2025 College Football Season

[triplemultiplex]

Good, let some other team win for a while.  Hegemony is bad for sports.

[NWI_Irish96]

I know we have a few Purdue students on this board, so I'll just throw out this offer:

If you can hook me up with a pair of tickets for ND @ Purdue on 9/14/24, I can return the favor for Purdue @ ND on 9/20/25.

[NWI_Irish96]

College season starts tomorrow. My playoff prediction:

[epzik8]

Not a fan of the 12-team playoff, at least not yet.

[SEWIGuy]

Not a fan of the 12-team playoff, at least not yet.

Better than four.

[RZF]

Not a fan of the 12-team playoff, at least not yet.

Better than four.

Under BCS, sometimes the #3/#4 team would be deserving of playing in the title game, and they'd be robbed. Under the 4-team playoff, all of a sudden that's "not-enough teams" playing for a championship.

On the flip side, I do like how 12 teams all have a shot at winning it, even the best Group of 5 team. If I'm a football player at a mid-major school, I'd like to be optimistic that at one point in my time playing for that school, there is a chance (albeit very slim, but still a hopeful chance) that we could somehow win it all.

[SEWIGuy]

Not a fan of the 12-team playoff, at least not yet.

Better than four.

Under BCS, sometimes the #3/#4 team would be deserving of playing in the title game, and they'd be robbed. Under the 4-team playoff, all of a sudden that's "not-enough teams" playing for a championship.

On the flip side, I do like how 12 teams all have a shot at winning it, even the best Group of 5 team. If I'm a football player at a mid-major school, I'd like to be optimistic that at one point in my time playing for that school, there is a chance (albeit very slim, but still a hopeful chance) that we could somehow win it all.

I'm just looking forward to additional playoff games with different teams qualifying.

[1995hoo]

It seems an FSU fan promised on Twitter that he would eat dog shit out of a red Solo cup if they lost to Boston College.

Somehow, amazingly, his Twitter account has mysteriously disappeared.

[Big John]

^^ I-41 De Pere WI. But not for long once the Southbridge Rd interchange is completed.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/j5V1XBD25SXDq7GQ8

[1995hoo]

It seems an FSU fan promised on Twitter that he would eat dog shit out of a red Solo cup if they lost to Boston College.

Somehow, amazingly, his Twitter account has mysteriously disappeared.

https://x.com/witeclawhiteboi/status/1830785143369351430?s=61&t=b6K8m7mnCl3hI8EuxEn4og

https://x.com/stevekim323/status/1830800155001659652?s=61&t=b6K8m7mnCl3hI8EuxEn4og

[gonealookin]

My alma mater, Cal, is part of this season's realignment...although we certainly got the shorter end of the stick.  The Atlantic Coast Conference when we can see the Pacific Ocean from our stadium?  Good grief.  Cal and Stanford didn't get screwed as badly by the inept management and eventual implosion of the Pac-12 as Oregon State and Washington State did, but we're not far behind.

Anyway, when I look at the weekend's upcoming schedule for a game or two I might want to watch in addition to Cal getting thumped at Auburn, I find I'm still far more interested in our former Pac-12 rivals than in our new ACC opponents.  Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU, USC, UCLA...I would likely pick from their games rather than even any of the ACC teams we host in Berkeley this year (Miami, NC State and Syracuse, plus the Big Game vs. Stanford).

Cal has been mediocre at best for almost my entire adult life, notably excepting those few years when Jeff Tedford had Aaron Rodgers, Marshawn Lynch and others.  We'll never compete consistently with the Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, Notre Dame class of football schools, and I'm pretty sure I'm in good company as an alum of one of the many schools on the "outside looking in" who has been made even more cynical about the Big Business of College Football with this latest realignment.

[NWI_Irish96]

My alma mater, Cal, is part of this season's realignment...although we certainly got the shorter end of the stick.  The Atlantic Coast Conference when we can see the Pacific Ocean from our stadium?  Good grief.  Cal and Stanford didn't get screwed as badly by the inept management and eventual implosion of the Pac-12 as Oregon State and Washington State did, but we're not far behind.

Anyway, when I look at the weekend's upcoming schedule for a game or two I might want to watch in addition to Cal getting thumped at Auburn, I find I'm still far more interested in our former Pac-12 rivals than in our new ACC opponents.  Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU, USC, UCLA...I would likely pick from their games rather than even any of the ACC teams we host in Berkeley this year (Miami, NC State and Syracuse, plus the Big Game vs. Stanford).

Cal has been mediocre at best for almost my entire adult life, notably excepting those few years when Jeff Tedford had Aaron Rodgers, Marshawn Lynch and others.  We'll never compete consistently with the Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, Notre Dame class of football schools, and I'm pretty sure I'm in good company as an alum of one of the many schools on the "outside looking in" who has been made even more cynical about the Big Business of College Football with this latest realignment.

The advent of cable television in the 1980s and the resulting explosion in the number of live college games shown on TV has been very unkind to schools in the Mountain and especially the Pacific time zones. Having noon ET kickoffs is not feasible, and 6pm or later PT kickoffs don't get many viewers in the east.

In hindsight, the only thing that could have saved the PAC-12 would have been very aggressive pursuit of Texas and Oklahoma well before the SEC gobbled them up. They would have brought along a couple others from the Central time zone and created a 16-team conference with four schools that could host games in that noon ET slot.

[SectorZ]

Florida State losing is why we shouldn't even have polls until 6 weeks into the season. Oddly enough the world of college football gets that with the later CFP rankings, it's just sports writers for some reason value ranking stuff as much as they do writing about stuff.

[1995hoo]

....

In hindsight, the only thing that could have saved the PAC-12 would have been very aggressive pursuit of Texas and Oklahoma well before the SEC gobbled them up. They would have brought along a couple others from the Central time zone and created a 16-team conference with four schools that could host games in that noon ET slot.

There were a bunch of reports that the Pac-10 tried to do just that in 2010—add six schools from the Big 12 to become the Pac-16. One of those did make the jump (Colorado), but the rest fell through when Texas and Oklahoma decided to stay put and the Pac-10 added Utah instead to get to 12.

[NWI_Irish96]

....

In hindsight, the only thing that could have saved the PAC-12 would have been very aggressive pursuit of Texas and Oklahoma well before the SEC gobbled them up. They would have brought along a couple others from the Central time zone and created a 16-team conference with four schools that could host games in that noon ET slot.

There were a bunch of reports that the Pac-10 tried to do just that in 2010—add six schools from the Big 12 to become the Pac-16. One of those did make the jump (Colorado), but the rest fell through when Texas and Oklahoma decided to stay put and the Pac-10 added Utah instead to get to 12.

If they tried, they tried. If I'd been running the PAC-12, I'd have offered them whatever special concessions it would have taken to get them. Higher share of TV revenue, etc.

[1995hoo]

....

In hindsight, the only thing that could have saved the PAC-12 would have been very aggressive pursuit of Texas and Oklahoma well before the SEC gobbled them up. They would have brought along a couple others from the Central time zone and created a 16-team conference with four schools that could host games in that noon ET slot.

There were a bunch of reports that the Pac-10 tried to do just that in 2010—add six schools from the Big 12 to become the Pac-16. One of those did make the jump (Colorado), but the rest fell through when Texas and Oklahoma decided to stay put and the Pac-10 added Utah instead to get to 12.

If they tried, they tried. If I'd been running the PAC-12, I'd have offered them whatever special concessions it would have taken to get them. Higher share of TV revenue, etc.

One thing I remember reading somewhere, though I don't remember where, was that a sticking point with Texas was their desire to start the Longhorn Network (which debuted in 2011). Apparently that was a dealbreaker for multiple conferences to which Texas had explored jumping at the time who weren't willing to allow one school to have its own TV network apart from whatever media rights deals the leagues had. I guess the university figured there was more money to be made from the network than from joining some other league, and I guess there is now more money to be made as a member of the SEC because they shut down the Longhorn Network before joining said league.

[SEWIGuy]

There were a couple other reasons for the Pac-12's demise beyond successfully getting Texas and Oklahoma.

1. They should have partnered with a media company for the Pac-12 network. This would have helped with their ongoing carriage issues. They tried to manage it on their own, and it failed. The BTN is partially owned by Fox, and the SEC Network is partially owned by ESPN for comparison.

2. They should have tried to expand eastward without Texas and Oklahoma. Their leadership, including their athletic directors, didn't see the point. But that would have addressed some of the issues above as well as provided additional content and territories for a Pac 12 Network. BYU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas, etc. all could have been considered.

3. Hired better conference commissioners with vision, and not simply wanting to open up expensive headquarters in the heart of San Francisco.

None of this may have worked in the long run, but they were so poorly managed for so long.

[SEWIGuy]

....

In hindsight, the only thing that could have saved the PAC-12 would have been very aggressive pursuit of Texas and Oklahoma well before the SEC gobbled them up. They would have brought along a couple others from the Central time zone and created a 16-team conference with four schools that could host games in that noon ET slot.

There were a bunch of reports that the Pac-10 tried to do just that in 2010—add six schools from the Big 12 to become the Pac-16. One of those did make the jump (Colorado), but the rest fell through when Texas and Oklahoma decided to stay put and the Pac-10 added Utah instead to get to 12.

If they tried, they tried. If I'd been running the PAC-12, I'd have offered them whatever special concessions it would have taken to get them. Higher share of TV revenue, etc.

USC and Oregon would have never gone for that. The unequal shares of revenue was why Nebraska and Colorado left the B12 to begin with.

[NWI_Irish96]

There were a couple other reasons for the Pac-12's demise beyond successfully getting Texas and Oklahoma.

1. They should have partnered with a media company for the Pac-12 network. This would have helped with their ongoing carriage issues. They tried to manage it on their own, and it failed. The BTN is partially owned by Fox, and the SEC Network is partially owned by ESPN for comparison.

2. They should have tried to expand eastward without Texas and Oklahoma. Their leadership, including their athletic directors, didn't see the point. But that would have addressed some of the issues above as well as provided additional content and territories for a Pac 12 Network. BYU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas, etc. all could have been considered.

3. Hired better conference commissioners with vision, and not simply wanting to open up expensive headquarters in the heart of San Francisco.

None of this may have worked in the long run, but they were so poorly managed for so long.

I'm going to disagree on #2. What we had at the time was FOX and ABC airing noon ET games that were either Big 10, ACC or Big 12. The PAC-12 needed teams that were both in the Central time zone and also big enough names to get into that rotation. USC at Texas bumps Iowa at Ohio St out of that noon network slot. USC at Texas Tech does not.

[1995hoo]

Several of the Pac-12 schools (most notably California) were unwilling to consider BYU as a league member for political reasons. Their mistake.

[SEWIGuy]

There were a couple other reasons for the Pac-12's demise beyond successfully getting Texas and Oklahoma.

1. They should have partnered with a media company for the Pac-12 network. This would have helped with their ongoing carriage issues. They tried to manage it on their own, and it failed. The BTN is partially owned by Fox, and the SEC Network is partially owned by ESPN for comparison.

2. They should have tried to expand eastward without Texas and Oklahoma. Their leadership, including their athletic directors, didn't see the point. But that would have addressed some of the issues above as well as provided additional content and territories for a Pac 12 Network. BYU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas, etc. all could have been considered.

3. Hired better conference commissioners with vision, and not simply wanting to open up expensive headquarters in the heart of San Francisco.

None of this may have worked in the long run, but they were so poorly managed for so long.

I'm going to disagree on #2. What we had at the time was FOX and ABC airing noon ET games that were either Big 10, ACC or Big 12. The PAC-12 needed teams that were both in the Central time zone and also big enough names to get into that rotation. USC at Texas bumps Iowa at Ohio St out of that noon network slot. USC at Texas Tech does not.

USC wouldn't knock OSU out of "Big Noon Saturday" on Fox no doubt. But they were a big enough name that they could have been a more marquee match up even if it was Texas Tech.

IDK, perhaps not.

[NWI_Irish96]

Several of the Pac-12 schools (most notably California) were unwilling to consider BYU as a league member for political reasons. Their mistake.

Was it purely political reasons or was it BYU's unwillingness to play on Sunday?

[gonealookin]

Several of the Pac-12 schools (most notably California) were unwilling to consider BYU as a league member for political reasons. Their mistake.

Was it purely political reasons or was it BYU's unwillingness to play on Sunday?

Really more "religious reasons" than "political".  The Pac-12 had only two private schools, USC and Stanford, neither with a religious affiliation, and BYU complicates the non-football sports scheduling of whichever conference it's in by its refusal to play any sports on Sunday.  BYU was a good cultural fit in the West Coast Conference in basketball, because all of that conference's schools were religious-affiliated (though all much smaller than BYU).

The other stumbling block for the Pac-12 was the university presidents being too persnickety about the academic credentials of potential members.  They wanted new members to be part of the Association of American Universities, a limited group of top research schools.  Texas-Austin is a member; Oklahoma is not, but those two were thought to be a team entry so that's why they were offered membership.  Kansas is on there but has rarely enhanced any conference's attractiveness in football.  It was only when USC and UCLA announced that they were fleeing to the Big Ten a couple years ago that the Pac-12 got off its high horse and started considering some non-AAU schools like San Diego State, Southern Methodist and certain other members of the Mountain West besides SDSU.

[SEWIGuy]

The WAC, Mountain West and WCC managed for years with BYU not playing on Sundays. The B12 doesn't have a problem with it now. To let that become an obstacle probably says more about the Pac 12 and how they were governed more than anything else.

[JayhawkCO]

2. They should have tried to expand eastward without Texas and Oklahoma. Their leadership, including their athletic directors, didn't see the point. But that would have addressed some of the issues above as well as provided additional content and territories for a Pac 12 Network. BYU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas, etc. all could have been considered.

Kansas would have never gone for the Pac 10/12. A) They're likely to be tied to K-State if/when there's any more consolidation and B) the Big Ten made far more sense "culturally", so they would have held out for that expansion.

I think at this point, the ACC is going to implode and the Big 12 will pick up some more pieces (Florida State, Clemson, Virginia, and Louisville. Maaaaaybe Duke and UNC.)