Toggle sidebar

Fraidycats. Make a decision!

Reply
C

Cuyahoga Falls Eers_rivals

Freshman
May 29, 2001
20,973
78
0
College Football Playoff leaders are looking like the politicians in the Senate and Congress who move slower than a snail crawling backward.

The 10 FBS commissioners “didn’t even get close to unanimity,” Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said.

The camps are divided into 4, 8 or 12 teams. I think 4, 8 or 16 makes more sense. At least give 8 a try. Only one more game. 12 during regular season plus conference title game anyway already.

And I proposed weeks ago a 64-team playoff for the final 6 weeks of the season, with all 64 teams playing every week, and settling 1 through 64 on the field.

It worked for March Madness. What not Autumn Insanity?

And it would leave 6 weeks before the playoffs begin to play annual rivals.
 
O

op2

All-Conference
Mar 16, 2014
11,648
1,249
103
Twenty years ago there were 12 weeks before a (then non-existent) playoff, those being 11 games and a bye week. Now there are 14 (12 games, conference title games and a bye week).

The conference title games waste a week without reducing the field. They ought to get rid of the conference title games and use that week for the first round of the playoffs.
 
C

Cuyahoga Falls Eers_rivals

Freshman
May 29, 2001
20,973
78
0
Op2 said:
Twenty years ago there were 12 weeks before a (then non-existent) playoff, those being 11 games and a bye week. Now there are 14 (12 games, conference title games and a bye week).

The conference title games waste a week without reducing the field. They ought to get rid of the conference title games and use that week for the first round of the playoffs.
Click to expand...

I COULD GO ALONG WITH YOUR BAN THE TITLE GAMES. THE PROBLEM IS THAT CONFERENCES, OTHER THAN THE BIG 12, HAVE MORE THAN 10 TEAMS SO HAVE TO HAVE DIVISIONS WHICH MEANS THEY CAN'T DECIDE THE TITLE ACCURATELY BECAUSE WHO YOU DIDN'T PLAY OFTEN IS MORE CRITICAL THAN WHO YOU DID PLAY. HELL, BIG 10 HAS HAD ITS #4 TEAM PLAYING IN THE CONFERENCE TITLE GAMES BECAUSE IT DID NOT PLAY #1, #2 AND #3. EMBARRASSING.
 
T

tOSUaluminWVa

Redshirt
Jul 20, 2009
11,771
21
38
Cuyahoga Falls Eers said:
I COULD GO ALONG WITH YOUR BAN THE TITLE GAMES. THE PROBLEM IS THAT CONFERENCES, OTHER THAN THE BIG 12, HAVE MORE THAN 10 TEAMS SO HAVE TO HAVE DIVISIONS WHICH MEANS THEY CAN'T DECIDE THE TITLE ACCURATELY BECAUSE WHO YOU DIDN'T PLAY OFTEN IS MORE CRITICAL THAN WHO YOU DID PLAY. HELL, BIG 10 HAS HAD ITS #4 TEAM PLAYING IN THE CONFERENCE TITLE GAMES BECAUSE IT DID NOT PLAY #1, #2 AND #3. EMBARRASSING.
Click to expand...
Don't be "jelly," Pops. Embarrassing is never winning a College Football Playoff game as a conference.
 
Top Bottom
Reply