CFP since 1998...

[4down20]

So...yeah. 6 or 8 playoff teams would be great for big man college football. That's all I want...a little increase. I mention that and some people just lose their minds. When you look at the number of teams in other playoffs/tournaments it's not a big deal. Also, take a look at the other divisions of college football. If they've expanded why in the hell wouldn't the big boys expand? Not to 24 or 32, but no more than 8 would be reasonable.

NCAA football:
FCS--4 (1978), 8 (1981), 12 (1982), 16 (1986), 20 (2010), 24 (2013)
D-II--8 (1973), 16 (1988), 24 (2004), 28 (2016)
D-III--4 (1973), 8 (1975), 16 (1985), 28 (1999), 32 (2005)

Other NCAA sports:
Baseball/Softball-64
Basketball (M)-68
Basketball (W)-64
Beach volleyball-8
Field hockey-18
Ice hockey (M)-16
Ice hockey (W)-8
Lacrosse (M)-16
Lacrosse (W)-28
Soccer (M)-48
Soccer (W)-64
Volleyball (M)-6
Volleyball (W)-64
Water polo (M)-4
Water polo (W)-10
(M) = Men; (W) = Women

Not a single one of those sports is anywhere near as physical a game as football.

 

[outofyourmind]

You don't sound butthurt at all.

That's all you have?
It's always "you're butthurt" or "you're a hater" with your little Alabama mindset garbage.
When anyone doesn't bow down to your opinions you always come back around to it.


Alabama has a plan when it comes to scheduling.
It seems to be a good plan for them.
It's obvious to everyone that it's an advantage for them.
A lot of people seem to think that Alabama is afraid to schedule home/home deals because of the things that could happen.
Some people would be right.
It's just easier to say, yep, that's right, and get on down the road.

But you aren't able to do that.
It's you against the world.

 

[PhilSimms11]

Not a single one of those sports is anywhere near as physical a game as football.

That is true. That's why I wouldn't want it to go more than 8 teams. They do manage a decent amount of teams in the other divisions of football. I know those guys are not as physically large or perhaps athletic, but it's still tackle football.

 

[4down20]

That's all you have?
It's always "you're butthurt" or "you're a hater" with your little Alabama mindset garbage.
When anyone doesn't bow down to your opinions you always come back around to it.


Alabama has a plan when it comes to scheduling.
It seems to be a good plan for them.
It's obvious to everyone that it's an advantage for them.
A lot of people seem to think that Alabama is afraid to schedule home/home deals because of the things that could happen.
Some people would be right.
It's just easier to say, yep, that's right, and get on down the road.

But you aren't able to do that.
It's you against the world.

No, butthurt people want to claim Alabama is afraid because you're jealous and need to hang on something to hate on Alabama with.

It's easy to prove and show that Alabama gets more money for these neutral site games. You get paid every year rather than every other year. The reason more teams don't do it is....because you don't get invited to them. The only team I've ever known to turn one down is Michigan St and they have a stupid AD.

The fact that you think it matters where a game is played so much to claim a team is scared, while Alabama opens the season against a top5 team just highlights how petty you have to get.

As if both teams being on an equal field is somehow bad. It's the format used for all championships in football, but apparently it's somehow bad.

The more petty you have to get to sling shit, the more butthurt you are.

People who aren't butthurt - don't care.

Deal with it.

 

[socaljim242]

Every time this question is asked. It reverts to they make more money. Which is rediculous when compared to the arguemeny regarding an expanded play offs. If money is a factor extra play off games hold the max potential for increased revenue

Yeah, we won't go play a Wisconsin at their house because we'd rather play Chattanooga at home.

 

[7Samurai13]

Why don't more teams play at Hawaii since they get paid good money to fly out plus they get an extra game to play at home? It's all about money, right?

 

[socaljim242]

Why don't more teams play at Hawaii since they get paid good money to fly out plus they get an extra game to play at home? It's all about money, right?

Hawaii is just one team. I imagine their dance card gets full pretty quick and easy. They pick their OCC games instead of big schools pick them.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Why don't more teams play at Hawaii since they get paid good money to fly out plus they get an extra game to play at home? It's all about money, right?

SC has played Hawaii they've also traveled cross country for home and homes. Including Syracuse which was played at Giants stadium. A game that combined big a home and home scheduling and a big stadium in Syarcusrs home state across the country. So I would say there are plenty of options and money is not the issue. It can be done if schools want to. And money is a key factor for schools. Extending the play offs provides a max profit

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Yeah, we won't go play a Wisconsin at their house because we'd rather play Chattanooga at home.

When you break it down it is a contradiction isn't it? I don't know it seems to me plenty of other schools including big name schools that aren't afraid to travel

 

[socaljim242]

SC has played Hawaii they've also traveled cross country for home and homes. Including Syracuse which was played at Giants stadium. A game that combined big a home and home scheduling and a big stadium in Syarcusrs home state across the country. So I would say there are plenty of options and money is not the issue. It can be done if schools want to. And money is a key factor for schools. Extending the play offs provides a max profit

I've got nothing against neutral site games. They usually have to have good matchups and to start the season it's great but it shouldn't take the place of really good home and homes. There wasn't one USC fan, even after getting pasted by Bama who didn't wish that the game was in Tuscaloosa instead of Arlington. I really liked traveling to the Shoe to play Ohio State as well as Auburn some years back. The game in Texas had none of that. It's not about money. You can't pay your coaching staff 12 million a year and say you have to play the neutral site game for the money when you line up Southern Carolina and Wofford at home. Home much money would USC fans would have spent near and in the school in three days leading up to the game. Pretty sure ,significantly more than what Chattanooga fans do I'm sure.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

I've got nothing against neutral site games. They usually have to have good matchups and to start the season it's great but it shouldn't take the place of really good home and homes. There wasn't one USC fan, even after getting pasted by Bama who didn't wish that the game was in Tuscaloosa instead of Arlington. I really liked traveling to the Shoe to play Ohio State as well as Auburn some years back. The game in Texas had none of that. It's not about money. You can't pay your coaching staff 12 million a year and say you have to play the neutral site game for the money when you line up Southern Carolina and Wofford at home. Home much money would USC fans would have spent near and in the school in three days leading up to the game. Pretty sure ,significantly more than what Chattanooga fans do I'm sure.

Oh I agree on all counts. SC has played some great home and homes over the years. SC Ohio State is great to see. I don't mind neutral site games. But I think that's something you mix up a little. When it's done consistently you lose the luster of some great home and homes. With elite competition. As far as the November FCS..... I can't see anyone wanting to pay to see a scrimmage late in the season. I know I wouldn't. It is good for a laugh tho I guess

 

[socaljim242]

Oh I agree on all counts. SC has played some great home and homes over the years. SC Ohio State is great to see. I don't mind neutral site games. But I think that's something you mix up a little. When it's done consistently you lose the luster of some great home and homes. With elite competition. As far as the November FCS..... I can't see anyone wanting to pay to see a scrimmage late in the season. I know I wouldn't. It is good for a laugh tho I guess

That year USC played San Jose state to start the season then the next game was against Idaho there were some pretty pissed fans. I know because I was one of them. I heard they scheduled Idaho to help some former coach of USC who went to Idaho as a favor but fk that was depressing football. If USC played San Jose State or Azuza Pacific in late november (would never happen) someone would lose their job.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

That year USC played San Jose state to start the season then the next game was against Idaho there were some pretty pissed fans. I know because I was one of them. I heard they scheduled Idaho to help some former coach of USC who went to Idaho as a favor but fk that was depressing football. If USC played San Jose State or Azuza Pacific in late november (would never happen) someone would lose their job.

This is true too. I'm not a fan of the FCS thing. Seems like a pro team playing a minor league imo. Late in the season well that's really just laughable. I didnt care for SC playing those mid majors early either. I get it was a favor. And that there is risk in scheduling dangerous teams. But I would rather see a competitive game. I want to see them go out there and prove themselves against the best competition possible.

By expanding the play offs it raises the competition level in conference. And scheduling for those at large bids. And that makes for exciting college football imo. Neutral site games may be fun. But I can't say they are better than say an Oklahoma Ohio state home and home. Two blue bloods in two of the greatest atmospheres in college football. With a lot on the line.... I'll take that every time

 

[socaljim242]

This is true too. I'm not a fan of the FCS thing. Seems like a pro team playing a minor league imo. Late in the season well that's really just laughable. I didnt care for SC playing those mid majors early either. I get it was a favor. And that there is risk in scheduling dangerous teams. But I would rather see a competitive game. I want to see them go out there and prove themselves against the best competition possible.

By expanding the play offs it raises the competition level in conference. And scheduling for those at large bids. And that makes for exciting college football imo. Neutral site games may be fun. But I can't say they are better than say an Oklahoma Ohio state home and home. Two blue bloods in two of the greatest atmospheres in college football. With a lot on the line.... I'll take that every time

The game between USC and Bama in Arlington had a pro football feel. There were more corporate types there than actual fans and no clear student sections. No visible traditions .The fans who could afford it went but if it would have been in Tuscaloosa you would have had the Bama home crowd, all the pageantry of college football in the south which would have been a treat.

 

[4down20]

The game between USC and Bama in Arlington had a pro football feel. There were more corporate types there than actual fans and no clear student sections. No visible traditions .The fans who could afford it went but if it would have been in Tuscaloosa you would have had the Bama home crowd, all the pageantry of college football in the south which would have been a treat.

Alabama only recently started doing big games at Bryant Denny after stadium expansions. Before then, it was Legion Field. That's where USC played Alabama when they won, it was a "Home Game" in the sense it was in Alabama and it was our "home" game of the "home and home" series, but USC has never actually stepped foot in Bryant Denny.

So "traditionally", neutral site is where you would play Alabama.

 

[socaljim242]

Alabama only recently started doing big games at Bryant Denny after stadium expansions. Before then, it was Legion Field. That's where USC played Alabama when they won, it was a "Home Game" in the sense it was in Alabama and it was our "home" game of the "home and home" series, but USC has never actually stepped foot in Bryant Denny.

So "traditionally", neutral site is where you would play Alabama.

So they could have played this game in Tuscaloosa

 

[TheRobotDevil]

The game between USC and Bama in Arlington had a pro football feel. There were more corporate types there than actual fans and no clear student sections. No visible traditions .The fans who could afford it went but if it would have been in Tuscaloosa you would have had the Bama home crowd, all the pageantry of college football in the south which would have been a treat.

That's why I prefer the home and homes like Ohio State Oklahoma. That tradition, pageantry and the fan bases are what make college football the best sport there is imo. As big as some of these neutral site games are played off to be. There's a lot of home and homes that blow the doors off them.And far more money in an expanded play off if money is the concern

 

[socaljim242]

Alabama only recently started doing big games at Bryant Denny after stadium expansions. Before then, it was Legion Field. That's where USC played Alabama when they won, it was a "Home Game" in the sense it was in Alabama and it was our "home" game of the "home and home" series, but USC has never actually stepped foot in Bryant Denny.

So "traditionally", neutral site is where you would play Alabama.

It's amazing how the Bama women dress up with the hounds tooth dresses and purses and shoes. That was pretty cool.

 

[4down20]

So they could have played this game in Tuscaloosa

A home and home now would be played in Tuscaloosa, but it's only in the past 15 years that it's the case.

We played over 200 games at Legion Field, and if it was a big game, that is where it was played in our history. Even big conference games were played at Legion.

 

[PhilSimms11]

'30 for 30' was on yesterday about The Pony Excess. I've seen it a few times. It's one of my favorites. I thought I'd go back and look at the rankings after the regular season to come up with a playoff. What I found interesting was the Big Ten. For some reason, 8 of the 10 teams played 9 conference games and the other two played 8 (Iowa did not play Ohio St for some reason). Everyone else played a round robin schedule. Michigan was 8-1 and Ohio St was 7-1. Ohio St beat Michigan, but they gave the Big Ten title to Michigan. That's messed up. It was like that in the Pac-10 also. 6 played 8 games and 4 played 7. Anyway, here's the 6-team playoff I made...

(1)Georgia (11-0)
*(2)Penn St (10-1)

(3)Nebraska (11-1) vs (6)Clemson (9-1-1)
(4)SMU (10-0-1) vs (5)UCLA (9-1-1)
------------------
An 8-team would have looked like this:
(1)Georgia (11-0) vs (8)Michigan (8-3)
(4)SMU (10-0-1) vs (5)UCLA (9-1-1)

*(2)Penn St (10-1) vs (7)Clemson (9-1-1)
(3)Nebraska (11-1) vs *(6)Pittsburgh (9-2)
(*)at-large

That was a bad ass SMU team. They were paying players like a son-of-a-bitch, but it was a damn good team nevertheless.