Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

College Football News, Rumor & Humor

CarolinaBuff said:
I just listened to one if the recent GameDay podcasts with Rece Davis and Pete Thamel and Rece said he would like the 5-11 model with the at-large bids being a combination of the committee's rankings along with a set agreed upon formula that would consist of strength of schedule and SOR combination. I believe he said the weighting would be two-thirds committee ranking and one third the SOS/SOR ranking.

He also added that a format which consists of too many autobids, like a 4-4-2-2-1-3 would make it too cut and dried which is not what college football is or has ever been.
Click to expand...
Two schools of thought. You either don't care about conference relevancy beyond the SEC and B1G and want to continue having a group of people pick the playoff field (with a more dialed in criteria), or you don't want 13 of the 16 playoff teams to (likely) be represented by the SEC and B1G, because that's what a 5+11 model will likely mean in most years.

IMO, the 5+11 format is incredibly bad for the Big 12 and slightly less bad for the ACC, but that's the format that Yormark has publicly supported for some reason. Honestly not sure why since he has an option to back a format that would guarantee his league gets 2 teams in every year, with the potential for a third, instead of just 1 in most years, with a second in rare occasions.
 
I'm fine with the NCAA tourney model used for every other sports. Conference champions plus they select at-large teams as subjective committee decisions made under direction that certain data are emphasized (RPI, NET, recorded vs Quads 1 & 2, etc) - whatever that means for football.

So I'm kind of with Davis, but I think it's silly to put an arbitrary number of "1/3 computer; 2/3 committee" that can't even be quantified.

It's just weird to me that there's this thought that it has to be unique for football. Why? If we're using inadequate criteria to make postseason selections for other sports, then change them all. But if we're satisfied with how it's working for other sports then just use the same methodology for football. It's not that hard. The only hard part is navigating the politics and avoiding lawsuits.
 
Buffnik said:
I'm fine with the NCAA tourney model used for every other sports. Conference champions plus they select at-large teams as subjective committee decisions made under direction that certain data are emphasized (RPI, NET, recorded vs Quads 1 & 2, etc) - whatever that means for football.

So I'm kind of with Davis, but I think it's silly to put an arbitrary number of "1/3 computer; 2/3 committee" that can't even be quantified.

It's just weird to me that there's this thought that it has to be unique for football. Why? If we're using inadequate criteria to make postseason selections for other sports, then change them all. But if we're satisfied with how it's working for other sports then just use the same methodology for football. It's not that hard. The only hard part is navigating the politics and avoiding lawsuits.
Click to expand...
I think it’s acceptable because when there’s 64 teams that have a body of work of 40 games+, vs 12 or 16 with 12 games, and a post season tourney that involves all teams in the conference - ultimately if you don’t make the post season, that kinda on you bro.
 
BuffWarHog said:
I think it’s acceptable because when there’s 64 teams that have a body of work of 40 games+, vs 12 or 16 with 12 games, and a post season tourney that involves all teams in the conference - ultimately if you don’t make the post season, that kinda on you bro.
Click to expand...
Not just basketball and your numbers are off, but there are more data points when you play more than 2x more games and a higher percentage of them are non-conference matchups.

So are you saying that they shouldn't use computer ranks for football tournament selection?
 
Buffnik said:
Not just basketball and your numbers are off, but there are more data points when you play more than 2x more games and a higher percentage of them are non-conference matchups.

So are you saying that they shouldn't use computer ranks for football tournament selection?
Click to expand...
But if we're satisfied with how it's working for other sports then just use the same methodology for football. It's not that hard.
Click to expand...
I think I’m fine with the methodology for the other sports, but I don’t think it works for football. That’s all I’m saying.
(And what numbers are off)?
 
BuffWarHog said:
I think I’m fine with the methodology for the other sports, but I don’t think it works for football. That’s all I’m saying.
(And what numbers are off)?
Click to expand...
The number of games teams play in hoops is 29-31 before their conference tournament, which then adds 1-5 games to the total. 68 teams are in the basketball tournament. And modifying this is also that there are 355 D1 hoops teams with there only being 134 FBS football teams, so you need a larger tournament and with more major conferences as well as top programs which aren't in the major conferences the depth of competition invalidates your statement about "it's on you" if you don't make it - with the number of autobids in hoops at 31 (vs 5 for football) that leaves 37 at-large bids for hoops vs 11 for fb. Looking at the total number of teams competing for those bids and the greater depth across D1 hoops, it's at least as hard to make the hoops tournament as the football tournament.
 
The linked article has absolutely nothing to do with college football. It does concern the sale of assets to private equity, and it provides a cautionary tale of why the University of Colorado or any other football team should approach PE with a healthy does of skepticism. PE is better at this than other people, and like I’ve said before they’ve already figured out ways to screw you that you hadn’t even thought of as a possibility. Now the attached case with the City of Chicago was not a master class in subterfuge. Rather, it just plain old elected officials not being very bright.

The lease agreement with Chicago Parking Meters LLC expires in 2083. The group of investors headed by Morgan Stanley paid the city nearly $1.157 billion dollars. In exchange, the private company gets revenue from 36,000 parking meters for 75 years.
Click to expand...

NBC 5 Investigates reviewed KPMG audits showing the meters generated $1.97 billion through 2024. In total, it only took about 10 years for the [private equity] company to recoup its initial investment. The parking meter company declined comment, but its website touts the $38 million it spent modernizing the parking system with new meters, a refund option and 24-hour customer service.
Click to expand...

Daley's administration also argued the money leftover after the city covered its budget shortfall would provide a long term financial cushion. That did not happen.

"They [City of Chicago] basically burned through all those funds within two years," Waguespack said.
Click to expand...

Hey, but at least residents got 24 hour customer service for parking meters!


www.nbcchicago.com

Chicago parking meters have generated $2B for private company, audits show

The 75-year lease with Chicago Parking Meters LLC expires in 2083.
www.nbcchicago.com www.nbcchicago.com
 
Buffnik said:
So I'm kind of with Davis, but I think it's silly to put an arbitrary number of "1/3 computer; 2/3 committee" that can't even be quantified.

It's just weird to me that there's this thought that it has to be unique for football. Why? If we're using inadequate criteria to make postseason selections for other sports, then change them all. But if we're satisfied with how it's working for other sports then just use the same methodology for football. It's not that hard. The only hard part is navigating the politics and avoiding lawsuits.
Click to expand...

The big problems with the football committee has been consistency from year to year and a defined set of criteria. You get a dozen or so people in the room and they have all different visions of what carries the most importance - for some it's strength of schedule, for others it's wins over ranked teams, for others it's simply win-loss record, and for others it could who knows what, "game control" or some bogus stat. And yes the basketball committee has the same issues but at least they have more leeway since any at-large team who is deserving is going to get in.

They need to just lay out the criteria better for the committee. For example, priority number one is strength of schedule, priority number 2 is ranked wins, priority number 3 is won-loss records, within reason of course. You can't put in consideration a 6-6 team just because they played 9 games against ranked teams including 4 top 10 teams. Likewise don't give serious consideration to a team that went 11-1 or 12-0 but didn't play a single team ranked higher than 60 in the given ranking system(s) they decide to use.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
The big problems with the football committee has been consistency from year to year and a defined set of criteria. You get a dozen or so people in the room and they have all different visions of what carries the most importance - for some it's strength of schedule, for others it's wins over ranked teams, for others it's simply win-loss record, and for others it could who knows what, "game control" or some bogus stat. And yes the basketball committee has the same issues but at least they have more leeway since any at-large team who is deserving is going to get in.

They need to just lay out the criteria better for the committee. For example, priority number one is strength of schedule, priority number 2 is ranked wins, priority number 3 is won-loss records, within reason of course. You can't put in consideration a 6-6 team just because they played 9 games against ranked teams including 4 top 10 teams. Likewise don't give serious consideration to a team that went 11-1 or 12-0 but didn't play a single team ranked higher than 60 in the given ranking system(s) they decide to use.
Click to expand...
Yep. Give me Strength of Record and some football version of Quad 1&2 record as the data the Committee focuses upon while they are putting their subjective stamp on things. I need a non-conference loss at Ohio State to not be worse for your resume than beating UTEP at home.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Officially a new era in CFB where schools can officially pay the players. $20m salary cap with $13-$16m expected for most football programs.
View attachment 87122
Click to expand...
Jurassic Park Hold Onto Your Butts GIF
 
Buffnik said:
Jurassic Park Hold Onto Your Butts GIF
Click to expand...
I’ve heard that a couple states (Tenn and Texas) put a bill into law that protects the schools from any NCAA punishments for continuing to play players through collectives (on top of the schools). Supposedly, the P4 conferences are trying to sign an agreement among each other that all schools in each conference will abide by the $20m annual cap under the threat of getting kicked out of the conferences if violated.

Obviously, there will be a lot of lawsuits.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I’ve heard that a couple states (Tenn and Texas) put a bill into law that protects the schools from any NCAA punishments for continuing to play players through collectives (on top of the schools). Supposedly, the P4 conferences are trying to sign an agreement among each other that all schools in each conference will abide by the $20m annual cap under the threat of getting kicked out of the conferences if violated.

Obviously, there will be a lot of lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Schools with deep booster pockets are not going to give up a competitive advantage for the good of others.
 
Alabama, like many other major universities, tries to win in everything.

"I tell our coaches, 'We don't have a sport here at the University of Alabama just to have a sport,'" Byrne said.

For generations, though, it has been one sport -- football -- that has made most of the money to fund those other teams. Alabama, like most places, saw only football ($26.4 million) and men's basketball ($5.9 million) deliver a profit in fiscal 2024, according to public records. Everyone else lost, sometimes millions -- women's basketball, for example, came in $4.2 million under.

The department expenses ($262.8 million) outstripped revenue ($234.8 million) for a $28 million deficit.
------
The old way wasn't "fair" to football and men's basketball players, who didn't have a choice as the money they generated was spent elsewhere, but the House case brings into question whether broad-based participation, let alone success, is even possible?

Ohio State, for example, fields 33 varsity teams. Boston College has 29. Stanford 36. Do some of them need to move to club-program status?

Or put it this way: If this is a "challenge" even in Tuscaloosa, imagine what everyone else is facing.

www.espn.com

How the spoils will get divided from NCAA settlement

After the NCAA settlement, ADs are on the front lines of implementation and will have to make this work.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 
Some interesting sentiments in here about when a portal window should be and how and when signings should occur. To no surprise, the SEC is entirely focused on the impact of the football programs, while the B1G is focused on the academic calendar.

Basically, SEC wants one portal window in early January so they go into Spring Ball with their team for the next season, while the B1G wants the portal window in late April to align more easily with their academic calendars and the resetting of the next year's salary cap.

For once, I agree with the SEC. The academic charade the B1G continues to push is dumb. The toothpaste is out of the tube and most of these kids aren't going to Ohio State or Michigan to play school. These are now professional athletes and mid-8 figure/soon to be 9 figure organizations. The focus needs to be on improving the sport's calendar and let the academic chips fall where they may.

sports.yahoo.com

College football's calendar needs an overhaul. Would a single transfer portal in January or April make the most sense?

The sport's leaders are torn on how to handle the transfer portal moving forward, but they're on the clock after the House settlement decision.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Some interesting sentiments in here about when a portal window should be and how and when signings should occur. To no surprise, the SEC is entirely focused on the impact of the football programs, while the B1G is focused on the academic calendar.

Basically, SEC wants one portal window in early January so they go into Spring Ball with their team for the next season, while the B1G wants the portal window in late April to align more easily with their academic calendars and the resetting of the next year's salary cap.

For once, I agree with the SEC. The academic charade the B1G continues to push is dumb. The toothpaste is out of the tube and most of these kids aren't going to Ohio State or Michigan to play school. These are now professional athletes and mid-8 figure/soon to be 9 figure organizations. The focus needs to be on improving the sport's calendar and let the academic chips fall where they may.

sports.yahoo.com

College football's calendar needs an overhaul. Would a single transfer portal in January or April make the most sense?

The sport's leaders are torn on how to handle the transfer portal moving forward, but they're on the clock after the House settlement decision.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
If you go with the B1G, then you have guys who aren't going to be part of the team the next season stuck on campus without participating and the fb program not wanting them to participate anyway. It's a mess for the sport. And the only justification is that the admissions departments have more time to handle the paperwork at the end of April than between the fall & spring semesters.
 
Buffnik said:
If you go with the B1G, then you have guys who aren't going to be part of the team the next season stuck on campus without participating and the fb program not wanting them to participate anyway. It's a mess for the sport. And the only justification is that the admissions departments have more time to handle the paperwork at the end of April than between the fall & spring semesters.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, an early January portal period means the top programs in the country (the ones that make the CFP) will still be playing and have to deal with prominent depth players transferring out before CFP games, as well as the portal recruiting being at a major disadvantage relative to non-CFP teams. I'm all for anything that could create a little more parity, so I'm good with it, but it will negatively impact 4-5 SEC teams every year.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
On the other hand, an early January portal period means the top programs in the country (the ones that make the CFP) will still be playing and have to deal with prominent depth players transferring out before CFP games, as well as the portal recruiting being at a major disadvantage relative to non-CFP teams. I'm all for anything that could create a little more parity, so I'm good with it, but it will negatively impact 4-5 SEC teams every year.
Click to expand...
Crazy Ex Girlfriend Idk GIF
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
On the other hand, an early January portal period means the top programs in the country (the ones that make the CFP) will still be playing and have to deal with prominent depth players transferring out before CFP games, as well as the portal recruiting being at a major disadvantage relative to non-CFP teams. I'm all for anything that could create a little more parity, so I'm good with it, but it will negatively impact 4-5 SEC teams every year.
Click to expand...
I am expecting that January portal recruiting and retention are going to be something which requires exceptional management of program operations by CU as so much of the bandwidth is taken up by playoff prep.
 
Buffnik said:
If you go with the B1G, then you have guys who aren't going to be part of the team the next season stuck on campus without participating and the fb program not wanting them to participate anyway. It's a mess for the sport. And the only justification is that the admissions departments have more time to handle the paperwork at the end of April than between the fall & spring semesters.
Click to expand...
“You want to play with the best – you don’t want to play with the Big Ten. … You ignore those calls,” Pavia said. “You know that.”
Click to expand...
www.on3.com

Diego Pavia eviscerates Big Ten, confirms $4M-plus NIL offer from SEC program

Diego Pavia eviscerated the Big Ten and confirmed an NIL offer of more than $4 million from an SEC program on "Bussin' with the Boys."
www.on3.com www.on3.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top