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!

Official Bowl Games Thread

College football has had this problem before (a few teams dominating) - the solution that worked then would probably be helpful now:

https://www.allbuffs.com/threads/reduce-the-number-of-football-scholarships.137003/

The other things that would probably make a difference are:
1. Limiting the number of coaches "analysts"
2. A budget cap of some sort (similar to a salary cap in pro sports) - make the richest programs use their excess revenue to either fund even more sports or *gasp* support the academic side of the "university."
 
skibum said:
College football has had this problem before (a few teams dominating) - the solution that worked then would probably be helpful now:

https://www.allbuffs.com/threads/reduce-the-number-of-football-scholarships.137003/

The other things that would probably make a difference are:
1. Limiting the number of coaches "analysts"
2. A budget cap of some sort (similar to a salary cap in pro sports) - make the richest programs use their excess revenue to either fund even more sports or *gasp* support the academic side of the "university."
Click to expand...
You’re right. Leveling the playing field with conference game requirements, scholarship reductions, scholarship offer limits, recruiting budget limits, and staff limitations are all steps toward a little more parity. The biggest move, however, would be profit/revenue sharing across the entire P5. Obviously, that’s extremely unlikely to happen due to the brands that carry the sport being so top heavy, but that’s the quickest way to equality, IMO.

It would be the “NFLisation” of the college game, which some might not like, but it would be better than seeing the same five teams jockey for the top position in the recruiting rankings every year and the same two teams playing each other in the Natty.
 
TSchekler said:
That’s the problem though, they appeared head and shoulders over ND and OU. Georgia proved they could hang w Bama and Id be willing to bet tOSU would have put up a better fight than ND. The committee isn’t choosing the best teams.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point. But I think it's a different point. At any rate, I'd favor expansion to 8. I just think that the point I raised is a counterargument.
 
I’m terrified by how much better than their opponents the SEC teams have been (outside of South Carolina and Vandy). I’m also completely bummed out by the lack of competitive bowl games this year. WSU/ISU has been the only game worth watching.
 
buffs04 said:
That's a fair point. But I think it's a different point. At any rate, I'd favor expansion to 8. I just think that the point I raised is a counterargument.
Click to expand...
Scrap divisions, no CCG, no auto bids, balance schedules, minimum P5 opponents, figure out first round location, preserve bowl structure, design appropriate distribution system, reframe exiting contract... then maybe a discussion can be had.

In other words, it ain’t happening anytime soon.
 
skibum said:
College football has had this problem before (a few teams dominating) - the solution that worked then would probably be helpful now:

https://www.allbuffs.com/threads/reduce-the-number-of-football-scholarships.137003/

The other things that would probably make a difference are:
1. Limiting the number of coaches "analysts"
2. A budget cap of some sort (similar to a salary cap in pro sports) - make the richest programs use their excess revenue to either fund even more sports or *gasp* support the academic side of the "university."
Click to expand...
And/or expand the playoff, which exposes teams to more upset opportunities while also giving more teams a chance. That was a big factor in ending the UCLA dynasty in hoops.
 
buffs04 said:
I'm in favor of playoff expansion because the current format (with fewer slots than qualified teams) favors pedigreed conferences and programs.

However, the same two teams appearing head-and-shoulders above the pack year after year makes for an easy argument against playoff expansion.
Click to expand...
buffs04 said:
That's a fair point. But I think it's a different point. At any rate, I'd favor expansion to 8. I just think that the point I raised is a counterargument.
Click to expand...

Actually your counter argument doesn’t argue in favor of not expanding at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

If two teams are dominating the college football landscape then you expand to make access to the playoffs less restrictive.
Because that removes the monopoly that those two programs wield where they can essentially cherry pick their recruits because they alone can guarantee access to the playoffs.
If a player knows they have a decent shot with any P5 team by just winning their conference, then they are likely to choose the school they like the best.
 
buffedup said:
Actually your counter argument doesn’t argue in favor of not expanding at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

If two teams are dominating the college football landscape then you expand to make access to the playoffs less restrictive.
Because that removes the monopoly that those two programs wield where they can essentially cherry pick their recruits because they alone can guarantee access to the playoffs.
If a player knows they have a decent shot with any P5 team by just winning their conference, then they are likely to choose the school they like the best.
Click to expand...

I want a 5th/6th team with a legit case to get in to the CFP before we expand-we don't have that this year. Ohio State lost by 29 points to 6-7 Purdue (who lost to 63-14 to an Auburn team who couldn't compete with Alabama), and Georgia is a two loss non-champ.
 
Cincinnati looks good.

fwiw, I think that's a program that should be in a P5 conference. Pretty close to an elite in basketball and have become a very good G5 football program the past couple decades. I think they can be similar to Pitt with the football program. Would be a nice addition to the Big 12.
 
buffedup said:
Actually your counter argument doesn’t argue in favor of not expanding at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

If two teams are dominating the college football landscape then you expand to make access to the playoffs less restrictive.
Because that removes the monopoly that those two programs wield where they can essentially cherry pick their recruits because they alone can guarantee access to the playoffs.
If a player knows they have a decent shot with any P5 team by just winning their conference, then they are likely to choose the school they like the best.
Click to expand...

Allow me to continue playing devil's advocate here. It depends on what the reasons for having the playoff are.

If I remember correctly, a big part of the motivation for implementing the playoff was to decide the best team on the field, rather than using the subjective criteria that were inputs into the BCS rankings. Under this view, the purpose of the playoff is to "get it right", with respect to selecting a winner.

If there are exactly two teams that are unambiguously the best two teams in college football year in and year out, then we don't need a playoff to decide which two teams should play for the national championship.

Again, I think there are other nice things about the playoff, but I'd bet that there are people out there who think that we don't really need to expand the playoff (or even have it all) because Alabama and to a lesser extent Clemson are so dominant.
 
Officiating has become way to big a factor in football. I feel like there are penalties called every 3 or 4 plays.
 
pepsi man has dux d swarming the vaunted sparty o....jesus didnt realize dux oline is huge and all coming back
 
buffs04 said:
Allow me to continue playing devil's advocate here. It depends on what the reasons for having the playoff are.

If I remember correctly, a big part of the motivation for implementing the playoff was to decide the best team on the field, rather than using the subjective criteria that were inputs into the BCS rankings. Under this view, the purpose of the playoff is to "get it right", with respect to selecting a winner.

If there are exactly two teams that are unambiguously the best two teams in college football year in and year out, then we don't need a playoff to decide which two teams should play for the national championship.

Again, I think there are other nice things about the playoff, but I'd bet that there are people out there who think that we don't really need to expand the playoff (or even have it all) because Alabama and to a lesser extent Clemson are so dominant.
Click to expand...
The NCAA could care less about who the best team is. The playoff was all about money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top