Gil Lebreton: "Sue The Dr. Peppers Out Of Them"

[Cr1028]

I'm against any bye weeks in a college football playoff. It gives an advantage to the traditional powers based largely on history and not the present season. 8, 16, 32, whatever, but not 6 or 10.

[untjim1995]

5 hours ago, MeanGreen22 said:

I think 8 is the perfect number. All P5 champions and 3 at-larges. And maybe undefeated G5 conference champions get 1st priority at the 3 at-larges. 

I think this is the absolute perfect outcome for the G5s, but I doubt it ever happens. The Power Leagues know that the Big XII falling apart is inevitable and will open up four conference champions becoming the playoff teams each year. I actually think rankings will be moot as the regular season ends and teams make their conference championship games, with winners getting the playoff spots.

[mgfan]

16 hours ago, UNT90 said:

16 teams. Every conference champion and 6 at larges. 

This isn't rocket science.

This. I've been saying it for years. 

[KingDL1]

How many home games do we lose if there is a 16 game playoff?

I don't care much  about a playoff system anyway to me it really does not prove much in college football at the end day. 

Army beat Navy this year, to me Navy is still better team by a long shot. An extended playoff system won't ever change arguments like this. 

On any given day and such.

[Cr1028]

6 hours ago, KingDL1 said:

How many home games do we lose if there is a 16 game playoff?

I don't care much  about a playoff system anyway to me it really does not prove much in college football at the end day. 

Army beat Navy this year, to me Navy is still better team by a long shot. An extended playoff system won't ever change arguments like this. 

On any given day and such.

I'm guessing one, which is still one too many for me.

[UNT90]

13 hours ago, KingDL1 said:

How many home games do we lose if there is a 16 game playoff?

I don't care much  about a playoff system anyway to me it really does not prove much in college football at the end day. 

Army beat Navy this year, to me Navy is still better team by a long shot. An extended playoff system won't ever change arguments like this. 

On any given day and such.

Zero games lost.

For the national champion, that would mean a 16 game season. Several FBS teams played 14 this year. Both Alabama and Clemson will play 15 (12 game season + conference champ game + semi final + championship). 

For comparison, Youngstown St will be playing their 16th game this weekend when they compete in the FCS championship game. 

And those proposing a new G5 playoff would have G5s playing either 15 or 16 games.

There are no valid reasons not to have a 16 team playoff, other than the FBS doesn't want to split the pile in any way. Yet another reason a class action anti-trust suit makes so much sense.

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by UNT90

[aztecskin]

1 hour ago, UNT90 said:

There are no valid reasons not to have a 16 team playoff

The unpaid players playing 16 games. 

[UNT90]

5 minutes ago, aztecskin said:

The unpaid players playing 16 games. 

How does Youngstown State feel about that this year? 

With players playing with only partial scholarships? 

In a lesser college division?

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by UNT90

[FirefightnRick]

3 minutes ago, aztecskin said:

The unpaid players playing 16 games. 

In DIII the players actually pay to play 16 games.

 

Rick

[aztecskin]

6 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

How does Youngstown State feel about that this year? 

With players playing with only partial scholarships? 

In a lesser college division?

You and I have no idea how they feel about it. Nor does it matter, really. 

5 minutes ago, FirefightnRick said:

In DIII the players actually pay to play 16 games.

They pay to play football. Playing 16 games is part of the deal. It does not follow that it is a good thing. They have little or no say in the number of games played because they have no part in the negotiation of these things. This is, of course, what I was hinting at. 

In the NFL the players have a union that argues for their rights and negotiates compensation for their time. 

In college all the players are at the mercy of college presidents and athletic directors whom they have to trust have their best interests in mind. 

[Ryan Munthe]

19 minutes ago, FirefightnRick said:

In DIII the players actually pay to play 16 games.

 

Rick

I care about DIII as much as the P5 care about G5.

[UNT90]

18 minutes ago, aztecskin said:

You and I have no idea how they feel about it. Nor does it matter, really. 

They pay to play football. Playing 16 games is part of the deal. It does not follow that it is a good thing. They have little or no say in the number of games played because they have no part in the negotiation of these things. This is, of course, what I was hinting at. 

In the NFL the players have a union that argues for their rights and negotiates compensation for their time. 

In college all the players are at the mercy of college presidents and athletic directors whom they have to trust have their best interests in mind. 

So what does that have to do with this discussion?

Again, life is hard and rarely fair...

[aztecskin]

1 minute ago, UNT90 said:

So what does that have to do with this discussion?

Again, life is hard and rarely fair...

Um. It being a valid reason (IMO) to 'not have a 16 team playoff'. Was it not clear because I quoted you, then you responded, then I responded to that? Please advise. We appreciate feed back at aztecskin enterprises.

[UNT90]

3 minutes ago, aztecskin said:

Um. It being a valid reason (IMO) to 'not have a 16 team playoff'. Was it not clear because I quoted you, then you responded, then I responded to that? Please advise. We appreciate feed back at aztecskin enterprises.

Actually it isn't. 

If kids don't want to play 16 games, they don't have to. No one is making them play college football.

[FirefightnRick]

2 hours ago, UNT90 said:

Actually it isn't. 

If kids don't want to play 16 games, they don't have to. No one is making them play college football.

You mean no one holds a family member ransom until the player finishes each season?

 

Rick

[untjim1995]

I still don't see how the P5s lose any lawsuit with G5s or FCS. I'm not saying you can't try, nor am I saying any G5 should voluntarily stop playing at the highest level they can. But I'm just seeing a scenario where the power teams and their networks break away for good from the rest of us. And then any lawsuit is going to be looked at as free markets speaking for larger budgets playing each other. Any lawyer worth their salt is going to say that Wisconsin spending $28 million on football and playing in a conference with other schools with similar funding should be able to determine who they play against and that a team with $8 million in funding because of limited resources and smaller fan bases.

Id love for UNT to play in a conference with other power schools, but there hasn't been one time that another power league would consider inviting us, in part because of our woeful support and losing. Texas, A&M, Tech, and others built up what they have today, Why should they be compelled to be in a system that requires a team like ours to play in a playoff if they decide they don't want teams that are basically have-nots of our own efforts? I get the AAC and MWC having schools that are on par with several bad P5 teams and that they deserve a chance to earn a playoff spot, but I'm sorry, CUSA, SBC, and MAC schools don't have the budgets, following, or resources to make those higher up the food chain see how they bring any value to the system. And as much as I hate that, it's the reality that the money of these NFL-life programs carry with their fans and media.

[Ryan Munthe]

3 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

I still don't see how the P5s lose any lawsuit with G5s or FCS. I'm not saying you can't try, nor am I saying any G5 should voluntarily stop playing at the highest level they can. But I'm just seeing a scenario where the power teams and their networks break away for good from the rest of us. And then any lawsuit is going to be looked at as free markets speaking for larger budgets playing each other. Any lawyer worth their salt is going to say that Wisconsin spending $28 million on football and playing in a conference with other schools with similar funding should be able to determine who they play against and that a team with $8 million in funding because of limited resources and smaller fan bases.

Id love for UNT to play in a conference with other power schools, but there hasn't been one time that another power league would consider inviting us, in part because of our woeful support and losing. Texas, A&M, Tech, and others built up what they have today, Why should they be compelled to be in a system that requires a team like ours to play in a playoff if they decide they don't want teams that are basically have-nots of our own efforts? I get the AAC and MWC having schools that are on par with several bad P5 teams and that they deserve a chance to earn a playoff spot, but I'm sorry, CUSA, SBC, and MAC schools don't have the budgets, following, or resources to make those higher up the food chain see how they bring any value to the system. And as much as I hate that, it's the reality that the money of these NFL-life programs carry with their fans and media.

Yep yep yep. 90 will say that you don't have a law degree so should shut up though.

[UNT90]

22 minutes ago, Ryan Munthe said:

Yep yep yep. 90 will say that you don't have a law degree so should shut up though.

Never told you to "shut up," I simply challenged a terrible idea and worse, uneducated assumptions on your part.

[UNT90]

41 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

I still don't see how the P5s lose any lawsuit with G5s or FCS. I'm not saying you can't try, nor am I saying any G5 should voluntarily stop playing at the highest level they can. But I'm just seeing a scenario where the power teams and their networks break away for good from the rest of us. And then any lawsuit is going to be looked at as free markets speaking for larger budgets playing each other. Any lawyer worth their salt is going to say that Wisconsin spending $28 million on football and playing in a conference with other schools with similar funding should be able to determine who they play against and that a team with $8 million in funding because of limited resources and smaller fan bases.

Id love for UNT to play in a conference with other power schools, but there hasn't been one time that another power league would consider inviting us, in part because of our woeful support and losing. Texas, A&M, Tech, and others built up what they have today, Why should they be compelled to be in a system that requires a team like ours to play in a playoff if they decide they don't want teams that are basically have-nots of our own efforts? I get the AAC and MWC having schools that are on par with several bad P5 teams and that they deserve a chance to earn a playoff spot, but I'm sorry, CUSA, SBC, and MAC schools don't have the budgets, following, or resources to make those higher up the food chain see how they bring any value to the system. And as much as I hate that, it's the reality that the money of these NFL-life programs carry with their fans and media.

And when they break away from the NCAA, because that's who they will be breaking away from, they will then having incoming freshmen demanding contracts to get paid to play. They will become a professional league.

And they won't be able to pad win/loss with games against NCAA teams. They will have to play each other. 

Don't forget the lawsuit will still be ongoing and on the VERY good chance they lose, they will have to pay damages for prior bad conduct. Leaving the NCAA before the lawsuit was completed would give further evidence of competitive disadvantage to the G5. Keep in mind, the G5s would be suing the P5s AND the NCAA. The P5s wouldn't go anywhere until the suit was done. The possibility of the suit is what keeps them around and keeps them throwing the whore crumbs at the G5s. 

You say this is going to happen anyway, so why are you so against taking steps to try and prevent it? You going all Clayton Williams on us?

Edited January 6, 2017 by UNT90

[PlummMeanGreen]

On 1/4/2017 at 10:21 AM, UNT90 said:

I see fans of a G5 openly wanting G5s excluded from the playoff.

And you wonder why G5s are where they are. 

16 teams is the only fair system. It would be the equivalent of the NCAA basketball tournament. Start the tournament immediately after finals. If that had happened this year, the National Championship game would have been played on the weekend of 1/7, the exact same weekend it is played on this year.

Yes, it would require practice during finals week, but that already occurs with teams preparing for early bowl games.

The only reason not to do this is to keep the pile of money firmly in P5 hands.

A culture of losing begats many things & an inferiority complex ranks toward the top. 

It was the 1975 season that set the bell weather for this North Texas alum as to what direction this program should have been going the whole time and should still be to this day.   And I....won't......back.....down! (T. Petty)

GMG!

Edited January 6, 2017 by PlummMeanGreen

[Mike Jackson]

You don't need 16 teams you essentially get that by selecting the 4 highest ranked bowl game winners and playing the semi-finals games at the home stadiums of the 1 & 2 seeds the weekend after January 1st. I watched a great Rose Bowl with 2 good teams that meant nothing.  Think of the intrigue if Western Michigan had beaten Wisconsin or better yet if the Cotton Bowl was played the next day with the result of the Rose Bowl already known.  We are missing out on a great Bowl Season with a lot of interest that does not diminish the regular season.  It keeps the bowl games special and puts something big on the line for every P5 team entering a bowl game with less than 3 losses.  I don't like the 16 team playoff cause you end up with too many 3 loss team in the playoff.  Most "Blue Blood" P5 programs only have 3-5 games a year in which they don't enter a game as less than a 7 point favorite.   Look at each P5 conference and even in the bigger super conferences there are only 3 really good teams any given year (the champion from each division and best runner up in the better of the 2 division that year).  The best divisional runner up; Ohio State was exposed in the Fiesta Bowl.  Is Ohio State better that Western Michigan this year?  We will never know.  All we do know it that they held their own against the 8th rank Wisconsin Badgers.

G5 go undefeated win your bowl game and you are in.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Mike Jackson

[NT93]

I'll show my age here, but I kind of miss the days of several bowl games having an impact on the National Championship.  New Year's Day was awesome.

Maybe there could be a combo of the old bowls and the new playoff.  Select the 4 playoff teams AFTER the bowl games.  Talk about several bowls games having importance.

I'm only half-serious, but it's somewhat intriguing.

[UNT 90 Grad]

If there was a 16 team playoff that included the conference champions (plus a few others), the national champion would possibly have played in 17 games because of conference championships, correct?  Or do you propose the conference championships go away and all division winners go to the playoffs?  (I'm not sure if the numbers work out for that.)

[UNT90]

11 minutes ago, UNT 90 Grad said:

If there was a 16 team playoff that included the conference champions (plus a few others), the national champion would possibly have played in 17 games because of conference championships, correct?  Or do you propose the conference championships go away and all division winners go to the playoffs?  (I'm not sure if the numbers work out for that.)

No, you are correct. 2 teams would have to play 17 games. 4 teams would have to play 16.