This might be the dumbest argument of all time.
I don’t think it’s in the top 5 dumbest arguments.This might be the dumbest argument of all time.
The Media Partners have a real dilemma by knowing that if the best teams would be playing each other, the ratings would smash that of even the NBA, but it is too much of a grind and the records would be like the Broncos right now, and would the blue bloods accept .500 records.No, we are not. If you think we are, show the actual ratings where we are.
Now we're getting some where!I don’t think it’s in the top 5 dumbest arguments.
I don’t think it’s in the top 5 dumbest arguments.
Did you have your sense of humor surgically removed? Who takes a statement like, “You know it. I know it. The American people know it” completely seriously?Awesome, I'll take that as admitting your statement was bull****.
View attachment 79543
The fact this statement is coming from a lawyer really says something.This might be the dumbest argument of all time.
I think divisions solves #3 about as well a it can be solved.
A zipper setup with yearly division "realignment" would also solve the issue of chronically weak division like the B1G 10 had.
Basically, you pair teams off with a rival that they'll play every year, but always be in the opposite division. For the Big XII the pairs would look like BYU-Utah, Arizona-ASU, Cincy-WVa., etc. Take the higher finishing team in each pair to rank each pair, then alternate adding each team to a division. This year ASU would be #1, Arizona in the oppo division with #2 ISU, who I guess you pair with Okie Lite who is now in a division with ASU, on down the line.
Now you have two divisions of 8 teams, you play your 7 division mates, your zipper/rival partner, and the closest ranked opponent in the opposite division. This way you preserve the rivalry, you get a rematch of last year's CCG, something a lot closer to equally difficult schedules, and a round robin in the division to ensure that you at least have H2H results for the first tiebreaker.
The rub is getting everyone on board with who their "rival" is, After the obvious ones (KU/KSU, Ariz./ASU, UU/BYU, TCU/Baylor, Cincy/WVa) the other 6 are Okie Lite, ISU, CU, UCF, Houston, TexTech. Houston could pair with either UCF or Tech, any of the old Big8/Big XII pairings could work, UCF/CU could make a lot of sense.
I like my zipper scheduling idea from the CFP thread that I'm quoting here better, but they're very similar.The Big 12 standings at the end of the season was a cluster-F as we all know, so what could be done differently to make things work better and be more creative and exciting. How about this idea where we form two divisions each year (Not Fixed), formed by end of season standings using records and tiebreakers to mix it up, and then you play 7 games within your division to find the top TWO teams in each divisions and then cross play a semi and final, and also provide for end of year matching games for the other teams to get their 8th and 9th games.
View attachment 79479
Only if you actually think stars matter.This might be the dumbest argument of all time.
Fixed divisions sucked
I propose fluid and balanced divisions
Back of the neck?Where do you stand on women who **** 100 dudes at a time?
Back of the neck?
I don’t know, I thought that was your area of expertise.
So, basically creating a quasi semifinal round. I think it could work. Biggest challenge, I think, is what it does to season ticket packages - particularly if I paid for 7 home games and it ends up flexing to 6.Flex scheduling.
It'd be a conference semifinal in all but name, and ratings gold.
8 regular conference games.
Game 9 is 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 - at 1 and 2's respective stadiums.
The rest of the games are scheduled to balance biannual home/away and maximize the number of bowl eligible teams.
Teams that finish 3rd and 4th are guaranteed to host game 9 next year, unless they finish 3 or 4 again. Likewise 1st and 2nd must go on the road unless they finish first or second again.
Back of the neck?
I don’t know, I thought that was your area of expertise.
Rip out the visitor section and remake that corner to match the East side. Also allows them to create much needed office space etc for campus.
Make a smaller visitor section in the 2 whatever section in the south corner of the end zone. I would guess pricing on new corner end zone premium seats would easily offset whatever loss of capacity.
Bigger renovation needed is field house and the entire west side. Need to match the east side with a club level and suites
I would guess CU needs $700 million at a minimum to do it all. Construction costs are insane. A budget of $400 million turns into $550 from the time plans are complete to when crews show up on site to start work.
I hate that we give ourselves a competitive disadvantage at home by making it so the visitors dominate crowd noise in our north end zone.Yes!! I hate how the visitor section is right next to where the visiting team comes out. Make it smaller and farther away from their team.
So, basically creating a quasi semifinal round. I think it could work. Biggest challenge, I think, is what it does to season ticket packages - particularly if I paid for 7 home games and it ends up flexing to 6.
Hi, we'd like to guarantee there are no 0 nor 1 loss teams left in the conference, thus preventing any chance of having more than 1 playoff team, EVER.The Big 12 standings at the end of the season was a cluster-F as we all know, so what could be done differently to make things work better and be more creative and exciting. How about this idea where we form two divisions each year (Not Fixed), formed by end of season standings using records and tiebreakers to mix it up, and then you play 7 games within your division to find the top TWO teams in each divisions and then cross play a semi and final, and also provide for end of year matching games for the other teams to get their 8th and 9th games.
View attachment 79479
This is a good point. It would need to be all conferences doing this (plus all having 9 conference games...) for it to work.Hi, we'd like to guarantee there are no 0 nor 1 loss teams left in the conference, thus preventing any chance of having more than 1 playoff team, EVER.
Thanks, but no thanks.
If they go to two guaranteed CFP spots for the Big12, then this works just fine.Hi, we'd like to guarantee there are no 0 nor 1 loss teams left in the conference, thus preventing any chance of having more than 1 playoff team, EVER.
Thanks, but no thanks.
16 is 10 too manyIf they go to two guaranteed CFP spots for the Big12, then this works just fine.
I love the idea of a 16 team playoff, with the 5 top Conference Winners being guaranteed a seed from 1-8, and hosting a first round game
If there are better ranked teams than a few of the lower conferences, then there is room within the 8 top seeds.
Example: B1G10 winner is undefeated and gets the #1 seed, SEC Winner is also undefeated, but second ranked, then they get the #2 seed. But then, the Big12 Winner, ACC Winner, and MW Winners are below THREE very good SEC and B1G teams, then the Big12 gets the #6, ACC gets #7, and MW gets #8, but still hosts.
Then Reseed the Semifinals at bowl sites, and then have a championship.
The BYE's are bad for business and unfair in CFB16 is 10 too many
16 includes 10 teams that have no business winning a national championship.The BYE's are bad for business and unfair in CFB
16 takes the same amount of time
Tell that to the AFC South, that division sucks in the NFL, but they keep trying16 includes 10 teams that have no business winning a national championship.
If you can't win your conference, HTF are you supposed to be the best team in the country?
Colorado State, Utah State suing Mountain West Conference over exit fees
Colorado State, Utah State suing Mountain West Conference over exit fees
Mired in a realignment struggle for members, the Pac-12 and Mountain West are at the center of the latest conference realignment shakeup.sports.yahoo.com
The homeless man's TexasCSU football conference history:
Colorado Athletic Conference/Rocky Mountain Conference - eventually joined the future FBS schools in the Skyline Conference, leaving behind the smaller schools such as Mines, UNC, DU, and CC.
Skyline Conference - was initially shanked by Utah, BYU, Wyo, and UNM when those schools left the future FCS schools that had been brought in to round out the Skyline, but eventually joined the bigger schools in the WAC
WAC - eventually joined larger fish to found the MWC to escape smaller fish programs that had been brought in to round out the WAC
MWC - is leaving smaller fish that were brought in to round out the MWC and joining larger fish programs in the Pac-12.
Moral of the story is that if you're in a conference with CSU, watch your back.