(01-10-2023 12:17 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 11:57 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 11:18 AM)msu35 Wrote:  If you're being objective, you have to consider the conference tournaments as part of the process. I'm sure they'd love to marginalize the NIT further and funnel that broadcasting money to the NCAA. March Madness is their basketball bread and butter.

Each conference gets 1 bid to the postseason. The conferences decide how to allocate that bid. There used to be a couple who did not have a conference tourney and gave it to the regular season champ. If you start counting conference placement, then pretty much all sports would have 100% eligible - except college fb, of course.

I may be wrong, but I believe the NCAA took over the NIT. So they (and ESPN) get all the NIT money already. But I could see it going away if the tourney goes to 96. Certainly that other tourney that no one plays in would disappear (CBI?).

That doesn't invalidate the fact that conference tournaments are part of the NCAA tournament as the winner gets an automatic bid. College football is the outlier, although there may be others.

Regarding the NIT, you are correct. The NCAA took over in 2005. It's historically been separate, so they are certainly getting that money now. Getting old I suppose. I still believe they stand to generate higher ratings by folding the NIT into an expanded NCAA tournament. The NIT doesn't have quite the same panache.

We're saying the same thing on the NIT.
But conference tourneys are not part of the NCAA tourney.
a) the conferences get the money - not the NCAA
b) when you research NCAA tourney appearances, you don't get conference tourney appearances

If you counted that, you would basically be counting every division game in every sport as part of the playoffs. For example, the NFC South gets 1 "automatic bid" in the NFL playoffs. They play all year to see who gets the spot. The entire schedule is not considered part of the playoffs, just because the winner gets an automatic bid.

(01-10-2023 03:31 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 11:02 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I always find it interesting to compare the post-season participation of the major team sports.

NFL 44% of teams make the playoffs
NBA 67% teams in the playoffs
MLB 40%
NHL 50%

NCAA basketball has 19% in the tournament. If they expand to 96 teams, that's 26% playing for the championship. There is also another 9% in the NIT. Maybe they do away with the NIT if they expand? With college schedules and "teenagers" playing, 26% seems reasonable.

College football has 3% who make the playoffs. It's ridiculous. When they finally expand to 12 teams, the number will be 9%. Still too low, compared to every other sport. However, there are another 62% who play in bowl games. Meaning 65% play post-season ball - which is on the high end of the spectrum.

Just looking at these numbers, it would suggest that the CFP needs to be expanded to around 16 teams. And the number of bowl games needs to be cut in half. That would give you 12% of teams playing for the championship (still relatively low) and another 31% playing in bowls - for a total of 43% in the postseason.

But I'm talking for the good of the sport - and that's not how college athletics are mea$ured. So, whatever...

Our bowl game was two 6-6 non P5 programs playing at 2:30 on a non holiday Tuesday afternoon, and was decided by the end of the 3rd quarter. It drew 2.2 million viewers.

The lower level bowls aren't going anywhere.

Probably not.
It is a weird system tho, when you sit back and look at it.
If you were creating it from scratch, you would not set it up this way.
You'd go with 12 conference champs and 4-12 at large teams, and be done with it.
You could throw in exhibition or bowl games for all the other teams who don't qualify, if you want to chase that money.

(01-10-2023 03:42 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 03:31 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 11:02 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I always find it interesting to compare the post-season participation of the major team sports.

NFL 44% of teams make the playoffs
NBA 67% teams in the playoffs
MLB 40%
NHL 50%

NCAA basketball has 19% in the tournament. If they expand to 96 teams, that's 26% playing for the championship. There is also another 9% in the NIT. Maybe they do away with the NIT if they expand? With college schedules and "teenagers" playing, 26% seems reasonable.

College football has 3% who make the playoffs. It's ridiculous. When they finally expand to 12 teams, the number will be 9%. Still too low, compared to every other sport. However, there are another 62% who play in bowl games. Meaning 65% play post-season ball - which is on the high end of the spectrum.

Just looking at these numbers, it would suggest that the CFP needs to be expanded to around 16 teams. And the number of bowl games needs to be cut in half. That would give you 12% of teams playing for the championship (still relatively low) and another 31% playing in bowls - for a total of 43% in the postseason.

But I'm talking for the good of the sport - and that's not how college athletics are mea$ured. So, whatever...

Our bowl game was two 6-6 non P5 programs playing at 2:30 on a non holiday Tuesday afternoon, and was decided by the end of the 3rd quarter. It drew 2.2 million viewers.

The lower level bowls aren't going anywhere.

Probably not.
It is a weird system tho, when you sit back and look at it.
If you were creating it from scratch, you would not set it up this way.
You'd go with 12 conference champs and 4-12 at large teams, and be done with it.
You could throw in exhibition or bowl games for all the other teams who don't qualify, if you want to chase that money.

The problem is that it is no different than pro basketball and pro football with respect to the number of games you can play, the injuries and the recovery time. You can argue that almost half of the NFL teams had a crippling number of injuries by the end of the season. Tennessee alone had 26 players on IR for their season ender.

I personally still think that the most equitable system is to have 8 participants with no byes. It's less than 12 or 16, but at least 6 of the teams have a legitimate chance. You won't have a second round playoff game featuring one team that got beaten up in their CCG and the first playoff game, playing a top 4 seed that has been sitting at home for 2 weeks resting.

16 teams is rough. Playing 4 games instead of 2 is going to lead to a pile of injuries.

(01-10-2023 04:00 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 03:42 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 03:31 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 11:02 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I always find it interesting to compare the post-season participation of the major team sports.

NFL 44% of teams make the playoffs
NBA 67% teams in the playoffs
MLB 40%
NHL 50%

NCAA basketball has 19% in the tournament. If they expand to 96 teams, that's 26% playing for the championship. There is also another 9% in the NIT. Maybe they do away with the NIT if they expand? With college schedules and "teenagers" playing, 26% seems reasonable.

College football has 3% who make the playoffs. It's ridiculous. When they finally expand to 12 teams, the number will be 9%. Still too low, compared to every other sport. However, there are another 62% who play in bowl games. Meaning 65% play post-season ball - which is on the high end of the spectrum.

Just looking at these numbers, it would suggest that the CFP needs to be expanded to around 16 teams. And the number of bowl games needs to be cut in half. That would give you 12% of teams playing for the championship (still relatively low) and another 31% playing in bowls - for a total of 43% in the postseason.

But I'm talking for the good of the sport - and that's not how college athletics are mea$ured. So, whatever...

Our bowl game was two 6-6 non P5 programs playing at 2:30 on a non holiday Tuesday afternoon, and was decided by the end of the 3rd quarter. It drew 2.2 million viewers.

The lower level bowls aren't going anywhere.

Probably not.
It is a weird system tho, when you sit back and look at it.
If you were creating it from scratch, you would not set it up this way.
You'd go with 12 conference champs and 4-12 at large teams, and be done with it.
You could throw in exhibition or bowl games for all the other teams who don't qualify, if you want to chase that money.

The problem is that it is no different than pro basketball and pro football with respect to the number of games you can play, the injuries and the recovery time. You can argue that almost half of the NFL teams had a crippling number of injuries by the end of the season. Tennessee alone had 26 players on IR for their season ender.

I personally still think that the most equitable system is to have 8 participants with no byes. It's less than 12 or 16, but at least 6 of the teams have a legitimate chance. You won't have a second round playoff game featuring one team that got beaten up in their CCG and the first playoff game, playing a top 4 seed that has been sitting at home for 2 weeks resting.

16 teams is rough. Playing 4 games instead of 2 is going to lead to a pile of injuries.

It is a rough sport for sure - but less so today than 10 years ago.
Until the NCAA puts in salary caps or other rules targeting true equity (lol), I'm not worried about who does or does not have a legit chance.
Heck, we currently only have 4 teams - of which TCU was certainly one of the top 4 - and TCU got destroyed last night.
What does it really matter if Troy and Boise both get badly beaten in the 1st round?

(01-10-2023 04:14 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 04:00 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 03:42 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 03:31 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 11:02 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I always find it interesting to compare the post-season participation of the major team sports.

NFL 44% of teams make the playoffs
NBA 67% teams in the playoffs
MLB 40%
NHL 50%

NCAA basketball has 19% in the tournament. If they expand to 96 teams, that's 26% playing for the championship. There is also another 9% in the NIT. Maybe they do away with the NIT if they expand? With college schedules and "teenagers" playing, 26% seems reasonable.

College football has 3% who make the playoffs. It's ridiculous. When they finally expand to 12 teams, the number will be 9%. Still too low, compared to every other sport. However, there are another 62% who play in bowl games. Meaning 65% play post-season ball - which is on the high end of the spectrum.

Just looking at these numbers, it would suggest that the CFP needs to be expanded to around 16 teams. And the number of bowl games needs to be cut in half. That would give you 12% of teams playing for the championship (still relatively low) and another 31% playing in bowls - for a total of 43% in the postseason.

But I'm talking for the good of the sport - and that's not how college athletics are mea$ured. So, whatever...

Our bowl game was two 6-6 non P5 programs playing at 2:30 on a non holiday Tuesday afternoon, and was decided by the end of the 3rd quarter. It drew 2.2 million viewers.

The lower level bowls aren't going anywhere.

Probably not.
It is a weird system tho, when you sit back and look at it.
If you were creating it from scratch, you would not set it up this way.
You'd go with 12 conference champs and 4-12 at large teams, and be done with it.
You could throw in exhibition or bowl games for all the other teams who don't qualify, if you want to chase that money.

The problem is that it is no different than pro basketball and pro football with respect to the number of games you can play, the injuries and the recovery time. You can argue that almost half of the NFL teams had a crippling number of injuries by the end of the season. Tennessee alone had 26 players on IR for their season ender.

I personally still think that the most equitable system is to have 8 participants with no byes. It's less than 12 or 16, but at least 6 of the teams have a legitimate chance. You won't have a second round playoff game featuring one team that got beaten up in their CCG and the first playoff game, playing a top 4 seed that has been sitting at home for 2 weeks resting.

16 teams is rough. Playing 4 games instead of 2 is going to lead to a pile of injuries.

It is a rough sport for sure - but less so today than 10 years ago.
Until the NCAA puts in salary caps or other rules targeting true equity (lol), I'm not worried about who does or does not have a legit chance.
Heck, we currently only have 4 teams - of which TCU was certainly one of the top 4 - and TCU got destroyed last night.
What does it really matter if Troy and Boise both get badly beaten in the 1st round?

If it is 16, it for sure matters if any elite players (especially quarterbacks) get injured in a 40 point blowout in the first two rounds.

(01-04-2023 01:58 PM)Unbreakable04 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 01:10 PM)tigerfan39 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 12:49 PM)Unbreakable04 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 12:23 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 12:19 PM)gusrob Wrote:  We have a very top heavy schedule in 2023. Only a few opponents pose a threat on paper. Boise St is solid brand, but an average football team. Missouri just went 6-7 with wins vs La Tech, Abilene Christian, Vandy, South Carolina, New Mex St, Ark. Tulane is a tough conference foe - similar to UCF during Norvell days.

All conference games are hard. It's true in every conference.

We play a TON of new coaches.

We need to win AT LEAST 8 games. That's a disappointing but acceptable result. We should be in the 10-2 range, while in AAC Champ Game.

After the last couple of seasons, winning a minimum of eight games would be great.

8 wins next year against our schedule will be another failure. Three years of our best recruiting classes in program history along with a 3rd year starter at QB, coupled with our cupcake schedule, we should win at minimum 9-10 games. Anything less is another year of lowering the bar for Ruin to continue his demolition of our program.

Why are you saying a 'cupcake schedule'? Bethune Cookman - yes, that a cupcake, but who else?

BC - W
Red Wolves (3-9) - W; they're terrible and we should not struggle with a low level Sun Belt team
Mizzou - Toss up; someone touched on their woes above, we should be in this game without question
Boise State - Not the Boise of old, new QB, we should win this game at home

Home: SMU, Tulane, South Florida, Navy
Obviously Tulane should remain competitive with who they're bringing back, all others should be winnable at home. SMU loses their QB, USF & Navy, we know the story there. It's not exactly the SEC West we're charging through with our home schedule.

Away: North Texas, UAB, Charlotte, Temple
All of those are cupcakes, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. We will be favored by double digits in every one of these games and "should" win easily. Ruin should actually be able to win some road conference games now outside of beating Navy (2 road conference wins in 2 years). We do not need to lower the bar to the level of the CUSA teams entering our conference, we should be head & shoulders above all of those teams.

Now, please explain to me how our schedule listed out above, outside 2-3 games, is overly challenging. He should sleepwalk to 9 wins, but again, that would require raising expectations, which we all know Ruin continues to get a pass for the demolition of our program.

According to this year's final power ratings.

Full 2023 AAC teams list and nonconference teams on Tiger's schedule.

Tulane 8th
UTSA 22nd )
Boise St 28th
ECU 51st
SMU 65th
Missouri 68th
UAB 72nd
TIGERS 77th
N Texas 88th
FAU 103rd
Tulsa 105th
Navy 112th
Rice 114th
Ark St 141st
Charlotte 142nd
Temple 151st
USF 162nd

(01-10-2023 09:28 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 01:58 PM)Unbreakable04 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 01:10 PM)tigerfan39 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 12:49 PM)Unbreakable04 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 12:23 PM)msu35 Wrote:  After the last couple of seasons, winning a minimum of eight games would be great.

8 wins next year against our schedule will be another failure. Three years of our best recruiting classes in program history along with a 3rd year starter at QB, coupled with our cupcake schedule, we should win at minimum 9-10 games. Anything less is another year of lowering the bar for Ruin to continue his demolition of our program.

Why are you saying a 'cupcake schedule'? Bethune Cookman - yes, that a cupcake, but who else?

BC - W
Red Wolves (3-9) - W; they're terrible and we should not struggle with a low level Sun Belt team
Mizzou - Toss up; someone touched on their woes above, we should be in this game without question
Boise State - Not the Boise of old, new QB, we should win this game at home

Home: SMU, Tulane, South Florida, Navy
Obviously Tulane should remain competitive with who they're bringing back, all others should be winnable at home. SMU loses their QB, USF & Navy, we know the story there. It's not exactly the SEC West we're charging through with our home schedule.

Away: North Texas, UAB, Charlotte, Temple
All of those are cupcakes, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. We will be favored by double digits in every one of these games and "should" win easily. Ruin should actually be able to win some road conference games now outside of beating Navy (2 road conference wins in 2 years). We do not need to lower the bar to the level of the CUSA teams entering our conference, we should be head & shoulders above all of those teams.

Now, please explain to me how our schedule listed out above, outside 2-3 games, is overly challenging. He should sleepwalk to 9 wins, but again, that would require raising expectations, which we all know Ruin continues to get a pass for the demolition of our program.

According to this year's final power ratings.

Full 2023 AAC teams list and nonconference teams on Tiger's schedule.

Tulane 8th
UTSA 22nd )
Boise St 28th
ECU 51st
SMU 65th
Missouri 68th
UAB 72nd
TIGERS 77th
N Texas 88th
FAU 103rd
Tulsa 105th
Navy 112th
Ark St 141st
Charlotte 142nd
Temple 151st

You forgot South Florida at 94. To expand, Missouri is 69, Boise State is 52, and Arkansas State is 112. Not sure how any rational person could say the team can just "sleepwalk" through nine wins with that schedule, factoring in where we stack in those ratings. Based on recent performance, most of those teams certainly aren't going to be cupcakes either. Hopefully we do get at least nine wins, but it most certainly isn't going to be a given.

(01-10-2023 09:44 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 09:28 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 01:58 PM)Unbreakable04 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 01:10 PM)tigerfan39 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 12:49 PM)Unbreakable04 Wrote:  8 wins next year against our schedule will be another failure. Three years of our best recruiting classes in program history along with a 3rd year starter at QB, coupled with our cupcake schedule, we should win at minimum 9-10 games. Anything less is another year of lowering the bar for Ruin to continue his demolition of our program.

Why are you saying a 'cupcake schedule'? Bethune Cookman - yes, that a cupcake, but who else?

BC - W
Red Wolves (3-9) - W; they're terrible and we should not struggle with a low level Sun Belt team
Mizzou - Toss up; someone touched on their woes above, we should be in this game without question
Boise State - Not the Boise of old, new QB, we should win this game at home

Home: SMU, Tulane, South Florida, Navy
Obviously Tulane should remain competitive with who they're bringing back, all others should be winnable at home. SMU loses their QB, USF & Navy, we know the story there. It's not exactly the SEC West we're charging through with our home schedule.

Away: North Texas, UAB, Charlotte, Temple
All of those are cupcakes, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. We will be favored by double digits in every one of these games and "should" win easily. Ruin should actually be able to win some road conference games now outside of beating Navy (2 road conference wins in 2 years). We do not need to lower the bar to the level of the CUSA teams entering our conference, we should be head & shoulders above all of those teams.

Now, please explain to me how our schedule listed out above, outside 2-3 games, is overly challenging. He should sleepwalk to 9 wins, but again, that would require raising expectations, which we all know Ruin continues to get a pass for the demolition of our program.

According to this year's final power ratings.

Full 2023 AAC teams list and nonconference teams on Tiger's schedule.

Tulane 8th
UTSA 22nd
Boise St 28th
ECU 51st
SMU 65th
Missouri 68th
UAB 72nd
TIGERS 77th
N Texas 88th
FAU 103rd
Tulsa 105th
Navy 112th
Ark St 141st
Charlotte 142nd
Temple 151st

You forgot South Florida at 94. To expand, Missouri is 69, Boise State is 52, and Arkansas State is 112. Not sure how any rational person could say the team can just "sleepwalk" through nine wins with that schedule, factoring in where we stack in those ratings. Based on recent performance, most of those teams certainly aren't going to be cupcakes either. Hopefully we do get at least nine wins, but it most certainly isn't going to be a given.

Also left off Rice. Different sites have different power ratings. Mine was based on the "realtimerpi" power ratings. Sure that other sites have different rankings, but they're not that far off.

(01-10-2023 04:00 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 03:42 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 03:31 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 11:02 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I always find it interesting to compare the post-season participation of the major team sports.

NFL 44% of teams make the playoffs
NBA 67% teams in the playoffs
MLB 40%
NHL 50%

NCAA basketball has 19% in the tournament. If they expand to 96 teams, that's 26% playing for the championship. There is also another 9% in the NIT. Maybe they do away with the NIT if they expand? With college schedules and "teenagers" playing, 26% seems reasonable.

College football has 3% who make the playoffs. It's ridiculous. When they finally expand to 12 teams, the number will be 9%. Still too low, compared to every other sport. However, there are another 62% who play in bowl games. Meaning 65% play post-season ball - which is on the high end of the spectrum.

Just looking at these numbers, it would suggest that the CFP needs to be expanded to around 16 teams. And the number of bowl games needs to be cut in half. That would give you 12% of teams playing for the championship (still relatively low) and another 31% playing in bowls - for a total of 43% in the postseason.

But I'm talking for the good of the sport - and that's not how college athletics are mea$ured. So, whatever...

Our bowl game was two 6-6 non P5 programs playing at 2:30 on a non holiday Tuesday afternoon, and was decided by the end of the 3rd quarter. It drew 2.2 million viewers.

The lower level bowls aren't going anywhere.

Probably not.
It is a weird system tho, when you sit back and look at it.
If you were creating it from scratch, you would not set it up this way.
You'd go with 12 conference champs and 4-12 at large teams, and be done with it.
You could throw in exhibition or bowl games for all the other teams who don't qualify, if you want to chase that money.

The problem is that it is no different than pro basketball and pro football with respect to the number of games you can play, the injuries and the recovery time. You can argue that almost half of the NFL teams had a crippling number of injuries by the end of the season. Tennessee alone had 26 players on IR for their season ender.

I personally still think that the most equitable system is to have 8 participants with no byes. It's less than 12 or 16, but at least 6 of the teams have a legitimate chance. You won't have a second round playoff game featuring one team that got beaten up in their CCG and the first playoff game, playing a top 4 seed that has been sitting at home for 2 weeks resting.

16 teams is rough. Playing 4 games instead of 2 is going to lead to a pile of injuries.

It works at every other level of college football BUT they play shorter seasons and I don't think all of them have CCGs? So, yeah the total number of games 12 plus maybe CCG then 4 more is 16-17 games for the final 2 teams.... That's a lot,

(01-10-2023 11:46 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 04:00 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 03:42 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 03:31 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 11:02 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I always find it interesting to compare the post-season participation of the major team sports.

NFL 44% of teams make the playoffs
NBA 67% teams in the playoffs
MLB 40%
NHL 50%

NCAA basketball has 19% in the tournament. If they expand to 96 teams, that's 26% playing for the championship. There is also another 9% in the NIT. Maybe they do away with the NIT if they expand? With college schedules and "teenagers" playing, 26% seems reasonable.

College football has 3% who make the playoffs. It's ridiculous. When they finally expand to 12 teams, the number will be 9%. Still too low, compared to every other sport. However, there are another 62% who play in bowl games. Meaning 65% play post-season ball - which is on the high end of the spectrum.

Just looking at these numbers, it would suggest that the CFP needs to be expanded to around 16 teams. And the number of bowl games needs to be cut in half. That would give you 12% of teams playing for the championship (still relatively low) and another 31% playing in bowls - for a total of 43% in the postseason.

But I'm talking for the good of the sport - and that's not how college athletics are mea$ured. So, whatever...

Our bowl game was two 6-6 non P5 programs playing at 2:30 on a non holiday Tuesday afternoon, and was decided by the end of the 3rd quarter. It drew 2.2 million viewers.

The lower level bowls aren't going anywhere.

Probably not.
It is a weird system tho, when you sit back and look at it.
If you were creating it from scratch, you would not set it up this way.
You'd go with 12 conference champs and 4-12 at large teams, and be done with it.
You could throw in exhibition or bowl games for all the other teams who don't qualify, if you want to chase that money.

The problem is that it is no different than pro basketball and pro football with respect to the number of games you can play, the injuries and the recovery time. You can argue that almost half of the NFL teams had a crippling number of injuries by the end of the season. Tennessee alone had 26 players on IR for their season ender.

I personally still think that the most equitable system is to have 8 participants with no byes. It's less than 12 or 16, but at least 6 of the teams have a legitimate chance. You won't have a second round playoff game featuring one team that got beaten up in their CCG and the first playoff game, playing a top 4 seed that has been sitting at home for 2 weeks resting.

16 teams is rough. Playing 4 games instead of 2 is going to lead to a pile of injuries.

It works at every other level of college football BUT they play shorter seasons and I don't think all of them have CCGs? So, yeah the total number of games 12 plus maybe CCG then 4 more is 16-17 games for the final 2 teams.... That's a lot,

Go to an 11-game schedule, and give everyone a "post-season" game. If you don't make the CFP, you have the option for another game. Do it regionally, bowl games, whatever. Would take some logistics, but we proved during the pandemic that it doesn't take 5 years to schedule a fb game.

Everybody gets 12 games, but only 16-ish teams play more than 12 games. Teams playing for the FCS championship have been playing 15 games for years.

(01-10-2023 09:44 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 09:28 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 01:58 PM)Unbreakable04 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 01:10 PM)tigerfan39 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 12:49 PM)Unbreakable04 Wrote:  8 wins next year against our schedule will be another failure. Three years of our best recruiting classes in program history along with a 3rd year starter at QB, coupled with our cupcake schedule, we should win at minimum 9-10 games. Anything less is another year of lowering the bar for Ruin to continue his demolition of our program.

Why are you saying a 'cupcake schedule'? Bethune Cookman - yes, that a cupcake, but who else?

BC - W
Red Wolves (3-9) - W; they're terrible and we should not struggle with a low level Sun Belt team
Mizzou - Toss up; someone touched on their woes above, we should be in this game without question
Boise State - Not the Boise of old, new QB, we should win this game at home

Home: SMU, Tulane, South Florida, Navy
Obviously Tulane should remain competitive with who they're bringing back, all others should be winnable at home. SMU loses their QB, USF & Navy, we know the story there. It's not exactly the SEC West we're charging through with our home schedule.

Away: North Texas, UAB, Charlotte, Temple
All of those are cupcakes, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. We will be favored by double digits in every one of these games and "should" win easily. Ruin should actually be able to win some road conference games now outside of beating Navy (2 road conference wins in 2 years). We do not need to lower the bar to the level of the CUSA teams entering our conference, we should be head & shoulders above all of those teams.

Now, please explain to me how our schedule listed out above, outside 2-3 games, is overly challenging. He should sleepwalk to 9 wins, but again, that would require raising expectations, which we all know Ruin continues to get a pass for the demolition of our program.

According to this year's final power ratings.

Full 2023 AAC teams list and nonconference teams on Tiger's schedule.

Tulane 8th
UTSA 22nd )
Boise St 28th
ECU 51st
SMU 65th
Missouri 68th
UAB 72nd
TIGERS 77th
N Texas 88th
FAU 103rd
Tulsa 105th
Navy 112th
Ark St 141st
Charlotte 142nd
Temple 151st

You forgot South Florida at 94. To expand, Missouri is 69, Boise State is 52, and Arkansas State is 112. Not sure how any rational person could say the team can just "sleepwalk" through nine wins with that schedule, factoring in where we stack in those ratings. Based on recent performance, most of those teams certainly aren't going to be cupcakes either. Hopefully we do get at least nine wins, but it most certainly isn't going to be a given.

It won't be a sleepwalk, for sure. We've seen that over the past few years.

At the same time, according to Sagarin's year-end rankings, we would be favored in all but the Tulane game. Now, 3 of those games are virtual toss-ups - Mizzou, Boise, SMU - but we have the slight edge on all. And the road game at UAB will not be a given, either.

So my expectation is we split those 4 "toss-ups", lose to Tulane, win the rest. 9-3. Not a sleepwalk - but certainly achievable. I'll be disappointed in anything less, and think Ryan has again failed.

Prior to Fuente & Norvell I would have been thrilled with mediocre football at LBMS. I admit it. I remember BAD football in blue/grey. But now we've seen what our program can be. Hard to stomach being mediocre at this point.

(01-11-2023 10:02 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 11:46 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 04:00 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 03:42 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 03:31 PM)Stammers Wrote:  Our bowl game was two 6-6 non P5 programs playing at 2:30 on a non holiday Tuesday afternoon, and was decided by the end of the 3rd quarter. It drew 2.2 million viewers.

The lower level bowls aren't going anywhere.

Probably not.
It is a weird system tho, when you sit back and look at it.
If you were creating it from scratch, you would not set it up this way.
You'd go with 12 conference champs and 4-12 at large teams, and be done with it.
You could throw in exhibition or bowl games for all the other teams who don't qualify, if you want to chase that money.

The problem is that it is no different than pro basketball and pro football with respect to the number of games you can play, the injuries and the recovery time. You can argue that almost half of the NFL teams had a crippling number of injuries by the end of the season. Tennessee alone had 26 players on IR for their season ender.

I personally still think that the most equitable system is to have 8 participants with no byes. It's less than 12 or 16, but at least 6 of the teams have a legitimate chance. You won't have a second round playoff game featuring one team that got beaten up in their CCG and the first playoff game, playing a top 4 seed that has been sitting at home for 2 weeks resting.

16 teams is rough. Playing 4 games instead of 2 is going to lead to a pile of injuries.

It works at every other level of college football BUT they play shorter seasons and I don't think all of them have CCGs? So, yeah the total number of games 12 plus maybe CCG then 4 more is 16-17 games for the final 2 teams.... That's a lot,

Go to an 11-game schedule, and give everyone a "post-season" game. If you don't make the CFP, you have the option for another game. Do it regionally, bowl games, whatever. Would take some logistics, but we proved during the pandemic that it doesn't take 5 years to schedule a fb game.

Everybody gets 12 games, but only 16-ish teams play more than 12 games. Teams playing for the FCS championship have been playing 15 games for years.

I'm positive, that you would never be able to get anyone to vote for over 110 teams playing 12 games or less. Right now over 81 play at least 13 games. This is the current model.

There are 41 bowls. There were cancellations that caused a few bowl teams to play 12 games, and other non bowl eligible teams to play 13 games. This is the breakdown with no teams having games cancelled, and no extras to fill in cancellations. I didn't count the bowl involving the SWAC and MEAC.

41 Bowl Games
15 Games - 2
14 Games - 16
13 Games - 63
12 Games - 50 (12 games or less)

IMO, your model has a few issues that would be difficult to overcome.

- You are eliminating a badly needed OOC or buy game, which normally takes place near the beginning of the season
- There will be a huge logjam at 6-5 and 5-6.
- If they are lopsided in either direction (6-5 or 5-6), you have to figure out a tiebreaker, many teams will not be happy
- You then have maybe 2-3 days tops, to figure out the bowl matchups, then send the invitations, for games at the normal neutral sites
- When you figure out the tiebreaker and the bowl schedule, you then have to schedule 25 exhibition games for the teams that only played 11 games. None of them will be happy, most won't want to play.

It was a random thought, to try to persuade the "too many games" folks.
How about you leave the 12-game schedule + bowls, do away with CCG's, and go to a 16-team CFP?
I think 13 games is fine for most programs - and if 2 teams play as many as 16 games, that is fine too.
FCS and other levels are already to 15 and occasionally 16 games for their champs.

As a former player, not a huge fan of these long seasons and crazy number of games. Football breaks your body down. Let’s remember these kids are also students. It’s a lot to manage, especially when you consider injuries, etc… I wonder if the NCAA will increase the # of schollies from 85 to 95?

(01-11-2023 11:54 PM)NDTiger Wrote:  As a former player, not a huge fan of these long seasons and crazy number of games. Football breaks your body down. Let’s remember these kids are also students. It’s a lot to manage, especially when you consider injuries, etc… I wonder if the NCAA will increase the # of schollies from 85 to 95?

FCS already does it with fewer schollies. They have 1 fewer reg season game, but have a 24-team playoff.