Mid Major schools should have their own division

[rmilia1]

Well I'm for eliminating bowls, but that's me.

I'm not for anything remotely similar to what you propose. At all. Ever. Please God no. That version of college football is a perverse monstrocity IMO. Fuck no.

You say that til the first time 7-2 Washington plays 7-2 Wazzu I'm the Apple Cup for an St large bid to the playoff as opposed to 8-3 Wazzu playing 9-2 Washington to see who plays in the Fosters Farms Bowl lol

 

[WizardHawk]

You say that til the first time 7-2 Washington plays 7-2 Wazzu I'm the Apple Cup for an St large bid to the playoff as opposed to 8-3 Wazzu playing 9-2 Washington to see who plays in the Fosters Farms Bowl lol

No, no I would not. Ever.

I get that you want Iowa to be more relevant, but no thank you. Not at the cost of the greatest sport left in this country. Despite all of the pussification and watering down, it's still MILES ahead of the NFL or anything else.

What you want to do is completely destroy that.

We already have the NFL. Maybe you should just go watch that more and leave college ball alone for the rest of us that enjoy it as is.

 

[PhilSimms11]

The Mid Major schools should simply play other mid major schools and have their own mid major championship.

A 6 team playoff with all G5 champions and one at large for highest ranked independent that's not N.D.

I'd be in favor of 8 at this point. Why not? If this were to become legit there would be a separate CFP ranking and it'd be easier to seed the teams. In the meantime:

AAC-UCF
C-USA-FAU
MAC-Toledo
MWC-Boise St
SBC-Troy
at-large-USF
at-large-Memphis
at-large-Fresno St

(1)UCF (12-0) vs (8)Troy (10-2)
(4)USF (9-2) vs (5)Fresno St (9-4)

(2)Memphis (10-2) vs (7)FAU (10-3)
(3)Boise St (10-3) vs (6)Toledo (11-2)

 

[4down20]

I'm not advocating for 8-4 teams getting in

I'm saying
1 ooc game
9 league games

Take the top 32 teams ) personally I'd do the 10 league winners and 22 at larges )

You then seed them in quadrants to reduce travel and bam

All you're losing is 2 largely irrelevant ooc games and you're replacing league title games with playoff games

Sure some 8-2 or 7-3 teams might get in but so what ? It's still better than watching 6-6 Utah St play 7-5 Toledo in the all American dildo bowl sponsored by ky jelly

If you went 32 teams, you'd have teams with 5 losses getting in every year. There are teams 4 and 5 losses that make the top25 every year.

Also, go fuck yourself and your shitty ideas.

 

[rmilia1]

No, no I would not. Ever.

I get that you want Iowa to be more relevant, but no thank you. Not at the cost of the greatest sport left in this country. Despite all of the pussification and watering down, it's still MILES ahead of the NFL or anything else.

What you want to do is completely destroy that.

We already have the NFL. Maybe you should just go watch that more and leave college ball alone for the rest of us that enjoy it as is.

Has nothing to do with Iowa. It's to create better matchups, more relevant games and more excitement

 

[rmilia1]

If you went 32 teams, you'd have teams with 5 losses getting in every year. There are teams 4 and 5 losses that make the top25 every year.

Also, go fuck yourself and your shitty ideas.

No you wouldn't

 

[WizardHawk]

Has nothing to do with Iowa. It's to create better matchups, more relevant games and more excitement

How? By eliminating hundreds of games in favor of a bloated playoff? Again, no thank you.

You want to drop the schedule back to 10 games. So nearly 100 teams not worthy of your playoff would be 10 and done. I don't know where you are going to come up with money for those schools to keep their football programs, because you are for sure taking millions out of play, but you don't care right? Just more playoffs at any cost.

You end up with a net loss of games overall, but this is said to be done to bring more football.

All of you with these crazy ideas have no idea how badly you want to break this sport. That's that inevitable outcome.

 

[4down20]

No you wouldn't

Look at last years top25 before the bowls.

Auburn was #10 with 3 losses.

Then you have Stanford #16 with 4 losses and all the teams from #15 on have 3 losses minimum.

You may claim they'll have less due to the 2 less games played, but guess what - those 2 games you'll be taking away are usually wins, especially for top25 teams - so NOPE, same losses, less wins.

And even if you were correct in that manner, you are still looking at the same teams as now either way, which is the actual point, not the losses.

 

[4down20]

How? By eliminating hundreds of games in favor of a bloated playoff? Again, no thank you.

You want to drop the schedule back to 10 games. So nearly 100 teams not worthy of your playoff would be 10 and done. I don't know where you are going to come up with money for those schools to keep their football programs, because you are for sure taking millions out of play, but you don't care right? Just more playoffs at any cost.

You end up with a net loss of games overall, but this is said to be done to bring more football.

All of you with these crazy ideas have no idea how badly you want to break this sport. That's that inevitable outcome.

He's just another person who wants to make the playoffs whatever is needed to include his own team. You go to 32 and Iowa can make it most years.

Of course, what ignorant people like this don't seem to get is at that point you've cheapened it to the point where it doesn't mean shit. Just like Bowl games. Once upon a time going to a bowl game meant something. But they've added so many now that it doesn't mean shit anymore. Alabama has the record for most bowl games and it doesn't mean shit anymore. We'll probably never lose it.

 

[rmilia1]

How? By eliminating hundreds of games in favor of a bloated playoff? Again, no thank you.

You want to drop the schedule back to 10 games. So nearly 100 teams not worthy of your playoff would be 10 and done. I don't know where you are going to come up with money for those schools to keep their football programs, because you are for sure taking millions out of play, but you don't care right? Just more playoffs at any cost.

You end up with a net loss of games overall, but this is said to be done to bring more football.

All of you with these crazy ideas have no idea how badly you want to break this sport. That's that inevitable outcome.

They play football at all levels man and do so without huge tv revenues (;which would go up exponentially with s bigger playoff ). Money is a copout answer

 

[rmilia1]

Look at last years top25 before the bowls.

Auburn was #10 with 3 losses.

Then you have Stanford #16 with 4 losses and all the teams from #15 on have 3 losses minimum.

You may claim they'll have less due to the 2 less games played, but guess what - those 2 games you'll be taking away are usually wins, especially for top25 teams - so NOPE, same losses, less wins.

And even if you were correct in that manner, you are still looking at the same teams as now either way, which is the actual point, not the losses.

Teams would not be playing 12 games . They'd be playing 10. You'd have 10 league champs and 22 at larges . You'd like have 5-6 unbeatens ( especially at the G5 level ), 7-8 1 loss teams , the rest of the stuff larges would be 2 and 3 loss teams ( same as every other level of football )

 

[Rolltide94]

I'd prefer we just did it like D3. You play 1 OOC game , 9 conference games . Keep the committee and pick the 32 best teams after 10 games and go settoe it on the field . It'd keep the regular season meaningful but make the postseason exponentially better . I really don't see the argument against it other than people just not wanting to change

Well, for staters, There are 250 D3 schools with even less inter-conference play. So you want the same # of spots for half the number of teams? That makes sense to you? 1 in ever 4 teams making the playoffs? You realize what that looks like right? Do we really need Indiana playing Kentucky for a chance to play the winner of Alabama vs Bowling Green? Talk about a ratings shitfest. Do you really think ESPN is going to pony up significant cash for those two matchups?

 

[rmilia1]

Well, for staters, There are 250 D3 schools with even less inter-conference play. So you want the same # of spots for half the number of teams? That makes sense to you? 1 in ever 4 teams making the playoffs? You realize what that looks like right? Do we really need Indiana playing Kentucky for a chance to play the winner of Alabama vs Bowling Green? Talk about a ratings shitfest. Do you really think ESPN is going to pony up significant cash for those two matchups?

That's not what would happen . I'm happy to do a breakdown for you if you'd like

 

[Rolltide94]

I'm not advocating for 8-4 teams getting in

I'm saying
1 ooc game
9 league games

Take the top 32 teams ) personally I'd do the 10 league winners and 22 at larges )

You then seed them in quadrants to reduce travel and bam

All you're losing is 2 largely irrelevant ooc games and you're replacing league title games with playoff games

Sure some 8-2 or 7-3 teams might get in but so what ? It's still better than watching 6-6 Utah St play 7-5 Toledo in the all American dildo bowl sponsored by ky jelly

Dude, you are advocating for 1/4 of the team in FBS to make the playoffs. The bottom half of the top 25 final poll is full of 4 loss teams every year...what do you think the next 7 teams look like? And that is the top 25...your AQ conference winners will water that down even more. You are clearly advocating for shit tons of 8-2 and 7-3 teams to get in...along with some 6-4 teams...and maybe the odd 5-5 Sun Belt winner.

With AQ teams, 1 vs 32 is going to be a playoff matchup so dismal that it would be on PPV.

 

[WizardHawk]

They play football at all levels man and do so without huge tv revenues (;which would go up exponentially with s bigger playoff ). Money is a copout answer

So you remove around 100 games. All of that revenue from ticket sales, tailgating, merch/food sales, etc. Add a few extra rounds of playoffs which would give some extras to the teams involved. And yet tell us money is a cop out? lol

No sir, the majority of those teams you want to rob of two extra regular season games rely on that gameday money. And the businesses around them also rely on that. It impacts communities.

For you, turning college into the NFL would give you NFL like playoff highs. Newsflash: The 32nd seed is going to get murdered 95% of the time. We watch teams just outside of the 25 playing ranked teams all the time. The majority of those games are fairly routine and boring.

You will take money and fan experience away from 100 teams and claim the excitement of expanded playoffs makes up for it. It sounds like a very selfish attempt to get your team more glory, not really adding anything to the sport. And the price we would pay in watered down football and boring early rounds of so-called playoffs doesn't come close to making up for it.

College football is not, and will never be, the NFL. The disparity is WAY too much to ever bring that kind of competitive post season format. You will not find what you believe in this travesty of an idea.

 

[Rolltide94]

That's not what would happen . I'm happy to do a breakdown for you if you'd like

Sure, I'll give you an actual year...2010. Show me your playoff scenario for 2010. Then show me what the ratings look like for 6-6 FIU vs 13-0 Auburn.

 

[WizardHawk]

Dude, you are advocating for 1/4 of the team in FBS to make the playoffs. The bottom half of the top 25 final poll is full of 4 loss teams every year...what do you think the next 7 teams look like? And that is the top 25...your AQ conference winners will water that down even more. You are clearly advocating for shit tons of 8-2 and 7-3 teams to get in...along with some 6-4 teams...and maybe the odd 5-5 Sun Belt winner.

With AQ teams, 1 vs 32 is going to be a playoff matchup so dismal that it would be on PPV.

He's taking games away so in his mind only playing 10 games means less of a chance of a 4 loss team. If you remove 1/6 of the current season you have less of a resume to be ranked on as well as all of that revenue. He's literally insane.

 

[Rolltide94]

He's taking games away so in his mind only playing 10 games means less of a chance of a 4 loss team. If you remove 1/6 of the current season you have less of a resume to be ranked on as well as all of that revenue. He's literally insane.

I bet there would still be the occasional 5 loss team in his scenario. There have been 6-6 conference champs this decade.

I don't even want to imagine the cut that ESPN would demand in their payout for his revenue depletion model. Counting the loss of at least 2 regular season games and the CCG's, no bowls, but replacing it with this shitfest playoffs. If I were ESPN I would start at 1/2 and negotiate from there.

 

[rmilia1]

Dude, you are advocating for 1/4 of the team in FBS to make the playoffs. The bottom half of the top 25 final poll is full of 4 loss teams every year...what do you think the next 7 teams look like? And that is the top 25...your AQ conference winners will water that down even more. You are clearly advocating for shit tons of 8-2 and 7-3 teams to get in...along with some 6-4 teams...and maybe the odd 5-5 Sun Belt winner.

With AQ teams, 1 vs 32 is going to be a playoff matchup so dismal that it would be on PPV.

Once again . You'd be playing 10 games not 12/13 and you'd be be giving 10 autobids. As stated I'm happy to use last year and hresk it down for you if you wish .

 

[rmilia1]

Sure, I'll give you an actual year...2010. Show me your playoff scenario for 2010. Then show me what the ratings look like for 6-6 FIU vs 13-0 Auburn.

How bout I just do last year since it's fresh? Lol