Frankly, going bigger has made college football worse. And I don't see how going even bigger will make it better than it is today. The 4 team playoffs has really only benefited two football programs and to a lesser extent a third. With the clear exception of short term money boom I don't see how ND and/or Texas benefits the schools nor the conference. Back in 2001 Miami was a power and Va Tech was a strong program but where are they now. What good has Utah done since joining the PAC? What good has Nebraska done since joining the B10. Conference realignment and getting bigger has destroyed CFB. Just 5 years ago I felt the SEC was a 4-5 deep conference and now it's Bama and the 13 dwarfs. I feel powers are better off in small ponds. Bring back the SWC with Texas as its anchor, bring back the B8 with Oklahoma and Nebraska as the anchors, create an Eastern 10 with PSU and ND as the anchors. Texas is struggling in a meh B12 atm, what makes us think they'll be a contender in a 16 team ACC, B10, PAC or SEC. They're a brand yes, but one that's barely able to swim.

This season having Notre Dame as a full member was absolutely an asset to the ACC. Sure the same damn team won the conference championship game at the end but the Irish were definitely a legitimate threat to Clemson's dominance and defeated Clemson in conference play (yes it was without Trevor Lawrence but could anyone else in the ACC have done it?) Plus the two most watched games in college football before the bowls were the two Notre Dame/Clemson games. Last season, the ACC didn't have any conference games in the top 40 and if you throw out Notre Dame no non conference games in the top 20. I'm not saying expand to 16 just to expand or keep up with the Big 10 and/or SEC if they do but of course if the ACC can have Notre Dame as a full member it would be great.

(12-31-2020 02:48 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Frankly, going bigger has made college football worse. And I don't see how going even bigger will make it better than it is today. The 4 team playoffs has really only benefited two football programs and to a lesser extent a third...

I want to address the statement in bold. College football is recruiting, and when the playoff field is so small (4 out of 65 power teams), the best recruits understandably want to go where they'll realistically have a shot at playing on the big stage - and that's only a handful of teams. Expand the playoffs, and you expand the number of schools with a shot to make those playoffs. It won't fix it overnight, but it will change the dynamics of recruiting - and that's the lifeblood of college football.

(12-31-2020 08:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 02:48 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Frankly, going bigger has made college football worse. And I don't see how going even bigger will make it better than it is today. The 4 team playoffs has really only benefited two football programs and to a lesser extent a third...

I want to address the statement in bold. College football is recruiting, and when the playoff field is so small (4 out of 65 power teams), the best recruits understandably want to go where they'll realistically have a shot at playing on the big stage - and that's only a handful of teams. Expand the playoffs, and you expand the number of schools with a shot to make those playoffs. It won't fix it overnight, but it will change the dynamics of recruiting - and that's the lifeblood of college football.

I read Panther’s post here on the CR board and concur with him. At the same time I also agree with you about CFP expansion. I think both need to happen for the good or the sport. Right now there are 6-8 programs playing for all the marbles on any given year (half of whom are in the SEC). The rest of us are just playing for table scraps. Football has gotten so where anything west of Texas doesn’t even matter as well as north and east of State College, PA.

CBSSports.com's take on the lack of competitiveness in college football:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...otherwise/

If playoff expansion is the key, then make it a 10 team playoff. Conference champions only.

(12-31-2020 11:14 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  If playoff expansion is the key, then make it a 10 team playoff. Conference champions only.

G5 need not apply.

(12-31-2020 09:48 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 08:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 02:48 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Frankly, going bigger has made college football worse. And I don't see how going even bigger will make it better than it is today. The 4 team playoffs has really only benefited two football programs and to a lesser extent a third...

I want to address the statement in bold. College football is recruiting, and when the playoff field is so small (4 out of 65 power teams), the best recruits understandably want to go where they'll realistically have a shot at playing on the big stage - and that's only a handful of teams. Expand the playoffs, and you expand the number of schools with a shot to make those playoffs. It won't fix it overnight, but it will change the dynamics of recruiting - and that's the lifeblood of college football.

I read Panther’s post here on the CR board and concur with him. At the same time I also agree with you about CFP expansion. I think both need to happen for the good or the sport. Right now there are 6-8 programs playing for all the marbles on any given year (half of whom are in the SEC). The rest of us are just playing for table scraps. Football has gotten so where anything west of Texas doesn’t even matter as well as north and east of State College, PA.

My realignment also includes a 16 team playoff for football and a 32 team playoff for hoops in the 7 conference/70 school idea. 15 playoff games = more money than 25 bowl games.

(12-31-2020 12:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 11:14 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  If playoff expansion is the key, then make it a 10 team playoff. Conference champions only.

G5 need not apply.

Can't win your conference, shouldn't be in the playoffs. Conference champs only. Boise State dead all that P5 / G5 mess. Want a true college football champion, then have a playoff with only conference champions.

expanding the playoff doesn't bother me. But it "fixes" NOTHING.

What are we trying to fix anyway? If the answer is lack of competition? That is driven by the REVENUE GAP.

If the answer is accessibility.....again, the REVENUE GAP will hinder this. Yes, you can force conference champs into the playoff but you will have all at large bids from the P2 and they will stomp low revenue conferences in the dirt with massive coaching/facitlity/recruiting advantages.


If college football refuses to address revenue gaps......NOTHING will change.

You correct about one thing ....West of Texas college Football really doesn’t exist..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(01-01-2021 07:24 AM)nole Wrote:  expanding the playoff doesn't bother me. But it "fixes" NOTHING.

What are we trying to fix anyway? If the answer is lack of competition? That is driven by the REVENUE GAP.

If the answer is accessibility.....again, the REVENUE GAP will hinder this. Yes, you can force conference champs into the playoff but you will have all at large bids from the P2 and they will stomp low revenue conferences in the dirt with massive coaching/facitlity/recruiting advantages.


If college football refuses to address revenue gaps......NOTHING will change.

This might be one of the dumbest things posted on this board.
How can Clemson accomplish what they have done when they are part of the ACC which has less media income than the SEC and the B1G teams?
The revenue gap is not holding the Tigers down, is it?

(01-01-2021 07:24 AM)nole Wrote:  expanding the playoff doesn't bother me. But it "fixes" NOTHING.

What are we trying to fix anyway? If the answer is lack of competition? That is driven by the REVENUE GAP.

If the answer is accessibility.....again, the REVENUE GAP will hinder this. Yes, you can force conference champs into the playoff but you will have all at large bids from the P2 and they will stomp low revenue conferences in the dirt with massive coaching/facitlity/recruiting advantages.


If college football refuses to address revenue gaps......NOTHING will change.

That’s a good point. The only thing that would address that would be for all the conference contracts to get ripped up and for a single CFB contract be written for equally distributed to the conferences in the original posts. There will always be some inequities due to ticket sales and donation, but the conference contracts would be a great start.

(01-01-2021 09:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-01-2021 07:24 AM)nole Wrote:  expanding the playoff doesn't bother me. But it "fixes" NOTHING.

What are we trying to fix anyway? If the answer is lack of competition? That is driven by the REVENUE GAP.

If the answer is accessibility.....again, the REVENUE GAP will hinder this. Yes, you can force conference champs into the playoff but you will have all at large bids from the P2 and they will stomp low revenue conferences in the dirt with massive coaching/facitlity/recruiting advantages.


If college football refuses to address revenue gaps......NOTHING will change.

This might be one of the dumbest things posted on this board.
How can Clemson accomplish what they have done when they are part of the ACC which has less media income than the SEC and the B1G teams?
The revenue gap is not holding the Tigers down, is it?

You think a $20 million revenue gap means nothing?

Clemson caught lightening in a bottle and have been smart. Much like FSU, there fantastic run will be over....then you will see if a revenue gap makes a difference.

But the fact someone has to be convinced that such a revenue gap means nothing.....that is the dumbest thing posted on this board.

(01-01-2021 01:24 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-01-2021 09:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-01-2021 07:24 AM)nole Wrote:  expanding the playoff doesn't bother me. But it "fixes" NOTHING.

What are we trying to fix anyway? If the answer is lack of competition? That is driven by the REVENUE GAP.

If the answer is accessibility.....again, the REVENUE GAP will hinder this. Yes, you can force conference champs into the playoff but you will have all at large bids from the P2 and they will stomp low revenue conferences in the dirt with massive coaching/facitlity/recruiting advantages.


If college football refuses to address revenue gaps......NOTHING will change.

This might be one of the dumbest things posted on this board.
How can Clemson accomplish what they have done when they are part of the ACC which has less media income than the SEC and the B1G teams?
The revenue gap is not holding the Tigers down, is it?

You think a $20 million revenue gap means nothing?

Clemson caught lightening in a bottle and have been smart. Much like FSU, there fantastic run will be over....then you will see if a revenue gap makes a difference.

But the fact someone has to be convinced that such a revenue gap means nothing.....that is the dumbest thing posted on this board.

Nole is not wrong. Clemson got where they are now during a period in which the ACC was even with the SEC in terms of TV revenue. That was the case as recently as 4 years ago (in fact, one year - 2015 or 16 IIRC - the ACC actually paid out a little more than the SEC). Money makes a difference, but performance lags money by several years, so when you talk about the impact of financial gaps you have to adjust for the time lag.

How many national championships has the B1G won since their launch to first place in the TV arms race?

Throw in basketball too....

(01-04-2021 02:47 PM)YouPeople Wrote:  How many national championships has the B1G won since their launch to first place in the TV arms race?

Throw in basketball too....

That could be changing soon.

Money isn't the end all as schools waste a ton on stupid sh!t...but the ACC will be at a huge disadvantage for the foreseeable future. Maybe we can make up $3-5M as the ACC Network matures.