(04-15-2020 01:01 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I think there are two forces at work here.

JRsec points out a truth. We rarely have more than 3 schools truly vying for #1. So it's hard to justify on performance another 4 schools.

The other side of this is P5 conferences feel the damage to their stature and reputation when they don't have a team in the Playoff. Three of the five have failed to have a team, and it's not hard to see the ACC missing if Clemson has a down year.

There is also history on the side of expanding the playoffs. Part of the reason top 50 prospects are concentrating on just 5 or 6 programs (really 3 in Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State) is the playoffs limited access. This is getting us back to the days of the cartel where we had all the top schools in a single TV contract and only USC, Alabama, Texas, Penn State and Ohio State where on TV all the time, so top prospects all went to those schools. John Madden once commented in the draft when he didn't like the players on the board, "there are better athletes walking around the USC campus than these guys." So the Raiders called John Robinson and he gave them the name of a guy whom the Raiders then drafted in the 12th round who became an All Pro (name escapes me).

Opening up the playoffs to 8 will almost certainly see the top prospects widen their choice of campuses, just as the individual conference TV contracts spread out prospects. This will make more teams competitive. Restricting access is making fewer teams elite as the prospects narrow their choices. Remember top prospects only stay 2½ years, with the first just learning the ropes, before going to the NFL; so their window is short, and they choose according to who is hot now. So 8 teams would almost certainly mean instead of 5 teams really seriously vying for the national title, you could see 10 to 15 making a push. The mentality of teams in that 2nd tier will change toward "going for it" instead of being solid next tier.

The first few years would lead to blow outs. But you'll get the upset here and there that will liven things up and change the minds of prospects to choose more schools.

I find this uncompelling due to 1 simple fact, the top 15 stay roughly the same year in and year out. To accomplish a degree of parity by expanding the number of schools that can claim to compete with an 8 team playoff you are still soundly within that top 15. To have parity you would need to expand beyond 16 schools in a the playoff and really would need at least 32 to achieve it.

I find that for purposes of "parity" expansion of the playoffs is patently not the way to accomplish it.

If parity is what you are looking for then you need to shrink the FBS down to about 80 schools, limit scholarships further, cap any compensation, cap facilities investment, cap coaching investment, cap the salary payable tot he whole staff, and introduce a new "communist" version of NCAA football. Truly parity can only be achieved through economics. But again none of the forces that drive ratings in college football will go for this, none of them! And even more importantly neither would the networks because they like having a dozen or so brands with national draw and ancient and large alumni bases.

(04-15-2020 11:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The argument that a "top 8" ranking is somehow more rational and "fair" than a system with P5 auto-bids has never made sense to me. A bunch of old guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas determining the participants in the College Football Playoff as opposed to objective on-the-field accomplishments simply isn't more rational. These people are playing ON-THE-FIELD GAMES WITH OBJECTIVE WINS AND LOSSES. The need for the equivalent of Russian figure skating judges to determine 100% of the playoff field is unnecessary outside of the need to be wedded to outdated traditions.

The reason i support S8 is because, despite the obvious dangers of subjective decision making, in practice, which is what counts, the decision makers make ... really good decisions. They've done that extremely well with the CFP. Basically, the 24 teams that they have selected over 6 years are the 24 teams that just about everyone would have selected.

In contrast, the ON THE FIELD argument for 5-1-2 doesn't resonate, because as explained, conference champs are produced by very flawed methods. First, a good 1/3 of all games played ON THE FIELD, the OOC games, don't count. They are ignored for producing conference champs. The NFL doesn't do that. But college has to. We've gone over this before. Other flaws include no home and home, no playing all the teams in your conference. All kinds of flaws. That basically means a conference champ has no moral/valid ON THE FIELD claim to a bid.

And what really baffles me is the "fan appeal" argument. This is based on the notion that there is a Great Untapped NFL-Like Reservoir Of Fan Interest that could be unlocked if late in the season all the 6-3 Mississippi State-type teams across the land are somehow still alive for their conference division title, and hence still alive for the SEC title, and thus for the National Title under a 5-1-2 system.

But there's no evidence for that. College football is extremely popular, significantly more popular than college basketball (itself very popular), even though in college football probably half the teams are eliminated from national title contention two weeks into the season, and about 90% are by the first of October, whereas in basketball, 99% of all teams are technically alive for the national title right up until a few days before Selection Sunday.

Also relevant in a fan-interest sense is the kinds of matchups that systems would produce. Judging by the CFP, I think S8 is better, sspecially compared to what 5-1-2 would produce. Let's take one year for example, 2015. Using the CFP results, Straight 8 would get us:

Alabama (SEC champ)
Clemson (ACC champ)
Michigan State (B1G champ)
Oklahoma (Big 12 champ)
Iowa (B1G runnerup)
Stanford (PAC champ)
Ohio State (B1G runner up)
Notre Dame (10-2 Indy)

Here's what 5-1-2 produces:

Alabama
Clemson
Michigan State
Oklahoma
Stanford
Iowa
Ohio State
Houston

What's the only difference? Not P5 champs, they all get in both ways. Not top runner-ups, the same two, both from the B1G, get in as well. The only difference is that Notre Dame makes it under S8, whereas under 5-1-2 #18 Houston gets in. Does anyone really want Houston in the playoffs instead of Notre Dame? Nobody wants that. Everyone would rather see a Notre Dame vs Alabama quarterfinal than Alabama vs Houston.

Or look at 2016. That year, these teams all get in under both systems:

Alabama
Clemson
Washington
Oklahoma
Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan

The difference? Instead of #8 USC, we get #15 Western Michigan. Does anyone want to see that? Nobody does. Everyone would rather see Alabama vs USC than Alabama vs Western Michigan.

Basically, the difference between 5-1-2 and S8 isn't in P5 conference champs - in S8 you almost always get all the conference champs in. It's that you are substituting a #17 Memphis for a #8 Wisconsin, as in this past year.

Nobody but the fans of those G5 schools wants to see that. TV ratings would be way down for that game.

All of that said, while I am against P5 champ auto-bids in principle, a system with that requirement would produce basically the same playoffs as the S8 - P5 champs get in all the time under P5 autobids and about 97% of the time under S8. So a 5-3 system would basically be identical to S8. It's just conceptually worse, and also has negative legal ramifications that S8 doesn't have.

An S8 model no doubt would be an improvement over what we have currently. More bowls (NY8) and more revenue.

Put a provision in for any Top 20 G5 champs receiving a CFP bowl, not just the top and that is a solid improvement too.

Quo, you keep bringing up the NFL playoff process, which is highly flawed. The out of division games may matter, but a losing team can still get in the playoffs because they have the best record in a stinker of a division. That won’t happen in a 5-3, which is what I advocate. OOC games would be extremely important for the wildcard decisions.

JR, you keep pimping some 4 super conference scenario that’s been talked about for 30 years. Well, let’s be frank about it, you’re actually talking about 8 normal sized conferences. At that point it doesn’t matter what the name of the conference is anymore, because all the history and tradition is lost to the annals of time. Another potential issue is anti-trust accusations because a group of states won’t be represented. State funded institutions essentially blackballing other states. Good luck with that headache.

JRsec,

You look at today but don't game it out.

the P12 is not getting anyone in, so California recruits in the top 10 leave the conference. Only Ohio State, Oklahoma and Clemson can get in from their conferences, with Texas always a hope, but the likes of FSU, Baylor, Wisconsin etc are just outside hopes.

If you have 8 it means a P12 school will get in, so at least one will rise to the Clemson, Oklahoma level. 2 at-large means several 2nd place schools will be in the running (3rd in the SEC), so they too will see more recruits. Penn State is the most likely in the B1G, a 2nd in the B12 is likely (closer than other conferences). The ACC might actually see a couple schools try rather than cede the only spot to Clemson.

The dynamic changes. And that will change recruit direction. The most immediate impact will be in California. This you are not accounting for.

In the SEC the change will be the least, Alabama will still dominate, although Saban's inevitable retirement now looming, we might see Ed Orgeron become the new king. But effectively no change. The 2nd and 3rd schools will still be deep. Where the change will be greater is the P12 and the 2nd teams in the B12 and ACC.

(04-15-2020 07:48 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  JRsec,

You look at today but don't game it out.

the P12 is not getting anyone in, so California recruits in the top 10 leave the conference. Only Ohio State, Oklahoma and Clemson can get in from their conferences, with Texas always a hope, but the likes of FSU, Baylor, Wisconsin etc are just outside hopes.

If you have 8 it means a P12 school will get in, so at least one will rise to the Clemson, Oklahoma level. 2 at-large means several 2nd place schools will be in the running (3rd in the SEC), so they too will see more recruits. Penn State is the most likely in the B1G, a 2nd in the B12 is likely (closer than other conferences). The ACC might actually see a couple schools try rather than cede the only spot to Clemson.

The dynamic changes. And that will change recruit direction. The most immediate impact will be in California. This you are not accounting for.

In the SEC the change will be the least, Alabama will still dominate, although Saban's inevitable retirement now looming, we might see Ed Orgeron become the new king. But effectively no change. The 2nd and 3rd schools will still be deep. Where the change will be greater is the P12 and the 2nd teams in the B12 and ACC.

Stu I agree that it would help within the upper echelon of the P5. What I'm not agreeing with is that it would elevate G5's, or the bottom 1/3rd of the P5 So yeah it might help the top 40 of the P5 get included a bit more which would help their recruiting a little bit. With four more slots a #35 school could creep into the eight from time to time which is more hope than they really have now. But the frequency with which the top 20 don't get a school into those 8 slots won't change that much. The vast majority will still come from the top 15 earners and winners just like now, but instead of having 1 which gets blown out we'll have 4 blowouts the first week and probably still another the 2nd week. Top programs are top programs because they win, they have tremendous revenue, and they have established a gravitas for recruits.

Here are your schools most likely to make an 8 team playoff on any given year:

Winningest Programs:
1. Michigan
2. Ohio State
3. Alabama
4. Texas
5. Notre Dame
6. Oklahoma
7. Nebraska
8. Penn State
9. Southern Cal
10. Tennessee
11. Georgia
12. L.S.U.
13. Auburn
14. Clemson
15. West Virginia
16. Virginia Tech
17. Texas A&M
18. Washington
19. Georgia Tech
20. Florida

Revenue Leaders:
1. Texas
2. Ohio State
3. Florida State
4. Michigan
5. Georgia
6. Notre Dame
7. Alabama
8. Penn State
9. Texas A&M
10. Oklahoma
11. L.S.U.
12. Auburn
13. Wisconsin
14. Louisville
15. Iowa
16. Florida
17. Kentucky
18. South Carolina
19. Arkansas
20. Tennessee

Attendance:
1. Michigan
2. Penn State
3. Ohio State
4. Alabama
5. L.S.U.
6, Texas A&M
7. Texas
8. Tennessee
9. Georgia
10. Nebraska
11. Oklahoma
12. Auburn
13. Florida
14. Clemson
15. Notre Dame
16. Wisconsin
17. South Carolina
18. Michigan State
19. Washington
20. Florida State

Now let's take a look at how many make all 3 lists:

1. Michigan
2. Ohio State
3. Alabama
4. Texas
5. Notre Dame
6. Penn State
7. Georgia
8. L.S.U.
9. Oklahoma
10. Auburn
11. Tennessee
12. Florida
13. Texas A&M

Those in 2 of the 3 categories:
1. Clemson
2. Nebraska
3. Wisconsin
4. Southern Cal
5. Washington
6. South Carolina
7. Florida State

Those in only 1 of the 3 categories:
1. Louisville
2. Iowa
3. Virginia Tech
4. Arkansas
5. Michigan State
6. Georgia Tech
7. Kentucky

So if you look at the National Championships won since the beginning of the BCS era you find the vast majority of them in the group that occupy all 3 top 20's.
You will find National Championships in some quantity among those who occupy two of those top 20's. Clemson has won multiples but is not yet earning what they should. Florida State has won multiples and their tardy start to serious football is the only reason they aren't in all 3 Top 20's. Nebraska and Southern Cal are slipping in their Championship runs. So in the second group you have a couple climbing in prominence and two sliding from it. The most recent Championship in football from the third group is Georgia Tech and that was in 1990 thirty years ago.

I think Oregon is the only school not in any of the 3 top 20's which has made the CFP.

So Stu, moving to a playoff of 8 schools isn't going to change the landscape of college football. These schools are in the playoffs because they earn a helluva lot more revenue than the rest. They have winning at high levels for a long long time. And their attendance is a portent of the donations to the scholarship fund. So being in the playoffs is a symptom of these 3 factors and a few others. Putting a school in the playoffs is the result of these 3. Oregon made the playoffs. Where the hell are they now? Magically being put into the playoffs will not change the fortunes of these schools. Revenue, wide fan support, and a history of winning will. But that takes a long time to acquire.

I used to like a 16 team tournament. Year by year since the early 90s, I kept track of what it would look like. Now in my version the top 8 conferences got autobids (until the last few years, the top 8 were obvious and there was a big gap-late 90s Big West and MAC were 9 and 10-and the NCAA structure recognized them as "lesser" members). But recently, I've decided those last few wildcards didn't add anything. They often had 3 losses and occasionally 4. And the Big West/Sun Belt and MAC champs and post-split WAC champs really had no business on the field except in those occasions where they qualified as one of the 8 wildcards (Marshall, Miami, Boise, etc.). We've also gone from 11 games to 12 games with every conference having a ccg, so 4 playoff games adds a bigger burden.

I think the max that makes sense is 11. P5 get automatically in the quarterfinals and would play a max of 16 games. 3-4 wildcards and 2-3 "other" champs have play-in games in December to go to the quarters. The G5 champs could theoretically play 17 as could a wildcard who lost a ccg, but the odds are against those teams getting to the finals. While you don't get all champs, you get all but 2 or 3 and you don't get a significantly watered down field either.

(04-15-2020 12:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 11:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 10:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 10:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 10:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well we all know THAT. We know the conferences can do whatever they want with a playoff. Misses the point by a mile.

Does it though? The reason this discussion goes on forever is that we're arguing towards different goals.

If you're arguing what probably WILL happen, it's either 5-3 or 5-2-1, depending on the political balance between the G5's ability to stir the pot and yell and scream and the SEC's desire to get 3 playoff teams as often as possible.

If you're arguing what SHOULD happen, then that's a different argument, with numerous sub-arguments. Should the selection system aim at an imagined ideal of objective selection (straight 8, possibly by computer formula), or at a selection that will be as widely accepted as possible (P5 autobids, G5 autobid and then argue how to pick the 2 at-larges and the G5 representative).

A huge item that you consistently ignore, Quo, is that this is sports, and especially college sports. Disinterested decision making is quite rare. Motivated reasoning is the coin of the realm. Which is why I put a large premium on things that can't really be argued with. (ANYTHING that can concievably be tortured into an argument about how We Wuz Robbed will be.)

Conference championships--hard to argue with those. You can argue that the Big 14 "shoulda" revised their tiebreakers to favor your favorite, but it's very very hard to argue about who Commissioner Foghorn Leghorn actually did hand the trophy to.

With two at-larges out of 8, the "First Team Out" doesn't really have a lot to say. First of all, they didn't win their conference. Too bad, so sad. And on top of that, there are plausbile reasons that two other at-larges got picked over them, whether by a committee of Good Ole Coach Meathead and his buddies or by the polls or by the computers. They had a shot, and they blew it. Maybe a perfect ranking system would rank them #5, or maybe not, but it doesn't matter, there is no perfect ranking system anyway.

If you are arguing that conference titles are irrational and imperfect, the various ranking systems are vastly more irrational and imperfect.

Yes, exactly.

The argument that a "top 8" ranking is somehow more rational and "fair" than a system with P5 auto-bids has never made sense to me. A bunch of old guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas determining the participants in the College Football Playoff as opposed to objective on-the-field accomplishments simply isn't more rational. These people are playing ON-THE-FIELD GAMES WITH OBJECTIVE WINS AND LOSSES. The need for the equivalent of Russian figure skating judges to determine 100% of the playoff field is unnecessary outside of the need to be wedded to outdated traditions.

At the same time, what ultimately drives interest for fans more than anything else is the belief/hope/wish/dream that *your* team (whoever that might be) has a *chance* to make it to the playoffs. Sure, there are people (like many on this board) that just love big college football games at a national level and they care about preserving the importance of such games more than providing increased opportunities for a greater number of schools... but that's going to inherently going to cap interest. We see it other sports where if *your* team is in the playoff hunt, then you become much more interested in other national games, as well.

Whether any of those teams actually make the playoff under a system with auto-bids more often compared to one without auto-bids is NOT the point. This is what the straight ranking proponents don't seem to understand (or don't want to understand). It's about that larger critical mass of teams that still have a *mathematical chance* playing legitimately meaningful games in late-October and into November that leverages a playoff system into driving much wider interest in the regular season.

The NFL does this beautifully and that's a huge reason why it crushes the ratings of everything else on television. Its playoff field is just large enough where every team enters the season believing that it has a chance if things break their way, the number of games is small enough where every week is meaningful, and yet most teams are still mathematically in the playoff race late into the season. College football is very well set up to do the exact same thing with an 8-team playoff with P5 auto-bids.

Who actually makes the playoff is honestly beside the point. The bigger impact is about the 30-plus other teams that didn't make the playoff but were still playing high stakes games as a part of the playoff race late into the season. There's a HUGE difference between mathematical qualification for the playoffs (where a fan can objectively say, "If we win Games 1 and 2 and they lose Game 3, then we WILL be in the playoff 100% guaranteed") versus the committee-based qualification based on subjective measures like the eye test, the perception of their strength of schedule, etc. More fan interest in their *own* teams drives more fan interest in other playoff-relevant games and then drives more fan interest in the playoffs overall. It's a win-win-win situation.

I think a lot of college football fans have some sort of Stockholm Syndrome in actually thinking such subjective rankings are a positive thing due to tradition and that's what we all grew up with. Meanwhile, every other major sport, whether college or pro, has pretty intentionally not gone anywhere near a college football-like system to determine a champion because everyone else acknowledges that it's batsh*t crazy to not have at least *some* of the field get in based on 100% on-the-field accomplishment that can't be taken away without needing to be vetted by a bunch of old guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas. In college football, we seem to have this notion that clinching an automatic bid is some type of radical idea, whereas the rest of the world just sees it as common sense (and yes, the rest of the world can be right).

Plus, pretty much everyone here acknowledges that even if there are auto-bids, there would still be wild card slots for those subjective eye test teams, too. That's a heck of a lot more of a balanced viewpoint than an all-or-nothing "there must be all conference champs" or "there can't be *any* auto-bids" approach and it addresses multiple needs.

So you are a divide the baby kind of guy who wants to allow for some smoke filled room decisions and have some things decided on the field. While you are certainly entitled to your opinions the fact remains we seldom have 3 teams capable of hanging with the leaders let alone 8. The upper echelon of college football is much smaller than that of the NFL. And while extra playoff spots keep fans energized, the college players aren't getting paid for the risk, at least not yet.

When that changes the justification for expansion of the playoffs might be there from a business model. But until then adding risk to unrewarded just doesn't fly with me and we will still only have in most years 2 or maybe 3 teams deserving of a chance to win it on the field. So 4 is as high as we need to go until there are changes that compensate the risk, and if we can consolidate to 4 P conferences then letting the champions play it off is as good as it gets. No smoke filled rooms and deciding all of it on the field.

But there are years like 2014, 2008, and 2006, where you have more than 4. Its more important that deserving teams don't get left out than that non-deserving teams get in. You want to ask 2014 Baylor and TCU whether they would rather be in and play 3 playoff games? Or 2008 Texas/USC/Penn St./Utah/Alabama? Or half the country in 2006?

I’d like to make some valid points about 5-1-2:

It gives lots of teams playoff hopes deep into the season.

You can be an independent and still get in

You can be a G5 and still have a shot at a Cinderella run

As long as you have a shot at winning your division you still have a shot

OOC matters, both for seeding and for those two coveted at-large spots

Giving a spot to all the P5s means the playoff are going to draw eyeballs all over the country

The best teams are going to get a shot

If the 1 seed is as good as they look, they ought to be able to cruise through the G5 rep in the first round

The CCGs are going to be more interesting and more valuable because someone is guaranteed to be punching their ticket to the playoff

If quirky division standings cost a great team a chance to win the CCG they still have the at-large spots; if you aren’t in the top 2 of the non conference champs you don’t deserve to be national champs

While I agree with JrSEC that the top will remain the same, I think the BCS and the big P5 TV contracts have showed some narrowing within the P5 and that 8 would further the narrowing. Just using some numbers I have handy, over the last 35 years 17 teams have won the AP MNC and 3 others (Oregon, Washington, Georgia) have also been regularly at the top. So that is a group of 20, all of whom have at least 2 top 3 and at least 4 top 5 finishes. Only one school outside that group has 2 top 3 and nobody else has more than 2 top 5 finishes.

For the first 13 years those 20 also had all but one 2nd place finish, only Georgia Tech in 1990 being the exception. Since then there have been 3 others-Virginia Tech 1999, Utah 2008, and TCU 2011.

For the first 13 years those 20 had all 3rd place finishes. Since then there have been 4 exceptions-4 out of a 5 year period in fact, Oklahoma St. 2011, Michigan St. 2012, TCU 2014 and Stanford 2015.

For the first 13 years there were 3 exceptions for 4th place (AZ St. 86 and 96, Syracuse 87). Since then 8 (Arizona 98, Wisconsin 99, Oregon St. 2000, Utah 2004, Missouri 2007, Boise 2009, Stanford 2010, South Carolina 2014).

For #5 it was 3 the first 13 years and 5 since then (not as big a change), but only one of those was in the first 11 years. There have been 7 from 1996 to 2019.

So while the top is still the same, the gap within the P5 is narrowing.

With 8 the Pac-12 will develop 2 serious competitors. California recruits will stay home

With 4 they wont make the playoff except the weird year. California recruits will not stay home, go to Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State.

That is the big change I see. One of Washington, UCLA, Arizona State or USC will emerge as a National Championship power. That doesn't happen with 4.

....

But yes I don't see any change for the schools ranked below 25. And I'm not really for an automatic G5 spot. But whatever.

(04-15-2020 07:41 PM)esayem Wrote:  Quo, you keep bringing up the NFL playoff process, which is highly flawed. The out of division games may matter, but a losing team can still get in the playoffs because they have the best record in a stinker of a division. That won’t happen in a 5-3, which is what I advocate. OOC games would be extremely important for the wildcard decisions.

I only mention the NFL because *others* do. Tank did in the post I responded to. When i argue for S8, I am always told that "nobody does it that way" and the NFL is the first example they mention, where all the division champs get in automatically. So don't blame me for that. I'd be happy if we all agreed to stop comparing CFB to the NFL. Good luck with that.

As for your idea, conceptually, I much prefer S8 to 5-3, because 5-3 admits the chance of a 7-5 team that scores an upset in its CCG getting in. That would be dumb.

But I have to admit that in practice, over six years of the CFP, that hasn't actually happened. Every time an 11-1 Clemson has faced a 7-5 Pitt in a CCG, the 11-1 team has won.

That suggests that it's not likely to happen, so in practice, S8 and 5-3 are very similar.

The biggest problem with 5-3 is a legal one. Giving the P5 auto-bids while having no auto-bids for the G5 could raise an antitrust issue. 5-1-2 does as well, btw. Only S8 treats everyone the same.

If the NCAA hosted a tournament:

- - - - - - - - 1) LSU - Sugar Bowl
8) Memphis
9) Boise St.

- - - - - - - - 4) Oklahoma - Fiesta Bowl
5) Georgia*
12) Miami (OH)



- - - - - - - - 3) Clemson - Peach Bowl
6) Oregon
11) FAU

- - - - - - - - 2) Ohio State - Rose Bowl
7) Baylor*
10) Appalachian St.

*Wildcard

Noteworthy Bowls:

Cotton Bowl - Penn State vs. Utah
Orange Bowl - Wisconsin vs. Florida
Citrus Bowl - Auburn vs. Michigan
Outback Bowl - Alabama vs. Notre Dame
Gator Bowl - Iowa vs. Virginia


• First round games to be held on campus the week after conference championships.

• Major bowls held on New Year's Day. Orange and Cotton enter next cycle for Peach and Fiesta.

• Deciding the Final 4 is the hard part. It would be great if it could be held at a single site (obviously artificial turf) over the course of a little over a week. For instance, Game 1 on Friday night, Game 2 on Saturday night. National title next Saturday. Think of the debauchery going on for a whole week at a place like New Orleans or Atlanta. Sprinkle some minor bowls in between to watch on TV. It would be nuts.