What's new
By:

2014 College Football

colton said:
I haven't heard that at all. Would be interested in a reference if you hear/read it again.



I think you mis-read something. I was saying that BYU could (and would) pay more than a non P5 school. Not more than a P5 school. So from a recruiting standpoint BYU is better off being independent than being in a non P5 conference. (I wasn't saying that they are better off on that point than being in a P5 conference.)
Click to expand...

I did misread that. And everything I read just refers to non P5s not having stipend ability. Perhaps I tuned in when they were discussing the independents.
 
heyhey said:
I agree that it is highly unlikely, but why do you think it only would work for professional athletes? I don't think that has anything to do with it. I think the power 5 schools(especially those bad at football) don't want to risk it. $$$$$$$
Click to expand...

I also think most of it would stem from money reasons but I also don't think it's fair to the kids. There's SoCal kids that get snubbed by USC and UCLA and end up choosing the likes of Utah because they get the chance to stick it to the schools that passed them by. Then after the player makes a commitment to Utah, the school is relegated to a different division with different schools and those kids have that chance taken from them. Just one example but it's stuff like that I wouldn't like.
 
jazzman12 said:
I also think most of it would stem from money reasons but I also don't think it's fair to the kids. There's SoCal kids that get snubbed by USC and UCLA and end up choosing the likes of Utah because they get the chance to stick it to the schools that passed them by. Then after the player makes a commitment to Utah, the school is relegated to a different division with different schools and those kids have that chance taken from them. Just one example but it's stuff like that I wouldn't like.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? That would be awesome.
 
Relegation will never happen for one reason:

Money.

Washington State, Kentucky, Kansas, etc would never vote for relegation.
 
How does the BCS let the SEC have two teams in the playoff and not leave out a champion? Most people think it is an 8 team playoff. There is a simpler solution. The problem with the 8 team playoff is it opens the door for a non-P5 to get in. And that is the whole point of the new playoff: keep the G5 out. Easy fix:

6 team playoff. Teams #1 and #2 get bye's.

All 5 P5 champions get auto bids. One team gets the "wildcard". This allows a spot for ND, or another SEC team. Teams #1 and #2 get bye weeks. #3 plays #6, #4 plays #5. Winners play #1 and #2. Problem solved.
 
One thing that will probably happen long before the playoff expands:

Evening out the schedule. Someone will get left out. Maybe it is a two loss PAC-12 team. Maybe it is the #2 SEC team.

If the SEC gets left out, they go to 9 conference games.
If the PAC-12 gets left out, they go to 8 conference games.

I really don't think the Big 12 is the big lynch pin like BYU fans hope. My reason? They play 9 conference games. The ACC, Big 10 (though not for long) and SEC plays 8. Right now, a one loss PAC-12 or Big 12 gets in over a one loss ACC/SEC/Big10 team (if SOS is true) because they play more P5 teams. So, with the Big 12 playing more conference games, they don't need the championship game for SOS reasons. They have that "extra" game built into their schedule already.

Let's say Stanford ends up with two losses but wins the PAC-12 championship. I think they get in over a one loss Ol' Miss team that didn't win the SEC title game because of their schedules.

Look at Ol' Miss's OOC games:

Boise St
Louisiana
Memphis
Presbyterian

vs

UC Davis
Army
Notre Dame
additional PAC-12 game
PAC-12 title game

Stanford's schedule is much, much tougher.

Same with Miss St.

Their 4 OOC? Southern Miss, UAB, South Alabama, UT Martin.

The committee will have to decide what is more important. If SOS is, then the SEC will get killed in the playoff selection. If that happens, they will move to 9 conference games. If the SEC does not get killed, and a two loss PAC-12 gets snubbed for a one loss SEC then the PAC-12 will move to 8 conference games.

Anyways, my discourse is done.

tl/dr version:

I think conference games all go to 8 games or all conferences go to 9 games before the playoff is expanded.
 
Yeah, the entire SEC's west OOC schedules are kind of weak this year.

Really hope State schedules a beast OOC opponent next year.
 
Lastly, if the committee puts emphasis on injuries like they say they will, then a non-PAC-12 champion one loss Oregon should get in vs a one loss SEC non champion because they played Michigan St OOC, and extra conference game, and their only loss was when their LT was hurt.

It will be very interesting to see the rankings. If SOS, way you win and injuries are as important as they say, you could argue Oregon should be #1 right now.
 
green said:
Lastly, if the committee puts emphasis on injuries like they say they will, then a non-PAC-12 champion one loss Oregon should get in vs a one loss SEC non champion because they played Michigan St OOC, and extra conference game, and their only loss was when their LT was hurt.

It will be very interesting to see the rankings. If SOS, way you win and injuries are as important as they say, you could argue Oregon should be #1 right now.
Click to expand...

Right now the only non-loss SEC teams are Ole Miss and MSU (besides the SEC Championship game), right? We play each other the final game of the year, so it would be weird to put us both in the Playoffs directly after competing with each other. I would be against it as a MSU fan, win or lose. Though the thought of kicking Ole Miss's bitch *** twice in 1 season definitely sounds like a lot of fun.
 
We beat Ole Miss last year starting our 3rd string QB for most of the game before putting an injured Dak in during the 4th quarter. We still beat them in overtime despite spotting them 3.5 quarters of bad QB play. I can only imagine we will destroy them with 4 quarters of Dak Attack.

I wonder how good Dak would be right now if he started all of last year like he should have? Tyler Russel was my least favorite QB in recent MSU history. Dude was a great passer, but had lead feet and bad awareness in the pocket and didn't fit Mullen's offense at all. Dak was clearly a Mullen QB and probably would have struggled at first as a full-time starting Sophomore, but still done way better than Russel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top