(10-14-2019 03:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  These laws are a joke and do not answer the problems who are the major factor in college sports. The haves and have nots. It is the power conferences that are making the money while other schools are struggling to even make a profit. We will not see a Boise State, UCF, Western Michigan, Hawaii or Northern Illinois will get the players or make a NY6 bowl as G5 schools will have 2 or more loses as players want to play at schools who can afford the pay for play. These laws are a joke, and do not help make the playing field equal like Boise State can compete for a national championship in football just like Washington.

You seem to have completely missed the point of these bills, but never mind.

Meantime, you want parity? How about this: All 1A athletes are required to be surgically transformed into cyborgs. All coaches are then done away with and replaced by an Indy-based AI machine that controls our "student-athlete-cyborgs."

Through careful, computerized manipulation, all teams finish 6-6.

Everyone's bowl eligible!!!

Teams then alternate between winning and losing their bowl games, with half of all teams being declared co-nattys in even years and the other half in odd years. Perfect parity!!11!!11

(10-14-2019 03:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  These laws are a joke and do not answer the problems who are the major factor in college sports. The haves and have nots. It is the power conferences that are making the money while other schools are struggling to even make a profit. We will not see a Boise State, UCF, Western Michigan, Hawaii or Northern Illinois will get the players or make a NY6 bowl as G5 schools will have 2 or more loses as players want to play at schools who can afford the pay for play. These laws are a joke, and do not help make the playing field equal like Boise State can compete for a national championship in football just like Washington.

I imagine that If I am a player, I could care less whether some G5 fan in the peanut gallery thinks that their G5 team not being on equal terms with Alabama is the "major factor" in college sports. I would care more about being able to make more money myself.

As for your point, college sports generally, and football particularly, have been this way for 150 years, which is longer than just about anything else. So somehow, some way, the model has worked.

There's a reason there are 50 college football games each Saturday, all day long, on TV - people like it.

(10-14-2019 04:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 03:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  These laws are a joke and do not answer the problems who are the major factor in college sports. The haves and have nots. It is the power conferences that are making the money while other schools are struggling to even make a profit. We will not see a Boise State, UCF, Western Michigan, Hawaii or Northern Illinois will get the players or make a NY6 bowl as G5 schools will have 2 or more loses as players want to play at schools who can afford the pay for play. These laws are a joke, and do not help make the playing field equal like Boise State can compete for a national championship in football just like Washington.

You bring up something my friend said this weekend. If the NCAA is running scared with anti-trust problems on this issue and the feds are getting involved in new NCAA laws---now might be an excellent time for the G5 to hire a lobbyist with the goal of getting some language included in the federal legislation to give them real access to the playoff. I mean---why not give it shot? He also said that once the players start getting paid endorsement dollars, the CFP suddenly has a real antitrust problem with G5 exclusion from the playoff as G5 players can claim CFP anti-competitive behavior is limiting their endorsement dollar opportunities. Its actually an interesting side angle I had not previously considered. Like I said---this new California law could be absolutely ripe with unintended consequences.

Except ... the G5 isn't "excluded" from the playoff. There just as yet hasn't been a G5 team good enough to merit inclusion in the 4-team playoff as judged by the CFP committee, which is also true of about 57 of the 64 teams in the P5. Heck, North Dakota State would have a stronger case, as they actually are formally barred from the CFP playoffs.

I see zero chance the feds involve themselves in the structure of the CFP playoffs.

(10-15-2019 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 04:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 03:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  These laws are a joke and do not answer the problems who are the major factor in college sports. The haves and have nots. It is the power conferences that are making the money while other schools are struggling to even make a profit. We will not see a Boise State, UCF, Western Michigan, Hawaii or Northern Illinois will get the players or make a NY6 bowl as G5 schools will have 2 or more loses as players want to play at schools who can afford the pay for play. These laws are a joke, and do not help make the playing field equal like Boise State can compete for a national championship in football just like Washington.

You bring up something my friend said this weekend. If the NCAA is running scared with anti-trust problems on this issue and the feds are getting involved in new NCAA laws---now might be an excellent time for the G5 to hire a lobbyist with the goal of getting some language included in the federal legislation to give them real access to the playoff. I mean---why not give it shot? He also said that once the players start getting paid endorsement dollars, the CFP suddenly has a real antitrust problem with G5 exclusion from the playoff as G5 players can claim CFP anti-competitive behavior is limiting their endorsement dollar opportunities. Its actually an interesting side angle I had not previously considered. Like I said---this new California law could be absolutely ripe with unintended consequences.

Except ... the G5 isn't "excluded" from the playoff. There just as yet hasn't been a G5 team good enough to merit inclusion in the 4-team playoff as judged by the CFP committee, which is also true of about 57 of the 64 teams in the P5. Heck, North Dakota State would have a stronger case, as they actually are formally barred from the CFP playoffs.

I see zero chance the feds involve themselves in the structure of the CFP playoffs.

Everyone knows they are excluded. To say they are not is basically the equivalent of the Iraqi Press Secretary claims during the Gulf War that Saddam was winning. As for the feds, who knows? The purpose of lobbying is to get the feds involved. That said, I do think his point about a law suit from G5 athletes claiming anti competitive activity by the CFP adversely affects their endorsement earnings is the more likely of his two ideas to potentially gain some traction.

(10-15-2019 09:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 04:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 03:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  These laws are a joke and do not answer the problems who are the major factor in college sports. The haves and have nots. It is the power conferences that are making the money while other schools are struggling to even make a profit. We will not see a Boise State, UCF, Western Michigan, Hawaii or Northern Illinois will get the players or make a NY6 bowl as G5 schools will have 2 or more loses as players want to play at schools who can afford the pay for play. These laws are a joke, and do not help make the playing field equal like Boise State can compete for a national championship in football just like Washington.

You bring up something my friend said this weekend. If the NCAA is running scared with anti-trust problems on this issue and the feds are getting involved in new NCAA laws---now might be an excellent time for the G5 to hire a lobbyist with the goal of getting some language included in the federal legislation to give them real access to the playoff. I mean---why not give it shot? He also said that once the players start getting paid endorsement dollars, the CFP suddenly has a real antitrust problem with G5 exclusion from the playoff as G5 players can claim CFP anti-competitive behavior is limiting their endorsement dollar opportunities. Its actually an interesting side angle I had not previously considered. Like I said---this new California law could be absolutely ripe with unintended consequences.

Except ... the G5 isn't "excluded" from the playoff. There just as yet hasn't been a G5 team good enough to merit inclusion in the 4-team playoff as judged by the CFP committee, which is also true of about 57 of the 64 teams in the P5. Heck, North Dakota State would have a stronger case, as they actually are formally barred from the CFP playoffs.

I see zero chance the feds involve themselves in the structure of the CFP playoffs.

Everyone knows they are excluded. To say they are not is basically the equivalent of the Iraqi Press Secretary claims during the Gulf War that Saddam was winning. As for the feds, who knows? The purpose of lobbying is to get the feds involved. That said, I do think his point about a law suit from G5 athletes claiming anti competitive activity by the CFP adversely affects their endorsement earnings is the more likely of his two ideas to potentially gain some traction.

No coog you can get in, and i fact you had a legit **** at getting in a couple years back until your cougars choked it away. They would have been invited that year....

Do you have road blocks because the P5 won't give you the street-cred... yes, but you can still crash the party under the right circumstances.... and by not choking when you had the chance.

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 09:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 04:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 03:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  These laws are a joke and do not answer the problems who are the major factor in college sports. The haves and have nots. It is the power conferences that are making the money while other schools are struggling to even make a profit. We will not see a Boise State, UCF, Western Michigan, Hawaii or Northern Illinois will get the players or make a NY6 bowl as G5 schools will have 2 or more loses as players want to play at schools who can afford the pay for play. These laws are a joke, and do not help make the playing field equal like Boise State can compete for a national championship in football just like Washington.

You bring up something my friend said this weekend. If the NCAA is running scared with anti-trust problems on this issue and the feds are getting involved in new NCAA laws---now might be an excellent time for the G5 to hire a lobbyist with the goal of getting some language included in the federal legislation to give them real access to the playoff. I mean---why not give it shot? He also said that once the players start getting paid endorsement dollars, the CFP suddenly has a real antitrust problem with G5 exclusion from the playoff as G5 players can claim CFP anti-competitive behavior is limiting their endorsement dollar opportunities. Its actually an interesting side angle I had not previously considered. Like I said---this new California law could be absolutely ripe with unintended consequences.

Except ... the G5 isn't "excluded" from the playoff. There just as yet hasn't been a G5 team good enough to merit inclusion in the 4-team playoff as judged by the CFP committee, which is also true of about 57 of the 64 teams in the P5. Heck, North Dakota State would have a stronger case, as they actually are formally barred from the CFP playoffs.

I see zero chance the feds involve themselves in the structure of the CFP playoffs.

Everyone knows they are excluded. To say they are not is basically the equivalent of the Iraqi Press Secretary claims during the Gulf War that Saddam was winning. As for the feds, who knows? The purpose of lobbying is to get the feds involved. That said, I do think his point about a law suit from G5 athletes claiming anti competitive activity by the CFP adversely affects their endorsement earnings is the more likely of his two ideas to potentially gain some traction.

No coog you can get in, and i fact you had a legit **** at getting in a couple years back until your cougars choked it away. They would have been invited that year....

Do you have road blocks because the P5 won't give you the street-cred... yes, but you can still crash the party under the right circumstances.... and by not choking when you had the chance.

lol...that has been the CFP "go to" talking point on this issue. What that talking point fails to address is the 2016 Houston schedule had a lower SOS than the 2017 UCF schedule---which the Committee already indicated was insufficient to make the playoff. Thus, the "had Houston run the table in 2016" claim has been completely debunked by the Committee actions in 2017. The same sad head shake with the same SOS argument used on the undefeated 2017 UCF team would have been used in 2016 as well. No G5 will ever be in the playoff under the current model. It is what it is.

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 09:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 04:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 03:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  These laws are a joke and do not answer the problems who are the major factor in college sports. The haves and have nots. It is the power conferences that are making the money while other schools are struggling to even make a profit. We will not see a Boise State, UCF, Western Michigan, Hawaii or Northern Illinois will get the players or make a NY6 bowl as G5 schools will have 2 or more loses as players want to play at schools who can afford the pay for play. These laws are a joke, and do not help make the playing field equal like Boise State can compete for a national championship in football just like Washington.

You bring up something my friend said this weekend. If the NCAA is running scared with anti-trust problems on this issue and the feds are getting involved in new NCAA laws---now might be an excellent time for the G5 to hire a lobbyist with the goal of getting some language included in the federal legislation to give them real access to the playoff. I mean---why not give it shot? He also said that once the players start getting paid endorsement dollars, the CFP suddenly has a real antitrust problem with G5 exclusion from the playoff as G5 players can claim CFP anti-competitive behavior is limiting their endorsement dollar opportunities. Its actually an interesting side angle I had not previously considered. Like I said---this new California law could be absolutely ripe with unintended consequences.

Except ... the G5 isn't "excluded" from the playoff. There just as yet hasn't been a G5 team good enough to merit inclusion in the 4-team playoff as judged by the CFP committee, which is also true of about 57 of the 64 teams in the P5. Heck, North Dakota State would have a stronger case, as they actually are formally barred from the CFP playoffs.

I see zero chance the feds involve themselves in the structure of the CFP playoffs.

Everyone knows they are excluded. To say they are not is basically the equivalent of the Iraqi Press Secretary claims during the Gulf War that Saddam was winning. As for the feds, who knows? The purpose of lobbying is to get the feds involved. That said, I do think his point about a law suit from G5 athletes claiming anti competitive activity by the CFP adversely affects their endorsement earnings is the more likely of his two ideas to potentially gain some traction.

No coog you can get in, and i fact you had a legit **** at getting in a couple years back until your cougars choked it away. They would have been invited that year....

Do you have road blocks because the P5 won't give you the street-cred... yes, but you can still crash the party under the right circumstances.... and by not choking when you had the chance.

Yes, I agree, I think Houston would have made the CFP had they run the table that year.

Coog and others want a handout - they want a guaranteed path to the playoffs without having to earn it. They want a gilded path where you don't have to prove yourself against tough P5 competition. But it's better if you have to play and beat good teams to be worthy of the playoffs because this isn't the NBA or NHL or NFL, where 40% to 50% of the teams get in. It's just 4 out of 132.

Really, the team with the most to complain about the past few years hasn't been UCF, they obviously have been unworthy of the playoff. No, it's Ohio State, arguably the most powerful single program in the country and a paragon of blue-blood. Yet that hasn't helped them make the CFP. E.g., last year Ohio State went 12-1 and won the B1G, and won the Rose Bowl, but were deemed not good enough for the CFP.

Bottom line is, if we were to make a list of say the 10 teams that were most deserving of the playoffs the past five years but were left out, all of them would be P5 teams, every single one.

The current CFP system is much harder on P5 than G5.

(10-16-2019 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 09:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 04:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You bring up something my friend said this weekend. If the NCAA is running scared with anti-trust problems on this issue and the feds are getting involved in new NCAA laws---now might be an excellent time for the G5 to hire a lobbyist with the goal of getting some language included in the federal legislation to give them real access to the playoff. I mean---why not give it shot? He also said that once the players start getting paid endorsement dollars, the CFP suddenly has a real antitrust problem with G5 exclusion from the playoff as G5 players can claim CFP anti-competitive behavior is limiting their endorsement dollar opportunities. Its actually an interesting side angle I had not previously considered. Like I said---this new California law could be absolutely ripe with unintended consequences.

Except ... the G5 isn't "excluded" from the playoff. There just as yet hasn't been a G5 team good enough to merit inclusion in the 4-team playoff as judged by the CFP committee, which is also true of about 57 of the 64 teams in the P5. Heck, North Dakota State would have a stronger case, as they actually are formally barred from the CFP playoffs.

I see zero chance the feds involve themselves in the structure of the CFP playoffs.

Everyone knows they are excluded. To say they are not is basically the equivalent of the Iraqi Press Secretary claims during the Gulf War that Saddam was winning. As for the feds, who knows? The purpose of lobbying is to get the feds involved. That said, I do think his point about a law suit from G5 athletes claiming anti competitive activity by the CFP adversely affects their endorsement earnings is the more likely of his two ideas to potentially gain some traction.

No coog you can get in, and i fact you had a legit **** at getting in a couple years back until your cougars choked it away. They would have been invited that year....

Do you have road blocks because the P5 won't give you the street-cred... yes, but you can still crash the party under the right circumstances.... and by not choking when you had the chance.

Yes, I agree, I think Houston would have made the CFP had they run the table that year.

Coog and others want a handout - they want a guaranteed path to the playoffs without having to earn it. They want a gilded path where you don't have to prove yourself against tough P5 competition. But it's better if you have to play and beat good teams to be worthy of the playoffs because this isn't the NBA or NHL or NFL, where 40% to 50% of the teams get in. It's just 4 out of 132.

Really, the team with the most to complain about the past few years hasn't been UCF, they obviously have been unworthy of the playoff. No, it's Ohio State, arguably the most powerful single program in the country and a paragon of blue-blood. Yet that hasn't helped them make the CFP. E.g., last year Ohio State went 12-1 and won the B1G, and won the Rose Bowl, but were deemed not good enough for the CFP.

Bottom line is, if we were to make a list of say the 10 teams that were most deserving of the playoffs the past five years but were left out, all of them would be P5 teams, every single one.

The current CFP system is much harder on P5 than G5.

lol. I get it---when the facts dont support you--try to reframe the debate as a straw man argument. Its pretty obvious why you're forced to do that. The best a G5 can do is win all their games against the 66th best schedule in the land. Thats never going to be good enough. If you want to try to pass Bill Hancock propaganda off as reality, thats your business---but dont expect anyone with an IQ above the mid-two figure range to believe it. It is what it is. The current pinnacle of achievement or glass ceiling for a G5 is the access bowl under the current system. But hey--thats much better than it was just 2 decades ago.

A team who lost by 30 to Purdue is the biggest victim of this system.

(10-16-2019 05:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 09:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Except ... the G5 isn't "excluded" from the playoff. There just as yet hasn't been a G5 team good enough to merit inclusion in the 4-team playoff as judged by the CFP committee, which is also true of about 57 of the 64 teams in the P5. Heck, North Dakota State would have a stronger case, as they actually are formally barred from the CFP playoffs.

I see zero chance the feds involve themselves in the structure of the CFP playoffs.

Everyone knows they are excluded. To say they are not is basically the equivalent of the Iraqi Press Secretary claims during the Gulf War that Saddam was winning. As for the feds, who knows? The purpose of lobbying is to get the feds involved. That said, I do think his point about a law suit from G5 athletes claiming anti competitive activity by the CFP adversely affects their endorsement earnings is the more likely of his two ideas to potentially gain some traction.

No coog you can get in, and i fact you had a legit **** at getting in a couple years back until your cougars choked it away. They would have been invited that year....

Do you have road blocks because the P5 won't give you the street-cred... yes, but you can still crash the party under the right circumstances.... and by not choking when you had the chance.

Yes, I agree, I think Houston would have made the CFP had they run the table that year.

Coog and others want a handout - they want a guaranteed path to the playoffs without having to earn it. They want a gilded path where you don't have to prove yourself against tough P5 competition. But it's better if you have to play and beat good teams to be worthy of the playoffs because this isn't the NBA or NHL or NFL, where 40% to 50% of the teams get in. It's just 4 out of 132.

Really, the team with the most to complain about the past few years hasn't been UCF, they obviously have been unworthy of the playoff. No, it's Ohio State, arguably the most powerful single program in the country and a paragon of blue-blood. Yet that hasn't helped them make the CFP. E.g., last year Ohio State went 12-1 and won the B1G, and won the Rose Bowl, but were deemed not good enough for the CFP.

Bottom line is, if we were to make a list of say the 10 teams that were most deserving of the playoffs the past five years but were left out, all of them would be P5 teams, every single one.

The current CFP system is much harder on P5 than G5.

lol. I get it---when the facts dont support you--try to reframe the debate as a straw man argument. Its pretty obvious why you're forced to do that. The best a G5 can do is win all their games against the 66th best schedule in the land. Thats never going to be good enough. If you want to try to pass Bill Hancock propaganda off as reality, thats your business---but dont expect anyone with an IQ above the mid-two figure range to believe it. It is what it is. The current pinnacle of achievement or glass ceiling for a G5 is the access bowl under the current system. But hey--thats much better than it was just 2 decades ago.

As it is, MWC seems to be better than the PAC 12 and ACC. Yes, even Clemson is not impressive with their wins.

Now, back to the laws. The lawmakers are not considering the reprecussions these laws will do. The California law will only have only a handful of kids to make money off their names and likeness. 2nd, these kids could be easily get taken into doing something stupid that would break the laws. That means a lot of scandals and fraud going on. 3rd.Other athletes including non-revenue sports will sue because they can't make money. That includes P5 schools. 4th.Athletes at D2, D3, NAIA,USCAA, NCCAA and Juco will sue that they want to get paid as well. Many of the bills in other states target all schools from FBS all the way down to Juco. 5th.These laws could wind up killing sports at the smaller schools including many of the NAIA schools.

Now, NCAA needs to do rule changes or lets say Miami Florida could pay Edward Waters for a spring game for $100,000. That money could actually help Edward Waters for their athletics department. The smaller schools could use the cash if they could play D1 schools. It could help them if they have to pay to play laws. FCS, D2, D3 and NAIA do have kids get the national spotlight. Arkansas Tech had a QB that went on to play in The CFL. That was Tanner Marsh. Joe Flocco, Carson Wentz and other lower level QBs wound up being star QBs in the NFL.

(10-16-2019 09:52 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  A team who lost by 30 to Purdue is the biggest victim of this system.

Remember, I'm not saying Ohio State deserved to be in the playoffs, IMO, they didn't. But that just shows how high the bar for making them is.

But last year they were ranked #5 in the final pre-bowl computers, the highest-ranked team left out of the playoffs. Ditto for 2017.

So yes, they have been the biggest 'victim' of the system, if you think the system has victims, which I don't.

(10-16-2019 05:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 09:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Except ... the G5 isn't "excluded" from the playoff. There just as yet hasn't been a G5 team good enough to merit inclusion in the 4-team playoff as judged by the CFP committee, which is also true of about 57 of the 64 teams in the P5. Heck, North Dakota State would have a stronger case, as they actually are formally barred from the CFP playoffs.

I see zero chance the feds involve themselves in the structure of the CFP playoffs.

Everyone knows they are excluded. To say they are not is basically the equivalent of the Iraqi Press Secretary claims during the Gulf War that Saddam was winning. As for the feds, who knows? The purpose of lobbying is to get the feds involved. That said, I do think his point about a law suit from G5 athletes claiming anti competitive activity by the CFP adversely affects their endorsement earnings is the more likely of his two ideas to potentially gain some traction.

No coog you can get in, and i fact you had a legit **** at getting in a couple years back until your cougars choked it away. They would have been invited that year....

Do you have road blocks because the P5 won't give you the street-cred... yes, but you can still crash the party under the right circumstances.... and by not choking when you had the chance.

Yes, I agree, I think Houston would have made the CFP had they run the table that year.

Coog and others want a handout - they want a guaranteed path to the playoffs without having to earn it. They want a gilded path where you don't have to prove yourself against tough P5 competition. But it's better if you have to play and beat good teams to be worthy of the playoffs because this isn't the NBA or NHL or NFL, where 40% to 50% of the teams get in. It's just 4 out of 132.

Really, the team with the most to complain about the past few years hasn't been UCF, they obviously have been unworthy of the playoff. No, it's Ohio State, arguably the most powerful single program in the country and a paragon of blue-blood. Yet that hasn't helped them make the CFP. E.g., last year Ohio State went 12-1 and won the B1G, and won the Rose Bowl, but were deemed not good enough for the CFP.

Bottom line is, if we were to make a list of say the 10 teams that were most deserving of the playoffs the past five years but were left out, all of them would be P5 teams, every single one.

The current CFP system is much harder on P5 than G5.

lol. I get it---when the facts dont support you--try to reframe the debate as a straw man argument. Its pretty obvious why you're forced to do that. The best a G5 can do is win all their games against the 66th best schedule in the land. Thats never going to be good enough. If you want to try to pass Bill Hancock propaganda off as reality, thats your business---but dont expect anyone with an IQ above the mid-two figure range to believe it. It is what it is. The current pinnacle of achievement or glass ceiling for a G5 is the access bowl under the current system. But hey--thats much better than it was just 2 decades ago.

The facts DO support me and do NOT support you. UCF was not the most deserving team left out of the playoffs in either 2017 or 2018. That's not a biased human claim, that's what the computers say.

(10-17-2019 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 05:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 09:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Everyone knows they are excluded. To say they are not is basically the equivalent of the Iraqi Press Secretary claims during the Gulf War that Saddam was winning. As for the feds, who knows? The purpose of lobbying is to get the feds involved. That said, I do think his point about a law suit from G5 athletes claiming anti competitive activity by the CFP adversely affects their endorsement earnings is the more likely of his two ideas to potentially gain some traction.

No coog you can get in, and i fact you had a legit **** at getting in a couple years back until your cougars choked it away. They would have been invited that year....

Do you have road blocks because the P5 won't give you the street-cred... yes, but you can still crash the party under the right circumstances.... and by not choking when you had the chance.

Yes, I agree, I think Houston would have made the CFP had they run the table that year.

Coog and others want a handout - they want a guaranteed path to the playoffs without having to earn it. They want a gilded path where you don't have to prove yourself against tough P5 competition. But it's better if you have to play and beat good teams to be worthy of the playoffs because this isn't the NBA or NHL or NFL, where 40% to 50% of the teams get in. It's just 4 out of 132.

Really, the team with the most to complain about the past few years hasn't been UCF, they obviously have been unworthy of the playoff. No, it's Ohio State, arguably the most powerful single program in the country and a paragon of blue-blood. Yet that hasn't helped them make the CFP. E.g., last year Ohio State went 12-1 and won the B1G, and won the Rose Bowl, but were deemed not good enough for the CFP.

Bottom line is, if we were to make a list of say the 10 teams that were most deserving of the playoffs the past five years but were left out, all of them would be P5 teams, every single one.

The current CFP system is much harder on P5 than G5.

lol. I get it---when the facts dont support you--try to reframe the debate as a straw man argument. Its pretty obvious why you're forced to do that. The best a G5 can do is win all their games against the 66th best schedule in the land. Thats never going to be good enough. If you want to try to pass Bill Hancock propaganda off as reality, thats your business---but dont expect anyone with an IQ above the mid-two figure range to believe it. It is what it is. The current pinnacle of achievement or glass ceiling for a G5 is the access bowl under the current system. But hey--thats much better than it was just 2 decades ago.

The facts DO support me and do NOT support you. UCF was not the most deserving team left out of the playoffs in either 2017 or 2018. That's not a biased human claim, that's what the computers say.

lol...another swing and miss----But thank you for making my case for me. You are arguing that a G5 CAN get in while simultaneously arguing that undefeated G5 teams dont deserve to get in because their schedules are too weak. Make up your mind....

On the other hand---Im actually agreeing with your point to a degree. Im saying a G5 can never get in because, with at least 9 G5 teams on their 13 game schedule, they will always have too weak a schedule to make it in. The way the current system is being judged---with SOS as the primary screen, there is no way a G5 will ever have a final schedule SOS much above #66. A #66 SOS will always be framed as too weak a schedule when it comes to the final CFP "in or out" decision by a committee stacked with P5 representation. Like I said, it is what it is---there is no path for a G5 into the playoff as it is currently configured and judged.

(10-17-2019 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 05:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 09:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Everyone knows they are excluded. To say they are not is basically the equivalent of the Iraqi Press Secretary claims during the Gulf War that Saddam was winning. As for the feds, who knows? The purpose of lobbying is to get the feds involved. That said, I do think his point about a law suit from G5 athletes claiming anti competitive activity by the CFP adversely affects their endorsement earnings is the more likely of his two ideas to potentially gain some traction.

No coog you can get in, and i fact you had a legit **** at getting in a couple years back until your cougars choked it away. They would have been invited that year....

Do you have road blocks because the P5 won't give you the street-cred... yes, but you can still crash the party under the right circumstances.... and by not choking when you had the chance.

Yes, I agree, I think Houston would have made the CFP had they run the table that year.

Coog and others want a handout - they want a guaranteed path to the playoffs without having to earn it. They want a gilded path where you don't have to prove yourself against tough P5 competition. But it's better if you have to play and beat good teams to be worthy of the playoffs because this isn't the NBA or NHL or NFL, where 40% to 50% of the teams get in. It's just 4 out of 132.

Really, the team with the most to complain about the past few years hasn't been UCF, they obviously have been unworthy of the playoff. No, it's Ohio State, arguably the most powerful single program in the country and a paragon of blue-blood. Yet that hasn't helped them make the CFP. E.g., last year Ohio State went 12-1 and won the B1G, and won the Rose Bowl, but were deemed not good enough for the CFP.

Bottom line is, if we were to make a list of say the 10 teams that were most deserving of the playoffs the past five years but were left out, all of them would be P5 teams, every single one.

The current CFP system is much harder on P5 than G5.

lol. I get it---when the facts dont support you--try to reframe the debate as a straw man argument. Its pretty obvious why you're forced to do that. The best a G5 can do is win all their games against the 66th best schedule in the land. Thats never going to be good enough. If you want to try to pass Bill Hancock propaganda off as reality, thats your business---but dont expect anyone with an IQ above the mid-two figure range to believe it. It is what it is. The current pinnacle of achievement or glass ceiling for a G5 is the access bowl under the current system. But hey--thats much better than it was just 2 decades ago.

The facts DO support me and do NOT support you. UCF was not the most deserving team left out of the playoffs in either 2017 or 2018. That's not a biased human claim, that's what the computers say.

PRWolfe had his computer ranking, and UCF was his number 1 team that was left out of the 2017 playoffs. UCF was ranked number 1 after the bowl games were over, and UCF claimed themselves as NC.

(10-17-2019 05:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 05:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  No coog you can get in, and i fact you had a legit **** at getting in a couple years back until your cougars choked it away. They would have been invited that year....

Do you have road blocks because the P5 won't give you the street-cred... yes, but you can still crash the party under the right circumstances.... and by not choking when you had the chance.

Yes, I agree, I think Houston would have made the CFP had they run the table that year.

Coog and others want a handout - they want a guaranteed path to the playoffs without having to earn it. They want a gilded path where you don't have to prove yourself against tough P5 competition. But it's better if you have to play and beat good teams to be worthy of the playoffs because this isn't the NBA or NHL or NFL, where 40% to 50% of the teams get in. It's just 4 out of 132.

Really, the team with the most to complain about the past few years hasn't been UCF, they obviously have been unworthy of the playoff. No, it's Ohio State, arguably the most powerful single program in the country and a paragon of blue-blood. Yet that hasn't helped them make the CFP. E.g., last year Ohio State went 12-1 and won the B1G, and won the Rose Bowl, but were deemed not good enough for the CFP.

Bottom line is, if we were to make a list of say the 10 teams that were most deserving of the playoffs the past five years but were left out, all of them would be P5 teams, every single one.

The current CFP system is much harder on P5 than G5.

lol. I get it---when the facts dont support you--try to reframe the debate as a straw man argument. Its pretty obvious why you're forced to do that. The best a G5 can do is win all their games against the 66th best schedule in the land. Thats never going to be good enough. If you want to try to pass Bill Hancock propaganda off as reality, thats your business---but dont expect anyone with an IQ above the mid-two figure range to believe it. It is what it is. The current pinnacle of achievement or glass ceiling for a G5 is the access bowl under the current system. But hey--thats much better than it was just 2 decades ago.

The facts DO support me and do NOT support you. UCF was not the most deserving team left out of the playoffs in either 2017 or 2018. That's not a biased human claim, that's what the computers say.

PRWolfe had his computer ranking, and UCF was his number 1 team that was left out of the 2017 playoffs. UCF was ranked number 1 after the bowl games were over, and UCF claimed themselves as NC.

We all know about UCF's bogus national title claim, LOL. In any event, I think it was the Colley-Matrix computer that had UCF #1. That's the same computer that said Alabama was #1 in 2016 (despite losing to Clemson in the title game), and Notre Dame #1 in 2012 (despite losing to Alabama in the title game).

Not all computers are smart, LOL. That's why we look at a bunch of them.

(10-17-2019 02:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 05:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  No coog you can get in, and i fact you had a legit **** at getting in a couple years back until your cougars choked it away. They would have been invited that year....

Do you have road blocks because the P5 won't give you the street-cred... yes, but you can still crash the party under the right circumstances.... and by not choking when you had the chance.

Yes, I agree, I think Houston would have made the CFP had they run the table that year.

Coog and others want a handout - they want a guaranteed path to the playoffs without having to earn it. They want a gilded path where you don't have to prove yourself against tough P5 competition. But it's better if you have to play and beat good teams to be worthy of the playoffs because this isn't the NBA or NHL or NFL, where 40% to 50% of the teams get in. It's just 4 out of 132.

Really, the team with the most to complain about the past few years hasn't been UCF, they obviously have been unworthy of the playoff. No, it's Ohio State, arguably the most powerful single program in the country and a paragon of blue-blood. Yet that hasn't helped them make the CFP. E.g., last year Ohio State went 12-1 and won the B1G, and won the Rose Bowl, but were deemed not good enough for the CFP.

Bottom line is, if we were to make a list of say the 10 teams that were most deserving of the playoffs the past five years but were left out, all of them would be P5 teams, every single one.

The current CFP system is much harder on P5 than G5.

lol. I get it---when the facts dont support you--try to reframe the debate as a straw man argument. Its pretty obvious why you're forced to do that. The best a G5 can do is win all their games against the 66th best schedule in the land. Thats never going to be good enough. If you want to try to pass Bill Hancock propaganda off as reality, thats your business---but dont expect anyone with an IQ above the mid-two figure range to believe it. It is what it is. The current pinnacle of achievement or glass ceiling for a G5 is the access bowl under the current system. But hey--thats much better than it was just 2 decades ago.

The facts DO support me and do NOT support you. UCF was not the most deserving team left out of the playoffs in either 2017 or 2018. That's not a biased human claim, that's what the computers say.

lol...another swing and miss----But thank you for making my case for me. You are arguing that a G5 CAN get in while simultaneously arguing that undefeated G5 teams dont deserve to get in because their schedules are too weak. Make up your mind....

On the other hand---Im actually agreeing with your point to a degree. Im saying a G5 can never get in because, with at least 9 G5 teams on their 13 game schedule, they will always have too weak a schedule to make it in. The way the current system is being judged---with SOS as the primary screen, there is no way a G5 will ever have a final schedule SOS much above #66. A #66 SOS will always be framed as too weak a schedule when it comes to the final CFP "in or out" decision by a committee stacked with P5 representation. Like I said, it is what it is---there is no path for a G5 into the playoff as it is currently configured and judged.

Nope, as usual, I knocked it out of your park. I never said that any and all undefeated G5 do not deserve to make the playoffs. I've only said that UCF in 2017 and 2018 didn't deserve to get in. Other unbeaten G5 in other years, past or future, might deserve to get in. We would have to look at those teams in those years.

And, I've already addressed the issue of the overall SOS rating. The problem that G5 contenders face isn't overall SOS, it's that they have not faced the top-flight teams that would show you are worthy of competing with the best.

E.g., if we look at the schedules this year of teams like UCF and TCU, the difference isn't that UCF has played lousy teams, because TCU will have played lousy teams too. It's not that TCU has played pretty good teams, teams ranked between say 20 and 50, because UCF will have played pretty good teams too. The difference is, TCU will play Oklahoma, a top 10 team that is a contender for the playoffs, and also a Texas, a likely top 15 team, as well. Whereas UCF will not.

That's the difference that can keep a UCF out, not "overall" SOS. The committee wants to see results vs top teams.

That's why UCF has, IMO, made a mistake in their scheduling. They insist on their 1 for 1 policy, and that means they can't attract premier P5 teams, teams in contention for NY6 or playoffs. Other AAC teams have done so this year - USF played Wisconsin, Houston played Oklahoma, and Cincy played Ohio State, and Navy plays Notre Dame. If you play and win those games, then you have something to show the committee.

That's why i think Houston would have made the playoffs a few years back when they played Oklahoma and Louisville. OK was the Big 12 champ, and Louisville was a top-15 team with the Heisman winner. Win those, and I don't think it matters that your overall SOS is still in the 60s or 70s.

But you have to schedule those teams.

(10-17-2019 11:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 09:52 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  A team who lost by 30 to Purdue is the biggest victim of this system.

Remember, I'm not saying Ohio State deserved to be in the playoffs, IMO, they didn't. But that just shows how high the bar for making them is.

But last year they were ranked #5 in the final pre-bowl computers, the highest-ranked team left out of the playoffs. Ditto for 2017.

So yes, they have been the biggest 'victim' of the system, if you think the system has victims, which I don't.

Personally, they should have been #5 or #6 in 2014 and not gotten in, so they have benefitted too-with a title. TCU IMO was the best team that year and didn't get to play.

(10-04-2019 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:46 AM)Renandpat Wrote:  The tone-deafness served with a side of arrogance.

Yes, as "Sierra" said, if the "college model" is amateur, how on earth does Mark Emmert have a job with a $2.5m annual salary? Why isn't he a volunteer, like a dad who coaches a town little league team?

The model he refers to is fully professional for the schools, amateur only for the players.

More arrogance from his Highness below. This was extended privately, it seems, but brought to light:

Emmert's handsome salary + a college athlete's inability to monetize his or her YouTube is a "value", apparently.

Both Bilas and a member of The Drake Group participated in a discussion on NIL rights held in Washington yesterday, which the NCAA (Emmert) declined to participate in. For those it may interest, that discussion can be seen here:

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1ZkJzApPQQdGv?t=34

I just called Jay Bilas as the class idiot. We do students not in athletics have to pay for activity fees to go into the scholarships, free education, free room and board and spending money while students pay high fees to be in debt for a long time? This is not the pros. If the kids want to earn money out of high school? Turn pro. Colleges and universities are there for them to get educated, not to make money. We do not need to pay over grown crybaby athletes when they already get free stuff.

(10-17-2019 07:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 11:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 09:52 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  A team who lost by 30 to Purdue is the biggest victim of this system.

Remember, I'm not saying Ohio State deserved to be in the playoffs, IMO, they didn't. But that just shows how high the bar for making them is.

But last year they were ranked #5 in the final pre-bowl computers, the highest-ranked team left out of the playoffs. Ditto for 2017.

So yes, they have been the biggest 'victim' of the system, if you think the system has victims, which I don't.

Personally, they should have been #5 or #6 in 2014 and not gotten in, so they have benefitted too-with a title. TCU IMO was the best team that year and didn't get to play.

Personally, I think Ohio State did belong in the playoffs, but I also think TCU did as well. The team that got in that didn't belong was FSU, who played an extremely soft schedule that year and needed miracles to win several games.

Problem was, even though FSU did not belong, they absolutely HAD to be in the playoffs. They were the defending national champs, and they were the only P5 team that had gone undefeated, and they had the Heisman winner in Jameis Winston. Had they not made the playoffs but won their bowl game, there would have been a real split national championship that would have undermined the CFP right out of the gate. Someone had to beat FSU on the field or the season could not have been complete.

So somebody who deserved to be in had to go. I know it's a fallacy to look at post-season results to justify admission to the post-season, but since we're speculating, I don't think TCU would have beaten *either* Alabama or Oregon, the two teams everyone agreed belonged in the playoffs, much less both, like Ohio State did. TCU didn't even win their conference, and lost to the best team they played, Baylor, who themselves were not as good as either Oregon or Alabama.