Teams like Wisconsin, Nebraska, Penn state, LSU, Arky, Bama, UGA, Tenn, Texas, OU etc all think they should win the conference. But someone has to lose. And if they don’t win for long enough, will this “super conferences” start breaking apart?
Sure they can finish 3rd in their Division and still make the CFB playoffs. Do they get to hang banners for that? Will they be happy with continual
Participation trophies?
1 Like
I doubt it there is no where they could go and get the media rights money they get in the Big 2 conferences.
2 Likes
The only way that happens is if you can lump together all the rights together. They would gladly take more and not win than a paycut.
Who knows what the future holds, but at the rate we’re going none of this is sustainable - NIL, Portal, Massive coaching buyouts, ever-increasing TV contracts, etc…
It’s unsustainable because as you said, everyone wants to win and is looking for every source of direct capital (non-Private Equity) to do it. There’s no checks and balances because there’s no draft. The winners don’t get punished, and the losers KEEP getting punished unless a donor steps in (i.e. Texas Tech)
Eventually, direct capital will hit a ceiling, and PE will eventually have to step in at the rate we are going.
To answer you question → No. The Nebraskas and Auburns of the world are not going to relegate themselves for more chances at championships. They will continue hiring and firing coaches until they bring home a trophy, just as LSU is doing as we speak.
There are 12 playoff spots compared to 4 and 2 in the past.
There are talks about expanding to 16 playoff spots… or even 24.
The sport has NEVER been more interesting, more inclusive, more accessible and with more parity.
Think about it conceptually…only TWO schools made the playoffs for the majority of the sport…now TWELVE programs are part of that party to prove they can win it on the field.
The sport has never been healthier!
The end of the BCS era was unwatchable to me and i didnt watch non UH games…why??
2 Likes
Seems like the first part of that sentence answers the last part.
Hasn’t that always been the case?
1 Like
For the majority of the sport, zero teams made the playoffs. “National Championships” weren’t a real thing before the 90s.
That’s false.
There have been national titles claimed throughout my life, and long before, going back many generations.
The AP poll has been existence since 1936, and the final #1 finished long regarded as national champion.
Same for the Coach’s poll.
National titles have been a thing for at least a century, with ND claiming several from the Knute Rockne era.
That said, yeah. A PLAYOFF is a relatively recent phenomenon.
@Cullen , as for the sport being “more inclusive,” come on now.
Look at last year’s final four.
All were large brand blue bloods.
That’s not inclusivity. That’s simply the rich getting richer.
As for the question of whether any P2 teams would leave the P2, the answer is no, unless another conference will pay as much as the P2., and that doesn’t seem likely in the foreseeable future.
Money talks.
“Claimed,” sure. But even now, the NCAA is unambiguous about the fact that they do not award a National Championship in DI-FBS Football. The AP did, as well as some other selectors that the NCAA recognizes, which is why there are a bunch of years with split national championships pre-BCS. It was generally well-understood that the “National Championship” didn’t carry a ton of weight.
The modern college football era for me starts with the implementation of the BCS in the 1990s.
At least it was the springboard to the CFP that we have now.
On the contrary, it always carried A LOT of weight, even in the era of sometimes split natties.
The only reason you don’t know is because you are too young to know and weren’t alive to experience it and know.
Anyone that was will tell you that you are wrong.
Mmm….
Maybe.
But even when the BCS started there wasn’t a playoff and there were still a few split natties.
1997 and 2003 are examples.
A playoff wasn’t held until 2014
Guess what? Those split natties and all natties still carried a lot of weight and we’re still a big deal. They were very much a thing, contrary to T-Moar’s incorrect statement to the contrary, going back at least a century.
Anyone who was following college football back in those days (obviously you and T-Moar were not) will tell you so.
You are both too young and poorly informed to know any better.
The fact that so many fan bases, including ours, are interested because there in a legit path to a post season is proof it is more inclusive.
In the 4 team or BCS era, the path to a National Championship would already have been shut down for 98% of the teams.
Now, we have way more interest in the last third or the regular season as there are TWELVE spots open for post season play
1 Like
Well, wake me up when someone other than a typical large brand blue blood makes the final four and then maybe I’ll agree.
Maybe UH could be the first.
We’ll see.
The last time a new team won their first national championship was Florida in 1996.
You are really basing your whole argument on ONE year of a 12 team playoff format?
Look how it’s energized previously dormant programs with little to chance in the previous setup.
A school like Texas Tech…or Vanderbilt are perfect examples!
Again, wake me up when either one makes the Final Four.
You want us to wake you up when Indiana makes the Final 4? They are anything but a blue blood in FB…
1 Like
He’s basing his whole sample size on only one full 12 team playoff but exactly…his hypothesis could be shattered in year two.
As of today, non- blue blood Indiana looks like the #1 squad in the country.
They have 3 50+ point victories already
If Indiana makes a Final Four then I’ll be more convinced.
But even then….
That’s a full shares B1G team with B1G resources.
Not exactly a “have not.”
Still though, that’s always been a bad football brand, so if they make the Final Four, then yeah, it’ll be a big deal.
We’ll see.
Definitely not seeing Tech (given their ASU loss) or Vandy as real title contenders.
We’ll see how Tech finishes.