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

That could be argued all day.  I'll also clarify that I'm not concerned at all with "Texas" nor "Michigan".  Those are just examples to me because the issue at hand isn't just about those teams and this year it is the long-term issue of scheduling and, like you, I feel that the committee should avoid discouraging games like TX/tOSU and OU/M because they are good for the sport and ratings and whatnot. 

That said, I still don't think Michigan would be in at 10-2 with a win over Incarnate Word replacing the road loss to OU.  Based on last week (because this week isn't out yet, here are the 2-loss P4/ND teams:

• #8 9-2 Oklahoma - Losses to #16 TX and #7 Ole Miss, wins over #10 Bama, #15 M, #19 TN
• #9 9-2 Notre Dame - Losses to #3 aTm and #12 Miami, wins over #17 USC and #22 Pitt
• #10 9-2 Bama - Losses to #8 OU and nr FSU, wins over #4 UGA, #14 Vandy, #19 TN
• #12 9-2 Miami - Losses to nr L'Ville and #21 SMU, wins over #9 ND and  #22 Pitt
• #14 9-2 Vandy - Losses to #10 Bama and #16 TX, wins over . . . crickets (now TN)
• #15 9-2 Michigan - Losses to #8 OU and #17 USC, wins over . . . crickets
• #18 9-2 Virginia - Losses to nr NCST and nr Wake, wins over . . . crickets
• #23 9-2 GaTech - Losses to nr NCST and #22 Pitt, wins over . . . crickets

The committee clearly values quality wins.  Vandy, Michigan, Virginia, and GaTech were the last four 2-loss P4 teams because they don't have quality wins.  That is why I just don't see any way for Michigan to get in even if they hadn't played Oklahoma.  Now if they had beaten Oklahoma, I think they'd be in. 

I hate to defend Notre Dame but they didn't lose to the only two good teams they played.  At least that isn't how the committee will see it.  In the committee's eyes they have quality wins over ranked USC and Pitt teams and no bad losses. 

That's all fine.  And yet I still wouldn't characterize people opining that Michigan would be in if they'd played a patsy and won, rather than a good team and lost, as "complaining." 

Which was the entire reason I stated what I stated.

Despite Texas being involved in this particular conversation, I don't really care about the specifics and I'd certainly understand if/when Texas is left out.

Like you I'm more interested in the academic discussion at hand.  And I think it's possible and even likely that teams will start canceling tough OOC games if they don't appear to be rewarded by the CFP.

The only problem with your analogy is that out of 32 NFL teams you have a lot of variety on who wins the SB every year. Sure, there was a bit where the Patriots were pretty dominate, and then you have KC and the Eagles now, and at times past you had SF and DAL and some other teams.  But if you look at it over a 30 year cycle there are a lot of teams winning it, or at least playing for it.  Even within the conferences you have teams that win their conference that never sniff the SB. 

In College FB it's mainly about 5 teams that win in any given year, 5 that win in the other 50% of the time, and about 10-15 who *may* have a slim chance of even competing for it every 20 years.  Look at the last 30 year cycle.  It's all Ohio State, Alabama, USC, OU, Texas, USC.  Florida and Florida state are the only "new comers" in this group with 3.  Clemson may be about the only outlier. 
BRAD has pointed this out many times but if you're a fan of almost any other school outside of the Top Ten you have almost no chance.  And even when you have a good/great season you have to beat the competition and then the polls to have any shot. 

You missed my point, silly Aggie.  

You're talking about teams winning a NC.  I'm saying there was more for the NC to play for in days gone by that made seasons feel special, or like they were good seasons.  Example of what I'm talking about:  in 2006 LSU didn't win the division, conference, or make the NC.  But they were rewarded for a good season when they were selected to the Sugar Bowl (would've been the Rose vs. Michigan if USC hadn't crapped the bed against UCLA in the final week) to play Notre Dame, and that was a great thing to play for at the end of the year, even though they weren't in NC consideration.  There's even other bowls, which got mostly got reassigned to the NY6 once the playoffs came along, besides the Sugar, which were "top-tier" bowls, and thus, fans and teams were excited to make them and play another good ooc opponent.  

The NFL has nothing but the SuperBowl.  Everything else is failure.  A SB ring is the singular goal of professional football.  College football had a lot of things that felt like success.  Now, nobody cares about any non-CFP bowl, certainly not the players who won't even play in them, and that's a big reason why fans don't care anymore either.  All the hoopla is around the CFP.  Some of those formerly prestigious bowls, I think, have been folded into the CFP, meaning they're no longer an end to themselves, they're just another step on the way to the only thing that matters anymore, the NC game.  

Citing how many teams win Superbowls vs. how many teams win NCs in college is not relevant to my point.  

Oh and Pitt isn't ranked.

I was basing it off of last week's rankings.  

A lot of teams are trying to game the system. First Penn St took OSU off of the annual. Now Texas and Michigan want creampuff OOC schedules. Next Notre Dame will feast on cupcakes in hopes of going undefeated every year. Then the SEC will devise schedules where none of the top teams have to play each other during the regular season. Round and round we go.

But I'll add, this really applies mostly to helmets or near-helmets, who can receive the BOTD from voters and selection committee members.

I don't think it makes much difference for non-helmets, because they're going to be slotted lower anyway just based on historical perception.  

So for non-helmets, the risk/reward ratio is probably tilted more in favor of being rewarded for a marquee win against a top team.

But, those aren't the matchups that we're talking about anyway.  We're talking about helmet vs. helmet OOC scheduling which could suffer.

Upthread, however, @betarhoalphadelta presented an argument that OU would be out without the win over Michigan.  I think there are some weaknesses to that argument but if he is right and if Michigan would be out regardless then the M/OU game results in a net +1 CFP appearances.  That is a counterbalance to the TX/tOSU game being a net -1. 

Yeah I saw it.  I don't agree.  But there's no way to prove it either way, unlike Texas-Ohio State, which is pretty obvious.

Just to be fair, I did NOT make the argument that OU would be out without the Michigan win. The win over Bama is significant. However I said it would be a noticeable blow to their resume.

I believe with the Michigan (and Bama) win, they're unquestionably in the field. Without the Michigan win, there's a lot more question and you start looking at other teams that might have equal or better "quality wins" on their resume that might eclipse them. 

The risk/reward ratio just isn't there.  Too much risk, too little chance of reward.  It's not binary, there are a range of outcomes possible.  But I believe the negative or neutral outcomes have a >50% chance of being realized, which is all I need to see, to make a decision.

Like I said, that wasn't true in the 4-team playoff.  Texas playing Alabama was worth the risk in 2023.  But the 12-team playoff field changes the calculation.

And in a future potential 16-team playoff it'll possibly change again.

But right now, in the 12-team playoff world, it's just not worth the risk.  Scheduling a loss eliminates all margin of error.  Why would you do that, when you have a choice not to?

A good reason to return to a 4-team playoff.

FTR, I was opposed to going to a 4-team playoff. Not because it was bad in itself but in that it was just a step toward an even larger playoff.