I'm pretty sure the stadium gets sold out and put on TV when the contest is interesting. Also, teams will be seeded. Playing a bunch of non conference powder puffs is going to neither attract national TV, nor help with getting a decent seed.
New College Football Leagues proposed
- Thread starter Obliviax
- Start date
I'm pretty sure the stadium gets sold out and put on TV when the contest is interesting. Also, teams will be seeded. Playing a bunch of non conference powder puffs is going to neither attract national TV, nor help with getting a decent seed.
What?
Rutgers-Cincinnati is interesting?
What does Penn State-Oklahoma (for example) playing in September matter if we know we just have to win the last 5 games to get into the playoff?
This scenario simply doesn't work.
8 x 9 is better if you want a 24 team playoff with the top 3 in each division getting in (take out the human element)
But this board's obsession with "win a division/conference" doesn't exist elsewhere.
Rutgers and Cincinnati are interesting to Rutgers and Cincinnati.
No one said a team will play only good teams in September.
I said an 8 conference league with 9 would be better.
Are you going LandoComando again?
Is it interesting to networks? Who cares if it's interesting to irrelevant fan bases?
Who's playing anyone in that scenario
You said 8x9 with only 8 playoff teams--why do you think anyone in power would accept that?
Can everyone please accept reality? There's the haves and the have nots. The SEC/Big Ten have complete control. Why would anyone do this?
48 or 64 teams is the end game but in your scenario there's at least 24 playoff teams like FCS--just make a logic argument. 8x9 isn't bad if you get away from an 8 team playoff nonsense. We'll never see less than 12 again.
Another random walk by LundoDumbo........
8 x 9 is better (as you note) but 24 teams is too many. 16 fits.
Truth is the top 8 teams are likely to win. As you suggest, there are have's and have nots.
8 teams has zero possibility. No one is agreeing to less playoff games. Especially the networks. Argue 16 then but 24 is the beat selling point. See FCS. 16 doesn't actually reward teams which is the entire intent of having 12 teams. We'll go from 12 to 20 or 24...not 16
You said it yourself. There are the haves and have nots. Who wants to see a bunch of have nots play for the sake of playing? You? lol...
They aren't allowing the have nots in--they're protecting themselves to ensure they get in. Why do you think they wanted 12 teams? Why does the SEC/Big Ten want to expand it further. That's not to help the have nots. That's to help the top 16-20 programs in the nation because sometimes those have nots sneak into a 4 team playoff (Michigan State, Cincinnati, TCU, etc) and that's taking spots and money away from them
My head hurts. Let me try to dumb it down for you. Georgia (a have) wants to be able to make the playoff at 9-3. So does Alabama Michigan Ohio State Notre Dame and us plus countless others. And expanded playoff isn't helping the Pitts of the world. It helping the elite programs.
Why do you think they wanted to go from 4 to 12 and want 20 in 2 years? To protect them.
2 thoughtsand it is already getting some endorsements. In the age of NIL, this is a must and I've predicted it. In this case, they (College Football League) is proposing 12 conferences with each winner getting into the Natty playoff. Penn State would be in the "Mideast) with Cincy, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and WVU. Several schools are giving it the thumbs up. I am not sure why ND would be in the East though.
1. Why would the SEC and B2G give up their bag for this?
2. This is a F'ing joke. 11 conferences are setup to send the same winner almost every year, except the Southeast (which might also if Smart can avoid the same fate as Dabo)
B2G and SEC meet to confirm they aren't giving up their bag of cash
SEC, B10: No private funds; football not 'broken'
SEC and Big Ten leaders showed a united front, as any big changes that would include private equity are unlikely to garner national support without their backing.
Nor should they--it doesn't help them at allB2G and SEC meet to confirm they aren't giving up their bag of cash
SEC, B10: No private funds; football not 'broken'
SEC and Big Ten leaders showed a united front, as any big changes that would include private equity are unlikely to garner national support without their backing.www.espn.com
ND wants in the east because of all the Catholic schools, and they recruit the east hard.and it is already getting some endorsements. In the age of NIL, this is a must and I've predicted it. In this case, they (College Football League) is proposing 12 conferences with each winner getting into the Natty playoff. Penn State would be in the "Mideast) with Cincy, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and WVU. Several schools are giving it the thumbs up. I am not sure why ND would be in the East though.
The idea from the “have Not” schools in college football that we need to give up autonomy to private equity is shortsighted and just plain stupid. I’m happy to read that logic and intelligence guided the collaborative discussions this week. Occasionally, we forget on this very message board that we are in the top 10 of the most powerful football brands in college sports.B2G and SEC meet to confirm they aren't giving up their bag of cash
SEC, B10: No private funds; football not 'broken'
SEC and Big Ten leaders showed a united front, as any big changes that would include private equity are unlikely to garner national support without their backing.
Nice to see but where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It’s coming and it’s only a matter of time because the most universities can’t afford the arms race and there is only so much that the TV contracts can provide. WS usually gets what it wants. Too much potential $$$. No even bear repellent can keep these grizzlies away!
Vanderbilt, Stanford, NW, Duke, Ga. Tech, Tulane, UVA, Purdue, BC should be in an all academic conference for all sports.
