2012 College Football Season thread

[Babs]

Do you realize this version of the plus 1 is a matchup between 1v4 and 2v3 and then winners play? This isn't the old stupid plus 1 where 1v2 plays and then they rerank and play 1v2 again... You have some really twisted perceptions if you think that the 1v4, 2v3 and winners play for the title isn't attractive.....

I do realize that. The fact that the BCS execs are now pinning their hopes on a plus-one hail mary is an indication of just how little they understand or care what has eroded interest in the BCS and in bowl game in general.

[BoylenOver]

Brett McMurphy of CBS Sports made his extremely early preseason Top 25 rankings: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...ed-usc-at-no-2

at #21

[Jacob]

I think a Plus-1 along with elimination of AQ conference status would be ideal.

• All teams ranked 1-10 automatically qualify.
• 1 plays 4
• 2 plays 3
• Remaining bowls select teams 5-10
• Rose can keep priority on B10 P12 if not 1-4

[Jacob]

Oh, and limit total number of bowl games to 20

[mtnbiker]

7-1 after Shaw became the starter he finished with 14tds and 6 ints and a 148.3qb rating.

His only loss was @ Arkansas.

He had wins over Florida, Clemson and Nebraska in the bowl game. I think South Carolina makes that step in to the top 5 next year.

Yeah, but you're talking South Carolina. Those guys have been touted many times over the years, and have always found a way to disappoint. Badly.

[woot]

Jeff Casteel is going to Tucson to be RichRod's DC, which puts to rest the main reason to suspect a repeat performance. There are all sorts of rumors about why Casteel didn't follow him to Michigan, with the consensus seeming to be an unwillingness by the then-AD to pay him what he's worth.

The talent won't be as good at UA, but I would guess that Arizona becomes a top-tier Pac12 team within 5 years.

[Green Monstah]

Apparently conference commissioners met yesterday to discuss 4-team BCS playoff.

Interesting.

[Pelado]

Apparently conference commissioners met yesterday to discuss 4-team BCS playoff.

Interesting.

They apparently discussed several other options, too. Among those was a reprisal of the idea of sponsoring only the championship game and letting the other current BCS bowls contract with the conferences separately.

[Indy Coug]

Reports are that the NCAA is contemplating dropping the scholarship limit from 85 down to 80. I'm not sure what the motivation is behind this proposal, but the effect IMO will be bigger than it might appear.

[Paperback Writer]

Reports are that the NCAA is contemplating dropping the scholarship limit from 85 down to 80. I'm not sure what the motivation is behind this proposal, but the effect IMO will be bigger than it might appear.

Without looking into it, this proposed change can't sit well for the major programs where football makes a profit and subsidizes other sports programs. These football programs actually want to increase the benefits for their players; specifically, increase the monthly stipend that players receive.

It's probably the football programs that don't turn a profit (and there are many) that want to reduce the scholarship limit to 80. That way they can use those scholarships for male olympic sports or get rid of them all together (more likely). And if they reduce 5 male sports scholarships, there's a good chance they can reduce 5 female sports scholarships (Title IX in reverse).

That's one of the divisions between big-time BCS schools with a profitable football program and the other division I programs. The smaller schools want to cut their losses while the giants want to increase benefits with the hope (unlikely as it might be) that football players won't break rules to get extra cash. It's one of the motivations for the more successful BCS schools to break from the NCAA all together at least for football.

[The_Tick]

Without looking into it, this proposed change can't sit well for the major programs where football makes a profit and subsidizes other sports programs. These football programs actually want to increase the benefits for their players; specifically, increase the monthly stipend that players receive.

It's probably the football programs that don't turn a profit (and there are many) that want to reduce the scholarship limit to 80. That way they can use those scholarships for male olympic sports or get rid of them all together (more likely). And if they reduce 5 male sports scholarships, there's a good chance they can reduce 5 female sports scholarships (Title IX in reverse).

That's one of the divisions between big-time BCS schools with a profitable football program and the other division I programs. The smaller schools want to cut their losses while the giants want to increase benefits with the hope (unlikely as it might be) that football players won't break rules to get extra cash. It's one of the motivations for the more successful BCS schools to break from the NCAA all together at least for football.

This benefits BYU greatly. I think of it this way....

Athletes that typically receive D1 football scholarships typically don't qualify for academic scholarships, and their family isn't in the position to pay for college. (Sweeping generalizations aside.)

So Alabama has 5 less scholarships. 4 and 5 star kids aren't going to walk on and pay their own way. So those kids go elsewhere. Trickle down affect.

BYU will benefit. We have a historically good walk-on program. And if you end up having to pay for your own schooling...BYU is extremely affordable.

The reason the big schools wont be for this is the student athlete isn't interested in paying their own way.

Win win for us.

[USUC]

This is probably a shot at the SEC. They have all sports of shenanigans with regards to recruiting and over recruiting.

[Eddie]

This benefits BYU greatly. I think of it this way....

Athletes that typically receive D1 football scholarships typically don't qualify for academic scholarships, and their family isn't in the position to pay for college. (Sweeping generalizations aside.)

So Alabama has 5 less scholarships. 4 and 5 star kids aren't going to walk on and pay their own way. So those kids go elsewhere. Trickle down affect.

BYU will benefit. We have a historically good walk-on program. And if you end up having to pay for your own schooling...BYU is extremely affordable.

The reason the big schools wont be for this is the student athlete isn't interested in paying their own way.

Win win for us.

My thought exactly. What this should do in shrink the disparity in talent from one team to the next. The top programs will still have all 4* and 5* guys - but they'll have 5 fewer of them.

How many BCS teams are there in the country? Take 5 kids from each of those teams and how many potential recruits does that give to the remaining teams?

Sure - there is also the consequence of reducing the cost of men's sports and the number of scholarships given to men's sports - so that it is easier to comply with Title 9 stuff and/or add 5 scholarships to something one of the olympic sports.

I see this as a big potential win for the little guys.

I also see it as creating an incentive for the big guys to figure out another way to persuade kids to come as a walk on. What could they offer?

[USCoug]

It'll be interesting to see how USC is going to do with the target on their backs next season. I think they mostly did well this year (as a very young team) because they didn't have the pressure of being the favorites. I'm optimistic.

Maybe BYU will win more then one worthwhile game next year with Riley taking snaps. I'm keeping my expectations low as to not be disappointed.

[BoylenOver]

NCAA voted against scholarship reductions, BTW.