College Football 2023

[McCall]

2 hours ago, sayahh said:

MOD EDIT: Not necessary.

 

Hmm. Now I'm curious what was said.

 

Anywhoo, I'd say keep all 4 power conferences. I think some schools like the aforementioned Vanderbilt, maybe schools like BYU and others that may not want to put the required money into the trust that they're proposing, would probably stay in FBS, potentially whittling the power conferences down to more manageable numbers, like around 12 or so per conference (with some potential realignment). That's 48 teams. Hell even split them back into divisions.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, McCall said:

Hmm. Now I'm curious what was said.

 

Anywhoo, I'd say keep all 4 power conferences. I think some schools like the aforementioned Vanderbilt, maybe schools like BYU and others that may not want to put the required money into the trust that they're proposing, would probably stay in FBS, potentially whittling the power conferences down to more manageable numbers, like around 12 or so per conference (with some potential realignment). That's 48 teams. Hell even split them back into divisions.

 

Just elaborated why I thought it was relevant. Mod removed it so I'll drop it.  Was looking for a dos and don'ts and didn't find it but I will respect the mods.

[McCall]

 

4 minutes ago, sayahh said:

 

Just elaborated why I thought it was relevant. Mod removed it so I'll drop it.  Was looking for a dos and don'ts and didn't find it but I will respect the mods.

Just to help you out so you don't have any issues in the future.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, McCall said:

 

Just to help you out so you don't have any issues in the future.

 

Thanks. I didn't think it was partisan nor incendiary and (I thought) it was very relevant to sports (in particular college football), but the second bullet point was a catch-all, so, again, I will leave it at that since I did not mean to break the rules (even unintentionally) and mods have the final say and they've spoken.  It's just football and should be about fun and games anyway (especially since I don't play nor gamble).

[Germanshepherd]

10 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Here’s an idea:  no more national champions. You get conference titles and bowls as reward for winning a conference. That’s it.

 

Every method for finding a national champion is bafflingly stupid and we are better off without them.

This is pretty close to my “dynamic playoff” idea.
 

Keep the Classic Bowl tie-ins: Big Ten vs. PAC Rose Bowl, Big 8 vs ACC Orange Bowl, SEC in the Sugar, SWC in the Cotton, Big East and G5 champ in somewhere. (We also make proper conferences again) 

 

If at the end of those bowl games there’s one undefeated team— Congrats, you’re the champion. 
 

If there’s two unbeaten teams, NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. 

 

I like the idea of the NCG being a sometimes thing.  There have definitely been years where we didn’t need an extra game to know who the best team in the country was. 
 

Now, if there’s three unbeaten teams at the end of the year (or one-loss teams what have you) then it’s either an impromptu 4-team playoff with an at-large or we let the newspapers and teams decide. Either’s cool with me. 

 

 

[Unocal]

By leaving FSU out, you eliminated ON THE FIELD play, control of one's own destiny. Entirely.

 

By leaving FSU out, you ruin the very integrity of college football... on the field play is done. What your basically saying, is everyone MUST join the SEC to be given the benefit of doubt. All recruits must now pick only two conferences because  they've seen a group of 13 old people behind closed doors will negate on the field play. The end result of this, is join the SEC and don't break a leg. What a great message.

 

Future opinions of hypothetical matchups matter more than on the field play. Just look at Oregon Washington.

 

But that's not good enough. Alabama MUST be shoved down our throats because of vegas oddsmakers and pointspreads.

[Sykotyk]

For everyone complaining... This is all because the NCAA doesn't run the fbs post season. The fbs schools do to avoid any money going to other ncaa members. And they only care about themselves, and they only care about the revenue the giant Power 5 conferences can make off of it. It's why it's the "College Football Playoffs" and not "NCAA National Championship Tournament". You know, the one that follows the same general qualification procedures for other levels of football and other sports. 

 

League big enough? Champion automatically qualifies. But that means the MAC champ or Sun Belt champ is involved and the big schools don't want that. They'd have to share more of their pie than they're forced to. Look at the new 12 team playoff. They're giving 1/12th of the pie to the best non Power 5 so to keep those with real power off their backs. 

[oldschoolvikings]

7 hours ago, Unocal said:

By leaving FSU out, you eliminated ON THE FIELD play, control of one's own destiny. Entirely.

 

By leaving FSU out, you ruin the very integrity of college football... on the field play is done. What your basically saying, is everyone MUST join the SEC to be given the benefit of doubt. All recruits must now pick only two conferences because  they've seen a group of 13 old people behind closed doors will negate on the field play. The end result of this, is join the SEC and don't break a leg. What a great message.

 

Future opinions of hypothetical matchups matter more than on the field play. Just look at Oregon Washington.

 

But that's not good enough. Alabama MUST be shoved down our throats because of vegas oddsmakers and pointspreads.

Why are you so focused on Alabama and completely ignoring one-loss Texas getting in over FSU.  it’s really just about you hating Alabama, isn’t it?

[Sport]

2 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

Why are you so focused on Alabama and completely ignoring one-loss Texas getting in over FSU.  it’s really just about you hating Alabama, isn’t it?

 

Although I can't stick up for the unique way he chose to phrase that, I'm actually with Unocal on this one . The matter is FSU should be third ahead of both Texas and Alabama, but you have to take 4 teams so you take the 3 undefeated teams because they earned that by winning every game on their respective schedules and then you pick between Texas and Alabama. Texas beat Alabama so it's not even a question as to who should be fourth. They hold the tiebreaker. It's very clearly cramming Alabama into this that is the problem so that's where the lion's share of the ire is going. 

 

Like I said earlier, there's exactly 4 teams with a case - The 3 teams with undefeated records and the team who holds the tiebreaker over the #4 team. Alabama's case is they're Alabama and the committee said we can't have a playoff without the SEC, which are both really dumb reasons to elevate them over FSU. 

[oldschoolvikings]

17 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

Although I can't stick up for the unique way he chose to phrase that, I'm actually with Unocal on this one . The matter is FSU should be third ahead of both Texas and Alabama, but you have to take 4 teams so you take the 3 undefeated teams because they earned that by winning every game on their respective schedules and then you pick between Texas and Alabama. Texas beat Alabama so it's not even a question as to who should be fourth. They hold the tiebreaker. It's very clearly cramming Alabama into this that is the problem so that's where the lion's share of the ire is going. 

 

Like I said earlier, there's exactly 4 teams with a case - The 3 teams with undefeated records and the team who holds the tiebreaker over the #4 team. Alabama's case is they're Alabama and the committee said we can't have a playoff without the SEC, which are both really dumb reasons to elevate them over FSU. 

 

I'm not really arguing Alabama v Texas.  I'm just saying it's disingenuous for Unical to keep claiming he wants fairness for FSU, while never once bringing up one-loss Texas getting in over FSU. It's clear he just hates Alabama and the SEC.  (And trust me... I'm no fan of either of those things either, but come on...)

 

As for your second point... I'm sorry, I just don't see it that way.  I honestly don't think they put in Alabama just because they're Alabama, or because they had to get the SEC in there somehow. I think they put in Alabama because their stated mission is to have the four best teams, and they honestly came to the conclusion that Alabama is a better team. That Alabama's 12 and 1 record, when analyzed, was more impressive than FSU's 13 and 0 record. And the reason I believe that is because I came to the same conclusion.

 

I'm no fan of Alabama or the SEC, but IMHO the totality of Alabama's season makes them appear to be a better team then the totality of FSU's. Which, I think, I was what we were after.

[Sport]

50 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

I'm not really arguing Alabama v Texas.  I'm just saying it's disingenuous for Unical to keep claiming he wants fairness for FSU, while never once bringing up one-loss Texas getting in over FSU. It's clear he just hates Alabama and the SEC.  (And trust me... I'm no fan of either of those things either, but come on...)

 

Why would he bring up Texas when they beat Alabama? In a just system their case for the four spot is solid. It goes without saying that FSU should be third and got hosed twice, but of the five schools Alabama is the team who doesn't have a case if we're going off the actual results.  

 

50 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

As for your second point... I'm sorry, I just don't see it that way.  I honestly don't think they put in Alabama just because they're Alabama, or because they had to get the SEC in there somehow. I think they put in Alabama because their stated mission is to have the four best teams, and they honestly came to the conclusion that Alabama is a better team. That Alabama's 12 and 1 record, when analyzed, was more impressive than FSU's 13 and 0 record. And the reason I believe that is because I came to the same conclusion.

 

I'm no fan of Alabama or the SEC, but IMHO the totality of Alabama's season makes them appear to be a better team then the totality of FSU's. Which, I think, I was what we were after.

 

And actual results should matter otherwise why did we play the season?

 

Bolded: Then they didn't even achieve that because they're missing Georgia and OSU who are better than Washington and Texas. They're having it both ways. Is Alabama better than FSU? PROBABLY, but they lost a game and if you just go off the results then this sort of silly argumentative subjectivity doesn't enter the equation, which is why the stated mission shouldn't be to find the four best teams, it should be to find the teams who earned their way in, which Alabama didn't. If they wanted an air-tight case they shoulda beat Texas. 

[MJWalker45]

3 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

Why are you so focused on Alabama and completely ignoring one-loss Texas getting in over FSU.  it’s really just about you hating Alabama, isn’t it?

Alabama lost to Texas, so they should be sitting behind Texas. FSU should have been #3 and Texas at 4. I think that actually makes for better games without the presence of Alabama. Now, we're all expecting #19 for the Tide. 

[See Red]

1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

Alabama lost to Texas, so they should be sitting behind Texas. FSU should have been #3 and Texas at 4. I think that actually makes for better games without the presence of Alabama. Now, we're all expecting #19 for the Tide. 

You just made the single most-compelling argument for the committee to select Alabama as one of the four best teams.

[oldschoolvikings]

1 hour ago, Sport said:

 

Why would he bring up Texas when they beat Alabama? In a just system their case for the four spot is solid. It goes without saying that FSU should be third and got hosed twice, but of the five schools Alabama is the team who doesn't have a case if we're going off the actual results.  

. 

 

1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

Alabama lost to Texas, so they should be sitting behind Texas. FSU should have been #3 and Texas at 4. I think that actually makes for better games without the presence of Alabama. Now, we're all expecting #19 for the Tide. 

 

Oh, I know why you guys aren't bringing up Texas, and it makes sense.  I was talking about why Unical wasn't bringing up Texas... because his rants are really just about hating Alabama and/or the SEC. 

 

1 hour ago, Sport said:

 

And actual results should matter otherwise why did we play the season?

 Then they didn't even achieve that because they're missing Georgia and OSU who are better than Washington and Texas. They're having it both ways. Is Alabama better than FSU? PROBABLY, but they lost a game and if you just go off the results then this sort of silly argumentative subjectivity doesn't enter the equation, which is why the stated mission shouldn't be to find the four best teams, it should be to find the teams who earned their way in, which Alabama didn't. If they wanted an air-tight case they shoulda beat Texas. 

 

But if there isn't any element of subjectivity in terms of conferences and schedules, if it really is only record on the field, why isn't Liberty the fourth team?   I think we all know the answer to that... everyone can agree that Liberty's 13 - 0 doesn't equal FSU's 13 - 0.

 

But if someone can subjectively decide that Liberty's 13 - 0 isn't as worthy as FSU's 13 -0,  why can't they also decide that FSU's 13 - 0 isn't as worthy as Alabama's 12 - 1?

 

[MJWalker45]

4 minutes ago, See Red said:

You just made the single most-compelling argument for the committee to select Alabama as one of the four best teams.

An opinion? That's not enough to support adding Alabama. There should be more involved than that. If Rodamaker (?) whipped Louisville in the ACC Championship with 3 TDs and 250 yards, would Alabama still be involved? Unlikely. But the opinion that a team using their third string QB, who wouldn't even be the starter in the playoffs, didn't do enough is why FSU is sitting at home. 

[See Red]

19 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

An opinion? That's not enough to support adding Alabama. There should be more involved than that. If Rodamaker (?) whipped Louisville in the ACC Championship with 3 TDs and 250 yards, would Alabama still be involved? Unlikely. But the opinion that a team using their third string QB, who wouldn't even be the starter in the playoffs, didn't do enough is why FSU is sitting at home. 

Welcome to college football!  You’ve got, like, 104 seasons to catch up on and they’re just littered with exactly what you’re describing.  It’s all eye tests and opinions and all of that.  Again, FSU claims a national championship that sets a precedent for Alabama getting in over them AND Texas. 

 

And yes, all FSU had to do was look competent in either of their two games without Travis instead of fielding the second worst offense in the country.  But Rodemaker was terrible against Florida so I don’t know why anybody thinks he would’ve fared better against Louisville. 

[MJWalker45]

1 minute ago, See Red said:

Welcome to college football!  You’ve got, like, 104 seasons to catch up on and they’re just littered with exactly what you’re describing.  It’s all eye tests and opinions and all of that. 

 

And yes, all FSU had to do was look competent in either of their two games without Travis instead of fielding the second worst offense in the country.  But Rodemaker was terrible against Florida so I don’t know why anybody thinks he would’ve fared better against Louisville. 

I'd say winning games with players that had less than a week with the starting roster shows great competency. 

[Sport]

13 minutes ago, See Red said:

You just made the single most-compelling argument for the committee to select Alabama as one of the four best teams.

 

Nobody's arguing they aren't one of the four "best" teams. It's that the playoff shouldn't be the four best teams, it should be the teams who achieved their way in. Alabama didn't do that! If it was actually the four best teams then Georgia should have Washington's spot. If it was the actual four best teams then have Georgia, Alabama, OSU, and Michigan play in the first week of September. If it was the actual four best teams then just give a trophy to the best recruiting class every summer. The four best teams thing can't even be consistent in its own dumb logic. 

What you and the committee are saying is FSU's perfect record essentially doesn't count because of an inconvenient injury to a QB, which is unfair to them and sucks for larger competition reasons. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

 

Oh, I know why you guys aren't bringing up Texas, and it makes sense.  I was talking about why Unical wasn't bringing up Texas... because his rants are really just about hating Alabama and/or the SEC. 

 

 

But if there isn't any element of subjectivity in terms of conferences and schedules, if it really is only record on the field, why isn't Liberty the fourth team?   I think we all know the answer to that... everyone can agree that Liberty's 13 - 0 doesn't equal FSU's 13 - 0.

 

But if someone can subjectively decide that Liberty's 13 - 0 isn't as worthy as FSU's 13 -0,  why can't they also decide that FSU's 13 - 0 isn't as worthy as Alabama's 12 - 0?

 

 

Maybe Liberty should be one of the teams! You tell Texas "hey good season, but if you wanted to control your fate you blew that when you lost to Oklahoma. Good luck in the Cotton Bowl or whatever." The reason I think it sucks so hard for FSU is they achieved the primary objective of college football and weren't given the chance to finish for reasons outside of their control. 

 

I said this when Cincinnati made the playoff, which took a perfect storm of circumstances and the committee tried as hard they could to :censored: them too until the conditions ultimately gave them no choice - If it becomes possible for other conferences beside the SEC to make the playoff then it'll have an evening effect of talent in college football and it'll be a better product. That hope is dying faster than ever with conference realignment, but I'm right. 

 

2 minutes ago, See Red said:

Welcome to college football!  You’ve got, like, 104 seasons to catch up on and they’re just littered with exactly what you’re describing.

 

And yes, all FSU had to do was look competent in either of their two games without Travis instead of fielding the second worst offense in the country.  But Rodemaker was terrible against Florida so I don’t know why anybody thinks he would’ve fared better against Louisville. 

 

FSU doesn't need style points when they have a better record than Alabama and Texas. I don't know why this is hard to grasp. 

[oldschoolvikings]

11 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

FSU doesn't need style points when they have a better record than Alabama and Texas. I don't know why this is hard to grasp. 

 

It isn't hard to grasp.  They're just a lot of people (for instance, the committee who makes these decisions) who disagree with that premise. It isn't just about having a better record. And the truth is, you actually agree with that! You don't actually feel the record is all that matters, because if you did you'd be arguing just as vehemently for Liberty as you are for Florida State.  

[See Red]

Having a better record than another team is a consideration, just as playing a more difficult schedule is a consideration.  It is not the end-all.

 

Maybe your system is better, maybe it's more fair.  But your system is not currently in place.