Deaconblue
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 19,848
- Reaction score
- 3,436
ACC may be attempting to leverage support for expanded playoffs into a better deal from ESPN for the conference.
Official 2021 College Football Thread: Grass Picker Named to CFP Selection Committee!
- Thread starter Biff Tannen
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
EatLeadCommie
Tommy Elrod
ACC/Big 10/Pac 12 "alliance" at work? The Big 10, more often than not, is going to have its champ in a playoff. They have no incentive to change that. Not necessarily so with the Pac 12 and ACC. Give the ACC a few more years of Wake-Pitt-esque CCGs, and they'll change their tune.
The Big 12 has reason to vote for playoff expansion, as they're going to lose the golden geese of their conference. The SEC does simply because it'll mean even more spots with the conference slated to become more competitive and have even more members.
The Big 12 has reason to vote for playoff expansion, as they're going to lose the golden geese of their conference. The SEC does simply because it'll mean even more spots with the conference slated to become more competitive and have even more members.
w84it
Well-known member
I don't understand why, if preserving the bowl system is so important, that nobody is talking about playing playoff games immediately after the season ends and letting every team that doesn't make the national championship game able to play in a bowl game as well. It just feels like such a simple solution to a made up problem.
I think his stated reasons are totally right.
College football is a mess, and more money and more teams in more games is not going to fix that.
If I were a conference that cared about the collegiate aspect of the sport, I would want to make sure that the other conferences my champion will play into has similar philosophies or at least "rules of the road" with respect to NIL, the portal (including NIL), etc.
Is Texas A&M going to have a $10 MM Pot of money every year to pay players from? If so, is the ACC going to allow unlimited funding for NIL departments for its schools? What does that mean?
If the ACC is going to establish guardrails for its schools, and say the SEC is not, what does that means about the competitive balance of a game between our champions? What does it mean if multiple teams can get in from the same conference, which has limited guardrails? Three NIL factories, against your one.
And where does the playoff revenue go? Does it make your conference more money to have more teams in? Does that encourage more NIL factories? Is that what we want a system we vote for to encourage? Or do we withhold our vote until the conferences all agree on some common standards for the conferences.
Why are any teams getting in other than conference champions anyway? Why does a team that lost to its conference champion have any "legitimate need" to get to "pull an upset" or "have another try"?
Unless there are agreements on acceptable ground rules, I wouldn't vote for anything other than conference champions. Whether that is top 4, 5 plus 1, or 10 (and grudgingly accept that it is hard to make a 10 team bracket work except by adding two at large teams... from two different conferences. If ND is top 12, then one at large team).
We can use our leverage and, along with the Big 10 and PAC 12, come up with ground rules that are the most " collegiate-friendly" they can be. Or at least hold out for that for four years until we have no leverage in 2026.
We may end up being the Magnolia League in the end, but diving in to a race to the bottom - without at least trying to deal with NIL and the portal and NCAA reform - sounds neither appealing nor a contest the ACC will win if we just wade in barehanded.
I personally think we should have 12 "alliances" of two eight-team "real round robin conferences. All games within the eight team conferences count, then you play the champion of your allied conference, and that team goes to the playoff, and no one else does. You know, like the ACC and the SEC and the PAC and the SWC etc used to be. Plus play-in to playoff. Before we blindly chased after a future that led to this suboptimal place where we don't even play or natural regional rivals every year because we are playing teams from the Big East instead.
Chasing blindly has led to this place, and - yes - a 365 day review of where we are and where we're going makes sense to me. So what about money? So what Pitt didn't play into GA?
College football is a mess, and more money and more teams in more games is not going to fix that.
If I were a conference that cared about the collegiate aspect of the sport, I would want to make sure that the other conferences my champion will play into has similar philosophies or at least "rules of the road" with respect to NIL, the portal (including NIL), etc.
Is Texas A&M going to have a $10 MM Pot of money every year to pay players from? If so, is the ACC going to allow unlimited funding for NIL departments for its schools? What does that mean?
If the ACC is going to establish guardrails for its schools, and say the SEC is not, what does that means about the competitive balance of a game between our champions? What does it mean if multiple teams can get in from the same conference, which has limited guardrails? Three NIL factories, against your one.
And where does the playoff revenue go? Does it make your conference more money to have more teams in? Does that encourage more NIL factories? Is that what we want a system we vote for to encourage? Or do we withhold our vote until the conferences all agree on some common standards for the conferences.
Why are any teams getting in other than conference champions anyway? Why does a team that lost to its conference champion have any "legitimate need" to get to "pull an upset" or "have another try"?
Unless there are agreements on acceptable ground rules, I wouldn't vote for anything other than conference champions. Whether that is top 4, 5 plus 1, or 10 (and grudgingly accept that it is hard to make a 10 team bracket work except by adding two at large teams... from two different conferences. If ND is top 12, then one at large team).
We can use our leverage and, along with the Big 10 and PAC 12, come up with ground rules that are the most " collegiate-friendly" they can be. Or at least hold out for that for four years until we have no leverage in 2026.
We may end up being the Magnolia League in the end, but diving in to a race to the bottom - without at least trying to deal with NIL and the portal and NCAA reform - sounds neither appealing nor a contest the ACC will win if we just wade in barehanded.
I personally think we should have 12 "alliances" of two eight-team "real round robin conferences. All games within the eight team conferences count, then you play the champion of your allied conference, and that team goes to the playoff, and no one else does. You know, like the ACC and the SEC and the PAC and the SWC etc used to be. Plus play-in to playoff. Before we blindly chased after a future that led to this suboptimal place where we don't even play or natural regional rivals every year because we are playing teams from the Big East instead.
Chasing blindly has led to this place, and - yes - a 365 day review of where we are and where we're going makes sense to me. So what about money? So what Pitt didn't play into GA?
Last edited:
LSU has 23 players on NFL playoff rosters and Alabama has 22. Alabama should get to 23 when Derrick Henry comes back.
Mississippi State has 14.
Mississippi State has 14.
LilburnDeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,963
- Reaction score
- 1,529
It doesn't seem to be an issue for FCS schools.
Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
It doesn’t mean more there.
Buttermaker
Well-known member
Of course it is. What isn’t in P5 college sports these days?
The Pats have two Dawgs on their OL.
Leonard Floyd is on the Rams.
Mecole Hardman is on the Chiefs.
That was off the top of my head and I’m not going to comb rosters to see exactly how much more wrong you were.
Shorty
Boomer Boy
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,602
- Reaction score
- 22,608
The crazy stat was no state having more ranked teams than Utah (2). Of course, voters won’t account for that in the preseason polls. The usual suspects will be in.
BTW, Ruggs would get Alabama to 23 today, but, well, you know.
myDeaconmyhand
First man to get a team of horses up Bear Mountain
Just saw that Kentucky Football now has 3 assistant coaches making over a million dollars. That’s wild. This budgetary arms race in CFB surely can’t continue on like this, right?