CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on June 09, 2021, 12:12:13 AM
-
5 P5
1 G5
6 At-Large
So basically the top 7-8 teams (if they're helmet programs or close), start every season with a mulligan. FUN.
.
So what would this have looked like in 2020?
Well, with 12 teams, the top 4 get a bye (I'm assuming):
P5 champs: Alabama, OU, Ohio St, Clemson, Oregon (sort of)
G5 highest-ranked: Cincinnati
Next 6 at-large by ranking: ND, A&M, Florida, Georgia, Iowa St, Indiana
All 12 teams, seeded:
1 - Alabama
2 - Clemson
3 - Ohio St
4 - ND
5 - Texas A&M
6 - OU
7 - Florida
8 - Cincinnati
9 - Georgia
10 - Iowa St
11 - Indiana
12 - Oregon
.
First Round:
8 - Cincinnati
9 - Georgia...........winner plays 1 Alabama
-------------------
5 - Texas A&M
12 - Oregon..........winner plays 4 ND
-------------------
6 - OU
11 - Indiana..........winner plays 3 Ohio St
-------------------
7 - Florida
10 - Iowa St..........winner plays 2 Clemson
-
so dumb.
-
Well, no G5 team is going to luck into any kind of NC with this setup. Face 3 LEGIT big-boy teams in a row, with everything on the table....good luck.
.
They're no longer going to have a chance to pick them off in disappointed consolation bowls.
-
2019:
P5 champs: LSU, Ohio St, OU, Oregon, Clemson
G5 top team: 17th-ranked Memphis
At-Large: Georgia, Baylor, Wisconsin, Florida, Penn St, Utah
.
First Round:
8 Wisconsin
9 Florida...............winner plays 1 LSU
.
5 Georgia
12 Memphis...........winner plays 4 OU
.
6 Oregon
11 Utah.................winner plays 3 Clemson
.
7 Baylor
10 Penn St.............winner plays 2 Ohio St
.
Cool, so in this scenario, we'd get Oregon vs Utah in two straight games. That's fun.
Wisconsin lost to OSU twice, so I guess the Buckeyes only have to beat them a third time if both make it to the NCG.
LSU beat Florida in a relatively close game, so their reward is playing the Gators again, but not at home (assuming).
Ohio St possibly gets to play Penn St again.......ohhhhhh, this is going to lead to sooooo many rematches, guys.
.
Honestly, pretend you're Coach O, and you're given this playoff bracket. You basically have a 50/50 shot at having 2 rematches on your way to a possible NC. What's the point of a regular season? This turns it into college basketball.
-
so dumb.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
MrNubbz likes loves this
-
After all of us lose interest in college football, this board just becomes one long Stream of Unconsciousness?
-
Bummer, in my view, going after TV revenue now to produce a "playoff champion", which on occasion will be a 7 seed.
Nobody past 6 in my opinion "deserves" a shot, we're going to have 4 loss CG winners invited.
-
more fun?
let's assume the top 4 don't get a bye
they get the worst 4 teams
slaughterhouse
-
After all of us lose interest in college football, this board just becomes one long Stream of Unconsciousness?
We'll talk about food and boats. Sounds good to me.
-
Some of our other discussions get pretty good I think, not surprisingly.
I won't lose all interest in CFB of course, for a while. A deeper issue longer term is the brain damage part. In 20 years or so, we may be looking at flag football or the like.
-
SssHhhhhush
doesn't seem to be in the news at the moment
-
Bummer, in my view, going after TV revenue now to produce a "playoff champion", which on occasion will be a 7 seed.
Nobody past 6 in my opinion "deserves" a shot, we're going to have 4 loss CG winners invited.
I don't think that will happen.
But I hate the idea of having this many at larges.
-
2020 - First Round:
8 - Cincinnati
9 - Georgia...........winner plays 1 Alabama
-------------------
5 - Texas A&M
12 - Oregon..........winner plays 4 ND
-------------------
6 - OU
11 - Indiana..........winner plays 3 Ohio St
-------------------
7 - Florida
10 - Iowa St..........winner plays 2 Clemson
2019 - First Round:
8 Wisconsin
9 Florida...............winner plays 1 LSU
.
5 Georgia
12 Memphis...........winner plays 4 OU
.
6 Oregon
11 Utah.................winner plays 3 Clemson
.
7 Baylor
10 Penn St.............winner plays 2 Ohio St
_________________________________________________ ___
actually, pretty good matchups. Better than the bowl pairings?
not much different than the bowls, except with a win, you get a shot at knocking off a top 4 team.
silver linings
-
I don't think that will happen.
But I hate the idea of having this many at larges.
2 at-large would be better, with an 8-team playoff
-
I figured we'd go to 8 eventually, maybe 6 first, but not 12.
-
yes, zero at-large would be better, with an 6-team playoff
-
Yeah, I thought that the only way they'd ever go to twelve is if the Mac and Sunbelt were getting auto-bids.
I suspect it will be a little less rematch heavy that what Fro scraped together by tweaking the seeding a little here and there in order to avoid just that.
-
The bowl games will take a major hit UNLESS preliminaries are played in lieu of bowl games.
I'd guess they will bid them out, or will games be played at college venues?
-
play the 1st round in the bowls
cause the weather is nicer and the southern teams will have an advantage
SEC, SEC, SEC
-
I lean to thinking this is a leak, and the final reality will be more modest. The article says this is all preliminary and is based on leaks.
-
I lean to thinking this is a leak, and the final reality will be more modest. The article says this is all preliminary and is based on leaks.
Could be a bit of a fake-out, getting the expansion-resistant folks up in arms about a 12-team playoff, and then "compromising" down to 8. That's a pretty classic negotiation anchoring technique.
-
leak to test the waters of public opinion and see what way the wind is blowing
probably much ado about nuttin
-
Could be a bit of a fake-out, getting the expansion-resistant folks up in arms about a 12-team playoff, and then "compromising" down to 8. That's a pretty classic negotiation anchoring technique.
Also a good trial balloon.
It will be interesting to see more of the regular season matter, even if it matters less intensely.
-
Could be a bit of a fake-out, getting the expansion-resistant folks up in arms about a 12-team playoff, and then "compromising" down to 8. That's a pretty classic negotiation anchoring technique.
I hope so, because 12 sucks.
-
I hope so, because 12 sucks.
Yeah I'm definitely projecting my own desires here-- and I'm hoping "the playoff people" are actually smart enough to push a negotiation in this way. I guess we'll see...
-
I'm hoping they're smart enough to leave it at 4-teams or take it back to two
-
I'm hoping they're smart enough to leave it at 4-teams or take it back to two
I’ll say this, the taking it back to two isn’t all that appealing to me. The long stretch of counting off losses and such holds no romance for me.
if you could get people to stop caring about winning overall large trophies, the original system would probably suffice. But people everywhere can’t seem to quit the national dialogue.
-
They might end up at six, which would be "OK" with me, to the extent that is relevant.
I know some of the UGA teams ranked 5-8 simply were not all that good, no chance to beat a real team aside from a TO fiasco event.
-
They might end up at six, which would be "OK" with me, to the extent that is relevant.
I know some of the UGA teams ranked 5-8 simply were not all that good, no chance to beat a real team aside from a TO fiasco event.
Out of curiosity, which UGA teams in particular?
I only ask because the spots right outside the big ones tend to be weird moving targets.
-
I’ll say this, the taking it back to two isn’t all that appealing to me. The long stretch of counting off losses and such holds no romance for me.
if you could get people to stop caring about winning overall large trophies, the original system would probably suffice. But people everywhere can’t seem to quit the national dialogue.
the 2-team one game at the end of the season for the large crystal football had it's issues for sure, but I'd rather have those issues than a 12-team
-
They might end up at six, which would be "OK" with me, to the extent that is relevant.
I know some of the UGA teams ranked 5-8 simply were not all that good, no chance to beat a real team aside from a TO fiasco event.
Anything with byes is unacceptable to me. Powers of two only, please and thank you.
-
yup, if yer gonna have byes, just limit it to those few that have "earned" them
-
2 at-large would be better, with an 8-team playoff
I agree.
I would even rather go to 12, with 10 auto-bids. Just to have a reason to care about mid-major conference races. Then those 4 other Go5 champs get slaughtered in a true road game that first week. And if once every few years a 9-12 beats the worst P5 champ, or a Big XII runner-up, before losing in the quarterfinals anyway, does that really matter?
I do think to get to this the current conference structure needs to be drastically changed. You can't have a team sneak into a CCG after an 8-4 (5-3) type season, based on tiebreakers to win a 3 way tie, and then pull one upset.
That will never happen, but what if you got rid of divisions, then saved the final week for 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, etc... Don't even call it a conference championship. Just call it the final regular season game. If the #1 team is somehow 2 games clear of the field, cool for them. But it will generally be a de facto championship game. Granted if those teams already played, and the reverse team won the second time, then you clear H2H tiebreaker, and that could lead to it not being a conference championship.
But either way, if you are going to guarantee that the top two teams play, I'm ok letting that winner in no matter what.
-
Out of curiosity, which UGA teams in particular?
I only ask because the spots right outside the big ones tend to be weird moving targets.
The 2019 team comes to mind. They struggled to score on just about anybody with a pulse. The 2018 team was better, did compete with Alabama, lost to Texas. 2020 was a weird year of course, but again, they struggled to score and keep up with elite teams.
2017 was the only time I thought the were a complete team, and they could well have won it all.
-
Needs to be 8 teams
5 from P5
3 at large
-
The byes should add some juice to the regular season. Everyone will be fighting over those top four spots. Particularly if they get a home game.
-
I bet in a couple weeks someone writes an article about how this was not real, beyond some discussion by a few folks on the side, not serious.
-
kinda like the Huskers thinking about dropping the Sooner game this Sept
fake news
-
I bet in a couple weeks someone writes an article about how this was not real, beyond some discussion by a few folks on the side, not serious.
While there are cases where anonymous witnesses, particularly with substantiating evidence, are valuable. Just saying "sources say" with zero accountability has jumped the shark years ago
-
After all of us lose interest in college football, this board just becomes one long Stream of Unconsciousness?
We'll talk about food and boats. Sounds good to me.
And possible landing spots in Austin
-
While there are cases where anonymous witnesses, particularly with substantiating evidence, are valuable. Just saying "sources say" with zero accountability has jumped the shark years ago
People are now getting their news from twitter and it's far, far worse than that. Zero accountability would be a step up for twitter.
-
leak to test the waters of public opinion and see what way the wind is blowing
probably much ado about nuttin
Should have asked the players that will be bolting rather than risk injury because of an extended season.And how deep do they think the fans pockets are to travel to these games?
-
People are now getting their news from twitter and it's far, far worse than that. Zero accountability would be a step up for twitter.
Twitter, like Wikipedia, or the like, is fine if you are an individual capable of using it as a jumping off point to find the real story.
My problem is (and in the grand scheme of things, its sports, who cares), when someone like SI can put a story out there crediting "sources".
-
Twitter, like Wikipedia, or the like, is fine if you are an individual capable of using it as a jumping off point to find the real story.
My problem is (and in the grand scheme of things, its sports, who cares), when someone like SI can put a story out there crediting "sources".
Nobody does this. Nobody is capable of this. People look at 140 characters of a twitter story and that's their truth.
I'd worry about SI doing what you state, if anyone ever read them anymore. But nobody does. Even 3-minute blurbs on ESPN are too long-format for current consumers of information.
And of course I agree, it's only sports and I don't get overly worked up about it.
I DO get worked up that people do this in real life for actual news that matters.
-
Hey guys don't forget that if the B1G is particularly strong in this scenario, you could have the 4th-best B1G playing in the official Rose Bowl or something like that.
-
I'm pretty close to asking @Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) to rename this website.
Derelict 51 or something. For us, by us. (FUBU)
-
Nobody does this. Nobody is capable of this. People look at 140 characters of a twitter story and that's their truth.
I was in college during the advent of Wikipedia, and I remember professors cautioning not to use it for research papers.
It is AMAZING for research papers...if you are using it as a quick starting point to gather where you should aim your research. And some people do cite their work, which obviously helps.
-
Twitter, like Wikipedia, or the like, is fine if you are an individual capable of using it as a jumping off point to find the real story.
Nobody does this. Nobody is capable of this. People look at 140 characters of a twitter story and that's their truth.
I am capable of this, and do so.
But then, I am pretty much a Nobody.
-
Twitter, like Wikipedia, or the like, is fine if you are an individual capable of using it as a jumping off point to find the real story.
My problem is (and in the grand scheme of things, its sports, who cares), when someone like SI can put a story out there crediting "sources".
Let me play a bit of devil's advocate here.
The alternative is that someone like SI or Yahoo knows something is happening (something important or not) and just kinda sits on it, waiting for the organization to announce it or give them the OK (more likely announce it). And then the reporter goes out and says, "This has been in the works for months and was agreed on last year."
Is it better that I not know these powerbrokers might have dug in on a bad idea?
-
Its only a bad idea if if makes 1 dollar less than any of our preferred playoff formats.
-
Hey guys don't forget that if the B1G is particularly strong in this scenario, you could have the 4th-best B1G playing in the official Rose Bowl or something like that.
Nice. The Wolverines will finally have a chance to make it back to Pasadena.
-
It’s long overdue IMO. CFB is literally the only sport in the whole world that does not have some kind of a real playoff.
I love how people make out like the regular season will be diminished or something. Like ou/Texas has less meaning.
The biggest question we should be asking is will there be more cup cake games, or less? With the post season expanding to more games will they shorten the regular season? More conference games? Less conference games?
I think in general we have seen better ooc games since the current 4 team playoff started. I’d like to see that continue.
-
Let me play a bit of devil's advocate here.
The alternative is that someone like SI or Yahoo knows something is happening (something important or not) and just kinda sits on it, waiting for the organization to announce it or give them the OK (more likely announce it). And then the reporter goes out and says, "This has been in the works for months and was agreed on last year."
Is it better that I not know these powerbrokers might have dug in on a bad idea?
The issue is nobody knows with the scoop they have is legitimate or not. Because there's no repercussion for throwing crap at the wall, out of fear of the backlash over what doesn't stick
-
2018, that year Clemson beat the shit out of Bama:
.
8 UCF
9 Washington..........winner plays 1 Alabama
.
5 Georgia
12 Penn St..............winner plays 4 OU
.
6 Ohio St
11 LSU...................winner plays 3 Notre Dame
.
7 Michigan
10 Florida................winner plays 2 Clemson
.
Guys, this is built FOR rematches, as-is. Michigan is in, as the 7 seed. Guess what? This playoff has 4 teams it played (3, not counting Florida in the bowl). If they somehow beat Clemson, they're virtually guaranteed a rematch in the semifinal.
.
Penn State finished 3rd in its division. Yeah, they deserve a shot at the national title. Why not? (and the SEC will get 4 teams in nearly every year, sometimes 5, btw.
-
.
Penn State finished 3rd in its division. Yeah, they deserve a shot at the national title.
THIS IS COLLEGE BASKETBALL.
-
Let's do my favorite year, 2012:
.
8 LSU
9 Texas A&M...................winner plays 1 Notre Dame
.
5 Kansas St
12 Wisconsin (UR)............winner plays 4 Oregon
.
6 Stanford
11 Louisville...................winner plays 3 Florida
.
7 Georgia
10 Florida St...................winner plays 2 Alabama
.
5 SEC teams and the first team out was also from the SEC. So if they put in any kind of caveat that you have to be ranked, the B1G champ is out and HALF the playoff is SEC teams.
.
But for this year, forget that and the rematches, look closer. Stanford won its conference. But Oregon gets the bye. Florida didn't win its own division, but the Gators get a bye.
.
We're excluding the 10th and 11th ranked teams in the country to include the 21st and an unranked Badger team.
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?
-
Twitter, like Wikipedia, or the like, is fine if you are an individual capable of using it as a jumping off point to find the real story.
My problem is (and in the grand scheme of things, its sports, who cares), when someone like SI can put a story out there crediting "sources".
Good Post,you get that a lot in Youtube comment sections.Only the seismic bombast is on history revision not the sad commentary of todays events
-
I'm pretty close to asking @Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) to rename this website.
Derelict 51 or something. For us, by us. (FUBU)
FUBAR
-
I was in college during the advent of Wikipedia, and I remember professors cautioning not to use it for research papers.
It is AMAZING for research papers...if you are using it as a quick starting point to gather where you should aim your research. And some people do cite their work, which obviously helps.
You've been out of college a long time now, my friend. Today's twitter-news culture wasn't even a fetus when you last graced your university's hallowed halls.
-
I am capable of this, and do so.
But then, I am pretty much a Nobody.
You're not a nobody, but 0.1% of the population does not count as "statistically significant." You know the drill. :)
-
2018, that year Clemson beat the shit out of Bama:
.
Penn State finished 3rd in its division. Yeah, they deserve a shot at the national title. Why not? (and the SEC will get 4 teams in nearly every year, sometimes 5, btw.
this is why this might actually happen
-
Many will be disappointed if this ends up with no expansion whatsoever.
I don't think that is probable, I think we'll see some in 2-3-4 years.
-
this is why this might actually happen
As they should.
-
I guess it's legit
https://twitter.com/ralphDrussoAP/status/1403051009841287171?s=19
-
heck, anything is "on the table"
I suppose they could discuss expansion to a 64 team playoff if they'd like
-
Obviously there is a lot of noise about this, so perhaps there really is substance. I'm surprised.
-
I mean, I would be okay with it
https://twitter.com/DanWolken/status/1403100142312505347?s=19
-
from Tom Shatel................
» Just a note: the playoff sub-committee that put this together was made up of commissioners from the Big 12, SEC, Mountain West and the Notre Dame athletic director. They look like the power brokers for the sport. Insert your own punch line about the Big Ten.
» I know we could likely still get the usual suspects in the national championship. But I love just the possibility that an underdog could get on a roll, or that the more games Bama and Clemson play, the more chances they have to get beat. More teams, more hopes, more dreams. That alone makes this worth it for me.
» McMurphy also reports that if this proposal passes this summer, the earliest it would take place would be for the 2023 season. And four to 10 bowl games would be eliminated.
https://omaha.com/sports/huskers/football/toms-takes-more-teams-and-more-dreams-come-with-college-football-playoff-expansion/article_4e051e82-ca2c-11eb-83d7-93f38619b80a.amp.html (https://omaha.com/sports/huskers/football/toms-takes-more-teams-and-more-dreams-come-with-college-football-playoff-expansion/article_4e051e82-ca2c-11eb-83d7-93f38619b80a.amp.html)
-
So some takeaways:
I think the 6 at-large teams, which most think is too many, is less about the SEC and B1G and more about ND. It's the only way the Irish can make the playoff, so they're going to want as much leeway as possible. Basically, as long as ND is in the top 10, they'll make this playoff.
.
It both gives the G5 a seat at the table AND guarantees they'll never win a NC. It's like the Joker's hand-buzzer in the original Batman movie: let's shake hands....and now you're dead.
.
It specifies the top 6 conference champions, which I hadn't noticed or wasn't included before....so if you're a 2-loss P5 champ, you're going to be biting your nails and watching some late-season G5 football. As it is now, you already know you're out.
-
I guess one can ponder if a 11-2 conference P5 champ would be ranked higher than two 13-0 G5 conference champs. The latter would be a rare event, but possible.
Imagine say UGA loses early in the year to Auburn and South Carolina, both having decent teams, and beats Auburn in the CG latem but UC and BSU are both 13-0. UGA would get in, but with the bye or not? Huh.
I like that "rule" myself. 13-0 means no let downs all year, which is tough.
UC last year almost beat a fairly good UGA team, the gulf may be less than we think. We have other examples where a G5 team beat a fairly good P5 team in a bowl.
Texas upset UGA a few years back for example. Oh wait.
-
It specifies the top 6 conference champions, which I hadn't noticed or wasn't included before....so if you're a 2-loss P5 champ, you're going to be biting your nails and watching some late-season G5 football. As it is now, you already know you're out.
I don't know why this thought had never crossed my mind. That was always my biggest issue with the 5 auto-bids. The random 8-4 team that wins a three way tiebreaker, and pulls an upset in a CCG. Divisional play makes rewarding the CCG winner slightly problematic.
-
.
It both gives the G5 a seat at the table AND guarantees they'll never win a NC. It's like the Joker's hand-buzzer in the original Batman movie: let's shake hands....and now you're dead.
Fortunately, the isn't much of an actual issue.
-
yup, nobody gives a dern about the G5, they just want the lawsuits to go away
-
If there are as a weird year where all 5 P5 CCGs ended in upsets that relegate their actual top team to the at large pool, then you might get quite a few G5s in.
-
I'm OK if some 8-5 team wins their P5 CG and gets in the 7-12 range.
How often would a 13-0 G5 team have made the top six in the past? I looked, the answer is never in the history of the CFPP other than ND.
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-0/p526x296/199359052_4151296484907729_5952096957709751952_n.png?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=q_ZaUmqwqLkAX9SVKiK&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&tp=30&oh=0639fac7a4ba21e0232f52ddbb153bee&oe=60C79434)
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-0/p526x296/199359052_4151296484907729_5952096957709751952_n.png?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=q_ZaUmqwqLkAX9SVKiK&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&tp=30&oh=0639fac7a4ba21e0232f52ddbb153bee&oe=60C79434)
Wouldn't you have to move Oklahoma up to #4, and slide Notre Dame and Texas A&M each down a slot?
-
Would the Pac Ten get a team in?
-
not according to these guys................
https://247sports.com/college/virginia/LongFormArticle/College-Football-Playoff-12-team-playoff-expansion-what-past-seasons-would-look-like-166392857/#166392857_7 (https://247sports.com/college/virginia/LongFormArticle/College-Football-Playoff-12-team-playoff-expansion-what-past-seasons-would-look-like-166392857/#166392857_7)
-
Would the Pac Ten get a team in?
No, they weren't one of the 6 highest ranked conference champs.
Alabama (#1), Clemson (#2), Ohio State (#3), Oklahoma (#6), Cincinnati (#8) and Coastal Carolina (#12)
Their champ, Oregon (#25), was actually behind San Jose State (#23) too, they were the 8th highest rated conference champ, ahead of only UAB and Ball State, who were not ranked
-
Are the six highest ranked conference champs the top six seeds or just guarenteed a slot?
The Pac is pretty bad.
-
Are the six highest ranked conference champs the top six seeds or just guarenteed a slot?
The Pac is pretty bad.
Top 4 are guaranteed byes, top 6 are guaranteed a spot.
The other thing last year was Oregon slid into the CCG when Washington had a COVID outbreak, and then won. So it was beyond just your standard CCG upset, Oregon wouldn't have even otherwise been there.
-
So,top four get byes, top six CCs get in.
No P5 team has been even top 6 overall in the CFPP era.
-
On Thursday night’s SportsCenter, ESPN college football analyst and College GameDay co-host Kirk Herbstreit expressed his support for the proposed system.
“I think this is inevitable and I think it’s for the best,” Herbstreit said. “I’ve kind of come full-circle, to be honest with you. I really looked at this as something that Ohio State, Clemson, Alabama, it seems like every year. We can sit here in 2021, 2022, 2023; those three teams are in. Who’s going to be the one team to join those three teams? And I don’t know how healthy that is for college football. I just think that’s something that the decision-makers had said, ‘This is going to allow more teams an opportunity to compete.’ If you talk to the players, they love it. The players are fired up because they want an opportunity to compete in, ‘meaningful games.’ By going to 12, you’re going to open this thing up.”
-
Not playing in a conference will hurt Notre Dame’s ability to earn a bye in the proposed 12-team College Football Playoff field. School athletic director Jack Swarbrick confirmed that news on Thursday.
https://saturdaytradition.com/big-ten-football/no-free-passes-notre-dame-will-not-qualify-for-a-bye-in-proposed-college-football-playoff-format/?fbclid=IwAR2btz8h1gI9yq3rhSJ6PauV8_4RiNWlD1fj4j8JnCP_04AjSQet8DAJh38 (https://saturdaytradition.com/big-ten-football/no-free-passes-notre-dame-will-not-qualify-for-a-bye-in-proposed-college-football-playoff-format/?fbclid=IwAR2btz8h1gI9yq3rhSJ6PauV8_4RiNWlD1fj4j8JnCP_04AjSQet8DAJh38)
The four highest-ranked conference champions would receive a first-round bye opportunity. Since Notre Dame is still not joining a conference, the Fighting Irish would not qualify for an automatic spot in the quarterfinals.
“I look forward to never hearing how we played one less game or never had a conference championship,” Swarbrick said on Thursday after confirming that Notre Dame would not qualify for a bye.
-
Still think it's terrible. 6 is too many at-large.
IMHO 5+1+2 is the perfect compromise. Or perhaps even 6+2 if you just want to make it the top 6 ranked conference champions to avoid potentially unworthy P5 champs getting in.
But 12, with 6 at-large? Nope.
-
if Notre Dame gets screwed, I like it slightly more
-
if Notre Dame gets screwed, I like it slightly more
Yeah, but supposedly they're the ones pushing for 6 at-large. If there are only two at-large, then it makes it much more difficult for them to get in as an independent.
So I hate 6 at-large partly because I think it sucks, but I hate it EXTRA because it'll benefit ND.
-
Will they do straight seeding? Or will they regionalize it? Or stipulate that teams from the same conference have to be split into different quadrants? Some combination of all three?
-
I'd just note en passant that UGA is 3-0 against ND ....
-
Huskers are 3-0 vs the Domers since the 73 Orange bowl massacre 40-6 victory in Devaney's last game
and I attended the 2000 and 2001 victories
8-7-1 all-time
and a victory in 1922 vs the vaunted Four Horsemen
-
Buckeyes haven't lost to them since the 1930s
-
Still think it's terrible. 6 is too many at-large.
IMHO 5+1+2 is the perfect compromise. Or perhaps even 6+2 if you just want to make it the top 6 ranked conference champions to avoid potentially unworthy P5 champs getting in.
But 12, with 6 at-large? Nope.
I like 6-2 better than 5-1-2, it had just never even crossed my mind
-
I like 6-2 better than 5-1-2, it had just never even crossed my mind
I still like the idea that your conference championship means something, REGARDLESS of how you got it.
Back in 2012 before Purdue imploded, it seemed like the B1G was coming down to Purdue v Wisconsin, since both OSU and PSU were ineligible for the postseason.
I would have hated to have Purdue raise the B1G trophy that year and then be told they were "not good enough" for the next step--EVEN IF it was basically an asterisk year.
I understand the rationale for it, but it's again a situation where a conference championship means something--except when it doesn't.
-
we need many more upsets in conference champ games
that might cause them to be dumped for real champions
-
5-1-2 or 6-2 are good.
12 under any format sucks.
I have spoken.
-
I still like the idea that your conference championship means something, REGARDLESS of how you got it.
Back in 2012 before Purdue imploded, it seemed like the B1G was coming down to Purdue v Wisconsin, since both OSU and PSU were ineligible for the postseason.
I would have hated to have Purdue raise the B1G trophy that year and then be told they were "not good enough" for the next step--EVEN IF it was basically an asterisk year.
I understand the rationale for it, but it's again a situation where a conference championship means something--except when it doesn't.
But in reality it was Wisconsin as the Big Ten champion, after finishing 3rd in their division, which is even lamer than what the 20 Ducks did.
-
But in reality it was Wisconsin as the Big Ten champion, after finishing 3rd in their division, which is even lamer than what the 20 Ducks did.
Does the trophy still say "Champion" on it?
-
I blame Pelini and Bielema
-
Would you guys want to see it regionalized? It would pretty much lock Notre Dame into the same quadrant as the Big Ten Champion. The Domers would play Toledo or Iowa St in round 1, and then the Big Ten champion in the quarterfinals.
-
Does the trophy still say "Champion" on it?
That team was so weird. A hell of a hard luck team. Very good defense, vary good running offense that was maybe limited by too much Montee Ball. Deeply not good QB play and WR depth. Lost like a million close games.
Probably more of an 8-4/9-3 team than the 7-win regular season team it was. Feisty, but lacking a certain something.
-
Would you guys want to see it regionalized? It would pretty much lock Notre Dame into the same quadrant as the Big Ten Champion. The Domers would play Toledo or Iowa St in round 1, and then the Big Ten champion in the quarterfinals.
Nope.
I get why high schools and D-II do it. But you got the money, play it out.
-
Do the independents disappear for the most part? For example BYU left the Mountain West when Utah joined the PAC 12 because of the optics, but under these rules their chances of winning the Mountain West are greater than Utah's chances of winning the PAC 12, so they could make up for the conference prestige differential by having more frequent playoff appearances.
-
Nope.
I get why high schools and D-II do it. But you got the money, play it out.
Yeah, college hoops only sort of uses it as a tiebreaker on where to send teams.
-
I like that "rule" myself. 13-0 means no let downs all year, which is tough.
UC last year almost beat a fairly good UGA team, the gulf may be less than we think. We have other examples where a G5 team beat a fairly good P5 team in a bowl.
a) depends on the schedule you go 13-0 against
b) How many Dawgs sat out that game?
-
I was going to go back and show the 12-team playoff the past 20 years, and wow, starting in 2001, it's wild.
Taking into consideration that the top 4 seeds are the top 4 ranked conference champs, the seedings vs the rankings are very different.
.
The SEC champ in 2001 is the 12th seed. However, two other SEC teams are seeded 6th and 7th.
Nebraska, who played in the BCSNCG vs Miami, is seeded 5th.
2-loss Colorado is the 2-seed, despite 4 other P5 teams having only 1 loss.
I'll put the conf champs in bold, G5 in red.
.
Seeds:
1 - Miami
2 - Colorado
3 - Oregon
4 - Illinios
5 - Nebraska
6 - Florida
7 - Tennessee
8 - Texas
9 - Stanford
10 - Maryland
11 - LSU
12 - BYU
.
Bracket:
8 - Texas
9 - Stanford.........winner plays 1 Miami
.
5 - Nebraska
12 - BYU.............winner plays 4 Illinois
.
6 - Florida
11 - LSU......winner plays 3 Oregon
.
7 - Tennessee
10 - Maryland........winner plays 2 Colorado
-
I'm super wary of all the rematches this is going to produce. That's a big part of what makes individual games in the NFL nearly meaningless. You'll get to play that team again (if they're in your division) and teams play a 3rd time in the playoffs sometimes.
-
You guys would have loved 2002.....only 1 SEC team in the entire playoff.
ND makes this one.
We had 2 co-champs, but since WSU had a tie-breaker and OSU was ranked higher, they get the nods over USC and Iowa.
Bracket:
8 - Kansas St
9 - Notre Dame............winner plays 1 Miami
.
5 - USC
12 - Boise St........winner plays 4 Washington St
.
6 - Iowa
11 - Florida St (4 losses)..............winner plays 3 Georgia
.
7 - Oklahoma
10 - Texas...................winner plays 2 Ohio St
-
2003 is a little tricky - the final BCS standings were before the conference CGs, so I used the AP poll.
bracket:
8 - Ohio St
9 - Florida St...........winner plays 1 USC
.
5 - OU
12 - Miami (OH)........winner plays 4 Kansas St
.
6 - Texas
11 - Georgia.............winner plays 3 Michigan
.
7 - Tennessee
10 - Miami...............winner plays 2 LSU
.
Hey KSU, congrats on your upset blowout of Oklahoma......you're gonna have to do it again. Tenn-Miami is another rematch, as would Tenn-UGA. If UGA happened to get to the semis, yes, LSU could play UGA a third time.
-
Bracket:
8 - Texas
9 - Stanford.........winner plays 1 Miami
.
5 - Nebraska
12 - BYU.............winner plays 4 Illinois
.
6 - Florida
11 - LSU......winner plays 3 Oregon
.
7 - Tennessee
10 - Maryland........winner plays 2 Colorado
I'd wager that Nebraska upset Illinois, then gets smoked by the Canes
-
It's not the most interesting 12 team playoff, but it is at least more interesting than what we have now.
-
Well that Illinois team got pantsed by the (would be) 11 seed, LSU IRL ~ Sugar Bowl.
-
down season for the BIG
-
2003 is a little tricky - the final BCS standings were before the conference CGs, so I used the AP poll.
bracket:
8 - Ohio St
9 - Florida St...........winner plays 1 USC
.
5 - OU
12 - Miami (OH)........winner plays 4 Kansas St
.
6 - Texas
11 - Georgia.............winner plays 3 Michigan
.
7 - Tennessee
10 - Miami...............winner plays 2 LSU
.
Hey KSU, congrats on your upset blowout of Oklahoma......you're gonna have to do it again. Tenn-Miami is another rematch, as would Tenn-UGA. If UGA happened to get to the semis, yes, LSU could play UGA a third time.
The final BCS standings were never before the CCGs. With those in place:
8 - Tennessee
9 - Miami (Fla)...........winner plays 1 LSU
.
5 - OU
12 - UGA........winner plays 4 FSU
.
6 - OSU
11 - Miami (OH).............winner plays 3 Michigan
.
7 - Texas
10 - K-State...............winner plays 2 USC
OSU-Michigan rematch on tap, after the Buckeyes battle Big Ben. Texas tries for vengeance on K-State, and we either get a rematch for a good game the year before or a preview of 2005. Would enjoy.
-
I'm super wary of all the rematches this is going to produce. That's a big part of what makes individual games in the NFL nearly meaningless. You'll get to play that team again (if they're in your division) and teams play a 3rd time in the playoffs sometimes.
Without a rematch, we'd be much less far along this path. But, such is life.
-
we all understand the committee's final ranking will avoid rematches and conference matchups
be a bit more work than with only 4, but it will happen
for ratings and to appease the SEC
-
Nope.
I get why high schools and D-II do it. But you got the money, play it out.
Well if they really are driven solely by maximizing profits as many insinuate, then they'd regionalize it to cut the travel costs, as well increasing the likelihood of a classic matchup; Nebraska-Oklahoma, Michigan-Notre Dame, Florida-Miami, Texas-aTm, etc.
-
The final BCS standings were never before the CCGs. With those in place:
8 - Tennessee
9 - Miami (Fla)...........winner plays 1 LSU
.
5 - OU
12 - UGA........winner plays 4 FSU
.
6 - OSU
11 - Miami (OH).............winner plays 3 Michigan
.
7 - Texas
10 - K-State...............winner plays 2 USC
OSU-Michigan rematch on tap, after the Buckeyes battle Big Ben. Texas tries for vengeance on K-State, and we either get a rematch for a good game the year before or a preview of 2005. Would enjoy.
Ok, ya, I thought that was weird. Thanks.
2 rematches out of 4 first round games isn't fun.
-
2004 is cray-cray:
There are 7 conference champs ranked ahead of either Big Ten co-champ. Iowa gets in as the 12th seed and UM is left out entirely. WOW.
.
8 VA Tech
9 Boise St...........winner vs 1 USC
.
5 Texas
12 Iowa.............winner vs 4 Utah
.
6 Cal
11 LSU...............winner vs 3 Auburn
.
7 Georgia
10 Louisville.........winner vs 2 Oklahoma
.
So we have 3 G5 conference champs in easily, all ahead of the B10 champ. That would be bonkers.
I didn't bold UL or Iowa, because despite being conference champs, they're in as at-larges.
.
Auburn would probably be a fan of this playoff.
-
2005:
.
8 Miami
9 Auburn..........winner vs 1 USC
.
5 Ohio St
12 TCU..........winner vs 4 Georgia
.
6 Oregon
11 West Virginia.....winner vs 3 Penn St
.
7 Notre Dame
10 Virginia Tech.......winner vs 2 Texas
.
Two ACC teams, but no ACC champ, lol.
-
2006 (aka 'The Michigan Mulligan'):
.
8 Boise St
9 Auburn...................winner vs 1 Ohio St
.
5 Michigan
12 Arkansas...............winner vs 4 Louisville
.
6 LSU
11 Notre Dame............winner vs 3 USC
.
7 Wisconsin
10 Oklahoma..............winner vs 2 Florida
.
No ACC team at all. While the compromised Big East (sans Miami, VT, etc) was a weaker conference, it had top teams with fewer losses than the ACC in this era.
-
Ok, ya, I thought that was weird. Thanks.
2 rematches out of 4 first round games isn't fun.
Unless I’m going crazy, there’s only one?
-
so dumb.
they say all bids will be at-large? sounds fine but leave it to the SEC to figure out how to qualify 9 teams, leaving out the Pac 12, Big 12, and non-P5s.
-
Unless I’m going crazy, there’s only one?
Miami and Tennessee played in the regular season. I remember because it was a hideous game and looking it up confirmed it.
-
Think 12 is too much. However... the hand-wringing would be lessened with 12. Top G5 team along with any other undefeated G5s. No power five teams with one loss or less would be left out. Gives teams outside the elite bubble realistic chances to find their way into the playoffs....whereas now it's really an improbable feat for many.
I guess I don't hate it.
-
It's better than a lot of the ideas that we've had on here. And we've spent a lot of time thinking about it, from what we thought was every angle imaginable.
That said I'm sure they'll figure out a way to screw it up, because that's what they do.
-
My problem isn't even the number (which is too many), it's the reasons behind the formatting. 6 at-larges to make sure ND gets its special treatment. 1 G5 to shut them up, combined with 11 big-boy teams so it's not really a chance at all. It's a lie.
.
Cant anything just be genuine and real and good?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
-
Miami and Tennessee played in the regular season. I remember because it was a hideous game and looking it up confirmed it.
Yep, I misread the schedule. My bad
-
2009: Tebow's Revenge!
.
2009 is (what's turned out to be) an oddity: the 12 playoff teams are simply the top 12 teams, just how they were ranked by the BCS, in order. This is the first time I've found this to be the case.
.
8 Ohio St
9 Georgia Tech................winner vs 1 Alabama
.
5 Florida
12 LSU..........................winner vs 4 TCU
.
6 Boise St
11 Virginia Tech.............winner vs 3 Cincinnati
.
7 Oregon
10 Iowa.......................winner vs 2 Texas
.
TCU, getting a bye as a G5 champ. Cincinnati was in the Big East here, so they're technically P5, despite getting slobberknockered in the Sugar Bowl that year.
Texas would be very happy in this playoff. Friggin' red carpet to the NCG.
.
It would be very interesting to see Saban vs an option offense if they played GT.
-
My problem isn't even the number (which is too many), it's the reasons behind the formatting. 6 at-larges to make sure ND gets its special treatment. 1 G5 to shut them up, combined with 11 big-boy teams so it's not really a chance at all. It's a lie.
.
Cant anything just be genuine and real and good?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Please let all of the fifth place teams have yet another shot!
-
My problem isn't even the number (which is too many), it's the reasons behind the formatting. 6 at-larges to make sure ND gets its special treatment. 1 G5 to shut them up, combined with 11 big-boy teams so it's not really a chance at all. It's a lie.
.
Cant anything just be genuine and real and good?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Notre Dame gets special treatment regardless. They have two appearances....which is good for fifth most of any team. Both of those years....they were also clearly overrated.....because of who they are.
-
Really? They didn't deserve to be in this past year?
-
No idea why I skipped 07 and 08.......let's look at 2007 - I'll call it "RichRod's Rickety Ride"
.
8 Kansas
9 West Virginia..............winner vs 1 OSU
.
5 Georgia
12 Florida....................winner vs 4 Oklahoma
.
6 Missouri
11 Arizona St................winner vs 3 Virginia Tech
.
7 USC
10 Hawai'i...................winner vs 2 LSU
.
So the ultimate rogue wave team (maybe ever) 11-1 Kansas gets in. I bet WV would put 60 up on them. Missouri was great, too.
This is another example of simply the top 12 teams getting in.
Heisman-winner Tebow gets another crack at UGA...maybe the defense would wake up.
-
We can skip 2008, because the best team obviously won.
-
If all ND did was play "Navy" all year, I'd complain more about them, but they tend to play a decent slate. If they are 11-1, they would be in, at 10-2 might be in.
A lot of 10-2 and 11-2 teams are going to get in as it is. There are years where say UGA gets a relatively soft schedule playing only Tech OOC and they can be 11-1 and not really very good.
-
I have a concept.
B1G-PAC champions go to the Rose Bowl
XII-SEC champions go to the Sugar Bowl
ACC-Big East champions go to the Orange Bowl
Top two after those games play in the Fiesta Bowl (in Tempe)
.
-
Not enough money of course, tradition, ancient guys might like it, the young won't. This could well be simply about the younger fans, and money of course.
Younger fans know nothing of tradition usually.
Greg Maddux once pitched a nine inning complete game with 78 pitches.
Guys today hit 78 in the fourth inning.
-
Greg may have gotten the benefit of the doubt on a few pitches just off the outside corner in that particular game
-
Cant anything just be genuine and real and good?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
this is the real world
not the world of education/academia
-
Greg may have gotten the benefit of the doubt on a few pitches just off the outside corner in that particular game
Not a chance, never happened.
-
It's better than a lot of the ideas that we've had on here. And we've spent a lot of time thinking about it, from what we thought was every angle imaginable.
That said I'm sure they'll figure out a way to screw it up, because that's what they do.
I'm not against 12 teams. (Or eight) I wish though they would give 6 a try, before jumping to a larger number.
-
My problem isn't even the number (which is too many), it's the reasons behind the formatting. 6 at-larges to make sure ND gets its special treatment. 1 G5 to shut them up, combined with 11 big-boy teams so it's not really a chance at all. It's a lie.
.
Cant anything just be genuine and real and good?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The bolded part, why does this matter? This sport is by nature unfair. From top to bottom. We lie all the time about it.
If the lie that offends is "a team will get a simple, coherent chance to prove its mettle, and if it is not good enough, that's that," it's a fine lie to have.
(Makes me think about when I lived in Indiana and the old single class system. That was eventually done away with, arguably for the better. And if down the road the G5 decides it's time to pull out and have its own playoff, the P5 won't stop them)
-
A top G5 team can, and will, win the first round. They've done it before, almost did it last year. Great for them, two high profile games, maybe they lose the second.
Maybe they get embarrassed.
The more I consider all this the more sanguine I become about it. I'd prefer something else, but this may be OK.
-
A top G5 team can, and will, win the first round. They've done it before, almost did it last year. Great for them, two high profile games, maybe they lose the second.
Maybe they get embarrassed.
The more I consider all this the more sanguine I become about it. I'd prefer something else, but this may be OK.
Name the last time a ranked G5 beat a ranked P5 team late in the season when the P5 still had a shot at the NC.
G5 teams don't know what a P5 team running at full bore even looks like. We're doing to see the true, vast gap between these programs.
-
The bolded part, why does this matter? This sport is by nature unfair. From top to bottom. We lie all the time about it.
If the lie that offends is "a team will get a simple, coherent chance to prove its mettle, and if it is not good enough, that's that," it's a fine lie to have.
Because it's hopping from one lie (G5 are on the same plane now) to another lie (G5 gets a spot that will never, ever yield a NC anyway). What's the point of replacing one lie with another?
-
this is the real world
not the world of education/academia
You're right....far too many ignorant people to allow such things.
-
I don't view these as lies, perhaps misconceptions in the minds of whoever. Much of reality is about creating illusions enough people will believe.
I still believe some G5 team can win the first round. I also suspect it will be rare that any of the teams out of the byes win the NC.* Some team ranked 5th will be pretty good, certainly good enough to beat 12 of course, and then good enough to challenge in the next round. There will be a premium on being at least 5-8 obviously.
The four highest-ranked conference champions would be seeded one through four and each would receive a first-round bye, while teams seeded five through 12 would play each other in the first round on the home field of the higher-ranked team. (The team ranked #5 would host #12; team #6 would meet team #11; team #7 would play team #10; and team #8 would meet #9.) Under the proposal, the quarterfinals and semifinals would be played in bowl games. The championship game would continue to be at a neutral site, as under the current format.
*I would note that Alabama would have been a five seed one year they did win the NC, so my statement is, well, equivocal. Could a Cincinnati win the second round? Probably not.
-
Because it's hopping from one lie (G5 are on the same plane now) to another lie (G5 gets a spot that will never, ever yield a NC anyway). What's the point of replacing one lie with another?
Because opportunity matters, mostly. It's sports, you determine it with a game (and a more open selection, and that's that).
Again, if they get tired of not having a chance at a title, they'll quit, same as Vandy, Wake Forest, Indiana football for much of its history. Beautiful, simple, easy.
-
I predict 4 seeds will win the NC less often than they statistically "should". The 5 seed will often be the 4th, 3rd, or 2nd-ranked team going into the playoff. Hell, if ND is ranked 1st in the country, they'd be a 5-seed.
Imagine being the 4 seed and having to play the consensus #1 team.
-
My favorite part of the new cfp format is watching it eat away at fro.
-
Do you think this is probably the real final final (maybe with slight adjustments) deal?
Are we talking say 2024 for it to happen?
Nd can never get a bye?
-
ND can get a bye if they join a conference. So can Army and BYU and whoever else.
-
My favorite part of the new cfp format is watching it eat away at fro.
Sucks for you - I enjoy the conversation. Boo hoo!
-
My favorite part of the new cfp format is watching it eat away at fro.
I do believe they came up with 12 teams and this format based solely 2 things - favoratism for ND and lip service for the G5. The problem is that I don't think they explored all of these other "side effects" before releasing it to the public.
.
It's unimpressive, that's all.
-
Two replies to one comment shows a lack of impulse control.
-
lol, you're a peach
I'm sorry I'm not what you think I am.
-
You're right....far too many ignorant people to allow such things.
the way of the real world
it's not fair or intelligent, it's just reality
-
Definitely not intelligent.
-
2008:
"The Big XII Rises"
.
8 Penn St
9 Boise St..........winner vs 1 Oklahoma
.
5 Texas
12 Cincinnati......winner vs 4 Utah
.
6 Alabama
11 TCU..............winner vs 3 USC
.
7 Texas Tech
10 Ohio St.........winner vs 2 Florida
.
Interestingly, 3 G5 teams get in. Again, no ACC teams. All of the 11-1 Big XII teams are spread out nicely. USC vs Alabama, then possibly Florida would be biggies.
Utah isn't given a favor, facing 3rd-ranked Texas.
-
I thought you said it would be one G5 going against 11 P5s? You have posted multiple of examples where a plurality of G5s would have gotten in during recent years. And those were before they had anything to "play for." They should be extra motivated now.
-
We're exploring the past together. You don't have to be a dick in EVERY post, do you? Let's hold hands and enjoy the journey!!
-
I don't view this as very favorable to ND. G5s, yes, it puts them in the Dance at least, Big Money for them, great, and on occasion they will survive two rounds.
Maybe once a century they will survive three. Who was the best "G5" kind of team ever in history? I don't think we'd include Pitt in that group today. Boise State?
Maybe since 1960 to take Army out of the equation.
-
it wasn't BYU in 1984
-
Certainly not BYU, though they probably were decent. I'd guess Boise State of some year. How good were those Grambling teams back in the day?
Navy had some good teams. Syracuse?
-
Certainly not BYU, though they probably were decent. I'd guess Boise State of some year. How good were those Grambling teams back in the day?
Navy had some good teams. Syracuse?
Did a random scan of football reference, non-exhaustive.
1969 Houston, 1981 SMU were the two best ones I found by numerical measures.
-
Did a random scan of football reference, non-exhaustive.
1969 Houston, 1981 SMU were the two best ones I found by numerical measures.
Would either have had some decent chance in a 12 team playoff in those years?
-
I think SMU in 81 had a chance. Only one close loss to the Horns.
The Horns were solid, finished #2 after beating 3rd ranked Bama in the Cotton. Only loss to a good Razorback team in Fayetteville
SMU would have played in the Cotton, but were on probation for recruiting violations
when you have a solid defense and Eric Dickerson, you have a chance.
(https://i.imgur.com/T3mu9Gn.jpg)
-
of course SMU wasn't G5 back then
-
It gets vague, would PSU have been "G5" back when? I'd say no, same with Pitt. So, was SMU G5 sort of then? Houston was, they did lose their first two games of the year in 1969.
Ranking The Best Undefeated G5 Football Teams of All Time | Downtown Huntington (https://downtownhuntington.net/ranking-best-undefeated-g5-football-teams-time/)
1. Utah Utes (2008)
Like TCU the Utes are now part of a power conference and an undefeated season now would assure them a place at the table. But, the 2008 Utes weren’t given that same luxury. The Mountain West champs started the season off with a two-point win over nationally ranked Michigan in Ann Arbor. Beat a nationally ranked Oregon State team that was coming off an upset victory of then top ranked USC and downed both #11 TCU and #14 BYU at home before earning the right to take on Nick Saban and Alabama. Utah dominated the Crimson Tide 31-17 beating Bama worse than Florida, the eventual national champions in 2008 did in the SEC title game. Of course the P5 talking heads and fans say that Alabama didn’t take the game seriously and didn’t want to be there due to disappointment of missing out on a chance at the national title. But, Saban’s teams don’t like to lose and they rarely get decimated in such convincing fashion. This 2008 Utah team was for real and played one of the toughest schedules a “G5” team could play with four ranked opponents in the regular season. In the final rankings the polls were split. The Coaches had the Utes ranked 4th while the writers at the AP ranked them number 2. But, I’m just going to rank them as the best non-power conference team to ever go undefeated in the era where a national title game was played.
-
Yeah Utah, Louisville and TCU were all good enough to earn a promotion.
-
of course SMU wasn't G5 back then
That’s fair. I mean, there was no G5 I suppose.
Next best I found was 1980 BYU.
-
Yeah Utah, Louisville and TCU were all good enough to earn a promotion.
but, were any of them good enough to win 3 straight vs top 10/top 4 type competition?
-
I think Utah COULD plausibly have won the first two games, they'd be seeded say 6 playing 11, not much of a heavy lift. They would face 1-4 and an upset there would not be an incredible feat. But winning the third round looks unlikely, and then some.
In a hundred years? Maybe, some G5 team gets a Michael Vick QB with an all around solid team maybe maybe.
-
No matter what Scott Frost does at Nebraska, college football lovers and historians should — and likely will — have him in one of the sport’s more memorable footnotes.
He helped kick the door in for expanding the College Football Playoff.
His 2017 Central Florida team — which went undefeated and beat Auburn in the Peach Bowl — was the first of the CFP-era Group of Five squads to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Power Five teams. That UCF squad remains the best G5 team of the CFP era, though the Knights’ undefeated regular season in 2018 — and subsequent snubbing by the CFP committee — underlined that no G5 team ever was getting into the event without expansion.
Frost was vocal about wanting to expand the playoff in 2017 and later at the 2018 Big Ten media days, though he had a different format in mind.
“It’s hard to look at last year’s college football season and not feel like an eight-team playoff isn’t where we should go,” Frost said that year in Chicago. “I think that’s my opinion. I think it should be five conference champions and three at-large teams. That would give a surprise conference champion that plays well at the end of the season a shot. It might give a team like we had at UCF last year a shot.”
https://omaha.com/sports/huskers/football/mckewon-expanded-playoff-would-be-golden-opportunity-for-huskers-big-ten/article_646616c8-cca6-11eb-bd93-57565ea447f0.amp.html (https://omaha.com/sports/huskers/football/mckewon-expanded-playoff-would-be-golden-opportunity-for-huskers-big-ten/article_646616c8-cca6-11eb-bd93-57565ea447f0.amp.html)
_________________________________________________ ________________________________
would the 2018 Knights had a chance? I don't think so
-
Funny enough, the CFP expanding its field is done now in an attempt to reinvigorate the regular season.
Division games suddenly mean so much more. Win your division, get to the conference championship game, and you’re one win away. If you enter that game at a respectable 9-3, you might even be just one good showing away. Nebraska’s late-season stretch run through Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Northwestern gets even more important.
An early-season loss might not carry as much weight as it once did, but what if the impact of that is more marquee out-of-conference games? What if Alabama—whose coach has said Power Five should only play Power Five—scheduled more frequent games against other top teams early in the year, unafraid of what a trip-up toward the starting line would do to its finish line? Better for the product, right?
Late-season opt-outs have been a become a hot button issue of late, but this might address that too.
When Florida played Oklahoma in the Cotton Bowl last season, it did so without some of its top weapons. Players like Kyle Pitts were getting ready for the NFL because a Cotton Bowl trophy under the current set-up is not reason enough for a player who is about to go make a lot of money in the league to risk a freak injury.
Under this 12-team model, that Florida team is hosting a Playoff game in December. Those players that sat out the Cotton Bowl are playing in a Playoff game. Another plus.
https://hailvarsity.com/football/an-expanded-college-football-playoff-is-a-huge-win-for-the-sport/ (https://hailvarsity.com/football/an-expanded-college-football-playoff-is-a-huge-win-for-the-sport/)
According to Bill Connelly’s SP+ projections, the No. 1 seed in this 12-team format only has a 71% chance of reaching the semifinals. That’s a 29% chance it doesn’t. A lot bigger than you expected, right?
-
An early-season loss might not carry as much weight as it once did, but what if the impact of that is more marquee out-of-conference games? What if Alabama—whose coach has said Power Five should only play Power Five—scheduled more frequent games against other top teams early in the year, unafraid of what a trip-up toward the starting line would do to its finish line? Better for the product, right?
Exactly! This is what I've been saying.
If conference champs are auto-bid, it makes tougher OOC scheduling much more likely.
If winning the conference gets you in, OOC losses against good teams don't hurt your resume. If you don't win your conference, OOC wins against good teams bolster your resume significantly for at-large selection.
It gives you a potential benefit and takes away one of the risks of losing those games.
-
Yeah Utah, Louisville and TCU were all good enough to earn a promotion.
Well, they all happened to be good at the right time, when all of the conferences were shuffling. If this had been the late 90s, would Southern Miss and Marshall have been more attractive targets than Louisville and TCU?
And it also happened in an era where conferences weren't looking for the best schools within their geographic fit anymore, they were looking for the best way to expand their tv markets. If this happens in a pre-BTN world, I'm not sure Maryland or Rutgers are even on the Big Ten's radar. Obviously Rutgers for many reasons, but Maryland simply from a geographic fit, went from an outlier to being exactly what they were looking for. And it made Pitt completely irrelveant as an expansion target
-
Exactly! This is what I've been saying.
If conference champs are auto-bid, it makes tougher OOC scheduling much more likely.
If winning the conference gets you in, OOC losses against good teams don't hurt your resume. If you don't win your conference, OOC wins against good teams bolster your resume significantly for at-large selection.
It gives you a potential benefit and takes away one of the risks of losing those games.
most folks seem to like the idea of this 12-team playoff
-
I wonder if expecting this is why UGA upped its OOC slates later this decade the way they did.
-
most folks seem to like the idea of this 12-team playoff
No, I still don't like it.
I think the incentive to schedule stronger OOC is absolutely true of a 5+1+2 or 6+2 or 5+3 system, without going to 12.
In fact, it's probably more of an incentive with fewer at large bids, because schedule strength would be a much bigger differentiator for a resume with fewer at large.
-
I wonder if expecting this is why UGA upped its OOC slates later this decade the way they did.
Everyone is doing it. Florida has scheduled 3 road games west of Baton Rouge, for chrissakes!!
-
the committee has shown they do NOT reward programs for stronger scheduling
I doubt that will change
but, as noted above, an early season non-con loss won't keep you out of the playoff if you win the conference
that one non-con lose could easily keep you from getting one of the tops 4 seeds and a very valuable bye
-
Reminder: big, bad UCF beat a 3-loss Auburn team by 7 points after having just lost its shot at a playoff nod.
-
The Dawgs have scheduled three P5 teams OOC each year, including programs like OSU and Clemson and Oklahoma, it's a strategy for at least one loss a year even if your team is excellent, and possibly two. But if you win your conference and are 11-2 .... One could argue Tech shouldn't count. 2030 and 2031 look interesting.
2026 (https://www.sicemdawgs.com/2026-uga-football-schedule/)
- 09/05 – UCLA
- 09/12 – Western Kentucky
- 09/19 – at Louisville
- 11/28 – Georgia Tech
2027
- 09/04 – at Florida State
- 09/18 – Louisville
- 11/27 – at Georgia Tech
2028
- 09/02 – at Texas
- 09/09 – Florida A&M
- 09/16 – Florida State
- 11/25 – Georgia Tech
2029
- 09/01 – Texas
- 09/15 – at Clemson
- 11/24 – at Georgia Tech
2030
- 08/31 – Clemson
- 09/14 – Ohio State
- 11/30 – Georgia Tech
2031
- 08/30 – at Ohio State
- 09/13 – Oklahoma
- 11/29 – at Georgia Tech
-
the committee has shown they do NOT reward programs for stronger scheduling
I doubt that will change
but, as noted above, an early season non-con loss won't keep you out of the playoff if you win the conference
that one non-con lose could easily keep you from getting one of the tops 4 seeds and a very valuable bye
I could see it being a differentiator in at-large selection, particularly when "conference championship" is no longer a differentiator--you're basically looking at teams that didn't win their conference for at-large selection.
So you have to look at the full body of work. Is a team from the weak ACC or PAC going to stand up based on a 7-1 or 8-1 in-conference record if they play patsies OOC?
I expect the committee will punish that. They won't for an SEC team, but they will for the other conferences.
-
Off the top of my head, the best mid-major teams (idk if they're all undefeated, but they had great seasons):
'75 Arizona State.....WAC champs, had several top-10 seasons in the 70s, helping them join the Pac-8.
'83 BYU....was definitely better than the '84 NCs.
'85 Air Force....idk anything about this team, but a lot of ppl order it for the Whoa Nellie game
'90 BYU beat #1 Miami, but didn't have a great season
East Carolina had a big year in 1991
In addition to '04 and '08, Utah had a strong year in '94.
BYU went 14-1 in '96.
1998 was the Tulane year with Shaun King at QB.
I wouldn't put the Marshall teams of the last 90s in here, I believe their best win was vs a .500 WV team.
03 Miami-OH with Big Ben was a top 10 team, I believe
'07 Hawai'i was good until they played a big-boy team.
The more recent ones are jumbled up in my mind - the year TCU went undefeated, Boise State had a few, too.
Lousiville had a 13-1 team that was legit - I think with Lefors at QB and that biiig RB.
-
The Dawgs have scheduled three P5 teams OOC each year, including programs like OSU and Clemson and Oklahoma, it's a strategy for at least one loss a year even if your team is excellent, and possibly two. But if you win your conference and are 11-2 .... One could argue Tech shouldn't count. 2030 and 2031 look interesting.
2026 (https://www.sicemdawgs.com/2026-uga-football-schedule/)
- 09/05 – UCLA
- 09/12 – Western Kentucky
- 09/19 – at Louisville
- 11/28 – Georgia Tech
2027
- 09/04 – at Florida State
- 09/18 – Louisville
- 11/27 – at Georgia Tech
2028
- 09/02 – at Texas
- 09/09 – Florida A&M
- 09/16 – Florida State
- 11/25 – Georgia Tech
2029
- 09/01 – Texas
- 09/15 – at Clemson
- 11/24 – at Georgia Tech
2030
- 08/31 – Clemson
- 09/14 – Ohio State
- 11/30 – Georgia Tech
2031
- 08/30 – at Ohio State
- 09/13 – Oklahoma
- 11/29 – at Georgia Tech
You could also have a very strong team, go 8-4, and be irrelevant.
-
So you have to look at the full body of work. Is a team from the weak ACC or PAC going to stand up based on a 7-1 or 8-1 in-conference record if they play patsies OOC?
I expect the committee will punish that. They won't for an SEC team, but they will for the other conferences.
Why even tack that last part on? Acting as if an 8-1 in-conference record is equal in the ACC and SEC. Everyone knows it's not, so why would anyone weigh them equally?
-
83 BYU
96 BYU..........winner vs 84 BYU
.
94 Utah
04 Utah.........winner vs 08 Utah
.
10 TCU
09 Boise St......winner vs 06 Boise St
.
98 Tulane
17 UCF...........winner vs 03 Miami (OH)
-
Why even tack that last part on? Acting as if an 8-1 in-conference record is equal in the ACC and SEC. Everyone knows it's not, so why would anyone weigh them equally?
It wasn't a dig at you or your conference, OAM.
It was why I singled out the ACC and PAC as being weak. The B1G is a strong conference, and the B12 is respectable, but generally the PAC and ACC these days are weak. Teams from those conferences will NEED additional OOC bolstering of their resume to compete with the SEC in the committee decision room.
I dig on the SEC for their scheduling, like the mid-Nov FCS tune-up games and only having 8 conference games. Big I'm not questioning the strength of the teams in the conference. It's top to bottom the best in the sport.
-
Thanks for clarifying.
.
In this model, 2 teams could end up playing 17 games. Do you guys think there's any chance of the regular season going back to 11 games?
-
Thanks for clarifying.
.
In this model, 2 teams could end up playing 17 games. Do you guys think there's any chance of the regular season going back to 11 games?
No
Unless they make CCG week a full week, of round robin play, so that it is essentially the 12th game for everyone. Which I am in favor of
-
Why even tack that last part on? Acting as if an 8-1 in-conference record is equal in the ACC and SEC. Everyone knows it's not, so why would anyone weigh them equally?
/Looks at A&M last year at the end of the regular season
Really does depend on the year
-
2010 What If: Can Cam? Cam Can!
.
8 Arkansas
9 Michigan St...........winner vs 1 Auburn
.
5 Stanford
12 Missouri..............winner vs 4 Wisconsin
.
6 Ohio St
11 LSU...................winner vs 3 TCU
.
7 Oklahoma
10 Boise St..............winner 2 Oregon
.
Jesus, VT wins the ACC again and no ACC team makes the playoff. F-ing useless conference. And I think this might be the last season of the weakened Big East being part of the party (UConn was their rep, ffs).
*nope, WV won the B.E. and sniped Clempsin in the OB the next year.
-
2011: A Cowboy Odyssey
Boy, this one is interesting. Aside from being the season responsible for the 4-team playoff, the 4th conference champ to get that 4-seed would have been 10th-ranked Wisconsin.
That means seeds 5-10 weren't conference winners. And once again, VT wins the ACC and would be left out. It's comical now (4 times out of 6 years, I believe).
Anyway, the bracket, so Okie State can shaddup about it:
.
8 Boise St
9 Kansas St..............winner vs 1 LSU
.
5 Alabama
12 TCU....................winner vs 4 Wisconsin
.
6 Stanford
11 Clemson..............winner vs 3 Oregon
.
7 Arkansas
10 South Carolina.......winner vs 2 Oklahoma St
.
.
Yeah, after looking at a lot of these, the setup is going to guarantee the top half is most often heaviest, because of the commonly-heavyweight 5 seeded team. Teams are going to start vying to be the 2-seed. They need to configure it so the 5-seed is in the opposite half of the bracket, away from the 1-seed.
-
I figure if you schedule UP and end up 8-4. your "strong team" had some issues. You would not expect that team to do well in this playoff, as they didn't do well playing other strong teams in the regular season. Imagine UGA does have a strong team, but gets nipped by OSU and OU, or Clemson, and gets beat by Florida, but is 9-3 and East champion, having beat some decent teams along the way. Then they upset 12-0 Alabama and are 10-3, SEC Champions, they'd get into this playoff of course, but probably not a 1-4 seed.
And I'd be OK with that. If they had a really strong team, they would be 11-2 at worst I think.
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-0/p526x296/201953833_4164257420278302_8280285244003507319_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=AJ8g5oeSZnIAX-ZkGNu&tn=DQyWguGePQvwhrSC&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&tp=6&oh=a5288e44925ca023f651678150c6cd04&oe=60CDA5D1)
-
Do they count the weeks after a team wins the NC?
-
Do they count the weeks after a team wins the NC?
I am pretty sure they do not.
-
This has to be a large part of the consideration here, right? I mean, the 2017-18 national title game pitting Alabama against Georgia drew 28.4 million viewers and a 15.6 Nielsen rating.
In comparison, the 2020-21 national title game pitting Alabama against Ohio State drew 18.7 million viewers and a 10.3 rating.
The 2019-20 CFP national championship game, LSU versus Clemson, drew a 14.3 rating and 25.6 million viewers.
The first-ever CFP title contest, pitting Ohio State and Oregon in 2014-15, drew an 18.6 and 34.1 million.
-
Nebraska AD Bill Moos prefers an eight-team field. He made his feelings clear three weeks ago during a Big Ten athletic directors Zoom meeting.
“I was first out of the chute on the subject,” he said.
Moos’ preference mirrors that of a lot of people. In his desired eight-team field, each of the Power Five conference champions would receive automatic berths, and a sixth berth would go to the highest-ranked Group of Five program. The final two spots would be at-large choices by the CFP selection committee.
“I like eight because it’s fair that those Power Five champions are represented and that the kids at Wyoming and San Diego State and Bowling Green have a hope that they can go upset the apple cart,” Moos said.
The at-large berths could go to power program — think Alabama or Ohio State or Oklahoma — that happens to get upset in a conference championship game.
Moos is adamant that the first round of games should be played on campuses.
“It’s a reward to the community. It’s another home game,” he said. “The university itself is showcased on a national stage. Some of my colleagues say, ‘Oh, there could be inclement weather so we’ve got to play in domes.’ But I’m like, ‘Listen, basically 100% of these players think they’re going to go play at the next level, and if you play for the Miami Dolphins, you’re going to get sent to Buffalo.’
“It’s the real world, man. The thing is, if you get a first-round game, it’s because you’ve earned it.”
Bottom line, Moos is steadfast in his preference for an eight-team field.
-
2011: A Cowboy Odyssey
Boy, this one is interesting. Aside from being the season responsible for the 4-team playoff, the 4th conference champ to get that 4-seed would have been 10th-ranked Wisconsin.
That means seeds 5-10 weren't conference winners. And once again, VT wins the ACC and would be left out. It's comical now (4 times out of 6 years, I believe).
Anyway, the bracket, so Okie State can shaddup about it:
.
8 Boise St
9 Kansas St..............winner vs 1 LSU
.
5 Alabama
12 TCU....................winner vs 4 Wisconsin
.
6 Stanford
11 Clemson..............winner vs 3 Oregon
.
7 Arkansas
10 South Carolina.......winner vs 2 Oklahoma St
.
.
Yeah, after looking at a lot of these, the setup is going to guarantee the top half is most often heaviest, because of the commonly-heavyweight 5 seeded team. Teams are going to start vying to be the 2-seed. They need to configure it so the 5-seed is in the opposite half of the bracket, away from the 1-seed.
/Looks at Wisconsin's placement
This is fine.
(This also reminds me of what a crock that rematch was. And that 5-1 thing will be funny when it tweaks the SEC, and eventually be massaged out)
-
That was a great Wisconsin offense. I think a team like Oregon could win this type of playoff, if Derron Thomas was healthy. LSU did beat them in the season opener, though.
.
I don't think any team, even those Badgers, would be able to beat that Alabama team and then turn around and beat LSU. People look down on that LSU team due to its showing in the NCG, but they beat the hell out of every ranked team they played, besides Bama. They were on the cusp of being an all-time great team.
-
That 8-team idea with only 2 at-larges is never going to fly because of ND. I don't know WHY ND can hold the college football world's nuts in a vice, but it seems like it can.
-
That was a great Wisconsin offense. I think a team like Oregon could win this type of playoff, if Derron Thomas was healthy. LSU did beat them in the season opener, though.
.
I don't think any team, even those Badgers, would be able to beat that Alabama team and then turn around and beat LSU. People look down on that LSU team due to its showing in the NCG, but they beat the hell out of every ranked team they played, besides Bama. They were on the cusp of being an all-time great team.
That LSU team had an amazing résumé.
That Bama team’s was surprisingly thin.
-
That 8-team idea with only 2 at-larges is never going to fly because of ND. I don't know WHY ND can hold the college football world's nuts in a vice, but it seems like it can.
ND can join the ACC.
Then the ACC would have 2 credible programs
-
The ACC COULD be pretty good, IFF Miami and FSU got somewhat back, UNC hangs around, BC gets to being an 8-4 kind of program, Clemson hangs and ND joins.
You'd perhaps have Laville and NCSU put in credible performances in some years, maybe UVA and of course VaTech could be good. They need a more solid middle and upper middle.
-
The ACC COULD be pretty good, IFF Miami and FSU got somewhat back, UNC hangs around, BC gets to being an 8-4 kind of program, Clemson hangs and ND joins.
You'd perhaps have Laville and NCSU put in credible performances in some years, maybe UVA and of course VaTech could be good. They need a more solid middle and upper middle.
they'd be pretty good if they just had 4 solid programs in bold
if BC was 8-4 and the Domers joined, the ACC would be darn good
-
I think for a conference to be good they need a solid middle, teams that can upset the top teams on occasion. You also need some top teams of course (Pac).
For Clemson to sail through a season unchallenged is obviously not impressive, as compared with say Ohio State having to face pretty credible opponents, not every Saturday, but 4-5 times a year.
-
The ACC may be a little thin at the top, but the entire Big Ten was looking up at Indiana and Northwestern last year.
-
A conference can SEEM weak if the traditional good teams are down, even if traditionally mediocre teams are up with the same exact records.
Helmetitis.
Imagine in some year, the SEC "powers" are all 7-5ish, and UK and MSU and Arky are vying at the top 11-1, Vandy is 8-4, and South Carolina is 9-3.
Or, we see Bama and UGA and LSU 11-1 (I wish), UF 9-3, Auburn is 8-4 and A&M is 9-3. It LOOKS different.
-
Yeah, but it is not as though Indiana and Northwestern are just brimming with NFL talent all of a sudden, as is the case with several of the SEC also rans.
Michigan, Penn St, Wisconsin, Nebraska, etc were just hilariously bad.
Just a case of Covid craziness? Maybe. Stay tuned.
-
We know ND isn't joining the ACC.
BC being a consistent winner died out with Tom O'Brien.
UVA being a consistent winner died out with George Welsh.
.
I don't see any reason why BC should matter. There's plenty of talent in VA, but unitl UVA is solidly a better program than VT, they need not worry about being a top program in the ACC.
-
well, I'm not rooting for Miami or FSU to raise from the ashes
I'm sure one or both will soon enough
plenty of NFL talent down there
-
well, I'm not rooting for Miami or FSU to raise from the ashes
I'm sure one or both will soon enough
plenty of NFL talent down there
Yeah, but Alabama is getting all of it.
-
I though Bama was just getting an endless influx of people moving in from the Midwest and Northeast?
-
Yeah, but Alabama is getting all of it.
between Bama, the Gators, and LSU, they can't take ALL of it.
those kids is quick, they grow up chasing rabbits in the cane patch
-
Just a case of Covid craziness? Maybe. Stay tuned.
I'm going to assume that much of it was a case of COVID craziness. 2020 was a weird year, with the back and forth on whether they'd play, how many games, then the conference not knowing who was actually going to be available to play any given week, etc.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-recruiting-rankings-teams-with-the-best-classes-over-a-five-year-average-entering-2021/
CBS says that in five-year recruiting rankings, the B1G has 4 teams in the top 20 nationally (all traditional powers in OSU/UM/PSU/UNL), with OSU leading the pack at #3.
The SEC leads the top 10 with 5 teams, the B1G and the B12 each have 2 teams in the top 10, and the ACC only one (Clemson).
From the top 11-20, you have 3 more SEC teams, 3 PAC teams, 3 ACC teams, 2 more B1G teams, Notre Dame, and zero B12.
I'd rank them:
- SEC (obviously)
- B1G (narrowly)
- ACC (narrowly)
- B12
- Notre Dame
- PAC
I don't see this year being a repeat of the 2020 COVID craziness for the B1G. There's too much talent on those rosters.
-
I though Bama was just getting an endless influx of people moving in from the Midwest and Northeast?
That's Florida.
-
between Bama, the Gators, and LSU, they can't take ALL of it.
those kids is quick, they grow up chasing rabbits in the cane patch
They don't want all of it, just the best of it.
-
well, I'm not rooting for Miami or FSU to raise from the ashes
I'm sure one or both will soon enough
plenty of NFL talent down there
With a decent coach, at least FSU should be able to field a decent team, I'm not talking world beaters necessarily, but a 9-4 kind of product in most years, and 10-3 on occasion. Miami might need a great coach or a cheater or both.
-
They don't want all of it, just the best of it.
plenty leftover for the Noles to go 10-3 in the ACC with a good coach
should be able to out recruit the Canes and Mack Brown and the rest of the ACC save Clemson
-
2013: Famous Jameis Crabbis Leggus
.
8 Missouri
9 South Carolina.............winner vs 1 Florida St
.
5 Alabama
12 UCF..........................winner vs 4 Stanford
.
6 Baylor
11 Oklahoma.................winner vs 3 Michigan St
.
7 Ohio St
10 Oregon.....................winner vs 2 Auburn
-
It wouldda been cool to see that Baylor offense vs MSU's defense.
..
Also, it's weird: Auburn's last 2 elite teams (2013, 2010) had poor defenses. Well, poor for a good team. Yet Auburn is traditionally a strong defensive program. Meh.
-
I was looking at this preseason ranking just to see how the playoff would work this year if this really happened (a double negative):
SI Says 12 Team Playoff Likely w/ 6 At-Large (cfb51.com) (https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/si-says-12-team-playoff-likely-w-6-at-large/210/)
Top four would be Bama Clemson OSU OU, no surprise there at all, all conference champions.
Then in order UGA ND A&M Florida Iowa State Cincy LSU USC
If I did this right, first round games would be simply:
USC @ UGA
LSU @ ND
UC @ A&M
ISU @ UF
This presumes no limit on SEC teams of course. The good news is those would be watchable games. Let's say the home teams win them all:
UGA - OU
ND - OSU
A&M - Clemson
Florida - Bama
SEC heavy of course if you do it this way, and one rematch of a RS game. Still watchable football.
If the top seeds win, Bama - OU and Clemson-OSU, kind of the usual group. Then Bama- Clemson, duh.
-
It wouldda been cool to see that Baylor offense vs MSU's defense.
..
Also, it's weird: Auburn's last 2 elite teams (2013, 2010) had poor defenses. Well, poor for a good team. Yet Auburn is traditionally a strong defensive program. Meh.
They met a year later, when Baylor was coming off missing the playoff. Baylor’s offense won the battle, while MSU won the game.
-
What was the worst idea for a CFB playoff format that you've seen or heard over recent years?
-
This one
vvvvvvvv
12 Team Playoff Likely w/ 6 At-Large (https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/si-says-12-team-playoff-likely-w-6-at-large/msg344917/#msg344917)
-
Obviously, some have suggested a 64 team playoff, not anyone serious of course. The most interesting idea I have heard was the "flex playoff" concept. The committee would decide each year how many teams should be included and arrange the playoff accordingly.
-
-Brushes it off-
.
FOUND IT!
-
Totally tubular.
-
What if the entire season was a triple elimination playoff with seeded teams and no conferences?
#1 would start with #130 or whatever at home, and so one.
That's probably the worst idea most here have heard.
-
What if the entire season was a triple elimination playoff with seeded teams and no conferences?
#1 would start with #130 or whatever at home, and so one.
That's probably the worst idea most here have heard.
I've actually thought about something like that.
Like you play your division for the first 5-6 games. Then you slot the teams into pots, like they do for international soccer tournaments, and have a draw. So (just for example), Pot #1 is the SECW #1, SECE #1, Big XII, and B10E #1. You draw, and they get seeds #1-4, and so on.
Then the remainder of the season is a double elimination tournament.
So everyone plays 7 games, anyone with a pulse plays 8-9, anyone decent plays 10-11, and the best team, I believe, still plays no more than 13.
Nobody is giving up that many home games though
-
Kind if a neat idea really. You could have a lower division perhaps where the losers play.
-
Kind if a neat idea really. You could have a lower division perhaps where the losers play.
We could call them "bowls"
-
Maybe this will be my next simulation project...
-
geez, youse guys do too much thinking
like the morons that thought up this 12-team playoff
-
Maybe this will be my next simulation project...
I'm thinking this. 6 week "regular season" consisting of purely divisional games. I'll figure out something to do with the Independents. Maybe work them in where there are less than 7 in a division.
That determines your seeding in 128 team, double elimination tournament. Your seeding holds throughout, except losing from the winners bracket is prioritized over winning from the losers bracket. Better seeded team always hosts
So...
Week 7 - 128 teams play
Week 8 - 128 teams play; 64 winners play each other, 64 losers play each other (32 teams eliminated)
Week 9 - 96 teams play; 32 undefeated teams play each other, 64 1-1 teams play each other (32 teams eliminated)
Week 10 - 64 teams play; 16 undefeated teams play each other, 48 2-1 teams play each other (24 teams eliminated)
Week 11 - 40 teams play; 8 undefeated teams play each other, 32 3-1 teams play each other (16 teams eliminated)
Week 12 - 24 teams play; 4 undefeated teams play each other, 20 4-1 teams play each other (10 teams eliminated)
Week 13 - 14 teams play; 2 undefeated teams get a bye, 12 5-1 teams play each other (6 teams eliminated)
Week 14 - 8 team single-elimination playoff; 2 undefeated teams HOST the two lowest seeded teams; 3-6 and 4-5 play in bowls
Week 15 - Semifinals at bowls
Week 16 - Championship Game
-
that format might take out Bama and Clemson a few times a decade
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-0/p526x296/208334357_4194092470628130_9152737454954262832_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=AhD8sSVoqo8AX9mIRMn&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&tp=6&oh=3e7429a4e631a727d516224fd115e207&oe=60DC21DF)
-
Neither...
(https://i.imgur.com/IgACpWy.jpg)
-
UGA eventually will win another NC, eventually, so will A&M, so will Florida. Probably not Tennessee, in my lifetime anyway. Heck, Vandy COULD win an NC in 40 years, it looks exceedingly improbable now.
The odds in any single year are against it obviously, even if they have the "best team".
Tennessee is losing players like crazy, which might be a good thing for them.
-
I'd have to put $10 on Georgia, because of recruiting
-
I think this UGA team is about as good as any they've had in the past 20 years or so. I figure that gives them roughly a 1 in 8 chance at winning the NC.
So, they'd need a team this good for a decade more or less.
-
or they could simply get lucky this season and hit the 1/8th chance
-
Let's not pretend it's simply about talent this year:
.
Cross Division Games:
Georgia: Arkansas & Auburn
Florida: Alabama & LSU
-
SOS is certainly a factor
luck of the draw?
-
It's never simply about talent. And of course UGA plays Clemson OOC, which is no walk in the park. Might not matter.
But Clemson is probably better than Florida Atl, South Florida, Samford, and FSU.
And none of that is relevant of course to conference slates.
But, it takes a break usually to win an NC, UGA had one with Bama a few years back and just didn't cover a WR in the EZ in OT.
It happens.
-
Let's not pretend it's simply about talent this year:
.
Cross Division Games:
Georgia: Arkansas & Auburn
Florida: Alabama & LSU
It seems like y'all often get screwed in the X-Div matchups.
-
like the Huskers and the Badgers in the West
-
The SEC East nearly always comes down to the WLOCP obviously, the other games are often irrevelant. And yes, if Florida loses to LSU and Bama and beats UGA who is 7-1 UGA prevails. That doesn't happen that often.
-
It seems like y'all often get screwed in the X-Div matchups.
Auburn clobbered LSU last year. Those X-Div match ups may be more equitable than you think.
-
Auburn clobbered LSU last year. Those X-Div match ups may be more equitable than you think.
Well LSU was downright terrible last year, that's for sure. Was it an aberration? I guess we'll see.
-
If you are bellyaching about your conference crossover slate, then you are most likely a pretender and not a contender.
-
I agree, to an extent.
not completely
-
You rarely if ever see a Clemson fan like "OMG, we have to play Virginia Tech and Pitt, while Florida State gets to play Miami and Duke!" or an OSU fan "Holy Hell, we draw Wisconsin and Iowa this year, while Penn St gets Illinois and Purdue. Might as well just go ahead and give the trophy to the Lions!"
-
that's cause the Tigers and Bucks haven't been upset by a cross division foe lately
-
The ACC is terrible outside of Clemson. There's no reason for Clemson to bellyache because there's nobody that can compete with them.
-
You're right. Ignoring context is best.
-
Auburn clobbered LSU last year. Those X-Div match ups may be more equitable than you think.
So you chosen to suggest here that Auburn > LSU = Alabama > Arkansas
.
Fantastic.
-
that's cause the Tigers and Bucks haven't been upset by a cross division foe lately
I don't see much bellyaching out of Bama either. "Oh geez, we gotta play Georgia and LSU gets to play Kentucky."
The real title contenders don't do this. Teams that are kinda good and hoping to catch a bunch of breaks do this.
-
LSU does it basically every year, since around 2009 when it was evident that Tennessee was going to be an annual layup for Bama.
.
And I do love how pointing out something in one post = bellyaching
-
You may not see such "bellyaching" from B10 fans because only OSU has won a NC in these player's lifetimes. 4 different SEC teams have, and playing 2 of those 4 in any given season is an extra hurdle.
But I know, I know, shhhhhh.
-
Yes, LSU bellyaches about it, not Bama. Bama is a perennial title contender, while LSU is a really good team hoping to catch a bunch of breaks. Thanks for illustrating my point so beautifully.
-
Even take the Big 12. You aren't going to see Oklahoma like "Crap, we have KSU and OSU2 on the road, while Iowa State gets to play them at home!" but you would see Iowa State saying that if the situation were reversed.
-
Noting the schedule as a factor is simply that. Turning it into belly aching is not really needed in my book. I'd rather have UGA's crossover schedule this year than Florida's, it is not the case every year of course.
It's also true that elite teams don't much care. UGA isn't there.
-
I guess. It is just interesting to note the different mentalities that develop at the various levels of the totem pole.
OSU fans are always elated to see good B1G West teams on the crossover schedule. When it's Illinois and Minnesota they are like "Holy crap, this schedule sucks!" They want to watch a lot of big games, not easy Ws.
-
That's how bored you are with the 13 dwarfs
-
So you chosen to suggest here that Auburn > LSU = Alabama > Arkansas
.
Fantastic.
No. I was comparing Florida playing LSU to Georgia playing Auburn. Florida playing Alabama during the regular season is so rare as to make it irrelevant for the purpose of this exercise.
-
Yes, LSU bellyaches about it, not Bama. Bama is a perennial title contender, while LSU is a really good team hoping to catch a bunch of breaks. Thanks for illustrating my point so beautifully.
Again, context. You're ignoring the WHY behind their belly-aching. Alabama CHOSE Tennessee. Georgia CHOSE Auburn. Everyone else got slapped together with someone because reasons.
.
I'd go more in-depth, but it will only be chalked up to whining.
-
Bama "chose" Tennessee because they thought that they'd be good. Not because they wanted a built in scheduling advantage.
It may have worked out that way, but that's not the way that they drew it up.
-
They chose them because of tradition. Not how good or bad they were.
I'll always be amazed how 4 teams held the other 8 hostage.
-
A traditional that was born out of both teams being good.
In hindsight they probably should have gone with Florida, but if they had done that then your current crossover situation would be quite a bit more dire than the one that you are all up in arms about. O0
-
Maybe it's just me but if I were a Florida fan, then my scheduling wishlist would include either LSU or Bama as the fixed crossover. I would want 9 SEC games instead of 8 in order to increase my chances of getting to play both. I would want to maintain annual OOC rivalries with Florida St "and" Miami instead of "or." I would not at all prioritize scheduling anyone else OOC instead of them. When you have three teams in one state that all racked up multiple NCs around the same time while regularly playing each other, set that tradition in stone. That's right up there with the Commander in Chief trophy as about as good an OOC tradition as you can possibly hope for as a CFB fan of any stripe.
The one area where I might go a little off script would be the FCS/Bye week combo that precedes the FSU game. Get rid of it? No! Give me the worst FCS team that the South has to offer and let's see if the Gators can hang 100 on them!
I mean you guys are the most poised in all of CFB to just make your team an absolute videogame experience. Yet they don't even try to maximize all of those gifts. "Here! The ultimate annual nonconferece slate imaginable!" "Nah, we're good."
-
King Barry thinks it might be time to go back to 8 BIG conference games to level the field, if the SEC absolutely won't consider going to 9
-
I mean you guys are the most poised in all of CFB to just make your team an absolute videogame experience. Yet they don't even try to maximize all of those gifts. "Here! The ultimate annual nonconferece slate imaginable!" "Nah, we're good."
Right, a video game experience, where you win 99% of the time. Here in reality, if Florida had done what you're suggesting the past 30 years, we'd have zero NCs and probably peak at 10-2.
We'd be Purdue or somebody.
No thanks.
-
Yes, that is the mindset that I would expect you to have.
Bama on the other hand...
-
Bama is in the midst of the all-time best run in the history of college football. Citing them is a waste of an example.
-
Let's not pretend it's simply about talent this year:
.
Cross Division Games:
Georgia: Arkansas & Auburn
Florida: Alabama & LSU
Good thing UF is rebuilding? Also not sure what LSU will be.
Also, I'm of the opinion they need to do away with the locked crossovers with this elegant solution: If you don't have the game you want, schedule it in the non-conference. So in the two of three years Bama and UT don't play, they just schedule each other right before the SEC season starts. Same with UGA and Auburn and the one other one that actually means anything. Then LSU-UF, SC-A&M, MSU-UK, Ole Miss-Vandy and probably Arkansas-Mizzouri can all die a natural and dignified death.
(Or Florida can hold onto it if they want. Whatever)
-
Bama is in the midst of the all-time best run in the history of college football. Citing them is a waste of an example.
'
No, that's actually my point. Teams at the top don't back down from a challenge.
I get the other side of the coin. If OSU plays Western Kentucky in 2008 instead of USC, then they spend the season in the NC hunt with a senior QB instead of being forced into a rebuilding year breaking in a freshman QB.
That mentality doesn't fly with OSU fans though. You'd be laughed out of the room if you came up with that particular suggestion.
-
'
No, that's actually my point. Teams at the top don't back down from a challenge.
I get the other side of the coin. If OSU plays Western Kentucky in 2008 instead of USC, then they spend the season in the NC hunt with a senior QB instead of being forced into a rebuilding year breaking in a freshman QB.
That mentality doesn't fly with OSU fans though. You'd be laughed out of the room if you came up with that particular suggestion.
You're turning a scheduling inequity into a test of manhood. Ooga-booga.
-
In that case I'm wasting my time. You relinquished that long before this. O0
-
Of course you're wasting your time.
-
True, but I am also pointing out that your argument is a complete and total straw man. My opinion of your manhood is not effected one way or another by you reacting exactly the way that I anticipated.
-
I don't care.
To you, anything I say is wrong.
I get it.
Get another hobby.
-
Not everything, but this one is, imo.
I don't think that Miami would have derailed either of the NCs that Florida won with Meyer or Tebow.
By ducking them all you've done is cost yourselves a bunch of easy Ws in Florida-Miami series, as the Gators have been by far the better program over the last 15+ years.
You're not the only one of course. Oklahoma should be trying to pad their record vs Nebraska instead of ducking them. aTm should be trying to gain some ground in the Longhorn series instead of ducking them.
Oh well.
-
Not everything, but this one is, imo.
I don't think that Miami would have derailed either of the NCs that Florida won with Meyer or Tebow.
By ducking them all you've done is cost yourselves a bunch of easy Ws in Florida-Miami series, as the Gators have been by far the better program over the last 15+ years.
You're not the only one of course. Oklahoma should be trying to pad their record vs Nebraska instead of ducking them. aTm should be trying to gain some ground in the Longhorn series instead of ducking them.
Oh well.
You are ignoring the fact that this is about MONEY not manhood.
The PAC schools tend to play better OOC opponents not because they are manlier but because they can't sell tickets to crap games because football in general and CFB specifically are not as big on the West Coast as they are in the Midwest and South.
The Buckeyes are now in a pattern of playing nine conference games, one marquee OOC game, and two scrubs. In theory they could play three marquee OOC games instead. Most of us, as fans, would love to see an OOC slate of Bama, Clemson, and Oklahoma but the AD at tOSU doesn't schedule that. Why? It isn't because he is ducking Bama/Clemson/OU, it is because we (the fans) are willing to fork over cash for tickets to games against Ohio MAC schools so he doesn't have to schedule Bama/Clemson/OU to sell tickets. He can fill the stadium with paying customers for games against BGSU, Toledo, Akron, Kent, OhU, etc. He does that not because he isn't manly enough to schedule Bama/Clemson/OU but because financially he is better off with BGSU/Toledo/Akron.
The quick math:
When tOSU schedules those marquee OOC home games the opponents demand a return trip. Thus, in a two-year cycle the Buckeyes end up with one great home game that they can charge a premium for and one road game that they get nothing (financially) from. The same goes for UF/Miami and everybody else for that matter.
If the Buckeyes instead schedule BGSU they pay them a small fraction of the gate, keep the rest, and don't have to go to their place the next year so they get two crap home games instead of one good one.
I do think that this will change moving forward for two reasons:
- The pressure to "never schedule a loss" will lessen as the playoff expands. Pre-BCS, OOC losses were nearly always fatal to NC hopes. In the BCS era OOC losses were frequently fatal to NC hopes. In the CFP era so far OOC losses have nearly always been fatal to NC hopes but there are exceptions (tOSU's OOC loss to VaTech in 2014 for one). When the CFP expands to eight or (probably) 12 OOC losses will no longer be so damaging. If a B1G or SEC Championship basically guarantees you a spot then who cares if you lose OOC to Miami or Bama?
- Ticket demand is clearly softening. We've talked at length on this board about the CFB Bubble and I believe that it is real. As that process continues it will become increasingly difficult for schools like tOSU and UF to fill their stadiums with paying customers for games against crap opponents so they will have to upgrade their schedules in order to sell tickets. That doesn't necessarily mean that UF will start playing Miami every year or that tOSU will increase to two or three Marquee games but it does mean that the crap games will necessarily be replaced by better games.
-
I'd like teams to play at least ten P5 level opponents a year reg season.
I thought some B1G teams would drop OOC P5 opponents with the 9 game conference slate, but I don't think any did.
-
of Ohio St and Texas really wanted more money they would schedule big time opponents
the TV networks LOVE this
and Ohio St wouldn't have to write checks for 6 figures to encourage scrubs to come to C-Bus for a beating
but, obviously the helmets are flush with cash
-
I'd like teams to play at least ten P5 level opponents a year reg season.
I thought some B1G teams would drop OOC P5 opponents with the 9 game conference slate, but I don't think any did.
I think this is a fine idea in concept but I think the specifics would be tricky for two reasons:
- Not all P5 opponents are created equal, and
- Not all non-P5 opponents are created equal.
What I mean is that if two B1G schools both play the exact same league schedule (each other and eight other B1G teams) and they both play two common OOC opponents (lets say Notre Dame and Bowling Green), then one plays a REALLY good non-P5 (lets say UCF/Boise/Memphis the best G5 team) while the other plays a REALLY bad P5 (lets say Kansas), who played a better schedule?
One of them played 11 P5 opponents and Bowling Green.
The other played 10 P5 opponents, Bowling Green and the best non-P5 available.
I would argue that the second played a tougher schedule because despite not being P5, UCF/Boise/Memphis are pretty good and despite being P5, Kansas is pretty awful.
-
of Ohio St and Texas really wanted more money they would schedule big time opponents
the TV networks LOVE this
and Ohio St wouldn't have to write checks for 6 figures to encourage scrubs to come to C-Bus for a beating
but, obviously the helmets are flush with cash
There is a quirk there:
Ohio State doesn't get paid directly by the networks. Instead, the B1G has a contract with the network and Ohio State gets 1/14th of that money. Lets say, in theory, that the networks are willing to pay $14,500,000 for tOSU vs TX but only $250,000 for tOSU vs BG.
If Ohio State plays BG twice the league (not tOSU) gets $500,000 for the two games.
Alternatively, if Ohio State plays a H&H with TX the B1G gets $14,500,000 for the game in Columbus while the B12/TX get the money for the game in Austin.
The B1G is $14,000,000 better off with tOSU playing Texas, but Ohio State is only $1,000,000 (1/14th) better off. Ohio Stadium holds more than 100,000 people so as long as tOSU can get at least $10 per ticket for the game against BG, the Ohio State University Athletic Department is better off playing BG twice at home rather than TX in an H&H.
The obvious solution would be to allocate the league's TV money based on ratings draw. The problem is that this solution would be GREAT for Ohio State and probably reasonably good Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska and a few others but it would be seriously detrimental to the smaller schools.
-
OOC schedules usually are made 7-10 years out. You really don't know how good an opponent would be then. But generally a P5 level opponent will be better than a G5. It eliminates teams playing 8 conference games, a "Georgia Tech", and three known pastries.
And of course the elite level teams sell out no matter who they play, they might have a lot of empty seats.
-
agreed, the time for the upgrade in non-con schedules would be at the time of the next contract negotiation with FOX/ESPN
Barry Alvarez is in favor of going back to 8 conference games to level the playing field with the SEC.
my point was, if non-con scheduling really wanted to make money for Ohio St and the Big Ten, there would be better games vs better teams
-
OOC schedules usually are made 7-10 years out. You really don't know how good an opponent would be then. But generally a P5 level opponent will be better than a G5. It eliminates teams playing 8 conference games, a "Georgia Tech", and three known pastries.
And of course the elite level teams sell out no matter who they play, they might have a lot of empty seats.
agreed, the time for the upgrade in non-con schedules would be at the time of the next contract negotiation with FOX/ESPN
Barry Alvarez is in favor of going back to 8 conference games to level the playing field with the SEC.
my point was, if non-con scheduling really wanted to make money for Ohio St and the Big Ten, there would be better games vs better teams
IMHO, the solution to both of these issues would be a challenge similar to the B1G/ACC Challenge in CBB.
Problem #1, pointed out by @Cincydawg (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=870) above is that you don't always get what you thought you were getting. You might schedule a game against a bad P5 but then that team improves dramatically over the intervening 7-10 years and you end up playing a REALLY good opponent. Alternatively, you might do the reverse.
Problem #2, pointed out by @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) above is that it really needs to be a conference initiative because all teams share the money.
A challenge series fixes this. Every team would be involved so all would participate and all would share the extra cash.
You could use pre-season rankings or somesuch to determine which teams play. Imagine a B1G/SEC challenge. Right now you would expect tOSU and Bama to play each other every year as #1/#1 but in 7-10 years that could be completely different. No matter what, the better teams in the B1G would play better teams from the SEC and the bottom feeders in the B1G would play bottom feeders in the SEC. In theory you'd get 14 reasonably competitive games.
Finally, after selling the initial TV rights, the BTN and SECN would get the secondary TV rights so that BTN could re-air B1G wins and SECN could re-air SEC wins.
-
You could use pre-season rankings or somesuch to determine which teams play. Imagine a B1G/SEC challenge. Right now you would expect tOSU and Bama to play each other every year as #1/#1 but in 7-10 years that could be completely different. No matter what, the better teams in the B1G would play better teams from the SEC and the bottom feeders in the B1G would play bottom feeders in the SEC. In theory you'd get 14 reasonably competitive games.
Finally, after selling the initial TV rights, the BTN and SECN would get the secondary TV rights so that BTN could re-air B1G wins and SECN could re-air SEC wins.
I don't think you'd like how the Big Ten would fare in the #2-#8ish type games
-
Y
The Buckeyes are now in a pattern of playing nine conference games, one marquee OOC game, and two scrubs. In theory they could play three marquee OOC games instead. Most of us, as fans, would love to see an OOC slate of Bama, Clemson, and Oklahoma but the AD at tOSU doesn't schedule that. Why? It isn't because he is ducking Bama/Clemson/OU, it is because we (the fans) are willing to fork over cash for tickets to games against Ohio MAC schools so he doesn't have to schedule Bama/Clemson/OU to sell tickets. He can fill the stadium with paying customers for games against BGSU, Toledo, Akron, Kent, OhU, etc. He does that not because he isn't manly enough to schedule Bama/Clemson/OU but because financially he is better off with BGSU/Toledo/Akron.
.
When Tressel was the HC you could count on one marquee game against a Helmet/Top 10, and one game against a team from Ohio. It wasn't nearly as awesome as having a fixed, natural OOC rival, but at the very least it was something that you could count on.
I don't think that you can point to either as a staple on the OOC schedule anymore. In the 2010s, you had Miami(FL) in 10 and 11, which was the tail end of Tressel ball. Since then Oklahoma has been the only OOC series that lived up to what we had become accustomed in the 20-ots. Cal? Va Tech? TCU? Colorado and OSU3? This is a pretty big drop off from USC, Texas, etc that OSU had H-As with the previous decade.
As for the annual Ohio teams, that sputtered out in 2014. Since then OSU played BG in 16, and then Miami and Cincinnati (which also doubled as the "marquee" match up) in 19.
-
I don't think you'd like how the Big Ten would fare in the #2-#8ish type games
Considering our 2 and 3 are Northwestern and Indiana, I'd have to agree here.
-
When Tressel was the HC you could count on one marquee game against a Helmet/Top 10, and one game against a team from Ohio. It wasn't nearly as awesome as having a fixed, natural OOC rival, but at the very least it was something that you could count on.
I don't think that you can point to either as a staple on the OOC schedule anymore. In the 2010s, you had Miami(FL) in 10 and 11, which was the tail end of Tressel ball. Since then Oklahoma has been the only OOC series that lived up to what we had become accustomed in the 20-ots. Cal? Va Tech? TCU? Colorado and OSU3? This is a pretty big drop off from USC, Texas, etc that OSU had H-As with the previous decade.
As for the annual Ohio teams, that sputtered out in 2014. Since then OSU played BG in 16, and then Miami and Cincinnati (which also doubled as the "marquee" match up) in 19.
I *THINK* this is temporary rather than permanent:
- Oregon was on the schedule for 2020/1 but the 2020 game got nixed due to COVID. They are back on for 2032/3
- ND is on the schedule for 2022/3
- Washington is on the schedule for 2024/5
- Texas is on the schedule for 2025/6
- Bama is on the schedule for 2027/8
- UGA is on the schedule for 2030/31
Future OOC schedule for the Buckeyes with what I view as "marquee" games bolded.
2021:
2022:
- Notre Dame
- Arkansas St
- Toledo
2023:
2024:
2025:
2026:
- Ball State
- @ Texas
- Boston College
2027:
2028:
2029:
2030:
2031:
2032:
2033:
You really can't complain about that. Oregon, Notre Dame, Bama, and UGA have all been to the CFP while Texas and Washington are traditional powers as well. Even the Boston College series is quasi-Marquee.
-
I don't think you'd like how the Big Ten would fare in the #2-#8ish type games
Considering our 2 and 3 are Northwestern and Indiana, I'd have to agree here.
Yeah, I agree. Looking at the last few seasons I think that Ohio State would have a hard time matching Bama but in a decade the Buckeyes would probably win 3-4. I also think that the bottom feeders in the B1G would be as good or possibly better than the bottom feeders in the SEC but roughly that 2-8 group would would be problematic for us.
I was thinking more in terms of money. That would be a slew of big-draw games.
-
2-8 group would make some good $$$$
-
I *THINK* this is temporary rather than permanent:
- Oregon was on the schedule for 2020/1 but the 2020 game got nixed due to COVID. They are back on for 2032/3
- ND is on the schedule for 2022/3
- Washington is on the schedule for 2024/5
- Texas is on the schedule for 2025/6
- Bama is on the schedule for 2027/8
- UGA is on the schedule for 2030/31
Future OOC schedule for the Buckeyes with what I view as "marquee" games bolded.
2021:
2022:
- Notre Dame
- Arkansas St
- Toledo
2023:
2024:
2025:
2026:
- Ball State
- @ Texas
- Boston College
2027:
2028:
2029:
2030:
2031:
2032:
2033:
You really can't complain about that. Oregon, Notre Dame, Bama, and UGA have all been to the CFP while Texas and Washington are traditional powers as well. Even the Boston College series is quasi-Marquee.
Yeah that does look pretty good. I seem to remember the 2010's future schedules looking similar going in, but then a lot of it never happened. There was a cancelled series or two (with Georgia or Tennessee?), and then the TCU H-A series got restructured into a neutral site one off.
I can also buy that Miami and Virginia Tech were expected to be good when the games were scheduled, but Cal? They have always been awful aside from a brief window where they had Aaron Rogers, and even if that was when the game got scheduled I'm not sure that was enough data to project them as being any kind of a good team ten years down the line.
Just spit balling here, you are right. They haven't given up on the OOC Mega-bout yet.
-
What's the best way to beef up the 2-8 to the point where the Big Ten can get a few at large teams?
OSU seems poised for the autobid more years than not, but the Big Ten is going to need to produce a competent team or three out of Penn St, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa and Michigan St more often than not.
We can't be sending Indiana and Northwestern to the gallows every year.
-
Last year was a blip.
-
Last year was a blip.
Agreed and I'll add that if/when they expand to 12 that will nearly always mean room for a second B1G team. Ironically, the years when our league would be least likely to get a second team would probably be those years in which the league is REALLY good but balanced enough that every team ends up with 2+ losses.
-
Northwestern sucked last year, but take the name off Indiana's uniform, and they are a pretty typical #3 Big Ten team.
-
I like seeing Indiana being pretty decent, same with NW when it happens, and it does.
I was hoping Purdue would sustain a move up. Kentucky is pretty decent now too, a real testament to coaching I think.
Tennessee used to be decent.
-
I like seeing Indiana being pretty decent, same with NW when it happens, and it does.
I was hoping Purdue would sustain a move up. Kentucky is pretty decent now too, a real testament to coaching I think.
Tennessee used to be decent.
Purdue is, and has been for the better part of a decade, a good OL away from being a halfway decent team. Instead, a bad OL means short drives, which means a defense gassed by the third quarter, which means blowouts.
Brohm had a COMPLETE dumpster fire of an OL when he arrived. He's been rebuilding ever since, but it seems that as his recruiting improved, his OL recruits improved, but there's a 2-3 year lag to be a serviceable starter. So he's got upperclassmen with low recruiting rankings from his first class or two, with too-young underclassmen who have better rankings behind them but not physically ready to start.
Hoping this will be the year it REALLY starts to come together. I feel like he's finally starting to get OL pieces in place and a few of them are in that RS So or true Jr age range where they are ready to take the field.
Now... If he stops playing QB roulette behind them, and get an RB, and the defense sheds all signs of its Diaco infestation... We might not suck?
-
Now... If he stops playing QB roulette behind them
I feel like that's been the issue for a decade. Maybe longer. Way too quick to give the backup reps, then he becomes the darling, he earns the job. QB seems solid going into next year...and then they repeat. The weird thing is it has occurred across three different coaching staffs.
-
Hoping this will be the year it REALLY starts to come together. I feel like he's finally starting to get OL pieces in place and a few of them are in that RS So or true Jr age range where they are ready to take the field.
Now... If he stops playing QB roulette behind them, and get an RB, and the defense sheds all signs of its Diaco infestation... We might not suck?
my feelings about Frost almost exactly
-
I like the term "QB roulette". I can easily see one QB not doing well behind a weak OL (duh) and you'd think QB 2 would do better, but he doesn't (because of bad OL).
QB 3 maybe is young and fleet of foot, so you toss him in and ruin his confidence.
Back to QB 1.
Everything starts with the OL, everything.
-
Luke McCaffrey is young and fleet of foot, so you toss him in and ruin his confidence.
-
I like the term "QB roulette". I can easily see one QB not doing well behind a weak OL (duh) and you'd think QB 2 would do better, but he doesn't (because of bad OL).
QB 3 maybe is young and fleet of foot, so you toss him in and ruin his confidence.
Back to QB 1.
Everything starts with the OL, everything.
Yep. Darrell Hazell nearly broke Danny Etling and Austin Appleby by putting them behind a bad OL, then replacing them midseason, before they both ended up transferring in successive years to SEC schools.
Brohm has a "type" at QB, and he desperately wanted Elijah Sindelar to be the guy. But he was behind a bad OL and was a statue back there, and that's a terrible combination. I think both years it required injuries to Sindelar to put in David Blough, who didn't have the same arm strength or fit "the mold" that Brohm wanted, but could actually play football behind a bad OL.
Going into 2021, we have NO clue who our starting QB is going to be. Perhaps Brohm has a clue, but he's notoriously tight-lipped about these things.
-
My "model", which is hard to do in college, is start with the OL. Build an offense that gives your defense some rest. Grind away at the opposing defense.
-
Couldn't Purdue just task their Engineering Dept to design some OL cyborgs?
-
Couldn't Purdue just task their Engineering Dept to design some OL cyborgs?
They built some brace for Isaac Haas' elbow, but not quick enough to avoid the stupid hook and hold rule from happening
-
Couldn't Purdue just task their Engineering Dept to design some OL cyborgs?
They built some brace for Isaac Haas' elbow, but not quick enough to avoid the stupid hook and hold rule from happening
And we're still waiting on the NCAA eligibility waiver for the cyborgs...
...not to mention the occasional times where they go on murderous rampages trying to kill all humans to take over the world.
'tis a minor bug.
-
Yeah that does look pretty good. I seem to remember the 2010's future schedules looking similar going in, but then a lot of it never happened. There was a cancelled series or two (with Georgia or Tennessee?), and then the TCU H-A series got restructured into a neutral site one off.
I can also buy that Miami and Virginia Tech were expected to be good when the games were scheduled, but Cal? They have always been awful aside from a brief window where they had Aaron Rogers, and even if that was when the game got scheduled I'm not sure that was enough data to project them as being any kind of a good team ten years down the line.
Just spit balling here, you are right. They haven't given up on the OOC Mega-bout yet.
Continuing the spit-balling, I'm happy with what they are doing. An article I stumbled into when getting the future schedules noted that 2019 was a "scheduling quirk" and 2020's marquee matchup was nixed due to COVID. You referenced 2019 when Cincinnati was tOSU's best OOC game (FAU, Miami, OH, Cincy). 2020 was supposed to be Oregon and that definitely counts as "marquee" considering that they won the PAC in 2020 and have been to the CFP.
Prior years OOC:
2018:
- OrSU
- TCU - "neutral" site in Dallas
- Tulane
- I'll concede that neither TCU nor OrSU are truly "marquee" but having them both in the same year kinda adds up to a single "marquee" game, no?
2017:
- Oklahoma
- Army
- UNLV
- OU is definitely marquee
2016:
- BGSU
- Tulsa
- @ Oklahahoma
- OU is definitely marquee
2015:
- @ VaTech
- Hawaii
- No. IL
- WMU
- VaTech counts or at least they counted when scheduled
2014:
- Navy
- VaTech
- Kent
- Cincy
- VaTech counts, see 2015
2013:
- Buffalo
- SDSU
- @ Cal
- Fla A&M
- I'll give the AD a pass on Cal because I think that was scheduled right around the time they were looking pretty decent.
2012:
- Miami, OH
- UCF
- Cal
- See Cal above
2011:
- Akron
- Toledo
- @ Miami, FL
- Colorado
- Miami is definitely marquee and Colorado can be
2010:
- Marshall
- Miami, FL
- Ohio U
- EMU
- Miami is marquee
2009:
- Navy
- USC
- Toledo
- NMST
- USC is definitely marquee
2008:
- YSU
- Ohio U
- USC
- Troy
- USC is definitely marquee
2007:
- YSU
- Akron
- Washington
- Kent
- Washington sucked that year (4-9) but they are usually a good program and it was obviously scheduled well in advance.
2006:
- No. Ill
- @ Texas
- Cincy
- BGSU
- Texas is marquee
2005:
- Miami, FL
- Texas
- SDSU
- Texas is marquee
2004:
- Cincy
- Marshall
- NCST
- Eh, this one is pretty weak. NCST was sub .500 while Marshall and Cincy weren't much better.
2003:
- Washington
- SDSU
- NCST
- BGSU
- Washington was supposed to be the marquee match-up but they were mediocre that year. NCST was not much better. Still, two middling P5's isn't THAT bad.
2002:
- TxTech
- Kent
- Washington St
- Cincy - "neutral" site in Cincy
- SJSU
- TxTech was decent (Pirate was there then) and WSU won the PAC so that counts I think.
2001:
- Akron
- @ UCLA
- SDSU
- UCLA is a big name even if they weren't great that year.
2000:
- Fresno
- Zona
- Miami, OH
- This was in the era when Fresno was one of the premier non-BCS schools in the nation and Zona is P5. This isn't terrible.
1999:
- Miami, FL - neutral site in Jersey
- UCLA
- Ohio U
- Cincy
- Maimi is marquee
1998:
- @ WVU
- Toledo
- Mizzou
- WVU and Mizzou both went 8-4 so neither was great but that is still two BCS schools, this was a quality OOC.
1997:
- Wyoming
- BGSU
- Zona
- @ Mizzou
- Zona and Mizzou both went 7-5 so neither was great but that is still two BCS schools, this was a quality OOC.
1996:
- Rice
- Pitt
- @ Notre Dame
- ND is marquee
1995:
- BC
- Washington
- Pitt
- Notre Dame
- This was a monster schedule on paper that kinda faded. BC ended up sub .500 but they were generally at least decent in that era. Washington went 7-4-1 but they are a traditional PAC contender. Pitt was horrible that year (2-9) but they are usually better. Notre Dame was decent at 9-3.
1994:
- Fresno
- @ Washington
- Pitt
- Houston
- Washington should usually be at least close to a marquee match
1993:
- Rice
- Washington
- @ Pitt
- Washington should usually be at least close to a marquee match
1992:
- Louisville
- BGSU
- Cuse
- Today Louisville would be the marquee game in that slate but back then it was Cuse and they backed it up going 10-2.
1991:
- Zona
- Louisville
- WSU
- This ended up being two bad PAC teams as both Zona and WSU finished 4-7 but that is still two major conference opponents.
1990:
- TxTech
- @ BC
- USC
- USC is a marquee game and all three of these were in major conferences (B12, B-East, PAC)
1989:
- OkSU
- @ USC
- BC
- USC is marquee
1988:
- Cuse
- @ Pitt
- LSU
- This was a strong OOC at the time.
1987:
- WVU
- Oregon
- @ LSU
- This was a great OOC. LSU was 1/2 game from winning the SEC while WVU and Oregon were both major conference middlings.
1986:
- Bama - neutral site in Jersey
- @ Washington
- Colorado
- Utah
- This was a great OOC but the Buckeyes suffered for it. They lost to Bama in Jersey then got whipped by Washington in Seattle. Then they won nine straight before losing to Michigan. They finished as co-champions with M but lost the H2H tiebreaker and beat aTm in the Cotton Bowl to finish 10-3 because Earle lost exactly three games each year from 1980-1986.
1985:
- Pitt
- @ Colorado
- WSU
- This ended up being pretty weak but on paper Pitt, Colorado, and Washington St should have been a good OOC.
1984:
- OrSU
- WSU
- This was during the era when the Big Ten was playing a full round-robin of nine games and only 11 were allowed so the Buckeyes only had two OOC games. Both the Beavers and the Cougars sucked that year but at least they were power conference teams.
My point here is that the idea of having a "marquee" OOC game significantly pre-dates Jim Tressel's arrival in Columbus. In my earlier post I listed OOC games out through 2033. Above I listed past OOC games back to 1984. Put together that is a 50 year stretch of tOSU's OOC schedules and nearly every year includes what either was or was intended to be a "marquee" opponent.
Also, I stopped at 1984 because I thought that 50 years was plenty not because they didn't play marquee OOC games before that. On the contrary they played Oklahoma in 1983, FSU in 1981/2, three major conference schools each in 1979/80, Penn State in 1978, etc.
-
Yeah, pre-BCS it was unheard of to schedule a MAC team.
My point with Tressel is that he would schedule a whopper while everyone else was fattening up on cupcakes.
He may have cost himself a NC in there somewhere, with early season losses to Texas and USC that derailed seasons before they started. In theory they could have loaded up on Mac and Fcs, and been firing on all cylinders by seasons end. But I like that they don't shy away from the early season test.
-
And we're still waiting on the NCAA eligibility waiver for the cyborgs...
...not to mention the occasional times where they go on murderous rampages trying to kill all humans to take over the world.
'tis a minor bug.
I mean Nebraska won a national title with Lawrence Phillips, so you just need to learn how to harness it
-
I mean Nebraska won a national title with Lawrence Phillips, so you just need to learn how to harness it
Our engineers seem to keep erring on the side of putting MORE intelligence into the cyborgs, thinking that's a good thing.
We try to tell them "they're only football players; dumb it down", but they haven't learned Nebraska's lesson yet.
-
FWIW:
Brutus, if I were scheduling for tOSU I would generally prioritize the "helmet" schools that tOSU has:
- Played the fewest number of times, or
- Played the least recently, or
- Has the worst record against
From Stewart Mandel's old Kings/Barons/Knights/Peasants (https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/college-football-program-pecking-order-3-0-dividing-all-66-bcs-teams-into-four-tier-hierarchy) here are all of the non-B1G Kings and Barons with tOSU's record against them, most recent games, future scheduled games, and my "priority" for scheduling them:
(https://i.imgur.com/QcfMsdb.png)
There are six Kings and Barons that tOSU has neither hosted nor visited. They are my top four scheduling priorities along with UGA and Bama which are both on future schedules (2030/1 and 2027/8 respectively). Then there are two more that Ohio State has hosted but not visited and they are my next two scheduling priorities (FSU, aTm). After that my priority list is just a slightly modified list in order of how long it has been since the Buckeyes played them.
-
Yeah, pre-BCS it was unheard of to schedule a MAC team.
My point with Tressel is that he would schedule a whopper while everyone else was fattening up on cupcakes.
He may have cost himself a NC in there somewhere, with early season losses to Texas and USC that derailed seasons before they started. In theory they could have loaded up on Mac and Fcs, and been firing on all cylinders by seasons end. But I like that they don't shy away from the early season test.
In addition to what I listed above, what I would really like to see them do is to accept playing one OOC non-home game every year by doing one of three things:
- Just increase to two high-end OOC games per year (one home, one away), or
- Try to get 2-for-1 deals with quality non-P5's like Boise, UCF, Memphis, etc. MSU did this with Boise and it would probably be beneficial for both schools. The non-P5 gets three cracks at a MAJOR Helmet in tOSU while tOSU gets a much bigger draw of a home game than they would out of some MAC school. or
- Book a neutral site game that is reasonably neutral (ie, not Clemson, UGA, or Bama in Atlanta) against a high-end team. Notre Dame in Chicago or NYC would be fine as would Texas in St. Louis, something like that.
-
Atlanta would be a pretty neutral site for Ohio State, really. The crowd might be 60-40.
-
Yeah, pre-BCS it was unheard of to schedule a MAC team.
I remember my dad being pissed in 1995 when Michigan had home games against Miami(Ohio) and Memphis, that season ticket holders still had to pay same price for those. That was the first time I recall them playing a mid-major...and they played two. They played Virginia in the Pigskin Classic and also BC, but still. That was it, until 1998, when they hosted Eastern Michigan
-
In 1971, UGA finished 10-1, beat Oregon State, Tulane, Clemson, and Tech, and went to the Gator Bowl.
They lost a late game to Auburn where Sullivan made some miracle throws.
Gator Bowl, yay. Beat UNC.
-
2019 when Cincinnati was tOSU's best OOC game (Miami, OH, Cincy).
Prior years OOC:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
- Kent
- Cincy - "neutral" site in Cincy
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1993-19966:
1992:
.
1935-1991:
kind of an interesting deep dive into the Ohio/Mac patterns.
- There was a clear pattern at one point where they rotated through each Mac-Ohio opponent thrice.
- Somehow BG got an extra game tacked onto each end of this, with the 92 trial balloon game, and then the 2015 Urban Meyer appreciation game.
- Toledo was ready to back out of it after getting boat raced in 98, and had to be coddled with a "home game" at Cleveland Browns stadium.
- They intend to play each Mac school outside of Ohio at least once.
- They haven't played CMU or Ball St yet.
- Marshall got two games, even though they left the Mac in the middle of all of this, likely due to the fact that you could drive a golf ball into Ohio from their campus.
- Cincinnati has really racked up a lot of OSU games despite many cancellations and push backs along the way, mostly due to the initial 4-1 that they had to agree to in order to secure that "home game" at the Bengals stadium, which they nearly won.
- Tressel hooked Youngstown up with back to back games in 07 and 08, the first of which was simultaneous to that time that the Wolverines lost to Appalachian State.
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-0/p526x296/210144027_4202333736470670_6151971769892424784_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=LazToF9_mEsAX8B-oVY&tn=DQyWguGePQvwhrSC&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&tp=6&oh=f7e8c8a9c5cff53544b423b78720b7bd&oe=60E05705)
here's why the Buckeyes don't bitch
-
With Nebraska as their (albeit bad) fixed crossover, OSU is the only one that has to play all of the "helmet" teams every year.
-
With Nebraska as their (albeit bad) fixed crossover, OSU is the only one that has to play all of the "helmet" teams every year.
They have to play themselves?
-
Sure, in the Spring Game. O0
Yes a lot of teams have a tougher schedule than OSU because they have to play OSU, and the Wolverines have a REALLY tough schedule because in addition to having to play OSU they don't get to play themselves.
-
so, it MIGHT have been the Wolverines?
if not for the Huskers
-
Yes, Nebraska ducking themselves REALLY boosted that bad boy into the top slot.
-
didn't duck the top team in the MAC!
Isaiah Hole of Wolverines Wire, the Michigan affiliate site for USA TODAY Sports, recently ranked the top "trap game" for every Big Ten football program in 2021, and for the Huskers, the game to circle isn't against a Power 5 opponent. According to Hole, Nebraska's Week 2 home contest vs. Buffalo is the game to be wary of, and the case for such was made below:
"Buffalo has new leadership in Maurice Linguist, who will try to build upon the exemplary job that Lance Leipold did. The top team in the MAC, the Bulls could take down just about any Big Ten team if they’re not firing on all cylinders. And the Huskers have been a team that’s struggled to do precisely that in Scott Frost’s tenure.
-
Just imagine how tough Nebraska's schedule would be if their other two crossovers were against good teams like Indiana, Maryland or Rutgers, instead of the two Michigan teams that were fighting for last place.
-
In 2031, Florida's OOC looks like this:
@ Texas
Arizona St
@ ND
Florida St
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EV8AUJKWAAEi3uX?format=png&name=900x900)
-
In 2031, Florida's OOC looks like this:
@ Texas
Arizona St
@ ND
Florida St
I am hopeful although not confident that with the anticipated CFP expansion to 12 teams the imperative to "never schedule a loss" will be mitigated and major programs will start scheduling to maximize viewers/ratings/ticket prices rather than to get easy wins.
In the BCS era or prior it would have been ludicrous for Florida (or any other potential NC Contender) to schedule like that because a loss in any one of those games would have been likely to be fatal to the team's NC hopes. Assuming that those four schools were all at roughly their average strength in the year that UF plays them, 3-1 against them would be REALLY good. Ie, Florida could be NC good and still lose one of those four. Now that AD's are anticipating 12 CFP slots they can reasonably assume that their team WILL get in with a loss and with a MONSTER SoS like that, they can reasonably assume that 10-3 or better would be safely in the CFP.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EV8AUJKWAAEi3uX?format=png&name=900x900)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/93/8f/56/938f5621c7a9fe06b01e60d7a57b8917.jpg)
Also, EMU has a good chance to win the MAC? Also, isn't Iowa State a consensus top 10 team?
-
it would seem to me that Iowa state has a better chance than Frank's Ohio Bobcats
-
General reply to the 4/6/8/12/16 discussion.
In my view, 12 is the worst possible next step. It has nearly all the disadvantages of 16 without the balance.
Expansion in general dilutes the regular season, this is unavoidable. The current 4-team playoff still mostly maintains the old "every game matters" aspect that most of us love about CFB because one game really can quash a team's CFP hopes. Ohio State in the CFP era is a great example of this:
- 2014: A single OOC loss to VaTech nearly killed tOSU's CFP dreams.
- 2015: A single loss to MSU kept tOSU out of the CFP.
- 2016: A single loss to PSU nearly killed tOSU's CFP dreams.
- 2017: Two losses kept tOSU out of the CFP. They'd have likely been in with one loss.
- 2018: A single loss to PU kept tOSU out of the CFP.
- 2019: tOSU was undefeated until the CFP.
- 2020: tOSU was undefeated until the CFP.
In seven years of the 4-team CFP the Buckeyes have finished:
- Undefeated twice (2019, 2020) and made the CFP both times.
- 1-loss and B1G Champion twice (2014, 2018) made CFP once, missed once.
- 1-loss and non-Champion twice (2015, 2016) made CFP once, missed once.
- 2 losses and B1G Champion once (2017) missed CFP.
Ie, one game is still a REALLY big deal. Ohio State's four one-loss teams made the CFP 50% of the time.
By going to 12 teams, every P5 school will effectively be granted a mulligan. Lowest ranked 1-loss P5 school in final CFP rankings:
- 2020: #11 Indiana
- 2019: #4 Oklahoma
- 2018: #6 Ohio State
- 2017: #6 Wisconsin
- 2016: #4 Washington
- 2015: #7 Ohio State
- 2014: #6 TCU
All of those teams would easily have made it into a 12-team field.
Thus, the 12-team field will completely eliminate the "every game matters" aspect of the sport and replace it with an "every game matter after your first loss" concept.
Second, differentiation between seeds:
The proposal stratifies the 12 teams into three groups:
- The top-4: They get a bye and automatic bid to the quarter-finals.
- The 5-8: They get to host their first round game.
- The last four 9-12: They have to play a road game opener.
The problem, as I see it, is that there is very little difference within those groups. Regardless of whether you are #1 or #4 either way you get a bye then a very good opponent at a neutral site in the quarter-finals. Realistically, #4's opponent will not be significantly tougher than #1's opponent. Similarly, the difference between #5 and #8 and the difference between #9 and #12 is, IMHO, rather insignificant.
Why I think 8 would be better:
The "every game matters" aspect would be at least partially maintained for two reasons:
- Because there would be a HUMONGOUS difference between being #1 and being #4. This is likely a difference between going undefeated and going 12-1.
- Because there would only be two at-large spots so it would still be at least plausible that a 1-loss P5 non-Champion might be left out. It probably isn't likely but if Bama misses the SECCG due to a freak play (see Kick-6 vs Auburn) and tOSU misses the B1GCG due to a single loss (see 2015 to MSU or 2016 to PSU) then those two are likely to get the two at-large spots and everybody else needs to win the CG.
Second there would be significant differentiation between seeds. The #1 seed would get the G5 weaking and an easy home game while the #2 would get a MUCH stronger opponent. Most years there would be a rather significant increase in quality from #8 to #7 and from #7 to #6 and from #6 to #5 which means that there would be a significant advantage to being #1 rather than #2 or #2 rather than #3 or #3 rather than #4.
-
I only liked the 12 if it included 10 auto-bids, and did away with divisions to ensure the best two teams played in conference championships.
Then, every conference race matters. If the Sun Belt champ can go beat an SEC runner up in a TRUE ROAD game, good on them, that SEC runner up shouldn't have been in that situation, and 99% of the time would be a de facto 8 team tournament, with the 5 Power 5 champs, 2 best at larges and best Group of 5. That was my ideal format anyway, but this way you have a reason to "care" about the MAC Championship, even if it just results in Central Michigan going to Athens and losing 56-14 to Georgia the next week.
-
I only liked the 12 if it included 10 auto-bids, and did away with divisions to ensure the best two teams played in conference championships.
Then, every conference race matters. If the Sun Belt champ can go beat an SEC runner up in a TRUE ROAD game, good on them, that SEC runner up shouldn't have been in that situation, and 99% of the time would be a de facto 8 team tournament, with the 5 Power 5 champs, 2 best at larges and best Group of 5. That was my ideal format anyway, but this way you have a reason to "care" about the MAC Championship, even if it just results in Central Michigan going to Athens and losing 56-14 to Georgia the next week.
As you know I am definitely NOT a fan of giving auto-bids to "tallest midget" champions from minor conferences but I think that six is WAY too many at-large slots so in a 12-team playoff that would make some sense.
Instead, as it looks now we are going to end up killing the "every game matters" aspect by creating a situation where literally any 1-loss P5 will get in and at least half of the 2-loss P5's will likely get in as well.
As much as I DO NOT like expanding the playoff field I honestly think that 16 makes more sense than 12. With 16 I could get behind 10 Champions and six at-large provided that the eight best league champions hosted the first round. That way at least there would be a major detriment to being a non-Champion because you'd have to play your first round game on the road.
-
I know it is a CFB tradition outside of the SEC to have your entire season derailed by a singular blemish, but are you really going to miss it all that much? It's not like it was some fun thing that we will no longer get to experience, like some rivalry that was split up by Conference realignment. It was actually rather aggravating, I dare say.
-
It
makes
every
game
important
until
you
lose.
.
It's the one thing separating college football from every other team sport.
-
I only liked the 12 if it included 10 auto-bids, and did away with divisions to ensure the best two teams played in conference championships.
Then, every conference race matters. If the Sun Belt champ can go beat an SEC runner up in a TRUE ROAD game, good on them, that SEC runner up shouldn't have been in that situation, and 99% of the time would be a de facto 8 team tournament, with the 5 Power 5 champs, 2 best at larges and best Group of 5. That was my ideal format anyway, but this way you have a reason to "care" about the MAC Championship, even if it just results in Central Michigan going to Athens and losing 56-14 to Georgia the next week.
The problem isn't merely a blowout, but also an opportunity for an important injury for the team favored by 30. Screws them for the next round.
-
Yeah, nothing like pulling a plug on a season before the conference slate even starts because you lost a game to a top five team that you scheduled OOC instead of an FCS team like everyone else.
Good times.
-
The problem isn't merely a blowout, but also an opportunity for an important injury for the team favored by 30. Screws them for the next round.
Then win your conference
-
As you know I am definitely NOT a fan of giving auto-bids to "tallest midget" champions from minor conferences but I think that six is WAY too many at-large slots so in a 12-team playoff that would make some sense.
Yeah, I sort of agree. But I think this blends entertainment with results. It gives you sort of a reason to care about all of the conference races, while knowing that they are almost never going to win a true road game against a top 8 team. It is basically an 8 team tournament that still allows all of the conference races to "matter"
-
The problem isn't merely a blowout, but also an opportunity for an important injury for the team favored by 30. Screws them for the next round.
I kinda want to say this with a swear, but it's football. Every play is a chance to get hurt. It's a super violent game. Bodybag games are opportunities for that too, but we soldier on somehow.
-
The problem isn't merely a blowout, but also an opportunity for an important injury for the team favored by 30. Screws them for the next round.
so, have your important players sit out the game or at least the 2nd half when you're up by 30
-
Then win your conference
With 4 teams getting byes and 6 conference champs........ehhhhhh.
-
so, have your important players sit out the game or at least the 2nd half when you're up by 30
See, they might get hurt before then.
-
Yeah, nothing like pulling a plug on a season before the conference slate even starts because you lost a game to a top five team that you scheduled OOC instead of an FCS team like everyone else.
Good times.
9-7 Super Bowl winners is better. You're right.
-
See, they might get hurt before then.
then sit them the 1st 3 quarters to see if you even need them
-
then sit them the 1st 3 quarters to see if you even need them
Now you're advocating for a REALLY exciting playoff, with teams sitting their important players.
I rest my case.
-
It
makes
every
game
important
until
you
lose.
.
It's the one thing separating college football from every other team sport.
So, this got me thinking, went back and did a little math.
2019: 8
2018: 5
2017: 6
2016: 9
2015: 10
That's the number of P5 teams without a loss at the halfway point. So basically, halfway through the season, most of these games are not that kind of important. Which really does make the idea that every game counts ring hollow.
What I think it's really saying is there's a certain kind of wistful love for a particular brand of standings watching.
There's nothing wrong with it. We all see sports through different lenses. ELA really liked the mechanics of standings tied to bowl assignments. I tend to look at final records and the weight that comes with them. And a lot of people liked the sort of grinding, speculative viewing of wondering who makes it to seasons end with that "-0," in some ways the highest honor in the sport.
If anything, that makes most of the games beside the point. I watch my team do whatever, I keep an eye on 8 or so games to see, will someone biff this? Hell, 1-3 of those undefeateds listed above you usually don't pay much mind anyway (think that Nebraska team started 7-0).
So we're not really losing the idea that "EVERY GAME MATTERS" or even that the first two conference games were extra important (since you put three bodybags and Bill Doba Washington State on eh slate). It's that this particular brand of standings watching was a certain kind of fun, and maybe we'll lose something without it.
Counting off undefeateds has always been part of my CFB experience, and maybe it’ll mean less if it decides byes or whatever. But looking back, so much time was spent on handwringing over speculation (part of the fun, I suppose), and little respect for the weird quirks around all of it, I imagine we’ll adapt and continue to enjoy in about as natural a way as we would.
-
Now you're advocating for a REALLY exciting playoff, with teams sitting their important players.
I rest my case.
I mean, you made up a problem that is easily solvable and also not really a problem. Now you are worried about the actual solution to the not real problem.
Fortunately, it is not a real problem.
-
Now you're advocating for a REALLY exciting playoff, with teams sitting their important players.
I rest my case.
a 7 point game w/o important players is more exciting than a 30 point game
fans just love giving the underdog a fighting chance
-
I mean, you made up a problem that is easily solvable and also not really a problem. Now you are worried about the actual solution to the not real problem.
Fortunately, it is not a real problem.
he just likes to argue, but we all know this
-
As you know I am definitely NOT a fan of giving auto-bids to "tallest midget" champions from minor conferences but I think that six is WAY too many at-large slots so in a 12-team playoff that would make some sense.
Instead, as it looks now we are going to end up killing the "every game matters" aspect by creating a situation where literally any 1-loss P5 will get in and at least half of the 2-loss P5's will likely get in as well.
On the one hand, I liked the idea of five champs, one tall midget and two at-large. But it started to dawn on me that we're sort of boring when we come to picking at larges, and I'd end up watching three SEC teams every year, so I kind of came around on the slightly bigger set.
It's all rock and hard place unless you went backwards, and in the modern age, a BCS system or less would be effing unbearable from a noise standpoint.
-
I mean, you made up a problem that is easily solvable and also not really a problem. Now you are worried about the actual solution to the not real problem.
Fortunately, it is not a real problem.
It's not...until it happens.
-
he just likes to argue, but we all know this
I also like that somehow, I'm always wrong.
-
So, this got me thinking, went back and did a little math.
2019: 8
2018: 5
2017: 6
2016: 9
2015: 10
That's the number of P5 teams without a loss at the halfway point. So basically, halfway through the season, most of these games are not that kind of important. Which really does make the idea that every game counts ring hollow.
What I think it's really saying is there's a certain kind of wistful love for a particular brand of standings watching.
There's nothing wrong with it. We all see sports through different lenses. ELA really liked the mechanics of standings tied to bowl assignments. I tend to look at final records and the weight that comes with them. And a lot of people liked the sort of grinding, speculative viewing of wondering who makes it to seasons end with that "-0," in some ways the highest honor in the sport.
If anything, that makes most of the games beside the point. I watch my team do whatever, I keep an eye on 8 or so games to see, will someone biff this? Hell, 1-3 of those undefeateds listed above you usually don't pay much mind anyway (think that Nebraska team started 7-0).
So we're not really losing the idea that "EVERY GAME MATTERS" or even that the first two conference games were extra important (since you put three bodybags and Bill Doba Washington State on eh slate). It's that this particular brand of standings watching was a certain kind of fun, and maybe we'll lose something without it.
Counting off undefeateds has always been part of my CFB experience, and maybe it’ll mean less if it decides byes or whatever. But looking back, so much time was spent on handwringing over speculation (part of the fun, I suppose), and little respect for the weird quirks around all of it, I imagine we’ll adapt and continue to enjoy in about as natural a way as we would.
I'm just not enthused about forfeiting something unique (and perhaps major) about college football.
Also, once a team does lose once, they still hold out hope the rest of the season. Both back in the day and now. Each game then matters as much or more.
.
I do have to admit that my opinion on this matter is largely influence by my being born in 1980 and being a Florida fan. From the age of 10 to 21, my team was "in it" nearly every year. It was part of my normal college football experience.
-
injuries happen, even in national champ games
Colt McCoy vs Bama 2009
Late in the 3rd quarter of the 1984 Orange Bowl, Mike Rozier was forced to leave the game with a severe ankle injury.
-
I also like that somehow, I'm always wrong.
I didn't say that
-
Right, when they were in competitive games vs big-boy teams for all the marbles. That happens.
I'm saying an important player getting hurt in a bullshit first round game against Directional U is more unfortunate than that. But I'm wrong, as usual.
-
It's not...until it happens.
And then we'll all say, "People get hurt playing football. It happens."
-
Right, when they were in competitive games vs big-boy teams for all the marbles. That happens.
I'm saying an important player getting hurt in a bullshit first round game against Directional U is more unfortunate than that. But I'm wrong, as usual.
not much different than an unfortunate injury for the Gators vs Samford on November 13th
-
And then we'll all say, "People get hurt playing football. It happens."
And that Team-X is screwed going into the next round.
-
Yeah, I sort of agree. But I think this blends entertainment with results. It gives you sort of a reason to care about all of the conference races, while knowing that they are almost never going to win a true road game against a top 8 team. It is basically an 8 team tournament that still allows all of the conference races to "matter"
I think I just don't share your view of "matter". The G5 would all be the equivalent of basketball's one-bid leagues. I know you care about those but I don't. If Eastern Michigan plays Bowling Green in the MAC Championship in either CFB or CBB the winner gets a crack at an upset but they aren't going to win the NC so why should I care whether the cannon fodder are Falcons or Eagles?
-
And that Team-X is screwed going into the next round.
like the Buckeyes losing some players to COVID last season for their game vs Bama?
-
I know it is a CFB tradition outside of the SEC to have your entire season derailed by a singular blemish, but are you really going to miss it all that much? It's not like it was some fun thing that we will no longer get to experience, like some rivalry that was split up by Conference realignment. It was actually rather aggravating, I dare say.
Obviously it IS aggravating when your team loses but the fact that a single loss can crush your team's Championship chances but that is what makes each game so exciting.
A random mid-season game against a mediocre Purdue squad can ruin your season. That makes every game exciting because each game has a huge impact. I love the intensity that creates. That is apparently about to end.
-
Yeah, nothing like pulling a plug on a season before the conference slate even starts because you lost a game to a top five team that you scheduled OOC instead of an FCS team like everyone else.
Good times.
Not exactly because that loss might quash your chances but not necessarily, the season still matters.
-
I'm just not enthused about forfeiting something unique (and perhaps major) about college football.
Also, once a team does lose once, they still hold out hope the rest of the season. Both back in the day and now. Each game then matters as much or more.
.
I do have to admit that my opinion on this matter is largely influence by my being born in 1980 and being a Florida fan. From the age of 10 to 21, my team was "in it" nearly every year. It was part of my normal college football experience.
I agree completely and my opinion is based on a fan experience similar to yours because my team has been in the race a lot.
-
I think I just don't share your view of "matter". The G5 would all be the equivalent of basketball's one-bid leagues. I know you care about those but I don't. If Eastern Michigan plays Bowling Green in the MAC Championship in either CFB or CBB the winner gets a crack at an upset but they aren't going to win the NC so why should I care whether the cannon fodder are Falcons or Eagles?
Because it *might* matter, which is more than you can say now. Like I said, it's a de facto 8 team tournament playing as a 12 team tournament, but gives some relevance to those additional games, and opens the door for the very rare upset. And it's not like that upset derails a team that didn't squander previous opportunities. You are talking about a team that wouldn't even be in the CFP presently, so they have little room for complaint.
-
Not exactly because that loss might quash your chances but not necessarily, the season still matters.
I was obviously referencing the 08 campaign, where OSU was preseason #1, then dropped an early game to USC while all the other top 10 teams were loading up on cupcakes, and then that was it. Bench the senior QB that led the team to the NCG the year before, and roll out this True Freshman with "Mike Vick" eye black, and let him take his lumps, like blowing the Penn St game with a 4th down fumble.
In my opinion that sort of scenario needed to be fixed, but that's exactly what you are wanting to preserve. I don't get it, but then again I don't get a lot of things.
-
That happens under the new system, they still get in with a Conference title. So Boeckman stays in, they get better every week, beat Penn St, win the Big Ten, and go to the playoffs.
Sounds a Hell of a lot better than not giving a crap about a Big Ten Title at all because your season was already over before the first conference game; wishing that they had just feasted on OOC cupcakes like everyone else.
-
could certainly reward P5 conference titles w/o including 12 teams, but.............
-
So, this got me thinking, went back and did a little math.
2019: 8
2018: 5
2017: 6
2016: 9
2015: 10
That's the number of P5 teams without a loss at the halfway point. So basically, halfway through the season, most of these games are not that kind of important. Which really does make the idea that every game counts ring hollow.
What I think it's really saying is there's a certain kind of wistful love for a particular brand of standings watching.
There's nothing wrong with it. We all see sports through different lenses. ELA really liked the mechanics of standings tied to bowl assignments. I tend to look at final records and the weight that comes with them. And a lot of people liked the sort of grinding, speculative viewing of wondering who makes it to seasons end with that "-0," in some ways the highest honor in the sport.
If anything, that makes most of the games beside the point. I watch my team do whatever, I keep an eye on 8 or so games to see, will someone biff this? Hell, 1-3 of those undefeateds listed above you usually don't pay much mind anyway (think that Nebraska team started 7-0).
So we're not really losing the idea that "EVERY GAME MATTERS" or even that the first two conference games were extra important (since you put three bodybags and Bill Doba Washington State on eh slate). It's that this particular brand of standings watching was a certain kind of fun, and maybe we'll lose something without it.
Counting off undefeateds has always been part of my CFB experience, and maybe it’ll mean less if it decides byes or whatever. But looking back, so much time was spent on handwringing over speculation (part of the fun, I suppose), and little respect for the weird quirks around all of it, I imagine we’ll adapt and continue to enjoy in about as natural a way as we would.
As @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) pointed out above, this is not correct because historically after your team lost one game they were not completely eliminated. Instead, they just needed help.
I vaguely remember, pre-internet, keeping pre-season magazines because they contained schedules for every team. Then, when my team needed teams above them to lose I would refer back to the pre-season magazines to review the schedules of the teams ahead of the Buckeyes to figure out the possible paths to the NC for my team.
Pre-BCS example, 1993:
Ohio State got all the way up to #3 behind FSU and ND prior to their tie with #15 Wisconsin. After tying Wisconsin they dropped to #5 (incidentally UW only rose to #14 because they already had a loss to a bad MN team).
After the tie, in the Nov 9 poll the 8-0-1 Buckeyes were #5 behind:
- 9-0 FSU
- 9-0 Notre Dame
- 7-1 Miami
- 9-0 Nebraska
So then, as a fan, I looked at all the schedules to determine each of those teams' most likely loss:
- FSU had #2 Notre Dame in South Bend on 11/13 and #8 Florida in Gainesville on 11/27
- ND had #1 FSU in South Bend on 11/13
- Miami had #9 WVU in Morgantown on 11/20
- Nebraska had #17 Oklahoma in Lincoln on 11/26
Plus each would obviously have a bowl game. Thus my rooting interests were clear. I needed to root for:
- FSU over ND on 11/13 (this game was the first of what became ESPN Gameday).
- UF over FSU on 11/27
- WVU over Miami on 11/20
- OU over UNL on 11/26
A decent amount of that actually did happen. ND beat FSU but it didn't matter because they lost a hangover game the next week to Boston College. WVU beat Miami on 11/20.
Games still mattered after a loss (or tie) but you needed lots of help.
This is where I think that expanding the playoff will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs:
When you need other teams to lose, it gives you a rooting interest in other games. Thus, a fan of Ohio State suddenly finds themselves as a fan of FSU in an FSU/ND game then as a fan of UF in a UF/FSU game, then as a fan of WVU in a WVU/Miami game, then as a fan of OU in an OU/UNL game, etc. Fans of all the contenders find themselves with an interest in all the other contenders' games. Thus, I watched FSU/ND because it mattered to my team. Back in the 1990's when NC Contender tOSU teams were losing to Michigan seemingly every year, fans of EVERY other contender in the nation were cheering Michigan on because they needed tOSU to lose to make room for their team to move up.
Now consider the exact same situation today:
My tOSU fandom doesn't create ANY rooting interest in FSU/ND, UF/FSU, WVU/Miami, or OU/UNL because my team can make the playoff regardless of the outcome of those games.
This is why I disagree with @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's contention that the MAC Championship matters. I get where he is coming from in that it matters whether the Falcons or Eagles get into the playoff but that doesn't have any impact on the ability of any other team to get in. The rest of us would simply know that either the Falcons or Eagles will get a spot but which one has no bearing on our own teams' ability to get in. Those two will decide their ONE spot between themselves and that is it.
With a 12-team playoff basically all of those teams are getting in so the only thing on the table is the order and why do I care whether ND or FSU is #1? Either way it isn't my team.
-
yes, back in the good old daze, if ranked in the top 4, your team might still have a chance during the bowls on Jan 1st
-
When OSU lost to USC, they were completely eliminated. There was absolutely nothing they could do in order to get back into it at that point. Hence the reason that they pulled the plug on the Big Ten season before it even started.
Florida DOES get a mulligan built in every year, as do all SEC teams. So I understand Fro's selfish desire to cling to that advantage. But I don't understand why anyone outside of the SEC fanbase would want it to continue.
-
Don't most one loss P5 teams get due consideration for a four team playoff spot?
-
yes, even PAC and Big 12 teams, but not both of them if there are 2
-
Obviously it IS aggravating when your team loses but the fact that a single loss can crush your team's Championship chances but that is what makes each game so exciting.
A random mid-season game against a mediocre Purdue squad can ruin your season. That makes every game exciting because each game has a huge impact. I love the intensity that creates. That is apparently about to end.
If the perk of this is that 80-90 percent of team's seasons are "ruined" by this standard by the middle of the season, we can see why there might be some issue with it and why it points out that this doesn't really mean "every game matters." It means every game in theory could matter at the start of the season, but most won't, at least in a national title context.
And that's fine. It's fine to say this scoreboard watching is fun, and that the system that prioritizes this means scheduling a losable game is a poor idea. But it's just a different format for a different kind of race. We're nearly 25 years removed from those messy bowl seasons, where one upset cued up a bunch of messy shifts and someone popped out ahead at the end. I'm sure those were marvelous in their way, but weirdly, people don't even talk about them in a historical context.
Anyway, I'll be interested to see what's next. I came up watching the BSC standings, counting off losses, waiting for the computers and then the polls to deliver some matchup. Maybe that was the pinnacle. Maybe this will turn out fine.
(I'm also reminded of how at the start of the 2014 season, the Big Ten was "eliminated" in like Week 3, and would have stayed that way but for a nice stroke of luck surrounding the Big 12. Would've been eliminated for sure in the old system)
-
If SEC teams get undue consideration in a four teamer, how much will they get with 12?
Will there be a limit?
Imagine the complaining if we see four SEC teams make the playoffs.
-
I expect 4 SEC teams to make annually in a 12 team playoff.
By rule they can't get 12 teams in, nor can they gobble up all four of the byes, so I'm good with it.
-
If SEC teams get undue consideration in a four teamer, how much will they get with 12?
Will there be a limit?
Imagine the complaining if we see four SEC teams make the playoffs.
They'll just fix it by expanding to 32 and letting all 14 SEC teams in every year.
-
And that's fine. It's fine to say this scoreboard watching is fun, and that the system that prioritizes this means scheduling a losable game is a poor idea. But it's just a different format for a different kind of race. We're nearly 25 years removed from those messy bowl seasons, where one upset cued up a bunch of messy shifts and someone popped out ahead at the end. I'm sure those were marvelous in their way, but weirdly, people don't even talk about them in a historical context.
check 1983 Hurricanes with Smellenburger
-
Obviously it IS aggravating when your team loses but the fact that a single loss can crush your team's Championship chances but that is what makes each game so exciting.
A random mid-season game against a mediocre Purdue squad can ruin your season. That makes every game exciting because each game has a huge impact. I love the intensity that creates. That is apparently about to end.
Yeah, but to anyone not a Purdue or OSU fan, that game was only exciting after the fact...
Do you think an average SEC fan or B12 fan or ACC fan was tuning in to that game? If it hadn't been the prime-time game, would any other B1G fans make that game an appointment viewing game?
The only extra excitement might have been people who saw a halftime score and tuned in thinking "what the hell is happening?" or those who woke up the next morning thinking "what the hell happened?" It wasn't that people were going to tune in to watch based on the 1% chance that Purdue pulls the massive blowout upset...
-
I should point out, as a Purdue fan I happened to be in Denver with my wife and in-laws that weekend.
I deliberately had the thought going into the weekend "Oh well, I don't missing the Purdue game... We're just going to get killed anyway."
As it happened, we had dinner at a place that had TV's and were showing the games, so I was catching most of the first half anyway. And then after dinner we ended up going to the hotel bar for a nightcap and they had the games on, so we actually got to see it all. Which was exciting.
But I'm a fan, and it's my team, and I was completely sanguine about missing the game because I knew the odds of a Purdue win were miniscule, much less the exciting blowout we saw.
-
I also like that somehow, I'm always wrong.
At least you are consistent.
-
yup, many CFB fans saw or were told a score and the upset alert spread like wildfire
2nd half ratings exploded
-
I usually watch three games on Saturday, probably like most here, and channel surf during.
Years ago, my buddy who is a huge OSU fan came over to drink wine and watch. Georgia played at 3:30 and beat Tenn in OT and exhausted us, and then Ohio State played NW and pulled it out. By 9:30 we were majorly fatigued, and slightly drunk. We still talk about that day.
2013, I looked it up. I remember UGA was held to a FG and then a Vol player fumbled out of the end zone before he crossed the goal line. OSU led only 33-30 and scored a last second TD on a fumble recovery.
-
When OSU lost to USC, they were completely eliminated. There was absolutely nothing they could do in order to get back into it at that point. Hence the reason that they pulled the plug on the Big Ten season before it even started.
Florida DOES get a mulligan built in every year, as do all SEC teams. So I understand Fro's selfish desire to cling to that advantage. But I don't understand why anyone outside of the SEC fanbase would want it to continue.
The 2017 NC lost a late-season game to it's rival. (SEC)
The 2016 NC lost a mid-season game to an average conference foe.
The 2015 NC lost an early-season game to a good conference foe. (SEC)
The 2014 NC lost an early-season game to an average OOC foe.
The 2012 NC lost a late-season game to a good conference foe. (SEC)
The 2011 NC lost a late-season game in a 1 vs 2 matchup (SEC)
The 2008 NC lost an early-season game to an average conference foe (SEC)
The 2007 NC lost 2 games to average conference foes, both average teams (SEC)
The 2006 NC lost a mid-season game to a good conference foe (SEC)
Both 2003 NCs lost games - one mid-season to an average conference foe (SEC) and the other an early-season game to an average conference foe.
.
Honestly, the SEC mulligan thing is sort of unfair here - not because it's not true, it is, but because so many of the recent NCs are SEC teams. So while I'm taking the time to do this, it shouldn't be ignored just because of all of the SEC NCs. I hope that's a fair context to keep in mind.
.
Pre-SEC dominance/favoratism, back in 1996, Florida lost to FSU in a 1 vs 2 matchup. Yes, I was distraught, but I immediately sat down and listed what would have to happen for Florida to win the NC. We were ranked behind 3 teams that didn't play each other. There was still hope.
.
Whether it was a late-season loss and needing a major upset to have any chance at the NC (1996) or losing at home to unranked Ole Miss (2008), there was still hope. Maybe it's just the luxury or being spoiled, but living on that razor's edge is what makes college football different and special.
-
The 2017 NC lost a late-season game to it's rival. (SEC)
The 2016 NC lost a mid-season game to an average conference foe.
The 2015 NC lost an early-season game to a good conference foe. (SEC)
The 2014 NC lost an early-season game to an average OOC foe.
The 2012 NC lost a late-season game to a good conference foe. (SEC)
The 2011 NC lost a late-season game in a 1 vs 2 matchup (SEC)
The 2008 NC lost an early-season game to an average conference foe (SEC)
The 2007 NC lost 2 games to average conference foes, both average teams (SEC)
The 2006 NC lost a mid-season game to a good conference foe (SEC)
Both 2003 NCs lost games - one mid-season to an average conference foe (SEC) and the other an early-season game to an average conference foe.
.
Honestly, the SEC mulligan thing is sort of unfair here - not because it's not true, it is, but because so many of the recent NCs are SEC teams. So while I'm taking the time to do this, it shouldn't be ignored just because of all of the SEC NCs. I hope that's a fair context to keep in mind.
.
Pre-SEC dominance/favoratism, back in 1996, Florida lost to FSU in a 1 vs 2 matchup. Yes, I was distraught, but I immediately sat down and listed what would have to happen for Florida to win the NC. We were ranked behind 3 teams that didn't play each other. There was still hope.
.
Whether it was a late-season loss and needing a major upset to have any chance at the NC (1996) or losing at home to unranked Ole Miss (2008), there was still hope. Maybe it's just the luxury or being spoiled, but living on that razor's edge is what makes college football different and special.
Because all those teams lost games, doesn’t that pretty much tell us that every game didn’t really matter? Which is fine and good, but it makes it harder to cling to the idea that we are losing a world where every game matters. We are entering a world where a certain set of games matter dramatically less, and many other games that didn’t matter will now matter more.
in the SEC Mulligan isn’t really about getting the free loss. It’s the fact that with equal losses, an SEC team was always pushed to the head of the line. They might well have deserved it, but it made things incredibly boring, and drastically reduced the fun of this kind of standings watching. (And that matters if we’re arguing about the particular joy of watching this quirky style of season).
-
I think I'd rather have boring and "the deserved it" than the reverse of that.
I only recall the one year where Alabama got in without winning the SEC, maybe it happened before. They got in with the BCS once the same way.
They did win it both times.
If we get four SEC teams out of 12 nearly every year, that would be boring for many.
-
if this thing wasn't going to add money and better chances for the SEC, it wouldn't even be on the table
-
Fwiw Saban has only gone undefeated twice at Bama.
-
and has the rings to prove that not EVERY game matters
just win the playoff
-
Because all those teams lost games, doesn’t that pretty much tell us that every game didn’t really matter? Which is fine and good, but it makes it harder to cling to the idea that we are losing a world where every game matters.
Well it's the uncertainty of it, isn't it? You lose once, and the rest of your season is like hyper-intense because you absolutely cannot lose again. And as often as not, there's been seasons, even in the playoff era, where 1 loss kills you.
-
if this thing wasn't going to add money and better chances for the SEC, it wouldn't even be on the table
Yeah, even this 12 team thing isn't going to cure people from lamenting the SEC's situation. We're going to get 4 teams in on average every year. Out of Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, and LSU in any given year, 4 are going to be in or close to in. Combine that with A&M or another school having a peak season, and it's going to get crowded.
.
There will be years in which 3 of the final 4 teams will be from the SEC. And if you thought 2011 was unsavory, wait until it happens.
-
and has the rings to prove that not EVERY game matters
just win the playoff
Can we not, with the sample size of one?
Sure, if you're Alabama and you're on a run like college football has never seen before and you're preseason #1 for the decade, you're right, every game doesn't matter.
Let's focus on the rest of the universe....
-
Well it's the uncertainty of it, isn't it? You lose once, and the rest of your season is like hyper-intense because you absolutely cannot lose again. And as often as not, there's been seasons, even in the playoff era, where 1 loss kills you.
Exactly. I pointed out above that in the 4-team CFP era, tOSU has finished with one loss four times and they made the CFP two of those years. Ie, with one loss a MAJOR P5 team has about a 50/50 chance of making the CFP field.
That, to me, means that every game matters. Sure, a game *MIGHT* not matter but you don't KNOW that going in and, as @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) pointed out once you have a loss the rest of the games are hyper-intense because the chances of making it with two losses are near-zero.
-
Can we not, with the sample size of one?
Sure, if you're Alabama and you're on a run like college football has never seen before and you're preseason #1 for the decade, you're right, every game doesn't matter.
Let's focus on the rest of the universe....
sample size of one?
one program - Bama?
8 national titles if you count LSU - 2 seasons undefeated
Nebraska's run in the 90s was pretty good, unprecedented at the time - 3 national titles - 3 undefeated seasons
and some Michigan men aren't happy about that
-
sample size of one?
one program - Bama?
8 national titles if you count LSU - 2 seasons undefeated
Nebraska's run in the 90s was pretty good, unprecedented at the time - 3 national titles - 3 undefeated seasons
and some Michigan men aren't happy about that
You're comparing late 90s Nebraska to Saban's Alabama? Yes, Saban's Alabama is a sample size of one. There is no comparison.
-
OK
you maybe right
but I'll put Osborne's 60-3 five year run with 3 undefeated seasons up against anyone
-
I'm trying to come up with a workable compromise between @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's "all league champions get in" concept and @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) 's "it should be the best _ teams period" concept.
Honestly, I see the arguments for and against both:
I like that ELA's version rewards league champions but I don't like that it rewards too many "tallest midgets" that are demonstrably inferior to a whole bunch of VERY good P5 non-Champions.
Conceptually I agree wholeheartedly with OAM that it should be the best teams but I have two big objections to going to the top-12 teams:
- That provides WAY too many mulligans for teams that start out highly ranked, and
- In the real world we don't actually *KNOW* the relative strength of the leagues. Back in 2006, for example, most everybody thought that tOSU and Michigan were the best two teams in the country and beyond that, that tOSU got lucky that USC lost late to UCLA so that the Buckeyes would "only" have to play Florida in the BCSNCG instead of the superior Trojans. That was why I objected to the Bama/LSU match-up in 2011. I agreed with the consensus that Bama was *PROBABLY* better than Oklahoma State but I still maintain that we didn't actually *KNOW* that Bama was better than OkSU so I think the BCSNCG should have been LSU vs OkSU.
I wonder what if they changed it to the top-8 league champions and four at-large teams. I'm ignoring 2020 because it was a goofy year so here are the League Champions from 2014-2019:
2019:
- #1 LSU 13-0 SEC -
- #2 tOSU 13-0 B1G -
- #3 Clemson 13-0 ACC -
- #4 Oklahoma 12-1 B12 - L 48-41 @ KSU
- #6 Oregon 11-2 PAC - L 27-21 to #12 Auburn, L 31-28 @ ASU
- #17 Memphis 12-1 AAC - L 30-28 @ Temple
- #19 BoiseSt 12-1 MWC - L 28-25 @ BYU
- #20 ApSt 12-1 SBT - L 24-21 to GaSO
- nr FAU 10-3 CUSA - L 45-21 @ #2 tOSU, L 48-14 to UCF, L 36-31 to Marshall
- nr MiamiOH 8-5 MAC - L 38-14 @ #16 Iowa, L 35-13 @ #21 Cincy, L 76-5 @ #2 tOSU, L 38-16 @ WMU, L 41-27 @ BallSt
The top-8 are at least ranked. FAU and MiamiOH both played #2 tOSU and lost badly so that pretty much proves that point. Obviously one game could be an aberration but it doesn't look like it since they also lost multiple other games.
2018:
- #1 Bama 13-0 SEC -
- #2 Clemson 13-0 ACC -
- #4 Oklahoma 12-1 B12 - L 48-45 to Texas subsequently avenged in B12CG 39-27
- #6 tOSU 12-1 B1G - L 49-21 to PU
- #8 UCF 12-0
- #9 Washington 10-3 PAC - L 21-16 to Auburn, L OT @ Oregon, L 12-10 @ Cal
- #21 FresnoSt 11-2 MWC - L 21-14 @ Minnesota, L 24-17 @ BoiseSt subsequently avenged in WACCG OT
- nr ApSt 10-2 SBT - L @ #12 PSU OT, L 31-14 @ GaSo
- nr UAB 10-3 CUSA - L 47-24 @ CCU, L 41-20 @aTm, L 27-3 @ MTSU subsequently avenged in CUSACG 27-25
- nr UNI 8-5 MAC - L 33-7 @ Iowa, L 17-6 vs Utah, L 37-19 @ FSU, L 13-7 to MiamiOH, L 28-21 @ WMU
The top-7 were ranked and #8 pushed a pretty good PSU team to OT but the last two are truly tallest midgets.
2017:
- #1 Clemson 12-1 ACC - L 27-24 @ Cuse
- #2 Oklahoma 12-1 B12 - L 38-31 to ISU
- #3 Georgia 12-1 SEC -
- #5 tOSU 11-2 B1G - L 31-16 to #2 OU, L 55-24 @ Iowa
- #8 USC 11-2 PAC -
- #12 UCF 12-0 AAC -
- #25 BoiseSt 10-3 MWC - L OT @ #18 WSU, L 42-23 to UVA, L 28-17 @ FresnoSt subsequently avenged in MWCCG 17-14
- nr Troy 10-2 SBT - L 24-13 @ BoiseSt, L 19-8 to S Bama
- nr Toledo 11-2 MAC - L 52-30 @ MiamiFL, L 38-10 @ OhioU
- nr FAU 10-3 CUSA - L 42-19 to Navy, L 31-14 to #6 UW, L 34-31 @ Buffalo
The top-7 were ranked but the bottom three are tallest midgets.
2016:
- #1 Bama 13-0 SEC -
- #2 Clemson 12-1 ACC - L 43-42 to #23 Pitt
- #4 Washington 12-1 PAC - L 26-13 to #9 USC
- #5 Penn State 11-2 B1G - L 42-39 @ #23 Pitt, L 49-10 @ #6 Michigan
- #7 Oklahoma 10-2 B12 - L 33-23 to Houston, L 45-24 to #3 tOSU
- #15 WMU 13-0 MAC -
- #24 Temple 10-3 AAC - L 28-13 to Army, L 34-27 @ PSU, L 34-27 @ Memphis
- nr WKY 10-3 CUSA - L 38-10 @ #1 Bama, L OT to Vandy, L 55-52 @ LaTech subsequently avenged in CUSACG 58-44
- nr SDSU 10-3 MWC - L 42-24 @ S Bama, L 63-31 to CSU, L 34-33 @ Wyoming subsequently avenged in MWCCG 27-24
- nr ApST 9-3 SBT - L OT @ #21 Tennessee, L 45-10 to MiamiFl, L 28-24 @ Troy
The top-7 were ranked but the bottom three are tallest midgets.
2015:
- #1 Clemson 13-0 ACC -
- #2 Bama 12-1 SEC -
- #3 MSU 12-1 B1G - L 39-38 @ Nebraska
- #4 Oklahoma 11-1 B12 - L 24-17 to Texas
- #6 Stanford 11-2 PAC - L 16-6 @ Northwestern, L 38-36 to #15 Oregon
- #18 Houston 12-1 AAC - L 20-17 @ UCONN
- nr WKY 11-2 CUSA - L 38-35 @ Indiana, L 48-20 @ #20 LSU
- nr BGSU 10-3 MAC - L 59-30 to #23 Tennessee, L 44-41 to Memphis, L 44-28 to Toledo
- nr SDSU 10-3 MWC - L 35-7 @ Cal, L OT to S Bama, L 37-21 @ PSU
- nr ArkSt 9-3 SBT - L 55-6 @ #25 USC, L 27-20 to Mizzou, L 37-7 @ Toledo
Only the top-6 were ranked and the rest are BAD, obviously tallest midgets.
2014:
- #1 Bama 12-1 SEC - L 23-17 @ #9 Ole Miss
- #2 Oregon 12-1 PAC - L 31-24 to #10 Zona subsequently avenged in PACCG 51-13
- #3 FSU 13-0 ACC -
- #4 tOSU 12-1 B1G - L 35-21 to VaTech
- #5 Baylor 11-1 B12 - L 41-27 @ WVU
- #20 BoiseSt 11-2 MWC - L 35-13 to #9 Ole Miss, L 28-14 @ AirForce
- nr Marshall 12-1 CUSA - L OT to WKY
- nr UNI 11-2 MAC - L 52-14 @ Arkansas, L 34-17 to CMU
- nr Memphis 9-3 AAC - L 42-35 @ #14 UCLA, L 24-3 @ #9 Ole Miss, L 28-24 to Houston
- nr GaSo 9-3 SBT - L 24-23 @ NCST, L 42-38 @ GaTech, L 52-19 @ Navy
Only the top-6 were ranked. Marshall might have been decent, the rest were BAD, tallest midgets.
-
I'm trying to come up with a workable compromise between @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's "all league champions get in" concept and @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) 's "it should be the best _ teams period" concept.
Honestly, I see the arguments for and against both:
I like that ELA's version rewards league champions but I don't like that it rewards too many "tallest midgets" that are demonstrably inferior to a whole bunch of VERY good P5 non-Champions.
Conceptually I agree wholeheartedly with OAM that it should be the best teams but I have two big objections to going to the top-12 teams:
- That provides WAY too many mulligans for teams that start out highly ranked, and
- In the real world we don't actually *KNOW* the relative strength of the leagues. Back in 2006, for example, most everybody thought that tOSU and Michigan were the best two teams in the country and beyond that, that tOSU got lucky that USC lost late to UCLA so that the Buckeyes would "only" have to play Florida in the BCSNCG instead of the superior Trojans. That was why I objected to the Bama/LSU match-up in 2011. I agreed with the consensus that Bama was *PROBABLY* better than Oklahoma State but I still maintain that we didn't actually *KNOW* that Bama was better than OkSU so I think the BCSNCG should have been LSU vs OkSU.
I wonder what if they changed it to the top-8 league champions and four at-large teams. I'm ignoring 2020 because it was a goofy year so here are the League Champions from 2014-2019:
2019:
- #1 LSU 13-0 SEC -
- #2 tOSU 13-0 B1G -
- #3 Clemson 13-0 ACC -
- #4 Oklahoma 12-1 B12 - L 48-41 @ KSU
- #6 Oregon 11-2 PAC - L 27-21 to #12 Auburn, L 31-28 @ ASU
- #17 Memphis 12-1 AAC - L 30-28 @ Temple
- #19 BoiseSt 12-1 MWC - L 28-25 @ BYU
- #20 ApSt 12-1 SBT - L 24-21 to GaSO
- nr FAU 10-3 CUSA - L 45-21 @ #2 tOSU, L 48-14 to UCF, L 36-31 to Marshall
- nr MiamiOH 8-5 MAC - L 38-14 @ #16 Iowa, L 35-13 @ #21 Cincy, L 76-5 @ #2 tOSU, L 38-16 @ WMU, L 41-27 @ BallSt
The top-8 are at least ranked. FAU and MiamiOH both played #2 tOSU and lost badly so that pretty much proves that point. Obviously one game could be an aberration but it doesn't look like it since they also lost multiple other games.
2018:
- #1 Bama 13-0 SEC -
- #2 Clemson 13-0 ACC -
- #4 Oklahoma 12-1 B12 - L 48-45 to Texas subsequently avenged in B12CG 39-27
- #6 tOSU 12-1 B1G - L 49-21 to PU
- #8 UCF 12-0
- #9 Washington 10-3 PAC - L 21-16 to Auburn, L OT @ Oregon, L 12-10 @ Cal
- #21 FresnoSt 11-2 MWC - L 21-14 @ Minnesota, L 24-17 @ BoiseSt subsequently avenged in WACCG OT
- nr ApSt 10-2 SBT - L @ #12 PSU OT, L 31-14 @ GaSo
- nr UAB 10-3 CUSA - L 47-24 @ CCU, L 41-20 @aTm, L 27-3 @ MTSU subsequently avenged in CUSACG 27-25
- nr UNI 8-5 MAC - L 33-7 @ Iowa, L 17-6 vs Utah, L 37-19 @ FSU, L 13-7 to MiamiOH, L 28-21 @ WMU
The top-7 were ranked and #8 pushed a pretty good PSU team to OT but the last two are truly tallest midgets.
2017:
- #1 Clemson 12-1 ACC - L 27-24 @ Cuse
- #2 Oklahoma 12-1 B12 - L 38-31 to ISU
- #3 Georgia 12-1 SEC -
- #5 tOSU 11-2 B1G - L 31-16 to #2 OU, L 55-24 @ Iowa
- #8 USC 11-2 PAC -
- #12 UCF 12-0 AAC -
- #25 BoiseSt 10-3 MWC - L OT @ #18 WSU, L 42-23 to UVA, L 28-17 @ FresnoSt subsequently avenged in MWCCG 17-14
- nr Troy 10-2 SBT - L 24-13 @ BoiseSt, L 19-8 to S Bama
- nr Toledo 11-2 MAC - L 52-30 @ MiamiFL, L 38-10 @ OhioU
- nr FAU 10-3 CUSA - L 42-19 to Navy, L 31-14 to #6 UW, L 34-31 @ Buffalo
The top-7 were ranked but the bottom three are tallest midgets.
2016:
- #1 Bama 13-0 SEC -
- #2 Clemson 12-1 ACC - L 43-42 to #23 Pitt
- #4 Washington 12-1 PAC - L 26-13 to #9 USC
- #5 Penn State 11-2 B1G - L 42-39 @ #23 Pitt, L 49-10 @ #6 Michigan
- #7 Oklahoma 10-2 B12 - L 33-23 to Houston, L 45-24 to #3 tOSU
- #15 WMU 13-0 MAC -
- #24 Temple 10-3 AAC - L 28-13 to Army, L 34-27 @ PSU, L 34-27 @ Memphis
- nr WKY 10-3 CUSA - L 38-10 @ #1 Bama, L OT to Vandy, L 55-52 @ LaTech subsequently avenged in CUSACG 58-44
- nr SDSU 10-3 MWC - L 42-24 @ S Bama, L 63-31 to CSU, L 34-33 @ Wyoming subsequently avenged in MWCCG 27-24
- nr ApST 9-3 SBT - L OT @ #21 Tennessee, L 45-10 to MiamiFl, L 28-24 @ Troy
The top-7 were ranked but the bottom three are tallest midgets.
2015:
- #1 Clemson 13-0 ACC -
- #2 Bama 12-1 SEC -
- #3 MSU 12-1 B1G - L 39-38 @ Nebraska
- #4 Oklahoma 11-1 B12 - L 24-17 to Texas
- #6 Stanford 11-2 PAC - L 16-6 @ Northwestern, L 38-36 to #15 Oregon
- #18 Houston 12-1 AAC - L 20-17 @ UCONN
- nr WKY 11-2 CUSA - L 38-35 @ Indiana, L 48-20 @ #20 LSU
- nr BGSU 10-3 MAC - L 59-30 to #23 Tennessee, L 44-41 to Memphis, L 44-28 to Toledo
- nr SDSU 10-3 MWC - L 35-7 @ Cal, L OT to S Bama, L 37-21 @ PSU
- nr ArkSt 9-3 SBT - L 55-6 @ #25 USC, L 27-20 to Mizzou, L 37-7 @ Toledo
Only the top-6 were ranked and the rest are BAD, obviously tallest midgets.
2014:
- #1 Bama 12-1 SEC - L 23-17 @ #9 Ole Miss
- #2 Oregon 12-1 PAC - L 31-24 to #10 Zona subsequently avenged in PACCG 51-13
- #3 FSU 13-0 ACC -
- #4 tOSU 12-1 B1G - L 35-21 to VaTech
- #5 Baylor 11-1 B12 - L 41-27 @ WVU
- #20 BoiseSt 11-2 MWC - L 35-13 to #9 Ole Miss, L 28-14 @ AirForce
- nr Marshall 12-1 CUSA - L OT to WKY
- nr UNI 11-2 MAC - L 52-14 @ Arkansas, L 34-17 to CMU
- nr Memphis 9-3 AAC - L 42-35 @ #14 UCLA, L 24-3 @ #9 Ole Miss, L 28-24 to Houston
- nr GaSo 9-3 SBT - L 24-23 @ NCST, L 42-38 @ GaTech, L 52-19 @ Navy
Only the top-6 were ranked. Marshall might have been decent, the rest were BAD, tallest midgets.
Split the difference. Six conference champs. Four at-large.
Two-game play-in, unlikely to get in four teams from one league unless the at-large pool just sucks.
I know some folks don’t like play-ins, but I think it builds some balance.
-
I like your version better than the current 12-team format being proposed, @medinabuckeye1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1547)
But I still hate the 12-team format.
I still hate the idea of teams 5-8 getting a home game while 1-4 get a bye. That seams like an advantage for the school ($$$) and fans (home game) that teams 1-4 are missing out on.
I still hate the byes at all. Pick 8 or 16, not 12. Same issue when people were talking about expansion to 6. It's just a bad number, if you have byes. This isn't NFL wild-card weekend. This is a tournament. Play the same number of games as everyone else.
8+4 is IMHO better than 6+6 as it relates to limiting the at-large field size such that it means something, but that still allows 2 more tallest midgets that don't have a shot, so you're trading off teams that at the very least might have a good run and win it all for teams that ASSUREDLY will not.
6+2 is the way to go. Top 6 ranked conference champs and 2 at-large. Done.
-
Pretty sure the current system already does combine the two schools of thought rather seamlessly.
Literally half the schools will be selected one way, while the other half are selected the other way.
-
Split the difference. Six conference champs. Four at-large.
Two-game play-in, unlikely to get in four teams from one league unless the at-large pool just sucks.
I know some folks don’t like play-ins, but I think it builds some balance.
Okay, if you have to have byes, I like 6+4 more than either 6+6 or 8+4. It limits the tallest midgets AND the mulligans.
And there's an oddly more acceptable idea to having 40% of the field playing to become 25% of the field, than there is for the 12-team byes where 66% of the field is playing to become part of 50% of the field... I'm not sure why. But I hate it less.
-
How about a criterion that states that even a P5 conference champion, with 3 or more losses, cannot get in?
-
How about a criterion that states that even a P5 conference champion, with 3 or more losses, cannot get in?
That's kind of the same as being ranked below the top P5 champ, isn't it?
-
Okay, if you have to have byes, I like 6+4 more than either 6+6 or 8+4. It limits the tallest midgets AND the mulligans.
And there's an oddly more acceptable idea to having 40% of the field playing to become 25% of the field, than there is for the 12-team byes where 66% of the field is playing to become part of 50% of the field... I'm not sure why. But I hate it less.
Byes put more of an emphasis being the top, while a play-in puts more emphasis on not being at the bottom. Only a few teams have that possible advantage of not being rusty, and they are the ones facing the longest odds.
-
How about a criterion that states that even a P5 conference champion, with 3 or more losses, cannot get in?
I mean, setting aside the question of encouraging softer schedules, who fills in?
If you outlaw three-loss teams, do you just keep adding G5 teams to fill up? Or are we saying, no 3-loss P5 over a 2-loss P5?
-
Far too few games in a college football season to allow byes of any kind in the playoff. I'll never be on-board with such a plan.
-
I mean, setting aside the question of encouraging softer schedules, who fills in?
If you outlaw three-loss teams, do you just keep adding G5 teams to fill up? Or are we saying, no 3-loss P5 over a 2-loss P5?
What I'm saying is that a conference champion with 3 losses is out in favor of a higher ranked P5 team.
So, if USC wins the PAC at 8-4 and PSU is sitting at 10-2, PSU is in if they are ranked higher than USC.
-
I don't think that there will be many three loss P5 conference champions getting in over a second G5 Conference champion with a bloated record. Maybe Bama.
Does anyone else find it odd that the quarterfinal round is at neutral sites? I get the final four and the NCG... but the elite eight? Wtf?
-
Far too few games in a college football season to allow byes of any kind in the playoff. I'll never be on-board with such a plan.
So 16 is better than 12 or 10?
-
I don't think that there will be many three loss P5 conference champions getting in over a second G5 Conference champion with a bloated record. Maybe Bama.
Does anyone else find it odd that the quarterfinal round is at neutral sites? I get the final four and the NCG... but the elite eight? Wtf?
Bowl handouts
-
Why is everyone so worried about an 8-4 USC type of team getting into the playoff? In an 8-team playoff, they'd still need to beat 3 other playoff teams to win it all. In a 12-team playoff, they'd have to beat 4 because I'm assuming they'd be a low seed.
And if they did that, they would have earned it.
Realistically, how does a team get to 8-4, that could still win the playoff? Almost invariably it would be something like a rash of injuries early in the season, that healed up over time, and once they got to full strength, they ended up being pretty bad-ass. Sounds like a worthy CFP champion to me. *shrug*
-
I don't think that there will be many three loss P5 conference champions getting in over a second G5 Conference champion with a bloated record. Maybe Bama.
Does anyone else find it odd that the quarterfinal round is at neutral sites? I get the final four and the NCG... but the elite eight? Wtf?
16 is equally awful compared to 12 or 10.
-
Based on my above post, if we absolutely have to go to 12, what about this format:
- Top-8 League Champions
- Four at-large
- Top-4 League Champions get a bye
- Next 2 League Champions host
- Next two highest ranked teams (champs or not) also host first round
- Reseed after first round
On that basis, the 2014-2019 CFP fields would have been:
2019:
- #1 13-0 LSU SEC, bye
- #2 13-0 tOSU B1G, bye
- #3 13-0 Clemson ACC, bye
- #4 12-1 Oklahoma B12, bye
- #5 11-2 UGA, host
- #6 11-2 Oregon PAC, host
- #7 11-2 Baylor, host
- #8 10-3 Wisconsin
- #9 10-2 Florida
- #17 12-1 Memphis AAC, host
- #19 12-1 BoiseSt MWC
- #20 12-1 ApSt SBT
First round:
- #20 ApSt at #5 UGA
- #19 BoiseSt at #6 Oregon
- #9 Florida at #7 Baylor
- #8 Wisconsin at #17 Memphis
Quarter-Finals:
- #1 LSU vs lowest ranked remaining team (likely #9 Florida)
- #2 tOSU vs second lowest ranked remaining team (likely #8 Wisconsin)
- #3 Clemson vs second highest ranked remaining team (likely #6 Oregon)
- #4 Oklahoma vs highest ranked remaining team (likely #5 UGA)
2018:
- #1 13-0 Bama SEC, bye
- #2 13-0 Clemson ACC, bye
- #3 12-0 Notre Dame, host
- #4 12-1 Oklahoma B12, bye
- #5 11-2 Georgia, host
- #6 12-1 tOSU B1G, bye
- #7 10-2 Michigan
- #8 12-0 UCF AAC, host
- #9 10-3 Washington PAC, host
- #10 9-3 Florida
- #21 11-2 FresnoSt MWC
- nr 10-2 ApSt SBT
First round:
- nr ApSt at #3 Notre Dame
- #21 FresnoSt at #5 Georgia
- #10 Florida at #8 UCF
- #7 Michigan at #9 Washington
Quarter-Finals:
- #1 Bama vs lowest ranked remaining team (likely UF)
- #2 Clemson vs second lowest ranked remaining team (likely M or UW)
- #3 Notre Dame or #4 Oklahoma vs second highest ranked remaining team (likely ND vs #6 tOSU)
- #4 Oklahoma, #5 UGA, or #6 tOSU vs highest ranked remaining team (likely #4 OU vs #5 UGA)
2017:
- #1 12-1 Clemson ACC, bye
- #2 12-1 Oklahoma B12, bye
- #3 12-1 Georgia, bye
- #4 11-1 Bama, host
- #5 11-2 tOSU, bye
- #6 12-1 Wisconsin, host
- #7 10-3 Auburn
- #8 11-2 USC, PAC, host
- #9 10-2 PSU
- #12 12-0 UCF AAC, host
- #25 10-3 BoiseSt
- nr 10-2 Troy SBT
First round:
- nr Troy at #4 Bama
- #25 BoiseSt at #6 Wisconsin
- #9 PSU at #8 USC
- #7 Auburn at #12 UCF
Quarter-Finals:
- #1 Clemson vs lowest ranked remaining team (likely PSU or USC)
- #2 Oklahoma vs second lowest ranked remaining team (likely Auburn)
- #3 Georgia vs second highest ranked remaining team (likely UW)
- #4 Bama or #5 tOSU vs highest ranked remaining team (likely Bama vs tOSU)
2016:
- #1 13-0 Bama SEC, bye
- #2 12-1 Clemson ACC, bye
- #3 11-1 tOSU, host
- #4 12-1 Washington PAC, bye
- #5 11-2 PSU B1G, bye
- #6 10-2 Michigan, host
- #7 10-2 Oklahoma B12, host
- #8 10-3 Wisconsin
- #9 9-3 USC
- #15 13-0 WMU MAC, host
- #24 10-3 Temple
- nr 10-3 WKY CUSA
First round:
- nr WKY at #3 tOSU
- #24 Temple at #6 Michigan
- #9 USC at #7 Oklahoma
- #8 Wisconsin at #15 WMU
Quarter-Finals:
- #1 Bama vs lowest ranked remaining team (likely UW or USC)
- #2 Clemson vs second lowest ranked remaining team (likely UW or OU)
- #3 tOSU or #4 Washington vs second highest ranked remaining team (likely tOSU vs M)
- #4 Washington or #5 PSU vs highest ranked remaining team (likely UW vs PSU)
2015:
- #1 13-0 Clemson ACC, bye
- #2 12-1 Bama SEC, bye
- #3 12-1 MSU B1G, bye
- #4 11-1 Oklahoma B12, bye
- #5 12-1 Iowa, host
- #6 11-2 Stanford PAC, host
- #7 11-1 tOSU, host
- #8 10-2 Notre Dame
- #9 10-2 FSU
- #18 12-1 Houston AAC, host
- nr 11-2 WKY
- nr 10-3 BGSU
First round:
- nr BGSU at #5 Iowa
- nr WKY at #6 Stanford
- #9 FSU at #7 tOSU
- #8 Notre Dame at #18 Houston
Quarter-Finals:
- #1 Clemson vs lowest ranked remaining team (likely #8 ND)
- #2 Bama vs second lowest ranked remaining team (likely #7 tOSU)
- #3 MSU vs second highest ranked remaining team (likely #6 Stanford)
- #4 Oklahoma vs highest ranked remaining team (likely #5 Iowa)
2014:
- #1 12-1 Bama SEC, bye
- #2 12-1 Oregon PAC, bye
- #3 13-0 FSU ACC, bye
- #4 12-1 tOSU, bye
- #5 11-1 Baylor, host
- #6 11-1 TCU, host
- #7 10-2 MissSt, host
- #8 9-3 OleMiss
- #9 10-3 Zona
- #20 11-2 BoiseSt, host
- nr 12-1 Marshall CUSA
- nr 11-2 UNI MAC
First round:
- nr UNI at #5 Baylor
- nr Marshall at #6 TCU
- #9 Zona at #7 MissSt
- #8 OleMiss at #20 BoiseSt
Quarter-Finals:
- #1 Bama vs lowest ranked remaining team (likely OleMiss)
- #2 Oregon vs second lowest ranked remaining team (likely MissSt)
- #3 FSU vs second highest ranked remaining team (likely TCU)
- #4 tOSU vs highest ranked remaining team (likely Baylor)
-
this is simply a 4 team playoff as before, but they've added the G5 to avoid lawsuits and added another SEC team plus give more opportunity for the PAC and Big 12 that have been left out previously
how many times in a decade will a team outside the top 4 win this thing? once, twice, never?
it's not about a better or fair system, it's about appeasing teams that have been left out while making much more $$$
-
Split the difference. Six conference champs. Four at-large.
Two-game play-in, unlikely to get in four teams from one league unless the at-large pool just sucks.
I know some folks don’t like play-ins, but I think it builds some balance.
I think I'd be ok with that but I was assuming that the 12 was a fixed quantity that they had decided to go with.
-
a 5 or 6 seed hosting a G5 team will have a decent chance of upsetting winning a game vs the top 4, but they then have to play a 3rd game in 3 weeks vs another top 4 team
-
I like your version better than the current 12-team format being proposed, @medinabuckeye1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1547)
But I still hate the 12-team format.
I still hate the idea of teams 5-8 getting a home game while 1-4 get a bye. That seams like an advantage for the school ($$$) and fans (home game) that teams 1-4 are missing out on.
I still hate the byes at all. Pick 8 or 16, not 12. Same issue when people were talking about expansion to 6. It's just a bad number, if you have byes. This isn't NFL wild-card weekend. This is a tournament. Play the same number of games as everyone else.
8+4 is IMHO better than 6+6 as it relates to limiting the at-large field size such that it means something, but that still allows 2 more tallest midgets that don't have a shot, so you're trading off teams that at the very least might have a good run and win it all for teams that ASSUREDLY will not.
6+2 is the way to go. Top 6 ranked conference champs and 2 at-large. Done.
You and I are on exactly the same page here for exactly the same reasons.
Okay, if you have to have byes, I like 6+4 more than either 6+6 or 8+4. It limits the tallest midgets AND the mulligans.
And there's an oddly more acceptable idea to having 40% of the field playing to become 25% of the field, than there is for the 12-team byes where 66% of the field is playing to become part of 50% of the field... I'm not sure why. But I hate it less.
+1
-
How about a criterion that states that even a P5 conference champion, with 3 or more losses, cannot get in?
My issue with this is SoS. Schedules vary so much that I would always oppose a hard rule based on number of losses. If somebody decides to schedule Bama, Clemson, tOSU, and Oklahoma then they go 1-3 against that and 9-0 in their other games to finish 10-3 with all three losses being to top-5 teams, they shouldn't be ruled out in favor of some team that played a bunch of cupcakes and went 10-2.
-
Does anyone else find it odd that the quarterfinal round is at neutral sites? I get the final four and the NCG... but the elite eight? Wtf?
I do think that is odd. Way too much travel for fans:
- Neutral site CCG
- Neutral site quarterfinal
- Neutral site semifinal
- Neutral site NCG
-
make all the games including the conference champ games on the higher ranked teams campus
lessens the probability of upsets
just the final game on a neutral site
-
this is simply a 4 team playoff as before, but they've added the G5 to avoid lawsuits and added another SEC team plus give more opportunity for the PAC and Big 12 that have been left out previously
how many times in a decade will a team outside the top 4 win this thing? once, twice, never?
it's not about a better or fair system, it's about appeasing teams that have been left out while making much more $$$
Fatigue is definitely going to be a factor which is the primary benefit of the bye.
Most of these teams will have played a CCG against a highly ranked opponent and for a lot of these teams their last regular season game is also a challenging game because it is usually a rivalry game and frequently against at least a decent opponent.
Looking at Ohio State and assuming they made the CFP but not the top-4 then went all the way to the NCG their season would end with:
- Rivalry game against Michigan on Thanksgiving weekend
- B1GCG against a highly ranked opponent
- CFP "Play-in" game against a highly ranked opponent
- CFP Quarterfinal against a highly ranked opponent
- CFP Semifinal against a highly ranked opponent
- CFPCG against a highly ranked opponent
That is just insane.
Ohio State's typical regular season schedule is one quality OOC opponent and usually about three of tOSU's B1G opponents are ranked so when that 17 game season was over the Buckeyes would have played something like nine games against ranked teams:
- 1 OOC
- 3 B1G regular season
- 1 B1GCG
- 4 CFP
- 9 ranked opponents
-
make all the games including the conference champ games on the higher ranked teams campus
lessens the probability of upsets
just the final game on a neutral site
Heck put the final game on the higher-seeded campus as well. Since everyone seems to hate the idea of "upsets" so much, let's do everything we can to minimize that possibility.
Even better, just don't even play the games. Since everyone assumes they already know who the "best" team is, let's just use some kind of poll or something, and vote on it, and hand them the trophy!
-
My thinking is that STILL only one G5 team gets in.
OR
The P5 just break with the NCAA and go it alone.
-
We'd have a playoff champion. It likely won't be the "best team" most of the time.
I still muse about those recent UGA teams that were ranked 5 end of season and didn't make the playoff, I don't think they were close to being a real playoff team, seriously, they had some really big flaws. They might edge a "Cincinnati" on a last second FG, but that's about it.
I don't recall very many #5 or #6 teams I thought would have much chance, there were a few. So, maybe this is just a four team playoff with some other games thrown in.
-
it's a 4-team playoff with a few more games thrown in
-
What will be the last conference to get a team in?
Mac? Sunbelt? CUSA?
-
make all the games including the conference champ games on the higher ranked teams campus
lessens the probability of upsets
just the final game on a neutral site
The rich would really get richer.
-
how many times in a decade will a team outside the top 4 win this thing? once, twice, never?
Why assume this? Haven't 4 seeds won more NCs than 3 seeds and just as many as 1 seeds?
-
Heck put the final game on the higher-seeded campus as well. Since everyone seems to hate the idea of "upsets" so much, let's do everything we can to minimize that possibility.
Even better, just don't even play the games. Since everyone assumes they already know who the "best" team is, let's just use some kind of poll or something, and vote on it, and hand them the trophy!
Thank you for your useful contribution.
-
Why assume this? Haven't 4 seeds won more NCs than 3 seeds and just as many as 1 seeds?
4 seeds didn't have to play a game vs a solid opponent the week before the semis.
5 and 6 seeds would play an extra game and some important players could possibly get injured
;)
-
The rich would really get richer.
the reason this is happening
the SEC will get richer, as will the B1G, Big 12, ACC, and PAC
-
Some great 5th and 6th-ranked teams:
2018 Ohio State
2017 Wisconsin
2015 Iowa
2015 Ohio St
Wow, this has really affected the B1G, hasn't it?
2014 Baylor & TCU
2012 Oregon
2010 Ohio St
2009 Florida
Hell, in 2008, you have 11-1 USC, Penn St, 12-0 Utah, 11-1 Texas Tech ranked outside the top 4 who could win it all, easily.
-
With the insane end-of-season mountain to climb, each team is radically unlikely to win it all, no matter what seed they are.
-
We'd have a playoff champion. It likely won't be the "best team" most of the time.
I still muse about those recent UGA teams that were ranked 5 end of season and didn't make the playoff, I don't think they were close to being a real playoff team, seriously, they had some really big flaws. They might edge a "Cincinnati" on a last second FG, but that's about it.
I don't recall very many #5 or #6 teams I thought would have much chance, there were a few. So, maybe this is just a four team playoff with some other games thrown in.
Those teams would have annihilated Cincy or any G5 team by 50 with Georgia's starters barely playing after halftime.
-
With the insane end-of-season mountain to climb, each team is radically unlikely to win it all, no matter what seed they are.
and with each extra game the odds decrease dramatically
-
Some great 5th and 6th-ranked teams:
2018 Ohio State
2017 Wisconsin
2015 Iowa
2015 Ohio St
Wow, this has really affected the B1G, hasn't it?
2014 Baylor & TCU
2012 Oregon
2010 Ohio St
2009 Florida
Hell, in 2008, you have 11-1 USC, Penn St, 12-0 Utah, 11-1 Texas Tech ranked outside the top 4 who could win it all, easily.
2008 was an underrated all-time playoff year
-
Some great 5th and 6th-ranked teams:
2018 Ohio State
2017 Wisconsin
2015 Iowa
2015 Ohio St
Wow, this has really affected the B1G, hasn't it?
2014 Baylor & TCU
2012 Oregon
2010 Ohio St
2009 Florida
Hell, in 2008, you have 11-1 USC, Penn St, 12-0 Utah, 11-1 Texas Tech ranked outside the top 4 who could win it all, easily.
perhaps this will benefit the B1G the most?
-
Those teams would have annihilated Cincy or any G5 team by 50 with Georgia's starters barely playing after halftime.
He was clearly referencing last year's Peach Bowl, where Georgia defeated Cincinnati on a last second FG.
-
As @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) pointed out above, this is not correct because historically after your team lost one game they were not completely eliminated. Instead, they just needed help.
I vaguely remember, pre-internet, keeping pre-season magazines because they contained schedules for every team. Then, when my team needed teams above them to lose I would refer back to the pre-season magazines to review the schedules of the teams ahead of the Buckeyes to figure out the possible paths to the NC for my team.
....
Now consider the exact same situation today:
My tOSU fandom doesn't create ANY rooting interest in FSU/ND, UF/FSU, WVU/Miami, or OU/UNL because my team can make the playoff regardless of the outcome of those games.
This is why I disagree with @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's contention that the MAC Championship matters. I get where he is coming from in that it matters whether the Falcons or Eagles get into the playoff but that doesn't have any impact on the ability of any other team to get in. The rest of us would simply know that either the Falcons or Eagles will get a spot but which one has no bearing on our own teams' ability to get in. Those two will decide their ONE spot between themselves and that is it.
With a 12-team playoff basically all of those teams are getting in so the only thing on the table is the order and why do I care whether ND or FSU is #1? Either way it isn't my team.
So, I wanted to give this a slightly more nuanced response. The issue with "every game matters" is that as you said above, it's sort of squishy. It's "not every game matters, but a small subset matter a great deal, but if you're some teams some years, they don't matter, and sometimes they do."
The old system was get undefeated, NC, or lose once, try your luck. And I get there's a certain appeal, but it just means the appeal is watching standings for the most part.
The argument about gloaming onto other national games is … Interesting, I guess. But if OSU had lost to Rice or Michigan State, you as an OSU fan wouldn’t have cared at all. And if you wouldn’t have cared at all, why would the 50-some fanbases with a loss by mid-October care? It’s a self-defeating argument. As a Wisconsin fan, I care about those games because I care about the rat race, but I’ll care about that regardless. (I also care about the MAC title because the national title race has always been a part of my CFB experience, but not front and center like it seems to be for many)
You ask, “why do I care whether ND or FSU is #1? Either way it isn't my team.” Why should I, or most fanbases care if it’s ND or FSU or OSU or Oklahoma if it’s none of our teams? In essence, you’re saying, “We need this system becuase it makes me care, but if most fans took my outlook, they shouldn’t care.” And that’s not a reason to keep something around.
The other issue is that this system comes with all the BS. With this system, you will parse out each team’s rode to -0 or -1 each Saturday night. Then you have the rankings, which in this case matter a ton, so you get to talk rankings. And after the rankings come out, you again project and lament and such. And all of it is for scenarios that won’t happen. Now, I know there are some people who enjoy that. I don’t. And most people say they don’t, but for some reason, the desperately want it to be front and center int he CFB experience.
I’ll step into an aside for a moment. I didn’t have teams in the thick of the race late into the season when my fandom was really crystallizing in school (I did ride that wave with Cal and OSU in HS, but that’s a different story). But I did watch my alma mater go 5-0 a bunch. 5-0 is an interesting record. If you have hype it builds it. If you don’t, the hype comes slow, and people say “where’s the respect?” You can get it with two body bags, a down P5 team and a couple Big Ten wins. It’s enough to make you say, “Hey, every game counts, and we have no losses.”
But it tends to end. You learn the truth we all do. The mattering is in the finishing, not the start or middle. In theory, the 28-12 win against Vandy matters because it COULD have been a loss. But it wasn’t. And you’re instead out here lamenting that you lost too many sports in the rankings because the voters didn’t watch and see it was really 28-6 until garbage time. Outside the zone that gets an OSU or UF fan to care, you learn to appreciate your team/or other teams you like and the national race as separate. And as a separate thing, it’s a certain kind of good, but comes with so much BS, and isn’t necessarily any more worthwhile than good teams, playing each other, with stakes on the line that both actually know.
I know that’s too long, the summery comes down to the bolded paragraph. If the best argument is that if you root for five teams in it in November, it’s wonderful, but even fans of powers often are out of it and admit they don’t care, then the argument that it’s truly worth holding onto rings mighty hollow.
-
This isn't something I'm into, but most people do it - once your team has a few losses, people like to follow one of those still in it. Whether it's a 2nd-favorite team or a team that pops up on your radar or their style of play or like their HC or their success screws a program you're not a fan of - whatever it is - you're still going to watch good football with some sort of rooting interest.
-
Idk guys, the last time Florida sucked, I was just as invested in the season as ever. But I'm a big college football nerd.
-
the closer a team is to a goal, the more the fan base is interested
the playoff is a goal
this will give more teams a chance to achieve that goal
-
I'm trying to come up with a workable compromise between @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's "all league champions get in" concept and @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) 's "it should be the best _ teams period" concept.
Honestly, I see the arguments for and against both:
I like that ELA's version rewards league champions but I don't like that it rewards too many "tallest midgets" that are demonstrably inferior to a whole bunch of VERY good P5 non-Champions.
I'm not saying I would necessarily do that, I just think that's a better format than 6 at larges. And by "rewarding" they get to go play a road game against a top 8 team. They will almost never win that game. In the rare, rare instance they do, fine, now a P5 runner-up doesn't get to be in the Final 8. I'm more than ok with that. And if they can go beat a top 8 and a top 4 team in back to back road games, then I think maybe we underrated them, and they certainly deserve a shot.
I mean I guess there is no reason to care if it's Central Michigan or Bowling Green getting a 12 seed, but why do I care any less than whether Texas A&M or Wisconsin gets the 12 seed?
-
I somewhat millified with the concept that this is really a four team playoff with some extra games. Ha, I typed "millified". Should be a word.
And if on occasion team 5 or 6 wins out, fine with me.
-
the closer a team is to a goal, the more the fan base is interested
the playoff is a goal
this will give more teams a chance to achieve that goal
Right, it's inclusive. Which is the opposite of exclusive....which is better.
-
I'm not saying I would necessarily do that, I just think that's a better format than 6 at larges. And by "rewarding" they get to go play a road game against a top 8 team. They will almost never win that game. In the rare, rare instance they do, fine, now a P5 runner-up doesn't get to be in the Final 8. I'm more than ok with that. And if they can go beat a top 8 and a top 4 team in back to back road games, then I think maybe we underrated them, and they certainly deserve a shot.
Well, after looking through all 10 league champions for 2014-2019 there is a pretty distinct drop-off after #7 or #8. Most years there were about seven or eight ranked league champions and two or three unranked. Miami of Ohio, for example won the MAC in a year in which they lost to Ohio State by 71 points. I don't need to see a team that lost THAT badly to Ohio State given a shot at #5 to absolutely KNOW that they aren't in the same stratosphere as the top teams in the Nation. That is where I'm thinking that making it the top eight league champions is better because there is simply no reason to include a team like MAC Champion Miami of Ohio in 2019 that lost:
- by 71, 76-5 to Ohio State
- by 24, 38-14 to Iowa
- by 22, 35-13 to Cincy
- by 22, 38-16 to WMU
- by 14, 41-27 to BallSt
I think we can all agree that we don't need to include them in the CFP to figure out that they aren't as good as the best teams in the country.
I mean I guess there is no reason to care if it's Central Michigan or Bowling Green getting a 12 seed, but why do I care any less than whether Texas A&M or Wisconsin gets the 12 seed?
Because aTm or Wisconsin just might be good enough to win the whole thing and/or at least take out their Quarterfinal opponent.
Suppose that my team is going to be the #4 so I know that the Buckeyes will play the #5/12 winner in the Quarterfinal. I obviously care who #5 is because that is likely to be a team good enough to have a decent chance against mine. If #12 is between CMU and BGSU I could care less because neither can take out my team and it doesn't matter anyway because neither can take out #5 so my team is never going to play them anyway. However if #12 is between aTm and Wisconsin I care a LOT because they are good enough to take out #5 and play and potentially beat my team.
-
Well, after looking through all 10 league champions for 2014-2019 there is a pretty distinct drop-off after #7 or #8. Most years there were about seven or eight ranked league champions and two or three unranked. Miami of Ohio, for example won the MAC in a year in which they lost to Ohio State by 71 points. I don't need to see a team that lost THAT badly to Ohio State given a shot at #5 to absolutely KNOW that they aren't in the same stratosphere as the top teams in the Nation. That is where I'm thinking that making it the top eight league champions is better because there is simply no reason to include a team like MAC Champion Miami of Ohio in 2019 that lost:
- by 71, 76-5 to Ohio State
- by 24, 38-14 to Iowa
- by 22, 35-13 to Cincy
- by 22, 38-16 to WMU
- by 14, 41-27 to BallSt
I think we can all agree that we don't need to include them in the CFP to figure out that they aren't as good as the best teams in the country. Because aTm or Wisconsin just might be good enough to win the whole thing and/or at least take out their Quarterfinal opponent.
Suppose that my team is going to be the #4 so I know that the Buckeyes will play the #5/12 winner in the Quarterfinal. I obviously care who #5 is because that is likely to be a team good enough to have a decent chance against mine. If #12 is between CMU and BGSU I could care less because neither can take out my team and it doesn't matter anyway because neither can take out #5 so my team is never going to play them anyway. However if #12 is between aTm and Wisconsin I care a LOT because they are good enough to take out #5 and play and potentially beat my team.
But what if my team isn't #4?
-
But what if my team isn't #4?
This is a fair point. @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) pointed out above that he tends to view this through the lens of being a fan of a team that is in the race more often than not. Frankly, I'm the same way. I was somewhat of a CFB fan as a kid but honestly I was more of a fan of the NFL. I didn't really get into CFB until I started at Ohio State which just happened to be in the fall of 1993 . . . Well, 1993 is the start point for a PHENOMENAL run by the Buckeyes. Even though they "only" have two NC's in the almost 30 years since then they are at or near the top of the heap in almost every metric since then:
- #1 in winning percentage (http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1993&end=2020&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct) (by a LOT) over #2 Boise and if you don't count them then it is by a HUMONGOUS margin over #3 Oklahoma, #4 Florida, etc.
- #1 in AP Poll appearances (http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/app_total.cfm?sort=totapp&from=1993&to=2020#.YO8eB2hKi70) by a substantial margin over #2 Florida. The Buckeyes have been in 428 out of 466 polls since 1993 (91.8%) and note that it would be higher except that they got dinged in 2020 by being left out of two polls because the B1G wasn't playing yet. Otherwise it would be 430 out of 466 or 92.3%.
- #1 in AP top-10 appearances (http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/app_total.cfm?sort=top10app&from=1993&to=2020#.YO8e9GhKi70) by a HUGE margin over #2 Florida. The Buckeyes were in 322 out of 466 top-10's (69.1%) and again it would be higher but for the COVID issue.
- #2 in AP top-5 appearances (http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/app_total.cfm?sort=top5app&from=1993&to=2020#.YO8fTmhKi70) behind #1 Bama.
- #3 in AP #1 appearances (http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/app_total.cfm?sort=num1app&from=1993&to=2020#.YO8exmhKi70) behind #1 Bama and #2 FSU.
- #1 in Big11Ten/B1G Championships with 14. The next two teams (UW and M) have 11 combined and the next three teams combined (UW, M, PSU) only have one more than Ohio State.
Obviously that is a different view of CFB than most fans have. However, I still think it matters because even if Ohio State was out of it I'd be interested because, from a national perspective, it matters whether aTm or UW get in because they *MIGHT* beat #4 and might win the whole thing but it doesn't matter whether BGSU or Directional-Michigan get in because they aren't going to beat #5 and they surely aren't going to win the whole thing.
-
I think the split here is between fans who have confidence in their team getting in the 12-team playoff actually winning games once there vs the larger group of fans who lack that confidence - that if their team got there, that's great, but there's no reason to believe they'll do anything once there. Piggybacking on that - fans of teams that have a reasonable idea that their team will be there as often as not vs those that might make it in a 20-year peak.
.
Neither is better or worse, but there is a divide. Florida would have made it the past 2 years in the 12-team setup and I'd have confidence in them winning a game or two this past year.
.
What's worst about this, I'm predicting, is the fans of the strong G5 programs that will make it from time to time and just get emasculated over and over. Getting their seat at the table isn't going to be pleasant - setting them up in front of a big-boy team with their highest aspirations still in front of them, and not sneaking up on them after their dreams were dashed in some consolation prize bowl. Watch out.
-
What's worst about this, I'm predicting, is the fans of the strong G5 programs that will make it from time to time and just get emasculated over and over. Getting their seat at the table isn't going to be pleasant - setting them up in front of a big-boy team with their highest aspirations still in front of them, and not sneaking up on them after their dreams were dashed in some consolation prize bowl. Watch out.
Every team has been emasculated. I'm not sure it is worth worrying about.
-
Ask OU if getting an annual whipping with the nation watching is fun. We're taking a successful season by some G5 team and rewarding it with a beating.
-
Ask OU if getting an annual whipping with the nation watching is fun. We're taking a successful season by some G5 team and rewarding it with a beating.
Some years, sure. Some years, they will get a win or two. Getting to participate is unquestionably better than the alternative.
-
This is a fair point. @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) pointed out above that he tends to view this through the lens of being a fan of a team that is in the race more often than not. Frankly, I'm the same way. I was somewhat of a CFB fan as a kid but honestly I was more of a fan of the NFL. I didn't really get into CFB until I started at Ohio State which just happened to be in the fall of 1993 . . . Well, 1993 is the start point for a PHENOMENAL run by the Buckeyes. Even though they "only" have two NC's in the almost 30 years since then they are at or near the top of the heap in almost every metric since then:
- #1 in winning percentage (http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1993&end=2020&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct) (by a LOT) over #2 Boise and if you don't count them then it is by a HUMONGOUS margin over #3 Oklahoma, #4 Florida, etc.
- #1 in AP Poll appearances (http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/app_total.cfm?sort=totapp&from=1993&to=2020#.YO8eB2hKi70) by a substantial margin over #2 Florida. The Buckeyes have been in 428 out of 466 polls since 1993 (91.8%) and note that it would be higher except that they got dinged in 2020 by being left out of two polls because the B1G wasn't playing yet. Otherwise it would be 430 out of 466 or 92.3%.
- #1 in AP top-10 appearances (http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/app_total.cfm?sort=top10app&from=1993&to=2020#.YO8e9GhKi70) by a HUGE margin over #2 Florida. The Buckeyes were in 322 out of 466 top-10's (69.1%) and again it would be higher but for the COVID issue.
- #2 in AP top-5 appearances (http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/app_total.cfm?sort=top5app&from=1993&to=2020#.YO8fTmhKi70) behind #1 Bama.
- #3 in AP #1 appearances (http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/app_total.cfm?sort=num1app&from=1993&to=2020#.YO8exmhKi70) behind #1 Bama and #2 FSU.
- #1 in Big11Ten/B1G Championships with 14. The next two teams (UW and M) have 11 combined and the next three teams combined (UW, M, PSU) only have one more than Ohio State.
Obviously that is a different view of CFB than most fans have. However, I still think it matters because even if Ohio State was out of it I'd be interested because, from a national perspective, it matters whether aTm or UW get in because they *MIGHT* beat #4 and might win the whole thing but it doesn't matter whether BGSU or Directional-Michigan get in because they aren't going to beat #5 and they surely aren't going to win the whole thing.
OSU fandom is different from other helmets imo, due to the consistency.
The Buckeyes drive it 250 yds down the middle of the fairway every season. Sometimes they miss the upshot or fail to sink the putt, but they rarely slice one into the woods off the tee.
A school like USC may have the higher ceiling, they have the ability to drive it 300 yds down the fairway on the right year, but more often than not they are slicing it into the woods.
-
Some years, sure. Some years, they will get a win or two. Getting to participate is unquestionably better than the alternative.
this is what the G5's have been asking for, just a chance
the fans might not like repeated ass whippings, but the AD says, "Show me the money!"
-
OSU fandom is different from other helmets imo, due to the consistency.
The Buckeyes drive it 250 yds down the middle of the fairway every season. Sometimes they miss the upshot or fail to sink the putt, but they rarely slice one into the woods off the tee.
A school like USC may have the higher ceiling, they have the ability to drive it 300 yds down the fairway on the right year, but more often than not they are slicing it into the woods.
golfing analogies???
-
Some years, sure. Some years, they will get a win or two. Getting to participate is unquestionably better than the alternative.
I think over time this will not be the case. This isn't basketball. The only Cinderellas will be a 10-seeded LSU or a 9 seeded Wisconsin. Time will tell, and we can disagree, but being rewarded with a sure loss is a shit reward.
This goes against the whole idea of the bowls matching up teams from different conferences of relatively equal merit. That is efforting for a competitive game.
Including the G5 team isn't efforting for a competitive game. It's placating programs with lesser talent, coaching, and facilities. In their case, it's be careful what you wish for.
-
Some years, sure. Some years, they will get a win or two. Getting to participate is unquestionably better than the alternative.
Your equating years of beatings with years of getting a win or two is misleading because it makes it sound like a 50/50 proposition. It isn't.
I've given this example before but if you want to quantify the gap between the top of the P5 and the top of the G5 look at 2019.
Ohio State was near the top of the P5 and Cincinnati was near the top of the G5. When they played the Buckeyes won 42-0. That is the gap we are talking about here. The tallest midgets will win their opener maybe once or twice in 20 years but they''d be lucy to win a second game once a century.
-
I remember a better OSU team that needed a miracle in order to get past a worse Cincinnati team.
-
trap game
fluke
ambush
-
The top tier teams in the AAC and MWC will get better and better recruits rolling in with each playoff appearance. They will begin to out recruit middle of the road P5 teams that have little to no chance of ever getting in.
To assume that things will stay exactly as they are now under vastly different circumstances is not very realistic imo.
-
you could be right, but the difference in money for P5 conference teams is vast
-
Yet many of them are already quite a bit worse than Cincy, Memphis, Houston, etc.
-
The top tier teams in the AAC and MWC will get better and better recruits rolling in with each playoff appearance. They will begin to out recruit middle of the road P5 teams that have little to no chance of ever getting in.
To assume that things will stay exactly as they are now under vastly different circumstances is not very realistic imo.
I don't believe this would happen.
If it happens, that would count as a wild success.
-
.
What's worst about this, I'm predicting, is the fans of the strong G5 programs that will make it from time to time and just get emasculated over and over. Getting their seat at the table isn't going to be pleasant - setting them up in front of a big-boy team with their highest aspirations still in front of them, and not sneaking up on them after their dreams were dashed in some consolation prize bowl. Watch out.
So they can play in a game that counts, and lose with effort and heart, or they can play a game where just playing it means many will quickly explain the outcome doesn't matter because the more talented team didn't care? I can't believe they don't want that.
They play "emasculating" games every. Single. Year. And you know what, the kids mostly enjoy the experience. Losing sucks, but playing big time ball is great. It's why kids go to Florida when they could put up monster numbers at FAU.
And you know what's going to happen in the highly unlikely scenario that playing in big games hurts their feelings THAT much. They'll just quit. They'll beg out, make their own playoff and save themselves from your "worst" prediction. It's not actually going to happen, but it's the perfect out if it did.
-
Your equating years of beatings with years of getting a win or two is misleading because it makes it sound like a 50/50 proposition. It isn't.
I've given this example before but if you want to quantify the gap between the top of the P5 and the top of the G5 look at 2019.
Ohio State was near the top of the P5 and Cincinnati was near the top of the G5. When they played the Buckeyes won 42-0. That is the gap we are talking about here. The tallest midgets will win their opener maybe once or twice in 20 years but they''d be lucy to win a second game once a century.
Like Brutus said, OSU won a national championship and beat a .500 Cincy team 23-19
-
Some years, sure. Some years, they will get a win or two. Getting to participate is unquestionably better than the alternative.
No question. The MEAC basketball tourney still ends with a court storming celebration
-
Like Brutus said, OSU won a national championship and beat a .500 Cincy team 23-19
OSU also went 13-1 a few years ago after losing 49-20 to a Purdue team that finished 6-7 with a horrific blowout loss in their bowl.
Yes, I realize that Purdue score is not relevant to a G5 discussion...
...but I just like saying it. :72:
-
Like Brutus said, OSU won a national championship and beat a .500 Cincy team 23-19
If that game happened today Darian Scott gets ejected for targeting when he ear holed QB Gino Guidulgi, which caused the fumble that set up the Craig Krenzel go ahead TD at the end of the game.
Instead Cincy would keep the ball, get a bunch of yards and a first down on the penalty, run out the clock, and win the game.
-
OSU also went 13-1 a few years ago after losing 49-20 to a Purdue team that finished 6-7 with a horrific blowout loss in their bowl.
Yes, I realize that Purdue score is not relevant to a G5 discussion...
...but I just like saying it. :72:
Who immediately turned around and made everyone think Rocky Lombardi was a great quarterback
-
Like Brutus said, OSU won a national championship and beat a .500 Cincy team 23-19
Went to OT with 5-7 Illinois too.
-
In September we see G5/FCS upsets over P5 every week.
Those suggesting that they aren't going to ever win in the playoffs are arguing against the copious amount of data that we have already collected on this matter, with a bunch of hot air and mental gymnastics about how none of the data counts because teams don't try hard enough or some such.
Then they adamantly insist that their "logic" on this matter is so obvious and indisputable, that we should be basing all of our decisions on it, instead of the actual copious amounts of data that has already been collected to the contrary.
It is kind of strange.
-
oh, G5s will win a couple of first round games, but the chances of following up in the 2nd and/or 3rd rounds is slimmer than than being killed by the vaccine
-
OSU fandom is different from other helmets imo, due to the consistency.
The Buckeyes drive it 250 yds down the middle of the fairway every season. Sometimes they miss the upshot or fail to sink the putt, but they rarely slice one into the woods off the tee.
A school like USC may have the higher ceiling, they have the ability to drive it 300 yds down the fairway on the right year, but more often than not they are slicing it into the woods.
We have discussed this many times before and Ohio State is EASILY the most consistent helmet over the last ~100 years but it is interesting that you chose USC as your contrast because they have a good argument for #2.
I looked at all the "helmet" teams and compiled their rolling 10-year winning percentages for each 10-year period from 1927-1936 through 2011-2020. Sorted by best 10-year period they are:
- .9245 Oklahoma - from 1949-1958 they went 97-7-2
- .9130 Alabama - from 2011-2020 they went 126-12
- .8917 MiamiFL - from 1985-1994 they went 107-13
- .8911 Florida State - from 1991-2000 they went 110-13-1
- .8810 Nebraska - from 1992-2001 they went 111-15
- .8763 Notre Dame - from 1940-1949 they went 82-9-6
- .8705 Clemson - from 2011-2020 they went 121-18
- .8615 Ohio State - from 2011-2020 they went 112-18
- .8553 Michigan - from 1969-1978 (Bo's first 10 years) they went 96-15-3
- .8548 Tennessee - from 1937-1946 they went 77-14-2
- .8534 Penn State - from 1968-1977 they went 99-17
- .8527 Texas - from 2000-2009 they went 110-19
- .8333 USC - from 1972-1981 they went 98-18-4
- .8200 Florida - from 1990-1999 they went 102-22-1
- .8106 LSU - from 2003-2012 they went 107-25
Ohio State's current decade is their best (same for Bama and Clemson) and Ohio State is in the middle of this group.
Here they are sorted by worst 10-year period:
- .6318 Ohio State - from 1943-1952 they went 54-30-7
- .5542 USC - from 1991-2000 they went 65-52-3
- .5112 Oklahoma - from 1927-1936 they went 39-37-13
- .5103 Texas - from 1931-1940 they went 47-45-5
- .5094 Notre Dame - from 2007-2016 they went 54-52
- .4918 Tennessee - from 2011-2020 they went 60-62
- .4947 Michigan - from 1958-1967 they went 45-46-3
- .4762 LSU - from 1948-1957 they went 46-51-8
- .4757 Alabama - from 1998-2007 they went What is amazing about Bama is how close together their best and worst are.
- .4660 Florida State - from 1952-1961 they went 46-53-4
- .4458 Penn State - from 1928-1937 they went 35-43-4
- .4159 Clemson - from 1967-1976 they went 43-61-3
- .3876 Florida - from 1937-1946 they went 33-53-3
- .3738 MiamiFl - from from 1968-1977 they went 40-67 Similar to Bama, their best and worst were very close together.
- .3370 Nebraska - from 1942-1951 they went 30-60-2
Ohio State's lead here is HUMONGOUS. The #1 Buckeyes are about as far ahead of #2 USC as #2 USC is ahead of #8 LSU. The Buckeyes have had bad years here and there but in the last ~100 years the Buckeyes haven't had a bad decade.
Note that only tOSU, USC, Oklahoma, Texas, and Notre Dame haven't had a sub .500 decade in the last ~100 years. Every other team has. Bama, FSU, Miami, and Nebraska are #2-#5 in best decades so they all have had REALLY good decades (better than anything tOSU has had) but all four have also had REALLY bad, sub .500 decades.
-
it might be interesting to know these team's records vs G5 programs
-
Well, since 1989, Florida is 69-1 vs G5 and FCS teams. That includes 2 losing seasons by the Gators, some 7-5 and 8-5 seasons, and some 9-4 seasons (ie - some NOT great teams). If you want to take FCS out of it, Florida is like 62-0 vs G5. If you want to pare it down even more precisely, top-12 ranked Florida teams are obviously undefeated against G5 teams and the average score is about 45-3.
Putting a G5 team up against a top-12 team with the ultimate prize up for grabs is going to yield ugliness. Remember back to the BCS formula and their changing it so teams won't run up the score? That was cute. Wait till they see how long the O-fer is with the G5 'champ' matchup.
-
They'll just quit. They'll beg out, make their own playoff and save themselves from your "worst" prediction. It's not actually going to happen, but it's the perfect out if it did.
I think this will eventually happen.
-
I feel like some of you didn't play football at all.
Playing a game in which you have no hope of winning SUCKS.
Being dominated sucks (unless you're into that sort of thing).
Working your ass off, giving your all every play just to score a FG, and then the other teams scores a TD in 2 plays sucks.
.
I see regular season, OOC games being cited here and it makes me laugh. When Cincinnati almost beats OSU, it's irrelevant, because they almost did it. Even if they did do it, OSU can still win the B1G, still go to the RB. You guys have made it abundantly clear how that is the ultimate goal, or was for a time.
After a Cincinnati gets its doors blown off, they say the right things on TV, maybe even that it was a cool experience or an honor to play a NC-caliber team, but they hate life at that moment. Or they're apathetic, because they may go on to win their conference, etc. Beating OSU wasn't a season goal, because those should be realistic.
.
They're setting it up so that a G5 team's reward for a great season is to face off against AN EQUALLY STOKED top-10 level big-boy team. F- that noise. And it seems like everyone is ignoring that there was realignment a few years back, so those programs like TCU and Utah who were making real progress are now in the P5. Guess what? That will happen again, if any G5 program keeps taking its vitamins. Cincinnati is a legit program capable of winning a game or two in the playoff? BOOM! They're in the ACC now.
.
The haves aren't in the business of making life easier for the have-nots, even when the have-nots get a fancy invitation in the mail.
-
In September we see G5/FCS upsets over P5 every week.
Not often over teams with the talent to finish the season in the top 10.
-
In September we see G5/FCS upsets over P5 every week.
Those suggesting that they aren't going to ever win in the playoffs are arguing against the copious amount of data that we have already collected on this matter, with a bunch of hot air and mental gymnastics about how none of the data counts because teams don't try hard enough or some such.
Then they adamantly insist that their "logic" on this matter is so obvious and indisputable, that we should be basing all of our decisions on it, instead of the actual copious amounts of data that has already been collected to the contrary.
It is kind of strange.
We do see G5/FCS upsets over P5 in September but how many of those are upsets of one of that season's top10 P5 teams? VERY few.
We aren't talking here about a G5 taking out a bad or even middling P5 we are talking about a game between one of the best G5's and one of the best P5's. How many of THOSE upsets have we seen? The first possible example that comes to my mind is BoiseSt's Statue of Liberty miracle upset of Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.
That was the 2006 season and Boise State that year was possibly the best ever G5. They finished 13-0:
- One win over and FCS team
- Eight wins over WAC foes
- Two wins over mediocre MWC foes
- Two quality wins over P5 teams, OrSU and Oklahoma.
The win over Oregon State might actually be more impressive than the win over Oklahoma because it didn't take a miracle in OT. They pounded OrSU 42-14 and the Beavers were pretty good that year finishing 10-4.
Oklahoma was pretty good that year but not really NC material. They finished 11-3 with the following losses:
- 34-33 on the road to a mediocre Oregon team
- 28-10 to Texas at a neutral site
- 43-42 in OT to Boise St in the Fiesta Bowl.
Their best win was 21-7 over a 9-5 Nebraska team in the B12CG. Heading into that Fiesta Bowl Oklahoma was ranked #7 and Boise St was ranked #9. Oklahoma outgained BoiseSt 407-377, dominated TOP 20:32-16:08, and had more first downs 23-16 but Oklahoma committed FIVE turnovers to BoiseSt's 3.
Oklahoma led 35-28 and had BoiseSt backed into a 4th and 18 at the 50 with just 0:07 remaining. BoiseSt then pulled off a miraculous hook-and-lateral to convert the 4th down and score a game tying TD. Then in OT BoiseSt pulled off a miraculous statue-of-liberty run for the game winning 2pt conversion.
The bottom line is that this was an EXTREMELY unusually good G5 team and they played a good but not great P5 champion. Then that P5 champion didn't have a good game and committed five turnovers and BoiseSt converted two miraculous plays and they needed all of that to win by one point in OT. That doesn't suggest that this feat will be frequently replicated, it suggests the opposite. It suggests, as I said upthread that the G5 Champions will occasionally manage to knock off their first round opponent but they'll be lucky if they win a Quarterfinal every couple decades at best.
-
The top tier teams in the AAC and MWC will get better and better recruits rolling in with each playoff appearance. They will begin to out recruit middle of the road P5 teams that have little to no chance of ever getting in.
To assume that things will stay exactly as they are now under vastly different circumstances is not very realistic imo.
This is extraordinarily doubtful. The CFP era has been flat out dominated by Alabama and Clemson with Ohio State a rung below and Oklahoma, LSU, and Georgia a rung below the Buckeyes. What has that produced? Well, recruits are flocking to those FEW programs that are competing for Championships and the divide is getting larger rather than smaller.
I just disagree with your assessment. Recruits aren't going to be strongly drawn to G5 teams that lose CFP games, they are going to be strongly drawn to P5 teams that win CFP games.
-
Yet many of them are already quite a bit worse than Cincy, Memphis, Houston, etc.
You are right. Cincy, Memphis, Houston, BoiseSt could pretty regularly beat Kansas or Rutgers but that isn't the comparison we are talking about because Kansas and Rutgers aren't going to be in the CFP. Those high-end G5 teams aren't going to get to the CFP and find a 2-10 Rutgers or a 1-11 Kansas on the other sideline they are going to get there and find a 12-1 Ohio State or an 11-2 Oklahoma on the other sideline.
-
Brutus did specify middle of the road P5 schools that have no chance of making the playoff
-
Like Brutus said, OSU won a national championship and beat a .500 Cincy team 23-19
Yeah, they did. The Buckeyes did barely win a game against a G5 type team in a NC year but consider a few things:
- That particular NC was probably more prone to close wins than any other in recent history. They also had close games against Northwestern (finished 3-9), Wisconsin (finished 8-6), Penn State (finished 9-4), Purdue (finished 7-6), Illinois (finished 5-7), Michigan (finished 10-3), and Miami (finished 12-1).
- Ohio State DID win the game.
-
I think a K-State fan labeled that Buckeye team the "Luckeyes"
I have since used that term on my Hawkeye neighbors
-
I could easily see the opening round as trap game city.
You get a team like Wisconsin or Michigan going up against a UCF or Coastal Carolina, and then the winner gets Bama.
-
well, as you know too well, it won't be Michigan
and Wisconsin might be protecting important players and could get "trapped"
-
I could easily see the opening round as trap game city.
You get a team like Wisconsin or Michigan going up against a UCF or Coastal Carolina, and then the winner gets Bama.
I think a lot of that depends on how they set things up.
The CCG's are the first Saturday in December so somewhere between 12/1 (2018) and 12/7 (2019).
My assumption is that the Quarterfinals would be bowl games on or around NYD. That leaves somewhere between 24-30 days between the CCG's and the Quarterfinals. You have to stick the campus site first round games in there somewhere.
If you made them two weeks after the CCG's that would be anywhere between December 15 (if December 1 is a Saturday and December 21 (if December 1 is a Sunday). I think that works because it avoids Christmas and still leaves between 10-16 days between the first round games and the Quarterfinals.
I'm not sure that situation leads to a "trap game" scenario because there is enough time both before and after the first round game to reorient yourself from CCG mode to first round game mode and then to quarterfinal mode.
The other thing is that the Quarterfinal game for these teams isn't generally going to be "Bama" if you mean that in the sense of last year's #1 ranked 13-0 Bama. Instead, I think that we are talking here about #5 playing #12 with the assumption that the winner will then play #4 (12-1 Oklahoma in 2019).
Looking at the 2019 final CFP rankings:
- 13-0 SEC Champ LSU
- 13-0 B1G Champ tOSU
- 13-0 ACC Champ Clemson
- 12-1 B12 Champ Oklahoma
- 11-2 Georgia (lost SECCG to #1 LSU)
- 11-2 PAC Champ Oregon
- 11-2 Baylor (lost B12CG to #4 OU)
- 10-3 Wisconsin (#2 lost B1GCG to tOSU)
- 10-2 Florida
- 10-2 Penn State
- 11-2 Utah (lost PACCG to #6 Oregon
Then the highest ranked G5 Champion was 12-1 #17 Memphis. So I'm assuming that under what they are proposing the first round games would have been:
- #17 Memphis at #5 Georgia, winner plays Oklahoma
- #11 Utah at #6 Oregon, winner plays Clemson
- #10 Penn State at #7 Baylor, winner plays tOSU
- #9 Florida at #8 Wisconsin, winner plays LSU
The Utah/Oregon game is really silly since they JUST played in the PACCG with Oregon winning 37-15 so then Oregon would have to win AGAIN to get a shot at Clemson.
The game we are focused on here is the Memphis at Georgia game.
-
Memphis could have upset that UGA team, I think, it's not probable, but say 20% or so. You can get the percentage pretty accurately from the betting line.
Cincinnati last year was probably better than that Memphis squad and they clearly had the Dawgs on the ropes and played a tough game.
-
Looking at the 2019 final CFP rankings:
- 13-0 SEC Champ LSU
- 13-0 B1G Champ tOSU
- 13-0 ACC Champ Clemson
- 12-1 B12 Champ Oklahoma
- 11-2 Georgia (lost SECCG to #1 LSU)
- 11-2 PAC Champ Oregon
- 11-2 Baylor (lost B12CG to #4 OU)
- 10-3 Wisconsin (#2 lost B1GCG to tOSU)
- 10-2 Florida
- 10-2 Penn State
- 11-2 Utah (lost PACCG to #6 Oregon
Then the highest ranked G5 Champion was 12-1 #17 Memphis. So I'm assuming that under what they are proposing the first round games would have been:
- #17 Memphis at #5 Georgia, winner plays Oklahoma
- #11 Utah at #6 Oregon, winner plays Clemson
- #10 Penn State at #7 Baylor, winner plays tOSU
- #9 Florida at #8 Wisconsin, winner plays LSU
The Utah/Oregon game is really silly since they JUST played in the PACCG with Oregon winning 37-15 so then Oregon would have to win AGAIN to get a shot at Clemson.
The game we are focused on here is the Memphis at Georgia game.
Expanding on this based on what we think we know of the current 12-team proposal, the 2018 rankings:
- 13-0 SEC Champ Bama
- 13-0 ACC Champ Clemson
- 12-0 Notre Dame
- 12-1 B12 Champ Oklahoma
- 11-2 Georgia (lost to #1 Bama in SECCG)
- 12-1 B1G Champ tOSU
- 10-2 Michigan
- 12-0 AAC Champ UCF
- 10-3 PAC Champ Washington
- 9-3 Florida
- 9-3 LSU
- 9-3 Penn State
In this case the highest ranked G5 Champion wouldn't be the lowest seed because they were ranked #8 so they'd presumably just play an 8/9 game against Washington with the winner getting #1 Bama in the Quarterfinal. Also I think they would host so they'd have a pretty good chance in the first round because they'd have a number of advantages over a team like Memphis in 2019:
- They were higher ranked because they are probably a better team, and
- Being higher ranked they get a lesser first round opponent (#9 instead of #5), and
- Being ranked in the top-8 they'd get to host their opening game and at least in this case their opponent is from REALLY far away so that would presumably create a major geographic advantage.
I'm assuming that the first round games would have been:
- #12 Penn State at #5 Georgia, winner plays #4 Oklahoma
- #11 LSU at #6 tOSU, winner plays #3 Notre Dame
- #10 Florida at #7 Michigan, winner plays #2 Clemson
- #9 Washington at #8 UCF, winner plays #1 Bama
This is why there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in PAC Country about the P5 Champions not getting a higher priority. In this case their Champion would have been the 6th highest ranked league Champion behind the rest of the P5 and AAC Champion UCF.
2017:
- 12-1 ACC Champ Clemson
- 12-1 B12 Champ Oklahoma
- 12-1 SEC Champ Georgia
- 11-1 Bama
- 11-2 B1G Champ tOSU
- 12-1 Wisconsin (lost B1GCG to #5 tOSU)
- 10-3 Auburn (lost SECCG to #3 Georgia)
- 11-2 PAC Champ USC
- 10-2 Penn State
- 10-2 MiamiFL (lost ACCCG to #1 Clemson)
- 10-2 Washington
- 12-0 UCF
The highest ranked G5 Champion was #12 UCF so in 2017 just like in 2018 the 12 CFP teams would simply have been the top-12 with the following assumed match-ups:
- #12 UCF at #5 tOSU, winner plays #4 Bama
- #11 Washington at #6 Wisconsin, winner plays #3 Georgia
- #10 MiamiFl at #7 Auburn, winner plays #2 Oklahoma
- #9 Penn State at #8 USC, winner plays #1 Clemson
2016:
- 13-0 SEC Champ Bama
- 12-1 ACC Champ Clemson
- 11-1 tOSU
- 12-1 PAC Champ Washington
- 11-2 B1G Champ PSU
- 10-2 Michigan
- 10-2 B12 Champ Oklahoma
- 10-3 Wisconsin (lost B1GCG to #5 PSU)
- 9-3 USC
- 10-3 Colorado (lost PACCG to #9 USC)
- 9-3 Florida State
The highest ranked G5 Champion was 13-0 #15 WMU so I assume the match-ups would have been:
- #15 WMU at #5 PSU, winner plays #4 Washington
- #11 FSU at #6 Michigan, winner plays #3 tOSU
- #10 Colorado at #7 Oklahoma, winner plays #2 Clemson
- #9 USC at #8 Wisconsin, winner plays #1 Bama
2015:
- 13-0 ACC Champ Clemson
- 12-1 SEC Champ Bama
- 12-1 B1G Champ MSU
- 11-1 B12 Champ Oklahoma
- 12-1 Iowa (lost B1GCG to #3 MSU)
- 11-2 PAC Champ Stanford
- 11-1 tOSU
- 10-2 Notre Dame
- 10-2 Florida State
- 11-2 North Carolina (lost ACCCG to #1 Clemson)
- 10-2 TCU
The highest ranked G5 Champion was #18 Houston so I assume the match-ups would have been:
- #18 Houston at #5 Iowa, winner plays #4 Oklahoma
- #11 TCU at #6 Stanford, winner plays #3 MSU
- #10 North Carolina at #7 tOSU, winner plays #2 Bama
- #9 FSU at #8 Notre Dame, winner plays #1 Clemson
I think this is a year in which the G5 Champion would have had a great chance to win their opener because frankly I think that Iowa was an overrated product of their schedule.
2014:
- 12-1 SEC Champ Bama
- 12-1 PAC Champ Oregon
- 13-0 ACC Champ FSU
- 12-1 B1G Champ tOSU
- 11-1 B12 Champ Baylor
- 11-1 TCU
- 10-2 MissSt
- 10-2 MSU
- 9-3 Ole Miss
- 10-3 Zona (lost PACCG to #2 Oregon)
- 9-3 KSU
The highest ranked G5 Champion was #20 BoiseSt so I assume that match-ups would have been:
- #20 Boise St at #5 Baylor, winner plays #4 tOSU
- #11 KSU at #6 TCU, winner plays #3 FSU
- #10 Zona at #7 MissSt, winner plays #2 Oregon
- #9 Ole Miss at #8 MSU, winner plays #1 Bama
-
There are some good games in this batch:
I'm assuming that the first round games would have been:
- #12 Penn State at #5 Georgia, winner plays #4 Bama
- #11 LSU at #6 tOSU, winner plays #3 Notre Dame
- #10 Florida at #7 Michigan, winner plays #2 Clemson
- #9 Washington at #8 UCF, winner plays #1 Bama
-
There are some good games in this batch:
I'm assuming that the first round games would have been:
- #12 Penn State at #5 Georgia, winner plays #4 Bama
- #11 LSU at #6 tOSU, winner plays #3 Notre Dame
- #10 Florida at #7 Michigan, winner plays #2 Clemson
- #9 Washington at #8 UCF, winner plays #1 Bama
I can't imagine that they would make Bama play as both the 1 seed and the 4 seed.
-
I can't imagine that they would make Bama play as both the 1 seed and the 4 seed.
My mistake, that should have been #4 Oklahoma.
-
I can't imagine that they would make Bama play as both the 1 seed and the 4 seed.
Heck, they could probably take all four seeds.
-
Memphis could have upset that UGA team, I think, it's not probable, but say 20% or so. You can get the percentage pretty accurately from the betting line.
Cincinnati last year was probably better than that Memphis squad and they clearly had the Dawgs on the ropes and played a tough game.
Full strength Dawgs?
-
Anyone thinking the G5 might get overlooked is acting like the P5 team playing them isn't as excited and 'up' to be in the playoff. It's going to be a strong P5 team that has the ultimate prize there for the taking.
.
It's not some aloof team looking ahead. They're not going to have their best players sitting out. Their season wouldn't have been a disappointment. These (still) rare good showings by G5 teams in previous year's bowls are a different animal.
-
Anyone thinking the G5 might get overlooked is acting like the P5 team playing them isn't as excited and 'up' to be in the playoff. It's going to be a strong P5 team that has the ultimate prize there for the taking.
.
It's not some aloof team looking ahead. They're not going to have their best players sitting out. Their season wouldn't have been a disappointment. These (still) rare good showings by G5 teams in previous year's bowls are a different animal.
I just think you are wildly overrating P5 teams. Iowa State was a top ten team last year and lost to Louisiana. Certainly, the G5 team will take some lumps some years. But the idea that they can't win a game seems awfully silly based on every single metric you wish to use. It is ignoring all the results we actually see in favor of imagination. You are telling me Cincinnati couldn't have beaten Indiana last year? Like, it's impossible? Really?
-
I think this will eventually happen.
Good. We can just let nature take its course and dispense with the caterwauling about what we imagine some players' feelings to be.
-
I guess 20 year olds are just machines that give consistent attention and effort to everything they do.
-
I think September examples are cute.
Indiana vs Cincinnati? Where did that come from? You're taking this best this vs this worst that. Would IU have made the playoff last year?
I think we need to focus on "can" vs "will". Sure, Cincinnati "can" win a fictional 12-team playoff game. But "will" it? What did the bracket look like for 2020?
.
8 Cincinnati vs 9 Georgia.............winner gets 1 Bama
5 Notre Dame vs 12 Coastal Carolina........winner gets 4 Oklahoma
6 Texas A&M vs 11 Indiana................winner gets 3 Ohio St
7 Florida vs 10 Iowa St..................winner gets 2 Clemson
.
The only way a G5 is going to win a game here is if they're ranked 5th or 6th. Cincy's been kind when mentioning how Cinci gave UGA a good game in real life, but UGA had 5 players opt out. A peak Cinci team lost to a 2-loss Georgia.
What would the score have been with a full roster for the Dawgs and the NC still up for grabs? I know, I know, it wouldn't make any difference.
Let's say Cincinnati wins. Alabama gets a perceived layup in the quarterfinals. Right or wrong, OU would be sitting there pissed and/or jealous of that situation. I wonder why?
-
What would the score have been with a full roster for the Dawgs and the NC still up for grabs? I know, I know, it wouldn't make any difference.
But that's the problem. Georgia is a top five team via talent every year. They are the type of team that in your world should mop the floor with Cincinnati, yet they couldn't do it. I know, they just weren't motivated enough, and in an actual playoff scenario they would ready to go. But that is Georgia. There are literally only a handful of teams with Georgia's talent every year. The bottom of the top 12 last year were far from world beaters, yet you seem to think we should just pretend that teams are better than they are. But ornery reality always gets in the way.
-
But that's the problem. Georgia is a top five team via talent every year. They are the type of team that in your world should mop the floor with Cincinnati, yet they couldn't do it. I know, they just weren't motivated enough, and in an actual playoff scenario they would ready to go. But that is Georgia. There are literally only a handful of teams with Georgia's talent every year. The bottom of the top 12 last year were far from world beaters, yet you seem to think we should just pretend that teams are better than they are. But ornery reality always gets in the way.
The reality is that the Georgia team was djusting to a diminished roster because a bunch of their starters didn't care enough to show up.
The reality is that the game was utterly meaningless to Georgia because they'd already lost their goals in the previous game which is why a bunch of their guys opted out.
The reality is that the game was the biggest in the lifetimes of every Bearcat.
The reality is that Georgia won anyway.
-
But that's the problem. Georgia is a top five team via talent every year. They are the type of team that in your world should mop the floor with Cincinnati, yet they couldn't do it. I know, they just weren't motivated enough, and in an actual playoff scenario they would ready to go. But that is Georgia. There are literally only a handful of teams with Georgia's talent every year. The bottom of the top 12 last year were far from world beaters, yet you seem to think we should just pretend that teams are better than they are. But ornery reality always gets in the way.
I admit, if you remove 5 starters at random from the 8 or 9 seed, they'll play a close game with a G5 program peaking. You are correct.
-
ok, what does it take for a G5 team in be # 4, #5, or #6??
would Scott Frost's Florida team have had a chance?
cause if they're #4, maybe they have a chance
-
ok, what does it take for a G5 team in be # 4, #5, or #6??
would Scott Frost's Florida team have had a chance?
cause if they're #4, maybe they have a chance
Unfortunately for UCF, no. They'd have been the 12 seed that year and would have played eventual NC Alabama in Tuscaloosa. Not exactly the same as a 7-point win over 3-loss Auburn in a meaningless bowl.
-
so, there's literally no change
again, this is merely a 4 team playoff with a few extra games to make $$$
-
Maybe the last team out of the playoff can beat a 3-loss team in a bowl and proclaim itself NCs.
-
The reality is that the Georgia team was djusting to a diminished roster because a bunch of their starters didn't care enough to show up.
The reality is that the game was utterly meaningless to Georgia because they'd already lost their goals in the previous game which is why a bunch of their guys opted out.
The reality is that the game was the biggest in the lifetimes of every Bearcat.
The reality is that Georgia won anyway.
But....it was a great game! Cincy probably should have won. And you are using this as some sort of evidence that Cincinnati wouldn't be able to compete with Georgia? That makes no sense!
-
Though, in retrospect, maybe I should have come around. OSU was without like 14 guys against Alabama so in the WIMU Index (WIMU = Whatever I Make Up) they would have won the national championship, probably by like 20 points.
-
I think Cincy was "as good as UGA" that day. I watched the game a few times paying attention to the lines, UC stood up well. Even with UGA being down a few players, I though UC was still close in talent, they didn't get thrashed. UGA needs more consistent offensive production to be "elite". They can field very good/elite defenses, but their offense often sputters, for long periods, and it's not all QB.
-
I just think you are wildly overrating P5 teams. Iowa State was a top ten team last year and lost to Louisiana. Certainly, the G5 team will take some lumps some years. But the idea that they can't win a game seems awfully silly based on every single metric you wish to use. It is ignoring all the results we actually see in favor of imagination. You are telling me Cincinnati couldn't have beaten Indiana last year? Like, it's impossible? Really?
Though, in retrospect, maybe I should have come around. OSU was without like 14 guys against Alabama so in the WIMU Index (WIMU = Whatever I Make Up) they would have won the national championship, probably by like 20 points.
First, I don't want you to think that I'm just blowing off your argument without any consideration. I'm not, I've put a lot of thought into this and presented evidence which I will recount and add to below.
Second, I think that your WIMU concept is vastly unfair to @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) and I because we HAVE presented evidence to back up our assertions.
Upthread OAM pointed out that since 1989 the Gators are 69-1 vs G5 and FCS teams. Granted the Gators have been pretty good over that stretch and a lot of those G5 were far from the top of the G5 but the Gators haven't always been good and not all of those G5 have been bottom-feeders. As he pointed out, 1989-2020 for the Gators does include a couple of sub .500 years and a handful of mediocre (ie, 7-5 or a little better) type teams.
Another example, 2019 tOSU vs Cincy:
In 2019 the Buckeyes were one of the top teams in the P5 although not the top team. They lost a close game to Clemson and likely would have been beaten rather soundly by #1 LSU. Meanwhile Cincy was one of the top teams in the G5 although not the top team. In the final AP Poll they were #21 which was second among G5 teams behind #17 Memphis and in the final CFP poll (pre bowls) they were #21 which was second among the G5 behind #17 Memphis.
Memphis was pretty clearly the top G5 that year and Cincy played them twice, losing both games. Note, however, that both games were at Memphis and competitive. In the first game Cincy was tied just before the half and within a FG with under five minutes to play before Memphis scored a clinching TD late for a 34-24 win.
The second game was the AACCG a week later and hosted by Memphis (because Memphis won the first game). Cincy led 14-10 at the half and 24-23 deep in the fourth quarter. The entire game was played within 7 points and Memphis won on a TD scored with just over a minute remaining to take a 29-24 lead (they went for two to try to make it a 7 point game and failed.) Cincy got the ball back after Memphis' late TD and drove all the way to a first and 10 at the Memphis 21 but the drive stalled out and Memphis won 29-24.
My point is that Cincy was very nearly equal to the best G5 team in the country so what happened when they played tOSU?
- Ohio State outgained Cincy 508-273
- Ohio State had more fist downs 31-13
- Ohio State had more rushing yards 270-107
- Ohio State had more yards per rush 5.9-3.1
- Ohio State had more passing yards 238-166
- Ohio State had more yards per pass 8.8-7.2
- Ohio State led 7-0 after one quarter
- Ohio State led 28-0 at the half
- Ohio State led 35-0 after three quarters
- Ohio State won 42-0
My point is that the top of the G5 wasn't remotely close to the top of the P5 in 2019.
My assertion, and I believe OAM's also, is that games like 2019 tOSU vs Cincy and stats like UF's 69-1 are reasonable and fair reflections of the enormous gap between the top of the P5 and the top of the G5 while games like the Cincy/UGA Peach Bowl and the BoiseSt/Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl are the outliers. I've never said it was "impossible" I just said that the gap is sufficiently large that G5 upset wins in the first round will be rare while G5 upset wins in the Quarterfinals will be vanishingly rare.
To be fair, I'll look at how the top G5 team in each of the past seven seasons (the entire CFP era) did against the P5, here goes:
The top G5 per the final 2020 CFP Poll was #8 Cincy:
- L 24-21 to UGA in the Peach Bowl (UGA finished 8-2/7-2)
The top G5 per the final 2019 CFP Poll was #17 Memphis:
- W 15-10 over Ole Miss (Ole Miss finished 4-8/2-6)
- L 53-39 to PSU in the Cotton Bowl (PSU finished 11-2/7-2)
The top G5 in the final 2018 CFP Poll was #8 UCF:
- W 45-14 over Pitt (Pitt finished 7-7/6-2)
- L 40-32 to LSU in the Fiesta Bowl (LSU finished 10-3/5-3)
The top G5 in the final 2017 CFP Poll was #12 UCF:
- W 38-10 over Maryland (Maryland finished 4-8/2-7)
- W 34-27 over Auburn in the Peach Bowl (Auburn finished 10-4/7-1)
The top G5 in the final 2016 CFP Poll was #15 WMU:
- W 22-21 over Northwestern (Northwestern finished 7-6/5-4)
- W 34-10 over Illinois (Illinois finished 2-7/3-9)
- L 24-16 to Wisconsin in the Cotton Bowl (UW finished 11-3/7-2)
The top G5 in the final 2015 CFP Poll was #18 Houston:
- W 34-31 over Louisville (Louisville finished 8-5/5-3)
- W 38-24 over FSU in the Peach Bowl (FSU finished 10-3/6-2)
The top G5 in the final 2014 CFP Poll was #20 Boise St:
- L 35-13 to Ole Miss (Ole Miss finished 9-4/5-3)
- W 38-30 over Zona in the Fiesta Bow (Zona finished 10-4/7-2)
So in the last six years the very best G5 team in the country each year is 9-5 against all P5 teams but lets sort it by their final records:
- 0-1 against teams that finished 11-2/7-2 by 14
- 0-1 against teams that finished 8-2/7-2 by 3
- 0-1 against teams that finished 11-3/7-2 by 8
- 1-0 against teams that finished 10-3/6-2 by 14
- 0-1 against teams that finished 10-3/5-3 by 8
- 1-0 against teams that finished 10-4/7-1 by 7
- 1-0 against teams that finished 10-4/7-2 by 8
- 0-1 against teams that finished 9-4/5-3 by 22
- 1-0 against teams that finished 8-5/5-3 by 3
- 1-0 against teams that finished 7-7/6-2 by 31
- 1-0 against teams that finished 7-6/5-4, by 1
- 1-0 against teams that finished 4-8/2-6 by 5
- 1-0 against teams that finished 4-8/2-7 by 28
- 1-0 against teams that finished 3-9/2-7 by 24
Six of the nine wins came against P5 teams that finished 8-5 or worse and would obviously be nowhere near the CFP. Even there, three of those six wins against mediocre and bad teams were by five or less points and remember this is comparing the BEST G5 team in the nation to a mediocre or bad P5. Even with all of that favoring the G5 team, they only barely managed to win three of these games.
The remaining three G5 wins came by 7, 8, and 14 points against P5 teams that finished 10-4/7-1, 10-4/7-2, and 11-3/7-2 respectively.
Overall in the last seven years the best G5 in the country each year is 1-4 against P5 teams that finished 10-3 or better and 8-1 against P5 teams that finished below 10-3. The 1-4 record against good P5 teams, I think, is basically a best-case-scenario for the G5 in the new CFP first round and I highly doubt it will even be once in five years, I predict more along the lines of once a decade. The few G5's that get to the Quarterfinal will then run into P5's even better (vastly better I would argue) than the 10-3+ P5's that they only went 1-4 against and they'll get obliterated.
-
Another example, 2019 tOSU vs Cincy:
Sure - however, 2019 OSU was statistically one of the best teams in college football history. Until the playoff, no team came within single digits of them. So, the idea that we should compare any team to the very best teams isn't right. We should compare the teams to the other teams in the pool. And we have a great data point that year, where Memphis and PSU would have both made the playoffs, and Memphis beat PSU 53-39.
-
Sure - however, 2019 OSU was statistically one of the best teams in college football history. Until the playoff, no team came within single digits of them. So, the idea that we should compare any team to the very best teams isn't right. We should compare the teams to the other teams in the pool. And we have a great data point that year, where Memphis and PSU would have both made the playoffs, and Memphis beat PSU 53-39.
Only one problem:
You have the score right but the result backwards. Penn State beat Memphis 53-39.
-
I think we'll see a G5 beat a P5 in the first round fairly often, maybe every third year or so. I think the G5 will get wasted the next round with very few exceptions.
-
Only one problem:
You have the score right but the result backwards. Penn State beat Memphis 53-39.
My bad yer right.
But looking at the box score, Memphis outgained PSU - my point here is not that the G5 will dominate the playoffs, but to show they can certainly play competitive, fun games. That one definitely was.
-
I'd like to know the P5 record vs G5 when they still had a shot at the NC. I'm guessing it's about 9,204-1.
-
Though, in retrospect, maybe I should have come around. OSU was without like 14 guys against Alabama so in the WIMU Index (WIMU = Whatever I Make Up) they would have won the national championship, probably by like 20 points.
Why do you poo-poo 5 starters just sitting out of that game? If 5 had the NFL draft capital to sit out, how many didn't who wanted to?
.
Many here can make fun of me all they want, but G5 programs don't know what they're facing up against a good P5 team with its ultimate goal still attainable.
-
Why do you poo-poo 5 starters just sitting out of that game? If 5 had the NFL draft capital to sit out, how many didn't who wanted to?
.
Many here can make fun of me all they want, but G5 programs don't know what they're facing up against a good P5 team with its ultimate goal still attainable.
You and I appear to be in the minority here but I agree. Some here disagree but motivation is a big factor. In every bowl game that pits a G5 Champion against an also-ran from the P5 the motivation is seriously lopsided. Look at UGA/Cincy last year:
- For Cincy's players this game is the biggest game of their lives. The vast majority will obviously not make the NFL and most of their college games were against little-known AAC opponents or early season P5 games that tend to get lost in everything else going on. The Peach Bowl against Georgia is a completely different animal. The Peach Bowl itself is a nationally known thing and Georgia is a nationally known near-helmet. This is a HUMONGOUS opportunity for the Bearcats with a national audience.
- For Georgia's players this game is a completely meaningless post-season exhibition. Georgia's hopes and dreams (the CFP and a NC) were snatched from them in the previous game (SECCG loss) and note that the previous game along with 3-5 games per season for the Dawgs are national attention getting match-ups against nationally known helmets and near-helmets.
-
I think we'll see a G5 beat a P5 in the first round fairly often, maybe every third year or so.
I think you are probably WAY too high at 33% for the first round games but it depends on how highly the G5 Champs end up getting ranked which is something that can snowball. What I am getting at is this: In last year's final CFP rankings the highest ranked G5 Champion was #9 Cincinnati. As I understand the current 12-team proposal that means that the Bearcats would have played a true road game at #8 Georgia. Now lets consider that along with two hypothetical alternatives:
- Bearcats #9 play at #8 7-2 Georgia.
- Bearcats #6 host #11 6-1 Indiana
- Bearcats #12 play at #5 7-1 aTm.
Even holding Cincinnati the same my view is that their chances change a LOT. I think that they have a VERY slim chance in a true road game against Georgia or aTm but I think they would have a pretty decent shot in a home game against Indiana.
I said I thought it could snowball because if the G5's get absolutely drilled in the first round of the first couple 12-team playoff occurrences then that will adversely impact the rankings of future G5 Champions and even the REALLY good ones are likely to end up at #12 playing near-impossible road games against #5.
Conversely, if the G5 pulls off wins in two of the first three years of the 12-team playoff then that will positively impact the rankings of future G5 Champions and even the REALLY shaky ones are likely to end up hosting their first round game in which case they'll have a much better chance.
As a general thing, considering the average best G5 Champion and what the average #5 looks like, I think your one in three was WAY too high. I think the average best G5 Champion would be lucky to win one in ten true road games against the average #5.
OTOH, considering the average best G5 Champion and what the average #12 looks like, your one in three might even be too low. I think the average best G5 Champion would win around one in three true home games against the average #12.
-
I think the G5 will get wasted the next round with very few exceptions.
I think we are generally agreed that they are only very rarely going to knock off a top-4 team. The question of how often, IMHO depends more on how often they actually get to the Quarterfinal. Example, two four hypotheticals:
- G5's win one in three of their first round games (your estimate) and one in 10 second round games.
- G5's win one in three of their first round games (your estimate) and one in five second round games.
- G5's win one in 10 first round games (closer to my estimate) and one in 10 second round games.
- G5's win one in 10 first round games (closer to my estimate) and one in five second round games.
How often will they actually win a second round game?
- Once every 30 years. They win one in 10 Qurarterfinals but since they only make it once every three years it takes 30 years to win a Quarterfinal.
- Once every 15 years. They win one in five Quarterfinals but since they only make it once every three years it takes 15 years to win a Quarterfinal.
- Once every century. They win one in 10 Quarterfinals but since they only make it once every 10 years it takes 100 years to win a Quarterfinal.
- Once every 50 years. They win one in five Quarterfinals but since they only make it once every 10 years it takes 50 years to win a Quarterfinal.
Getting to the Quarterfinal and thus getting an opportunity to win it is far more important that how good their chances are in the Quarterfinal.
-
Upon reflection, one in three is too many. I was thinking we'd have a G5 ranked in the top ten most seasons, which likely will not be the case. Let me revise that considerably by saying IF a G5 is top ten ranked they could win a first rounder 1 time in 3, maybe 1 in 2. Having a "UC" ranked that high is not the norm, duh.
Maybe it will be more common going forward?
-
If five players and a little motivation is all that separates the P5 from the G5, then that isn't a very wide chasm.
-
It would be five draft possible players of course. I thought it great they could play their twos in a major bowl game. They probably suffered from loss of depth more than talent in many cases.
-
We also don't know how the committee (I assume it'll be a committee) will rank these G5 'champs,' now that they'll automatically be included. They could very well just set them as the 12 seed every year.
I don't think it should alter their ranking of them, but it may. Just another unknown to consider.
-
I'm fairly confident any committee would rank G5 teams as they would other teams, similar to how the AP does it now.
I wonder how possible it would be for another "FSU" G5 team to play such a slate and go 13-0 that they would get a bye. Well, not very.
-
I don't think they'll just set them as the #12 every year...
...but in a majority of years, the top G5 is likely to be the #12.
There might be a few where the top G5 is #11 while the bottom P5 champ is #12 lol...
And there will be some years where the top G5 is legitimately given a top 10 seed. I doubt it'll be a majority though.
-
Is this 12 team playoff the real deal now (in a few years)? Has it been approved? Is approval certain or near certain?
-
the committee has shown they will rank the final poll for matchups
such as no rematches and no head to head for conference mates
it's not fair
-
the committee has shown they will rank the final poll for matchups
such as no rematches and no head to head for conference mates
it's not fair
In their release, it specifies they won't change seedings for that.
-
We also don't know how the committee (I assume it'll be a committee) will rank these G5 'champs,' now that they'll automatically be included. They could very well just set them as the 12 seed every year.
I don't think it should alter their ranking of them, but it may. Just another unknown to consider.
I'm fairly confident any committee would rank G5 teams as they would other teams, similar to how the AP does it now.
I wonder how possible it would be for another "FSU" G5 team to play such a slate and go 13-0 that they would get a bye. Well, not very.
I don't think they'll just set them as the #12 every year...
...but in a majority of years, the top G5 is likely to be the #12.
There might be a few where the top G5 is #11 while the bottom P5 champ is #12 lol...
And there will be some years where the top G5 is legitimately given a top 10 seed. I doubt it'll be a majority though.
As I said above, I think it will depend largely on how they do in the first few years and it can snowball from there.
If @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) and I are right and the G5 Champs are just unable to compete with their CFP opponents year in and year out that will make it obvious that OAM and I are right and consequently all future G5 Champions will get dinged. After two or three years of watching the token G5 Champ get obliterated in their first round game it will be very difficult for any G5 Champ to get above the #12 seed. Then that will snowball because with all of them getting the #12 seed they'll all get the toughest possible match-up (road game at #5) so even if there IS a legitimate top-10 G5 Champion, they'll likely still lose because they'll be playing a true road game against a top-5 team.
Conversely, if OAM and I are wrong and the G5 Champs routinely win their first round games that will put pressure on the committee to rank them more highly. Ie, if the first couple G5 Champs in the CFP are #12 seeds that knock off #5 seeds, the G5 Champs that come after that will get better rankings. Then even the shakier ones will have a MUCH better chance because instead of being the #12 seed and getting a true road game against a top-5 team they'll be a #5 or #6 seed and get a home game against a team outside of the top-10.
-
Is this 12 team playoff the real deal now (in a few years)? Has it been approved? Is approval certain or near certain?
My impression is that it is not yet formally approved but that it appears to be inevitable.
-
As I said above, I think it will depend largely on how they do in the first few years and it can snowball from there.
If @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) and I are right and the G5 Champs are just unable to compete with their CFP opponents year in and year out that will make it obvious that OAM and I are right and consequently all future G5 Champions will get dinged. After two or three years of watching the token G5 Champ get obliterated in their first round game it will be very difficult for any G5 Champ to get above the #12 seed. Then that will snowball because with all of them getting the #12 seed they'll all get the toughest possible match-up (road game at #5) so even if there IS a legitimate top-10 G5 Champion, they'll likely still lose because they'll be playing a true road game against a top-5 team.
Conversely, if OAM and I are wrong and the G5 Champs routinely win their first round games that will put pressure on the committee to rank them more highly. Ie, if the first couple G5 Champs in the CFP are #12 seeds that knock off #5 seeds, the G5 Champs that come after that will get better rankings. Then even the shakier ones will have a MUCH better chance because instead of being the #12 seed and getting a true road game against a top-5 team they'll be a #5 or #6 seed and get a home game against a team outside of the top-10.
It may be doubtful the 12-team CFP will last long enough for this, but my position is that we'll have to wait something like 10 years to REALLY get a handle on the answer to this question, maybe longer.
There are anomalies in statistics and sometimes the outliers come in clusters. If the G5's win their first two CFP first round games that MIGHT be indicative that they are as strong as some here are asserting and they'll keep that up and go at least 5-5 in first round games over 10 years or those two MIGHT just be the two outliers and after 10 years they'll be 2-8.
Conversely, if the G5's get smoked in their first two CFP games, that MIGHT be indicative that they are as weak as @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) and I are asserting and they'll keep that up and be lucky to go 1-9 in first round games over 10 years or those two MIGHT just be 40% of the losses that they'll sustain in 10 years and they'll end up 5-5 in the first 10 years of first round games.
Ie, I'm saying that I will neither claim to have been proven right nor admit to having been proven wrong after the first two years of 12-team CFP's.
-
My impression is that it is not yet formally approved but that it appears to be inevitable.
Mine as well, I just wonder if this is a done deal, and in what year it would happen.
-
Mine as well, I just wonder if this is a done deal, and in what year it would happen.
According to this article from CBS Sports (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-playoff-expansion-cfp-board-pushes-12-team-field-closer-to-approval-with-summer-study/), the CFP Board of Managers approved a feasibility study which will be conducted over the summer in advance of theiir next meeting in September.
I found this interesting:
"Media rights sources have valued a 12-team playoff at approximately $1 billion per year. The current contract between the CFP and ESPN averages $600 million annually over 12 years through 2025."
It isn't clear from the article but I *THINK* those figures include the other, non-playoff games arranged by the CFP.
Finally, the timeline proposed is approximately what I guessed earlier:
- CCG's: Unchanged so first Saturday in December, December 1-7
- CFP First Round games at the home stadiums of the top four teams other than the top four league Champions (top four league Champs get a bye) two weeks after CCG's: December 15th - 21st.
- Quarterfinals: NYD Bowls
- Semifinals: "approximately 10-14 days later". I'm not sure what that means and I think it is a misstatement. I would *ASSUME* that they will pick a day of the week and play the semifinals on that day but at least 10 days after the quarterfinals which would end up meaning January 11-18.
- Championship: Nothing stated but I'm assuming they would keep it on a Monday only now it would be in late January.
-
The thing that most of you are missing is that the whole of the NCAA will be soon changing as the divide between the have's and the have nots will get bigger and more insurmountable. The whole structure of D1 D1-A or FCS FBS or whatever silliness they have now will go away and there will be a permanent split.
The amount of money flowing into college sports is about to accelerate greatly, and that will affect recruiting. The schools that can pay the most, either through alumni with NIL dollars or other sources will soon separate themselves from the mid-to smaller schools that can't draw those dollars.
My belief is that this whole G5 vs P5 will be about a 6-8 year period, after that we will go to a super league where only the biggest schools with the most money/boosters will compete with each other. There's simply not enough players to sustain the middle/low tier schools to compete.
-
we've been talking about the demise of the NCAA for 20 years
hasn't happened yet
-
The thing that most of you are missing is that the whole of the NCAA will be soon changing as the divide between the have's and the have nots will get bigger and more insurmountable. The whole structure of D1 D1-A or FCS FBS or whatever silliness they have now will go away and there will be a permanent split.
The amount of money flowing into college sports is about to accelerate greatly, and that will affect recruiting. The schools that can pay the most, either through alumni with NIL dollars or other sources will soon separate themselves from the mid-to smaller schools that can't draw those dollars.
My belief is that this whole G5 vs P5 will be about a 6-8 year period, after that we will go to a super league where only the biggest schools with the most money/boosters will compete with each other. There's simply not enough players to sustain the middle/low tier schools to compete.
It is plainly obvious that Memphis/Cincinnati aren't going to be able to keep up with Bama/tOSU, I agree with you that far.
The complication, I think, is that Vanderbilt and Illinois aren't going to be able to keep up either.
Therefore, it isn't simply a question of cutting the G5 loose, the split you are talking about is basically the dozen or so helmets vs everyone else.
Also, I'm not sure how big of a change this ultimately will be. Endorsement type deals (NIL) aren't going to mean BIG money for most players even at a place like tOSU. Instead, you are going to see big money for the starting QB's and a few other well known starters at Bama, tOSU, etc. Then, I assume, the gaming systems will either have to come up with some way to compensate all CFB players or else drop ID's. Who knows how that will work out. For everybody else (even at Bama/tOSU) there isn't going to be a lot of money (I think).
The competitive advantage issue for the Tide and Buckeyes is that the BEST QB's and the BEST Linebackers and whatnot will get more money at Bama/tOSU than they would at Vandy/Illinois/Memphis/Cincy. My guess is that a LOT of HS recruits have an optimistic (or inflated) view of themselves and will *THINK* that they are going to be superstars so they'll want to go to Bama/tOSU because there is more money in that for the superstars. Some may actually cost themselves money because you'd probably get a lot more NIL money as a starter at Vandy/Illinois or even Memphis/Cincy than you would as a bench warmer at Bama/tOSU.
I'm thinking it is going to be a while before we really see the ramifications of this.
-
The competitive advantage issue for the Tide and Buckeyes is that the BEST QB's and the BEST Linebackers and whatnot will get more money at Bama/tOSU than they would at Vandy/Illinois/Memphis/Cincy. My guess is that a LOT of HS recruits have an optimistic (or inflated) view of themselves and will *THINK* that they are going to be superstars so they'll want to go to Bama/tOSU because there is more money in that for the superstars. Some may actually cost themselves money because you'd probably get a lot more NIL money as a starter at Vandy/Illinois or even Memphis/Cincy than you would as a bench warmer at Bama/tOSU.
I thought about that aspect...
Rondale Moore, for example. Does he have more NIL value as a superstar at Purdue than he does as just a slot receiver / gadget player at Texas?
Will we occasionally see players choosing to be the big fish in a small pond because that's better for NIL than going to the helmet and blending in?
-
It is plainly obvious that Memphis/Cincinnati aren't going to be able to keep up with Bama/tOSU, I agree with you that far.
The complication, I think, is that Vanderbilt and Illinois aren't going to be able to keep up either.
Therefore, it isn't simply a question of cutting the G5 loose, the split you are talking about is basically the dozen or so helmets vs everyone else.
I'm thinking it is going to be a while before we really see the ramifications of this.
sounds like the 80s
-
How often in the recent past have G5 teams ended in the top ten of the AP before bowl games? I THINK it's every couple of years or so. At times they get smoked in a bowl game, and at times they don't.
UCF
Cincy
Memphis?
Hawaii a while back
Houston?
Laville before?
Eastern Michigan?
-
A G5 would have to run the table and collect a noteworthy P5 scalp along the way; not a playoff contender necessarily, but it can't be Kansas, Wake Forest or Rutgers as your P5 win. Maybe a fallen giant like Tennessee or Nebraska would be best path. Taking down a big brand looks good, and both would be winnable games.
More often than not a team that pulls off a monster upset in September will fail to run the table in their league; AKA "pulling a Toledo."
-
How often in the recent past have G5 teams ended in the top ten of the AP before bowl games? I THINK it's every couple of years or so. At times they get smoked in a bowl game, and at times they don't.
UCF
Cincy
Memphis?
Hawaii a while back
Houston?
Laville before?
Eastern Michigan?
I did this for the CFP era a few pages ago (https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/si-says-12-team-playoff-likely-w-6-at-large/490/). Skipping 2020 (because it was a screwy shortened year), in the CFP era the top G5 Champion has been:
- #8 UCF in 2018
- #12 UCF in 2017
- #15 WMU in 2016
- #17 Memphis in 2019
- #18 Houston in 2015
- #20 BoiseSt in 2014
So in those six years you had only one that would have been anything other than the #12 seed but the one exception would have gotten a home game.
-
The thing that most of you are missing is that the whole of the NCAA will be soon changing as the divide between the have's and the have nots will get bigger and more insurmountable. The whole structure of D1 D1-A or FCS FBS or whatever silliness they have now will go away and there will be a permanent split.
The amount of money flowing into college sports is about to accelerate greatly, and that will affect recruiting. The schools that can pay the most, either through alumni with NIL dollars or other sources will soon separate themselves from the mid-to smaller schools that can't draw those dollars.
My belief is that this whole G5 vs P5 will be about a 6-8 year period, after that we will go to a super league where only the biggest schools with the most money/boosters will compete with each other. There's simply not enough players to sustain the middle/low tier schools to compete.
Aren't the gaps already pretty massive?
-
The best opportunity for G5 programs to really make a statement was taken away from them: the year "they" made Boise State play TCU in the Fiesta Bowl.
#3 TCU from the MWC vs #6 Boise State from the WAC.
They could have faced off against big-boy programs in different bowls and "they" didn't allow it. They played each other and it sucked.
-
The best opportunity for G5 programs to really make a statement was taken away from them: the year "they" made Boise State play TCU in the Fiesta Bowl.
#3 TCU from the MWC vs #6 Boise State from the WAC.
They could have faced off against big-boy programs in different bowls and "they" didn't allow it. They played each other and it sucked.
Yep. The "Separate but Equal" bowl.
-
we've been talking about the demise of the NCAA for 20 years
hasn't happened yet
The NCAA will be around for a long time. It’s not the end. It’s the beginning of something new.
-
It is plainly obvious that Memphis/Cincinnati aren't going to be able to keep up with Bama/tOSU, I agree with you that far.
The complication, I think, is that Vanderbilt and Illinois aren't going to be able to keep up either.
Therefore, it isn't simply a question of cutting the G5 loose, the split you are talking about is basically the dozen or so helmets vs everyone else.
Also, I'm not sure how big of a change this ultimately will be. Endorsement type deals (NIL) aren't going to mean BIG money for most players even at a place like tOSU. Instead, you are going to see big money for the starting QB's and a few other well known starters at Bama, tOSU, etc. Then, I assume, the gaming systems will either have to come up with some way to compensate all CFB players or else drop ID's. Who knows how that will work out. For everybody else (even at Bama/tOSU) there isn't going to be a lot of money (I think).
The competitive advantage issue for the Tide and Buckeyes is that the BEST QB's and the BEST Linebackers and whatnot will get more money at Bama/tOSU than they would at Vandy/Illinois/Memphis/Cincy. My guess is that a LOT of HS recruits have an optimistic (or inflated) view of themselves and will *THINK* that they are going to be superstars so they'll want to go to Bama/tOSU because there is more money in that for the superstars. Some may actually cost themselves money because you'd probably get a lot more NIL money as a starter at Vandy/Illinois or even Memphis/Cincy than you would as a bench warmer at Bama/tOSU.
I'm thinking it is going to be a while before we really see the ramifications of this.
The Vanderbilts and Illinois never could keep up with the big boys. Even in their best years. Very few of the casual sports fans even realize that Vanderbilt is even in the SEC. I think it’s well understood that it’s more of an academic thing, or maybe a perceived prestige thing to be included in the Conference.
-
The NCAA will be around for a long time. It’s not the end. It’s the beginning of something new.
something new where the Pres makes MORE than 3 million
-
The best opportunity for G5 programs to really make a statement was taken away from them: the year "they" made Boise State play TCU in the Fiesta Bowl.
#3 TCU from the MWC vs #6 Boise State from the WAC.
They could have faced off against big-boy programs in different bowls and "they" didn't allow it. They played each other and it sucked.
the 12-team playoff is the answer. They will get some shots at the big-boys
-
The complication, I think, is that Vanderbilt and Illinois aren't going to be able to keep up either.
But in reality, how do you know that Vanderbilt can't keep up? I really don't know much about it other than it seems to be a school with affluent students and alumni. Maybe this whole NIL thing will work in counterintuitive ways where some of the smaller programs that have means (via rich alumni) can actually draw some good players? I mean, the athletic department at the Bama's and Georgia's of the world certainly have money, but now private individuals can pump money directly into the hands of the players?
Certainly food for thought.
-
- #8 UCF in 2018
- #12 UCF in 2017
- #15 WMU in 2016
- #17 Memphis in 2019
- #18 Houston in 2015
- #20 BoiseSt in 2014
So, it's going to be rare to have a G5 anywhere but 12 playing 5. So, 5 gets a kind of "tune up game". Advantage or not?
-
- #8 UCF in 2018
- #12 UCF in 2017
- #15 WMU in 2016
- #17 Memphis in 2019
- #18 Houston in 2015
- #20 BoiseSt in 2014
So, it's going to be rare to have a G5 anywhere but 12 playing 5. So, 5 gets a kind of "tune up game". Advantage or not?
Well, lets look at it this way. Suppose that yours and my school are the contenders for #4/5. Ie, suppose that Bama, Clemson, and Oklahoma are 13-0 Champions of the SEC, ACC, and B12 respectively while tOSU and UGA are both 12-1 and everybody else has at least two losses. Georgia's loss would obviously be to #1 Bama and lets assume for the sake of discussion that tOSU's is NOT to Clemson or Oklahoma so Georgia has an obviously better loss. However, lets say that SoS is relatively equal, that tOSU's loss isn't THAT bad, and that tOSU is B1G Champion.
Whoever "wins" this debate gets the following path to the NC:
- Bye in mid-December
- Quarterfinal against the winner of the game between the "loser" of this debate and the G5 Champion in a bowl on NYD
- Bama (or theoretically the #8/9 winner) in mid-January
- The 2/3/6/7/10/11 winner in the NCG.
Whoever "loses" this debate gets the following path to the NC:
- The G5 Champ in mid-December at home
- Quarterfinal against the "winner" of this debate in a bowl on NYD
- Bama (or theoretically the #8/9 winner) in mid-January
- The 2/3/6/7/10/11 winner in the NCG
So if it was between your school and mine, which would you prefer and which do you think is more advantageous and by how much?
My answers:
As a fan I'd prefer to "lose" the debate strictly from a viewing perspective. I'd get an extra game and it would be a home game that I just might be able to attend.
I *THINK* that "winning" the debate is more advantageous but only slightly. It reduces fatigue because you have three games to the NC instead of four but the tune-up game against a G5 Champ might actually help and that way the team would be less likely to show up rusty for the NYD game.
-
I thought about that aspect...
Rondale Moore, for example. Does he have more NIL value as a superstar at Purdue than he does as just a slot receiver / gadget player at Texas?
Will we occasionally see players choosing to be the big fish in a small pond because that's better for NIL than going to the helmet and blending in?
Like I said, I think this probably will happen but I'm not sure that any of the recruits will actually anticipate it. Plus there are risks to this strategy too. If Purdue had been slightly worse, then Rondale Moore becomes a superstar on a 3-9 team, would anyone notice?
-
I would lean to playing a tune up game before the 4-5 matchup. Risk is obvious.
But then if you win round 2, you get to face 1, generally speaking.
You hafta beat'em eventually.
-
Like I said, I think this probably will happen but I'm not sure that any of the recruits will actually anticipate it. Plus there are risks to this strategy too. If Purdue had been slightly worse, then Rondale Moore becomes a superstar on a 3-9 team, would anyone notice?
recruits don't know what to anticipate yet, too early. But in 4 or 5 years they will know what to expect.
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-0/p526x296/219915009_4261582120545831_2161483211233472123_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=y_5Wt5Df3GYAX-rsDv6&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=4a5bc9cb7dcb933b413fd01a74b087ae&oe=60FC2CB2)
-
Imagine a 10 seed winning the NC.
Connected to that, I've always found it odd that we Americans love the underdog. Cinderella during March Madness, Rocky Balboa, David & Goliath, etc......but as a country, WE are Goliath. It's not bad....it's not a criticism....it's just odd to me.
.
Everyone knows that 16-0 Pats team was the best of that season (and maybe ever), but we dwell on the big upset and David Tyree's legendary catch, etc....why does the world's only superpower country love underdogs so much?
-
Imagine a 10 seed winning the NC.
Connected to that, I've always found it odd that we Americans love the underdog. Cinderella during March Madness, Rocky Balboa, David & Goliath, etc......but as a country, WE are Goliath. It's not bad....it's not a criticism....it's just odd to me.
.
Everyone knows that 16-0 Pats team was the best of that season (and maybe ever), but we dwell on the big upset and David Tyree's legendary catch, etc....why does the world's only superpower country love underdogs so much?
Because back in 1776, we were the plucky underdog.
-
we want to be something we're not
-
It may be doubtful the 12-team CFP will last long enough for this, but my position is that we'll have to wait something like 10 years to REALLY get a handle on the answer to this question, maybe longer.
There are anomalies in statistics and sometimes the outliers come in clusters. If the G5's win their first two CFP first round games that MIGHT be indicative that they are as strong as some here are asserting and they'll keep that up and go at least 5-5 in first round games over 10 years or those two MIGHT just be the two outliers and after 10 years they'll be 2-8.
Conversely, if the G5's get smoked in their first two CFP games, that MIGHT be indicative that they are as weak as @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) and I are asserting and they'll keep that up and be lucky to go 1-9 in first round games over 10 years or those two MIGHT just be 40% of the losses that they'll sustain in 10 years and they'll end up 5-5 in the first 10 years of first round games.
Ie, I'm saying that I will neither claim to have been proven right nor admit to having been proven wrong after the first two years of 12-team CFP's.
Medina. My friend. You're one of the people that forces me to think through things in this place, and this post led me down an interesting rabbit hole that I'd not gamed out with the playoff.
SO, my initial thought was, even if they went 2-8, that's maybe what we expect? Like, we'd assume they'd go worse than 5-5, maybe 3-7? Maybe worse? So I figured I'd sketch out the matchups and set lines using end of season SP+ (we can debate if using end of regular season would be better, but in theory, more games means a bigger picture).
And the takeaway was interesting.
See, the standard for 5 seed sort of shifts around. Some years you park an uninspiring UGA team there. Some it's that Iowa team that no one thought was THAT good but was like a yard from the playoff. Sometimes it's Bama.
What's more, we don't really rank teams by how good they might be. We rank them by losses. So some years you might catch a hellacious 9-3 team at No. 12. (SP+ can have some quirks where power rating and record don't align, so I respect it's weird.)
So here's the year-by-year lines for that theoretical game (Not doing 2020 because it was dumb and weird). Using final year SP because it's just much easier to find.
2019 - UGA by 9 vs Auburn (woulda been 11 vs UCF)
2018 - ND by 4 vs PSU (6.5 vs UCF, granted, ND was 13th in SP+)
2017 - Alabama by 22 vs UCF (Bama was Bama and SP didn't like UCF)
2016 - Ohio State by 9 vs OK State (OSU was 10th in SP, OK 14th, but a 6-point difference)
2015 - Iowa as a 13-point dog vs Ole Miss (SP did not like Iowa that year, really liked Ole Miss)
2014 - Baylor by 14.5 vs Ga. Tech
The most intersting part is those 5s, all quirky in their way.
2019 UGA - That team where the offense cratered with Fromm. No one really liked the team, but they were parked at that spot because of a dearth of interesting 2-loss teams and SEC. Oregon probably should've been ahead of them, but it didn't count for much.
2018 ND - Undefeated, uninspiring, sorry good UGA team
2017 Bama - we all thought might be the best, and ended up there
2016 - Of all four OSU team that started Barrett, probably the worst and hardest to watch
2015 Iowa - They were ... fine
2014 - Baylor. All things considered, this is where you'd put them.
Basically, I wonder if they rankings of 5-12 get shaken up because you have more stakes in every seed.
-
Imagine a 10 seed winning the NC.
Connected to that, I've always found it odd that we Americans love the underdog. Cinderella during March Madness, Rocky Balboa, David & Goliath, etc......but as a country, WE are Goliath. It's not bad....it's not a criticism....it's just odd to me.
.
Everyone knows that 16-0 Pats team was the best of that season (and maybe ever), but we dwell on the big upset and David Tyree's legendary catch, etc....why does the world's only superpower country love underdogs so much?
Because they make sports fun. And our country mythologizes small folks who stand up to big folks. Horatio Alger stories have power for a reason.
-
Skip to 2030, UGA plays both Clemson and Ohio State. Say they lose close games and lose another close game to undefeated Florida, so they are 9-3. Do they get slotted at 12 and still have a dangerous team? Probably would be higher than that.
-
clemson, tOSU, & Florida all finish undefeated at #1, #2, & #3?
-
Undefeated or perhaps 12-1. I just wonder if a three loss team would get dropped to 12 if the losses were close to top teams, and that team would still be quite good.
Maybe the theoretical Dawgs also beat LSU, Auburn, and Miss State who were all 10-2.
-
not sure about what spot, but I'd guess they are in the top 12 and make the playoff
-
Yeah, I'm trying to think up a scenario where a lower seeded team could win it all, realistically.
-
2019 BCS final rankings: Wisconsin #8 & Auburn #12 each with 3 loses
2018 Washington #9, Florida #10, LSU #11, Penn St #12 each with 3 losses
2017 Auburn #7
Obviously it helps to be in the SEC
heck under your scenario the Dawgs could be a #6
-
So, it would be tough to find a really good team slotted in double digits.
-
Yeah, I'm trying to think up a scenario where a lower seeded team could win it all, realistically.
A big-boy team that had a key player out when they lost a few games earlier in the season.
"Well, a big-boy team should have depth!"
Yes, but no team, not even the best ever, has an above-average guy ready to step in at a moment's notice. That backup may grow to become a great player, but not yet.
.
Anyway, a great team that had hiccups along the way would have the talent to punch above their (seeding) weight. If I was a high seed, I'd be wary of any team I had to face in the playoff that didn't meet its preseason expectations. A team that was good enough to tart the consensus 3rd-best team in the country being seeded 11th wouldn't be fun if you're that higher seed.
-
Yeah, the injury thing could do it, esp. a QB injury. UGA kind of had that last year and appeared to be better, but not great, with JT at the helm.
-
or a COVID thing sitting out a few players
-
Yeah, that's a current scenario unfortunately, also some "tattoo selling scheme" ...
-
Nick Saban:
What do you think about conference champions getting automatic bids to the CFP?
I don't like the fact that the [Group of 5] conferences want their conference champions to be in the playoff. I coached at Toledo (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2649/toledo-rockets) and we were conference champions. We sure as hell didn't have any business playing Florida (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/57/florida-gators). That's not the best teams. If you are going to do it, get the best teams.
-
Nick Saban:
What do you think about conference champions getting automatic bids to the CFP?
I don't like the fact that the [Group of 5] conferences want their conference champions to be in the playoff. I coached at Toledo (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2649/toledo-rockets) and we were conference champions. We sure as hell didn't have any business playing Florida (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/57/florida-gators). That's not the best teams. If you are going to do it, get the best teams.
Person who benefits from thing says thing that benefits him is good, more news at 11.
-
Or guy who has experience on both sides of the fence makes interesting admission.
-
There Saban goes, helmetsplaining again...
-
everyone's entitled to their opinion
-
Or guy who has experience on both sides of the fence makes interesting admission.
He has no vested interest in Toledo anymore.
Lets ask Butch Davis (is he still at FIU?)
-
I love how taking someone at face value just isn't an option, lol.
-
The main thing I dislike about the new 12 team format is the byes for the top four teams. These four teams, will be the same ones that go to the playoff most years, they don’t need the help of a bye. These teams already have huge advantages over the rest of the playoff field, so why make the playoff non competitive? The top four teams are going to win the playoff every single year into the forseeable future. It’s great to include more teams from around the country (although there are going to be too many SEC teams, for the appearance of fairness) to keep more of the college football nation involved for longer. The bye makes it so the top four teams, are even more of prohibitive favorites than they are currently (no accident that we keep seeing the same teams). My team would benefit from these byes, but it is bad for the sport, in that it makes the playoff lack competitiveness.
-
I waffle on that, I wonder if #5 playing #12 in a tune up game is not an advantage. The 1-4 teams will be coming off a long wait. This of course is offset by injuries and wear and tear. OTH, UGA has been #5 a few times with a team I thought "not ready for Deaon Sanders".
-
I love how taking someone at face value just isn't an option, lol.
Oh, I'm taking him at face value.
But that's why I called it helmetsplaining.
If you want to know whether G5 teams want access to the playoff, why don't you ask G5 coaches, players, and athletic directors?
-
I love how taking someone at face value just isn't an option, lol.
Let's get Nick saban's totally unbiased take on this too
https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status/1428767772713041926?s=19
-
In other shocking news, the Fox claims he's "Okay" with being offered position as Hen-house guard.
-
Since we've gone to 12 regular season games + CCG + playoffs, I have held the scholarship numbers need to be expanded. There are going to be more injuries and players with too many reps. When the scholarship limits were introduced in 1973, the season was 11 games.
-
Who needs scholarships with NIL?
-
Who needs scholarships with NIL?
Third stringers? I suspect some headliners with big NILs will be asked to pay their own way to free up space for more kids on a 'ship.
-
the NCAA won't like that
-
Alabama had a starting QB a few years back NOT on scholarship. He had wealthy parents who were major donors.
This is a tweak on that.
-
Ricky Williams was a walk-on at Texas. Had his own money from playing professional baseball.
-
husker's tried to hide Darin Erstad's ship on the baseball team, was illegal if I remember properly
-
Yeah, even an academic scholarship counts. I got cut from the UGA freshman BBall team because I had one.
-
yup, that doesn't fly
but, if you just have money from your parents or a booster or NIL, that's fine???? seems odd
-
I love how taking someone at face value just isn't an option, lol.
We're skeptical about such claims when we don't like the messenger and/or the message. We take them at face value when we like the messenger and/or the message.
You too are subject to this phenomenon.
-
Let's get Nick saban's totally unbiased take on this too
https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status/1428767772713041926?s=19
Honestly, I think that change is overdue.
The main impact of that ends up being that teams with coaching turnover and instability get jammed into a hole. And if the world believed in patience, that would be one thing, but this sport has none and likely can’t be taught it.
-
Or guy who has experience on both sides of the fence makes interesting admission.
If he wants to tell me that while coaching Toledo, I’m interested.
Dave Clawson said it best, pocketbook voting.
-
Bowls execs are nervous their do nothing 6 figure salary jobs will go away
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/32494945/bowl-season-group-argues-using-campus-sites-expanded-college-football-playoff
-
Are we still doing this or no?
Might have one less Conference Champion in the mix if CUSA becomes a non-FB/Olympic Sports Conference.
-
Are we still doing this or no?
Might have one less Conference Champion in the mix if CUSA becomes a non-FB/Olympic Sports Conference.
Yeah, if we are down to just 9 conferences, let the Group of 4 have a play-in for the final 2 spots.
-
https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1560011873969442819?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1560011873969442819%7Ctwgr%5E89050d92798926a6fed90e45d535d7e73a906854%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FPeteThamel%2Fstatus%2F1560011873969442819%3Fs%3D2026t%3DYcR_rE3YpvzQYVOvCOhHbA
-
So how about the schools just sell their stadiums and facilities to the highest bidders and we can call it an NFL minor league?
That's what it is anyway, at this point.
-
Pretty much.
-
Yeah, I'm very confused about their business plan. It seems to be to turn it into a lesser NFL product?
-
The things I loved about college football were the things that made it unique from the NFL. Those things are dwindling every day.
-
Money won't tolerate mediocrity.
-
The things I loved about college football were the things that made it unique from the NFL. Those things are dwindling every day.
In general, I feel you.
But the argument could be made that at the base of it, the difference college football had from NFL was simply having sacrificial lambs.