Do you agree with the selection committee's make up?

[Deep Creek]

You want to throw out at least 25% of all games as though they don't happen. And somehow suggest we will get better games. No, no we won't. Exhibition games will get you backups and JV sort of development at best.

In 50 to 75% of that 25% of the schedule you reference, we are already getting "backups vs JV" sort of games!

Sumpin' tells me Georgia's starters won't break a sweat next fall when they play Austin Peay, MTSU and UMASS...thus backups and JVs.

South Carolina will require them to break a sweat...so, one out of four.

And I ain't pickin' on just Georgia since a great majoirity of the rest of the big dogs have similar OOC schedules...i.e Bama won't break a sweat against ULL, THe Citadel, Ark State. I hope Louisville at least makes them get "lathered up" to use a horse racing term. They should.

And, these type OOC schedules are by design to not have teams have to strain too much.

 

[NolePride]

What makes you think conference champions = best team in the conference?

They have a better conf record and the League has proclaimed them to be the "Conference Champion."
Hell...they even give them a Trophy.

Why did you always believe the Big12 needed a Conf Title game, when they were playing everybody
in the League?

 

[NolePride]

In 50 to 75% of that 25% of the schedule you reference, we are already getting "backups vs JV" sort of games!

Sumpin' tells me Georgia's starters won't break a sweat next fall when they play Austin Peay, MTSU and UMASS...thus backups and JVs.

South Carolina will require them to break a sweat...so, one out of four.

And I ain't pickin' on just Georgia since a great majoirity of the rest of the big dogs have similar OOC schedules...i.e Bama won't break a sweat against ULL, THe Citadel, Ark State. I hope Louisville at least makes them get "lathered up" to use a horse racing term. They should.

And, these type OOC schedules are by design to not have teams have to strain too much.

What a Great Response.

I'm in envy that I didn't think of it.

But I went and gathered the numbers for the 64 members of the P5 leagues and these
historic games that won't mean anything anymore.

(Next year's schedule)

Let's begin. There will be a total of 66 P5 teams playing an OOC game vs another P5 league
(33 games)

The P5 Leagues have a total of 220 OOC games next year.

33 vs P5 teams.

48 vs 1-AA's

139 vs mid-majors.

Let's look at the percentages...

15% vs Power 5 teams

21.8% vs 1-AA's

63.2% vs Mid-Majors

85% of the OOC games are already worthless drivel.

How will the sport ever survive?

And you know why they don't play each other? Because it is too
risky for them to face actual competition where they might get
beat and harm them when the 13 guys go behind closed doors
to SELECT 4 teams.

If that was eliminated and just conf champs selected, the prospects
of more intersectional games would be greatly enhanced. They'd
have nothing to lose then, and their fan bases would demand good
games. Most fans can't stand this crap of playing so many punk schools.

 

[Deep Creek]

85% of the OOC games are already worthless drivel.

The P5 Leagues have a total of 220 OOC games next year.

33 vs P5 teams.

48 vs 1-AA's

139 vs mid-majors.

Let's look at the percentages...

15% vs Power 5 teams

21.8% vs 1-AA's

63.2% vs Mid-Majors

85% of the OOC games are already worthless drivel.

Guess I was a little low on the 50-75%. I think some P5 schools skew that a little since they schedule more than one P5 OOC. West Virginia comes to mind next year as they play 2 of 3 OOCs against P5s... Tennessee, NC State and Youngstown State next year. So does USC (Texas, ND and UNLV), Texas (Maryland, USC and Tulsa), So, for every one of those P5s willing to schedule two other P5 schools in OOC we get others that follow the Art Briles' Bayloresque type of OOC scheduling.

Think of the quality of OOC games we would get if those numbers were more along these lines:
139 vs other P5s
48 vs G5s
33 vs FCS.

That would be a great start in making OOC very relevant.

 

[4down20]

They have a better conf record and the League has proclaimed them to be the "Conference Champion."
Hell...they even give them a Trophy.

Why did you always believe the Big12 needed a Conf Title game, when they were playing everybody
in the League?

The SEC didn't crown the best team as their champion this year. In fact, the best SEC team didn't even get to play in the conference championship.

You know why? Because they don't put the best teams in the conference championships, just the teams that win certain games. Auburn loses to LSU but beats Alabama - makes the conference championship. Alabama beats LSU but loses to Auburn - Auburn makes the championship. Georgia loses to Auburn, Alabama loses to Auburn, Georgia makes the championship game. Because they are the better team? No, because they just so happened to be grouped up with a different bunch of teams.

Furthermore the Clemson loss for Auburn didn't even count.

 

[WizardHawk]

In 50 to 75% of that 25% of the schedule you reference, we are already getting "backups vs JV" sort of games!

Sumpin' tells me Georgia's starters won't break a sweat next fall when they play Austin Peay, MTSU and UMASS...thus backups and JVs.

South Carolina will require them to break a sweat...so, one out of four.

And I ain't pickin' on just Georgia since a great majoirity of the rest of the big dogs have similar OOC schedules...i.e Bama won't break a sweat against ULL, THe Citadel, Ark State. I hope Louisville at least makes them get "lathered up" to use a horse racing term. They should.

And, these type OOC schedules are by design to not have teams have to strain too much.

So in your world there aren't any games AT ALL where decent P5's play other decent P5's. The rest of us enjoy those games you seem to believe only happen once or twice a year across the entire sport. To you and this delusional Noles fan conference games, and the champions they produce are all that college football is about.

There are plenty of us that disagree and thankfully that includes everyone who governs the sport.

 

[Deep Creek]

So in your world there aren't any games AT ALL where decent P5's play other decent P5's. The rest of us enjoy those games you seem to believe only happen once or twice a year across the entire sport. To you and this delusional Noles fan conference games, and the champions they produce are all that college football is about.

There are plenty of us that disagree and thankfully that includes everyone who governs the sport.

Did I say not "any"? No, I damn sure didn't. I said "50-75% of 'em" weren't so that means 25-50% are...and I know for a fact you could deduct that because you aren't an idiot.

You are just trying to exaggerate what I said in order to fit your line of thinking. You chastised me for such just a week or so ago. Now, you are doing the same shit.

Sure there are SOME good ones...just not even close to ENOUGH of 'em in my world. And, I just gave you three examples of them...West Virginia vs Tennessee, West Virginia vs NC State, USC vs Texas, USC vs Notre Dame, Texas vs Maryland. Those are real good P5s vs P5s.

I repeat, "in my world" there aren't ENOUGH P5 vs P5 OOC matchups! IS THAT CLEAR?

 

[WizardHawk]

Did I say not "any"? No, I damn sure didn't. I said "50-75% of 'em" weren't so that means 25-50% are...and I know for a fact you could deduct that because you aren't an idiot.

You are just trying to exaggerate what I said in order to fit your line of thinking. You chastised me for such just a week or so ago. Now, you are doing the same shit.

Sure there are SOME good ones...just not even close to ENOUGH of 'em in my world. And, I just gave you three examples of them...West Virginia vs Tennessee, West Virginia vs NC State, USC vs Texas, USC vs Notre Dame, Texas vs Maryland. Those are real good P5s vs P5s.

I repeat, "in my world" there aren't ENOUGH P5 vs P5 OOC matchups! IS THAT CLEAR?

ok, but doesn't Nole's 10 team mega playoff with auto bids entirely destroy the ones you admit already are good? It doesn't meet your goal of wanting more at all. That's the point. When you make them ALL exhibition games you destroy what made any of them good to begin with.

Of course teams already trot out backups in those shitty games most of us don't like. But there is no doubt at all you would see that also in every one of the good matchups. You would have to do that. Knowing they have zero impact on your playoff potential and you can never get enough chances for live fire for backups and break in younger players why wouldn't Meyer put out some of his kids against Oklahoma? He'd be a total idiot not to.

How can removing ANY good OOC games now make for better football? Nole claims a playoff with all of the G5's having a seat would make for many better match ups and has no examples of how. Because it won't. Sure, it would make things a bit more interesting for the top teams of those G5's, but that enhances college football enough to make up for the loss of EVERY SINGLE GOOD TOP OOC GAME? No, not in any way.

 

[7Samurai13]

The SEC didn't crown the best team as their champion this year. In fact, the best SEC team didn't even get to play in the conference championship.

You know why? Because they don't put the best teams in the conference championships, just the teams that win certain games. Auburn loses to LSU but beats Alabama - makes the conference championship. Alabama beats LSU but loses to Auburn - Auburn makes the championship. Georgia loses to Auburn, Alabama loses to Auburn, Georgia makes the championship game. Because they are the better team? No, because they just so happened to be grouped up with a different bunch of teams.

Furthermore the Clemson loss for Auburn didn't even count.

Even if you eliminated divisions, Auburn no matter what would have been in the CCG based on any tie breakers conferences put out there. It’s just a matter of who gets the rematch, Georgia or Alabama.

 

[4down20]

Even if you eliminated divisions, Auburn no matter what would have been in the CCG based on any tie breakers conferences put out there. It’s just a matter of who gets the rematch, Georgia or Alabama.

Yep, because they lost to a worse team(LSU) and OOC losses have no meaning(Clemson).

It's a process for deciding a conference champion, not the best team in the conference. However, 90% of the time the two go hand in hand.

 

[WizardHawk]

Yep, because they lost to a worse team(LSU) and OOC losses have no meaning(Clemson).

It's a process for deciding a conference champion, not the best team in the conference. However, 90% of the time the two go hand in hand.

Which is why all of this nonsense talk about auto bids into a larger playoff based entirely off that is just ludicrous.

And when someone tries to claim it's more fair or gives us better games...

 

[NolePride]

Did I say not "any"? No, I damn sure didn't. I said "50-75% of 'em" weren't so that means 25-50% are...and I know for a fact you could deduct that because you aren't an idiot.

You are just trying to exaggerate what I said in order to fit your line of thinking. You chastised me for such just a week or so ago. Now, you are doing the same shit.

Sure there are SOME good ones...just not even close to ENOUGH of 'em in my world. And, I just gave you three examples of them...West Virginia vs Tennessee, West Virginia vs NC State, USC vs Texas, USC vs Notre Dame, Texas vs Maryland. Those are real good P5s vs P5s.

I repeat, "in my world" there aren't ENOUGH P5 vs P5 OOC matchups! IS THAT CLEAR?

I just chuckled at your list of teams you support!

I haven't noticed that before.

Now, granted you support your school but I kinda think you are making a subtle
point with the other 3 that you have listed. "Spreading the wealth."

Kansas...Illinois...Oregon State.

ROTFLMFAO

 

[Deep Creek]

ok, but doesn't Nole's 10 team mega playoff with auto bids entirely destroy the ones you admit already are good? It doesn't meet your goal of wanting more at all. That's the point. When you make them ALL exhibition games you destroy what made any of them good to begin with.

Of course teams already trot out backups in those shitty games most of us don't like. But there is no doubt at all you would see that also in every one of the good matchups. You would have to do that. Knowing they have zero impact on your playoff potential and you can never get enough chances for live fire for backups and break in younger players why wouldn't Meyer put out some of his kids against Oklahoma? He'd be a total idiot not to.

How can removing ANY good OOC games now make for better football? Nole claims a playoff with all of the G5's having a seat would make for many better match ups and has no examples of how. Because it won't. Sure, it would make things a bit more interesting for the top teams of those G5's, but that enhances college football enough to make up for the loss of EVERY SINGLE GOOD TOP OOC GAME? No, not in any way.

I'm only for auto bids if there is a pre established floor and/or the conferences do away with divisions where only the two best play in the CCG and/or the conferences are small enough to have a true round robin w/o a CCG. Hell, I wouldn't be opposed to a 12 team conference playing a true round robin and only having one OOC game since they are playing 2-3 mullets in OOC right now anyway...but, I digress.

How can removing ANY good OOC games now make for better football? Again, I didn't say to "remove ANY good OOC games" did I? I'm advocating for REPLACING the crummy ones with good ones. Hell, for the most part right now, that seems to be going the other direction by replacing good OOC games with crappy ones.

 

[Deep Creek]

I just chuckled at your list of teams you support!

I haven't noticed that before.

Now, granted you support your school but I kinda think you are making a subtle
point with the other 3 that you have listed. "Spreading the wealth."

Kansas...Illinois...Oregon State.

ROTFLMFAO

Hell, I'm channeling my inner @Used 2 B Hu. He's been known to put up some low lifes or schools getting the short end of the stick for some reason or another. (Right now he's got the B1G logo on there for some reason or another. Claims it is because he has a big butt...but, I ain't buying it.)

I had Rutgers on there but they were winning too damn many games this year so they got their ass kicked off. Had to replace them with Illinois. Was going to put Baylor in there but we can't have two teams from the same conference ya know. Always looking for cellar dwellars. Misery loves company.

 

[WizardHawk]

I'm only for auto bids if there is a pre established floor and/or the conferences do away with divisions where only the two best play in the CCG and/or the conferences are small enough to have a true round robin w/o a CCG. Hell, I wouldn't be opposed to a 12 team conference playing a true round robin and only having one OOC game since they are playing 2-3 mullets in OOC right now anyway...but, I digress.

How can removing ANY good OOC games now make for better football? Again, I didn't say to "remove ANY good OOC games" did I? I'm advocating for REPLACING the crummy ones with good ones. Hell, for the most part right now, that seems to be going the other direction by replacing good OOC games with crappy ones.

This keeps going back and forth because I'm speaking entirely to Nole's insane proposal and you jump in to defend or otherwise talk on those merits and we end up here. YOU may not want the end of OOC games, but that's what Nole wants and he clearly said he has no problem with them having zero meaning and becoming exhibition games because ALL he cares about is 10 so-called champions having a tournament at the end of the year. It is my contention that his idea takes more away from football than it returns. You can keep helping him muddy the water by splitting hairs on how many of those 25-33% of games currently played outside of conference are worth saving, but his idea goes farther away from your stated goal of having better games.

As we have discussed, I'm not married to this current system at all. I have lots of things I find less than perfect. I'm just not looking at destroying the whole thing in some ill fated attempt to fix it. And I'm a realist. The money and the same forces driving it today are not going away on their own. Balance isn't coming. A system that lets G5's have a better shot at playing for a championship against those high ranked P5's isn't coming. The bowl game system isn't going away. Proposals of any type have to keep those things in mind.

And as 4D20 pointed out, the CCG process in college football isn't designed to give you the best team from that conference so using those crowns to mean anything more is both stupid, and not going to happen. I see no scenario going forward that would take a G5 conf champ and leave a top 4 or 5 ranked team that didn't win their conference home.

 

[Deep Creek]

This keeps going back and forth because I'm speaking entirely to Nole's insane proposal and you jump in to defend or otherwise talk on those merits and we end up here. YOU may not want the end of OOC games, but that's what Nole wants and he clearly said he has no problem with them having zero meaning and becoming exhibition games because ALL he cares about is 10 so-called champions having a tournament at the end of the year. It is my contention that his idea takes more away from football than it returns. You can keep helping him muddy the water by splitting hairs on how many of those 25-33% of games currently played outside of conference are worth saving, but his idea goes farther away from your stated goal of having better games.

As we have discussed, I'm not married to this current system at all. I have lots of things I find less than perfect. I'm just not looking at destroying the whole thing in some ill fated attempt to fix it. And I'm a realist. The money and the same forces driving it today are not going away on their own. Balance isn't coming. A system that lets G5's have a better shot at playing for a championship against those high ranked P5's isn't coming. The bowl game system isn't going away. Proposals of any type have to keep those things in mind.

And as 4D20 pointed out, the CCG process in college football isn't designed to give you the best team from that conference so using those crowns to mean anything more is both stupid, and not going to happen. I see no scenario going forward that would take a G5 conf champ and leave a top 4 or 5 ranked team that didn't win their conference home.

Okay, I'll shut up then because I am not for doing away with the OOC entirely. But, your defense of the entire OOC slate, like it is sacrosanct, is about as asinine as the other extreme. The current OOC scheduling can and should be improved. And you know it should.

 

[WizardHawk]

Okay, I'll shut up then because I am not for doing away with the OOC entirely. But, your defense of the entire OOC slate, like it is sacrosanct, is about as asinine as the other extreme. The current OOC scheduling can and should be improved. And you know it should.

Not only have I never said nor suggested the OOC model shouldn't be improved, I've spent years up here saying it does.

One substantial reason I just ended my season tickets is paying for too many bad games. You can't have read hardly anything from me without knowing my entire disdain over it.

However, that'e entirely different than making the ones that are good into exhibition games which is all THIS conversation has been about.

For some reason you routinely read too much into generalized statements and want to make them into more than what was said.

Expanding the playoffs and getting rid of committee or other human factors in seeding one are not going to fix the quality of OOC games and in fact would entirely further degrade it if the auto bid folks get their wish. That's really the only point made.

 

[Deep Creek]

Not only have I never said nor suggested the OOC model shouldn't be improved, I've spent years up here saying it does.

One substantial reason I just ended my season tickets is paying for too many bad games. You can't have read hardly anything from me without knowing my entire disdain over it.

However, that'e entirely different than making the ones that are good into exhibition games which is all THIS conversation has been about.

For some reason you routinely read too much into generalized statements and want to make them into more than what was said.

Expanding the playoffs and getting rid of committee or other human factors in seeding one are not going to fix the quality of OOC games and in fact would entirely further degrade it if the auto bid folks get their wish. That's really the only point made.

Then I mistook those general statements as you meaning the OOC was sacrosanct and were defending it til the death. Never saw any of your statments stating the OOC model should be improved. All I've seen is the opposite. My apologies.

I don't think the schools will change their OOC practices until more stop paying for crappy games as you have.

 

[WizardHawk]

Then I mistook those general statements as you meaning the OOC was sacrosanct and were defending it til the death. Never saw any of your statments stating the OOC model should be improved. All I've seen is the opposite. My apologies.

I don't think the schools will change their OOC practices until more stop paying for crappy games as you have.

UW is on the rise. My leaving decades long season tickets won't mean a thing to them.

I had hopped the committee would punish weak SoS more and help encourage better scheduling, but that really hasn't been the case. At least not enough to impact it substantially.

There are quite a few things I would do or change if I was in charge, just like most here have their own ideas, but the reality is most of them are entirely impossible in this climate.

Such as going back to 10 team conferences. I wasn't in favor of going to 12 as it was, and really think any talk of going to 16 is just dumb. It's nothing but a money grab for the schools themselves which shows they will take income over quality of the game every time.

Our methods for picking conference winners is bad and I don't care if it's a top 2 or some other solution, but seeding teams based on imbalanced schedules is pretty bad.

And you already know I don't think it's going to be 2025 before change comes given the financial climate of ESPN and the rest that feed off the teat of cable providers.

But with all of the CTE stuff going on and the growing concern over youth football and all of this media shift, I'm not sure if whatever change is coming will still result in a game that's anything like it was when we were growing up.