[Giants]

Speaking as a fan of college football, one thought I had after watching two epics (SC/Penn State and UO/ OSU) was I really like realignment. 

I would much prefer watching games like those two than another week of Oregon hammering (insert the name of a downtrodden former Pac12 member here) and SC blasting another of the former P12 laggards.

In addition, this week Georgia and Texas face off. 

Yes, I know this opinion runs contrary to how most people in the former P12 footprint feel but I most enjoy watching the sport when there is a game in which the best athletes are playing.

[Giants]

Speaking as a fan of college football, one thought I had after watching two epics (SC/Penn State and UO/ OSU) was I really like realignment. 

I would much prefer watching games like those two than another week of Oregon hammering (insert the name of a downtrodden former Pac12 member here) and SC blasting another of the former P12 laggards.

In addition, this week Georgia and Texas face off. 

Yes, I know this opinion runs contrary to how most people in the former P12 footprint feel but I most enjoy watching the sport when there is a game in which the best athletes are playing.

[BostonCard]

Speaking as a fan of college football, one thought I had after watching two epics (SC/Penn State and UO/ OSU) was I really like realignment. 

I would much prefer watching games like those two than another week of Oregon hammering (insert the name of a downtrodden former Pac12 member here) and SC blasting another of the former P12 laggards.

In addition, this week Georgia and Texas face off. 

Yes, I know this opinion runs contrary to how most people in the former P12 footprint feel but I most enjoy watching the sport when there is a game in which the best athletes are playing.

Well, for every USC-Penn State game, you have a Wake Forest - Stanford game that no one will watch.  Next week, 6-0 Oregon is going to hammer a Big Ten laggard (Purdue), so unless you develop a system of promotions and relegations, realignment just produces different top tier matchups and different body bag matchups.

You could have gotten the very same outcome without destroying the conferences if the CFP playoffs criteria didn’t punish a loss so heavily and instead rewarded SOS.  Keeping the conferences intact, but encouraging top 25 teams to schedule one another non-conference match-ups gets you lots of cool games and reduces the number of meaningless body-bag games.

We didn’t need conference realignment to get Oregon-Ohio State.  We just needed to have that be in the non-conference schedule, instead of Ohio State - Akron (52-6), Ohio State - Western Michigan (56-0) and Ohio State - Marshall (49-14).

BC

[BostonCard]

Speaking as a fan of college football, one thought I had after watching two epics (SC/Penn State and UO/ OSU) was I really like realignment. 

I would much prefer watching games like those two than another week of Oregon hammering (insert the name of a downtrodden former Pac12 member here) and SC blasting another of the former P12 laggards.

In addition, this week Georgia and Texas face off. 

Yes, I know this opinion runs contrary to how most people in the former P12 footprint feel but I most enjoy watching the sport when there is a game in which the best athletes are playing.

Well, for every USC-Penn State game, you have a Wake Forest - Stanford game that no one will watch.  Next week, 6-0 Oregon is going to hammer a Big Ten laggard (Purdue), so unless you develop a system of promotions and relegations, realignment just produces different top tier matchups and different body bag matchups.

You could have gotten the very same outcome without destroying the conferences if the CFP playoffs criteria didn’t punish a loss so heavily and instead rewarded SOS.  Keeping the conferences intact, but encouraging top 25 teams to schedule one another non-conference match-ups gets you lots of cool games and reduces the number of meaningless body-bag games.

We didn’t need conference realignment to get Oregon-Ohio State.  We just needed to have that be in the non-conference schedule, instead of Ohio State - Akron (52-6), Ohio State - Western Michigan (56-0) and Ohio State - Marshall (49-14).

BC

[d4cohn]

Speaking as a fan of college football, one thought I had after watching two epics (SC/Penn State and UO/ OSU) was I really like realignment. 

I would much prefer watching games like those two than another week of Oregon hammering (insert the name of a downtrodden former Pac12 member here) and SC blasting another of the former P12 laggards.

In addition, this week Georgia and Texas face off. 

Yes, I know this opinion runs contrary to how most people in the former P12 footprint feel but I most enjoy watching the sport when there is a game in which the best athletes are playing.

Well, for every USC-Penn State game, you have a Wake Forest - Stanford game that no one will watch.  Next week, 6-0 Oregon is going to hammer a Big Ten laggard (Purdue), so unless you develop a system of promotions and relegations, realignment just produces different top tier matchups and different body bag matchups.

You could have gotten the very same outcome without destroying the conferences if the CFP playoffs criteria didn’t punish a loss so heavily and instead rewarded SOS.  Keeping the conferences intact, but encouraging top 25 teams to schedule one another non-conference match-ups gets you lots of cool games and reduces the number of meaningless body-bag games.

We didn’t need conference realignment to get Oregon-Ohio State.  We just needed to have that be in the non-conference schedule, instead of Ohio State - Akron (52-6), Ohio State - Western Michigan (56-0) and Ohio State - Marshall (49-14).

BC

And Oregon and Ohio State have played, multiple times recently in the non-conference. Agree with BC.

[d4cohn]

Speaking as a fan of college football, one thought I had after watching two epics (SC/Penn State and UO/ OSU) was I really like realignment. 

I would much prefer watching games like those two than another week of Oregon hammering (insert the name of a downtrodden former Pac12 member here) and SC blasting another of the former P12 laggards.

In addition, this week Georgia and Texas face off. 

Yes, I know this opinion runs contrary to how most people in the former P12 footprint feel but I most enjoy watching the sport when there is a game in which the best athletes are playing.

Well, for every USC-Penn State game, you have a Wake Forest - Stanford game that no one will watch.  Next week, 6-0 Oregon is going to hammer a Big Ten laggard (Purdue), so unless you develop a system of promotions and relegations, realignment just produces different top tier matchups and different body bag matchups.

You could have gotten the very same outcome without destroying the conferences if the CFP playoffs criteria didn’t punish a loss so heavily and instead rewarded SOS.  Keeping the conferences intact, but encouraging top 25 teams to schedule one another non-conference match-ups gets you lots of cool games and reduces the number of meaningless body-bag games.

We didn’t need conference realignment to get Oregon-Ohio State.  We just needed to have that be in the non-conference schedule, instead of Ohio State - Akron (52-6), Ohio State - Western Michigan (56-0) and Ohio State - Marshall (49-14).

BC

And Oregon and Ohio State have played, multiple times recently in the non-conference. Agree with BC.

[Austroturf]

Speaking as a fan of college football, one thought I had after watching two epics (SC/Penn State and UO/ OSU) was I really like realignment. 

I would much prefer watching games like those two than another week of Oregon hammering (insert the name of a downtrodden former Pac12 member here) and SC blasting another of the former P12 laggards.

In addition, this week Georgia and Texas face off. 

Yes, I know this opinion runs contrary to how most people in the former P12 footprint feel but I most enjoy watching the sport when there is a game in which the best athletes are playing.

Well, for every USC-Penn State game, you have a Wake Forest - Stanford game that no one will watch.  Next week, 6-0 Oregon is going to hammer a Big Ten laggard (Purdue), so unless you develop a system of promotions and relegations, realignment just produces different top tier matchups and different body bag matchups.

You could have gotten the very same outcome without destroying the conferences if the CFP playoffs criteria didn’t punish a loss so heavily and instead rewarded SOS.  Keeping the conferences intact, but encouraging top 25 teams to schedule one another non-conference match-ups gets you lots of cool games and reduces the number of meaningless body-bag games.

We didn’t need conference realignment to get Oregon-Ohio State.  We just needed to have that be in the non-conference schedule, instead of Ohio State - Akron (52-6), Ohio State - Western Michigan (56-0) and Ohio State - Marshall (49-14).

BC

Nailed it, BC!

[Austroturf]

Speaking as a fan of college football, one thought I had after watching two epics (SC/Penn State and UO/ OSU) was I really like realignment. 

I would much prefer watching games like those two than another week of Oregon hammering (insert the name of a downtrodden former Pac12 member here) and SC blasting another of the former P12 laggards.

In addition, this week Georgia and Texas face off. 

Yes, I know this opinion runs contrary to how most people in the former P12 footprint feel but I most enjoy watching the sport when there is a game in which the best athletes are playing.

Well, for every USC-Penn State game, you have a Wake Forest - Stanford game that no one will watch.  Next week, 6-0 Oregon is going to hammer a Big Ten laggard (Purdue), so unless you develop a system of promotions and relegations, realignment just produces different top tier matchups and different body bag matchups.

You could have gotten the very same outcome without destroying the conferences if the CFP playoffs criteria didn’t punish a loss so heavily and instead rewarded SOS.  Keeping the conferences intact, but encouraging top 25 teams to schedule one another non-conference match-ups gets you lots of cool games and reduces the number of meaningless body-bag games.

We didn’t need conference realignment to get Oregon-Ohio State.  We just needed to have that be in the non-conference schedule, instead of Ohio State - Akron (52-6), Ohio State - Western Michigan (56-0) and Ohio State - Marshall (49-14).

BC

Nailed it, BC!

[Maple Leaf]

Speaking as a fan of college football, one thought I had after watching two epics (SC/Penn State and UO/ OSU) was I really like realignment. 

I would much prefer watching games like those two than another week of Oregon hammering (insert the name of a downtrodden former Pac12 member here) and SC blasting another of the former P12 laggards.

In addition, this week Georgia and Texas face off. 

Yes, I know this opinion runs contrary to how most people in the former P12 footprint feel but I most enjoy watching the sport when there is a game in which the best athletes are playing.

Well, for every USC-Penn State game, you have a Wake Forest - Stanford game that no one will watch.  Next week, 6-0 Oregon is going to hammer a Big Ten laggard (Purdue), so unless you develop a system of promotions and relegations, realignment just produces different top tier matchups and different body bag matchups.

You could have gotten the very same outcome without destroying the conferences if the CFP playoffs criteria didn’t punish a loss so heavily and instead rewarded SOS.  Keeping the conferences intact, but encouraging top 25 teams to schedule one another non-conference match-ups gets you lots of cool games and reduces the number of meaningless body-bag games.

We didn’t need conference realignment to get Oregon-Ohio State.  We just needed to have that be in the non-conference schedule, instead of Ohio State - Akron (52-6), Ohio State - Western Michigan (56-0) and Ohio State - Marshall (49-14).

BC

What BC has proposed used to be the norm.  Look at Stanford's 1970 season, 7 Pac-8 games plus Arkansas, Purdue, Air Force and San Jose St.  Back then San Jose St. would have been looked on as the "Body Bag Game".  In 1971 Stanford played Missouri, Army, Duke and San Jose St.

[Maple Leaf]

Speaking as a fan of college football, one thought I had after watching two epics (SC/Penn State and UO/ OSU) was I really like realignment. 

I would much prefer watching games like those two than another week of Oregon hammering (insert the name of a downtrodden former Pac12 member here) and SC blasting another of the former P12 laggards.

In addition, this week Georgia and Texas face off. 

Yes, I know this opinion runs contrary to how most people in the former P12 footprint feel but I most enjoy watching the sport when there is a game in which the best athletes are playing.

Well, for every USC-Penn State game, you have a Wake Forest - Stanford game that no one will watch.  Next week, 6-0 Oregon is going to hammer a Big Ten laggard (Purdue), so unless you develop a system of promotions and relegations, realignment just produces different top tier matchups and different body bag matchups.

You could have gotten the very same outcome without destroying the conferences if the CFP playoffs criteria didn’t punish a loss so heavily and instead rewarded SOS.  Keeping the conferences intact, but encouraging top 25 teams to schedule one another non-conference match-ups gets you lots of cool games and reduces the number of meaningless body-bag games.

We didn’t need conference realignment to get Oregon-Ohio State.  We just needed to have that be in the non-conference schedule, instead of Ohio State - Akron (52-6), Ohio State - Western Michigan (56-0) and Ohio State - Marshall (49-14).

BC

What BC has proposed used to be the norm.  Look at Stanford's 1970 season, 7 Pac-8 games plus Arkansas, Purdue, Air Force and San Jose St.  Back then San Jose St. would have been looked on as the "Body Bag Game".  In 1971 Stanford played Missouri, Army, Duke and San Jose St.

[Giants]

Speaking as a fan of college football, one thought I had after watching two epics (SC/Penn State and UO/ OSU) was I really like realignment. 

I would much prefer watching games like those two than another week of Oregon hammering (insert the name of a downtrodden former Pac12 member here) and SC blasting another of the former P12 laggards.

In addition, this week Georgia and Texas face off. 

Yes, I know this opinion runs contrary to how most people in the former P12 footprint feel but I most enjoy watching the sport when there is a game in which the best athletes are playing.

Well, for every USC-Penn State game, you have a Wake Forest - Stanford game that no one will watch.  Next week, 6-0 Oregon is going to hammer a Big Ten laggard (Purdue), so unless you develop a system of promotions and relegations, realignment just produces different top tier matchups and different body bag matchups.

You could have gotten the very same outcome without destroying the conferences if the CFP playoffs criteria didn’t punish a loss so heavily and instead rewarded SOS.  Keeping the conferences intact, but encouraging top 25 teams to schedule one another non-conference match-ups gets you lots of cool games and reduces the number of meaningless body-bag games.

We didn’t need conference realignment to get Oregon-Ohio State.  We just needed to have that be in the non-conference schedule, instead of Ohio State - Akron (52-6), Ohio State - Western Michigan (56-0) and Ohio State - Marshall (49-14).

BC

And Oregon and Ohio State have played, multiple times recently in the non-conference. Agree with BC.

Prior to yesterday, they had played only one on-campus game in the last 35 years.  Also, the last meeting in Eugene was in 1967.

[Giants]

Speaking as a fan of college football, one thought I had after watching two epics (SC/Penn State and UO/ OSU) was I really like realignment. 

I would much prefer watching games like those two than another week of Oregon hammering (insert the name of a downtrodden former Pac12 member here) and SC blasting another of the former P12 laggards.

In addition, this week Georgia and Texas face off. 

Yes, I know this opinion runs contrary to how most people in the former P12 footprint feel but I most enjoy watching the sport when there is a game in which the best athletes are playing.

Well, for every USC-Penn State game, you have a Wake Forest - Stanford game that no one will watch.  Next week, 6-0 Oregon is going to hammer a Big Ten laggard (Purdue), so unless you develop a system of promotions and relegations, realignment just produces different top tier matchups and different body bag matchups.

You could have gotten the very same outcome without destroying the conferences if the CFP playoffs criteria didn’t punish a loss so heavily and instead rewarded SOS.  Keeping the conferences intact, but encouraging top 25 teams to schedule one another non-conference match-ups gets you lots of cool games and reduces the number of meaningless body-bag games.

We didn’t need conference realignment to get Oregon-Ohio State.  We just needed to have that be in the non-conference schedule, instead of Ohio State - Akron (52-6), Ohio State - Western Michigan (56-0) and Ohio State - Marshall (49-14).

BC

And Oregon and Ohio State have played, multiple times recently in the non-conference. Agree with BC.

Prior to yesterday, they had played only one on-campus game in the last 35 years.  Also, the last meeting in Eugene was in 1967.

[Goose]

What BC has proposed used to be the norm.  Look at Stanford's 1970 season, 7 Pac-8 games plus Arkansas, Purdue, Air Force and San Jose St.  Back then San Jose St. would have been looked on as the "Body Bag Game".  In 1971 Stanford played Missouri, Army, Duke and San Jose St.

Of course, in 1971 San Jose St. defeated Stanford 13-12. I don't think that could be classed as a "body bag game". Overall Stanford is 52–14–1 against San Jose St. Pretty dominant, but not as if San Jose St. never wins. Notre Dame leads the series against Stanford 23-14. Should that game not be played? Stanford also lost to Duke in 1971 9-3.

[Goose]

What BC has proposed used to be the norm.  Look at Stanford's 1970 season, 7 Pac-8 games plus Arkansas, Purdue, Air Force and San Jose St.  Back then San Jose St. would have been looked on as the "Body Bag Game".  In 1971 Stanford played Missouri, Army, Duke and San Jose St.

Of course, in 1971 San Jose St. defeated Stanford 13-12. I don't think that could be classed as a "body bag game". Overall Stanford is 52–14–1 against San Jose St. Pretty dominant, but not as if San Jose St. never wins. Notre Dame leads the series against Stanford 23-14. Should that game not be played? Stanford also lost to Duke in 1971 9-3.

[Mick]

What BC has proposed used to be the norm.  Look at Stanford's 1970 season, 7 Pac-8 games plus Arkansas, Purdue, Air Force and San Jose St.  Back then San Jose St. would have been looked on as the "Body Bag Game".  In 1971 Stanford played Missouri, Army, Duke and San Jose St.

Of course, in 1971 San Jose St. defeated Stanford 13-12. I don't think that could be classed as a "body bag game". Overall Stanford is 52–14–1 against San Jose St. Pretty dominant, but not as if San Jose St. never wins. Notre Dame leads the series against Stanford 23-14. Should that game not be played? Stanford also lost to Duke in 1971 9-3.

I think Stanford is 8-6 against Notre Dame in the last 14 games. Yes, I'm cherry-picking...

[Mick]

What BC has proposed used to be the norm.  Look at Stanford's 1970 season, 7 Pac-8 games plus Arkansas, Purdue, Air Force and San Jose St.  Back then San Jose St. would have been looked on as the "Body Bag Game".  In 1971 Stanford played Missouri, Army, Duke and San Jose St.

Of course, in 1971 San Jose St. defeated Stanford 13-12. I don't think that could be classed as a "body bag game". Overall Stanford is 52–14–1 against San Jose St. Pretty dominant, but not as if San Jose St. never wins. Notre Dame leads the series against Stanford 23-14. Should that game not be played? Stanford also lost to Duke in 1971 9-3.

I think Stanford is 8-6 against Notre Dame in the last 14 games. Yes, I'm cherry-picking...