2021 Miscellaneous College Football Thread

[LouisEly]

Please put discussion of the playoff expansion here unless is specifically relates to UW to keep the Badgers thread about the Badgers.

 

Not a fan of 12 teams. I could get behind eight; the Power 5 conference champs plus three at-larges with preference for the at-larges going to undefeated teams. But if you're ranked lower than #8 you don't belong in the national championship game (unless you are a non-Power-5 undefeated team).

[SomewhereInTime]

Should be 16 or 32, but 12 is a start. It will be nice to have the first ever national champion in division 1 FBS.

[GAME05]

Let's just do a 130-team tournament and we won't even have to bother with a regular season! Won't somebody think of the money?

 

I don't like even the four-team playoff. If they go to 12 I can't imagine it'll end there once the #13 team says woe is me. Although I'd love to hear how the NCAA thinks more football will help academics.

[pacopete4]

The reason for the tourney is because it’s the only way to determine an actual champion. The way it’s set up now, there is just no way to properly do that.

[SomewhereInTime]

The reason for the tourney is because it’s the only way to determine an actual champion. The way it’s set up now, there is just no way to properly do that.

 

Thats a Bingo!

 

When you have an undefeated team not get invited to the invitational tournament or the right bowl game like in the past, you can't crown a legitimate national champion.

 

Even at 12 you have a very exclusive playoff with less than 10% of teams getting to play. God forbid very good one loss and two loss teams get a chance to play the best in a tournament.

[SomewhereInTime]

Let's just do a 130-team tournament and we won't even have to bother with a regular season! Won't somebody think of the money?

 

I don't like even the four-team playoff. If they go to 12 I can't imagine it'll end there once the #13 team says woe is me. Although I'd love to hear how the NCAA thinks more football will help academics.

 

With the expanded playoff, D1 schools might have to play as many games as D3 schools do who go to the national championship.

[LouisEly]

Should be 16 or 32, but 12 is a start. It will be nice to have the first ever national champion in division 1 FBS.

The more games, the less likely it will determine a national champion and it has nothing to do with luck.

 

It has everything to do with the top players who have millions of dollars on the line having more chances to get seriously injured. Not just during games, but also during practice. The more games, the fewer top players who will play. The fewer top players who will play, the less we can say a team is the true national champion. If you're the #15/16 team and you're playing Alabama/Clemson/Ohio State, which do you think you have a better chance of - winning or getting injured? If you play for Alabama/Clemson/Ohio State and you're projected to be a first round pick, do you want to play four more games? Hell no. Is playing four more games for a national championship worth it? Maybe, maybe not.

 

It's not an issue now because it's only two more games. Add two more games and it becomes an issue.

[owbc]

The reason to go to 12 is pretty simple. Nobody wants the smaller schools to have money/influence and the 4 team system was perfect for locking them out. With a 6-team playoff it would be way too easy for one of those non-power 5 schools to pull an upset and get into the semifinal or NC game which are worth serious $$$.

 

However, the weaker power-5 conferences don’t like being left out of the playoff and the fans keep complaining that undefeated teams are being left out. So you expand to a bigger playoff which will give the fans an occasional first round upset and allow the top-4 to have an easy victory in the quarterfinals against a tired opponent.

 

It does seem to more or less finish off the new year’s bowls if they take all of the good teams and put them in this playoff. So it might not pencil out for someone like the Citrus bowl to get rescheduled to mid-December and lose the guarantee of two power-5 teams. Maybe that’s what the hesitation is.

 

I do think going to 12 will make college football more interesting without watering down the regular season too much.

[SomewhereInTime]

Should be 16 or 32, but 12 is a start. It will be nice to have the first ever national champion in division 1 FBS.

The more games, the less likely it will determine a national champion and it has nothing to do with luck.

 

It has everything to do with the top players who have millions of dollars on the line having more chances to get seriously injured. Not just during games, but also during practice. The more games, the fewer top players who will play. The fewer top players who will play, the less we can say a team is the true national champion. If you're the #15/16 team and you're playing Alabama/Clemson/Ohio State, which do you think you have a better chance of - winning or getting injured? If you play for Alabama/Clemson/Ohio State and you're projected to be a first round pick, do you want to play four more games? Hell no. Is playing four more games for a national championship worth it? Maybe, maybe not.

 

It's not an issue now because it's only two more games. Add two more games and it becomes an issue.

 

A. Unless the NCAA would like to stop broadcasting games on TV and stop charging large sums of money for tickets, the players should be paid more money

 

B. If certain players do not want to play the entire season when games count towards the national title run, then good schools should recruit players who do.

[LouisEly]

A. Unless the NCAA would like to stop broadcasting games on TV and stop charging large sums of money for tickets, the players should be paid more money

 

B. If certain players do not want to play the entire season when games count towards the national title run, then good schools should recruit players who do.

A. Even if the NCAA pays players, the are not going to pay a $1M signing bonus like the 78th overall pick in the draft, much less a $3M signing bonus like the 44th overall pick in the draft, much less a $10M signing bonus like the 10th overall pick in the draft.

 

B. As I mentioned, it's not a big issue now (but you see the number of guys not just bowing out of bowl games but leaving the team mid-season increasing every year), but add two more games and it's going to be an issue.

[young guns]

Question because I'm not sure, but how many players have sat on teams with national title hopes? I'm not too surprised when a player sits out generic bowl game, but I can't remember anyone sitting out a semifinal or national title game.

[PeaveyFury]

For those interested it watching the Bielema show at Illinois, the Illini have had six players enter the transfer portal to leave this week.

[GAME05]

If the playoffs were expanded, wouldn't that just increase the chances that teams would look to have cupcake out-of-conference opponents? It appears to me a win against a bad team is worth more than a close loss to a good team. We need fewer Wisconsin-Buffalo games, not more.

[MrTPlush]

If the playoffs were expanded, wouldn't that just increase the chances that teams would look to have cupcake out-of-conference opponents? It appears to me a win against a bad team is worth more than a close loss to a good team. We need fewer Wisconsin-Buffalo games, not more.

 

That is one of the concerns that has been brought up. You would have to entice teams to put tougher games in their schedule much like they do for basketball. How exactly you do that remains to be seen.

 

Alabama/Clemson etc probably won't have any motivation to schedule those games, but not like it really matters. They are always Top 12 teams...they don't really need to prove it like a Wisconsin might need to.

 

If you have two comparable teams and start taking the one with a tougher non conference schedule every time, you could actually motivate teams to schedule tougher games than they do now.

[nate82]

NCAA athletes can now sell their name, image and likeness.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-approves-interim-name-image-and-likeness-policy-removing-restrictions-for-college-athletes-to-earn-money/

[JimH5]

NCAA athletes can now sell their name, image and likeness.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-approves-interim-name-image-and-likeness-policy-removing-restrictions-for-college-athletes-to-earn-money/

 

It's about time, and hopefully it's just the first step. It's ridiculous that schools, networks and coaches are maximizing their earnings on the backs of unpaid athletes.

[PeaveyFury]

Though it’s hard not to agree with their right to earn, I do think this will destroy any semblance of parity that was left in CFB.

 

Perhaps you’ll have a few more Cinderella moments if they expand the playoff to correspond, but I’m not sure on that.

[GAME05]

Division I would do better to cut its total teams down to something like 40. No more Buffaloes by concentrating the top talent which would also mean not as many creampuff regular-season games. Maybe they could also add in a British-soccer-style system where a few teams move in and out of 1a and 1b. Would ruin Divisions, but in a bigger playoff system would those matter anymore, anyway?

 

I used to be against the idea of paying players, but the more the NCAA shows it's all about the money, the more inclined I am to feel that the players should get a piece of the pie, too.

[JimH5]

I don't know if parity will be affected. I imagine most of the money will go to star-level players, regardless of the school they attend. Product endorsements, personal (and virtual) appearances, trading cards...maybe there's other stuff I'm not thinking of.

 

Schools still own their logos, so the "image and likeness" part will have to be pics of players in generic jerseys or maybe schools will authorize partnerships for players to appear with their logos.

 

I think the dynamics within teams will be affected, as third stringers get nothing and stars get rich. But that's true of sports at all levels anyway.

[PeaveyFury]

I don't know if parity will be affected. I imagine most of the money will go to star-level players, regardless of the school they attend.

 

This couldn't be more false. You'll have boosters that own businesses finding ways now, legally, to funnel money throughout the roster. It'll basically create a way to entice players to go to a specific place with $$$.

 

Teams with serious boosters with deep pockets will be the haves, and the rest of the NCAA will be the have-nots.

[pacopete4]

Division 1 football was always too large and the system in place was just so flawed. Hopefully, this decision will help correct the system more than it hurts it.

[PeaveyFury]

Division 1 football was always too large and the system in place was just so flawed. Hopefully, this decision will help correct the system more than it hurts it.

 

I guess that's the true question. As someone else noted, it likely pushes them more towards 'super conferences' or the like, with the 'non Power-5' schools relegated to 1B, etc. Whether that further hurts those 1B schools' opportunity to play larger schools and earn the associated revenue remains to be seen, I suppose.

[homer]

I don't know if parity will be affected. I imagine most of the money will go to star-level players, regardless of the school they attend.

 

This couldn't be more false. You'll have boosters that own businesses finding ways now, legally, to funnel money throughout the roster. It'll basically create a way to entice players to go to a specific place with $$$.

 

Teams with serious boosters with deep pockets will be the haves, and the rest of the NCAA will be the have-nots.

 

Isn't that sort of how it is now?

[JimH5]

I don't know if parity will be affected. I imagine most of the money will go to star-level players, regardless of the school they attend.

 

This couldn't be more false. You'll have boosters that own businesses finding ways now, legally, to funnel money throughout the roster. It'll basically create a way to entice players to go to a specific place with $$$.

 

Teams with serious boosters with deep pockets will be the haves, and the rest of the NCAA will be the have-nots.

 

I guess we'll find out. You seem prematurely certain of this.

[PeaveyFury]

I don't know if parity will be affected. I imagine most of the money will go to star-level players, regardless of the school they attend.

 

This couldn't be more false. You'll have boosters that own businesses finding ways now, legally, to funnel money throughout the roster. It'll basically create a way to entice players to go to a specific place with $$$.

 

Teams with serious boosters with deep pockets will be the haves, and the rest of the NCAA will be the have-nots.

 

Isn't that sort of how it is now?

 

Fair point, though this does 'legalize it' in reality. I think it allows for additional opportunities to have players funneled to the SEC-type schools with 'deep pockets'. It's hard not to see this as a huge opportunity to schools like Miami, Georgia, etc., and Duke, UNC, in basketball, while being to the detriment of the Marquettes, Vanderbilts of the world. As you note, recruiting skews that way already, I just think this skews it further.