CFP Championship - Frawgs vs Dawgs

[CyCrazy]

This is why I don't watch ESPN at all anymore other than when a game is on. It's not some ethical protest, it's just because I can't stand any of their shows, they've all moved pretty hard in that direction.

Same, I do like E60 stuff other than that I never watch ESPn

 

[surly]

This is a series that I really liked much like Ken Burns' baseball historical documentary on PBS.

saturdays in the south - Google Search

 

[Kinch]

This game really hurt the big12 a lot.

not really. This hurt Harbaugh more.

 

[ISUTex]

Unfortunately, the Big 12 is a mid-major in football. Can midmajors sometimes upset blue bloods? Sure, TCU did against Michigan…

But when it comes down to it, the Top 2 Big 12 teams this year (Kansas State/TCU) got assblasted in bowl games against top SEC teams

What happened to Ohio State and Justin Fields against Bama in the championship? What happened to Michigan last year? What happened to Michigan this year?

Nobody in the media wants to bring those games up.

TCU won a semifinal game against the Big 10 champ.

The Big 12 is NOT a mid major. If they are, then what is the Big 10?

 

[Kinch]

We got our foot in the door, beat the Big 10 champions and a chance to play for a natty and became the only conference in the last three years to play for natties in both mens basketball and football.

 

[HFCS]

What happened to Ohio State and Justin Fields against Bama in the championship? What happened to Michigan last year? What happened to Michigan this year?

Nobody in the media wants to bring those games up.

TCU won a semifinal game against the Big 10 champ.

The Big 12 is NOT a mid major. If they are, then what is the Big 10?

I get the argument that the rest of college football outside the SEC is a mid major. Frankly that’s what I’ve thought for many years.

I feel the same way about basketball and the Big 12. Playing the Big Ten champ in a road game in the NCAA tournament was like a night off compared to Big 12 play. Compare the bottom 3 of Big 12 basketball to the bottom 3 of any other conference and it’s an absolute joke, you’re talking about a 38ish ranked team vs a 170ish team.

I don’t see anybody in national media making that SEC superior argument though. The argument is that Michigan is much better than the team they lost to 8 days ago, and that Ohio State is flawless second best team even though they lost by 20 at home a few weeks ago to the same team TCU just beat on a neutral field.

 

[surly]

This is a classic speech. You boys heard stuff like this?

 

[CyCrazy]

B12 is not a mid major you "sky is falling guys". Good lord. No one was beating UGA last night.

 

[surly]

What happened to Ohio State and Justin Fields against Bama in the championship? What happened to Michigan last year? What happened to Michigan this year?

Nobody in the media wants to bring those games up.

TCU won a semifinal game against the Big 10 champ.

The Big 12 is NOT a mid major. If they are, then what is the Big 10?

People simply don't accept that there are three elite programs that have nothing to do with their leagues beyond dominating them. Saying the SEC is better than the B12 is absolutely true for two or three teams, not the league.

K-State boat raced Missouri 40-12. Missouri is an SEC middling member. Missouri claiming superiority based on UGA play is like the golfer doing so because he belongs to Tiger's country club.

But the top of the leagues are truly different. UGA and Bama are light years better than the B12, ACC, P12, and B10 sans tOSU. That's just the way it is right now, and I'm not sure when nor how it changes.

 

[ISUTex]

I get the argument that the rest of college football outside the SEC is a mid major. Frankly that’s what I’ve thought for many years.

I feel the same way about basketball and the Big 12. Playing the Big Ten champ in a road game in the NCAA tournament was like a night off compared to Big 12 play. Compare the bottom 3 of Big 12 basketball to the bottom 3 of any other conference and it’s an absolute joke, you’re talking about a 38ish ranked team vs a 170ish team.

I don’t see anybody in national media making that SEC superior argument though. The argument is that Michigan is much better than the team they lost to 8 days ago, and that Ohio State is flawless second best team even though they lost by 20 at home a few weeks ago to the same team TCU just beat on a neutral field.

The SEC has one or two dominant teams every year. The other 12 teams aren't any different from the rest of the country.

 

[BigDH01]

And Ohio State couldn't come ready to play for a home game that had been dubbed by the media as the ultimate greatest single game in the history of sports and got their doors blown off.

Really this is just a year where one team has this iron clad grip on #1 and nobody else is close.

If TCU wasn't worthy of a 4 team playoff, the only argument left is that it should have been the top 4 SEC teams and nobody from other conferences. I mean that potentially is a valid argument, it makes just as much sense as saying Michigan is better than TCU or Ohio State is some ultimate perfect team after they got stomped at home in a huge hype game.

The Pac and ACC didn't exactly make a case that they needed representation more than Big 12 and Big Ten either.

It'll be very healthy to get a 12 team playoff where the SEC always gets 2-4 teams to reflect its strength, the Big Ten can get 2-3 teams to reflect its ownership of the selection process, and the other conferences just get to play and sometimes win without all this second guessing.

"Worthy" is an ambiguous term. I think one of the issues in this discussion is that folks have implicit feelings about whether the playoff should be the 4 best teams or the 4 most deserving teams. The committee itself hasn't help by applying unspoken and arbitrary rules. It would be hard to keep TCU out if the playoff is about the most deserving teams. If it's about the best teams, it might look different.

I used to be pro expanding the playoffs but now I'm not so sure. The biggest problem that I see right now, and I think this was on display last night, is that there are some really elite schools and then there's everyone else. There's just not a ton of parity between the top end and the also-rans. What the 12 team playoff is going to do is ensure those elite schools get a shot every year but I fear it's still going to be the same elites winning because they are just better. And I'm not necessarily talking about win-loss records, but it's the same schools year in and year out that get the best recruits and send the most players to the NFL. They've just accumulated most of the talent and they do so consistently. I also fear that conference realignment is only exacerbating this issue by clearly consolidating those schools into fewer conferences.

Controversially, I think the problem is the concept of "power 5" and a lot of fanbases not coming to terms with the fact that there are elite teams and then there is everyone else. This is probably a natural consequence of not having a real NFL minor league. Players really don't have a choice if they want to make a career out of football, they have to attend a university and they're going to go to the ones who have the best history of sending players to the NFL. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

If I had a magic wand, I would create a new conference that contains these elite programs and could pay players and essentially segregate those who want to make a career of football from student athletes. The other schools would be partitioned by size and geography into conferences. Essentially, I would create an actual NFL minor league.

There are some issues with this though that I'm not sure how to solve, but some of those exist today. Does it make a ton of sense to force a young star earning a couple million a year to attend Psych 101 with students who will be doing well to make a couple million over their entire careers, especially when that star is really just looking for a way to make football a career? In that model, outside of trying to monetize the nostalgia alumni have, what association is there really between schools and football? Branding? Football subsidizing other sports? I think more and more people are going to raise this question when players have more ability to monetize what they're doing.

By designating a single conference as "the" conference for aspiring NFL athletes to go to to get recruited and get paid, we're effectively *explicitly* delegating the other schools to something "less." I'm honestly ok with that. I'd rather have ISU play our regional rivals in close games consistently than hang onto the dream that ISU is ever going to go to the playoffs. Winning is nice but college football is more than that to me.

Eh, just spitballing.

 

[Gonzo]

"Worthy" is an ambiguous term. I think one of the issues in this discussion is that folks have implicit feelings about whether the playoff should be the 4 best teams or the 4 most deserving teams. The committee itself hasn't help by applying unspoken and arbitrary rules. It would be hard to keep TCU out if the playoff is about the most deserving teams. If it's about the best teams, it might look different.

I used to be pro expanding the playoffs but now I'm not so sure. The biggest problem that I see right now, and I think this was on display last night, is that there are some really elite schools and then there's everyone else. There's just not a ton of parity between the top end and the also-rans. What the 12 team playoff is going to do is ensure those elite schools get a shot every year but I fear it's still going to be the same elites winning because they are just better. And I'm not necessarily talking about win-loss records, but it's the same schools year in and year out that get the best recruits and send the most players to the NFL. They've just accumulated most of the talent and they do so consistently. I also fear that conference realignment is only exacerbating this issue by clearly consolidating those schools into fewer conferences.

Controversially, I think the problem is the concept of "power 5" and a lot of fanbases not coming to terms with the fact that there are elite teams and then there is everyone else. This is probably a natural consequence of not having a real NFL minor league. Players really don't have a choice if they want to make a career out of football, they have to attend a university and they're going to go to the ones who have the best history of sending players to the NFL. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

If I had a magic wand, I would create a new conference that contains these elite programs and could pay players and essentially segregate those who want to make a career of football from student athletes. The other schools would be partitioned by size and geography into conferences. Essentially, I would create an actual NFL minor league.

There are some issues with this though that I'm not sure how to solve, but some of those exist today. Does it make a ton of sense to force a young star earning a couple million a year to attend Psych 101 with students who will be doing well to make a couple million over their entire careers, especially when that star is really just looking for a way to make football a career? In that model, outside of trying to monetize the nostalgia alumni have, what association is there really between schools and football? Branding? Football subsidizing other sports? I think more and more people are going to raise this question when players have more ability to monetize what they're doing.

By designating a single conference as "the" conference for aspiring NFL athletes to go to to get recruited and get paid, we're effectively *explicitly* delegating the other schools to something "less." I'm honestly ok with that. I'd rather have ISU play our regional rivals in close games consistently than hang onto the dream that ISU is ever going to go to the playoffs. Winning is nice but college football is more than that to me.

Eh, just spitballing.

Yeah but there's maybe a single handful of teams that are on the same elite level, you're not going to get a full conference out of that.

 

[BigDH01]

The SEC has one or two dominant teams every year. The other 12 teams aren't any different from the rest of the country.

I generally agree with that but there is still a material difference between the 3rd or 4th best SEC team and the 3rd or 4th best Big 12 or Pac 12 team. Namely, the equivalent SEC schools still have the better recruiting classes and are still sending more players to the NFL. I'm looking at the 2023 recruiting rankings and 4 of the top 5 schools are either in the SEC or will be in the SEC.

But I think the point is that not every SEC team is Bama just like not every Big 10 team is tOSU.

 

[Frog]

I thought the score would be UGA winning 38-20. Boy was I wrong!!

 

[HFCS]

"Worthy" is an ambiguous term. I think one of the issues in this discussion is that folks have implicit feelings about whether the playoff should be the 4 best teams or the 4 most deserving teams. The committee itself hasn't help by applying unspoken and arbitrary rules. It would be hard to keep TCU out if the playoff is about the most deserving teams. If it's about the best teams, it might look different.

I used to be pro expanding the playoffs but now I'm not so sure. The biggest problem that I see right now, and I think this was on display last night, is that there are some really elite schools and then there's everyone else. There's just not a ton of parity between the top end and the also-rans. What the 12 team playoff is going to do is ensure those elite schools get a shot every year but I fear it's still going to be the same elites winning because they are just better. And I'm not necessarily talking about win-loss records, but it's the same schools year in and year out that get the best recruits and send the most players to the NFL. They've just accumulated most of the talent and they do so consistently. I also fear that conference realignment is only exacerbating this issue by clearly consolidating those schools into fewer conferences.

Controversially, I think the problem is the concept of "power 5" and a lot of fanbases not coming to terms with the fact that there are elite teams and then there is everyone else. This is probably a natural consequence of not having a real NFL minor league. Players really don't have a choice if they want to make a career out of football, they have to attend a university and they're going to go to the ones who have the best history of sending players to the NFL. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

If I had a magic wand, I would create a new conference that contains these elite programs and could pay players and essentially segregate those who want to make a career of football from student athletes. The other schools would be partitioned by size and geography into conferences. Essentially, I would create an actual NFL minor league.

There are some issues with this though that I'm not sure how to solve, but some of those exist today. Does it make a ton of sense to force a young star earning a couple million a year to attend Psych 101 with students who will be doing well to make a couple million over their entire careers, especially when that star is really just looking for a way to make football a career? In that model, outside of trying to monetize the nostalgia alumni have, what association is there really between schools and football? Branding? Football subsidizing other sports? I think more and more people are going to raise this question when players have more ability to monetize what they're doing.

By designating a single conference as "the" conference for aspiring NFL athletes to go to to get recruited and get paid, we're effectively *explicitly* delegating the other schools to something "less." I'm honestly ok with that. I'd rather have ISU play our regional rivals in close games consistently than hang onto the dream that ISU is ever going to go to the playoffs. Winning is nice but college football is more than that to me.

Eh, just spitballing.

I think "best" means more SEC teams, possibly at the cost of less Big Ten teams. It definitely doesn't mean more Big Ten teams as TCU did the world a favor in proving. The Big Ten really hasn't been any better than any other league in this small committee 4 team format where they basically get to pick the teams themselves. Ohio State has had mixed success but less success than the ACC's Clemson. The rest of their conference is winless.

Same thing will happen in 12 team format but luckily half the field will just play its way in from at least five conferences in the short term. There will be some game where an amazing team like Georgia sleeps on a plucky upstart like TCU, but other times you'll get last night, it'll happen more with more rounds. Some other years a Big 12 team will just straight up be #1 in nation like 2014 TCU or an ACC team like Clemson will straight up be #1. The Big Ten and SEC can't add enough teams so that the entire southeast/texas has no talented teams left.

 

[surly]

I believe the 12-team format will cull out the weaker teams like TCU and Michigan before the final, perhaps the semis.

 

[ISUTex]

I believe the 12-team format will cull out the weaker teams like TCU and Michigan before the final, perhaps the semis.

cull out weaker teams? For who? TCU and Michigan were top 4 teams. Michigan pounded Ohio St in Columbus, so it's not like Ohio St is some juggernaut. Who would've played a close game with Georgia last night?

 

[aeroclone]

I believe the 12-team format will cull out the weaker teams like TCU and Michigan before the final, perhaps the semis.

I think the 4 team format worked this year. The 4 teams in were the most deserving, and the best team won.

Who do you think would have come out of a 12 te this year to give UGA a game in the final? I know OSU took them to the wire, but UGA played really poorly in that game. I think UGA was fully capable of blowing out OSU as well. I mean if Michigan can throttle them in Columbus, Georgia can pound them at a neutral site.

 

[AlaCyclone]

Several AP voters had Michigan #2 today including Reece Davis

They like the "1" in their record. IMO, that's not looking very deep though especially with that woof of an OOC schedule.

Personally, based on the 0-2 by the B1G and the TCU blowout loss, I would have no issue with the Final Top 8 Final being:

01. Georgia (15-0) (SEC Champion with super powers)
02. Tennessee (11-2) (beat ACC Champion and Alabama)
03. Alabama (11-2) (beat Big Xii Champion)
04. TCU (13-2) (beat B1G Champion and somebody had to be slapped by UGA)
05. Michigan (13-1) (B1G Champion and beat Ohio State and Penn State)
06. Ohio State (11-2) (beat Penn State)
07. Penn State (11-2) (beat Pac Champion)
08. Tulane (12-2) (AAC and Cotton Bowl Champion)

I have no issue with the SEC teams over TCU, but the Frogs should be ahead of all of the B1G (0-2) teams and Penn State.

After that, I don't GAF.

 

[Kinch]

not really. This hurt Harbaugh more.

I guess I should have said, hurts Michigan more and could hasten Harbaugh to the NFL.