Search results

Would be an interesting experiment to watch…

well thought out… good work. But I agree with your last paragraph. If the top teams are really that good, they shouldn’t have any problem playing four weeks in a row. Seed them up 1 through 16 and let them all play. No byes, winner take all.

Interesting… I know why 4 conference commissioners and ND would push for this, but I’m surprised that it was unanimous. Just stalling a year could be a windfall for one lucky G5 school… Although, I’m sure there are plenty of payouts going around in exchange for these votes…. Or maybe its a...

The plan is top 6 conf champs plus 6 at large. It isn’t 5 P5 champs + 1G5 + 6 at large The elimination of the PAC doesn’t HAVE to change anything as I understand it. It simply means that the top 6 conf champs will include two G5 champs since the P5 is now the P4. FWIW, even if rhe PAC somehow...

I’ve heard this argument… I’m sure I’ll hear it again as justification for leaving a deserving ACC and/or big 12 team out of the playoff in a year or two. I know you’ll be somewhere smiling and that will warm my heart.

Is this nomenclature or numerology? Perhaps “numenclature?” I feel like these conventions held mostly through the 2000s. The last 15 or so years has seen the change. I felt like offense was always more strict than D so officials could more readily identify “eligible” players by position… but...

I agree… And we should! We would make more money, and when we have a really strong season that lands us second or third in the conference, we would have a shot at being in the playoffs. Neither of those things could be said about staying in the ACC.

I offered my proposal… Remove the subjectivity by taking onlyconference champions, or if you must subjectively choose at large teams, the same criteria should be published and applied evenly.

I agree. I would support just taking the top eight conference champions. All of these guys who consolidated conferences for millions of dollars will complain, but we can simply remind them that they moved for millions, not to compete for championships.

I like this and was thinking something similar. The difference I had was to say that each conference gets their second place team as long as that team is top 15 (or 20 or whatever). That would protect a conference runner up and while it wouldn’t limit any conference to 3 teams, it would work...

The point is… you shouldn’t HAVE to “make a case” beyond what happened on the field. The selection shouldn’t be subjective. So you either take the subjectivity out of it by taking all conference champs or by outlining very specific selection criteria that is applied EQUALLY. If you apply the...

Except the order… using the “best win” criteria that the committee used for “other things” *** cough Texas Bama cough hack*** Oklahoma should be 9, right? Wonder why they were ranked behind 2 SEC teams and a BIG team when their win over Texas was CLEARLY the best win of all…. Hmmm. That’s a...

I didn’t recognize or hear any individual names but it was mentioned several times that it was an ACC crew.

I thought the second one that was “offsetting” on 4th down was pretty a BS call. Especially given how the rest of the came was officiated. … but I’d expect nothing less from an ACC crew.

Penix changes his delivery angle a lot. He’s good at seeing lanes and particularly on screens to the left side he drops sidearm frequently to keep the ball behind pass rushers. I was surprised by how much pressure Michigan got on him without really blitzing to do it. YES; I would LOVE to have...

I’m gonna disagree. Its acceptable to state that FSU should’ve gotten their shot regardless of how they would’ve performed. They didn’t have to “keep it close” to warrant being there, and neither did Washington (or TCU last year). Michigan would’ve beaten whatever team FSU put out there at...

Easy would be great, but I’m not sure that’s best. I am certain there would be really good one or two loss ACC or big 12 at large teams who would be “ranked” 3 to 5 spots lower than the SEC or Big Ten teams with more losses. I think there should be something in place to bring in quality teams...

@RonJohn has it right I believe… the intent was that at least one G5 champ was protected in the 6+6 scenario, but it didn’t GUARANTEE that the five P5 champs were. When does the change actually happen? In theory, if no changes are made, the 6+6 still works and it guarantees two G5 spots… can’t...

Wait just a minute here… are we still supposed to hate preseason rankings? They are still just bunk, right? Popularity contest to sell magazines? Do they still sell magazines? Mind is racing right now….