Alex Butler

What happened?!

DAMN!!! Smoking the competition! That’s insane. Hopefully the V8 can do the same!!

I’m in the minority I’m sure but I just want us to get through the rest of the reg season relatively unscathed and guys get healthy for post season. Losing to TN, not great, but I’m more interested how we can work through these last few weeks and get hit for a trip to Omaha!

OU, TAMU, MSU, and Michigan. I can’t believe you’re watching the f-ing UF game lol.

This dude!! Such an incredible career and story!!

Over, parlayed with Sorsby under 3.5 million in legal fees.

Uggghhh I wish. That’s on my bucket list for sure!

Haha I’d take Petey all day in that one

Damn

Tennessee is the most surprising to me, we thought our lost decade was bad they’re going on a lost quarter century!!

Incredible interview. I teared up when he was talking about his son asking him about when he was going to heaven!!!

I’m against this as much as I’m in favor or football playoff expansion.

Is this the geriatric senior bowl, sponsored by depends and AARP??? 🤣🤣🤣

Nope not a chance, can’t be trusted. I wouldn’t let him back in the game. Hell even Pete Rose knew you don’t bet on your team…as a player at least.

Yes I did reference playoffs at all other level because it is better and more interesting. The hemming and hawing is always there no matter what because we always want to consider what could’ve been. When we settle it on the field at least it’s between two teams and not a decision about 2 or 4 teams using a computer algorithm and committee. As a fan I’d rather the committee and computers decide the 24 best not the 2, 4, or even 12. I don’t disagree that the powers will protect their interests. Head to head isn’t the end all, but when comparing two teams with the same record they’ve played head to head the team that won head to head comes out on top. The negative assumptions I’m discussing is that expansion will reduce the number of quality games in the regular season. I fundamentally disagree with that as stated before. You also assume that there will be a watering down of regular season match ups, but if you’re playing in a tough conference and against quality opponents out of conference every week matters because every team is good. My assumption is that not only will the games matter more but the parity will grow because you’ll have more teams with opportunities to make money and players to play on the big stage. It’s fine if we don’t agree. I’ve been an advocate for expansion since the BCS started before I was even in college. I’m not saying that we need to expand beyond 24 but I think 16-24 is the sweet spot for college football. That is unless you have consolidation into tiers where we have the top 32-40 D1 teams then everyone else plays in tiers below that. If you have 32 or 40 teams then it makes complete sense to decrease the number of spots relative to the site of the pool.

Complain all they want, but get better and that’ll sort itself out.

Amen!!

Head to head wins matter period. The hubbub you refer to is an example used to illustrate different scenarios that exist where a deserving 3-4 loss team would be excluded circumstantially and to you point growing and improving by the end of the season. It is more realistic to say that teams will water down their schedule if there is less opportunity for post season success. If there is strategy involved that means losing a game late for a favorable playoff match up then they have to deal with the potential implications that come with that in a case by case basis. You’re operating on a lot of negative assumptions I without considering the numerous upsides. There is. I perfect system, and someone will get left out that feels deserving. All I’m arguing is that if much rather it be the 24-26th best teams not 13-15. To you point wins do matter, but I don’t feel that a team should be eliminated for losing 1-2 games or even 3-4 potentially.

Agree!! That’s good football but they just can’t compete at the level financially as P4!

Miami absolutely deserved the nod over ND because of head to head and because they had the same record. I would also disagree that ND was any better than Miami even at the end of the season. The problem wasn’t ND or Texas. It was the G5 teams. That said second year of expansion and we had more parity and great games with teams beating others that on paper had no business beating. Expansion doesn’t make that worse, it makes it better. Instead of arguing over the top 10-12 teams were looking at the arguing over 20-24. Meaning, you get more leeway to play good games early, get beat, overcome injury, and gel as a team. That’s what happens at other levels. Not all 8-4 teams are built the same. Hell Texas could be 8-4 next year with 3 losses away at TN, TAMU, LSU, and neutral in Dallas, especially if we have a stretch of bad injuries, or crazier they could lose games to ole Miss, Mizzou, Arkansas , and FL because of injuries or some crazy thing but beat 4-5 top 10 teams. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t as good or better than other teams with better records at the end of the season once the ship has been righted. I’m failing to see how limiting teams will make the regular season more likely to mean something. If anything it will further discourage teams from playing the big marquee games in lieu of records. Expansion solves that, and you learn from year to year. You make micro adjustments, i.e. seeding not based on conf championships, and reward teams for playing tougher games by creating space for them to lose early and get in. Especially if they insist on letting G5 have their sacrificial lamb(s). Let them be the 23 and 24th teams in rather than 11 and 12. There’s always been disagreement no matter what the size of the playoff. We can’t throw the baby out with the bath water because teams are adjusting their schedule when you have limited spots. You add spots and reward big non-conference games and you force ND into a conference where they have to play 9 conference games.

Thats what the playoffs are, one shot. You play the regular season to get there. With that logic there shouldn’t be any rematches and if you lose you’re done no matter how early. Yes, USC-Texas was perfect, but that was in spite of the BCS not because of it. Fast forward 3 years and Texas gets screwed out of a chance to even play in a conference championship let alone the national championship because the team they beat, beat the team you lost to and they were ranked higher at the beginning of the season. Where’s the tradition there? The tradition of major college football is NOT playing the games people want to see but sticking to this archaic owl model. I disagree that if you lose 33% of your games, but you’re playing a good teams and improve dramatically over the season you absolutely should play teams that lost 8, 8, or 20% of their games. We won’t agree on this, but I think 4 or 8 is too few given the make up of college football as it stands. I firmly believe that the top 16 teams if not more can absolutely compete with each other for the national championship just look at the two loss Miami this season. Also, with no rematch we would’ve missed out on Bama embarrassing OU at home. we do agree that the G5 schools need to GTFO.

This would’ve been a fun one to watch this year!!

Still not giving an example of what you’d like to see. All you’re saying is that people have definitions of meaningful that differ. My definition is that the game can actually allow the winner to advance and keep playing. Meaningless games will always exist because there’s only a few select teams that are good enough to get to the playoffs. Name one sport that doesn’t have meaningless games? I enjoyed watching Texas beat Michigan too. Does that mean you enjoyed it as much as you did watching us beat Clemson or ASU? Or that your level of enjoyment was the same as if both teams would’ve been in the playoff with their full compliment of starters with a chance to play TAMU, OSU, OU, Oregon, Miami, etc? I doubt it.