Expectations

jflores

Offensive Coordinator
Feb 3, 2004
8,661
4,132
113
So who are they? The rule or the exception?


I wasn't talking about conference championships, I was talking about winning more than 3 games a year for a change and perhaps beating a good team. or two along the way on occasion. It seems now, all of a sudden, winning has all sorts of barriers including a conference that is too big. In the Big 12 you won your division and played for the title, what is different in the B1G? Right now, like it or not, as per our record, we are bottom feeders, a winning record would be a solid change. All of the variables of the portal, NIL, facilities, etc. matter not, everyone is playing with the same deck of cards are they not? Seriously, everyone talks so highly of the Nebraska brand, name recognition, the B1G money and the draw but so far that hasn't translated into anything and if they aren't careful, over time that draw will diminish. Apathy has already set in. How far behind is total despair unless something major changes with the record, this has to be the year. Contracts were not renegotiated to win 3 games as the new norm.
To be clear, I don't think NU fans expectation are 3 wins. Not the new norm. Its probably not even the bowl qualification of 6-7 wins. I would say if you polled most people it would be 8-9 wins over the long term.

For $100 million a year and some effort we should be able to achieve that. No one really cared for Riley and he at least won 9 games once. Frost has been something of a huge surprise, in that no one on their worst day expected him to have the worst records in a half century even if he wasn't "the one". That doesn't mean there isn't a coach out there who can't get it done.

I would not agree that the variables don't matter. Depends on the level of football you wish to achieve. The higher the expectations, the more they matter, because you are going to require a coach with the requisite talents to master all those variables and make them non-factors.

If NU is happy winning 5-6 games, collecting $100 million and going home, you can have a coach who isn't really capable of juggling those factors that well. Tons of potential hires. If NU wants to go toe to toe with Day or Saban, the number of guys who can master the variables with that skill ceiling is extremely small, and we are just one of the potential suitors for those handful of guys.

In terms of conference size and impact winning, its really just a statistical thing in some manner. In the Big 8 we really only had to worry about OU and we more or less split most of the Big 8 titles with them. In the B1G of previous, you had half dozen or so teams who were capable of contending for the B1G in a given year depending on how experienced they were and which teams might have some tough breaks with injuries and what not.

Adding more quality or potential quality teams in the West coast schools with fertile recruiting grounds, that's not exactly like adding a bunch of Big 8 caliber ISU's and further dilutes your chances of just being so good no one else is capable of beating you routinely.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: huskerfan66

jflores

Offensive Coordinator
Feb 3, 2004
8,661
4,132
113
Exactly. I'm tired of all the excuses. We're losing because of Texas. We're losing because of being in a cold climate. We're losing because of a poor recruiting area. We're losing because of the Big Ten. We're losing because of COVID. Next it be we're losing because of MEGA-conferences. Boo hoo. Poor Nebraska. If only insert excuse here. Everyone had to deal with COVID. Everyone.

NU has to recruit nationally to be relevant. Grabbing portal guys will not make up for poor recruiting. It's only a sign of how poorly our staff has done in recruiting. We will be getting the leftovers and still be stuck on the outside looking in. Can it elevate us to .500 or *gasp* a winning record? Yay... 7 wins. Let's get Scott Frost an extension. Maybe he can get the portal award.

The definition of relevant is about to be expanded though. In the pre-BCS days, things were largely subjective. Teams played regular season schedules and handed out conference trophies. We applied the eyeball test the whole season and ranked them according to what we thought. Then we let a bunch of bids take place for post season play where the best teams weren't always matched up. Then we had to do a bunch more eyeball tests and votes to come to some conclusion of who we all thought was the best.

Adding BCS games made it a bit less subjective. Adding the minimal playoff a bit less subjective. If we really end up with a "big" playoff of something like 16 teams, that's 40% of CFB teams with post season NC chances for not having done anything particularly special. And really, for most of the season, probably something like 2/3 of CFB teams will have chances at the playoff spots until mathematical certainties come into play late in the season. That's a whole heap bigger percentage of teams than are "relevant" now, which is basically the handful of teams who might have a punchers chance against Saban or Day.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: huskerfan66

bigboxes

Nebraska Legend
Sep 4, 2004
28,367
16,342
113
Arlington, TX
The definition of relevant is about to be expanded though. In the pre-BCS days, things were largely subjective. Teams played regular season schedules and handed out conference trophies. We applied the eyeball test the whole season and ranked them according to what we thought. Then we let a bunch of bids take place for post season play where the best teams weren't always matched up. Then we had to do a bunch more eyeball tests and votes to come to some conclusion of who we all thought was the best.

Adding BCS games made it a bit less subjective. Adding the minimal playoff a bit less subjective. If we really end up with a "big" playoff of something like 16 teams, that's 40% of CFB teams with post season NC chances for not having done anything particularly special. And really, for most of the season, probably something like 2/3 of CFB teams will have chances at the playoff spots until mathematical certainties come into play late in the season. That's a whole heap bigger percentage of teams than are "relevant" now, which is basically the handful of teams who might have a punchers chance against Saban or Day.
We won't make this mythical 16 team playoff winning only .500, let alone 3-4 games a year. And just making a 16 team playoff won't mean that the 16th best team will beat Saban or Day or whatever coach that can ascend to that level in the future.
 

jflores

Offensive Coordinator
Feb 3, 2004
8,661
4,132
113
We won't make this mythical 16 team playoff winning only .500, let alone 3-4 games a year. And just making a 16 team playoff won't mean that the 16th best team will beat Saban or Day or whatever coach can ascend to that level in the future.

I don't know why people are fixated on the fact that we suck now. If Frost continues to suck he'll be fired and the merry go round will go on. Me personally, I'm talking generically about the future landscape, if only because it should be wildly obvious that in our current state we're not going to be considered relevant in any paradigm.
 
Last edited:

jflores

Offensive Coordinator
Feb 3, 2004
8,661
4,132
113
We won't make this mythical 16 team playoff winning only .500, let alone 3-4 games a year. And just making a 16 team playoff won't mean that the 16th best team will beat Saban or Day or whatever coach that can ascend to that level in the future.

Correct, the 16th will probably almost never win. Heck, the 5th team will almost never win. Yet probably the most debated topic in CFB year in year out, is the team that didn't make the CFP cut.

If March Madness is any indication, even though 90% of the football bracket will have no real chance to survive a playoff run against Bama, people will still intensely care about who is seeded, who is not seeded, and where people were seeded. (the who might be a tad less in CFB, if we pick "division" winners to make up the 16).
 
  • Like
Reactions: BleedRed78

redwine65

Defensive Coordinator
Jun 23, 2010
7,834
5,334
113
Exactly. I'm tired of all the excuses. We're losing because of Texas. We're losing because of being in a cold climate. We're losing because of a poor recruiting area. We're losing because of the Big Ten. We're losing because of COVID. Next it be we're losing because of MEGA-conferences. Boo hoo. Poor Nebraska. If only insert excuse here. Everyone had to deal with COVID. Everyone.

NU has to recruit nationally to be relevant. Grabbing portal guys will not make up for poor recruiting. It's only a sign of how poorly our staff has done in recruiting. We will be getting the leftovers and still be stuck on the outside looking in. Can it elevate us to .500 or *gasp* a winning record? Yay... 7 wins. Let's get Scott Frost an extension. Maybe he can get the portal award.
I agree, if you can't out recruit texas for the next joey montana, your gonna see martinez with a low rate of completions in the redzone...if your gonna be pass happy you have to recruit pass happy..been saying it going on 2 decades.
 

redwine65

Defensive Coordinator
Jun 23, 2010
7,834
5,334
113
Frost has never been involved with the defense, that is strictly Chinanders making.

Frost did not give up smaller tasks to keep an eye on the big picture, he was forced to by Trev Alberts.

It remains to be seen, if he actually keeps his nose out of the offense. I doubt it based on what we saw in the spring.

I conclude that Frost hasn't learned much of anything.

Also, look at what you wrote.. You are the one who brought up Dr. Tom, and then said its not fair that he was brought up two posts later?
frost hired the dc..frost learned...dt. tom as ad...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BleedRed78

bigboxes

Nebraska Legend
Sep 4, 2004
28,367
16,342
113
Arlington, TX
I don't know why people are fixated on the fact that we suck now. If Frost continues to suck he'll be fired and the merry go round will go on. Me personally, I'm talking generically about the future landscape, if only because it should be wildly obvious that in our current state we're not going to be considered relevant in any paradigm.
I hear you. I'm just saying that NU will just have to find it's own "Saban" and recruit to a level closer the dominant teams of today. Bama sucked before Saban. Osborne would still win today. It still pissing me off that Frost can't even get to .500 in four years.
 

rcnut223

Junior
Apr 22, 2004
1,529
798
113
The real problem is we have not been Serious about finding a coach with the experience and pedigree necessary to be successful , since Tom . Pelini, Callahan , Riley and now Frost. Would Alabama, Michigan , Ohio Stare have hired anyone of them ? If so , would they have kept them this long?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: huskerfan66

phoenix4nu

Recruiting Coordinator
May 10, 2009
6,922
9,754
113
The real problem is we have not bed. Serious about finding v a coach with the experience and pedigree necessary to be successful , since Tom . Pelini, Callahan , Riley and now Frost. Would Alabama, Michigan , Ohio Stare have hired anyone of them ? If so , would they have kept them this long?
They may have hired Frost following his undefeated year at UCF if they were looking for a coach then. But he would have been fired by now if his record there was the same as it was here.
 

Redmich

Sophomore
Jun 21, 2022
1,254
2,846
113
They may have hired Frost following his undefeated year at UCF if they were looking for a coach then. But he would have been fired by now if his record there was the same as it was here.
Rich rod was fired after three seasons - even though he improved and had a winning record and a bowl game in year 3

7 wins and a bowl in year 3 wasn't enough

Brady Hoke was fired after 4 years after winning just 3 conf games in years 3 and 4. He had winning records in 3 of his 4 years - had an 11-2 season with a sugar bowl win - but you can’t only win 3 conf games in back to back years at a place like Michigan and expect to keep your job

#bluebloodexpectations
 

TheWayITellEm

Sophomore
Oct 25, 2019
1,025
763
113
no. I don't think things will change much as far as the post season's concerned

and I definitely don't expect the B1G to buy its way into the national title game
The SEC went 5-8 in the Bowls (counting a forfeit as a loss). The Big Ten went 6-3.

And the SEC buys & bribes their way into making sure they get 2 teams into the Playoff. If you think the SEC doesn't buy & bribe on many things, you ought to have your head examined.
 

TruHusker

Assistant Head Coach
Sep 21, 2001
10,884
6,609
113
The SEC went 5-8 in the Bowls (counting a forfeit as a loss). The Big Ten went 6-3.

And the SEC buys & bribes their way into making sure they get 2 teams into the Playoff. If you think the SEC doesn't buy & bribe on many things, you ought to have your head examined.
So help me understand the logic. Clemson got in by winning or with "buy and bribe"? Are you also saying the SEC really isn't that good, the only reason they get teams in the playoffs is because of "buy and bribe"? So, if Nebraska just had a little more buy and bribe they could get in the playoffs? Did I get that all right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: king_kong_

TheWayITellEm

Sophomore
Oct 25, 2019
1,025
763
113
So help me understand the logic. Clemson got in by winning or with "buy and bribe"? Are you also saying the SEC really isn't that good, the only reason they get teams in the playoffs is because of "buy and bribe"? So, if Nebraska just had a little more buy and bribe they could get in the playoffs? Did I get that all right?
No, you didn't get it right.

I know I shouldn't respond to king_kong's trolling. But after he said that the Big Ten is trying to buy their way into the Championship Game....I responded that the SEC uses money (and manipulation - officiating, recruiting money & violations, etc.) to get their way too.
 

Walleye79

Sophomore
Mar 7, 2021
1,345
2,969
113
No, you didn't get it right.

I know I shouldn't respond to king_kong's trolling. But after he said that the Big Ten is trying to buy their way into the Championship Game....I responded that the SEC uses money (and manipulation - officiating, recruiting money & violations, etc.) to get their way too.
I mean if that's the case. SEC is much more mentally sharper than the Big. If they both use money and manipulation to get their way. The SEC wins big and the Big just doesn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: king_kong_

TheWayITellEm

Sophomore
Oct 25, 2019
1,025
763
113
I mean if that's the case. SEC is much more mentally sharper than the Big. If they both use money and manipulation to get their way. The SEC wins big and the Big just doesn't.
That's why we're working on ditching this stupid 4-team playoff format.
 

TheWayITellEm

Sophomore
Oct 25, 2019
1,025
763
113
Correct, the 16th will probably almost never win. Heck, the 5th team will almost never win. Yet probably the most debated topic in CFB year in year out, is the team that didn't make the CFP cut.

If March Madness is any indication, even though 90% of the football bracket will have no real chance to survive a playoff run against Bama, people will still intensely care about who is seeded, who is not seeded, and where people were seeded. (the who might be a tad less in CFB, if we pick "division" winners to make up the 16).
I highly disagree. I think it will be like basketball. Lower seeds will be very competitive.

Many want to crown the Champion and praise them as if there was never any doubt. It was like that when voting determined the winner too.
 

Redmich

Sophomore
Jun 21, 2022
1,254
2,846
113
I highly disagree. I think it will be like basketball. Lower seeds will be very competitive.

Many want to crown the Champion and praise them as if there was never any doubt. It was like that when voting determined the winner too.
The average margin of victory in the semifinal games of the college football playoffs is more than 3 TDs (22.1 points)

god help the 15 and 16 seeds playing the 1 and 2 seeds in an expanded playoff
 

TheWayITellEm

Sophomore
Oct 25, 2019
1,025
763
113
The average margin of victory in the semifinal games of the college football playoffs is more than 3 TDs (22.1 points)

god help the 15 and 16 seeds playing the 1 and 2 seeds in an expanded playoff
Well the 13 & 14 seeds should have a great chance to advance then.
 

king_kong_

Graduate Assistant
Nov 4, 2021
5,102
8,144
113
has anyone** ever doubted the validity of a national champion crowned by the 4-team playoff?

**our current head coach excepted
 

TruHusker

Assistant Head Coach
Sep 21, 2001
10,884
6,609
113
No, you didn't get it right.

I know I shouldn't respond to king_kong's trolling. But after he said that the Big Ten is trying to buy their way into the Championship Game....I responded that the SEC uses money (and manipulation - officiating, recruiting money & violations, etc.) to get their way too.
Well, you didn't get it right. If you are replying to a post, they have a magic button for that. Otherwise, it's a statement and fair game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: king_kong_

NikkiSixx

Offensive Coordinator
Sep 14, 2013
8,375
8,060
113
The SEC went 5-8 in the Bowls (counting a forfeit as a loss). The Big Ten went 6-3.

And the SEC buys & bribes their way into making sure they get 2 teams into the Playoff. If you think the SEC doesn't buy & bribe on many things, you ought to have your head examined.
Life isn't fair.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idealism embedded in your thinking, but unfortunately the world doesn't really work like this.

It's not about being fair, it's about money.. and winning, which just brings in more money.

If people were to just argue that expanding the playoffs would bring in more money, I think it would get more traction, faster.. but you have to show that it brings in more money than the tired old bowl game system that seems pretty washed up as it stands.
 

bigboxes

Nebraska Legend
Sep 4, 2004
28,367
16,342
113
Arlington, TX
has anyone** ever doubted the validity of a national champion crowned by the 4-team playoff?

**our current head coach excepted
Meh. I liked the old bowl system prior to the BCS. However, now that tradition has been destroyed beyond recognition, four teams is not a large enough pool to give a fair competition. Yes, I believe that the champion will most likely come from the top four ranked/seeded teams. However, I think that 8 would be the best numbers to ensure that there is a fair representative of the top teams in a playoff. I just don't like getting Notre Dame a easy entrance into the playoffs each year. They need to join a conference, not just be affiliated with it. The same rules should apply to every team. No favoritism for any one school. With four teams, your going to constantly get the same schools on top. Top recruits will want to go to the schools that are at that level, further biasing the imbalance. We'll have a few surprises each year, but the 8th seed most likely will not oust the 1st seed, let alone the 16th seed in a mythical 16-team playoff.
 

TruHusker

Assistant Head Coach
Sep 21, 2001
10,884
6,609
113
Meh. I liked the old bowl system prior to the BCS. However, now that tradition has been destroyed beyond recognition, four teams is not a large enough pool to give a fair competition. Yes, I believe that the champion will most likely come from the top four ranked/seeded teams. However, I think that 8 would be the best numbers to ensure that there is a fair representative of the top teams in a playoff. I just don't like getting Notre Dame a easy entrance into the playoffs each year. They need to join a conference, not just be affiliated with it. The same rules should apply to every team. No favoritism for any one school. With four teams, your going to constantly get the same schools on top. Top recruits will want to go to the schools that are at that level, further biasing the imbalance. We'll have a few surprises each year, but the 8th seed most likely will not oust the 1st seed, let alone the 16th seed in a mythical 16-team playoff.
I too like the bowl system but realize, in many ways, I am a dinosaur. From there, I part with you a bit. To date, four has been enough and that is sketchy after the top 2 most years. I suppose one could argue that increasing to eight gives some hope and bragging rights to those bottom 6 teams who will likely get it handed to them even with a huge payday and the usual once every 10 year upset. They can say, at least we got there and were "close." As far as Notre Dame, I could care less what they do. They have to find people to play them and if leagues get tie ups that may make things more difficult, who knows. If they play Fordham, Bethune Cookman, Northern Iowa and other similar high fliers then they won't get a sniff for the game and it won't help them get better. Let them kick themselves out in the cold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: king_kong_

king_kong_

Graduate Assistant
Nov 4, 2021
5,102
8,144
113
Meh. I liked the old bowl system prior to the BCS. However, now that tradition has been destroyed beyond recognition, four teams is not a large enough pool to give a fair competition. Yes, I believe that the champion will most likely come from the top four ranked/seeded teams. However, I think that 8 would be the best numbers to ensure that there is a fair representative of the top teams in a playoff. I just don't like getting Notre Dame a easy entrance into the playoffs each year. They need to join a conference, not just be affiliated with it. The same rules should apply to every team. No favoritism for any one school. With four teams, your going to constantly get the same schools on top. Top recruits will want to go to the schools that are at that level, further biasing the imbalance. We'll have a few surprises each year, but the 8th seed most likely will not oust the 1st seed, let alone the 16th seed in a mythical 16-team playoff.
I’m in favor of playoff expansion simply because more teams = more fun

that said we could’ve had a 200 team playoff last year and UGA still would’ve won, and you could probably say that about the lion’s share of champs since the CFP debuted
 
  • Like
Reactions: NikkiSixx

TruHusker

Assistant Head Coach
Sep 21, 2001
10,884
6,609
113
I’m in favor of playoff expansion simply because more teams = more fun

that said we could’ve had a 200 team playoff last year and UGA still would’ve won, and you could probably say that about the lion’s share of champs since the CFP debuted
I agree with the winners but what I have difficulty with is if teams aren't in the playoffs, they are in a bowl so they are playing a game. I guess there is more prestige thinking they have a chance to be the champions no matter how slim.
 

bigboxes

Nebraska Legend
Sep 4, 2004
28,367
16,342
113
Arlington, TX
I’m in favor of playoff expansion simply because more teams = more fun

that said we could’ve had a 200 team playoff last year and UGA still would’ve won, and you could probably say that about the lion’s share of champs since the CFP debuted
I just think that the pool is too small, even if the champion would most likely come from the top seeds. Four always leaves someone out that could make a case. If we create these new MEGA conferences of 20/24 teams, it's going to change things. Most people on this board will remember me predicting a paring down of the top teams to form an NFL Lite years ago. Once teams make the playoffs, they will rest their starters for the playoffs, just like the NFL. The regular season won't mean as much because you won't need to go undefeated or hope someone else loses just to get to the championship game. A larger playoff will mean an end to late season games always being important to the extent that they are today. I say bring it on! I'm tired of Alabama/Ohio State/Clemson etc.
 

TruHusker

Assistant Head Coach
Sep 21, 2001
10,884
6,609
113
I just think that the pool is too small, even if the champion would most likely come from the top seeds. Four always leaves someone out that could make a case. If we create these new MEGA conferences of 20/24 teams, it's going to change things. Most people on this board will remember me predicting a paring down of the top teams to form an NFL Lite years ago. Once teams make the playoffs, they will rest their starters for the playoffs, just like the NFL. The regular season won't mean as much because you won't need to go undefeated or hope someone else loses just to get to the championship game. A larger playoff will mean an end to late season games always being important to the extent that they are today. I say bring it on! I'm tired of Alabama/Ohio State/Clemson etc.
And no matter if it is 6, people will rally around someone who should have got in, it will always be that way. Why water it down. When you get slaughters like happened to Cincinnati, what's the point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: king_kong_

NikkiSixx

Offensive Coordinator
Sep 14, 2013
8,375
8,060
113
The thing about having more teams, is there is more opportunity for fraud, and that is excellent for the playoff ratings/stickiness of the whole experience..

Hear me out.. if the top 2-4 teams win it, every year, as expected, it's probably going to end up a big bust. This sort of thing never happens though. It would become much more like the NFL, where the opposite of what you expect to happen, happens.

Big money can be made with longshot odds.

Oh it would piss people off to no end, and but the amount of discussion around college football and getting in to the playoff would become huge, and then each game becomes super important, as does each call, non-call, dirty rotten trick, player dropping the ball, whatever it is.. it goes full on circus mode, just like NIL is doing.

I can see that actually being a lot of fun for gamblers and fans, who will bitch and moan endlessly, but it makes college football relevant and what everyone would be talking about.

Right now, nobody cares about the bowl games, not even the fans. The most amount of care given to a bowl game recently from an NU standpoint is wether you won enough to get in, or chose not to participate.

I could see full retard mode college football being kinda fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheWayITellEm

bigboxes

Nebraska Legend
Sep 4, 2004
28,367
16,342
113
Arlington, TX
And no matter if it is 6, people will rally around someone who should have got in, it will always be that way. Why water it down. When you get slaughters like happened to Cincinnati, what's the point?
Legitimacy. Four is not enough for legitimacy. Eight and you have enough that someone who has a great year doesn't get left out because they are not part of the club. With two MEGA conferences, you can have four pods a piece. The winner of each pod makes the playoffs. That's eight teams. Playoffs. 20 teams? Pods of 5 teams. 24 teams? 6 teams. Notre Dame doesn't want to join? There's always a bowl game in their future.
 

TruHusker

Assistant Head Coach
Sep 21, 2001
10,884
6,609
113
Legitimacy. Four is not enough for legitimacy. Eight and you have enough that someone who has a great year doesn't get left out because they are not part of the club. With two MEGA conferences, you can have four pods a piece. The winner of each pod makes the playoffs. That's eight teams. Playoffs. 20 teams? Pods of 5 teams. 24 teams? 6 teams. Notre Dame doesn't want to join? There's always a bowl game in their future.
To me, simply adding more teams doesn't automatically make it legitimate. How strong of an argument can you make for teams that were left out since this started? How many of those really had a shot?

It would be great if we had 8 really good teams to put in a cage to fight it out. We don't have and until we do, we have games I could care less about and get bored with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: king_kong_

bigboxes

Nebraska Legend
Sep 4, 2004
28,367
16,342
113
Arlington, TX
To me, simply adding more teams doesn't automatically make it legitimate. How strong of an argument can you make for teams that were left out since this started? How many of those really had a shot?

It would be great if we had 8 really good teams to put in a cage to fight it out. We don't have and until we do, we have games I could care less about and get bored with.
I'm just saying that four teams isn't enough for a legitimate playoff. Even the top 2-4 teams would most likely win, I want 8. Then there are no outliers. Who knows what is going to happen. I can see them go to 16. I want 8 since they came up with a 4 team playoff.
 

TruHusker

Assistant Head Coach
Sep 21, 2001
10,884
6,609
113
I'm just saying that four teams isn't enough for a legitimate playoff. Even the top 2-4 teams would most likely win, I want 8. Then there are no outliers. Who knows what is going to happen. I can see them go to 16. I want 8 since they came up with a 4 team playoff.
So the argument isn't quality, it is winning, it isn't money it is a number - which number of teams seems to sooth the wild beasts in the country so there is more of a chance for their favorite team to get in the mix.

I am not sure 4 is ideal but no one, and I asked, could name teams who legitimately (there is that word again) got left out of the playoff in the past. If, indeed there were quality teams regularly staying home, then yes, but that has not happened, IMHO. So picking a number, no matter the quality of the teams, and saying that now makes it legitimate actually makes it more illegitimate to me. Like BB, they have 64 plus the play ins, different sport I understand, but why not just schedule every team in a huge bracket? Does 64 have less legitimacy than everyone? Where is that number, especailly from what we have seen in FB.

The cure, to me anyway, is to have some more teams playing better football that can compete with the top guys. The work arounds are always going to be non P5 conferences and teams who have a great year with the top dog falling off.
 

Redmich

Sophomore
Jun 21, 2022
1,254
2,846
113
So the argument isn't quality, it is winning, it isn't money it is a number - which number of teams seems to sooth the wild beasts in the country so there is more of a chance for their favorite team to get in the mix.

I am not sure 4 is ideal but no one, and I asked, could name teams who legitimately (there is that word again) got left out of the playoff in the past. If, indeed there were quality teams regularly staying home, then yes, but that has not happened, IMHO. So picking a number, no matter the quality of the teams, and saying that now makes it legitimate actually makes it more illegitimate to me. Like BB, they have 64 plus the play ins, different sport I understand, but why not just schedule every team in a huge bracket? Does 64 have less legitimacy than everyone? Where is that number, especailly from what we have seen in FB.

The cure, to me anyway, is to have some more teams playing better football that can compete with the top guys. The work arounds are always going to be non P5 conferences and teams who have a great year with the top dog falling off.
More teams in a playoff would be fun but there will be some very lopsided results. Last year in the final rankings wake forest finished 15th and Louisiana (not LSU) finished 16th

also need to find a way to keep conf championships relevant - if there are going to be huge conferences need to incorporate divisional and conf championship games into the playoff somehow.
 

rcnut223

Junior
Apr 22, 2004
1,529
798
113
has anyone** ever doubted the validity of a national champion crowned by the 4-team playoff?

**our current head coach excepted
No especially if Alabama, another SEC team of your choice and Clemson are guaranteed to be seeded.
 

TheWayITellEm

Sophomore
Oct 25, 2019
1,025
763
113
A real 16-team playoff will be like basketball. The 1-seed playing the 16-seed will be like a 1-seed playing a 4-seed in basketball. It will often times be competitive.
 

bigboxes

Nebraska Legend
Sep 4, 2004
28,367
16,342
113
Arlington, TX
So the argument isn't quality, it is winning, it isn't money it is a number - which number of teams seems to sooth the wild beasts in the country so there is more of a chance for their favorite team to get in the mix.

I am not sure 4 is ideal but no one, and I asked, could name teams who legitimately (there is that word again) got left out of the playoff in the past. If, indeed there were quality teams regularly staying home, then yes, but that has not happened, IMHO. So picking a number, no matter the quality of the teams, and saying that now makes it legitimate actually makes it more illegitimate to me. Like BB, they have 64 plus the play ins, different sport I understand, but why not just schedule every team in a huge bracket? Does 64 have less legitimacy than everyone? Where is that number, especailly from what we have seen in FB.

The cure, to me anyway, is to have some more teams playing better football that can compete with the top guys. The work arounds are always going to be non P5 conferences and teams who have a great year with the top dog falling off.
I'm saying (and keep saying) that 4 teams is not enough. You keep out legitimate contenders. I say limit it to 8, as 16 really just seems like a money grab. How many teams does FCS have on their playoffs?
 

king_kong_

Graduate Assistant
Nov 4, 2021
5,102
8,144
113
I'm saying (and keep saying) that 4 teams is not enough. You keep out legitimate contenders. I say limit it to 8, as 16 really just seems like a money grab. How many teams does FCS have on their playoffs?
24 teams in the FCS playoffs

10 conference champs (auto bids) and 14 at-large

top 8 are seeded and receive 1st round byes

2021-FCS-playoff-predictions-791x1024.jpg
 

Redmich

Sophomore
Jun 21, 2022
1,254
2,846
113
24 teams in the FCS playoffs

10 conference champs (auto bids) and 14 at-large

top 8 are seeded and receive 1st round byes

2021-FCS-playoff-predictions-791x1024.jpg
In a world with just 2-4 mega conferences how do you see the auto bids being determined?

divisional champs?
With a limited number of conferences need to really incentivize the conf champion - perhaps a double bye?
 

king_kong_

Graduate Assistant
Nov 4, 2021
5,102
8,144
113
In a world with just 2-4 mega conferences how do you see the auto bids being determined?

divisional champs?
With a limited number of conferences need to really incentivize the conf champion - perhaps a double bye?
good question

with 4 mega conferences, I suppose you could award those conference winners each a bye while expanding the overall playoff field to 12 teams
 
  • Like
Reactions: Redmich