*** Official 2015 College Football Thread *** (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

The "top 4 conference champs, IF they are ranked in the top 6" fixes the Stanford Oregon problem.

This time.Just like regulators in any industry, college football ones have a tendency to catch a problem only after it occurs and then to overcorrect it.Here we see:-- Team A beats Team B, wins conference championship-- Team B has better record than Team A because of easier OOC schedule, therefore has higher ranking-- Solution: If in top 6, conference champs get in over nonconference champsWorks great.Now how about this?-- Oregon beats LSU last season.-- Stanford beats Oregon.-- Oregon goes 11-1; Stanford loses to USC and loses to Notre Dame-- Oregon is ranked #4, Stanford is ranked #6Stanford wins the P10 and gets in. Oregon is left out. Or:-- Oregon beats LSU-- Stanford beats Oregon-- Oregon goes 11-1, is ranked #4-- Stanford loses to USC but goes 11-1-- USC loses to Oregon and Arizona State, but beats Stanford and wins Pac-12 South-- USC beats Stanford in P12CG, vaults up to #6 with a 11-2 recordOregon beat USC, and has one fewer loss, but USC gets in over Oregon.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I have no real problem with a committee approach, though I think it's a bit silly for four teams. It's better than the crap we have now and would begin to minimize the crappy polls which is always a plus.

Committee approach doesn't do it for me. The idea of a "blue-ribbon committee" sounds like something Congress draws up to make it sound important and official. In reality you'll have a small number of people with specific affiliations and no specific guidelines or standards to make a decision.Not saying there's a better solution, but but a committee is barely better than the media. Maybe not even better.

Works fine for basketball. The devil is always in the details. It really depends on who makes up the committee. It sure could be set up to make your assumptions reality, but it can also be set up correctly. If it is, I have no problem with it.

Basketball is not analogous to football. We're picking 4 teams, not 65. I think a football blue ribbon committee could correctly pick the 65 best teams, defining correctly as not making a major ####-up.

 

[The Commish]

I have no real problem with a committee approach, though I think it's a bit silly for four teams. It's better than the crap we have now and would begin to minimize the crappy polls which is always a plus.

Committee approach doesn't do it for me. The idea of a "blue-ribbon committee" sounds like something Congress draws up to make it sound important and official. In reality you'll have a small number of people with specific affiliations and no specific guidelines or standards to make a decision.Not saying there's a better solution, but but a committee is barely better than the media. Maybe not even better.

Works fine for basketball. The devil is always in the details. It really depends on who makes up the committee. It sure could be set up to make your assumptions reality, but it can also be set up correctly. If it is, I have no problem with it.

Basketball is not analogous to football. We're picking 4 teams, not 65. I think a football blue ribbon committee could correctly pick the 65 best teams, defining correctly as not making a major ####-up.

How many teams have to be involved for a committee to be valid in your mind?

 

[Chase Stuart]

How many teams have to be involved for a committee to be valid in your mind?

Good question. Eight might do the trick, although not necessarily if there are auto-bids.

 

[GDogg]

The "top 4 conference champs, IF they are ranked in the top 6" fixes the Stanford Oregon problem.

This time.Just like regulators in any industry, college football ones have a tendency to catch a problem only after it occurs and then to overcorrect it.Here we see:-- Team A beats Team B, wins conference championship-- Team B has better record than Team A because of easier OOC schedule, therefore has higher ranking-- Solution: If in top 6, conference champs get in over nonconference champsWorks great.Now how about this?-- Oregon beats LSU last season.-- Stanford beats Oregon.-- Oregon goes 11-1; Stanford loses to USC and loses to Notre Dame-- Oregon is ranked #4, Stanford is ranked #6Stanford wins the P10 and gets in. Oregon is left out. Or:-- Oregon beats LSU-- Stanford beats Oregon-- Oregon goes 11-1, is ranked #4-- Stanford loses to USC but goes 11-1-- USC loses to Oregon and Arizona State, but beats Stanford and wins Pac-12 South-- USC beats Stanford in P12CG, vaults up to #6 with a 11-2 recordOregon beat USC, and has one fewer loss, but USC gets in over Oregon.

When there are no standards for schedules and there is not a true playoff, nothing is going to be perfect. There are going to be years where there is a ton of controversy.Besides, your third scenario isn't going to happen. UCLA will be defeating Southern Cal with regularity moving forward.

 

[shader]

The "top 4 conference champs, IF they are ranked in the top 6" fixes the Stanford Oregon problem.

This time.Just like regulators in any industry, college football ones have a tendency to catch a problem only after it occurs and then to overcorrect it.Here we see:-- Team A beats Team B, wins conference championship-- Team B has better record than Team A because of easier OOC schedule, therefore has higher ranking-- Solution: If in top 6, conference champs get in over nonconference champsWorks great.Now how about this?-- Oregon beats LSU last season.-- Stanford beats Oregon.-- Oregon goes 11-1; Stanford loses to USC and loses to Notre Dame-- Oregon is ranked #4, Stanford is ranked #6Stanford wins the P10 and gets in. Oregon is left out. Or:-- Oregon beats LSU-- Stanford beats Oregon-- Oregon goes 11-1, is ranked #4-- Stanford loses to USC but goes 11-1-- USC loses to Oregon and Arizona State, but beats Stanford and wins Pac-12 South-- USC beats Stanford in P12CG, vaults up to #6 with a 11-2 recordOregon beat USC, and has one fewer loss, but USC gets in over Oregon.

Thats true. The only way to avoid any strange circumstances is to have a committee. Of course you need that committee to be honest and fair.However, in college football, there are going to be angry teams regardless.I still would prefer previously referenced rule though, because at least it would be pretty clear to teams what they have to do to get in:Win your conference and have very minimal losses. If you lose your conference and are at 7, tough luck. If you lose conference and are at 5 but four conference champs are 1-4, tough luck. Next time win your conference.

 

[shader]

How many teams have to be involved for a committee to be valid in your mind?

Good question. Eight might do the trick, although not necessarily if there are auto-bids.

I think 8 works best without a committee. You have 5 or 6 qualifying conferences, take those winners, a couple wild cards, and go to town.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Thats true. The only way to avoid any strange circumstances is to have a committee. Of course you need that committee to be honest and fair.However, in college football, there are going to be angry teams regardless.I still would prefer previously referenced rule though, because at least it would be pretty clear to teams what they have to do to get in:Win your conference and have very minimal losses. If you lose your conference and are at 7, tough luck. If you lose conference and are at 5 but four conference champs are 1-4, tough luck. Next time win your conference.

I'd rather avoid artificial guidelines. They just don't add much; when the guidelines would have worked, a committee would (hopefully) get it right. When they don't, you have a problem.I guess the bigger question is what happens with the undefeated Boise States of the world? I guess TCU and Utah are now in power conferences, but what about the Big East? Does an undefeated BE champ always make it in? And then you have the Notre Dame issue.We have four power conferences in CFB, the ACC, the Big East, and then everyone else. If USC, Ohio State, Texas and Florida are ranked 1-4, the system works. But you've got a 12-1 ACC Champ in over a 11-2 SEC Champ, it breaks down. The Big East has had parity issues since Brian Kelly left, but an undefeated BE champ is still a legit threat. BSU and Houston are good adds for the conference. And who knows about Notre Dame.But the majority of the time, we will have at least one of two major threats:-- an undefeated BYU or Big East champ, or a 12-1 Notre Dame or ACC Champ. An undefeated MAC or CUSA champ is less of an issue, but possible. In any event, any one of these causes a problem, and two of them causes a huge problem (a 12-1 Virginia Tech and an undefeated Boise State isn't too hard to envision)-- the conference champs in any of the big four conferences aren't clear. You always have the potential of three 11-1 teams in a division (Big 12 South in '08, SEC last year if Arkansas beat LSU), along with an upset in a conference championship game. The odds of all 4 conferences having one clear, elite team are extremely small in any given year, let alone most of the time.The issue becomes how are we better off when an 11-1 Florida gets in over an 11-1 Michigan, or a 11-2 Big12 champ gets in over an undefeated Boise State?Four team playoff sounds good in theory, but I maintain it wouldn't do anything but change the criticism the majority of the time. Literally the only way this works is if (a) all 4 major conferences have one loss or undefeated conference champs, (b) Notre Dame and the ACC have normal years and © no one else goes undefeated. Does that seem likely to anyone?

 

[Chase Stuart]

How many teams have to be involved for a committee to be valid in your mind?

Good question. Eight might do the trick, although not necessarily if there are auto-bids.

I think 8 works best without a committee. You have 5 or 6 qualifying conferences, take those winners, a couple wild cards, and go to town.

Are undefeated teams guaranteed a berth?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

How many teams have to be involved for a committee to be valid in your mind?

Good question. Eight might do the trick, although not necessarily if there are auto-bids.

I think 8 works best without a committee. You have 5 or 6 qualifying conferences, take those winners, a couple wild cards, and go to town.

Are undefeated teams guaranteed a berth?

You're a month late to the discussion. Until every conference champion has a shot in the playoffs, it's a flawed system. That's why the NCAA tournament works. Every single team has a chance to play their way into the tournament and win it. Even a Butler, VCU, or George Mason has almost pulled it off too. The only debatable thing about the NCAA tournament is seeding and who plays where, which is minimal.

 

[The Commish]

How many teams have to be involved for a committee to be valid in your mind?

Good question. Eight might do the trick, although not necessarily if there are auto-bids.

I think 8 works best without a committee. You have 5 or 6 qualifying conferences, take those winners, a couple wild cards, and go to town.

Are undefeated teams guaranteed a berth?

You're a month late to the discussion. Until every conference champion has a shot in the playoffs, it's a flawed system. That's why the NCAA tournament works. Every single team has a chance to play their way into the tournament and win it. Even a Butler, VCU, or George Mason has almost pulled it off too. The only debatable thing about the NCAA tournament is seeding and who plays where, which is minimal.

There have always been two lines of thought as to who should be in a tournament.1. The best teams.2. Teams that win their conference + some more.This was the debate in college basketball in the day and drove a lot of the expansion we've seen. I think it's absolutely valid to point it out as a "flaw" if you have a 16 or 32 team playoff that doesn't include all the conference champions. I'm not sure it's so cut and dry with fewer teams. Now if all the schedules were balanced out and conferences equalized, it would become a lot easier to say it's flawed, but until then, I think it's a hard sell.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

How many teams have to be involved for a committee to be valid in your mind?

Good question. Eight might do the trick, although not necessarily if there are auto-bids.

I think 8 works best without a committee. You have 5 or 6 qualifying conferences, take those winners, a couple wild cards, and go to town.

Are undefeated teams guaranteed a berth?

You're a month late to the discussion. Until every conference champion has a shot in the playoffs, it's a flawed system. That's why the NCAA tournament works. Every single team has a chance to play their way into the tournament and win it. Even a Butler, VCU, or George Mason has almost pulled it off too. The only debatable thing about the NCAA tournament is seeding and who plays where, which is minimal.

There have always been two lines of thought as to who should be in a tournament.1. The best teams.2. Teams that win their conference + some more.This was the debate in college basketball in the day and drove a lot of the expansion we've seen. I think it's absolutely valid to point it out as a "flaw" if you have a 16 or 32 team playoff that doesn't include all the conference champions. I'm not sure it's so cut and dry with fewer teams. Now if all the schedules were balanced out and conferences equalized, it would become a lot easier to say it's flawed, but until then, I think it's a hard sell.

I think it's way more flawed when the schedules are so different and the media/computers are telling us who the best teams are. I think one can make a pretty decent case that if you don't win your conference you're not the best team (I know Alabama last year didn't win their conference). But it's all opinion on whether Conf A's champ is better than Conf B's or Conf C's.If we're going to include every conference then you need a 16 team playoff. FCS seems to make it work; hell they are going to 24 teams which is way too many. If it's just going to be the big boys playing then it can work with 8 teams, or 12 teams with four byes.

 

[Tiger Fan]

oh good...another thread talking about this

 

[pollardsvision]

How many teams have to be involved for a committee to be valid in your mind?

Good question. Eight might do the trick, although not necessarily if there are auto-bids.

I think 8 works best without a committee. You have 5 or 6 qualifying conferences, take those winners, a couple wild cards, and go to town.

Are undefeated teams guaranteed a berth?

You're a month late to the discussion. Until every conference champion has a shot in the playoffs, it's a flawed system. That's why the NCAA tournament works. Every single team has a chance to play their way into the tournament and win it. Even a Butler, VCU, or George Mason has almost pulled it off too. The only debatable thing about the NCAA tournament is seeding and who plays where, which is minimal.

There have always been two lines of thought as to who should be in a tournament.1. The best teams.2. Teams that win their conference + some more.This was the debate in college basketball in the day and drove a lot of the expansion we've seen. I think it's absolutely valid to point it out as a "flaw" if you have a 16 or 32 team playoff that doesn't include all the conference champions. I'm not sure it's so cut and dry with fewer teams. Now if all the schedules were balanced out and conferences equalized, it would become a lot easier to say it's flawed, but until then, I think it's a hard sell.

As much as I'd like to see the conference title games work as a playoff of sorts, the problem you mention gets even worse as the conferences grow in size.As the conference schedules get even more unbalanced, it'll get even harder to know what to make of some conference champions.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'd love a system that included more teams + still kept the regular season valuable. What I support is:

-- 10 teams are eligible for post-season consideration (can't have a 10-team playoff!!!)

-- 6 teams get a bye; the other 4 play each other, at the site of the better seed

Advantage: Being in the top six means you get a week off before the playoffs and don't have to have a play-in game

-- With 8 teams left, the highest four seeds host the lowest four seeds

Advantage: If you're in the top 2, you play a team that just had to play the week before. If you're in the top 4, you get a home game

Now with 4 teams left, you have them play at the neutral sites.

This gets us 10 teams in the discussion, but there are huge benefits to being top 2 (bye, HFA, play a tired team), top 4 (bye, HFA), top 6 (bye) and top 8 (HFA in round 1). Literally every step of the way there are small benefits, so that team #1 has a significant edge over team #10. But at least every team has a *chance*.

I'd do autobids to the conference champs but still only if they're in the top 14 or 16. An 8-4 Big East champ is still SOL, IMO. But that's not a huge detail and one I'd give in on. Otherwise, last year we would have had:

1 - LSU

2 - Oklahoma State (IMO, committee would have seeded them ahead of Alabama)

3 - Alabama

4 - Oregon (think committee would seed them above Stanford)

5 - Stanford

6 - Arkansas

Then you'd have Wisconsin, Boise State, Clemson and one other team. Maybe Kansas State, maybe South Carolina, maybe Michigan. This gives us some buffer -- Houston would obviously be there had they won and that's key. There won't always be 10 deserving teams, but there will almost never be 11 deserving ones.

So in round 1 we might have Boise State @ Clemson and Kansas State @ Wisconsin. The winners of those two games would have a much more impressive body of work, and at that point, are reasonably eligible for an 8-team playoff.

How fun would this have been?

Boise State in Baton Rouge

Wisconsin in Stillwater

You could have the committee elect to avoid rematches if you want, and have Arkansas play Oregon and Stanford travel to Alabama. Those games would be incredible.

Then put the winners of those games in two bowls. At that point, you have a real national champion. One who has earned it.

 

[gump]

Here's an article in USA Today outlining '10-11 revenues and expenses by school:

http://www.usatoday....210/1#mainstory

'Texas' program is one of only 22 across Division I that operate in the black'

School      RevenueTexas 	$150MOSU 	$131MAlabama    $125MUF 	$123MMichigan 	$123MPenn St    $116MLSU 	$107MUT 	$104MOklahoma 	$104MAuburn 	$103M

This is always interesting when you throw in the number of sports each school actually participates in. The numbers get even worse.

I heard the K St ad on radio today talking about it...they were the most profitable program on the list...he said 2of their 14 programs make money.

 

[Slapdash]

How many teams have to be involved for a committee to be valid in your mind?

Good question. Eight might do the trick, although not necessarily if there are auto-bids.

I think an eight team with no auto-bids is the way to go.

 

[The Commish]

Here's an article in USA Today outlining '10-11 revenues and expenses by school:

http://www.usatoday....210/1#mainstory

'Texas' program is one of only 22 across Division I that operate in the black'

School      RevenueTexas 	$150MOSU 	$131MAlabama    $125MUF 	$123MMichigan 	$123MPenn St    $116MLSU 	$107MUT 	$104MOklahoma 	$104MAuburn 	$103M

This is always interesting when you throw in the number of sports each school actually participates in. The numbers get even worse.

I heard the K St ad on radio today talking about it...they were the most profitable program on the list...he said 2of their 14 programs make money.

In this discussion I was referring to the revenue part...not necessarily the profit part. Few programs at a school will turn a profit. What interests me is when you compare all these schools and how many programs they have that generate the revenues. It takes on a different meaning.

 

[gump]

WVU and Alabama rumored to be opening the '14 season:

http://eerinsider.co...ma-in-2014.html

JAA still around?

 

[The Commish]

One of the things a committee could aid in is OOC scheduling. Look what it did for basketball. Committee made it known that OOC mattered and we have great games early in the bball season to show for it.

 

[The Commish]

Just Secondary Violations This Time

Also an illustration of how stupid some of these NCAA rules are.

 

[wadegarrett]

Just Secondary Violations This Time

Also an illustration of how stupid some of these NCAA rules are.

Those are so pathetic.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Just Secondary Violations This Time

Also an illustration of how stupid some of these NCAA rules are.

Those are so pathetic.

It's easy to mock the NCAA when saying "Good luck" to a kid is a violation, but if they didn't draw the line there recruiters would just push further and these high school kids would never get any break from them at all.

 

[The Commish]

Just Secondary Violations This Time

Also an illustration of how stupid some of these NCAA rules are.

Those are so pathetic.

It's easy to mock the NCAA when saying "Good luck" to a kid is a violation, but if they didn't draw the line there recruiters would just push further and these high school kids would never get any break from them at all.

No question....it's stupid that they have to go this far with some of them.

 

[wadegarrett]

Just Secondary Violations This Time

Also an illustration of how stupid some of these NCAA rules are.

Those are so pathetic.

It's easy to mock the NCAA when saying "Good luck" to a kid is a violation, but if they didn't draw the line there recruiters would just push further and these high school kids would never get any break from them at all.

No question....it's stupid that they have to go this far with some of them.

yep...it's just so dumb it's comical

 

[GoFishTN]

Has this been posted yet?

The champions of the Big 12 and SEC conferences will meet in a New Year's Day bowl game annually beginning with the 2014 season, the conferences said Friday in a news release.

The five-year agreement calls for the champions of each conference to be in the matchup "unless one or both are selected to play in the new four-team model to determine the national championship," the statement said.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7945482/big-12-sec-champions-play-new-year-bowl-game

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Has this been posted yet?

The champions of the Big 12 and SEC conferences will meet in a New Year's Day bowl game annually beginning with the 2014 season, the conferences said Friday in a news release.

The five-year agreement calls for the champions of each conference to be in the matchup "unless one or both are selected to play in the new four-team model to determine the national championship," the statement said.

http://espn.go.com/c...-year-bowl-game

When will this ever happen? It's been since 2002 that one of the two hasn't been in the BCS game and 13-1 Georgia surely would have made a field of four that season.

 

[GoFishTN]

Has this been posted yet?

The champions of the Big 12 and SEC conferences will meet in a New Year's Day bowl game annually beginning with the 2014 season, the conferences said Friday in a news release.

The five-year agreement calls for the champions of each conference to be in the matchup "unless one or both are selected to play in the new four-team model to determine the national championship," the statement said.

http://espn.go.com/c...-year-bowl-game

When will this ever happen? It's been since 2002 that one of the two hasn't been in the BCS game and 13-1 Georgia surely would have made a field of four that season.

The champions will never play, but they will pick "another deserving team" instead.

 

[shader]

Has this been posted yet?

The champions of the Big 12 and SEC conferences will meet in a New Year's Day bowl game annually beginning with the 2014 season, the conferences said Friday in a news release.

The five-year agreement calls for the champions of each conference to be in the matchup "unless one or both are selected to play in the new four-team model to determine the national championship," the statement said.

http://espn.go.com/c...-year-bowl-game

When will this ever happen? It's been since 2002 that one of the two hasn't been in the BCS game and 13-1 Georgia surely would have made a field of four that season.

This will NEVER happen.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Has this been posted yet?

The champions of the Big 12 and SEC conferences will meet in a New Year's Day bowl game annually beginning with the 2014 season, the conferences said Friday in a news release.

The five-year agreement calls for the champions of each conference to be in the matchup "unless one or both are selected to play in the new four-team model to determine the national championship," the statement said.

http://espn.go.com/c...-year-bowl-game

When will this ever happen? It's been since 2002 that one of the two hasn't been in the BCS game and 13-1 Georgia surely would have made a field of four that season.

The champions will never play, but they will pick "another deserving team" instead.

Right on. I only read the quote and not the whole article. It seem kinda pointless and maybe even a bad thing since most years it will keep a good team from one of the 5 major bowls.

 

[Moe.]

Has this been posted yet?

The champions of the Big 12 and SEC conferences will meet in a New Year's Day bowl game annually beginning with the 2014 season, the conferences said Friday in a news release.

The five-year agreement calls for the champions of each conference to be in the matchup "unless one or both are selected to play in the new four-team model to determine the national championship," the statement said.

http://espn.go.com/c...-year-bowl-game

When will this ever happen? It's been since 2002 that one of the two hasn't been in the BCS game and 13-1 Georgia surely would have made a field of four that season.

The champions will never play, but they will pick "another deserving team" instead.

Right on. I only read the quote and not the whole article. It seem kinda pointless and maybe even a bad thing since most years it will keep a good team from one of the 5 major bowls.

This will turn into one of the major bowls (I haven't read the article, I'm not sure how it's different from the Cotton Bowl tbh other than it's usually the 3rd best SEC team that goes there), and it's also pretty much guaranteed to be a decent matchup. The BCS has had some decent non-title game matchups but at least we won't have to suffer through an OU-UCONN type of game. I'd much rather have this.

 

[Mark Davis]

Has this been posted yet?

The champions of the Big 12 and SEC conferences will meet in a New Year's Day bowl game annually beginning with the 2014 season, the conferences said Friday in a news release.

The five-year agreement calls for the champions of each conference to be in the matchup "unless one or both are selected to play in the new four-team model to determine the national championship," the statement said.

http://espn.go.com/c...-year-bowl-game

When will this ever happen? It's been since 2002 that one of the two hasn't been in the BCS game and 13-1 Georgia surely would have made a field of four that season.

The champions will never play, but they will pick "another deserving team" instead.

Right on. I only read the quote and not the whole article. It seem kinda pointless and maybe even a bad thing since most years it will keep a good team from one of the 5 major bowls.

This will turn into one of the major bowls (I haven't read the article, I'm not sure how it's different from the Cotton Bowl tbh other than it's usually the 3rd best SEC team that goes there), and it's also pretty much guaranteed to be a decent matchup. The BCS has had some decent non-title game matchups but at least we won't have to suffer through an OU-UCONN type of game. I'd much rather have this.

My guess is this will be in the Cotton Bowl. It will turn into 5 major bowl games instead of 4.

 

[The Commish]

Has this been posted yet?

The champions of the Big 12 and SEC conferences will meet in a New Year's Day bowl game annually beginning with the 2014 season, the conferences said Friday in a news release.

The five-year agreement calls for the champions of each conference to be in the matchup "unless one or both are selected to play in the new four-team model to determine the national championship," the statement said.

http://espn.go.com/c...-year-bowl-game

When will this ever happen? It's been since 2002 that one of the two hasn't been in the BCS game and 13-1 Georgia surely would have made a field of four that season.

The champions will never play, but they will pick "another deserving team" instead.

Right on. I only read the quote and not the whole article. It seem kinda pointless and maybe even a bad thing since most years it will keep a good team from one of the 5 major bowls.

This will turn into one of the major bowls (I haven't read the article, I'm not sure how it's different from the Cotton Bowl tbh other than it's usually the 3rd best SEC team that goes there), and it's also pretty much guaranteed to be a decent matchup. The BCS has had some decent non-title game matchups but at least we won't have to suffer through an OU-UCONN type of game. I'd much rather have this.

My guess is this will be in the Cotton Bowl. It will turn into 5 major bowl games instead of 4.

Will be interesting to see the BCS's response to this if the powers that be decide to use the BCS bowls to host the playoff. Creating this bowl takes money out of their hands.

 

[GoFishTN]

My guess is this will be in the Cotton Bowl. It will turn into 5 major bowl games instead of 4.

Where does that leave the Sugar Bowl?

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

They Big 12 has to love that they essentially got the SEC to agree in writing that they're on the same level.

 

[GDogg]

A writer for college football news just suggested that the Pac-12 and SEC should try to reach an agreement for the Pac-12's #2 vs. the SEC #3 in the Fiesta Bowl. Seems like a pretty good idea. I haven't given it too much thought, though.

I'm all for improving the Pac-12's bowl tie-ins, which have been historically terrible outside of the Rose Bowl.

 

[gump]

Seems like the beginning of a Super-Conference.

Also leaves the ACC on the outside looking in.

Throw a few ACC teams in the mix and voila....you have a 26-28 team union encompassing all southern football powers.

 

[Christo]

Just Secondary Violations This Time

Also an illustration of how stupid some of these NCAA rules are.

Meyer is reported to have said "good luck" to football recruit Noah Spence at a Dec. 16 high school game, violating NCAA rules prohibiting direct contact with recruits during competition.

You have got to be kidding me.

 

[Premier]

I'm more convinced now than I've ever been that FSU us heading to the B12.

 

[Raider Nation]

Phil Steele releases 2012 preseason All-American teams:

http://blog.philsteele.com/2012/05/28/2012-preseason-all-american-team/

 

[wadegarrett]

Phil Steele releases 2012 preseason All-American teams:http://blog.philsteele.com/2012/05/28/2012-preseason-all-american-team/

Does anyone in the country have more pressure on him this year than Matt Barkley?

 

[gump]

Phil Steele releases 2012 preseason All-American teams:

http://blog.philstee...-american-team/

The Alabama OL is ridiculous.

 

[Christo]

Phil Steele releases 2012 preseason All-American teams:http://blog.philsteele.com/2012/05/28/2012-preseason-all-american-team/

Does anyone in the country have more pressure on him this year than Matt Barkley?

Landry Jones is pretty close.

 

[gump]

The always innovative Steve Spurrier is expected to have a new proposal this week at the SEC meetings....for Division winners to be determined on Division record only.

Its an obvious shot at UGA's schedule the last two years. Interesting but no chance of happening.

 

[roadkill1292]

The always innovative Steve Spurrier is expected to have a new proposal this week at the SEC meetings....for Division winners to be determined on Division record only. Its an obvious shot at UGA's schedule the last two years. Interesting but no chance of happening.

When conferences routinely increase to 16-18 teams, you will essentially have two football conferences instead of one anyway, at which point Spurrier's idea is hard to dispute.

 

[gump]

The always innovative Steve Spurrier is expected to have a new proposal this week at the SEC meetings....for Division winners to be determined on Division record only. Its an obvious shot at UGA's schedule the last two years. Interesting but no chance of happening.

When conferences routinely increase to 16-18 teams, you will essentially have two football conferences instead of one anyway, at which point Spurrier's idea is hard to dispute.

Conferences may then go to 4 divisions. Either way, I doubt it ever happens in the SEC with inter-division rivalries as big as they are.

 

[The Commish]

The always innovative Steve Spurrier is expected to have a new proposal this week at the SEC meetings....for Division winners to be determined on Division record only. Its an obvious shot at UGA's schedule the last two years. Interesting but no chance of happening.

When conferences routinely increase to 16-18 teams, you will essentially have two football conferences instead of one anyway, at which point Spurrier's idea is hard to dispute.

Conferences may then go to 4 divisions. Either way, I doubt it ever happens in the SEC with inter-division rivalries as big as they are.

my hope is...if they are going to these gigantic conferences that the "conference games" on the schedule will be those of your division and the rest are out of conference minus your largest rival in the other division.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Who is the Gamecocks permanent rival now? Arkansas?

 

[gump]

The always innovative Steve Spurrier is expected to have a new proposal this week at the SEC meetings....for Division winners to be determined on Division record only. Its an obvious shot at UGA's schedule the last two years. Interesting but no chance of happening.

When conferences routinely increase to 16-18 teams, you will essentially have two football conferences instead of one anyway, at which point Spurrier's idea is hard to dispute.

Conferences may then go to 4 divisions. Either way, I doubt it ever happens in the SEC with inter-division rivalries as big as they are.

my hope is...if they are going to these gigantic conferences that the "conference games" on the schedule will be those of your division and the rest are out of conference minus your largest rival in the other division.

Personally I wouldn't like that...but it'll be impossible to please everyone. We would keep Tennessee, but lose rotating games with Florida and UGA.

 

[gump]

Who is the Gamecocks permanent rival now? Arkansas?

Yep...since they both joined the conference at the same time.