Mavsker said:

Yes, 100%. "If we play Colorado we might lose so we should play McNeese St instead" is so retarded

Playing schools like Colorado is what makes college football fun. Cockeye wins 9 games a year playing Cockeye St annually, no reason we can't too

Click to expand...

I member when 9 wins would get a coach fired around these parts.

The landscape of college football has changed so much where having a non-con annual rivalry game doesn't make sense. That said, I'd be fine playing those cocksuckers from Colorado 4 times a decade ..

nja13 said:

I’d be fine playing them two or four times a decade. But I’m against locking down any single opponent in an annual game for our only power non-con game. I like variety.

Click to expand...

I like this idea

Just need the 4 AQ B1G playoff proposal to get approved.

Then we can have big NonCoference Games, as it will not effect playoff bids.

4AQ proposal is much better than the 5 + 11. 4AQ gives more football, with 2 additional play in games during conference championship Saturday and better nonconference games as B1G and SEC will only be worried about conference record.

4AQ gives more and better football games, 5 + 11 proposal will keep nonconference games to cupcakes and have teams pandering to a committee. 4AQ is a better proposal for fans, 5+11 is better for SEC to continue to game the schedule.

Stan Raymond said:

Just need the 4 AQ B1G playoff proposal to get approved.

Then we can have big NonCoference Games, as it will not effect playoff bids.

4AQ proposal is much better than the 5 + 11. 4AQ gives more football, with 2 additional play in games during conference championship Saturday and better nonconference games as B1G and SEC will only be worried about conference record.

4AQ gives more and better football games, 5 + 11 proposal will keep nonconference games to cupcakes and have teams pandering to a committee. 4AQ is a better proposal for fans, 5+11 is better for SEC to continue to game the schedule.

Click to expand...

That’s the proposal the big ten wants right? The one Josh Pate has been pushing

Kaladin said:

That’s the proposal the big ten wants right? The one Josh Pate has been pushing

Click to expand...

B1G wants the 4AQ plan which is Automatic Qualifiers 4 for the B1G, SEC, 2 for the ACC, Big 12, 1 for the G5 and 3 at larges. This plan includes play in game during the Conference championship Saturday between 3rd and 6th place and 4th and 5th place for two of the bids with 1st and 2nd getting 2 bids. So really the B1G and SEC would have effectively have 6 teams in the playoff when you consider the play in games, games which they would get full tv rights and money for. Big Nonconference games could become the norm as a nonconference loss will have little to no effect on playoff chances as the top 6 conference teams will have a playoff chance regardless of nonconference games.

The 5 AQ + 11 at large model, that the Big 12 favors and the SEC is leaning to, is committee based pandering crap like we currently have. Leads to crappy nonconference games as programs are afraid to have a loss on their record. Also leads to running up the score to look good and pass the bullshit "eye" test.