Author Topic: College Football: 2025-26  (Read 1948 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online imref

  • Posts: 50674
  • NG Nattitude?
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #100 on: December 01, 2025, 05:30:16 pm »
JMU's coach taking his talents to UCLA.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/47167883/jmu-chesney-expected-sign-5-year-deal-ucla

JMU becoming quite the launching pad for coaches now.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 49094
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #101 on: December 02, 2025, 08:31:08 am »
JMU's coach taking his talents to UCLA.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/47167883/jmu-chesney-expected-sign-5-year-deal-ucla

JMU becoming quite the launching pad for coaches now.
feels like BC basketball in the 1980s with Tom Davis, Gary Williams, and Jim O'Brien. Not quite a big time enough program to keep guys, but a good area to recruit  from and a decent enough schedule to impress.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 22106
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #102 on: December 04, 2025, 12:38:13 pm »
The Juice Kiffin story is the best college football story that I can remember

Online imref

  • Posts: 50674
  • NG Nattitude?
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #103 on: December 06, 2025, 05:22:16 pm »
ND State upset in the FCS tournament!

Gotta wonder if OSU treats the IU game as meaningless.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 49094
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #104 on: December 06, 2025, 05:28:17 pm »
Yale gave Montana State a good run for the money, losing 21-13. Mt St knocked the starting QB out of  the game for a series late in the 1st quarter, and the backup through a pick that set up a short field scoring drive after a good return. Yale was driving for a tie when the starter threw another pick inside the 10, and Mt State drove the length of the field for another score. Pretty evenly matched.

Online imref

  • Posts: 50674
  • NG Nattitude?
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #105 on: December 06, 2025, 11:25:42 pm »
Cignetti leads Indiana to the top seed!

And UVA opening the door for JMU.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 22106
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #106 on: December 06, 2025, 11:46:11 pm »
Is this the last year of conference championship games? The BiG 12 would have had TCU and BYU, now BYu is probably out. Alabama would have been in, now they may be out. If Virginia doesn’t win in over time, the ACC loses a bid. Basically zero upside and a lot of downside

Online imref

  • Posts: 50674
  • NG Nattitude?
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #107 on: December 06, 2025, 11:56:08 pm »
UVA comes back!  Terrible play by Duke late.

Online imref

  • Posts: 50674
  • NG Nattitude?
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #108 on: December 06, 2025, 11:59:03 pm »
Trick play in OT?  Duke wins!  JMU to the playoffs.

Offline Count Walewski

  • Posts: 2886
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #109 on: December 07, 2025, 07:32:29 am »
I think at least a few people had Indiana winning the Big Ten. I don't think anyone had Duke winning the ACC.

Online imref

  • Posts: 50674
  • NG Nattitude?
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #110 on: December 07, 2025, 08:57:01 am »
Is this the last year of conference championship games? The BiG 12 would have had TCU and BYU, now BYu is probably out. Alabama would have been in, now they may be out. If Virginia doesn’t win in over time, the ACC loses a bid. Basically zero upside and a lot of downside

Yeah, the conference games was pretty much meaningless for OSU and IU, and only had downside potential for UVA. I wonder if the NCAA will just tweak rules next year to ensure someone like a UVA still gets into the playoffs.

SI has this as the first round matchups:
Quote
No. 12 James Madison (Sun Belt champion, automatic bid) at No. 5 Oregon (at-large)
No. 11 Tulane (American champion, automatic bid) at No. 6 Mississippi (at-large)
No. 10 Alabama (at-large) at No. 7 Texas A&M (at-large)
No. 9 Notre Dame (at-large) at No. 8 Oklahoma (at-large)

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 22106
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #111 on: December 07, 2025, 09:11:21 am »
Yeah, the conference games was pretty much meaningless for OSU and IU, and only had downside potential for UVA. I wonder if the NCAA will just tweak rules next year to ensure someone like a UVA still gets into the playoffs.

SI has this as the first round matchups:

It’s not just UVA. The top 5 conference winners are in. JMU being ranked and Duke not being ranked means the ACC may not get a bid. If the ACC crowned their regular season winner the conference champion, then UVA would be in. I’d don’t see how you put in a two loss notre dame (with no quality wins) over a 2 loss Miami team that beat Notre Dame, but the committee hates the ACC. Likewise, the Big 12 would have had a second team of BYU just didn’t play yesterday, now they’re a 1 bid conference. Even Alabama playing vs being idle could cost them a spot. On the other had Ohio State and Indiana will flip in the rankings. 1 neutral result vs three negative for the power conferences

Offline Count Walewski

  • Posts: 2886
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #112 on: December 07, 2025, 09:16:11 am »
Aren't conference championship games big money-makers for the conferences and for the networks? Perhaps an extra playoff team would be an even bigger money-maker for the conferences but yes right now all they accomplish for playoff seeding and qualification is giving one of your top teams an extra loss.

I'm old enough to remember the Big 12 spending millions of dollars running TV ads proclaiming that because they played a round robin schedule with no conference championship game, their season would result in ONE TRUE CHAMPION. And then their season resulted in a tie for first place that had to be broken by statistics and the next season there was a Big 12 Championship Game.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 49094
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #113 on: December 07, 2025, 09:20:53 am »
The thing is, these conference tournaments are big money makers for that gets shared with lesser teams in the conference. I don't see how, say, a round of playoffs before the quarters (either the current format or a round of 16) makes more money for the SEC than a championship in ATL.

Someone suggested a "no harm" rule for losers in the conference championships. A win can boost you in, but a loss can't harm you vs at large teams. A loser gets the better of its post-Thanksgiving ranking or its post-championship ranking. It'd be weird for Alabama after that display last night, but probably good for VA.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 22106
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #114 on: December 07, 2025, 09:34:21 am »
I’d like to see regular season and conference champions and championship winners from the 4 major conferences both get auto bids. Some years, that would be 8 auto bids taken, others 4.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 22106
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #115 on: December 07, 2025, 09:35:36 am »
The thing is, these conference tournaments are big money makers for that gets shared with lesser teams in the conference. I don't see how, say, a round of playoffs before the quarters (either the current format or a round of 16) makes more money for the SEC than a championship in ATL.

Someone suggested a "no harm" rule for losers in the conference championships. A win can boost you in, but a loss can't harm you vs at large teams. A loser gets the better of its post-Thanksgiving ranking or its post-championship ranking. It'd be weird for Alabama after that display last night, but probably good for VA.

BYU would have been better off financially declining the invite to the game. I don’t think that’s out of the realm of possibility

Offline Count Walewski

  • Posts: 2886
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #116 on: December 07, 2025, 09:37:06 am »
The thing is, these conference tournaments are big money makers for that gets shared with lesser teams in the conference. I don't see how, say, a round of playoffs before the quarters (either the current format or a round of 16) makes more money for the SEC than a championship in ATL.

Someone suggested a "no harm" rule for losers in the conference championships. A win can boost you in, but a loss can't harm you vs at large teams. A loser gets the better of its post-Thanksgiving ranking or its post-championship ranking. It'd be weird for Alabama after that display last night, but probably good for VA.

An emerging problem is the fact that the committee in charge of picking playoff teams seems incapable of sticking to its current proffered standards and the public statements of committee members are often baffling, inconsistent, and obviously at odds with both said stated principles and reality. So adopting a particular rule for playoff qualification does not necessarily mean it will be implemented or that fans will trust its implementation.

A few more of these Tuesday night TV apperances and people will be begging for the computers to take over again.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 49094
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #117 on: December 07, 2025, 09:38:50 am »
I’d like to see regular season and conference champions and championship winners from the 4 major conferences both get auto bids. Some years, that would be 8 auto bids taken, others 4.
who is the regular season champ in a conference with 2 divisions? higher ranked team?

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 22106
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #118 on: December 07, 2025, 09:52:15 am »
An emerging problem is the fact that the committee in charge of picking playoff teams seems incapable of sticking to its current proffered standards and the public statements of committee members are often baffling, inconsistent, and obviously at odds with both said stated principles and reality. So adopting a particular rule for playoff qualification does not necessarily mean it will be implemented or that fans will trust its implementation.

A few more of these Tuesday night TV apperances and people will be begging for the computers to take over again.

This year should be great for standards. Last year Notre Dame had one of the worst losses imaginable and got in. This year, they have no good wins, but no embarrassing losses and will get in.

Online imref

  • Posts: 50674
  • NG Nattitude?
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #119 on: December 07, 2025, 01:33:48 pm »
Worse for UVA: Losing to UMBC in the NCAA tournament as a #1 seed, or losing to Duke in the ACC championship to allow JMU to make the playoffs?

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 22106
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #120 on: December 07, 2025, 02:05:27 pm »
I think they actually got it right this year

Online varoadking

  • Posts: 31867
  • King of Goodness
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #121 on: December 07, 2025, 06:44:19 pm »
I wonder if the NCAA will just tweak rules next year to ensure someone like a UVA still gets into the playoffs.

Why would they?

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 22106
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #122 on: December 07, 2025, 07:45:08 pm »
The fixes I’ve heard are requiring G5 schools to be top 12 to qualify and giving Notre Dame an automatic bid if they’re top 12. I think both are terrible ideas. I like the little guy getting a shot and Notre Dame can join a conference if they don’t want to be left out

Online varoadking

  • Posts: 31867
  • King of Goodness
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #123 on: December 07, 2025, 08:15:55 pm »
The fixes I’ve heard are requiring G5 schools to be top 12 to qualify and giving Notre Dame an automatic bid if they’re top 12. I think both are terrible ideas. I like the little guy getting a shot and Notre Dame can join a conference if they don’t want to be left out

Agreed...F Notre Dame...

Offline GataNats

  • Posts: 3549
Re: College Football: 2025-26
« Reply #124 on: December 08, 2025, 02:36:56 am »
The SEC bias is ridiculous.   Alabama is a bad team.  No business in