Originally Posted by pitfallharry219 I don't know if I've ever heard Musburger get that excited.

That's pretty much the game last night. Hot girl with an old man gawking at her.

So the BCS gave us 4 of 5 blowouts. Thanks for such a quality system.

Since Oregon was brought up... They would have lost too. Maybe not by 28 but still it would have been bad. How do I figure? Oregon struggled against a good defense Stanford and lost. Oregon offense doesn't work against top defenses as proven by history. Alabama is #1 in scoring defense.

Until the BCS goes to at least 16 will we finally see competitive big bowl games. This top 4 stuff won't give us that.

Originally Posted by lordopus99 That's pretty much the game last night. Hot girl with an old man gawking at her. So the BCS gave us 4 of 5 blowouts. Thanks for such a quality system. Since Oregon was brought up... They would have lost too. Maybe not by 28 but still it would have been bad. How do I figure? Oregon struggled against a good defense Stanford and lost. Oregon offense doesn't work against top defenses as proven by history. Alabama is #1 in scoring defense. Until the BCS goes to at least 16 will we finally see competitive big bowl games. This top 4 stuff won't give us that.

I'm confused as to how a 16 game playoff would have given us more competitive games. The first round of the playoffs would have been the same blowouts. The problem this year was that there really weren't any great teams besides maybe 'Bama. Just my 2 cents.

Yeah, the more teams you put in the playoffs the more blow outs you get.

And no guarantee you get a good title game. Look how many Super Bowls have been blow outs over the years. Some years there's just a team or two that's way better than everyone else.

Alabama vs. Oregon would have been a much better match up. Alabama's defense isn't infallible against explosive spread offenses. See their loss to Texas A&M as case in point.

Originally Posted by chuckie88 Well that wraps up the college season, I'm sure the traffic on this thread will die down quite a bit now. I'm glad I stumbled over it this year and look forward to upcoming posts and future seasons. Good Night!

Yeah, the thread will die off until August unless there's some more realignment news or something. I don't expect much of anything to happen until the Maryland-ACC lawsuit is settled and we see how much of the $50 million or so buyout they have to pay.

Only other thing will be MWC expanding--San Diego State will probably re-join Boise at the least, and maybe they grab a couple other Big East leftovers or incoming members.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 Yeah, the more teams you put in the playoffs the more blow outs you get. And no guarantee you get a good title game. Look how many Super Bowls have been blow outs over the years. Some years there's just a team or two that's way better than everyone else. Alabama vs. Oregon would have been a much better match up. Alabama's defense isn't infallible against explosive spread offenses. See their loss to Texas A&M as case in point. Yeah, the thread will die off until August unless there's some more realignment news or something. I don't expect much of anything to happen until the Maryland-ACC lawsuit is settled and we see how much of the $50 million or so buyout they have to pay. Only other thing will be MWC expanding--San Diego State will probably re-join Boise at the least, and maybe they grab a couple other Big East leftovers or incoming members.

The last super bowl blowout was 10 years ago.

I stand corrected. Haven't paid a ton of attention to the NFL since the 90s, and back then it seemed like it was always the Cowboys or 49ers blowing someone out.

I don't think the college game will have that kind of parity though. NFL has the hard salary cap, where as there are HUGE money and resource differences between the elite programs and everyone else even when just looking at the power conference teams.

So there will always be some mismatches in 8 or (especially) 16 team playoffs as champs from weaker conferences get in etc. and get stomped by the huge money programs like Bama, Oregon etc. that can afford all the fancy facility things to entice recruits, pay top coaches 4-5+ million to stay around etc.

A 4 team playoff would probably have the least amount of blow outs. But there will still be cases where a team like ND that played a weaker schedule runs the table and gets in while stronger 1 loss teams get left out.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by kill3r7 I'm confused as to how a 16 game playoff would have given us more competitive games. The first round of the playoffs would have been the same blowouts. The problem this year was that there really weren't any great teams besides maybe 'Bama. Just my 2 cents.

If it happened this year A&M would be left out. They might be the best team out there. Their two losses combined for only 7 points. They were the first game of Johnny Football career and the other against top 10 LSU. 16 would cover the good teams and allow everyone to prove their spot. Giving us competitive games in the 2nd, 3rd, and Championship Game.

Originally Posted by munch The last super bowl blowout was 10 years ago.

Keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation. Furthermore, there is no correlation that playoffs =/= blowouts. The reason we have witnessed less blowouts in the Superbowl has to do with parity, which can be attributed to the greatest QB era in the history of the league.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 A 4 team playoff would probably have the least amount of blow outs. But there will still be cases where a team like ND that played a weaker schedule runs the table and gets in while stronger 1 loss teams get left out.

Not this year... Florida was the #3 team and they were hammered by Louisville ranked #20 in Week 15. ND couldn't show up in Alabama so who says they favor any better against Oregon. So both games potentially blowouts. Oregon again struggles against real defenses so Alabama still wins with blowout.

With 16, you get teams like A&M, Oklahoma, Clemson, and of course my Noles. All teams which on a given day can take down the giants.

Originally Posted by kill3r7 Keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation. Furthermore, there is no correlation that playoffs =/= blowouts. The reason we have witnessed less blowouts in the Superbowl has to do with parity, which can be attributed to the greatest QB era in the history of the league.

I wasn't making any correlations, just responding to the post that said that there has been a lot of super bowl blowouts. Of course you won't get magical parity in ncaaf because of a playoff. But you will more teams that have a chance to play.

A playoff isn't going to fix the most significant problem with college football, which is that these kids need to be financially compensated.

Originally Posted by lordopus99 If it happened this year A&M would be left out. They might be the best team out there. Their two losses combined for only 7 points. They were the first game of Johnny Football career and the other against top 10 LSU. 16 would cover the good teams and allow everyone to prove their spot. Giving us competitive games in the 2nd, 3rd, and Championship Game.

I'm a proponent of a playoff system because it affords more teams the ability to compete for the title but I have no illusions that it will result in a more competitive field. There is no guarantee that those additional games would have been more competitive. Many folks, including quite a few people on this board, thought Oregon vs KSU was going to be a competitive game but it wasn't. The idea that somehow you can guarantee more competitive games is simply false.

I think an 8 team field will let in all the teams that can be truly competitive with the top 1 or 2 teams each year.

Sixteen would be overkill most years. Yes Louisville who would have been like a 15 or 16 seed beat UF this year who would have been a 3 or 4 seed probably, but I really think UF just wasn't fired up and ready for that game.

I'm fine with either. Probably just wouldn't watch many of the first round games in a 16 game playoff, just like I don't watch much of the opening round games in March Madness. Not worth sitting through blowouts to see an upset or two.

To be fair, most of my sports watching these days are just my teams games (and really only if they're having decent years) and championship games. Too little free time to watch games I don't have a rooting interest in or a title on the line. Especially with football with 3-4 hour games when I could knock out a good chunk of a game or catch up on a couple movies in that time.

Rambling point being I'm not the market they'd be after with a longer playoff anyway.

Originally Posted by munch I wasn't making any correlations, just responding to the post that said that there has been a lot of super bowl blowouts. Of course you won't get magical parity in ncaaf because of a playoff. But you will more teams that have a chance to play.

My bad, I thought you were arguing that the playoffs in the NFL have prevented blowouts.

A playoff isn't going to fix the most significant problem with college football, which is that these kids need to be financially compensated.

I know this is a very trendy argument but most people don't consider the financial costs involved with running a college athletic department. If you were to examine the financial data from most college programs you would realize that most football programs end up losing money. For starters due to Title 9 (not blaming the ladies merely pointing out a fact that most people tend to neglect) for every football player on a scholarship (85 per team) there must be the same number of scholarships offered to female athletes. Factor in all the facility costs, stadium upgrades, travel costs, free gear, meals and you can see the costs add up pretty quickly.

I'm not implying that colleges do not make money from sports (most of them are for profit corporations) but the issue is always presented from the players side and no one seems to want to discuss the entire picture. Furthermore, it is also worth noting that often there is a tremendous amount of pressure and opposition from faculty, students and other powerful individuals who don't care for football and sports in general. After all college is an institution of higher learning not a feeder for the NFL, NBA or MLB.

Most major conference Football programs are making money, but a good chunk of the ADs are still in the red from the non-revenue sports.

I think that will go away for the big 4 or 5 conference teams with the bump in revenue they're getting from the playoff deal, how much TV contracts have jumped, revenue from league cable channels like the B1G network etc.

That said I'm still mixed on paying the players. I'm fine if it's just giving them more of a stipend. A couple thousand a semester or whatever to have more spending money. They are getting free tuition, room and board already.

If we're talking paying them big salaries, I'm a lot more hesitant. If the NFL/NBA are kicking in the money (instead of having a free minor league system like currently), then great. Also ok if my above assumption is true and the top level schools can do it just from football profits. But in either case I'd prefer seeing the student requirement removed. Just give them the option to take classes for free, but don't require it IMO. Win-win then as they get paid and professors aren't dealing with athletes who don't care at all about class. While those who do can still go for free.

Or just make them take life skills classes if they opt out.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/88...delphia-eagles

So much for Kelly staying at Oregon, he's the new coach of the Eagles.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...ference-member

And San Diego State is also staying in the MWC rather than going to the Big East. Been some rumbling that Cincy and UCONN may join for football only and put their other sports in the new league with the 7 catholic schools that are leaving the BE.

Solid plan IMO. Creates a fairly solid football league in the MWC (even moreso if they can get BYU to rejoin) and a very strong basketball conference that maintains a lot of the original Big East (sans Syracuse etc.).

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...pparently-hoax

Lol what a joke.

Originally Posted by fatmanforlife99 http://espn.go.com/college-football/...pparently-hoax Lol what a joke.

His comments were idiotic. He said someone was playing a sick joke on him yet he supposely visited her multiple times (stated in the media at the time). He is just one terrible, terrible person.

Originally Posted by lordopus99 His comments were idiotic. He said someone was playing a sick joke on him yet he supposely visited her multiple times (stated in the media at the time). He is just one terrible, terrible person.

I was just watching a little bit of the press conference ND just held. The AD says supposedly Manti never met her and when he spoke about "meeting" it was the on-line type. He referenced the documentary and TV show "Catfish" as examples of what happened to Te'o. He wouldn't get into a lot of the specifics as he kept saying he'd let Manti tell the story and just kept praising his character. He said that's the reason he wasn't suspicious and fell for this "hoax" so hard.

This seems like a whole lot of spin and damage control to keep it from hurting his draft status.

Have you guys read the actual Deadspin report? It's obvious he was in on it. No one would be stupid enough to be duped like that.

Probably not that dumb, but to put it nicely these guys aren't in college for hard science degrees or even degrees in several cases.