Official 2025 College Football Thread

[bronconick]

Alabama’s games do not matter. This has been the case since 2011. The whole reason we have this playoff structure is because Alabama does not want the outcomes of their games to matter.

[HerRealName]

I'm just adding my yearly whining about playoff sites. When the contract expires, they have to move away from using bowl sites. Games should be played in Indianapolis, Minnesota, Seattle, etc., too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

Yeah, but Alabama's only losses are to teams that beat Alabama. And Alabama is the only playoff team to beat a team that beat Alabama. So if you think about it, Alabama is maybe ranked too low.

I'm simply pointing out what the committee could have looked at, I recalled something along the lines of"high ceiling" mentioned in a few basketball selection post-shows, I remembered it and started skimming through the schedules.

Every committee is a little different on what they'll ultimately value most, we've seen it with basketball for how many years now? Sometimes it skews toward best wins, sometimes it skews toward worst losses.

Look at the top 8 -- call them "definitely in the CFP" teams -- they have a total of 8 losses between them. Indiana accounts for 2 of those, Ole Miss accounts for 1, Bama accounts for 1.

Looking at it, we're (or the committee) probably not giving Texas enough credit, they account for 2 of those losses themselves. Given what seems to have been valued, they probably ought to have been first team out honestly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

I'm just adding my yearly whining about playoff sites. When the contract expires, they have to move away from using bowl sites. Games should be played in Indianapolis, Minnesota, Seattle, etc., too.

Uh, no.

Fuck cold weather sites, those are what people escape from not go to in January.

[bob]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Bama also owns a win over a clear-cut playoff team.

BYU 0-2 vs those
Notre Dame 0-1 vs clear cut, 0-2 vs actual field
Miami 0-0 vs clear cut but has the head to head win over another candidate

The committee clearly went in the direction of "highest ceiling" instead of "lowest floor"

Nothing says high ceiling like needing a miracle to beat SC, beating a bad LSU that had already fired their coach, losing to an OU team that has no offense, beating a FCS team, squeezing by a dog shit Auburn, and then getting destroyed in the SEC championship game.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Uh, no.

Fuck cold weather sites, those are what people escape from not go to in January.

Dallas had maybe an inch or two of snow last year for the Cotton Bowl and flights were cancelled and roads weren't cleared North of the stadium. Also, it was like a windchill of 5* for the National Championship game last year. These aren't vacation destinations like the Rose Bowl.

[dubb93]

I’m not sure why they don’t just structure the 2nd round geographically and send the team with a bye that is closest to that site. Could realistically have games in Atlanta, LA, Indianapolis, and MetLife(wherever it’s actually located.) Semis could be have one game north/south or east/west depending on the year and then the finals site could be bid upon and rotate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I’m not sure why they don’t just structure the 2nd round geographically and send the team with a bye that is closest to that site.

At the moment, it's contractual. That deal tying the CFP to bowls is/was due to expire after this season but as far as I can tell the future is still being negotiated. (there's some thought that the lack of expansion could lead to a one-year carry over before any new longer term deal is done)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bob

Nothing says high ceiling like needing a miracle to beat SC, beating a bad LSU that had already fired their coach, losing to an OU team that has no offense, beating a FCS team, squeezing by a dog shit Auburn, and then getting destroyed in the SEC championship game.

You got anybody else in contention that beat a top 4 team?

[Atocep]

I don't think this decision was very difficult. Alabama had the best wins of the 3. Miami beat Notre Dame head to head. Notre Dame's best argument is who they lost to.

[GrantDawg]

Notre Dame has announced they will not accept a bowl bid. Spoiled little babies.

[Lathum]

That’s a really bad look for notre dame.

[bronconick]

I don't think a number of schools like bowl games much anymore and it's slipping out. This is also the last contractual year bowls are tied to the CFP right now.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by bronconick

I don't think a number of schools like bowl games much anymore and it's slipping out. This is also the last contractual year bowls are tied to the CFP right now.

I get it in a way, but it is still additional practices and an opportunity to develop team depth. Of course I guess we are at the point the NFL is with the preseason where no one wants to practice anymore. Who needs player development, right?

[bob]

I'm not sure I can blame them for not wanting to risk injury in a meaningless exhibition game to help make money for a tv network that spent the last several weeks devoting every telecast to fucking them over

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by bob

I'm not sure I can blame them for not wanting to risk injury in a meaningless exhibition game to help make money for a tv network that spent the last several weeks devoting every telecast to fucking them over

But yret they love cashing those network checks, don't they?

[bob]

I’m not sure I follow what you are saying at all. ESPN doesn’t pay them at all.

[cuervo72]

Maybe NBC can air an intrasquad scrimmage.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I get it in a way, but it is still additional practices and an opportunity to develop team depth. Of course I guess we are at the point the NFL is with the preseason where no one wants to practice anymore. Who needs player development, right?

Anyone with a glimmer of hope to play on Sunday pull out of any non-CFP bowl. Another chunk sit out to wait for the transfer portal. What's left are exhibitions to fill up December TV hours for ESPN, who owns 75% or more of bowls. They're dying out.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Anyone with a glimmer of hope to play on Sunday pull out of any non-CFP bowl. Another chunk sit out to wait for the transfer portal. What's left are exhibitions to fill up December TV hours for ESPN, who owns 75% or more of bowls. They're dying out.

Play Sunday NEXT year. That leaves 85-95% of the roster. Lots of kids that need the snaps and the experience. Players looking to work their way into the starting rotation and can use the growth. You can only grow so far in film room and practice squads. Eventually you need to hit someone in another uniform. Giving a way the prime opportunity for those players is showing how short-sighted some teams and coaches can be. And I say all this as someone who have always thought Bowls are overrated as a fan experience. The value as I have heard over and over again is for the players. Of course todays college football must be only for the 1% that will play in the NFL. Who cares about those other kids?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by bob

I’m not sure I follow what you are saying at all. ESPN doesn’t pay them at all.

Sure they do. Every game not at home they get a paycheck from the teams they play, which in turn comes from TV revenue. They recieve money directly from ESPN with their ties to the ACC conference. Without TV networks their coffers would be quite a bit lighter. I think it is funny that you say those networks where trashing them when all heard was glazing by commentators. ND of all school can't cry that the media is overly critical of them. It is always the opposite. What they don't have is a conference applying pressure for them, and that was their choice. This season shows they may have chosen poorly. The longer they refuse to join a conference it is likely to get worse.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's only two of those, let's be real.

Committee pretending there are 4.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Play Sunday NEXT year. That leaves 85-95% of the roster. Lots of kids that need the snaps and the experience. Players looking to work their way into the starting rotation and can use the growth. You can only grow so far in film room and practice squads. Eventually you need to hit someone in another uniform. Giving a way the prime opportunity for those players is showing how short-sighted some teams and coaches can be. And I say all this as someone who have always thought Bowls are overrated as a fan experience. The value as I have heard over and over again is for the players. Of course todays college football must be only for the 1% that will play in the NFL. Who cares about those other kids?

Nowadays it leaves more like 2/3 of the roster, thanks to the portal.

In other news

According to On3's Brett McMurphy, at least seven 5-7 teams have declined bowl bids, including Florida State, Auburn, UCF, Baylor, Rutgers, Temple, and Kansas. Usually, teams have to win six games to qualify for a bowl, but Notre Dame, Kansas State, and Iowa State have all opted out of bowl games, and the search is on to find an opponent for Georgia Southern in the Birmingham Bowl. 5-7 teams, Mississippi State and Rice, have accepted bowl berths, but the bowl system is one team short.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Sure they do. Every game not at home they get a paycheck from the teams they play, which in turn comes from TV revenue. They recieve money directly from ESPN with their ties to the ACC conference. Without TV networks their coffers would be quite a bit lighter. I think it is funny that you say those networks where trashing them when all heard was glazing by commentators. ND of all school can't cry that the media is overly critical of them. It is always the opposite. What they don't have is a conference applying pressure for them, and that was their choice. This season shows they may have chosen poorly. The longer they refuse to join a conference it is likely to get worse.

The payouts for these smaller bowls are tiny and the school is forced to buy tickets at a premium price that can be hard to re-sell. With roster turnover so high these days, it really isn't that big of a deal.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The payouts for these smaller bowls are tiny and the school is forced to buy tickets at a premium price that can be hard to re-sell. With roster turnover so high these days, it really isn't that big of a deal.

Less & less will matter until / unless some sanity returns instead of the current absurdity.

But pretty much every change made in the past several decades has been bad, I don't expect any to the good coming any time soon.

[JonInMiddleGA]

EXTREMELY idle thought just occurred to me*, something anyone can ponder on their own time if they see fit.

Imagine all conferences were dismantled starting next season, and no such configuration was allowed to replace them. Make all 12 spots at-large. Wins followed by OPW for wins and OPW for losses would be the primary selection criteria. Basically best wins pay off, worst losses are extremely costly.

I wonder what the meta for scheduling would become. {edit to add} And to reduce long-range crystal ball factor, all scheduling is on a 2-year cycle. Home & home for every contract. Just to add further motivation for avoiding the 12 smallest cupcakes you can find.

*the notion comes not from college football but from Georgia high school, where there's a contingent starting to push for the elimination of assigned regions entirely ... for reasons too detailed to bother with here

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lost amidst the playoff stuff is the rather odd sight of Zach Arnett being hired as the DC at Mississippi State. That's going to be ... interesting.

I may need to have Wendy's for lunch today.

Free Spicy Baconators for every State home shutout?

[GrantDawg]

How adults handle disappointment:





[Ghost Econ]

I think each conference should do a modified Champions League format where you get 2 rivalry games then pots that are chosen for 8 more conference games, with the pots seeded based on the last 3 years of performance. Then everyone gets 2 whatever games to get to 12 total games.

Under the new format, teams will play eight matches in the new league phase (former group stage). They will no longer play three opponents twice – home and away – but will instead face fixtures against eight different teams, playing half of those matches at home and half of them away. To determine the eight different opponents, the teams will initially be ranked in four seeding pots. Each team will then be drawn to play two opponents from each of these pots, playing one match against a team from each pot at home, and one away.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

How adults handle disappointment:

I don't much like the guy but I'll sure give him credit for being able to read the room and tailor his message accordingly.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Nowadays it leaves more like 2/3 of the roster, thanks to the portal.

And that is before we ask who would actually be there to develop the players.

I don't mean to crap on the Curt Cignetti/IU story, I am just using them as a reference. Here are the staff members that left James Madison to go to Indiana along with Cignetti.

Bryant Haines - DC/LB Coach
Mike Shanahan - OC/WR Coach
Grant Cain - ST Coordinator/TE Coach
Pat Kuntz - DT Coach
John Miller - RB Coach
Tino Sunseri - Co-OC/QB Coach
Derek Owings - S&C Coach
Alex Higgins - O-Line/TE Quality Control
Chaz LaPoint - Grad Assistant (D-Line)
Francis Meehan - Grad Assistant (D-backs)
Reed Relosky - Grad Assistant (Wide Recievers)
Nate Adams - Assistant Athletic Performance Coach

I know Cignetti did not coach the bowl game that year but I don't know how many members of the staff waited until after the bowl game to leave. My point is the people responsible for the player development and the team depth may not be there to do either or may be doing so for some other school. This is the business everyone including the kids have chosen even if this is the first time they realize that it is a business.

[Thomkal]

It's getting so bad for Bowls, the Birmingham Bowl had to take two Sun Belt teams who had already played this year-Ga. Southern and App State.

[cuervo72]

There are simply too many of them to begin with.

[dubb93]

Notre Dame seems to be very upset at the ACC conference over this entire ordeal. Notre Dame's AD called a press conference for tomorrow and while I assume it's probably going to be a whole bunch of nothing he did release today that the relationship between Notre Dame and the ACC has been permanently damaged so there is a chance Notre Dame does something drastic here.

What seems to have upset them is the conference (not Miami but the conference itself) advocating for Miami over ND on social media and the ACC network replaying ND-Miami "7 to 8 times" in the leadup to the ACC Championship game.

The ACC's current media rights deal with ESPN reflects ESPN's desire to see ND play Clemson/Miami/Florida State twice a year as part of the right's deal so if ND does something here the ACC (and possibly Notre Dame) would have to answer to ESPN.

[Atocep]

Notre Dame finding that not being in a conference hurt them when they're used to getting preferential treatment is the best part of the current playoff system. It's almost enough to make me not hate it.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Notre Dame finding that not being in a conference hurt them when they're used to getting preferential treatment is the best part of the current playoff system. It's almost enough to make me not hate it.

I'd prefer Notre Dame didn't exist. If they have to exist I'll just have to settle for enjoying whatever chaos this sets off.

[cuervo72]

The ACC would show preference to a full-time member over a part-time member (and non-member in the sport in question)? Imagine that.

[RainMaker]

I think a lot of problems could be solved by going back to smaller, regional conferences instead of these 18 team "leagues". It was pretty fun when you more or less played everyone in your conference once a year.

I'd rather just ditch conferences altogether than have what we currently have.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Notre Dame finding that not being in a conference hurt them when they're used to getting preferential treatment is the best part of the current playoff system. It's almost enough to make me not hate it.

Which is why they go right back to receiving preferential treatment in 2026.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

The ACC would show preference to a full-time member over a part-time member (and non-member in the sport in question)? Imagine that.

Considering Notre Dame doesnt share a playoff share with the ACC it would be malpractice for their commissioner or anyone else affiliated with the conference to back them over a full member.

Notre Dame wasnt complaining last year when they didn't have to share their playoff payout with anyone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think a lot of problems could be solved by going back to smaller, regional conferences instead of these 18 team "leagues". It was pretty fun when you more or less played everyone in your conference once a year.

I'd rather just ditch conferences altogether than have what we currently have.

Not entirely true about that though.

Take for example UGA-Ole Miss. Both charter members of the SEC, since 1932 they've been in the same conference.

They didn't play each other until 1940.
Even allowing for the war years, after 1942 they didn't meet again til 1955.
And didn't play again until 1966. Only then did they become regular opponents.

A more dramatic example might be LSU and Vandy, both SEC charter members, in the same conference for 94 seasons now. They've only met 31 times in all those years.

[Kodos]

I think ten-team conferences where everyone plays everyone would be ideal.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not entirely true about that though.

Take for example UGA-Ole Miss. Both charter members of the SEC, since 1932 they've been in the same conference.

They didn't play each other until 1940.
Even allowing for the war years, after 1942 they didn't meet again til 1955.
And didn't play again until 1966. Only then did they become regular opponents.

A more dramatic example might be LSU and Vandy, both SEC charter members, in the same conference for 94 seasons now. They've only met 31 times in all those years.

Isn't that just poor scheduling? 10 team conference should allow you to play 9 conference games against every team. Rotate every other year home and away. Even if you go to 12 teams, it's 2 teams that rotate out each season so you'd only miss playing them once every 4-5 years.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think ten-team conferences where everyone plays everyone would be ideal.

No need for conference title games either. You have head-to-head tiebreakers in most cases.

If you ABSOLUTELY need to have a mega conference for TV money or whatever, split it into 2 regions/divisions. You play everyone in your region once and that regional champ plays the other regional champ in the title game each year. Not ideal since divisions can be lopsided but better than each team playing maybe half the conference and then having some convoluted system to decide who plays in a conference title game that may or may not even matter (or be a rematch).

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No need for conference title games either. You have head-to-head tiebreakers in most cases.

If you ABSOLUTELY need to have a mega conference for TV money or whatever, split it into 2 regions/divisions. You play everyone in your region once and that regional champ plays the other regional champ in the title game each year. Not ideal since divisions can be lopsided but better than each team playing maybe half the conference and then having some convoluted system to decide who plays in a conference title game that may or may not even matter (or be a rematch).

I like the idea of two 10 team divisions where you play every team in your division every year and the winners play for the championship. Championship games make too much money to every go away and if we are going to have giant conference this would be my preference.

[Danny]

Two 10 divisions in several different ranked conferences. Winner of each division play each other for championship. Last place gets regulated to next lower ranked conference. Winner of each division in lower conferences move up a conference for next season.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Isn't that just poor scheduling? 10 team conference should allow you to play 9 conference games against every team. Rotate every other year home and away. Even if you go to 12 teams, it's 2 teams that rotate out each season so you'd only miss playing them once every 4-5 years.

I was mostly just pointing out that, however logical it might be, it hasn't always been done that way (i.e. the whole "more or less played everyone in your conference once a year")

I suppose that's one reason that, from a "OMG we haven't played X in a long time" standpoint, I'm not really bothered much by it now. From a Ga Tech fan perspective, I miss playing Tulane regularly more than I'd ever miss Boston College for example. I'd never have the slightest sense of sadness at never playing Cal or Stanford.

Tech played Tulane 50x between 1916 and 2015
Tech has played BC 13x between 1972 and 2025, despite being in the same conference for the past 21 seasons.

Tech has been in the ACC since 1983, when it was an 8-team conference.
FSU didn't join until '92, it wasn't until '04 when Miami & Va Tech joined.

I miss games against Auburn (86x from 1902-2005) and even Alabama (52x from 1902-1984) more than I'd ever miss even FSU who they've still only played 27x (1955-2024) despite being in the same conference for 30+ years and more than a decade of that being when everybody played everybody in the ACC.

That said, Duke & Clemson are GT's 2nd & 3rd most played opponents but that has history far before ACC membership (1903 and 1902 respectively)

[JonInMiddleGA]

And just in case it isn't clear, I'm only talking about what games I care about as a fan.

That has nothing to do with what makes sense from a playoff, standings, etc. standpoint. Totally different topic afaic.

(Just trying to make it clear that I'm not stupidly missing the point about that stuff, I wandered onto a different scheduling topic altogther)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think ten-team conferences where everyone plays everyone would be ideal.

fwiw, I used 6x10 team setup as a down & dirty example to explain to someone earlier today about what I'd like to see, more than anything from the standpoint of cutting the top tier of CFB to around half it's current absurd number.

9 games vs your own "division/group", 3 from the other five (or even 2+team choice) "Division/group" winners get auto-bid, with 6 wildcards taken from wherever. I even had a 2 year promotion/relegation cycle for the bottom 6 teams vs the top 6 of the second tier (feeling like 10% of the field changing every two years was a reasonable sweet spot that might work).

Second tier teams in line for a promotion opportunity can have the option of taking that shot OR staying in that season's League 2 post-season bracket (I suspect some would be fine with staying in the lower level honestly since there'd have to be some element of stadium size, investment, etc floors for the top tier)

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

cutting the top tier of CFB to around half it's current absurd number.

YES!