Two dipshits walk into a bar…

Imagine sitting on a bar stool, nursing a cold one, minding your own business, maybe watching a little football on the TV over the bar, when up sidles this guy

“We were shut out of the playoff and if we went six or eight, we would have been in,” Meyer said. “I just don’t know. The first people you think about are the student athletes. How do you do that? Then, bowl games are gone. … You would have to expand the roster then for a couple more games. When are they played? The spring semester starts usually around Jan. 10, Jan. 8. Are you going to play once the semester starts because there are going to be players that are moving on to the NFL? I’m not part of the conversation. I think there is certainly going to be more and more of it. But at this point in time I don’t see how you do it.”

… and before you could say, “But, Corch, you know you’d be arguing the exact opposite if you were still coaching there”, you’re both joined by this guy.

“A lot of people are going to keep their mouths shut on this topic because they’re afraid they’re going to get a call.  I don’t care.  I only care about the game.  I want the game to improve, I want the game to be better.  I want more access for those involved.”

While no solution is simple, one relatively easy fix could be expanding the College Football Playoff.  Double the number of teams invited and watch the sport’s popularity explode, Brando believes.

“You can’t tell me that by going to eight teams in this playoff you wouldn’t be doing that.  Imagine the interest you’d have with teams ranked somewhere between, say, fifth and sixteenth in the last month of the season jockeying for positions five through eight. “

Brando seems to be alluding to the illusion of parity the NFL has built their empire on.

At that moment, you realize there’s only one way left to respond.  You motion to the bartender and say, “Check, please”.

17 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs

17 responses to “Two dipshits walk into a bar…

  1. JasonC

    The sad thing is that Meyer is the most reasonable sounding guy but you know from history he’s as dishonest as they come.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. 1) I hope I never end up in a bar sitting next to Corch. He’s a hypocritical douche bag of the highest order.
    2) Tim Brando is just an idiot who wants a “fly in the ointment” (otherwise known as a Go5 team) in the playoff. He’s Danny Kanell without the turtleneck.
    3) Other than possibly 2007, when could you ever make the case that teams 5-8 deserved a shot at the national championship? Given the fact that it will never be the top 8 teams in the ranking (it will be P5 champions + 1 Go5 + 2 wild cards), you don’t get the 8 best teams.
    4) The question about how you do this while maintaining the bowl system and dealing with the end of the fall semester is real.

    Keep it at 4 … it keeps the regular season as meaningful from week 0 to championship weekend.

    Thank goodness college football is back!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Macallanlover

      A few missteps in your comment, imo, and they tilt the discussion to make it seem balanced. Same can be said by my position, BTW. Nothing seems to change anyone’s position on this subject but in an attempt to state there is another side that exists from people who love CFB as much as you, or any person, I say this in response.

      1, Biggest issue is the assumption that the current playoff identifies “the best” four, or “the best” champion. By whom? A majority? The media/fans? Crowning the best is not guaranteed by any playoff in CFB, or other sport’s playoff, BTW and the format is irrelevant to that. Not only is it going to always be subjective, the determination of that is limited to what happens in 1 to 2, or even 3, or 4 match ups through the year and, the playoffs. We all accept that upsets occur throughout every season, does that mean because of one bad play, one QB that had to sit out 1-2 weeks at a key point of the season, one blown call, etc., “the best” wasn’t identified that year. It is who was best on one specific date, not necessarily who was the best and got included in the 4 teams, or 2 during the BCS period. I can accept that team as the national champion because of the result at the end of the season, but legit arguments will always exist because there will never be enough interactions of teams from all over the map. It is all about subjective judgments, schedules, injuries, weather extremes, officials calls, and point of time intersections of two teams.

      Was Bama better than UGA in 2017 because of an off sides penalty that was invented by one official, and was not a judgement issue that can be debated, it was blown, should never have happened. So that ridiculous situation made one team “the best”, and the other a pretender, or First Loser? Same for the Watson TD against Bama 2 years before on the last play of the game. It isn’t just officials, it can be key injuries to one team that caused the team to be vulnerable for that week. Put that “best” argument on the shelf, it will always be mythical to many.

      The Group of 5 getting a spot is a sore spot to so many, and for different reasons. I willingly accept that few/if any Group of 5 teams are built to ever wear the crown of NC because for them to beat 3 consecutive top Power 5 teams in a row. So the idea we will end up with an undeserving NC from a large perspective is not worth the argument. What it accomplishes is being inclusive to all while remaining exclusive, we are denying then dream to no one. (Although this slot will certainly always be subjective.) It is only one spot, in one game, unless they win against a higher rated opponent. But it gives everyone a clear path to prove themselves, and we shouldn’t underestimate how important that is, for a very small price. Nor should we ignore how many millions of fans will be engaged to see how their representative compares. There is no denying that Boise and CF’s wins in major bowls against quality teams has driven this, and we all recall what happened to Hawaii when they developed a huge following built on a House of Cards. It costs nothing to do this, fans that don’t want to watch it, should go shopping or take their wives to dinner. It is important, imo, to give young players a goal to play for that is as unrestricted as we can give them, and to minimize the number of people put off by the current system’s exclusiveness and closed doors.
      The watering down of the regular season argument is the worst argument of them all, imo. Expanding to 8 teams will do just what Brando said, it will explode the popularity of the sport, especially at the end of the season. We all know CFB is struggling with attendance, and interest, across the country but certainly in areas where the fans feel disenfranchised. Having more fans locked into what it happening not only to their teams, but others around the country for one of the 3 Wild Card spots will boost the game. And despite the oft repeated “resting players” argument, UGA has won the East 7 times, FU more, Bama and AU even more, not one has rested/withheld a player in the season finale even though they had already secured their spot in the SECCG. I am sure it never happened in the ACC and Big Whatever either. Games will mean even more with 8 spots, not less, and that starts in the 1st game and runs through the season. Please show me examples of this.

      Sorry of the length of this comment but I won’t do it again. Today is the last “off day” of sorts for the college season so I had time to state a different view of the issue. No, it won’t change minds on this but I feel the points are logical and perhaps make some think about the points as not being so absolute and raise some doubts about the argument being so much of a slam dunk just because they get repeated so often.

      Like

      • Gaskilldawg

        The fallacy in discussing the ESPN Invitational is the assumption that it is a real playoff. Your point about “best 4 decided by who?” assumes that the ESPN Invitational really picks the best 4. The 4 chosen are the 4 deemed the best 4 by the panel ESPN and partners put togetherness. That panel has the pompous title, “The Committee.”

        When we look back on the 4 in the 2018 there was no5 some national referendum on whether UGA was better than Notre Dame. Pick 20 folks at the Mall and they can vote the top 4, too. (I recognize that a whole bunch of folks care about the committee’s choices and no one gives a shirt about the strangers at the Mall.)

        Like

        • I hate the committee. If you’re going to have a committee, let them meet the last weekend of the season and pick the teams (like they do for March Madness). The rest is just a bunch of garbage and fluff for the ESPN Invitational. Otherwise, use a formula similar to the BCS to pick the teams. I could live with that.

          Like

      • I respect those who want 8. I would agree with 8 if it were champions only, but that would require changes to college football that would make it unrecognizable.

        I didn’t like Bama getting a 2nd bite at the apple in 2011 and 2017. I didn’t like Ohio State getting the same pass in 2016.

        I’m not a fan of the wild card. I admit my bias.

        Like

      • Uglydawg

        I enjoyed your post, Mac. You make some valid points..valid points on all sides of this particular discussion are common.
        But the determining factor will be $$$$. So you’ll get 16 or I miss my bet.
        No need to apologize for the length of your post, either.
        You would need at least two more paragraphs for us to suspect Paws had hacked you’re handle.

        Like

        • Macallanlover

          I reject the idea of not going to eight because someone thinks that automatically means we will go to 6, or 32, etc. Four is flawed because it automatically blocks at least one conference champion, and because it excludes everyone not in a Power 5 conference, and that kills off that portion of the teams and fans who then do stupid stuff like UCF. Again, exclusive while inclusive, just 6% of the teams.

          I should have added, I get the validity of the rare 4 loss conference champion (a Pitt upsetting Clemson in the conference championship for example). I would support a rule that any team with 3 or 4 losses, or anyone not ranked by the Committee in say the Top 12 be excluded. That would include both Power 5 or Group of five. Having a way to draw a line to insure more competitiveness for those rare examples is reasonable. Doubt it happens, but it comes up from someone in most of these discussions.

          Like

          • Dawgoholic

            You’re just wrong. G5 schools are not excluded. G5 schools unwilling to play anyone anywhere are excluded. If USF goes undefeated and beats Bama, they are in. There is no need to expand the playoff so that teams can be rewarded for playing soft schedules.

            Like

            • Macallanlover

              I am no proponent of Group of 5, and agree the ones who want entry into the playoff should play an aggressive schedule to improve their chances. That said, until they get their own playoff like I feel they should, we should not excuse them having no chance to participate in the process. As I said, they have to have a pretty solid season to qualify, and it is only one team representing almost half of the athletes who play D1 football. Not asking for much. Not having their own payoff is on them, it is an easier path than what I propose as solution. The expansion I favor is not driven by their inclusion, it is just a piece of it. My primary gripe is not having enough seats at the table for every Power 5 conference champs.

              Like

  3. Bright Idea

    Brando’s comments are those of a TV guy who has forgotten about the connection between alums and their school’s football team. He decries the disinterest from the standpoint that TV money might not grow if more teams aren’t in the playoff race in November while also bemoaning the lack of interest on talk radio and TV during the summer. Who cares? What is he really suggesting other than expanding the playoff for the purpose of more TV money?

    Like

  4. 92 grad

    Why is it that all the dumb people are on tv? How do we get someone with some influence to convince the tv people that they would actually make more money if they would foster conference championships and dig in on the regional focus.

    Like

  5. Hogbody Spradlin

    “The first people you think about are the student athletes.”
    Sure you do Corch.

    Like

  6. sectionzalum

    The only thing under a threat of irrelevancy is Tim Brando. What a buffoon.

    Like

  7. Macallanlover

    Fair to characterize Liar as a dipshit, Brando is just another talking head. He doesn’t seem like such a bad guy, certainly worse in the field of journalism. Wish he were still on SiriusXM, there are some bigger dips that have taken his spot. That host at 1 PM and Packer are worse to me in the afternoon. Although getting rid of FBomb in the 4 PM slot was the best move ever.

    Like

  8. Jack Klompus

    Oh boy something as exciting as the NFL. Be still my heart. Can we also get Jim Nance and Joe Satchitore (or whatever his name is) to do an awful job announcing the games?

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Rampdawg

    It should have been 8 from the get go.

    Like