(06-23-2017 12:40 PM)YNot Wrote:  My opinion is that there are TOO FEW P5 v. P5 OOC games. There are already many P5 v. P5 bowl games each year - that system is already in place. To remove the OOC regular season games down grades the quality, excitement, and intrigue of college football played during the regular season.

In my opinion this is just plain false. The most important, exciting, and intriguing regular season games always have been, are, and always are going to be the major conference matchups, particularly towards the end of the season. As it should be!

Games like Ohio St v Oklahoma, in week 1, are a distraction. And it's too bad that such marquee programs have to meet so early in the season, when they're the least seasoned and prepared.

(06-23-2017 12:40 PM)YNot Wrote:  If you are concerned about revenues and control, the conferences are likely to make LESS money if you remove the regular season OOC games. As I outline in post #51 above, most replacement conference games would draw weaker ratings, attendance, and money than the marquee OOC matchups.

But you don't know what advertisers value more. Are two opportunities worth more than one? Maybe

(06-23-2017 12:40 PM)YNot Wrote:  The reason there should be *MORE* OOC games is that the rankings and CFP selection are a beauty contest. It is more difficult to rank teams against each other if they do not play enough games against common opponents - or each other. So, we end up focusing on just a handful of games to try to compare conferences and teams - which ultimately results in relying upon the "eye test" to make ranking and selection determinations.

If there were more games against each other, you wouldn't have to use mental gymnastics and obscure statistical analysis to rank the top-25 and select the CFP and NY6 participants. The candidates are more likely to have more complete resumes, and even common opponents, from which you can make more certain comparison conclusions - or, heaven forbid - the candidates may have actually played each other.

Those datapoints won't be relevant because they're early season matchups.

And there will never be a way to remove subjectivity from the system.

(06-23-2017 01:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 12:40 PM)YNot Wrote:  My opinion is that there are TOO FEW P5 v. P5 OOC games. There are already many P5 v. P5 bowl games each year - that system is already in place. To remove the OOC regular season games down grades the quality, excitement, and intrigue of college football played during the regular season.

In my opinion this is just plain false. The most important, exciting, and intriguing regular season games always have been, are, and always are going to be the major conference matchups, particularly towards the end of the season. As it should be!

Games like Ohio St v Oklahoma, in week 1, are a distraction. And it's too bad that such marquee programs have to meet so early in the season, when they're the least seasoned and prepared.

(06-23-2017 12:40 PM)YNot Wrote:  If you are concerned about revenues and control, the conferences are likely to make LESS money if you remove the regular season OOC games. As I outline in post #51 above, most replacement conference games would draw weaker ratings, attendance, and money than the marquee OOC matchups.

But you don't know what advertisers value more. Are two opportunities worth more than one? Maybe

(06-23-2017 12:40 PM)YNot Wrote:  The reason there should be *MORE* OOC games is that the rankings and CFP selection are a beauty contest. It is more difficult to rank teams against each other if they do not play enough games against common opponents - or each other. So, we end up focusing on just a handful of games to try to compare conferences and teams - which ultimately results in relying upon the "eye test" to make ranking and selection determinations.

If there were more games against each other, you wouldn't have to use mental gymnastics and obscure statistical analysis to rank the top-25 and select the CFP and NY6 participants. The candidates are more likely to have more complete resumes, and even common opponents, from which you can make more certain comparison conclusions - or, heaven forbid - the candidates may have actually played each other.

Those datapoints won't be relevant because they're early season matchups.

And there will never be a way to remove subjectivity from the system.

I 100% agree with YNot.

Well, some fans want an NFL style arrangement between the top 32 programs in the country. Because that's selfishly what they want, and for no other reason.

Which would completely blow away all of the tradition of college football, conferences, and bowls. So ... it will never happen.