header pic

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

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas

 (Read 2597 times)

Gigem

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4591
  • Liked:
Re: What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas
« Reply #280 on: December 02, 2025, 09:30:28 PM »
And now I can’t really remember what point I was trying to make or what we’re arguing about.  😀

I guess, really I do think the old ways were better, and that’s a change because I was all about the playoff and the new systems. 

But just because it’s all about the playoffs instead of some bowl is that such a bad deal?  Once upon a time we only had a handful of bowls in the first place. I remember in the late 90’s a lot of people were already complaining about too many meaningless bowls and the list just kept growing and growing. I’m actually shocked that opt outs didn’t start until the 2010s. What makes bowl games special is that they were rare and unique. 


Gigem

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4591
  • Liked:
Re: What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas
« Reply #281 on: December 02, 2025, 09:36:30 PM »
Trust me when I say this, as a fan of a team that was shut out of the previous incarnations of BCS/CFP system. We’re super interested in the playoffs. So is Tx Tech, Virginia, IU, and all the other incarnations of non-helmet teams.  In the past iteration, IU would be out of any chance at winning anything if they lose the CCG. It would 100% be UGA and OSU. Old boss/ New Boss. 

Gigem

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4591
  • Liked:
Re: What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas
« Reply #282 on: December 02, 2025, 09:42:05 PM »
One last note about the difficult non-conference schedules, the answer has been staring you in the face the whole time but you looked right past it. A&M played and beat ND earlier this season. ND played exactly two teams with a pulse. A&M and Miami. The rest of their schedule is garbage. 

At this point it appears ND is in the playoffs with two losses and zero quality wins, while if A&M had played Sam Houston instead and went 11-1 losing to Texas the chances are high we would not be in or seeded very low. 

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 23521
  • Liked:
Re: What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas
« Reply #283 on: December 02, 2025, 10:44:32 PM »
You gotta love that here in 2025, we're still talking about non-ranked, 24th-ranked, etc teams getting into a 12-team playoff.

It's retarded.
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 51262
  • Liked:
Re: What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas
« Reply #284 on: December 02, 2025, 10:57:04 PM »
if Texas would have won vs Ohio St.  There's no discussion needed.

1-loss Buckeyes are in.  not a #1 or #2 seed but...........probably a #2 if they beat the Hoosiers, maybe #1
2-loss Horns are in.  with a great seed because of their win over the Buckeyes, but, the coveted #5???
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13301
  • Liked:
Re: What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas
« Reply #285 on: December 03, 2025, 12:05:05 AM »
Indiana's improvement started long before Cignetti, it just didn't show up on their record because of the juggernaut of the B1G East schedule. It all started with Terry Hoepner. OSU hired Kevin Wilson for a reason. That reason was that his Indiana teams were taking Urban's OSU teams to the wire. 

MrNubbz

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 22292
  • Liked:
Re: What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas
« Reply #286 on: December 03, 2025, 06:37:45 AM »
Indiana's improvement started long before Cignetti, it just didn't show up on their record because of the juggernaut of the B1G East schedule. It all started with Terry Hoepner. OSU hired Kevin Wilson for a reason. That reason was that his Indiana teams were taking Urban's OSU teams to the wire.
:017: Hoeppner died in'07,Wilson left Oklahoma as OC and became HC at Indiana before the '11 season
"It is better to have died a young boy than to fumble the football" - John Heisman

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 51262
  • Liked:
Re: What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas
« Reply #287 on: December 03, 2025, 08:13:04 AM »
so, it's been in the works for 20 years!
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13301
  • Liked:
Re: What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas
« Reply #288 on: December 03, 2025, 09:42:46 AM »

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25311
  • Liked:
Re: What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas
« Reply #289 on: December 03, 2025, 09:52:55 AM »
Yup, Texas and Michigan positioned outside the "danger zone" of potentially being included.

Next up, we'll see whether or not they stick to the "CCG losers won't be punished" statements they've put forth in the past.  If Alabama loses they'll have a 3rd loss and the loss to FSU is even uglier than Texas' loss to Florida.  

The B12 CCG is interesting too because whoever loses will be taking a second loss and then could start getting compared on SOS and SOR to all the other 2-loss teams.


MikeDeTiger

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5591
  • Liked:
Re: What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas
« Reply #290 on: December 03, 2025, 09:55:30 AM »
Now look up the total number of teams that PLAYED for the SB, and lost. Sure, you’ll have your NE that lost several and won several but you’ll also have the Bears and SF and all the other teams. I’m betting you’ll have at least 20-25 teams out of 32 and reached the SB. Hell, 30 years ago I think the Cowboys are in the W column. And then if you look at all the teams that reached their conference championship or at least had a good season and were in contention I think you’ll capture everyone except the Browns. Texans may have even reached the CCG,I really don’t follow them very much.

Now look at CFB, a team like Ole Miss has never played in the SEC CCG in 30+ years, hasn’t won a conference title since the 1960’s. Same for Kentucky.  The system never works for these teams, even in the pre-BCS era, the 4 team playoff, the BCS era. Arkansas has been lucky to reach the CCG 3 times, but hasn’t won the conference since the SWC in maybe 1990.

You're still missing my point, but I don't know how to make it any clearer.  

Yes, a bunch of NFL teams win their divisions, make it to the AFC/NFC championship, Superbowls, have good records.....whatever.  Nobody remembers them.  Their fans I know aren't excited about them.  Nobody cares that the Bengals made it to the Superbowl a few years ago.  They lost.  They came close, but failed, and nobody cares.  Only Rams fans are feeling good about that season.  

You mentioned Ole Miss, and they are a good example of what I'm talking about.  They didn't need to win the SEC or a NC in the old system to feel good and celebrate their year.  In 2003 they were western division co-champs and didn't even get to represent the West in the SECCG.  That part was a bummer, but I know plenty of their fans who celebrated the best season they'd had in a while and a Cotton Bowl berth.  Same as I celebrated a good season and a SECCG appearance (without a win) in 2005, with a subsequent Peach Bowl game vs. Miami, in which both teams were ranked in the top 10.  It was exciting as hell, even though we didn't win the conference or a NC. 

My point is nobody cares about that stuff anymore.  Winning the conference is still something, but it's fading fast.  It's playoffs or bust now, and frankly, NC or bust.  @betarhoalphadelta said it correctly, all of the air has been sucked out of everything else except the NC winner.....our new version of Superbowl champs.  There's no media attention and no fan excitement for a good bowl anymore.  And I might be getting this wrong because I'm not keeping up with it, but I think most or all of the old "good" bowls have been folded into the playoffs.  So they're just means to a new almighty end.....no longer a desirable end unto themselves. 

To reiterate:  Teams used to be able to go 10-2 and play a good bowl which got a lot of attention, players were excited for it, fans were excited for it, and talking heads hashed everything out before, during, and after.  It felt like a good season had something tangible attached to it, even without an NC.  The NFL is full of fans who are bummed that their team hasn't won a Superbowl in X amount of years, because that's all there is in that sport.  And it's basically what we have now in cfb.  Your insistence that things are bleak and hopeless for most teams now is something I agree with, and it's exactly my point.  I'm saying it wasn't always this way, and the old way provided more excitement and fulfillment for a greater number of teams each year.  

MikeDeTiger

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5591
  • Liked:
Re: What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas
« Reply #291 on: December 03, 2025, 10:33:24 AM »
Well, 13 out of 32 is a slightly different proportion than 13 out of ~130...

You and @Gigem both pointed this out, and I understand your point.  But I don't think it's relevant to my response to his original sentiment.  I perceived his comment as a statement about the raw number of fan-bases which can be "satisfied" in a given year over a period of time, which I didn't consider germane to the percentage it represents of total fan-bases.  Over a 25 period of time, 13 NFL fan-bases "won."   The way things are looked at now, only 13 cfb fan-bases "won" over the last 25 years, same as the NFL.  But there are a lot more actual fan-bases which felt like they were having a blast during that time, because we didn't always exist in this CFP hell-scape.  If I'm misunderstanding something wrt yall's statements about the percentages, my apologies.  

Regardless, my larger point was that the old bowl system used to accommodate and allow for teams with good seasons to get a good bowl berth and celebrate something, and that now the playoff system kills the vibes for everything but the CFP winner.   

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13301
  • Liked:
Re: What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas
« Reply #292 on: December 03, 2025, 10:34:16 AM »
The Bengals fans most definitely remember their Super Bowl appearances. It's not like they've ever won the thing. Those are the three best seasons they've had. 

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 15939
  • Liked:
Re: What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas
« Reply #293 on: December 03, 2025, 10:44:10 AM »
You and @Gigem both pointed this out, and I understand your point.  But I don't think it's relevant to my response to his original sentiment.  I perceived his comment as a statement about the raw number of fan-bases which can be "satisfied" in a given year over a period of time, which I didn't consider germane to the percentage it represents of total fan-bases.  Over a 25 period of time, 13 NFL fan-bases "won."  The way things are looked at now, only 13 cfb fan-bases "won" over the last 25 years, same as the NFL.  But there are a lot more actual fan-bases which felt like they were having a blast during that time, because we didn't always exist in this CFP hell-scape.  If I'm misunderstanding something wrt yall's statements about the percentages, my apologies. 

Regardless, my larger point was that the old bowl system used to accommodate and allow for teams with good seasons to get a good bowl berth and celebrate something, and that now the playoff system kills the vibes for everything but the CFP winner. 
Yeah, I think part of the point in throwing out the proportions were related to the fact that in the NFL, every team is relevant. Even the perennially bad teams are usually talented enough to knock off powerful teams on a regular basis, because of the draft, salary cap, etc. In CFB, 80% of the sport or more are irrelevant to the national championship discussion. 

And I agree with you that what ruins the sport is about that 80%, who used to be accommodated/celebrated with the bowl system and is now basically just cannon fodder, because the CFP sucked all the air out of the room. 

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.