Trojan Man

That wasn't a walkoff situation. Kansas State still had their possession afterwards. No way of knowing whether TCU's defense makes the stop or K-State's offense forces a second OT or they win it with a two point conversion if TCU scored a TD on their possession. Plus, on the plays that were called TCU's offensive line (particularly their interior OL) got blown up which is a pretty good way of stopping any call in a goal line situation.

Two guys who have to single-handedly carry their team to victory each week, one guy who pads his stats against really shitty B1G teams and one guy whose only job is "As long as you don't fuck up too much all the 5* players surrounding you will win every game."

The main reason the Pac 12 is having a good year is because the ranked teams mostly took care of business against the unranked teams. There weren't many big upsets in conference play, a rarity in the Pac 12. Arizona over UCLA and Arizona State over Washington were the only losses ranked Pac 12 teams suffered against unranked Pac 12 teams. When your ranked teams are only losing to each other for the most part it results in higher rankings and a better perception of the conference. But in hindsight that ASU loss was pretty costly, both to Washington and the conference as a whole. Had Washington beat 3-9 ASU the CCG would have been a CFP play in game between 11-1 USC and 11-1 Washington. The crabs in the Pac 12 bucket didn't pinch as much this year as they usually do but that's still a pretty big pinch from them.

It sucked, but oh well. Williams getting hobbled with a pulled hamstring was the horseshoe Utah needed this time around. On USC's first couple scoring drives, before he was injured, Utah's defense was playing slow and hesitant because they had to pay so much attention to the possibility of Williams running. After they realized he was immobilized they were able to pin their ears back and stop playing on their heels, which drastically cut down on their blown coverages and killed USC's running game because they knew he wasn't going to pull any handoffs and run it himself. If Williams is at 100% all game that's a win with a final score around 55-45. All in all going from 4-8 to 11-2 in one year was pretty great, but I hope Grinch is replaced this offseason. I don't place 100% of the defense's problems on Grinch because he inherited some serious talent/depth problems thanks to Helton's garbage recruiting the last couple years, but at some point the DC has to come up with a scheme that doesn't turn every fucking QB and TE he faces into an All American having a career day. Grinch has been coasting for years off some moderate success at Washington State and that's great if he's at Washington State-type schools but the bar should be higher for USC.

I would have been happy staying in a Pac 16 with Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State as members 13-16. A third power conference that is entirely west of the Mississippi would be healthy for the sport instead of all the power and money in the sport shifting to the Midwest and Southeast. My biggest problem with being in the Pac 12 is that USC has no peer programs here. Because of that a disproportionately high burden of revenue generation falls on USC's shoulders. Something like 1/3 of the Pac 12's media value came from USC, which means there are too many indians and not enough chiefs. This dynamic also led to a lot of resentment between USC and the rest of the conference, similar to how Texas fans view the rest of the Big 12 as a bunch of ungrateful leeches while the rest of the Big 12 views Texas as greedy mean assholes. That would not have been a problem with Texas and Oklahoma joining. 3 bluebloods at the top plus a second tier of Oregon, Washington, UCLA, Utah, Oklahoma State and Tech would go toe for toe with the B1G and SEC in terms of media deals and prestige. That conference would generate enough revenue for the top schools to not feel like they're being taken advantage of and doing all the heavy lifting on their own. The top schools could also look out for each other and their shared priorities instead of the nutswinger schools constantly getting their way at the expense of the bigger schools, my second biggest problem of Pac 12 membership.

I'm really not concerned about these worst case scenarios. The champions of the B1G and SEC will always be a top 4 seed and get a bye. It's the ACC, Big 12, Pac and G5 champs that will be jockeying for the last 2 bye seeds. Even then most years I think it will be clear who should get those last bye seeds. TCU or Clemson goes undefeated and they'll get a top 4 seed, for example. Any ratfucking behavior from representatives of butthurt smaller conferences would be the catalyst that pushes the B1G and SEC to tell them to fuck off while they turn into a pseudo-AFC/NFC that only plays each other. As for at large bids the B1G and SEC will easily each get a couple of those every year. I expect they'll combine for 4-5 at large bids between themselves while the rest of the sport is fighting over 1 or 2 at large bids. If USC isn't good enough to be one of the 3 or 4 best teams in the B1G I can't complain about getting left out the way I still bitch and moan about getting left out so Oklahoma could gift wrap more championships to the SEC in 2003 and 2008. Likewise if USC is the lowest ranked B1G team to make it I can't get upset about playing a road game in the first round because a better regular season performance would have directly translated into a better seed. Ultimately an expanded playoff means this all gets settled on the field, not by a boardroom committee or computer rankings or poll voters deciding who gets to play for a title and who gets sent to the Consolation Bowl. You could not tell teams on the outside looking in but with the same record as teams in the BCS title game or the 4 team CFP "Tough shit get better next time" in good conscience. I won't have any problem at all giving that message to #13 after the playoff expands to 12 teams, even if it's USC.

I don't understand why anyone outside of bowl committees and boomers refusing to adapt to the times would support keeping neutral sites and bowl games so heavily involved with an expanded playoff. Rotate the title game between the Rose and Sugar. They're clearly a cut above all other bowls and they are the preferred bowl games of the two conferences that control CFB now. Play every other playoff game at the homefield of the higher seed. The schools and their towns keep the gameday revenue instead of giving it away to bowl games and other cities. On campus games are a lot more fun than neutral site games, both for TV audiences and attendees. There are plenty of stadiums I want to personally see USC play in some day. Not a single one of them is a boring neutral site NFL stadium. I'm a lot more likely to attend a playoff game at LSU than a playoff game vs LSU in the Fiesta Bowl. All on campus playoff games would be sellouts since you're not asking every fanbase in the playoff to criss-cross all over the country to see their team at a time of year when traveling and lodging is more expensive than usual. You keep the regular season important and prevent anyone from resting starters because you're still playing for seeding, even if you have already locked up a bid. We've already discarded all the history and tradition and prestige associated with bowl games. They're a relic of a bygone era. Might as well go balls deep and take this last step of moving all playoff games on campus except the title game instead of a half measure where we try to fight against the current and keep bowls relevant when they are clearly fading away. To me this is the silver lining of money calling all the shots now in CFB. Playing in bowls instead of on campus gives away too much money, and one day the decision makers will realize it.

That's not a mistake, it's by design that conferences are notified of departures earlier than the last minute. TV deals have to be negotiated in advance and networks have to know which schools they're getting in a new deal so there are deadlines for this kind of thing. USC and UCLA announced their Pac 12 departure on the final day they could have done so without any penalties in order to leave in time to join the B1G for 2024. That was done at the end of June 2022 so basically a two year heads up for the Pac 12 that they will have to figure out life without the LA schools. I don't know these details for the Big 12 but I'm certain there was a similar deadline given all the realignment turmoil the conference has been through and that Texas and Oklahoma waited as long as they could. It sucks having to go through lame duck seasons on the way out the door when you just want to join your new friends but I can tell you it's fucking fun to win while you're doing it. Tearing out Oregon State's heart the final time USC ever played there was particularly satisfying. I'd love to make the Pac 12's assclown commissioner hand Lincoln Riley a Pac 12 championship trophy each of the last two years we'll be in his second rate conference.

As a third party with no dog in this fight it seems the biggest hurdles keeping Texas and Oklahoma in the Big 12 are OU not having the money for a buyout/not wanting to pay a buyout, the SEC insisting UT and OU join simultaneously and Fox not wanting to lose those two properties before their contract expires. The Fox problem seems like the biggest to overcome for an early Big 12 exit because they seem less willing to negotiate an early departure than the schools or the conference. Arguing about other angles comes off as divorce shitflinging from both sides. From TV angles BYU games seem like they're always sold out. UCF games look close enough to capacity on TV that joining a better conference should bump them up to selling out most games.

I don't think there is a problem keeping the committee after the CFP expands. Inviting an analytics nerd like Bill Connelly to serve on the committee would help represent that viewpoint and explain advanced metrics to the olds on the committee without going full retard and giving the 7th seed to an 8-4 team because computer said so. Having 6 automatic bids determined by conference champions and gating the top 4 seeds behind conference championships will eliminate most of the bullshit affiliated with the committee. Those parameters mean they won't be allowed to give bye weeks to B1G/SEC runnerups because of the mythical eyeball test, they can't pull whatever justification necessary out of their ass to screw over an undefeated midmajor in favor of a blueblood that's on the bubble and if anyone that gets left out whines about it the rest of us can tell them guilt-free "Win your conference next time." I don't think there will be much controversy over who gets in and who doesn't. #13 will never have as good of a case as #3 did during the BCS most years or #5 does right now some years. The biggest controversy will come from seeding due to first round on campus, particularly the 7-10 seeds. The teams that should be the 5, 6, 11 and 12 seeds will be obvious most years, but I can see a lot of campaigning over seeding from the 7-10 schools. There will be a lot of whining the first time a 10-2 B1G team is seeded 8th while a 10-2 SEC team is seeded 9th, but maybe enough people outside the 9-10 seed fanbases will enjoy the result to smooth over the controversy. I know I'd have fun watching Florida play at Penn State in late December.

Knock on wood, I don't feel that nervous about the game tomorrow. Utah needed a ton of breaks to get a last minute 1 point win over USC at home. I won't go on about the specifics unless somebody asks, but it's unlikely they stumble on as many horseshoes this time around. Utah is also a totally different team away from home than they are in Salt Lake City, where they really feed off their crowd and benefit from thin air that gasses visitors. Ignoring the empty stadium Covid season, they haven't lost a home game since 2018. Going back to 2018 (again tossing out 2020) they are just 15-14 in road games and neutral sites. Play Utah away from home and they're a .500 team.

Notre Dame isn't paying for anything. Their AD helped craft the 12 team format because for some stupid ass reason the rest of college football thinks Notre Dame should get as much say in these things as entire conferences. They made a calculated choice to accept not being eligible for a top 4 bye seed because they don't play CCGs, unlike all the teams that will get bye seeds. Basically Notre Dame (and any other independents, though in practice just Notre Dame because no other independents are ever making the CFP) is just shifting their bye week from round 1 to CCG weekend. You could even argue it's an advantage for Notre Dame because most times they make the CFP they'll be playing their 13th game at home as a 5-8 seed instead of at a neutral site like a CCG.

Colorado's problem (or rather one of their problems) is their location was awesome when they were recruiting against Iowa State and Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, but ho-hum now that they are recruiting against UCLA and Washington and Arizona State. They also don't have the niche of being the only mountain school in the Pac 12 for kids who might be interested in that like they did in the Big 12 since Utah provides another mountain option plus a competent football program.

My bad. I can get carried away on tangents sometimes. But I do think the two subjects are related. If Stanford makes an impressive hire that would be a sign they're positioning themselves for a B1G invitation or to own the new Pac. If they cheap out and hire somebody who is an obvious loser that doesn't bode well for the future of the program. Shaw kept Stanford playing at a high level for some time before the Ferrari crashed, which is impressive at a non-power. Shaw maintaining what Harbaugh built at Stanford is very different than Day maintaining what Meyer built at Ohio State. That 2015 team was incredible and it was entirely built by Shaw (Harbaugh left after 2010). They were a 9 AM week 1 kickoff at Northwestern from making the CFP and McCaffrey would have run away with the Heisman that year if he and Henry swapped teams. All in all Shaw had a pretty damn good run from 2011-18. After the first couple years you can't say it was just coasting off Harbaugh's momentum and recruits. Also, Shaw was Harbaugh's OC at Stanford from day 1 so he gets some credit for building up the program from nothing. His downfall is that he was too arrogant and stubborn to ever adapt once the wheels started to fall off, going from 9-4 in 2018 to 4-8 in 2019 and never getting out of that rut. Shaw is definitely the kind of guy who always thinks he is the smartest person in the room and knows the solution to every problem. Falling off as badly as Shaw did would have had him fired at least a couple years earlier at most other schools, but again Stanford is a different place with different priorities. They sprung for Shaw because he had a track record of success at Stanford. I'd be surprised if they pay his replacement as much as Shaw was making after a decade in charge and 3 conference titles.

I don't claim to have any insider information on Stanford. I'm not connected with them at all. Everything I'm saying is just speculation based on my own observations from being in the same conference with them and knowing some of their graduates and making an educated guess how they will react to the massively shifting landscape in college sports. I think there is a possibility Stanford ends up in the B1G if they're the last piece of the puzzle that finally lures Notre Dame into the conference, something I've extrapolated on in the realignment thread. But I also think Stanford either dropping football or dropping down to FCS is just as likely. We (as in the entire sport) are at a major fork in the road. Schools will have to decide which path they want to take. Are they prioritizing football and willing to spend the money necessary to remain relevant or are they going to say "Enough is enough," opt out of the rat race and remember they are a university with a football team instead of a football team with a university? Stanford is one of the few that has the money and prestige necessary they don't have to keep football around to fund their sports. Like you referred to, when Stanford needed money to fund their Olympic sports they had boosters step in immediately to save them because those are the sports they care about. They like being represented at the Olympics. They enjoy bragging about winning more Olympic medals than most countries. They see it as more "pure" and truly amateur than the revenue sports. If Stanford asked for boosters to help fund a $100 million contract for an elite head coach and a huge NIL war chest for football players it wouldn't get nearly as much traction with their donors. Stanford also doesn't need a football program to use as marketing for the university and help boost applications/enrollment the way football factories do. Stanford is an outlier for a lot of reasons and most of the reasons make the existence of a football team optional. I really don't think this is a batshit crazy possibility.

Last time Stanford had an extended period of sucking CFB was much different than it is now. Coaches are receiving contracts close to nine figures. High schoolers are openly, legally getting 7 figure deals to go to certain schools. Every player has unrestricted free agency every offseason. Their conference was stable back then whereas now they are losing 2 out of their 3 instate peers. Add up all those changes and it wouldn't be surprising if Stanford decided to stop playing football or drop to the FCS level. It's very easy to see why Bienemy doesn't get head coach interest at either the college or the NFL level. He's an OC working under a head coach with an amazing reputation on offense, he has a generational QB who is redefining how the position is played, he has a HoF TE and until this year he had a HoF WR. You would have to actively try to lose to not put up big numbers as the Chiefs' OC. If Bienemey lights up the scoreboard working for a defense-first head coach with an offense led by an average QB he'll have plenty of head coach offers.

Right, my fault for not specifying but I was referring to their athletic department, not their entire university. Stanford does care about their non-revenue sports, especially the Olympic sports. They could find the money to continue playing those if they decide football's juice is no longer worth the squeeze.

That is the only P5 program I could see successfully pulling off the option nowadays. But I wouldn't be surprised if Stanford drops down to a lower level of football or stops playing it altogether, especially if the Pac starts inviting schools they perceive as too far below them. As others have mentioned NIL and the portal really go against how they do things. They don't need football money to stay afloat, they can afford to walk away if they deem the sport is moving too far from their values.

Correct, he played for Air Force then did his tour of duty before getting into coaching. It's probably contributing to him not getting a job elsewhere, but that hurdle can be overcome if somebody else wants you badly enough. Plenty of coaches work for someone besides their alma mater. It would be a fun offseason thought exercise to see who would be each team's head coach if they could only hire their own graduates.

Nobody besides service academies wants to run the option. It's the complete opposite of the direction the sport is moving. That works for the academies since they have unique recruiting pools/strategies and their recruits don't have foobaw as their #1 concern. Anyone else is kneecapping their program by running a system that no QBs or WRs or OL or DL worth a shit wants to play in. The first 3 aren't learning skills that will translate to the NFL and getting tape that will impress scouts. The last one doesn't want to get cut block nonstop by 300 pounders at every practice for 3-5 years.

TCU drops to #6 and Alabama or Ohio State backdoors their way in as the #4 seed. It's entirely brand/ratings-driven bullshit. If Texas or Oklahoma had the exact same resume as TCU they would be considered a CFP lock no matter what happens in their CCG like Georgia and Michigan are, but that's how this sport works. Selfishly, I'd be happy with this outcome despite disliking it at a macro-level because it would benefit USC as long as USC takes care of business against Utah. I'd rather be the 3 seed playing 2 seed Michigan in Phoenix instead of the 4 seed playing 1 seed Georgia in Atlanta.

Wisconsin and it's not close. Better recruiting territory, a more well-defined identity (both on the field and in general as a B1G school), more realistic fan expectations. That said I think they both made excellent hires.

Would you have preferred he stayed at Oklahoma?

Nice foreshadowing. TCU would still have one quality win and one quality loss vs a top 10 KSU if they lose next week. I don't think a close loss by TCU should automatically plummet them in the rankings, but I know that's exactly what would happen. Ohio State isn't getting another shot at Michigan and at some point the way you lost needs to count as much as the quality of the opponent. Getting dominated at home in the last week of the season should be a huge red flag on any team's resume, regardless of opponent. I feel dirty saying this, but I would vote Alabama #5 right now.

LA has tons of transplants, which is another factor that helped overcome losing the Rams and kept LA NFL ratings up without any local teams. But transplants usually don't become fans of LA teams since most of them already have a team before they move to LA. Jim from Florida didn't care about losing the Rams because he has been a Dolphins fan his whole life so that helped preserve LA NFL fandom when there was no NFL team in town, but he isn't going to drop the Dolphins for the Chargers or Rams now that both play in LA. This is a big reason why you always see so many visiting fans at Chargers/Rams home games. That's another reason NFL fandom is more national and CFB fandom is more regional. Most NFL teams are in big cities, which have more transplants and population churn just by nature of being large population centers. That means there will be more general NFL interest in bigger cities. Most FBS schools are in college towns or midsized cities, which won't have as many transplants or as much population turnover. That means the football focus there will revolve mostly around the local team and other teams in their conference rather than college football as a whole. To put it another way, in LA you'll see a dozen Steeler hats for every Penn State hat. In Pittsburgh you'll see more Rams hats than USC hats. In State College you won't see any USC or Rams hats.