Who's Leaving? 2024/25 version

gossamorharpy said:
How is college football we knew dead and gone? There is more parity in the sport than ever which has sorely been needed.  We just spend a decade of having to figure out which 3 other teams would get to face bama in the playoffs and if the SEC would get 50-75% of the playoff spots.  NIL and portal have made it so much harder for the bama and georgias of the world just hoarding 5 star talent across the depth chart- now there is a greater distribution of top talent and it’s evened the playing field tremendously.

your take and many others scream of a disgruntled husker fan that thinks the sport is ending simply cause we’ve been crap for so long.  Players were always getting paid, there are always rules and laws changing that alter the sport.  I’m sure you weren’t complaining when Nebraska benefitted greatly when they were 1 of 8 schools on TV. I’m sure Osborne being a step ahead in the partial qualifier department wasn’t bad because u benefitted as a fan.  
 

The sport is arguably in better shape than ever before. November was chalk full of meaning for once where literally 15-20 teams were battling for seeding or a ticket into the playoffs. Arizona state had a 10% chance of making the a playoffs a months ago and now they have a bye. Conf titles games have immense meaning now- Clemson punched their ticket in when previous years they’re playing for maybe a later bowl game of no meaning? 
 

I grow tired of fans griping about how college football is in the gutter.  Are things perfect? No, but rarely anything ever is perfect at first. Are we moving in the right direction? We sure as hell are- sure the pendulum swung prolly a bit too far in favor of players but this will be ironed out with rules in place to limit amount of times you can transfer, when, etc.

i don’t mean to be mean with this response but I really don’t think you or others would care at all if our Huskers weren’t pathetic for 10 years now 
Click to expand...
The first paragraph is absolutely delusional but I’ll give responding a go. Just google the top NIL collective funding and you’ll see the top school look eerily similar to the same schools in recruiting services top 10 each and every year… even before NIL. The first link I found had 7 SEC, 2 BIG, and 1 ACC. The schools listed had won all the titles dating back to 2013. The only parity seems to be none of these current teams have a dominant QB this year. These teams hoard all the top talent. 

I was 7 years old when the Husker last won a title. Like many on this forum, I’m the farthest thing from a disgruntled fair-weather fan. I just don’t see how any of this holds up. When I watched games this year, I genuinely believed the product I was watching was down from even 4-5 years ago. 
 

Just because teams like ASU and BSU are given BYE’s, doesn’t mean they are top 4 teams. They both are barely top 10 teams. One played nobody and the other had a great year in one of the worst conferences I’ve seen in my 30 plus years of watching college football. The Big12 was god awful this year. Forcing parity doesn’t equate to parity. They should do away with conference titles if Clemson is behind SMU. 
 

When it’s Texas vs Georgia in the NCG, just hit me with a plus 1 for the sake of parity. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Waldo said:
The first paragraph is absolutely delusional but I’ll give responding a go. Just google the top NIL collective funding and you’ll see the top school look eerily similar to the same schools in recruiting services top 10 each and every year… even before NIL. The first link I found had 7 SEC, 2 BIG, and 1 ACC. The schools listed had won all the titles dating back to 2013. The only parity seems to be none of these current teams have a dominant QB this year. These teams hoard all the top talent. 

I was 7 years old when the Husker last won a title. Like many on this forum, I’m the farthest thing from a disgruntled fair-weather fan. I just don’t see how any of this holds up. When I watched games this year, I genuinely believed the product I was watching was down from even 4-5 years ago. 
 

Just because teams like ASU and BSU are given BYE’s, doesn’t mean they are top 4 teams. They both are barely top 10 teams. One played nobody and the other had a great year in one of the worst conferences I’ve seen in my 30 plus years of watching college football. The Big12 was god awful this year. Forcing parity doesn’t equate to parity. They should do away with conference titles if Clemson is behind SMU. 
 

When it’s Texas vs Georgia in the NCG, just hit me with a plus 1 for the sake of parity. 
Click to expand...
damn, good morning to you too! You know you can reply without inserting adjectives such as delusional!
 

But, if you want to casually throw out the word delusional, look in the mirror bud.  Do you think the SEC and Big 10 having the most has anything to do with the fact that those 2 conferences are clearly more stacked with historic heavyweight programs than all the other conferences?  I also did a quick google search, the first link that came up for me had us ranked in the top 10 in NIL collective funding.  I dont recall us winning a title in the last 10 years, just wanna make sure we're both operating in the same timeframe- it’s 2024 not 2004.  

No s#!t the big 12 was awful, they've died a slow death for 15 years now losing every single program of consequence, thanks for your take on the matter though!

I never said BSU and ASU are top 4 teams quality wise- but granting entrance and an opportunity to play it out on the field inherently creates parity.  Any of the teams in the playoffs can lose on a bad day.  It gives these types of programs something to play for late in the season, its also worth mentioning that our huskers have much more in common with ASU and BSU in terms of on the field quality than we do with the likes of Oregon, Georgia and Texas.  

Even if it is Texas and Georgia for a 3rd time, at least it was proven on the field.  We now get 11 high stakes playoff games to watch from late December to mid January and I cant wait.  It sounds like you prefer a world where 2, maybe 4 teams max get a chance at winning it all and get to watch 35+ meaningless bowl games leading up to it.  Thats ok to be stuck in the past, go ahead and pop in those husker 90s highlight VHS tapes of yours and party like its 1999 bud!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
gossamorharpy said:
damn, good morning to you too! You know you can reply without inserting adjectives such as delusional!
 

But, if you want to casually throw out the word delusional, look in the mirror bud.  Do you think the SEC and Big 10 having the most has anything to do with the fact that those 2 conferences are clearly more stacked with historic heavyweight programs than all the other conferences?  I also did a quick google search, the first link that came up for me had us ranked in the top 10 in NIL collective funding.  I dont recall us winning a title in the last 10 years, just wanna make sure we're both operating in the same timeframe- it’s 2024 not 2004.  

No s#!t the big 12 was awful, they've died a slow death for 15 years now losing every single program of consequence, thanks for your take on the matter though!

I never said BSU and ASU are top 4 teams quality wise- but granting entrance and an opportunity to play it out on the field inherently creates parity.  Any of the teams in the playoffs can lose on a bad day.  It gives these types of programs something to play for late in the season, its also worth mentioning that our huskers have much more in common with ASU and BSU in terms of on the field quality than we do with the likes of Oregon, Georgia and Texas.  

Even if it is Texas and Georgia for a 3rd time, at least it was proven on the field.  We now get 11 high stakes playoff games to watch from late December to mid January and I cant wait.  It sounds like you prefer a world where 2, maybe 4 teams max get a chance at winning it all and get to watch 35+ meaningless bowl games leading up to it.  Thats ok to be stuck in the past, go ahead and pop in those husker 90s highlight VHS tapes of yours and party like its 1999 bud!
Click to expand...
If you think there is more parity now with NIL, we will never agree and that’s ok.  But just because there is a 12 team playoff doesn’t mean there is more parity. The NCAA found a way to profit even further. You admit the BIG12 is awful but are cool with them getting a bye for the sake of ‘parity.’ 
 

I’ll never be a fan of teams potentially playing 16-17 games a year. If that makes me old school and correlates to me watching Husker highlights on VHS, so be it (again, not the sharpest tool in your mom’s shed after I stated my age). I’ve also stated I didn’t care to watch Nebraska in a pointless bowl game numerous times starting around week 9.  

 
Waldo said:
If you think there is more parity now with NIL, we will never agree and that’s ok.  But just because there is a 12 team playoff doesn’t mean there is more parity. The NCAA found a way to profit even further. You admit the BIG12 is awful but are cool with them getting a bye for the sake of ‘parity.’ 
 

I’ll never be a fan of teams potentially playing 16-17 games a year. If that makes me old school and correlates to me watching Husker highlights on VHS, so be it (again, not the sharpest tool in your mom’s shed after I stated my age). I’ve also stated I didn’t care to watch Nebraska in a pointless bowl game numerous times starting around week 9.  
Click to expand...
Never said I was cool with the big 12 champ getting a bye. In my original post you quoted I explicitly said “are things perfect, no, but it’s moving in the right direction”. Clearly there are things that need to be ironed out. I agree with you, smu seeded higher than Clemson makes zero sense, Oregon getting an insanely tough road is dumb, the conf champs getting top 4 seeds is dumb it should just be top 4 ranked teams, regardless of conference.
 

we’ll agree to disagree on the NIL parity argument. To me, it makes it much harder for Georgia to stockpile 5 stars 3 deep on the depth chart when 20-30 other programs offer the same or more money and playing time. 
 

and again, nice throwing out some attacks keyboard warrior. Usually I can see other peoples argument but you not understanding that an expanded playoff naturally provides more parity in the sport tells me you ain’t even in your moms shed and you laying on the ground rotting outside due to incompetence.
 

Enjoy the holidays Waldo, if I see ya post on the gameday thread for the bowl I’ll be sure to quote your own words and remind you that you don’t even care to watch a pointless bowl.

 
gossamorharpy said:
...an expanded playoff naturally provides more parity in the sport...
Click to expand...
I think you are using parity and opportunity interchangeably which is incorrect. An expanded playoff provides more opportunities, but does not facilitate parity. More playoff spots allows a larger selection pool, but the programs are not all equal in terms of sustainable success. 

Similarly, an ESPN article today talked about expanding March Madness from 72 or 76 teams. The SEC commissioner noted that the current 68 team format "gives away highly competitive opportunities to automatic qualifiers." In other words, more teams from his conference should be in the tournament as opposed to a smaller field with conference champs from the Ivy League, Summit, SWAC, etc. So while expanding the field to 72 to 76 would increase the opportunities for all teams to make it, more than likely those spots wouldn't be filled with teams from the smaller conferences. Therefore, the competitive parity does not change very much, if at all. 

Although college basketball is a totally different subject, the concept applies. Your NIL angle has some merit and the current transfer rules do allow for more parity in theory. However, of the 12 teams in the CFP, nine of them are perennial top 10 teams. So we are not necessarily seeing genuine parity quite yet.

 
gossamorharpy said:
we’ll agree to disagree on the NIL parity argument. To me, it makes it much harder for Georgia to stockpile 5 stars 3 deep on the depth chart when 20-30 other programs offer the same or more money and playing time. 
Click to expand...
I think you need to dive into recruiting and the transfer portal. Tell me if there is more parity once you do so. 

https://247sports.com/season/2024-football/transferportaltop/

https://247sports.com/Season/2025-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/

 
Wistrom Disciple said:
I think you are using parity and opportunity interchangeably which is incorrect. An expanded playoff provides more opportunities, but does not facilitate parity. More playoff spots allows a larger selection pool, but the programs are not all equal in terms of sustainable success….

However, of the 12 teams in the CFP, nine of them are perennial top 10 teams. So we are not necessarily seeing genuine parity quite yet.
Click to expand...
This is year 1 of expanded playoffs, immediate change will not happen overnight.  There is a very solid likelihood the national champ this year comes from a team currently seeded 5-9.  In previous years, these teams weren’t even afforded an opportunity to compete for the title.  I get what you’re saying about the difference between opportunity and parity but the lack of opportunity has been one of the main drivers that has hindered CFB historically- there is inherent bias when schools begin the season ranked higher, largely due to previous years performance, and this directly prevents a level playing field when we talk about who’s most deserving to play for a natty.

For instance, some schools have much tougher schedules and one loss in a close game against another top squad left them out of contention in years past.  Texas Georgia came down to the wire, Oregon OSU came down to the wire, I think Tennessee is more than capable of knocking off any of these schools.  
 

This is what I mean by an expanded field naturally driving more parity. I am confident that as the years progress and we see more teams have success in the post season and win the title that we will see a greater number of consistent title contenders each year.  

 
Back
Top