collapse

* Recent Posts

NCSTATE is evil by Uncle Rico
[Today at 08:22:17 AM]


Chicago bars for Fri game by palellama
[Today at 07:36:35 AM]


2024 Transfer Portal by Spotcheck Billy
[Today at 07:22:54 AM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by The Sultan of Semantics
[Today at 07:02:21 AM]


Dallas bars tonite by Marquette Gyros
[Today at 06:59:41 AM]


Are we still recruiting anyone for the 24-25 season. by Jay Bee
[Today at 06:42:08 AM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by Uncle Rico
[Today at 06:32:48 AM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: 2018 College Football Thread  (Read 51787 times)

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #225 on: December 02, 2018, 02:24:51 PM »
My complaint is that it isn't a NCAA national title, it is a P5 title.  Wades is right that saying "all games matter" is incorrect. 

Personally, I would prefer if the NCAA did away with FCS and FBS and instead simply put the P5 in its own division, they cannot schedule people outside the P5, and they can choose whatever title system they want.

I’m cool with that. Too much trash in FBS anyway.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9878
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #226 on: December 02, 2018, 02:28:14 PM »
Nope. I’m seeing the point. The point is entirely flawed. Scheduling Alabama or Auburn or Wisconsin is entirely different than scheduling UCF. Comparing the two is silly. First of all even if they scheduled games for the next year and had a pretty dang good idea that UCF would be a quality opponent when they actually played them there’s only downside for their opponent if it’s Bama or OU or O$U. If they win then they beat the AAC champions, which does nothing. If they lose then their season is over. Vs. scheduling a Bama vs. OU game. The loser can still bounce back, win their conference and go to the CFP after the winner wins their conference. And again, you schedule these games 4 years out. The chances of Clemson or Bama being a quality opponent 4 years from now is much, much, much higher than UCF being a quality opponent 4 years from now. The comparison is dumb and to suggest UCF can get a prime time non-con game easily if they want to is even dumber.

Your point would have more validity if P5 blueblood programs didn't schedule AAC opponents every year. But they do.
This year, Michigan played SMU; Texas played Tulsa; Ohio State played Tulane.
In 2017, Oklahoma played Tulane; Michigan played Cincy; Notre Dame played Temple.
In 2016, Penn State played Temple; Florida State played South Florida; Oklahoma played Houston; Ohio State played Tulsa.
In 2015, Florida played ECU; Penn State played Temple; Oklahoma played Tulsa.
In 2014, Oklhoma played Tulsa; Texas A&M played SMU; Ohio State played Cincy; and (gasp!) UCF played Penn State.

Why can these AAC teams get matchups with top-tier programs, but it's "entirely flawed" to think UCF can?

wadesworld

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 17384
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #227 on: December 02, 2018, 02:39:53 PM »
Your point would have more validity if P5 blueblood programs didn't schedule AAC opponents every year. But they do.
This year, Michigan played SMU; Texas played Tulsa; Ohio State played Tulane.
In 2017, Oklahoma played Tulane; Michigan played Cincy; Notre Dame played Temple.
In 2016, Penn State played Temple; Florida State played South Florida; Oklahoma played Houston; Ohio State played Tulsa.
In 2015, Florida played ECU; Penn State played Temple; Oklahoma played Tulsa.
In 2014, Oklhoma played Tulsa; Texas A&M played SMU; Ohio State played Cincy; and (gasp!) UCF played Penn State.

Why can these AAC teams get matchups with top-tier programs, but it's "entirely flawed" to think UCF can?

When UCF would’ve scheduled UNC they would’ve been a better team than Michigan, Texas, Florida, etc.

UCF smoked Pitt who just played in a P5 conference title game yesterday.

Who should UCF schedule this offseason so that in 2023 they have a quality non-con opponent? Think Saban will jump all over their phone call if they make that call? I don’t.
Rocket Trigger Warning (wild that saying this would trigger anyone, but it's the world we live in): Black Lives Matter

nyg

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7445
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #228 on: December 02, 2018, 02:43:22 PM »
Make the playoffs a top 8 team system. 

First four games, 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5, the 1 thru 4 teams get to play games at home.  Following week, the games go to a neutral site bowl as it is now.

Eliminate the same old, same old discussion that has going on since four team playoff system implementated.     Just a matter of time before changes to be made. 

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #229 on: December 02, 2018, 02:50:24 PM »
Make the playoffs a top 8 team system. 

First four games, 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5, the 1 thru 4 teams get to play games at home.  Following week, the games go to a neutral site bowl as it is now.

Eliminate the same old, same old discussion that has going on since four team playoff system implementated.     Just a matter of time before changes to be made. 

Yeah round of 8 should have been this weekend. Losers can still play in a bowl too.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9878
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #230 on: December 02, 2018, 02:53:56 PM »
Make the playoffs a top 8 team system. 

First four games, 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5, the 1 thru 4 teams get to play games at home.  Following week, the games go to a neutral site bowl as it is now.

Eliminate the same old, same old discussion that has going on since four team playoff system implementated.     Just a matter of time before changes to be made.

I think it should go to eight, but it won't eliminate the discussion any more than the hoops tourney going from 32 to 64 to 68 has eliminated the discussion.
Instead of the 5th and 6th teams griping, it'll be the 9th and 10th. Some teams/fans are always going to complain about left out. And that's a good thing! The debate and drama and dumb arguments is a big part of why we love sports in the first place.

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 23358
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #231 on: December 02, 2018, 03:12:59 PM »
I'm good with 8.
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

nyg

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7445
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #232 on: December 02, 2018, 03:14:09 PM »
UCF at Alabama
Michigan at Clemson
Ohio St at Notre Dame
Georgia at Oklahoma

This is what a first week would look like if eight teams.
# 9 Washington and #10 Florida have no argument since both have three losses. 

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9878
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #233 on: December 02, 2018, 03:21:51 PM »
UCF at Alabama
Michigan at Clemson
Ohio St at Notre Dame
Georgia at Oklahoma

This is what a first week would look like if eight teams.
# 9 Washington and #10 Florida have no argument since both have three losses.

Georgia is arguing with two losses.
Ohio State argued last year with two losses.
Penn State argued in 2016 with two losses.
Teams will always argue (and again, that's not a bad thing).

WarriorDad

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1352
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #234 on: December 02, 2018, 03:31:09 PM »
I think it should go to eight, but it won't eliminate the discussion any more than the hoops tourney going from 32 to 64 to 68 has eliminated the discussion.
Instead of the 5th and 6th teams griping, it'll be the 9th and 10th. Some teams/fans are always going to complain about left out. And that's a good thing! The debate and drama and dumb arguments is a big part of why we love sports in the first place.

Strongly disagree.

With 8 teams, you are all but certain to include at least one or two that have multiple losses.  In college football, that's plenty.  If the 9th team is whining with 2 losses that they didn't get in, no one will shed any tears.  They just aren't credible to make the argument to get in.
“No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”
— Plato

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9878
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #235 on: December 02, 2018, 03:44:54 PM »
Strongly disagree.

With 8 teams, you are all but certain to include at least one or two that have multiple losses.  In college football, that's plenty.  If the 9th team is whining with 2 losses that they didn't get in, no one will shed any tears.  They just aren't credible to make the argument to get in.

Some two-loss teams will get in. But any two-loss team that doesn't get in won't have a credible argument.
That logic evades me.

Under an 8-team system last year, a three-loss Auburn would have gotten in ahead of undefeated UCF, and two-loss Penn State, Miami and USC. But you're saying there wouldn't have been debate, right?

In 2016, three-loss Wisconsin would have been in before three-loss USC, Colorado, Florida State, Oklahoma State and Louisville. And there'd have been no debate? Six teams with the same number of losses, but no one would dispute the selection.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2018, 03:50:05 PM by Pakuni »

WarriorDad

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1352
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #236 on: December 02, 2018, 03:49:30 PM »
Some two-loss teams will get in. But any two-loss team that doesn't get in won't have a credible argument.
That logic evades me.

Under an 8-team system last year, a three-loss Auburn would have gotten in ahead of undefeated UCF, and two-loss Penn State, Miami and USC. But you're saying there wouldn't have been debate, right?

A 2 loss team from the SEC with a monster schedule will get in, especially if one of the losses is in the SEC title game.  A 2 loss Pac 12 team with an average schedule, or a 2 loss ACC team most likely won't.  In my view 4 was too few, 8 is plenty to decide a champion for both quantity and logistical reasons.  I would even think 6 and giving top two teams byes.
“No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”
— Plato

Mr. Nielsen

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5448
  • Facts don't care about your feelings!
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #237 on: December 02, 2018, 04:19:39 PM »

Yep.

UCF should drop to FCS if it wants to win a national title.
No, money in the FCS level. Heck, Southern and Grambling bypass the FCS level playoff, to just play in the Bayou Classic.
If we are all thinking alike, we're not thinking at all. It's OK to disagree. Just don't be disagreeable.
-Bill Walton

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #238 on: December 02, 2018, 04:24:27 PM »
Right.  So they are making their choice.

Mr. Nielsen

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5448
  • Facts don't care about your feelings!
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #239 on: December 02, 2018, 04:25:41 PM »
I’m laughing at the fact the NCAA tried to sell that every game mattered when in reality there are like 10 games a year that determine who has a chance to win a national title.
The NCAA has zero to do with the CFP. The five "power 5" commissioner run big time college football. You ever see an NCAA ad on TV? When it shows all these NCAA sports, the football part is ND State winning in the FCS level title. You don't see Bama or Clemson.
If we are all thinking alike, we're not thinking at all. It's OK to disagree. Just don't be disagreeable.
-Bill Walton

Mr. Nielsen

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5448
  • Facts don't care about your feelings!
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #240 on: December 02, 2018, 04:30:57 PM »
If we are all thinking alike, we're not thinking at all. It's OK to disagree. Just don't be disagreeable.
-Bill Walton

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #241 on: December 02, 2018, 04:32:28 PM »
No, money in the FCS level. Heck, Southern and Grambling bypass the FCS level playoff, to just play in the Bayou Classic.

There is no money in the FBS for them either.  Many of the universities in the AAC or losing close to $30M a year on athletics because of football, with the prayer that the P5 will include them in a spit-off from the rest of the FBS to form their own 6-league division in college athletics and then split proceeds more evenly amongst them.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #242 on: December 02, 2018, 04:33:35 PM »
@BruceFeldmanCFB
Since the end of the 2009 season this’ll be the third time Miami’s faced Wisconsin in a bowl game. That’ll be two more times than they’ve played fellow ACC member Wake Forest in that stretch.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #243 on: December 02, 2018, 04:34:29 PM »
There is no money in the FBS for them either.  Many of the universities in the AAC or losing close to $30M a year on athletics because of football, with the prayer that the P5 will include them in a spit-off from the rest of the FBS to form their own 6-league division in college athletics and then split proceeds more evenly amongst them.


There won't be any money there either.  The fan interest in college football is all at the very top. 

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #244 on: December 02, 2018, 04:37:54 PM »

There won't be any money there either.  The fan interest in college football is all at the very top.

I agree.  It's a fools errand by these universities.  In my opinion they should either go to the FCS or drop football entirely.  From an alumni and donation standpoint, the FCS makes more sense.

Mr. Nielsen

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5448
  • Facts don't care about your feelings!
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #245 on: December 02, 2018, 04:41:14 PM »
All the money is from ESPN & FOX playing the Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, SEC and PAC-12.

That why I feel lucky as a Marquette fan that FOX was starting a new network and needed to start with live games. The Big East got $500 million over 12 years. Heck, the AAC does have some good football teams over the past 6 years of that league. UCF, USF, Houston, Navy & Temple stick out to me. The AAC TV deal with football gets less than the Big East. Just think about that. Wow.
If we are all thinking alike, we're not thinking at all. It's OK to disagree. Just don't be disagreeable.
-Bill Walton

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9878
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #246 on: December 02, 2018, 04:43:11 PM »
I agree.  It's a fools errand by these universities.  In my opinion they should either go to the FCS or drop football entirely.  From an alumni and donation standpoint, the FCS makes more sense.

But here's why they don't:

UCF athletics director Danny White keeps racking up big wins.
The Knights set a fundraising record, earning $13.4 million in cash-gift revenues during the 2017-18 fiscal year that just wrapped up in June.
The total surpassed last year’s record-setting fundraising mark by $2.5 million.
To put the surge in perspective, UCF raised $5.2 million during the 2011-12 academic year


https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/sports-editor-blog/os-sp-ucf-athletics-fundraising-record-20180720-story.html

In other words, "There's gold up in them thar hills!" And it's not just TV revenue, either.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #247 on: December 02, 2018, 04:54:01 PM »
I've said it before, but athletics is best viewed as a marketing expense at the D1 level.  It's an admissions expense at the lower levels.

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #248 on: December 02, 2018, 05:03:21 PM »
But here's why they don't:

UCF athletics director Danny White keeps racking up big wins.
The Knights set a fundraising record, earning $13.4 million in cash-gift revenues during the 2017-18 fiscal year that just wrapped up in June.
The total surpassed last year’s record-setting fundraising mark by $2.5 million.
To put the surge in perspective, UCF raised $5.2 million during the 2011-12 academic year


https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/sports-editor-blog/os-sp-ucf-athletics-fundraising-record-20180720-story.html

In other words, "There's gold up in them thar hills!" And it's not just TV revenue, either.

The increases in fundraising a largely affected by the fact that UCF is a newer school, with a young alumni base that is just coming into the age ranges where significant donations would be expected. 

Maybe UCF could use some of that additional revenue to stop charging their 60,000 students $350 a year in an athletics fee.  50% of UCF's revenue is coming from student fees and/or allotments from the general university budget.  If it wasn't for those two elements they'd be losing $30M a year on football just like the other AAC members.


Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9878
Re: 2018 College Football Thread
« Reply #249 on: December 02, 2018, 05:09:55 PM »
The increases in fundraising a largely affected by the fact that UCF is a newer school, with a young alumni base that is just coming into the age ranges where significant donations would be expected. 

Maybe UCF could use some of that additional revenue to stop charging their 60,000 students $350 a year in an athletics fee.  50% of UCF's revenue is coming from student fees and/or allotments from the general university budget.  If it wasn't for those two elements they'd be losing $30M a year on football just like the other AAC members.

Newer is all relative, but UCF is 55 years old.
And it's nuts to think that record donations to the athletic fund coming immediately after unprecedented success on the football field is a mere coincidence.
In fact, there's a proven link between athletic success and donations. Loyola, for example, says its donations were up 660 percent after their Final Four run.

 

feedback