CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Four => Big Ten => Topic started by: ManHawk on October 19, 2025, 08:12:42 AM
-
What does everybody think?
The Big Ten now has 9 teams with a 3-1 conference record or better. And PSU, ILL, and Neb are not included in those 9 teams. My rankings are in a post below.
-
- Indiana: Another dominant victory
- Ohio State: They might have a real problem running the ball. And the special teams aren't great. But everything else is great.
- Oregon: Took out their frustration on Oregon.
- Illinois: I guess. It gets real tough after the top 3.
- USC: Couldn't contain ND
- Iowa: Good ole Iowa
- Michigan: Great win. Feels like a different team at home verses the road.
- Penn State: Really have no idea how to rank them
- Washington: Couldn't do much against Michigan
- Minnesota: Pretty strong win against the Huskers
- Northwestern: Quietly looking very solid
- UCLA: They keep on winning
- Nebraska: They have a QB can't stop taking sacks problem
- Maryland: Can't get out of their own way
- Rutgers: No defense
- MSU: No defense
- Purdue: No defense
- Wisconsin: No offense
-
1. Ohio St - has dominated every conference game
2. Indiana - does well dominating Mich St in potential trap game.
3. Oregon - bounces back strong with blow out win at Rutgers
4. USC - lost again on road at Notre Dame. But still has dominating win over Michigan
5. Iowa - gets close win at home over PSU, despite making many dumb mistakes that normally gets Iowa beat.
6. Michigan - impressive win at home over Washington
7. Illinois - only 2 losses (but both were bad losses) are to Ind and OSU and ILL also beat USC at home.
8. Washington - only 2 losses are to OSU and Mich
9. Northwestern - shuts out Purdue
10. UCLA - survives with last second FG to beat MD at home.
11. Penn St - loses close one on road at Iowa. PSU may be 0-4 but has lost to Ore in 2OT, lost @UCLA by 5, lost to NW by 1 and lost @Iowa by 1.
12. Minnesota - dominates Nebraska at home
13. Nebraska - loses on road to Minn
14. Maryland - loses in last second @UCLA. MD just can't seem to finish games.
15. Rutgers- just got pummeled by Oregon at home.
16. Purdue - shutout out by NW. Purdue has not come close to winning except for 1 close loss to Minn
17. Mich St - lost to Indiana
18. Wisconsin - shutout 34-0 at home one week after being shutout 37-0 at home. Is that progress?
-
Ohio State: They might have a real problem running the ball. And the special teams aren't great. But everything else is great.
You're not wrong there
-
1. Ohio State
2. Indiana
3. Oregon
4. USC
5. Michigan
6. Iowa
7. Washington
8. Northwestern
9. UCLA
10. Illinois
11. Minnesota
12. Penn State
13. Nebraska
14. Maryland
15. Purdue
16. Rutgers
17. Michigan State
18. Wisconsin
Q: If Wisconsin and another team finish 0-9 in the conference, can they play in a conference sucking championship game?
-
Q: If Wisconsin and another team finish 0-9 in the conference, can they play in a conference sucking championship game?
A: No, the tiebreaker is SoS so the other team would be regarded as sucking more because Wisconsin has the toughest schedule.
-
Q: If Wisconsin and another team finish 0-9 in the conference, can they play in a conference sucking championship game?
Bring back Champions Week!
Remember that idea the Big Ten had during that weird COVID 2020 season. Where during the last week of the season, #1 would play #2. #3 would play #4, etc. Of course you could throw in some tweaks like no rematches, no long cross-country trips, etc.
-
1)Indiana - undefeated the Hoosiers proved to be an elite team with a Week 7 win in Oregon. And this week might end up being when quarterback Fernando Mendoza emerged as the clear Heisman front-runner. It's hard to see them losing from here on out in the regular season.
2)Bucks - For the fourth time this season, the Buckeyes defense kept the opposition out of the end zone, and they now have an average margin of victory of 30.6 points during their 7-0 start. Julian Sayin (36-of-42, 394 yards, 4 TD) was nearly perfect under center,this time having the second-best completion percentage for an Ohio State quarterback ever (85.7%)
3)Ducks - dogwalking poor Rutgers does not erase getting worked at home by the Hoosiers.The Ducks will have to root for someone to knock off the Buckeyes and Hoosiers, though, to get to Indy and defend their Big Ten title.
4)USC - goes above the Wolverines -- at least for now. After dominating the trenches in Week 7 against Michigan, the opposite happened against Notre Dame last nite.
5)M* dominant win over visiting Huskies - this was the type of response that the Wolverines needed. With the 24-7 win. The killer instinct is still missing, however. This could have been an epic blowout, but Michigan missed a ton of opportunities.
6)Illini - hard to tell where they should land.The only losses are to arguably the two best teams in the Big Ten Indiana & tOSU
7)Huskies - it was a difficult for them to travel 2,000 miles and play at 9 a.m. PDT. Even so,Washington's offense made far too many mistakes on the road to have a real shot at beating Michigan, the offense struggled. And struggled. And struggled.
8)Iowa - it's hard to know with the teams they are beating. Only loses to Indiana and state rival Cyclones. But Iowa is hanging in there and should make things interesting down the stretch. They have the Goophs at home next week
9)Goophs - Didn’t see this one coming. Even entering the game at 4-2, Minnesota appeared to be somewhat on the ropes, but they eked out a convincing, ugly win over Nebraska.They should have a great chance to go to a decent bowl game.
10)Northwestern - while Purdue wasn’t exactly a top-tier opponent, the Wildcats shut the Boilermakers out, and thrived defensively.Don’t look now, but Northwestern is 5-2.
11)'Skers - If you want to be a contender in the Big Ten, you don't let the Gophers give you a wedgie. At no point did Nebraska find the end zone against a Minnesota
12)UCLA - having rattled off three straight wins now. The overall record is still a losing one, but there aren't many teams that want to play the Bruins and quarterback Nico Iamaleava right now
13)Maryland
14)Rutgers
15)Penn St
16)MSU
17)Purdue
18)Badgers
-
Q: If Wisconsin and another team finish 0-9 in the conference, can they play in a conference sucking championship game?
Interesting question because it looks like it is still mathematically possible for at least 3 schools to finish winless. Of the 5 current winless teams:
Wisconsin - does not play any other winless team on its schedule.
Purdue - still has to play Rutgers
Mich St - still has to play PSU
Rutgers- still has to play Purdue and PSU
PSU - still has to play Mich St and Rutgers
So if each team goes winless in all their other games and if PSU beats MSU and Rutgers, then you would end up with 3 winless teams:
Wisc, Mich St and the loser of Purdue/Rutgers.
-
1) Ohio State
2) Indiana
these are clearly the class of the conference and maybe even the entire nation...
Slight Gap
3) Oregon
Big Gap
5 teams in the same boat- USC, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Washington - all very similar teams not quite ready for prime time- decent B1G teams, nothing special.
And then the rest of the conference is pretty meh.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/SYdGJl7.png)
-
Bring back Champions Week!
Remember that idea the Big Ten had during that weird COVID 2020 season. Where during the last week of the season, #1 would play #2. #3 would play #4, etc. Of course you could throw in some tweaks like no rematches, no long cross-country trips, etc.
My guess is that we'll end up doing this when we have 24 members in four six-team "pods".
Eight scheduled conference games:
- 5 "pod" games, playing each pod-mate
- 3 one from each of the other three pods on a rotating basis so that you play each team every six years and host/visit each every dozen years.
Then the ninth conference game would serve the purpose of balancing SoS with performance. Pods would host/visit each other on a rotating basis with:
The two #1 vs #1 games would serve as semi-finals with the two winners meeting a week later in the CG.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/z4HqwuY.jpeg)
-
Contenders:
1) Ohio State
2) Indiana
3) Oregon
Top 25-ish
4) Iowa—same old Iowa
5) USC—not too surprising to lose that way in South Bend
6) Michigan—looked more like Michigan should look
7) Illinois
Not ready for prime time:
8) Washington
9) Penn State—what to make of this team?
10) Minnesota—solid win
11) Northwestern
12) Nebraska—I know the media wants Nebraska to be back, but let’s wait until they actually have some impressive wins…
13) [checks month] UCLA
14) [checks month] Maryland
Pur-Don’t:
15) Rutgers
16) Purdue—looked as bad as they have this season
17) Michigan State
18) Wisconsin—why there is so much talk of hanging onto Fickell is beyond me. This team is actively bad, has no identity, and no path out. Yikes.
-
I like the idea of having "Champions Week." I am not sure if we should axe off a week of college football for it, but I think so. There are so many games, already.
(https://i.imgur.com/vQdOWUz.png)
-
1. Ohio State
2. Indiana
3. Oregon
4. Iowa
5. USC
6. Michigan
7. Illinois
8. Minnesota
9. Washington
10. Nebraska
11. Penn State
12. Northwestern
13. Maryland
14. Rutgers
15. UCLA
16. Michigan State
17. Wisconsin
18. Purdue
-
I am surprised to see Norrhwestern continue to get some pretty low rankings despite now being 3-1 in the conference.
Ok, the one loss is being blown out by Oregon. But NW sems to have gotten much better since then. And its a little weird to see NW get ranked below both UCLA and PSU, teams NW has beaten.
-
1. Ohio State
2. Indiana
3. Oregon
4. Iowa
5. USC
6. Michigan
7. Illinois
8. Minnesota
9. Washington
10. Nebraska
11. Penn State
12. Northwestern
13. Maryland
14. Rutgers
15. Northwestern
16. Michigan State
17. Wisconsin
18. Purdue
I think you got Northwestern listed twice and looks like you skipped UCLA
-
I am surprised to see Norrhwestern continue to get some pretty low rankings despite now being 3-1 in the conference.
I didn't but UCLA just might be a tough out right now
-
Bring back Champions Week!
Remember that idea the Big Ten had during that weird COVID 2020 season. Where during the last week of the season, #1 would play #2. #3 would play #4, etc. Of course you could throw in some tweaks like no rematches, no long cross-country trips, etc.
I know Michigan and OSU fans would throw a fit, but I would make that the final week of the regular season, with one caveat...
With so many missed opponents, I would make the final week 1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3 (as semifinals), then 5-6, 7-8, etc, while avoiding rematches.
Then you would still have your championship game the following week between the two semifinals winners.
Granted they also messed up in reformatting the CFP anyway, by overcompensating, so after one year where the CCGs were awesome again, they are back to being meh
-
I think you got Northwestern listed twice and looks like you skipped UCLA
damn, I copied his list
-
I know Michigan and OSU fans would throw a fit, but I would make that the final week of the regular season, with one caveat...
Damn straight - a noon Kick Off also,jeebis leave a little tradition left for rivalry week end. The Networks/Admns have faffed things up enough
-
damn, I copied his list
Old habits die hard is this why you left UNL?
-
Damn straight - a noon Kick Off also,jeebis leave a little tradition left for rivalry week end. The Networks/Admns have faffed things up enough
Well, if you want to get technical, the tradition for most of the 20th century was to have rivalry week the week before Thanksgiving.
Having Champions week on Thanksgiving week could help restore that tradition by moving rivalry week back to its rightful place.
-
Well, if you want to get technical, the tradition for most of the 20th century was to have rivalry week the week before Thanksgiving.
Adding games pushed it back but it has always been right before/after/around T-Day.1973 for instance UM/tOSU played after T-Day,there were others but I was around for that
-
just because the Big Ten didn't play on Thanksgiving weekend doesn't mean it's not a huge tradition in College Football
the B1G was just stuck in the leather helmet era
I blame Michigan
-
Old habits die hard is this why you left UNL?
hell, I might have left with a degree had I copied more
-
just because the Big Ten didn't play on Thanksgiving weekend doesn't mean it's not a huge tradition in College Football
the B1G was just stuck in the leather helmet era
I blame Michigan
You got me. I forgot that Nebraska has a long tradition of playing on Thanksgiving weekend.
-
many early Thanksgiving weekend games were vs the Hawkeyes!
(https://i.imgur.com/AooD6KV.png)
-
many early Thanksgiving weekend games were vs the Hawkeyes!
Ok I did not realize that. Looks like Iowa-Nebraska played in late November throughout the 1890's all in Omaha or Council Bluffs. Good to know.
I did know that Iowa often played Notre Dame as Iowa's last game of the season, especially throughout the 1950's.
Edit: Just to clarify, throughout the 1950's Iowa would play Notre Dame the week before Thanksgiving and that would be Iowa's last game of the year. Then Notre Dame would always play USC on Thanksgiving week, including the years that USC played at Notre Dame.
-
just because the Big Ten didn't play on Thanksgiving weekend doesn't mean it's not a huge tradition in College Football
the B1G was just stuck in the leather helmet era
I blame Michigan
There's a reasonable reason for it and I don't think it's helmet era. Playing in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana and Ohio in nearly the first week of December isn't exactly great experience for fans most years based on the average weather. Sometimes it works out, but often it blows. My brother and I for a good span of time were hitting OSU v UM in Ann Arbor every other year. Cant remember the exact years, but maybe '01 & '03 the weather was brutal. One year it snowed and the following it was freezing cold rain. Now granted, bad weather can happen anywhere, but there's a reason SEC and schools down south were far more prone to play Thanksgiving weekend.
-
perhaps, the older I get the less likely I am to sit outside to watch Huskers/Hawks that weekend.
I'm getting soft
-
There's a reasonable reason for it and I don't think it's helmet era. Playing in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana and Ohio in nearly the first week of December isn't exactly great experience for fans most years based on the average weather. Sometimes it works out, but often it blows. My brother and I for a good span of time were hitting OSU v UM in Ann Arbor every other year. Cant remember the exact years, but maybe '01 & '03 the weather was brutal. One year it snowed and the following it was freezing cold rain. Now granted, bad weather can happen anywhere, but there's a reason SEC and schools down south were far more prone to play Thanksgiving weekend.
B1G Boomers: "Man, the kids these days are such pussies! A bunch of coddled snowflakes that can't deal with the slightest bit of adversity!"
Also, B1G Boomers: "Of course we didn't play football after Thanksgiving in the Midwest in my day. It would have been too cold!!!"
-
There's a reasonable reason for it and I don't think it's helmet era. Playing in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana and Ohio in nearly the first week of December isn't exactly great experience for fans most years based on the average weather. Sometimes it works out, but often it blows. My brother and I for a good span of time were hitting OSU v UM in Ann Arbor every other year. Cant remember the exact years, but maybe '01 & '03 the weather was brutal. One year it snowed and the following it was freezing cold rain. Now granted, bad weather can happen anywhere, but there's a reason SEC and schools down south were far more prone to play Thanksgiving weekend.
It wasn't 01. I was there in 01 and it was beautiful . . . The Game and the weather.
-
perhaps, the older I get the less likely I am to sit outside to watch Huskers/Hawks that weekend.
I'm getting soft
sheesh and ya think ya know somebody
-
many early Thanksgiving weekend games were vs the Hawkeyes!
(https://i.imgur.com/AooD6KV.png)
It doesn't count if it predates the pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock.
-
There is a reason all the cold weather NFL teams in the Midwest are building indoor stadiums. Well except for Buffalo and Geen Bay
One-third of the regular season now is after Thanksgiving.
-
There is a reason all the cold weather NFL teams in the Midwest are building indoor stadiums.
It's not the weather it's that the stadiums are to costly to sit there most of the year and not generate any revenue.Cleveland Stadium is only 25 yrs old and they'll be replacing it,outside of some out door hockey games and maybe some High School football it just isn't utilized that much
-
It's not the weather it's that the stadiums are to costly to sit there most of the year and not generate any revenue.Cleveland Stadium is only 25 yrs old and they'll be replacing it,outside of some out door hockey games and maybe some High School football it just isn't utilized that much
I think we are kinda saying the same thing.
-
It's not to make the fans comfortable, it's because you aren't getting taxpayers to build your stadium if they can't also use it for concerts and NCAA tournament games, monster truck rallys, whatever.
What I will say is to protect the fans is that the ones that aren't domed, aren't "open" in the sense of like New England and Pittsburgh. I think those will be the last two built like that
(https://images.wsj.net/im-581305/?width=700&height=467)
They aren't domed, but they are more enclosed from the elements
(https://www.enr.com/ext/resources/2023/06/16/Buffalo_Bills_new_Highmark_Stadium_ENRweb.webp?t=1687468521&width=696)
-
It wasn't 01. I was there in 01 and it was beautiful . . . The Game and the weather.
99 was rainy and then ‘03 was was the year we decided it was the last one for a while. It was cold and wet snow. The next two in Ann Arbor I watched from balmy Singapore and those weather conditions were much better.
-
B1G Boomers: "Man, the kids these days are such pussies! A bunch of coddled snowflakes that can't deal with the slightest bit of adversity!"
Also, B1G Boomers: "Of course we didn't play football after Thanksgiving in the Midwest in my day. It would have been too cold!!!"
Ehh. There’s a vast difference here. Try hiring the younger generation. So many are lazy, yet entitled. They believe they should be wealthy but don’t want to sacrifice and put in the difficult work to do it.
not wanting to sit outside and freeze your ass off to watch a game isn’t soft, it’s just smart. Let’s be real, there’s a lot of people in the older generations that have watched the decay of sports and the teams and what they represent and they aren’t going to put their health second for a game that truly isn’t the most important part of life. And that’s coming from someone that loves the college game.
-
Ehh. There’s a vast difference here. Try hiring the younger generation. So many are lazy, yet entitled. They believe they should be wealthy but don’t want to sacrifice and put in the difficult work to do it.
not wanting to sit outside and freeze your ass off to watch a game isn’t soft, it’s just smart. Let’s be real, there’s a lot of people in the older generations that have watched the decay of sports and the teams and what they represent and they aren’t going to put their health second for a game that truly isn’t the most important part of life. And that’s coming from someone that loves the college game.
(https://media.tenor.com/7pikdD_H8ekAAAAM/joke-not-getting-the-joke.gif)
-
The Browns would have lost the Dolphins game if it was in a dome.
-
99 was rainy and then ‘03 was was the year we decided it was the last one for a while. It was cold and wet snow. The next two in Ann Arbor I watched from balmy Singapore and those weather conditions were much better.
99 was rainy. 01 was cold but dry IIRC. 93 and 95 were bitterly cold and dry. I remember 93 was my first UM-OSU game, and my mom came home from the mall with new boots and asked me to try them on. I initially rebuffed, and said I'd do it later, I didn't need them right then. She said, yes you do, it's too cold for me, you are going to the game.
-
In general, cold but dry is fine. You can dress for it. I'll take 30 and dry over 90 and dry. Hell, even over 80 and dry. There is no escape from just sitting out there baking.
Now once you add moisture, that changes.
Worst weather I've ever sat through
https://youtu.be/j460bLNZ6To?si=61V04NbJVnyCtFr-
-
In general, cold but dry is fine. You can dress for it. I'll take 30 and dry over 90 and dry. Hell, even over 80 and dry. There is no escape from just sitting out there baking.
Now once you add moisture, that changes.
Worst weather I've ever sat through
https://youtu.be/j460bLNZ6To?si=61V04NbJVnyCtFr-
My seats were at the 45 and under the upper deck. It was glorious.
-
In general, cold but dry is fine. You can dress for it. I'll take 30 and dry over 90 and dry. Hell, even over 80 and dry. There is no escape from just sitting out there baking.
Now once you add moisture, that changes.
Worst weather I've ever sat through
Thanks, I was going to say you guys must not be skiers. There are a lot of things you can do to combat the cold. Long underwear negates most of it. It might be freezing, but you'll be sweating. A strategically placed handwarmer on the back of the neck will warm up your entire circulatory system. If somehow all of that is not enough? Jog up the stadium steps from the bottom to the top, and you'll be stripping down to your base layer for about a half hour or so.
-
Thanks, I was going to say you guys must not be skiers. There are a lot of things you can do to combat the cold. Long underwear negates most of it. It might be freezing, but you'll be sweating. A strategically placed handwarmer on the back of the neck will warm up your entire circulatory system. If somehow all of that is not enough? Jog up the stadium steps from the bottom to the top, and you'll be stripping down to your base layer for about a half hour or so.
yeah, i summed it up poorly. You're correct. The cold is not necessarily what I mind. It's the cold and snow or rain that I cannot stand. I can deal with frigid weather and dress appropriately. And I prefer snow over 34 degree rain. Absolutely awful. That being said, 2003 was something else.. clearly not 1995 lol. ELA, you're a champ for sitting through that, but 2003 is up there for me.. Outside of an Indians home opener one year that I wildly read the forecast wrong and I went down in t-shirt and shorts and it was a high of 45 and cloudy
-
(https://media.tenor.com/7pikdD_H8ekAAAAM/joke-not-getting-the-joke.gif)
bahaha.. i should have known better. It seemed like not a take i expected, especially from you specifically lol.
-
Found some weather data. The weather at noon for that 1993 game was 36 degrees with wind at 30 mph, so a wind chill of 23
Granted that was the Saturday before Thanksgiving so that wouldn't even be notable for an NFL playoff game
-
I'll take 30 and dry over 90 and dry. Hell, even over 80 and dry. There is no escape from just sitting out there baking.
Testify ELA Testify,can always thro another layer on - like Hunting & Ice Fishing season
-
Last week in parentheses
- OHIO STATE (1) - will they even be challenged before Michigan?
- INDIANA (2) - will they even be challenged before Indianapolis?
- OREGON (3) - might finish the regular season #3 in the nation, and not in the CCG, and with the new format, that might be good
- ILLINOIS (6) - bye week
- USC (4) - just when I'm ready to give Lincoln the benefit of the doubt
- MICHIGAN (7) - the Ann Arbor vice grip game remains undefeated
- WASHINGTON (5) - remain unable to win big road games
- IOWA (9) - didn't think I'd be writing that off as "avoiding a bad loss"
- MINNESOTA (10) - P.J. Fleck might have thought that was his PSU audition game
- NEBRASKA (8) - there might be riots in Happy Valley if they hire Rhule
- NORTHWESTERN (12) - quietly sneaking towards bowl eligibility
- UCLA (15) - also them?
- MARYLAND (11) - heartbreaking loss after heartbreaking loss
- PENN STATE (13) - showed some fight, but at this point do any PSU fans care?
- RUTGERS (14) - hopefully they took a picture at 3-0
- MICHIGAN STATE (16) - hopefully they took a picture at 10-7
- PURDUE (17) - first time Northwestern has shut out an opponent in 8 years
- WISCONSIN (18) - three shutouts in a row is a real possibility
-
SOR/SP+ Mock Bracket
#12 South Florida at #5 Georgia; winner vs. #4 Alabama
#11 Miami at #6 OREGON; winner vs. #3 Texas A&M
#10 Texas Tech at #7 Oklahoma; winner vs. #2 OHIO STATE
#9 BYU at #8 Ole Miss; winner vs. #1 INDIANA
Just reenforces how stupid the new format is. If the Big Ten and SEC championships include the 4 bye teams, none of those teams better drop out with a loss.
They were correct that the format was wrong, but rewarding the top 4 conference champs with byes was not the incorrect part, it was not relying on the seeding going forward. Last year was the first year in forever that CCG Saturday was great, and it was because every game mattered. Stick to the 1-12 seeding, and reward the top 4 conference champs with byes, but from there, you go with the actual seeding. Don't drop OSU and Alabama in terms of seeding, just don't give them a bye. So instead, you'd have Indiana, Texas A&M, BYU and Miami with byes
#12 South Florida at #2 Ohio State
#10 Texas Tech at #4 Alabama
#8 Ole Miss at #5 Georgia
#7 Oklahoma at #6 Oregon
BYU and Miami retain their #9 and #11 rankings, so then the quarterfinals would be (assuming the home teams win)
#1 Indiana vs. #11 Miami
#2 Ohio State vs. #9 BYU
#3 Texas A&M vs. #6 Oregon
#4 Alabama vs. #5 Georgia
OSU and Alabama lose their byes, but they play home games against Texas Tech and South Florida, where they are still favored, but there is meaning to losing that CCG. Likewise Miami and BYU get a bye, so we still care about their CCG, but then they have to play the #1 and #2 team, they don't jump up to being the #3 and #4 seeds
-
SOR/SP+ Mock Bracket
#12 South Florida at #5 Georgia; winner vs. #4 Alabama
#11 Miami at #6 OREGON; winner vs. #3 Texas A&M
#10 Texas Tech at #7 Oklahoma; winner vs. #2 OHIO STATE
#9 BYU at #8 Ole Miss; winner vs. #1 INDIANA
Just reenforces how stupid the new format is. If the Big Ten and SEC championships include the 4 bye teams, none of those teams better drop out with a loss.
They were correct that the format was wrong, but rewarding the top 4 conference champs with byes was not the incorrect part, it was not relying on the seeding going forward. Last year was the first year in forever that CCG Saturday was great, and it was because every game mattered. Stick to the 1-12 seeding, and reward the top 4 conference champs with byes, but from there, you go with the actual seeding. Don't drop OSU and Alabama in terms of seeding, just don't give them a bye. So instead, you'd have Indiana, Texas A&M, BYU and Miami with byes
#12 South Florida at #2 Ohio State
#10 Texas Tech at #4 Alabama
#8 Ole Miss at #5 Georgia
#7 Oklahoma at #6 Oregon
BYU and Miami retain their #9 and #11 rankings, so then the quarterfinals would be (assuming the home teams win)
#1 Indiana vs. #11 Miami
#2 Ohio State vs. #9 BYU
#3 Texas A&M vs. #6 Oregon
#4 Alabama vs. #5 Georgia
OSU and Alabama lose their byes, but they play home games against Texas Tech and South Florida, where they are still favored, but there is meaning to losing that CCG. Likewise Miami and BYU get a bye, so we still care about their CCG, but then they have to play the #1 and #2 team, they don't jump up to being the #3 and #4 seeds
This, 100%.
If Ohio State and Indiana get to Indianapolis at 12-0 each, what exactly will they be playing for? Both would be more-or-less guaranteed a bye either way so it is only about seeding and the #4 or #8 might be better than #2/3/6/11 anyway so it becomes meaningless.
-
This, 100%.
If Ohio State and Indiana get to Indianapolis at 12-0 each, what exactly will they be playing for? Both would be more-or-less guaranteed a bye either way so it is only about seeding and the #4 or #8 might be better than #2/3/6/11 anyway so it becomes meaningless.
I think it is easier to explain it with last year's scenario because it already played out so it isn't hypothetical. Last year's CFP seeds were:
- #1 Oregon, 12-0 B1G Champ
- #2 Georgia, 11-2 SEC Champ
- #9 Boise State, 12-1 MWC Champ
- #12 Arizona State, 11-2 Big12 Champ
- #3 Texas, 11-2 lost SECCG
- #4 Penn State, 11-2 lost B1GCG
- #5 Notre Dame, 11-1
- #6 Ohio State, 10-2
- #7 Tennessee, 10-2
- #8 Indiana, 11-1
- #10 SMU, 11-2 lost ACCCG
- #16 Clemson, 10-3 ACC Champ
The first round more-or-less made sense with:
- #16 Clemson at #3 Texas (worst at best)
- #10 SMU at #4 Penn State (second worst at second best)
- #8 Indiana at #5 Notre Dame (third worst at third best)
- #7 Tennessee at #6 Ohio State (fourth worst at fourth best)
The second round was a mess:
- #1 Oregon vs #6 Ohio State in the Rose Bowl - so the best team got the third worst
- #2 Georgia vs #5 Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl - so the second best team got the fourth worst
- #9 Boise State vs #4 Penn State in the Fiesta Bowl - so the fourth best got the second worst
- #12 Arizona State vs #3 Texas in the Peach Bowl - so the third best got the worst
Oregon and Georgia got screwed. Instead of playing weaklings BoiseSt and ASU they got beat by the two teams that made it all the way to the NC. Some of that is unavoidable. Notre Dame was 5th because they had a lightweight overall schedule and took a bad loss and Ohio State was 6th because they lost twice including a bad loss but even based on the rankings at the time it was understood that the Irish and Buckeyes were tougher than the Broncos and Sun Devils. Oregon earned the #1 seed by going undefeated and UGA earned the #2 seed by winning the SEC and instead of rewarding them for that we screwed them over with challenging CFP quarter-finals while the teams that they beat in their CG's got MUCH easier games against BoiseSt and ASU. In effect the Ducks and Bulldogs lost by winning their CGs.
Using your proposal as I understand it, it would instead be:
First round:
- #7 Tennessee at #6 Ohio State
- #8 Indiana at #5 Notre Dame
- #10 SMU at #4 Penn State
- #16 Clemson at #3 Texas
Quarter-finals:
- #1 Oregon vs #12 ASU
- #2 Georgia vs #9 Boise St
- Texas/Clemson vs Tennessee/Ohio State
- Penn State/SMU vs Indiana/Notre Dame
The first round games were actually played and two of the four quarter-final games were played (albeit as semi-finals rather than quarter-finals). If we use those results and also assume that Oregon and Georgia will beat ASU and Boise St then we get:
Semi-finals:
- Oregon vs Notre Dame
- Georgia vs Ohio State
One question:
Would you reseed the quarter-finals if there was an upset in the first round?
It didn't happen last year and it wouldn't matter if #7 Tennessee beat #6 Ohio State but what if Indiana won in South bend or if SMU won in State College or Clemson won in Austin?
-
Yeah, the first round would be like last year, but then it would fix the second round.
Yes, I would reseed for sure after the first round.
I actually think I would reseed after the quarterfinals too.
-
Overcomplication might be off-putting to the casual fan.
-
Now once you add moisture, that changes.
Worst weather I've ever sat through
Yup ask any deer hunter,most miserable week I every had off,1st week in December Deer Camp :wtf:
-
Overcomplication might be off-putting to the casual fan.
I don't think that's overcomplicating. Also, I think there are 2 types of fans (ignoring super causals, who don't really care). #1 is people who follow closely, and get it. #2 are people who just watch ball, and don't care about how we got here.
If you can't follow reseeding, you also don't know why Arizona State got a bye last year, and don't care
-
Yeah, the first round would be like last year, but then it would fix the second round.
Yes, I would reseed for sure after the first round.
I actually think I would reseed after the quarterfinals too.
I like this from a competition perspective but I also agree with this:
Overcomplication might be off-putting to the casual fan.
I see where you are coming from here:
I don't think that's overcomplicating. Also, I think there are 2 types of fans (ignoring super causals, who don't really care). #1 is people who follow closely, and get it. #2 are people who just watch ball, and don't care about how we got here.
If you can't follow reseeding, you also don't know why Arizona State got a bye last year, and don't care
But I think there is an advantage for the broadcasters and ticket sellers in KNOWING what is next. Ie, if you do it seeded (using last year again) then the first round is:
- Tennessee at Ohio State, winner vs TX/Clemson in the Sugar Bowl (because Texas is the higher seed. The Rose and Peach are already taken and the Sugar is preferable to Texas over the Fiesta).
- Indiana at Notre Dame, winner vs PSU/SMU in the Fiesta Bowl (Fiesta is the only bowl left).
- SMU at Penn State, winner vs IU/ND in the Fiesta Bowl.
- Clemson at Texas, winner vs TN/tOSU in the Sugar Bowl.
Everyone would know in advance that the four quarter-finals were:
- Oregon vs ASU in the Rose Bowl
- Georgia vs Boise State in the Peach Bowl
- TN/tOSU vs TX/Clemson in the Sugar Bowl
- IU/ND vs PSU/SMU in the Fiesta Bowl
I think there is an advantage for broadcasters, ticket sellers, and just random fans planning game-watch parties or bowl trips to knowing what comes next. Ie, I'd know going into the TN/tOSU game that if my Buckeyes win they get TX/Clemson in the Sugar Bowl. Indiana/ND/PSU/SMU fans would also know in advance that if they win they go to the Fiesta Bowl to play the other winner.
I also think there is a big difference between a bracket being 'broken' because say Indiana unexpectedly beat Notre Dame and a bracket being broken by design. In the NCAA Tournament we have broken brackets all the time and it isn't seen as a grave injustice, it is just the way things work out. If you are a #4 seed and your #1 seed gets knocked off in the first two rounds then we view it as lucky that you got to play the 8/9 in the S16 instead of the #1 and it is just the way it is. We don't view it as 'unfair' that #1 has to play #4 while the #2 seed gets #11. That is just lucky for #2 that the #11 managed to knock off #6 and #3 (or possibly #14).
I'm fine with an underdog having the ability to essentially "steal" the higher seed's path by upsetting them. So if #16 Clemson can walk into DKR in Austin Texas in front of 100k+ screaming Longhorn fans and knock off the Longhorns, I have no problem letting Clemson then take over #3 Texas' path.
-
I think the "fix" inasmuch as this will keep expanding, is that they go to 14, with the top 2 conference champs getting byes
-
I also think there is a big difference between a bracket being 'broken' because say Indiana unexpectedly beat Notre Dame and a bracket being broken by design. In the NCAA Tournament we have broken brackets all the time and it isn't seen as a grave injustice, it is just the way things work out. If you are a #4 seed and your #1 seed gets knocked off in the first two rounds then we view it as lucky that you got to play the 8/9 in the S16 instead of the #1 and it is just the way it is. We don't view it as 'unfair' that #1 has to play #4 while the #2 seed gets #11. That is just lucky for #2 that the #11 managed to knock off #6 and #3 (or possibly #14).
I'm fine with an underdog having the ability to essentially "steal" the higher seed's path by upsetting them. So if #16 Clemson can walk into DKR in Austin Texas in front of 100k+ screaming Longhorn fans and knock off the Longhorns, I have no problem letting Clemson then take over #3 Texas' path.
I also think that one of the problems we had last year is that the bracket was broken, and it was broken by design.
When you had the #9 and #12 seeds being gifted the #3 & #4 seeds and a first round bye, that threw off all the other matchups.
Hence why they changed the format this year such that the top 4 seeds, regardless of conference championship status, would get the top four seeds and the first round bye.
Once you do that, I don't think there's any reason to reseed after the first round. Sure, a 4 seed might face the 12 instead of the 5. But that's a bracket that's broken naturally, not broken by design.
-
Yeah, there's no reason to reseed under the current format.
But if you hold seeding, but give the byes to the top 4 conference champs, then I'm also fine with not reseeding. The byes are separate from the seeding
-
There's not going to be reseeding. People want to have office bracket pools, like March madness. You can't do that with a bunch of moving parts. Everyone's bracket would be in shambles by round two. Dream on.
-
Nobody does CFP pools
-
I also think that one of the problems we had last year is that the bracket was broken, and it was broken by design.
This is my biggest objection. Brackets broken by upsets are fine, upsets happen. Brackets broken by design are a problem.
When you had the #9 and #12 seeds being gifted the #3 & #4 seeds and a first round bye, that threw off all the other matchups.
I'm fine with "gifting" the #9 and #12 seeds a bye because it preserves the importance of the CG. Say that tOSU and IU get to the B1GCG this year at 12-0 each and #1/2. Under last year's format the winner gets a bye but the loser may well get an easier overall path even with the extra game. That is "broken by design". Under this year's format both teams probably get a bye either way and the difficulty of their paths is mostly up to random chance in other games. Under @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's proposal the winner gets a bye AND at least a theoretically easier path which is how it should be. Then if the loser ends up with an easier path due to upsets in other games well that is just how the ball bounces, upsets happen and "naturally broken" brackets sometimes result.
Once you do that, I don't think there's any reason to reseed after the first round. Sure, a 4 seed might face the 12 instead of the 5. But that's a bracket that's broken naturally, not broken by design.
Yeah, there's no reason to reseed under the current format.
But if you hold seeding, but give the byes to the top 4 conference champs, then I'm also fine with not reseeding. The byes are separate from the seeding
This is where I'm at. As long as the seeding makes sense for chalk, any upsets just create naturally broken brackets and we are all accustomed to that and we all accept that in the NCAA Tournament every single year.
So my proposal (so long as we stick with 12) would be the same as what @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) started out with only no reseeding. So based on the SOR/SP+ bracket that he presented for this year (assumes that #1 IU beats #2 tOSU in the B1GCG and #3 aTm beats #4 Bama in the SECCG) I'd go with:
- #12 USF at #2 Ohio State, winner vs B12 Champion #9 BYU in the Sugar Bowl
- #10 TxTech at #4 Bama, winner vs Ole Miss/UGA in the Orange Bowl
- #8 Ole Miss at #5 Georgia, winner vs Bama/TxTech in the Orange Bowl
- #7 Oklahoma at #6 Oregon, winner vs SEC Champion #3 aTm in the Cotton Bowl
Thus, the quarter-finals are:
- #1 Indiana vs #11 Miami in the Rose Bowl
- tOSU/USF vs #9 BYU in the Sugar Bowl (because the Rose is already taken and the next best location for tOSU is probably NOLA rather than Miami or Dallas)
- OU/Ore vs #3 aTm in the Cotton Bowl (because the Cotton Bowl is preferable to aTm)
- Bama/TxTech vs Ole Miss/UGA in the Orange Bowl (only bowl left)
Then the semi-finals are:
- IU/Miami vs Bama/TxTech/Ole Miss/UGA in the Peach Bowl (because the Peach is closer to IU than the Fiesta although this might be a disadvantage depending on who they play)
- tOSU/USF/BYU vs OU/Ore/aTm in the Fiesta Bowl (only bowl left)
Then the CG is:
IU/Miami/Bama/TxTech/Ole Miss/UGA vs tOSU/USF/BYU/OU/Ore/aTm in the CG in Miami.
By chalk you get:
First Round:
- #12 USF at #2 Ohio State
- #10 TxTech at #4 Bama
- #8 Ole Miss at #5 Georgia
- #7 Oklahoma at #6 Oregon
Quarter Finals:
- #1 IU vs #11 Miami
- #2 Ohio State vs #9 BYU
- #3 aTm vs #6 Oregon
- #4 Bama vs #5 Georgia
Semi-Finals:
- #1 IU vs #4 Bama
- #2 tOSU vs #3 aTm
-
Nobody does CFP pools
Yet. I could see that developing but it can't develop if you have too many moving parts. You need a fixed bracket in order to do a pool. The NCAA definitely wants the pools because that increases fan interest. If my Buckeyes get knocked out early I might not be too interested in the later rounds unless I am in a pool and I need USF to beat Georgia to win it.
-
Eh, nobody does NFL pools either.
College basketball leans into it, because its a way to get people into 48 games over 4 days. After that, nobody cares, who doesn't otherwise care about college basketball. Even the secretary who is in first place after the weekend, picking based on mascots, doesn't want to follow 4 prime time games. It's fun for them when you have 8 games at a time happening during the work day.
Nobody does NFL playoff office pools. Hell, we used to have confidence pools for the bowls, and those went away. So this has actually decreased casual interest. I'm fine with no reseeding, but we 100% need my hybrid 2024/2025 model, to have anyone care about the regular season/CCGs
-
I'm fine with "gifting" the #9 and #12 seeds a bye because it preserves the importance of the CG. Say that tOSU and IU get to the B1GCG this year at 12-0 each and #1/2. Under last year's format the winner gets a bye but the loser may well get an easier overall path even with the extra game. That is "broken by design". Under this year's format both teams probably get a bye either way and the difficulty of their paths is mostly up to random chance in other games.
IMHO, I do think one aspect of this is that the top 5 conference champs get an auto-bid is all the "gift" that they need.
That was always one of my issues with the 4-team playoff. You never knew what path would or wouldn't get you into the field. At least with this, effectively any P4 conference champ is going to get in, regardless of their record.
I don't think it's a good idea to then gift mediocre teams a bye on top of that.
This year, if somehow the B1G conference championship is a #1v#2 matchup, then to an extent you're right that the CG isn't all that important. Even the loser of that game--assuming it's not something like 59-0--will likely remain top-4 and get a bye.
But I think in many conferences, perhaps specifically the second-tier-but-not-G5 conferences (ACC / B12), there might be a long shot team that will ONLY get into the playoff by winning the CCG. For that team type of team, I don't think a bye is deserved.
-
But I think in many conferences, perhaps specifically the second-tier-but-not-G5 conferences (ACC / B12), there might be a long shot team that will ONLY get into the playoff by winning the CCG. For that team type of team, I don't think a bye is deserved.
I have a hard time seeing an ACC/Big 12 champ not being in the top 12. And this isn't a 4 team CFP. It's a 12 team CFP. If it makes the CCGs have meaning, I don't see the downside. The only downside I see is that you are putting meaning into the Big Ten and SEC CCGs, which I don't see as a downside.
This is entertainment, we aren't solving world hunger, and the current format does a great job of sucking all of the entertainment out. To me, the answer is so obvious, thats its predictable that they can't figure it out
-
I have a hard time seeing an ACC/Big 12 champ not being in the top 12.
Really? It already happened. Clemson was #16, and Arizona State just BARELY snuck in at 12.
(https://i.imgur.com/lebNX41.png)
-
the office pools will emerge when we have a 24-team playoff
-
IMHO, I do think one aspect of this is that the top 5 conference champs get an auto-bid is all the "gift" that they need.
This right here!
Why gift them a first round bye on top of that? reserve that for the teams that actually earned it.
However, based on the results of the playoffs last year, having a first round bye may not be such a good thing. ~???
-
we should have learned by now that we certainly should NOT base things on last season's playoffs
-
well bye weeks do backfire quite often
-
IMHO, I do think one aspect of this is that the top 5 conference champs get an auto-bid is all the "gift" that they need.
That was always one of my issues with the 4-team playoff. You never knew what path would or wouldn't get you into the field. At least with this, effectively any P4 conference champ is going to get in, regardless of their record.
I don't think it's a good idea to then gift mediocre teams a bye on top of that.
This year, if somehow the B1G conference championship is a #1v#2 matchup, then to an extent you're right that the CG isn't all that important. Even the loser of that game--assuming it's not something like 59-0--will likely remain top-4 and get a bye.
But I think in many conferences, perhaps specifically the second-tier-but-not-G5 conferences (ACC / B12), there might be a long shot team that will ONLY get into the playoff by winning the CCG. For that team type of team, I don't think a bye is deserved.
In terms of competition I'm not sure how big of a gift it is. As you know I'm a big proponent of the argument that HFA matters so I'm definitely not saying that it doesn't but if BYU hosts the loser of the B1G or SEC championship game I don't think HFA is going to be nearly enough for them.
I like the idea of there being some kind of reward for winning your conference and "penalty" for not winning it.
-
No rankings from me next week as I will not be watching any games tomorrow.
My son does not have regular TV in his house.
-
we should have learned by now that we certainly should NOT base things on last season's playoffs
If you will note, I only mentioned last years playoffs in that every team that got a bye lost their first round game. My suggestion was that teams that actually earned a bye should get one which would be contray to the results of last seasons playoff.
-
Regular TV?
Does that suggest there exists an irregular TV?
-
Regular TV?
Does that suggest there exists an irregular TV?
He got kids channels for streaming educational stuff.
-
I like the idea of there being some kind of reward for winning your conference and "penalty" for not winning it.
Well, as mentioned... You win your [power] conference CG, your reward is an automatic berth in the CFP.
I.e. last year Clemson and Arizona State wouldn't have gotten in at all, if they didn't win their CCG.
Do you really think Boise and ASU "earned" first round byes? I feel like the only reason to reward them with byes is to keep Texas/PSU out of having a bye in the first round because they lost their CG. It seems like you're punishing them but the teams you're elevating are also undeserving...
-
Well, as mentioned... You win your [power] conference CG, your reward is an automatic berth in the CFP.
I.e. last year Clemson and Arizona State wouldn't have gotten in at all, if they didn't win their CCG.
Do you really think Boise and ASU "earned" first round byes? I feel like the only reason to reward them with byes is to keep Texas/PSU out of having a bye in the first round because they lost their CG. It seems like you're punishing them but the teams you're elevating are also undeserving...
You are not wrong and TBH, I think a big part of it for me is that I'm just getting hung up on the meaningless CG issue. That also doesn't have to be true for both teams. Let's say one of tOSU/IU wins out and hits the CG at 12-0 and #1 while the the other one loses a couple games so that the other CG participant is a 9-3/7-2 team. Ok, the CG is REALLY important for the 9-3/7-2 team because they are in with a win and (probably) out with a loss but for the 12-0 team it is basically a meaningless practice.
-
You are not wrong and TBH, I think a big part of it for me is that I'm just getting hung up on the meaningless CG issue. That also doesn't have to be true for both teams. Let's say one of tOSU/IU wins out and hits the CG at 12-0 and #1 while the the other one loses a couple games so that the other CG participant is a 9-3/7-2 team. Ok, the CG is REALLY important for the 9-3/7-2 team because they are in with a win and (probably) out with a loss but for the 12-0 team it is basically a meaningless practice.
Exactly. And then if the 9-3/7-2 team pulls off an upset over the 12-0 or 11-1 team, do you REALLY want them to have a bye?
The 9-3/7-2 team gets an automatic berth. Good for them! And the 12-0 or 11-1 team at least has a reasonable chance to drop out of the top 4 as a result of a loss, so they might also get punished.
I just don't see the harm in two 12-0 teams facing each other, knowing that the loser will still get a bye, being all that terrible. That's still two teams that went 12-0 in the regular season.
I feel like seeding that's CCG-blind ultimately will reward the teams that deserve it, while punishing the teams who don't. I want to make conference championships important so I'm all in favor of an automatic berth, but I feel a bye shouldn't be automatic.
-
give the conf champ a bye, it's obviously not much of an advantage anyway