2017-2018 NCAA Football Season Thread [Archived] Football • Page 15

I would watch MTSU vs. WKU and Southern Miss. vs. Auburn. I watch as many of the bowl games as I can, and while I don't disagree that there are probably too many bowl games, it doesn't bother me.

Also, the rosters wouldn't be much different at all. Regardless of the fantasy system you draw up, the recruiting is not going to change for the top 15 schools in the country. Alabama will always load up, Clemson will load up. Florida State, Texas, Georgia, etc are always going to have loaded, top-10 classes.

In your model, I don't get to see Western Michigan make it to a Cotton Bowl -- because there's no way they'd make your top 64 before last season -- and, as such, they don't generate $84 million in exposure for the university.

Yes, teams in a relegation league can move up and down, but all you're doing is just creating a yo-yo effect at the bottom of said system while the top remains unchanged. Is there a chance for a Group of Five team to play for a national title? Hell no. Is there a chance for them to do it in a 64 team relegation league? Hell no. The odds and the sport and the power dynamics are all stacked against them, no matter you change the schedules. To insinuate that it would be a better system for smaller teams -- essentially giving them the separate but equal treatment -- is just insulting and dismissive towards them.

 

Okay but they already get byes haha. They get like, a month. The concept of a bye makes no sense in this context imo.

Eight teams also protects teams. Like, Penn State won't win the Big Ten and sit out again. Or, say Clemson dominated all year and lost in the ACC championship. They'd be out of the playoffs. For who? Michigan? That's no bueno, my dude.

 

By the way, my post came off wayyyy harsher than I intended that tone to be! Sorry about that.

 

more of a must see though...

Rose Bowl or LA Memorial? and/or more of an experience. UCLA game or USC game?

 

no no we've been through this argument before. I'm not getting sucked in lol

 

The top, sure. But I'm talking immediately below the top. The difference between 10 and 60 would shrink significantly.

True. I don't see the problem in that though.

I'm not saying it'd be better for smaller teams. I'm saying it'd be better for football fans. Like, at the end of every season we're basically narrowing things down because of three, maybe four games. No one cares what Alabama does against Western Carolina or Clemson vs. UTEP. So why play them? This system would not have cross-league play. The schedules across the board would be much much tougher. Would we want to see Alabama play Western Carolina, Fresno State, Mercer, and Colorado State or Louisville, USC, Texas, and Michigan State?

 

When are you going?

 

September. USC vs Stanford or UCLA vs Hawaii.

Obviously better game and better fan base is USC (right?). Im just seeing if the allure of Rose Bowl outweighs those other two factors.

 

Nah haha. USC/Stanford all the way.

 

The difference between 10 and 60 is not that much to begin with, IMO. Football inherently contains so much luck, and recruiting/roster-wise, the top 10-15 teams in terms of talent are pretty much stagnant; no one really falls from that. The difference between all the rest is, IMO, mostly coaching and luck.

The problem in eliminating things like a MAC team from having a chance at a dream run to the Cotton Bowl is that you are just making college football into minor league football at that point. There's not the feel good story of a team out of no where. Your system would entirely erase a run like Boise had from the mid-2000's through the early 2010's. I think we can all agree that those teams were good for college football. College athletics -- much more than pro sports -- is at its best when there's a Cinderella to root for; it's why the NCAA Men's Basketball Tourney is the biggest college sporting event around. If we want to be entirely fair about it, it should really just be the top 20 teams in the country in a league battling and that's it. Because the difference between the 64th best team and the 90th best team is negligible at best. So who is making those decisions? I think we can all agree that polls are pretty screwed up every single season -- another driver of interest in college football; they generate discussion that doesn't allow the casual fan to cast the sport aside during the week. Polls keep it in the fore-front of the casual fan's mind -- and if they can't get the top 10 right, how are they going to get the top 64 right?

You are out of your mind if you think Alabama is going to try to schedule something like Louisville, USC, Texas and Michigan State. They're going to schedule the Wake Forests of the world. Your method is just reallocating who the cellar dwellers are, the teams who are going to get the beat down payday that would've gone to a school that could really use it.

 

Leaving office job, going to restaurant job. Will resume tonight.

 

You're telling me the difference between Wisconsin or LSU is not that big when compared to Army or Toledo?

It should be minor league football. I'd rather it be that than something that siphons off money while forcing us to pretend like Florida State vs. Wofford matters. There would still be a Cinderella. Toledo (60th in the polls) would ABSOLUTELY be a Cinderella team. Plus, the NCAA Tourney fields 64 teams largely because basketball is vastly different from football.

The top 64 teams would be decided. The bottom teams would relegate. The top teams in FCS would get promoted. It's actually very simple and essentially eliminates human error from it altogether. Any ties would just use standard NFL tie breakers.

Okay but schedule UCF and Temple instead of Western Carolina and it's an improvement. They'd still schedule the bottom of the barrel but at least this way the bottom stands a chance. Could Toledo beat Oklahoma? Probably not. But it's better than a 77-3 victory that even die hard fans stop watching because no one cares.

So what? We continue to waste millions of dollars? If you don't have the money for a football program, you shouldn't have a football program. Taxpayers should not compensate. Other schools should not buy wins to compensate. There wouldn't be any such thing as buying wins in this system. I'm just confused as to how I should be more excited about LSU playing Chattanooga than, say, Northwestern. Same result? Probably. Better game. Certainly.

 

lol

 

It's not a certainty. Not even close.

I'm going to tell you a story...

One of the best high school players in the history of South Carolina. Overlooked by just about everybody because he was a little undersized. A kid from the projects with a drug dealing murderer for a father and not much else going for him other than football. He gets a chance though. A scholarship to one of these non-power programs that you seem to consider pointless in the grand scheme of college football.

The kid chooses Appalachian State or maybe it's the other way around...who knows? He wins multiple FCS titles and becomes easily the best player in I-AA. He's the main factor in the biggest upset in the history of college football.

Michigan offers App $400,000 to beat their ass in a tune-up game. It's a certainty that #2 Michigan will win this one, right?

Armanti Edwards disagrees with that logic and changes his program forever.

---

This is what that win over Michigan did for Appalachian State. This is what one kid that had no shot at playing for a Power Six conference did for college football:

Here's a look at the best win/loss records over the last 33 games for some FBS programs.

30-3
30-3
30-3
28-5

Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State are the first three. Appalachian State is the fourth.

I know they don't compare in terms of talent and strength of schedule or any of that bullshit you're probably thinking, but all it takes is one kid and one big victory to put an entire program on the map. App isn't going anywhere either.

You're taking away those chances in this alternate reality you're dreaming up. You're taking away the school supplies, single mother housing, and after school food programs that Armanti Edwards funds in his hometown.

You want to "relegate" programs and take away funding and scholarships? There's more to it than playoffs and entertainment. It's a way the break a vicious cycle that is still winning and I wish like hell that it wasn't. Opportunities are few and far between for these kids already and you're reasoning for taking them away just seems skewed and selfish.

 

Sure, but that doesn't necessarily go away in a new system. You can layer on other leagues. Presumably there are fairly lucrative TV deals for the FCS league, because ESPN couldn't go without showing football on Tuesday. It's not like D-II is shown much on TV anyways, nor does it benefit from payments from top schools the same way. Presumably there's also a financial benefit to winning the second league, because that's how sports leagues work.

App St was a D-1 AA/FCS powerhouse before that Michigan game. They're earning a promotion at some point, Michigan's gonna want to schedule them anyways because they want the easy game, and App St can still pull off the upset in what is probably still their hardest game.

You just don't schedule a bunch of games that put very overmatched teams against each other for the sake of filling out a schedule.

 

Just want to point out you did say "not even close" and then told a story about the biggest upset in college football history. Most of these games are a gimme and the reason the Michigan game wasn't was because App State was a powerhouse FCS team. Most FBS/FCS match-ups between big Power 5 schools aren't. When mid/low-level programs and top level FCS schools (see: Oregon State/EWU) play it's absolutely interesting. But when Oklahoma takes on FAMU? Nah.

The alternate reality I'm dreaming up doesn't take away any of those things. It also doesn't put that burden on a far more selfish (@ the system, not you) idea that for these people to be deserving of basic amenities they need to provide us with entertainment before we toss them aside and forget about them. This isn't the politics forum so that's why this was prefaced with "in this fantasy system, these issues don't exist." Because they shouldn't exist in the current system or mine.

Furthermore, I find it weird you use this as a COUNTER example. Appalachian State was an FCS team that proved themselves worthy of FBS quality play. They were rewarded by being promoted. That is ACTUALLY describing my system. I do not want to take away scholarships or funding. I want to take teams out of the FBS and organize play in a system determined by level of play. I also don't think this breaks the system unless you meant purely on an individual level. In which case you're absolutely correct. I absolutely understand your concerns but I do want to remind you that this is just a game (this exercise, that is) and the first rule of the game is "now that the government actually does it's fucking job....let's organize this clusterfuck a bit."

Also, App State is part of that 64 team FBS league. And Ivy League schools don't offer scholarships for football.

 

But teams like that will not be promoted anymore when bigger programs are favored. Appalachian State was not always a mid-major power.

I can tell a similar story about Josh Norman (a much bigger name) and Coastal Carolina if you'd like.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

I'll use my home state as an example.

There's a lot of talent there and five strong programs.

Clemson, South Carolina, Coastal Carolina, Charleston Southern, and The Citadel.

The only schools that benefit from a 64 team system are Clemson and USC. CCU, their multi-millionaire coach, and his aqua turf might survive but Charleston Southern and The Citadel would go down the drain.

The hidden gems and the scraps that those schools pick up after Clemson and South Carolina are done would take chances other schools....schools that aren't flirting with being demoted...schools that have been deemed worthy of playing major college football.

 

Wow

 

They would though. The winner of the FCS would be promoted every time.

You are saying this would take away athletic scholarships. Aside from it not, some schools don't even offer them.

 

That's surprising.

Former Oregon State QB Marcus McMaryion is expected to start at Fresno State now.

 

They play at Washington in Week 3. Obviously it should be a blowout (at least I hope) but McMaryion going there partnered with Tedford taking over will be interesting.

More so because Tedford was with UW for most of last year and kinda knows what's coming on many fronts---but even still, probably doesn't have the horses to stop it.

 

I think you've misunderstood or something cause I'm not even sure how you've arrived at that. Coastal Carolina gets demoted, sure. But they were FCS literally two years so what's the issue? The other two are in the same situation.

 

They wouldn't win the FCS if stronger programs in that region were favored. Those kids would choose to be backups at NC State, Clemson, UNC, and USC. They'd choose to go to ECU.

Who cares about the Ivy League? Their alumni have enough money to give out needs-based award to athletes.

The kids that need opportunities the most are not Ivy Leaguers anyway.

 

The issue is that you're hurting the sport by demoting programs which would lead to a lot of small school prospects committing to bigger programs.