If this is correct (big if), then the B1G-E is a wicked tough division!
- Georgia
- Clemson
- Michigan
- Alabama
- Ohio St
- Penn St
Medina,LoL, thanks.
You think of things mortals don't think of -- but if the Top 3 Big Ten East teams go 1-1 against each other, I agree with your analysis.
perhaps the Cyclones will bounce back and upset the Kitties instead of the Horns or Soonerswe should be so lucky
I think the trio of PSU/OSU/UM could very well end up top ten, one might win it all obv. These rankings always seem to find spots for NS/Texas/A&M (lately). And we all know the final top 25 won't look a lot like that anyway once you get past about 5 or so.I don't disagree, our helmetosity usually gets us overranked in the preseason, but Texas DID finish in the Top 25 last year. We return the QB, oline, and most skill positions, although we do lose a fantastic RB. The defense should be same or better as well. I don't think we're Top 12 material but somewhere between 20-25 sounds about right.
that could be said for any team with Bama on the schedIt could be, but I doubt it would be for some of their opponents. An "Ole Miss" could upset them and still finish 8-5.
It could be, but I doubt it would be for some of their opponents. An "Ole Miss" could upset them and still finish 8-5.8-5 with a "W" over Bama would be a really good season for Ole Miss
8-5 with a "W" over Bama would be a really good season for Ole MissI think the distinction he is making, and I agree, is that of the first four teams on Bama's schedule, Texas I'd the only one that I would think was a NC Contender with a win over Bama.
| Regular Season | ||||
| DATE | OPPONENT | TIME | TV | TICKETS |
| Sat, Sep 2 | vs (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/242.png&w=40&h=40) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/242/rice-owls) Rice (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/242/rice-owls) | 3:30 PM (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401525824) | FOX | Tickets as low as $23 (https://www.vividseats.com/texas-longhorns-football-tickets-darrell-k-royal---texas-memorial-stadium-9-2-2023--sports-ncaa-football/production/4258350?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) |
| Sat, Sep 9 | @ (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/333.png&w=40&h=40) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/333/alabama-crimson-tide) Alabama (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/333/alabama-crimson-tide) | 7:00 PM (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401520183) | (https://www.espn.com/watch/) (https://www.espn.com/watch/) (https://a.espncdn.com/redesign/assets/img/logos/networks/espn-red@2x.png) (https://www.espn.com/watch/) | Tickets as low as $278 (https://www.vividseats.com/alabama-crimson-tide-football-tickets-bryant-denny-stadium-9-9-2023--sports-ncaa-football/production/4171882?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) |
| Sat, Sep 16 | vs (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/2751.png&w=40&h=40) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2751/wyoming-cowboys) Wyoming (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2751/wyoming-cowboys) | 8:00 PM (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401525840) | (http://www.longhornnetwork.com/) (http://www.longhornnetwork.com/) (https://a.espncdn.com/redesign/assets/img/logos/networks/espn-longhorn@2x.png) (http://www.longhornnetwork.com/) | Tickets as low as $24 (https://www.vividseats.com/texas-longhorns-football-tickets-darrell-k-royal---texas-memorial-stadium-9-16-2023--sports-ncaa-football/production/4238701?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) |
| Sat, Sep 23 | @ (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/239.png&w=40&h=40) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/239/baylor-bears) Baylor (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/239/baylor-bears) | TBD (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401525844) | Tickets as low as $69 (https://www.vividseats.com/baylor-bears-football-tickets-mclane-stadium-9-23-2023--sports-ncaa-football/production/4292125?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) | |
| Sat, Sep 30 | vs (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/2305.png&w=40&h=40) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2305/kansas-jayhawks) Kansas (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2305/kansas-jayhawks) | TBD (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401525854) | Tickets as low as $30 (https://www.vividseats.com/texas-longhorns-football-tickets-darrell-k-royal---texas-memorial-stadium-9-30-2023--sports-ncaa-football/production/4292134?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) | |
| Sat, Oct 7 | vs (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/201.png&w=40&h=40) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/201/oklahoma-sooners) Oklahoma (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/201/oklahoma-sooners) | TBD (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401525861) | (https://www.espn.com/watch/) (https://www.espn.com/watch/) (https://a.espncdn.com/redesign/assets/img/logos/networks/espn-abc@2x.png) (https://www.espn.com/watch/) | Tickets as low as $359 (https://www.vividseats.com/texas-longhorns-football-tickets-cotton-bowl-stadium-10-7-2023--sports-ncaa-football/production/4292496?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) |
| Sat, Oct 21 | @ (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/248.png&w=40&h=40) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/248/houston-cougars) Houston (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/248/houston-cougars) | TBD (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401525869) | Tickets as low as $107 (https://www.vividseats.com/houston-cougars-football-tickets-tdecu-stadium-10-21-2023--sports-ncaa-football/production/4292167?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) | |
| Sat, Oct 28 | vs (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/252.png&w=40&h=40) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/252/byu-cougars) BYU (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/252/byu-cougars) | TBD (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401525877) | Tickets as low as $53 (https://www.vividseats.com/texas-longhorns-football-tickets-darrell-k-royal---texas-memorial-stadium-10-28-2023--sports-ncaa-football/production/4292146?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) | |
| Sat, Nov 4 | vs (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/2306.png&w=40&h=40) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2306/kansas-state-wildcats) Kansas State (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2306/kansas-state-wildcats) | TBD (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401525884) | Tickets as low as $37 (https://www.vividseats.com/texas-longhorns-football-tickets-darrell-k-royal---texas-memorial-stadium-11-4-2023--sports-ncaa-football/production/4292139?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) | |
| Sat, Nov 11 | @ (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/2628.png&w=40&h=40) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2628/tcu-horned-frogs) TCU (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2628/tcu-horned-frogs) | TBD (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401525891) | Tickets as low as $114 (https://www.vividseats.com/tcu-horned-frogs-football-tickets-amon-g-carter-stadium-11-11-2023--sports-ncaa-football/production/4292173?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) | |
| Sat, Nov 18 | @ (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/66.png&w=40&h=40) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/66/iowa-state-cyclones) Iowa State (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/66/iowa-state-cyclones) | TBD (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401525895) | Tickets as low as $83 (https://www.vividseats.com/iowa-state-cyclones-football-tickets-midamerican-energy-field-at-jack-trice-stadium-11-18-2023--sports-ncaa-football/production/4292148?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) | |
| Fri, Nov 24 | vs (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/2641.png&w=40&h=40) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2641/texas-tech-red-raiders) Texas Tech (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2641/texas-tech-red-raiders) | 7:30 PM (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401525901) | (https://www.espn.com/watch/) (https://www.espn.com/watch/) (https://a.espncdn.com/redesign/assets/img/logos/networks/espn-abc@2x.png) (https://www.espn.com/watch/) | Tickets as low as $65 (https://www.vividseats.com/texas-longhorns-football-tickets-darrell-k-royal---texas-memorial-stadium-11-25-2023--sports-ncaa-football/production/4292140?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) |
I think the distinction he is making, and I agree, is that of the first four teams on Bama's schedule, Texas I'd the only one that I would think was a NC Contender with a win over Bama.I would agree with this
Texas is a different story. I see them as a potential NC Contender so if they beat Bama (in Tuscaloosa no less), I will see them as a definite NC Contender.
I would agree with thisDefinitely, but a win gives them some margin for error.
I also think that even with a single loss to Bama, the Horns could run through the rest of that slate and get in the playoff.
I like the way y'all are talking!If I had to guess, I'd say 9-3 but I'm counting the game in Tuscaloosa as one of the three losses and I'm viewing the Red River Shootout as a toss up. If Texas beats Bama that takes away one of my projected losses and gives me a higher opinion of Texas which would improve my view of the Oklahoma game from 50/50 to something like 70/30.
Personally I think we're probably more like a 3-4 loss team but hope springs eternal.
If this rings true, Penn State is gonna have a helluva defense.
This should be PSU's year, if they are to have a year.I was going to do a deeper dive on Penn State based on this so I looked at their schedule and the thing that jumped out at me was that they effectively have nearly a month to prepare for Ohio State. Their schedule leading up to their trip to Columbus:
[img width=274.381 height=500]https://i.imgur.com/7tN2PXj.png[/img]Deeper dive on Penn State, will this be their year?
Might we see three 11-1 teams in the B1G?I don't think so. I think Penn State will be good but not THAT good.
I don't think so. I think Penn State will be good but not THAT good.Even if @Temp430 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=131) is wrong and PSU is good enough to split with the Buckeyes and Wolverines and they both also split, you'd still only see three 11-1 teams if all three of them each win all 10 other games. Granted, a loss in any individual one of those is reasonably unlikely and most would be at least somewhat surprising upsets, but upsets do happen.
FWIW: If it DOES happen the first potentially decisive tiebreaker is the record of each team's cross-divisional opponents. In this case those are:More final weekend fun:
- PSU: Illinois, Iowa, Northwestern
- M: Nebraska, Minnesota, Purdue
- tOSU: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue
It's very possible for UW to finish 11-1 too. I'm starting to feel pretty good about that team.Imagine this crazy scenario:
I would go to Michigan because Ohio/Penn State suck.
I'd guess it goes to Michigan for merits of last seasonIMHO, it would depend at least in part on two things:
If, IF the first year of the 12-team playoff gave us our first-ever 3-loss NC, do you think everyone freaks out and tries to change things up?I'd laugh and then I'd say that all those other chump teams shouldn't have let themselves get beat by a 3-loss suckbutt.
If, IF the first year of the 12-team playoff gave us our first-ever 3-loss NC, do you think everyone freaks out and tries to change things up?Depends.
some might freak out, but it's gonna stay at 12 cause there's more money with 12 than 4Yeah, I assume there's some kind of decade-long contract, but if they'd start massaging the language on it, a la the BCS alterations that became an annual thing.
I'd laugh and then I'd say that all those other chump teams shouldn't have let themselves get beat by a 3-loss suckbutt.yup, just like getting beat by TCU!!!
yup, just like getting beat by TCU!!!
Depends.I mean, in a 12-team playoff, the 3-loss suckbutt is going to be seeded lowest. So they're going to have to win 3 games in a row against "better" teams. What MORE should they need to do, to prove themselves?
If the team in question is a helmet, it'll be a case of "we all knew they were REALLY good and deserving, it just took some time for the team to reach its potential."
If the team in question is not a helmet, who perhaps just gets in by virtue of backdooring their way into the CFP by winning their division via tiebreaker, winning their CCG by a whisker, and then looks JUST BARELY competent enough to squeak by their CFP opponents... Yeah, the CFB world will be apoplectic.
yup, just like getting beat by TCU!!!The TCU thing hopefully revealed how a 4-team playoff could easily yield a paper champion. A team can play out of it's mind and get to the championship game. Instead of getting blown out like they did, say UGA was a QB-reliant team and he gets hurt on the 2nd play of the game....
I mean, in a 12-team playoff, the 3-loss suckbutt is going to be seeded lowest. So they're going to have to win 3 games in a row against "better" teams. What MORE should they need to do, to prove themselves?Oh, I don't think it's actually going to happen. It would probably require those CFP wins to be very fluky, broken bracket, every chance bounce coming their way.
Chances are in a situation like that, it's probably because that team had injuries or just simple inexperience early, that resolved itself later in the season. Nobody's just going to stumble-luck their way into 9 regular season wins, a CCG win, and then 3 CFP wins in a row.
check the schedYeah the ACC is terribad and the only SEC team on the schedule is... South Carolina...
FSU at home
ND at home
UNC at home
Canes on the road
not much else
South Carolina?
Oh, I don't think it's actually going to happen. It would probably require those CFP wins to be very fluky, broken bracket, every chance bounce coming their way.TCU famously made the finals last year of course. Imagine a "TCU" is a 12 seed and has a 5% chance of winning the first game, 3% the second, and 1% the third, I'm saying there is a chance ....
But c'mon. If Iowa or K State pulled off something like that? People would call it a fluke and say they never should have been there in the first place.
If, IF the first year of the 12-team playoff gave us our first-ever 3-loss NC, do you think everyone freaks out and tries to change things up?There are two separate issues here:
BTW people are missing that there are (4) rounds of playoffs here. 12 teams. Top 4 seeds (top 4 ranked conference champs) get a first round bye, which means round 1 drops from 12 to 8. Then quarterfinals, then semifinals, then MNC game.Good point. And it makes my point even stronger. It's highly unlikely for an "unworthy" team to negotiate that burden, and if they did, then they've made a strong case that they're not actually "unworthy."
The top 4 seeds only play 3 games, but anyone 5 or higher could conceivably play 4. A 3-loss conference champ would have a hard time being ranked as one of the top 4 conference champs, so they'd most likely be in that 5-12 seed range. A 3-loss participant otherwise included is unlikely a conference champ, and so would be excluded from the top 4 seeds by format.
Good point. And it makes my point even stronger. It's highly unlikely for an "unworthy" team to negotiate that burden, and if they did, then they've made a strong case that they're not actually "unworthy."Agreed, and what I don't like about it is that it takes away the "every game matters" feel that our sport had in the past, for example:
Envisioning how this would play out, really the most logical scenario, is a high quality team experiences a lot of injuries early in the season that costs them some wins, and then recovers later in the season and finishes at the level they should have. I see no reason to doubt or punish that team in an era of a 12-team playoff.
Let's imagine Alabama loses to Tenn and LSU, both of whom are top ten, and then loses in the CG to a top ranked UGA. They are a respectable 10-3 and would be a 10 or 11 seed I think with a very solid team. They then play at the 5 or 6 seed, say it's USC, and win. They'd be very dangerous at that point.In the 4-team CFP era, the BCS era, or the pre-BCS era that 10-3 Alabama team is not in the NC conversation. In a 12-team format they have a solid chance to win. Just so @rolltidefan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=12) knows, that isn't to pick on Bama, it is the same for all the helmets.
Agreed, and what I don't like about it is that it takes away the "every game matters" feel that our sport had in the past, for example:In the 4-team CFP era, the BCS era, or the pre-BCS era that 10-3 Alabama team is not in the NC conversation. In a 12-team format they have a solid chance to win. Just so @rolltidefan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=12) knows, that isn't to pick on Bama, it is the same for all the helmets.Oh yeah, I'm not disputing that it changes the feel of college football. College football fans have long valued the ideal of the undefeated national champion.
Just so @rolltidefan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=12) knows, that isn't to pick on Bama, it is the same for all the helmets.no worries
Oh yeah, I'm not disputing that it changes the feel of college football. College football fans have long valued the ideal of the undefeated national champion.It has but it keeps getting worse.
But for me, that ideal was shattered years ago. We've already traversed the "bridge too far" and this is nothing more than just a little bit further incrementalism.
Georgia is the new BamaI disagree, at this point, for obvious reasons. Longevity and consistency I think aare relevant.
It has but it keeps getting worse.
Back during the BCS era my Buckeyes and your Longhorns played two great early OOC games. I left the 2005 game knowing that tOSU's NC chances were practically nil. You left the 2006 game knowing that UT's NC chances were practically nil.
It was only one game but the impact was still humongous. Consider the final 2005 regular season AP Poll:If Texas had lost in Columbus, the Nittany Lions probably would have played the Trojans in the BCSCG.
- 12-0 USC
- 12-0 Texas
- 10-1 Penn State (lost to #20 Michigan, won Big11Ten on tiebreaker over tOSU)
- 9-2 Ohio State (lost to #2 TX and #3 PSU).
With four teams a single loss still might wreck your chances and at least so far two losses has always been too many.
With 12 teams, well (final regular season AP Polls)My supposition is that for Helmets and for teams highly ranked in the preseason, two losses will be a lock and three will probably be roughly a coin-flip depending on other factors such as SoS and MOV/MOL.
- 2022: Utah and KSU were top-12 with three losses
- 2021: Utah was top-12 with three losses
- 2020: Florida and ISU were top-12 with three losses
- 2019: Auburn and Wisconsin were top-12 with three losses
- 2018: Washington, Florida, and LSU were top-12 with three losses
Sure but we haven't had anything like the 2005 season in a long time. We're way past that. I don't view a 3-loss team winning a 12-team playoff as significantly worse than 2-loss LSU winning the championship in 2007.The issue to me is more about the perceived importance of games when they are played than it is about the actual importance in retrospect.
I get your concerns, and I would have shared them two decades ago. But watching a 2-loss LSU team win the NC, and watching SEC rematches in the championship game, has pretty much disabused me of any such notion at this point.You are right, it has been a progression:
That's just my opinion and my point of view, others obviously view it differently, but for me the concerns you raise aren't pertinent, because we already blasted past them in the past two decades.
Do you think it will be harder to win an NC with the 12 than it is now?Of course.
Do you think it will be harder to win an NC with the 12 than it is now?not if you're in the top 4
It's an extra game! Versus someone who can beat you!Yes, and it's also an extra chance for 5-12.
It's an extra game! Versus someone who can beat you!Umm, that's a facepalm, not shaking one's head.
(https://i.imgur.com/9BN0Txd.jpg)
It's an extra game! Versus someone who can beat you!sorry, it's an extra game
Umm, that's a facepalm, not shaking one's head.Smack my head?
So an OSU-KU title game in 07 and LSU-OKST in 2011 would have staved off the cheapening of the regular season?I think everyone just needs to understand and accept that 2007 was just a weird year. All year it felt like teams were trying to avoid high rankings:
Smack my head?I've always heard SMH is "shaking my head".
So, imagine a good program, think maybe Clemson or Penn State, over a decade they finish the regular season ranked as follows:Well, with 4, that team has eight zeroes, so it's pretty easy to compute.
8 9 6 3 11 5 15 2 8 10
Do they have a better shot with 12 or with 4? Tough to compute, I think.
My favorite part of this year was TCU losing the CCG to K-State and not moving down one spot! To avoid a rematch!Honestly, that was unfair to Georgia.
At that point, they're no longer rankings!
My favorite part of this year was TCU losing the CCG to K-State and not moving down one spot! To avoid a rematch!this has been going on forever
At that point, they're no longer rankings!
With the margin of victory removed from the computer rankings in the BCS, Colorado could have beaten Nebraska 82-6 and the Huskers would have still been ranked #2.yup, not the Husker's fault
Because we've already seen those two teams play and it's a lot more fun to see different teams play?
why does everyone hate rematches?
why does everyone hate rematches?Depends on the circumstances.
That 9-6 game was an overtime game, so they basically played to a tie.In addition to the two losses being in OT, that LSU had EASILY the best SoS of the 2-loss teams:
Both of 2007 LSU's losses were in overtime as well.
I think that mattered in the eyes of the voters.
I would have liked to see Washington play Oklahoma in 2000.Not Miami?
Ohio State didn't play when TCU lost. I don't think they got the rankings wrong at the time. It can be second guessed, but TCU did beat UM.If TCU can lose to KSU in its last game of the regular season and it not matter at all, then why play the game?
Not Miami?Washington beat Miami already that year.
Not Oregon St?
Not VA Tech?
Washington beat Miami already that year.But Miami beat FSU....
Agreed, and what I don't like about it is that it takes away the "every game matters" feel that our sport had in the past, for example:In the 4-team CFP era, the BCS era, or the pre-BCS era that 10-3 Alabama team is not in the NC conversation. In a 12-team format they have a solid chance to win. Just so @rolltidefan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=12) knows, that isn't to pick on Bama, it is the same for all the helmets.this is twice now this week that you've presented unrealistic and unfathomably horrible "scenarios".
this is twice now this week that you've presented unrealistic and unfathomably horrible "scenarios".That wasn't my scenario, it was @Cincydawg (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=870) .
(agreed)
PAC was tougher than the ACC is what I'm talking about.
Beat 3-8 CU by 3.FSU beat the shit out of 6-6 UNC.
Beat 6-6 ASU by 6.
Beat 5-6 Stanford by 3.
Beat 5-6 Arizona by 3.
Beat 6-6 UCLA by 7.
What are you talking about???
I think all of us here agree that there are not 12 NC worthy teams any given seasonYup.
“Deserves got nothing to do with it.”
https://youtu.be/10XXtoCjk5c
I think the case of the BCS forcing the nerds to eliminate MOV was a classic example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.Anything requiring any amount of nuance just wasn't an option then or now.
As I saw it, the BCS leaders concerns with including MOV were mostly:My proposal was to include MOV but with a cap and also with some consideration of how close the game was.
- It would give NC Contending coaches a motivation to run up scores on hapless opponents.
- It would permit teams with relatively weak SoS to overcome that by putting up Playstation #'s.
- It can be misleading.
Specifically, I would have taken the sum of the point differential at halftime, the point differential at the end of the third quarter, and the final MOV with the following limits:
- Any OT game is scored as a 1 point win.
- The differential is capped at 21 at each point so the maximum is 63.
- If the winning team has a negative total, the totals are adjusted to +1 for the winner and -1 for the loser.
Anything requiring any amount of nuance just wasn't an option then or now.I think the nuance would have been ok because most people don't understand the computer rankings anyway so changing from one formula they don't understand to another formula they don't understand wouldn't be a big deal.
I think the nuance would have been ok because most people don't understand the computer rankings anyway so changing from one formula they don't understand to another formula they don't understand wouldn't be a big deal.The problem with the computer rankings had nothing to do with the model and whether it needs to be "tweaked".
tweaking the formula each season to try to fix the result from the previous season was sillyYeah, but it all stems from the same idea: "The computers disagreed with our polls, so the computers are wrong. We have to fix the model to make it right."
each season is different
That wasn't my scenario, it was @Cincydawg (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=870) .agreed.
Anyway, what I really don't like about it is that for a lot of our teams, if they lose three games against their best three opponents, who did they beat?
Looking at last year:
Ohio State:
Their best three opponents were Michigan, Penn State, and Notre Dame who finished 13-1, 11-2, and 9-4. If they lose those three and go 9-3 their best wins are over 8-5 Iowa and Maryland teams. That is a decent season but nowhere close to great and, in my view, not close to NC worthy.
Alabama:
Their best three opponents were Tennessee, LSU, and MissSt who finished 11-2, 10-4, and 9-4. If they lose those three and go 9-3 their best wins are over 8-5 Ole Miss and Texas teams. That is a decent season but nowhere close to great and, in my view, not close to NC worthy.
Michigan:
Their best two opponents were tOSU and PSU who each finished 11-2. After that it is either Purdue (finished 8-6) or an 8-5 pick-em of Iowa, Illinois, or Maryland. Same as tOSU/Bama.
Georgia:
Their best three opponents were Tennessee, Oregon, and MissSt who finished 11-2, 10-3, and 9-4. If they lose those three and finish 9-3 their best win is over 8-5 USCe. Same as tOSU/Bama/M.
I suspect most 3 loss teams would have lost in at least one upset. Take last season, say UGA loses to Mizzou, Tenn, and Georgia Tech, but win the SEC and is 10-3. They'd make a 12 team playoff, they might even be a top 4 seed (depending).You are probably right but I don't think it changes much. Looking at my examples from above:
You are probably right but I don't think it changes much. Looking at my examples from above:It doesn't change anything in terms of rankings, I'd agree, but it's a more likely scenario than presuming a team loses only to the best 2 teams it faced. And I think voters could be more willing to forgive an upset loss and then credit a big win, but that is debateable.
Ohio State:
Ok, if they beat one of Michigan/Penn State/Notre Dame but then lose to a lesser team they have a good win but they also have a bad loss. That is a wash to me. Same applies to Bama, Michigan, and Georgia.
i guess we could go through and say 'this year it's 5, this year it's 2, this year it's 9' etc. but that won't ever happen and would be a logistics nightmare.I think it was @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) who first said years ago that the ideal would be a flexible playoff where we include the number of teams needed. Looking at past years:
i guess 'those that be' have decided that the risk of having an "unworthy" playoff participant is more desirable than the risk of having a "worthy" participant not able to participate.My concern isn't so much the idea of an "unworthy" champion for several reasons:
there's not a 'clean' answer that removes unworthy while assuring all worthy are included. i don't have an issue either way, tbh. i guess i fall under inclusion more than exclusion. what i don't like, i guess, is even among the 'unworthy', there are levels. and i don't want one of the inclusion automatics to be something that allows a borderline bowl team into the playoffs over someone that was a borderline bcs team (but otherwise clear high-bowl team). neither might be 'worthy' of the cfp, but one is wholly unworthy while the other is at least questionable.
Shiner and Hooky advocated for a flexible postseason many, many years ago. AAA might have as well.To be fair, even if money weren't the deciding factor, I don't think it would ever happen for two reasons:
It's a fine idea, that will never happen because of money.
I will be somewhat "amused"? if Ohio State has to go to UGA some year in the first round and the weather is awful. The Peach Bowl was famous for horrid weather back in the day. UGA seriously might opt for the dome ... (???????) ...That copy/paste was a nightmare so here it is simplified:
We could go back in time and see who might have made the 12, but 11-2 would do it for a P5, and 10-3 would at times.
December 7, 2008 AP Football Poll
Logistics would be easy with a "+1 as needed" method.
Play your bowls and if 2 undefeateds are left standing (a la 2004), you have the +1 game. You schedule it as if it's needed and if not, a venue stands empty for a day. No big deal.
It's the uncertainty that's the problem. Playing, or not playing, a game, with only a few weeks' notice, doesn't give the various venues, hotels, and other needed support infrastructure, enough time to prepare and respond. Especially considering that some or all of these games will be played around the holidays.A +1 as needed would be mid-late January and it's always treated as if it's going to be played.
An 80,000-100,000 seat venue can't just line up all of the necessary employee resources for an event, from parking to concessions to security to administrative staff, and then a week before, say "sorry just kidding, go home, no pay."
That's actually a particularly asinine idea.
It's the uncertainty that's the problem. Playing, or not playing, a game, with only a few weeks' notice, doesn't give the various venues, hotels, and other needed support infrastructure, enough time to prepare and respond. Especially considering that some or all of these games will be played around the holidays.Exactly right. It's a logistical nightmare to have that many resources built into a "maybe".
An 80,000-100,000 seat venue can't just line up all of the necessary employee resources for an event, from parking to concessions to security to administrative staff, and then a week before, say "sorry just kidding, go home, no pay."
That's actually a particularly asinine idea.
It's the uncertainty that's the problem. Playing, or not playing, a game, with only a few weeks' notice, doesn't give the various venues, hotels, and other needed support infrastructure, enough time to prepare and respond. Especially considering that some or all of these games will be played around the holidays.This.
An 80,000-100,000 seat venue can't just line up all of the necessary employee resources for an event, from parking to concessions to security to administrative staff, and then a week before, say "sorry just kidding, go home, no pay."
That's actually a particularly asinine idea.
My concern isn't so much the idea of an "unworthy" champion for several reasons:1 - we're not talking about a worthy title winner, we're taking about worthy playoff participants. anyone that wins the playoff will have won it fair, i'm sure. but getting that chance should be difficult.
- In a 12-team playoff the champion will have won three or four games against high-end opposition. Prior to a few years ago doing that in an entire season was somewhat rare. The winner will be "worthy" once they've completed that gauntlet.
- I don't think it is going to happen anyway. Expanding the playoff to two and then four has already REDUCED the chances of a weakling like BYU winning the NC and expanding it to 12 will just further reduce those chances.
- I'm not sure how much I care anyway.
My issue is that it degrades the importance of regular season games and I think that ultimately might end up killing the golden goose. With no playoff, a two-team playoff, or a 4-team playoff there are 1-loss teams that miss the NC. As an Ohio State fan I know this well because it happened to my team in 2015 (MSU) and 2018 (Purdue). A second loss has ended the NC hope of EVERY team that has ever had a second loss except LSU in 2007.
I care a LOT about my teams' games, even the random mid-season games because I've seen losses in random mid-season games derail potential NC teams. I also care about YOUR teams' random mid-season games because they matter to my team in terms of spots available. Ie, if Bama beats either Tennessee (lost by 3) or LSU (lost by 1) last year, my team misses the playoff. Thus, it gives us a motivation to watch each others' teams' games.
Once we expand to 12 and give guaranteed berths to the league champions, I don't think that fans like you and I will be counting spots anymore because there are too many moving parts and too many games that are effectively a wash. Ie, Ohio State/Michigan is a wash if they are both in regardless or if they have the same record. Same for Bama/Auburn so you no longer have a reason to care about THE GAME and I no longer have a reason to care about the Iron Bowl.
I think that once the 12-team playoff is force, I'll care less about non-tOSU games and just figure that if Ohio State is at least decent (9-3), they'll probably get in. I'll also care less about individual tOSU games because if they lose a random mid-season game to Purdue or MSU there will no longer be any chance of that individual loss knocking them out.
2 - i'm not talking about a weak but good record BYU. i'm talking about a 6-6/7-5 ga tech or ole miss sec title winner. it hasn't happened yet, but it's come eerily close a few times. and with some (most/all?) conferences moving to a non-division format, this become almost moot. but i don't want a lucked up conference winner getting in.I actually think a lucked up conference championship winner getting in is a good thing. If anything, the CFP as it stands today devalues conference championships.
A +1 as needed would be mid-late January and it's always treated as if it's going to be played.That'sNotHowAnyOfThisWorks.jpg
Hotel cancelations, food stuffs, parking attendants, etc would know 2 weeks out if it's cancelled.
I don't see the problem. Maybe there's a 25% payout to everyone for the trouble, which is factored into the financials. But it's completely doable.
The years in which it's not needed simply means everyone has more time on their hands.
The problem with the computer rankings had nothing to do with the model and whether it needs to be "tweaked".Also worth nothing, there’s often no consensus right answer. So someone was always gonna be mad, thus, a less fleshy system to resolve things.
The problem with the computer rankings was that it was an objective model, and every time it differed from the subjective human "eye test", we assumed that meant the computers must be wrong.
If the computers always basically agreed with the flawed and subjective gray matter of fleshy "experts", then we would accept them. When they didn't, we blamed the computers, not the "experts".
It's the uncertainty that's the problem. Playing, or not playing, a game, with only a few weeks' notice, doesn't give the various venues, hotels, and other needed support infrastructure, enough time to prepare and respond. Especially considering that some or all of these games will be played around the holidays.I don’t care for the “+1” because when push comes to shove, we’ll just change what we need to argue about to if we need it this year.
An 80,000-100,000 seat venue can't just line up all of the necessary employee resources for an event, from parking to concessions to security to administrative staff, and then a week before, say "sorry just kidding, go home, no pay."
That's actually a particularly asinine idea.
Exactly right. It's a logistical nightmare to have that many resources built into a "maybe".Somehow every professional league can accomplish this task but colleges can't? Must not be taking our best and brightest.
"Amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk logistics." - US Army General Omar Bradley
That'sNotHowAnyOfThisWorks.jpgLike would there be any shortage of money?
the NFL doesn't tweak their system every other season to try to "fix" itThat's how they end up with 9-7 teams becoming legendary Super Bowl champions. Fuck that.
Like would there be any shortage of money?
But that's exactly it. There will never be an optional +1, because why would you only accept the money in some years, when you could just build into the system that you get it every year?Gotcha, thanks.
From the standpoint of competition, I get it. I've supported the Shiner and Hooky Flexible Postseason Format for a couple of decades now.
But in reality, you'd be leaving money on the table in any year when you didn't have the +1 game. Which is why that format was never going to be an option.