A
Dan Wetzel's article on playoff reform for College Football
- Thread starter psuro
- Start date
The only thing he's right about is including all Power 5 conference champions in an 8 team playoff. You still keep the conference championship games. You play the first round two weeks before New Year's at the higher ranked team's field. An at-large team can not get a first round home game. The two semi-final games are played on New Year's Day with the final at least nine days later. Semi-finals and finals to be rotated among the major bowls, whatever they are these days. That's been my plan since the 70's, except I had a sixteen team playoff back then.
Yes, I remember the Eagles playing the Colts with King Hill as the Eagles' QB and Tom Matte, a RB, playing QB for the Colts. I'm pretty sure the Colts won.
While we are talking a football playoff, schools play other sports too. So if conferences were going to realign, do you really think that that decision would be made solely on football? If you based it only on football, that could mean kicking out a school like UNC or Duke. There is no way that is going to happen.
If you think there are P5 schools out there with a worse athletic department than Pitt, please provide evidence to back that up.
Pitt is 41
https://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-footb...football-conference-realignment-teams-schools
Yes, realignment would be based solely on football as it drives revenue
There's a lot of programs that would be cut before Pitt. Washington State, Kansas State, Wake Forest, Miss State, Iowa State, etc.
The list goes on and on
33rd in revenue--they add value and their market helps them
It's perfectly fine the way it is and the committee made it clear that nobody including the university presidents is in favor of expanding at this point.
So you say realignment would be based solely on football, which means powerhouse basketball schools like Duke would be out before Pitt... no way in hell. Then you contradict your own statement by adding that Pitt's market helps. But since PSU carries western PA, their market does NOT help Pitt.
Pitt is at the very bottom for "all sports success", so thank you for adding a link to prove my point. All the schools you list (Washington State, Kansas State, Wake Forest, Miss State, Iowa State) have a higher rank in "all sports success".
So I'll ask again "If you think there are P5 schools out there with a worse athletic department than Pitt, please provide evidence to back that up." I'll add that you please stop trying to move the goal posts and answer the question asked.
When did I say Duke would be out? Who said realignment for football even alters conferences for other sports? I sure as hell never did.
This has nothing to do with "all sport success". This is about money. 100% about money. If it wasn't Boise State would have been in a conference long ago.
MONEY--do you somehow not comprehend MONEY. Have you ever once heard of a team being added to a conference due to "all sport success"? We all know why expansion happens(ed). The Pittsburgh market absolutely does help them just like the NYC market helps Rutgers. TV sets.
Where did I say that you said "Duke would be out". I simply pointed out they would be out before Pitt in a realignment based solely on football. I see you are trying to backpedal your logic now. I brought up realignment of conferences in post #30, you replied in post #33. Please read more carefully before responding in the future.
This (what we are discussing, athletic programs worse than Pitt) has everything to do with "all sport success". MONEY--do you somehow not comprehend MONEY. More sports than just football make money, have you ever heard of basketball? We are not talking about adding a school to a conference, we are talking about picking one to removed... based on athletic department success. Please stop trying to move the goal posts. Maybe you should go take a look at the Learfield Director's cup standings.
If Pitt's market helps them "just like" the NYC market helps Rutgers... then why is Rutgers in the B10, and Pitt was never really considered? Spoiler Alert... it's because you're wrong.
So I'll ask again "If you think there are P5 schools out there with a worse athletic department than Pitt, please provide evidence to back that up." I'll add that you please stop trying to move the goal posts and answer the question asked. Since you seem so hell bent on having some other off topic discussion, go have it with someone else.
Pitt doesn't add TV sets to the Big Ten. They do for the ACC.
I understand your bias against Pitt is blinding you here. Hatred is hard to get passed. If we get 4 super conferences you can bet Pitt would be included. Iowa State or Washington State is most likely to be left out. Maybe K-State
You said "The Pittsburgh market absolutely does help them just like the NYC market helps Rutgers. TV sets." Please tell me how adding the Pittsburgh market is "just like" adding the NYC market? Pittsburgh is a fraction of the size of NYC, and Pitt can't even draw there.
I'm a Pitt alum, I don't hate Pitt. I've said that multiple times on this board. So you can throw out that attempt at distraction. I've already pointed out why Iowa State, Kansas State, and Washington State are better choices than Pitt. Aren't you paying attention? All you've provided is your opinion. You are wasting my time until you provide something to back up your opinion. I realize your ignorance is blinding you here. Ignorance is hard to get passed (or past even).
So I'll ask again "If you think there are P5 schools out there with a worse athletic department than Pitt, please provide evidence (not just your feelings) to back that up."
Adding any size market (look at Pitt) adds to a conference that isn't already in that city. I'm not saying Pittsburgh is on par with NYC. It's much large than Manhattan (KS), Ames (IA) & Pullman (WA)
There's absolutely no chance any of those three schools would get in over Pitt and that article screams why
You keep talking about "the athletic departments" I keep telling you that's irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. Pitt may have the worst athletic department but they're going to be in over several other schools for many reasons. If you're a Pitt grad you should comprehend this simple concept.
Again Pitt was 33rd in revenue--that's top half. That's what will driver this. $
You said "Just like", now you back pedal. I provided factual reasons why they have a better athletic department than Pitt. You provided an out of date article that draws no conclusions. The question at hand is about athletic departments, no matter how much you want to change the topic, everything else you bring up is irrelevant distraction. If it was all about football, the B10 would have added football power houses such as Oklahoma. Why are you still going on about markets if it it all about football?
I said Pitt alum, not grad. PLEASE read for comprehension in the future.
Never backpedaled--I'm consistent. The question at hand has never been better athletic department (just your stupid question that was irrelevant to your post) as that has NEVER EVER mattered with expansion.
You keep talking about the athletic program--which is irrelevant and shows you have no clue what you're talking about
Do you think the Big Ten didn't want to add Oklahoma and/or Texas?
To dumb things down for you as that's clearly necessary
This was my first comment to you
"Close (aside from the Pitt thing--teams would be kicked out before them)"
This was your response which remain irrelevant
"Which P5 school has a worse athletic program than Pitt?"
This was my comment which you still lack the intelligence to comprehend
"Well it is strictly football so there's a few but it's actually about profitability so they wouldn't be last"
We're discussing altering the landscape of college football if that happens it wouldn't include all sports. We aren't going to have super conferences across the board they would be football only as I keep trying to explain to you. When building conferences it is solely about money.
The conference that would disband is the Big XII which means the teams in every other conference (if they remain) would be safe. Goodbye Iowa State/Kansas State. If everything blew up (in a perfect world) Washington State is the easy team to cut.
The fact you actually believe that Pitt would be the first school cut is pure stupidity and shows a complete lack of understanding how anything in life works let alone college athletics
Now you've turned to personal insults... the first sign of losing an internet argument. Just a tip, it's not a great idea to insult someone's intelligence when you are constantly making basic grammar and punctuation errors. Especially when you've continually shown an inability to read for comprehension. You keep going to great lengths to move the goal post. So I'll ask again "If you think there are P5 schools out there with a worse athletic department than Pitt, please provide evidence (not just your feelings) to back that up."
So you think that there would be super conferences for football only, despite history showing that conferences expanded and took teams that were terrible in football because they had other desirable qualities, and these new teams competed in all sports. Because you think it would be so had for a 14 team conference to add two more teams? Then you contradict yourself and say it's only about money. I guess you remembered that other sports generate revenue too? You are all over the place.
I never said anything would happen. I proposed a hypothetical realignment, and chose which team I would exclude based on them having the worst P5 athletic department. You've hilariously been arguing for pages that my opinion on my hypothetical realignment is wrong, although you can't seem to back that up. Don’t you see how absurd that is? Regardless... Dance Puppet!
I guess that's easier than supporting your own argument. On the bright side, the shorter you post is the less chance you have of making a mistake!
