2023-2024 NCAAF Official Thread

[green_bballers13]

ESPN's FPI has Florida State ahead of Washington as well. 

Now you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall by looking at ESPN's FPI. https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi

The top 3 teams are Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State.

but that is sort of the point I was making.  There is so much subjectivity in how they do it, which doesn't make sense

If Georgia would have beaten Bama, would FSU or Texas have been the 4th seed?

It's an interesting question.  Texas's win over Alabama would have meant less; instead of the giant killer riding a 12 game win streak, they'd have been a two loss opponent.  It would have been justifiable to put FSU over them, although I think Texas is a better team currently.

I totally agree with Roy here. In that hypothetical, Bama is out and FSU is in (because Texas' win over Bama is weakened). But that didn't happen.

In reality, Bama is really good, and Texas beat them. Elsewhere, Mo is trying to pump up LSU as a top 10 win, even thought it wasn't/isn't. FSU needed a top 10 win (or two) to make the final 4.

I don't think anyone else on this forum thinks that FSU got screwed.

[green_bballers13]

I'm not sure that beating "bowl eligible" teams is part of the criteria. I do think that the committee saw that FSU had a far easier schedule than the other top teams.

[Roy H.]

Yeah.  BC is bowl eligible, played FSU close, and is a terrible team.

[Moranis]

ESPN's FPI has Florida State ahead of Washington as well. 

Now you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall by looking at ESPN's FPI. https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi

The top 3 teams are Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State.

but that is sort of the point I was making.  There is so much subjectivity in how they do it, which doesn't make sense

If Georgia would have beaten Bama, would FSU or Texas have been the 4th seed?

It's an interesting question.  Texas's win over Alabama would have meant less; instead of the giant killer riding a 12 game win streak, they'd have been a two loss opponent.  It would have been justifiable to put FSU over them, although I think Texas is a better team currently.

I totally agree with Roy here. In that hypothetical, Bama is out and FSU is in (because Texas' win over Bama is weakened). But that didn't happen.

In reality, Bama is really good, and Texas beat them. Elsewhere, Mo is trying to pump up LSU as a top 10 win, even thought it wasn't/isn't. FSU needed a top 10 win (or two) to make the final 4.

I don't think anyone else on this forum thinks that FSU got screwed.

I've never called LSU a top 10 win, it is a top 13 win though based on final rankings. That said, I don't really think there is all that much difference between 9 Missouri and 13 LSU from a quality standpoint, especially since you now LSU beat Missouri, but I've never said LSU was a top 10 win because it isn't by rankings. I will say Missouri shouldn't be 9th.  They should pretty clearly be behind LSU (and LSU should be behind Ole Miss).  How you want to mix PSU and OU with the 3 SEC schools is a matter of preference, but the SEC teams should be Ole Miss, LSU, Missou in that order.  I do think there is a separation between those 5 schools and the next group (though Arizona doesn't belong with their loss to Miss. St. - that is a horrid power 5 loss - much worse that UL losing to UK and even worse than Iowa losing to Minnesota). 

And honestly, I think the committee put LSU where they did on some level, so they could knock FSU for not having a top 10 win.  LSU does have 3 losses, but they are FSU, Alabama, and Ole Miss.  Ole Miss' only losses are to Bama and Georgia.  LSU beat Missouri in Missouri by 10 points.  Are you telling me Missouri's 2 ranked wins over 22 Tennessee and 25 KSU overcome the 10 point home loss to LSU (Georgia beat them by 9)?  Where is the consistency in the rankings? If head to head matters so much with Texas and Alabama, why doesn't it matter at all for LSU and Missouri?

The committee went against how they've done every single one of these to screw over an unbeaten ACC champion.  It is mockery of the sport.

[tazzmaniac]

With all the focus on Florida State, the real travesty of Liberty being ranked ahead of SMU is being ignored.  The committee talks all the time about wanting teams to play harder OOC schedules.  However they chose to rank Liberty who played one of the easiest schedules in CFB which didn't include a single P5 opponent over SMU who played not one but two P5 opponents on the road.  SMU naturally had 2 losses but Liberty would have had 2 losses if they had played 2 P5 schools.

Why does this matter at all? Different bowl game?

This season it means Liberty gets to go to a NY6 bowl games (Fiesta) whereas SMU goes to the Wasabi Fenway bowl.   If it were next season with the expand playoff, it would mean Liberty would be in the playoffs as the highest ranked G5 champ. 

[tazzmaniac]

ESPN's FPI has Florida State ahead of Washington as well. 

Now you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall by looking at ESPN's FPI. https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi

The top 3 teams are Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State.

but that is sort of the point I was making.  There is so much subjectivity in how they do it, which doesn't make sense

If Georgia would have beaten Bama, would FSU or Texas have been the 4th seed?

It's an interesting question.  Texas's win over Alabama would have meant less; instead of the giant killer riding a 12 game win streak, they'd have been a two loss opponent.  It would have been justifiable to put FSU over them, although I think Texas is a better team currently.

I totally agree with Roy here. In that hypothetical, Bama is out and FSU is in (because Texas' win over Bama is weakened). But that didn't happen.

In reality, Bama is really good, and Texas beat them. Elsewhere, Mo is trying to pump up LSU as a top 10 win, even thought it wasn't/isn't. FSU needed a top 10 win (or two) to make the final 4.

I don't think anyone else on this forum thinks that FSU got screwed.

I've never called LSU a top 10 win, it is a top 13 win though based on final rankings. That said, I don't really think there is all that much difference between 9 Missouri and 13 LSU from a quality standpoint, especially since you now LSU beat Missouri, but I've never said LSU was a top 10 win because it isn't by rankings. I will say Missouri shouldn't be 9th.  They should pretty clearly be behind LSU (and LSU should be behind Ole Miss).  How you want to mix PSU and OU with the 3 SEC schools is a matter of preference, but the SEC teams should be Ole Miss, LSU, Missou in that order.  I do think there is a separation between those 5 schools and the next group (though Arizona doesn't belong with their loss to Miss. St. - that is a horrid power 5 loss - much worse that UL losing to UK and even worse than Iowa losing to Minnesota). 

And honestly, I think the committee put LSU where they did on some level, so they could knock FSU for not having a top 10 win.  LSU does have 3 losses, but they are FSU, Alabama, and Ole Miss.  Ole Miss' only losses are to Bama and Georgia.  LSU beat Missouri in Missouri by 10 points.  Are you telling me Missouri's 2 ranked wins over 22 Tennessee and 25 KSU overcome the 10 point home loss to LSU (Georgia beat them by 9)?  Where is the consistency in the rankings? If head to head matters so much with Texas and Alabama, why doesn't it matter at all for LSU and Missouri?

The committee went against how they've done every single one of these to screw over an unbeaten ACC champion.  It is mockery of the sport.

So now you're arguing that a 3-loss LSU should be ranked higher than a 2-loss Missouri due to better strength of schedule.  Hmm... wonder where I've heard that one before?   

Let's see those SOS':  Bama (5th), LSU (10th), Missouri (33rd) and Florida State (55th).  Please note that there are only 65 P5 teams. 

[tazzmaniac]

College football has always been subjective.  That was part of the fun and charm of college football.   In 1993, 12-1 FSU finished #1 in the AP poll and most of the other polls.  However 11-1 Notre Dame finished #2 in the AP and they had beaten FSU.  So did Notre Dame get screwed over.  Or maybe it was the 11-0 SEC champ Auburn who finished #4 who got screwed over? 

[tazzmaniac]

An interesting development. 

NCAA president Charlie Baker on Tuesday proposed the creation of a new subdivision within Division I that would allow the highest-resource schools the ability to compensate athletes directly through a trust fund and direct name, image and likeness (NIL) payments.

The groundbreaking proposal was sent out to Division I members and obtained by The Athletic on Tuesday morning, and it included the following recommendations:

The formation of a new subdivision made up of institutions with the highest resources that can directly compensate athletes through an “enhanced educational trust fund,” which requires the schools that opt into it an investment of at least $30,000 per year per athlete for at least half of the school’s eligible athletes. Schools would have to adhere to Title IX, providing equal monetary opportunities to both female and male athletes.

Schools in the new subdivision could create their own rules separate from the rest of D-I, and those rules would allow them the ability to address policies such as scholarship limits and roster size as well as transfers and NIL.

Any Division I school would be able to enter into an NIL deal with its athletes directly, which is not currently permissible.

Any Division I school would be able to distribute to any athlete funding related to educational benefits without any caps on such compensation.

https://theathletic.com/5114092/2023/12/05/ncaa-subdivision-athlete-compensation-charlie-baker/

[tazzmaniac]

Indications are that Kyle McCord entered the portal after Day wouldn't give assurances that McCord would be the starting QB for next season.  This season that's not a big deal because all it affects is a "meaningless" bowl game.  But what if it were next season with the expanded playoffs?  McCord going into the portal would significantly impact OSU's playoff chances.  Obviously there would be huge backlash against McCord for doing so but he would have Day over a barrel to some degree. 

[Celtics2021]

An interesting development. 

NCAA president Charlie Baker on Tuesday proposed the creation of a new subdivision within Division I that would allow the highest-resource schools the ability to compensate athletes directly through a trust fund and direct name, image and likeness (NIL) payments.

The groundbreaking proposal was sent out to Division I members and obtained by The Athletic on Tuesday morning, and it included the following recommendations:

The formation of a new subdivision made up of institutions with the highest resources that can directly compensate athletes through an “enhanced educational trust fund,” which requires the schools that opt into it an investment of at least $30,000 per year per athlete for at least half of the school’s eligible athletes. Schools would have to adhere to Title IX, providing equal monetary opportunities to both female and male athletes.

Schools in the new subdivision could create their own rules separate from the rest of D-I, and those rules would allow them the ability to address policies such as scholarship limits and roster size as well as transfers and NIL.

Any Division I school would be able to enter into an NIL deal with its athletes directly, which is not currently permissible.

Any Division I school would be able to distribute to any athlete funding related to educational benefits without any caps on such compensation.

https://theathletic.com/5114092/2023/12/05/ncaa-subdivision-athlete-compensation-charlie-baker/

So now athletes who are making way more than $30k a year get limited to $30k a year?  Seems shady to me.

[Moranis]

ESPN's FPI has Florida State ahead of Washington as well. 

Now you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall by looking at ESPN's FPI. https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi

The top 3 teams are Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State.

but that is sort of the point I was making.  There is so much subjectivity in how they do it, which doesn't make sense

If Georgia would have beaten Bama, would FSU or Texas have been the 4th seed?

It's an interesting question.  Texas's win over Alabama would have meant less; instead of the giant killer riding a 12 game win streak, they'd have been a two loss opponent.  It would have been justifiable to put FSU over them, although I think Texas is a better team currently.

I totally agree with Roy here. In that hypothetical, Bama is out and FSU is in (because Texas' win over Bama is weakened). But that didn't happen.

In reality, Bama is really good, and Texas beat them. Elsewhere, Mo is trying to pump up LSU as a top 10 win, even thought it wasn't/isn't. FSU needed a top 10 win (or two) to make the final 4.

I don't think anyone else on this forum thinks that FSU got screwed.

I've never called LSU a top 10 win, it is a top 13 win though based on final rankings. That said, I don't really think there is all that much difference between 9 Missouri and 13 LSU from a quality standpoint, especially since you now LSU beat Missouri, but I've never said LSU was a top 10 win because it isn't by rankings. I will say Missouri shouldn't be 9th.  They should pretty clearly be behind LSU (and LSU should be behind Ole Miss).  How you want to mix PSU and OU with the 3 SEC schools is a matter of preference, but the SEC teams should be Ole Miss, LSU, Missou in that order.  I do think there is a separation between those 5 schools and the next group (though Arizona doesn't belong with their loss to Miss. St. - that is a horrid power 5 loss - much worse that UL losing to UK and even worse than Iowa losing to Minnesota). 

And honestly, I think the committee put LSU where they did on some level, so they could knock FSU for not having a top 10 win.  LSU does have 3 losses, but they are FSU, Alabama, and Ole Miss.  Ole Miss' only losses are to Bama and Georgia.  LSU beat Missouri in Missouri by 10 points.  Are you telling me Missouri's 2 ranked wins over 22 Tennessee and 25 KSU overcome the 10 point home loss to LSU (Georgia beat them by 9)?  Where is the consistency in the rankings? If head to head matters so much with Texas and Alabama, why doesn't it matter at all for LSU and Missouri?

The committee went against how they've done every single one of these to screw over an unbeaten ACC champion.  It is mockery of the sport.

So now you're arguing that a 3-loss LSU should be ranked higher than a 2-loss Missouri due to better strength of schedule.  Hmm... wonder where I've heard that one before?   

Let's see those SOS':  Bama (5th), LSU (10th), Missouri (33rd) and Florida State (55th).  Please note that there are only 65 P5 teams.

No I'm saying there is no consistency.  Texas' head to head over Alabama matters.  LSU's head to head over Missouri doesn't matter. 

There is no rational reason to have Missouri ahead of LSU unless you just go by won loss record (LSU beat them and has better schedule strength), which would mean FSU should be 3.

You see that is the problem.  The committee wasn't consistent at all.  You have to have a clear standard and actually maintain it consistently.

[Moranis]

An interesting development. 

NCAA president Charlie Baker on Tuesday proposed the creation of a new subdivision within Division I that would allow the highest-resource schools the ability to compensate athletes directly through a trust fund and direct name, image and likeness (NIL) payments.

The groundbreaking proposal was sent out to Division I members and obtained by The Athletic on Tuesday morning, and it included the following recommendations:

The formation of a new subdivision made up of institutions with the highest resources that can directly compensate athletes through an “enhanced educational trust fund,” which requires the schools that opt into it an investment of at least $30,000 per year per athlete for at least half of the school’s eligible athletes. Schools would have to adhere to Title IX, providing equal monetary opportunities to both female and male athletes.

Schools in the new subdivision could create their own rules separate from the rest of D-I, and those rules would allow them the ability to address policies such as scholarship limits and roster size as well as transfers and NIL.

Any Division I school would be able to enter into an NIL deal with its athletes directly, which is not currently permissible.

Any Division I school would be able to distribute to any athlete funding related to educational benefits without any caps on such compensation.

https://theathletic.com/5114092/2023/12/05/ncaa-subdivision-athlete-compensation-charlie-baker/

So now athletes who are making way more than $30k a year get limited to $30k a year?  Seems shady to me.

No, it is a minimum of 30k, not a maximum.

[tazzmaniac]

An interesting development. 

NCAA president Charlie Baker on Tuesday proposed the creation of a new subdivision within Division I that would allow the highest-resource schools the ability to compensate athletes directly through a trust fund and direct name, image and likeness (NIL) payments.

The groundbreaking proposal was sent out to Division I members and obtained by The Athletic on Tuesday morning, and it included the following recommendations:

The formation of a new subdivision made up of institutions with the highest resources that can directly compensate athletes through an “enhanced educational trust fund,” which requires the schools that opt into it an investment of at least $30,000 per year per athlete for at least half of the school’s eligible athletes. Schools would have to adhere to Title IX, providing equal monetary opportunities to both female and male athletes.

Schools in the new subdivision could create their own rules separate from the rest of D-I, and those rules would allow them the ability to address policies such as scholarship limits and roster size as well as transfers and NIL.

Any Division I school would be able to enter into an NIL deal with its athletes directly, which is not currently permissible.

Any Division I school would be able to distribute to any athlete funding related to educational benefits without any caps on such compensation.

https://theathletic.com/5114092/2023/12/05/ncaa-subdivision-athlete-compensation-charlie-baker/

So now athletes who are making way more than $30k a year get limited to $30k a year?  Seems shady to me.

No, it is a minimum of 30k, not a maximum.

Yes and there are lots of athletes even football players who aren't making 30k a year in NIL.  This appears to apply to all athletes and Title IX applies.  Not clear how if at all this would impact the existing NIL deals that aren't through the school. 

[Celtics2021]

An interesting development. 

NCAA president Charlie Baker on Tuesday proposed the creation of a new subdivision within Division I that would allow the highest-resource schools the ability to compensate athletes directly through a trust fund and direct name, image and likeness (NIL) payments.

The groundbreaking proposal was sent out to Division I members and obtained by The Athletic on Tuesday morning, and it included the following recommendations:

The formation of a new subdivision made up of institutions with the highest resources that can directly compensate athletes through an “enhanced educational trust fund,” which requires the schools that opt into it an investment of at least $30,000 per year per athlete for at least half of the school’s eligible athletes. Schools would have to adhere to Title IX, providing equal monetary opportunities to both female and male athletes.

Schools in the new subdivision could create their own rules separate from the rest of D-I, and those rules would allow them the ability to address policies such as scholarship limits and roster size as well as transfers and NIL.

Any Division I school would be able to enter into an NIL deal with its athletes directly, which is not currently permissible.

Any Division I school would be able to distribute to any athlete funding related to educational benefits without any caps on such compensation.

https://theathletic.com/5114092/2023/12/05/ncaa-subdivision-athlete-compensation-charlie-baker/

So now athletes who are making way more than $30k a year get limited to $30k a year?  Seems shady to me.

No, it is a minimum of 30k, not a maximum.

If you think this isn’t the NCAA trying to limit compensation, you haven’t paid attention to the NCAA, in like, ever.

[Moranis]

An interesting development. 

NCAA president Charlie Baker on Tuesday proposed the creation of a new subdivision within Division I that would allow the highest-resource schools the ability to compensate athletes directly through a trust fund and direct name, image and likeness (NIL) payments.

The groundbreaking proposal was sent out to Division I members and obtained by The Athletic on Tuesday morning, and it included the following recommendations:

The formation of a new subdivision made up of institutions with the highest resources that can directly compensate athletes through an “enhanced educational trust fund,” which requires the schools that opt into it an investment of at least $30,000 per year per athlete for at least half of the school’s eligible athletes. Schools would have to adhere to Title IX, providing equal monetary opportunities to both female and male athletes.

Schools in the new subdivision could create their own rules separate from the rest of D-I, and those rules would allow them the ability to address policies such as scholarship limits and roster size as well as transfers and NIL.

Any Division I school would be able to enter into an NIL deal with its athletes directly, which is not currently permissible.

Any Division I school would be able to distribute to any athlete funding related to educational benefits without any caps on such compensation.

https://theathletic.com/5114092/2023/12/05/ncaa-subdivision-athlete-compensation-charlie-baker/

So now athletes who are making way more than $30k a year get limited to $30k a year?  Seems shady to me.

No, it is a minimum of 30k, not a maximum.

If you think this isn’t the NCAA trying to limit compensation, you haven’t paid attention to the NCAA, in like, ever.

I don't think it is a limit at all except for the top level athletes.  This is about getting the lesser athletes, including women, paid.