tmwiese55

Have to love the NFL. Questioning a kids character because he's honest about not wanting to play somewhere and honest about the bs structure of the NCAA. Yet, Jameis was #1 consensus with multiple sexual assault accusations.

Rodgers' contract expiring in two years could easily line up with Brady retiring. Imagine what Rodgers could do in the Pats system.

Three of the next four are winnable. Get all 3 and I'd say the tourney discussion can open up again. Should get Trice back around that time too to fix the G depth to not rely on walkons like now.

It's not so much that they won the SB that long ago. They've also consistently been the 2nd best team in the league the whole time since. And for what MM is most responsible for (the offense), it has never been the problem.

If Walker comes back he'd be a good lead off guy, works the count and will have a good OBP. If Sogard can replicate anything close to what he did last year he would too, but I doubt it. Of course Villar if he returns to form too. My guess is if Walker isn't back then Villar will get vast majority of starts at 2B and leadoff to start the year and see how he does. the old speed stuff is overrated. Thames(vs righties) or Santana and their high OBP are better candidates than Arcia, barring a marked improvement from Arcia.

He gave it up a few years ago, so I don't know how you can call him stubborn and that he won't. I mean, he was being called stubborn at the time for how long it took him to take it back, guy can't win with some portion of the fans. Pretty much every year they're a top 5 offense if Rodgers is healthy. And I'm assuming he and Rodgers see very much eye to eye or else MM would be gone by now, so in a way why rock the boat and for all we know Rodgers might have told them no one else calling plays? The offense has never been the problem as long as Rodgers is there. I see your point on him being able to focus on other areas. But just as easily as you can say 'get the right guy in to call plays' one could say 'get the right guy to delegate the D to' so you don't have to worry about it and let that guy do his thing. And since MM isn't a D expert I don't see how much he should really be helping out on that mid game anyway. I get both sides of course and if they find a proven right guy to do it, fine I'm not going to argue. But the O has been great, and in a way if we're paying the HC the most money and his butt is on the line I'd rather him be the guy calling the plays. It's on him to do it, no one else to blame then when it comes to the offense and he's supposed to be the offensive guru so he should be the best guy to do the job. That said, one thing I'd be fine with is no huddle and Rodgers calling plays himself a huge chunk of the game.

MM gave up play calling duties a couple years ago and it went badly. Fans started complaining and whining for him to take it back. He did and the offense finished good that year and obviously was good last year and this before Rodgers got hurt. No reason for him to give it up or for people to be calling for it. That doesn't mean the OC doesn't still have a lot of day to day stuff to do as MM is busy with other stuff, I'd think it's logical that a guy with a broad background like Philbin's would be good for that type of situation as he can help out on almost anything (as opposed to a guy who comes from only a QB coach type background or any other specific niche). Regardless, whatever balance he and Philbin had previously seemed to work pretty well

I'd have no problem with Philbin coming back assuming Rodgers likes him. That was when the offense was at it's best, so why not. I thought they should have brought him back when he got let go from Miami and they were having the struggles with the OC here. I'm pretty sure the Colts coach got fired so he should be available and he'd be an idiot to turn down an OC job with the best QB in the league. It worked for the Pats and McDaniels.

Agree that there would be no harm in axing about 6 bowls, would make it all seems a bit more prestigious then. Another unrelated thing I'd like to see added is another bye week. Basically just move the season up one week so teams can have a buy within their first 4-5 games and another near the end. With how physical this all is now I just think it's in the best interest of the kids. And financially it spreads the games out more so you can sell more marquee games. I know the total games would be the same, but now they're more spread out so better timeslots. A weird quirk this year is I think USC didn't have a bye until the last week of the year. So they played one of the toughest schedules and got no byes. I think there was 3-4 blah games a week early this year, so maybe this trend is starting a bit. Also note that the B1G, Pac 10, and Big 12 already play 9 conf games and only 3 non conference. ACC I think does 8 but they have the ND tie-in so 4 or 5 teams get ND. SEC is the only one still doing 8 so they can schedule a cupcake midseason to rest.

To me it's just a different level. If the FCS champ goes undefeated should we argue whether they could have gone undefeated at a power 5 schedule, I don't think so. I say the same thing about the non power 5s. They are their own group, if they want to have their own champion, go for it, but then they'll have to give up all the money the power 5s toss them which funds their programs. Sorry, I'm 100% confident USF is not the best team this year. I do think it was a joke to leave them down at 12, at least throw them a bone and put them 8th or something. However, maybe it was all on purpose to tell everyone going forward that it's just not happening. Also, I pointed out how you can argue in circles about all those spots so it's essentially the same argument from 10th-ish to 4th this year so it's the same gap.

That's not a good enough reason not to expand to 8 teams. Yes, there will always be teams left out who can make a case they should be the 8th team in. But I can live with that, and I think the vast majority of fans could as well. With the caveat that the UCFs and Boise States of the world should be one of the 8 if they're undefeated. That's what we want to see as fans. I just edited to point out my sarcasm. But why can you live with it at 9 and 10 but not at 5 and 6? I can live with it right now. Everyone had their shot, they lost leaving it up to judgment, they all knew it going in. UCF knew going in that a non power 5 isn't getting in. That's the only issue and to me that's fine, it's a different level. I'm a fan, and I don't want teams that don't have to play a competitive schedule to get in. I want the best teams. The non power 5 teams should just be separated out and let them do their own thing if they want to make a champion somehow. UCF only had to play one major conference team in Maryland. They had GA Tech schedule but canceled due to the hurricane, replaced them with an FCS. If they had to play a major conference opponent for 9 straight weeks the chance of going undefeated are almost 0. They're top 25 wins were 2 again Memphis. Who scores like 60 per game vs their conference, they played a blah Big 12 team in IA St in their home stadium and could only score 20 and lost. Sure once in a while they'll pull an upset in the playoff and we all love an underdog, but most of the time Bama is just going to obliterate them in the playoff and no way they're going to win 3 straight. Also, you can point out UW's crap schedule as a comparison. But if you look at it objectively UW's crap schedule beats the heck out of what UCF got to play. Edit: All that said. I certainly see all sides of the argument on this and don't think anyone is clearly wrong or that I'm clearly right. Just kind of stating why I prefer it the way it is. CFB is my #1 sport and the regular season and keeping value on conference titles is what makes it great to me. So don't want to go too deep and muddy it all up.

Yup, if there was a magical way to have a flexible system that adjusted each year based on situation that would be great, but it's impossible. So I think what we have is about the best that can be done for now to maintain what makes CFB great, and that's the regular season. Until it consolidates to four conferences and the non FBS programs are told from the get go that they're out and they can make their own playoff if they want. So this year, if we go to 8 what do you do. Clemson, OU, Bama, UGA, UCF are in. For the the 6-8th spot you'd have to pick from OSU, USC, UW, PSU, Miami, Washington, Auburn (maybe one or two more I'm forgetting). You can argue in circles all day on things there. You probably end up with OSU and USC in due to conf titles but you can argue plenty on it. As in, why should USC get in over UW. UW clearly more deserving but without the conference title and USC had to play a brutal schedule. OSU obviously beat UW but lost twice, once blown out by a team that UW blew out. And that's just arguing the UW points, you can go into every team that way. Then argue in circles more for the last spot some more, it's impossible.

But what about the 9th and 10th teams that get left out, I think we should go to 16... Edit: this was sarcasm if it wasn't clear

Yea I get that, but they've been picking top 5 for 20 years and have nothing to show for it. Of course, this might be the time it works out with a seemingly have a proven good GM now, but history speaks for itself. I don't blame a QB for not wanting to go there if he has the balls to be the 'jerk' and subsequent pressure that comes from it. And likely pressure of NY media spotlight if he ends up there

He shouldn't go back to UCLA to avoid the Browns. With new coaches coming in and that he's for sure a top 10 pick he should go now. However, if he doesn't want to play there he should just refuse to meet with Cle and tell them the whole time he won't play there. Yea he becomes the jerk but it's worked for a few QBs over the years. The three I can think of of Steve Young, Elway, and Eli all worked out pretty well. I could be remembering incorrectly on Young, but I thought he signed with USFL to avoid a team like Tampa. The Browns have been a joke for 30 years and if you're a west coast guy that's the last place you'd want to live. Sure they might be about to turn it around but they've been saying that for 20 years, can't blame him for doing what he can to avoid that situation. Especially with two NY teams picking right behind them who also need QBs.

Yea the lessons of the first few years of this system is that you absolutely should not schedule tough non conference games. If you have 1 loss or less you're likely in, why make it any more difficult. OSU playing OU this year cost them a spot. OU playing OSU last year probably cost them a spot too. USC playing ND cost them a spot this year. FSU had their whole season ruined and likely lost their coach because of playing Bama. Other than the revenue generated from a marquee matchup there is no strategic scheduling reason for any team to make it more difficult on themselves. Take UW next year as an example. They already have road games at Mich and PSU. Plus their own side of the conference with road games at Nebraska, Iowa and NW. There is no need to play LSU this year on top of it. If they go 1 loss and win the B1G title game and they're in.

Looking at this from a pure UW perspective. I see many are just looking at it from the it's easier to get UW in if we allow 6 or 8 teams. however, it makes it much more difficult to win it all if we get in. I'd rather stick with 4 and only have to pull off two upset wins for the title vs usually better teams who are getting to play much closer to home (sometimes in their home states) than UW would be. 98% of the time a 1 loss UW who wins the Big Ten title game will be in the playoff already, no need to make it harder. I think the eventual solution will be to only have 4 conferences so the conf title games will be default playoff games, that's years down the road though. If not, I can accept a 6 team, that way there is always the incentive to finish undefeated and to win your conf title game to get the bye. If it's 8, some conf title games won't matter as the teams are in already anyway. I'd also like to see MN, Indy, and Detroit start getting included in some of these games. When it was Bowl games that didn't really count for anything it was really about just having a good time in nice weather. Now, titles are being based on this so there should be some variation on locations so the southern teams don't have such a huge advantage.

Problem is even with the transfer what kind of talent can they get this late in the class? They were already handcuffed by Herro/Hauser. I hope for some transfers but we know how rare that is, otherwise they'll be taking more projects. Still, better than wasting another year on them but it's not like they're going to get any kind of high level prospects. But hey if they end up two Trice and Ford level guys then it's not so bad

Yea I think if it was a 6 team they'd almost always have all 5 conference champs in barring them having 3 losses, like if Stanford had won vs USC. So it would be USC instead of us in as the 6th. The problem cited about making the Power 5s play each other more and eliminating FCS games is that it would kill the revenue that funds those smaller schools. While I agree that is unfortunate, I actually think big picture that is going to be the result anyway as football is played less and less by youth and just the overall health concerns that are going to hurt football long term. That stuff will go away and the P5 schools will converge as a separate entity with their own rules and regulations so in a way scheduling like this can just speed that all up.

True, those teams are worried about bowl eligibility. So it comes down to money talking on it, have to make it worth it for them. Spitballing a bit, you could probably work out some things similar to the B1G/ACC challenge in basketball, so it's kind of a fixed schedule or plan of when to play teams. Or like in the NFL when you play the other divisions. Obviously would have to be planned far in advance so way too complicated as so many games are already planned.

I don't think it's controversial at all to have Bama in over OSU. I kind of thought it was a no-brainer. It's the same way they got in last year so it's not like they can complain about how Bama didn't even win their division. Especially if you know the goal is to get the '4 best teams' no matter what, so you have a somewhat close call like this yet you look at each other in the room and you know that every person in there would pick Bama on a neutral field against every team in the country, makes it pretty tough to not pick them. Overall with the increase scheduling by everyone the last few years this year kind of shows how pointless it. If OSU plays Mercer instead of OU they're in. If USC plays Mercer instead of Notre Dame they're in. UW showed it, if you're undefeated you're in, so why make it harder to go undefeated. On the other hand, OSU beating OU last year is probably what got them in. I'd say the teams would be smart to play other major conference teams but the top guys shouldn't schedule each other. As in, OSU should schedule a game with a team like West VA/Texas Tech type team rather than OU if we're sticking Big 12. Or the last three years UW shouldn't have played Bama/LSU, they should have played Vandy/TN/Kentucky if you're sticking with SEC. So that you get a 'quality' win vs a major team but greatly reduces your risk of loss.

This should exactly be it. Ran into several people after the game Saturday saying how bad it was that Bama lost and I just couldn't see it. If we win, we're in. Bama losing made it very unlikely that we'd have to play Bama (which looked inevitable beforehand). So it was a big plus in my opinion. Now, we just need Miami and UGA to win and I'd actually feel like we have a shot to win the whole thing...

Last year they sent out a survey/proposal for a large remodel of the stadium addressing exactly this. I can't say for sure if the plan is approved and in the works though. Essentially they'll be reducing capacity by several thousand. Biggest thing to note is a massive remodel of the endzone by the Fieldhouse. Essentially turning it into a large tailgate type area. similar to what they have above the student section now but at a much larger scale and closer to the field. If I remember correctly it would have a lot of amenities built into it and somehow merges with being able to go in and out of the fieldhouse, kind of like a suite with a big outdoor patio.

What I'm most worried about is that this now looks like if OSU wins out and beats us in the title game they'll likely get the 4th spot. Assume Bama, ACC champ, OU for the other spots. Last thing we need is a highly motivated OSU coming at us in that game, I guess I'm still just traumatized from witnessing the 59-0. either way, one thing at a time. Just win this week.

This is the first proposal in this thread that I can get behind. I have yet to see a convincing argument for an 8-team playoff that doesn't result in mediocre teams getting in and/or making it too easy for the top teams to get in. The Pac-12 shouldn't have a representative this year. Neither should any non power-5 team. Other years are different. A flexible system (i.e. having a human committee) accounts for this Auto bids do not. An 8-team auto bid proposal would also greatly diminish the significance of this week's Wisconsin-Michigan game. Wisconsin has already clinched the B10 West, so one could argue that this weekend's game would be almost meaningless under the 8-team format. I don't buy the idea that a larger playoff bracket would do a better job determining a champion. The best way to determine a champion is for the best teams to play each other, not for the best teams to play mediocre teams. 1 vs. 8 matchup does nothing to help determine a champion and only increases the chance that an inferior team will be named champion because of the randomness of an individual game. Great phrasing, I'll remember this way of putting it. And yea like you said about the auto-bids i'm the same way. I love having these regular season games being huge, that's what makes CFB special imo