If You Were Hoping For CFP Expansion You’re Going To Have To Wait A Few Years

Blackshirts BLVD said:
.... lol k.

I called you a hypocrite because... well everything you say is practically hypocritical in some way. You talk about needing change, pose nothing. Say you hope NIL, transfer, CFP exp will change things, don't talk how.... so you just hope they will? That's nice :rolleyes:. Admit parity is an issue, when discussing recruiting you're asked what to change, you say nothing. Ask for 'citations' while providing none. Claim to be pro-player, but thinks the player shouldn't be allowed to make THEIR OWN WILLFUL CHOICE at their own behest.

And you wonder why someone might think you're full of shit? You are right about one thing, I don't know your heart, but given what you have shown here, I know whatever you would say is likely bullshit.
Click to expand...
Goodness ...

NIL - do I really need to point out what ATM did this year with NIL and how it relates to recruiting? Really, I gave you some credit that you were keeping up with current events. So, I believe that NIL will give programs like UTjr (see my post on what they are doing with their Collective), Miami (every player representing MMA gyms), ATM obviously, and on and on.

Transfer rule - again, keep up with current events. Take a look at the transfer portal and see what teams did with that. To help you, google "winners and loser in transfer portal" and see what teams make major changes to their rosters using the portal. USC killed it and it will help them be the best team in the PAC. Arkansas, Ole Miss, South Carolina, USC, Arizona are all teams that made themselves more competitive. Meanwhile, Bama, UGA and other top teams lost many of their players who left to get more PT. Do you really not know this?

CFP - of the three, this is the most tenuous. The question is whether or not the teams that are typically in the 5-20 ranked range and can now get in the CFP every few years will help them keep some players home, and get some transfers to come in. No one knows, but my guess is that it might get 10-15 of the top 100 players to decide to go somewhere else other than the top 3 or 4 teams.

So, we need change, I showed you what should have been obvious. Recruiting obviously is changed by the NIL and the transfer portal. I didn't cite anything because this should be evident to a thinking person. No where did I say players shouldn't make their own decision - you are the one that wants to let a team trap them and limit their choices, not me.

So, no bullshit here. Just a smart dude that knows his football. Send me the cites on your ideas ... LOL.
 
Last edited:
WhosYourDawggy said:
Goodness ...

NIL - do I really need to point out what ATM did this year with NIL and how it relates to recruiting? Really, I gave you some credit that you were keeping up with current events. So, I believe that NIL will give programs like UTjr (see my post on what they are doing with their Collective), Miami (every player representing MMA gyms), ATM obviously, and on and on.
Click to expand...
Do you feel like you actually said something intelligent here? This basically says nothing but read my other post, which you didn't include. What about this makes you a smart dude? And how is what happened with A&M this recruiting cycle a good thing exactly?
WhosYourDawggy said:
Transfer rule - again, keep up with current events. Take a look at the transfer portal and see what teams did with that. To help you, google "winners and loser in transfer portal" and see what teams make major changes to their rosters using the portal. USC killed it and it will help them be the best team in the PAC. Arkansas, Ole Miss, South Carolina, USC, Arizona are all teams that made themselves more competitive. Meanwhile, Bama, UGA and other top teams lost many of their players who left to get more PT. Do you really now know this?
Click to expand...
LMAO. I love that you are going point by point, not sharing anything of value, but keep on pretending that you are. What does this have to do with anything in the first place? You act as if I said we should get rid of the new transfer rule. I see upside and downside to the transfer rule.
WhosYourDawggy said:
CFP - of the three, this is the most tenuous. The question is whether or not the teams that are typically in the 5-20 ranked range and can now get in the CFP every few years will help them keep some players home, and get some transfers to come in. No one knows, but my guess is that it might get 10-15 of the top 100 players to decide to go somewhere else other than the top 3 or 4 teams.
Click to expand...
But all still inside the SEC amirite :rolleyes: LOL
WhosYourDawggy said:
So, we need change, I showed you what should have been obvious. Recruiting obviously is changed by the NIL and the transfer portal. I didn't cite anything because this should be evident to a thinking person. No where did I say players shouldn't make their own decision - you are the one that wants to let a team trap them and limit their choices, not me.
Click to expand...
1. You showed nothing LOL are you serious?
2. How has recruiting changed? Just because A&M bought a class? Are you fucking retared and can't see the big picture as to why that is a problem?
3. I'll give you the transfer portal, though I never mentioned getting rid of it.
4. How am I the one letting a team trap them? It is 10000000000% (need more zeroes?) the choice of the athlete. I even gave the athlete an out of using their transfer option. As it sits currently, if an athlete signs their NLI the school has to release them from that. If anything this is more pro-player than it is currently. And you want to tell a player 'sorry, I am not going to let you make this decision until all teams willing have reached out to you and stressed you out and bothered you to oblivion messing with your HS games and school work'. Just let THEM decide when they want to sign and get the fuck out of the way. Nothing says they have to sign early, they can sign whenever-the-fuck they want.
WhosYourDawggy said:
So, no bullshit here. Just a smart dude that knows his football. Send me the cites on your ideas ... LOL.
Click to expand...
LMAO. You can't make this shit up. Just a few sentences ago in this very post you say 'I didn't cite anything' and immediately follow it up with 'send my your cites' and then you throw an lol at the end like you did some power move, bwahahahahaa. And your post before this was whining about being called a hypocrite... bwahaha and you can't figure it all out... this is too funny.

All of those 'bwhahas' were genuine laughs btw. But fuck, let me try this out on you bwahahaha....

You want citations from me? I didn't cite anything because this should be evident to a thinking person. You hypocritical punk-ass bitch. BWAHAHAHA
 
Last edited:
WhosYourDawggy said:
I don't, and I went to THE SEC cellar dweller, Vandy.

That said, if you apply the 12 team CFP back to when it started (I read this a while ago, so don't hold me to the cutoff), 12 of the 14 SEC schools would have gone to a 12 team CFP at least once. I thought that was a wild fact. I think in that same time period the B1G would have had the most appearances - it was something like 21 appearances v. 19 for the SEC. This was primarily because in 2014, 2015 and 2016 the SECE was horrible.

I'd bet the B12 would have had most of its members in but Kansas.
Click to expand...
I know in one of the early "1st CFP rankings" Ole Miss and Miss State were way up there but that didn't last...which means it was all hat, no cattle and perception. In fact, I think that's the year TCU kicked Ole Miss in the Peach Bowl.

You are more optimistic than I am. I see no way Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, etal would have made it. And I'm sure schools like Texas Tech and K-State wouldn't have sniffed it either. Those teams are enjoying the financial spoils to a great extent. Makes one wonder how schools without their resources still achieve at equal or higher levels.
 
Blackshirts BLVD said:
Do you feel like you actually said something intelligent here? This basically says nothing but read my other post, which you didn't include. What about this makes you a smart dude? And how is what happened with A&M this recruiting cycle a good thing exactly?

LMAO. I love that you are going point by point, not sharing anything of value, but keep on pretending that you are. What does this have to do with anything in the first place? You act as if I said we should get rid of the new transfer rule. I see upside and downside to the transfer rule.

But all still inside the SEC amirite :rolleyes: LOL

1. You showed nothing LOL are you serious?
2. How has recruiting changed? Just because A&M bought a class? Are you fucking retared and can't see the big picture as to why that is a problem?
3. I'll give you the transfer portal, though I never mentioned getting rid of it.
4. How am I the one letting a team trap them? It is 10000000000% (need more zeroes?) the choice of the athlete. I even gave the athlete an out of using their transfer option. As it sits currently, if an athlete signs their NLI the school has to release them from that. If anything this is more pro-player than it is currently. And you want to tell a player 'sorry, I am not going to let you make this decision until all teams willing have reached out to you and stressed you out and bothered you to oblivion messing with your HS games and school work'. Just let THEM decide when they want to sign and get the fuck out of the way. Nothing says they have to sign early, they can sign whenever-the-fuck they want.

LMAO. You can't make this shit up. Just a few sentences ago in this very post you say 'I didn't cite anything' and immediately follow it up with 'send my your cites' and then you throw an lol at the end like you did some power move, bwahahahahaa. And your post before this was whining about being called a hypocrite... bwahaha and you can't figure it all out... this is too funny.

All of those 'bwhahas' were genuine laughs btw. But fuck, let me try this out on you bwahahaha....

You want citations from me? I didn't cite anything because this should be evident to a thinking person. You hypocritical punk-ass bitch. BWAHAHAHA
Click to expand...
You should seek mental help ... I am serious.
 
Deep Creek said:
I know in one of the early "1st CFP rankings" Ole Miss and Miss State were way up there but that didn't last. You are more optimistic than I am. I see no way Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, etal would have made it. And I'm sure Texas Tech and K-State wouldn't have sniffed it either. Those teams are enjoying the financial spoils to a great extent. Makes one wonder how schools without their resources still achieve at equal or higher levels.
Click to expand...
As I said the Nebraska boy, there has never been parity. But if 50% - 75% of the teams in decade can get to the CFP, that should help.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
As I said the Nebraska boy, there has never been parity. But if 50% - 75% of the teams in decade can get to the CFP, that should help.
Click to expand...
Hell yeah. If you even get to something like 40% of conferences making it over a 5 year period I think interest would go through the roof. If the even have a real chance it would help. Especially as we get later in the year. What happens in one conference in late November could have a ripple effect on two or three other conferences...more than it does now. But what the hell do I know.
 
Deep Creek said:
Hell yeah. If you even get to something like 40% of conferences making it over a 5 year period I think interest would go through the roof. If the even have a real chance it would help. Especially as we get later in the year. What happens in one conference in late November could have a ripple effect on two or three other conferences...more than it does now. But what the hell do I know.
Click to expand...
Some time this weeks I'll run the last 11 years and show what teams would have gotten in. It won't be exact, but close enough. By recollection is that someone said that since the CFP started 47 different teams would have gotten in. If we go back to 2010, I'll bet it's another 10-15. About 50% of the teams would be pretty good.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
As I said the Nebraska boy, there has never been parity. But if 50% - 75% of the teams in decade can get to the CFP, that should help.
Click to expand...
I've had discussions like this with Nebraska fans for a few years. It seems they refuse to believe CFB has changed and Nebraska is simply a coach away from being a national power again. They refuse to accept they have zero in state talent, and they are surrounded by states with zero in state talent, so they must rely on essentially 100% recruits nationally, where they are way down on the list of teams for those players.

Reality is -- in today's CFB -- it doesn't matter who their coach is, they will not be able to compete with the talent level of the elite recruiting teams. As a UM fan -- we are in the same boat to a lesser extent, as we have years where we have quite a bit of in state talent, but we are always going to be behind talent wise to the elite teams.

It is what it is. I have no issue with it.
 
Blackshirts BLVD said:
Do you feel like you actually said something intelligent here? This basically says nothing but read my other post, which you didn't include. What about this makes you a smart dude? And how is what happened with A&M this recruiting cycle a good thing exactly?

LMAO. I love that you are going point by point, not sharing anything of value, but keep on pretending that you are. What does this have to do with anything in the first place? You act as if I said we should get rid of the new transfer rule. I see upside and downside to the transfer rule.

But all still inside the SEC amirite :rolleyes: LOL

1. You showed nothing LOL are you serious?
2. How has recruiting changed? Just because A&M bought a class? Are you fucking retared and can't see the big picture as to why that is a problem?
3. I'll give you the transfer portal, though I never mentioned getting rid of it.
4. How am I the one letting a team trap them? It is 10000000000% (need more zeroes?) the choice of the athlete. I even gave the athlete an out of using their transfer option. As it sits currently, if an athlete signs their NLI the school has to release them from that. If anything this is more pro-player than it is currently. And you want to tell a player 'sorry, I am not going to let you make this decision until all teams willing have reached out to you and stressed you out and bothered you to oblivion messing with your HS games and school work'. Just let THEM decide when they want to sign and get the fuck out of the way. Nothing says they have to sign early, they can sign whenever-the-fuck they want.

LMAO. You can't make this shit up. Just a few sentences ago in this very post you say 'I didn't cite anything' and immediately follow it up with 'send my your cites' and then you throw an lol at the end like you did some power move, bwahahahahaa. And your post before this was whining about being called a hypocrite... bwahaha and you can't figure it all out... this is too funny.

All of those 'bwhahas' were genuine laughs btw. But fuck, let me try this out on you bwahahaha....

You want citations from me? I didn't cite anything because this should be evident to a thinking person. You hypocritical punk-ass bitch. BWAHAHAHA
Click to expand...
Did A&M do anything that every other fucking school in the country could also do?

No? Then why are you still crying?
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Some time this weeks I'll run the last 11 years and show what teams would have gotten in. It won't be exact, but close enough. By recollection is that someone said that since the CFP started 47 different teams would have gotten in. If we go back to 2010, I'll bet it's another 10-15. About 50% of the teams would be pretty good.
Click to expand...
Hell, I'll do my version. I don't work anymore.

You were real close with 47 going all the way down to 12 in the final CFP rankings. Final CFP Rankings And that may be the reason the committee tasked with coming up with the recommendation arrived at 12. (Reminder: Don't confuse them with the final AP/Coaches Poll etc that are AFTER the CFP and Bowls.

1. Alabama -2014,2015,2016,2017,2018, 2020,2021
2. Oregon -2014,2019
3. Florida State-2014,2015,2016
4. Ohio State-2014,2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020,2021
5. Baylor-2014,2019,2021
6. TCU-2014,2015
7. Mississippi State-2014
8. Michigan State-2014,2015,2021
9. Ole Miss-2014,2015,2021
10. Arizona-2014
11. K-State-2014
12. Georgia Tech-2014
13. Clemson -2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020
14. Oklahoma-2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020
15. Iowa-2015
16. Stanford-2015
17. Notre Dame-2015,2018,2020,2021
18. North Carolina-2015
19. Washington - 2016,2017,2018
20. Penn State -2016,2017,2018,2019
21. Michigan -2016,2018,2021
22. Wisconsin - 2016,2017,2019
23.Southern Cal - 2016,2017
24. Colorado - 2016
25. Oklahoma State - 2016,2021
26. Georgia - 2017,2018,2019,2020,2021
27. Auburn - 2017, 2019
28. Miami - 2017
29. UCF - 2017,2018
30. Florida - 2018,2019,2020
31. LSU - 2018, 2019
32. Utah - 2019, 2021
33. Texas A&M - 2020
34. Cincinnatti - 2020, 2021
35. Iowa State - 2020
36. Indiana -2020
37. Coastal Carolina - 2020
38. Pitt - 2021
 
Deep Creek said:
Hell, I'll do my version. I don't work anymore.

You were real close with 47 going all the way down to 12 in the final CFP rankings. Final CFP Rankings And that may be the reason the committee tasked with coming up with the recommendation arrived at 12. (Reminder: Don't confuse them with the final AP/Coaches Poll etc that are AFTER the CFP and Bowls.

1. Alabama -2014,2015,2016,2017,2018, 2020,2021
2. Oregon -2014,2019
3. Florida State-2014,2015,2016
4. Ohio State-2014,2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020,2021
5. Baylor-2014,2019,2021
6. TCU-2014,2015
7. Mississippi State-2014
8. Michigan State-2014,2015,2021
9. Ole Miss-2014,2015,2021
10. Arizona-2014
11. K-State-2014
12. Georgia Tech-2014
13. Clemson -2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020
14. Oklahoma-2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020
15. Iowa-2015
16. Stanford-2015
17. Notre Dame-2015,2018,2020,2021
18. North Carolina-2015
19. Washington - 2016,2017,2018
20. Penn State -2016,2017,2018,2019
21. Michigan -2016,2018,2021
22. Wisconsin - 2016,2017,2019
23.Southern Cal - 2016,2017
24. Colorado - 2016
25. Oklahoma State - 2016,2021
26. Georgia - 2017,2018,2019,2020,2021
27. Auburn - 2017, 2019
28. Miami - 2017
29. UCF - 2017,2018
30. Florida - 2018,2019,2020
31. LSU - 2018, 2019
32. Utah - 2019, 2021
33. Texas A&M - 2020
34. Cincinnatti - 2020, 2021
35. Iowa State - 2020
36. Indiana -2020
37. Coastal Carolina - 2020
38. Pitt - 2021
Click to expand...
Ordered by conference as they "would have" qualified for a 12 team playoff

ACC - Florida State (3), Georgia Tech (1), Clemson (6), North Carolina (1), Miami (1), Pitt (1)
- 6 different teams,
- 13 total appearances
- Clemson would have been the 3rd ACC team to make an appearance

B1G - Ohio State (8), Michigan State (3), Iowa (1), Penn State (4), Michigan (3), Wisconsin (3), Indiana (1)
- 7 Different teams
- 23 total appearances
- Ohio State is the only team that would have made EVERY 12 team playoff

Big 12 - Baylor (3), TCU (2), K-State (1), Oklahoma (6), Oklahoma State (2), Iowa State (1)
- 6 different teams
- 15 total appearances
- Oklahoma would have been the 4th Big 12 team to appear but has 6 of 15 appearances
- Look who ISN'T on the list!

PAC 12 - Oregon (2), Arizona (1), Stanford (1), Washington (3), Southern Cal (2), Colorado (1), Utah (2)
- 7 different teams
- 12 total appearances
- USC would have been the 5th PAC 12 team to make it
- Arizona would have been the 2nd PAC 12 team to make it :headscratch:

SEC - Alabama (7), Miss State (1), Ole Miss (3), Georgia (5), Auburn (2), Florida (3), LSU (2), Texas A&M (1)
- 8 teams
- 24 total appearances
- Alabama missed one! #13 in 2019
-LSU didn't show up until 2018 @ #11
-Georgia didn't show up until 2017 but.........

ACC - UCF (2), Cincinnatti (2)
Sun Belt - Coastal Carolina (1)
 
Deep Creek said:
Hell, I'll do my version. I don't work anymore.

You were real close with 47 going all the way down to 12 in the final CFP rankings. Final CFP Rankings And that may be the reason the committee tasked with coming up with the recommendation arrived at 12. (Reminder: Don't confuse them with the final AP/Coaches Poll etc that are AFTER the CFP and Bowls.

1. Alabama -2014,2015,2016,2017,2018, 2020,2021
2. Oregon -2014,2019
3. Florida State-2014,2015,2016
4. Ohio State-2014,2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020,2021
5. Baylor-2014,2019,2021
6. TCU-2014,2015
7. Mississippi State-2014
8. Michigan State-2014,2015,2021
9. Ole Miss-2014,2015,2021
10. Arizona-2014
11. K-State-2014
12. Georgia Tech-2014
13. Clemson -2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020
14. Oklahoma-2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020
15. Iowa-2015
16. Stanford-2015
17. Notre Dame-2015,2018,2020,2021
18. North Carolina-2015
19. Washington - 2016,2017,2018
20. Penn State -2016,2017,2018,2019
21. Michigan -2016,2018,2021
22. Wisconsin - 2016,2017,2019
23.Southern Cal - 2016,2017
24. Colorado - 2016
25. Oklahoma State - 2016,2021
26. Georgia - 2017,2018,2019,2020,2021
27. Auburn - 2017, 2019
28. Miami - 2017
29. UCF - 2017,2018
30. Florida - 2018,2019,2020
31. LSU - 2018, 2019
32. Utah - 2019, 2021
33. Texas A&M - 2020
34. Cincinnatti - 2020, 2021
35. Iowa State - 2020
36. Indiana -2020
37. Coastal Carolina - 2020
38. Pitt - 2021
Click to expand...
Eggcelent work! Now, someone tell me how this isn't better. I don't care if they have a chance or not, having about half of each conferences fanbase able to go to a CFP game in the past 9 years makes the sport better. Who knows what happens to recruiting in that case. Remember, it's not that a team has to go from no. 12 in recruiting to top 3. We don't expect that. What would make a difference is if suddenly a 10-15% of the best players started staying at home. That takes them away from the top recruiting teams like Bama, UGA, tOSU, etc. It is a zero sum game.

As an aside on that last comment, I saw a video this morning that said ... if Miami, Texas/ATM, and USC can shut down south Florida, Texas and SoCal, taking that talent from UGA, Bama, tOSU, LSU alone would balance some of the imbalance. All have new coaching staffs, and all are very active in NIL. USC killed the transfer portal. That would be very interesting indeed.
 
7samurai13 said:
@Deep Creek doing the deep dive research
Click to expand...
I don't have a job!

And that data doesn't say a lot positives for my home state. Baylor and TCU would have had five times as many CFP appearances in a 12 team playoff as the two supposed "flagship" schools in my state! Especially if you overlay how much money those two generate and spend! And if it weren't for A&M's one in 2020, the two would have been skunked.

Here's a stat I noticed when doing it that was even worse.n If you travel on down to the top 25 CFP ratings during those years, Texas only shows up at #15 in 2018 and #20 in 2020. A&M only shows up at #19 in 2018 and #25 in 2021. So, only 2 top 25 CFPs for Texas 3 top 25 CFPs for A&M during the CFP era.
 
Deep Creek said:
I don't have a job!

And that data doesn't say a lot positives for my home state. Baylor and TCU would have had five times as many CFP appearances in a 12 team playoff as the two supposed "flagship" schools in my state! Especially if you overlay how much money those two generate and spend! And if it weren't for A&M's one in 2020, the two would have been skunked.

Here's a stat I noticed when doing it that was even worse.n If you travel on down to the top 25 CFP ratings during those years, Texas only shows up at #15 in 2018 and #20 in 2020. A&M only shows up at #19 in 2018 and #25 in 2021. So, only 2 top 25 CFPs for Texas 3 top 25 CFPs for A&M during the CFP era.
Click to expand...
But

TEXAS IS BACK BABY!!!

#ALLGASNOBRAKES
 
Deep Creek said:
I don't have a job!

And that data doesn't say a lot positives for my home state. Baylor and TCU would have had five times as many CFP appearances in a 12 team playoff as the two supposed "flagship" schools in my state! Especially if you overlay how much money those two generate and spend! And if it weren't for A&M's one in 2020, the two would have been skunked.

Here's a stat I noticed when doing it that was even worse.n If you travel on down to the top 25 CFP ratings during those years, Texas only shows up at #15 in 2018 and #20 in 2020. A&M only shows up at #19 in 2018 and #25 in 2021. So, only 2 top 25 CFPs for Texas 3 top 25 CFPs for A&M during the CFP era.
Click to expand...
I remember when I read the article that pointed this out that both UT and UTjr would not have made it. Things sure have changed when neither Texas nor Tenn make that list.
 
Deep Creek said:
Hell, I'll do my version. I don't work anymore.

You were real close with 47 going all the way down to 12 in the final CFP rankings. Final CFP Rankings And that may be the reason the committee tasked with coming up with the recommendation arrived at 12. (Reminder: Don't confuse them with the final AP/Coaches Poll etc that are AFTER the CFP and Bowls.

1. Alabama -2014,2015,2016,2017,2018, 2020,2021
2. Oregon -2014,2019
3. Florida State-2014,2015,2016
4. Ohio State-2014,2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020,2021
5. Baylor-2014,2019,2021
6. TCU-2014,2015
7. Mississippi State-2014
8. Michigan State-2014,2015,2021
9. Ole Miss-2014,2015,2021
10. Arizona-2014
11. K-State-2014
12. Georgia Tech-2014
13. Clemson -2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020
14. Oklahoma-2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020
15. Iowa-2015
16. Stanford-2015
17. Notre Dame-2015,2018,2020,2021
18. North Carolina-2015
19. Washington - 2016,2017,2018
20. Penn State -2016,2017,2018,2019
21. Michigan -2016,2018,2021
22. Wisconsin - 2016,2017,2019
23.Southern Cal - 2016,2017
24. Colorado - 2016
25. Oklahoma State - 2016,2021
26. Georgia - 2017,2018,2019,2020,2021
27. Auburn - 2017, 2019
28. Miami - 2017
29. UCF - 2017,2018
30. Florida - 2018,2019,2020
31. LSU - 2018, 2019
32. Utah - 2019, 2021
33. Texas A&M - 2020
34. Cincinnatti - 2020, 2021
35. Iowa State - 2020
36. Indiana -2020
37. Coastal Carolina - 2020
38. Pitt - 2021
Click to expand...

Is that based on top 12 or is this using the top 6 champs version
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top