*** Official 2015 College Football Thread *** (2 Viewers)

[The Commish]

Suffice it to say, I am bored out of my gourd with no CFB and I'm jonesing for it already. It's going to be a long summer. I decided to start looking at Alabama's squad and was trying to get some historic recruiting numbers. gump (or any other Alabama fan for that matter) can you tell me if this is correct? It's not as current as I'd like, but is it accurate?2006 - 23 players in class2007 - 25 players in class2008 - 32 players in class2009 - 27 players in classThat's over 100 players recruited isn't it?

Those numbers are right....then 26, 22, and 26. The Shula-Saban transition was just before the 07 class.

How's the possible mathematically? A roster's 85 players, right?

 

[Christo]

Suffice it to say, I am bored out of my gourd with no CFB and I'm jonesing for it already. It's going to be a long summer. I decided to start looking at Alabama's squad and was trying to get some historic recruiting numbers. gump (or any other Alabama fan for that matter) can you tell me if this is correct? It's not as current as I'd like, but is it accurate?2006 - 23 players in class2007 - 25 players in class2008 - 32 players in class2009 - 27 players in classThat's over 100 players recruited isn't it?

Those numbers are right....then 26, 22, and 26. The Shula-Saban transition was just before the 07 class.

How's the possible mathematically? A roster's 85 players, right?

Over-sign/greyshirt(read: dash dreams), wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[The Commish]

Suffice it to say, I am bored out of my gourd with no CFB and I'm jonesing for it already. It's going to be a long summer. I decided to start looking at Alabama's squad and was trying to get some historic recruiting numbers. gump (or any other Alabama fan for that matter) can you tell me if this is correct? It's not as current as I'd like, but is it accurate?2006 - 23 players in class2007 - 25 players in class2008 - 32 players in class2009 - 27 players in classThat's over 100 players recruited isn't it?

Those numbers are right....then 26, 22, and 26. The Shula-Saban transition was just before the 07 class.

How's the possible mathematically? A roster's 85 players, right?

Over-sign/greyshirt(read: dash dreams), wash, rinse, repeat.

I thought the SEC had rules against the number teams could recruit?

 

[gump]

Suffice it to say, I am bored out of my gourd with no CFB and I'm jonesing for it already. It's going to be a long summer. I decided to start looking at Alabama's squad and was trying to get some historic recruiting numbers. gump (or any other Alabama fan for that matter) can you tell me if this is correct? It's not as current as I'd like, but is it accurate?2006 - 23 players in class2007 - 25 players in class2008 - 32 players in class2009 - 27 players in classThat's over 100 players recruited isn't it?

Those numbers are right....then 26, 22, and 26. The Shula-Saban transition was just before the 07 class.

How's the possible mathematically? A roster's 85 players, right?

Over-sign/greyshirt(read: dash dreams), wash, rinse, repeat.

I thought the SEC had rules against the number teams could recruit?

Back counters. Several kids every year don't qualify academically. Others graduate early. Haven't we been thru this before?

 

[The Commish]

Suffice it to say, I am bored out of my gourd with no CFB and I'm jonesing for it already. It's going to be a long summer. I decided to start looking at Alabama's squad and was trying to get some historic recruiting numbers. gump (or any other Alabama fan for that matter) can you tell me if this is correct? It's not as current as I'd like, but is it accurate?2006 - 23 players in class2007 - 25 players in class2008 - 32 players in class2009 - 27 players in classThat's over 100 players recruited isn't it?

Those numbers are right....then 26, 22, and 26. The Shula-Saban transition was just before the 07 class.

How's the possible mathematically? A roster's 85 players, right?

Over-sign/greyshirt(read: dash dreams), wash, rinse, repeat.

I thought the SEC had rules against the number teams could recruit?

Back counters. Several kids every year don't qualify academically. Others graduate early. Haven't we been thru this before?

I know we've talked about rosters in general and how they played fast and loose with the roster spots and the "statuses" of some of these players. I was not aware they were recruiting and signing well over what they could have on their teams could fit to begin with.

 

[Slapdash]

Back counters. Several kids every year don't qualify academically. Others graduate early. Haven't we been thru this before?

We've already spent about 4 pages rehashing the OOC stuff. This is right on schedule as far as FBG's CFB discussions are concerned.

 

[The Commish]

Back counters. Several kids every year don't qualify academically. Others graduate early. Haven't we been thru this before?

We've already spent about 4 pages rehashing the OOC stuff. This is right on schedule as far as FBG's CFB discussions are concerned.

I don't really have any intention to discuss it. I was simply asking if what I had found was accurate or not. I did ask a follow up question, but that's about all I care to know. As I peel back the layers of this onion I see why they have to make the rules they do and why some of these schools have the reputations they do.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Suffice it to say, I am bored out of my gourd with no CFB and I'm jonesing for it already. It's going to be a long summer. I decided to start looking at Alabama's squad and was trying to get some historic recruiting numbers. gump (or any other Alabama fan for that matter) can you tell me if this is correct? It's not as current as I'd like, but is it accurate?2006 - 23 players in class2007 - 25 players in class2008 - 32 players in class2009 - 27 players in classThat's over 100 players recruited isn't it?

Those numbers are right....then 26, 22, and 26. The Shula-Saban transition was just before the 07 class.

How's the possible mathematically? A roster's 85 players, right?

Over-sign/greyshirt(read: dash dreams), wash, rinse, repeat.

I thought the SEC had rules against the number teams could recruit?

Back counters. Several kids every year don't qualify academically. Others graduate early. Haven't we been thru this before?

Others get cut err... don't get their scholarship renewed when they get overrecruited too.

 

[gump]

Suffice it to say, I am bored out of my gourd with no CFB and I'm jonesing for it already. It's going to be a long summer. I decided to start looking at Alabama's squad and was trying to get some historic recruiting numbers. gump (or any other Alabama fan for that matter) can you tell me if this is correct? It's not as current as I'd like, but is it accurate?2006 - 23 players in class2007 - 25 players in class2008 - 32 players in class2009 - 27 players in classThat's over 100 players recruited isn't it?

Those numbers are right....then 26, 22, and 26. The Shula-Saban transition was just before the 07 class.

How's the possible mathematically? A roster's 85 players, right?

Over-sign/greyshirt(read: dash dreams), wash, rinse, repeat.

I thought the SEC had rules against the number teams could recruit?

Back counters. Several kids every year don't qualify academically. Others graduate early. Haven't we been thru this before?

Others get cut err... don't get their scholarship renewed when they get overrecruited too.

Not really. The numbers are normally worked out on the front end with gray shirts.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Suffice it to say, I am bored out of my gourd with no CFB and I'm jonesing for it already. It's going to be a long summer. I decided to start looking at Alabama's squad and was trying to get some historic recruiting numbers. gump (or any other Alabama fan for that matter) can you tell me if this is correct? It's not as current as I'd like, but is it accurate?2006 - 23 players in class2007 - 25 players in class2008 - 32 players in class2009 - 27 players in classThat's over 100 players recruited isn't it?

Those numbers are right....then 26, 22, and 26. The Shula-Saban transition was just before the 07 class.

How's the possible mathematically? A roster's 85 players, right?

Over-sign/greyshirt(read: dash dreams), wash, rinse, repeat.

I thought the SEC had rules against the number teams could recruit?

Back counters. Several kids every year don't qualify academically. Others graduate early. Haven't we been thru this before?

Others get cut err... don't get their scholarship renewed when they get overrecruited too.

Not really. The numbers are normally worked out on the front end with gray shirts.

Right. Saban has signed 133 kids in 5 years but can only have 85 on 'ship at one time. And no one has ever been forced to leave (not had their 'ship renewed)? You don't believe this bunk do you?

 

[gump]

Right. Saban has signed 133 kids in 5 years but can only have 85 on 'ship at one time. And no one has ever been forced to leave (not had their 'ship renewed)? You don't believe this bunk do you?

Who are these kids forced to leave against their will? You occassionally see a story every few years about a kid upset about leaving, but there is always another side to his story.Meanwhile 22 kids on the field in the BCS game last year for Alabama had already graduated. But that's not something you ever talk about....wonder why?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Right. Saban has signed 133 kids in 5 years but can only have 85 on 'ship at one time. And no one has ever been forced to leave (not had their 'ship renewed)? You don't believe this bunk do you?

Who are these kids forced to leave against their will? You occassionally see a story every few years about a kid upset about leaving, but there is always another side to his story.Meanwhile 22 kids on the field in the BCS game last year for Alabama had already graduated. But that's not something you ever talk about....wonder why?

Trying to change the subject now? You know the roster. List 40 something kids that have left and all their valid reasons.

 

[The Commish]

Graduating players is something that should be recognized, and we really don't do that. We always focus on the negatives. I get gump's point on that. On the other subject though, I haven't found another guy (other than Nutt sorta) who's had so many problems with health, grayshirts etc as Saban. I don't think it's a coincidence that those problems have decreased after the SEC put in that "rule" of only being able to take 28 a year or whatever that number is.

 

[gump]

Graduating players is something that should be recognized, and we really don't do that. We always focus on the negatives. I get gump's point on that. On the other subject though, I haven't found another guy (other than Nutt sorta) who's had so many problems with health, grayshirts etc as Saban. I don't think it's a coincidence that those problems have decreased after the SEC put in that "rule" of only being able to take 28 a year or whatever that number is.

No doubt the SEC abused the rule. I think its much tighter now.Quick Rivals search shows some schools from various conferences that have signed more than 85 the last 4 years:Alabama (101) , UNC (98) , Texas (95) , Michigan (94) , Oregon (93).

 

[gump]

Right. Saban has signed 133 kids in 5 years but can only have 85 on 'ship at one time. And no one has ever been forced to leave (not had their 'ship renewed)? You don't believe this bunk do you?

Who are these kids forced to leave against their will? You occassionally see a story every few years about a kid upset about leaving, but there is always another side to his story.Meanwhile 22 kids on the field in the BCS game last year for Alabama had already graduated. But that's not something you ever talk about....wonder why?

Trying to change the subject now? You know the roster. List 40 something kids that have left and all their valid reasons.

I will when I have a spare 4 hours. Off the top of my head....22 graduated by Dec, not sure how many more graduated in May....and some transferred on their own will, such as Phillip Sims...the highly touted QB from VA who didn't want to sit behind McCarron any longer.Maybe thats 25....which is what Saban has signed on average the last 4 years.

 

[The Commish]

Graduating players is something that should be recognized, and we really don't do that. We always focus on the negatives. I get gump's point on that. On the other subject though, I haven't found another guy (other than Nutt sorta) who's had so many problems with health, grayshirts etc as Saban. I don't think it's a coincidence that those problems have decreased after the SEC put in that "rule" of only being able to take 28 a year or whatever that number is.

No doubt the SEC abused the rule. I think its much tighter now.Quick Rivals search shows some schools from various conferences that have signed more than 85 the last 4 years:Alabama (101) , UNC (98) , Texas (95) , Michigan (94) , Oregon (93).

Not sure about the others, but several left the Michigan program when RR was hired. Four left after playing their first year or two for RR, then Brady Hoke has had to handle some discipline problems by kicking kids off too. They had one player that was going to be grayshirted, but he went elsewhere. It's been a topsy turvey streak for Michigan.

 

[shader]

Graduating players is something that should be recognized, and we really don't do that. We always focus on the negatives. I get gump's point on that. On the other subject though, I haven't found another guy (other than Nutt sorta) who's had so many problems with health, grayshirts etc as Saban. I don't think it's a coincidence that those problems have decreased after the SEC put in that "rule" of only being able to take 28 a year or whatever that number is.

It is what it is. If you didn't have any chance to play on the team, Saban "strongly encouraged" you to find a great transfer opportunity. This wasn't an issue years ago, but now with the 85 man roster, it became an issue.I can certainly see how some don't like these tactics used most heavily by SEC schools. I personally don't treat a college education as some sacred thing, and these guys still get free educations, albeit not at the school they were originally recruited at.I think it should be a two-way street in college football. If a player can transfer, a school should be able to "force a transfer".That being said, much depends on what the player is promised when they are recruited. If they are promised a 4 year ride, than that is different.College football is a business, and it certainly is a business in the SEC. But I can completely see how some people think it's unethical and I don't begrudge anyone who looks down on the SEC for it's "do anything to win mentality".

 

[The Commish]

Graduating players is something that should be recognized, and we really don't do that. We always focus on the negatives. I get gump's point on that. On the other subject though, I haven't found another guy (other than Nutt sorta) who's had so many problems with health, grayshirts etc as Saban. I don't think it's a coincidence that those problems have decreased after the SEC put in that "rule" of only being able to take 28 a year or whatever that number is.

It is what it is. If you didn't have any chance to play on the team, Saban "strongly encouraged" you to find a great transfer opportunity. This wasn't an issue years ago, but now with the 85 man roster, it became an issue.I can certainly see how some don't like these tactics used most heavily by SEC schools. I personally don't treat a college education as some sacred thing, and these guys still get free educations, albeit not at the school they were originally recruited at.

I think it should be a two-way street in college football. If a player can transfer, a school should be able to "force a transfer".

That being said, much depends on what the player is promised when they are recruited. If they are promised a 4 year ride, than that is different.

College football is a business, and it certainly is a business in the SEC. But I can completely see how some people think it's unethical and I don't begrudge anyone who looks down on the SEC for it's "do anything to win mentality".

There's a rub here and I'd agree with you IF, the school was penalized for the "forced transfer" like the student athletes are. They aren't. The kids are left to figure things out for themselves. There's a lot of shady tactics in CFB because it's become a business and it's happening under the guise of "student athlete". There's not nearly enough punishments in place to protect the kids.

 

[GDogg]

Right. Saban has signed 133 kids in 5 years but can only have 85 on 'ship at one time. And no one has ever been forced to leave (not had their 'ship renewed)? You don't believe this bunk do you?

Who are these kids forced to leave against their will? You occassionally see a story every few years about a kid upset about leaving, but there is always another side to his story.Meanwhile 22 kids on the field in the BCS game last year for Alabama had already graduated. But that's not something you ever talk about....wonder why?

Alabama's signed 133 kids, but that doesn't mean 133 kids actually enrolled as Frosh in the Fall over the past 5 years. I would bet there were several academic casualties and kids that were either asked to greyshirt after the numbers were worked out or told that their scholarship was not there over the summer before enrolling.

 

[GDogg]

Graduating players is something that should be recognized, and we really don't do that. We always focus on the negatives. I get gump's point on that. On the other subject though, I haven't found another guy (other than Nutt sorta) who's had so many problems with health, grayshirts etc as Saban. I don't think it's a coincidence that those problems have decreased after the SEC put in that "rule" of only being able to take 28 a year or whatever that number is.

It is what it is. If you didn't have any chance to play on the team, Saban "strongly encouraged" you to find a great transfer opportunity. This wasn't an issue years ago, but now with the 85 man roster, it became an issue.I can certainly see how some don't like these tactics used most heavily by SEC schools. I personally don't treat a college education as some sacred thing, and these guys still get free educations, albeit not at the school they were originally recruited at.

I think it should be a two-way street in college football. If a player can transfer, a school should be able to "force a transfer".

That being said, much depends on what the player is promised when they are recruited. If they are promised a 4 year ride, than that is different.

College football is a business, and it certainly is a business in the SEC. But I can completely see how some people think it's unethical and I don't begrudge anyone who looks down on the SEC for it's "do anything to win mentality".

I guess. But, the player still has to sit out a year and if Saban already burned the kid's redshirt, then that really screws the kid forced to transfer.

 

[shader]

Graduating players is something that should be recognized, and we really don't do that. We always focus on the negatives. I get gump's point on that. On the other subject though, I haven't found another guy (other than Nutt sorta) who's had so many problems with health, grayshirts etc as Saban. I don't think it's a coincidence that those problems have decreased after the SEC put in that "rule" of only being able to take 28 a year or whatever that number is.

It is what it is. If you didn't have any chance to play on the team, Saban "strongly encouraged" you to find a great transfer opportunity. This wasn't an issue years ago, but now with the 85 man roster, it became an issue.I can certainly see how some don't like these tactics used most heavily by SEC schools. I personally don't treat a college education as some sacred thing, and these guys still get free educations, albeit not at the school they were originally recruited at.

I think it should be a two-way street in college football. If a player can transfer, a school should be able to "force a transfer".

That being said, much depends on what the player is promised when they are recruited. If they are promised a 4 year ride, than that is different.

College football is a business, and it certainly is a business in the SEC. But I can completely see how some people think it's unethical and I don't begrudge anyone who looks down on the SEC for it's "do anything to win mentality".

There's a rub here and I'd agree with you IF, the school was penalized for the "forced transfer" like the student athletes are. They aren't. The kids are left to figure things out for themselves. There's a lot of shady tactics in CFB because it's become a business and it's happening under the guise of "student athlete". There's not nearly enough punishments in place to protect the kids.

I see your point. That being said, it's not as if these kids are being forsaken. They still get to go play football and go to college for free. Not a bad deal.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

It is what it is. If you didn't have any chance to play on the team, Saban "strongly encouraged" you to find a great transfer opportunity. This wasn't an issue years ago, but now with the 85 man roster, it became an issue.

I can certainly see how some don't like these tactics used most heavily by SEC schools. I personally don't treat a college education as some sacred thing, and these guys still get free educations, albeit not at the school they were originally recruited at.

I think it should be a two-way street in college football. If a player can transfer, a school should be able to "force a transfer".

That being said, much depends on what the player is promised when they are recruited. If they are promised a 4 year ride, than that is different.

College football is a business, and it certainly is a business in the SEC. But I can completely see how some people think it's unethical and I don't begrudge anyone who looks down on the SEC for it's "do anything to win mentality".

They already can. Scholarships are a one year contract that the school does not have to renew every year. I was only questioning gump this morning because he was making it out to be like Saban never does this directly or even indirectly and that all kids who don't complete their eligibility at Alabama do so because of their own choice. FWIW, I'm not pointing fingers at Alabama either.

 

[The Commish]

Graduating players is something that should be recognized, and we really don't do that. We always focus on the negatives. I get gump's point on that. On the other subject though, I haven't found another guy (other than Nutt sorta) who's had so many problems with health, grayshirts etc as Saban. I don't think it's a coincidence that those problems have decreased after the SEC put in that "rule" of only being able to take 28 a year or whatever that number is.

It is what it is. If you didn't have any chance to play on the team, Saban "strongly encouraged" you to find a great transfer opportunity. This wasn't an issue years ago, but now with the 85 man roster, it became an issue.I can certainly see how some don't like these tactics used most heavily by SEC schools. I personally don't treat a college education as some sacred thing, and these guys still get free educations, albeit not at the school they were originally recruited at.

I think it should be a two-way street in college football. If a player can transfer, a school should be able to "force a transfer".

That being said, much depends on what the player is promised when they are recruited. If they are promised a 4 year ride, than that is different.

College football is a business, and it certainly is a business in the SEC. But I can completely see how some people think it's unethical and I don't begrudge anyone who looks down on the SEC for it's "do anything to win mentality".

There's a rub here and I'd agree with you IF, the school was penalized for the "forced transfer" like the student athletes are. They aren't. The kids are left to figure things out for themselves. There's a lot of shady tactics in CFB because it's become a business and it's happening under the guise of "student athlete". There's not nearly enough punishments in place to protect the kids.

I see your point. That being said, it's not as if these kids are being forsaken. They still get to go play football and go to college for free. Not a bad deal.

Some do, some don't. A lot that do get to transfer end up at schools lesser than their ability as well because of timing etc. It's wrong to screw with them on this level.

 

[GDogg]

Graduating players is something that should be recognized, and we really don't do that. We always focus on the negatives. I get gump's point on that. On the other subject though, I haven't found another guy (other than Nutt sorta) who's had so many problems with health, grayshirts etc as Saban. I don't think it's a coincidence that those problems have decreased after the SEC put in that "rule" of only being able to take 28 a year or whatever that number is.

It is what it is. If you didn't have any chance to play on the team, Saban "strongly encouraged" you to find a great transfer opportunity. This wasn't an issue years ago, but now with the 85 man roster, it became an issue.I can certainly see how some don't like these tactics used most heavily by SEC schools. I personally don't treat a college education as some sacred thing, and these guys still get free educations, albeit not at the school they were originally recruited at.

I think it should be a two-way street in college football. If a player can transfer, a school should be able to "force a transfer".

That being said, much depends on what the player is promised when they are recruited. If they are promised a 4 year ride, than that is different.

College football is a business, and it certainly is a business in the SEC. But I can completely see how some people think it's unethical and I don't begrudge anyone who looks down on the SEC for it's "do anything to win mentality".

There's a rub here and I'd agree with you IF, the school was penalized for the "forced transfer" like the student athletes are. They aren't. The kids are left to figure things out for themselves. There's a lot of shady tactics in CFB because it's become a business and it's happening under the guise of "student athlete". There's not nearly enough punishments in place to protect the kids.

I see your point. That being said, it's not as if these kids are being forsaken. They still get to go play football and go to college for free. Not a bad deal.

Some do, some don't. A lot that do get to transfer end up at schools lesser than their ability as well because of timing etc. It's wrong to screw with them on this level.

Depends on what you mean by "screw with them." I'm admittedly jaded as a UCLA fan. I don't see a big problem with pushing kids out of the program (they can still go to school if they like, but they must pay) who aren't working hard to be a productive football player.

If the coaches think the kid is putting in max effort and the kid simply isn't cutting it in terms of development, they can tell them they'll honor the scholarship, but that they don't ever see the kid seeing the field, so they may want to explore their transfer options at schools with more PT. I think it would be pretty crappy to "cut" a kid like this.

If, however, the coaches think the kid is not putting in max effort (and/or is a behavioral problem), then I have no problems with the coaching staff telling the kid he failed to live up to his end of the bargain and they will no longer honor his scholarship and he no longer has a place on the football team. As shader said, if even good players do not like the coaches and/or the school, they are free to transfer whenever they want.

 

[GDogg]

BCS reaches consensus on four-team playoff model.

Consensus reached on playoff

Updated: June 20, 2012, 7:08 PM ET

Associated Press

CHICAGO -- The BCS commissioners say they have come to a consensus on a model four-team seeded playoff that will be presented to the university presidents next week for approval.

The commissioners, who have been working on reshaping college football's postseason to create the first major college playoff, met for four hours and emerged together with a commitment to stand behind a plan. They were stingy, though, with providing details of that plan.

They said they were reluctant to share too many details before they had a chance to discuss them with their bosses, the university presidents. Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott did say the two semifinals would be worked into the existing major bowls.

Link.

 

[GDogg]

More on the 4 team playoff model with a selection committee...

Commissioners prefer seeded 4-team playoff chosen by selection committee

By Brett McMurphy | College Football Insider

June 20, 2012 7:04 pm ET

CHICAGO -- BCS commissioners will recommend a seeded-four team playoff that will feature the "best four teams" as chosen by a selection committee, sources told CBSSports.com Wednesday.

The Presidential Oversight Committee ultimately must approve the playoff on Tuesday in Washington D.C.. The playoff will begin after the 2014 regular season.

Following Wednesday's four-hour meeting in the Intercontinental Hotel, the BCS commissioners emerged together and announced -- in the "Camelot Room" of all places -- they had "developed a consensus behind a four-team seeded playoff."

That model, multiple sources told CBSSports.com, would be the "best four teams" chosen by a selection committee with the committee putting emphasis on conference champions. It has not been determined how many individuals would make up the committee.

The preference of the commissioners is to play the semifinals around Jan. 1 among the existing BCS bowl sites (Sugar, Rose, Fiesta and Orange) with the championship game played less than two weeks later on the Monday following the NFL wildcard round (around Jan. 9-11). There is already unanimous support to have the championship game bid out to any city or venue in the same fashion as the Super Bowl is awarded.

Sources said the emphasis on conference champions by the selection committee was enough that the Pac-12, which preferred a two-team, plus-one model, compromised its position and joined the other leagues in supporting a four-team playoff.

Link.

 

[Premier]

Great to know the Pac-12 was directly in the way of major progress.

Figures.

 

[tdoss]

Just another milestone reached during Obama's presidency...he truly will deliver us...

 

[tdoss]

Great to know the Pac-12 was directly in the way of major progress. Figures.

They always were the sticking point. I've been saying it for ten years on here...they felt their ragged @zz bowl game deserved some special honor and couldn't be relegated to playoff bowl even in an alternating schedule.Like the Rose Bowl was determining the National Champion all that often anyway...redamndiculous.

 

[ffldrew]

So how long until we get 3 - 1 loss SEC west teams and a 1 loss SEC East team to comprise the entire 4 team playoff.

 

[Premier]

So how long until we get 3 - 1 loss SEC west teams and a 1 loss SEC East team to comprise the entire 4 team playoff.

Considering a committee will be handling the decision, I'll say never.

 

[Mile High]

Great to know the Pac-12 was directly in the way of major progress. Figures.

Where does it say that? They stood their ground so that there would be emphasis on conference champions as it should be.

 

[Premier]

Great to know the Pac-12 was directly in the way of major progress. Figures.

Where does it say that? They stood their ground so that there would be emphasis on conference champions as it should be.

They only wanted a plus-1.

 

[Mile High]

Great to know the Pac-12 was directly in the way of major progress. Figures.

Where does it say that? They stood their ground so that there would be emphasis on conference champions as it should be.

They only wanted a plus-1.

Sure they did until they got the emphasis on conference champions. B1G was saying the same thing last week in other reports. This was the B1G/PAC-12 V SEC/BIG-12. Looks like it was worked out for both views.

 

[GDogg]

Great to know the Pac-12 was directly in the way of major progress.

Figures.

They always were the sticking point. I've been saying it for ten years on here...they felt their ragged @zz bowl game deserved some special honor and couldn't be relegated to playoff bowl even in an alternating schedule.Like the Rose Bowl was determining the National Champion all that often anyway...redamndiculous.

I don't believe that was the issue. Agree with it or not, they wanted to preserve the Rose Bowl as much as possible with the Big Ten and Pac-10/12 champions meeting (and getting a large payout). That's essentially it.In 1998, they, then, allowed the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions to be released if they qualified for the BCS Title Game. They also allowed the Rose Bowl to host the national title on a rotating basis.

Prior to 2007, the Rose Bowl determined as many "national champions" as any of the other bowl games. Since then, they've determined the same amount as all the others, too - none.

Why would the Pac-10/12 have a problem with the Rose Bowl being a part of a playoff model, on an alternating basis, if they are already allowing it to serve as a host site and then serve as a "meaningless" BCS bowl game?

I could be wrong, though.

 

[GDogg]

Great to know the Pac-12 was directly in the way of major progress. Figures.

Where does it say that? They stood their ground so that there would be emphasis on conference champions as it should be.

They only wanted a plus-1.

If they only wanted a plus-1, then why did they just agree to a format that is not plus-1?

 

[Mile High]

Great to know the Pac-12 was directly in the way of major progress. Figures.

Where does it say that? They stood their ground so that there would be emphasis on conference champions as it should be.

They only wanted a plus-1.

If they only wanted a plus-1, then why did they just agree to a format that is not plus-1?

The truth is we have no idea what really went on. Look at all the rumors that go on that were wrong. The main thing is we get a 4 team playoff, with the polls out of the picture, and conference champships mean something. It's a win for college football.

 

[gump]

APR scores were announced yesterday....here are the Top 25 in Football.

(APR is a measure of eligibility and retention for Division I student-athletes that was developed as an early indicator of eventual graduation rates. The national average for football is 948.)

1. Northwestern 997

(tie) Wisconsin 997

3. Kansas 994

(tie) Ohio State 994

5. South Carolina 993

6. Clemson 991

(tie) Nebraska 991

8. Duke 988

9. Rice 986

10. Oklahoma 985

(tie) Stanford 985

12. Boise State 984

(tie) Michigan 984

14. Texas A&M 983

15. Kansas State 982

(tie) Miami 982

(tie) Tulane 982

18. San Jose State 981

(tie) Virginia Tech 981

(tie) Utah State 981

21. Boston College 980

22. Louisiana Monroe 979

23. Missouri 978

24. South Florida 978

25. Rutgers 977

(tie) Alabama 977

(tie) Notre Dame 977

 

[gump]

So what was accomplished yesterday? They agreed to a 4-team...and agreed to use bowl for the semis and a highest-bid site for the Champ game.

But the big matsa ball is still hanging out there about how to determine the 4 teams, right?

 

[wadegarrett]

So what was accomplished yesterday? They agreed to a 4-team...and agreed to use bowl for the semis and a highest-bid site for the Champ game.But the big matsa ball is still hanging out there about how to determine the 4 teams, right?

the "best four teams" chosen by a selection committee with the committee putting emphasis on conference champions

 

[shader]

So what was accomplished yesterday? They agreed to a 4-team...and agreed to use bowl for the semis and a highest-bid site for the Champ game.But the big matsa ball is still hanging out there about how to determine the 4 teams, right?

the "best four teams" chosen by a selection committee with the committee putting emphasis on conference champions

I'm fine with a selection committee, but we need them to be VERY OPEN about why they make their selections.

 

[Slapdash]

So what was accomplished yesterday? They agreed to a 4-team...and agreed to use bowl for the semis and a highest-bid site for the Champ game.But the big matsa ball is still hanging out there about how to determine the 4 teams, right?

the "best four teams" chosen by a selection committee with the committee putting emphasis on conference champions

 

[prefontaine]

Great to know the Pac-12 was directly in the way of major progress.

Figures.

Where does it say that? They stood their ground so that there would be emphasis on conference champions as it should be.

They only wanted a plus-1.

Sure they did until they got the emphasis on conference champions. B1G was saying the same thing last week in other reports. This was the B1G/PAC-12 V SEC/BIG-12. Looks like it was worked out for both views.

LOL...really?The B1G/Pac wanted....

- Plus one so as to not deemphasize the Rose Bowl

- Barring that, they wanted semifinals at schools so they wouldn't always be the visitors

- Wanted a requirement for conference champions to be included so that there weren't multiple SEC schools in the playoff taking spots from a B1G or PAC champ

That's probably their 3 biggest wants out of this whole thing. They got none. They got closest on the last with an "emphasis" on conference champions, which of course means very little. If you or I are picking the best four teams in a committee, of course we are going to put an emphasis on conference champions or strength of schedule. How else would you do it? But for the 2012 playoff, we'd probably pick LSU, Bama, Ok State, and Oregon. They also happen to be the top 4 in the final AP/Coaches poll (though Stanford pipped Oregon in the BCS). That's emphasis on conference champs, no?

I'm sure no one is walking away saying "we failed." They'll all spin it to their benefit but if you ranked the winners here, it would be SEC and ND (who can stay independent with no repercussions via the playoff). But we can probably all agree that top of the list is college football fans

 

[Mello]

So what was accomplished yesterday? They agreed to a 4-team...and agreed to use bowl for the semis and a highest-bid site for the Champ game.But the big matsa ball is still hanging out there about how to determine the 4 teams, right?

the "best four teams" chosen by a selection committee with the committee putting emphasis on conference champions

Which is really no answer. They couldn't agree on how to pick the teams, so they choose this selection committee with no real documented criteria.Regardless, this is another step toward a real playoff. Won't take too long for this committee to upset enough conferences to get this changed.

 

[Mark Davis]

The part of this plan that will be changed first is the sites for the semifinal games. They fail to realize that getting fans to the semifinal games now becomes very problematic. The Big 10 commissioner I think was lobbying for these games to be on campus sites and that would have been the better way to go. Most fans can't afford two long distance travel trips to go see their team and will simply save their money for the championship game. They say they left it at the bowl sites to try and save the current BCS bowl games but I don't see the attendance going up on those games. It certainly will drastically decrease the number of fans from the two schools who will go. I'm also not sure of the timeline of the games. Do you still wait until Jan 1 or so to play the semifinals? Then how long is it until the championship? If it's only one week how do the schools get ticket allotments and allocate them? How do the fans have time to make travel arrangements? I don't think this is like the Super Bowl where it just kind of takes care of itself.

 

[The Commish]

As long as the committee doesn't rely on these stupid polls, I'm fine with a committee. I will say, any committee that doesn't have Phil Steele on it is pointless. I'll reserve further judgement until they give us the specifics.

 

[The Commish]

Great to know the Pac-12 was directly in the way of major progress. Figures.

Where does it say that? They stood their ground so that there would be emphasis on conference champions as it should be.

They only wanted a plus-1.

If they only wanted a plus-1, then why did they just agree to a format that is not plus-1?

The truth is we have no idea what really went on. Look at all the rumors that go on that were wrong. The main thing is we get a 4 team playoff, with the polls out of the picture, and conference champships mean something. It's a win for college football.

This is what I'm hoping to be true, but I've learned not to assume such logical conclusions when dealing with CFB.

 

[shader]

As long as the committee doesn't rely on these stupid polls, I'm fine with a committee. I will say, any committee that doesn't have Phil Steele on it is pointless. I'll reserve further judgement until they give us the specifics.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

As long as the committee doesn't rely on these stupid polls, I'm fine with a committee. I will say, any committee that doesn't have Phil Steele on it is pointless. I'll reserve further judgement until they give us the specifics.

What makes Phil Steele the best judge of teams, in your opinion?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I'll be curious to see how the committee evaluates Team A that goes 11-1 but played all chumps in their non-conference schedule so they could beef up the W-L record vs. a 10-2 team that played a legit non-conference schedule. If it stays about collecting wins to get to 12-0/11-1 and the highest possible ranking, everyone should follow the SEC's lead in scheduling and many high profile non-conference games should go away.