tOfficial Twelve Team Playoff thread

MAIZEandBLUE09 said:
But that also doesn't mean you have to schedule tough OOC teams to add to it. If you're a G5 team you have to do everything to schedule 1-2 tough teams because your normal schedule is garbage. P5 teams don't have to do that.
Click to expand...
You think every P5 team is a tough out? There are several G5 teams every year that are better than many P5 teams.

Let's use Cincy as an example last year. Most would agree that they wouldn't have gone undefeated in any of the P5 conferences and probably wouldn't have won any of those conferences either. But most also believe they would have finished at least .500 or better in all the P5 conferences. Were they Bama/Georgia good? Absolutely not. But they were Mizzou, South Carolina, etc good.
 
I always knew scUM fans were pussies, but man they are even exceeding my expectations lately on this board.

Disclaimer: shout out to @Voltaire who actually is a college football fan
 
Deep Creek said:
You think every P5 team is a tough out? There are several G5 teams every year that are better than many P5 teams.

Let's use Cincy as an example last year. Most would agree that they wouldn't have gone undefeated in any of the P5 conferences and probably wouldn't have won any of those conferences either. But most also believe they would have finished at least .500 or better in all the P5 conferences. Were they Bama/Georgia good? Absolutely not. But they were Mizzou, South Carolina, etc good.
Click to expand...
Cincy doesn't go undefeated in any P5 conference. They almost lost to Houston, Navy, and Indiana last year. Then got blown out by Alabama. There's typically 1 G5 team every year who's good enough to finish near the top in most P5 conferences. And that's about it.
 
fishinabarrel said:
I always knew scUM fans were pussies, but man they are even exceeding my expectations lately on this board.

Disclaimer: shout out to @Voltaire who actually is a college football fan
Click to expand...
When I see people defending weak ass OOC schedules I think of Artie Boy Briles. That's what he did and was arrogant in defending it. Then pouted and sulked like a little kid when his week ass OOC schedule cost them a spot.

His reaction to getting spurned was 180 degrees opposite of Coach Hitch 'Em Ups.
Baylor pounted and whined about getting spurned and got whipped in the Cotton Bowl by Sparty.
TCU said "Yeah, we may have gotten screwed but let's go kick the shit out of Ole Miss in the Peach Bowl" And they did.
 
fishinabarrel said:
I always knew scUM fans were pussies, but man they are even exceeding my expectations lately on this board.

Disclaimer: shout out to @Voltaire who actually is a college football fan
Click to expand...
I'm an actual CFB fan who doesn't want it ruined by a playoff to get bad teams into a playoff for no reason. Give me the BCS, and I'll gladly enjoy top tier matchups in the OOC again.
 
Deep Creek said:
When I see people defending weak ass OOC schedules I think of Artie Boy Briles. That's what he did and was arrogant in defending it. Then pouted and sulked like a little kid when his week ass OOC schedule cost them a spot.

His reaction to getting spurned was 180 degrees opposite of Coach Hitch 'Em Ups.
Baylor pounted and whined about getting spurned and got whipped in the Cotton Bowl by Sparty.
TCU said "Yeah, we may have gotten screwed but let's go kick the shit out of Ole Miss in the Peach Bowl" And they did.
Click to expand...
I'm defending it because this is the system you're promoting CFB move to going forward.
 
Deep Creek said:
You think every P5 team is a tough out? There are several G5 teams every year that are better than many P5 teams.

Let's use Cincy as an example last year. Most would agree that they wouldn't have gone undefeated in any of the P5 conferences and probably wouldn't have won any of those conferences either. But most also believe they would have finished at least .500 or better in all the P5 conferences. Were they Bama/Georgia good? Absolutely not. But they were Mizzou, South Carolina, etc good.
Click to expand...

MAIZEandBLUE09 said:
Cincy doesn't go undefeated in any P5 conference. They almost lost to Houston, Navy, and Indiana last year. Then got blown out by Alabama. There's typically 1 G5 team every year who's good enough to finish near the top in most P5 conferences. And that's about it.
Click to expand...
Good gawd man...I said that in the post you cited! Do you even read them?

Did Cincy perform any worse against Bama than Michigan did against Georgia in the semis?
 
Deep Creek said:
Nope. Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
So tell me, what benefit to Alabama have to schedule tough OOC opponents in a 12 team playoff? I know Cinci benefits from doing it, buy why would Alabama say yes?
 
MAIZEandBLUE09 said:
So tell me, what benefit to Alabama have to schedule tough OOC opponents in a 12 team playoff? I know Cinci benefits from doing it, buy why would Alabama say yes?
Click to expand...

It's a huge recruiting advantage and it shows they aren't a bunch of pansies
 
fishinabarrel said:
I always knew scUM fans were pussies, but man they are even exceeding my expectations lately on this board.

Disclaimer: shout out to @Voltaire who actually is a college football fan
Click to expand...
Not only that, he simply doesn't understand how any of this works. Even though it's been laid out for him.
 
MAIZEandBLUE09 said:
So tell me, what benefit to Alabama have to schedule tough OOC opponents in a 12 team playoff? I know Cinci benefits from doing it, buy why would Alabama say yes?
Click to expand...
Read the fucking article that @Deep Creek posted and I quoted. Alabama's AD is quoted in the article. I mean for fuck sake, it is answered by the ADs that have made these schedules. You are so focused on what you believe, you are ignoring facts that people are presenting to you. So, to answer your question:

- They want to have a better SOS for years when they may not be the SECC.
- Their fans aren't like UM pussy fans and they want to see their team play great games not a bunch of cupcakes (by "UM pussy fans," I mean only you, not the other UM fans who actually get the whole point here).
- The top players, evidently other than those that go to UM, want to play in big games on big stages. You actually want the top players so you play big games to get them.
- The SEC has a huge contract with ESPN and it will get even more huge when the TV inventory expands 3 to 4 fold in 2025. Same with the B1G contract, I presume. They didn't pay $8 billion for more cupcakes games - they paid for more really good games.

FFS, read the article.
 
MAIZEandBLUE09 said:
I'm defending it because this is the system you're promoting CFB move to going forward.
Click to expand...
But, it's not. I have, over and over, shown you were IC and OCC schedules are actually getting much better and harder going forward. There have been hundreds of articles written about this over the past year. @Deep Creek cited an article with interviews of top ADs who explain why they want more and better games, not more cupcakes. But you refuse to actually read the article, or acknowledge that you are objectively wrong.

Look, make the argument that it's your opinion that CFB won't be as good because of expansion. I disagree and think it's wrong, but you can make that argument if that's how you feel. But you keep arguing against objective facts that make me wonder if you aren't just trolling, or are just plain dumb and can't understand all the moving parts that are going on right now.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Read the fucking article that @Deep Creek posted and I quoted. Alabama's AD is quoted in the article. I mean for fuck sake, it is answered by the ADs that have made these schedules. You are so focused on what you believe, you are ignoring facts that people are presenting to you. So, to answer your question:

- They want to have a better SOS for years when they may not be the SECC.
- Their fans aren't like UM pussy fans and they want to see their team play great games not a bunch of cupcakes (by "UM pussy fans," I mean only you, not the other UM fans who actually get the whole point here).
- The top players, evidently other than those that go to UM, want to play in big games on big stages. You actually want the top players so you play big games to get them.
- The SEC has a huge contract with ESPN and it will get even more huge when the TV inventory expands 3 to 4 fold in 2025. Same with the B1G contract, I presume. They didn't pay $8 billion for more cupcakes games - they paid for more really good games.

FFS, read the article.
Click to expand...
the suck part is they pay for names
sorry but Texas Alabama is big in name only
Texas South Carolina
Oklahoma vandy
oklahoma Miss state
UCLA Purdue
UCLA Maryland
USC Rutgers
USC Indiana
will never really be big
and unfortunately i feel like we will see those games more often than we see meaningful USC vs Ohio State or Oklahoma vs Alabama
and thats only after USC can get back and maintain
UCLA vs any big name (OHST, Mich, Penn St, Wisc) has no real appeal
same with TX but they actually have a following that will still watch no matter what. UCLA cant say the same.
 
MAIZEandBLUE09 said:
Yeah, in a 4 team system where its' still pretty hard to get there; that was a fun/good accomplishment after (you know) the RR and Hoke eras...and 5 years of Harbaugh getting pretty darn close. Making the top 4 is different than making the top 12. Harbaugh would have gone to the playoff, what, 3-4 times now in a 12 team?
Click to expand...
Again, that's your opinion. I can counter your opinion with 2 fans - 1 from UTjr and 1 from NCSU. I spoke to both of these guys since they announced the expansion and they are jazzed. Those are two programs that haven't come close to getting into the CFP with 4 teams. One has a NC more recent than your team. Both are very excited because they see that their team might be able to get one of those 9-12 slots and that would help them continue to grow their program and help in recruiting. Both would be at the CFP game wherever it was played. They think this is a great idea and that more teams will let their fellow fans get more excited about the season.

So, consider that your opinion isn't shared by all others. Some for sure. But the fact they are doing this and the amount of money they are going to get paid to do this indicates that this is going to make things better not worse. If it is going to be as bad as you think, then it wouldn't be popular in general, and it is, and they wouldn't be talking 2.2 billion dollars a year.
 
OlyDuck said:
the suck part is they pay for names
sorry but Texas Alabama is big in name only
Texas South Carolina
Oklahoma vandy
oklahoma Miss state
UCLA Purdue
UCLA Maryland
USC Rutgers
USC Indiana
will never really be big
and unfortunately i feel like we will see those games more often than we see meaningful USC vs Ohio State or Oklahoma vs Alabama
and thats only after USC can get back and maintain
UCLA vs any big name (OHST, Mich, Penn St, Wisc) has no real appeal
same with TX but they actually have a following that will still watch no matter what. UCLA cant say the same.
Click to expand...
All conferences have teams that aren't as well known. That's obvious. And those games will draw eyeballs because of the better top teams. I can't speak for the B1G and their scheduling, but the SEC schedule starting in 2025-ish is absolutely going to have 3-4 times as many big team v. big team games.

As for paying for names, yeah, that's what blue bloods do. Nothing wrong with that. I think that Bama blows Texas out. But let's see what happens in about in 5 years when UT hopefully has a proven coach and are living up to their expectations.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Read the fucking article that @Deep Creek posted and I quoted. Alabama's AD is quoted in the article. I mean for fuck sake, it is answered by the ADs that have made these schedules. You are so focused on what you believe, you are ignoring facts that people are presenting to you. So, to answer your question:

- They want to have a better SOS for years when they may not be the SECC.
- Their fans aren't like UM pussy fans and they want to see their team play great games not a bunch of cupcakes (by "UM pussy fans," I mean only you, not the other UM fans who actually get the whole point here).
- The top players, evidently other than those that go to UM, want to play in big games on big stages. You actually want the top players so you play big games to get them.
- The SEC has a huge contract with ESPN and it will get even more huge when the TV inventory expands 3 to 4 fold in 2025. Same with the B1G contract, I presume. They didn't pay $8 billion for more cupcakes games - they paid for more really good games.

FFS, read the article.
Click to expand...
WhosYourDawggy said:
But, it's not. I have, over and over, shown you were IC and OCC schedules are actually getting much better and harder going forward. There have been hundreds of articles written about this over the past year. @Deep Creek cited an article with interviews of top ADs who explain why they want more and better games, not more cupcakes. But you refuse to actually read the article, or acknowledge that you are objectively wrong.

Look, make the argument that it's your opinion that CFB won't be as good because of expansion. I disagree and think it's wrong, but you can make that argument if that's how you feel. But you keep arguing against objective facts that make me wonder if you aren't just trolling, or are just plain dumb and can't understand all the moving parts that are going on right now.
Click to expand...

I read the article, and I think it's absolutely wrong. You have no data to suggest OOC scheduling has gotten better. In fact, I think there's a legitimate argument that it's gotten worse. Prior to the BCS how many teams had never even scheduled an FCS opponent? What is there left, 1? Maybe 2? The SEC, Georgia included, has almost taken up a tradition of scheduling at least 1 FCS team a year.

Alabama WANTS to play in those big OOC games because fans like it. That's the entirety of the reason. That doesn't mean they benefit from it in terms of the playoff, they don't and there's no way to argue they do in a 12 team format. The Big games will come already by playing in the bigger conferences, that's already built in. Recruits aren't going to care about 1 offs in the out of conference schedule. And they'll get a huge contract irrelevant of who they play in the out of conference because of the in-conference product. TV contracts aren't built around OOC games in that way and they have no influence on scheduling those.

Scheduling big games OOC isn't new, and you (and that bogus article) are acting as though it's some new product brought on by the playoff. I just picked a random year, 2000, and random team, Alabama, and they opened up with UCLA that year. That same year, again picked randomly, USC opened with Penn State. Miami played Washington. Hell, UCLA then played Michigan a few weeks later. The idea that this is a new thing brought on by this core group of forward thinking AD's is dumb. If anything, you'd have a good argument to make that good OOC games happen less now than at any point before the playoff started. The difference then between what will happen with an expanded 12 team playoff, is that style points were actually needed to be crowned national champion or be involved in the BCS game.

I just picked another random team/year. Ohio State 1996. They played Notre Dame, Pitt and Arizona State. Picked another, close to home for you, Georgia 1999. Played Purdue and Georgia Tech in the OOC. Yes, this is anecdotal to some extent but you're talking about how great the schedules are now...Georgia played Oregon. They follow that with and FCS team (unheard of in the 90's) in Samford. Play Kent State and Georgia Tech again. That's no better than almost 30 years ago.

With a 12 team format, and no style points needed, Georgia would be best served to take those 3-4 given wins. Schedule 1 FCS and 2 G5 teams. And if they lose 1 or 2 games, who cares? They'll still be in the playoff most likely
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Again, that's your opinion. I can counter your opinion with 2 fans - 1 from UTjr and 1 from NCSU. I spoke to both of these guys since they announced the expansion and they are jazzed. Those are two programs that haven't come close to getting into the CFP with 4 teams. One has a NC more recent than your team. Both are very excited because they see that their team might be able to get one of those 9-12 slots and that would help them continue to grow their program and help in recruiting. Both would be at the CFP game wherever it was played. They think this is a great idea and that more teams will let their fellow fans get more excited about the season.

So, consider that your opinion isn't shared by all others. Some for sure. But the fact they are doing this and the amount of money they are going to get paid to do this indicates that this is going to make things better not worse. If it is going to be as bad as you think, then it wouldn't be popular in general, and it is, and they wouldn't be talking 2.2 billion dollars a year.
Click to expand...
There's absolutely no doubt that lower-level teams will absolutely love the 12 team playoff because they have a shot at making it. There's also no doubt that we're sacrificing the importance of regular season games, making losses mean less, to give these teams a playoff spot that will end up doing nothing for their chances of winning a national title.
 
MAIZEandBLUE09 said:
I read the article, and I think it's absolutely wrong. You have no data to suggest OOC scheduling has gotten better. In fact, I think there's a legitimate argument that it's gotten worse. Prior to the BCS how many teams had never even scheduled an FCS opponent? What is there left, 1? Maybe 2? The SEC, Georgia included, has almost taken up a tradition of scheduling at least 1 FCS team a year.

Alabama WANTS to play in those big OOC games because fans like it. That's the entirety of the reason. That doesn't mean they benefit from it in terms of the playoff, they don't and there's no way to argue otherwise. The Big games will come already by playing in the bigger conferences, that's already built in. Recruits aren't going to care about 1 offs in the out of conference schedule. And they'll get a huge contract irrelevant of who they play in the out of conference because of the in-conference product. TV contracts aren't built around OOC games in that way and they have no influence on scheduling those.

Scheduling big games OOC isn't new, and you (and that bogus article) are acting as though it's some new product brought on by the playoff. I just picked a random year, 2000, and random team, Alabama, and they opened up with UCLA that year. That same year, again picked randomly, USC opened with Penn State. Miami played Washington. Hell, UCLA then played Michigan a few weeks later. The idea that this is a new thing brought on by this core group of forward thinking AD's is dumb. If anything, you'd have a good argument to make that good OOC games happen less now than at any point before the playoff started. The difference then between what will happen with an expanded 12 team playoff, is that style points were actually needed to be crowned national champion or be involved in the BCS game.

I just picked another random team/year. Ohio State 1996. They played Notre Dame, Pitt and Arizona State. Picked another, close to home for you, Georgia 1999. Played Purdue and Georgia Tech in the OOC. Yes, this is anecdotal to some extent but you're talking about how great the schedules are now...Georgia played Oregon. They follow that with and FCS team (unheard of in the 90's) in Samford. Play Kent State and Georgia Tech again. That's no better than almost 30 years ago.
Click to expand...
JFC ... it's really hard to talk to you when you call a great article, written by a prominent sports writer, from a known sports platform, quoting the exact people who are making these decisions explain why the decisions are made, wrong and bogus.

1. There is no question that OOC schedules have gotten better and are getting better. Just look at the future schedules, and read the article.

2. You say players don't like to play in big games when there are dozens of articles where the players say they love them. You obviously have never played big time sports - they want big games in the spotlight.

3. You have become the worst troll on this site. Unreal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top