While I appreciate Kirby's comments, there aren't any good solutions.
Paying players to play bowls or tying NIL to a full season's participation is only valuable to players who weren't opting out anyway.
1st day players aren't risking $$$ for $
There's a bigger issue.
🧵
For a decade, there has been a huge push from sports media and a large portion of CFB fans to devalue anything but the playoffs.
Journalists, who are largely pro-sports focused, push for massive change with zero concern for unintended consequences.
Many of us warned this would happen, and the same people who laughed said it wouldn't are now telling us that it's a feature, not a bug.
But 1st round draft picks existed before the playoffs. And they played in their "meaningless" bowl games.
90% of the time someone compares college football to the men's college basketball tournament, I can guarantee you they've got an NFL banner on their Twitter profile. Or MLS, or CBB.
And they don't watch a minute of the NIT. They don't start watching CBB until April
We didn't used to need "fixes" for players sitting out. They saw bowls as an opportunity to raise their stock, and often did.
But I don't blame players now. We've created a sport that has turned them all into guns for hire and told them for 10 years nothing matters but the CFP
The regular season is next. Super conferences and the 12 team playoff is going to drastically diminish the drama and fun of the regular season.
What used to be a sport that was a 4-month long celebration of all teams, with an isolated single game to determine a winner is now a diminished 4-months in exchange for 11 interesting games at the end of the year.
But what's sad about it all is the same teams are going to win.
Those of us old enough to remember football in the 80s and 90s remember how much better it was to be excited for a season-long celebration of the sport, not just a hyper-focus on who won it all.
We've taken a regional sport whose teams were beloved, not for the names on the back, but for the name on the front. Generations of fans tied to a school, not just a team...
And turned it into a national game, rapidly being stripped of all character and nuance in the name of money and some disingenuous ideal that ignores all context.
We've marginalized the concept of the student-athlete. We've told them implicitly their education has no value, and the only value they offer society is if they make it to the NFL.
And if they don't? We discard them. On to the next million dollar deal for the next 18 year old kid.
We've used a false narrative of oppressed players and oppressed schools to enable the wealthiest programs to buy their way to the top.
And after the grifters have extracted everything they can for themselves out of the sport, they'll leave the real fans with nothing and tell them it was their own fault.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
From a team analysis standpoint (vs Michigan), way too much is made of Alabama's near-loss to Auburn. 1) Auburn is favored over Maryland, they're dead even in FPI and FEI, and Maryland-Michigan was very close. 2) Bama outgained AU by 115 yards. 3) The NMSU loss was an outlier.🧵
If you want to talk deservedness for the playoff, that's one thing, but Alabama's issues with Auburn weren't the sort of thing that flags a terrible team. 1) Bama was hurt on big plays, not snap-to-snap.
2)That Auburn team had also handed Arkansas its worse loss 2 weeks prior.
In too many minds, Alabama nearly had a transitive loss to NMSU. That flawed logic is worse than it seems. First, NMSU is rated higher than Minnesota in FEI - they're a solid team. Second, teams are never their worst game. Third, AU likely spent that week prepping for Bama.
Basic transfer portal logic in CFB: 1) It does not get more players drafted 2) It does slightly change *who* gets drafted 3) It does not create more scholarship opportunities 4) It does shift HS scholarships more to small schools (transfers take P5 slots and open G5 ones) 🧵
Saying "the transfer portal is good for the players" is an oversimplification. It is good for players who transfer to a bigger school and get more NIL money and a higher draft slot. But it's equally bad for players you don't know who they replaced. Is that, overall, "good"?
The NFL draft and each team's roster is set at fixed sizes. Every transfer that gets an opportunity there must mathematically take away from another. So the question is if it's good for the 4* meh player at OSU to go undrafted because a transfer took his starting role.
The argument that FSU is estopped from even challenging the GOR because they agreed not to take any action against it is really dubious. "You agreed not to damage the GOR so we decide everything" is obviously weird logic. That said, I don't know how FSU wins this.
(I am a lawyer)
Taking the argument to its conclusion, the ACC is arguing that because FSU agreed not to damage the GOR, then FSU can't bring a suit about whether the agreement itself is valid. Covenants not to sue are a thing, but you can always challenge the *covenant* itself.
The ACC is unilaterally interpreting the clause as a covenant not to sue, and then saying that means the covenant itself is immune from suit. Can't see that flying, especially as I don't know that it IS a covenant not to sue (seems more about refusing to go on TV or the like).
Nobody wants to say it out loud, but here's the truth about the CFP rankings 🧵
Oregon/FSU were overrated for different reasons heading into champ weekend
You either pay your taxes as you go or all at once, but you have to pay. The committee failed to live by this truism
First, Oregon:
Bama, Texas, and Ohio St all had better resumes than Oregon. More ranked wins, same number of losses, all with tougher schedules.
But dropping Oregon would ruffle feathers, especially among those who clung to early-season narratives about P12 strength.
So the committee painted themselves into a corner based on Oregon's eye test (this will be important later), even though the PAC 12's strength was based solely on P12 wins against what proved to be weak teams, or wins against itself.
This is the first year since 2014 I feel someone will get screwed out of a CFP slot and have a legitimate beef.
Texas, Alabama, or FSU not making it isn't fair.
Let's look at some others 🧵
2015 Ohio St - Lost to Mich St but Mich St was without their starting QB.
2016 Penn St - Won the conference but lost two games, including one to an unranked team. 39 point loss to Michigan
2017 - Ohio State two losses
2018 - UGA left out. 2 losses, including a brutal close game to Alabama in the SECCG. Oklahoma wasn't better imo but conf champ 1 loss
2019 - Alabama. When healthy was as good as LSU, but even if they beat Auburn, a Tua-less Alabama and a rash of injuries on defense made them a shell of who they were.
2020 - Texas A&M. 1 loss in shortened season, but the one loss was 52-24 to Bama