So, little bro is a social climber.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
Just not very good at it.
Seriously. It's like they're climbing a treadmill. UA, ASU, Utah, and BYU have actually gotten somewhere.
Last edited:
Just give them another century!
The Big 12 just had a 4 way tie for 1st place in it's conference and none actually played each other in the regular season. The CCG matchup was determined by dumb tie breakers 3 and 4 levels deep. Also, not all conferences are created equally. Why does anyone believe only conference champs should be able to compete for a natty?
because that is a system that maintains importance of the regular season
and it would really stick it the SEC and B1G. Notre Dame too, for that matter.
The regular season is still very important and winning a conference gives that team an automatic advancement to the second round.
The fix is reseeding after each round like the NFL does.
66BUFF
FTW
Don't forget SMU and TCU
Interesting that someone directly involved in the whole thing shares my opinion
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
The regular season is very important right now. Conference champs get a chance at a bye, and better teams/ seasons get a chance at a home game in the first round.
It's fully upon ASU to see if conference champs continue getting byes. BSU is going to get ass-hammered by Penn State, which probably will result in a G5 team never getting another bye. If Texas does the same to ASU, we could see all conference winner byes go by the wayside.
Having said that, are we sure byes are actually that important anyway? I mean, yes, it's one less game against a good team, but if you're a team in the running for a bye, the worst you're going to get is a home game, then you get a week and a half off. I could see it working in the favor of the team that didn't have a bye, as they go into a neutral site game having played a game in the last 3 1/2 weeks, while the bye team risks being rusty to start the game.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
1. No, it's not "fully upon ASU" and no one thinks so. 2. People said the same thing about Boise when they played Oregon. 3. No, a single game in the first-ever 12 team CFP is not going to suddenly change everything. 4. Yes, playing one fewer game is important, as that's one less chance for wear and tear, injury, or upset loss, and to imagine it's not important is, well, just monumentally stupid.
I don't think this year's results will do much to move the needle on anything.
OTOH, I agree with your second paragraph. I do think that the net costs/benefits for the teams seeded 5-8 may actually outweigh the net costs/benefits of seeds 1-4.
Home game vs a lower ranked team, and continuity in continuing to play vs risk of injury and possibility of loss are probably a net positive that is greater than the long layoff, chance for players to come back from injury, and automatic advancement one playoff round vs travel to a possibly not-neutral at all site, against a very good (and may actually be ranked higher than you) team that is still riding an emotional high who isn't rusty from a long layoff.
This notion that not having a bye is potentially better than getting a bye because of who the non-Bye team could play in the second round is really stupid. There are no elite teams this year, outside of maybe Oregon. They all have flaws or major questions about who they've played. Texas has a great defense, but Quinn Ewers is not a great QB and their offense is suspect. They could lose to Clemson. Penn State is nothing special with a coach who has almost always choked away big games. Notre Dame hasn't played anyone of note this year, so jury is still out on just how good they actually are. Ohio State losing to Oregon and Michigan and not getting the Bye was massive for them. They could easily lose to Tennessee.
The regular season is just as important in this new format as it ever was, just for different reasons.
Spiff’s King for a Day plan: all playoff games are on the campus of the higher seed until the national championship game.
This.
Makes the most sense but you'd have to completely abandon the bowls being involved and the Boomers who still control this **** refuse to do that.
This would be how they would do it if the bowls didn't have entrenched power. Every "championship" plan has incorporated the bowl system while simultaneously rendering them irrelevant.
nobody is saying the regular season isn't important. However, I'm confident you both recognize that if winning your conference was a requirement to get in the CFP, that the regular season would be far more important than it is now. Maybe even as important as it was 30 years ago -- maybe more.
IMO, the year Alabama won the CFP when they hadn't even won their division was the strongest possible evidence that the importance of the regular season and conference championship was greatly diminished. I acknowledge some see that as a positive -- I'm just not one of those.
if the bolded was true, I would think we'd see the CCGs played on campus.
I have no idea what one has to do with the other.
I may be overgeneralizing, but I'm taking it as the "power that be" in CFB like something about post-season neutral site games. I'd guess there's a monetary aspect to it.
Certainly money. I suppose that neutral sites offer more and that bowl game title sponsorship adds more money. It's certainly not driven by "fairness" of a neutral site.
I dunno - the Pac-12 home field CCG experiment was a flop.
I kinda laid it out last week somewhere. The current system requires huge outlays of cash for fans. If Oregon goes to the title game, their miles traveled for their 3 games will be huge.
I actually thought that was one of the few good ideas LS and the Pac12 had.
It was awesome until Stanford had zero attendance and embarrassed the conference in front of the entire nation.
If that was a flop, then what’s the word for 30,000 in the stands at Levi’s Stadium?
The word for it is "valid."
As in, there is no valid excuse for a poorly attended championship game when it's hosted on campus, but there is a valid excuse when it's not on campus.