Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

We will always have this weird beauty pageant invitational crap because there are too many competing businesses (conferences) that are self-serving. 

If we want to play fantasy for a minute: conferences would get blown up, realigned for parity, long standing rivalries and geography as best as possible. Each division can just be the conference name instead of something boring like west/north etc

10 teams per conference, 6 conferences. Round robin, no CCG. Top 2 teams in each conference get auto bids. If needed, a wild card system can be devised.

The remaining +60 programs would be put in the new  FBS-II or something with 7 conferences and 10 teams per, with their own separate playoffs. There are 136 teams in FBS, so things don't divide perfectly. Or 8 conferences in FBS and 6 in FBS-II etc. 

Maybe allow some teams from FBS-II to move up (i.e. for winning FBS-II titles) and then push some of the bottom dwellers in FBS down etc based on performance. 

I'm sure there are some tweaks that could make it better, but that's just off the top of my head.

--End of fantasy--

Edited by redswingline
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

I fucking told you earlier this season, verbatim, that Indiana was more physical and better in the trenches than the other "top" B1G teams, despite their talent level, and that they would have something to say about not only who plays Ohio State for the title but the title itself, while you just sat there and assumed it would be Ohio State vs Oregon, even after Indiana went into Eugene and manhandled them. I told you that it was impossible to tell if Ohio State was actually all that good because the only tough game they had played and would likely play the rest of the season was against a green Arch Manning in the season opener. You know why I was right and you were wrong? Because I guarantee you that you never watched a single second, outside of maybe highlights, of this Indiana team (you didn't even seem to know that they had beaten Oregon on the road when we had this conversation months ago) and just made a series of assumptions based on basically nothing but helmet logos.

Their talent level on paper is lower than most other top 25 P4 teams, but they were at least on the same level as Ohio State from a physicality standpoint, and I'd argue that they were flat out better, this was not a fluke performance, and they'd be able to repeat that probably 6-7 times out of 10 against them. There was somebody in the game thread trying to argue with a straight face that Ohio State won the battle in the trenches last night and I just can't understand how people get so chalk brained sometimes even when shit is happening in front of their eyes.

It wasn't just in the trenches, either, they were better at every single position other than arguably wide receiver and it was probably a wash in the secondary.

God damn, man! OK! 

IMG_3114.gif

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...