Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

All the hand-wringing over the SEC 8-game conference schedule. 
Just make it a rule.
Duh.

FFS

Whining when someone doesn't do more when they have no motive to do more is stupid.

As I understand it, the B1G's argument should be near and dear to you as it is an argument that you have made repeatedly:

They are saying that the 9th league game increases the number of losses (mathematical) and consequently they want AQ's because the committee, as you frequently point out, tends to rank by #of losses.

We have no need for a committee anymore. 
16-team playoff?  Okay.

The AP ranks the top 25 teams each week.  
1-16 in their final poll make the playoff.
1-8 host first-round games.
Top 6 bowls host next 2 rounds (Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Peach)
NCG at site of 1 of the 6 bowls.

Done.

the writers do a better job than the committee at ranking the top 16?

what if the top 4 seeds get byes?  or top 6 
as we've discussed some seeds have an easier path
I don't trust the writers

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6400445/2025/06/04/big-ten-sec-college-football-playoff-format/

Apparently the debate at this point between the B1G and SEC is over 8 vs 9 games for the SEC  and the relationship of that to auto-bids.

All the hand-wringing over the SEC 8-game conference schedule...
Just make it a rule.
Duh.

FFS

Whining when someone doesn't do more when they have no motive to do more is stupid.

I don't think it's whining, and I don't think it's a "gun to the head" situation.

The B1G has 9-game conference schedules because tune up games against patsies in late November won't make as much money or get as much fan interest as conference games. 

The SEC has 8-game conference schedules because tune up games against patsies in late November keep them from adding another mark in the loss column, which is a CFP advantage. 

Both are self-interested, for different reasons. The B1G wants to make sure their teams won't be penalized in the CFP for taking on that extra risky game, whereas the SEC wants as many advantages to get their teams in the CFP and doesn't want to cede the advantage they have from not playing the extra risky game. 

I don't think it's whining, and I don't think it's a "gun to the head" situation.

The B1G has 9-game conference schedules because tune up games against patsies in late November won't make as much money or get as much fan interest as conference games.
Hey, if you can't sell out your stadium, that's on you.

The SEC has 8-game conference schedules because tune up games against patsies in late November keep them from adding another mark in the loss column, which is a CFP advantage.
This pre-dates the CFP, lol.  The late-Nov cupcake thing is only since a 12th game was added some years back.  The SEC won 7 straight NCs (4 different schools), so 8-game conf schedules is solely a "it ain't broke so wtf would we fix it" thing.

Both are self-interested, for different reasons. The B1G wants to make sure their teams won't be penalized in the CFP for takTing on that extra risky game, whereas the SEC wants as many advantages to get t sheir teams in the CFP and doesn't want to cede the advantage they have from not playing the extra risky game.

For at least 15 years, the B1G has been WHINING about the SEC playing 8 conf games when no one is forcing them to play 9.  It's childish.

My rule would be to play at least ten games against P4 level opponents.  Done.

The reason I kinda like the committee is that I think it is more nuanced than that.  Georgia could play their eight SEC games and then add OOC games against the worst team in the B1G and the worst team in the ACC and viola, that is 10 games against P4 opponents.  Conversely they could schedule to play at Clemson and vs Ohio State.  Those schedules both include 10 games against P4 opponents but one is obviously a lot more difficult than the other.  

Similarly, last year Oregon played Boise State.  Boise is NOT P4 but lets be fair to the Ducks, Boise State was a MUCH tougher opponent than a lot of potential P4 opponents.  

I think the committee has done a reasonably good job.  I think they've moved past the old standard which was generally number of losses and when they happened where a weak schedule with a loss in September would get you ranked ahead of a tough schedule and a loss in November.  The committee also seems to do at least a decent job of considering not exactly "MoV" but "level of dominance" and those two are distinct and very different.