabama and the other "king" programs have no interest in CFB football parity. They want a league full of teams they can beat over 80% of the time, with maybe one or two consistent rivals for the league title, and non-con opponents they can beat well over 90% of the time. And the rest of their conference mates want to be able to pad their own win totals to make up for rarely beating Ohio State or Alabama.

We all know what they want. Whether what they want is good for the sport is the question. I don't see how any logical person can honestly say it is.

That's true of almost every sport you can think of. The Olympics would be far more competitive if athletes in every country had the same level of funding and access to commercial sponsors that U.S. athletes have. The European football leagues would be much more competitive if the least-wealthy teams in the top leagues were not being outspent 20:1 or more, let alone the second- or third-division teams whose budgets are 1/500 or less of the wealthiest top-division teams. Maybe the NBA would be more entertaining if it had 120 equally well-funded franchises, and it would bring the highest level of basketball to almost every corner of the U.S. None of these things are going to happen, though.

At any rate, the original point stands. The big boys want pretty much what they have now except that, like everyone in the world, they want more of it than they already have.

There isn't absolute parity in any league. But they do make efforts to make sure that there is enough parity and that a few cannot become a monopoly, control all decisions, and buy endless dynasties while the rest wither.

That's what we are headed to in college football.

That golden goose CAN be killed. Baseball almost killed itself, boxing pretty much has.

(08-19-2016 03:32 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 03:12 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 02:39 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 01:49 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  He acts like college football post season has become the NCAA tournament, where there are mid majors everywhere, etc. News flash: The BCS games and now playoff games are primarily filled by ''traditional powers'' every year. That hasn't changed. You can't go fixing things to ensure that certain brand names get in over other deserving teams. The sport will tank. The ASU fan is spot on-The NFL does the exact opposite of what Texas fan is saying, and they are by far the most popular sport on earth. No one wants to watch a ''brand name'' in the playoffs if they aren't deserving of that spot.

Don't think anyone could say I was comparing it to the NCAA tournament.

As far as insuring only brand names get in, not only can they, they are in the process of doing just that. Fact is they are just "given the people what the people want".

How is that different from now? Last year was OU, Clemson, Bama, and MSU. That is, at worst, 3 huge brands in the playoff. I don't understand what sort of drastic change you seem to be advocating. National brands still need other teams to pad their win totals with. Otherwise, its all for not. No one wants to see a 8-4 Alabama in the playoff.

Your delusion of ''what the people want'' is just off base. If conferences are eliminated and the system is fixed, no fans of those schools outside of a few are going to watch it. They just won't. Hell, all the fans of bottom SEC schools right now have nothing to tout except that they are in the same conference as teams like Bama. take away that association, and they are not going to tune in to support Bama/LSU/UF in the playoffs.

Agree with both paragraphs.

I don't know Seminole Indian's background other than he is an FSU fan, but I often think that people who share opinions like his didn't go to a four year university that has FBS level football. If he did go to FSU, he just doesn't understand how it works elsewhere.

A large majority of CFB fans across the country are alums of the school that they root for. They are not going to just pick up and root for another school in the Top 15 because their school is excluded. As an example, Louisville or Kentucky graduates would not all of a sudden become Tennessee fans because the Vols are in this new league. If anything this type of separation will cause graduates of excluded schools to become even more resistant to support those schools.

Apparently my post have confused a lot of people because i totally agree with your post.