haven't seen any way too early 2024 stuff but I really like Oregon and (booooo)Ohio State's chances this year in the "Teams Not Named Georgia" category
Getting my shitposting in now before Michigan faces the hardest schedule in the history of college football
last year's way too early 2023 picks from ESPN 1. UGa 2. Ohio State 3. Michigan 4. FSU 5. Bama 11. Washington 16. Texas
I am hopeful Iowas offensive ratings will not be below 100. Will likely be rated in the 90s and we will all be thrilled.
Not the ideal year to have to replace your HC and as many as 20 starters to graduation or the NFL. But the ideal year to not have to care because you just won a natty.
I've seen Michigan ranked 6th in the two "way too early" top 25s I've seen. I get why they probably think they have to do that, but I would bet the under on that one.
While everyone else’s schedules are getting harder, NDs is soft as hell next year and get even easier if we can add a week 0 cupcake to get ready for Texas A&M.
Shit has seemingly fallen into our lap with the way things have shaken out. A lot of which has to do with Greg Sankey backing Swarbrick in all negotiations so ND isn’t forced to join the B1G. Other than no 1st round bye, it’s gone pretty well for us. Difficult part now is scheduling. We still don’t have a 12th team on the books for next year. And if the ACC folds, we’re going to need to find a similar partnership (perhaps the B1G on NBC?) to get a full schedule together going forward. Joining the B1G full time still feels inevitable, but we’ve been successful in weaseling our way out of it so far.
as it stands today, we're still at 6 auto qualifiers. pretty excited about seeing a sun belt team in the playoffs. it will likely change but that hasnt happened yet
Don’t think we’re getting week 0, sounds like the Army game in NY is set for week 11 and if they wiggle out of it we’ll look to replace them but keep the date.
Because there's been a seismic shift in the structure of college football and guaranteeing spots and byes or home games to teams in objectively worse conferences with significantly easier schedules doesn't make sense.
It's the way every other sport at every other level of college athletics is run. And this is still (by far) the least inclusive of all those college sports. It's literally the one thing NCAA has gotten right over the last 100 years. I don't understand why major college football has to be above that model. It's how you get dumb shit like Bama over FSU this year.
The 7-5 ACC champion Clemson Tigers look forward to their automatic bid into the CFB playoffs next year.
I like the auto bids. I think it’s really dumb they are automatically slotted into the top 4 seeds, though.
not all conferences are made the same. lot of 8-4 teams are better than 11-1 teams. playoff qualification should be best teams not which team ran a train on the aac. also the seeding rules are dumb.
Autobids are good for inclusiveness and valuing conference titles. 6 autobids is too inclusive. Autoseeds for conference champs are stupid.
Good point. Considering the current state of CFB and how the playoffs went this year with an all B1G final, three loss B1G teams should definitely get preference over say a 2 loss ACC, Big 12 or SEC team.
It doesn't have to be. It isn't in all the other divisions, although FCS is a little bit of a combo platter there I think. The schools in the SEC and B1G have every possible advantage at this point in the sport. It's going to be okay if one or two of those schools that go 10-2 or 9-3 doesn't get to go to the playoff. It's better for the health of the sport that way if they don't.
At least it should work out better more often now with the conferences moving away from divisions and going with the two best conference records playing in the CGs. You're actually less likely to see the equivalent of a 4-loss B1G West team, or something similar punching above their weight for one miraculous game and taking an automatic bid. Really, that format should make more better CGs in general.
Look how bad undefeated Liberty was. Do we really want to incentivize G5 teams having worse schedules?
I don't believe that any deserving non power 4 team would get left out. I don't think there's a deserving team from the old G5 every year. My bigger issue is with the auto-seeding and I should have led with that.
No. But neither should they be excluded. I'd say something similar to a minimum ranking requirement from the old BCS would work. Then the onus is on those teams to do what they can to play some schedule boosters and for voters to recognize what those teams actually earn
I like the G5 thing. I think you need at least some form of representation there when you go to 12. I also like the seeding thing more than most, I guess. It's literally the only thing that exists at this point that creates value in the regular season in a sport that was built on that being a core value. I would love to keep that while killing the conference title games, personally, but the conferences are too big at this point the networks/conferences would never give up those paydays.
seeding is largely irrelevant because we'll go to 16 the moment those top 4 seeds see how much money is being made from the first round games. i give it two years tops
My biggest issue with the playoff is the timing. I hate that they're dragging it out into late January. It should end no later than January 10, and ideally would end on January 1.