*** Official 2015 College Football Thread *** (3 Viewers)

[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.

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

I'm not sure he's "the best judge" but listening to him for five minutes will tell you how knowledgeable he is on the subject of College Football and that he spends a lot of time watching most of the country during the CFB season.

 

[Moe.]

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.

I hope they evaluate the schedule as a whole. I don't think we'll see the marquee non-conference games going anywhere.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

I hope they evaluate the schedule as a whole. I don't think we'll see the marquee non-conference games going anywhere.

This.

 

[bentley]

So they adopted the DeLoss Dodds playoff option? Good to see that the Joneses are still the Joneses.

Now there's just the little matter of finishing the summer off with the FSU/CU addition and Notre Dame as an associate member (which Deloss has been pushing all along).

 

[shader]

Why can't they adopt this in 2013? So annoying that they announce a big change that is TWO YEARS AWAY. Hard to get excited for that.

 

[The Commish]

Why can't they adopt this in 2013? So annoying that they announce a big change that is TWO YEARS AWAY. Hard to get excited for that.

Current BCS isn't over til then. I love how the commissioners get all upset when the media asks what the changes are to the BCS. They appear to want as much distance from that term as possible going forward. Contrast that to the BCS apologists and I can't help but wonder what those folks are thinking now.

 

[Raider Nation]

What exactly is the difference between a 4-team playoff and a plus-1?



Either way, you have two separate games... then the two winners square off. What am I missing?

 

[GoFishTN]

What exactly is the difference between a 4-team playoff and a plus-1?Either way, you have two separate games... then the two winners square off. What am I missing?

Only thing I can come up with is that the plus one would have taken the top four BCS ranked teams. This will have a separate selection committee.

 

[Premier]

What exactly is the difference between a 4-team playoff and a plus-1?Either way, you have two separate games... then the two winners square off. What am I missing?

Only thing I can come up with is that the plus one would have taken the top four BCS ranked teams. This will have a separate selection committee.

This, and I don't think there was a guarantee the top-4 teams would square off. Basically it would just be the same BCS horse#### and then the top-2 teams after the bowls.

 

[Raider Nation]

What exactly is the difference between a 4-team playoff and a plus-1?Either way, you have two separate games... then the two winners square off. What am I missing?

Only thing I can come up with is that the plus one would have taken the top four BCS ranked teams. This will have a separate selection committee.

Makes sense. I assume maybe the two plans differ in regard to keeping the bowls intact?

 

[Raider Nation]

What exactly is the difference between a 4-team playoff and a plus-1?Either way, you have two separate games... then the two winners square off. What am I missing?

Only thing I can come up with is that the plus one would have taken the top four BCS ranked teams. This will have a separate selection committee.

This, and I don't think there was a guarantee the top-4 teams would square off. Basically it would just be the same BCS horse#### and then the top-2 teams after the bowls.

It's a start. How much fun would it have been watching Weeden & Blackmon against Bama's defense last year.

 

[GoFishTN]

What exactly is the difference between a 4-team playoff and a plus-1?Either way, you have two separate games... then the two winners square off. What am I missing?

Only thing I can come up with is that the plus one would have taken the top four BCS ranked teams. This will have a separate selection committee.

Makes sense. I assume maybe the two plans differ in regard to keeping the bowls intact?

Yeah, I assume the plus one would have had the championship at one of the bowl sites.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

So they adopted the DeLoss Dodds playoff option? Good to see that the Joneses are still the Joneses. Now there's just the little matter of finishing the summer off with the FSU/CU addition and Notre Dame as an associate member (which Deloss has been pushing all along).

Are you still buying this expansion schtick and still failed to realize that Chip and The Dude misled you? The money the Bevo10 released that they paid out includes TV money, bowl revenue, NCAA Tournament money, and even Missouri and A&M exit fees which are one time fees. The money they claim the ACC pays out only includes TV money and ignores the bowl revenue and NCAA tournament money. Still looking for where this Bevo10 pot of gold is going to come from.Speaking of stable conferences, did you catch the latest from Texas Tech on their game with Texas St? Pure hilarity watching them stand up to Dodds about the Longhorn Network, which is making no money for ESPN and eventually going to fail because the NCAA won't let them show high school sports.

 

[bentley]

So they adopted the DeLoss Dodds playoff option? Good to see that the Joneses are still the Joneses. Now there's just the little matter of finishing the summer off with the FSU/CU addition and Notre Dame as an associate member (which Deloss has been pushing all along).

Are you still buying this expansion schtick and still failed to realize that Chip and The Dude misled you? The money the Bevo10 released that they paid out includes TV money, bowl revenue, NCAA Tournament money, and even Missouri and A&M exit fees which are one time fees. The money they claim the ACC pays out only includes TV money and ignores the bowl revenue and NCAA tournament money. Still looking for where this Bevo10 pot of gold is going to come from.Speaking of stable conferences, did you catch the latest from Texas Tech on their game with Texas St? Pure hilarity watching them stand up to Dodds about the Longhorn Network, which is making no money for ESPN and eventually going to fail because the NCAA won't let them show high school sports.

Do you ever get tired of being so boldly wrong?While Swofford is playing checkers, Deloss is playing chess. Sit back and wait for the show.

 

[The Commish]

Idiot

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

So they adopted the DeLoss Dodds playoff option? Good to see that the Joneses are still the Joneses. Now there's just the little matter of finishing the summer off with the FSU/CU addition and Notre Dame as an associate member (which Deloss has been pushing all along).

Are you still buying this expansion schtick and still failed to realize that Chip and The Dude misled you? The money the Bevo10 released that they paid out includes TV money, bowl revenue, NCAA Tournament money, and even Missouri and A&M exit fees which are one time fees. The money they claim the ACC pays out only includes TV money and ignores the bowl revenue and NCAA tournament money. Still looking for where this Bevo10 pot of gold is going to come from.Speaking of stable conferences, did you catch the latest from Texas Tech on their game with Texas St? Pure hilarity watching them stand up to Dodds about the Longhorn Network, which is making no money for ESPN and eventually going to fail because the NCAA won't let them show high school sports.

Do you ever get tired of being so boldly wrong?While Swofford is playing checkers, Deloss is playing chess. Sit back and wait for the show.

Wrong about what? You were the d-bag a couple months ago spouting this and that was going to happen. Some newspaper (KC I think?) outed the Bevo10's money distribution bull earlier in the spring. FSU and Clemson haven't left the ACC like you said they were. FSU removed the big mouth board member that was running his mouth. Your last comment is yet another reason no one is coming to the Bevo10 and why Mizzou, A&M, Nebraska and Colorado left. Texas runs the whole conference.

 

[Moe.]

lol at Bevo10. Did you come up with that by yourself?

 

[The Commish]

Herbie's Spot On

 

[GDogg]

Larry Scott on why he came around on a selection committee (says it's good for the Pac-12):

Larry Scott explains why he changed his mind on the selection committee

By Tom Fornelli | College Football Blogger

June 25, 2012 2:36 pm ET

While we know that there is a four-team playoff coming to college football, we still don't know exactly what it's going to look like when it's actually implemented. What we do know is that the current conference commissioners will recommend a four-team playoff with the participants decided by a selection committee a lot like the one used for college basketball's NCAA tournament.

On Monday Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott joined Fox Sports Radio with Petros and Money to discuss the playoff. One of his more interesting quotes was an answer to whom would be on the selection committee, and how he came around on the idea.

“I know I wouldn't want to [be on the committee]," said Scott. "There's going to be some pressure on that committee.

"I'm not really a committee guy honestly. I didn't spell it out thinking that would be a good result. I just don't tend to think the sports world needs another committee but as we got into it, we realized the current system was flawed in so many ways. With coaches voting and they are voting without necessarily looking at the games, computers that are not transparent and one of the fundamental challenges we realized is unlike the NFL, there's not enough games where teams from different conferences are playing against each other. You don't have a body of work to look at that gives you a sense of how teams stack up so there's going to be some subjective element to it regardless of what you do. Listening to some of my colleagues that have served on the men's basketball committee and realized we have a better chance as a Pac 12 conference to get a fair shake for the fact that we play a nine game conference schedule, the fact that USC and Stanford play Notre Dame, the fact that we play tough out of conference competition, tougher than the SEC or what the Big 12 is doing, and there's a chance that humans can give us credit for the strength of schedule and credit for what it takes to be the champion of the Pac 12 conference the way that polls and computers cannot.

"I actually came around on this one. Didn't start there but came around thinking this could be a great benefit for our conference.”

I'm sure all SEC and Big 12 fans saw in that quote was Scott's dig at their non-conference schedules. While the Pac-12's non-conference schedule probably is a bit tougher than either the SEC's or Big 12's, I do feel like I should point out to Scott that Oklahoma will be playing Notre Dame this season as well, and Texas will play Notre Dame in 2015.

Where the Pac-12 really separates itself from the Big 12 and SEC is its recent agreement with the Big Ten that will have schools from each conference playing a non-conference game against each other every season.

As for Scott's thoughts on the selection committee, they very much mirror mine. I wasn't a huge fan of the idea when it was first presented either, but as Scott says, given the alternatives, it certainly can't do much worse than what we currently have.

My worry would be who is on that committee. If you'll allow me to raise the Media Flag for a second, I think the sport would be best served to have a few select media members on the committee. I'm pretty confident in my belief that people like me and my colleagues watch a lot more college football on Saturdays than most school presidents and athletic directors.

The truth is, though, that no matter who ends up on the committee, it will not be perfect. That's because in a sport with more than 120 teams it's impossible to know for sure who the top four teams are and there will always be dissenting opinions whether or not those teams are chosen by a committee or a computer.

However, at least with a selection committee we'll all know exactly who to yell at when they leave out a team we think belongs.

Link.It all depends on who is on the committee, obviously, but I hope he's right.

 

[roadkill1292]

Larry Scott on why he came around on a selection committee (says it's good for the Pac-12):

However, at least with a selection committee we'll all know exactly who to yell at when they leave out a team we think belongs.

Link.It all depends on who is on the committee, obviously, but I hope he's right.

Maybe everybody already knows this except me: will the committee's votes be made public? Because, if not, all we'll have is a "committee" to be mad at. That's not very satisfying. I want to vent my wrath at a specific human bean.

 

[GDogg]

Larry Scott on why he came around on a selection committee (says it's good for the Pac-12):

However, at least with a selection committee we'll all know exactly who to yell at when they leave out a team we think belongs.

Link.It all depends on who is on the committee, obviously, but I hope he's right.

Maybe everybody already knows this except me: will the committee's votes be made public? Because, if not, all we'll have is a "committee" to be mad at. That's not very satisfying. I want to vent my wrath at a specific human bean.

It sounds like they are modeling it after the NCAA Tournament selection committee, which means, no, we won't have a specific person to blame for our school(s) getting screwed.

 

[roadkill1292]

Larry Scott on why he came around on a selection committee (says it's good for the Pac-12):

However, at least with a selection committee we'll all know exactly who to yell at when they leave out a team we think belongs.

Link.It all depends on who is on the committee, obviously, but I hope he's right.

Maybe everybody already knows this except me: will the committee's votes be made public? Because, if not, all we'll have is a "committee" to be mad at. That's not very satisfying. I want to vent my wrath at a specific human bean.

It sounds like they are modeling it after the NCAA Tournament selection committee, which means, no, we won't have a specific person to blame for our school(s) getting screwed.

There are better ways to do it, if they really wanted to. In fact, I could think of a way to make the selection process a big money-making event in its own right.These major sports leagues just don't try hard enough to entertain me. I want them to get off their lazy asses and make things more fun.

 

[Christo]

Larry Scott on why he came around on a selection committee (says it's good for the Pac-12):

However, at least with a selection committee we'll all know exactly who to yell at when they leave out a team we think belongs.

Link.It all depends on who is on the committee, obviously, but I hope he's right.

Maybe everybody already knows this except me: will the committee's votes be made public? Because, if not, all we'll have is a "committee" to be mad at. That's not very satisfying. I want to vent my wrath at a specific human bean.

Is this some sort of new shtick?

 

[The Commish]

Is today the day?

 

[GDogg]

Is today the day?

Maybe, but this post/article from Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News (he's as dialed into the Pac-12 as any writer on the west coast) states that the scheduling alliance between the B1G and the Pac-12, at least in football, could be in jeopardy depending on the criteria for selection into the playoffs (and for good reason, actually):

Pac-12 football: The future of the Big Ten scheduling partnership

Posted by Jon Wilner on June 26th, 2012 at 9:37 am

The BCS Presidential Oversight Committee meets Tuesday in Washington, D.C. to review playoff models presented by conference commissioners.

It’s possible, although unlikely, that anything definitive will come out of the gathering. But we’re close … close to resolving the postseason conundrum … close to the implementation of a four-team playoff … close to the creation of a selection committee to determine the four teams.

Which brings us to the point of this post: The criteria used by that committee to determine the four teams could have a significant impact on football portion of the multi-sport scheduling partnership between the Pac-12 and Big Ten.

Multiple league sources have told the Hotline in recent weeks that several Pac-12 schools are … how should we say it? … less than enthusiastic about the partnership, set to take effect in 2017.

However, the schools are reserving final judgment until they see whether a strength-of-schedule component is included in the formula that determines which teams participate in the four-team playoff.

If SOS is given serious weight … if it’s a tangible part of the formula … then Pac-12 schools may be willing to consider a partnership in which the top programs draw B1G heavyweights every few years, sources said.

But if SOS is not included in the formula, then a full-blown Pac-12/B1G partnership — and I’ll explain what I mean by that in a minute — could be in jeopardy.

My sources decline to name the names of the reluctant schools. But why would USC, as a logical example, agree to face a top-tier B1G opponent in 2017 when it already has Notre Dame and Texas on the schedule?

And the Trojans aren’t the only ones with difficult non-conference lineups in 2017 and beyond.

Oregon has a series with Texas A&M scheduled for 2018-19; Stanford is playing Virginia and Notre Dame in 2017-18; ASU has Notre Dame scheduled … and that’s in addition to the Pac-12 teams playing nine league games (as opposed to eight for SEC teams).

Then you’re going to add a game with Wisconsin/Nebraska/Ohio State/Michigan, all while asking the teams to compete with SEC counterparts for a berth in a four-team playoff that doesn’t consider SOS in any tangible form?

Good luck with that.

Now, let’s be clear: I’m not suggesting the Pac-12/B1G partnership will be canceled if SOS isn’t part of the playoff selection formula.

But it could very well be an underwhelming alliance, with some schools joining the party later than 2017 — that would allow time to craft/manipulate future schedules — and some not participating on a regular basis.

Link.

 

[The Commish]

Is today the day?

Maybe, but this post/article from Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News (he's as dialed into the Pac-12 as any writer on the west coast) states that the scheduling alliance between the B1G and the Pac-12, at least in football, could be in jeopardy depending on the criteria for selection into the playoffs (and for good reason, actually):

Pac-12 football: The future of the Big Ten scheduling partnership

Posted by Jon Wilner on June 26th, 2012 at 9:37 am

The BCS Presidential Oversight Committee meets Tuesday in Washington, D.C. to review playoff models presented by conference commissioners.

It’s possible, although unlikely, that anything definitive will come out of the gathering. But we’re close … close to resolving the postseason conundrum … close to the implementation of a four-team playoff … close to the creation of a selection committee to determine the four teams.

Which brings us to the point of this post: The criteria used by that committee to determine the four teams could have a significant impact on football portion of the multi-sport scheduling partnership between the Pac-12 and Big Ten.

Multiple league sources have told the Hotline in recent weeks that several Pac-12 schools are … how should we say it? … less than enthusiastic about the partnership, set to take effect in 2017.

However, the schools are reserving final judgment until they see whether a strength-of-schedule component is included in the formula that determines which teams participate in the four-team playoff.

If SOS is given serious weight … if it’s a tangible part of the formula … then Pac-12 schools may be willing to consider a partnership in which the top programs draw B1G heavyweights every few years, sources said.

But if SOS is not included in the formula, then a full-blown Pac-12/B1G partnership — and I’ll explain what I mean by that in a minute — could be in jeopardy.

My sources decline to name the names of the reluctant schools. But why would USC, as a logical example, agree to face a top-tier B1G opponent in 2017 when it already has Notre Dame and Texas on the schedule?

And the Trojans aren’t the only ones with difficult non-conference lineups in 2017 and beyond.

Oregon has a series with Texas A&M scheduled for 2018-19; Stanford is playing Virginia and Notre Dame in 2017-18; ASU has Notre Dame scheduled … and that’s in addition to the Pac-12 teams playing nine league games (as opposed to eight for SEC teams).

Then you’re going to add a game with Wisconsin/Nebraska/Ohio State/Michigan, all while asking the teams to compete with SEC counterparts for a berth in a four-team playoff that doesn’t consider SOS in any tangible form?

Good luck with that.

Now, let’s be clear: I’m not suggesting the Pac-12/B1G partnership will be canceled if SOS isn’t part of the playoff selection formula.

But it could very well be an underwhelming alliance, with some schools joining the party later than 2017 — that would allow time to craft/manipulate future schedules — and some not participating on a regular basis.

Link.

Yeah...I had been reading about this. Not sure how I feel about it yet. However, I suspect it will be the case for all the teams (regardless of conference) who have standard opponents that are pretty good year in and year out. I think it might help to have two SOS components? Dunno.

 

[Mile High]

Is today the day?

Maybe, but this post/article from Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News (he's as dialed into the Pac-12 as any writer on the west coast) states that the scheduling alliance between the B1G and the Pac-12, at least in football, could be in jeopardy depending on the criteria for selection into the playoffs (and for good reason, actually):

Pac-12 football: The future of the Big Ten scheduling partnership

Posted by Jon Wilner on June 26th, 2012 at 9:37 am

The BCS Presidential Oversight Committee meets Tuesday in Washington, D.C. to review playoff models presented by conference commissioners.

It’s possible, although unlikely, that anything definitive will come out of the gathering. But we’re close … close to resolving the postseason conundrum … close to the implementation of a four-team playoff … close to the creation of a selection committee to determine the four teams.

Which brings us to the point of this post: The criteria used by that committee to determine the four teams could have a significant impact on football portion of the multi-sport scheduling partnership between the Pac-12 and Big Ten.

Multiple league sources have told the Hotline in recent weeks that several Pac-12 schools are … how should we say it? … less than enthusiastic about the partnership, set to take effect in 2017.

However, the schools are reserving final judgment until they see whether a strength-of-schedule component is included in the formula that determines which teams participate in the four-team playoff.

If SOS is given serious weight … if it’s a tangible part of the formula … then Pac-12 schools may be willing to consider a partnership in which the top programs draw B1G heavyweights every few years, sources said.

But if SOS is not included in the formula, then a full-blown Pac-12/B1G partnership — and I’ll explain what I mean by that in a minute — could be in jeopardy.

My sources decline to name the names of the reluctant schools. But why would USC, as a logical example, agree to face a top-tier B1G opponent in 2017 when it already has Notre Dame and Texas on the schedule?

And the Trojans aren’t the only ones with difficult non-conference lineups in 2017 and beyond.

Oregon has a series with Texas A&M scheduled for 2018-19; Stanford is playing Virginia and Notre Dame in 2017-18; ASU has Notre Dame scheduled … and that’s in addition to the Pac-12 teams playing nine league games (as opposed to eight for SEC teams).

Then you’re going to add a game with Wisconsin/Nebraska/Ohio State/Michigan, all while asking the teams to compete with SEC counterparts for a berth in a four-team playoff that doesn’t consider SOS in any tangible form?

Good luck with that.

Now, let’s be clear: I’m not suggesting the Pac-12/B1G partnership will be canceled if SOS isn’t part of the playoff selection formula.

But it could very well be an underwhelming alliance, with some schools joining the party later than 2017 — that would allow time to craft/manipulate future schedules — and some not participating on a regular basis.

Link.

College football is such a joke. They need to man up and make 4 16 team conferences. 2 divisions per conference, winner of each division plays in a conference championship game, the 4 conference winners make up the 4 playoff teams.

 

[Christo]

Is today the day?

Maybe, but this post/article from Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News (he's as dialed into the Pac-12 as any writer on the west coast) states that the scheduling alliance between the B1G and the Pac-12, at least in football, could be in jeopardy depending on the criteria for selection into the playoffs (and for good reason, actually):

Pac-12 football: The future of the Big Ten scheduling partnership

Posted by Jon Wilner on June 26th, 2012 at 9:37 am

The BCS Presidential Oversight Committee meets Tuesday in Washington, D.C. to review playoff models presented by conference commissioners.

It’s possible, although unlikely, that anything definitive will come out of the gathering. But we’re close … close to resolving the postseason conundrum … close to the implementation of a four-team playoff … close to the creation of a selection committee to determine the four teams.

Which brings us to the point of this post: The criteria used by that committee to determine the four teams could have a significant impact on football portion of the multi-sport scheduling partnership between the Pac-12 and Big Ten.

Multiple league sources have told the Hotline in recent weeks that several Pac-12 schools are … how should we say it? … less than enthusiastic about the partnership, set to take effect in 2017.

However, the schools are reserving final judgment until they see whether a strength-of-schedule component is included in the formula that determines which teams participate in the four-team playoff.

If SOS is given serious weight … if it’s a tangible part of the formula … then Pac-12 schools may be willing to consider a partnership in which the top programs draw B1G heavyweights every few years, sources said.

But if SOS is not included in the formula, then a full-blown Pac-12/B1G partnership — and I’ll explain what I mean by that in a minute — could be in jeopardy.

My sources decline to name the names of the reluctant schools. But why would USC, as a logical example, agree to face a top-tier B1G opponent in 2017 when it already has Notre Dame and Texas on the schedule?

And the Trojans aren’t the only ones with difficult non-conference lineups in 2017 and beyond.

Oregon has a series with Texas A&M scheduled for 2018-19; Stanford is playing Virginia and Notre Dame in 2017-18; ASU has Notre Dame scheduled … and that’s in addition to the Pac-12 teams playing nine league games (as opposed to eight for SEC teams).

Then you’re going to add a game with Wisconsin/Nebraska/Ohio State/Michigan, all while asking the teams to compete with SEC counterparts for a berth in a four-team playoff that doesn’t consider SOS in any tangible form?

Good luck with that.

Now, let’s be clear: I’m not suggesting the Pac-12/B1G partnership will be canceled if SOS isn’t part of the playoff selection formula.

But it could very well be an underwhelming alliance, with some schools joining the party later than 2017 — that would allow time to craft/manipulate future schedules — and some not participating on a regular basis.

Link.

College football is such a joke. They need to man up and make 4 16 team conferences. 2 divisions per conference, winner of each division plays in a conference championship game, the 4 conference winners make up the 4 playoff teams.

What a bunch of crap.

 

[The Commish]

12 Year deal....no real details. Hoping they can blow it up and change it prior to that 12 years being up.

 

[gump]

6 bowl rotation for semis. Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange....new SEC/Big 12? Citrus after the facelift?

 

[GoFishTN]

Cotton.

 

[prefontaine]

I'd assume Cotton/Peach

 

[shader]

Incredible day for college football. I've wanted a playoff my whole life, and its finally here!

I've always firmly believed that an 8 team playoff is perfect. This paves the way to that inevitable fate.

In the meantime (probably 10 years at least), a four team playoff will be a ton of fun.

So many great matchups we will get to see that we have been deprived of for years.

Now we just have to suffer through two more seasons of the BCS, which is going to be really tough to do.

 

[gump]

I'd assume Cotton/Peach

Wouldn't this new game take the place of the Cotton?

 

[wadegarrett]

 

[The Commish]

Incredible day for college football. I've wanted a playoff my whole life, and its finally here!I've always firmly believed that an 8 team playoff is perfect. This paves the way to that inevitable fate. In the meantime (probably 10 years at least), a four team playoff will be a ton of fun. So many great matchups we will get to see that we have been deprived of for years.Now we just have to suffer through two more seasons of the BCS, which is going to be really tough to do.

The devil's in the details. I'm encouraged that they are finally away from those stupid polls, but I'm really reserving judgment until I see who makes up the committee and what criteria they use. Yes, I'm pessimistic by nature when it comes to this stuff. I'm also interested to know what role, if any, the NCAA will play in this. Will they now be part of the puzzle?

 

[gump]

The New York Jets' Tim Tebow took a few good-natured shots at Notre Dame in an interview recently when talking about what it was like playing at Florida. ...

"I had a teammate at Denver who played the same position as me and he went to the University of Notre Dame," Tebow told Florida backers at an event, via GatorZone.com. "He would brag about his university, how great it was. Most of us in the locker room were like, 'C'mon, we all had opportunities. We chose not to go there.' ... But he talked so much about his university that it became easy. I'd say, 'Your whole team had one guy who ran under a 5.0 40 (yard dash). Our kicker ran under 5.0.'

 

[Native]

Georgia kicked former five star RB and leading rusher Isaiah Crowell off the team after being charged with two felonies - including a weapons charge.

http://espn.go.com/colleges/georgia/football/story/_/id/8111289/georgia-bulldogs-isaiah-crowell-faces-felony-weapons-counts

This kid just pissed away the opportunity of a lifetime. He was the #1 RB in the country coming out of High School and he hasnt stopped getting into trouble since he arrived last year.

This is also a huge blow for Georgia. They have two highly touted Freshmen RB's coming in but they were planning on using Crowell heavily this year.

 

[gump]

Georgia kicked former five star RB and leading rusher Isaiah Crowell off the team after being charged with two felonies - including a weapons charge.

http://espn.go.com/c...-weapons-counts

This kid just pissed away the opportunity of a lifetime. He was the #1 RB in the country coming out of High School and he hasnt stopped getting into trouble since he arrived last year.

This is also a huge blow for Georgia. They have two highly touted Freshmen RB's coming in but they were planning on using Crowell heavily this year.

Richt needs to go. That program has as much potential as any in the country...but he can't control it. They need a My Way or the Highway guy.

 

[gump]

Interesting rumor on the Alabama boards about UA and Wisconsin discussing a neutral site game in Chicago....seems like for 2015.

Does the Pac-12/Big 10 allegiance start that soon...or will Wiscy also be playing a Pac-12 team that year?

 

[The Commish]

Interesting rumor on the Alabama boards about UA and Wisconsin discussing a neutral site game in Chicago....seems like for 2015.Does the Pac-12/Big 10 allegiance start that soon...or will Wiscy also be playing a Pac-12 team that year?

Teams are starting to play next year, with everyone on board by 2016 or 2017 I believe.

 

[The Commish]

BSU to Big East

 

[Tiger Fan]

BSU to Big East

couple years too late

 

[Raider Nation]

GOD, I miss CFB... 57 days until kickoff!

http://scores.espn.go.com/college-football/scoreboard

 

[Raider Nation]

ESPNU is just starting the LSU/BAMA demolition if you're bored.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

ESPNU is just starting the LSU/BAMA demolition if you're bored.

I think you mean "...if you want to be bored."

 

[Raider Nation]

ESPNU is just starting the LSU/BAMA demolition if you're bored.

I think you mean "...if you want to be bored."

It really was a dreadful game.

 

[Christo]

What'd you do this off-season Kenny Stills?????????

 

[The Commish]

Did/Does Your Coach Make the Program or Your Program Make the Coach?

 

[gump]

Did/Does Your Coach Make the Program or Your Program Make the Coach?

Not surprisingly, FSU with the big swing. Not many others though....surprised Penn State wasn't worse without JoePa.