First Shot Across ND's Bow

RickyReck

Flats Noob
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
730
I for one, after talking to some of my Domer friends think there is a better than 50% chance ND will join the ACC.
I also like the 8 team playoff. No exceptions for ND.
 

stinger78

Jacket by the grace of God.
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
12,544
I for one, after talking to some of my Domer friends think there is a better than 50% chance ND will join the ACC.
I also like the 8 team playoff. No exceptions for ND.
And after talking to my PSU friends, I also think this to be true about them. Of course, there's only the one, but she's cool.
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
27,235
I for one, after talking to some of my Domer friends think there is a better than 50% chance ND will join the ACC.
I also like the 8 team playoff. No exceptions for ND.
Are your friends big ND donors?
 

ThisIsAtlanta

Break In Case Of Emergency
Staff member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
61,115
One scenario: ND finishes 11-1, Alabama finishes 12-1, Texas finishes 11-1, Ohio State finishes 12-1, USC finishes 12-1, GT finishes 13-0, Boise finishes 13-0, BYU finishes 12-0; who do the voters/committee pick as the top 4? Remember, you nor I get a vote.
Sigh.

GT/Boise obviously get in, probably in the #1 and #2 spots, both being undefeated teams from a major conference.

Whether BYU gets in depends on their schedule since they are independent.

And the rest of those teams will have to be selected based on who their 1 loss is to.

See how easy that is? Respect for the ACC is not as light as some of you seem to think. We (GT) have been in the top 10 more than once under CPJ alone, and in that time span, we've beaten no fewer than two other ACC teams that were in the top 5. An ACC team that goes undefeated to the end absolutely exists in the top 4. Period. It's going to take a lot more than a bunch of big name 1 loss schools to push us, or anyone else in the conference, out. We're not in the MWC/MAC/CUSA yet. Until then we're not going to get the Boise/Houston treatment in the polls.

Alabama last year didn't get the nod over any undefeated programs at all. There was only one by the end of the regular season, sitting in the #1 spot.
 

JelloYacketDeleted062020

Banhammer'd
Ban Hammer'd
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Messages
3,418
IMO You should have to be a conference champion. Not just a division winner. This eliminates any one conference from taking up half the "playoff". This eliminates another all SEC or any other conference championship game. This also takes away the media conference bias that allowed a fiasco such as last years game.

The only way to allow a non conference winner into the playoff would be to implement a "wildcard" into it, which then would mean they would have to expand the # of teams in it.
You should have to win your conference. If the criteria is division winner then you could have a conference championship rematch 2 weeks after the game. It doesn't make sense.

The conference championship games would basically be play-in games to the playoff. The only difference is that if there is an upset in the conference championship the upsetting team may not go. For instance, Clemson would not have gone last year, but if VT won they would've been in the playoff.
 

rduck

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
1,315
You should have to win your conference. If the criteria is division winner then you could have a conference championship rematch 2 weeks after the game. It doesn't make sense.

The conference championship games would basically be play-in games to the playoff. The only difference is that if there is an upset in the conference championship the upsetting team may not go. For instance, Clemson would not have gone last year, but if VT won they would've been in the playoff.
Last year the playoff (with conference champs only) probably would have been

LSU-SEC
OSU-Big12
Oregon-Pac12
Wisconsin-Big10
left out-Clem(ACC) WV(BigEast)

With division winners allowed

LSU-SEC
Ala-SEC
OSU-Big12
Oregon-Pac12
left out-Wisconsin(Big10) Clem(ACC) WV(BigEast)

feel free to correct me if I missed something
 

stinger78

Jacket by the grace of God.
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
12,544
Last year the playoff (with conference champs only) probably would have been

LSU-SEC
OSU-Big12
Oregon-Pac12
Wisconsin-Big10
left out-Clem(ACC) WV(BigEast)

With division winners allowed

LSU-SEC
Ala-SEC
OSU-Big12
Oregon-Pac12
left out-Wisconsin(Big10) Clem(ACC) WV(BigEast)

feel free to correct me if I missed something
Did either Clemson or WV deserve to be in a 4-team playoff last year? I think this discussion needs to include the notion of 4 conference champs that deserve to be there.
 

ThisIsAtlanta

Break In Case Of Emergency
Staff member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
61,115
I don't think it should have anything to do with conference affiliation. The climate has been since the BCS era that if you don't win all of your games, you can hardly expect to play for the title anyway. I think no undefeated team should be left out if possible, and then let rank in the polls decide the rest. This all on its own will probably cap the number of teams that can go from each conference, since you are only going to have the possibility of 1 undefeated team from any conference that has a championship game.

We've only had 1 BCS season where this would be screwed up, and that was in 2009 when Boise, TCU, Alabama, Texas, and Cincy went undefeated into bowl play. Boise was the only one outside the top 4, so they wouldn't have played in the playoff. The difference between Boise going and getting left out would have been a ref adding 1 second to the clock for Texas, though. Scandalous.
 

lonestarjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
10,278
I don't think it should have anything to do with conference affiliation. The climate has been since the BCS era that if you don't win all of your games, you can hardly expect to play for the title anyway. I think no undefeated team should be left out if possible, and then let rank in the polls decide the rest. This all on its own will probably cap the number of teams that can go from each conference, since you are only going to have the possibility of 1 undefeated team from any conference that has a championship game.

We've only had 1 BCS season where this would be screwed up, and that was in 2009 when Boise, TCU, Alabama, Texas, and Cincy went undefeated into bowl play. Boise was the only one outside the top 4, so they wouldn't have played in the playoff. The difference between Boise going and getting left out would have been a ref adding 1 second to the clock for Texas, though. Scandalous.
The reason conference affiliation is important is it is the only normalizing factor in comparing teams across conferences without enough inter-conference play. There is not even enough inter-division play to absolutely rank teams in a conference.

There will always be speculation that a one or two loss team from a powerful conference is better than an undefeated team from another. But you know the ranking within any conference based on the results and the championship game. Second place in a division may also be the second best team and better than the other division champion, or it may not be. But it has not earned the right to play for the championship and so cannot be the champion.

In similar fashion, no team that cannot win its conference should play for the national championship. They all had a fair chance to win the conference and failed. They may be the second best team in the nation or they may not, but we know they failed the first test.

The only reliable way to determine a champion between conferences that do not play common games is to play it out between champions, just as they play out the division winners for the conference championship.

Of course, I favor the abolishment of the old conferences anyway. Just divide all the teams into regional divisions and conferences and end the silliness of nationwide conferences. It would save everyone a lot of travel and rebuild natural rivalries. The tradition of the old conferences became a thing of the past when the expansion and poaching wars began. They are all now just competing leagues for television revenue. Take the commissioners out of the equation and just divide everybody regionally and we will actually come closer to the old conference origins.
 

samsgt02

Dodd-Like
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
3,266
I think the FCS should broken down even more. When you win every game and still aren't able to compete for the championship, something is wrong. 119 teams is too much for football. There should be a DI-A (BCS type schools), DI-AA (CUSA, WAC, etc.), and a DI-AAA (SoCon, Ohio Valley, etc.).

And oh yeah, I wish there was a NFL developmental league, too. Tech would be much more competitive, just like in baseball. Football prospects who have no business in college could actually earn a ---- paycheck. It would take some billionaire marketing genius to get it done, because the NFL doesn't have to have a developmental league, that's what college football is to them.
 

razorjackets

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
254
I read it differently, that it would be the top 4 ranked conference (or at least division) champions. Better than what we have now, imo. If we went undefeated we'd be in.
This.

It's pretty simple. If ACC gets a team ranked in the top 4, they are in. If they are good enough, the ranking will come. It happened when Miami ruled the weak Big East. It happened when FSU ruled the weak ACC. And it worked when GT ran the table in 1990.

If a team earns it, and deserves it, that particular year, then they'll be there. I am not worried about the proposal, I just want to see someone in the ACC, anyone, step up and deliver.
 

jdubjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
11,153
This.

It's pretty simple. If ACC gets a team ranked in the top 4, they are in. If they are good enough, the ranking will come. It happened when Miami ruled the weak Big East. It happened when FSU ruled the weak ACC. And it worked when GT ran the table in 1990.

If a team earns it, and deserves it, that particular year, then they'll be there. I am not worried about the proposal, I just want to see someone in the ACC, anyone, step up and deliver.
You have to remember that CFB has changed since the early 2000's. The way money is being thrown around now and the constant touting of the SEC will make it very difficult for an ACC to represent if the past few years are any indicator.
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
27,235
And oh yeah, I wish there was a NFL developmental league, too. Tech would be much more competitive, just like in baseball. Football prospects who have no business in college could actually earn a ---- paycheck. It would take some billionaire marketing genius to get it done, because the NFL doesn't have to have a developmental league, that's what college football is to them.
It will never happen because no one would watch it.
 

Diseqc

Dodd-Like
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
47,790
With division winners allowed

LSU-SEC
Ala-SEC
OSU-Big12
Oregon-Pac12
left out-Wisconsin(Big10) Clem(ACC) WV(BigEast)

feel free to correct me if I missed something
What division did Alabama win?
 

lonestarjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
10,278
It will never happen because no one would watch it.

Who watches the NBA Developmental league?

They get nationally televised games playing to empty arenas.

It might not get a lot of TV time, but people would watch it for the same reasons they watch minor league baseball. There are lots of remote areas hungry for professional sports of any kind. Even in citie with professional teams some prefer the accessibility of the minor league games. There is a lot of turnover from year to year, just like in college. So that helps raise the local interest in how the new team will perform.

Who knows? If top talent stopped going to college teams then THAT might be what fewer people watched.

Take all the players of the Bama team that are not inerested in getting a college education and start a local professional team. Do you think more people would still watch the Tide with its leftover players or the new professional team?
 

beej67

new around here
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
56,552
You have to remember that CFB has changed since the early 2000's. The way money is being thrown around now and the constant touting of the SEC will make it very difficult for an ACC to represent if the past few years are any indicator.
The ACC has to stop getting freaking swept on Thanksgiving.
 

samsgt02

Dodd-Like
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
3,266
It will never happen because no one would watch it.
No one watches minor league baseball or MLS but it still works, especially in smaller markets like a Portland or say a San Antonio. It doesn't have to have large salaries either. A $35,000 to $50,000 job to play football straight out of high school doesn't sound too bad to a 17 or 18 year old, either. Keep the league to a 22 year old max age, and if the NFL poaches anyone, have a payout clause. You could draft college athletes, too. My dream would be to take some of that undeveloped talent away from SEC schools. This would be the best thing to happen to Tech football.
 
Top