I agree, but (1) the PAC, ACC and the B12 need it and collectively it is a good thing for the overall health of the sport, and (2) knowing that you have a path in conference, allows teams to schedule better OOC. Let's hope it helps with parity.
I respect your point and it's likely true as can be........BUT when it comes times to give raises, promote people and crown champions I have one helluva hard time factoring in anything but merit. I have been accused of being a bit Old School in some of my thinking but I've always had good feedback from our employees about everyone knowing everything was done as fairly as possible when it comes to $$$ and moving up in our organization. Of course we have situations where we give people the benefit of the doubt and I'm sure it's occasionally meant rewarding someone for an effort that barely made the cut but even then we don't just give stuff away. Frankly, I've seen enough of teams (looking at you, Oklahoma) who squeaked into the playoff and then got their ass handed to them and the only reason they made the playoff was that "data point" of winning their conference in addition to having a gaudy record. If the CFP is heavy with one conference or another I'm fine with it so long as I feel the participants are the cream of the crop. F any conference that whines about being left out. They need to get better and go do what the better teams are doing. Parity should be earned, not doled out like participation trophies. /rant off
I get you ... it's a socialistic type thing ... hopefully the PAC and ACC get in a few years and they get better teams and they earn it.
I'm old school too. (Shut up all of ya with the old fart jokes.) I'm so old school that I remember that only one school per district made the playoffs in any sport. Now we're taking up to FOUR! Everybody gets a trophy...and a lot of driftwood in the playoff river because of it.
im 42 growing up everyone got a trophy given to us by the now 60-80 group that seems to be complaining about everyone getting a trophy
Twasn’t me doling out unmerited trwatds.
Not sure I understand your objection. I have no problem that Oregon and Utah are good. You'll have to remind me of when Washington and Stanford were good, or are good. Same with Baylor and OkSU. I am fine with all those teams being good, but at the end of the day CFB is better when the programs that have reached the top over the years - USC, UCLA, Miami, FSU, TX, UM, PSU, etc. - are good.
Washington 18 and 16 winning Pac 12 and 10 wins in 17
have to see how UCF transitions first.
On all these 2-7/9, 3-6/9 plans, a lot of time is spent on the permanent teams. For me that's not the main thing they deliver if you ask me. Don't get me wrong, it's important to preserve the rivalries but equally important for at least the SEC is that we play each team at least every other year. Think about this ... ATM came into the SEC in 2012. We didn't play them at all until we hosted them 6 years later. Then we are having to wait another 6 years to finally go to College Station. That is absurd. Being able to play all teams at least every other year is just as important as who are permanent rivals.
Doesn't look like it is "just as important" to me if they are allowing some and not others. If that is the case, why not just do away with all permanent rivals? Allowing some and not others is not "equitable" which is what many claim to be seeking.
How about Sparty's? You think theirs is okay?
ESPN is investing a lot of dough into the SEC.. they want those rivalries in tact. Because let's face it, people still tune in even if one or both of the participants are having a down season
I know I do.
