College Football 2021 Offseason

[UMFan83]

4 is not good as implemented - a true plus one after the bowls would've been better, not that it would've slowed playoff creep - and 12 will probably be better. I'm just annoyed that the only sport that truly required season long greatness to win a title is going out the window and that there's essentially no way the current ruling class will ever miss a playoff again (they weren't anyway, but it was in play). They put the idea of single season-altering outcomes on life support when they went to 4 and 12 is pulling the plug.

 

I guess I don’t understand how demanding season long greatness is attractive with 120+ teams. There’s no way to balance schedules to ensure you can accurately determine who deserves to be considered the best team and for about 60% of the league no matter what you do you won’t win or even challenge for a title.

 

If you are great all season, you will make the playoffs with a bye and be in a great position to win a championship.

 

Also Alabama wouldnt have made the 12 team playoff in 2019 so it’s not guaranteed*

 

 

*I know..there’s no way the committee keeps Alabama out of the top 12 if that is the cut line for making the playoffs

[Andy]

I'm not telling you it makes sense. It's just my preference. I love college football in large part because very little about it makes any sense at all.

[UMFan83]

I'm not telling you it makes sense. It's just my preference. I love college football in large part because very little about it makes any sense at all.

 

Hmm ok. If you wanted to keep it like it used to be, all the G5 schools should form their own subdivision and play for a title. A lot of things bug me about the college football setup but the fact that over half the teams have no shot to win it grinds my gears the most

[Derwood]

I'm not telling you it makes sense. It's just my preference. I love college football in large part because very little about it makes any sense at all.

 

Hmm ok. If you wanted to keep it like it used to be, all the G5 schools should form their own subdivision and play for a title. A lot of things bug me about the college football setup but the fact that over half the teams have no shot to win it grinds my gears the most

 

Right, there is no way to fix the recruiting chasm between the Bama/OSU/Clemson's and everyone else, so the best way to "fix" the problem is to allow more schools to play for the title

[soccer10k]

I always liked the uniqueness of college football. I liked that, outside of that one LSU year, you couldn’t go 10-2 and win the title. I liked that it made every game mean something because you never know if one loss will knock you out.

 

Last year, where’s my incentive to watch the SEC, ACC and Big 12 title games knowing both teams are in the playoff regardless? Or the Big 10 where OSU is in regardless? Sure, Bama would be the 1 with a bye if they win and the 5 or 6 if they don’t. Same goes some late regular season games. But they’re not out of the playoff.

 

I don’t need to potentially see two SEC teams play three times in a season. I don’t need 4 or 5 SEC teams in the playoff every year. I don’t need to potentially see rematches of conference title games a week or two later.

 

I’ll watch the playoff games because they’re playoff games and I’m a sports fan. But how much of the regular season I watch and care about will drop dramatically. I love March Madness but I barely watch any regular season college hoops. What’s the point? That’s what college football will turn into because if you think they’re going to stop at 12 you’re crazy. They’ll see how much more money they’ll make with 12 than they made with 4 and it will be 16 or 24 in no time.

[UMFan83]

I always liked the uniqueness of college football. I liked that, outside of that one LSU year, you couldn’t go 10-2 and win the title. I liked that it made every game mean something because you never know if one loss will knock you out.

 

Last year, where’s my incentive to watch the SEC, ACC and Big 12 title games knowing both teams are in the playoff regardless? Or the Big 10 where OSU is in regardless? Sure, Bama would be the 1 with a bye if they win and the 5 or 6 if they don’t. Same goes some late regular season games. But they’re not out of the playoff.

 

I don’t need to potentially see two SEC teams play three times in a season. I don’t need 4 or 5 SEC teams in the playoff every year. I don’t need to potentially see rematches of conference title games a week or two later.

 

I’ll watch the playoff games because they’re playoff games and I’m a sports fan. But how much of the regular season I watch and care about will drop dramatically. I love March Madness but I barely watch any regular season college hoops. What’s the point? That’s what college football will turn into because if you think they’re going to stop at 12 you’re crazy. They’ll see how much more money they’ll make with 12 than they made with 4 and it will be 16 or 24 in no time.

 

I don’t understand how your argument for “most of the regular season will be meaningless” is to continue with a system where even more of the regular season is meaningless. I guess this is where my perspective just differs from yours. I watch a ton of regular season college basketball. Every game is a chance to better your seed or better your odds of getting in. There’s conference titles, rivalries, etc.

 

Like in February Illinois absolutely curbstomped Michigan in Ann Arbor. We’re illini fans like “oh that’s cool but i didn’t bother watching because we’re going to get a top 2 seed regardless?” The teams are not natural rivals, neither team needed to win the game as it only had somewhat of an effect on the conference title. But Michigan was being crowned by the media as the best team in the Big Ten and Illinois came in and destroyed them. Reading Twitter that night you’d think they won the title. That single game means 1/3 as much as a single college football game and yet people enjoyed it a lot.

 

For the college football fan, I’d imagine something like 30% more games will be meaningful than in the current setup. Sure Ohio State might cakewalk through every game but they haven’t lost a Big Ten game in the last 2 seasons so it’s not like there is this constant threat of them being upset. When Alabama plays games against their closest ranked SEC team,

It’s hyped up all week and then Bama wins 52-20 or something. Not really missing out on much there.

 

I think you’ll be surprised at how little this actually takes away from the excitement of the regular season.

[Andy]

I'm not telling you it makes sense. It's just my preference. I love college football in large part because very little about it makes any sense at all.

 

Hmm ok. If you wanted to keep it like it used to be, all the G5 schools should form their own subdivision and play for a title. A lot of things bug me about the college football setup but the fact that over half the teams have no shot to win it grinds my gears the most

Many of those teams that had no shot to win joined FBS after it became clear that no one outside the current Power 5 would have a chance. People act like they were tricked into joining. And yes, I know that before they literally had no chance and now they'll literally have one even though the end result is still no title ever, and I guess that's good, but I'm not going to pretend like I'm super excited about it.

 

It occurred to me yesterday that the 2008 MAC championship game disaster might have cost Ball State (then #12, though who knows how a committee would've ranked them) a playoff berth under the proposed system which seemed darkly amusing.

[soccer10k]

I don’t understand how your argument for “most of the regular season will be meaningless” is to continue with a system where even more of the regular season is meaningless. I guess this is where my perspective just differs from yours. I watch a ton of regular season college basketball. Every game is a chance to better your seed or better your odds of getting in. There’s conference titles, rivalries, etc.

 

I wouldn't say more of the regular season is meaningless, it's just a different portion that matters. Instead of competing for a top-4 spot, they're competing for a top-12 spot. The top 8ish teams will be locked in so the games largely won't matter as much to them. And personally, I'd prefer to reward perfection.

 

Like in February Illinois absolutely curbstomped Michigan in Ann Arbor. We’re illini fans like “oh that’s cool but i didn’t bother watching because we’re going to get a top 2 seed regardless?” The teams are not natural rivals, neither team needed to win the game as it only had somewhat of an effect on the conference title. But Michigan was being crowned by the media as the best team in the Big Ten and Illinois came in and destroyed them. Reading Twitter that night you’d think they won the title. That single game means 1/3 as much as a single college football game and yet people enjoyed it a lot.

 

Of course Illini fans didn't think that game didn't matter. They're a fan of the team. Just like it mattered to Michigan fans. I'm not a Michigan fan and I'm not an Illinois fan. I didn't watch a second of that game and if you had asked me to guess the result of that game just now, I couldn't have told you. So for the national audience, no, that game didn't matter at all as far as the National Title picture goes or even making the tournament. And considering Illinois still got a 1 seed, it didn't really matter at all when it came to seeding either.

 

For the college football fan, I’d imagine something like 30% more games will be meaningful than in the current setup. Sure Ohio State might cakewalk through every game but they haven’t lost a Big Ten game in the last 2 seasons so it’s not like there is this constant threat of them being upset. When Alabama plays games against their closest ranked SEC team,

It’s hyped up all week and then Bama wins 52-20 or something. Not really missing out on much there.

 

I think you’ll be surprised at how little this actually takes away from the excitement of the regular season.

 

30% is an exaggeration. Games between highly ranked teams won't matter anymore because they're both getting in. You're not adding many games that matter, you're just shifting which ones matter. The kick-6 years ago mattered because it ended Alabama's season. In this format they still get in (I think that was before the playoff and I think Bama would have been top-4 but whatever). All of a sudden, that 10-0 vs 9-1 matchup isn't the one that matters, it's 8-2 vs. 8-2. I get that having a bye on the line matters, but it doesn't matter as much as having your season ended.

 

5 of the last 10 SEC title games featured two teams in the top-6 (by the AP Poll). Those games no longer really matter. Florida finished 7th in the CFP rankings so that doesn't matter either. Go back a couple years further and you can add the two Bama-Florida games right when Saban started.

 

In the Big 10, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 wouldn't matter because both teams are getting in. 2014, 2018 and 2020 would only have mattered to OSU so they could get a bye, but their season isn't over if they lose.

 

We're coming at this from different perspectives, I think. You have a dog in the fight since you're a Michigan fan so you want your team to have a better chance of getting in. Completely understandable. I don't have an FBS team though. I like it because it's different. I like that the title games always feature two great teams. I like that there isn't an 8-4 team that wins it because they got hot for a month.

[Derwood]

SEC commissioner announces that games will not be rescheduled due to COVID. He says that teams will forfeit games instead.

 

It's a positive step, but I'm doubting that it holds up to the fan pressure.

 

Also just saw an interview with Paul Finebaum who says that the personal politics of several SEC coaches is keeping them (and their teams) from hitting the 80% vaccination threshold

[OleMissCub]

It's a positive step, but I'm doubting that it holds up to the fan pressure.

 

If it doesn’t hold up I don’t think fan pressure will have anything to do with it. It’ll be the TV networks pissed off about losing viewers. CBS won’t be too happy when they lose their 2:30 game of the week of Alabama vs Georgia two days before the game. They’ll have to show a rerun for 3 hours because all the other SEC games that week are locked into their ESPN broadcasts.

[NOLA]

SEC commissioner announces that games will not be rescheduled due to COVID. He says that teams will forfeit games instead.

 

It's a positive step, but I'm doubting that it holds up to the fan pressure.

 

Also just saw an interview with Paul Finebaum who says that the personal politics of several SEC coaches is keeping them (and their teams) from hitting the 80% vaccination threshold

It might not hold, but I’d expect it to drive up vaccinations in the short term. If only the school administrators were as bold about attendance.

 

And that is absolutely Dan Mullin. One of those obnoxious golf course rednecks who talks out his ass nonstop. The Gators are the only reason I’d ever cheer for LSU once a year.

[Andy]

Who's ready for more realignment?

 

[Old Style]

Texas in the SEC isn't going to happen.

[UMFan83]

Trying to determine if this helps or hurts them with the expanded playoff proposal.

 

On one hand, winning the Big 12 and getting the virtually guaranteed playoff spot that comes with it is a lot easier in the Big 12. But conversely, SEC teams will probably have 2-3 wild card teams per season by virtue of being the SEC. In the Big 12, you maybe will have 2 team a year making it instead of 3-4 in the SEC.

 

Obviously the biggest consideration above all and ultimately whats driving this is money , but just trying to think about it from a football standpoint.

[OleMissCub]

I could see the Power 5 eventually becoming 4 super conferences of 16 teams a piece.

 

Adding Texas and Oklahoma this is how I'd draw up the two divisions of the SEC that would have make geographic sense and give it the best balance. The West would still be a little stronger, but not egregiously so.

 

East

Alabama

Auburn

Florida

Georgia

Kentucky

South Carolina

Tennessee

Vandy

 

 

West

Arkansas

LSU

Mississippi State

Mizzou

Oklahoma

Ole Miss

TAMU

Texas

[Andy]

The SEC is essentially 2 different conferences that happen to compete under the same umbrella as it is. (Georgia STILL has not played at Texas A&M and this is year 10 of the current SEC alignment.) If they go to 16 and keep divisions, they really will just be separate conferences with a title game between them at the end of the schedule.

[UMFan83]

I could see the Power 5 eventually becoming 4 super conferences of 16 teams a piece.

 

Adding Texas and Oklahoma this is how I'd draw up the two divisions of the SEC that would have make geographic sense and give it the best balance. The West would still be a little stronger, but not egregiously so.

 

East

Alabama

Auburn

Florida

Georgia

Kentucky

South Carolina

Tennessee

Vandy

 

 

West

Arkansas

LSU

Mississippi State

Mizzou

Oklahoma

Ole Miss

TAMU

Texas

 

Lets divvy up the Big 12:

 

SEC:

Oklahoma

Texas

 

ACC:

West Virginia

 

Big Ten:

Kansas

Iowa State

 

Pac 12:

Baylor

Oklahoma State

Kansas State

Texas Tech

 

Tough luck TCU.

 

Obviously SEC is getting the best. Pac 12 gets an emerging basketball power and some decent football programs. Big Ten gets a blueblood basketball team but a historically awful football team and Iowa State which has its moments but certainly not going to add prestige to the football side of things (though this makes a great rivalry with Iowa intraconference which is cool). That said, after taking on Maryland and Rutgers I'm not sure they'd be thrilled to further dilute their football conference. West Virginia gets better regionally aligned and the ACC gets a solid program overall.

[Andy]

I know none of this matters in relation to money, but I've seen plenty of talk just in the last couple of days that Baylor to the Pac-12 and WVU to the ACC would be nonstarters. The Pac-12 takes pride in its secular identity and Baylor is a Baptist school, to say nothing of the various sports program-related horrors in their not distant past. (They probably would also not be thrilled at the academic profile of the other 3 schools mentioned.) West Virginia coveted an ACC invite when they were leaving the dying Big East and supposedly didn't get one because their academic reputation isn't good (some ACC fans still don't like that Louisville is in the league for the same reason).

 

If the ACC did invite WVU they'd probably want to add another team to get to 16. If we continue to assume the Notre Dame thing won't happen...UCF? Maybe?

[NOLA]

Texas in the SEC isn't going to happen.

What makes you say that? I have to think that money talks and they will end up bolting for the SEC. The Horns and OU had no comment when asked about the report.

[Old Style]

Texas in the SEC isn't going to happen.

What makes you say that? I have to think that money talks and they will end up bolting for the SEC. The Horns and OU had no comment when asked about the report.

I have no doubt that they want in but unless we go to 30-40 team super-conferences they aren't likely to get in. The SEC already has the Texas footprint with A&M so adding Texas doesn't add a whole lot of monetary value. And it's been an unwritten rule for a while now not to add another school from a state where there's already a member. Florida has shot down adding FSU in the past. A&M will fight tooth & nail to keep Texas out. When making major moves, the SEC likes to do things unanimously. I'm not delusional. If Texas had wanted to join a decade ago they would be in and A&M would have been left out but they were too arrogant for that.

[SouthSideRyan]

Obligatory: https://northsidebaseball.com/archive/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=56359&

[Andy]

Obligatory: https://northsidebaseball.com/archive/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=56359&

I miss when a topic like that could blow up for 110 pages.

[Old Style]

How Texas A&M can stop Texas from moving to the SEC

 

Any additions to the conference require a three-quarters vote (11 out of 14) of current SEC members, meaning the Aggies just need to convince three other schools to go along with Operation Horns Down.

The Austin America-Statesman’s Kirk Bohls reports that both Texas A&M and Missouri are “a hard no.”

Arkansas would seem to be an easy target to start with since the Razorbacks know all about the struggles of having Texas try to run things in a conference from its Southwest Conference days.

Vanderbilt could conceivably be against adding the University of Oklahoma, since it's not a member of the prestigious Association of American Universities. Vanderbilt already has some heartburn about being lumped with schools where Texas A&M, Florida and Missouri are the only other AAU members.

In addition to the academic side of it, Vandy has a history of abstaining from these votes. They did so for both A&M and Missouri.

[UMFan83]

Obligatory: https://northsidebaseball.com/archive/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=56359&

Obviously there is a long list of dumber things that he said in that thread, but lol at Bum listing Marquette as a possibility for Big Ten expansion on his OP.

[Andy]

How Texas A&M can stop Texas from moving to the SEC

 

Any additions to the conference require a three-quarters vote (11 out of 14) of current SEC members, meaning the Aggies just need to convince three other schools to go along with Operation Horns Down.

The Austin America-Statesman’s Kirk Bohls reports that both Texas A&M and Missouri are “a hard no.”

Arkansas would seem to be an easy target to start with since the Razorbacks know all about the struggles of having Texas try to run things in a conference from its Southwest Conference days.

Vanderbilt could conceivably be against adding the University of Oklahoma, since it's not a member of the prestigious Association of American Universities. Vanderbilt already has some heartburn about being lumped with schools where Texas A&M, Florida and Missouri are the only other AAU members.

In addition to the academic side of it, Vandy has a history of abstaining from these votes. They did so for both A&M and Missouri.

The Athletic writers have been pointing out that the SEC would prefer to present a united front. If A&M and Missouri really are this vehemently against bringing in UT and Oklahoma, the SEC likely wouldn't want to be seen as basically telling them to shut up and deal with it, even if by league bylaws they could.