(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.