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

Again, this simply isn't true. And Fearless, C-Dubb, and I have explained it multiple times.

SEC teams could potentially go 14-0 in that 9th game because it is OOC.  That same result is mathematically impossible for B1G teams, by necessity they must go 7-7 in that 9th game because it is in-conference.  That's as simple and clear as I can make it.

14-0 is way better than 7-7.  Now, certainly, the SEC could also go 0-14 in that 9th game since it is OOC.  But I think we all know that isn't currently happening, because SEC teams aren't scheduling tough opponents in that slot, and it's not likely to change in the future.  As you yourself stated, if SEC teams were forced to schedule another P5 in that slot, then the phones of the ADs at Kansas, Indiana, Rutgers, Oregon State, and the entire ACC, would be ringing off the hook.

Comparing relative conference strength seems silly to me and usually results in incorrect analysis and conclusions, but the way the current post-season is set up, it remains important.  And the difference in that potential delta of 7 more losses within your own conference can make a large impact on the perception of relative conference strength.

And yes, of course, if the B1G and B12 don't like it, they can drop to 8 conference games and arrange the FCS Cupcake Weekend just as the SEC does.  It's entirely within their power to do so.

Great Post Lock the thread

Yeah, and if you go 14-0 in the OOC game, good for you, it's data.

You also could go 0-14.  The odds are a conference would be either 8-6 or 6-8 with equal probability.

If you schedule a P5 team 8 years ahead of time, you have only a suggestion as to how good they might be.  If you scheduled Wake Forest this year, you might be surprised.

And there are not enough Kansas types to go around.  These would be two game series in the main.  If someone picks off Vandy as a pastry, you also lose revenue in the away game on the gate.

I don't think teams would be able to cherry pick pastries if limited to P5 level teams with much consistency, they would try no doubt, but they'd run out of teams available.  And if they schedule Kansas, great for them, the Big 12 teams get the same benefit.

No, that's not at all what the odds are, because that's not the way the SEC schedules.   You're right there's only one Kansas, but there's an entire ACC (sans Clemson) to choose from. 

And the B12 wouldn't get any benefit because the B12 already plays 9 conference games.  

Well, obviously I disagree entirely.

And ten would be a lot better than what we have now anyway.  Playing three pastries with zero chance to win would change to two pastries and one P5 level team that MIGHT turn out to be pretty good in 8 years.

Better for whom?  The majority of the B12 and the B1G and the PAC are already playing ten P5 teams per year.  They get nine automatically per year before even making one single OOC decision.

Would it be better for SEC and ACC teams that want the easiest path to the CFP?  I don't think it would.

Would it be better for television ratings of those two conferences that would be playing P5 teams instead of G5/FCS on that additional weekend?  I guess so, but do the conferences care about that, especially the SEC?  SEC ratings are already good.

What do you propose as the "need" or the "pain" you're solving in suggesting a minimum 10 P5 teams, and how would you sell it to the coaches and athletics administrators in SEC headquarters? Because, as OAM continues to point out, the SEC is plenty happy with the status quo.

Better for CFB and better for the fan, even if magically every SEC team somehow rounded up all the pastry P5 programs to play year after year (which I think is largely not practicable across the board, some would get left out, and Vandy would be tempting for other P5 programs).

Kansas is better than Georgia State.

And of course some teams play their 9 game conference slate and zero P5 opponents (Ohio State this year).  It's not uncommon.  But, it would mean teams who play an 8 game conference slate would be on more even ground with those who play 9.  They'd both be playing ten P5 level teams.  As it is now, Alabama plays "Duke" and three complete pastries.  Wouldn't it be "BETTER" if they had to play Duke AND North Carolina?

Well yes of course, I'm not disagreeing with that at all.

But you're acting like this is an "all of college football thing" when it's really, specifically, an SEC and ACC thing.  This is a rare year for Ohio State, since the B1G went to 9 conference games this is the first and only year they didn't have a P5 in the OOC schedule.  And last year Ohio State played not ten, but eleven P5 teams in the regular season.  The year before that, 10.  The year before that, 10.  Next year, 10.  The year after that, 10.  The year after that, 10.

I think using the number of P5 games is just an excuse to not being included in the playoffs.  It doesn't matter if Ohio State plays 8, 9, or 10 P5 games a season.  If they're truly great and play with focus week-in, week-out, it would run the table (or at worst, suffer a single closely-contested loss) regardless of who's on their schedule.  They rarely play more than 2-3 Top 10 caliber teams a season, so 11-1 (or better) is hardly unachievable.

That said, Ohio State looks SCARY good right now and I don't think anyone in the country can touch them, the way they're playing.  It's entirely up to them how focused they are and how badly they want to win each game.

Same goes for any other team that has any legitimate playoff hopes.

Wow, yikes.  Just took a closer look and I was definitely off in thinking so many of the B1G teams scheduled P5s regularly in their OOC.  My apologies for that.

I guess I'm accustomed to the B12 where pretty much only Baylor schedules three pastries every single year.  Makes me want to investigate though, that's for sure.

Here's the B12, number of P5 teams over the past 5 seasons, in order from 2019 down to 2015 (*counting Notre Dame as a P5 team for this analysis)

TCU: 10,10,10,10,10
Texas: 10, 11, 11, 11, 11
Texas Tech: 10, 10, 10, 10, 10
OU: 10, 10, 10, 10, 10
oSu: 10, 9, 10, 10, 9
WVU: 11, 11, 10, 10, 10
KSU: 10, 10, 10, 10, 9
ISU: 10, 10, 10, 10, 10
KU: 10, 10, 9, 9, 10
BU: 9, 10, 10, 9, 9

Better for CFB and better for the fan, even if magically every SEC team somehow rounded up all the pastry P5 programs to play year after year (which I think is largely not practicable across the board, some would get left out, and Vandy would be tempting for other P5 programs).

Kansas is better than Georgia State.

And of course some teams play their 9 game conference slate and zero P5 opponents (Ohio State this year).  It's not uncommon.  But, it would mean teams who play an 8 game conference slate would be on more even ground with those who play 9.  They'd both be playing ten P5 level teams.  As it is now, Alabama plays "Duke" and three complete pastries.  Wouldn't it be "BETTER" if they had to play Duke AND North Carolina?

It seems disingenuous to say “Duke” and three patsies. Bama has generally tried to schedule a good team there. The run has been:
Louisville (wasn’t good but off a run of winning 73 percent of its games over six years)
FSU, projected top-3 team
USC
Wisconsin
WVU
Va Tech
Michigan
Penn State
Penn State and Duke
Va Tech
Clemson

generally that one game is a good non-conference game. We can complain about one of the other three not being Minnesota or something.