Winners & losers: post-playoff edition

59 Comments

And, yes, hours after the official announcement, it still feels good — perhaps even drop-dead sexy — to use the words “playoff” and “major college football” in the same sentence without it veering toward an Onion-worthy post.

Of course, there are still issues that need hashed out.  Yes, even this four-team baby step is being met with scorn by the more-more-more crowd failing to realize that, even in its infancy, this just-birthed format is already infinitesimally better than what the BcS has wrought over the past decade-plus.

Even with a selection committee involved in the process… even with a way-too-limited field… even with every single argument against the specific playoff wheels that officially hit the pavement Tuesday, the game will be better off because of this first step.  Those who thought the powerbrokers would cannonball right into the deep end of an eight- or 16-team playoff pool?  They’ll eventually get over themselves and realize what a monumental day this was for college football and its fans.

Speaking of which, there were certainly some (a lot of) winners with the announcement of a four-team seeded playoff beginning after the 2014 regular season, and (not as many) losers stemming from the same glorious event.  So, well, here are but a few of them…

WINNERS

— THE FANS
When it came to a playoff poll on this site, you could count on anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of our readers being in favor of a change to the current system used to determine a “national champion.”  Other polls would range from 65-70 percent to, well, well above that mark.  The fans have clamored for it for years and, while it may not be what the majority wants, it’s certainly a day when the sport gave the fans that support it exactly what was wanted, regardless of the motive$ behind it.  Which, of course, leads us to…

— EVERY FBS* FOOTBALL PROGRAM
Will a four-team playoff likely exclude the non-power conferences to a greater degree than it had in the previous system?  It very well could.  With $500 million annually at stake — nearly triple of what was paid out under the old system — the members of those non-power conferences, diluted already thanks in large part to expansion wrought by the BcS, will be able to wash away their collective exclusion angst with crisp $100 bills.  As for the power conferences?  The rich merely got richer today — and separated themselves further from the have-nots.

— MIKE SLIVE & JOHN SWOFFORD
The commissioners of the SEC and ACC, respectively, were at the forefront of a push several years ago to implement some type of playoff, only to be rebuffed by the Jim Delanys of the college football world.  Even as they may not have gotten exactly what they wanted this go ’round, each of those two men and their staunch pro-playoff stances were vindicated.  And the sport is all the better for their collective and unwavering approaches to the offseason.

— THE BOWLS
We touched on this earlier but it bears repeating: the fact that, after there had been some level of discussion of hosting pre-title games at on-campus or neutral-site venues, the semifinals will be hosted by existing bowls on a rotating basis is a huge win for the Football Bowl Association.  The inclusion of six upper-echelon bowls in the playoff process is significant for the FBA, although raising the bar on bowl eligibility could be the death knell for postseason games that almost no one will miss.

— THE ACC
There are currently four “power conferences” in major college football: the Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC.  With just four precious playoff spots available over each of the next 12 years, that would seem to be a rough deal for a conference like the ACC, especially based on how this exact playoff format would’ve played out if it were in place over the past decade.  This conference, though, has four things in its favor when it comes to the future format: Clemson, Florida State, Miami and Virginia Tech, football-rich traditions which, while in “down cycles” at the moment nationally, give the ACC more than enough opportunity for its playoff water to find its level.

— DAN WETZEL & PLAYOFF PAC
Enough.  Said.  Other than there’s a fairly good chance that the sport wouldn’t be where it’s at right now, playoff-wise, without those two and the pressure they, and by extension the fans, exerted on the process.

LOSERS

— THE BIG EAST
Given the whole television contract negotiating thing, I should probably tread carefully here, but there’s really no gray area when it comes to this.  The Big East signed off on a deal that will likely preclude that conference, given the recent defections generally and specifically if Boise State reneges on its expected future move, from being a major or even minor playoff player for the foreseeable future.  If the Broncos follow through on their move, or if another Louisville circa 2006 is in the offing, the Big East may find a spot at a corner table, even if it’s just occasionally.  Other than that?  They should’ve been the loudest voices at the table for an expanded playoff field.  Or merely be satisfied with cashing that lucrative postseason check.

— HARVEY PERLMAN
The Nebraska chancellor and staunch anti-playoff intellectual (pictured) would’ve been fine with the status quo.  Or a Plus-One abomination.  He got neither.  Life is good.

— THE ANTI-PLAYOFF “CROWD”
Their stance is not one I could even begin to fathom let alone start to wrap my head around, yet the presence of that sentiment kept the sport from taking the righteous path for years or even decades.  The fact that some of the staunchest anti-playoff proponents were part of the group that actually implemented a playoff induces mild chuckling… and hope that those very people are actually beginning to “get it” when it comes to an issue that’s vitally important for the future of the game.

(*with the official death to the BcS, I’ve decided to officially retire the “Div. 1-A (FBS)” designation.  It’s the least I could do.)

Rutgers declares war on Washington, comes armed with jacuzzi for fans

Photo by Otto Greule Jr/Getty Images
Leave a comment

Rutgers will open up the 2017 season at home against defending Pac-12 champion Washington on Friday, September 8, and the Scarlet Knights are declaring war on the Huskies. In a somewhat awkward promotion for the season opener, Rutgers is advertising the game as the “War Before the Shore,” thus encouraging fans to come out to the game before enjoying their Labor Day weekend down at the Jersey shores in the final weekend of the summer.

The first 5,000 fans attending the game will be handed a rally towel complete with the “War Before the Shore” logo designed for the game. In addition, students attending the game will walk away with a tank top that reads “Rutgers The State Football Team of New Jersey.” Students will also receive a pair of sunglasses to go with their new tank top, if they are among the first 2,000 fans to walk through the gates of the student section. The student section will also feature a temporary jacuzzi.

But if that’s not enough to entice fans to come out and enjoy a football game, Rutgers will fill the areas outside the stadium with volleyball courts, food trucks, carnival rides and boardwalk games to keep a shore feeling going.

Washington defeated Rutgers 48-13 in the 2016 season opener. The Huskies went on to win the Pac-12 and play in the College Football Playoff. Rutgers struggled through a 2-10 season in the first season with Chris Ash as head coach. Rutgers lost home games to No. 4 Michigan 78-0 and No. 9 Penn State 39-0 last season. If this season plays out on a similar note, Rutgers may want to add some more hot tubs.

Texas TE Andrew Beck out 6-8 weeks with broken foot

Photo by David Purdy/Getty Images
1 Comment

On Wednesday in practice, Texas tight end Andrew Beck went down with a foot injury. Texas later announced the injury was a broken foot, and it will cost Beck some playing time at the start of the year.

This is the second time this offseason Beck has been sidelined with a lower body injury. He also sat out of spring practices with a broken foot. It has been unconfirmed if the injury is to the same foot or not. Whatever the case may be, Beck will be out of action for the next six to eight weeks at the minimum. Going off of that timeline, the earliest Beck might be available would be for the Big 12 opener against Iowa State in Ames, Iowa on Thursday, September 28. That is six weeks out from now. The two weeks after that will be games against Kansas State and Oklahoma.

The Longhorns will have to figure out who to trust at the tight end position now. The leading candidate may be Syracuse graduate transfer, Kendall Moore. Moore started four games for the Orange in 2014 and 2015, so his starting experience is limited. Moore just joined the Texas program at the end of July and was immediately thought to be a potential starter in the event Beck suffered a setback with his foot. The depth at the tight end position is not quite where Herman would ideally like to have it, but the Longhorns may be able to survive the first part of the season with their heads above water until Beck is able to return.

Foot injury puts Georgia CB Malkom Parrish on sideline

Scott Cunningham/Getty Images
1 Comment

With the start of a new college football season just around the corner, Georgia suddenly has a concern in the defensive secondary to address. Senior Malkom Parrish reportedly suffered a foot injury that will require surgery. As a result, his status for the start of the season is now in question.

The news of the injury surfaced Thursday after reporters noticed Parrish had been missing from practice for a second straight day. Seth Emerson of Dawg Nation reported the injury was a broken bone, according to an anonymous team source. Georgia has not commented on the injury status at the time of this writing. Taking the place of Parrish on the practice field was Aaron Davis, who normally plays a safety position for the Bulldogs.

Georgia’s defense returns a loaded unit of starters from last season, including Parrish. His absence from the defense for whatever amount of time he may miss could be critical if recovery time extends deeper into the season. Georgia opens the 2017 season at home against Appalachian State and continues the next week on the road against Notre Dame.

Notre Dame and Purdue tack on two more games to upcoming series

Photo by Michael Hickey/Getty Images
Leave a comment

Notre Dame and Purdue originally had a four-game schedule set in place between 2021 through 2026. Today, the Boilermakers and Fighting Irish added two more games to that scheduling agreement to extend the series into 2028.

Notre Dame will host Purdue on September 4, 2027. Purdue will host the Irish the following season, on September 23, 2028. A game previously scheduled for September 26, 2026 that was to be played on a neutral field to be determined at a later point, will now be played on Purdue’s campus.

“Having been on the other side of the series some years ago, I am familiar with the history and tradition of the Purdue-Notre Dame matchup,” Purdue athletics director Mike Bobinski said in a released statement. Bobinski is a Notre Dame graduate and former Irish baseball player. “Sellout crowds, national television, two outstanding universities in close proximity and intensely competitive games. I am excited that the series will resume and know our fans will be, as well.”

The addition of the Irish to the 2027 schedule forced Purdue to reschedule a previously scheduled game against Wake Forest of the ACC. That game will now be played on September 9, 2028. Purdue also announced it has added Memphis to the schedule in 2020 (September 12, 2020), and Indiana State in 2022 (September 10, 2022).

Purdue’s power conference scheduling commitment in the Big Ten is fulfilled through 2021 and from 2023 through 2029. Purdue currently needs a power conference or power conference equivalent opponent in 2022. The Big Ten recently relaxed its policy regarding FCS opponents, which is why Purdue is permitted to schedule Indiana State in 2022.