The Most Boring NCG Ever (?)

I'll be honest - i barely watched the game last night. I tuned in for the start and the game was competitive for the first quarter+, but it got out of hand in a hurry and Ohio St. had little chance of making this close unless Alabama played sloppy and instead the played a pretty crisp game. More than anything I was just bored with the whole playoff this year... same teams... similar result. I'm of the mind now that unless something is done to open the playoffs and expand the field, we're going to see the same participants over and over again and its going to be detrimental to all of FBS with the exception of the 3-5 premier teams.

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

As someone who bet on Alabama I enjoyed every second of it...but I know what you mean

Yeah it went well for me, too.

Old sigline: I've been cutting back on the drinking.

New Sigline: lol it's football season.

Only got boring for me after Devonta Smith got hurt. Watching someone put up the numbers he did in the first half in the biggest game of the year was mindblowing.

Gobble Till You Wobble

It looked like everyone *attempting* to cover Devonta Smith was running in slow motion. Incredible to watch.

I'd like to know why anOSU thought covering him with LB's and safeties would work.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Smartfootball noted on Twitter that anOSU needed to stop running with the high safety. You can out athlete a NW, but you can't do that with Alabama. That's how you get a LB on Smith, and a back breaking TD.

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

Exactly what I came to say. Heisman performance by a heisman winner... I mean, wow. I wanna say he had over 200 yards in the first half.

Mac and Smith were unstoppable last night

He sure did...12 for 215 and 3 TDs...amazingly, he got hurt early in the third quarter and left the game...still set records for a receiver

To be honest, college football as a whole isn't as fun as it used to be because it's always the same teams and unless there are some massive changes, it seems like the rich are just going to keep getting richer.

Pray the Portal levels the competition.

#Let's Go - Hokies

It will level out for 99% of teams but it actually insulates the 1% of teams even more. In the old days, Alabama could have dominant athletes at all positions but if they missed on their QB evaluations it could level the playing field. The transfer port eliminates the possibility that the blue bloods have no good options at QB.

The game was pretty boring, but watching Devonta Smith play is about as entertaining as football gets. The guy is just fun to watch. To do what he did in the biggest game of the year was incredible. And it wasn't like Ohio St was running out JAGs in coverage. Shaun Wade is a 1st round talent and Smith was just eating that secondary alive.

I'm hoping teams go QB focused to start the draft and he is sitting there at #6 for my Eagles to get.

As for this game, I don't know if it was the most boring. I remember being pretty bored years ago when Miami dismantled Nebraska in the Rose Bowl for the title

Smith will be there for Philly. But you should want Chase. He's a much better prospect and you won't have to worry about him holding up physically.

The USC-Oklahoma BCS NCG a few years back was pretty bad. Some thought the 21-0 Alabama-LSU game was brutal...I thought the slugfest was enjoyable and seeing LSU not get past the 50 until the last minute or so of the game was awesome.

Amateur superstar and idiot extraordinaire.

USC-OU is the one that definitely comes to mind, but Miami-Nebraska, UF-OSU, Bama-ND, and even Clemson-Bama 2018 were all pretty bad too. Fortunately there have been some close games (or games that were at least close until the 4th)

The FSU-OU game was awful to watch because there wasn't anything to watch. I dont remember the defenses dominating - i remember a lot of ineptitude from the offenses, but that could just be my memory of the game fading.

What I do see is that the CFP has seen (in 7 years) 4 laughers of a championship game compared to 4 laughers when we were under the BCS approach (which ran for 16 years). More often than not the BCS resulted in a much more competitive game than we have seen to date with the CFP.

Correlation is not causation. There is no logical reason why the final pair has been more of a mismatch because of the playoff. It has just worked out that way. Even more baffling is why nearly none of the playoff games have been great. One would think at least 1 out of three would be good.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

The playoff has given us some good games, but this year was certainly a dud.

OSU-Bama after the 2015 season and Clemson-OSU last year were very entertaining games.

I agree with you, the simple fact this year was that Alabama was so much better than anyone else, it really wouldn't have mattered. Say Clemson had won the Sugar Bowl. I think they get their asses handed to them by Bama last night just as bad as the Buckeyes did.

I remember Bama-Texas being pretty bad. When McCoy got hurt Texas was done....

Just remembered this game was pre-playoffs..

I don't know what the solution is. An expanded field will make getting to the playoff more attainable. But, the seeding is going to create an even bigger talent gap and just more blowout games. I am for expanding the playoffs, but I do not think it will create more parity. But at least more fanbases would have something to get pumped up for. As a WFT fan, I was excited to watch them play a playoff game this year, knowing they had little chance of advancing.

What's funny is that the most competitive football is being played at the mediocre level. As much as we laugh about Coastal chaos, it at least makes every coastal game matter and any team can win or lose on a given Saturday. That is exciting, but the stakes are low. It would be great if the top had the same level of competition.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

The more playoff games you have, the more chance you have of upsets. Yes, Bama would still have been heavily favored in every game but they're still less likely to win 3 games in a row than 2 games in a row (even if that third game they'd "only" have a 10-20% chance of losing. Sometimes UMBC happens.

One of the side benefits like you said is more fanbases get to engage, but in addition, you get better regular season scheduling. When you only need to finish top 4 (or in the future top 8 or 12), teams are willing to schedule more quality opponents, as you can more easily afford a loss as compared to when it was only top 2.

I loved the film room version but otherwise I went to bed at halftime as it was evident OSU didnt have the defense and their offense was struggling in the second quarter to do anything legitimate. This whole CFP thing was pretty bland outside of Clemson getting whooped but even that was a lopsided game.
I'd love to know the viewer numbers of the first half and the second half.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

I always watch the film room version a few days later when I have time. The person thay thought Monday 8PM is a great time for a college football game is an idiot.

While I agree with you, it's all about television scheduling, now that college football is not over by the time the NFL starts the playoffs, they don't try to compete with the NFL. Really wish they would consider Friday night, but history has shown them that too many people plan other events to start their weekends, thus Monday night since there is not MNF at that point.

Other option would be to play the play in games earlier so they could have the Championship on New Years Day.

I enjoy having a 2nd screen on the film room and watching and analyzing such an elite level of play as a fan of the sport.

Even as it was getting out of hand, I was marveling at how Saban, in his mid 60's (now 69), was willing to adapt his offensive (hiring Kiffin and creating a modern, and the BEST offensive chassis in college football) and defensive philosophy (more one gap rushes, more sub packages, altering the STAR position, higher pressure/sack rate), how he was making aggressive modern analytic decisions go for it on fourth downs, to plan to dominate the middle 8 (last 4 minutes of the first half, first 4 minutes of the second half), which they did to perfection, which basically sealed the game for them. He's the GOAT for me and it's not even remotely close, and so I enjoyed watching him break the record for national titles by a coach in the AP poll era.

As for the lack of parity, I am very much in agreement, and for the most part I think the CFP has only made things worse, not that there was much parity before that. I'm warming up to the idea of an expanded playoff, if only to increase some incentive for the rest of CFB, add some more goals with value back instead of the increasingly 'national title or bust' mentality and black hole focus on the 4 team playoff it has become. I know some people think that will help redistribute talent, which it probably will to some degree, but I don't think it will move the needle as much as people think. I think the same teams would likely still win the playoff every year, but I like the idea of increased incentive for teams not quite on the elite tier.

As for the lack of parity, I am very much in agreement, and for the most part I think the CFP has only made things worse, not that there was much parity before that. I'm warming up to the idea of an expanded playoff, if only to increase some incentive for the rest of CFB, add some more goals with value back instead of the increasingly 'national title or bust' mentality and black hole focus on the 4 team playoff it has become.

I generally agree. I don't believe expanding the playoff will do much, if anything, to change who will wind up winning it every year. I think the playoff is already broken anyway. It broke back when they let OSU in over Penn State even though OSU didn't win the B1G championship.

Right now, the rich are getting richer and until Saban retires nothing is going to change IMO. Alabama will continue to dominate year in and year out. No amount of changes to the CFP will change that. OSU is always going to get the benefit of the doubt. Clemson is going to continue its domination of the ACC. ND will always be in the conversation.

I don't know what needs to change to bring more parity to the sport. I just know that CFB is top heavy and getting heavier at the top. It's going to become less and less exciting for casual fans (heck, even die-hard fans of teams not named Bama, OSU, Clemson) as we continue getting the same results each year.

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

I second this. Something has to change to create more parity. When Bama and OSU blow out ND and Clemson, then Bama blows out OSU, that is extremely discouraging to the notion that anything more than a handful of teams will ever compete for the title. Bama is essentially the 33rd team in NFL at this point. Someone has to step in and regulate the sport more. The money has become a runaway freight train, and it's only going to get worse. There needs to be limits on fundraising, limits on staff and coaching salaries, and better enforcement. We also need to expand the playoff and give P5 champions an autobid. The postseason is getting incredibly dull watching the same small group of teams constantly going at it. When you see Bama outclass another blue blood the way they did last night, something has to change or the sport is going to die.

Also your comments about Saban's evolution as a coach are spot on. Many say he's stubborn and has a rigid philosophy, like Fu, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Saban absorbs literally every bit of information and advanced analytics out there. He's a true student of the game. He takes the best innovations in the sport and adapts them within his program. It's Corny but Bama is literally like the Borg from Star Trek. He has assimilated literally the best from all of college football into his program. Combined with continued elite recruiting, they are almost unstoppable as we saw last night.

Someone has to step in and regulate the sport more. The money has become a runaway freight train, and it's only going to get worse. There needs to be limits on fundraising, limits on staff and coaching salaries, and better enforcement.

I don't know if regulation is the way to go. I haven't given it much thought but the NCAA has done a pretty piss-poor job of enforcing the existing rules. Further rules aren't going to slow down the teams with resources. All that will do is make it even harder for the little guys to compete.

If you are going to regulate some aspect of the sport, it can't be money. That kind of flies in the face of free-market capitalism. But one thing that COULD be done, if it isn't already being done, is putting caps on the number of coaching positions and GAs and other student volunteers and whatnot. One of the big things I keep hearing around TKP in regards to recruiting is that VT just doesn't have the staff to do it. That implies, to me, that there are currently no limits on how many coaches or other staff can be employed by a football program. If you want to try evening the playing field in a way that doesn't insult our economic philosophy or present un-enforceable, easily broken rules then I think putting a cap on coaching positions and volunteering spots for all teams is the place to start. Every team has roster restrictions. Teams aren't allowed to have more than X number of student athletes at a given time. Apply that same structure to coaching staffs and you might be headed in the right direction. I'm still not sure that will force more parity in the sport but it's a place to start if you want to go that route.

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

We are at a true crossroads for what college football is and should be. If we determine it's a business and want to end the facade of the "student athlete" for these top P5 programs, then it's time to break away and form a semi-pro league of sorts. But if we are committed to amateurism, the money needs to be regulated out of the sport. The NCAA being completely horrible and ineffective is a big part of the reason things have gotten out of hand. Reform needs to start there if we want to preserve amateur college athletics.

That ship sailed the minute state legislatures started passing athlete compensation laws.

Also have heard that as this moves forward, the Department of Justice expects less restrictions

This article was just published on Forbes
Article here

And this two days ago from USA Today touching on transfer rule changes and compensation
Article here

But if we are committed to amateurism, the money needs to be regulated out of the sport.

This is a fair point. I sort of think we're past that though, even if not officially. Money is going to trump all else. It's already in the sport. Getting it out of the sport is a non-starter IMO. Not because I don't think it should be removed but because I don't think it will be possible to do so. This is America, where money reigns supreme. Those who have it control the outcomes. Unless someone with major influence (read: $$$$$) forces money out of the sport (likely to their own detriment, and who on earth would do that?) it's not going anywhere.

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

The lack of parity in CFB is wearing down on me. I enjoy watching the hokies play, and maybe the random game here and there, but the fact is, at the highest levels, very few schools have a shot of winning the whole thing.

Its not that talent and money guarantees championships, its just NOT having it practically guarantees NOT winning championships.

Bama, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, Oregon, LSU, Florida, Auburn, UGA

I don't believe any team outside of this group has a shot of winning the whole thing in the next 6 years. I'd even put huge question marks next to Florida, Auburn, Texas, and Oregon. And because of that, its hard to care....

I think even within that small group, Bama is at a clear advantage over everyone else currently. You should bet on Bama to win the title every year. They have unlimited resources, the best coaches in the country, the best talent and depth in the country, and have evolved to have a modern offense to pair with Saban's historically dominant defenses. Clemson and occasionally another from that group will be able to breakthrough, but Bama has a clear edge over everyone. Something needs to change.

I would add A&M to that list as well, but I agree. If you are not one of those programs your chances of even being in the discussion are non-existent.

23 year of the BCS/CFP, 12 different champions, 3 of those champions were in the first 4 years and haven't won again. Add in USC and Texas and since 2005, only 7 teams have won. And all of them won multiple championships in the BCS+ era except Auburn.

I think your list of winning is smaller for the next 6 years, Bama, UGA, Clemson, OSU, and A&M. They have the money, they have the programs/rosters built.

In the last 50 years 10 teams have claimed 45 national titles.

In the last 50 years 10 teams have claimed 45 national titles.

This is a staggering statistic and very sobering that 1999 was probably our only legit chance at one.

You will see this game, this upset and this sign next on ESPN Sportscenter. Virginia Tech 31 Miami 7

I don't see how expanding the playoff will fix the issue. If you expand to 8 teams, in round one, you'll have:

  • Bama vs Cincy = Definitely a blowout
  • Clemson vs UF = likely blowout, but maybe less UF players opt out so it's closer?
  • OSU vs OU = possibly a good game
  • ND vs TAMU = probably a good game

In Round 2 you'll have:

  • Bama vs ND = Blowout
  • OSU vs Clemson = Blowout

Let's compare that to what we actually got this year:

  • The OSU/Clemson game is a lot better if Tony Elliott can actually call plays. Not saying Clemson wins, but I bet they score 2 more TDs. That game isn't as much of a blowout most years
  • UF was down a bunch of players. Maybe Kyle Pitts plays if UF is in the playoff?
  • We don't get to see UGA vs Cincy, so despite getting a good game (OSU vs OU) we lose another good game, so no net difference
  • We do gain a good game in ND vs TAMU, but this is such a meaningless game; neither team has a QB that could hurt the Bama defense, so why play it?

The reality is, expanding the playoff won't increase the number of schools that win natty's, and I actually think it will lend less good post season games. I've long been a proponent that the comittee should adjust the size of the playoff based on the field, doing something sort of like how golf does cuts each round. If we look back over the years, this is what it looks like:

  • 2020 = 2 teams: Alabama/Clemson
  • 2019 = 4 teams: LSU, OSU, Clemson, OU
  • 2018 = 6 teams (1/2 seeds get a bye): Alabama, Clemson, ND, OU, OSU, UCF,
  • 2017 = 4 teams: Alabama, Clemson, OU, UGA
  • 2016 = 4 teams: Alabama, Clemson, OSU, UW
  • 2015 = 6 teams (1/2 seeds get a bye): Alabama, Clemson, Mich State, OU, Iowa, OSU
  • 2014 = 6 teams (1/2 seeds get a bye): Alabama, Oregon, FSU, Baylor, TCU, OSU
  • 2013 = 6 teams (1/2 seeds get a bye): FSU, Auburn, Alabama, Mich St, Stanford, Baylor (OSU conveniently was suspended from post season play)
  • 2012 = 2 teams: Alabama, ND
  • 2011 = 4 teams: Alabama, LSU, OkSU, Stanford
  • 2010 = 8 teams: Auburn, TCU, Oregon, Wiscy, Stanford, OSU, Mich St, Boise
  • 2009 = 2 teams: Alabama, Texas
  • 2008 = 8 teams: Florida, OU, Texas, Bama, USC, PSU, Utah, Texas Tech
  • 2007 = 16 teams: Go back to the rankings lol, what a crazy year

Anyways, you'll notice that the post season has gotten more boring since the playoff started. I think this is a function of Alabama and Clemson being so fucking good, not the amount of spots in the playoff. My guess is that when Saban leaves football, we'll see more parity.

Twitter me

I'm with you that I don't think the expanded playoff would lead to better games. The part of the expanded playoff that I've come around to is trying to keep apathy at bay for 95% of fanbases. It reignites the incentive to win your conference, and much like a "sweet 16" appearance and the like being a goal in college basketball, maybe you start hanging banners for playoff appearances, even if you got in on a not particularly deserving 9-3 season where you pipped Clemson in the ACCCG after going for two instead of tying it in the dying minutes... for example.

Also, I find your idea of the adjustable playoff size interesting. In particular it follows one of the most hated, but entrenched parts of the ethos of college football, subjectivity. How much discussion that would drive about what size it would be coming down the home stretch of any given year would be awesome for the greater college football industry.

Other crazy ideas I have:

  • Promotion/Regulation Relegation
  • A single scheduling day each year that is very similar to 'matching day' for med schools

Edit: Autocorrect

Twitter me

I'll go further. Reduce scholarships for playoff participants in the following year.

Why would you punish players for doing great? That would cause so many problems. Yanking scholarships, forcing kids who don't want to transfer to transfer, etc.

Twitter me

First, anything you do to level the playing field "punishes players for doing great". Surely Trevor Lawrence is about to. That's what leveling is. For what it's worth, my from-the-hip suggestion was actually to reduce the size of future recruiting classes. Do I have a carefully thought out plan for exactly how that would work? Nope.

First, anything you do to level the playing field "punishes players for doing great".

Not really - revenue sharing wouldn't punish the players (sure - I guess it means less TVs and napping pods in the LSU locker room, but it's not like they're losing scholarships). Salary caps for coaching staffs wouldn't punish the players. Implementing NIL (which I believe will actually HELP lesser programs) wouldn't punish players.

You can come up with a lot of radical changes that will level the playing field without screwing the players.

Twitter me

Salary caps for coaches is illegal. They have a court ruling on that.

Yeah I don't like this argument against expansion (also an awful year to argue for expansion with COVID football which was not good football). Expansion isn't a single year thing. You expand in hopes that similar to what Chris said you have teams that actually get a shot. This in turn spreads talent at least slightly more imo. Yeah in the first 2 or 3 years you'll probably have the same couple teams at the top but it gives the opportunity for another team to rise to the top which potentially changes the landscape of cfb

(add if applicable) /s

So you're suggesting that if more teams can 'compete' for a natty by qualifying for a playoff (and I put quotes around 'compete' because I don't really think that any more teams would be competing), then bluechip recruits will seriously consider more teams?

I don't know; I think we all assumed the playoff would lend to a larger variety of champions, but that hasn't been the case (although it's tough to say how much of that is due to the Clemson/Bama coaching talent vs the playoff). I just don't see any evidence suggesting that putting more teams in the mix will result in a more even distribution of top talent.

I'm really interested to see what happens once Saban retires, and Tony Elliott and/or Venables move on from Clemson. It's tough to say how much of their dominance is due to their coaching staff vs the structure of the sport right now. The only really parallel we have for 2 dynasties lasting this long is Miami and FSU in the late 80's/early 90's, which was the only other time in somewhat modern CFB that we had two teams both finish in the top 5 for 7 straight years.

Side note: Bobby Bowden's FSU teams had 14 straight top 5 finishes. Saban's Alabama teams, despite their dominance, haven't had more than 5 consecutive top 5 finishes. It's one of the more impressive college football records that no one talks about.

Twitter me

When the playoff was originally being discussed, the goal was to not butcher the final two teams, which the BCS was feared to do, even though it was probably pretty accurate. I don't think I ever assumed it was making it easier for a VT to win it all (opposite actually). I also thought a 4 team playoff would make for some tremendous matchups, but that just hasn't been the case. I think part of the reason is the gap between regular season and playoff/championship. The talent separates itself even more with extra time to prepare.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Told a Bammer grad that I work with that I'm rooting for Bammer because screw the NCAA. I'm rooting for anOSU because screw those that said they hadn't won/played/showcased enough games, and if they pulled it off, it would lead to expansion quicker. Not sure anyone won last night.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Honestly I watched the first half and it was fun, there were a lot of super athletic "wow" plays. Although it sucked seeing how fast Bama's players were and realizing just how big the gap is with the elite teams like that.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Jet Sweep

Fewer masks than fans at UVA's spring game

I just sit on my couch and b*tch. - HokieChemE2016

While I certainly don't approve of this, based on people I know currently on college campuses over the fall, and wastewater studies from college towns, I wouldn't be surprised if well over half of those student have already had the virus. I know it went through the Clemson on-campus/close to campus population like wildfire.

I'm sure we'll hear about this being a superspreader in roughly 7-14 days.

I didn't watch any of the cfp this year, just tired of the same old thing and got cfp burnout from the nonstop focus during the season

Danny is always open

Did not even realize the game was on last night until the 4th quarter. Had no interest and did not watch because, as people have said, it is the same handful of teams every single year. Plus it was already a blow out at that point.

Only way I can see to alter this short-term is to substantially reduce the number of scholarships for each team so that the talent is more spread around. But then you have the problem of the people loosing their scholarships, which is bad. Would happily wave a magic wand to convert all of those lost scholarships to academic-based or need-based ones but the way the money is collected, that will probably never work. Don't buy for 1 second that many (most?) of the people who donate big bucks to sports programs at Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, Ohio State (heck, Virginia and Virginia Tech too) are going to donate to need-based or academic excellence scholarship funds. Sadly, don't see a practical route to make things better.

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

I'd be interested in seeing what the viewership ratings are for the championship and the other playoff games. In a year where college football occurring was an unknown and highly anticipated, in conjunction with no in person attendance, I would assume that viewership would be higher this year than in previous. Is the bore of seeing the same teams overwhelming despite wanting sports or did COVID bolster those numbers?

I didn't even turn on the game and watched the entire Ted Lasso series instead. Very happy with that choice.

Ted Lasso is fantastic and I highly encourage everyone to watch it if you are able to.

I also concur. It was written by the same guy who wrote Scrubs. It's just an extremely well done comedy with a very good story. They've already greenlit the third season which I believe is also confirmed to be the last season.

In case you didn't catch it, Zach Braff (aka JD in Scrubs) directed episode 2 of Ted Lasso.

Yeah...about that assumption...

This fall, the college football season never attracted the ridiculous viewership numbers we typically see on Saturdays across the season, which included both semifinals failing to hit 20 million viewers and the entire slate of conference championship games falling short of ten million viewers. The floor for the College Football Playoff National Championship had been set at 25 million viewers, with every prior game at least hitting that mark.

Unfortunately for the larger college football world, the floor was lowered by Alabama's 52-24 destruction of Ohio State on Monday night. The game drew a total of 18.654 million viewers across ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU, down big from every prior title game in the Playoff era and down a tick from both of this year's semifinals as well.

Wow, that totally blows out my assumption. Really interesting to see the fall in viewership. I wonder what the "true floor" is before changes get made to create more parity.

Thanks for the share.

Shout out to the WNBA though.

No, I *don't* want to go to the SEC. Why do you ask?

We don't love dem Hoos.

Gotta be somewhat due to cord cutting doesn't it?

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Part of it is that Gen Z just doesn't like sports as much as the rest of us. The Forbes article I linked above hit on this.

My theory is that there's just more good content (both on TV and social media), so sports in general have more competition when trying to capture eyeballs.

Twitter me

I would say there is more content, not necessarily more "good" content. Most of the Gen Z tv is algorithm based and it's lots of the same shows that Netflix (for example) can capitalize on and just make a ton of similar shows and churn them out a ridiculous rate. They also have basically an entirely new form of entertainment to obsess over and compete with sports, content curation, whether twitch/youtube/tiktok, etc. Is there a point where a portion of Gen Z will "move past" following content creators and replace it with sports, etc? I don't know, but that's probably taking this in a super off-topic direction.

I don't think Gen Z kids are watching exceptional TV like Twin Peaks, Breaking Bad, and the Sopranos at a high rate, or digging deep into the filmographies great filmmakers like Brian De Palma, Kubrick, PTA, Scorsese, Hitchcock, Bergman, etc. It's more about content overload empires like the MCU.

To clarify, those were two different thoughts - Gen Z doesn't care about sports as much. The remaining populationis choosing to binge the most recent Netflix addition instead of the Wednesday NBA game between two .500 teams. In the past, that random Wednesday night game was only competing against Frasier reruns on TBS and American Idol. Now, that random Wednesday night game has to compete against every TV show ever made.

Twitter me

Yeah we are totally on the same page with that part. There is unprecedented availability of alternatives for entertainment right now, and that generation grew/is growing up with that being the daily norm.

Part of the decline in sports watching i the inability to see live sports.
Same concept as a band touring to support an album, generate excitement.

Also, don't forget about all the politics injected into sports the past few years. It's not why I watch sports.

i can't even have a group over to the house or rotate houses each week to watch a game.

It's just not much fun by myself. I can't get and keep excited.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

Wonder how a TKP Zoom call during basketball or wrestling would go. The one for the Duke game the Athletic Department put on was fun.

Also, don't forget about all the politics injected into sports the past few years.

I'm yet to see anything but anecdotal evidence to support this. The NHL and Kentucky derby aren't exactly known for being political, but they're both struggling.

Twitter me

Not to get political, but there are also people have stopped watching all sports out of protest for "it getting political" ... i.e. my dad who has watched 0 minutes of sports this year even though we have watched sports religiously for years

Danny is always open

18-24 yr olds make mistakes. Mistakes lead to big plays. Big plays are fun. Alabama had a lot of big plays last night. Last night was fun.

As for parity, I don't have the answer. Other teams need to step up. But even when they do, they get snubbed.

If Cincy was in the playoffs, maybe they keep the game close? We won't know until they get in. Then recruiting becomes more of a battle cause these smaller schools can offer playing time AND a national title shot. They can't right now.

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

I'd be curious to see how much having a "national title shot" actually has an effect on a recruits decision. I mean, these 17-18 year old kids know exactly what we know, that only a few teams right now have a legitimate shot at the title. Since 1998 only 12 teams have won the championship. And if you pull it back further to 2003, when these kids would have in fact been born (man that makes me feel old) its only 8 teams. Most players already know they are committing to a school that probably is not going to win the title.

At this point I think the draw of being developed into an NFL caliber player is much more important. Name one player from last night's game who's chances of being drafted increased by simply playing in that game. That's Saban's real accomplishment. He gets the best players and turns them into better players with remarkable consistency.

Yeah, I don't think a lot of those top recruits give a rat's ass about the Playoff. They just want the resources and attention of scouts to get into the NFL. I mean, I'm sure they would find it nice to win a NC, but that's not why they're there.

I watched about the last five minutes of the first half. Long enough to see the Bama defense completely shutting down anOSU. Watched the 3rd TD of the first half for Smith. Long enough to see the officials completely shut down Bama completely blowing the game open with another TD before half on some hideous no calls, and reversing an OBVIOUS offsides to a false start.

I was laughing as anOSU got blown out of water in the final score. From the beginning they didn't deserve to be there. I don't care that beat Clemson in round 1. By the rules the B!G set up when they decided to play, they were ineligible to play in the B1G CCG. The blatant favoritism that anOSU gets every year bothers me.

I remember the Alabama vs ND championship being worse. But then again, I fell asleep on the couch during this one at 7-7, woke up at half time and then turned it off to go to bed.

That one was worse because I thought it might actually kill my ND alum grandfather. Luckily he survived.

The B1G Admin as a whole are wavering fools.

"Hey Bud, you wont have to hold the opponent to 17 points anymore."

May not be a well received take but the BCS was better than this. Rather see that again than AL, CL, OSU, and add one invitational. It will not be much different with 8 teams either. The same 4 will still make it to the semis and bowls will be 100% meaningless if they are not already.

I lost interest in the game completely by halftime. There was no doubt in my mind that the game was essentially over when Alabama scored 35 points in the first half.

My time spent looking up models to print on my new 3D printer. Found out that the Smithsonian has tons of 3D models of things in the museums. I decided that I need an anatomically correct T-Rex skeleton in my life.

I'll always love college football but I agree their is a top tier that appears to be in a league of its own. I don't know what the fix is personally but the changes I'd like to see...

- 8 team playoff with all P5 champs getting autobid, highest G5 with autobid and 2 at large bids. Seeds 1-4 host first round before semis move to neutral sites.
- 10 game regular season across the board, 8 game conference schedule with 2 non-conference games of your choosing. Eliminate FCS vs FBS games. 11th game would be conference championships. Playoffs start the following week, give 9-10 days between semis and championship.
- Start something similar to NFL schedule with 1 of those non-conference games being built in, like defending SEC Champ must play Defending PAC12 champ and B1G vs ACC, highest G5 vs defending B12 and on down SEC #2 vs Big 12#2.

I personally just want to see more top tier teams playing each other in non-conference games during the regular season. The way ADs schedule 10-15 years down the road it's unpredictable how good most of these games will pan out to be. I'd rather see these games get scheduled 6-7 months before they happen so we are more likely to know what we're getting.

There's no glory in practice and lifting but without practice and lifting, there will be no glory!

Unfortunately, I can't get behind eliminating FCS to FBS games. That would kill a lot of FCS football programs and that means less kids getting scholarships, so I can't get behind that.

Didn't even think in those terms, was more focused on improving competitiveness amongst FBS members. As a HS coach, I concur with the facts you've provided. Killing the FCS programs in turn means less schollys for the kids.

There's no glory in practice and lifting but without practice and lifting, there will be no glory!

Based on your past posts I was wondering if you simply hadn't considered that impact when making that point. I do think the rest of your post provides some interesting thoughts. I agree that the way they schedule OOC P5 games right now is about as archaic and frustrating as possible.

I didn't watch. I didn't watch any of the playoff this year, and I didn't watch any of the NY6 games. My level of care about college football in general is absolutely cratering, and it has very little to do with the downturn of VT football.

Simply put, I'm absolutely tired of Alabama vs Clemson every year. Those two teams could each shoot themselves in the dick, get eliminated from their own conference title race, and still make up half the entries into the playoff. I used to think that a team like Virginia Tech could play its way into a national title by just winning, but that isn't the case anymore. We have no shot, and its not because we don't recruit well enough, or don't bring in enough money. Even if we went undefeated, there's a damn good shot we'd be left out because we just don't have the prestige of an Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Georgia, etc. At least the BCS allowed for the chance of some new blood to play their way into contention, and we are a shining example of new blood being able to play itself into a shot of glory. That chance was eliminated when the playoff committee decided to eliminate all subjectivity from its decision making process.

The playoff needs to be expanded. All conference champions need to be a part of it. All conference championship games need to pit division champions against each other. Give everyone at this level of the game a very clear, direct, and legitimately attainable path to a title that cannot be interrupted by the opinions of others.

I haven't watched any college football playoff game over the past 5 years, and until the beauty pageant aspect of the sport that has absolutely eliminated any and all parity from existing is eradicated, I don't think I will watch again. Its just not entertaining watching the same teams over and over and over and over again.

"I have a PLAN. You just need to have a little goddamn faith, Whit. I just need. more. MONEY." - Justin van der Linde

The last non-VT college bowl game I watched was the (non playoff) Rose Bowl between USC and Penn State 3 or 4ish years ago, and I only watched it because it was on at the restaurant I went to. Last playoff game I watched was probably 2014

21st century QBs Undefeated vs UVA:
MV7, MV5, LT3, Braxton Burmeister, Ryan Willis, Josh Jackson, Jerod Evans, Michael Brewer, Tyrod Taylor, Sean Glennon, and Grant Noel. That's right, UVA. You couldn't beat Grant Noel.

I watched for the first time in years and all it did was make me realize 1999 was the epitome of Tech football and we'll never get close again.

And now I don't care so much about football anymore because what's the point?

Didn't even bother to watch the game and checked in on the score twice to see OSU getting destroyed. I just can't get excited by the same 3 teams + 1 "newcomer" every year doing the same old dance, not to mention how DOGSHIT the announcing has gotten. This year was atrocious as it seemed that halfway through the season the only thing people wanted to talk about was the playoffs. The Book interview during the VT/Clemson game was a insult but ESPN doesn't give two shits about it. If I was trying to fix things:

  • I think that the playoff needs to be expanded.
  • I think the voting needs to be taken out of the hands of people and put back into the hands of computers. Either that or make it like the BCS where the polls were included but reduce their weight.
  • I think scholarships need to be reduced to help spread out the wealth. The fact that blue bloods can soak up all the 4*/5* and keep them locked up without even trying is a detriment to the sport.
  • I think that there needs to be more competition between the P5 conferences. Two NC games where before the season starts P5 teams put together their "Top-10" list and a computer selects matchups. One G5 game, one FCS game. The G5 & FCS game must be played in the first half of the season.

As it stands, the CFP is too boring and I've got no interest in watching it.

For those of you who didn't stick around for the end of the game, this was a really awesome sports moment.

The most boring CFB NCG to me was 2011 I believe.
Alabama 21 LSU 0. Yep. I don't believe LSU crossed midfield the entire game. It was supposed to be the "rematch of the millennium."

I remember when LSU played Bama in basketball shortly after the game, the crowd gave a standing ovation when LSU passed midcourt the first time

Didn't watch. Got score Tuesday. Meh.

#Let's Go - Hokies

"Hey, we're creating a new football league. Not everyone will have a chance at winning the championship, and it's likely only three teams will compete for the championship every year. You in?"

I can tell you what my answer would be to that question. The playoffs suck and have been a failure. Sure, the BCS would likely yield the same results. But all the other games are so meaningless now. I don't even feel like NY6 games that aren't playoff games are that interesting. Just the one that the G5 is in for the Cinderella story.

I don't know what the solution will be. The rich will get richer. When someone not as rich starts doing well, their coach will go on to bigger and better things thereby putting that school in the dump again. Hopefully they can figure out something, though. I can't be the only one losing more and more interest every year.

Marshall University graduate.
Virginia Tech fanatic.
Formerly known as JWillHokieAlum.

But all the other games are so meaningless now. I don't even feel like NY6 games that aren't playoff games are that interesting. Just the one that the G5 is in for the Cinderella story.

And to me this is why you either go to full playoff or BCS this in between makes the other bowl games a placeholder until the 4 teams play.

(add if applicable) /s

IMO expanding the playoffs needs to happen but I don't think it will fix this problem by any stretch of the imagination. It's Alabama at the top and it's not particularly close, OSU and Clemson included.

Is the national champion the best team in the country? Or is it the team that survives the gauntlet of a playoff. The best team in the country can still lose a game in a playoff. With the basis for claiming a national championship being based off a #1 ranking by certain publications, you could still see claims for multiple national champions in a year. Unless, of course, those standards are revised with the development of a full playoff.

It works for basketball. I'm just saying that a playoff isn't necessarily representative of the season and the teams.

To me, the best team in sports is the team that wins. Yes, more talented teams can lose. But, that is why the game is played. Settle it on the field and stop assuming. Playoff is the only way to go, but the blue bloods are still going to dominate. There is no fixing that with a championship format.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

I disagree with this premise. I think the champion is the champion, settled on the field, but the objectively better team can absolutely lose and still be the best. the 2007 Patriots at 16-0 was a better football team than the 10-6 NYG. The better team losing in a one-off game is one of the best parts of sports. Pitt in 2016 wasn't better than Clemson, despite beating them. JMU wasn't a better football team than us in 2010.

I hear you but you play a game to win. The winner is the champion of the contest. Too much in college football is decided like a beauty pageant. I do not care if undefeated Bama loses in the first round of a playoff. They are out of contention.

I can't give New England any credit if they failed to beat a wild card team on two weeks of preparation on the biggest sports stage in the world. The Giants are 2007 World champs.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

I know there is no way it happens but I would love to see College Football managed at a higher level. Divide up the top 64 teams similar to the NFL. Set it up by regional quads, set aside two rival games, then have quads play all three quad opponents, four teams from another quad, and one team outside the top 64. That would give you a 10 game schedule and still keep rivalries alive that aren't regional, such as Notre Dame and USC. This would also give exposure to a broader alignment of teams.

Television and Conference Network deals would never allow this to happen unfortunately.

HOKIES QUAD - VT, UVA, Tennessee and WVU.
RIVALS- Miami and Pitt
Outside 64- JMU, ODU, APP ST

Computer evaluated selection of Top 8 teams at end to playoffs. On campus additional games allowed outside Top 8 up to 2 additional games to replace corrupt bowl system.

Potential discussion of relegation model to allow emerging programs to crack Top 64 and regressing programs to be moved to FCS level.

Hard no to Pitt

How about Miami and UNC?

Just was a for instance, I really am not invested in how the teams are broken up, but getting rid of conferences could add a huge amount of funding to each school and makes application of rules, discussions much cleaner. Getting rid of bowl games over playoffs also means a larger amount of revenue to schools rather than distant unconnected places. There is a reason the basketball tournament is such a huge moneymaker across the NCAA. Football is much more lucrative then basketball overall in popularity but the NCAA wastes it with the bowl structure.

One thing I'll say is I've never seen a receiver take over a game like that. It was a lot of fun to watch.

This won't do anything to help the competition at the top, but something I would like to see to make the games and season meaningful to more fans and players.

Have your playoff with 8 teams. The 5 P5 conference winners + the highest ranked G5 team (with some requirement that they have to be ranked in the top 10 or 12 just to make sure there really is a good G5 team that year) and 2 at large bids. Would be 3 at large bids if no G5 team is in the top 10 or 12. At large teams must be in the top 10 or 12 to make sure that a 7-5 Notre Dame team does not get in simply because they're Notre Dame.

Have maybe 6 or 8 other bowl games in total and that is it. Anyone going to a bowl game must be ranked in the top 25 as you will have a total of 8 playoff teams + 12-16 other teams playing in the post-season. The non-playoff bowl with the highest payout gets to pick the 2 teams they want. The next highest payout picks the next 2 teams they want ...

With far fewer post-season games being played, getting to a bowl game will be an accomplishment and I think you will see a lot fewer players opting out and most fan bases will be excited to get to one of those games. Some will opt out and some spoiled fan bases may be uninterested, but I think it would be better. Suspect few people will miss bowl games between 6-6 teams or the #4 Sun Belt school or the #8 SEC team or ...

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

I do disagree with you on one point. The highest ranked G5 team should get a place regardless unless they implement computer polls. The humans dropped Cinci and Coastal Carolina in the final polls just so they wouldn't have been in a top 8. I could see the humans putting Texas A&M, Bama, and Florida in before a G5 Team by just voting them down. CC was behind a 3 loss team and did at least have 1 ranked victory on their schedule.

why stop there? I would expand the field to 12 teams (minimum; 16 if I could), and include the conference champs from every conference, + 2 at-large bids. The top 4 teams would get a bye, and seeding would be handled by the playoff committee much like the NCAA BB tourney is handled. G5 schools get their ticket (and would make the term "G5" a thing of the past), and it still makes it possible for the independent schools to get in.

Assuming a format like that were in play this year:

Byes: Alabama (SEC), Clemson (ACC), Ohio St.(B10) , and Notre Dame (Ind.; at large #1) would get a 1st round bye

Round 1:
- Texas A&M (at large #2) vs. Ball St. (MAC)
- Oklahoma (B12) vs. UAB (C-USA)
- Cincy (American) vs. Oregon (Pac12)
- Louisiana (sun Belt) vs. San Jose St. (MWC)

Round 2 (hypothetical)
- Alabama vs. San Jose St.
- Clemson vs. Cincy
- Ohio St. vs. Oklahoma
- Notre Dame vs. Texas A&M

Based on what we observed this year I dont think it would have made a major impact on the final 4 teams, with the most likely change being Notre Dame getting knocked-off by A&M. Ohio St. & Oklahoma would have been an interesting game to watch, but 'bama and Clemson likely would've crushed their opponents. That said - we'll never know. Everyone knew that a 16 seed would eventually take down a 1 seed in the basketball tourney... I would expect something like that would have a higher probability of happening in football post-season, if changes were made to allow and support and expanded format. This also makes the conference championship games much more lucrative (I think) for ESPN and would help funnel more funds in to the current G5 conferences to give them a bump as well.

Yes I wondered about that myself. Why I said top 10 or 12 because I would think that it would be almost impossible for a legitimately deserving G5 team to not be ranked at least that high. But you could argue I am underestimating the ability of the powers that be to screw over a non-blue blood team. I do want to find a way to make sure that the G5 team gets a legitimate - even good - shot but make sure we don't get a joke selection either. I mean if Toledo is 9-3 or 8-4 and they are the highest ranked G5 team, I don't want them to get it. At the same time, I don't want to see 9-3 Penn State get in over 12-0 Toledo if that is the case. Can play with the scale and make it top 15 or have the computers pick.

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

I think the computers are going to have to be put back in. They need to be a third or even half of the determining criteria. Half the coaches don't even know who their assistants voted for.

In one of the Fuente threads, chparkervatech had probably the most prescient post on these forums:

https://www.thekeyplay.com/comment/1027368#comment-1027368

In the coaching hoopla threads, we are all basically arguing over 3-4 wins a season. Even if VT gets to 9-3, wins an ACC championship game, what are the odds we actually make it out of playoff against whoever the top 3 teams are?

Five percent? Ten percent? Still better than zero percent. But even in the best case scenario for VT football, we probably aren't going to make the playoffs.

Now of course, there are many things that matter other than pure wins:

1. Running a clean program
2. Developing the talent on the roster
3. Adapting scheme to talent / the era of CFB that the team is in
4. Building a culture that fits the ethos of Virginia Tech

All those four things should result in a good product that will pack the stands (and thus generate income for the school, surrounding businesses). During the season, I find myself getting hung up on wins and losses (as a fan should) but it is hard to see the big picture.

I imagine many other schools are in the same scenario VT is in.....realistically you aren't going to compete with Alabama, but how do you have a puncher's chance?

I enjoyed the game, maybe only because I was rooting for Alabama. Watching Devonta Smith play is as about enjoyable as football really gets I think. That guy is nuts and I'm glad he won the Heisman.

No cap, I would endure two more years of FuCorn in exchange for Huff as HC and Holmon

VB born, class of '14