Official (2015-2016) College Football Thread OSU#1

[quote name='lordopus99']So you are backtracking from your petty previous comment...
Again, NIU hasn't beaten a team worth half a damn. This is why ESPN and other news outlets are shitting on NIU. They would rather see FSU play a team that actually has a chance to win.

SOS Rankings (124 FBS teams) on teamrankings
NIU - #100
Wisconsin - #27
Louisville - #61

NIU is outclassed in every facet and you will see come Jan 1. But my guess is deep down you realize that they don't have a chance and won't watch.[/QUOTE]

ITS LIKE YOU ALREADY KNOW THE OUTCOME TO THE GAME :roll:. Get over it, NIU made it in.
 
One thing we haven't discussed is how the playoff wouldn't have helped much this year.

Hell, the BCS may be less controversial as it's pretty clear that ND and Alabama are the top two and deserve to be there. Haven't heard any bitching about Bama getting in over one of the other 1 loss teams.

If they playoffs started this year, you'd have them, but then could only take two of the other 3 1 loss teams--Oregon, Florida, Kansas State. K State would probably be the one left out since they lost to the worst team of the bunch in Baylor in a blowout.

An 8 team playoff would be even more of a mess, since after those 5 you'd be trying to get another 3 from a bunch of two loss teams like Georgia, Stanford, LSU, Texas A&M (who beat Bama), South Carolina, Oklahoma and Florida State.

Moral of story, really need a 16 team playoff or a move to just having a clear cut system of conference champs with at larges to the highest ranked non-conference champs to cut any subjectivity out of it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']One thing we haven't discussed is how the playoff wouldn't have helped much this year.

Hell, the BCS may be less controversial as it's pretty clear that ND and Alabama are the top two and deserve to be there. Haven't heard any bitching about Bama getting in over one of the other 1 loss teams.

If they playoffs started this year, you'd have them, but then could only take two of the other 3 1 loss teams--Oregon, Florida, Kansas State. K State would probably be the one left out since they lost to the worst team of the bunch in Baylor in a blowout.

An 8 team playoff would be even more of a mess, since after those 5 you'd be trying to get another 3 from a bunch of two loss teams like Georgia, Stanford, LSU, Texas A&M (who beat Bama), South Carolina, Oklahoma and Florida State.

Moral of story, really need a 16 team playoff or a move to just having a clear cut system of conference champs with at larges to the highest ranked non-conference champs to cut any subjectivity out of it.[/QUOTE]

The 16 team playoff would require too many additional games.
 
[quote name='pitfallharry219']Not if you take out early season games against scrub teams.[/QUOTE]

Sure I guess it could work if they could cut the regular season down to 10 games (8 conference games and 2 OoC opponents) but at the end of the day someone who's deserving will always be left out.
 
BS excuse.

The lower divisions, where teams area made up mostly of true student athletes who don't have delusions of making the NFL, do a 16 game playoff with no problems.

Just it back the regular season a game or two if needed.
 
D2 and D3 are 10 game seasons, looks like FCS is an 11 game season. 10 + CCG, cut to top 16 (conf champs + 6 at-large) would be feasible and give teams at most 15 games. Good luck getting teams to drop any OOC rivalries they may have though.
 
I don't think we'll see so much holding on to rivalries if not feasible. ND will still want to play their rivals, teams like FSU and UF will still play. They should just put a rule against playing lower division teams. Get rid of that cupcake game most teams play. No one wants to watch that crap anyway.

A lot of rivalries have already died due to realignment anyway. WVU hasn't played Penn State since they went to the Big 10, hasn't played VT since they went to the ACC (other than in the first year they were there). They don't have Pitt scheduled at all, and the Backyard Brawl is one of the oldest rivalries in the country. The game is simply changing and lots of traditions will die off including rivalries, importance/prestige of bowls after the playoff expands etc.
 
[quote name='Genocidal']D2 and D3 are 10 game seasons, looks like FCS is an 11 game season. 10 + CCG, cut to top 16 (conf champs + 6 at-large) would be feasible and give teams at most 15 games. Good luck getting teams to drop any OOC rivalries they may have though.[/QUOTE]

I'm a proponent of the underdog (and have been throughout this thread) but there is no way in hell that any of the smaller conference champs should or would get an AQ bid in a 16 team playoff. If you are going to have a 16 team playoff the point is to pit the best teams in the country against each other. The smaller schools' SOS just isn't up to par. So, if they want to partake in the playoffs, they'll have to earn an at large bid.
 
Yep. At most you'd have the 4 or 5 (if ACC survives) power conferences getting auto bids for their champs. The rest would be autobids in an 8 or 16 team playoff.

And those would mostly go to power conference teams, because as you note the smaller teams usually don't have the SoS to warrant inclusion. And that would worsen if we go down to an 11 game season as some games between power conference and mid-major teams would be getting cut.
 
It is once they tell the smaller conferences to fuck off and form a new higher division.

Still plenty of money there for the smaller teams in the bowl system that will take those champs and the power conference teams that don't make the playoffs.
 
I just don't see any anti-trust suit being won. At most they'll put in some near impossible to achieve way for non-majors to get an autobid to appease congress just like the BCS did. That will let a truly good team like Boise, Utah and TCU in when they're deserving, and let a team like NIU that played no one sneak in every once in a while when there's a down year, teams on probation like OSU this year etc. No need for auto bids to shitty leagues who's champs will get ass raped in the first round 95% of the time.

The mid majors are already more or less blocked from the BCS with how hard it is to make it in, shifting to a playoff doesn't change that equation. Just put some auto at large big rule in there to cover there bases and they can have a playoff with only major conference teams most years. Even more so if Boise and BYU end up in power conferences as it will be very rare that any remaining non-majors are playoff worthy anytime soon.
 
Anti-trust suits aside, explain to me how you convince half of the FBS to waive their rights to bowl games and once a year paydays against top teams by forming their own division (remember, in this scenario we're going to a 10/11 game season so teams won't be scheduling lower division opponents).
 
They don't waive anything. All FBS teams remain eligible for bowls if they don't make the playoff. The bowls will still want these teams as they know that no one other than fans of the little podunk non-major teams gives a shit about attending those games or tuning in on TV.

And if the power leagues want to break away, the other leagues have no say other than trying anti-trust suits. If they wanted they could even leave the NCAA and form their own governing body, own set of rules etc.

I don't think that will happen, just saying this isn't something all FBS schools vote on or anything. The power leagues can get together and have their school presidents vote and do pretty much whatever they want. Then it's just up to the left out schools to file suit, and see what happens with the courts. As long as there's some path for non-majors to get into the playoff, nothing will happen as nothing has happened with the BCS that's set up the same way.

And it's really no different than pro sports leagues. It's not like any city can just start up a team and start playing in the NFL or MLB or NBA etc. and make millions. Hard to argue anti-trust when there are a bunch of schools or franchises in the mix.
 
It's completely different from pro sports leagues because there have been explicit rulings stating that they are exempt from anti-trust laws while the NCAA has been ruled non-exempt.

[quote name='dmaul1114']They don't waive anything. All FBS teams remain eligible for bowls if they don't make the playoff. The bowls will still want these teams as they know that no one other than fans of the little podunk non-major teams gives a shit about attending those games or tuning in on TV.[/QUOTE]

If the teams form their own division like you propose, then they won't be FBS teams and won't be eligible for the same bowls. How many people watch, or even have a station that carries DI-AA football?
 
[quote name='Genocidal']It's completely different from pro sports leagues because there have been explicit rulings stating that they are exempt from anti-trust laws while the NCAA has been ruled non-exempt.
[/quote]

And that would have to get tested in court. I think it would be ruled exempt. Especially if they keep some path for non-majors to earn a bid.

If the teams form their own division like you propose, then they won't be FBS teams and won't be eligible for the same bowls. How many people watch, or even have a station that carries DI-AA football?
Click to expand...

The bowls would come along and keep affiliations with the new division. As you note, know one gives a fuck about these piddly little schools other than people who went there because they couldn't get into or afford a big state school (people who went Ivy or to top private schools excepted obviously).

The bowls will want to keep affiliations with the new division as they know they can't survive otherwise. If they had to, the major bowls would end their affiliation with FBS (and the NCAA if the new division broke away) and join up with the new division.

And besides, it doesn't have to necessarily have to be a new division. Can just keep it like the BCS and only give auto bids to the power leagues and have a tough to achieve route for non-majors to get in.

It's already a defacto elite division with the way it's set up now. I'd prefer an officially new division just to reduce "who cares" games between majors and cupcakes in both the regular and post season. But it's not a necessity. All I really care about is the non-majors not having any kind of autobid for winning their shitty conference. I'm fine if they're in the same division, and can get a playoff bid if they're ranked above power conference champs etc.
 
[quote name='Genocidal']It's completely different from pro sports leagues because there have been explicit rulings stating that they are exempt from anti-trust laws while the NCAA has been ruled non-exempt.



If the teams form their own division like you propose, then they won't be FBS teams and won't be eligible for the same bowls. How many people watch, or even have a station that carries DI-AA football?[/QUOTE]

You can count the number of successful anti-trust law suits filed in the last decade in a single hand. The government did not file a single (not one) antitrust lawsuit during the Bush era. Antitrust suits are not as easy as you think and there is little reward for the government. Also, there has been talk that the NCAA will move to become exempt under anti-trust laws since they have become a target of class action lawsuits. Either way they can't possibly eliminate the smaller schools from participating but at the same time they don't have to provide them with AQ bids.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The bowls would come along and keep affiliations with the new division.[/quote]
They wouldn't. There are 30-some bowl games, you keep 64 teams like you propose, and the math works out well to give out bowl bids to teams like Colorado and Illinois.
As you note, know one gives a fuck about these piddly little schools other than people who went there because they couldn't get into or afford a big state school (people who went Ivy or to top private schools excepted obviously).
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm starting to understand where your unfounded elitism comes into play. Major land grant schools are not hard to get into and have reasonably low tuition -- a quick search of local schools shows the difference between UAkron and tOSU to be less than $500. I think we can agree they're on complete opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to revenue sports.

There are plenty of reasons to not attend the larger school that have nothing to do with cost or accessibility. Using another local example, if you want to major in Polymer Science, you go to UAkron or you go to UMass. The traditional power conference schools are a non-factor. I'm sure there are plenty of other programs that I'm not familiar with.

All I really care about is the non-majors not having any kind of autobid for winning their shitty conference. I'm fine if they're in the same division, and can get a playoff bid if they're ranked above power conference champs etc.
Click to expand...
Which... they were this year, and you were less than fine with.

I don't think you're a dumb guy; surely you can see that your proposal is a massive feedback loop that would keep those teams out even if they go undefeated ("But they didn't beat anybody!").
Hopefully NIU getting in will make some of the big boys that got left up get more riled up and push to get to four 16 team conferences and lock everyone else out of the playoff.
Click to expand...
Oh. Well how about that. What you want already exists, it's called the NFL.
 
[quote name='Genocidal']They wouldn't. There are 30-some bowl games, you keep 64 teams like you propose, and the math works out well to give out bowl bids to teams like Colorado and Illinois.
[/quote]

Of course not all bowls would survive. There are far too many now as is with only having to be 6-6 to be eligible. It's ridiculous and the post season was much more interesting back in the 80s when there weren't nearly as many bowls.

The major ones will stick around for the major teams that don't make the playoff and the best non-major teams. Bowls that currently just feature non-majors and 6 or 7 win major teams will probably die off.

Maybe I'm starting to understand where your unfounded elitism comes into play. Major land grant schools are not hard to get into and have reasonably low tuition -- a quick search of local schools shows the difference between UAkron and tOSU to be less than $500. I think we can agree they're on complete opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to revenue sports.

There are plenty of reasons to not attend the larger school that have nothing to do with cost or accessibility. Using another local example, if you want to major in Polymer Science, you go to UAkron or you go to UMass. The traditional power conference schools are a non-factor. I'm sure there are plenty of other programs that I'm not familiar with.
Click to expand...

Just ranting about the sports stuff mostly. All that's true and I currently work in a good department in a very shitty ranked smaller university overall. I also started out one semester at a tiny school in undergrad and despised it and ended up at WVU for undergrad and Maryland for Masters and Ph D and wouldn't have it any other way. Better social environment, generally better faculty overall (though again their are good departments in lousy universities) do to having bigger budgets to pay faculty and fund research centers etc. While I'm happy with my current department for the most part, the university sucks and I'm looking for the right opportunity to move to an equal or better department in a larger and better university.

Which... they were this year, and you were less than fine with.
Click to expand...

The current systems is too lenient. It should be a requirement to be ranked in the top 10 or top 12, not the top 16. The BCS should be getting the 10 best teams in the country. If a non-major is ranked as such, fine, let them in as they're only ranked that high if they played a tough schedule. NIU played no one, no one can argue that they're one of the 10 best teams--thus they shouldn't be there. And to be fair, neither should Wisconsin or Louisville. As I said before, autobids for conference champs shouldn't be set in stone and should also require some minimum ranking.

I don't think you're a dumb guy; surely you can see that your proposal is a massive feedback loop that would keep those teams out even if they go undefeated ("But they didn't beat anybody!").Oh. Well how about that. What you want already exists, it's called the NFL.
Click to expand...

And it's a vastly superior product than college football. Especially for determining a true champion. College football doesn't offer much more than a set of glorified exhibition games.

I just never got much into the NFL as I grew up in a state with no pro sports teams where WVU was the idolized team. I've tried to get into the NFL more on several occasions, but just can't as there are no teams I really care much about one way or the other.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']The 16 team playoff would require too many additional games.[/QUOTE]


For the teams that make it all the way to the championship, it would be a total of four extra games. They could do four games a week for the month of December and have the championship game after New Years like they already do. I think that's worth it considering it gives every single FBS team a shot to make it to the title game.

I also don't get the bitching about a champion from the lower conferences getting an auto bid. All of the power conferences will get their champions plus their 2nd and possibly 3rd best teams in with at-large bids depending on the rankings. So what if a 9-4 MAC champion gets an auto-bid? They just end up getting the most difficult path to a possible championship and the highest ranked teams should just take care of business.

I know there will always be someone who complains that it isn't fair enough, but I think a scenario where a 8-5 Sun Belt champion gets an auto-bid and a 10-2 SEC team who is the 4th best in the conference gets left out is a better problem to have than the huge messes we could potentially have with the four team playoff. Just wait until we have six or seven or more 1-loss teams all at the top and the selection committee has to pick four. It's definitely going to get worse before it gets better.
 
I'd personally prefer having no autobids.

Just use the BCS formula and take the top 4 or top 8 or top 16.

Does a better job of getting the best ___ number of teams, gives teams incentive to play strong out of conference schedules to get their SoS up etc.

Could get rid of conference championship games that way too, which would be another way to shorten the regular season for those concerned about the number of games.


As for my problem with crappy leagues getting autobids (if we have to have autobids at all), it's not the fairness thing for me. I just don't want their to be boring ass match ups I don't want to watch.

If we had an 8 team playoff this year of teams like ND, Bama, Oregon, KSU, UF, FSU, Texas A&M and Oklahoma there wouldn't be a dull match up. Going two sixteen gets a little dicier as you get some 3 or 4 loss teams. But still mostly good matchups if no auto bids. But if you have to throw in the MAC, Sun Belt, MWC, WAC etc. champs in their with auto bids, then you get a bunch of lousy games the first round. Teams that get matched up against them (rather than a real team) get an unfair advantage in the 2nd round as they'll be able to rest their starters after half time most likely, where as someone that had to play another power conference team probably won't have that luxury.

I don't have a problem with non-majors making it into a playoff. But don't give them auto bids for conference champions. Require them to be ranked in the top 10 or 12 or whatever to require them to have the SoS to warrant inclusion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Could get rid of conference championship games that way too, which would be another way to shorten the regular season for those concerned about the number of games.[/QUOTE]


How does that work in your 4 super conferences theory? Can't play a round robin with 16 teams, and with two divisions you could end up with two 12-0 teams if their paths didn't cross. Then what? They both claim to be co-champions of the conference and then meet for the first time in the playoff?
 
[quote name='blindinglights']How does that work in your 4 super conferences theory? Can't play a round robin with 16 teams, and with two divisions you could end up with two 12-0 teams if their paths didn't cross. Then what? They both claim to be co-champions of the conference and then meet for the first time in the playoff?[/QUOTE]

It just wouldn't matter. Conference championships would become moot if no autobid is attached. Conferences would just be scheduling arrangements basically.

But if the 4 super conference thing did happen, then I'd say just keep the auto bids around and keep the conference championship games.

I was just saying if that doesn't happen and the piddly conferences have to be in the mix, then just make it based on the top ___ teams in the final BCS type poll with no autobids. That will block out the lower conference teams most of the time and make conference championships meaningless. And halt any anti-trust suits since any team can make it if they win enough games and play a tough enough schedule.
 
Temple coach, and former Florida OC, Steve Adazzio is the new head coach at Boston College.

http://espn.go.com/boston/college-f...college-hires-temple-steve-addazio-next-coach

And Kent State's coach to Purdue:

Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN

Kent State's Darrell Hazell accepts Purdue job sources told @ESPN. KSU team meeting set for Wednesday morning


Another reason the small conference teams just can't compete. They don't have the money or prestige to keep their coaches when the major conference teams come calling. Boise and TCU are very lucky to have held on to Peterson and Patterson as long as they have. Well, less luck on TCU's part since they're in a big conference now and pay him like $3.5 million.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Strong is rumored to be the front runner at Tennessee. So maybe he turned them down.[/QUOTE]


Based on the Louisville AD's recent comments on paying Strong, I'm guessing they will try to match or do better than whatever offer he gets. So it might come down to if he wants to move or not.
 
Yep. Hard to see him turning down a chance to got to the SEC though. Especially with all the rumors of the ACC getting picked apart (and few of them involving Louisville going to one of the 4 major leagues).
 
Honestly, I think some of these coaches let their competitive spirit cloud their decision making when the next opportunity comes knocking. It seems like in some cases they end up taking jobs at terrible football schools or schools with unrealistic expectations under the "I can win anywhere" mentality and don't think about how good a setup they might already have.

More money and more responsibility doesn't necessarily end up being better. All the new coaches should just ask their respective predecessors because all of those guys were "winners" too.
 
[quote name='blindinglights']Honestly, I think some of these coaches let their competitive spirit cloud their decision making when the next opportunity comes knocking. It seems like in some cases they end up taking jobs at terrible football schools or schools with unrealistic expectations under the "I can win anywhere" mentality and don't think about how good a setup they might already have.

More money and more responsibility doesn't necessarily end up being better. All the new coaches should just ask their respective predecessors because all of those guys were "winners" too.[/QUOTE]

Very well said but at the end of the day it always comes down to $$$$$, fame and prestige.
 
For sure.

But coaches also want a chance to compete with championships. ACC teams already have a hard time making the title game or future playoff due to weak conference SoS--see FSU being behind all the other 1 loss teams and 3 or 4 two losses teams a few weeks ago before they lost to UF.

If more realignment happens--and it's almost inevitable--and the league loses their football powers like FSU, Clemson and VT--then it will be almost impossible for the leftovers like Louisville to play a tough enough schedule to make the playoff.

The ACC is likely going to be come pretty much the Big East as they just don't have the programs to get the $20+ million TV deals the other power leagues have and thus just can't keep their top programs from leaving. They'll end up left with just the lesser Big East teams they stole in recent years and teams no one wants like Wake, and have to add more Big East/CUSA leftovers to survive as a 2nd tier football league and strong basketball league.

So Strong would frankly be stupid to not go to Tennessee if offered. Bigger program with more support in the strongest conference. And it's a school that has one a BCS national title, albeit a while ago in the late 90s.

Why turn that down to stay at a 2nd or 3rd tier football program that's already in the weakest conference even if no more realignment happens? Even moreso when more realignment is inevitable and just a question of when rather than if.



Edit: Current rumor is that Tennessee has offered the job to Mike Gundy (Ok State) with Strong next in line if Gundy turns it down. Rumors the past few years say that Gundy doens't get along super well with the Ok State AD and doesn't like T. Boone Pickens being so involved in the program, so not inconceivable he could leave to get away from all of that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']For sure.

But coaches also want a chance to compete with championships. ACC teams already have a hard time making the title game or future playoff due to weak conference SoS--see FSU being behind all the other 1 loss teams and 3 or 4 two losses teams a few weeks ago before they lost to UF.

If more realignment happens--and it's almost inevitable--and the league loses their football powers like FSU, Clemson and VT--then it will be almost impossible for the leftovers like Louisville to play a tough enough schedule to make the playoff.

The ACC is likely going to be come pretty much the Big East as they just don't have the programs to get the $20+ million TV deals the other power leagues have and thus just can't keep their top programs from leaving. They'll end up left with just the lesser Big East teams they stole in recent years and teams no one wants like Wake, and have to add more Big East/CUSA leftovers to survive as a 2nd tier football league and strong basketball league.

So Strong would frankly be stupid to not go to Tennessee if offered. Bigger program with more support in the strongest conference. And it's a school that has one a BCS national title, albeit a while ago in the late 90s.

Why turn that down to stay at a 2nd or 3rd tier football program that's already in the weakest conference even if no more realignment happens? Even moreso when more realignment is inevitable and just a question of when rather than if.



Edit: Current rumor is that Tennessee has offered the job to Mike Gundy (Ok State) with Strong next in line if Gundy turns it down. Rumors the past few years say that Gundy doens't get along super well with the Ok State AD and doesn't like T. Boone Pickens being so involved in the program, so not inconceivable he could leave to get away from all of that.[/QUOTE]

There is no doubt that UT is the better school. Their tradition and success speaks for itself, but it is worth noting that rebuilding in the SEC might be the toughest coaching job in the country. There are very few cupcakes and you need to hit the ground running to compete with UGA, UF or USCe not to mention having to face Alabama or LSU every other year and potentially having to face them in the championship game (if you are lucky enough to make it). That is a mighty tall task but if glory is what you're after, I can't think of a better conference to coach in then the SEC.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']ACC teams already have a hard time making the title game or future playoff due to weak conference SoS--see FSU being behind all the other 1 loss teams and 3 or 4 two losses teams a few weeks ago before they lost to UF.[/QUOTE]


Things go in cycles. In 1998, the Big 12 was the strongest conference according to Sagarin. In 2007, they were 6th just ahead of the Mountain West. Fast forward to 2011, they're right back on top. We're 8 years removed from the ACC being Sagarin's highest ranked conference. While the ACC is definitely in a decline, there's no reason to believe that it is impossible for the league to restore its image assuming it can stay together.

The "look at FSU, behind 2-loss teams, ACC schedule will never get enough credit to get into the title game" argument completely ignores the fact that Florida State played two of the shittiest FCS out of conference opponents which demolished their schedule strength and that they lost to a 7-5 team. K-State lost to a 7-5 team and could have very well fallen behind 2-loss LSU if their computer rankings weren't so heavily padded.



[quote name='dmaul1114']The ACC is likely going to be come pretty much the Big East as they just don't have the programs to get the $20+ million TV deals the other power leagues have and thus just can't keep their top programs from leaving. They'll end up left with just the lesser Big East teams they stole in recent years and teams no one wants like Wake, and have to add more Big East/CUSA leftovers to survive as a 2nd tier football league and strong basketball league.[/QUOTE]


If the ACC leadership had made the right moves, they could have got the $20+ million deals. Unfortunately, the league officials screwed it all up with their terrible ESPN deal.

With the number of major media markets that the ACC footprint covers, there's no reason why they shouldn't have followed the Big 10's example and made their network so they could also print money.

The real problem is the mismanagement on the business side of things because more money equals better coaches, assistants, and facilities which equals better teams.
 
Yep. But it's too late to fix it now. I just don't see anything they can do to keep more teams from leaving, and likely in the near futures with all the FSU rumbling on sports radio etc. lately. Along with all the rumblings of the B1G wanting at least two more teams.

But it's not just mismanagement, they also just lack historically elite football programs. They have FSU and Miami, and the latter will likely be down for a while with sanctions from the Shapiro schedule. Then really only two solid second tier programs in Clemson and VT.

Beyond that, all other schools other than many GT are basketball first schools. Thus they just don't have much football product that national audiences give a shit about watching, and thus can't get the big TV dollars as they lack big name, "made for TV" marquee matchups.

They really messed up by riding their academic high horse and adding Pitt and Syracuse last year--two more basketball first schools that don't have the strongest fan support for football (especially Pitt who's attendance is terrible). They could have moved to sure up football then with teams like WVU and Louisville which have solid programs in both sports, rabid fan followings and would have helped up the TV dollars more due to the ratings both get on ESPN.

Anything they do now is too little too late. They're stuck with their TV deal while the other leagues keep upping there's. The info the B1G gave UMD estimated the per school pay out to be $43 million per school at the end of the range (think that was like 2018 or something)--up from $24 million per school currently.

But the ACC started all this mess back in 2004 by raiding the Big East, so they deserve all that they're getting now. I'm happy with WVU in the Big 12, but I'd prefer to go back to the original Big East, have it break away from the basketball only schools and expand as it was great being in a league with VT, Pitt and Miami. Awesome matchups in the Big 12--especially compared to the post 2004 Big Least--but not quite the same with no rivals in conference. I doubt future realignment fix that as I figure VT ends up in the SEC, and Pitt is probably stuck in the ACC/Big Least left over league. Maybe the B1G takes them if they go beyond 16 teams. They don't fit the SEC at all, and don't offer much to the Big 12 since WVU is considered in the Pittsburgh media market and probably has as many or more fans living in the Pittsburgh area as Pitt does (since there are no jobs in WV).
 
Looks like Gundy is staying at Ok State, so Strong is probably on the clock for Tennessee.

Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN

Mike Gundy remaining at Oklahoma State, sources told @espn. This was earlier reported by OSU sideline reporter @RAllenGoPokes
 
Virginia Tech fan site, citing an unnamed but "credible" source who is "close to the program", states that offensive coordinator Bryan Stinespring is out, quarterbacks coach Mike O'Cain is out, offensive line coach Curt Newsome is out, and Shane Beamer will take over as coach of special teams. New offensive coordinator will supposedly be Tony Franklin, offensive coordinator at Louisiana Tech, who is a former teammate of Bud Foster, Tech's defensive coordinator. Announcements to be made following bowl game.

Sounds too good to be true, especially the Tony Franklin bit, but I can hope.
 
Butch Jones (Cincy) is the new coach at Colorado. Mildly surprising as he turned down Purdue first--I'd think that was a better job than Colorado.

http://www.denverpost.com/cu/ci_22129810/butch-jones-at-another-bowl-news-conference-avoids

Edit: Looks like the Denver post may have been premature.

-Pete Thamel @SIPeteThamel: Just reached out to Butch Jones, who said any report of him taking the Colorado job is "absolutely false."

-Pat Forde ‏@YahooForde: I know of no resolution w Charlie Strong or Butch Jones yet. UT plane has come and gone from Louisville. Jones in Charlotte all day.
Click to expand...

Word is that Jones is waiting to see if Strong leave's Louisville as he's rumored to be their top choice to replace him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Looks like Strong is staying at Louisville. Pretty shocked, they must be throwing a ton of money at him.[/QUOTE]


Really not that shocking:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...ec-teams-target-its-head-coach-charlie-strong

I'd heard Strong is one of the 10 highest-paid coaches in the country. I asked Jurich if that was true.

"It is," Jurich said. "And we'll make him No. 1 if we have to."

This is where I did something I never do. I asked Jurich to repeat what he just said, knowing full well he could change his answer. But the answer I heard -- We'll make him No. 1 if we have to -- didn't make sense. So, um, what did you say, Tom?

"I said we'll make him [number] one if we have to."
Click to expand...
 
Just shocking that he'd turn down an SEC team to stay in the ACC, even if it was for money. ACC champ will never get in the four team playoff unless unbeaten even I they don't lose more teams. If they do end up losing more then they'll probably never get in period and would struggle to even make an right team one unless they change from a selection committee to auto kids for conference champs.

You can talk about things being cyclical, but the ACC has always sucked. FSU was elite and dominated it in the 90s. Since they hit a rough patch the league has been awful, especially in BCS games. Hard to argue for it being cyclical when the league has one what, two BCS games since it started in 1998?
 
Great job by Louisville. Charlie Strong is one of the best young coaches in college football. Glad to see Louisville realizes this as well. If he keeps winning, the big time offers will keep coming.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Great job by Louisville. I truly believe Charlie Strong is one of the best young coaches in college football. He'll keep getting offers at big time programs.[/QUOTE]

Young? He's 52.
 
[quote name='pitfallharry219']Young? He's 52.[/QUOTE]

Not age wise. I meant to say as a head coach. Only his 3rd year coaching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top