(07-24-2013 10:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 09:47 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 09:35 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  All about the playoff.

P5 want all their champs plus 3 AL.

Do not want a NCAA tournament where their teams are sitting at home because 6-6 FIU won the freaking SunBelt and so feels entitled to a playoff spot.

The eighth seeded LA Kings in the NHL won the Stanley Cup a year back losing just a few games in the playoffs, beating very good teams en route. Are they undeserving of the Cup that they won? Should they have been kicked out of the NHL prior to 2012 as they had not won the Stanley Cup in their whole existence before then?

The pro argument is irrelevant. Pro teams are all franchises of the same league. Complete apples and oranges to a private club like the NCAA made up of individual members who have no obligation to make room for every new team that wants to be associated with them and have a cut of their money and exposure.

Not to mention he conveniently picked out the exception and not the norm. Anybody can comb through and find examples to support their point of view if they look hard enough.

The reason that Alabama, Texas, and other power programs still schedule teams in FCS or lower tier FBS is the exact criteria for selecting playoff participants has not been laid out or gone through a few years of test runs. Until then, it must be assumed that the committee will not be all that different than the current polls, which places arbitrary value on record rather than strength of schedule. Until that happens, everyone knows that a two loss team, even if the schedule is full of top 25 opponents, is not getting in over a P5 undefeated conference champion even if they only play a few top 25 opponents. The proof is in the pudding, and they need to see the committee in action before drastically altering their scheduling strategies.

(07-25-2013 09:14 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  The reason that Alabama, Texas, and other power programs still schedule teams in FCS or lower tier FBS is the exact criteria for selecting playoff participants has not been laid out or gone through a few years of test runs. Until then, it must be assumed that the committee will not be all that different than the current polls, which places arbitrary value on record rather than strength of schedule. Until that happens, everyone knows that a two loss team, even if the schedule is full of top 25 opponents, is not getting in over a P5 undefeated conference champion even if they only play a few top 25 opponents. The proof is in the pudding, and they need to see the committee in action before drastically altering their scheduling strategies.

This is exactly right!

(07-24-2013 02:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...aa-reforms

Quote:"I want to see the best teams play," Brown said. "I think it's best for fans, best for coaches and best for players. I want to see us have to play good teams to be the best team."

Brown said the five conferences would make enough money from the future playoff -- published reports indicated ESPN paid $5.64 billion or $470 million annually in a 12-year deal that runs through the 2025 regular season -- to finance the lower leagues.

"My thought would be to take the group of teams that has it all and let them play it out," Brown said. "You have the NFL of college football. You'll make enough money out of it to make the next group. You can make it really exciting and fun for them, but let them play within their own element. Let them play at their own level. Don't try to make something out of something you don't have. Then you'll have the last group and you can make it a great little league. They can enjoy it.

"We're going to make enough money that we can pay for all of it," Brown said. "[You'll have] the Super Bowl league and then a really good league that has teams that are fun and then the guys that can't afford it. It's kind of what we've done, but we've been BCS and non-BCS and money and no money. I do think this time we need to get it right. We didn't get it right last time."

This article is so incredibly condescending. It's like finger nails on the chalk board.

Mack needs to worry about beating Oklahoma and getting our team back on track.