(12-30-2016 02:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 02:17 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 12:11 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 11:06 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 09:59 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  People have been excluded from things by elitists for a very long time. The worst strategy is to just accept the discrimination as your due.

My personal dream is that Alabama beats Ohio State to win the CFP every...single...year. I would love to see a decade of Alabama beating Ohio State to win the CFP. They system is so out of kilter, it theoretically could happen. I hope so.

You are right, no G5 team is getting in. Because it is an unfair system. It is not sports. But we need to keep putting ourselves in position to have the doors slammed in our faces.....perhaps for decades. A few decades of getting doors slammed might change things.....giving up won't.

Is it really an unfair system? Please make the case for any G5 school to be included in a 4 team playoff. Mainly taking into consideration SOS. I'm as big of an App fan as you'll find, but even if we had gone undefeated with W's over Tenn and Miami, our conf schedule still derails the case for us over the others.

Sent from my XT1254 using CSNbbs mobile app

Yes, it is unfair. Here is how.

By having no chance at playoff access or National Championship.....it is better in the minds of some 4-star and 5-star athletes to go sit on a bench at Alabama and pray for playing time than it is for them to stay close to home at App State and play every down.

IF every player knew that he could get to the playoffs at FAU....or Georgia State....or Alabama....by what he and his teammates did on the field no matter what school he chose....then he might choose playing time.

Just that....all by itself.....would create more parity in college football than it has had in decades.

Would the "P5" still have advantages? Of course they would. College football is never, ever, going to be "fair". But just that....would make it POSSIBLE for the status quo to change and for ANY of our programs to be relevant through our own actions.

10 FBS conference champions and 2 or 4 wildcards....seeded by conference power rating or committee....would make this sport a real sport and give every single FBS football player a path to a National Championship. No matter how difficult....the path to the top would be clearly laid out....do this....win a title.

I think college football would grow. I think attendance would grow. I think interest would grow. I think revenue would grow. I think every game would be more meaningful. I think most of the time Alabama and Ohio State would still be King. But it would be great. Every single fan base would still have that defined path to win it all.

Personally, I hope Alabama and Ohio State play every year for the title until it gets so boring that they are forced to change the status quo and become a REAL sport.

Your argument is that we don't DESERVE a spot because we aren't as good. But we aren't as good because we don't have a spot!!!!

You are unemployable because you don't have a job. You can't go to law school because your type have never become lawyers before. You can't use the exercise room because you are fat. You can't have a playoff spot because players who want to go to the playoffs choose other schools. These are rationalizations....not valid reasons.

Except you're forgetting one thing. The P5 is generating probably 90% of the revenue for college sports. They are ALWAYS going to have the main say so. They get the big ratings, the big crowds... they are the ones that draw the eyes to the tv. They are the reason the G5 is even able to get a payout from bowl season. They're never going to look at the G5 in the same light and from that standpoint, it's kinda hard to argue with them.

Now, should everyone have a fair shot? Sure... but, until you can present the argument that you can bring as much to the table as they do for networks, stadiums, bowl committees, etc... you're not going to have much of an argument. And it's not a knock, but imagine that somehow this year the Peach Bowl ended up being Ark State and WMU. Attendance wise and viewership wise, how would that turn out vs Alabama & Washington? They hold the cards because they have the clout.. it's just the way it is. There will likely never be an FBS scenario where every conference champ is included. Why? Because there's really no way on earth that you could justify Ark State getting in over USC, Penn State, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Michigan, Oklahoma State, West Virginia or Louisville. That's how they're going to look at it. And, if anyone ever attempted to make that change, that's when the break away would happen.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. There can't be any parity because there is no parity. You can't have a job because you are unemployed. Heard it a thousand times.

Oh I'm sorry....your program can't be allowed to work yourself into a position to earn as much money as Louisville because you don't earn as much money as Louisville. Tough luck...that's just how it is.

How can you justify it....SPORTS. That is how SPORTS works. People play by rules and if they accomplish what the rules say then they earn a championship. No polls....no beauty contests....no comparing of bank accounts.....no who has the highest tv ratings.....no its always been that way....just WHAT DID YOU DO ON THE FIELD.

That....is how you justify all members of a freaking sports league being treated equally in terms of opportunity for the championship of that sport.

So freaking weird that people can rationalize this ridiculous system.

Then put your school in a position to have a valid argument. Just the fact that you're FBS isn't gonna do it. Because realistically, in no way, shape or form can you really say you should be given equal ground in the playoffs as the SEC just because you're FBS. I mean realistically, teams outside of the P5 know this when they choose to be a part of FBS. You try to force your way in and they leave, then what? G5 football becomes irrelevant anyways. And you also lose your payouts.

(12-31-2016 05:01 AM)SouthJags2012 Wrote:  15 years from now the Playoff will be 16 teams and include all conference champions so the 1 2 3 and 4 seeds have an "easy" open game. That is the only way we can get in.

No, it won't.

(12-31-2016 10:03 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 08:49 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 12:11 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 11:06 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 09:59 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  People have been excluded from things by elitists for a very long time. The worst strategy is to just accept the discrimination as your due.

My personal dream is that Alabama beats Ohio State to win the CFP every...single...year. I would love to see a decade of Alabama beating Ohio State to win the CFP. They system is so out of kilter, it theoretically could happen. I hope so.

You are right, no G5 team is getting in. Because it is an unfair system. It is not sports. But we need to keep putting ourselves in position to have the doors slammed in our faces.....perhaps for decades. A few decades of getting doors slammed might change things.....giving up won't.

Is it really an unfair system? Please make the case for any G5 school to be included in a 4 team playoff. Mainly taking into consideration SOS. I'm as big of an App fan as you'll find, but even if we had gone undefeated with W's over Tenn and Miami, our conf schedule still derails the case for us over the others.

Sent from my XT1254 using CSNbbs mobile app

Yes, it is unfair. Here is how.

By having no chance at playoff access or National Championship.....it is better in the minds of some 4-star and 5-star athletes to go sit on a bench at Alabama and pray for playing time than it is for them to stay close to home at App State and play every down.

IF every player knew that he could get to the playoffs at FAU....or Georgia State....or Alabama....by what he and his teammates did on the field no matter what school he chose....then he might choose playing time.

Just that....all by itself.....would create more parity in college football than it has had in decades.

Would the "P5" still have advantages? Of course they would. College football is never, ever, going to be "fair". But just that....would make it POSSIBLE for the status quo to change and for ANY of our programs to be relevant through our own actions.

10 FBS conference champions and 2 or 4 wildcards....seeded by conference power rating or committee....would make this sport a real sport and give every single FBS football player a path to a National Championship. No matter how difficult....the path to the top would be clearly laid out....do this....win a title.

I think college football would grow. I think attendance would grow. I think interest would grow. I think revenue would grow. I think every game would be more meaningful. I think most of the time Alabama and Ohio State would still be King. But it would be great. Every single fan base would still have that defined path to win it all.

Personally, I hope Alabama and Ohio State play every year for the title until it gets so boring that they are forced to change the status quo and become a REAL sport.

Your argument is that we don't DESERVE a spot because we aren't as good. But we aren't as good because we don't have a spot!!!!

You are unemployable because you don't have a job. You can't go to law school because your type have never become lawyers before. You can't use the exercise room because you are fat. You can't have a playoff spot because players who want to go to the playoffs choose other schools. These are rationalizations....not valid reasons.

We aren't as good because we aren't as good, not because we don't have a spot in the playoff. Do you think 4 & 5 star players will begin choosing AR State over traditional P5 powers just because you now have the opportunity at at spot in the playoff? Sorry to bust your bubble, but these big time athletes are not going to flock to Jonesboro just because there is a chance the Red Wolves could make the playoff. The reality is only a small portion of P5 schools have a legit shot at the playoffs anyway. Look at it this way. AR State has the same opportunity as Duke of making the NCAA Tournament and winning the national championship. I don't see you guys slugging it out with the Blue Devils for the best basketball players in the land.

Nobody said anything about "flocking". Please let my actual words stand for themselves.

4 and 5 star players are not going to "flock" to Jonesboro. But some will come rather than sit on the bench at LSU IF they know they have an actual opportunity to reach the playoffs by winning a Sun Belt title. In fact...they might see it as easier to reach the playoffs in the Sun Belt than in the SEC West.

This would increase parity immediately and improve the selection pool for G5 schools. 4 and 5 stars will not "flock", but SOME will choose playing time and an easier path to a playoff appearance. G5 would see MORE 4 and 5 stars staying home.

As for your basketball analogy.....you may not see Arkansas State getting good players, but you do see Gonzaga, Butler, Xavier, Creighton, etc. getting some. Basketball is different of course because of number of players....but again....Gonzaga, Butler, Xavier, Creighton, etc.

All of those are schools that focus solely on basketball anyways so pretty crappy example.

(01-01-2017 01:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 11:02 AM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  I like playoffs. That's the only real way to determine a champion.

Statistically, better teams don't fare that well in playoffs.

In the NFL teams with a bye lose to a team that didn't have a bye in the conference championship more often than they win. Wildcards who didn't even win a weak division have won at least one conference championship in nearly a fourth of all seasons.

Having the best record in baseball at the end of the regular season statistically gives you a whopping 26% chance of being World Series champion and a 43% chance of even making the World Series. After 162 games there is still a luck element to winning three playoff series.

Teams winning the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament are about as likely to have failed to have won their conference in regular season as they are to have won it.

Winning the Sun Belt regular season is certainly no predictor of winning the conference tournament.

Playoffs give AN answer, but they aren't very good at crowning the team that played the best over the season.

Better team winning or not, playoffs are the fairest way of determining a champion. Period.

(01-01-2017 02:00 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 01:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 11:02 AM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  I like playoffs. That's the only real way to determine a champion.

Statistically, better teams don't fare that well in playoffs.

In the NFL teams with a bye lose to a team that didn't have a bye in the conference championship more often than they win. Wildcards who didn't even win a weak division have won at least one conference championship in nearly a fourth of all seasons.

Having the best record in baseball at the end of the regular season statistically gives you a whopping 26% chance of being World Series champion and a 43% chance of even making the World Series. After 162 games there is still a luck element to winning three playoff series.

Teams winning the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament are about as likely to have failed to have won their conference in regular season as they are to have won it.

Winning the Sun Belt regular season is certainly no predictor of winning the conference tournament.

Playoffs give AN answer, but they aren't very good at crowning the team that played the best over the season.

Better team winning or not, playoffs are the fairest way of determining a champion. Period.

1984-85 basketball season.
St. John's won the Big East regular season title. They defeated Villanova home and away and in the Big East tournament.

'Nova finished six games out of first in the Big East.

Georgetown split with St. John's and Syracuse, their only regular season losses. They like St. John's swept Villanova in the regular season. In the Big East final Georgetown defeated St. John's.

The field had expanded to 64. So Villanova managed to make the field.

Come NCAA Tournament:
Third round Villanova defeats Maryland by three, Maryland had beaten Villanova by three in the regular season.

Final Four, 'Nova faces Memphis and wins (no complaint there) on the other side Georgetown faces St. John's. Villanova was 0-5 vs the teams in the other semi-final. Georgetown wins making their record vs. St. John's 3-1 for the year.

NCAA championship 'Nova defeats Georgetown to make their record vs Georgetown 1-2 on the season.

A playoff injects randomness. Villanova per the NCAA tournament was the best team in the nation but they were third best in the Big East in regular season. Third or fourth in the Big East tournament. They had to beat two teams in the Dance they had a combined 0-3 record against.

Fairness left the equation when Villanova got the chance to play for the NCAA title.

(01-01-2017 03:47 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 02:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 02:00 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 01:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 11:02 AM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  I like playoffs. That's the only real way to determine a champion.

Statistically, better teams don't fare that well in playoffs.

In the NFL teams with a bye lose to a team that didn't have a bye in the conference championship more often than they win. Wildcards who didn't even win a weak division have won at least one conference championship in nearly a fourth of all seasons.

Having the best record in baseball at the end of the regular season statistically gives you a whopping 26% chance of being World Series champion and a 43% chance of even making the World Series. After 162 games there is still a luck element to winning three playoff series.

Teams winning the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament are about as likely to have failed to have won their conference in regular season as they are to have won it.

Winning the Sun Belt regular season is certainly no predictor of winning the conference tournament.

Playoffs give AN answer, but they aren't very good at crowning the team that played the best over the season.

Better team winning or not, playoffs are the fairest way of determining a champion. Period.

1984-85 basketball season.
St. John's won the Big East regular season title. They defeated Villanova home and away and in the Big East tournament.

'Nova finished six games out of first in the Big East.

Georgetown split with St. John's and Syracuse, their only regular season losses. They like St. John's swept Villanova in the regular season. In the Big East final Georgetown defeated St. John's.

The field had expanded to 64. So Villanova managed to make the field.

Come NCAA Tournament:
Third round Villanova defeats Maryland by three, Maryland had beaten Villanova by three in the regular season.

Final Four, 'Nova faces Memphis and wins (no complaint there) on the other side Georgetown faces St. John's. Villanova was 0-5 vs the teams in the other semi-final. Georgetown wins making their record vs. St. John's 3-1 for the year.

NCAA championship 'Nova defeats Georgetown to make their record vs Georgetown 1-2 on the season.

A playoff injects randomness. Villanova per the NCAA tournament was the best team in the nation but they were third best in the Big East in regular season. Third or fourth in the Big East tournament. They had to beat two teams in the Dance they had a combined 0-3 record against.

Fairness left the equation when Villanova got the chance to play for the NCAA title.

What the hell has "fairness" got to do with anything ?

Who the hell ever said life was fair? And if you think it is, I've got some Ocean Front Property to sell you . .. in Oklahoma . . .

Maybe look at the post I was replying to answer your questions on "fairness".

(01-01-2017 02:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 02:00 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 01:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 11:02 AM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  I like playoffs. That's the only real way to determine a champion.

Statistically, better teams don't fare that well in playoffs.

In the NFL teams with a bye lose to a team that didn't have a bye in the conference championship more often than they win. Wildcards who didn't even win a weak division have won at least one conference championship in nearly a fourth of all seasons.

Having the best record in baseball at the end of the regular season statistically gives you a whopping 26% chance of being World Series champion and a 43% chance of even making the World Series. After 162 games there is still a luck element to winning three playoff series.

Teams winning the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament are about as likely to have failed to have won their conference in regular season as they are to have won it.

Winning the Sun Belt regular season is certainly no predictor of winning the conference tournament.

Playoffs give AN answer, but they aren't very good at crowning the team that played the best over the season.

Better team winning or not, playoffs are the fairest way of determining a champion. Period.

1984-85 basketball season.
St. John's won the Big East regular season title. They defeated Villanova home and away and in the Big East tournament.

'Nova finished six games out of first in the Big East.

Georgetown split with St. John's and Syracuse, their only regular season losses. They like St. John's swept Villanova in the regular season. In the Big East final Georgetown defeated St. John's.

The field had expanded to 64. So Villanova managed to make the field.

Come NCAA Tournament:
Third round Villanova defeats Maryland by three, Maryland had beaten Villanova by three in the regular season.

Final Four, 'Nova faces Memphis and wins (no complaint there) on the other side Georgetown faces St. John's. Villanova was 0-5 vs the teams in the other semi-final. Georgetown wins making their record vs. St. John's 3-1 for the year.

NCAA championship 'Nova defeats Georgetown to make their record vs Georgetown 1-2 on the season.

A playoff injects randomness. Villanova per the NCAA tournament was the best team in the nation but they were third best in the Big East in regular season. Third or fourth in the Big East tournament. They had to beat two teams in the Dance they had a combined 0-3 record against.

Fairness left the equation when Villanova got the chance to play for the NCAA title.

Isn't that what playoffs are about? That just represents a microcosm of athletics in general. It's why they play the games. How is it not fair? They earned the spot based on the NCAA committee, just like every team that doesn't get an auto-bid. They had a higher seed and a tougher road than their conference mates yet they persevered and won when it mattered most. It's why games aren't played on paper and why we deserve a shot at an expanded playoff.

I like playoffs...whether as in your example Villanova wins games you think it shouldn't or not. If team A wins the playoffs, they are the best team.

(01-01-2017 04:29 PM)runninjoe Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 02:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 02:00 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 01:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 11:02 AM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  I like playoffs. That's the only real way to determine a champion.

Statistically, better teams don't fare that well in playoffs.

In the NFL teams with a bye lose to a team that didn't have a bye in the conference championship more often than they win. Wildcards who didn't even win a weak division have won at least one conference championship in nearly a fourth of all seasons.

Having the best record in baseball at the end of the regular season statistically gives you a whopping 26% chance of being World Series champion and a 43% chance of even making the World Series. After 162 games there is still a luck element to winning three playoff series.

Teams winning the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament are about as likely to have failed to have won their conference in regular season as they are to have won it.

Winning the Sun Belt regular season is certainly no predictor of winning the conference tournament.

Playoffs give AN answer, but they aren't very good at crowning the team that played the best over the season.

Better team winning or not, playoffs are the fairest way of determining a champion. Period.

1984-85 basketball season.
St. John's won the Big East regular season title. They defeated Villanova home and away and in the Big East tournament.

'Nova finished six games out of first in the Big East.

Georgetown split with St. John's and Syracuse, their only regular season losses. They like St. John's swept Villanova in the regular season. In the Big East final Georgetown defeated St. John's.

The field had expanded to 64. So Villanova managed to make the field.

Come NCAA Tournament:
Third round Villanova defeats Maryland by three, Maryland had beaten Villanova by three in the regular season.

Final Four, 'Nova faces Memphis and wins (no complaint there) on the other side Georgetown faces St. John's. Villanova was 0-5 vs the teams in the other semi-final. Georgetown wins making their record vs. St. John's 3-1 for the year.

NCAA championship 'Nova defeats Georgetown to make their record vs Georgetown 1-2 on the season.

A playoff injects randomness. Villanova per the NCAA tournament was the best team in the nation but they were third best in the Big East in regular season. Third or fourth in the Big East tournament. They had to beat two teams in the Dance they had a combined 0-3 record against.

Fairness left the equation when Villanova got the chance to play for the NCAA title.

Isn't that what playoffs are about? That just represents a microcosm of athletics in general. It's why they play the games. How is it not fair? They earned the spot based on the NCAA committee, just like every team that doesn't get an auto-bid. They had a higher seed and a tougher road than their conference mates yet they persevered and won when it mattered most. It's why games aren't played on paper and why we deserve a shot at an expanded playoff.

Yes, this is correct. Arkstfan is off today.

(01-01-2017 04:47 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  I like playoffs...whether as in your example Villanova wins games you think it shouldn't or not. If team A wins the playoffs, they are the best team.

*better team that day.

Unless football wants to go to series (no chance of that happening, nor should it), you don't find the necessarily best team every year, only the team that was better that day.

I don't care for the playoff system because there's too much human element in the selection process. Since it has so much human element in it, go back to the bowl system: Whomever is 1&2 at the end of the season plays for the championship.

Past that? match-ups straight down the line to maximize revenue/attendance. But only for the top 26 teams. Forget the whole 6-6 rule, there are too many bowls as it stands (though while the rule is in place... I want my team bowling every chance they can get).

Yes, better team that day....you could pretty much say that about every game ever played.

And if you're going for that anal retentive, a series would only tell you who was better that series...year...

My opinion about the playoffs is a lot of times it is not always the best team that wins, but the one with the least injuries during the playoffs. Asking players to endure 15 games is almost criminal. I know injuries are a given, but in 08 App lost to Richmond in the semi finals with a hurt Armanti Edwards. No way Richmond was a better team with a healthy Edwards behind center.

Sent from my XT1254 using CSNbbs mobile app

(01-01-2017 07:02 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 04:47 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  I like playoffs...whether as in your example Villanova wins games you think it shouldn't or not. If team A wins the playoffs, they are the best team.

*better team that day.

Unless football wants to go to series (no chance of that happening, nor should it), you don't find the necessarily best team every year, only the team that was better that day.

I don't care for the playoff system because there's too much human element in the selection process. Since it has so much human element in it, go back to the bowl system: Whomever is 1&2 at the end of the season plays for the championship.

Past that? match-ups straight down the line to maximize revenue/attendance. But only for the top 26 teams. Forget the whole 6-6 rule, there are too many bowls as it stands (though while the rule is in place... I want my team bowling every chance they can get).

I get your point but the BCS system involved just as much of a human element as the new system does. There were arguments almost every year as to who the "real national champ" was then than there was. We had the "AP champs", the "USA Today champs", the "Field And Stream champs", etc. before the BCS (and even afterward with the "Colin Cowherds" out there).

The human element is present in just about any of the NCAA championships anyway. Most sports have a "selection committee" to determine the playoff field. At least the NFL and most other pro sports have clear, written in stone criteria for determining the playoff participants and often that's not "fair" either since it's not unheard of for an 8-8 NFL team to make the playoffs while a 10-6 team sits home.

The playoffs in any sport are awesome. Bring it into D-I/FBS ASAP, where 10 conference champs have a shot and where Cinderella shines *somewhere* every year I say.

Fair point. I guess the only truly "argument free" (or argument minimalized) method would be to reorganize all the NCAA teams to 10 conferences, with a salary cap budget for all schools, then having a playoff format.

So like... NFL Jr.

Considering the G5 has won 3 of the 4 Access Bowls the P5 may be pushing a G5 playoff. It'll be intersting to see how W Mich does against Wisconsin today.

(01-01-2017 07:37 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  My opinion about the playoffs is a lot of times it is not always the best team that wins, but the one with the least injuries during the playoffs. Asking players to endure 15 games is almost criminal. I know injuries are a given, but in 08 App lost to Richmond in the semi finals with a hurt Armanti Edwards. No way Richmond was a better team with a healthy Edwards behind center.

Sent from my XT1254 using CSNbbs mobile app

Depends on a team's depth more than injuries exclusively, IMO. Injuries do play a part of any season. When we were in the 1997-2002 era of Georgia Southern football we frequently had the 1st string on the bench in the 4th quarter which gave valuable playing time to the reserves.

Our second string had logged significant playing time in games which made them almost as potent as the first string.

Furman was a better team late in 2001 with an injured Louis Ivory on the bench. They proved it the following week when they lost to Montana in the national championship and were insistent in playing Ivory the majority of snaps, I guess presumably because it was his last game and Johnson felt they owed it to him. It was clear he wasn't near 100%.

Had they gone that route a week before, they would have had an even harder time winning in Statesboro.

I seriously hope this never happens.

(01-02-2017 09:41 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  Considering the G5 has won 3 of the 4 Access Bowls the P5 may be pushing a G5 playoff. It'll be intersting to see how W Mich does against Wisconsin today.

P5 gives almost 0 cares what happens in that game. It was created as a consolation bowl to make the G5 feel included. Whether they win or lose it serves it's purpose.

(01-02-2017 09:30 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  P5 gives almost 0 cares what happens in that game. It was created as a consolation bowl to make the G5 feel included. Whether they win or lose it serves it's purpose.

No, it wasn't. It was created to prevent lawsuits. When Utah's AG threatened to sue the BCS circa 5 years ago it basically changed everything. I cannot figure out why people think the Power 5 does some of the things they do out of the goodness of their hearts and is somehow trying to figure out a way to get around paying charity offerings to the G5 and FCS.

I'll say it again: let the top 2 rated G5 teams play for a spot in the Access Bowl. It can be played early in the Bowl season to give the team at least a week or more to prepare, and if Mike Aresco is so sure the AAC is Power 6 and so much better than the rest of the G5 it will only mean they go to more Access Bowls and the rest of the G5 fewer.

(01-02-2017 10:23 AM)Eagle22 Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 07:37 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  My opinion about the playoffs is a lot of times it is not always the best team that wins, but the one with the least injuries during the playoffs. Asking players to endure 15 games is almost criminal. I know injuries are a given, but in 08 App lost to Richmond in the semi finals with a hurt Armanti Edwards. No way Richmond was a better team with a healthy Edwards behind center.

Sent from my XT1254 using CSNbbs mobile app

Depends on a team's depth more than injuries exclusively, IMO. Injuries do play a part of any season. When we were in the 1997-2002 era of Georgia Southern football we frequently had the 1st string on the bench in the 4th quarter which gave valuable playing time to the reserves.

Our second string had logged significant playing time in games which made them almost as potent as the first string.

Furman was a better team late in 2001 with an injured Louis Ivory on the bench. They proved it the following week when they lost to Montana in the national championship and were insistent in playing Ivory the majority of snaps, I guess presumably because it was his last game and Johnson felt they owed it to him. It was clear he wasn't near 100%.

Had they gone that route a week before, they would have had an even harder time winning in Statesboro.

I'd say that type of quality depth. esp on the O line, at the FCS level is the exception rather than the rule. Playing someone just because they're your star player is the basically the reason we lost to Richmond. Satterfield was OC and wanted to play the back up, but JM listened to his son Chris, who was the RB coach, and played a severely hobbled Edwards. Satterfield figured with Pressley we had a chance to win, but once Richmond figured out Edwards was no threat to run the game was over. I don;t know if we would have beat Richmond, but it would have at least been a gane.