Non-Key Tweets | Page 878 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

A straight-forward improvement would be to only release the team rankings after the conference championship games. This avoids the committee being 'locked into' which teams qualify. If it wasn't public that SMU was ranked ahead of Alabama before ACC championship game...then an SMU loss could be factored in without public pressure (assuming Bama should have gotten in over SMU).
 
GoConn said:
in my opinion...this CFP went way to long. Yesterday, I barely even knew about the national championship game especially since everyone was focused on the divisional round result and now conference championship matches.
Expand ...
Agree to agree

GoConn said:
I prefer 4 team playoff by far.
Expand ...
Agree to disagree
 
RedRabbit84 said:
You're telling me with a straight face bowls mean as much as they used to?
Expand ...
It doesn't matter if you or I think a bowl means anything. If it's East Toenail St University vs Girls of Pride Tech in the Hawk Tuah Bowl sponsored by the Pillsbury Dough Boy and those players coaches and fans are into it, so be it. People trying to eliminate something they have nothing to do with is lame to put it mildly.

P.S. for the record I'd watch that game. Love me some ETSU
 
.-.
Drew said:
They absolutely need to re-think when the national title game is played. Between NFL playoffs all weekend, MLK day and the Presidential Inauguration, the CFP title had virtually zero hype leading up to the game yesterday
Expand ...
So with zero hype it was the most watched event outside the NFL over the past year. Imagine what it could be if it was goosed a little with those events. To bad the Presidential Inauguration isn't yearly to add to the fun. That would be a riot.
 
RedRabbit84 said:
Well, I guess if you don't understand football. You understand how it works in basketball, right? Yeah. Same concept.
Expand ...
So there isn't a panel of decision makers in basketball? Win and you're in lose and you're out. It's easy guys.
 
TheDrifter75 said:
It doesn't matter if you or I think a bowl means anything. If it's East Toenail St University vs Girls of Pride Tech in the Hawk Tuah Bowl sponsored by the Pillsbury Dough Boy and those players coaches and fans are into it, so be it. People trying to eliminate something they have nothing to do with is lame to put it mildly.

P.S. for the record I'd watch that game. Love me some ETSU
Expand ...
Maybe "meaningless" is a bit harsh, but those games don't carry the same weight they once did in the era of playoffs and transfer portals. The extra practice time meant something before players could just leave on a whim.

And I'm largely supportive of the transfer portal, mind you. I think they should be a bit more guardrails in place with it, but if the general student body can transfer schools at will, and coaches can leave on a whim, why shouldn't student athletes be afforded the same opportunity? If I left my school to go to UConn, nobody would've cared, so why are athletes held to an unusually different standard?

And sure, I know those games might mean something to teams like the Cincinnati Alliance of Middle Schools when they get to play a disinterested P4 school, but the passion isn't what it used to be. I say you trade out some of those bowl games for playoff games that matter a little more.
 
Kolumbo said:
I'm not sold on the transfer portal. I believe there is a huge difference between the average student and student-athletes. The average student is paying to go to school so he can change his mind at any time. The studend-athlete is receiving a scholarship to play a game. There should or could be an understanding. "We will offer you a 4 year scholarship if you commit to play here for 4 years." And then yes, there will be gaurdrails and clauses to allow a player to transfer. No one will care if you or I transfer. Everyone will care if a Stephon Castle transfers.
Expand ...
Yeah, I mean that's a valid point and honestly a perspective I hadn't considered. What of the general student body on scholarship, though? I think we agree, there should be more guardrails in place than what we have currently.
 
ZooCougar said:
Bowl Ratings were some of the highest ever seen, in some cases the highest.

People predicted that bowls would be degraded due to the playoffs. Actually it was the opposite that occurred.
Expand ...
I love college football, so I'll watch just about anything. That said I feel that there were some interesting matchups outside of the playoff that drew viewership this year. Alabama v. Michigan is a good example. I also feel like the interest generated by the playoff did not diminish the interest in the rest of the games, but actually drew more viewers in. A rising tide lifting all boats to turn a phrase.
 
.-.
Less games to bet on is not the right approach. Betting creates a lot of interest. How about extra payouts to each team‘s players, more to the winning team obviously. Cap the number of players on each team who can be paid. The bigger the bowl, the bigger the payouts. Why the Feck not at this point.
 
I'm pretty much done with any FB but UConn football. But I love going to bowl games. I just had a blast in Boston. Even better, my partner loves going to them as well. Fans of bowl teams know what the game is all about, they don't worry about "importance". Especially in this case, it was a reward for a good season.
 
Ldandy said:
I love college football, so I'll watch just about anything. That said I feel that there were some interesting matchups outside of the playoff that drew viewership this year. Alabama v. Michigan is a good example. I also feel like the interest generated by the playoff did not diminish the interest in the rest of the games, but actually drew more viewers in. A rising tide lifting all boats to turn a phrase.
Expand ...

2M people watched our game on a Saturday morning. That ought to tell anyone why we still have these games.
 
Stinger92860 said:
Less games to bet on is not the right approach. Betting creates a lot of interest. How about extra payouts to each team‘s players, more to the winning team obviously. Cap the number of players on each team who can be paid. The bigger the bowl, the bigger the payouts. Why the Feck not at this point.
Expand ...
I want to disagree with this, but I don't.
 
.-.
I'm not here to troll. I just don't wear UConn tinted glasses and offer an outside, honest, perspective that some here seem to respect and others don't. I've been nothing but honest about my positions with you. I'm here, as I've said numerous times, to discuss realignment because this is the best page still discussing it. Some of your members have been antagonistic, unnecessarily. Hardly my fault.
 
.-.
RedRabbit84 said:
I'm not here to troll. I just don't wear UConn tinted glasses and offer an outside, honest, perspective that some here seem to respect and others don't. I've been nothing but honest about my positions with you. I'm here, as I've said numerous times, to discuss realignment because this is the best page still discussing it. Some of your members have been antagonistic, unnecessarily. Hardly my fault.
Expand ...

It was not an invitation to chat.

Go away.
 
RedRabbit84 said:
For trying to have a conversation? Lol, so much for such a "chill" fanbase. I've been nothing but respectful and honest. Some of you have shown your colors, however.
Expand ...
Called it!

(Not that it was particularly surprising.)
 
Stinger92860 said:
Less games to bet on is not the right approach. Betting creates a lot of interest. How about extra payouts to each team‘s players, more to the winning team obviously. Cap the number of players on each team who can be paid. The bigger the bowl, the bigger the payouts. Why the Feck not at this point.
Expand ...
Solving a problem that doesn't exist... as im not even sure what you're trying to solve
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,510
Messages
4,579,563
Members
10,489
Latest member
Djw06001


Top Bottom