@NutterinDE@TomMarsLaw Probably unconstitutional to enforce on the coach, but likely constitutional to tie to federal funding/grants given to the Universities so long as enforcement doesn’t discriminate.
@bourqueis@slmandel You are correct and I hate that you are. We could make this thing create, could grow the sport, could spread the passion country wide, but that’s blocked by definite shorter term profit interests. A shame.
@bourqueis@slmandel Worse than that…Tulane and JMU were ranked. Duke wud have gotten in unranked while 5 other conference champs waited for a bowl game worth a 20th of the views. I don’t like the ND clause either but dropping the 5 best and going to 4 conference tie-ins and an at large is horrid.
@JasonMcMinn1@Jay_Tust I agree with you, but only if that same is applied to all 10 conferences. I want more meaningful football and conf championship week could be a thing of beauty, but power conf have the power to protect the pot and they did so here. Shame.
4 tiers, 34 teams per tier
ND to B1G, NE to SEC
Purdue to BIGXII
UTSA + Tulsa to PAC-12, UCONN to AC
GSU + Char to C-USA, NMSU + UTEP to MW
Last in con = relegated, top promoted, reorganize every year
T-3 is top 2 conf champs by championship contender promoted
I’m doin it
i’m bringing Promotion/Relegation to College Football 26, which format do you like the most?
#1
Tier 1: Big Ten and SEC
Tier 2: ACC and Big 12
Tier 3: American, C-USA, MAC, MWC, PAC-12, and Sun Belt
#2
Tier 1: ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, and SEC
Tier 2: American, C-USA, MAC, MWC, PAC-12, and Sun Belt
#3
Tier 1: Big Ten and SEC
Tier 2: ACC and Big 12
Tier 3: American, PAC-12, and Sun Belt
Tier 4: C-USA, MAC, and MWC
Respectful disagreement w our friend @BudElliott3
Group of 5 teams making the Playoff is great, because it makes the whole season more meaningful for dozens of teams
@miles_wilhelm@GfedGoCrazy Beyond the money from a buy game, you want to have a shot at being ranked in the top 12 more than you do a risk of losing on a fluke in conference play. You also need eyes for recruitment and donors want big games. I wudnt worry about it.
@TheHerdBros@DanWolken Been arguing this for weeks. Imagine walking in to a board meeting at target and telling them your plan to reduce customers by 20-30% when they spend virtually the same, because you don’t like the color of their shirts.
@Firstand16_Pod This better than putting an arbitrary SOS floor that isn’t achievable or in your control. Just not in the spirit of fairness to restrict ONLY G5 cons. An AAC team could easily have a harder schedule than a P4 team. But I back your “win your games” model (aka conference champs)
@clydefiche@BriAmaranthus Genuinely , how do you guarantee that every team has enough strong opponents on their schedule? Even if ur in the BIG10 you can’t win your opponents games for them. You scheduled 3 games 5 years ago, the rest random conference matchups. That’s just not a good system to rely on.
So it’s okay if a Power 4 team gets BTA in the playoffs but it’s not acceptable for a Group of 5 team to get BTA because of Strength of schedule? I thought everyone was eligible to get BTA.
Blowouts in the College Football Playoff have always been common place. No matter what Power 4 or Group of 5 conference you play in:
-Alabama lost 44-16 to Clemson
-Oklahoma lost 63-28 to LSU
-Ohio State lost 31-0 to Clemson
-Ohio State lost 52-24 to Alabama
-TCU lost 63-7 to Georgia
-Florida State lost 59-20 to Oregon
-Michigan State lost 38-0 to Alabama
-SMU lost 38-10 to Penn State
-Notre Dame lost 30-3 to Clemson
-Tennessee lost 42-17 to Ohio State
Just add JMU and Tulane to the list and keep it moving. No one said to keep these Power 4 teams out of the playoff FOREVER after their bad loss. So stop trying to punish all Group of 5 teams for it.
Nick Saban in 2008 was one game away from the national championship with Alabama.
That same Alabama team lost by 14 to a Mountain West team in the Sugar Bowl